mFT lenses are soooo expensive! Right then....

Did anyone bother to look at the Sony G 70-200 F2.8? It is 2600 euro. I am not saying it is not worth it because it could be flawless or close to it....But it seems a tad more expensive then our 35-100 or 40-150 F2.8 lenses isn't it.

Jorginho wrote:

Did anyone bother to look at the Sony G 70-200 F2.8? It is 2600 euro. I am not saying it is not worth it because it could be flawless or close to it....But it seems a tad more expensive then our 35-100 or 40-150 F2.8 lenses isn't it.

One would expect a 70-200 f/2.8 full frame lens to be expensive - and a premium quality one even more so.

The fact is that as an old-timer I find ALL current lenses mind bogglingly expensive. Time was, a high quality 50mm f/1.8 from any of the top camera marques would cost little more than beer money. Not now!

Porky89 wrote:

Jorginho wrote:

Did anyone bother to look at the Sony G 70-200 F2.8? It is 2600 euro. I am not saying it is not worth it because it could be flawless or close to it....But it seems a tad more expensive then our 35-100 or 40-150 F2.8 lenses isn't it.

One would expect a 70-200 f/2.8 full frame lens to be expensive - and a premium quality one even more so.

The fact is that as an old-timer I find ALL current lenses mind bogglingly expensive. Time was, a high quality 50mm f/1.8 from any of the top camera marques would cost little more than beer money. Not now!

I'm an old-timer as well and I find glass prices much more affordable now than they ever were. Yes the 50 1.8 are a bit of an anomaly; Canikon pumped those things out by the thousands; it was the standard lens when you bought an SLR. They are currently made of plastic, including most of the elements inside. They are also pretty poor when shot wide open.

Yes, the 25 1.2 is an expensive lens however I'm seeing it compared to the best from Leica (Buchan-Grant, Robin Wong) so taken in that context, its an absolute bargain.

20 years ago, and yes I had kids at home/mortgage/etc., however I still had a fair bit of disposable income. Never (ever) could I have entertained the idea of a (equivalent) 600mm f4 lens let alone a full set of 2.8 zooms and/or a set 1.8-1.2 primes. And the thought that I could shoot them all wide open would have only been a dream.

Like my adapted Pentax Super Tak 50mm f/1.4 that I found for $6!

It really depends on what you're comparing. That Sony lens is eye wateringly expensive, but there are plenty of cheaper f2.8 options for various systems. Look at the Tamron and Sigma lenses available for DSLRs, especially what's available used.

I paid about twice as much for my Panasonic 12-35mm as I did for my Sony 16-50 f/2.8 for APS-C A mount. The price difference between the cheapest used Panasonic 35-100 I can find and a Sigma 70-200 HSM is even greater.

SteveY80 wrote:

It really depends on what you're comparing. That Sony lens is eye wateringly expensive, but there are plenty of cheaper f2.8 options for various systems. Look at the Tamron and Sigma lenses available for DSLRs, especially what's available used.\

Or we look at the Art lenses and these are not so cheap.

I paid about twice as much for my Panasonic 12-35mm as I did for my Sony 16-50 f/2.8 for APS-C A mount.

Both new?

The price difference between the cheapest used Panasonic 35-100 I can find and a Sigma 70-200 HSM is even greater.

I am not saying mFT lenses are cheap, cheapest etc I am saying that it does not stand out as overly expensive. Sigma and Tamron lenses are cheaper, Nikons and Canons not so much and Sony G line-up does seem both expensive and mostly excellent too.

Jorginho wrote:

SteveY80 wrote:

It really depends on what you're comparing. That Sony lens is eye wateringly expensive, but there are plenty of cheaper f2.8 options for various systems. Look at the Tamron and Sigma lenses available for DSLRs, especially what's available used.\

Or we look at the Art lenses and these are not so cheap.

I paid about twice as much for my Panasonic 12-35mm as I did for my Sony 16-50 f/2.8 for APS-C A mount.

Both new?

Both used, and both from the same camera shop. Although the Sony was split from an A77 kit and was in perfect condition, while the Panasonic was a little bit battered.

Looking at current prices for new lenses, it looks like the Panasonics have been discounted since then. The Sony 16-50 is currently £499 new, while the Panasonic 12-35 is £735. A new Panasonic 35-100 is only a bit more expensive than the latest model Sigma 70-200 OS (£799 for the 35-100 vs £729 for the full frame 70-200).

For whatever reason, MFT lenses seem to maintain their value better on the used market than lenses for Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or Sony. Good for sellers, not so good for used MFT lens bargain hunters.

The price difference between the cheapest used Panasonic 35-100 I can find and a Sigma 70-200 HSM is even greater.

I am not saying mFT lenses are cheap, cheapest etc I am saying that it does not stand out as overly expensive. Sigma and Tamron lenses are cheaper, Nikons and Canons not so much and Sony G line-up does seem both expensive and mostly excellent too.

I'm not really trying to say that MFT lenses are overly expensive (at least not all of them). My point was that people complaining about the price of MFT lenses are unlikely to be comparing them to top of the line Sigma Art or Sony G. Really, Sony's FE 70-200 f/4 is a fairer comparison with f/2.8 MFT anyway...

It seems to me that someone looking for the best value is more likely to be comparing the budget bargains available for each system, including the availability/price of used lenses. That's where pricing up a comparable system can make MFT look substantially more expensive.

Try to look at their GM lenses

Weight/size/price is definitely a deterrent for me

No matter how small the bodies could be

Reality check for FF

Cheers,

String wrote:

Porky89 wrote:

Jorginho wrote:

Did anyone bother to look at the Sony G 70-200 F2.8? It is 2600 euro. I am not saying it is not worth it because it could be flawless or close to it....But it seems a tad more expensive then our 35-100 or 40-150 F2.8 lenses isn't it.

One would expect a 70-200 f/2.8 full frame lens to be expensive - and a premium quality one even more so.

The fact is that as an old-timer I find ALL current lenses mind bogglingly expensive. Time was, a high quality 50mm f/1.8 from any of the top camera marques would cost little more than beer money. Not now!

I'm an old-timer as well and I find glass prices much more affordable now than they ever were. Yes the 50 1.8 are a bit of an anomaly; Canikon pumped those things out by the thousands; it was the standard lens when you bought an SLR. They are currently made of plastic, including most of the elements inside. They are also pretty poor when shot wide open.

Yes, the 25 1.2 is an expensive lens however I'm seeing it compared to the best from Leica (Buchan-Grant, Robin Wong) so taken in that context, its an absolute bargain.

20 years ago, and yes I had kids at home/mortgage/etc., however I still had a fair bit of disposable income. Never (ever) could I have entertained the idea of a (equivalent) 600mm f4 lens let alone a full set of 2.8 zooms and/or a set 1.8-1.2 primes. And the thought that I could shoot them all wide open would have only been a dream.

I was thinking more of 40 or 50 years ago!

Exactly.

In the early 1970s, the OM f/1.8 50 cost around Aud$50. The f/1.4 50 cost around Aud$250.

I could not even afford to think about the f/2 primes in other FLs ...