Why are MFT (m43) lenses so slow and so expensive? - Printable Version +- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com) +-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Just Talk (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17) +--- Thread: Why are MFT (m43) lenses so slow and so expensive? (/showthread.php?tid=1141) |
Why are MFT (m43) lenses so slow and so expensive? - Tord555 - 07-06-2015 Quote:My wife was so dissatisfied with her Olympus 75-300, that she first got herself a K-30 and a HD DA55-300, a great combination for BIF (birds in flight) photography. Then she went one step further with a 70-300CX on a Nikon V2, a superb lens on a nice camera, a much sharper lens in its long end than most lenses I have tried, possibly sharper than the new Nikon 300mm lens (yes, I have used that one, practical size, yes, and nice in every respect, and just like the 70-300CX using the latest lens coatings; happy to say both work well on a Nikon 1 camera!). Why are MFT (m43) lenses so slow and so expensive? - Tord555 - 07-06-2015 Quote:Hi all.Lens prices due to a number of factors, but one important factor is weight, another number of lenses sold (or expected to be sold), if you are alone in the field, or there are competitors breathing down your neck. Some, like Tamron, sell a lot to other camera manufacturers, which add a little of their own design and call the end product something catchy, like XZ-1, or MX-1. Same focal range, same size sensor, same DR, same ... So obviously such a manufacturer can hold a lower price on their own line of lenses, as the OEM division supports the less profitable, but image-important, Tamron line of lenses. Olympus have been in dire straits economically, and just can't sell their bigger lenses as cheaply as a huge giant like Nikon can, but their smaller lenses, like the 45, sells in huge numbers, use very little glass, so they can compete efficiently, and are surprisingly cheap! Really heavy lumps, like long lenses for MF cameras, are extremely expensive, and definitely nothing a small manufacturer dare to invest in. A 35-100/1.2 would be such a heavy lump, as heavy as Nikon's 200/2.0, at least, and most likely as expensive, and as the market is smaller, you have to spread the development costs on a smaller series, so I'd guess a 50% surcharge, compared to the Nikon lens?! The 70-300CX is a typical modern lens, with excellent IQ and so on, but as the market is small (Nikon 1 nerds (like me), and Canon Only users — yep, a lot of Canon users have bought Nikon V3s and 70-300CX as a lighter alternative to their 1D Xs, and 100-400 Ls). So the price is roughly 2.5 times higher than Nikon's classic 70-300 VR, which on the other hand isn't nearly as sharp, nor as insensitive to flare (I have owned both, and now own a 70-300CX, a 70-200/4.0G, and a Tamron 70-300 VC). Why are MFT (m43) lenses so slow and so expensive? - Klaus - 07-07-2015 Quote:My wife was so dissatisfied with her Olympus 75-300, that she first got herself a K-30 and a HD DA55-300, a great combination for BIF (birds in flight) photography. None of the MFT 300mm zooms are really good (nor small). It is a mystery to me why Oly/Pana aren't fixing this gap. The 70-300CX is a cool offering indeed. A bit pricey though (just like most of the CX stuff). |