rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #14 · sigma and tamron lenes for RF mount | |
alundeb wrote:
I wouldn't agree that the good RF lenses are overpriced. It depends on what you compare to, at least. If we compare the RF 85 1.2 to the Zeiss Otus 85/1.4, the RF is faster, better optically, has AF and costs 1/3 less.
steamtrain wrote:
I went with the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art, a used copy, 1000 euro. New ones run around 1400 or so. The RF 85mm f/1.2 is 3050 euro. Not a complete apples to apples of course, but I would say 2250 to 2500 euro for the RF lens seams more reasonable to me. Sony has no f/1.2 option at 85mm, however, Canon has none at 35mm, as Canon only has an f/1.8 slow AF budget prime at 35mm.
A more direct comparison is RF 50mm f/1.2 L to FE 50mm f/1.2 GM. The latter is 2300 euro in stead of 2600, it's focus system is is absolutely stellar whereas the AF of the RF lens - at this price point - is clunky, and the Sony lens is 778g in stead of 950 so it weights around 170g less, and optically it's every bit as good at least as the RF lens, and better unless you love a boat load of flair. Heavier, clunky AF, still a higher price >> yes, that's clearly an overpriced lens. If we compare the RF 50mm f/1.2 to the 40mm Art the latter is sharper at same apertures, has less vignetting at same apertures, has better AF even though it's an adapted third party lens. The Art is heavier, sure, but it's 750 euro in stead of 2600. This comparison isn't completely apples to apples, but nonetheless it gives a perspective, while the direct comparison was clear as well: overpriced.
...Show more →
Let's be fair with criticism, you didn't even mention the Nikon 50/1.2 (massive, over 1kg) or their 85/1.2, also massive and the same prices as the Canon (currently at B&H) and about $800 more than the Sony 85/1.4 GM, which is in turn overpriced by $700 compared to the Sigma 85/1.4 DG DN Art... Sony, Nikon and Canon should just quit making lenses, especially Nikon and Canon, because they're just too overpriced compared to Sigma. 
alundeb wrote:
We might have a different use of the term 'overpriced'. 10% premium in apples to apples comparisons is not a big deal in my book.
I agree about great alternative options that we cannot get in RF mount.
Still, I bought into the RF system to get access to the lenses. The RF 24-240 is much better than the Sony, and the RF 100-400 is one of a kind.
I kind of doze off when someone goes on and on about something being overpriced. I guess it comes with the territory of being a Leica user owning "overpriced" Leica products, and being reminded about that repeatedly by well-meaning forum members. Yet, there were logical reasons (IMO) behind the decisions to buy those items. As there were logical decisions to choose the Canon RF system instead of Sony or Nikon. Those reasons simply don't align with the arguments against the Canon system that others present. All these reasons against Canon remind me of the past arguments against Canon's inferior sensor dynamic range relative to those from Sony...
That's not to say the lack of third party RF lenses is something I applaud. It would be great to have access to some of the models available from Tamron and Sigma for Sony, Nikon, Panasonic. But none of those are *for me* irreplaceable lenses; alternatives exist in Canon RF that do what I want/need. The next Canon lens on my want list is the RF 28/2.8, which doesn't exist elsewhere (the Nikon 26 pancake is inferior, IMO).
|
