ricardovaste wrote:
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
There is no Sigma 85 Art (yet). The Art line is a new series of lenses with build quality to match the optics. But don't take my word for it, this is what Roger Cicala (who knowns a little bit about build quality and has completely dismantled one) has to say about the 35:
"It’s been a long time since a take was so easy. This is the sharpest 35mm made. It costs a lot less than the Canon 35 f/1.4mm or the Zeiss 35mm lenses. Any questions? It’s extremely well built and everything I’ve been able to see, inside and out, indicates quality control has really improved at Sigma."
(emphasis mine)
ricardovaste wrote:
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
I prefer lenses without corners anyhow
ricardovaste wrote:
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
Ok, take Sony 35 f/1.4 G as an example, a fraction cheaper than the Canon but even worse wide open. Seriously the gap in sharpness to the Sigma lens is huge, not something that only shows up in testing.
But if you think one Japanese company is somehow much better able to put lenses together than another Japanese company, and this explains the difference in price better than 8 years of technological advancement, then that's entirely your choice
But I stand by my example quality not always commanding a higher price.
Put it this way Matt: I'm not someone who cares for wide open performance, biting detail - I'm not even someone who really "likes" lenses, which others will know on here. Maybe that is the real difference here and why I shouldn't really care eitherway edit: so what I'm saying is you're right, my prejudices are pretty unreasonable. But they're there for a few people, and it'll take Sigma time to fully earn that trust.
millsart wrote:
I actually have a Bachelor's degree in marketing.
Then I'm not sure why we're having this conversation, because your original statement is non-sensical (i.e. to suggest that firms should set their pricing at a cost-plus-margin rather than what their MARKETING DEPARTMENTS have determined the market will bear).
millsart wrote:
I also like getting value for my money
I don't like paying a premium for "designer" brand names, image or lifestyle associated with a certain product.
You, like all of us, are free to choose. Many *smart* consumers buy high-quality used items to avoid over paying. But this has little to do with where a firm prices their products if there are enough others willing to pay more.
millsart wrote:
unless I'm a shareholder I don't really care how much a manufacturer profits.
That is very short sighted. I prefer to consider myself a stakeholder, especially when I'm investing a decent amount of money in something. For example, if I have a few high end Nikon bodies and a ton of f-mount glass, I'm hoping for Nikon (and Zeiss and Sigma) to be very profitable. Frankly, it is a real concern to see Nikon struggling financially lately.
ecarlino wrote:
Then I'm not sure why we're having this conversation, because your original statement is non-sensical (i.e. to suggest that firms should set their pricing at a cost-plus-margin rather than what their MARKETING DEPARTMENTS have determined the market will bear).
Interestingly, it doesn't make sense from your point of view, but it does from his...
It is a question of philosophy. Do you milk the market for what it is worth, and try to cash in on fads, or do you make the moral play, and possibly end up with much happier and more supportive customers? There is a real danger in the milking approach, since it leaves lots of room for someone else to jump in underneath you, and if you have built up no customer goodwill (since you were milking them), then everyone might switch overnight.
You can't as easily jump in below someone who has a reasonable profit margin, since your profit margin would then be less than reasonable...
Personally, I am on the side of charging a fair price, not what the market can bear. I find the latter to be a mild form of exploitation and pretty revolting.
FWIW, I don't consider either Leica or Zeiss to exploitative, in spite of their high prices. They do a lot of manufacturing in Germany, with high quality materials and very exacting production methods, and it simply costs a lot to make the products. In deciding their profit margin, they also need to factor in the fluctuations naturally present in the market, so I doubt the margin is 15%, for example, but I don't think it is higher than it needs to be for a healthy company to exist in this niche.
Matt Grum wrote:
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.
for me it would still be a better bet than a typical AF oem lens in this respect. i don't really expect any of them to still be functional on new cameras in 10 years. this at least will still work fine on the a7 in 10 years. if sony abandons FE mount i can get backup cameras to last that long cheap. honestly though, zeiss has a relationship with sony that probably gives them a pretty good idea what is in the pipeline. the fact that they are(?) building a bunch of lenses around this mount independent of sony suggests they feel sony has a real commitment to it.
I think the Zeiss Loxia line for E-mount makes sense under the following conditions:
a) Small size competitive to rangefinder lenses but for a lower price than Leica lenses
b) Excellent IQ that consumers want to spend between $1200-2000 per MF lens
If both of those are not being fulfilled, there is no real reason for consumers to go with the Loxia line for MF lenses in regard to already available competitive products. The niche here is really rangefinder size for a lower price with very good IQ.
carstenw wrote:
Interestingly, it doesn't make sense from your point of view, but it does from his...
It is a question of philosophy. Do you milk the market for what it is worth, and try to cash in on fads, or do you make the moral play, and possibly end up with much happier and more supportive customers? There is a real danger in the milking approach, since it leaves lots of room for someone else to jump in underneath you, and if you have built up no customer goodwill (since you were milking them), then everyone might switch overnight.
You can't as easily jump in below someone who has a reasonable profit margin, since your profit margin would then be less than reasonable...
Personally, I am on the side of charging a fair price, not what the market can bear. I find the latter to be a mild form of exploitation and pretty revolting.
FWIW, I don't consider either Leica or Zeiss to exploitative, in spite of their high prices. They do a lot of manufacturing in Germany, with high quality materials and very exacting production methods, and it simply costs a lot to make the products. In deciding their profit margin, they also need to factor in the fluctuations naturally present in the market, so I doubt the margin is 15%, for example, but I don't think it is higher than it needs to be for a healthy company to exist in this niche....Show more →
I'm sorry I tried to introduce logic into this conversation. Your reply is nearly as emotional as his, which is fine if you want to discuss 'individual consumer buying behavior' - but it also comes across as adversarial towards the companies whose products we generally love.
One persons 'price' that would be "moral" and "fair" (to use your terms) can be quite different from another. It is the company's responsibility to figure out how many people there are that would be willing to pay X and whether X is sufficiently above their direct and variable costs along with a sufficient payoff given the risks involved as well as alternative investment / capital expenditure opportunities.
The reason I chimed in on this thread was that I've enjoyed reading the forums here on FM because the conversation usually refrains from the sort of "I wish Sony would release 20 lenses YESTERDAY, all designed by Zeiss and only costing $200" which is the level of conversation found on other sites. However, there's seems to be a total lack of understanding of lead times related to design and manufacturing along with cash flow, profits, costs associated with R&D / innovation. Nikon/Canon have had generations to build out their systems and people expect Sony to do it in a year. Makes no sense. Similarly, a lower volume product like a true Zeiss lens is going to cost a multiple. Deal with it. Or don't, but don't complain about it and suggest that if they charge too much that it is not 'moral' (your term). The price Zeiss charges for a lens has nothing to do with morality.
carstenw wrote:
Interestingly, it doesn't make sense from your point of view, but it does from his...
It is a question of philosophy. Do you milk the market for what it is worth, and try to cash in on fads, or do you make the moral play, and possibly end up with much happier and more supportive customers? There is a real danger in the milking approach, since it leaves lots of room for someone else to jump in underneath you, and if you have built up no customer goodwill (since you were milking them), then everyone might switch overnight.
You can't as easily jump in below someone who has a reasonable profit margin, since your profit margin would then be less than reasonable...
Personally, I am on the side of charging a fair price, not what the market can bear. I find the latter to be a mild form of exploitation and pretty revolting.
FWIW, I don't consider either Leica or Zeiss to exploitative, in spite of their high prices. They do a lot of manufacturing in Germany, with high quality materials and very exacting production methods, and it simply costs a lot to make the products. In deciding their profit margin, they also need to factor in the fluctuations naturally present in the market, so I doubt the margin is 15%, for example, but I don't think it is higher than it needs to be for a healthy company to exist in this niche....Show more →
Of course if you can build a 'wow' brand where people buy based on fashion rather than details you can milk all you want. Anything from clothing to iphones to cameras.
Matt Grum wrote:
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!
This is a bit of my worries, too. The E-mount is still fairly new and it needs to be seen where this is going. I think the majority of people who use E-mount cameras went for compact size and especially for the current Sony sensor technology built in the A7 series. Who knows what the future holds - maybe Fuji or another brand releases another mirrorless FF camera which then has an even better sensor in it but a different lens mount of course. It is good to have an option to adapt lenses if needed to a different camera brand.
I always liked that Nikon allows to use older Nikkor lenses even on their latest DSLR cameras.
Backwards compatibility was easier with 35mm film, which had the same basic design for decades. Digital has brought a multitude of size and design differences that require more specifically designed lenses, and I think worrying about backwards compatibilty only impedes the technology from moving forward, which we're seeing with Nikon and Canon.
Matt Grum wrote:
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.
There's no way to know for sure that Sony will continue to make APS-C E-mount cameras, either. Or, that Nikon will remain financially viable. Conclusion - only buy Canon?
Matt Grum wrote:
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.
Gear, in general, isn't an investment. If you want an investment, there are better choices out there.
Don't get me wrong, it'll probably be easier to resell that ZF prime than a Loxia FE prime, but in either case you're dealing with a niche product. I'd wager that these Loxia lenses will be smaller and lighter (closer to ZM) than using a ZF prime with an adapter.
I really think that Zeiss nailed it with the 21ZE 50MPZE 100MPZE.. They're big though, and MF which sucks. The 50/2 ZM is great, but it's really not much smaller then the 50MPZE (just that the MPZE is in a massive casing).
The 50MPZE would be TINY if they didn't need it to do macro. I wonder if that's the new 50/2? a AF MPZE with no Makro function?
I guess either way they'd have to retweak the design of either the ZE or ZM, since the distance to sensor is different on the A7... But maybe just a funnily long casing would do the trick for the ZE mod.
And considering the cost of anything Zeiss makes in Germany.. These will 100% be made by Cosina.
arduluth wrote:
There's no way to know for sure that Sony will continue to make APS-C E-mount cameras, either. Or, that Nikon will remain financially viable. Conclusion - only buy Canon?
The point is that if Nikon go bust then you'll still be able to use fully manual F mount glass on a host of different mirrorless bodies. If Sony stop making E-mount cameras altogether then the lenses wont be able to be used on any other camera as there wont be space for an adapter.
arduluth wrote:
Gear, in general, isn't an investment. If you want an investment, there are better choices out there.
I'm using the word "investment" in the economic sense here, not the financial sense (I'm not suggesting anyone buy a bunch of Zeiss lenses to save for their kids education).
You "invest" in your hobby, that is you lay down capitol for lenses in the hope they will provide many years of quality images and if your needs change you hope to be able to sell the lenses for a reasonable amount to offset future purchases. It is unclear whether Loxia lenses will fulfil this need, maybe they will maybe they wont.
adamdewilde wrote:
I really think that Zeiss nailed it with the 21ZE 50MPZE 100MPZE.. They're big though, and MF which sucks. The 50/2 ZM is great, but it's really not much smaller then the 50MPZE (just that the MPZE is in a massive casing).
The 50MPZE would be TINY if they didn't need it to do macro. I wonder if that's the new 50/2? a AF MPZE with no Makro function?
I guess either way they'd have to retweak the design of either the ZE or ZM, since the distance to sensor is different on the A7... But maybe just a funnily long casing would do the trick for the ZE mod.
And considering the cost of anything Zeiss makes in Germany.. These will 100% be made by Cosina....Show more →
i agree about them using cosina. really hope they don't base any new 50s on the zm or ZF 50/2. i don't really like the look of either of those...
I confidently expect (that doesn't mean that I am right of course) Loxia lens prices to fall in the 1000€-1200€ for "normal lenses", with a premium for more expensive designs (basically larger lenses, like fast 85s or UWAs). Why? Because there seems to be a market sweet spot around there for premium (but not luxury) primes. Any cheaper, and they would undercut Sony-Zeiss lenses, which is not thinkable. Any more expensive, and they are not in keeping with A7/A7S/A7R pricing, which is cheaper than comparable FF DSLR. That puts them roughly in the same league, price-wise, as the Touits.
Not much longer to wait, and find out how wrong I was...
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
