I post too Much on Here!!
- Jul 21, 2010
True... But from Canon's perspective (popular, strong-selling lens, old design with development costs long since recovered, therefore likely good profit), there's little impetus to update it. Still, I'm sure they will at some point.MayaTlab said:Fair point for the 50. That being said, it isn't exactly like it's got tremendous competition in its price / size range.
The only real estate I've shot is my own house earlier this year, and most of the interior was shot at 11mm. It's estimated that photo quality for the online listing drives 60% of views, and has a significant impact on speed and price of sale. Did 11mm make a difference? Well, we had seven offers within a couple of days of listing the house, and the lowest of them was above asking price. But yeah, 12mm would have worked.MayaTlab said:I wad kind of expecting the "real estate" moment to happen. Do you shoot real estate ? I'm not sure you'd make the comment then that 11mm is that relevant. A 12-24mm would have been just fine. In fact a lens wider than 16mm still remains quite niche for real estate. Just so you know, if you were to shoot for AirBnB in Paris, they tend to refuse shots wider than 20-24mm, even in tiny Parisian apartments .
Fair point, but why do that? The IQ is excellent, the Sigma 12-24/4 Art is essentialy the same size (so the extra 1mm on the wide end probably didn't make it bigger). I'm sure that going to 11* was a factor in the decision, there had been a Sigma 12-24 for quite some time. They clearly felt they needed something wider than the 16-35 range, looked at Nikon's 14-24/2.8 offering, and decided wider and slower was better. I guess my point in regards to the interview quote was that 'best' was the main driver, but 'first' is still important.MayaTlab said:BTW, why not make it a 12-24mm f4 and improve even more so other aspects of the design (or lower the price) ?
*Spinal Tap reference