You can’t seriously suggest the Sony 28-75 f2.8 SAM has a resemblance to the Nikon or Canon 24-70 which use high speed motor designs for AF.= - and cost more because of it.
Sure, it is possible to buy a $500 lens with quality optics, but other characteristics do matter, like build quality, materials of the housing, the AF motor, etc.
All these add up, that is why Sony charges a premium for the model that DOES compare to the Canon 24-70L, and then they add $200 more to the price for their name badge? lol
Additionally,
You are going to have a hard time showing any evidence that the New Nikon 24-70 beats the Canon 24-70L in anything.
Please provide a source, if you disagree.
schristie11 wrote:
Another example:
Sony 24 -70mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar T Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha Digital SLR Cameras
The Sony cost $1400 where the Canon 24-70L cost $1200.
Neither lens has IS, but optically and AF performance on both are similar.
mawz wrote:
Optically? The 24-70L lags both the ZA 24-70 and the Nikkor 24-70G significantly in optical performance (the Sony 28-75 f2.8 SAM is optically on par with the 24-70L and is under $1000. Then again it\'s a great little design from Tamron with better QC than the Tamron version). AF performance is similar though.
oFrom an optical standpoint the Nikkor and Sony are fairly comparable in performance, albeit with a different set of tradeoffs (the Nikkors probably a bit better overall but the ZA\'s more comparable to the G than the L). The (much) older 24-70L is not in the same class in terms of performance. And once again it\'s an older design which has had price drops through the life of the lens unlike the much newer Nikon or Sony versions.
Nov 23, 2010 at 11:58 PM
Previous versions of schristie11's message #9067352 « Canon to Sony?... »
