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!
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://photographylife.com/photographin...esentation
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.
DoF is always the same at the same FOV and the same aperture... No matter which size the sensor is.
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.
11-13-2017, 04:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-13-2017, 04:24 PM by mst.)
Quote: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
opticallimits.com
Quote: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?
Quote: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: Quote: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
😉
11-13-2017, 09:53 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-14-2017, 08:55 AM by Klaus.)
Quote: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.
Quote: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. ðŸ‘
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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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  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.
|
