K01, who is "ugly" now?

Started Oct 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
sportyaccordy Veteran Member • Posts: 8,124
Re: All manufacturers MTFs graphs look brilliant...

Look man I mean no malice with this but you are kind of not making any sense here

marike6 wrote:

I didn't mean to imply amateurs shouldn't discuss FF at all, just that maybe for some, myself included, a FF mirrorless with Sony/Zeiss lenses might be overkill.

But a D800 and super fast primes aren't?

As far as the 55 f/1.8 being a "bargain", that's what they said about the extremely expensive Sony NEX 24 f/1.8, which at least is a fast wide. And that's what they said about the Zeiss Touit 32 f/1.8, a lens that gets soundly outperformed by the far less expensive and brighter Fujinon 35 f/1.4. Even the Zeiss ZF and ZE 50 f/1.4 (non-Sony) is "only" $700. But I guess Sony sees how expensive Olympus and Panasonic m43 lenses are, and they figure that as FF higher price tags are justified.

There's more to a lens than its speed. And manufacturers don't price things arbitrarily. Retailers & manufacturers have to make profits and recoup their investments.

I get that the new lens is a FF mirrorless lens but compared to DSLR lenses the Sony FE lenses, especially considering their modest max apertures, are pricey.

No, just as I showed with that 24-70 F4 they are priced competitively.

Canon EF 24-70 f4L IS, it has IS.

But the Canon 24-70 is not expensive I agree completely. It's built like a tank, has blazing fast USM motor, and tons of exotic glass but it's more expensive than their 70-200 f4 L IS, which is crazy. But Canon in the last few years has been going a bit overboard with pricing for their pro-grade gear.

Personally I think it's a mistake to price slower f4 lenses so high when there are great f/2.8 standard zooms like the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC.

A lens "built like a tank" would be a waste on a tiny body like the the A7. Zeiss lens is ~200g lighter than the Canon lens. That's huge. And again, apples to apples... you can't compare third party lenses to manufacturer brand lenses.

As D800 user I can tell you that you absolutely do not need super expensive primes to have lenses worthy of a 36 mp sensor. You need good lenses, not expensive ones.

As far as speed it's not like the FE 55 f/1.8 and 35 f/2.8 are exactly super bright lenses. And no the 55 f/1.8 is not smaller than DSLR normal lens at all, in fact it's considerably larger than the Canon or Nikon normal lenses even the f/1.4 ones.

Again, brightness isn't everything.

I have a D800 (with 28-50-85 f/1.8 primes and a 70-200 f/4 VR) which is my favorite camera of all time. And when I need something smaller, I have a Fujifilm X-E1. For my purposes, they work great, but I've never bought into the mirrorless philosophy that smaller is better and I prefer DSLR ergonomics. And when I do want to be discreet, I have my Fuji X camera which I couldn't be happier with.

Well then you are not the A7's intended market. Even though you own a high end mirrorless camera

I think Sony is making a mistake with it's lens pricing that's all, it's not that I'm a cheap skate. In general FF lenses are more expensive than crop sensor lenses. I'm wondering if lens prices might turn off potential adopters, but I guess we will see. All the best, Markus

Again, they are not priced anywhere weird compared to the competition. I think you just have a grudge with Sony for some reason.

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-C3 Sony Alpha 7 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD +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