Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
Mark Ransom
Mark Ransom Veteran Member • Posts: 5,923
Re: Curious...

JakeJY wrote:

This was discussed in a previous thread, but third party prices are not comparable to first party. It's true that the third party list prices of consumer lenses in this zoom range tend to be around $600-650, but that's third party.

You can see an example in MFT superzoom of the Tamron 14-150 at $400, while the Olympus is $600. First party being 1.5x the price.

Multiply the $600*1.5 = $900, exactly the same difference.

Again, I'm not talking about whether it's a fair price. I'm asking what's your definition of "consumer" and what price cutoff you'd use.

 Mark Ransom's gear list:Mark Ransom's gear list
Pentax K-7 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR +6 more
jwilliams Veteran Member • Posts: 4,781
Why ...
2

JakeJY wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

String wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

Just curious, what's your definition of a consumer grade price? Almost $1000 doesn't really fit my definition.

For what this lens is, a retail price of $900 seems quite reasonable especially considering the next step up would only get you out to 100mm (with the 12-100Pro). It's 45% more expensive. If you don't think so, then there are cheaper options available that are almost always on sale... this one will be too eventually.

My question wasn't about value for money, it was about absolute prices. Again I think anything approaching $1000 puts it out of "consumer" territory.

For comparison, I have a Sigma 18-300 for my Pentax APS-C. It has the same 16.7x zoom range as the 12-200. List price is $579 and I picked it up for $400.

This was discussed in a previous thread, but third party prices are not comparable to first party. It's true that the third party list prices of consumer lenses in this zoom range tend to be around $600-650, but that's third party.

You can see an example in MFT superzoom of the Tamron 14-150 at $400, while the Olympus is $600. First party being 1.5x the price.

Multiply the $600*1.5 = $900, exactly the same difference.

Why does the Oly command a premium over the Tamron? Is it better? If not, then $600 is a fair price for that type of lens. m43 is an open standard so there is no proprietary knowledge Oly has.

I guess the positive we can take away is that we can pray Tamron will eventually makes a 12-200 and it will be priced at $600.

Unfortunately that is not likely as there is almost zero 3rd party lens development going on for m43. That Tamron lens was one of the early 3rd party m43 lenses before lens manufacturers realized there wasn't going to be the sales volume to support development specifically for m43.

-- hide signature --

Jonathan

jwilliams Veteran Member • Posts: 4,781
Realistic alternative ...

Auf Reisen wrote:

HHlim18 wrote:

MShot wrote:

I like a consumer 12-100, weather sealed, $600 for travel. A little bigger than the 14-150 but f/2.8 - 4. Don't often go past 100mm when I travel but use 12mm. 12-100 is too big/heavy for me to carry for a long time.

You're looking for a small light weight 12-100mm f2.8-4 consumer lens that cost $600? Olympus will never release one because it kill sales of their Pro 12-100mm f4. Panasonic too because leica 12-60mm f2.8-4. In your perfect world we can have best of all worlds but cons of none, however we aren't in it. Have a more realistic expectation or disappointment will be your BFF.

The two Panasonic 12-60s co-exist side by side, so I don't really see a problem with it. It doesn't have to match the IQ, build quality, or close focusing abilities of the 12-100 pro. Just be slightly better than the 14-150 and weather-sealed.

Probably not for 600, though.

A 12-100 2.8-4 would be a huge lens. Bigger than the 12-100 4 which is not small and not something I would not want to take as an all day walk around lens.

A realistic solution to a better affordable travel zoom would have been something like a 12-100 3.5-5.6. This could be made fairly small. Make it so it has very good IQ at 100 5.6, a reasonable price, and I'm a buyer.

Also, add sync IS. Why they made a super slower and expensive lens without adding sync IS is mind boggling.

-- hide signature --

Jonathan

Auf Reisen Contributing Member • Posts: 652
Re: Realistic alternative ...
1

jwilliams wrote:

Auf Reisen wrote:

HHlim18 wrote:

MShot wrote:

I like a consumer 12-100, weather sealed, $600 for travel. A little bigger than the 14-150 but f/2.8 - 4. Don't often go past 100mm when I travel but use 12mm. 12-100 is too big/heavy for me to carry for a long time.

You're looking for a small light weight 12-100mm f2.8-4 consumer lens that cost $600? Olympus will never release one because it kill sales of their Pro 12-100mm f4. Panasonic too because leica 12-60mm f2.8-4. In your perfect world we can have best of all worlds but cons of none, however we aren't in it. Have a more realistic expectation or disappointment will be your BFF.

The two Panasonic 12-60s co-exist side by side, so I don't really see a problem with it. It doesn't have to match the IQ, build quality, or close focusing abilities of the 12-100 pro. Just be slightly better than the 14-150 and weather-sealed.

Probably not for 600, though.

A 12-100 2.8-4 would be a huge lens. Bigger than the 12-100 4 which is not small and not something I would not want to take as an all day walk around lens.

A realistic solution to a better affordable travel zoom would have been something like a 12-100 3.5-5.6. This could be made fairly small. Make it so it has very good IQ at 100 5.6, a reasonable price, and I'm a buyer.

Also, add sync IS. Why they made a super slower and expensive lens without adding sync IS is mind boggling.

Ah, I didn't notice the part about it being 2.8-4. I absolutely agree, 3.5-5.6 would be much better and decrease weight and size. I don't think sync-Is is necessary. For the type of shooting you do with a travel zoom, IBIS is enough. I know I don't miss it on my Tamron.

 Auf Reisen's gear list:Auf Reisen's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 Fisheye Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +2 more
tomhongkong Veteran Member • Posts: 3,873
Re: Realistic alternative ...
5

jwilliams wrote:

Auf Reisen wrote:

HHlim18 wrote:

MShot wrote:

I like a consumer 12-100, weather sealed, $600 for travel. A little bigger than the 14-150 but f/2.8 - 4. Don't often go past 100mm when I travel but use 12mm. 12-100 is too big/heavy for me to carry for a long time.

You're looking for a small light weight 12-100mm f2.8-4 consumer lens that cost $600? Olympus will never release one because it kill sales of their Pro 12-100mm f4. Panasonic too because leica 12-60mm f2.8-4. In your perfect world we can have best of all worlds but cons of none, however we aren't in it. Have a more realistic expectation or disappointment will be your BFF.

The two Panasonic 12-60s co-exist side by side, so I don't really see a problem with it. It doesn't have to match the IQ, build quality, or close focusing abilities of the 12-100 pro. Just be slightly better than the 14-150 and weather-sealed.

Probably not for 600, though.

A 12-100 2.8-4 would be a huge lens. Bigger than the 12-100 4 which is not small and not something I would not want to take as an all day walk around lens.

A realistic solution to a better affordable travel zoom would have been something like a 12-100 3.5-5.6. This could be made fairly small. Make it so it has very good IQ at 100 5.6, a reasonable price, and I'm a buyer.

Also, add sync IS. Why they made a super slower and expensive lens without adding sync IS is mind boggling.

To all of those knocking this lens

I hear all you say but 12-200 is perfect for me (I won't bore you with the reasons)

I can manage with 6.3 a max aperture at long end

I don't know about the IQ and can't tell from robin Wong's 1600x1200 pixel images but they look surprisingly good.  I hope it works out as good in real testing

However if you can see something wrong with the IQ of his samples I would be very grateful if you would point it out.

For the removal of doubt, I do not want a 12-100...if I did I would buy one.

The IQ of cropping from shorter lenses does not stand up.

The price will undoubtedly drop in a year or so...my 14-150 cost around 50% of the original Olympus price.

To restate, it is my belief that a lot of people will like this lens, I understand that it may not be to everybody's liking, but I can't understand why you are so negative about it...nobody is forcing you to buy it.

As usual just too much negative thinking on this forum

tom

bofo777 Senior Member • Posts: 1,667
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out

Henry Stamm wrote:

bofo777 wrote:

epozar wrote:

bofo777 wrote:

Shooting in great light with this lens does make a difference but the bokeh and isolation of close ups is not the greatest....

yes it is.. at 200mm..

Look again at 6.3 they are not very good Nothing wrong with the lens just not wide enough aperture.....

This is your opinion. I took your advice and looked at the 6.3 images again. I like them. But what pleases my eye is the context in the kinds of images Wong provides with his user review. And that includes more DOF, not less. So my opinion is that the IQ and the bokeh are quite nice throughout the range. I shoot a heck of a lot at f8, so Wong's images seem quite nice.

I shoot the heck a lot with large aperture so  these pics are not representative of the portrait photography that I do but for landscape and wildlife it will pass as presentable.....

 bofo777's gear list:bofo777's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro +12 more
Auf Reisen Contributing Member • Posts: 652
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out
1

bofo777 wrote:

Henry Stamm wrote:

bofo777 wrote:

epozar wrote:

bofo777 wrote:

Shooting in great light with this lens does make a difference but the bokeh and isolation of close ups is not the greatest....

yes it is.. at 200mm..

Look again at 6.3 they are not very good Nothing wrong with the lens just not wide enough aperture.....

This is your opinion. I took your advice and looked at the 6.3 images again. I like them. But what pleases my eye is the context in the kinds of images Wong provides with his user review. And that includes more DOF, not less. So my opinion is that the IQ and the bokeh are quite nice throughout the range. I shoot a heck of a lot at f8, so Wong's images seem quite nice.

I shoot the heck a lot with large aperture so these pics are not representative of the portrait photography that I do but for landscape and wildlife it will pass as presentable.....

Well, for portraiture there are vastly superior options than a travel lens anyway. Seems weird to judge a tool by its performance for a job it wasn't designed for.

 Auf Reisen's gear list:Auf Reisen's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 Fisheye Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +2 more
Mark Ransom
Mark Ransom Veteran Member • Posts: 5,923
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out
2

Auf Reisen wrote:

Well, for portraiture there are vastly superior options than a travel lens anyway. Seems weird to judge a tool by its performance for a job it wasn't designed for.

No, not weird at all. People want one lens that can do everything. The fact that it doesn't exist doesn't keep anyone from wanting it.

 Mark Ransom's gear list:Mark Ransom's gear list
Pentax K-7 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR +6 more
bofo777 Senior Member • Posts: 1,667
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out

Auf Reisen wrote:

bofo777 wrote:

Henry Stamm wrote:

bofo777 wrote:

epozar wrote:

bofo777 wrote:

Shooting in great light with this lens does make a difference but the bokeh and isolation of close ups is not the greatest....

yes it is.. at 200mm..

Look again at 6.3 they are not very good Nothing wrong with the lens just not wide enough aperture.....

This is your opinion. I took your advice and looked at the 6.3 images again. I like them. But what pleases my eye is the context in the kinds of images Wong provides with his user review. And that includes more DOF, not less. So my opinion is that the IQ and the bokeh are quite nice throughout the range. I shoot a heck of a lot at f8, so Wong's images seem quite nice.

I shoot the heck a lot with large aperture so these pics are not representative of the portrait photography that I do but for landscape and wildlife it will pass as presentable.....

Well, for portraiture there are vastly superior options than a travel lens anyway. Seems weird to judge a tool by its performance for a job it wasn't designed for.

But come on wouldn't you rather have a f4 then a 6.3 to shot your bird......

 bofo777's gear list:bofo777's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro +12 more
1943Mike
1943Mike Regular Member • Posts: 278
Re: Realistic alternative ...
3

"To restate, it is my belief that a lot of people will like this lens, I understand that it may not be to everybody's liking, but I can't understand why you are so negative about it...nobody is forcing you to buy it.

As usual just too much negative thinking on this forum"

tom

I couldn't agree more.

I have several lenses that cover most of this range (12-40 f/2.8 and 40-150 f/2.8 among them) but for the times I'd rather travel light and have a do it all lens with reasonable IQ, this newly announced lens would probably be just the ticket for me.

I just don't understand why some folks in the µ4/3 forum are always digging around for the negative aspects of newly announced photographic paraphernalia while often omitting the possible positive characteristics of those items.

Looks like, pending some more technical reviews, I'll have to start saving up for this lens.

-- hide signature --

1943Mike

 1943Mike's gear list:1943Mike's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus Zuiko Digital 1.4x Teleconverter EC-14 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 +7 more
Auf Reisen Contributing Member • Posts: 652
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out

bofo777 wrote:

Auf Reisen wrote:

bofo777 wrote:

Henry Stamm wrote:

bofo777 wrote:

epozar wrote:

bofo777 wrote:

Shooting in great light with this lens does make a difference but the bokeh and isolation of close ups is not the greatest....

yes it is.. at 200mm..

Look again at 6.3 they are not very good Nothing wrong with the lens just not wide enough aperture.....

This is your opinion. I took your advice and looked at the 6.3 images again. I like them. But what pleases my eye is the context in the kinds of images Wong provides with his user review. And that includes more DOF, not less. So my opinion is that the IQ and the bokeh are quite nice throughout the range. I shoot a heck of a lot at f8, so Wong's images seem quite nice.

I shoot the heck a lot with large aperture so these pics are not representative of the portrait photography that I do but for landscape and wildlife it will pass as presentable.....

Well, for portraiture there are vastly superior options than a travel lens anyway. Seems weird to judge a tool by its performance for a job it wasn't designed for.

But come on wouldn't you rather have a f4 then a 6.3 to shot your bird......

I'm not going to do any serious birding with a travel zoom. Sure, I might take a snapshot if the opportunity presents itself on a hike.

And yes, it would be nice to have a faster lens in that instance.

But it wouldn't be so nice to have that faster (and therefore, heavier) lens on all the other instances of that hike.

I already think the 12-200 is slightly too heavy. Which is why I'd rather have a 12-100 3.5-5.6.

 Auf Reisen's gear list:Auf Reisen's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 Fisheye Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +2 more
Antal I Kozma Senior Member • Posts: 2,926
Re: Typical ...
3

jwilliams wrote:

Adrian Tung wrote:

https://blog.mingthein.com/2019/02/27/review-the-2019-olympus-zd-12-200-f3-5-6-3/

Looks like a decent super-zoom for its price, but not my cup of tea.

Typical superzoom. Aperture closes down real fast. IQ at long end is just so so.

At $899 they'd have to have a 50% off sale to even get me to think about it. Waay overpriced for its capabilities.

Oly continues to create new cameras and lenses I have absolutely no interest in. Batting 100% there.

How do you dare to say these things............... ? You will be crucified no doubt....... You heretic and traitor of the Olympus faithful............

Aperture closing down very fast???? IQ at the long end is not up to snuff?????? Man, those things do not matter, this lens is another Olympus masterpiece...... Photographers need long super zooms with slow aperture and other optical compromises.......

Anyhow, you should get a wig, a fake moustache  and use strong make-up from here on because someone might get you on the street............

Best, AIK

 Antal I Kozma's gear list:Antal I Kozma's gear list
Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm F2.8G IF-ED VR Phase One Capture One Pro Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +19 more
Jmdamp New Member • Posts: 6
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out
1

Can try, will not be available here in Aussie land until end of March. with our one in a hundred drought we have so much dust haze when out and about less changing of lens out in the paddocks the better and weather proofing a bonus.

jwilliams Veteran Member • Posts: 4,781
In Hiding ...
1

Antal I Kozma wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

Adrian Tung wrote:

https://blog.mingthein.com/2019/02/27/review-the-2019-olympus-zd-12-200-f3-5-6-3/

Looks like a decent super-zoom for its price, but not my cup of tea.

Typical superzoom. Aperture closes down real fast. IQ at long end is just so so.

At $899 they'd have to have a 50% off sale to even get me to think about it. Waay overpriced for its capabilities.

Oly continues to create new cameras and lenses I have absolutely no interest in. Batting 100% there.

How do you dare to say these things............... ? You will be crucified no doubt....... You heretic and traitor of the Olympus faithful............

Aperture closing down very fast???? IQ at the long end is not up to snuff?????? Man, those things do not matter, this lens is another Olympus masterpiece...... Photographers need long super zooms with slow aperture and other optical compromises.......

Anyhow, you should get a wig, a fake moustache and use strong make-up from here on because someone might get you on the street............

Best, AIK

Don't worry I'm already in hiding. Don't need a fake mustache as I shaved my real one off so now nobody can tell it is me.

Funny thing is I probably own more Oly gear than 99% of those posting here, but I've just never been one for cults.

-- hide signature --

Jonathan

daleeight Senior Member • Posts: 2,323
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out
1

Auf Reisen wrote:

Okapi001 wrote:

Auf Reisen wrote:

The problem with Robin is that he's a bloody magician that makes even the 75-300 sing. And that is a lens that I find rather so-so. So of course the pictures he provides look great, I'm not sure how much that tells me about the lenses' capabilities in lesser hands.

Do you really think optical characteristics of a lens depend on the user?

The final product depends on the interaction between user and tool.

I am sure Sebastian Vessel could complete a lap on the Nürburgring faster in an old Honda than I could in a modern Audi. Does that mean the Honda is a faster and more nimble car than the Audi? Probably not. But I would probably be quicker in the Audi than in the Honda, even if I can't actualise the full potential of either.

Robin's pictures show the full potential of any lens he's getting his hands on. Where the pictures fall short, they probably do so because of the limitations of the tool. What Robin's pictures don't show is the set of limitations produced by the interaction between user shortcomings and tool shortcomings.

You could probably beat Sebastian Vessel around the track, but Sebastian Vettel would probably pass you halfway around.

Couldn't resist the needling, but the rest of your post is spot on...

-- hide signature --

Dale

 daleeight's gear list:daleeight's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 +7 more
HHlim18 New Member • Posts: 15
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out

Auf Reisen wrote:

HHlim18 wrote:

MShot wrote:

I like a consumer 12-100, weather sealed, $600 for travel. A little bigger than the 14-150 but f/2.8 - 4. Don't often go past 100mm when I travel but use 12mm. 12-100 is too big/heavy for me to carry for a long time.

You're looking for a small light weight 12-100mm f2.8-4 consumer lens that cost $600? Olympus will never release one because it kill sales of their Pro 12-100mm f4. Panasonic too because leica 12-60mm f2.8-4. In your perfect world we can have best of all worlds but cons of none, however we aren't in it. Have a more realistic expectation or disappointment will be your BFF.

The two Panasonic 12-60s co-exist side by side, so I don't really see a problem with it. It doesn't have to match the IQ, build quality, or close focusing abilities of the 12-100 pro. Just be slightly better than the 14-150 and weather-sealed.

Probably not for 600, though.

You seems to ignore kit version of 12-60mm isn't f2.8-4. Regardless how much you wanted it, 12-100mm f2.8-4 will never be a cheap consumer lens. This is because on spec sheet at least it beats existing premiums lens. Enjoy your time with your BFF.

Donzac Regular Member • Posts: 239
Re: Why ...
4

jwilliams wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

String wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

Just curious, what's your definition of a consumer grade price? Almost $1000 doesn't really fit my definition.

For what this lens is, a retail price of $900 seems quite reasonable especially considering the next step up would only get you out to 100mm (with the 12-100Pro). It's 45% more expensive. If you don't think so, then there are cheaper options available that are almost always on sale... this one will be too eventually.

My question wasn't about value for money, it was about absolute prices. Again I think anything approaching $1000 puts it out of "consumer" territory.

For comparison, I have a Sigma 18-300 for my Pentax APS-C. It has the same 16.7x zoom range as the 12-200. List price is $579 and I picked it up for $400.

This was discussed in a previous thread, but third party prices are not comparable to first party. It's true that the third party list prices of consumer lenses in this zoom range tend to be around $600-650, but that's third party.

You can see an example in MFT superzoom of the Tamron 14-150 at $400, while the Olympus is $600. First party being 1.5x the price.

Multiply the $600*1.5 = $900, exactly the same difference.

Why does the Oly command a premium over the Tamron? Is it better? If not, then $600 is a fair price for that type of lens. m43 is an open standard so there is no proprietary knowledge Oly has.

I guess the positive we can take away is that we can pray Tamron will eventually makes a 12-200 and it will be priced at $600.

Unfortunately that is not likely as there is almost zero 3rd party lens development going on for m43. That Tamron lens was one of the early 3rd party m43 lenses before lens manufacturers realized there wasn't going to be the sales volume to support development specifically for m4/3

All the major camera manufacturers charge a premium for their lenses relative to third-party lens manufacturers, so singling out Olympus is just being petty.

As for Tamron, I doubt it will ever develop another lens for M4/3, the market isn't big enough for them to undercut the OEM lens prices and make a decent profit.

 Donzac's gear list:Donzac's gear list
Nikon D5200 Nikon D610 Olympus E-M1 II Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM +8 more
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 4,046
Re: Robin Wong's 12-200 review is out
2

I'll gladly pay the price for something that works for me. I need it a little lighter weight than the 12-100 f/4.

How about making it in the build quality of the 14-150 and 12-100? It can be a little slower if it has to be. F/3.5-4, f/4-.5.6, Just make the FL 12-100 please.

The 12-100PRO is too heavy.

JakeJY Senior Member • Posts: 3,627
Re: Why ...

jwilliams wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

This was discussed in a previous thread, but third party prices are not comparable to first party. It's true that the third party list prices of consumer lenses in this zoom range tend to be around $600-650, but that's third party.

You can see an example in MFT superzoom of the Tamron 14-150 at $400, while the Olympus is $600. First party being 1.5x the price.

Multiply the $600*1.5 = $900, exactly the same difference.

Why does the Oly command a premium over the Tamron? Is it better? If not, then $600 is a fair price for that type of lens. m43 is an open standard so there is no proprietary knowledge Oly has.

For those two sets of lenses, weather-sealing primarily. However, many times there is no practical reason, just one being first party and the other being third party. You see this a lot in accessories (same thing with flashes, grips, batteries, etc).

I guess the positive we can take away is that we can pray Tamron will eventually makes a 12-200 and it will be priced at $600.

Unfortunately that is not likely as there is almost zero 3rd party lens development going on for m43. That Tamron lens was one of the early 3rd party m43 lenses before lens manufacturers realized there wasn't going to be the sales volume to support development specifically for m43.

Tamron messed up their first go by introducing an extremely similar lens to those that already existed. If at the time they made a superzoom that was wider or longer then maybe they would have had a chance. I'm pretty sure they have soured to developing another MFT lens.

 JakeJY's gear list:JakeJY's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S9300 Nikon D5000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR +5 more
JakeJY Senior Member • Posts: 3,627
Re: Curious...

Mark Ransom wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

This was discussed in a previous thread, but third party prices are not comparable to first party. It's true that the third party list prices of consumer lenses in this zoom range tend to be around $600-650, but that's third party.

You can see an example in MFT superzoom of the Tamron 14-150 at $400, while the Olympus is $600. First party being 1.5x the price.

Multiply the $600*1.5 = $900, exactly the same difference.

Again, I'm not talking about whether it's a fair price. I'm asking what's your definition of "consumer" and what price cutoff you'd use.

No specific price cut off. The "consumer" part is depends more on the features of the lens. As for my personal budget, I don't care if it's "pro" or not. I set my own limits. For example, I consider $700 for a new 14-140 II too steep for me, so I bought it used.

 JakeJY's gear list:JakeJY's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S9300 Nikon D5000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads