bobbytan Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Are smaller lenses more expensive to produce and develop? m43 question... | |
FWIW, and price being about equal, I would choose m43 over either APS-C or a FF DSLR simply because of size and weight. Of course IQ is extremely important to me. m43 has not let me down in that regard and I am confident that it will get even better. Is the IQ from a FF DSLR better? Of course! But size and weight savings to me is far, far more important to the enjoyment factor than slightly more IQ. So I would rather spend $5,000 on m43 gear than FF gear any day, as m43 = FUN. FF ... not so much.
Steve Spencer wrote:
On price differences sometimes m4/3rds is more expensive and sometimes FF is more expensive. You point to two examples where m4/3rds is more expensive. The 45 f/1.8 is more expensive than Canikon's 50 f/1.8 lenses, and the 75 f/1.8 is more expensive than Canikon's 85 f/1.8 lenses. But there are lot of examples that go the other way. How about the PL 25 f/1.4 vs Cankon's 24 f/1.4 lenses. Here Canikon lenses are about triple the price. How about the 14 f/2.5 vs. Canikon's 14 f/2.8 lenses. Here Canikon lenses are about 5 times the price. Even the PL 42.5 f/1.2 is almost exactly the same price as Canon's 50 f/1.2 (the Canon is right now $20 more at B & H). And even the 75 f/1.8 is very similar in price to the most similar FF lens, the Pentax 77 f/1.8 (the Pentax is actually about $100 more). So if we keep aperture and focal length (not focal length equivalent) at about the same, then there are actually quite a few more examples where m4/3rds is cheaper than FF, and the only example in which the FF lenses are consistently cheaper is the thrifty fifties. In my view they are cheaper because they are built down to a price (especially the Canon) and they may well be loss leaders to get people who have bought a kit lens to buy a prime without much investment. Zooms are harder to evaluate this way because basically none of them match up.
What if we consider focal length equivalent. This is harder because how do you deal with the difference in depth of field and noise performance? Well if you only focus on focal length equivalent and keep aperture roughly equal the m4/3rds lenses are almost always cheaper.
The OLy 12 f/2 is significantly cheaper than the Sony/Zeiss 24 f/2 and Canikon's 24 f/1.4's (they don't make 24 f/2's). It is $200 and $270 more expensive than Canikon's 24mm f/2.8's
The Panny 14 f/2.5 is a couple hundred dollars less than the NIkon 28 f/2.8 Ais and about $280 less than the Canon 28 f/2.8 IS or the Nikon 28 f/1.8G.
The Oly 17 f/1.8 is way less than Canikon's 35 f/1.4 and even $100 less than the Canon 35 f/2 IS, but about $100 more than the old Nikon 35 f/2D. There really aren't Canikon 35mm f/2.8 lenses (in AF to compare to the Oly 17 f/2.8)
The Panny 20 f/1.7 doesn't have a FF equivalent at the same aperture, but is about $175 more than the Canon 40 f/2.8.
The PL 25 f/1.4 is the exception to the rule. It is $130 more than Canikon's 50 f/1.4s and about $300 more than Canikon's 50 f/1.8s.
The PL 42.5 f/1.2 is $600 less than the Canon 85 f/1.2 and the same price as the Nikon 85 f/1.4, but about $1,200 more expensive than Canikon's 85 f/1.8s.
The Oly 75 f/1.8 is reviewed above and I will skip the macro lenses because the same pattern pretty much holds. When the aperture is the same and either the focal length or the focal length equivalent is the same the m4/3rds lens are cheaper. But, (and it is a big but) FF frame lenses with apertures that are 2/3 to a whole stop slower are significantly cheaper than m4/3rds lenses. The exception is at 50mm on FF, in which the FF lenses are cheaper even at the same aperture than m4/3rds lenses.
In this way it looks like m4/3rds represents a middle ground between the fastest FF lenses which are very expensive and the slightly slower FF lenses that are much much cheaper....Show more →
|