I guess I am a little bit late in the conversation and so that I understand this correctly, you have a rant about a new Sigma 50mm lens because of the price is too expensive for you, the price has not been officially announced yet and you don't even intend to get one anyway because it is 50mm, something that you are not interested. Is that about correct on the summary?
I've always wanted Nikon to sell their 200mm f2 VR for $2,800. and I am sure they can sell tons of them also but that is not happening.
This is were the supply and demand comes in. If you really want it and desperate enough, you'll get it.
Youre almost correct. I do want to get the lens. just frustrated with the pricing. I think people are very gullible and believe anything people tell them.
-its known that peole buy according to the packaging and not the product. im looking bottom line.
-the fact it says art means nothing. the fact they changed the way it looks means nothing. the fact
they say its a so called "complex" doesnt matter one bit. the fact that it has more elements. fine thats legit. more glass, more money. im willing to pay. the fact zeiss charge $4k for manual focus lens doesnt mean sigma (who for years and just till recently was selling garbage, err, budget aimed lenses) can start selling lenses at crazy prices. theyre rep is still crap in my book but I do think theyre in the right direction. took me a long time too realize of they sell a lens with build and IQ close to 90% of OEM they can steal the sale of potential customer looking to pay more.
-like the 58mm which is way overpriced and way underperforms, this may be a great performer, not yet known, but still doesnt deserve a $1300 price tag.
-a 50mm is the most boring focal length one can use. its a must have lens though to be in ones bag. and since its the most common/basic focal length, its not such an appealing buy.
-the nikkor 50 1.4g and 50 1.8g are excellent lenses as they are and I dont know how sigma can have balls to charge $1300. whether the lens says art, looks impressively larger, has a more "complex" design, and has more elements.
-their 35mm art lens sells for $900 and imo is in line with competition, the nikon 35 1.4 which sells for $1700
-and my rationale is this, this 50 is more "complex" than the nikkor 50 1.4g, has more elements, and is expected t have superior performance. its a sigma still. so, plus for more elements, plus for build and complex design/superior IQ, but minus because bottom line its just a 50 1.4, its a sigma, and its not going to be 3x as good as the nikkor. $900 is what it probably will sell for, but imo the lens is worth no more than $600. no one knows how it will perform, how good the AF speed/accuracy will be, if itll have QC issues or compatabilities. but I can say there will not be many who will pay for $1300 for a 50mm when theyre old one sold for $400. I dont care how pretty they make the packaging or how nice the font is on the A or how impressively big they make it. the 50 1.4g can do (and this is before even seeing example images) 98% of what the lens can do. like with the 58mm, the 50 1.4g is a stellar lens. the fact zeiss sell their lenses for $4000 is not relevant. they can and they have the reputation to back it up. whether someone is stupid to buy the otus is something else.
-my point about sigma is this. the 50 HSM model is supposed to be superior to the nikon version as of now, but why is it priced lower? because its a sigma. its not a nikon. QC is bad with them. they have compatabilty issues with newer camera (you must take into consideration) and resale value is much less than nikon. and jeez louize, its a 50. the most uninspiring focal length one can use. id take any other lens for creating than this lens. I just want something better IQ wise than my 50 1.8d, but dont want the slow AF/cheap build of the 1.4g. if it had fast AF, I would pass on the cheap build. same with the 85 1.8g which is on sale right now. I just know that ultimately I will suffer with the slow AF. since I work very fast and im able to lock AF with my 1.8d, the 1.8g is just too slow. my best friend has this lens(see his bag pic) and ive tried it. very slow. and the build is just a joke. we both laughed so hard when holding both the G and D versions in our hands. its the same when buying a D3 and a D600 you sense the difference in quality. same with the sigma 50 HSM. I would buy it right now for being superior to the nikon, but the bad AF system and bad QC turns me off. basically there is no potential product for me right now.
if its $600 great, other than ill pass. im very strong with will power. I will not buy it Glenn. even that I have the money. but people wondering about the price doesnt bother people. people accept what the MFR decide and buy. people are like zombies. whatever nikon make, they dont ever question. the build quality is horrible on the new lenses. plastic cheap build with plastic threading. nikons quality level has gone done. the IQ is there but everything has come down. and price up. in this crappy economy people should be getting more.
the 70-200 VR2, for instance the 35 1.8 at $600 ,the 80-400 vs the new, the 24-70 AFS. prices have jumped so much and no one even questions the prices? the old 28-70 sold for $1400, the old 70-200 VR! sold for $1600, the old 80-400 sold for $1000 less. why people think its ok to pay for such price jumps? the difference is enormous. people say new tech. but new tech doesnt warrant the price jump. its an evolution in tech, like your smartphone. this years new release will be sold at the same price as last years newest tech so that answer is flawed. people are just pushing the price up and up. I can understand inflation, but for instance, the old 80-200 AFS sold for $1400, then the 70-200 VR1 sold for $1600, so ultimately the new VR2 should be selling at $1700-1800, no more. many people got into photography recently and dont know what the older versions sold for, let alone know there was a 28-70 AFS! thats why personally I wont buy anything new from nikon. I feel in almost everything they sell theyre overpricing their recent products. thats my personal opinion. theyre giving less and asking for more. look at the SB910, $550 for a flash. the SB28 sold for $280 when it was launched and it was the flagship. then the Sb800 came at $350, then the SB900 at $500 then the current at $550. by the way its looking, the next will be $800 for the next flash? the jumps in prices have jumped without proportion.
but bottom line, nikons revenue is down, quarter after quarter. stock fell huge amounts. I see another bearish quarterly for them. and you know whos prospering, the 3rd party MFR. theyve gotten crazy with their pricing.
Btw, the 200mm is a bit overpriced but nevertheless a stellar lens. one of the sharpest they make if not the sharpest. and I dont care what DXmark says. theyre driven by advertisers money. whoever pays more gets a better score. people are naive and gullible to believe their score.
and I dont want to hear "then move to canon" its not an option. I hate canon with a passion. my point is I want Nikon to succeed, I just think they need to fire some managers there. theyre taking nikon in the wrong direction the last few years. they are not what they used to be. they once used to care about the users who were loyal to them. of course profit is very important. but today its about the money, not the product. Ive asked every pro ive worked with what they think about nikon. quality has gone down, prices up. we all agreed. nikon is in a downward spiral. I guess im in a cranky morning mood. just too frustrated with them.
