Sony/Minolta lens are more expensive than Nikon/Canon?

[Rashkae]

sony's 50 1.8 has much better build quality and looks than the Canon one IMO. and boy is the 100 f2 a rare piece of glass. its legend(wait for it)dary. just take a look at the sample pics taken with the lens. its definitely worth its price and those who have it are fortunate.

And we just had a Minolta 100mm f/2 on sale here in CS.

 

[fatigue]

A few reasons:
-Difference in lens construction
-Distributor's profit
-Law of supply and demand

 

[satay16]

sony dt50 may be better built than canon 50 F1.8 but i don't see it is better than nikon 50 F1.8(may be dt 50 is with sam, but nikon 50 has no motor in it).


Regarding 100 F2, the Minolta version is much more expensive than Canon 100 F2.( i don't think that M100 is better than Canon 100, i think the reason is that M100 is discontinued and it is rare)

and the 28 F2, I saw it a few times on ebay selling at about 700-800 sgd for 2nd hand, which is a bit more expensive than Canon 28 F1.8, but canon 28 got usm. .

you cannot compare purely based on whether it has usm, or has weather sealing etc etc. if compare like that, then those freaking expensive Voigtlander lenses are basically lousy lenses that are overpriced, it doesn't even have a focusing motor!:bsmilie:

if you a tech savvy, it is like saying acer is the best because it has the cheapest price for the same specs as compared to asus or toshiba. (ok, acer supporters, i come in peace, just an analogy only)

 

[alphabeta93]

and perhaps mass production for canon and nikon is cheaper because they make more, much more because of their larger consumer base?

 

[alphabeta93]

and im pretty sure the minolta 100 f2 is legendary for reasons of its own. first its built quality is rather hard to match now (metal built), and its famous bokeh made possible by its 9 blade circular iris. as compared to canon's 8. maybe thats why the minolta 100 f2 is that revered.

 

[torak]

there are some alpha lenses which is more expensive than other brands, but there are some lenses that other brands are more expensive than Alphas.

Just go check out how much the Sony 18-200mm is, compared to Canon and Nikon's 18-200mm.

And which other system besides alpha has a 70-210mm F4 metal bodied lens which cost only $300?

And we also have the luxury of having all our prime lenses stabilized, making it even better for non flash low light photography than Canon and Nikon.

 

[teodesson]

This guy seems to be saying that the Canon is sharper than the Sony ? :dunno:

IQ cannot be judge only based on sharpness. Indeed I think his case very interesting...

 

[tokrot]

you cannot compare purely based on whether it has usm, or has weather sealing etc etc. if compare like that, then those freaking expensive Voigtlander lenses are basically lousy lenses that are overpriced, it doesn't even have a focusing motor!:bsmilie:

if you a tech savvy, it is like saying acer is the best because it has the cheapest price for the same specs as compared to asus or toshiba. (ok, acer supporters, i come in peace, just an analogy only)

:bsmilie: Satay16 bro u hor.... :bsmilie:

 

[Ghostfit]

IQ cannot be judge only based on sharpness. Indeed I think his case very interesting...

Agreed, I judge a lens based on:

1) Price to performance ratio
2) Sharpness (performance)
3) Bokeh capabilities (performance)
4) AF speed and noise (performance)
5) Built quality.
6) Last but not least, how useful the focal length is for me.

Having said that, ..."one man's meat may be another's poison" should be kept in mind. :bsmilie:

 

[soken]

Agreed, I judge a lens based on:

1) Price to performance ratio
2) Sharpness (performance)
3) Bokeh capabilities (performance)
4) AF speed and noise (performance)
5) Built quality.
6) Last but not least, how useful the focal length is for me.

Having said that, ..."one man's meat may be another's poison" should be kept in mind. :bsmilie:

+1, i agree with your standard

in that case, I would say, the Minolta 50 F2.8 macro is the best as a standard lens, in terms of sharpness (much sharper than dt 50 F1.8, sony 50 F1.4), built quality.
bokeh is ok, the down part is that AF is slower, but as a macro lens, it is normal. I gave up my Minolta 50 F1.7/F1.4 for the 50 F2.8 macro

 

[Atarandas]

Maybe Sony already sell its body cheaper than their competition, so they try to recover it from the lens ? haha seems logical

 

[teodesson]

+1, i agree with your standard

in that case, I would say, the Minolta 50 F2.8 macro is the best as a standard lens, in terms of sharpness (much sharper than dt 50 F1.8, sony 50 F1.4), built quality.
bokeh is ok, the down part is that AF is slower, but as a macro lens, it is normal. I gave up my Minolta 50 F1.7/F1.4 for the 50 F2.8 macro

Sony version is nice too

Maybe Sony already sell its body cheaper than their competition, so they try to recover it from the lens ? haha seems logical

The RRP compared to another competitor show different fact

 

[Rashkae]

The RRP compared to another competitor show different fact

Oh? Take a look at the A550 or the A55 RRP. Now find me a competitor's camera with the same/better features. Then let's compare RRP.

 

[teodesson]

Oh? Take a look at the A550 or the A55 RRP. Now find me a competitor's camera with the same/better features. Then let's compare RRP.

Ah bro, you wrongly captured my message
The RRP for lenses, sony is 'less expensive' than competitor...

 

[Ghostfit]

+1, i agree with your standard

Kekekeke ! :bsmilie: ...we have alot more in common than you know, Bro

...rest assured that your 505si super is safe (and cherished :heart in my hands.

Thanks !

 

[Rashkae]

Ah bro, you wrongly captured my message
The RRP for lenses, sony is 'less expensive' than competitor...

True. The rrp prices in SG are nuts, so I don't buy retail here.