50 f/1.8 $200, 35 f/1.8 $400: WHY???

Started May 12, 2014 | Discussions thread
Ynos Regular Member • Posts: 182
Re: Frustrating isn't it?

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

007peter wrote:

123Mike wrote:

Why *double* price for 35mm vs 50mm???

Very annoying indeed. Adding salt-to-the-wound: sony 35mm f/1.8 SAM for the Alpha SLT are also $199. Sony is MILKING the profit for what its worth since 50mm equivalent normal is in high demand.

And even more so with even more higher in demand 36mm equivalent - E24Z. $1000 for a NEX lens (without OSS) is steep. One can buy a whole Fuji x100 camera (with around same focal length) for that price alone. But it is what it is.

How much is Fuji's 23mm lens?

$899 - more or less same ball park price, BUT it is f1.4!

And accordingly fat, and heavier, and doesn't quite impress the way Sony 24 does, never mind the really shot MFD for the Sony. And here you are, sold on half stop that matter little to not at all.

Well, I'm not arguing that E24Z is a bad lens. It is a wonderful lens. So is Fuji. IMHO they are both a little overpriced. Canon's 22mm f2 sells for $109 new at B&H. Now EinsteinsGhost I know you are a reasonable person and you are not going to fanatically argue about it been FAR inferior to E24Z or Fuji 23mm to that matter. In fact i remember reading a test review with side by side comparisons and 22 f2 performed as well in terms of sharpness (actually even sharper), but lacked some E24Z features like contrast, MFD etc. But hey you got the idea of whta I'm talking about right? If Canon can do a 22mm f2 lens for $109, would it be too heresy from my side to at least wish for Sony to do kinda similar effort to offer "easy choice" (as Sony does in A-mount BTW) lenses that would not cost an arm and a leg? BTW that 22mm f2 is a pancake - (now that is a slap in a face to both Sony and Fuji), kinda embarrassing that a small and lightest pancake can do same things (except MFD) for $109? I'm not saying that for 1/9th of a price this lens can still beat both (Sony and Fuji) in terms of sharpness and compactness (and I thought portability was important for Sony, no? all this talks about f4 for compactness blah.blah.blah....slap in the face again with 22mm f2 ok, I won't do it again), BUT what I'm saying is that Sony could have at least gone for NOT Zeiss lens in that most versatile FL of 36mm equivalent. Ideally we could have had 24mm f1.8 (or f2) lens made by Sony similar to SEL20 or SEL35 or SEL50 and with price of $450 (i think it's fare price without OSS for Sony lens). Instead Sony could have opted for Zeiss to do either a 50mm prime for specialty lens (portraits - wouldn't that be nicer to have Zeiss contrast, character and flair resistance where it is indeed needed?) or for Zeiss 16mm lens to have a famous wide angle lens (instead of what Sony did with its infamous 16mm unfortunately). Alas, we not live in ideal world, and I know it is what it is and we have to suck it up and live with it.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow