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

Started Mar 2, 2014 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 40,769

Chez Wimpy wrote:

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.

Regardless of whether or not FF options are "better", it's good to have choices.  The question is if lenses other than a $1600 42.5 / 1.2 OIS would have been more profitable, both for Panasonic and for the success of the mFT system.

In my opinion, such a high performance optic is to mFT what lenses like the 200 / 2L IS are to FF -- an outstanding lens that few will ever buy, but the existence of which draws people to the format 'cause they see the company as taking the format very seriously.

Whether or not that was a smart move compared to other lenses that might draw people to the system (a 200 / 2.8 and 400 / 5.6 come to mind), I cannot say.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow