millsart wrote:
I'm sure they will be little mechanical jewels, but I think for many, or at leas myself, price could be the real issue.
I far prefer lenses in the$600-1000 range rather than $1500+ ones. Some of the ZM stuff got a bit too pricey even for me when I was shooting my M9 (which perhaps is an indication one shouldn't own a Leica in the first place ? lol )
Doesn't really matter how great it could be optically, if its $1800, I'm simply not willing to spend that type of money on a MF prime lens or a hobby camera. I'll spend it on a work tool, like a 70-200 2.8, but that is because its being used to generate income.
I think there is a big market for a line of high quality, compact, native primes, but for all but the most well do off hobbyist, price is an issue.
Leica can charge whatever they want, and still get a waiting list, because they are Leica.
Zeiss, while producing some great lenses, and some technically superior even, simply isn't Leica, and never will be, so I'd hate to see them try to become that by sky high pricing. ...Show more →
I agree about the price issue. What matters to me personally is the used price. I could live with the ZE/ZF prices because used I could get them in the $1,250 range for the one's I got (21 f/2.8, 35 f/1.4; 100 MP) and I am very happy with these. At that price I can get one a year, but I certainly understand when people think that is too high. I just hope they don't cross the $2,000 barrier new, in which case I wouldn't even be able to afford one a year. Everybody has their threshold for price and I hope these come in so as many people as possible can get them. I expect them to be about $1,850 new like many of the ZE/ZF lenses and hopefully the used price will drop below $1,500 so I can get a couple of them in the long run.
Taylor Sherman wrote:
Without needing rangefinder coupling, I don't know if the price will reach the higher-ZM-line levels.
Then again, they may use more asphericals and APD glass in these than they did in the ZMs.
All too often these days I think pricing comes from marketing folks pulling numbers from the sky as to what they think they can get rather than a cost based upon actual materials and manufacturing process required.
Quality is also mistakenly associated with cost by consumers too.
Price something too low and instead of being thought of as amazing bang for the buck, it can be viewed with suspicion, thinking corners must have been cut.
Price something sky high and people tend to think there surely is a good reason for it.
Consumer satisfaction can be rated higher when someone plays more for the very same item in many cases than when they were given said item at a lower price.
It seems counter intuitive at first but quite a bit of market research supports this in a wide variety of industries.
I think if they're described as 'manual focus' the focus won't be coupled to the body at all. It'll just be a real manual ring, like the ZM. As for price, well, we shall see, I agree with others that they can't really be too pricy for what they are. If they're roughly in line with the ZM lenses, then they should be "okay".
I think there are a breed of users out there that maybe ponder with Leica and smaller cameras and genuinely prefer the control of a manual lens, but like the flexibility afforded to them by modern bodies these days. Maybe these will be quite successful, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
I don't own anything e-mount so of no immediate interest to me. Tariq Gibran wrote:
I just hope they come with smoked salmon and capers.
Capers! That's what they're called. I knew I'd ran out if something but couldn't remember the name of the little green b*stards. (Sorry, completely random)
re price. I think the price should be in line with what similar speed ZM's - or if they give us fast lenses (doubtful I'm afraid) - ZF lenses go for. Hopefully, they don't get "cocky" given the silly/ trite bird naming scheme.
millsart wrote:
All too often these days I think pricing comes from marketing folks pulling numbers from the sky as to what they think they can get rather than a cost based upon actual materials and manufacturing process required.
Prices never have and never will be determined by the cost of materials and manufacturing.
millsart wrote:
Price something too low and instead of being thought of as amazing bang for the buck, it can be viewed with suspicion, thinking corners must have been cut.
I don't think people are thinking this about the Sigma Art lenses, which offer considerable amount of bang for the buck. Ultimately the proof is in the images, and with the number of lens review sites nowadays it's pretty clear which lenses are worth the money.
I imagine the prices will be inline with the ZE/ZF lenses, I see no reason for them to be significantly different. I would be more disappointed if they're "cheap" but with poor performance, meaning there is still no high quality wide angle option.
I'm not sure Sigma Art is such a great example here. I mean for me, if I had the choice, I'd always buy main brand over that, even if the images look good and they're rated well etc. You get what you pay for - and sigma have a history of skipping corners and developing issues further down the line. I don't think that makes me suspicious, I just weigh up the facts and make a conclusion.
Saying that, I am slightly hypocritical, as my 24-70 is a "modern" (not art) sigma lens that is rated well. Haven't used it in 2.5 years mind you. Hence why I bought it over a main brand, just not a lens I use...
Matt Grum wrote:
Prices never have and never will be determined by the cost of materials and manufacturing.
While the cost to put the product on a shelf is certainly part of the pricing process, you're definitely right.
And as we consider pricing for FE-mount Zeiss lenses, we have to take into account that Zeiss is going to have to offer something unique. They don't have to be as small as the ZMs, but they do need to be small enough to account for their price premium; they don't have to be optically perfect, but they have to be good enough to be attractive, and they should probably be designed to perform well on the crop E-mount bodies too.
And if they're priced too high, they're not going to reach volume of sales that can justify their continued production.
U.C. wrote:
As far as I know, an owl doesn't have very good low light sight, but a very good hearing to localize it's prey.
owls have both highly evolved hearing and eyesight for hunting at night. they don't use sonar like bats so they need their eyes to fly at high speed in near darkness through forests. they have giant eyes (similar in size to ours in much smaller heads) that can open the iris extremely wide (large aperture), reflective tissue at the back of the retina like cats so that any light that is not absorbed by the photo receptors is reflected back towards them, and a much higher ratio of rods to cones than we do for better sensitivity in low light. the lower number of cones means that they sacrifice color sensitivity for low light performance (just like canon), not sure how that last bit relates to the otus.
ricardovaste wrote:
I'm not sure Sigma Art is such a great example here. I mean for me, if I had the choice, I'd always buy main brand over that, even if the images look good and they're rated well etc. You get what you pay for - and sigma have a history of skipping corners and developing issues further down the line. I don't think that makes me suspicious, I just weigh up the facts and make a conclusion.
in the sigma art case the sigma isn't just as good as the oem lenses, it's much better optically.
Owls are known for their disproportionally large eyes in comparison to their skull. The Otus is known for its disproportionally large size in comparison to any camera that it would be attached to.
ricardovaste wrote:
I'm not sure Sigma Art is such a great example here. I mean for me, if I had the choice, I'd always buy main brand over that, even if the images look good and they're rated well etc.
Some people will always be distrustful of third party lenses regardless. Personally the prospect of paying almost twice the price for a much softer Canon lens from the nineties couldn't appeal less!
The big problem I see with the potential cost is resale value. If Sony ditch the E-mount in favour of curved sensors or whatever then the value of these lenses in going to plummet. At least you know the Nikon F mount isn't going anywhere!
millsart wrote:
All too often these days I think pricing comes from marketing folks pulling numbers from the sky as to what they think they can get rather than a cost based upon actual materials and manufacturing process required.
I'm not sure if you've ever taken an Econ or Marketing course, but prices are more often set at the level that the 'market will bear' and not at some cost plus margin as you pine for.
Especially in this era, we should hope our favorite manufacturers earn as much as they can so they thrive.
ecarlino wrote:
I'm not sure if you've ever taken an Econ or Marketing course, but prices are more often set at the level that the 'market will bear' and not at some cost plus margin as you pine for.
Especially in this era, we should hope our favorite manufacturers earn as much as they can so they thrive.
I actually have a Bachelor's degree in marketing. I also like getting value for my money, and unless I'm a shareholder I don't really care how much a manufacturer profits. I'm more than willing to pay for quality though, if and when its justified by a more labor intensive manufacturing process or more stringent quality control, et al.
I don't like paying a premium for "designer" brand names, image or lifestyle associated with a certain product.
If something comes in at a premium price, I want to be able to know why its priced well above other options. If its because of the high R&D that went into it, the price of materials, more highly skilled worked needed to produce it, etc, fine and good. If its merely priced at a high margin because they felt a lot of people with more money than brains will buy it regardless, I'll pass.
Hassy Lunar is a perfect example. Does rare and deforested wood grips make a product cost 4x what its otherwise equiv. outdated Sony counterpart does to produce ? Nope.
Its merely an issue of someone saying, hey, lets charge rich idiots a ton of money because our brand name used to actually mean something.
Though it is a free country and no one forces me, or anyone else to buy it. However those that really want to see their favorite brands thrive always have the option of buying 2. Surely that would help them out
Jeff Kott wrote:
Owls are known for their disproportionally large eyes in comparison to their skull. The Otus is known for its disproportionally large size in comparison to any camera that it would be attached to.
I saw one on a D4 last weekend, and the camera looked small in comparison!
LightShow wrote:
I don't see curved sensors doing much business outside of fixed prime cameras.
Interchangeable lenses with built in curved sensors is a possibility, but I mentioned that more as an example rather than something I think it likely to happen. There's just no way to know for sure that Sony will carry on making full frame E-mount cameras if they don't sell as many A7s as they expect to.
Not many people will want relatively heavy full frame lenses for their APS-C NEX, so it's just not as safe an investment as, say buying a ZF Zeiss prime.
sebboh wrote:
in the sigma art case the sigma isn't just as good as the oem lenses, it's much better optically.
Well that's besides the point I was making, isn't it? optically this or that if you don't trust it it's pretty useless. I'd always take my old, slow 85za over the 85art for example. I have no idea nor do I care which is better against a brick wall or pointed at some leaves. The art costs less and is from a company who skips corners and makes things cheaper, which usually comes around to bite you back in the end. I don't want that for one of my most uses lenses - that is basically what I'm saying
---------------------------------------------
Matt Grum wrote:
Some people will always be distrustful of third party lenses regardless. Personally the prospect of paying almost twice the price for a much softer Canon lens from the nineties couldn't appeal less!
Well then Matt you wouldn't believe how unappealing that old Canon lens would be for me! Wouldn't fit on any of my bodies
optically this or that if you don't trust it it's pretty useless. I'd always take my old, slow 85za over the 85art for example. I have no idea nor do I care which is better against a brick wall or pointed at some leaves. The art costs less and is from a company who skips corners and makes things cheaper, which usually comes around to bite you back in the end. I don't want that for one of my most uses lenses - that is basically what I'm saying