Wasn't m43 lens supposed to be $ cheaper?

[Jacques Cornell]

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.

It's a mixed bag. Some equivalent primes cost the same or more for m43. And, for the same price and angle of coverage, I'd hoped m43 lenses would be faster. On the other hand...

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

Panasonic's fast zooms are about half the price of Canon's FF equivalents. For example, At B&H, Canon's 70-200mm f2.8 IS II costs $2,499, whereas Panasonic's 35-100mm f2.8 IS costs $1,338. Canon's unstabilized 24-70mm f2.8 II is $2,299 vs. Panasonic's 12-35mm f2.8 IS at $1,119.

For me, the affordability of these fast zooms is a major draw.

 

[broody]

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.

No mail-in rebate is ever going to include a shrink ray to make your FF gear miraculously downsize to one-third the bulk, though. Talk of 1:1 equivalencies is deeply flawed. People always ignore either the disparity in light gathering or in size when trying to make a point.

Anyway, I don't see M43 lens prices as exorbitant. I'll answer the OP's question with: cheaper than what? Sure, nifty fifties for DSLRs are pretty cheap. And you can get good deal for old lenses (though they will be optically lesser) or third party glass (which poses a risk of being plagued by AF problems). But you'll quickly run into glass that costs well north of $1000. Even the most expensive M43 F/0.95 lenses are much less than the asking price of similarly built Zeiss glass.

 

[Joseph T Lewis III]

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!

Go back and read the original micro four thirds announcements (one such link follows, others can be found by Googling). The touted benefits were smaller, lighter, more compact sized cameras and lenses, while still maintaining high image quality. They also talked about live view comparable to a compact camera, and a system that could be adapted to provide video capabilities. I could find nothing that said m4/3 was "supposed to be cheaper" than 4/3 or APS-C (or FF for that matter) DSLR's.

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3607&review=micro+four+thirds

Having said that, I share your pain and wish the equipment could be cheaper too. But, keep in mind that it's only been around since 2008 or so; it's not like the Canikon systems that have been around for many years. As another poster said, those systems R&D have been amortized over time and millions of pieces of gear; m4/3's has not.

 

[Erik Magnuson]

No mail-in rebate is ever going to include a shrink ray to make your FF gear miraculously downsize to one-third the bulk, though.

Nope, but the issue was price for an equivalent not size.

Talk of 1:1 equivalencies is deeply flawed. People always ignore either the disparity in light gathering or in size when trying to make a point.

It's just more flawed to compare different focal lengths while ignoring that f-stop depends on focal length. BTW, no one is ignoring size - in fact the difference in light gathering is one reason for the size disparity.

 

[Hen3ry]

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.

Very similar in Austtralia -- $2600 and $1300 respectively. Right now, they are both on sale at $2300 and $1200 respectively.

The Canon f4 24-70 is $1300. But that is f4 while the Panny 12-35 and the similarly priced Oly 12-40 are f2.8.

Cheers, geoff

 

[Paul De Bra]

If you count the amount of raw material used the lenses would be a few $ cheaper. This is negligible compared to the total cost of engineering and manufacturing and the whole transportation and retail chain that follows.

Miniaturization seldom means that the design, engineering, manufacturing, transport and retail chain becomes significantly cheaper. Design and engineering are often more difficult. Transport is a bit cheaper and so are the raw materials used. Overall I would not expect a real difference.

We live in a partially free economy which means that prices are mostly determined by what consumers are willing to pay. A new Canon 24-70 f/2.8 costs much more than a Panasonic 12-35 because the Canon full frame users are willing to pay more. A Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 is much less expensive because people buying it want significant savings over the Canon equivalent.

 

[zxaar]

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.

 

[n3eg]

I want cheaper and smaller manual fast lenses for micro four thirds. Not a body cap lens, not a Lomo lens, just a good manual native fast lens. If a tiny Pentax Auto 110 f/2.8 24mm lens will work on micro four thirds, it can be done.

 

[Erik Magnuson]

I stand corrected, but still believe f2.8 is f2.8 no matter the format

35mm is still 35mm no matter what the format -- in terms of focal length. It's those other pesky attributes like AOV and DOF and light gathering that matter?

in terms of exposure.

At what ISOs? This is part of exposure and equivalence.

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.

No one thing is all-important - it's all about making tradeoffs between the advantages and disadvantages of the formats. If you prefer a different set of features vs. performance that's fine, but at least try to understand the actual differences.

 

[Erik Magnuson]

just a good manual native fast lens.

If it's "native" then it needs an electronic aperture control motor which increases the cost and size.

If a tiny Pentax Auto 110 f/2.8 24mm lens will work on micro four thirds, it can be done.

On a lens w/o any aperture blades ;-)

If it's cheap, it has to compete with all of the cheap legacy lenses for the subset of the market that will tolerate a manual focus lens. Hard to make a profit with both low-price and low-volume.

 

[Andkar]

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.)

--
Erik

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.

So you're saying a FF 2.8 does not gather 2 stops more light than a m43 2.8?

 

[mister_roboto]

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.

So you're saying a FF 2.8 does not gather 2 stops more light than a m43 2.8?

YES.

It "gathers 2 stops more light" to cover it's larger sensor, but for exposure:

f2.8 is f2.8

Pick up a light meter: does it have a "Medium format" "135 format" "1/2 frame format" switch on it? No of course not.

I mean you can mount a FF lens on a µ4/3 camera- but that extra light is meaningless- as it's larger than the sensor, hence the term "crop." µ4/3 are built for µ4/3 sensors, they don't crop anything.

 

[Erik Magnuson]

f2.8 is f2.8

Pick up a light meter: does it have a "Medium format" "135 format" "1/2 frame format" switch on it? No of course not.

But it has an ISO (or ASA/DIN or even Weston Number) dial. Tri-X on 4x5 and Tri-X on 35mm can be exposed identically but you get rather different results in a print. There is something else than simply f/2.8 or we'd all use f/2.4 camera phone lenses for 1/2-stop better exposure.

µ4/3 are built for µ4/3 sensors, they don't crop anything.

Sure some do - as a simple example look at the Sigma 19/30/60mm lenses that work on both µ4/3 and APS-C. Remove the rear baffle and they cover even more area. Much the same applies to any longer lens - the native image circle is typically larger than the format but mechanically cropped.

 

[sean000]

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!

You will always pay what the market will bear for the latest gear. In theory smaller sensor's were supposed to translate to smaller lenses and less material... but that doesn't guarantee lower prices. There are the design and development costs, and the actual cost of manufacturing the lens... which may not be any cheaper than what it costs to build a larger lens. Modern lenses are crammed full of electronics compared to older designs: Autofocus motors, image stabilizers, motorized zoom options, etc. I'm sure any manufacturer will tell you that they need to charge a certain amount to make up for the design, materials, manufacturing process, etc... but they also have to price it realistically so people will buy. I'd say overall the prices are cheaper than full frame, but it depends on the lenses you want to compare for a given field of view.

You can find really cheap, as well as really expensive, primes in just about any system. The 45mm f/1.8 is a bargain for what it is. Other times you might pay more for a m4/3 lens. Excellent primes cost money, unless you're willing to give up autofocus and buy some legacy primes. If you hit Craigslist at the right time, you can buy a bag full of older manual focus lenses that are optically excellent.

Sean

 

[Hen3ry]

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.

Erik, sorry, friend, you're the one who failed high school maths. In fact, Indonesian primary school kids could work this one out.

f2.8 = f2.8 whether the lens is for a tiny P&S or a 8x10 plate camera.

Sure, the hole in the lens and the total amount of light transmitted by f2.8 for m43 are smaller than f2.8 for FF, but that is not important.

What counts is the amount of light per unit area falling on the sensor. And they are equal.

Cheers, geoff

 

[Englishman in France]

I want cheaper and smaller manual fast lenses for micro four thirds. Not a body cap lens, not a Lomo lens, just a good manual native fast lens. If a tiny Pentax Auto 110 f/2.8 24mm lens will work on micro four thirds, it can be done.

This might be too cheap, but if you haven't heard about the manual focus Jackar 35mm F1.8 lens, then this review certainly makes an interesting read.

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/02/27/review-jackar-snapshooter-34mm-f1-8-micro-four-thirds/

All the best

 

[pedronicoli]

Thanks you all for your thoughts.
i was really impressed how this thread got so many users attention! hehe

Overall I think most people got concerned in prove me wrong than to think about what i really meant.

Everyone reminded me that the NEW canon 24-70 is twice the price of the pan 12-35.
But bare in mind that this is the NEw lens, more expensive than the last one...

Anyway, i think the lens should be cheaper

That would make the system more attractive, making m43 more popular, meaning more brands, more lenses...you got my point.

NOW: to trow more wood in the fire:
Nikkon 50mm 1.8 G, wich is a spectacular mounted on the D800 : 216,95 @ BH

Panasonic LUMIX G 20mm f/1.7 (closest to the lens above i could find) : 398 @ BH

yeah yeah, you are all going to say " its the price for miniaturization"...

but it's kind of too much, dont u think?

 

[Martin.au]

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!

Fraid not.

The idea that lenses should be priced based on their equivalence is nothing more than the trolling of M4/3s users.

Consider a 24-70 F2.8 FF lens.

Now, shrink the whole thing down to half the size, to 12-35mm f2.8.

Where's the cost savings? You save a little bit on material costs. Maybe a tiny bit on manufacturing, though probably not much, as the smaller lens can also tolerate less in terms of aberrations. R&D probably costs more, as a 12-35 for M4/3s is a new design, (unlike the well known 24-70 designs) and is expected to be sharp from f2.8 (eg: Look at the very exotic glass forumla in the 12-40).

I think they're priced about right.

Furthermore, let's have a look at 3 lenses, with the same goal. (Prices from Teds)

Nikon 24-70 f2.8 = $2299

Nikon 17-55 f2.8 = $1899

So, $400 for 1 1/3 of a stop. I'd expect a saving of maybe $200 for the remaining 2/3 of a stop.

Olympus 12-40 f2.8 = $1199, $600 cheaper than the DX lens, and it's a better lens than the DX, being sharp from the get go.

Hmmm, what about Canon

Canon 24-70 f2.8 = $2499

Canon 17-55 f2.8 = $1099 (What? But how can this be? Isn't there supposed to be some relationship between format size and cost? Perhaps not. It's also only 27mm EFL on the wide end.)

So, in short, imagining that there's some standard linear relationship between lens focal length and aperture, and format size is wishful thinking. You can't ignore the many other factors such as design goals, construction, optical quality, etc.

 

[sean000]

Thanks you all for your thoughts.
i was really impressed how this thread got so many users attention! hehe

Overall I think most people got concerned in prove me wrong than to think about what i really meant.

Everyone reminded me that the NEW canon 24-70 is twice the price of the pan 12-35.
But bare in mind that this is the NEw lens, more expensive than the last one...

Anyway, i think the lens should be cheaper

That would make the system more attractive, making m43 more popular, meaning more brands, more lenses...you got my point.

NOW: to trow more wood in the fire:
Nikkon 50mm 1.8 G, wich is a spectacular mounted on the D800 : 216,95 @ BH

The 50mm f/1.8 lenses have long represented the best value in the DSLR world. I paid less than $100 for the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D ten years ago (which, by the way, makes an excellent manual focus portrait prime on m4/3). It's important to note that most DSLR manufacturers offer at least two (and often more) 50mm primes. The f/1.8 models usually cost very little, and were sometimes sold as kit lenses back in the film day. The f/1.4 models usually cost at least a couple hundred more. You can think of the 50mm f/1.8 as a gateway lens to the world of fast glas ;-)

Panasonic LUMIX G 20mm f/1.7 (closest to the lens above i could find) : 398 @ BH

The Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 is an even better match, but costs more than even the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4 G! The 20mm f/1.7 used to be a Panasonic kit lens, so it was much more affordable to buy it that way (I bought mine with a GF1 in 2010). While the autofocus is a tad slow on the 20mm f/1.7, the size advantage of the 20mm f/1.7 pancake cannot be overstated. When you mount it to a m4/3 body the entire camera+lens is in the same size/weight range as an enthusiast compact. Speaking of pancakes, the Panny 14mm pancake is a serious value. A m4/3 kit with the 14mm and 20mm pancakes, along with a 45mm f/1.8, makes for a super light kit.

yeah yeah, you are all going to say " its the price for miniaturization"...

but it's kind of too much, dont u think?

But then there is the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 for $100 less than a Nikon 85mm f/1.8 G. I think in the end you just have to decide what what lenses you would buy from the various systems available (m4/3, APS-C DSLR, APS-C Mirrorless, full frame, etc.), add up the costs of those specific items (along with the body you want of course), flashguns, accessories, etc. and weigh all that against other factors... like a desire for more portability.

In my experience, owning both Nikon and m4/3 gear, it's better to get the gear you want and not worry about price too much. Oh sure you have to pay attention to your budget, but what's the better value? A DSLR kit that costs less but stays home more often, or a m4/3 kit that costs more (or maybe not... depending on what you buy) but gets used a lot more frequently?

Sean

 

[Erik Magnuson]

f2.8 = f2.8 whether the lens is for a tiny P&S or a 8x10 plate camera.

And 35mm is 35mm for any camera. Why is the focal length by itself important? Because you want equivalent AOV not equal focal length. Same with f/2.8: you want equivalent light gathering capability not equal f-stop.

Sure, the hole in the lens and the total amount of light transmitted by f2.8 for m43 are smaller than f2.8 for FF, but that is not important.

Not important to whom? If all you are counting is f-stop, then the Sony RX-10 is also f/2.8 from 24mm to 200mm. Does it have the same low-light capability? My iPhone is f/2.2 - is that better than the f/2.8 on the other lenses?

What counts is the amount of light per unit area falling on the sensor. And they are equal.

Somehow I doubt you think that's all that counts if the sensor is smaller than MFT - only if larger.

--
Erik