Anyone Else Notice the New Meike Lenses for Fuji?

Hi,

My apologies if this has been posted in this forum before but I couldn't find anything in a search......

Hard on the heels of the Zonlai 25mm and 35mm lenses, Meike - usually associated with aftermarket electronic flashes and other accessories - recently introduced four new lenses for mirror-less mounts up to APSC size including Fuji X mount. They are a 28/2.8, 35/1.7, 50/2 and a 25/0.95.

They're all MF, all metal and multi-coated. The focusing rings look classically fluted, and the aperture rings strangely omit some small apertures. The first three are listed in e-Bay already at around US$90. The ultra-fast 25mm lens has appeared in only one listing for an e-mount version at US$660.

Interesting? Not for the AF dependent. For others, perhaps worth a try if you're on a budget. Sooner or later one of these small new manufacturers will develop some good lenses. Some people are posting that they're enjoying the Zonlais. It remains to be seen how the Meikes perform. To me it's simply amazing that anyone can design, produce, market and distribute a lens for $90. I guess they have to compete with sale prices like those on the Fuji 27mm and 35/2 AF lenses.

FYI, Rod

These area all the cheap Chinese lenses marketed under different brands. I doubt the quality of one is better than the others. You get what you pay for and a $90 lens has $90 quality, but bearing that in mind they are cheap enough to take a chance on and play with.

I am not familiar with this specific manufacturer but I have done enough China production to retail pricing analysis over the years to not jump to conclusions.

A standard focal length of f:2 aperture, branded and sold through retail goes for about $700 - there is a wide range but let's pick this number to illustrate the point.

Over the year, with various timed incentive the retail rebate structure will hover around 50%. Some brands a little more, others less, but in average over the year that's what a canon (and until recently Nikon) will be paying out to their distribution channels and consumers

Means that the $700 lens nets about $350 for the manufacturer.

Said manufacturer will try to extract about 75% margin from those primes. They are not a highly competitive space - this is not mass market, big volumes, gotta sway the masses for Christmas type of product. So 60 to 75% margin will be the norm for the manufacturer.

That means that the manufacturer paid between $90 and $140 for that lens.

Depending on their size, competencies etc... That camera "manufacturer" (designer and marketer really) will either have their own in-house contracting team in China but my bet is many go through a contracting company - feed them the specs, the price you are willing to pay and they will work through the maze of Chinese manufacturing for you.

Those companies typically make 10 to 20% as "intermediate brokers" - the lens that canon bought for let's say $100 really left the factory costing around $85.

The actual manufacturer made about 15% on that sale - it means the true cost of manufacturing for that $700 lens is roughly $70 or 10% of the final price through US retail (a very common ratio found in hundreds of industries).

If that Chinese manufacturer decides to sell directly on eBay at $90 they actually make $5 more per unit sold that way - or 33% to 40% more profits per unit.

What's missing in this picture? The Chinese manufacturer has no development cost or marketing cost at all. On the former they are just "leveraging" (also known as IP theft but the concept is very vague in China) the work of the company that designed the lens; on the latter, they let the low price and eBay direct sales model do the work for them - after all, it is incremental volume with no base investment so all incremental profits almost

These lenses may very well be crap - but I certainly would not jump to conclusion based on price alone. I also have left out another completely different model which could be that those lenses are produced in massive numbers for the Chinese internal market and a few marketed direct to westerners. Economies of scale play a big role in costing anything for internal Chinese markets. Often though, the same company will play both sides.

Photonics wrote:

...would be great if Fujifilm, itself, issued some dedicated MF lenses

Yup.  I've often thought that there is a nice convergence between lenses being WA and MF.  I've never really seen the need for AF in very WA lenses.  Zeiss (in the Loxia series) and Voigtlander have seen a market selling high grade MF lenses.  I wish they'd offer them in Fuji mount.

Rod

yup i noticed and looked around and was led here ....intriguing they look like old school quality almost.... and a great buy

darngooddesign wrote:

These area all the cheap Chinese lenses marketed under different brands. I doubt the quality of one is better than the others. You get what you pay for and a $90 lens has $90 quality, but bearing that in mind they are cheap enough to take a chance on and play with.

well a good nikon prime like the 50mm 2 afd with real helicoid focus can be had for a song too 130 usd ... i expect some chinese maker will do justice to a set of inexpensive primes

youngu does an acceptable af canon for a song .... most japanese firms  offshore a lot of production to china ... s i don't see chinese manufacture as a problem just maker greed and willingness to create subpar goods which is a worldwide corporate disease

I saw these and looked into the 35/1.7 but the only review I found stated that it was only sharp in the very centre wide open and the edges didn't sharpen up until f/8.  I decided to stick with my old Pentax and Minolta 35mm lenses which are already superb by f/2.8, then I finally bought the Fuji 35/1.4, which is an amazing lens.

I don't see the point in the 28mm or 50mm lenses as you can buy old lenses with exactly the same functionality, better build quality and a lower price.  Probably better image quality too.  For 28mm go with the Sigma mini-wide 28/2.8, though I'm sure there are others out there just as good.  For a 50mm there are scores of different ones - for a 50/1.7 try the Pentax M or the Minolta Rokkor, both incredible lenses.

Jonathan Mac wrote:

I saw these and looked into the 35/1.7 but the only review I found stated that it was only sharp in the very centre wide open and the edges didn't sharpen up until f/8. I decided to stick with my old Pentax and Minolta 35mm lenses which are already superb by f/2.8, then I finally bought the Fuji 35/1.4, which is an amazing lens.

I don't see the point in the 28mm or 50mm lenses as you can buy old lenses with exactly the same functionality, better build quality and a lower price. Probably better image quality too. For 28mm go with the Sigma mini-wide 28/2.8, though I'm sure there are others out there just as good. For a 50mm there are scores of different ones - for a 50/1.7 try the Pentax M or the Minolta Rokkor, both incredible lenses.

great points,   ive many legacy lenses   and   they are a blast to shoot with and generally high quality ,,,,i just am glad to see more makers adding to selection,,,, too bad about the iq

Meike added a 6.5mm F2.0 fisheye, sounds very interesting... If acceptably sharp. The price is right for grabbing one to try. Also that 50mm F2 looks almost a pancake, it would be smaller than the new Fuji, and only 72 EUR... There is also a 12mm F2.8 which looks quite a bit like the Samyang, but larger. And a 25mm F0.95 for APS-C, amazing... I am very curious how all of that performs.

Found some reviews (m4/3):

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/meike-50mm-f-2-0-lens-review-29396

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/meike-25mm-f-0-95-lens-review-29545

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/meike-12mm-f-2-8-lens-review-30051

I bought the 35 1.7 to go on an XE-2 I picked up secondhand. The reason for this is to give me a totally manual standard lens setup on a small body - it's just what I wanted. I didn't buy it for ultimate IQ, but for the experience of shooting manually on a small body with a great sensor. Love it. Sharp? Sharp enough. I was going more for the look... a bit like shooting a 50 1.4 on a Nikon FM or a small rangefinder.

David0X wrote:

I bought the 35 1.7 to go on an XE-2 I picked up secondhand. The reason for this is to give me a totally manual standard lens setup on a small body - it's just what I wanted. I didn't buy it for ultimate IQ, but for the experience of shooting manually on a small body with a great sensor. Love it. Sharp? Sharp enough. I was going more for the look... a bit like shooting a 50 1.4 on a Nikon FM or a small rangefinder.

Um - yeah. It broke after three weeks. There were some loose screws in it and the front ring fell off, so I sent it back for a refund.

Even if that had not happened, I was not really all that pleased. It was nice to use - really nice feel but it was too hard to focus quickly. And I don't mean AF quick, just like what it was with an SLR and MF primes back in the day.

Oh - and it focused past infinity which was a bugger. You couldn't just rack it out for landscapes.

Sooo - I bought the Fuji 35mm f2. Love it. It's a bit longer, but it's a beaut lens, MF with the ring still sucks, no way around that, but AF with back button is fine. It's a really nice lens.