>> |
Anonymous
>>213828 >>213991 OP here. This is what I'm talking about, the only compatible lenses you find at most places are the new Sony ones, which are just rebranded Minolta ones but for a couple hundred more dollars. Not to mention Sony didn't even remake some staples like the 50/1.7.
I can find Minolta stuff on eBay, but it's either more expensive than it should be (>>214184- I got my 50/1.7 for $50 like 3 years ago) or something that I don't need (cheap zooms that go for more than they should, or high-end telephoto that I can't afford even if I wanted it). It's almost impossible to find what I want (eg. 28/2 or 35/2), and if I do, it's like $500 used, while I can find a Canon 28/1.8 for $420 new, for example. Also, Minolta/Sony doesn't even have a cheap 85mm - I only have the choice of an 85/1.4, which is about $800-1000 for the Minolta version and $1300 for the Sony; what if I just want an 85/1.8 for $350 like the Canon equivalent?
That being said, I do realize Sony is planning to release better and better equipment in the future: better bodies and lenses to fill in the holes I want. But that's the problem, it's going to take years. I want it now.
But now I've gone back to the good ol' Canon vs. Nikon question. After looking through both systems, I don't really know what to chose anymore.
|