Amen, amen, amen, amen and amen! (Do I hear Amen?)
That might be part of it but another part of it might be because there is a built-in expectation that when you pay decent amount of money for lens that performance will be in same ballpark. 35/2.8 is close in price to 55/1.8 and say Sigma 35/1.4. Is it's performance in same (close) ballpark as those two?
I don't mind paying for quality, and I will not complain if I get Yugo performance when I paid Yugo price, but if I paid more I expect more and in the same performance ballpark as my money could have bought elsewhere.
Producing a FE 55mm lens that works with this camera is a different issue than a 35mm lens that does. The Sigma is a monster in comparison, and you have to use an adapter.
Persistant Apples to Oranges comparisons.
You talk as if this was a total piece of crap lens, just because of a bad copies. Manufacturing issues are one thing, bad design is another. I had a horrible Leica 50/1.4 ASPH that cost 5.3X as much as this lens, and it took two looooooong trips to Germany to get it fixed properly. Didn't mean that the 50/1.4 ASPH was a crappy lens, just mine was.
I had to send back an A mount 24/2 because I had to use a major in-camera focus adjustment which was unacceptable for a $1,400 lens. The replacement was stellar, and I still use it, including on the A7R.
Either one is willing to deal with the reality that some gear needs to be checked over when buying, and if the manufacturing quality is repeatedly not to the design intent of the lens, then we punish the maker by not buying. However, mine's quite good. So, like many others, I'm happy with it for its intended use, and my expectations of an $800 small AF lens for this camera are full-filled. Sorry your's aren't.
- Marc