millsart Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
pdmphoto wrote:
Sony should have produced a 35/2 for the A7 series, not a 35/2.8. They knew better (and did a great job) for the RX1. When it comes to rendering I think its hard to beat the original Rollei or C/Y 35/1.4 for the A7r. It's not the smallest or lightest lens, but it is much less of both compared to the ZE/F versions.
I think it depends on the target market. Obviously most FM regulars would 1) prefer f2 over f2.8 and 2) not bat an eye at something like a $1500 price tag, BUT.... do mainstream consumers feel the same ?
I read a lot of reviews where people complained about the 35/2.8's $800 price tag as outrageous, along with the $1000 55/1.8.
Sony had to have price points, in addition to size/weight, that would have fairly broad appeal.
Sony likely will sell 100 35/2.8's for every 1 35/2 Loxia that Zeiss sells, even if the Loxia is by all accounts a better lens.
We need to remember that what appeals to Alt forum enthusiast may not be quite as marketable to the general public.
You have to achieve a nice balance between stuff the masses will buy and stuff for the enthusiast.
Fuji does a nice job with this with the X lens lineup. They have $1000 lens for the enthusiast that wants a 56/1.2, but they also have some lower priced, but still decent quality, zooms, and compact primes.
Makes their system appeal to a wide variety of potential buyers. The one that wants a $900 23mm f1.4, and also the one that wants a $300 27mm f2.8
If Sony's lens lineup is just seen as all super expensive, they miss out on a lot of camera sales, just as if they only had slower consumer glass, then enthusiast wouldn't buy
I think its tough to balance the two until you get to the size of CaNikon and have such a vast range of options there is something for everyone.
|