Wasn't m43 lens supposed to be $ cheaper?

[pedronicoli]

Why fast or primes are so expensive? I mean...they often cost the same as full frame lens!
i though as the whole system is smaller, lens should be a bit cheaper.

Like the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 costs the same as the Canon full frame equivalent.

Ans i also wish third party brands would pay more atention to m43.
I had a Tamron 17-50 2.8 for Nikon. it was sharp as hell, and half the price of the nikon equivalent!

 

[PhotographicPhil]

Panasonic GF5 + 14-42mm kit lens on sale for £179 here in the UK. Seems quite cheap to me. Would you like to elaborate?

 

[Jorginho]

I bought it because it was (and is) smaller and lighter than APS-c cams. You want quality lenses that are miniaturised? You pay for that.

to me, it are the lenses that make or break the system. In m43s case, at least in the mirrorless arena, it is making the system to my mind.

 

[Henry Richardson]

Take a look at a Leica RF lens and compare its size and price to a Canon SLR lens.

I wish all m4/3 gear was less expensive, but smaller often doesn't mean cheaper. Have you compared the prices of a Toyota Prius and Ford F-350 pickup truck?

 

[Fredrik Glckner]

Like the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 costs the same as the Canon full frame equivalent.

Er, the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 costs $2300, while the Lumix X 12-35mm f/2.8 costs $1100.

Micro 4/3rds Photography

m43photo.blogspot.com

 

[Peng Bian]

I'm going to regret replying to this. If you mean F2.8, those lenses cost twice as much. If you mean equivalent with respect to light gathering, there are no such lens, but a high quality F4 full frame lens is about the same price. Third party lens makers are cheaper.

Overall, don't expect m43 lenses to be much cheaper.
--

500px

500px.com

 

[Gregm61]

Smaller has never meant cheaper. That's a bad assumption on your part.

 

[Peng Bian]

I'm going to regret replying to this. If you mean F2.8, those lenses cost twice as much. If you mean equivalent with respect to light gathering, there are no such lens, but a high quality F4 full frame lens is about the same price. Third party lens makers are cheaper.

Overall, don't expect m43 lenses to be much cheaper.
--

500px

500px.com

 

[Marcello Zini]

I'm going to regret replying to this. If you mean F2.8, those lenses cost twice as much. If you mean equivalent with respect to light gathering, there are no such lens, but a high quality F4 full frame lens is about the same price. Third party lens makers are cheaper.

Overall, don't expect m43 lenses to be much cheaper.
--
http://500px.com/PBian

Well, no, not necessarily. The OP focuses also on 3rd party lens vendors, check this FF 2.8 lens, I had it and it was pretty good although 28-75 vs 24-70

http://www.amazon.it/Tamron-Aspheri...e=UTF8&qid=1388411809&sr=1-14&keywords=tamron

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=tamron+28-75&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

while the new 24-70 is still cheaper

http://www.amazon.it/s/ref=nb_sb_ss...8 di vc usd&sprefix=tamron+24,electronics,240

at list with FF you have the option and similar offers come from Sigma, with m43 no. Hope Tammy and Sigma go m43 all the way soon.Of course, if you want lenses from the same brand of the camera things get expensive in FF world...

I understand that the light gathering changes in absolute terms, but in relative terms, which is what we care about, 2.8 is 2.8 anywhere but, following another school of thought, as you imply we could compare m43 2.8 lenses to FF 5.6 lenses whith the idea of looking for a sort of equivalence DOF / iso noise

 

[Deleted010614]

Why fast or primes are so expensive? I mean...they often cost the same as full frame lens!
i though as the whole system is smaller, lens should be a bit cheaper.
Like the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 costs the same as the Canon full frame equivalent.
Ans i also wish third party brands would pay more atention to m43.
I had a Tamron 17-50 2.8 for Nikon. it was sharp as hell, and half the price of the nikon equivalent!

When I was new to photography "DSLR's" and didn't know anything I thought that speed & sharpness were the things that made a lens great. Then I learned a valuable lesson by buying some Tamron & Sigma lenses "all I could afford at the time". I even bought the one you mention above. They were plenty sharp in the middle and cheap enough but the build quality was junk. Then I borrowed a richer friends Canon "L" lens and quickly learned that speed and sharpness are good but sharpness throughout, color, contrast, and build quality were why Canon & Nikon lenses were twice "or more" expensive.

That's what you are paying for with the quality Panasonic & Olympus lenses and BTW I know from experience "still have a stable of Canon's & "L" lenses" they are not in the same price category. Don't know what you are thinking with that comment but if you want cheap they make cell phones with cameras in them now.

 

[jeffharris]

I bought it because it was (and is) smaller and lighter than APS-c cams. You want quality lenses that are miniaturised? You pay for that.

to me, it are the lenses that make or break the system. In m43s case, at least in the mirrorless arena, it is making the system to my mind.

Exactly. You want fast? You want good or exceptional? You PAY for it! A few less grams of glass, metal or plastic really aren't going to make that much of a difference, price-wise. Miniaturization DOES cost!

Unlike the mechanical cameras of the past, where very little changed technologically over time and they were built to last for years, if not decades. If you wanted to improve your images, beyond improving your technique and skills, you changed film or printing paper. Today's cameras are little computers with lens mounts. As we all know, like with computers, as the technology improves… sensors, AF and whatnot… we want/need to buy new bodies that incorporate these advancements.

Lenses ARE the system. Quality, fast lenses are expensive, regardless of format or sensor size.

 

[PhotographicPhil]

That's strange, there was no text in the op's post when I first replied. I agree with others that making things smaller usually costs more money, especially when it is of comparable quality and with similar performance. I am amazed that some of the lenses (and bodies) are as cheap as they are.

 

[Gregm61]

Like the Panasonic 12-35 2.8

Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 is $1,119 at B&H.

costs the same as the Canon full frame equivalent.

The Canon 24-70mm f2.8 is $2,229 at B&H.

Failed grade school math/economics, or possibly both? Here's a hint.....the higher number is more in this case.

--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights

 

[Erik Magnuson]

Why fast or primes are so expensive? I mean...they often cost the same as full frame lens!
i though as the whole system is smaller, lens should be a bit cheaper.

If the smaller coverage lens is to have equivalent quality, it must be made to higher precision.

Also new lenses are more expensive than existing designs with amortized costs, e.g. Nikon and Canon new lenses cost much more than the lenses they replace.

 

[Erik Magnuson]

Like the Panasonic 12-35 2.8

Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 is $1,119 at B&H.

costs the same as the Canon full frame equivalent.

There is no equivalent 24-70mm f/5.6 but the Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS is $1199 after $300 mail-in rebate.

The Canon 24-70mm f2.8 is $2,229 at B&H.

Failed grade school math/economics, or possibly both? Here's a hint.....the higher number is more in this case.

Did you fail high-school algebra? If you multiply the focal length by 2 what do you do with the f-stop side of the equation? (Here's a hint: don't sail "fail" unless you are perfectly correct.)

 

[Deleted010614]

Like the Panasonic 12-35 2.8

Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 is $1,119 at B&H.

costs the same as the Canon full frame equivalent.

There is no equivalent 24-70mm f/5.6 but the Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS is $1199 after $300 mail-in rebate.

The Canon 24-70mm f2.8 is $2,229 at B&H.

Failed grade school math/economics, or possibly both? Here's a hint.....the higher number is more in this case.

Did you fail high-school algebra? If you multiply the focal length by 2 what do you do with the f-stop side of the equation? (Here's a hint: don't sail "fail" unless you are perfectly correct.)

 

[Brian D. Schneider]

Why fast or primes are so expensive? I mean...they often cost the same as full frame lens!
i though as the whole system is smaller, lens should be a bit cheaper.
Like the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 costs the same as the Canon full frame equivalent.
Ans i also wish third party brands would pay more atention to m43.
I had a Tamron 17-50 2.8 for Nikon. it was sharp as hell, and half the price of the nikon equivalent!

The Camera Store, Calgary

12-35 f2.8 pan $1199

24-70 f2.8 Canon $1899.

Nope not the same.

 

[JYPfoto]

Like the Panasonic 12-35 2.8

Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 is $1,119 at B&H.

costs the same as the Canon full frame equivalent.

There is no equivalent 24-70mm f/5.6 but the Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS is $1199 after $300 mail-in rebate.

The Canon 24-70mm f2.8 is $2,229 at B&H.

Failed grade school math/economics, or possibly both? Here's a hint.....the higher number is more in this case.

Did you fail high-school algebra? If you multiply the focal length by 2 what do you do with the f-stop side of the equation? (Here's a hint: don't sail "fail" unless you are perfectly correct.)

 

[Gregm61]

Like the Panasonic 12-35 2.8

Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 is $1,119 at B&H.

costs the same as the Canon full frame equivalent.

There is no equivalent 24-70mm f/5.6 but the Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS is $1199 after $300 mail-in rebate.

The Canon 24-70mm f2.8 is $2,229 at B&H.

Failed grade school math/economics, or possibly both? Here's a hint.....the higher number is more in this case.

Did you fail high-school algebra? If you multiply the focal length by 2 what do you do with the f-stop side of the equation? (Here's a hint: don't sail "fail" unless you are perfectly correct.)

I stand corrected, but still believe f2.8 is f2.8 no matter the format in terms of exposure. Everyone else can argue the depth of field equivalence cr@p. If the depth of field equivalence game was that important we'd all be using medium format or 8x10 instead of all these smaller formats, including 35mm size sensors.

--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights

 

[Erik Magnuson]

2.8 is 2.8 for light gathering, the 5.6 equivalent is in a DoF. But a 2.8 in any size gathers light the same.

At a minimum, there is more than one measure of equivalence.

Gathering light for the lens being the same only matters if the sensitivity of the sensor is the same.