Sprout Crumble wrote:
What kind of company captures a dominant market share and then alienates 95% of their users with ludicrous lens prices?
95 to 98 % of the market won't even notice the lens's existence. Of the 2 to 5 % who do, 95 % would never consider it even if it were half the price and Canon sold each one at a loss. Of the remaining ones, only a few like you are alienated. I encourage you to act on your intense alienation and sell your Canon equipment.
Sprout Crumble wrote:
Besides, you don't have to be in the 95% majority to question the prices. Just because I can afford them doesn't mean I appreciate getting screwed.
You are writing as if you have a right to whatever product you might dream of at whatever price you think is fair. You do not have such a right. You have not been screwed. Canon owes you nothing. Nothing has been taken from you. Your equipment has not stopped working. You might have felt screwed when you bought your first Canon, but I doubt it because you kept buying Canon. So when you bought the bulk of your equipment or all of it, you got a good deal and were glad of it or you wouldn't have kept buying Canon. Your expectations are entirely unreasonable, and thus your anger.
Your anger is ultimately laughable, though the damage it does to yourself is not laughable. But thanks for providing the evening's entertainment.
I am one of those who will might end up with this lens at some stage, but not before reading about the real world performance. I have the 50mm f/1.4 (and a sharp one at that!), so there is really no reason for me to rush into this (not that this has ever stopped me before! ).
It sounds like a nice lens, and if you need top-notch performance at 50mm, then there will only be one "best" choice. The 50mm f/1.4 should be good enough for those who don't have the need or the money for the f/1.2 model.
It certainly sounds like a lot of money for a normal lens, but then you only have to look at the prices of the 35L and the 85L, and it all makes sense. Most here do not complain about the cost of the 85L or the 35L once they have used them (I have the 85L II, and have forgotten about the sticker shock as soon as I used it for the first time).
Since I already have the 50mm f/1.4, I might stick with my original plan of getting the 35L to compliment the 50/1.4, the 85L II and the 135L. But... if the 50/1.2 L proves to be an outstanding performer, YES, I'll pay the price!
sivrajbm wrote:
1/3 of a stop for $1200 more, oh baby sign me up...not :-)
If all things were the same such as IQ, weather sealing, and AF, that's a good arguement. I bet the new 50 will blow away the 1.4 in those area's, so it's more than just about 1/3 stop more speed
I was waiting for a 50L lens that is sharper than the 50mm f/1.4 (above f/2) and one that had higher build quality. I'm sure this offering has higher build quality but the MTF chart has me a bit worried....
If the sharpness is on par with the 85L I will definitely buy one.
I will admint that the price is a bit high, but I am still pretty ecstatic about this lens for 2 reasons.
1. I love the 50mm perspective. Call me lame, but a 50mm lens is a great tool for me. I've taken week-long trips with my 50 1.4 and haven't regretted it a bit. The fact that this lens is even faster is music to my ears. Here's to hoping it has some of the same "magic" as the 85L... The 50 1.2 and a 5D will make a KILLER walk around kit IMHO.
2. The fact that Canon released this lens (and the 85L II only a few months back) means that there is still some part of this monolithic marketing machine called Canon that still cares about the higher end of the market. I know we need a good WA prime (or even a good WA zoom), but for me, this is good enough. When was the last time that Nikon released a high end prime? They are even more wrapped up in smaller format, "digital" lenses than Canon is IMHO.
I really can't wait to get my hands on this lens. I'll be one of the jerks on the mile-long pre-order list, drooling for months on-end until it shows up at my door. I really can't wait. Kudos to Canon for bringing this to market. Hopefully it means we won't have to wait too long for the next prime to come out (200 1.8 II anyone?)... My wallet quivers at the thought
Sprout Crumble wrote:
What kind of company captures a dominant market share and then alienates 95% of their users with ludicrous lens prices?
The point is that this lens is designed for that 5% of photographers, not for the other 95%. This is a lens that probably is on marginally profitable at $1599, particularly given the low volumes it will sell.
Thank you Monito, you are spot on with the very bitter Sprout.
And on that front Sprout, 500 bucks would NOT triple sales - primes are specialty items so for many users price is not the point, lack of convenience of a zoom is the point. Regardless, it isn't happening so we won't get to experiment. We seem to have some serious anti corporate types around who expect gear to be developed for free and sold at a loss. I don't worship Canon, but I am glad a company can continue to up the bar to the benefit of all - the cameras available today are dirt cheap compared to what performance you would have got 5 years ago and yet still people complain.
And, no, I don't think saying that comparing a Ford Mustang to a Ferrari is a 'bad comparison' for these lenses as an analogy - they are both cars (like 50mm lenses are lenses), one is a bit faster (like these lenses one is a bit faster thanthe other), one looks better in red (like these lenses one has a cool red ring) and one costs a lot more for the bleeding edge of performance. That analogy is spot on. The point is, the top of the line normally costs a LOT more than the the middle or bottom of the line while maybe providing incrementally not an enormous performance gain. But to those willing to pay for the incremental performance, there is a market for companies. Those not willing to pay, there are the other products.
ISO1600 wrote:
ok, so it IS apparently sealed.... but it still does not interest me at that price point. Gimme a sealed 35/1.4L for $1600, then i might think about it.
Darn weather, I say.
First you are not interested in the lens because it's not weather sealed.
Then you learn that it might be sealed yet you are still not interested.
As an aside, I wonder how many people have lost their non-sealed lenses to that menacing "weather"?
Pondria wrote:
Am I the only person that feels fine with his 50/1.4 ?
Nope.
I realize that at this point (with so little info), price is about the only thing to talk about. It's funny because lots of people have been pining for this exact lens, and given the 3 'non-L' 50mm lenses in Canon's lineup, the price/build really was to be expected.
This is the '85' for 1.6x users, and I'm guessing wedding photographers and PJ guys will suck this lens up like there's no tomorrow. Hopefully the real-world performance will rival the 85, but only some hands-on use of the lens will tell that tale.
Yup. It's funny that when we get a lens that many have been lusting after, as soon as we get it (ON THE DAY that it's announced!), everyone (or so it seems) turns on Canon for not offering it to us for cheap! Internet forums at their best...
yellowducky wrote:
We seem to have some serious anti corporate types around who expect gear to be developed for free and sold at a loss.
no, you have anti-monopolist types who expect that, after we accept being locked in to buying canon lenses for canon bodies, that we get reasonable choices at reasonable prices.
I don't worship Canon, but I am glad a company can continue to up the bar to the benefit of all - the cameras available today are dirt cheap compared to what performance you would have got 5 years ago and yet still people complain.
dirt cheap! lol! compare the price and the value of a leica m7 5 years after you buy it. cameras today are *expensive* because they depreciate faster.
And, no, I don't think saying that comparing a Ford Mustang to a Ferrari is a 'bad comparison' for these lenses as an analogy - they are both cars (like 50mm lenses are lenses), one is a bit faster (like these lenses one is a bit faster thanthe other), one looks better in red (like these lenses one has a cool red ring) and one costs a lot more for the bleeding edge of performance. That analogy is spot on. The point is, the top of the line normally costs a LOT more than the the middle or bottom of the line while maybe providing incrementally not an enormous performance gain. But to those willing to pay for the incremental performance, there is a market for companies. Those not willing to pay, there are the other products....Show more →
dood, if the only difference between a ford and a ferrari was branding and marginal performance gains, that would be an apt comparison. with these lenses, we're talking about mass produced items from the same company using the same components. L's used to boast high prices because of exotic elements. they would boast "oh, the aspherical elements are ground and polished, not molded as in cheaper lenses". well, here ya go, molded aspherical elements. so where does the cost come from? better build and weather sealing and so forth? can't be that, the 200L f/2.8 is dirt cheap in comparison.
looking at the mtf charts, it seems like this is just a pro-only lens: nobody's gonna buy it merely for performance, but pros will buy it no matter what the price: its a business expense. maybe some "advanced amateurs" will pick it up too, if they can sell magic and mystique, the way that they do for the 85L. (and i dearly love the 85L but no way no how is there substantial difference with an 85/1.8 above f/2.)
anyway, supremely yawn-inducing offerings from canon this year.
As for the price... if Canon's ripping people off, then they're offering an opportunity for someone like Sigma to come along and make a product as good or better at half the price, right? Well, why haven't they done it? I think the fact that no one has seized on this opportunity that's clearly such a no-brainer for you guys proves that you don't understand the economics of the niche-lens market.
Just look at the Sigma 30/1.4 - it's not full frame, it's difficult to get a copy that focuses accurately. In short, it's no 35L. Canon can charge what they do because their lenses are the best AF lenses available for the EF mount.
Sam Bennett wrote:
Just look at the Sigma 30/1.4 - it's not full frame, it's difficult to get a copy that focuses accurately. In short, it's no 35L. Canon can charge what they do because their lenses are the best AF lenses available for the EF mount.
ha! sigma 30/1.4 is a perfect example. its exactly what i need and the reason that i'd never even consider the comparable canon 28mm or 35mm options.
Nice lens, very nice. But they must look at todays consumer as a dumb schmuck who will pay any price to keep up their status. Gouging like this is hard to believe. Of course maybe I'm wrong and they actually use rare material mined on the moon so this is fair.
).
