Wezre wrote:
Quite true. It will be interesting to see how it performs optically.
I tried to put the youtube video on here but it wasn't working.
Matt Granger did a review of the laowa vs sigma vs nikon.
He also has sample images you can download of all three.
If I remember, he used FE version of the laowa and sigma is obviously only FE mount
EB-1 wrote:
I would avoid the cheaper lens. Cheaper is rarely better and usually worse.
EBH
Except for the times where cheaper isn’t worse and is sometimes better. Almost like we should evaluate each lens based on its merits instead of blindly judging a lanes based on the brand or price.
I think the size is nice, and the photos that I downloaded from Matt Granger seem like it's a nice lens for the price. I'm a Canon shooter, and the EF lens is reported at $1799, which seems nice too. Maybe lensrentals will get them in, and you can rent before buying.
The lack of IS might not be an issue since most mirrorless bodies have IBIS
EB-1 wrote:
It has no IS. How is that better than having it?
EBH
Coz IS isn't everything?
Also your first statement here is less and less true by the day. CH manufacturers like Viltrox now make glass which is often as good and sometimes even better(in some categories) than the native glass for half the price or even less.
I can understand that purely the lens elements may be of a high quality, but the product overall may be less desirable due to performance, durability, serviceability, etc.
Nobody makes anything without figuring out the market value. Are you saying they are not charging enough, like Product Dumping?
One should also consider whether they can get 95% of the performance for 50% of the price, which is a recurring theme in photography.
Jman13 wrote:
Except for the times where cheaper isn’t worse and is sometimes better. Almost like we should evaluate each lens based on its merits instead of blindly judging a lanes based on the brand or price.
EB-1 wrote:
I can understand that purely the lens elements may be of a high quality, but the product overall may be less desirable due to performance, durability, serviceability, etc.
Nobody makes anything without figuring out the market value. Are you saying they are not charging enough, like Product Dumping?
EBH
It's not really a rocket science. China manufactuers when entering new market, especially so dominated for decades by small number of others will often:
a) sell their products at even or below costs to gain market share(government subsidies is a common thing in China)
b) in time offer the same quality as premium non CH brands for much lower price(at this point they're already making profit)
c) their goal is always the same - dominate the market at some point in the future - and as history teach us - this works very well for them
Like i said already - at this point in time Viltrox premium lenses are often as good or sometimes even better than native glass for half the price or less. Took them like few to several years to get there but they got there.
From consumer standpoint this is great, never in history of photography we had so many options with such a high quality for such a price. Competition is always good for all of us.
I do hope the Viltriox improve the IS in the 200/2, but the Sigma version would be far more appealing for use on a Sony. Of course we already have a 200/2 Nikkor.
