Quote:I'm just reporting the resale experience with the 35mm SP. I didn't create the market situation.Hm... does that mean the rest of the SP primes aren't going to be reviewed?
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).
The 150-600mm G2 is reasonably priced, I'm not so sure about the 70-200mm G2.
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.
I would probably pick the 10-24 VC over the Sigma 8-16 if I had been a clear-cut APS-C user, because, well, VC (and filters... and 2/3 stop larger aperture). As I am a diehard 16-35 owner (on APS-C or otherwise), of course, the 10-24 makes less sense (but remains on the radar all the same).
The 85, all right, I have no preference - I used to be a big proponent of that FL but when I actually got my hands on the Canon 85/1.8 I found that I'm constantly finding it too long. The hit rate was not perfect either, but the VC would remedy that; anyhoo, the 45 or 60 would probably interest me more now.