Pretty decent price for the lense,after the 7.5% cashback from Cashreward, it is only about $20 more than the best previous deal I know (nofrillssydney eBay 20% off)
Cheers
Mod: Referral links are not permitted anywhere.
CamelCamelCamel.
No, no idea why they would put that in there.
A great lens. Price is okay.
the 7.5% cash back bring the amazon price to around $667 but it would take extra waiting time and effort so the ebay's one with 1% cash back is definitely better.
when I had a Sony Mirrorless camera, lens prices always amazed me. I could never convince myself to buy anything on top of the 18-55 and 55-210 I already had. so when I decided that I do need a wide aperture portrait lens, I basically got mad, and bought a Canon DSLR AND a wide aperture portrait lens for the same price that I would pay for the Sony lens alone. bye bye Sony, see you when you have reasonable prices for essential lenses. screw Zeiss, I don't need Zeiss glass to make decent photos. I also need to eat and to pay my mortgage :D and to have nice holidays, too.
Totally understandable, I guess it depends on the individual needs. As Sony is the only system I'm used to and I only do occasional street photography with a single lense so I'm ok with the lack of better value lenses selection for the moment.
Yeah in general Canon has cheaper lenses, but in terms of MIrrorless technology.. Canon is way way behind Sony even with their newly released EOS R. And have you seen the prices on R mount lenses? It's crazy how much they price them at in comparison to their DSLR lenses. I've been using Sony for almost 2 years now (was Canon before) and actually could live with the lens selection. I have been using mainly prime lenses that are reasonably priced (the zoom lenses are way too pricey) and I love the sharpness and also the size of the body & lenses. They are so compact and full of features
I can only agree with that. Canon is years behind on image processing! but nothing a good post processing software can't fix. yes, I know a few scenes where I know I would be 100% happy with out of camera JPEG because I have correctly set up picture profiles, and I know a handful of scenes where I know I have to shoot raw and correct in post processing, but that's it, I still take amazing pictures on Canon gear, and I am winning because prices go down for Canon DSLR gear all the time :D trends are not for me, I don't care about mirrorless.
Yeah, if I were only doing photos I'd be a Canon DSLR user for sure. Since I am mostly doing video with photo here and there, the portability & features on Sony mirrorless works best for me. Canon does not even have anything that equals Sony mirrorless for video. Sony is already 3-4 years ahead of the game in this market.
@John: correct! video is not canon's game at all. neither it is mine, so Canon is all I need :) but I don't understand why people want to be able to shoot video with a photo camera. like brushing teeth with an electric shaver? kinda convenient in terms I just need 1 device, but awkward at the same time. maybe I am just an outdated consumer :D phones take amazing videos these days, but decent photos are still a camera territory.
@[Deactivated]: Well it all started with Philip Bloom telling the world he'd been shooting video on Canon 5D Mark II. It was compact and had access to abundant lenses in the market. Before then the prosumer cameras are massive, expensive, not best in low light and does not have that shallow DOF without using expensive accessory. So the DSLR video capability changed the game in every aspect completely. More videographer emerges as now its more budget-friendly, way more powerful, and has way more creative possibility.. and of course many photographers who already own a Canon DSLR started to explore this too.
Canon DSLR has never been just a photo camera since. But it does not have some video specific features (like zebra lines, audio monitoring, focus peaking, continuous autofocus), so people have hack it using the Magic Lantern. Canon.. realising the emerging video market releases the EOS-C series, but they are still too expensive and rather big, so most people stick with DSLRs. But then Sony came introducing the combination of Canon DSLR & Magic Lantern hack into a compact Mirrorless Body, with extra few more video critical features added in.. and that got all the videographer screaming for joy. Sony continues to advance this technology since.
But disagree with your last statement though. Decent photos is also a phone territory these days.. with good lighting, digital DOF and good use of post-processing, sometimes you even can't tell the difference between a DSLR shots or phone shots. Whereas with video the difference is quite noticeable, but obviously you're not in the video game so won't know much. For example, there's no digital DOF for video on phone to replicate video from DSLR/Mirrorless. Perhaps one day phone will catch up with this technology.. but it hasn't yet.
@[Deactivated]: Can't do that for video either. I don't need the hint. I understand the limitations. I'm giving you the hint in regards to video. I'm trying to explain that you can digitally create a f1.4 DOF (a shallow one basically) on phone for photo but not for video - heck not even a handycam can do that.. thats the difference in photo vs video technology in phone currently
@John: I agree with the video sentiments. Further to that I don't think we will see computational videography for a very long time.
We aren't even at the point where the top AF systems can get reliable 3d depth maps just for autofocus, and that's in camera bodies that cost upwards of $5k.
For 24-60fps computational videography, I have a feeling that a current high end desktop CPU won't even cut the mustard.
I'm very happy with the results from my Panasonic G7 with 20mm f1.7 (although it focuses horribly in AF for video and the MF takes like 5 full turns), especially considering that I got the whole kit for less than $600, new body + 2nd hand lens. Of course I would have loved to get a Sony A7rIII, but so hard to justify the price when the quality of m43 is still really exceptional for video.
@John: sure, I see where you are going with this. but once again, I don't care for video, can't even think of what would I like to shoot a video of. kids? phone makes fine kids videos, and no one watches videos in my family anyway, it's all about photos.
video is only good for cloud storage providers, and manufacturers of hard drives, because photos take up, what, 5 meg max? but video, MAN! a 4k video can fill a 3 year old hard drive in minutes. profit.
once again, don't care about video or marketing telling me that I need to shoot it. I love photography!
but I don't understand why people want to be able to shoot video with a photo camera. like brushing teeth with an electric shaver?
No worries, not trying to convince you to do video. I was merely enlightening you with some bits of information to the above.
@John: 2 days ago ordered Canon MDP in mint condition from Japan. cost me about $600 + gst. Sony equivalent would set me back $2k+, and would also give inferior IQ. just saying, that if you follow the trends, be prepared to pay $$$ for something you probably don't really need.
@[Deactivated]: Mate not sure what you are on about. I chose Sony simply because it has something Canon nor other system can offer that is suitable to my use and need.. Why you even implying I’m doing that for a trend is beyond me especially after I give you long winded explanation about the video aspect. You just sound insulting to me now. I’m out.. thought I’d be having smart discussion with you… smh
@John: well, look, we are on ozBargain, aren't we. this place is about saving money, that's the reason for us being here, correct me if I am wrong :) it's not about getting emotional over the quality of the conversation. I am just telling you that I seriously doubt, after 2 years on mirrorless Sony and switching back to Canon DSLR, that Sony can offer anything superior in the photo department, except for ridiculous prices for glass. and video perhaps? alright you convinced me about video part, even though I still think it's just a gimmick. there are devices better suited for video work than Sony mirrorless cameras :) and everything Sony costs too much, without much added value, that's my point.
@[Deactivated]: This website is about bargain not about someone’s choices for what they want to use or buy for what they need. And you obviously talk about something you know nothing about. But I’ll entertain you for one last time
First, its not a gimmick, otherwise I wouldn’t be using the Sony features now. Second, you mentioned video is only good for cloud or hard drives manufacturers.. its not, I make money out of video for professional work. Third, you obviously had zero clue about video and shows zero appreciation for it too. Yet you make suggestions and comments as if you know enough about it.
You are being ignorant and narrow minded. That’s my point.
I’ll sign off on that. Enjoy.
@John: It's kind of sad that a fair portion of the Canon fanbase has become very toxic over the last few years as they have watched everyone else get features they try to convince themselves they don't need.
If he had problems with the cost of Zeiss glass when he had the Sony A7, he could have just got a lens converter to use all his EF mount glass. His thoughts on the issue seem incredibly defensive of Canon and almost attacking other brands for putting in high quality 4K video in their very expensive full frame cameras.
Does it really need a 9v battery?