Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why are MFT (m43) lenses so slow and so expensive?
#1
Hi all.

 

Does anyone have an idea why (M)FT lenses are much more expensive than their Full Format equivalents, and why most of the time there isn't any equivalent at all?

 

For instance, you can buy a Nikon 300mm f4 for 1500 Euro, while dealers demand 2500 Euro for the equivalent Four Thirds Zuiko 150mm f2.0.

 

A Full Format 70-200 f4 can be bought for 1000 Euros new, its Four Thirds equivalent 35-100mm f2.0 costs more than double that amount: 2400 Euros, while a 35-100mm f1.4 isn't offered at all. A 35-100mm f1.4 would be the equivalent of the ubiquitous FF offering 70-200mm f2.8 that is usually priced around some 2000 Euros, i.e. significantly less than its weaker FT sibling.


I wonder why that  is. Is it physically impossible to make a 35-100mm f1.4 (M)FT lens that would behave like a 70-200mm f2.8 FF, or much more expensive?

 

Cheers Smile

#2
35-100mm f1.4 would be  enormous, heavy and so expensive only few people on the planet could afford it...

Well I agree, they are more expensive. I think we all thought-smaller camera, smaller lenses means "smaller $$$" They have to make profit somehow and lenses will stay with you for the lifetime.

#3
Quote:35-100mm f1.4 would be  enormous, heavy and so expensive only few people on the planet could afford it...
 

You seem to think that it would have to be heavier than a standard 70-200 f2.8 for a full format DSLR. I think all you need would be an equivalent to the aforementioned lens and something like the metabones speedbooster, only with 2 stops instead of one, integrated into the same lens.

 

I understand that currently there is no such thing a s two-stops speedbooster because the flange distance of DSLR lenses doesn't leave enough room for that, but if it were designed from scratch as one single lens, why not?

#4
Quote:Hi all.

 

Does anyone have an idea why (M)FT lenses are much more expensive than their Full Format equivalents, and why most of the time there isn't any equivalent at all?

 

For instance, you can buy a Nikon 300mm f4 for 1500 Euro, while dealers demand 2500 Euro for the equivalent Four Thirds Zuiko 150mm f2.0.

 

A Full Format 70-200 f4 can be bought for 1000 Euros new, its Four Thirds equivalent 35-100mm f2.0 costs more than double that amount: 2400 Euros, while a 35-100mm f1.4 isn't offered at all. A 35-100mm f1.4 would be the equivalent of the ubiquitous FF offering 70-200mm f2.8 that is usually priced around some 2000 Euros, i.e. significantly less than its weaker FT sibling.


I wonder why that  is. Is it physically impossible to make a 35-100mm f1.4 (M)FT lens that would behave like a 70-200mm f2.8 FF, or much more expensive?

 

Cheers Smile
 

MFT lenses aren't "slow". f/2.8 remains f/2.8. You just have more depth-of-field.

But yes, MFT lenses are more expensive.

One of the reasons is that they are (have to be) built to higher standards - e.g. you may notice that the manufacturer MTFs are using 60 lp/mm rather than just 40 lp/mm in order to allow higher pixel densities. 

 

As far as shallow DoF is concerned - MFT is the wrong place to be IMHO. Either the "sane" options (say the Pana 42.5mm f/1.7) are sufficient for your use cases or you should use a different system in the first place. Something like the Pana 42.5mm f/1.2 just doesn't make sense to me. Hunting full format or even APS-C in this respect is pointless.
#5
You only mentioned Zuikos, Dynszis, but should not forget that owners get one of the best weather-sealings with them. Mentioning the Nikon 300/4: Only the old. 1.4 kg one is a bit lower than 1500€, the fresh,lighter PF version will cost you 1800 .- is still two stops slower and sealing wise I would trust it to resist a dozen raindrops. Maybe two dozen, if I'm in a risky mood.

 

But it has lost the huge resolution of the old one. The next, fast competitors are a Nikon 200/2, 300/2.8 and both will take 5200.- € from your bank account. Each. A Zeiss 135/2 is 1900.- € and a good project to learn focussing manually. 

#6
Quote:Hi all.

 

Does anyone have an idea why (M)FT lenses are much more expensive than their Full Format equivalents, and why most of the time there isn't any equivalent at all?

 

For instance, you can buy a Nikon 300mm f4 for 1500 Euro, while dealers demand 2500 Euro for the equivalent Four Thirds Zuiko 150mm f2.0.

 

A Full Format 70-200 f4 can be bought for 1000 Euros new, its Four Thirds equivalent 35-100mm f2.0 costs more than double that amount: 2400 Euros, while a 35-100mm f1.4 isn't offered at all. A 35-100mm f1.4 would be the equivalent of the ubiquitous FF offering 70-200mm f2.8 that is usually priced around some 2000 Euros, i.e. significantly less than its weaker FT sibling.


I wonder why that  is. Is it physically impossible to make a 35-100mm f1.4 (M)FT lens that would behave like a 70-200mm f2.8 FF, or much more expensive?

 

Cheers Smile
 

 

(M)FT lenses are not slower than their FF counterparts!

A f/2 lens is a f/2 lens, regardless of the sensor you put behind.

 

FT lenses were (and probably still are) built to the highest standard, higher than any Canon or Nikon lenses. The quality control was much better which is costly.

 

As far as MFT goes, the concept is to provide smaller gear overall.

A lens such as a Panasonic 100-300 f4-5.6 mounted on a MFT body is equivalent, in terms of focal length and aperture, to a 200-600 f8-11.2 lens mounted on a full frame body. Note that I'm not talking about lenses only, but systems. The 100-300 lens remains a f4-5.6 lens.

However, such a combination simply doesn't exist in FF land. This is the strength of MFT: you can get a very small package at the cost of DOF control and IQ. The last point, IQ, doesn't matter all that much these days since we reached good-enough IQ for quite some time now and unless you need to print very big, it should be enough for the vast majority.

 

Then, it's just a matter of what you shoot. For instance, I'm strongly considering (re)buying into MFT for the long lenses options, especially when Oly will release their 300mm f4. Nothing in the market can give you that reach in such a small form factor. Also, with such long lenses, I don't find the lack of DOF control to be an issue at all.

--Florent

Flickr gallery
#7
Looking at the positive side, you’ve got extra light.

Firstable your gear got lighter

Secondary you wallet is lighter too.

 

Now serious. As one gear head I still puzzling the mirroless way. I invested in APS-C gear 10 years ago and I’m still happy with it. For cycling and backpacking where weight is considered I still thinks that dSLR is lighter. Extra battery and/or chargers that I need will outhwight the advantage of mft.

Please correct me If I’m wrong.

 

PS.  My wallet got heavier since no-one can convince me to buy new photo gear. Happily I can live somehow with it. I know that I’m not the only one. Just look at the cammera  sales numbers.

#8
Quote:I still thinks that dSLR is lighter. Extra battery and/or chargers that I need will outhwight the advantage of mft.

Please correct me If I’m wrong.
 

I don't think so.

Consider for instance the following kit:
  • Olympus E-M10, 396g, 11.9x8.2x4.6cm
  • Ultra wide-angle: Olympus 9-18 f4-5.6, 155g, 5.7x5cm
  • Short standard zoom: Olympus 14-42 EZ f3.5-5.6: 91g, 6.1x2.3cm
  • Tele lens: Panasonic 45-150 f/4-5.6, 200g, 6.2x7.3cm
  • Portrait lens: Olympus 45 f1.8, 116g, 5.6x4.6cm
With this kit, you're covered from 18mm (FF equivalent) up to 300mm, including a 90mm fast portrait lens.

Total weight: 958g

Carrying 2 extra batteries is pretty insignificant compared to how much one would have to carry by using another system.

 

I challenge anyone to come up with a similar kit for APS-C or FF that would come close to that weight  Wink

 

Plus, the APS-C lens selection from Canon/Nikon is rather poor, with many holes in the line up (no 20, 24, 35 and 85mm FF equiv. lenses, no 70-200 equiv., no, long zooms, etc.).

 

The only APS-C manufacturer featuring a somewhat complete lens lineup is Fuji, but the size is not even close to MFT.

--Florent

Flickr gallery
#9
Quote:I don't think so.

Consider for instance the following kit:
  • Olympus E-M10, 396g, 11.9x8.2x4.6cm
  • Ultra wide-angle: Olympus 9-18 f4-5.6, 155g, 5.7x5cm
  • Short standard zoom: Olympus 14-42 EZ f3.5-5.6: 91g, 6.1x2.3cm
  • Tele lens: Panasonic 45-150 f/4-5.6, 200g, 6.2x7.3cm
  • Portrait lens: Olympus 45 f1.8, 116g, 5.6x4.6cm
With this kit, you're covered from 18mm (FF equivalent) up to 300mm, including a 90mm fast portrait lens.

Total weight: 958g

Carrying 2 extra batteries is pretty insignificant compared to how much one would have to carry by using another system.

 

I challenge anyone to come up with a similar kit for APS-C or FF that would come close to that weight  Wink

 

Plus, the APS-C lens selection from Canon/Nikon is rather poor, with many holes in the line up (no 20, 24, 35 and 85mm FF equiv. lenses, no 70-200 equiv., no, long zooms, etc.).

 

The only APS-C manufacturer featuring a somewhat complete lens lineup is Fuji, but the size is not even close to MFT.
 

 

Coming back to the original message - if you take similar DoF capabilities as the baseline, the MFT advantage is nil.
#10
These arguments always seems to come down to a pointless argument between those who *need* DoF equivalence, and those that don't. People argue for their side, which are often based on different requirements. Just buy what works for you and your circumstances.

 

Just for fun, I'll have a go at an approximate Canon equivalent to the Oly lineup above, optimising primarily for weight, biasing for recent kit and not looking into historic options:

Canon 100D 407g

Canon EF-S 10-18 IS STM 240g

Canon EF-S 18-55 IS STM 205g

Canon EF-S 55-250 IS STM 375g

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM 160g

 

Total weight: 1387g (1.4x more than the Oly set)

 

Of course it is not an exact parallel. The three zoom lenses cover 16-400mm full frame equivalent. This is 25x zoom compared to 16.7x of Oly, or 1.5x more. So roughly speaking the weight difference here is roughly proportionate to the system focal length range, with the Canon system likely having a bit more shallow DoF potential throughout that range. There doesn't seem to be any gain in looking for a 200mm zoom in the Canon stable, although the Tamron 55-200 would get you down slightly to 299g. It is a long time since I had one but it was one of the popular bargain starter lenses for DSLRs.

 

Obviously this doesn't compare other aspects that will inevitably end in more arguments like body features.

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)