Reading mode: Light Dark

Why is the new 50/1.4 three times more expensive than the old one?

Go to last post
D

dpyy

Leading Member
Messages
905
Reaction score
44
Why is the new 50/1.4 three times more expensive than the old one? What's the difference? Just paid for CZ badge?
 
Last edited:
what new 35/1.4?

If you meant 50/1.4 then it's a 30 year newer design with R&D costs at 201x prices not 198x ones (in fact the development costs on the old one will have been recovered/written off years ago), it's SSM & yes, Zeiss licencing costs. & they won't be anticipating selling as many so R&D has to be recovered on a smaller no. of lenses.
 
headfirst said:
headfirst wrote:

what new 35/1.4?

If you meant 50/1.4 then it's a 30 year newer design with R&D costs at 201x prices not 198x ones (in fact the development costs on the old one will have been recovered/written off years ago), it's SSM & yes, Zeiss licencing costs. & they won't be anticipating selling as many so R&D has to be recovered on a smaller no. of lenses.
Click to expand...
sorry I meant 50/1.4. So basically pay to upgrade to SSM?
 
well, I imagine that IQ is also going to be noticeably better.
 
dpyy said:
dpyy wrote:
dpyy said:
headfirst wrote:

what new 35/1.4?

If you meant 50/1.4 then it's a 30 year newer design with R&D costs at 201x prices not 198x ones (in fact the development costs on the old one will have been recovered/written off years ago), it's SSM & yes, Zeiss licencing costs. & they won't be anticipating selling as many so R&D has to be recovered on a smaller no. of lenses.
Click to expand...
sorry I meant 50/1.4. So basically pay to upgrade to SSM?
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe that the AF motor is the only difference between a 30-year old Minolta design and a brand new Zeiss design?
 
Well basically, it has better glass, better coatings, better AF motor. Zeiss lenses were never cheap and they retain their value over time. As far as value is concerned, is it that much better for the money you pay? The perception of 'value' is very subjective, some people would pay a lot for a smidgen of improvement and some won't.
 
& weatherproof
 
& takes pictures without a body ;-)
 
cs hauser said:
cs hauser wrote:
cs hauser said:
dpyy wrote:
cs hauser said:
headfirst wrote:

what new 35/1.4?

If you meant 50/1.4 then it's a 30 year newer design with R&D costs at 201x prices not 198x ones (in fact the development costs on the old one will have been recovered/written off years ago), it's SSM & yes, Zeiss licencing costs. & they won't be anticipating selling as many so R&D has to be recovered on a smaller no. of lenses.
Click to expand...
sorry I meant 50/1.4. So basically pay to upgrade to SSM?
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe that the AF motor is the only difference between a 30-year old Minolta design and a brand new Zeiss design?
Click to expand...
Planar is a brand new lens design? :)
 
dpyy said:
dpyy wrote:

Why is the new 50/1.4 three times more expensive than the old one? What's the difference? Just paid for CZ badge?
Click to expand...
- Much more expensive glass to optimize optical performance

- SSM drive, silent and fast internal focusing system

- Much higher build quality

- The small blue Zeiss logo also adds cost
 
I would be interested in comparing the optical performance of this lens with the sigma version at f/1.4. Not sure the zeiss version is worth the price?
 
It's a three way cash grab with many fingers in the profit pie.

100% markup to Carl Zeiss for design/license

100% markup for sub-contractor manufacturer/assembler

100% markup for SONY the marketer/seller

........ and a pittance for the retailer, I'm sure.

Stv
 
Maybe it good image quality compared to the old one. I think the old one was junk. I had the old Sony 50mm F1.4 and it was very soft wide open compared to the sigma. So I sold it and kept the Sigma.
 
lross said:
lross wrote:

Maybe it good image quality compared to the old one. I think the old one was junk. I had the old Sony 50mm F1.4 and it was very soft wide open compared to the sigma. So I sold it and kept the Sigma.
Click to expand...

Wide open softer than Sigma, and not the same smooth bokeh. But stopped down, better than the Sigma. The Minolta/Sony was a very good 50 mm bright prime when it came.

The question is: Do you use your 50 mm wide open (Sigma) or stopped down (Sony)?

Hope the Zeiss is great at all apertures, since I really like this focal length and the aperture blades on my Sony 50 mm f:1.4 is stuck forever. Would be great with faster focus and SSM too, and I think all Zeiss lenses are built for long time everyday use.
 
We only know one part of the value equation at this point. The price justification has to wait until we see how it performs. If it performs similar to the Zeiss 85 and 135 lenses, then it will be worth considering. The trade offs of the Sony and Sigma lenses had me waiting to get a 50mm prime. If the new lens is sharp all the way around, it will be on my list.
 
Tom2572 said:
Tom2572 wrote:
Tom2572 said:
cs hauser wrote:
Tom2572 said:
dpyy wrote:
Tom2572 said:
headfirst wrote:

what new 35/1.4?

If you meant 50/1.4 then it's a 30 year newer design with R&D costs at 201x prices not 198x ones (in fact the development costs on the old one will have been recovered/written off years ago), it's SSM & yes, Zeiss licencing costs. & they won't be anticipating selling as many so R&D has to be recovered on a smaller no. of lenses.
Click to expand...
sorry I meant 50/1.4. So basically pay to upgrade to SSM?
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe that the AF motor is the only difference between a 30-year old Minolta design and a brand new Zeiss design?
Click to expand...
Planar is a brand new lens design? :)
Click to expand...
Were there 50mm Zeiss Planar SSM lenses in the past?
 
Last edited:
Zeiss Planar f1.4 for Canon and Nikon is soft wide open with harsh bokeh. At f2.8 it is very sharp and the bokeh is OK.

Zeiss Makro Planar f2.0 is sharp wide open and bokeh is pretty nice.
 
Nordstjernen said:
Nordstjernen wrote:
Nordstjernen said:
lross wrote:

Maybe it good image quality compared to the old one. I think the old one was junk. I had the old Sony 50mm F1.4 and it was very soft wide open compared to the sigma. So I sold it and kept the Sigma.
Click to expand...
Wide open softer than Sigma, and not the same smooth bokeh. But stopped down, better than the Sigma. The Minolta/Sony was a very good 50 mm bright prime when it came.
Click to expand...



I think using a 50 mm f/1.4 at f/5.6 makes little sense to me, specially since I can get fantastic results with the 24-70 at f/5.6. To me, if one seeks a f/1.4 lens, 95% should be taken at f/1.4-2.


Nordstjernen said:
The question is: Do you use your 50 mm wide open (Sigma) or stopped down (Sony)?

Hope the Zeiss is great at all apertures, since I really like this focal length and the aperture blades on my Sony 50 mm f:1.4 is stuck forever. Would be great with faster focus and SSM too, and I think all Zeiss lenses are built for long time everyday use.
Click to expand...
 
I think Sony is doing themselves a disservice here--the 85 and 135 and 24 CZ are all priced well according to similar lenses in other camps. A 50 1.4 lens is not that terriblely expensive to make, so charging this much seems excessive. Nikon, Sigma, Canon all offer decent 50s for under $500. If Sony wants to charge this much, it better be a legendary performer wide open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top