Do you like the lens? Seems to have pretty good contrast/zip doesn't it?
It has, yes. Great BQ. But surely overpriced.
That's my main concern with Sony at the moment: great bodies, but overpriced lenses. Looking at the FF competition, we have a $130 40mm pancake from Canon which is probably very close in quality to this Sony Zeiss.
And with the 6d now being sold for $1.5k, my initial hype for the A7r is dying down.
Sony's strategy has always been affordable bodies, stupid pricing on lenses.
For example, their 70-300 costs $900 and is only comparable in quality to the $500 area offerings and not remotely in the same class as the 70-300L...
Their 50/1.4 is better than the competition, but not much better than the 50L and is slightly slower.
Their 70-200 is $3,000 and can't compete with canon's, which can be had for $1,800 new right now...
I often wonder if sony lenses are expenses due to low production rate (I presume low production rate) or due to 'strategy' as folks describe in this thread. Canon (and nikon) have the benefit of piggy back off of sport market which (I believe but do not know factually) is quite lucrative.
-
With photo journalisim 'dying' I do wonder if that will reduce some of the benefits of mass production of certain equipment (and certainly many of canon recent offerings have been significantly more expensive - though that might be unrelated to changes in markets).
I am pretty much convinced that Sony is playing the printer approach.
Cheap kits ... and then you pay hard.
