K01, who is "ugly" now?

Started Oct 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 11,876
Re: All manufacturers MTFs graphs look brilliant...

marike6 wrote:

viking79 wrote:

marike6 wrote:

At least on a Nikon or Canon FF you can mount a $200 50 f/1.8 with terrific optics. 1000 USD for a 55 f/1.8 normal lens??? Yikes.

The New Nikon 58mm f/1.4 is $1700 US and is not a better performer. I agree the new 55mm f/1.8 is on the high side, but it is also a much more expensive lens design than a $200 50mm f/1.8, it is a much better lens than those lenses (more comparable to a Leica).



Wow, you are really drinking the manufacturers MTF Kool-aid. Sony has not shipped a single 55 f/1.8 yet you are already telling people which lenses it's better than based on its manufacturer MTFs or some Wordpress blog post?

When someone actually tests new 55 f/1.8 on an optical bench we'll see it performs about the same as most other 50s. BUT I'd bet anything like ALL mirrorless lenses it doesn't optically correct for distortion and vignetting like ALL DSLR lenses are, meaning the optical engineers had a MUCH easier time designing it having only resolution, coma and astigmatism to worry about. So no, a lens that uses software correction is not "more expensive to design".

That's a fair point, but that seems like a disadvantage for DSLRs

And the new Nikon 58 f/1.4 is too expensive for a normal lens, BUT it has a faster max aperture and a much better build quality including a distance scale, something ALL lenses at such a high price point should have.

But my point is cost of ownership matters for most amateurs. Professionals may be able to justify a $1000 f/1.8 normal lens, most amateurs cannot. Nor would they be well served by such lenses when they are much faster max aperture lenses for less.

By this logic, amateurs shouldn't even discuss FF at all. $1700 is too much for a body, etc. etc. You are just looking at the price and aperture. But like dude said, based on preliminary figures anyway, these lenses are an optical bargain, and I really doubt Zeiss would put out MTF graphs that were way off the mark just to get people excited.

Same as above for Sony's $1200 f4 standard zoom. My Nikon 70-200 f4 VR was only $200 more than the Sony 24-70 f4, to give you an idea of how ridiculously priced the Sony standard zoom is. The Nikkor 70-200 f4 VR is an expensive lens for sure, but it's a 70-200mm telephoto zoom. The Sony f4 standard zoom is beyond expensive. And don't bother looking up MTFs for the f4 zoom or telling me about some blue sticker. My RX100 has a blue sticker too, before it fell off.

Cheers, Markus

Ummmm, Canon's 24-70L F4 is $1400, AND doesn't have IS. Apples to apples.

You want speed, small size, and the resolution worthy of a 36MP FF sensor, it's probably going to cost money. If it's too much to bear, go with a cheaper inferior platform.

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
NEX-5T Sony Alpha a7R II Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II Samyang 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow