m_appeal wrote: mawz wrote:Nikon users can walk into any Nikon Dealer and buy those lenses. Sony users need to track down used copies, which are somewhat rare. Very different situation.
They are not rare...well the 35 f2 is, but the 35 1.4 is in production. The 24 2.8 is available on ebay all the time
And the 35/1.4 is not well suited to many uses, it\'s a specialist lens suited primarily to work where outright speed is the main requirement and centre sharpness is far more important than edge performance. Given a choice between the two, I\'d take the 35/2 any day of the week for general use. But getting one is difficult. The 24/2.8 is much easier to get but is still not anything approaching common.
But you do have very limited options unless you want to go searching for moderately to extremely rare used lenses it\'s a lot easier to find those exotic Nikon lenses used than the pedestrian 35/2 or 24/2.8 Minolta\'s.
I\'m not sure why you keep calling the 35 2 RS pedestrian when it\'s a very good lens and possibly better than Nikon\'s 35 f2. I don\'t believe either Nikon\'s 24 2.8 or Minolta are that great, so I\'m not sure why you would want them in the first place.
In fact, with the 14-24 on the Nikon side, I don\'t see why you\'d want any of these primes in that range ... and 16-35 is a very good performer in that range.
Stick a 24/2.8 from either maker beside those zooms and you\'ll see why I want the option, not everybody wants to haul 1Kg zooms everywhere.
The 35/2 is pedestrian lens when compared to exotics like a 14/2.8. That\'s a commentary on how common and useful the lens is, not the quality of said lens. A 35/2 or a 24/2.8 are bread & butter lenses of a reasonably complete lineup. And ones which Sony lacks. NIkon on the other hand does not lack in bread & butter lenses OR the more exotic ultra-wides which are totally lacking in the Sony line.
Nov 28, 2009 at 09:17 PM
Previous versions of mawz's message #7829612 « Image Quality - A850 or D700 »
