M43 seems more and more overpriced compared to NEX

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
Dennis
Forum ProPosts: 12,824
Like?
Re: M43 seems more and more overpriced compared to NEX
In reply to peevee1, 8 months ago

On the NEX front, you have a number of lenses that are priced a bit higher than DSLR equivalents:

55-210 is only f/6.3 and $350.

new 16-70/4 is $1000.  Not too unreasonable next to f/5.6 version from Nikon and $1000 for Sony's 16-80/3.5-4.5 DSLR lenses, but no bargain.

35/1.8 for $450 !  Granted, it's the only lens of its type that's stabilized, but it's an awfully expensive normal.

50/1.8 for $300 seems ok to me for a stabilized lens, but a competing non-stabilized lens is under $200.

18-200 (the original) for $900 and $1200 for the power zoom !  Admittedly, this is a good performer, and really well built - both solid and silky smooth with excellent IS.

CZ24/1.8 for $1100 !  Yeah, it has Carl Zeiss printed on it and it's a good lens, but $1100 for the a 35mm equivalent that's only f/1.8 on APS-C ?

One of the complaints I've seen about the new dirt-cheap a3000 on the Sony forums is that it's only $150ish cheaper than a similar Sony SLT, but you're stuck in a system with expensive lenses.

So maybe the Oly 45 & 75 aren't great bargains next to DSLR lenses, but the OP started by comparing to NEX, and things don't look so bad.

- Dennis

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow