Right....that sort of relativity helps when we think about prices.
Incidentally, do you have any more info on Vistek's lens availability date of Oct.01,06 ?
Their price of $1800 CAN seems a bit low relative to B&H Photo's $1600 US. (Usually, Vistek's prices are significantly higher than B&H Photo's.)
JohnHollywood wrote:
That price for a 50mm is a joke. I can't imagine this being worth 1300 more than the 50 1.4. The 85mm L is also over priced IMHO too but Canon is definitely trying to rape us on this one.
Asking Canon to lower there prices is like asking the oil companies to lower there's.
Yet no one wants to pay for the man hours and production cost or even consider it as if the lens was built by magic.
Eric Cartman wrote:
Asking Canon to lower there prices is like asking the oil companies to lower there's.
Yet no one wants to pay for the man hours and production cost or even consider it as if the lens was built by magic.
That is fair enough, but it doesnt explain why most products cost more in some continents, even after taking taxes into account.
Eric Cartman wrote:
Asking Canon to lower there prices is like asking the oil companies to lower there's.
Yet no one wants to pay for the man hours and production cost or even consider it as if the lens was built by magic.
That argument only works in isolation. Relative to prior prices, other Canon lenses and lenses in other makers ranges, the price is very high.
Nobody expects it for free but some tiny sense of value would be nice.
It'd be a super $1000 lens. Its not a $1600 one in my opinion.
ranmandx wrote:
The price for a Leica R sumilux is around 2800 new, this one has autofocus, faster glass and hopefully can produce some fantastic images that could be considered in the same league as the leica. Then maybe the price is justified it's a top quality premium AF lens.
Not a fair comparison mate. The Canon will likely sell more per week than the Leica per year, uses mass production techniques and has no outstanding technical characteristics (special AF, IS etc) to explain the price..
Besides, nobody ever accused Leica of value. Like Rolls-Royce and Rolex, the appeal isn't based in logic.
JohnHollywood wrote:
That price for a 50mm is a joke. I can't imagine this being worth 1300 more than the 50 1.4. The 85mm L is also over priced IMHO too but Canon is definitely trying to rape us on this one.
Rape requires an unwilling partner - if you choose to buy the lens, you are, by definition, a willing partner.
JohnHollywood wrote:
That price for a 50mm is a joke. I can't imagine this being worth 1300 more than the 50 1.4. The 85mm L is also over priced IMHO too but Canon is definitely trying to rape us on this one.
Seems rather cheap, since I paid more than twice that for the f/1.0 I use.
You don't have to buy it and can stay with the IMHO very cheesy 50/1.4.
I look forward to getting one to see how it compares to the f/1.0.
Any particular reason why would one want to pre-order from Amazon as opposed B&H ? The latter are not accepting any orders till they have the lens....I kinda like that.
Are you interested in getting one now ? Will you be waiting until some preowned LNIB "stellar", "lunar" and "celestial" copies start surfacing on B&S Forum priced for quick sale at $1549.99 ?
Cheesy 50 1.4. What are you talking about. The 50 1.4 is one of the finest 50mm lenses made. It doesn't get any sharper than the 50 1.4, if it isn't sharp enough for you i don't know what is. The 50 1.4 resolves higher than any 13 or 17 megapixel camera sensor can. Yes, the 50 1.2 is way overpriced. It should cost arond $900. I hear it doesn't even focus as fast as the 50 1.4. So the only benefit is the "L" designation. It reminds me of the overpriced 85 1.2 II. Yes, I had one, but returned it when my 85mm 1.8 was equally as sharp for all practical purposes and far more consistant focussing. My common sense would not allow me to keep it. If the 50 1.2 is sharper than the 50 1.4 it will be soo slight that you would need to blow up an image 600% in photo shop to see the difference. The only person who care about the 50mm 1.2 is another photographer. I say......................lets just go out and shoot! Forget wasing our money on gear that will not help your photography and more than what you already have in your camera bag. If i need 1.2 I will just up my ISO with my trusty 50 1.4 and call it a day!
handheld wrote:
Any particular reason why would one want to pre-order from Amazon as opposed B&H ? The latter are not accepting any orders till they have the lens....I kinda like that.
Are you interested in getting one now ? Will you be waiting until some preowned LNIB "stellar", "lunar" and "celestial" copies start surfacing on B&S Forum priced for quick sale at $1549.99 ?
dme?? no no no. i'm not excited about this lens, and don't intend to pre-order, and don't really expect to order either. i told you that. i have way more lenses now than i can use, and at 50mm this competes with 50/1.4, 17-55/2.8 and 60mm - the last, still my favorite. tiny niche, for me. i'm gonna get me a mark 2 lens baby instead
i think their ad is interesting only because of the text and photo. oh, and the rank that it now has in amazon camera store, which is somewhere around 2000 ... which already puts it ahead of, say, a leica m7.
oh, and u know i don't buy used stuff anyway. unless its priced right.
bad_doggie wrote:
dme?? no no no. i'm not excited about this lens, and don't intend to pre-order, and don't really expect to order either. i told you that. i have way more lenses now than i can use, and at 50mm this competes with 50/1.4, 17-55/2.8 and 60mm - the last, still my favorite. tiny niche, for me. i'm gonna get me a mark 2 lens baby instead
i think their ad is interesting only because of the text and photo. oh, and the rank that it now has in amazon camera store, which is somewhere around 2000 ... which already puts it ahead of, say, a leica m7.
oh, and u know i don't buy used stuff anyway. unless its priced right. ...Show more →
I see. Lens babies ? Suit yourself, be a bokeh man like our friend B-man.
Well, I have been waiting for this one for a while. Even if I still had the 50 f/1.4 I'd be interested. Why ?
Because that EF 50mm f/1.4 was the only true COPROLITE LENS I have ever owned. (For Google scholars' benefit, that's fossilized turd.) Wide open to f/2.2 that "thing" was even worse than the worst examples of EF 50 f/1.0 images I've seen. Now, Bad Doggie, you tell me.....how bad can that be !
IraGraham wrote:
Cheesy 50 1.4. What are you talking about. The 50 1.4 is one of the finest 50mm lenses made. It doesn't get any sharper than the 50 1.4, if it isn't sharp enough for you i don't know what is. The 50 1.4 resolves higher than any 13 or 17 megapixel camera sensor can. Yes, the 50 1.2 is way overpriced. It should cost arond $900. I hear it doesn't even focus as fast as the 50 1.4. So the only benefit is the "L" designation. It reminds me of the overpriced 85 1.2 II. Yes, I had one, but returned it when my 85mm 1.8 was equally as sharp for all practical purposes and far more consistant focussing. My common sense would not allow me to keep it. If the 50 1.2 is sharper than the 50 1.4 it will be soo slight that you would need to blow up an image 600% in photo shop to see the difference. The only person who care about the 50mm 1.2 is another photographer. I say......................lets just go out and shoot! Forget wasing our money on gear that will not help your photography and more than what you already have in your camera bag. If i need 1.2 I will just up my ISO with my trusty 50 1.4 and call it a day!...Show more →
You have to be kidding, the 50mm f/1.4 is VERY underwhelming...
If you read the luminous landscape, it says not only that the 50mm f1.4 focuses faster, but that the two lenses will be virtually undistinguishable f2 and smaller.
