mdvaden wrote in post #18760906
It seems like Sony operates somewhat like sellers of printers, where the printers are sold and a tiny profit margin or even a loss, to gain more money later by means of ink cartridge sales. As a means to lower body costs.
But regardless of what Sony is doing to carve-down their body costs to boost sales, wouldn't it seem a safer bet for Sony body owners to stick with Sony glass in the long run even if the lenses are somewhat expensive.
The lens costs are hit and miss.
12-24g, IMO just about as good as the canon 11-24, in that respect, it's a pretty good bargain only giving up 1mm.
85mm f1.8 is simply fantastic for $600, well worth 2x the street price of the canon's inexpensive 85 f1.8.
24mm f1.4 GM, while 1400 is a bit high, seems like it's totally worth it if you're the type to shoot a fast 24. Substantially smaller than anything on the market, with good optics, a great package.
many of the other lenses are competitively priced, it's just that Sony's confusing lineup of sony-zeiss partnership, sony only, G, GM, batis, loxia, there's bound to be some confusion.
GM lenses are usually the outliers, the 24-70gm, while expensive, not really more than what the 24-70ii came out for (still think it's overpriced). The 70-200 f2.8 GM and 100-400 GM look to be 10-15% more. Again, just 2 outlier lenses, and based on reviews, the 100-400 GM seems to be worth it for the ability to do true sporting with a 2x. Not easy getting 800mm in focal length and being usable.
The X factor are third party lenses. The tamron 28-75 f2.8 is practically as good as the 24-70ii, costs only 800, a sub 500g lens, fast and silent AF for stills and video. Like the 12-24, a marvel of a lens. Samyang offers dirt cheap 35 f1.4 and 50 f1.4, that have ok AF ability (not stunningly fast like sony-zeiss version). Voigtlander makes among the most compelling MF lenses on the market if that's you're thing. It's a shame they dont make AF glass, because I'de pay premium prices for them. 40mm and 50mm f1.2 with good optics, in a 400g package? where do I signup?
Tokina has some lenses, will make more, laowa has some really compelling lenses (but no exif, so pass). Sigma has a bunch of lenses, but DSLR design, so pass.
I'm all for scalping deals, in fact I have a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 that does an OK job adapted. I bring it on shoots that I'm uncertain of the location, and also have primes when I'm familiar with the area. The lens cost me in the 500 range a while back, and unless you shoot sports, you can get away with less for less. I've used it once or twice this year? Definitely dont want 2500 tied up in a lens that is so infrequent. Eye focus and slower tracking works fine, fast action at 200mm..... aint happening.
I'm not readily handing over thousands to Sony (and any brand for that matter), and the nice thing is that there are long term native options. Like the 28-75, will I EVER need to consider another standard zoom? I've used many many 2.8 zooms, and this is by far my favorite, and not a sony lens, works just as good. Too many options to be tied strictly to Sony or one lens brand. If I shot all sony zeiss with comparable 21, 35 f1.4, 24-70gm, 70-200 gm, I'de be set back $7K. with the CV 21, SY 35 f1.4, Tam 28-75, 70-200 alternatives, I'm only out $2.5K with 3/4 native performers that work near as well as first party, and the third with below average performance. Saving $4.5K, I can live with, and there are also advantages with the kit I chose, which is size and weight on a few of the lenses. Sine they are native mostly, I wont have to chase upgrades in the near term. In fact I've ran a past tamron to the warranty limit of 6 years, and I absolutely plan on doing the same with this version. It's far from a black and white relationship with Sony, and like every company, they have outliers.
Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC