New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !

[Sporgon]

By the way, if we compare it to the analogue days: 36 mm x 24 mm film is estimated between 4 and 16 million pixels depending on the type of film used. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography
At the top end of the estimate, the difference is even smaller.

My partner in Building Panoramics was in at the dawn of digital imaging business so I know a little about this. I haven't looked at the wiki link, but to all intents and purposes 6 to 8 mp is about equivalent to good 35mm film in terms of resolution. You can scan more meg but you end up recording grain.

Try taking 5 shots at 1/20 on a 35mm focal length hand held with no support. You will inevitably find that one or two frames have IQ damaging blur when viewed at a reasonable enlargement. ( For me it would be four out of five). You may say these are acceptable odds but when that one frame is important it becomes unacceptable.

I read many people on here claiming that the new IS primes are aimed at video, but how many people are 'serious' movie makers wanting these primes compared with the amount of still photographers ? Also when you look at the Canon cine focal length lenses for FF you would have to ask why a 24 and 28, and where are the 50 and 85 ?

 

[zlatko]

Also when you look at the Canon cine focal length lenses for FF you would have to ask why a 24 and 28, and where are the 50 and 85 ?

I suspect that the 50 and 85 with IS are coming. I think it's just a matter of time. Well, I hope they are coming.

 

[Sporgon]

Also when you look at the Canon cine focal length lenses for FF you would have to ask why a 24 and 28, and where are the 50 and 85 ?

I suspect that the 50 and 85 with IS are coming. I think it's just a matter of time. Well, I hope they are coming.

Me too !

 

[100]

By the way, if we compare it to the analogue days: 36 mm x 24 mm film is estimated between 4 and 16 million pixels depending on the type of film used. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography
At the top end of the estimate, the difference is even smaller.

My partner in Building Panoramics was in at the dawn of digital imaging business so I know a little about this. I haven't looked at the wiki link, but to all intents and purposes 6 to 8 mp is about equivalent to good 35mm film in terms of resolution. You can scan more meg but you end up recording grain.

The 4-16 megapixels are based on findings by Dr. Roger Clark. If you don’t know who that is, please follow the link this time http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/

Try taking 5 shots at 1/20 on a 35mm focal length hand held with no support. You will inevitably find that one or two frames have IQ damaging blur when viewed at a reasonable enlargement. ( For me it would be four out of five). You may say these are acceptable odds but when that one frame is important it becomes unacceptable.

I didn’t say 1/20, I said 1/40
For (slow) moving subjects like people at a wedding you need at least 1/60 to 1/100
The point I tried to make is that for moving subjects most photographers should be able to get the job done at those shutter speeds with a 35mm lens on a full frame camera without image stabilization. The IS will help a lot if you go down to 1/20 or 1/10 but those shutter speeds will only get you sharp images of non-moving subjects.
Because a f/1.4 lens is a full stop faster than a f/2 lens you can shoot wide open with double the shutter speed or half the iso and that’s a substantial difference in low light situations. That’s why I prefer my 35mm f/1.4 over a f/2 with IS

I read many people on here claiming that the new IS primes are aimed at video, but how many people are 'serious' movie makers wanting these primes compared with the amount of still photographers ?

I can’t speak for other people but I didn’t say the wide angle IS primes are aimed at video, I said “stabilization is nice if you like to shoot video”.
Other than video, image stabilization on wide angle prime lenses will only help you with still images of static subjects at low shutter speeds where you can’t use a tripod.
Where I live the Canon f/2 IS dropped 30% in price after about half a year. Compare that to the 8 year old Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM for which you pay about the same as when it hit the market in 2006. To me that says something about the lack of success of the 35 f/2 IS.

 

[jd7]

One other thing not mentioned yet is the Canon 35 F/2 has an actual t-stop of 2. The 35L has a T-stop of t/1.6. So it's not really a full stop advantage when shooting in low light. That would be about a half a stop advantage??

I got this part, although its actually 2/3 stop.

So in a low light situation, camera 1 with the 35L would shoot at f/1.4, 1/60, iso 800. Camera 2 with the 35 IS would shoot f/2, 1/60, Not iso 1600, but 1200. Sure theres half a stop more noise but you gain significantly more depth of field which is a huge plus with certain situations.

This is where you lost me. Are you saying camera 1 with the 35L cannot simply select f/2, 1/60 and ISO 1600 to gain the deeper field of focus?
By the way, while the transmittance of the 35L might not be as higher than the 35IS as advertized, the big DoF advantage (shallowness, when THAT situation arises) still remains unaffected.

I think the point bmwzimmer was getting at is if both cameras/lenses were at f/2 and 1/60, the camera with the 35L would be at ISO1600 while the camera with the 35IS would be at ISO1200, giving a noise advantage in the photo taken with the 35IS. Or alternatively, if you're trying to stop action, it's not a case of saying the 35L can shoot with half the shutter time which the 35IS would require - it's more like the 35L would be at two-thirds of the shutter time the 35IS would require (despite the 35L being at f/1.4 while the 35IS is at f/2).

 

[Policar]

Still far from apochromatic with significant bokeh fringing.

Still has major onion bokeh.

Still want it.

Otus does look.... classier.

 

[zlatko]

Where I live the Canon f/2 IS dropped 30% in price after about half a year. Compare that to the 8 year old Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM for which you pay about the same as when it hit the market in 2006. To me that says something about the lack of success of the 35 f/2 IS.

The price drop says little about the "success" of the 35/2 IS lens. User reviews on Amazon, B&H, Fred Miranda, etc., suggest that users are very pleased with it and that is what counts. How many they actually sell matters mainly to Canon.

The Canon 35/2 IS came on the market in about November 2012. At that time, 1 dollar could buy about 80 yen. Today, 1 dollar buys about 102 yen. A dollar now buys about 28% more yen than when that lens was introduced. So it's no surprise that its price has dropped. Also, figure that introductory pricing is typically higher.

The Canon 35/1.4L was introduced in December 1998. The introductory price was 205,000 yen. At that time, 1 dollar could buy about 116 yen. So that lens was over $1,700 at introduction. In 2007-2008, it could be bought for about $1,100.

Price changes don't reflect relative "success". Both lenses are successful in that they meet the needs of photographers very nicely. Thank goodness that both are available.

 

[slclick]

change the title please! weird thread

 

[sagittariansrock]

I think the point bmwzimmer was getting at is if both cameras/lenses were at f/2 and 1/60, the camera with the 35L would be at ISO1600 while the camera with the 35IS would be at ISO1200, giving a noise advantage in the photo taken with the 35IS.

That will only be true if transmittance varies proportionately with change in aperture (that is, when stopped down to f/2, the 35L will become T/2.3. I know it intuitively might feel that way, but not necessarily so.

Or alternatively, if you're trying to stop action, it's not a case of saying the 35L can shoot with half the shutter time which the 35IS would require - it's more like the 35L would be at two-thirds of the shutter time the 35IS would require (despite the 35L being at f/1.4 while the 35IS is at f/2).

You're absolutely right (although IMO bmwzimmer didn't say this, you did). However, as I said, for many the distinctive look of a f/1.4 lens comes from its shallow DoF. Which has nothing to do with transmittance whatsoever.

 

[ecka]

Perhaps my biggest reservation about the 35IS relates to the 40mm pancake. Comparing them:
...
- my think the 35IS has slightly nicer bokeh, but there's not a whole lot in it
...

I would argue with that. If we compare bokeh quality (not quantity), then the 40 is producing smoother and nicer bokeh. I really think that 35IS is much worse there.

- has 67 filter thread, which means you may already have filters you can use on it (unlikely with the pancake)

- the 40 has 52mm thread, which means you can adapt any larger filter. I'm using 52mm-to-58mm adapter, which acts like a lens hood as well . (Hint: ES-52)

If you have enough light though, the 35IS's IQ advantage doesn't seem to be that great really, so if you're using it in well lit conditions, it's less clear to me whether that advantage is worth the extra cost/weight/size.

Having IS for videos is worth a lot and that's what this lens is mostly good for (in my opinion), but handholdability of the f/2+IS with not-so-good bokeh (which is pretty bad at longer distances) is a no-go for me. I'd choose a lesser evil for stills - 35/1.4 or the pancake.

 

[jd7]

Perhaps my biggest reservation about the 35IS relates to the 40mm pancake. Comparing them:
...
- my think the 35IS has slightly nicer bokeh, but there's not a whole lot in it
...

I would argue with that. If we compare bokeh quality (not quantity), then the 40 is producing smoother and nicer bokeh. I really think that 35IS is much worse there.

- has 67 filter thread, which means you may already have filters you can use on it (unlikely with the pancake)

- the 40 has 52mm thread, which means you can adapt any larger filter. I'm using 52mm-to-58mm adapter, which acts like a lens hood as well . (Hint: ES-52)

If you have enough light though, the 35IS's IQ advantage doesn't seem to be that great really, so if you're using it in well lit conditions, it's less clear to me whether that advantage is worth the extra cost/weight/size.

Having IS for videos is worth a lot and that's what this lens is mostly good for (in my opinion), but handholdability of the f/2+IS with not-so-good bokeh (which is pretty bad at longer distances) is a no-go for me. I'd choose a lesser evil for stills - 35/1.4 or the pancake.

Interesting to hear you prefer the bokeh of the 40. I will have to experiment some more. In particular, I probably haven't looked much at bokeh at longer distances. I think I might have to have a look at getting a 52 to 58 step up adapter too!

And no doubt you're right about IS and videos. To be honest I completely overlooked video! I'm yet to get interested in video and simply forgot about it.

PS - I moved my earlier post to the thread about Dustin Abbot's 35IS review. It seemed more appropriate for the discussion there.

 

[Fuhrtographer]

First off I would like to say there is nothing wrong with the 35 f2 IS. It doesn't open up to 1.4 obviously so its not like comparing apples to apples. But if the new 50 is comparable to the 35 by Sigma, the 35 f/2 is not nearly on the same level. I have shot both the 35mm lenses and the Sigma wins hands down. I can hand hold a 35mm on a full frame confidently at 1/60th of second (on a full frame) so I don't understand what IS does at this focal length. If your talking about bang for your buck the nifty-fifty would be just as logical.

The Sigma 50 is being compared with the Otus which is about $4000.00 for around 25% of the cost. This lens is going to be huge for Sigma and for photographers in general. I love to see a third party come in and make Canon realize they need to step up on their hobby (non L) line. I am a hobby photographer and I rarely take the Sigma 35 off my 6d. That being said, I would love to shoot with this new 50, but its to close in focal length to my favorite lens. :-\

 

[100]

Where I live the Canon f/2 IS dropped 30% in price after about half a year. Compare that to the 8 year old Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM for which you pay about the same as when it hit the market in 2006. To me that says something about the lack of success of the 35 f/2 IS.

The price drop says little about the "success" of the 35/2 IS lens. User reviews on Amazon, B&H, Fred Miranda, etc., suggest that users are very pleased with it and that is what counts. How many they actually sell matters mainly to Canon.

Ok, I should have defined success as “commercial success” for Canon. Sorry about that.
I don’t doubt the 35 IS is a good lens and users are pleased with it. Canon just priced it too high at introduction.

The Canon 35/2 IS came on the market in about November 2012. At that time, 1 dollar could buy about 80 yen. Today, 1 dollar buys about 102 yen. A dollar now buys about 28% more yen than when that lens was introduced. So it's no surprise that its price has dropped. Also, figure that introductory pricing is typically higher.

Please explain to me why exchange rates matter. I compared the 35 f/1.4 L to the 35 f/2 IS. They are both made by Canon, but only one of them dropped 30% in price last year. Maybe in other parts of the world it’s a different story, but I highly doubt that.

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

Price changes don't reflect relative "success". Both lenses are successful in that they meet the needs of photographers very nicely. Thank goodness that both are available.

Price change are a good indication for commercial success. Take the Canon EOS M. Why do you think Canon dropped the price from $800 to $300 and didn’t even bring the EOS M2 to Europe and the US?

 

[candyman]

Where I live the Canon f/2 IS dropped 30% in price after about half a year. Compare that to the 8 year old Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM for which you pay about the same as when it hit the market in 2006. To me that says something about the lack of success of the 35 f/2 IS.

The price drop says little about the "success" of the 35/2 IS lens. User reviews on Amazon, B&H, Fred Miranda, etc., suggest that users are very pleased with it and that is what counts. How many they actually sell matters mainly to Canon.

Ok, I should have defined success as “commercial success” for Canon. Sorry about that.
I don’t doubt the 35 IS is a good lens and users are pleased with it. Canon just priced it too high at introduction.

The Canon 35/2 IS came on the market in about November 2012. At that time, 1 dollar could buy about 80 yen. Today, 1 dollar buys about 102 yen. A dollar now buys about 28% more yen than when that lens was introduced. So it's no surprise that its price has dropped. Also, figure that introductory pricing is typically higher.

Please explain to me why exchange rates matter. I compared the 35 f/1.4 L to the 35 f/2 IS. They are both made by Canon, but only one of them dropped 30% in price last year. Maybe in other parts of the world it’s a different story, but I highly doubt that.

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

Price changes don't reflect relative "success". Both lenses are successful in that they meet the needs of photographers very nicely. Thank goodness that both are available.

Price change are a good indication for commercial success. Take the Canon EOS M. Why do you think Canon dropped the price from $800 to $300 and didn’t even bring the EOS M2 to Europe and the US?

It is not a fair comparison
You should include the price development for the 35L from 1998 and years after. It may show in the first year(s) also a drastic drop of the price, no?

 

[bod]

Hi Andrew
Thank you for your post which has clearly stimulated plenty of comment. I read CR because it is really helpful to learn about the experiences of other photographers both as regards technique and deciding on gear acquisition decisions. Good on you for being prepared to put your thoughts out there. I also enjoyed seeing your images. Your post prompts discussion of a number of options which as you say are a lot down to personal preference:

Prime v Zoom. I also like to use primes but have been considering adding a zoom to my kit such as the 24-70 f/2.8 II so was interested to hear of your choices.

35 and 50 mm focal lengths. As Justin observed in his review of the Sigma 35 f/1.4, some like a nifty fifty and for others it is 35mm. I have the Canon 50 f/1.4 and consider it to be a good performer and nice and light and compact. However since I purchased a 35 f/1.4 prime, it has not been off the shelf much. Partly this is because I prefer a 35 focal length on a full frame and partly because a lens which is sharp at f/1.4 offers me more flexibility than the 50 f/1.4 since my 50 copy is only sharp from f/2.8. Also I have been using the 40 pancake a lot and continue to be impressed by the optical performance of such a tiny lens.

35 mm lenses. I had a real struggle deciding which lens to purchase. I rented the 35L and loved both the design and physical feel of the lens on my EOS 6D and the images, particularly the colour rendition. Really nice to use a lens with plenty of focus distances marked. I debated between the IS of the Canon 35 f/2 and the extra stop of f/1.4. Whilst my heart wanted to buy the 35L, my head said that the Sigma was rated in reviews as sharper wide open and was nearly half the price so I purchased the Sigma. It has been a fine lens so far and has performed really well. I imagine though that I would have also enjoyed owning either of the canon lenses.

I do not yet have a 85 mm lens. It is on my wish list and interested to read that you confirm 35 plus 85 pairing is a good combination.

 

[Sporgon]

By the way, if we compare it to the analogue days: 36 mm x 24 mm film is estimated between 4 and 16 million pixels depending on the type of film used. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography
At the top end of the estimate, the difference is even smaller.

My partner in Building Panoramics was in at the dawn of digital imaging business so I know a little about this. I haven't looked at the wiki link, but to all intents and purposes 6 to 8 mp is about equivalent to good 35mm film in terms of resolution. You can scan more meg but you end up recording grain.

The 4-16 megapixels are based on findings by Dr. Roger Clark. If you don’t know who that is, please follow the link this time http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/

Try taking 5 shots at 1/20 on a 35mm focal length hand held with no support. You will inevitably find that one or two frames have IQ damaging blur when viewed at a reasonable enlargement. ( For me it would be four out of five). You may say these are acceptable odds but when that one frame is important it becomes unacceptable.

I didn’t say 1/20, I said 1/40
For (slow) moving subjects like people at a wedding you need at least 1/60 to 1/100
The point I tried to make is that for moving subjects most photographers should be able to get the job done at those shutter speeds with a 35mm lens on a full frame camera without image stabilization. The IS will help a lot if you go down to 1/20 or 1/10 but those shutter speeds will only get you sharp images of non-moving subjects.
Because a f/1.4 lens is a full stop faster than a f/2 lens you can shoot wide open with double the shutter speed or half the iso and that’s a substantial difference in low light situations. That’s why I prefer my 35mm f/1.4 over a f/2 with IS

I read many people on here claiming that the new IS primes are aimed at video, but how many people are 'serious' movie makers wanting these primes compared with the amount of still photographers ?

I can’t speak for other people but I didn’t say the wide angle IS primes are aimed at video, I said “stabilization is nice if you like to shoot video”.
Other than video, image stabilization on wide angle prime lenses will only help you with still images of static subjects at low shutter speeds where you can’t use a tripod.
Where I live the Canon f/2 IS dropped 30% in price after about half a year. Compare that to the 8 year old Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM for which you pay about the same as when it hit the market in 2006. To me that says something about the lack of success of the 35 f/2 IS.

The EF 35L was introduced in 1998, so it is sixteen years old. No doubt this info isn't on Roger Clarks website but I'm sure you will find it on wiiki somewhere.

The principal of a 1.4 lens being 'better in low light' is a risky one to hang your hat on. Good exposure, lower ISO and less shake are of little use if your dof is woefully inadequate, and given the focal length of the 35mm and likely distances 'in low light' this is likely to be the case.

Also in days of old you might buy a 1.4 lens to be better at F2 than an f2 lens, but with modern lenses this isn't the case anymore. Seeing as you like web links I have copied photozone's results for the two lenses and you can see that although the 1.4 lens is sharper in the very centre it is way behind mid and edge of frame, and this continues up to f4.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/516-canon35f14ff?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/847-canon35f2isff?start=1

It's pretty typical of very fast wide lenses compared with slower ones, and why for someone wanting good mid / corner resolution they might well chose a slower lens. ( Though this is changing with the likes of the Sigma 1.4 and Otus ).

There are situations where a faster aperture is a valid reason for low light photography. Take the 135L, it's often sited as a low light advantage, and given the distances of say indoor sports and the focusing on an individual then that is plausible - assuming you nail focus and ignore the high ISO performance of modern FF cameras.

In real terms the 35L is cheaper than it was sixteen years ago.

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Real+terms

Of late Canon have been adopting an EOP marketing strategy; I think these new IS lenses have been caught in this; after all they were the first wide IS primes to be introduced.

http://www.investinganswers.com/financial-dictionary/businesses-corporations/early-adopter-2959

In time they will come to be appreciated as what they are - really good lenses. Look at the crap the 70-300L took on forums such as this at the time of it's introduction. Now it is highly regarded by many.

Regarding shake - try it at 1/20 or 1/40 or 1/80. It's the principle I am referring to. The amount of frames with shake will reduce as the speed increases, but you will find that even 1/80 on a 35mm focal length from an unstable platform is no guarantee of a shake free shot.

 

[100]

It is not a fair comparison
You should include the price development for the 35L from 1998 and years after. It may show in the first year(s) also a drastic drop of the price, no?

True, but zlatko argued exchange rates changed 28% last year.
If that was the cause of the price drop, all Canon lenses would have dropped 28% in price.
They didn’t, so we can exclude exchange rates as a cause for the price drop.

If I compare the 35 f/2 IS to another relatively new lens like the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM I don’t see that big of a price drop.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM

From a commercial point of view you only drop prices if your sales are below expectations. Big price drops usually mean it isn’t the commercial success (anymore) you hoped it would be. At the introduction price the 35 f/2 had to compete with the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art. In today’s market (at least where I live) the 35 f/2 is at 500 euro and the Sigma at 720 euro. To me that means the 35 f/2 IS couldn’t compete at the same price level and that’s why the price dropped.

 

[100]

Also in days of old you might buy a 1.4 lens to be better at F2 than an f2 lens, but with modern lenses this isn't the case anymore. Seeing as you like web links I have copied photozone's results for the two lenses and you can see that although the 1.4 lens is sharper in the very centre it is way behind mid and edge of frame, and this continues up to f4.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/516-canon35f14ff?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/847-canon35f2isff?start=1

It's pretty typical of very fast wide lenses compared with slower ones, and why for someone wanting good mid / corner resolution they might well chose a slower lens. ( Though this is changing with the likes of the Sigma 1.4 and Otus ).

Like you say in the end, it changed with the Sigma 35 f/1.4 art.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/848-sigma35f14eosff?start=1
The Sigma @ f/2 outscores the Canon as far as resolution is concerned throughout the entire frame.

In time they will come to be appreciated as what they are - really good lenses. Look at the crap the 70-300L took on forums such as this at the time of it's introduction. Now it is highly regarded by many.

I agree the 35 f/2 IS is a good lens, Canon just overpriced it. They could have gotten away with it if Sigma hadn’t introduced the 35 f/1.4 at the same price point.

Regarding shake - try it at 1/20 or 1/40 or 1/80. It's the principle I am referring to. The amount of frames with shake will reduce as the speed increases, but you will find that even 1/80 on a 35mm focal length from an unstable platform is no guarantee of a shake free shot.

At 1/80 I have to be in scarcely lit moving car, a bus or a train without a flash before I need IS on a 35mm. Stabilization can be useful in those situations, but I think they are exceptions.

 

[TeT]

The price drop ....


The 35 2.0 IS / 28 2.8 IS & the 24 2.8 IS .... all came out with a big initial price which almost immediately dropped.

One of the 3 had a larger reduction than the others, dont remember which...

The drop caught many by surprise... Especially those who purchased on day one...

 

[zlatko]

Where I live the Canon f/2 IS dropped 30% in price after about half a year. Compare that to the 8 year old Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM for which you pay about the same as when it hit the market in 2006. To me that says something about the lack of success of the 35 f/2 IS.

The price drop says little about the "success" of the 35/2 IS lens. User reviews on Amazon, B&H, Fred Miranda, etc., suggest that users are very pleased with it and that is what counts. How many they actually sell matters mainly to Canon.

Ok, I should have defined success as “commercial success” for Canon. Sorry about that.
I don’t doubt the 35 IS is a good lens and users are pleased with it. Canon just priced it too high at introduction.

The Canon 35/2 IS came on the market in about November 2012. At that time, 1 dollar could buy about 80 yen. Today, 1 dollar buys about 102 yen. A dollar now buys about 28% more yen than when that lens was introduced. So it's no surprise that its price has dropped. Also, figure that introductory pricing is typically higher.

Please explain to me why exchange rates matter. I compared the 35 f/1.4 L to the 35 f/2 IS. They are both made by Canon, but only one of them dropped 30% in price last year. Maybe in other parts of the world it’s a different story, but I highly doubt that.

When a lens is introduced, a manufacturer doesn't know which way the exchange rates will go in the future. They probably overprice it initially because (1) the excitement over a new lens makes it worth more at introduction than a year later, and (2) they can better absorb exchange rate fluctuations without having to give constant price changes to dealers.

During the same period, some other lenses have dropped and some haven't. Some that haven't dropped in the US market are available at substantially lower prices if purchased directly from sellers in Japan. Exchange rates are important, but don't have an instant impact on retail prices.

Ultimately we don't know what factors go into their pricing decisions, from one lens to the next, from one year to the next. It may have to do with many other factors besides exchange rates, such as the price of certain components and raw materials, the quantity of existing stock, the capacity of certain production lines, the relative profit at a certain price point, the availability of gray market imports at lower prices, etc. It's all economics and we don't know the relevant factors.

That said, Canon probably did overprice the 35/2IS and other primes. Maybe you're right and the 35/2IS is not a commercial success. That may have more to do with initial overpricing than with any quality of the lens. A business blunder has no bearing on the optical-mechanical qualities of the lens.

The commercial success of a lens is of very little concern to me, unless it leads to its early discontinuance. How many they sell and how much money they make with one lens vs. another lens matters not at all unless one's business somehow depends on it.