What do you think the upcoming 50mm f/1.2 S will cost?

[paulski66]

For reference:

50mm f/1.8 S / $600

58mm f.14 G / $1,600

Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 ZF.2 (OTUS) / $4,000

Sigma f/1.4 ART / $950

 

[paulski66]

I'm guessing kind of middle of the pack; $2,200.

More expensive than the 58mm f/1.4, but well less than the OTUS.

 

[paulski66]

Canon 85mm f/1.2L / $2,700

Canon 85mm f/1.2L DS / $3,000

 

[Ray Ritchie]

How about the Z Noct 58mm f/0.95, at $7995?

I'll guess your highest price range.

 

[Droster]

Canon's RF 50 f1.2 is $2,299. Nikon's should be close.

 

[RMcL]

Canon's RF 50 f1.2 is $2,299. Nikon's should be close.

These extra fractions of a stop certainly carry a premium. Why make an f1.4 that you can sell for $1600 when you can sell an f1.2 for $2300?

 

[paulski66]

Canon's RF 50 f1.2 is $2,299. Nikon's should be close.

Good call. Should have included that in my frame of reference as well.



In my defense, I had no idea that lens existed, lol. I don't pay as much attention to what's going on in Canon-land as I should, I guess.

 

[Currantos]

Not paying attention to what's going on in Canonland and Sonyland is the quickest way to lose perspective and think that Nikon is the be all and end all of it all and is the latest and the greatest. LOL. Kinda narrows one's mind to what's really out there. Eye AF anyone? IBIS? LOL

Ok, I am just teasing a little but hopefully people get my point.

I think the Nikon will price the lens extremely close to the Canon RF version. They might go desperate and undercut it by $50 in the beginning.

Great post.

I think if 30 people answer the poll that will be sufficient sample to cover within less than one standard deviation of the actual price. The numbers are converging already with a very obvious central tendency.

 

[EricTheAstroJunkie]

For reference:

50mm f/1.8 S / $600

58mm f.14 G / $1,600

Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 ZF.2 (OTUS) / $4,000

Sigma f/1.4 ART / $950

If it's not in the $2000-2500 range I'll eat my hand, with the RF 50mm f1.2 being $2,300 Nikon will directly compete with that +/-$100.

 

[paulski66]

Not paying attention to what's going on in Canonland and Sonyland is the quickest way to lose perspective and think that Nikon is the be all and end all of it all and is the latest and the greatest. LOL. Kinda narrows one's mind to what's really out there. Eye AF anyone? IBIS? LOL

Ok, I am just teasing a little but hopefully people get my point.

I think the Nikon will price the lens extremely close to the Canon RF version. They might go desperate and undercut it by $50 in the beginning.

Great post.

I think if 30 people answer the poll that will be sufficient sample to cover within less than one standard deviation of the actual price. The numbers are converging already with a very obvious central tendency.

I was being somewhat facetious. I'm sure I read something at some point about the Canon 50; I had just forgotten it was out there. I fairly recently read an article on the newer version of the 85mm, which is why it was what I remembered.

Canon has some killer lenses out there for their mirrorless system; assuming that camera announcement tomorrow delivers, they have the makings of an exceptional system.

I also wonder why Nikon didn't go with an 85mm f/1.2 as their first 1.2 prime. Seems like a more popular FF focal length, and my guess is that more people are willing to shell out that kind of money for a portrait prime than they are for a standard prime.

That said, I'm excited to see what this 50mm f/1.2 will deliver. And I'm secretly hoping Nikon stuns everyone and releases this at a $1,500 price point. Not that I really think that's going to happen, mind you, but it would be great...

 

[Currantos]

I know, your posts are well informed, so I was being cheeky and I am sure you know your game as far as different lenses.

The reason for bringing out the less popular/common lens is simple. It forces people that didn't want to buy it get it because their more desirable alternative is not available and this is "close enough". This way they can milk the customers for all they got. Kinda almost sorta satisfy them close enough and leave them wanting more. Tease, don't please.

I would LOVE to have any of those future lenses, too bad they are becoming sigmaesque in their size, can't handle those monsters, too heavy.

 

[RMcL]

Maybe this thread will give Nikon justification to set a higher price than they were planning to?

 

[Droster]

Maybe this thread will give Nikon justification to set a higher price than they were planning to?

I'd say it's simply a reflection of the level of groundedness in this forum relative to the wider Internet.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

For reference:

50mm f/1.8 S / $600

58mm f.14 G / $1,600

Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 ZF.2 (OTUS) / $4,000

Sigma f/1.4 ART / $950

Probably more than I care to spend on a 50mm. Part of the appeal of the 50 1.8G lens at least was it was cheap but very good (and sharp). But even $600 for the S lens is a bit steep IMO, and I suspect a 1.2 is likely to break $1000 and be more like $1200 or $1500, neither of which I would pay (for me at least, and it's not because I don't think it would be a good lens, but I am content with the 1.8 myself and can't justify the extra cost it would likely be to go from 1.8 to 1.2).

 

[Tizzio]

US 2499