Monito, I have Nikon and Canon (and Olympus) though as of a few weeks ago the canon is relegated to four lenses and a film body. Just shot a D30 with the idea of buying it for next weekend in atlanta but then they had a used D2h and I grabbed it instead.
I'm still a potential customer despite hating some parts of canon ( interface ) and liking others ( IQ).
What does that have to do with sniping if I happen to balk at the rapid rate of price increasing?
You enjoy being a sucker? I've had some great medium price canon lenses that rocked and some very expensive lenses that were dogs. There seems to be a strong trend of following and thinking if it's expensive it's got to be good. Generally no matter how expensive faster glass is not as good as the medium speed stuff - but people like to ignore that. I wonder if ego isn't too involved.
Ever get the feel that some, and I stress some, feel like the man buying EXPENSIVE?
This lens is hard to quantify as far as if the price is justified because it's new. But I suspect that if the 1.4 costs canon 30 percent of retail or a hundred bucks the 1.2 is probably costing twice as much ( 200 ) - but marketing knows the mindset of the audience and is making a killing! I have a background in manufacturing engineering and have a pretty good idea what costs are involved in making stuff on a line. You may be surprised to find that tooling costs are the most significant on a product with little R&D like a new lens.
Tool up for a 50 dollar lens is close to the cost for a 4000 lens. The run is not so different neither now with tight tolerances being easier to get done at cheaper costs.
Take the cost of the 70-200 f 4.0. 579 to 1250. somebody is getting reamed.
So like I said. Nice, nice lenses - but nice nice gouging.
Oh and Guy argument about price is valid but the leica lenses don't cost so much because of Quality. The could cost a fraction of the price at the same quality if the production runs were in the same numbers as even the pricier Canon stuff. It's low volume that makes a Leica lens hurt to buy. The quality is only 20 percent of the equation.
I think that Leica stuff is really expenisve but I don't think that they are getting reamed. With this new canon trend of pricing since they figured out that most Canon shooters are really IT guys with deep pockets we ARE getting reamed!
Heck the amateurs are often the ones with the fancy stuff in the bag, more than the pro. You can always tell - they don't have a scratch on it. It's for resale when the next model comes along. Photographers use the stuff - and funny they don't seem to keep the boxes.
I had to go try two copies of the 7-200IS at the local store. The first one couldn't focus on much under f 5.6 right out of the box. We tried it on several bodies. They sent that one to get fixed. Happens all the time.
Sam Bennett wrote:
Care to address the point I was making? That "image quality" is meaningless if a lens can't focus accurately?
good point, but i've never had any difficulty with AF on the 30/1.4.
to be honest, i think that much of the sigma quality control issues and AF issues that come up on these boards are just these perpetuated web memes that have much less foundation in fact than they sound. for example, i'm currently testing out a sigma 20/1.8. again, i don't see the problems everyone complains of. besides, canon doesn't have anything comparable, so it merely comes down to a question of whether its better than nothing.
re AF accuracy: ya know, there's only so much that the lens itself is responsible for. much of that's done in the body.
I shoot HS basketball largely with a 50 and an 85. The AF speed and accuracy of the 50 f/1.8 and f/1.4 just don't cut it. And it was a big disappointment to me that the new 85 f/1.2's AF was still too slow to make it a serious sports lens. But:
"In addition to a large aperture, the new lens also has blazingly fast autofocus speed and response time, thanks in part to Canon’s ring-type Ultrasonic Motor (USM), which quietly drives the lens."
That quote from the new 50's press release sounds promising... may it be so. But $1599... ouch!
As a professional wedding PJ I am very excited about this lens. Let's remember we know nothing about this lens other than it's announcement and some stat's Canon has sent our way, what matters is real world performance and I'd have a hard time believing Canon would make a brand new, from the ground up, 50mm f/1.2 L that is inferior to the 85mm f/1.2 L II. My hope is that this lens will perform as well or better than the 85 L Mk II, but we'll have to wait and see. I love the 50mm range and use it a lot in low light shooting which I often find myself in, if they can improve focus and wide open sharpness over the 50mm f/1.4 then I'm in!
Yes, $1600 sounds like a lot for most, but you get what you pay for in lenses, this is about what I expected for this lens, especially brand new. I don't own a 600 f/4 L IS lens, but if Canon sold one for $500 I'd probably buy it, these lenses are meant for a specific purpose and focussed on a specific market and priced accordingly, since when has Canon ever marketed "L" lenses to the amatuer photographer?
Many of you may wonder why does it cost 5x more for a 50mm f/1.2 vs the f/1.4, well the same can be said of the 85mm f/1.2 vs the 1.8, the difference is in the details, the 1.2 L is in another league when it comes to bokeh and wide open performance and that's what some are willing to pay for.
Someone had asked the last time Nikon introduced a good prime...
what immediately came to mind is the 200mm f/2 VR which made me cry since Canon stopped manufacturing the 200mm f/1.8 L. I am still hoping we'll see an IS version of this remarkable lens soon
Nill Toulme wrote:
I shoot HS basketball largely with a 50 and an 85. The AF speed and accuracy of the 50 f/1.8 and f/1.4 just don't cut it. And it was a big disappointment to me that the new 85 f/1.2's AF was still too slow to make it a serious sports lens. But:
"In addition to a large aperture, the new lens also has blazingly fast autofocus speed and response time, thanks in part to Canon’s ring-type Ultrasonic Motor (USM), which quietly drives the lens."
That quote from the new 50's press release sounds promising... may it be so. But $1599... ouch!
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
If the 50 1.2 has a similiar large amount of degree turn as the 85 1.2, it won't be fast. I guess the question is - will it be fast enough for some sports?
Perhaps at some point Canon will remake a 50 with the price/performance of the 85 1.8. That would make a lot of people happy.
I think this a pretty good forum, compared to some others I have visited.
There are some very good photographers here as well as folks who are technically well versed.
However, what I find peculiar to this forum is an apparent abundance of market economists, judging by endless deliberations on pricing, marketing strategies and positioning, competitive forces, etc, often at the expense of technical issues.
My amateur photographer's sense tells me that the introduction of two (probably) excellent brand new lenses by our gear purveyor of choice is an occasion to celebrate. No matter wheather we can afford it, or need it today, or be able to justify it tomorrow.
What's important I think is that the EF lens lineup is getting enriched with fresh choices (be they L, EF-S or consumer grade), as well as pushed further in the direction of excellence. I'd somehow expect that kind of a development to be received with general enthusiasm by bona fide photographers and Canon gear users.
bad_doggie wrote:
good point, but i've never had any difficulty with AF on the 30/1.4.
Many, many people that I respect have. The sample variation (again, a consequence of the low price you pay) seems to be pretty wide, so perhaps you got lucky. But it's also possible your style of shooting just doesn't show such problems or you're simply not attuned to them.
bad_doggie wrote:
to be honest, i think that much of the sigma quality control issues and AF issues that come up on these boards are just these perpetuated web memes that have much less foundation in fact than they sound. for example, i'm currently testing out a sigma 20/1.8. again, i don't see the problems everyone complains of. besides, canon doesn't have anything comparable, so it merely comes down to a question of whether its better than nothing.
Do you think I'm just talking out of my ass? My Sigma 20/1.8 was one of my favorite lenses for a long, long time. But facts were facts. In the end, I simply couldn't get consistent results out of it, and my friends had the same experience with theirs. Unfortunately there isn't a Canon equivalent, and I hope they rectify that at some point - but for now, the 24-70 is filling the gap nicely.
bad_doggie wrote:
re AF accuracy: ya know, there's only so much that the lens itself is responsible for. much of that's done in the body.
Gee, really? That must explain why lenses A, B and C have inconsistent focusing while lens D focuses perfectly... all on the same body. The body certainly has a lot to do with AF, but if you have a "problem" in the body you'll typically see it across all your lenses, not just one.
dcmiller wrote:
If the 50 1.2 has a similiar large amount of degree turn as the 85 1.2, it won't be fast. I guess the question is - will it be fast enough for some sports?
Perhaps at some point Canon will remake a 50 with the price/performance of the 85 1.8. That would make a lot of people happy.
Judging by the spacing on the DOF hashmarks on the focus scale, the 50 will have a shorter throw than the 85/1.2 I or II. I'm thinking that it'll focus about twice as fast as the new mark II, though this is completely a guess on my part.
dcmiller wrote:
David! you've been MIA.
I'm sure the 50 1.2 front focuses, so you're needed here
Of course 50 f/1.2 front focuses, as you have already pointed out. It just happens to have the moving parts a bit deeper inside the fixed part, so they are not equally apparent in the press photo like e.g. in 85 f/1.2.
dcmiller wrote:
If the 50 1.2 has a similiar large amount of degree turn as the 85 1.2, it won't be fast. I guess the question is - will it be fast enough for some sports?
Perhaps at some point Canon will remake a 50 with the price/performance of the 85 1.8. That would make a lot of people happy.
Well I remain cautiously optimistic about the new lens. Surely even the most cynical marketing flack would not describe the 85 II as having "blazingly fast autofocus speed and response time" ...?
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Edited by Nill Toulme on Aug 24, 2006 at 10:06 AM GMT
