Not a flame war. A legitimate lens comparison

pede59 wrote:

golfhov wrote:

This has bad idea written all over it. I am not trying to talk bad about any format. Just a somewhat objective comparison. It seems that most of the different mirrorless cameras have similarly priced lenses when trying to do direct comparisons. This is the body of text from another forum. There are outliers here and there. There is also the fact that not all lenses are created equal. The sony 55 1.8 vs the canon 50 1.8 is two very different lenses. but overall it seems that for the most part that across the formats the lenses are largely similar in size and price. I posted in this forum here because you will be more familiar with m43 lenses. This is also a sampling of three lenses. You could do any myriad of comparisions but overall the results seem similar. Agree or disagree?

ChuckTa wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

I am still camp Sony, but I was pricing out building a system to fit my needs with Fuji glass and the results were eye opening. I need 3 lenses- an ultrawide, a 35mm equivalent prime and a 50-55mm equivalent prime.

Ultra wide:

• Fuji- 10-24/4- $1000 new/$850 used
• Sony E- 10-18/4- $850 new/$550 used (not as tele/versatile)
• Sony FE- 16-35/4- $1350 new/$1150 used (1 stop faster)
• samsung 12-24 f4=5.6 $516 new
• Oly 7-14 2.8 new 1300

35mm equivalent:

• Fuji- 23 1.4- $900 new/$650 used
• Sony E- 24Z- $1100 new/$650 used (~1/2 stop slower than Fuji)
• Sony FE- 35/2.8- $800 new/$575 used (~1 stop slower than Fuji, ~.3 stop slower than 24Z)
• samsung 20 2.8 $330 new
• Panasonic 15 1/7 $600 new

50-55mm equivalent:

• Fuji- 35 1.4- $600 new/$400 used
• Sony E- 35/1.8- $450 new/$400 used (~1/2 stop slower than Fuji)
• Sony FE- 55/1.8- $1000 new/$750 used (~1/3 stop faster than Fuji)
• samsung 30 f2 $200 new
• Panasonic 25 f 1.4 new 600

Grand totals:

• Fuji- $2500 new/$1900 used
• Sony E- $2400 new/$1600 used
• Sony FE- $3150 new/$2475 used
• Samsung $1,046 new
• Olympus m4/3 $2500 new

So for this setup only $100-300 saved depending on how you go, at least for glass. I still think Fujis offer worse value for the money overall due to their body pricing. But even still, there are some gems there too. An X-E1 costs about the same as a NEX-6. Adding in Samsung samsung is the least eaxpensive and smallest. It is also not apples to apples. Every single lens in that scenario is slower. There is no native lenses that match up well for samsung. Adding M 4/3 is interesting. They in the same ball park as the first three and almost all the lenses are slower and just as large.

I believe you can also put together a Samsung NX lens set cheaper.

The price in Amazon for the trio Samsung NX 12-24mm, 30mm f2, 45mm f1.8 is pretty good. It is also the smallest size among the apsc cameras, its my default travelling lens.

I tried to throw samsung and M4/3 in the mix for fun. They are a lot harder to match up exact apples to apples. In almost every case these two lag behind the first three. In samsung case you do get smaller less expnsive lenses. M4/3 You are paying the same money and getting large lenses without the benefits. Anyone that reads this can feel free to edit it but now that there are five columns this can get messed up quickly.

What happens if you extend to larger focal lengths?

well if you extend to larger focal lengths then you need to be further from your subject if you are trying to do shallow depth of field. Now we are even further fro  "equivalent"

Also the original post says " ... almost all the lenses are slower". I do not think that is correct. Maybe a reference to "equivalence"?

yes I should have said that better. That is a misstatement on my part that I should be more careful with in the future