•  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3(current)
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 11
  • Next 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Panasonic G9 & Leica 200mm f/2.8 announced
#21
Quote:Let me fix that for you Wink
  • 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 ...  Big Grin  )

 

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.
#22
Conversely ... the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 is now listed at just 449USD!

#23
Quote:The Oly 300mm f/4 is "just" 2500USD.

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

 

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

 

[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]

 

Some reviews:

http://www.photobyrichard.com/reviewbyri...-8-review/

 

https://www.lumixgexperience.panasonic.c...gTByIiQzmH

 

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
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/user/5408-wim/">Gear: 5D Mk II, a gaggle of primes, a lone zoom, an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II, Pen F and Panasonic GM5 with 13 primes, 8 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....</a>
#24
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.

#25
 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.com/compact/#724.395,692.614,ha,t
#26
  Ephotozine has already got sample images of the lens, which means an imminent review! 

 

 

 

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/leica...otos-31620

Dave's clichés
#27
Quote: 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.com/compact/#724.395,692.614,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).
#28
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
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
Quote: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...
  
  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3(current)
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 11
  • Next 


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)