Why is the 42.5 F/1.2 $1600 when the Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is only $1000?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
Chrisphotos3
New MemberPosts: 1
Like?
Re: wrong lens
In reply to Terry Breedlove, 6 months ago

Terry Breedlove wrote:

That shot is boring and it seems to me you would get a better shot if you were closer to your subject with a wider lens.

For that type of top down shot of a climber I think you're better off with a longer lens not wider. The photo generally gets taken from the top of the crag as otherwise you're just going to get in the climber's way. Hence a longer lens lets you get closer to the action and reduces distracting elements on the ground.

A fast lens helps but I too don't see the need for an f1.2; I think the oly 45mm would suit the OP's purposes just fine.

Otherwise you can always use legacy lenses for a tenth of the price. This was shot with a minolta 55mm 1.8 which I still use sometimes in preference to the 45mm.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bill Wallace
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,235Gear list
Like?
Re: That's *exactly*...
In reply to Great Bustard, 6 months ago

Then when you whip out that "equivalence theory" business on them Joe the ladies just can't help them selves!!!!!

Bill

-- hide signature --

Bill Wallace
http://bwallace.zenfolio.com/
"Mister I ain't a boy no I'm a man
And I believe in a promised land"....

 Bill Wallace's gear list:Bill Wallace's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
arbuz
Senior MemberPosts: 1,158Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is the 42.5 F/1.2 $1600 when the Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is only $1000?
In reply to Sergey Borachev, 6 months ago

Haw about Panasonic 1.2 has better performance? For what I've seen it's very sharp wide open. Even if we don't know for sure yet, saying all that rubbish without caonsidering possible quality difference makes me wonder why people tens to whine so much about products they will never own.

 arbuz's gear list:arbuz's gear list
Samsung EX2F Samsung NX20 Samsung NX300 Pentax *ist DS Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
hdkhang
Forum MemberPosts: 80
Like?
Re: Why is the 42.5 F/1.2 $1600 when the Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is only $1000?
In reply to arbuz, 6 months ago

arbuz wrote:

Haw about Panasonic 1.2 has better performance? For what I've seen it's very sharp wide open. Even if we don't know for sure yet, saying all that rubbish without caonsidering possible quality difference makes me wonder why people tens to whine so much about products they will never own.

Performance, cost to manufacture etc. are somewhat considered when pricing luxury items. It is usually market forces that are the bigger driver. Also, people are irrational beings, for example, a supermarket makes more money selling the same item at two different price points than it does to sell at one. Let's say you have apples at $5 per kilo, your competitor has apples at $4 per kilo and $7 per kilo, same apples and all, just that they picked the nicer looking ones and put a higher price tag on it. The wealthier customers see the $7 apples and think, "yes I'll buy these, my health is important, $7 is a fair price for higher quality produce", the less wealthy customers see the $4 apples and think, "yes I'll buy these, they are $1 cheaper than the supermarket nearby". The first supermarket based their pricing on what they felt was a fair mark-up on what their cost is. The second supermarket based their pricing on what the competition was doing, what their customer base is willing to bear and their emotional/psychological responses. In the same way, Leica can sell the same thing as Panasonic and charge twice as much. In my younger years I did some part time work at my dad's friends door shop. He had his own factory overseas that allowed him to sell solid timber doors for far cheaper than the competition. This strategy worked for the most part, but occasionally we would lose customers to our competitor for being "too cheap", these shoppers refused to believe our doors were solid timber as they were so much cheaper than the competitor. Can't win em all.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,886Gear list
Like?
Re: Presumably...
In reply to Amin Sabet, 6 months ago

Amin Sabet wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Ideally, we would like to think that the Panasonic 42.5 / 1.2 is a significantly superior lens to the Fuji 56 / 1.2, and that's why it costs more.

Right now there are few samples and tests out there, and most people are implying that they should cost a similar amount because they are both fast teles, but in reality better lenses are worth more money, and we don't yet know if one of these lenses is better. If the Fuji lens is as good as or better than the Panasonic (sharpness, color fringing, autofocus, build, etc), then it will be, IMO, a bargain. But the price comparison is premature until we know how good these lenses are.

Right. One thing we do know at this stage is that the Pany has a somewhat more "ambitious" optical design: 14 elements, four of which special glass, versus 11 elements, three of which special glass. I would think that the Pany sets a new record in this regard in the class of fast portrait teles. But it remains to be seen whether the difference in "ambition" matches that in performance.

Also interesting to consider the value of OIS in itself. To me it's worthless because I get ~2 stops from it, and my IBIS gives me about 3 stops with this lens (OIS disabled). But to someone using a Panasonic body, OIS alone may give a few hundred dollars' value, worth considering in comparison to the Fuji package.

As to the OIS, the results you mention deviate from those reported by Lenstip/optyczne.pl. According to their tests, the Nocticron OIS buys you about 3.5 EV versus about 3 EV for the E-M5/E-M1 IBIS.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ednaz
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,363
Like?
learn to climb
In reply to Chrisphotos3, 6 months ago

More than a discussion of lenses, being able to be in the right place (so you can use the best possible lens) is a high yield focus.  My friends who photography free climbing (alas, I can no longer skitter up the side of a brick building or El Capitan) or extreme skiing (helicopter skiing for example) are good enough in the environments to be able to get into the right position to be able to make a lens choice based on photographic impact and not their distance from the subject.

As much as I'd love to shoot free climbing, my physical condition would make me think focal length is all about distance from the subject... and I know that's wrong.  So I've focused on shooting stuff where my mobility matches the needs of the work.

The 100-300 is not really up to the task even if the right lens choice is to have that amount of focal length and compression.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
zenit_b
Regular MemberPosts: 221Gear list
Like?
Price = cost + margin
In reply to Richie S, 6 months ago

Richie S wrote:

Hey charge what they think the market will stand

At last !!! Looking through this thread was agonising with people counting the lens elements, weight, IS or whatever and somehow equating it to cost. Fine, but cost and price rarely have a straight correlation for a non-commodity product. Here are the factors that would affect PRICE rather than cost

- what is the return period for investment (the shorter this is the higher the price) ?

- could the production facilities produce large volumes of the lens if a low price triggered high demand ?

- do we need to price attractively to attract people to overall system at the moment ?

- is there a large number of existing users likely to buy this product despite high initial price ?

- branding - you don't undermine a premium brand with a budget price - is that the case here?

- what direct competition is there for this lens on this mount

- do you discount bodies heavily but make the money back on lenses ?

- is it year end and we need some cashbacks out there to make our sales numbers for the year ?

- is it an "oh wow" product that people will pay lots for ?

- what sort of margin are your importers (separate business remember) Panasonic UK, Panasonic USA etc demanding currently before they will import, stock and repair low volume niche products ? (this factor is probably the key one! Remember what happened to the EOS M2)

I personally think pana see this Leica branded lens as an "aspriational" lens that will sit at the top of their range. They are probably not tooled up to make loads so don't need to sell lots of them but having the lens gives the whole system a "glow". Just having the lens in the range will sell more bodies because people know they could always get a high end lens (canon do this with the L series).

At the other end of the spectrum look at the 14mm lens. They are going to sell millions over a long period because it is bundled with bodies. Gear up to make loads - sell em cheap. Don't put the Leica brand on.

Cost does not equal price. Ever !!!!

 zenit_b's gear list:zenit_b's gear list
Nikon D100 Canon EOS 350D Canon EOS 40D Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dennis tennis
Senior MemberPosts: 2,051
Like?
Re: mFT is superior hence it should be even more expensive
In reply to BeaverTerror, 6 months ago

Fuji is junk. mFT is the best ever.  You should be glad that it is only $1600 instead of $16,000

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chez Wimpy
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,783Gear list
Like?
Re: Presumably...
In reply to Amin Sabet, 6 months ago

Amin Sabet wrote:

but in reality better lenses are worth more money,

and Leica lenses are worth more money than that again

For me, given this angle of view and intended portrait purpose (lack of lens movements would restrict my landscapes to distant/distant or tedious focus-stacking), it is overwhelmingly a matter of balancing aperture to cost. A 28° AOV lens with 70mm+ aperture cost me 130,000yen back in 2005 (came with a free red ring!), the current Panasonic is 150,000yen for a 35mm aperture though it includes OIS.  I have discovered over the last nine years that 28° AOV for human subjects does not require stabilization in 99% of situations - that my hand-shake interval corresponds to subject-shake.  When stopped all the way down to a 35mm aperture, I have seen reports that my lens is a fantastic performer... though I have scant photographic evidence of my own to back that up   Un-acceptable sharpness in a portrait lens is something I have only ever encountered in the worst-of-the-worst kit-quality telephoto zooms.

I guess my perspective is that the only reasonable cost performing lens that mounts on m43 cameras in this AOV range carries a not-unimpressive 25mm aperture with the commensurate cost of 26,000yen.  That particular lens has gotten a lot of work for official portraits since it fits in my pocket, is perfectly suited for head-shoulders with lighting-fast face-eye detect AF, and appropriately deep (shallow?) DOF wide-open.

Two different approaches, but I find it much easier to play to each format's strength rather than fighting with my wallet to try and merge the two.

-- hide signature --

-CW

 Chez Wimpy's gear list:Chez Wimpy's gear list
Sigma DP1 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 550D Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
oklaphotog
Contributing MemberPosts: 774Gear list
Like?
Because it says Leica on it. N/T
In reply to BeaverTerror, 6 months ago
No text.
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,510
Like?
Re: That's *exactly*...
In reply to Bill Wallace, 6 months ago

Bill Wallace wrote:

Then when you whip out that "equivalence theory" business on them Joe the ladies just can't help them selves!!!!!

Absolutely.  Aaron Johnson had me in mind for his latest strip:

Except that lens wasn't long enough. 

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
amtberg
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,393
Like?
Re: That's *exactly*...
In reply to Great Bustard, 6 months ago

Great Bustard wrote:

Bill Wallace wrote:

Then when you whip out that "equivalence theory" business on them Joe the ladies just can't help them selves!!!!!

Absolutely. Aaron Johnson had me in mind for his latest strip:

Except that lens wasn't long enough.

Oh, the ladies understand.  The lens may not be that long, but with the CROP FACTOR....

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Altruisto
Contributing MemberPosts: 797
Like?
Re: Why is the 42.5 F/1.2 $1600 when the Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is only $1000?
In reply to BeaverTerror, 6 months ago

The Fuji lens is not 60% cheaper, it's 37,5% cheaper. the base is Panasonic price. But I do agree that this lens is overpriced. It's always the case when there's some exotic glass in it. Look at the new Nikon 58mm f1.4 lens, it sells right now at 1600€ !

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/altruisto/
http://www.facebook.com/tarekmradrtci
https://twitter.com/#!/tarekmrad
owning a Nikon D600 with a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, and a bunch of Nikon primes, a Nikon J1 but not particularly a Nikon fanboy, since I have an Olympus E-PL5, a Panasonic GX7, a Sony RX10 and a Canon S110 too!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jennajenna
Senior MemberPosts: 1,155
Like?
Re: Why is the 42.5 F/1.2 $1600 when the Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is only $1000?
In reply to BeaverTerror, 6 months ago

BeaverTerror wrote:

I'm contemplating keeping the 100-300mm and one M43 body, selling all my other M43 gear, and moving to Fuji. Can anyone offer a compelling reason for why I shouldn't switch?

You will also need to keep the 7-14mm with another m43 body as x mount has nothing that wide. Nor likely ever will.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
agentul
Contributing MemberPosts: 597Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is the 42.5 F/1.2 $1600 when the Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is only $1000?
In reply to Jim Salvas, 6 months ago

Jim Salvas wrote:

You have a lot if words in your post, but I don't see the one which most explains the price: "Leica."

It costs more to have that name on anything.

-- hide signature --

Jim Salvas

good strategy for making a profit in the used car market.

 agentul's gear list:agentul's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ2 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BeaverTerror
New MemberPosts: 19
Like?
Re: Why is the 42.5 F/1.2 $1600 when the Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is only $1000?
In reply to jennajenna, 6 months ago

jennajenna wrote:

BeaverTerror wrote:

I'm contemplating keeping the 100-300mm and one M43 body, selling all my other M43 gear, and moving to Fuji. Can anyone offer a compelling reason for why I shouldn't switch?

You will also need to keep the 7-14mm with another m43 body as x mount has nothing that wide. Nor likely ever will.

The upcoming Fuji 10-24mm F/4 is equivalent to 7.65-18.36mm in M43 terms. Good enough for me.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TangoR
Junior MemberPosts: 40
Like?
Re: Why is the 42.5 F/1.2 $1600 when the Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is only $1000?
In reply to Martin.au, 6 months ago

So go buy the Fuji.

Why not try the 45 1.8. It's proven to be quite the lens. And unless you need that extra 1.5 stops it's a good choice for 400 bucks

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
julieng
Contributing MemberPosts: 735
Like?
I don't know why we keep assuming
In reply to Jim Salvas, 6 months ago

Yes it has the word Leica stamped on it and is not impossible that they charge a premium for the fashionable name alone. Therefore? Therefore we don't know.

Could be higher quality control, higher precision, smaller volume, higher wages, etc. Those explanations too are not impossible...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dougjgreen1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,113Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is the 42.5 F/1.2 $1600 when the Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is only $1000?
In reply to BeaverTerror, 6 months ago

BeaverTerror wrote:

jennajenna wrote:

BeaverTerror wrote:

I'm contemplating keeping the 100-300mm and one M43 body, selling all my other M43 gear, and moving to Fuji. Can anyone offer a compelling reason for why I shouldn't switch?

You will also need to keep the 7-14mm with another m43 body as x mount has nothing that wide. Nor likely ever will.

The upcoming Fuji 10-24mm F/4 is equivalent to 7.65-18.36mm in M43 terms. Good enough for me.

So why don't you just switch?  Nobody's denying that Fuji doesn't also have a perfectly decent mirror less system.  But it's strengths do not seem to be the same as the strengths of the Micro 4/3 system.

If it were me,  I would just buy a perfectly nice 45mm f1.8 for $300 or so, push my ISO up a stop if I needed to, and know that good quality IBIS lets me have perfectly solid system for low-light shooting, and smile at the $700 or $1300 that stayed in my bank account.

 dougjgreen1's gear list:dougjgreen1's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon 1 V2 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 45-175mm F4.0-5.6 ASPH OIS +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
julieng
Contributing MemberPosts: 735
Like?
Re: Presumably...
In reply to Chez Wimpy, 6 months ago

Agreed. For portraiture IS is at best of theoretical use.

Lack of OIS would not deter me from buying this lens. Like most, price does, no matter how I appreciate the lens itself... That being said, OIS is a welcome addition, not for portraiture, but for the fact that this actually is a general purpose short tele lens that happens to be in a sweet spot for portraiture: if not portraiture, I can think of many other cases where you want to stop down several stops.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads