[ChristianRock]

I know the D600 is enough for most people (and would be for me), but it's the entry level FF, and it's being compared with the best APS-C camera on the market today.

The entry level APS-C from Pentax is the K500.

It's like complaining that a bare-bones BMW 3-series is cheaper than a full-featured, luxury packaged Chevrolet Impala, and saying the Chevy is overpriced. Well, yeah, and some people would prefer the bare-bones BMW. It would certainly be faster. It's lighter, too, and might even be better on gas mileage. Others will see the Chevy as the perfectly comfortable car to take them to work where they can't exceed the speed limit much anyway. But the comparison is silly, just like comparing the cost of the D600 with the K3.

---------- Post added 03-20-14 at 05:56 PM ----------

Yeah, something like Canon 50/1.8 vs Pentax DA50/1.8

Clearly, the Pentax is a lot slower.

You guys keep comparing aperture like that's the only thing that matters. If it is to you, then fine, I guess.

The Pentax is a much better lens, IMHO.

[ElJamoquio]

You guys keep comparing aperture like that's the only thing that matters. If it is to you, then fine, I guess.

The Pentax is a much better lens, IMHO.

I bash Nikon all the time. Terrible UI, Terrible UI, overly-big primes, terrible UI.

But I compare UI, lens range, camera+lens weight, camera + lens aperture, camera+lens viewfinder, etc, etc, etc. I think boiling that down to "comparing aperture...only" is quite a strawman.

FYI I've owned both and I'd pay twice as much for the Nikon 24-85 as I would for the Pentax 16-50.

One man's opinion.

[ChristianRock]

El Jamoquio, that comment wasn't a straw man because it wasn't directed at you at all… it was for thins, who said that the 50 1.8 from Canon is cheaper than the Pentax… and it is, but they're very different lenses, even if it says 50 1.8 on both of them.
That is what I was referring to.

Regarding the 16-50, I kind of agree with you. It's not a lens that I'd like to have - not for anywhere near the asking price. I'd much rather find a good copy of the Tamron 17-50 if I was into zooms.

[Buceemie]

Price announced!

$790 sometime in May.

Sigma's Unbelievable Price Tag for its Upcoming 50mm f/1.4 Art Lens: $790 - DIY Photography

[MadMathMind]

Let's level here. The FA and F 50 lenses (1.4 and 1.7) are going to offer about 90%+ the performance that this Sigma will for 1/3 the price and 1/5 the size.

[ChristianRock]

Let's level here. The FA and F 50 lenses (1.4 and 1.7) are going to offer about 90%+ the performance that this Sigma will for 1/3 the price and 1/5 the size.

As they say, after you've passed what is an acceptable product quality level with pretty much any industry, you start paying 95% per cent more for every 5% increase in quality.

Having said that, I'm waiting for someone to say they get images just as good from their 30 dollar M 50 1.7

Seriously though, the new Sigma has the exact same price point as the DA*55. Let's see how they compare.

[Aristophanes]

As they say, after you've passed what is an acceptable product quality level with pretty much any industry, you start paying 95% per cent more for every 5% increase in quality.

More like 1,095% more, as we see with Leica.

Having said that, I'm waiting for someone to say they get images just as good from their 30 dollar M 50 1.7

Using a tripod for both you might.

[ChristianRock]

More like 1,095% more, as we see with Leica.

I live in the US, so at first I thought you meant "over a thousand per cent"
But you're right, law of diminishing returns says when you get to that kind of cost, you might be getting improvements, maybe... and it's a strong maybe...

Using a tripod for both you might.

Well I'm sure the Sigma will do better at the MTF chart, tripod or not... but in the hands of a good photographer, either lens would get the results, I'm sure.

[thibs]

Seriously though, the new Sigma has the exact same price point as the DA*55. Let's see how they compare.

Yep, as long as we remember the DA55 has never been made as a normal lens, it simply slightly bias the comparison:
* less sharp wide open and long focus throw.

[Na Horuk]

Hm, I wasn't really interested in buying this lens, but the price tag makes it interesting

[ElJamoquio]

FYI, the Sigma's in the past sell for much less than MSRP. With the art series... I don't know, but it could end up ~$200 cheaper than the Pentax.

I wasn't interested in it at all, but now I'm thinking I might get one in F mount...

[Na Horuk]

But if I buy this lens, I will need a bigger camera bag

[ChristianRock]

FYI, the Sigma's in the past sell for much less than MSRP. With the art series... I don't know, but it could end up ~$200 cheaper than the Pentax.

I wasn't interested in it at all, but now I'm thinking I might get one in F mount...

A lens like this makes a lot more sense for full frame, so I'm in total agreement with your line of thought here...

Also,to your first point - it could possibly drive the DA*55 price down a bit, to be able to compete. But maybe not too much - it's always expected that the camera brand lens costs a bit more.

[jeffshaddix]

Nice price tag, if it performs well, I think it'll be just as big of a hit as their 35mm. Good job Sigma taking it to the next level.

[thibs]

Nice price tag, if it performs well, I think it'll be just as big of a hit as their 35mm. Good job Sigma taking it to the next level.

It may also push down the current Sigma 50 which AFAIK is very good too (although they might decide to discontinue it).