Reading mode: Light Dark

Oh My, Sigma introduces 30mm 1.4...

Go to last post
C

Corelli

Senior Member
Messages
4,554
Reaction score
2,311
Location
AT
...just after I purchase my Zeiss 35 2.8 for twice the price!

Now, I love the Zeiss but I'm pretty sure I would have gone with that Sigma if it had been available.

And it is an extra stop. Shoot!

I still have time to send the Zeiss back. It's not something I like to do, but I wouldn't mind saving some money if there isn't a substantial loss in quality.

Of course we won't know that until it's released.

Oh well...

Cheers
 
Corelli said:
...just after I purchase my Zeiss 35 2.8 for twice the price!

Now, I love the Zeiss but I'm pretty sure I would have gone with that Sigma if it had been available.

And it is an extra stop. Shoot!

I still have time to send the Zeiss back. It's not something I like to do, but I wouldn't mind saving some money if there isn't a substantial loss in quality.

Of course we won't know that until it's released.

Oh well...

Cheers
Click to expand...
 
That's for APS-C, not FF.
 
Phewwww, overlooked that!

I guess the price should have been a clue!

Thanks!
 
Well something to look at for those who didn't buy the 30 / 2.8. And want a 30mm lens for their new A6300.
 
Jose Viegas said:
That's for APS-C, not FF.
Click to expand...
People never seem to think before typing - isn't it like that?

Posting in the Sony Alpha Full Frame E-Maount Talk about a crop sensor optimized lens makes my day ;-)

Seriously I couldn't care less for Sigma, Tamron or Tokina or other cheaper 3rd parts lens makers for crop cameras.

History tells me that quality glass and mechanics cost money to produce the lens - there is no such thing as a free meal in optics. Mechanical quality translates automatically in design effort and quality control needs as well as the optical calculation and build of the individual lenses.

Sigma and others promise a cheaper option but seldom excel in anything but price. That said - Sigma seems to be on a good path to higher optical quality and time will tell us whether the mechanical quality deeply married inside the design hold up against the OEMs.
 
joger said:
Jose Viegas said:
That's for APS-C, not FF.
Click to expand...
People never seem to think before typing - isn't it like that?

Posting in the Sony Alpha Full Frame E-Maount Talk about a crop sensor optimized lens makes my day ;-)
Click to expand...
I believe OP was simply mistaken it was an FF lens. Happens to everyone from time to time.
 
kamituel said:
joger said:
Jose Viegas said:
That's for APS-C, not FF.
Click to expand...
People never seem to think before typing - isn't it like that?

Posting in the Sony Alpha Full Frame E-Maount Talk about a crop sensor optimized lens makes my day ;-)
Click to expand...
I believe OP was simply mistaken it was an FF lens. Happens to everyone from time to time.
Click to expand...
fully agree - can happen to the best of us ;-)

(happens quite often, that things are mixed up - very interesting)

Since the OP mentioned the pricing explicitly as the driving force I guess it is the kind of thoughts I never have when evaluating up fron what to buy - of course money is limited but for lenses I couldn't care less - I never lost money on lenses except my Sigma lenses for Nikon which lost ⅔ of their value over time while my Nikon gear gained value and sold 30 % higher than previously paid after 12 years of using it - a fact that most people seem to forget.

--
__________________________________
A7R II - one camera to rule them all
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Douglas Adams
 
Last edited:
2nd time in as many days someone has gotten my hopes up that other manufacturers are now also producing fe lenses, only for it to be apsc...

Argh!

:D
 
I'm glad I made your day. I just added the a7r a few days ago and I sometimes forget that it's full frame.

Sorry to have sullied the purity of the forum :)

Cheers
 
Corelli said:
I'm glad I made your day. I just added the a7r a few days ago and I sometimes forget that it's full frame.

Sorry to have sullied the purity of the forum :)

Cheers
Click to expand...
with the current price level of the A7R it is easy to forget that it's not crop ;-)

On the purity aspect I am easy - it is just a repeating pattern to post and not to think - you of course excluded and no offense - I am often enough mistaken and I am happy to learn more in forums.

I am just from time to time wondering why everything should be cheap while the own income should be maximized - it is simply astonishing me that people (of course not you) are expecting stellar quality for a bargain price.

As said before - the price for lenses is not really worrying me - the loss is more on the body side - how much was the A7R when it was introduced? Roughly double the price of today?
 
joger said:
Jose Viegas said:
That's for APS-C, not FF.
Click to expand...
People never seem to think before typing - isn't it like that?

Posting in the Sony Alpha Full Frame E-Maount Talk about a crop sensor optimized lens makes my day ;-)

Seriously I couldn't care less for Sigma, Tamron or Tokina or other cheaper 3rd parts lens makers for crop cameras.
Click to expand...
Well, the cheap guys are putting out some great lenses for APSC format, like the new 30 f1.4 alluded to in this post (which belongs to the Art series), and the new 50-100 f1.8 zoom. nothing cheap about those... and nothing cheap about the Sigma Art lenses for FF: 20, 24, 35, and 50. And the cheap Tamron are helping Pentax with the new K mount lenses for the K1 FF DSLR, e.g. 15-30 f2.8 and 24-70 f2.8. Also look at the new Tamron lenses at f1.8 like the 35, 45, and 85 (the latter has specs similar to the Batis 85, even down to OSS).
joger said:
History tells me that quality glass and mechanics cost money to produce the lens - there is no such thing as a free meal in optics. Mechanical quality translates automatically in design effort and quality control needs as well as the optical calculation and build of the individual lenses.
Click to expand...
I think that Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina have proved that they can make some great lenses, and have all the inherent capabilities.
joger said:
Sigma and others promise a cheaper option but seldom excel in anything but price. That said - Sigma seems to be on a good path to higher optical quality and time will tell us whether the mechanical quality deeply married inside the design hold up against the OEMs.
Click to expand...
 
Cipher010 said:
Sigma should have done this before I put my hands on Sony 35 f1.4. Would like to see hand-on reviews of this lens.

Regards
Click to expand...
But one is for FF and of is for APSC. So they are in no way competing against one another.
 
biza43 said:
joger said:
History tells me that quality glass and mechanics cost money to produce the lens - there is no such thing as a free meal in optics. Mechanical quality translates automatically in design effort and quality control needs as well as the optical calculation and build of the individual lenses.
Click to expand...
I think that Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina have proved that they can make some great lenses, and have all the inherent capabilities.
Click to expand...
no doubt - I am talking about the past and about market prices for used lenses - in the past the loss in value was significantly higher for 3rd party lenses compare to OEM lenses.

My history is like this: I "earned" money with my Nikkor lenses and I lost money with my Sigma and Tamron lens(es)

It fully depends on your own history and mileage on lenses - just have a look at the used prices on eBay yourself.

BTW - my Sigma 15-30 mm lenses have been optical really nice but mechanically crap as well as my 28-105 and my 100-300 f/4.0 and my 180 f/5.6 macro - all have been mechanically subprime offerings and not really cheap - the worst of them all was my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 - optically and mechanically a real 'golden lemon'

Praised in many tests and in real world just a mediocre lens for an o.k. price.

On the otters side I really love Carl Zeiss and Voigtlaender lenses and Schneider-Kreuznach - all are extremely good mechanically and some of them optically unbeatable and used a very rare species and thus with good prices
 
I would call it "comparison shock". In comparison to the aps-c lenses, the FF Zeiss lenses are expensive for me. It's relative of course to your income. I wouldn't think twice about it if I were a professional or had enough money that I didn't have to budget or set priorities.

I have at least 5 other expensive "hobbies", high-end audio, racing bikes, gourmet restaurants, travel and excellent wine, but I retain a "value for money" mentality.

I realize that there is a question of diminishing returns for all of these.

Of course, I think some competition from the likes of Tamron and Sigma would do a lot to bring prices down while raising quality.

Cheers
 
Corelli said:
I have at least 5 other expensive "hobbies", high-end audio, racing bikes, gourmet restaurants, travel and excellent wine, but I retain a "value for money" mentality.
Click to expand...
I feel your pain as well - my other hobbies are high-end audio, slow food, travel and excellent wines too plus sports cars, computers and excellent furniture - needless to say that investments only work in succession and not in barrel all the same time - still I have too few money to do wrong decisions (at least not too often)
Corelli said:
I realize that there is a question of diminishing returns for all of these.
Click to expand...
Of course - that's why I am not really interested in a MacLaren or Ferrari and stay with the nice german brand and that's why I never really considered a Phase One digital MF back ;-)

I lost money only on Sigma and Tokina Lens(es) - a harsh learning and that won't happen again (hopefully)

BTW- my 6-cylinder car from Zuffenhausen should slowly pick up some value when these guys start to supply 4-cylinder instead of 6-cylinder engines - all ever built cars got much more expensive over time if you wit long enough - only few brands work like that in the car industry ;-)
 
biza43 said:
I think that Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina have proved that they can make some great lenses, and have all the inherent capabilities.
Click to expand...
and if you look @ patents then some big names are actually using their designs :-)
 
joger said:
History tells me
Click to expand...
history also tells me that humans did not use a wheel for hundreds of thousand of years (or millions)...
 
Fortunately (unfortunately?) I have managed to avoid the sports car passion. I'm very content with my 6 cylinder Passat. It's a great car for travelling longer distances.

BTW, I love your tag lines. I hadn't heard that one from Einstein before. So, so true. :) :)

Cheers
 
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