Will some Sony lenses be more expensive than Canon and Nikon s? What do you think?

The entry lens is indeed expensive, but a good body is not as good as a good lens, and the mid-range Sony and Nikon Canon are at the same price. It's up to you, and if you don't want to buy a good head, you can enjoy the full range of Nikon Canon lenses by buying an adapter ring. For novices, at least one or two low-priced head practitioners, five or six thousand at every turn is really stressful, a thousand yuan to buy a Tiangong 3 adapter ring, the head of the canon mouth is basically used casually.

In fact, it is all very normal, and I think it can be chosen according to one's own economic conditions. ‍

This situation is normal, after all, Sony's technology is a little more high-end. Some of the E-mount lenses are more expensive than Canon Nikon's, and some are cheaper, which can only be known by a specific lens. As far as the lens is concerned, don't say different manufacturers, even the same manufacturer, there are also different generations of products, ** are also different.

So, it looks like the specifications are the same, but in reality there is a lack of comparison between them.

As the saying goes, scarcity is precious. Sony's lenses are generally high-end and low-end, and it is normal for high-end lenses to be expensive.

From the first day I bought Sony, I felt that Sony lenses were very cheap, and compared to Canon Nikon, they were super cost-effective", and the reason for this was because Sony's picture quality was good.

It's expensive, Sony is relatively close to the people, take 200-600 as an example, Sony has it, Canon can't make it, but why not come out, what a fake 200-400 and a teleconverter lens are sold for 60,700,000, Nikon is still good to come out of a 200-500 less than 10,000, Canon is the blackest, it is afraid of impacting its own prime lens.

Sony is an old brand after all, and it will definitely have some high-end products of its own, and it is normal for these high-end lenses to be more expensive than Nikon.

The big ternary is much more expensive than Canon Nikon The key reason should be that the sales are small Although the body sells well, but there are a lot of lenses with 55 and the like Compared with the Canon White Rabbit, it is five or six thousand more expensive than the Canon White Rabbit The performance is not as good as the Little White Rabbit And there is a problem with quality control So it led to a 28-75 being crazy and the price was raised by a thousand oceans The sales of A7R3 and A7M3 have come up I believe that after a period of time, the lens ** will slowly come down Just like 24-105F4

First of all, digital equipment is not rated according to the highest quality, and the lens is usually linked to the cost of research and development and product positioning. Sony's lens development costs are theoretically higher than those of Canon and Nikon. The Sony e-mount is very small for full-frame (originally designed for APSC format), and the four corners of the sensor are slightly blocked by the bayonet, which means that the lens design will be much more difficult, and the research funds will be burned.

I don't mean to offend Sony users by saying this, so please forgive me if I offend.

Sony lenses are indeed a bit expensive, especially the 28-70 and 100-400 lenses are much higher than Canon and Nikon.

It's only been a few years since Sony built digital cameras