Gear Talk > Third Party Manufacturers

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Pricing

<< < (2/4) > >>

panchoskywalker:
Well the price they sell the 35mm is not directly related to its cost, it has a lot to do with the higher price they think they can ask. And I guess that given the fact that the canon 35L is about US$1400 US$800 is a good price for the sigma 35.

drjlo:

--- Quote from: AdamJ on October 22, 2012, 02:25:24 PM ---
Honestly, I'm pleased with the Sigma's price. My guess is that it will be a better performer than the 35mm L which is $500-600 more.


--- End quote ---

That would be a HUGE presumption IMO. 

AdamJ:

--- Quote from: drjlo on October 27, 2012, 02:33:34 PM ---
--- Quote from: AdamJ on October 22, 2012, 02:25:24 PM ---
Honestly, I'm pleased with the Sigma's price. My guess is that it will be a better performer than the 35mm L which is $500-600 more.


--- End quote ---

That would be a HUGE presumption IMO.

--- End quote ---

As presumptions go, I'd say it's just short of a racing certainty! The MTF charts indicate that the Sigma is a superior performer, which should be no surprise given its much more sophisticated design compared with the 14 year old Canon. We just have to hope that Sigma's build consistency is up to scratch.

brianleighty:

--- Quote from: sandymandy on October 22, 2012, 10:20:14 AM ---Oh man.... why do the 35mm with AF have to be so expensive :( I dont like the Sigma 30mm since i also use FF analog sometimes. Then the only cheap alternative is Samyang but its MF and im worried im too dumb for that  :'(

Can somebody explain to me why the 35mm price is so high? Is it really THAT complicated to build a 35mm lens? Does adding AF really cost 300$ more (compared wiv samyang) ?

--- End quote ---
Well when you combine the 1.4 aperture with the fact that it's a moderately wide lens on full frame, then it makes sense. I believe there are more things you have to correct for the wider you go from 50mm than you do going tighter than 50mm. I think I'd also argue that most of the 50mm designs are simpler without any special elements until you get up to the highest level ones. If you try to make a cheap lens by not using aspherical and other glass to correct then nobody's going to buy it as most people prefer zooms and one of the main benefits of a prime is at least as good of quality (most of the time better) with a larger aperture. If the prime lacks in image quality, is it really better than the zoom then which is a lot more convenient? I'm pretty excited about the 35mm. I've used the 85 and it's a great lens in my opinion. If this hits in the $600-$900 region and can beat the quality of the Canon 35 1.4 then I'll definitely consider buying it.

EDIT:
just noticed the Sigma 50 1.4 has an aspherical element.  That helps explain it's better quality than the two lower Canon's. Then again, it's close to a $500 lens and it only has 8 elements vs the 85's 11 and the Canon 35's 11 (I'd assume the Sigma will have similar). A price increase of $200-$400 for the increased complexity isn't unreasonable. Especially considering Canon's 35 1.4 II will probably cost somewhere close to the $2000 range.

AdamJ:

--- Quote from: brianleighty on October 28, 2012, 04:32:24 PM ---EDIT:
just noticed the Sigma 50 1.4 has an aspherical element.  That helps explain it's better quality than the two lower Canon's. Then again, it's close to a $500 lens and it only has 8 elements vs the 85's 11 and the Canon 35's 11 (I'd assume the Sigma will have similar). A price increase of $200-$400 for the increased complexity isn't unreasonable. Especially considering Canon's 35 1.4 II will probably cost somewhere close to the $2000 range.

--- End quote ---


I've linked Sigma's description below. As you can see, it's a more complex design than existing Canon or Nikon products.

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_35_14.html

Here is Canon's most recent patent for a new 35mm.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/07/patent-canon-ef-35-f1-4l/

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version