Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2014 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...

  
 
Wilbus
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


Well, I've been thinking about this for a while as a m43 user, basically I am trying to make any sense of the m43 pricing.

So the first question would be, is it more difficult, thus more expensive, to make a 50mm lens for a m43 sensor then it is to make a 50mm lens for a 35x24mm sensor (so called "full frame").?

We can compare the Olympus 45mm F1.8 with a Nikon 50mm F1.8 for example, the price of the Olympus is twice as high but they are really very similar lenses ni terms of focal length, aperture and even quality. The Olympus is a great little lens as is the Nikon 50mm (and the Canon 50mm I guess, but I've only shot Nikon before).

The Olympus 45mm is actually priced more in the range of the Nikon 85mm F1.8. This, when first entering the m43 system, made me think that Olympus sets their pricing according to the equivalent focal length instead (so a 45mm is priced close to an 85mm FF lens).

However, with the release of the 25mm F1.8 this is apparently not so. The 25mm is priced around 400 dollars and the Nikon 50mm F1.8 around, what? 130-150? While the 45mm is a good lens, it is not exceptional nor is the Nikon. They are both good or very good.

We can take another example, the Olympus 75mm F1.8 is priced twice as high as a Nikon 85mm F1.8 (give or take some depending on rebates now) but they are both very similar in focal length and aperture.
This however might be explained somewhat by the exceptional performance of the Olympus 75mm which has been praised all over the net.

At first I thought it was a bit of minimalist expensive approach but now Fuji has become very aggressive with their prizing, compare the Fujifilm 56mm F1.2 and the Panasonic Leica 42,5mm F1.2 which Jman13 in this forum, who is also the owner of the excellent blog Admiringlight.com have written some extensive reviews about.

The price difference between these two excellent (extremely excellent I suppose) lenes is huge. It's actually so big that buying a Fujifilm X-T1 and the 56mm F1.2 will set up back only about 400-500 dollars more then buying just the Panasonic Leica 42,5mm lens.

One last comparison, the Olympus Pro zoom 12-40mm F2.8, built to a very high standard, very good weather sealing, very good optical performance. Compare it to the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 and all the sudden the Nikon is around 600-700 dollars more expensive. The two lenes probably have the same performance, possibly even a bit better for the Olympus.

So, like I said, I am trying to make some sense of the pricing, in many ways the m43 system feels very expensive in many ways. I think one should compare equivalent lenses, which means about the same performance, focal length and aperture. Which means don't give a rats a** about depth of field so please leave that out of the discussion. F1.8 is F1.8 is F1.8 and will allow the same amount of light though to the lens no matter if it is a FF lens or a m43 lens.

Does anybody know? Or does anyone have any ideas why many of the m43 are as expensive as they are? Less is more?

Regards

Rasmus




Mar 21, 2014 at 10:31 AM
Massimo Foti
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


I just assembled a Micro 4/3 kit and for sure I wish the lenses were cheaper


Mar 21, 2014 at 11:22 AM
serhan_
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


Maybe we should ask Leica

It was discussed in mu-43:
http://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=61730

Also from Sigma interview:
dpreview sigma interview

Sigma creates lenses for DSLR and mirrorless systems now - is mirrorless an important segment for you now?
Not yet. According to industry data, camera to lens ratio [attachment rate] is still something like 1:1.3 in the case of mirrorless cameras, and 1:1.7 for DSLRs. So conventional DSLR users buy more lenses. Mirrorless camera users are more likely to purchase the camera with a kit lens and not many people purchase any additional lenses. Some high-end mirrorless users with Sony NEX-7 or Olympus OM-D buy more but the majority of mirrorless users are the entry-class users. Our main target is a bit
...Show more

Are you interested in creating lenses for Sony’s new Alpha 7 and 7R?
As a major lens manufacturer we believe it’s our mission to support as many systems as possible but we have limited resources so we have to prioritize. But we’d like to.


From a technical point of view is it easier or more difficult to make lenses for mirrorless cameras versus DSLRs?
There is no difference in terms of difficulty per se, but mirrorless and DSLR are different. In terms of mirrorless lenses, the cameras use sensor-based autofocus, and also support movie recording with full-time AF which means that the focusing element must be small and lightweight. So if we needed to make a very fast, large-aperture lens for mirrorless, that might be more difficult than for DSLR. But generally speaking, although the design approach is different there’s no real difference in difficulty.


You mention video - how much does the need for video influence your decision-making now, when you’re designing new lenses?
In the case of DSLRs. we haven’t changed the way we design. Because autofocus is still performed using phase-detection so we use the same design approach. For video with DSLRs I think most users focus manually. For mirrorless we have to support full-time autofocus as I’ve said so we must design the lenses differently, with smaller and lighter focusing elements.




Mar 21, 2014 at 11:36 AM
nikons
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


Thank you for those links!


Mar 21, 2014 at 11:41 AM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


Miniaturization always costs more when it comes to advanced electronics and optical designs that can't be leveraged over hundreds of thousands of units.

Often, the MFT lenses outperform FF lenses at their equivalent focal lengths while the sensors do not on an absolute level. In a practical level, that's a personal thing dependent on uses. The Oly45 1.8 for example shows far less CA and SA than the Nikon or Canon equivalent on FF or APS-C when used at F1.8.

MFT lenses also in general have to be sharper due to pixel size. For example, lenses that were perfectly fine on a D700 suddenly became optically very bad when used on a D800.



Mar 21, 2014 at 11:42 AM
CarlG
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


It does cost more....it's tough to find developers and assemblers with little hands!!


Mar 21, 2014 at 12:03 PM
JonPB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


[Jon dons his tweed jacket with leather elbow patches.]

Equivalent lenses don't have the same focal length, they have the same angle of view over the diameter of the image circle they project (or the sensor they're designed to project upon). A 50mm lens on a very small sensor is a very long lens. Long lenses have high magnification, both of the subject and of the lens' aberrations. Long lenses are particularly subject to chromatic aberrations. On the other hand, a 50mm lens on a very large sensor is a very wide lens. Wide lenses must bend light sharply, and are particularly subject to distortion, field curvature, and coma. A lens designer must consider whether a lens is long or wide in order to anticipate the aberrations they must balance out; they don't design a lens by its focal length and then extrapolate the elements to fit the necessary image circle. Therefore, equivalent lenses in this discussion should have the same field of view.

So why, then, is the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 far more expensive than the Canon and Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lenses?

1. The Olympus has an internal motor, which the Canon does not. {This is incorrect; see AhamB's post and my reply below.} That alone is a significant expense. The Nikon does, though, so I'll compare the Olympus to the Nikon.
2. The Olympus has more elements and more doublets, and more aspherics. The Olympus has 18 finished surfaces, 4 of which are cemented together and 2 of which are aspheric; the Nikon has 14 finished surfaces, 2 of which are cemented together and 1 of which is aspheric. The Olympus is simply a more complex lens to assemble.
3. The Olympus also has a closer minimum focus distance and has an aperture that closes down further. Both of these again make the Olympus more complex.
4. Presumably, since Nikon has been making lenses for the 135 format for 50+ years, they've already paid for a considerable amount of the sunk cost of engineering and tooling for these lenses. Olympus might have to recover more of these one-time expenses with each lens it sells, therefore pricing its equivalent lenses higher than Nikon.
5. Presumably, Nikon sells more lenses than Olympus and can manufacture, distribute, and service them more efficiently due to economies of scale. This implies that Nikon can sell an equivalent product at a lower price with the same profit as Olympus could.
6. It is plausible, though I doubt likely, that Nikon doesn't try to profit from the sale of mid-level lenses as much as Olympus is. There are two reasons for this.
6a. Nikon might predict better sales of top-tier lenses to those customers who have already purchased a second interchangeable lens, and so they try to increase the number of such customers by subsidizing the cost of mid-level products. Nikon wants people to buy the f/1.8 lens and then, later, the f/1.4 lens, while Olympus' f/1.8 is their top-tier offering.
6b. Nikon might face greater competition from the used market. There are so many 50mm Nikkors out there that Nikon might not be able to sell new lenses at a normal profit margin, but instead accept a few pennies per purchase rather than forego the sale entirely. Olympus, on the other hand, faces relatively little competition from used m4/3 lenses.
7. Magnification. Simply put, since a m4/3-frame image must be magnified twice as much as an equivalent 135-frame image, m4/3 lenses must produce aberrations that are one-half the size of their 135-frame counterparts just to maintain equality. This is independent of pixel resolution so long as the aberration is larger than the pixel size. This means that polishing, assembly, focus, and handling tolerances must be more strict for m4/3 lenses than for 135-frame lenses, and therefore more expensive.
7-contra. Since the optics in a m4/3 lens are smaller than in a 135-frame lens, it is possible for Olympus to use technologies that don't (yet) scale well to the larger elements that Nikon requires. For example, a good cell phone lens is staggeringly well corrected and might cost no more than $20, but the materials and processes that allow such precision don't work for larger lenses. My guess is that sometimes smaller lenses at equivalent quality are cheaper and sometimes they're more expensive; I simply don't know how this applies to the Olympus/Nikon conversation besides mentioning it as a possibility.

The bottom line is that they are two companies producing two different yet competing products. It could be that the more expensive product is simply produced by the less efficient company. In this case, though, I think that the Olympus lens is a sufficiently more complex product to explain higher production costs and therefore higher offering price. I don't know, however, whether it offers enough value--to me or to you--to justify the purchase of the lens at that price.

Cheers,
Jon

[...who doffs his jacket, puts on his Irish cap, and goes for a pint.]

Edited on Mar 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM · View previous versions



Mar 21, 2014 at 01:50 PM
Wilbus
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


Thanks for links Serhan!

CarlG, that was a very funny theory :-P

FlyPenFly, thanks and true, forgot to take CA and SA in to account, there is so much more to lens design then just aperture and sharpness.

JonPB, I should buy you a pint, thanks for the excellent and very thorough answer, it was exactly something like that I was looking for and many of the points make a lot of sens!

Yup the question is does it offer enough value? Paying premium for the miniaturization is part of the deal when you want smaller with m43.

Still, the Fuji X-T1 and 56mm looks like a very nice alternative to the EM-1 and PanLeica 42,5mm when it comes to prize (and size oddly enough) :-P




Mar 22, 2014 at 02:34 AM
Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


Wilbus wrote:
FlyPenFly, thanks and true, forgot to take CA and SA in to account, there is so much more to lens design then just aperture and sharpness.


What do you think causes sharpness differences between lenses?



Mar 22, 2014 at 05:43 AM
riotshield
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


I read that Olympus has one of the highest gross margins in the industry with their m4/3 line - somewhere around 50-60%. I have their 12mm, 45mm and 75mm lenses and while they are all excellent, I wouldn't have paid retail price for them. I recently got the 75mm refurbished direct from them for under $500 with tax, and the 12mm was $200 off with a purchase of a body, so there seems to be a healthy margin baked into each retail price.

As far as comparing performance, the m4/3 sensor is smaller and more square-ish than an APS-C or APS sensor, so it's easier to design a lens that performs better out to the corners. None of their lenses have stabilization either, so that takes away from the complexity argument. I think it really boils down to Olympus deciding to target the high end market with better quality products but much bigger margins because the low end buyer just doesn't buy additional lenses. The other manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Fuji) do this too. The fact that they can run promotions with $200-300 off per lens and still make a profit shows how much markup there is in the newer lenses.



Mar 22, 2014 at 08:22 AM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


Aspect ratio has nothing to do with it, you're still covering an imaging circle.

Source on margins?



Mar 22, 2014 at 08:29 AM
bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


Yes … most definitely … to me. I am getting images with the Nocticron that I couldn't possibly or consistently get with Canon 85L II because of the MFD, IBIS, and the ability of the m43 to focus very accurately and consistently.

Yes, the Fuji 56 is even better value thanks to it's lower price … but, unfortunately, it won't mount on my E-M1. Will this cause me to get a Fuji body + 56 lens? Of course not! I can't imaging traveling with 2 different systems … and I am not about to give up the m43 format because of its compact size, weight and range of the lenses.

Wilbus wrote:
Yup the question is does it offer enough value? Paying premium for the miniaturization is part of the deal when you want smaller with m43.

Still, the Fuji X-T1 and 56mm looks like a very nice alternative to the EM-1 and PanLeica 42,5mm when it comes to prize (and size oddly enough) :-P




Mar 22, 2014 at 08:36 AM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


Wilbus wrote:
Still, the Fuji X-T1 and 56mm looks like a very nice alternative to the EM-1 and PanLeica 42,5mm when it comes to prize (and size oddly enough) :-P


I was certainly ready to purchase a T1 recently but when I actually got to use it, I had a very negative reaction to it and ultimately ended up purchasing an EP5 with vf4 as a second body to my EM1. The fuji system has some amazing lenses but I fear they need another generation of bodies and sensors to make it outstanding.

There's also the fact that most of the fuji lenses aren't really that much smaller than a7 lenses.. It will be interesting two years from now where those systems lead, I think they'll both be much more compelling.



Mar 22, 2014 at 08:41 AM
AhamB
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


JonPB wrote:
So why, then, is the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 far more expensive than the Canon and Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lenses?

1. The Olympus has an internal motor, which the Canon does not. That alone is a significant expense. The Nikon does, though, so I'll compare the Olympus to the Nikon.


Not sure if I misunderstand you here, but every single Canon EF autofocus lens ever made has an internal AF motor. No Canon bodies were made with a AF screw drive like Canon/Pentax/etc., AFAIK.


7. Magnification. Simply put, since a m4/3-frame image must be magnified twice as much as an equivalent 135-frame image, m4/3 lenses must produce aberrations that are one-half the size of their 135-frame counterparts just to maintain equality. This is independent of pixel resolution so long as the aberration is larger than the pixel size. This means that polishing, assembly, focus, and handling tolerances must be more strict for m4/3 lenses than for 135-frame lenses, and therefore more expensive.


I would mention this as number 1 of your list. Anyway, good summary.



Mar 22, 2014 at 09:02 AM
riotshield
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


FlyPenFly wrote:
Aspect ratio has nothing to do with it, you're still covering an imaging circle.

Source on margins?

I'll have to track it down, but in one of their financial reports last year they reported 44% gross margins in imaging products, compared to around 40% for Canon and 36% for Nikon. I don't believe they break it down by product type, but over half of their sales at the time were in compacts which are considerably lower margin than the m4/3 products, so it was estimated that the margin in m4/3 was much higher.



Mar 22, 2014 at 09:05 AM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


It would be interesting if they made that much because they're still not in the black... I'm curious if the imaging products included endoscopes.


Mar 22, 2014 at 09:14 AM
riotshield
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


I'm not an expert on the company (or even a financial guy) but I believe their endoscope sales are reported separately in a medical product category. From what I gleaned, Olympus has huge SG&A expenses compared to their sales which is why they're struggling to make a profit.


Mar 22, 2014 at 09:29 AM
kavu
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


FlyPenFly wrote:
I was certainly ready to purchase a T1 recently but when I actually got to use it, I had a very negative reaction to it and ultimately ended up purchasing an EP5 with vf4 as a second body to my EM1. The fuji system has some amazing lenses but I fear they need another generation of bodies and sensors to make it outstanding.

There's also the fact that most of the fuji lenses aren't really that much smaller than a7 lenses.. It will be interesting two years from now where those systems lead, I think they'll both be much more compelling.


What didn't you like about the x-t1? Just curious...



Mar 22, 2014 at 10:25 AM
Wilbus
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


bobbytan wrote:
Yes … most definitely … to me. I am getting images with the Nocticron that I couldn't possibly or consistently get with Canon 85L II because of the MFD, IBIS, and the ability of the m43 to focus very accurately and consistently.

Yes, the Fuji 56 is even better value thanks to it's lower price … but, unfortunately, it won't mount on my E-M1. Will this cause me to get a Fuji body + 56 lens? Of course not! I can't imaging traveling with 2 different systems … and I am not about to give up the m43 format because of
...Show more

True, traveling with two systems, at least two systems this close to each other would be kind of silly.

Like I said, just something I have been thinking about when it comes to lenses. The prize difference I mean wether it was an actual reason (or many) for the higher m43 prizes (in general) or if it's Olympus and Panasonic that try to make more profit from each lens (in which case, good for them!).




Mar 22, 2014 at 10:48 AM
JonPB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question...


AhamB wrote:
Not sure if I misunderstand you here, but every single Canon EF autofocus lens ever made has an internal AF motor. No Canon bodies were made with a AF screw drive like Canon/Pentax/etc., AFAIK.

I would mention this as number 1 of your list. Anyway, good summary.


Thank you for correcting me; you're absolutely right about the lenses. "EF" even means "electronic focus"! It has been a while since I've shot Canon, and I'm entirely manual focus these days, but that's no excuse.

That said, there is a wide variety of types of internal motors, which I should read more about. My basic understanding, though, is that contrast detect autofocus requires a motor that stops and starts more quickly than a phase detect system requires, making such lenses more expensive...but many lenses for phase detect systems have contrast-detect-compatible motors to improve autofocus during video.

I put the bit about aberrations last because it explains why the optics are more complex, but it is the fact of that complexity that contributes directly to cost.

Cheers,
Jon



Mar 22, 2014 at 10:55 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.