Pixel Perfect wrote:
Not sure how a 12-35 for m4/3 can cost similar money to a 24-70 for FF. Needs to be a lot cheaper than €1100, which what you pay for the Tamron 24-70 OS and not much less than current 24-70L.
As itai says, good luck getting one this year.
It\'s a LOT cheaper than current 1st party 24-70\'s (which are generally double that, IIRC the Sony is the cheapest at around $2000 and the Canon 24-70LII is closer to $2400 with the Nikkor in the middle) and comparable in cost to Nikon\'s 17-55/2.8 and Canon\'s 17-55/2.8 IS for APS-C, more expensive than Sony\'s admittedly cheap 16-50 (which ironically is actually the best of these).
You can\'t really compare it to a 3rd party lens and the original Canon 24-70L is long in the tooth and well known to be the worst 24-70 on the market today and is also constrained by price points set over a decade ago when f2.8 normal zooms were a LOT cheaper than today (good lens? yeah, but no better than a good copy of Tamron\'s 28-75/2.8).
So is the 12-35 overpriced? Maybe a little since it isn\'t weather-sealed unlike the Nikkor 17-55 or the Pentax or Sony 16-50\'s. But not by all that much.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Not sure how a 12-35 for m4/3 can cost similar money to a 24-70 for FF. Needs to be a lot cheaper than €1100, which what you pay for the Tamron 24-70 OS and not much less than current 24-70L.
As itai says, good luck getting one this year.
It\'s a LOT cheaper than current 1st party 24-70\'s (which are generally double that, IIRC the Sony is the cheapest at around $2000 and the Canon 24-70LII is closer to $2400 with the Nikkor in the middle) and comparable in cost to Nikon\'s 17-55/2.8 and Canon\'s 17-55/2.8 IS for APS-C, more expensive than Sony\'s admittedly cheap 16-50 (which ironically is actually the best of these).
You can\'t really compare it to a 3rd party lens and the original Canon 24-70L is long in the tooth and well known to be the worst 24-70 on the market today (good lens? yeah, but no better than a good copy of Tamron\'s 28-75/2.8).
So is the 12-35 overpriced? Maybe a little since it isn\'t weather-sealed unlike the Nikkor 17-55 or the Pentax or Sony 16-50\'s. But not by all that much.
May 21, 2012 at 08:16 AM
Previous versions of mawz's message #10653233 « 12-35/2.8 is out »
