• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Panasonic G9 & Leica 200mm f/2.8 announced


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#21 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,453 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 09 November 2017 - 09:41 PM

Let me fix that for you ;)

  • Pany 200 f2.8: 8,75 x 17.4 cm, 1245g, $3000
  • Canon 200 f2.8: 8.38 x 13.72 cm, 765g, $750
  • Canon 400 f5.6: 9 x 25.6 cm, 1250g, $1250
Doesn't change much about the conclusion, though. Yep, insanely expensive, even though it comes with a free TC...

 

 

The Oly 300mm f/4 is "just" 2500USD.

The Leica 100-400mm is pretty much the bargain alternative at 1800USD ( ... or 1300USD locally ...  :D  )

 

Seriously 3k$? That's 1k too much no matter how you look at this.

 

It's even more weird when considering the fairly reasonable costs for the new Leica zoom lenses (8-18mm, 12-60mm). The upcoming 50-200mm f/2.8-4 is probably also in the same ballpark as those.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#22 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,453 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 09 November 2017 - 09:43 PM

Conversely ... the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 is now listed at just 449USD!


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#23 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,166 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 09 November 2017 - 10:25 PM

The Oly 300mm f/4 is "just" 2500USD.

The Leica 100-400mm is pretty much the bargain alternative at 1800USD ( ... or 1300USD locally ...  :D  )

 

Seriously 3k$? That's 1k too much no matter how you look at this.

 

It's even more weird when considering the fairly reasonable costs for the new Leica zoom lenses (8-18mm, 12-60mm). The upcoming 50-200mm f/2.8-4 is probably also in the same ballpark as those.

 It appears to be very good, actually. See official Pana MTF chart below

 

Attached File  MTF_chart_HES200_lens2.jpg   34.61KB   0 downloads

 

Some reviews:

http://www.photobyri...mm-f2-8-review/

 

https://www.lumixgex...w/#.WgTByIiQzmH

 

Check the 100% crop bird's head in the second review; I think it is page 2..

 

Whether it is expensive, too expensive, or just right in the end is a matter of whether people who think they need it will indeed buy one.

As to some of the comparisons made: the "equivalent" EF 400 F/5.6 L is very old, and has no IS. A new version with IS would likely come in at around $2000 if not more.

However, it still is a 200 mm F/2.8 lens, and a pro version for that matter.

 

Personally, I will not likely buy one. I don't shoot at 400 mm equivalent very much, and besides, I do happen to have a Canon 100-400L IS II, and a bunch of Metabones adapters, for the occasion I do need to do so.

 

Kind regards, Wim



#24 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,453 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 09 November 2017 - 11:19 PM

Well, the Nikkor 300mm f/4 VR PF is brand new and costs half that money (used on an APS-C DSLR for comparison).

And it's actually also half the weight.

As much as I like MFT, it's WAY over the top.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#25 borisbg

borisbg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 450 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 10 November 2017 - 01:42 AM

 Latest offerings of Oly and Pany  grew in size and weight big time, let alone the prices. Their top cameras entered the territory of APS-C format for sure, or Sony A7 bodies. I just checked at camerasize.com and found this:

 

Sony A7R III [657 g] weights 14% (83 grams) more than Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II [574 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).

and this:

http://camerasize.co...95,692.614,ha,t



#26 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts

Posted 10 November 2017 - 07:26 AM

  Ephotozine has already got sample images of the lens, which means an imminent review! 

 

 

 

https://www.ephotozi...le-photos-31620



#27 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,453 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 10 November 2017 - 10:17 PM

 Latest offerings of Oly and Pany  grew in size and weight big time, let alone the prices. Their top cameras entered the territory of APS-C format for sure, or Sony A7 bodies. I just checked at camerasize.com and found this:

 

Sony A7R III [657 g] weights 14% (83 grams) more than Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II [574 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).

and this:

http://camerasize.co...95,692.614,ha,t

 

Well, at the end of the day the CAMERA size is not really determined by the sensor size.

The sensor is always tiny compared to the rest of a camera.

It's more about processing power, cooling (were Sony tends to have issues), viewfinder, battery capacity (or the mirror box).


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#28 you2

you2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,014 posts

Posted 10 November 2017 - 10:22 PM

Seems like the x-e3 shrunk in size compared to the x-e2. Anyway I agree that these lenses seem kind of large. maybe it takes a lot of glass to make a well corrected lens but i though the 200mm was one of the easier designs (esp compare to 14mm).



#29 borisbg

borisbg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 450 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 10 November 2017 - 10:58 PM

Klaus, I agree with you.

However, I wanted to point out that high performance came at the expense of size and price, and not only in cameras, but also lenses.



#30 eltoucan

eltoucan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 13 November 2017 - 10:53 AM

Don't say that too loud ... you may be wrong there. At least regarding the Canon.

Couldn't agree more.

Canon is so far behind these days on almost every aspects...



#31 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,769 posts

Posted 13 November 2017 - 01:19 PM

   I think it's worth mentioning that most long zooms or even fixed focus tele lenses cover both APSc and full frame...eg all the 150-600s both Sigma/Tamron Nikon with it's 200-500mm be they only F5-6.3 wide open.

 

  OK the Leica is a bright F2.8 but it's "only suitable" for the M4/3 format... I would expect this, which is a fraction of the size of full frame, to have that reflected in the price........

 

                     ........it doesn't look as if the sensor size played any role in the final pricing of the lens, except maybe small is beautiful and beautiful means more expensive!



#32 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 13 November 2017 - 01:45 PM

I'd like to debate the question wether a phase detection or contrast detection AF needs more effort to deliver fast, yet precise focussing? On DSLR we use to have ultrasonic drives, which basically are fast and the precision comes from AF as the drives often countercorrect the primarily movement (at least in AF-C ).

 

In mirrorless, linear steppers or servos are often used. To increase their power, manufacturers use two or three of them in larger lenses.

 

The Fuji 100-400 is covering the range of a 150-600 on FF. Compared to it's bigger counterparts, it's more expensive - but not necessarily better. And on FF, the better primes like 300/2.8 are also no cheapos. This is only about FL equivalence - if one needs f/2.8 to avoid highest ISOs, the APS-C or µ4/3 f/2.8 gibes the same shutter speed as a FF f/2.8. A Canon EF 300/2.8 L is double the price of the Leica 200/2.8, so I think, the proportions need to be seen in the speed of the lens.

 

On Photography Life I read a couple of blog entries of Thomas Stirr, who's a big fan of Nikon series 1 like this one here https://photographyl...ts-presentation

 

Maybe it's really time to see the benefits of smaller formats not only in terms of reduced weight and used bag space, but also the much easier DoF at reasonable apertures.



#33 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 13 November 2017 - 03:35 PM

DoF is always the same at the same FOV and the same aperture... No matter which size the sensor is.



#34 MatjazO

MatjazO

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts
  • LocationSlovenia

Posted 13 November 2017 - 04:49 PM

Why m4/3 200/2.8 would be expected to be cheaper than FF 200/2.8?

If anything it requires glass to be manufactured at higher tolerances to accomodate higher pixel density of smaller sensor. 30 surfaces in case of new Pana lens. Also, new lenses (all sensor sizes) are these days designed for future higher resolution sensors in mind, at least theoretically, therefore again higher cost to manufacture which is part of rationelle behind recent expensive glass.

#35 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 13 November 2017 - 05:24 PM

Maybe it's really time to see the benefits of smaller formats not only in terms of reduced weight and used bag space, but also the much easier DoF at reasonable apertures.


If MORE DoF is what you're looking for, then yes ;)
Editor
photozone.de

#36 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 13 November 2017 - 07:16 PM

Why m4/3 200/2.8 would be expected to be cheaper than FF 200/2.8?

If anything it requires glass to be manufactured at higher tolerances to accomodate higher pixel density of smaller sensor. 30 surfaces in case of new Pana lens. Also, new lenses (all sensor sizes) are these days designed for future higher resolution sensors in mind, at least theoretically, therefore again higher cost to manufacture which is part of rationelle behind recent expensive glass.

As pointed out, a 200mm f2.8 FF lens is a lot cheaper. So, why would you expect a MFT 200mm f2.8 to be a lot more expensive?



#37 MatjazO

MatjazO

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts
  • LocationSlovenia

Posted 13 November 2017 - 08:51 PM

As pointed out, a 200mm f2.8 FF lens is a lot cheaper. So, why would you expect a MFT 200mm f2.8 to be a lot more expensive?

Well, you did answer yourself pretty good a few days ago:

<p>Regarding comparing with the Canon EF 200mm f2.8 L II:

  • It makes sense to compare it, because the same focal length and max. aperture, should give a comparable price
  • Still not fair to compare it, because that Canon lens is a really old lens, with a really deflated price. A new Canon EF 200mm f2.8 L IS USM would not cost $750. Probably also not as high as $3000, though  ;)
😉

#38 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,453 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 13 November 2017 - 10:53 PM

As pointed out, a 200mm f2.8 FF lens is a lot cheaper. So, why would you expect a MFT 200mm f2.8 to be a lot more expensive?

 

First of all - this thing has to be compared to a 400mm f/5.6 L IS - not a 200mm f/2.8. If we agreed on that logic in the past we should stick to it regarding price comparisons as well.

 

There is no modern FF prime with these specs but there are zoom lenses - the gang of xxx-400mm IS/VR/OSS.

They all cost between 2000 and 2500 USD.

The ancient 400mm f/5.6L doesn't count here - in the stone age lens prices were cheaper and we don't even know whether this one is still in production (rather than supplied from pre-produced batches).

 

Thus in this context 3000USD are not bizarre but "only" overpriced. Just like with the Oly 300mm f/4 there is, of course, a reason for this - the production volume will be tiny compared to CaNikon. They did a business case and this was the result. Super high-end prime lenses are no money maker in MFT land. Let's face it - Canon also has no business case for an updated 400mm f/5.6 L IS - because consumers are buying the 100-400L II in vastly higher volumes.

Thus it is commendable that Panasonic made the effort but it's not more than a halo lens for showrooms in my opinion.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#39 MatjazO

MatjazO

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts
  • LocationSlovenia

Posted 13 November 2017 - 11:12 PM

Thus in this context 3000USD are not bizarre but "only" overpriced. Just like with the Oly 300mm f/4 there is, of course, a reason for this - the production volume will be tiny compared to CaNikon. That did a business case and this was the result. Super high-end prime lenses are no money maker in MFT land. Let's face it - Canon also has no business case for an updated 400mm f/5.6 L IS - because consumers are buying the 100-400L II in vastly higher volumes.
Thus it is commendable that Panasonic made the effort but it's not more than a halo lens for showrooms in my opinion.

Summed up well. 👍
Interesting is Oly’s quarterly report published today, which shows they are finally growing with black figures on the balance sheet. It seems that high price products strategy is working for them, at least for now. Longterm? One can wonder.

#40 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 14 November 2017 - 12:19 AM

First of all - this thing has to be compared to a 400mm f/5.6 L IS - not a 200mm f/2.8. If we agreed on that logic in the past we should stick to it regarding price comparisons as well.


Sorry, "we" didn't agree. Only that part of "us" who just loooooves to compute with DoF and equivalence the hell out of it - don't count me in, I strictly deny this single sided DoF only view. Fair enough for landscape stuff, not fair enough for sports or birds - here the only thing what counts is speed of a lens, defined by max. aperture.
 
The other part, who basically sees a fast lens and another fast lens - oh yes, and difficult noise situations from too small sensors - but a f/5.6 lens doesn't improve things much... at the end of the day you'd end up with a blurred FF shot, no matter what resolution the sensor brings, and the µ 4/3 will just be sharper because of a quarter of the shutter speed you'd need for f/5.6. The ISO game doesn't work too well. I still bet, that Leica lens will be more impressive wide open than a FF with a more than mediocre but cheaper 100-400 wide open at the long end. That's what primes do - declass zooms, at least the less costly ones.
 

Thus it is commendable that Panasonic made the effort but it's not more than a halo lens for showrooms in my opinion.


Here "we" agree :D But I just don't think, that somebody who wanted to go for mirrorless because of weight reductions will get a FF with a 100-400 for a reasonable price (cheaper than the 200mm Leica and as performing as it) plus carry that extra luggage around.

 

And don't forget: silent shutters are only available in mirrorless land - DSLRs just allow one shot, after that the bird is gone. The price is steep, no question, but decent primes in FF are not cheaper.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de