Quote: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, $1250
Doesn't change much about the conclusion, though. Yep, insanely expensive, even though it comes with a free TC...
The Oly 300mm f/4 is "just" 2500USD.
The Leica 100-400mm is pretty much the bargain alternative at 1800USD ( ... or 1300USD locally ...
)
Seriously 3k$? 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.
Conversely ... the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 is now listed at just 449USD!
Quote:The Oly 300mm f/4 is "just" 2500USD.
The Leica 100-400mm is pretty much the bargain alternative at 1800USD ( ... or 1300USD locally ... )
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
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.
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
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).
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).
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.
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...