Estimation about Samsung 16-50mm f2-2.8 price

Hello

is there an idea about date & price of this lens?

Don't know about availability, but here in the Netherlands several sources claim a SRP of € 695,-- (!!!!!). Don't think is will be that low.

German forum says it will cost max. € 1300,- (!!!) but cannot confirm availability

Samsunguser wrote:

this zoom will do to down the sales of 16mm, 20mm, 30mm, 45mm even the 60mm prime lens

so I think the price will be really high

Some people prefer using a couple of those primes still, but good to have the choice.  The zoom is definitely nice for an event or something where you need instant flexibility.

I think price of 16-50mm f/2-2.8 is fair, in full frame equivalent this is 24-75mm f/3-4.2 equivalent or so (lets just say f/2.8 to 4).  Canon 24-70mm f/4L is $1500 and Sony 24-70mm f/4 is $1200, and neither is effectively as large of aperture, or if you look at APS-C equivalent lenses by Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony it is in the same range, but again, a stop larger aperture at the wide end.

Eric

Samsunguser wrote:

this zoom will do to down the sales of 16mm, 20mm, 30mm, 45mm even the 60mm prime lens

You are mistaken. An 85g lens that is 2,5cm thick is a completely different thing compared to a large zoom lens. Then pancakes are small, light, cheap and inconspicuous. You can do street shooting and no one will pay much attention. You can carry the camera+pancake in your hand all day and not be worn down. You can fit pancake lenses into your pockets without trouble. The 30mm and 45mm are much faster and sharper than the zoom will be. The 45 will give much better backround separation vs the zoom and bokéh will be much better. Etc, etc.

so I think the price will be really high

Then people will not buy the lens. Even I won't buy the lens, if it's priced high. Samsung is not in a position to overprice it's lenses. They are almost unheard of on the mirrorless market. People will not buy an unknown brand's overpriced lenses. You can get the excellent f/2.8 zooms for APS-C and full frame cameras of other brands for around 750-850 clams. If you think Samsung can demand much more for the lens, you are severely mistaken. They need market recognition and more sales for the system to grow. If the lenses don't sell, the NX system will perish. And if the lens significantly more expensive than the competion, the it will be left collecting dust, while the customer choosest the lens of the familiar brand. The f/2 on the wide end of the focal length range won't help at all.

viking79 wrote:

I think price of 16-50mm f/2-2.8 is fair, in full frame equivalent this is 24-75mm f/3-4.2 equivalent or so (lets just say f/2.8 to 4). Canon 24-70mm f/4L is $1500 and Sony 24-70mm f/4 is $1200, and neither is effectively as large of aperture, or if you look at APS-C equivalent lenses by Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony it is in the same range, but again, a stop larger aperture at the wide end.

As I said in my other post, I don't think Samsung is in any kind of position to price high. I believe the brand in a serious danger of going the way of the dodo, if they do not get more market recognition and sales soon. As far as equivalent lenses go, you can get the excellent Tamron SP 24-70/2.8 for around $900 and it's effective aperture is larger than the Samsung 16-50's. You can get the Canon 24-105/4L for even less and it's got equivalent aperture in the tele-end and a much wider focal length range.

Arn wrote:

viking79 wrote:

I think price of 16-50mm f/2-2.8 is fair, in full frame equivalent this is 24-75mm f/3-4.2 equivalent or so (lets just say f/2.8 to 4). Canon 24-70mm f/4L is $1500 and Sony 24-70mm f/4 is $1200, and neither is effectively as large of aperture, or if you look at APS-C equivalent lenses by Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony it is in the same range, but again, a stop larger aperture at the wide end.

As I said in my other post, I don't think Samsung is in any kind of position to price high. I believe the brand in a serious danger of going the way of the dodo, if they do not get more market recognition and sales soon. As far as equivalent lenses go, you can get the excellent Tamron SP 24-70/2.8 for around $900 and it's effective aperture is larger than the Samsung 16-50's. You can get the Canon 24-105/4L for even less and it's got equivalent aperture in the tele-end and a much wider focal length range.

But at the same time I don't really believe the 16-50mm f/2-2.8 is marketed only at current users (most of which are unwilling to pay much since they got their cameras discounted).  If they can market it successfully and get people cross shopping other brands (and the larger aperture might help catch attention) they can ask more than they have historically.

I think a lot depends on what they do with their top end camera too.  If they make it better spec wise than many competitors they can ask what they want for it.  Sony has shown this with cameras like NEX 7 and A7 which are really very expensive for what they are.

Samsung hasn't been able to get much for many of their cameras as they aren't quite at the level of their competitors in many cases, and historically a lack of marketing, so they don't generate the same level of interest as say a Sony A7 or NEX 7 when they were released.  That interest can generate sales.  The Sony 16-50mm f/2-2.8 is a very interesting lens.  The NX30 is neat, and priced better than NX20, but doesn't generate the same level of interest (I don't think).  I really want to see what their high end body is

The question I ask is has high end APS-C lost its interest?  Even if Samsung comes out with a killer APS-C body, is it going to compete with the full frame cameras now?

Eric

viking79 wrote:

Sony 16-50mm f/2-2.8 is a very interesting lens.

The Samsung, not Sony  Sorry, caught my typo too late to edit it.

Eric

You can get the Canon 24-105/4L for even less and it's got equivalent aperture in the tele-end and a much wider focal length range.

You can get also 18-200mm for EVEN greater range. Sorry, but there is nothing premium about 24-105lens, not sure why it has L designation but surely not because of optical quality. The best comparison is 24-70 and let's stay in this area.

Arn wrote:

Samsunguser wrote:

this zoom will do to down the sales of 16mm, 20mm, 30mm, 45mm even the 60mm prime lens

You are mistaken. An 85g lens that is 2,5cm thick is a completely different thing compared to a large zoom lens. Then pancakes are small, light, cheap and inconspicuous. You can do street shooting and no one will pay much attention. You can carry the camera+pancake in your hand all day and not be worn down. You can fit pancake lenses into your pockets without trouble. The 30mm and 45mm are much faster and sharper than the zoom will be.

Let's say 1/2EV for 30mm. I wouldn't call it much. I would also not be prompt to say that 45mm will be much sharper - see sigma 18-35 1.8 which is as sharp as many primes.

The 45 will give much better backround separation vs the zoom and bokéh will be much better. Etc, etc.

See above. There will be more DOF control but not by much. even 1EV at long end doesn't make huge difference in bookeh, while at short end - for 16 and 20mm - zoom will have an advantage in this area.

so I think the price will be really high

Then people will not buy the lens. Even I won't buy the lens, if it's priced high. Samsung is not in a position to overprice it's lenses. They are almost unheard of on the mirrorless market. People will not buy an unknown brand's overpriced lenses.

Some people will buy. I don't think 16-50mm 2-2.8 is frequently bought by people without market knowledge. I don't see a reason why Samsung should sell premium products at a discount. Low end yeas, mid end maybe, but high end is high end. It's there mainly not to sell well but to establish a brand awareness among enthusiasts (which will happen just by reading reviews) and provide upgrade path for system followers.

You can get the excellent f/2.8 zooms for APS-C and full frame cameras of other brands for around 750-850 clams.

From his point of view all mirrorless lenses are much overpriced. Mirrorless is still a premium product, just check lens prices in m4/3.

If you think Samsung can demand much more for the lens, you are severely mistaken. They need market recognition and more sales for the system to grow. If the lenses don't sell, the NX system will perish. And if the lens significantly more expensive than the competion, the it will be left collecting dust, while the customer choosest the lens of the familiar brand. The f/2 on the wide end of the focal length range won't help at all.

-- hide signature --

pics: http://500px.com/arnrna
http://www.pbase.com/arn

You can get the Canon 24-105/4L for even less and it's got equivalent aperture in the tele-end and a much wider focal length range.

You can get also 18-200mm for EVEN greater range. Sorry, but there is nothing premium about 24-105lens, not sure why it has L designation but surely not because of optical quality. The best comparison is 24-70 and let's stay in this area.

You don't know what you're talking about at all, do you?
--
pics: http://500px.com/arnrna
http://www.pbase.com/arn

Totally agreed. A similar collection of lenses as the one I own for nx would have costed almost twice for other brands. And others even paid less than I did, for those lenses.

viking79 wrote:

But at the same time I don't really believe the 16-50mm f/2-2.8 is marketed only at current users (most of which are unwilling to pay much since they got their cameras discounted). If they can market it successfully and get people cross shopping other brands (and the larger aperture might help catch attention) they can ask more than they have historically.

I think a lot depends on what they do with their top end camera too. If they make it better spec wise than many competitors they can ask what they want for it. Sony has shown this with cameras like NEX 7 and A7 which are really very expensive for what they are.

Samsung hasn't been able to get much for many of their cameras as they aren't quite at the level of their competitors in many cases, and historically a lack of marketing, so they don't generate the same level of interest as say a Sony A7 or NEX 7 when they were released. That interest can generate sales. The Sony 16-50mm f/2-2.8 is a very interesting lens. The NX30 is neat, and priced better than NX20, but doesn't generate the same level of interest (I don't think). I really want to see what their high end body is

The question I ask is has high end APS-C lost its interest? Even if Samsung comes out with a killer APS-C body, is it going to compete with the full frame cameras now?

Eric

You'll find an answer in the Nikon Pro DX forum.  Look at what they're saying about the Pentax K3 and how even those who went to 35mm feel that Nikon left them with no choice.  The choice is between a high performance APS-C and an entry level 35mm.  It's not so clear a choice as Nikon wants you to believe.

Arn wrote:

You can get the Canon 24-105/4L for even less and it's got equivalent aperture in the tele-end and a much wider focal length range.

You can get also 18-200mm for EVEN greater range. Sorry, but there is nothing premium about 24-105lens, not sure why it has L designation but surely not because of optical quality. The best comparison is 24-70 and let's stay in this area.

You don't know what you're talking about at all, do you?
--
pics: http://500px.com/arnrna
http://www.pbase.com/arn

Actually I do. I also think that either state your point or don't talk at all instead of responding as you did.

OK what people don't get... first the 16,20,30, and 45 is about the same price as the 16-50 is likely going to be and B&H preorders say suggest it will be.

It needs to be that price, if only because of the Cost. Samsung Lens are actually similarly priced to other first party manufactures.

Nikon, Canon and Pentax lens are going to be the same price for the same lens.

Comparing a F2-2.8 lens with a F4 lens is apples and oranges.

The simple fact is that Samsung needs these lens' in order to fill out it's lens' and be taken serious. Sony will be producing them. MFT will be producing them.

The price is normal for this kind of lens.

If it is too much for you, or you don't understand it's use, or if you think that Mirrorless shouldn't have a functional lens of a normal weight... it's simple... don't buy it...

But please stop with all the self-rightous crap comparing a F4 several year old lens to the launch price of a f2-2.8 lens from a manufacture that hasn't produced this kinda of lens before...

That is where the price is coming from.

Launch - these aren't cheap to make
f2-2.8  - these aren't cheap to make
Samsung isn't Sigma/Tamron - Lens aren't cheap to make.

As such the fact it is so cheap is actually a surprise. They aren't going to sell these in Nikon numbers or have multiple lens to off set the price like Sigma or Tamron. As such this should actually be more expensive.

Samsung isn't the Drug store brand it was in the 80s but they didn't keep Rollei so they are building in many ways from scratch. That means increased cost at times.