Originally posted by Nicolas06 Yes and what sigma does lately? It extends it's Art lenses offering... replacing the more conventionnal lenses with it.
The "Art" moniker is just a marketing term, not a technical term. It doesn't mean the lens is "unconventional". It's not like Canon or Nikon are suddenly going to start making "Art" lenses.
Originally posted by Nicolas06 In the same range of DA20-40, sigma has 18-35. Both are expensive. The difference is apperture. Not price.
Hello, the Sigma 20-40mm is $200 more or a full 20% more expensive than the 18-35mm. An $800 lens would already be a stretch for a lot of people, and for them $1000 could put the lens out of contention.
Originally posted by Nicolas06 Sigma 85mm (not even Art) is as expensive as FA77,
Again, "Art" is just a marketing term, and the Sigma 85mm happened to come out before Sigma's marketing department came up with the "Art" concept. Just because the 85mm is not called an "Art" lens does not mean it's deficient.
And the 77mm still displays all of the compromises I mentioned: smaller aperture, no silent AF motor, and more expensive.If Pentax made a larger 77mm 1.8 lens with the same image quality, it would be less expensive than making a smaller 77/1.8. So price is still a factor.
A more direct comparison for the 77mm 1.8 would be to an 85mm 1.8 lens, not 1.4. Canon's 85mm 1.8 is $420 and Nikon's is $500. Much less than the $1000 of the 77mm 1.8.
Originally posted by Nicolas06 Sigma 50mm is more expensive than FA50 and DA50...
Sigma makes two 50mm lenses. They have their old 50mm/1.4 EX HSM, which is still an excellent lens and arguably better than the FA50 or DA50, and currently sells for $349 - $399, depending on the mount. And then they have their new 50mm Art lens for $1000 which many believe outperforms similar lenses costing much more from Canon, Nikon, and Zeiss.
Originally posted by Nicolas06 Sigma 35mm Art is not as expensive as FA31, but it is still expensive, much bigger, and work on an easier focal lens. It is as expensive as FA43 and more expensive than DA35 ltd.... And of course the DA35 f/2.4...
What's your point here? The 31mm 1.8 is more expensive than the Sigma 35mm/1.4 and has a smaller aperture and no silent AF, so it checks all the boxes. And all the other lenses you listed are also not f/1.4.
Originally posted by Nicolas06 Sigma specialize in high quality lenses because they think it is where money is. Pentax does the same but do not specialize on the same kind of high quality lenses.
Sigma has pro-quality lenses, and budget lenses. They probably sell way more of the budget/consumer lenses than the pro lenses.
Originally posted by Nicolas06 One might prefer small lenses, other wide apperture lenses. I agree. But the price is not really a problem of ltd when you look at other high quality lenses out there.
It's always more expensive to make a more compact lens, if all else, including image quality across the frame, is held constant. There's a lot that goes into pricing a lens, so just comparing current prices on Pentax lens A to Sigma lens B does not prove anything about actual manufacturing costs.
Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 08-15-2014 at 08:31 AM.