cvrle59 wrote:
I really don't understand why to expect the lens price would follow IQ by linear dependency.
Whoever messed up with high end audio can understand easily what I'm talking about.
From great to little better can get quickly very expensive.
I was in it for part of my life, but thanks God, I got out of that addiction.
These lens comparisons remind me to it.
no one is expecting that right? if anything, people here are arguing that the difference is too small... even using the crappy 35mm f1.4 z as a comparison...
I mean if people are trying to argue that the difference between the 35mm 1.4 z and a top tier 35mm lens is small, isn't it understood that the difference between the 35mm f1.2 sigma and nikon will be minuscule?
So people need to differentiate their lens in OTHER ways if they want to charge like 2x more.... assuming they want to be competitive. Look at sony 28-70mm f/2 lens. Expensive yes. Can they beat the canon 28-80 f/2 in terms of optics? No because the canon was close to perfect so Sony went after size and weight. Nikon did nothing to differentiate and still charged 2x the price. That is something I don't agree with.
cvrle59 wrote:
I really don't understand why to expect the lens price would follow IQ by linear dependency.
Whoever messed up with high end audio can understand easily what I'm talking about.
From great to little better can get quickly very expensive.
I was in it for part of my life, but thanks God, I got out of that addiction.
These lens comparisons remind me to it.
no one is expecting that right? if anything, people here are arguing that the difference is too small... even using the crappy 35mm f1.4 z as a comparison...
I mean if people are trying to argue that the difference between the 35mm 1.4 z and a top tier 35mm lens is small, isn't it understood that the difference between the 35mm f1.2 sigma and nikon will be minuscule?
So people need to differentiate their lens in OTHER ways if they want to charge like 2x more.... assuming they want to be competitive. Look at sony 28-70mm f/2 lens. Expensive yes. Can they beat the canon 28-80 f/2 in terms of optics? No because the canon was close to perfect so they went after size and weight. Nikon did nothing to differentiate and still charged 2x the price. That is something I don't agree with.
Feb 08, 2025 at 08:29 PM
Previous versions of wind30's message #16749501 « Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread »
no one is expecting that right? if anything, people here are arguing that the difference is too small... even using the crappy 35mm f1.4 z as a comparison...