Zeiss 24/1.8 - Would you buy for $999?

[Amin]

Sony Alpha Rumors reported that this lens is going to cost $999 (rumor). Assuming acceptable size/weight and superior performance/build/AF speed, would you spend $999 for this lens?

No doubt this will be a great addition for the NEX system, but if priced at that level, there will certainly be room in the system for a more affordable alternative!

 

[Travisennis]

Unfortunately I think if it is priced at $999 then it will be outside of my price range. It's a shame because if the rumors are true it sounds like it will be an amazing lens.

 

[Streetshooter]

Hmmmm, that is a lot of money. I think Sony got their cage rattled by all the forums, about low quality of their native glass. Maybe this will make them feel better, if they get good reviews but it won't make me feel better priced like that.

 

[WT21]

A high quality lens will be bought by some, though, and it will give a nice aura effect to the rest of the NEX line. It better be staller though!

 

[Amin]

Having owned a Zeiss ZF 35/2 and a Zeiss ZM 35/2 (both less expensive than the rumored price for this lens), I think it is really, really unlikely that Zeiss is going to screw up the performance on this lens .

 

[Melv]

I've been on the verge of buying the Biogon C35/2.8 so will probably hold off to see what the price will be here in the UK. If they are similarly priced I will probably get the new offering.

 

[RT_Panther]

Undecided

I paid $800 for my Micro Four Thirds Leica/Panasonic 45mm ƒ2.8 MACRO.

 

[Simon Schofield]

I might be a beginner to photography etc, but a prime lens thats around 3 times the price of the body does seem a bit expensive. surely the market that the NEX 3/5 (and their newer versions) is aimed at, simply won't be interested in something so expensive. I guess its primarily aimed at the NEX 7 owners... I certainly won't be buying one, amazing as it sounds, the price isn't justifiable to me... :/

 

[ianinbc]

I am sure I won't be the only one looking for used copies on the buy/sell thread here on this site. I find a lot of early adopters come to there senses and decide to rid themselves of premium lenses fairly quickly after buying (likely so they can sell them while still in "like new" condition, and while prices are still inflated and suppliers are having difficulty keeping them in stock).

So we wait.

 

[Melv]

Rip off Britain alive and well

I have been doing some comparing and a few calculations. Rip off Britain is alive and well. I have looked on the US site BHP and found the NEX-7 body only for sale at about $1200 . In Britain the NEX-7 is on sale for £1000 (an equivalent price of $1627 !).

The CZ 24/1.8 lens is listed at BHP at $1000 (an equivalent of £614). However I have not seen the the lens on sale in the UK yet, but applying the ratio of $1200 to $1000 the lens in Britain would be £833, that is $1355 !

To recap, if you were to buy the body in Britain it would set you back $1627 and the lens $1355, and you in the US think you are paying too much!

Yes, I think £833 for the lens is too much and I will probably save for a manual focus CZ ZM lens which I could get cheaper even including an adaptor.

 

[Poki]

The answer is: No. I don't want a really big 24mm Zeiss with a good but not great max aperture of 1.8. I would rather invest in a Zeiss 35 f/1.4 or so, or in a cheap (250 euro) 24mm f/2.8 (or better) pancake, but this combination just isn't for me.

 

[Henry Peach]

No, I wouldn't spend that much on a NEX lens. Also I've been quite unimpressed by the high res sample files I've seen from the new Zeiss. I'm hoping Tamron and Sigma will come out with some good lenses at more reasonable prices.

 

[Ross]

Amazing lens...amazing price.

 

[macjim]

Nope; for a Leica lens, yes, but for a Zeiss lens- no.


Cheers, Macjim.

 

[teshi]

Sticking with the Alpha 35mm 1.8 instead. The 24mm was good on the NEX-7 but not leaps and bounds ahead like other Zeiss I have used.

 

[JJJPhoto]

If it was $699 I would have already pre-ordered the lens. Unfortunately, at $999 I will wait to see if Sony or another lens maker offers a less expensive prime lens for the E-mount in the 24-30mm range with an aperture in the range of 1.8-2.8.

 

[daremoshiranai]

No, I'd buy a Nikon/leica zeiss and adapt it. I'd at least have a better resale value if I got bored with it.

 

[Phoenix]

Nope; for a Leica lens, yes, but for a Zeiss lens- no.


Cheers, Macjim.

My feelings exactly

 

[JJJPhoto]

You guys think you can buy a new Leica lens with a f/1.4 aperture for $999?

Where?!? I'd love to get my hands on some new Leica lenses at that price.

The cheapest "fast" Leica lens that I can find is the 50mm f/2.5 Summarit priced at $1,395 as new ... and that's still a big difference between f/1.4 and f/2.5.

The Zeiss lens is "cheap" compared to a Leica lens.

The Leica-stamped Panasonic lenses and other third party lenses for the M-mount don't count.

 

[macjim]

You guys think you can buy a new Leica lens with a f/1.4 aperture for $999?

No, dinae be daft! What I meant was IF a Leica lens was available for that I'd pay up, but I wouldn't pay for a Zeiss lens. in other words, the Zeiss might be a good lens but it ain't worth £999.




Cheers, Macjim.