[davidmanze]

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


 

 

 Expecting it to be cheaper is one thing........... finding out that you've just had the skin removed from your backside is another.......

 

  there's a very nice AF-S 200mm F2.0 VR lens on ebay for £400 less than the Leica........

[Klaus]

@Joju - my "we agreed" was targeting BC, not the whole world ;-)

[JJ_SO]

I see  ^_^

 

That bit - the quoted sentence why a µ4/3 lens costs more than a FF one (actually, they are hard to find theses days as there's always a zoom selling better) - I saw but didn't realize the direct connection. For the rest of it - small batches, yet high development costs and as MatjazO pointed out, tighter tolerances, I agree. And the Olympus 300/4 IS PRO is not that much cheaper

[thxbb12]

I wonder about the quality of the Pany 200's bokeh. This was the Oly 300 f4's Achilles' heel.

Also a comparison of the Pany + 1.4x TC vs Oly 300 f4 would be interesting, especially at f4.

I wonder which one would fare better IQ wise. Probably the Oly minus the bokeh.

[Brightcolours]

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.

Of course, the lens should be compared to an equivalent, when you look at what the lens actually does. However, production-price wise it is not at all strange to look at what this lens costs in comparison to a 200mm f2.8 FF lens.

 

Treating it as if both things are contradictory or not compatible is disingenuous.

 

Of course, the Olympus has many more lens elements (15) as the particular Canon (9) we mentioned before (of course, the smaller image circle means (some of those) elements can be smaller). That, and the Leica badge on it, and the introduction date, all make it "naturally" so that the price is higher. Too high still? Yes, I think we agree on that.

 

And to JoJu: "the ISO game" of course works, it always has and nothing has changed in physics the last year. :ph34r:

[JJ_SO]

Yes, and the diffraction kicks in at f/8 no matter about equivalence, and the sensors are not shrinking or expanding in exactly the same proportions - if it keeps your life happy and simpler, fine.  I prefer to go Rover's "da wide" and "da long" way of lens determination.

[Klaus]

Olympus is providing their MTFs at 60 lp/mm, Pana at 40lp/mm.

The classic gang uses 30lp/mm ...

 

That is, of course, normal because the pixel density is (usually) higher in MFT land thus the lenses have to be sharper.

For 20mp FF you can still have fairly relaxed quality requirements. As we've seen with the EOS 5Ds R that approach may not hold though ...

 

Anyway, higher MTFs come at a price - which is one reason why some MTF lenses are comparatively expensive.

[Brightcolours]

Yes, and the diffraction kicks in at f/8 no matter about equivalence, and the sensors are not shrinking or expanding in exactly the same proportions - if it keeps your life happy and simpler, fine.  I prefer to go Rover's "da wide" and "da long" way of lens determination.

Oh boy.

Diffraction kicks in at any aperture. Whether you see the diffraction depends on:

• initial sharpness of the lens. There are lenses that are diffraction limited even wide open.
  
• The size of the imaging sensor. 
  
• The resolution of the imaging sensor.
  
• The print size.
  

​Lets say you have a 20mp MFT sensor, and a 20mp FF sensor. Lets say you will make prints the same size, or look at 100% pixel size on a screen. Lets assume lenses of equal quality.

Lets assume you would see diffraction softening kick in at f8 for the 20mp FF sensor. You then WILL see diffraction softening kick in at f4 for the 20mp MFT sensor.

 

Same for 40mp MFT + 40mp FF sensors. Same for 10mp MFT and 10mp FF sensors. Diffraction softening will kick in at equivalent f-values. Diffraction softening will NOT kick in at the same f-value with a 10mp FF sensor and a 40mp FF sensor. The 10mp lower resolution masks the diffraction softening, where the 40mp higher resolution will show it sooner.

Yet, a 10mp MFT sensor and a 40mp FF sensor will show diffraction softening kicking in at the same f-value.

 

So, to correct your sentence:

"Yes, and diffraction kicks in at equivalent f-values, provided the sensor resolution is similar"

 

There is one note to make about diffraction and f-value. The amount of diffraction: size of the hole, and distance the light has to travel after it passes the hole. With different lens designs, the aperture is not always placed at exactly the same position (relative to the resulting focal length). If one says "diffraction softening kicks in at f8 with this sensor", it is a generalization.

[toni-a]

Here, comes the equivalence talk again......

notice the excellent shallow DOF here ?

 

 

[Brightcolours]

Can you stop the lame posts, Toni? It does not get you in with the cool kids, you know.

 

If you do not understand something, it does not make you cool trying to flame what you don't get.