I'm just reporting the resale experience with the 35mm SP. I didn't create the market situation.
The question is, for instance, why one should buy a 35mm f/1.8 SP given the situation that the Canon 35mm f/2 is 1/3 cheaper.
These SP primes are all very expensive relative to their specs - and way too close to the f/1.4 Sigma ARTs.
700EUR for the 45mm f/1.8 VC - that's just nuts - sorry to say that.
The 85mm f/1.4 VC costs 800EUR vs 500EUR for the new Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 - the Nikkor has no VC but I'd say that this is hardly an argument for most Nikon users when they have the choice between Nikon and something third-party. It's even more extreme over at Canon (but that 85mm is ancient).
Who buys the 10-24mm VC for essentially the same price like the Sigma 8-16mm ?
Honestly I understand why the resale value is so low because otherwise the pricing doesn't make much sense.
The Nikkor AF-S 85mm f1.8 has no VR, has much less desirable bokeh, is less sharp I think, and has a really bad LoCA issue.
I can think of many reasons to prefer the Tamron...
The Canon 85mm f1.8 USM also has no IS, but at least it has one big plus over the Tamron and the Nikkor, and that is its very fast AF, making it a great (indoor?) sports lens.
The Sigma 8-16mm is not great sharpness-wise and could do with an update. But indeed, who would buy the Tamron 10-24mm VC over the Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS STM?