Why is the 14 2.8 so expensive?

Labe said:

Lucky your not buying the Nikon 14mm f2.8

it’s double the price of the Fuji lens.

Click to expand...

Apples to oranges.

The Nikon one is for full frame sensors (which are a bit harder to cover at that focal length).

There's no denying the Fuji 14 2.8 is a great lens although in my view it's too expensive for what it is. It should've been closer to the 16 2.8's price and definitely not as much as FF 20 1.8 lenses.

Miguel-C said:

jonathanblanchflower said:

deednets said:

jonathanblanchflower said:

I'm thinking compared to the Sony 20 1.8, which has around two stops more depth control and seems to be a pretty similar price.

Click to expand...

"The produced distortion of the Fujinon is possibly the biggest surprise in this review - it has almost none (0.4% barrel distortion). This is also valid for the RAW data so there's no active auto-correction necessary here."

https://opticallimits.com/fuji_x/807-fuji14f28?start=1

Tongariro Crossing 2013 X-E1

Chiang Rai 2018 X-T20

Deed

Click to expand...

I've read the optical limits review before- I'm not oblivious to how impressive having such a small amount of distortion from such a lens is, but is that really why it is so expensive? Obviously not singularly, but certainly a fundamental reason?

Maybe I just don't know enough about offerings at this focal range. It just seems to me that a 21mm f4.2 ff equiv (in terms of DoF control) lens shouldn't be costing the same as a 20mm 1.8 that apparently makes few optical sacrifices itself.

Click to expand...

A 14mm lens is a 14mm lens, you shouldn't be comparing it with a 20mm, FF or otherwise. The manufacting of a 14mm lens that is well corrected will always be more expensive than a 20mm lens.

--
Cordial Regards

Click to expand...

i don't know that it's unfair exactly- the fuji lens only needs to cover an apsc-sized sensor which surely helps to moderate the cost some. surely that's part of the reason why a lens like the 56 1.2 is at least somewhat competitively priced against other brands' 85 1.8s, in spite of the fact that a 1.2 aperture lens will be harder to make than a 1.8的. plus, all of fuji's lenses are (to me it seems) priced reasonably closely to their full-frame equivalents, albeit usually slightly more pricey. the outlier to me seems to be this lens, especially when compared to something like the sony, which has two equiv stops of DoF control over it.

Anyway, I'm not going to pretend that I know very much about lens design; I'm genuinely curious as to why this lens costs what it does, and as several people have brought up the lack of distortion, i'll have to assume that I underestimated how much that adds to the cost of such a lens.

jonathanblanchflower said:

I'm thinking compared to the Sony 20 1.8, which has around two stops more depth control and seems to be a pretty similar price.

Click to expand...

There is more to lens price than just the maximum aperture.

It's one of the best lenses from Fuji so I think it is cheap. The best wide angle lens I have ever owned.

Note the vertical element on the right in the first photo. There is no distortion. I love mine and would never sell it.





--
Zack S
https://www.flickr.com/photos/10025089@N05/ https://www.instagram.com/schindlerzack/

DarnGoodPhotos said:

jonathanblanchflower said:

I'm thinking compared to the Sony 20 1.8, which has around two stops more depth control and seems to be a pretty similar price.

Click to expand...

There is more to lens price than just the maximum aperture

Click to expand...

never said it wasn't - but it is undeniable that it is one of the best predictors for a lens' price, and the most common distinguishing feature between lenses of the same/similar focal length.

Labe said:

Lucky your not buying the Nikon 14mm f2.8

it’s double the price of the Fuji lens.

Click to expand...

That lens is $1900 USD; https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/201421-USA/Nikon_1925_Super_Wide_Angle_AF.html

--
Zack S
https://www.flickr.com/photos/10025089@N05/ https://www.instagram.com/schindlerzack/

Miguel-C said:

Miguel-C said:

[snipped]

Click to expand...

A 14mm lens is a 14mm lens, you shouldn't be comparing it with a 20mm, FF or otherwise. The manufacting of a 14mm lens that is well corrected will always be more expensive than a 20mm lens.

Click to expand...

Umm, no. That would be true if the 14mm had to cover the same size sensor - because then it'd have a wider field of view than a 20mm and need to control light coming in at those wider angles. Since it doesn't, those wider angles light rays land on black absorbing material in the lens wall or mount and can be ignored.

An APS-C 14mm lens could be made by simply shrinking a 21mm FF lens uniformly in all directions. The glass elements shrink, the sensor coverage goes with them, as does the focal length, until at 14mm focal length it covers APS-C with the exact same falloff and unchanged design. That is not how APS-C lenses are designed, but it's a way they can be designed. Unless already at the edge of manufacturing size, there is nothing more complicated about the smaller one.

TL;DR: 20mm FF lens is an appropriate comparison to make. Equivalent, not equal.

I've been looking at it as well, and I think there is ~3 parts to this.

1) There is indeed more to lens design, especially at such wide angles. The 14mm 2.8 has a certain quality that strikes me every time I see it. Those wider aperture or zooming alternatives don't have that, they have other qualities instead. That said, it's very hard to quantify while aperture is easy to quantify. Horses for courses.

2) There is a "Fuji tax", but I attribute the majority of that to being more of a "FF mirrorless subsidy". The Fuji gear is priced close to where it should, it's the others that are unnaturally cheap due to the hard competition right now for winning early market share and volume advantage in the FF mirrorless market. They're putting investor money or old savings into it, to the benefit of the one buying right now. The cost for you the consumer is a little bit of risk: If in two years Nikon or Canon are still losing money on FF mirrorless, the investors may put a stop to it, raising prices, cutting further investment, etc.
With Fujifilm going financially steady straight ahead, the risk of upgrade/replacement path disappearing is lower.

3) Competition has stiffened, including the Sony and Nikon 20mm/21mm lenses you mention. Those didn't exist when the 14mm 2.8 was launched, in fact I'm pretty sure it had the single best image quality you could get in any consumer system around that focal length. The lens may not be outdated yet, but the price is. It's not entirely justified by points 1 and 2 above, so yes the 14mm 2.8 is somewhat overpriced.

jonathanblanchflower said:

DarnGoodPhotos said:

jonathanblanchflower said:

I'm thinking compared to the Sony 20 1.8, which has around two stops more depth control and seems to be a pretty similar price.

Click to expand...

There is more to lens price than just the maximum aperture

Click to expand...

never said it wasn't - but it is undeniable that it is one of the best predictors for a lens' price, and the most common distinguishing feature between lenses of the same/similar focal length.

Click to expand...

In a world with $100 f1.4 Chinese lenses ("Not that there's anything wrong with that."), maximum aperture isn't the sole indication of lens quality anymore.

--
www.darngoodphotos.com

norjens said:

Miguel-C said:

norjens said:

[snipped]

Click to expand...

A 14mm lens is a 14mm lens, you shouldn't be comparing it with a 20mm, FF or otherwise. The manufacting of a 14mm lens that is well corrected will always be more expensive than a 20mm lens.

Click to expand...

Umm, no. That would be true if the 14mm had to cover the same size sensor - because then it'd have a wider field of view than a 20mm and need to control light coming in at those wider angles. Since it doesn't, those wider angles light rays land on black absorbing material in the lens wall or mount and can be ignored.

An APS-C 14mm lens could be made by simply shrinking a 21mm FF lens uniformly in all directions. The glass elements shrink, the sensor coverage goes with them, as does the focal length, until at 14mm focal length it covers APS-C with the exact same falloff and unchanged design. That is not how APS-C lenses are designed, but it's a way they can be designed. Unless already at the edge of manufacturing size, there is nothing more complicated about the smaller one.

TL;DR: 20mm FF lens is an appropriate comparison to make. Equivalent, not equal.

Click to expand...

The sony 20mm is also for apsc camera bodies, doesn't seem like there's a difference at all. It's the sensor that crops in, not the glass.

Fuji prices change a lot as well. I used to see the little 27mm 2.8 pancake all the time brand new on eBay for $199, yesterday I did a search on eBay for it and new they are now asking around 300 for them. Wish I would have grabbed one a few years ago.

Apart from everything that has been said, you also have to take into account the market of these lenses, as well as their manufacturing location.

It is safe to assume there's a broader market for 20mm lens within the Sony E mount, than there is for a 20mm FF equivalent lens within Fuji's X mount, which means the Sony lens will be manufactured in greater numbers, thus cutting manufacturing costs. It is also important to note that Sony's E mount lenses are assembled in Thailand, while lenses, such as Fuji's 14mm f/2.8 are assembled in Japan. This is not to say that Sony's lenses are worse in any way, I'm merely saying that Sony's investment in a state of the art factory in Thailand allows them to considerably cut costs. If they were to produce the 20mm f/1.8 in Japan, there's no doubt it would be much more expensive.

These facts highlight why it is so problematic to compare costs of lenses from different brands, which fit different mounts and have different focal lengths.

My opinion is that such comparisons are merely academic and have no real use, since Sony's E mount full frame cameras lack some key features of Fuji's X mount lineup. This is why a comparison of lenses, which would produce a FOV of 20mm on E-mount APS-C cameras would be more useful.

In that case, if you opt for a f/1.8 aperture, you can get the $1599 Sigma 14mm f/1.8, which is sadly rather massive, or the $799 Samyang 14mm f/2.8, which is (only) a hundred dollars cheaper that the Fuji, but has much more distortion.

jonathanblanchflower said:

I'm thinking compared to the Sony 20 1.8, which has around two stops more depth control and seems to be a pretty similar price.

Click to expand...

Probably b/c of the IQ... it is my favorite and best Fuji lens I have used. Basically a no-compromise landscape/architecture lens that is optically corrected.

I haven't used the 16 1.4/80/90/200 prime lenses, which are prob a touch better from what I've seen on reviews...but this is better than any of the other ones I've tried for IQ, and I've used 10 other Fuji lenses.

You can find them used in the ~400 range.

I do think its new price probably should have been dropped by now.

io_bg said:

Labe said:

Lucky your not buying the Nikon 14mm f2.8

it’s double the price of the Fuji lens.

Click to expand...

Apples to oranges.

The Nikon one is for full frame sensors (which are a bit harder to cover at that focal length).

There's no denying the Fuji 14 2.8 is a great lens although in my view it's too expensive for what it is. It should've been closer to the 16 2.8's price and definitely not as much as FF 20 1.8 lenses.

Click to expand...

I disagree, I had the 16 and 14 at the same time, the 16 has significant barrel distortion, lower build quality, and poorer IQ. I'd say it's worth the premium over it. The 14 despite its 2.8 aperture, has the build quality, IQ and rendering of the 23 1.4/56 1.2 lenses.

To expand a bit on Wide angle options... the Rokinon 12mm is better than Fuji's 16 2.8 also. Of course it doesn't AF, but IMO the IQ is better.

Not saying the 16 is bad... it's good, but more similar in performance to say, the 23mm f2. My main reason was the focal length though...preferring a 20/21mm lens over a 24mm equiv as my UWA prime choice.

jonathanblanchflower said:

Labe said:

Lucky your not buying the Nikon 14mm f2.8

it’s double the price of the Fuji lens.

Click to expand...

ahah- well, I'm buying neither - will wait to see what viltrox do. heard that they've got a 13 mm in the pipeline.

This is a full frame lens too, no? so a pretty significantly different fov?

Click to expand...

You do realise that just because it’s a full frame lens it doesn’t alter the fact that it’s 14mm just like the Fuji lens. If you mounted the Nikon 14mm it would give the same fov on your Fuji as the Fuji 14mm lens would . Only difference is the image circle at the rear of the lens .

--
Back to bridge cameras......

I've read plenty of reasons why it's a great wide for Fuji in this thread, but you are looking for an ah-ha moment. Maybe it's because optically it's a great wide. I bought mine used for $500. It's worth that to me. If you don't want to pay that, buy the 16 2.8 and enjoy. It's a fun little lens with a ton of correction in camera. I have both lenses and the 16 1.4 also. I like all 3 for different reasons.

Labe said:

jonathanblanchflower said:

Labe said:

Lucky your not buying the Nikon 14mm f2.8

it’s double the price of the Fuji lens.

Click to expand...

This is a full frame lens too, no? so a pretty significantly different fov?

Click to expand...

You do realise that just because it’s a full frame lens it doesn’t alter the fact that it’s 14mm just like the Fuji lens. If you mounted the Nikon 14mm it would give the same fov on your Fuji as the Fuji 14mm lens would . Only difference is the image circle at the rear of the lens .

Click to expand...

A 14mm lens is not designed just to have a 14mm focal length and be done with it. It's designed to have favorable image quality (sharpness, lack of distortion) in all parts of that image circle. You pay extra for all the image quality and extra wide angle that Nikon lens offers outside the APS-C-center. Not a good comparison.

jonathanblanchflower said:

DarnGoodPhotos said:

jonathanblanchflower said:

I'm thinking compared to the Sony 20 1.8, which has around two stops more depth control and seems to be a pretty similar price.

Click to expand...

There is more to lens price than just the maximum aperture

Click to expand...

never said it wasn't - but it is undeniable that it is one of the best predictors for a lens' price, and the most common distinguishing feature between lenses of the same/similar focal length.

Click to expand...

Hi,

Maximum aperture was was targeted at pro photographers who sought the ability to get subject / background separation more than the average user. And so yes, it was a good indicator of price, but it was never a good indicator of other qualities. In fact faster lenses were often poorer in other qualities (eg cross frame resolution, contrast, and flare management) compared to lenses of more moderate speed. The slower options often bested them in these metrics.

It's more complex to compare these days because of the sheer range if manufacturers and models, but like I said earlier, the 14/2,8 is a lens of a type where you're paying for other qualities.

Cheers, Rod

Miguel-C said:

norjens said:

Miguel-C said:

Miguel-C said:

[snipped]

Click to expand...

A 14mm lens is a 14mm lens, you shouldn't be comparing it with a 20mm, FF or otherwise. The manufacting of a 14mm lens that is well corrected will always be more expensive than a 20mm lens.

Click to expand...

Umm, no. That would be true if the 14mm had to cover the same size sensor - because then it'd have a wider field of view than a 20mm and need to control light coming in at those wider angles. Since it doesn't, those wider angles light rays land on black absorbing material in the lens wall or mount and can be ignored.

An APS-C 14mm lens could be made by simply shrinking a 21mm FF lens uniformly in all directions. The glass elements shrink, the sensor coverage goes with them, as does the focal length, until at 14mm focal length it covers APS-C with the exact same falloff and unchanged design. That is not how APS-C lenses are designed, but it's a way they can be designed. Unless already at the edge of manufacturing size, there is nothing more complicated about the smaller one.

TL;DR: 20mm FF lens is an appropriate comparison to make. Equivalent, not equal.

Click to expand...

The sony 20mm is also for apsc camera bodies, doesn't seem like there's a difference at all. It's the sensor that crops in, not the glass.

Click to expand...

You might want to double check that. The Sony 20mm f1.8 is a FF lens. And it costs the same as the Fuji 14 2.8.