05-17-2011, 06:29 PM
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1305654920' post='8440']
This is definitely way more a drawback of your budget and needs than of Canon's line-up, I'm afraid.
-- Markus
[/quote]
It's probably a marketing choice from Sony who is quite strong in the (large volume) entry-level market. A cheap 85/2.8 totally makes sense for that kind on cameras, as well as the recent 35/1.8DT, 50/1.8DT, and 30/2.8DT Macro.
A 85/1.8 is more for lazy old FF users like me who think a Zeiss 85/1.4 is too heavy for hiking <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. Or for "advanced amateurs" (a700 & future a77), but Sony is still very weak in that market and might not have enough volume to justify that lens.
After coming back from my last trip, I decided to buy a Minolta AF 100/2. It's a very good lens but it's a pain in the a.. to find and more expensive than a brand new Canon/Nikon.
This is definitely way more a drawback of your budget and needs than of Canon's line-up, I'm afraid.
-- Markus
[/quote]
It's probably a marketing choice from Sony who is quite strong in the (large volume) entry-level market. A cheap 85/2.8 totally makes sense for that kind on cameras, as well as the recent 35/1.8DT, 50/1.8DT, and 30/2.8DT Macro.
A 85/1.8 is more for lazy old FF users like me who think a Zeiss 85/1.4 is too heavy for hiking <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. Or for "advanced amateurs" (a700 & future a77), but Sony is still very weak in that market and might not have enough volume to justify that lens.After coming back from my last trip, I decided to buy a Minolta AF 100/2. It's a very good lens but it's a pain in the a.. to find and more expensive than a brand new Canon/Nikon.