*sigh*Almost twice the performance (?) of the Nikon 24/1.4 at less than half the price!
Ouch.
I have a Nikon 24 f/2.8D that I like but somehow it just isn't doing it for me. Great lens but, like you, I'll be looking forward to some honest reviews of the Sigma.I use my Nikon 24/1.4 all the time and its performance is stellar. I'll be looking forward to more real-world reviews of the Sigma.
Boy, what I coulda done with that extra grand....
Ted... Good sir. You know, or at least I hope you know, I respect your opinion; so please bear that in mind as I ask, "Is this a serious question?"Has anyone figured out how Sigma can produce, and sell their 24/1.4 for half the price of Nikon's 24/1.4? Do you think Sigma's manufacturing skills and efficiency is twice as good as Nikon's? Do you believe that the materials in the Sigma are so inferior to Nikon's that they will fall apart soon after purchasing? Will Sigma soon go out of business because they are selling for less than it costs to build their lenses?
Or, is it possible that Nikon is gouging simply because they can?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Another reason is that they have a bigger organization to support, larger marketing team, more R&D etc. It is very difficult to almost impossible for a very large corporation to size down. It's much easier for a small company to grow and be aggressive with their products.Nikon make great stuff but charge a premium because they can. They have built brand recognition over many years. But newcomers come along and challenge the leaders. Sigma are innovating in manufacturing techniques which are giving the old guard a run for their money.