Originally posted by Kunzite No, but it's supposed to be more expensive
We were talking about prices, so let's expand a little bit the 3 points:
- a third party lens maker, with very few exceptions, would have to sell its products for less than the OEM. Sigma definitely fits here.
- the Sigma being shorter means it should be less expensive, even if we're only talking about 60mm. OTOH it's faster, which adds to the price. How to balance the two, I have no idea if it's even possible; we're also talking about different designs (even though some people here have the wrong idea that the Pentax will be a cheap, mediocre lens).
However, the Pentax being closer to 600mm than 500 IMO means it shouldn't cost less.
- the Sigma being launched how many years ago means the R&D expenses were probably recovered long time ago, and let's not forget what time does to street prices.
I have very little interest in long lenses, let alone exotically long lenses so I've been following the rumours surrounding the 560 in the name of lazy curiosity, largely since it's nice to see a camera or lens maker do something new. But I was under the impression that the 560 is:
-very awkwardly shaped, and one would imagine balanced...
-lacking or limiting exotic elements...
-as fast as a garbage truck...
...all in the
name of being cheap.
Though I acknowledge that there has been some frankly insane pricing decisions committed by Pentax in the last little while, it benefits them to have the cheapest extra-long option for novice birders, astrophotographers, and sports-shooters (or merely those on a budget). It does
not benefit Pentax at all to have a single extreme telephoto option which is harder to transport, has a less advanced optical design, and is significantly slower than a comparably priced third party option (which is incidentally available in the other mounts as well). As I mentioned above, I don't follow the prices of long glass very closely, but I really do feel that for this lens to make any impact it needs to be under US $2000. In other words, at $4000 I yawn and read some reviews, at $1600 I start telling myself that I should really be taking more bird pictures. That's one market. The other is people who already knew they wanted to take bird pictures, and at $1600 they have some incentive to switch systems.
Also, with regard to the trade off between the focal length and aperture, I cannot imagine a possible world where 60mm of reach would cost as much in dollars as two thirds of a stop of light gathering. But if it were, Sigma has a 500mm f6.3 for around $1000 (and it comes with your choice of a free 150mm f5.0 or, for a few hundred more a 50mm f4.5).
Now I never said anything about mediocre, but it has to be cheap because, if not, well what the the hell is it? And who the hell is it for?