Bravo Sigma - Breath of Fresh Air

What am I talking about? It's the new 18-35mm f1.8 pricing of $799.

Am I the only one sick and tired of Canon's gouging ways? 70-200 II and 24-70 II at $2,000+
400mm, 500mm, 600mm, & 200-400mm over $10,000+ ??

Really?

What would Canon price their 18-35mm f1.8 lens if they came out with it? $3,000+ ?

I think most us have GAS (Gear Acquiring Syndrome) and some of us enjoy collecting gear more than shooting..

Well, I won't be acquiring $10,000 lenses..

Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS here I come..

There is no such thing as price gouging, it's a political construct. There is simply supply and demand. Canon makes a limited supply, and demand a lot of money. The issue is that people choose to pay it. . . . . . . ..

<<<<<<<<< Not this "People." He's not choosing to pay that. Not that Canon cares.

So Sigma will get the business.

And more power to those who choose to get gouged.

Not this guy either! I sure covet the hell out of some looong prime L glass but, not in this lifetime or the next will I be able to afford one!

Like everything in life, there's a threshold.

I'm ok with orginal Brick... 2K brick no.
I'm happy with 70-200 2.8 IS mark I. Mark II no
I paid $1150 for brand new 100-400.
I"m willing to pay $2500 first gen 120-300 Sig OS..
I'm willing to pay $5000 for Canon 500mm F4..previous gen.

$10,000 for a lens.. no.

The point of this thread isn't to bash Canon...though I am.

The real point is to acknowledge Sigma's approach. I don't need 18-35mm. But it's really attractive at $799.

rxjohn wrote in post #16068533
<<<<<<<<< Not this "People." He's not choosing to pay that. Not that Canon cares.

So Sigma will get the business.

And more power to those who choose to get gouged.

do you have children or a mortgage? if so those are your problems . I just booked five nights in west yellowstone in September and we're going to the big island for a week after xmas .... and i'm taking the lenses that canon gouged me with ....woo-hoo !

The way you in particular value Canon's lenses has no bearing on actual market value and/or and pricing.

If Canon had some sort of coercive monopoly like you suggest, then just wait a couple years. Sigma will drive Canon's prices down if they are a better product at a lower price.

Unless of course the Sigma proves to be wildly inconsistent. ...because they haven't done that before.

It take's years to establish the value Canon as a name brings to the table. It'll also take years to change unless something wild happened. Either you can afford the stuff or not, no need to whine about it.

ed rader wrote in post #16068566
do you have children or a mortgage? if so those are your problems . I just booked five nights in west yellowstone in September and we're going to the big island for a week after xmas .... and i'm taking the lenses that canon gouged me with ....woo-hoo !

I no longer take my DSLR with me on trips. I use 1diii for kids sports and 5dii for portrait...

everything else I use m43. and 2 lenses. And a harmless satchel that holds it all.

I can't fit all my DSLR stuff in 1 bag..

I want good glass. So im very particular about what i mount on the body. Sigma has really impressed me with its new 35 and I bought the 120-300...Both are fantastic. The Siggy 35 is as good as my 35L. Love the 120-300. The sigma 85 1.4 is a nice lens as well. But I opted for the canon. Images Just looks awesome to my eyes even though the sigma focus was faster. The Sigma 85 was not as consistent as my 85L copy and i got misses that frustrated me so i opted for Canons 85L. The Siggy 70-200 F/2.8 cant touch a canon 70-200 F/2.8 so thats a no brainer.

Ball is really in Sigmas court. They keep developing good products, canon will have to change or die,, but Sigma is not there yet,, Only nipping at canons heals.

But im to the point that I really dont care whos lens is on the body. If sigma continues to take bites out of canons line up,, so be it. If they cant, i will buy canon.

Desperately wanting Sigma to develop a 500 F/4 to compete with canon....That would make things really interesting.

5280Pics wrote in post #16068547
Not this guy either! I sure covet the hell out of some looong prime L glass but, not in this lifetime or the next will I be able to afford one!

Don't be so negative!

I remember being 19 years-old and drooling over a Nikon 1000mm prime lens (if memory serves me right), way back in 1988.

Now, I'm not rolling in money by any stretch of the imagination, but I know the massive limitations of long glass, and generally speaking buy what I know I need, without being overly concerned with cost.

So, go for it!!! And you'll also be buying what you truthfully want sooner than you know!

Regards,

Simon

chubbyone wrote in post #16068571
The way you in particular value Canon's lenses has no bearing on actual market value and/or and pricing.

Correct.

Not sure I agree. All these years of higher Nikkor Lens price... did equivalent Canon lens bring down Nikkor pricing? No.

Unless of course the Sigma proves to be wildly inconsistent. ...because they haven't done that before.

Luck of the draw.

Value? Not.

Not whining about Canon. Applauding Sigma's pricing.

umphotography wrote in post #16068582
Desperately wanting Sigma to develop a 500 F/4 to compete with canon....That would make things really interesting.

Sigma 500mm f4.5 is interesting. Could they improve on it? I hope so.

rxjohn wrote in post #16068507
What am I talking about? It's the new 18-35mm f1.8 pricing of $799.

Am I the only one sick and tired of Canon's gouging ways? 70-200 II and 24-70 II at $2,000+
400mm, 500mm, 600mm, & 200-400mm over $10,000+ ??

Really?

What would Canon price their 18-35mm f1.8 lens if they came out with it? $3,000+ ?

I think most us have GAS (Gear Acquiring Syndrome) and some of us enjoy collecting gear more than shooting..

Well, I won't be acquiring $10,000 lenses..

Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS here I come..

I just think it's odd that for that zoom range it's a "crop" only lens...

Someone needs to come out with a Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 equivalent for Canon... I've had the 16-35L II and the 17-40L and they're "ok" but the 16-35L II is way overpriced and is corner soft until about f/5.6 and same with the 17-40L. I want an ultra-wide zoom that's sharp across the image at f/2.8 for a "FF".

Nikon and Canon quality glass has always cost more than 3rd party. They may only be 10% sharper but cost 50-100% more, but if you need the 10% then you pay for it. Now Nikon brought out a 200-400 and it costs 6k. Canon did it and it costs 12k. So you pay 100% more but what Canon have done is create a work of art, a lens that is as sharp as its best primes in the same focal range. A lens that does not lose hardly any of its sharpness with the build in TC in place. A lens which has a TC built-in. A lens with fast focus, great build and amazing IQ. It is a unique lens, if you need it you will buy it. If you do not you will make do with second best. Not buying the good glass does not bring the price down.

End of the day Sigma glass depreciates way quicker than good Canon glass. Damn, my 500 f4 is worth more now than when I bought it 3 years ago. So you buy a 200-400 next year, price will have dropped some. When Canon release the mkII it will be 18k and your 10k lens will be worth the same amount on the used market as i was new... you lose nothing and get to use a remarkable lens for 5 years.

If of course Sigma sort out their QC problems they may start demanding more too...

I do think canon stuff is overpriced. It depends what kind of money you have to throw around. For the average person, it just makes more sense to get third party lenses.