joakim wrote:
And here is the definite list on which lens has the best price per area although I used the diagonal angular field. I used a swedish site for the price info and then normalized the values so that the 35/1.4 Distagon had a value price/angular field of 100. Although the 15/2.8 value isn't that low it should be said it is by far the most expensive Zeiss ZE lens here in Sweden at least. So enjoy
Now combination of this analysis with Bob's argument makes perfect sense. I can hear my conversation with the wife already:
"Honey, you know how much you like my photos with my 35/1.4? Well, it turns out that the 50/2 has the same cost ratio, and you liked my mountain shots with the one that I rented, so I should indeed buy that one. Quite close to the same ratio turns out to be a new Zeiss 15mm lens. Don't worry about its actual dollar price tag so much as think of it as the same as the 35/1.4."
"What lenses will you sell to finance those?"
"Wow, I am glad that you asked. It turns out that all of those tele lenses that I have simply have a ratio skewed against them in today's market, so it would actually not be cost effective to sell them. It would be like short selling stock, and we wouldn't do that."
"Why not buy some of the lenses with even lower cost ratio?"
"Honey, I really like the way that you think. We could do that NEXT."
Fairly certain that a divorce lawyer would be on retainer within the hour.
Grenache wrote:
Now combination of this analysis with Bob's argument makes perfect sense. I can hear my conversation with the wife already:
"Honey, you know how much you like my photos with my 35/1.4? Well, it turns out that the 50/2 has the same cost ratio, and you liked my mountain shots with the one that I rented, so I should indeed buy that one. Quite close to the same ratio turns out to be a new Zeiss 15mm lens. Don't worry about its actual dollar price tag so much as think of it as the same as the 35/1.4."
"What lenses will you sell to finance those?"
"Wow, I am glad that you asked. It turns out that all of those tele lenses that I have simply have a ratio skewed against them in today's market, so it would actually not be cost effective to sell them. It would be like short selling stock, and we wouldn't do that."
"Why not buy some of the lenses with even lower cost ratio?"
"Honey, I really like the way that you think. We could do that NEXT."
Fairly certain that a divorce lawyer would be on retainer within the hour.
Of course, the analysis above may only be two dimensional. The cost 'savings' are a lot greater if we consider the three dimensional space (volume) that each lens is capable of capturing. I would bet the 15/2.8 would be a veritable bargain!
If you believe any of this, I would like to talk to you about a bridge I am trying to sell . . .
Having a devil on one shoulder, angel on other problem.
I have nearly saved enough cash to buy the 2/25 and 2/50...but that is nearly the price of the 2.8/15, and I just held one of those in my hands today. Swoon.
Talk me down from the ledge. My brain can scarcely think wider than 35mm, so the 25 is already a creative stretch. But the drama is these 15 shots is staggering.
I hate posting these after Rajan's (awesome shots!)... I should stick to my outdoor landscapes. In any event I spent most of the day shooting in the f/2.8 to f/4 range.
I have to say it's pretty amazing seeing the space shuttle up close.....you can tell it was put to a lot of use over the years. Hard to believe I was eleven when the first one launched.
Grenache wrote:
Having a devil on one shoulder, angel on other problem.
I have nearly saved enough cash to buy the 2/25 and 2/50...but that is nearly the price of the 2.8/15, and I just held one of those in my hands today. Swoon.
Talk me down from the ledge. My brain can scarcely think wider than 35mm, so the 25 is already a creative stretch. But the drama is these 15 shots is staggering.
The 50MP is perhaps the most versatile lens around. The 15 Distagon, fantastic though it is, is more of a special use lens.
Grenache wrote:
Having a devil on one shoulder, angel on other problem.
I have nearly saved enough cash to buy the 2/25 and 2/50...but that is nearly the price of the 2.8/15, and I just held one of those in my hands today. Swoon.
Talk me down from the ledge. My brain can scarcely think wider than 35mm, so the 25 is already a creative stretch. But the drama is these 15 shots is staggering.
You won't get any help from here except to steer you straight into the 15mm abyss. It is a glorious lens and you will like the 'surprises' one gets when shooting so wide! Expensive, yes but priceless nonetheless!
Still waiting here for the ZF 15. I ordered one in june, so this now is nearly half a year.
Normally I would have cancelled this after waiting so long, but the pictures here kept me from doing that. Thanks for that, because I think I might regret that.
Spent two days shooting with one and it convinced me to sell my 14-24. Sharpness looks equal to me, even at pretty extreme pixel-peeping, but the 15 has an aperture ring for use with adapters (ie on mirrorless back-up cameras), filter threads (even though 95mm filters are expennnnnnnnnnsive), and suuuuuuch a nice feel to the focusing ring.
One big issue I had is that the cap falls off if you look at it wrong.
