You have to admit, this is a bit of a joke now. We have people saying price is too high (when we don't know what it will be on the street), we have people saying it will be soft (when we have not seen an actual copy let alone an actual photo), we have people saying they wanted this model but wish is was faster (uh, f1 I guess), we have people saying they wanted this model but wish it was sharper (assuming a mtf charp they saw means it isn't), we have people saying it is a fair price, a not fair price, a fair comparison to cheaper lenses, a not fair comparison to cheaper lenses, things being expensive now when we get 10 megapixel cameras for the price of what used to be a 4 megapixel camera, we have people saying they will buy it sight unseen or never buy it or buy it if sealed but it isnt but when it is they still wont.
I mean really - it IS a specialty lens, we DONT have a copy to look at photos from, and we have a msrp. I personally hope it is awesome as I would like the option to maybe get my hands on an awesome lens in this focal lenght. It is not a NEED for me but it would maybe be nice. I would probably get other lenses first but at some point it might happen. Even if it doesn't though, I appreciate the option.
Good grief - with all the whining about price, you'd think that Canon was holding people down and stealing their wallets.
If you don't want to pay the price, DON'T BUY THE LENS. It's not a difficult concept. If nobody buys it, they'll either lower the price or stop selling it.
Frankly, the new 50/1.2L looks like it could be a winner to me. Similar build quality to the 85/1.2, and probably similar performance. I'll wait and see how it performs and then decide if it's worth its price TO ME. But I won't whine on and on about how the evil Canon corporation is robbing people blind.
Pavel wrote:
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.
This is not a consumer lens, you don't understand economics, and you have Nikon equipment. No need to snipe here.
bad_doggie wrote:
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.
If you can't tell the difference between a real lens and a poor replacement for one, that explains your participation in this conversation perfectly.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
The canon lenses like this one will not get outdated or become inferior in 10 years or so.
this is a bogus argument. of course canon lenses become outdated, and now faster than ever. improving USM over the last 10 years has made 10 year old lenses less desirable. IS and improving IS makes old lenses less desirable. (how much is an old 2-stop IS lens going to sell for when, in 10 years, you can have an 8-stop IS lens?) and though there might be some old codgers out there who still prize their "magic drainpipe", its dirt cheap used and merely 10 years out of date. only the extremely cheap are going to consider it a valid alternative to a 70-200 f/2.8 IS.
old manual focus lenses might be lifetime investments. but lenses that have cpu's and sensors and motors and other things that evolve more quickly than gears and lenses - their lifetime will be much more limited. not as bad as the bodies, it seems, but that remains to be seen.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Okay I need to stay out of these topics but when it comes to price I have to say something. first of all Sam is right it is a niche market that will sell only 5 percent compared to the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 or even better a zoom lens that Canon sells. lenses like this just won't have the need for most folks . Now on price guys I shoot Leica if anyone of us should scream price than it should be me, I don't though because i understand what they bring to the market and also what they bring to me. A Leica 50 1.4 summilux costs if your freaking lucky 1800 USED and if your feeling really flush 2600 NEW. Okay some will say way over the top, maybe but look at these thing like ths. that lens will last me until i get dropped in the box , my whole lifetime. The canon lenses like this one will not get outdated or become inferior in 10 years or so. Cost is important but getting the images you need or can't get with another lens is something very hard to put a price on. For guys like Sam that shoot available light quite often this is a NEED and not a i want it deal. ( Sam not picking on you)
I have said this on this board a hundred times . price should ALWAYS be secondary to the work you do, if that means the fastest lens you can get or the longest lens you can get , than that is what you get. than figure out what kid to sell to get it. ...Show more →
Sam Bennett wrote:
If you can't tell the difference between a real lens and a poor replacement for one, that explains your participation in this conversation perfectly.
i said "my needs". show me, please, the difference in IQ between those two lenses on a 20d. (i can point to a few, but none that justify the price differential, especially for a FL that's duplicated, for me, on a good zoom that handles it fine from f/2.8).
Sam Bennett wrote:
If you can't tell the difference between a real lens and a poor replacement for one, that explains your participation in this conversation perfectly.
Sam, you're wasting your breath! This is the same guy, who in another thread wrote that he lives in New York and can rent any equipment he likes at any time, yet cannot see a massive difference between the IQ of a 30D and a 5D (yet he CAN see a massive difference between the 10D and the 350D!!!).
How can you expect someone like that to see the difference between the 35L and the Sigma 30mm? :worried:
bad_doggie wrote:
i said "my needs". show me, please, the difference in IQ between those two lenses on a 20d. (i can point to a few, but none that justify the price differential, especially for a FL that's duplicated, for me, on a good zoom that handles it fine from f/2.8).
You're not commenting on your needs, you're pontificating to the masses. Note my sig - I'm not interested in lenses that will not work on 1.3 crop cameras. In any case "IQ" doesn't mean anything if the lens cannot focus accurately, which is the main problem with the Sigma 30/1.4. I had precisely the same problem with my beloved Sigma 20/1.8 - it could produce very nice images, if you managed to get a shot that was properly in focus. Unfortunately, Sigma's lenses don't focus accurately consistently enough for me. Compare that to the "heinously expensive" 24-70/2.8L which focuses perfectly every single time, and you're damn right I'm going to spend the premium to get the best. That's what my clients have come to expect, and I won't settle for anything less.
rudiphoto wrote:
Sam, you're wasting your breath! This is the same guy, who in another thread wrote that he lives in New York and can rent any equipment he likes at any time, yet cannot see a massive difference between the IQ of a 30D and a 5D (yet he CAN see a massive difference between the 10D and the 350D!!!).
yup, can't see a MASSIVE difference in IQ between those bodies. i can see a difference in images, perspective, dof. can not see a massive difference in IQ.
perhaps the difference in IQ that you see is part of the "magic" that comes from spending twice as much for the body and needing to see some "massive difference in IQ" to justify the expense to yourself?
bad_doggie wrote:
yup, can't see a MASSIVE difference in IQ between those bodies. i can see a difference in images, perspective, dof. can not see a massive difference in IQ.
perhaps the difference in IQ that you see is part of the "magic" that comes from spending twice as much for the body and needing to see some "massive difference in IQ" to justify the expense to yourself?
You are clearly a fool! I have a rule - I never argue with a fool! It cannot be done succesfully - they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!
Edited by rudiphoto on Aug 25, 2006 at 12:17 AM GMT
My 50 1.4 was good, but was stolen out of a hotel room. It was in the hotel room because it wasn't being used.
You guys with crop cameras need to plan to get a FF with the 85 1.8.
50 is boring, except for fashion/event shooters who need to have it as part of a kit of fast primes.
FF + 85/1.8 + 135/2 is a beautiful thing.
DavidP wrote:
Could be . . . I hated every copy I ever tried . . so I bought the 50/1.0 instead.
Sam Bennett wrote:
You're not commenting on your needs, you're pontificating to the masses.
false. i responsed to someone who said that, if the 50/1.2 doesn't fulfill the needs of the masses, they can come in and fill that niche.
Compare that to the "heinously expensive" 24-70/2.8L which focuses perfectly every single time, and you're damn right I'm going to spend the premium to get the best. That's what my clients have come to expect, and I won't settle for anything less.
:worried:
