What I'm saying is, Panasonic skirted by charging a LOT of money for their lenses by reminding people of their Leica partnership. People said "oooh! Leica!" and plunked down $1000+ for a superzoom or "50/1.4".
Now that Panasonic isn't hiding behind Leica's skirt, how are they going to justify these high prices? On optical quality? None of their recent solo efforts (LX3, 14-45, 450-200, 14-140) have been that impressive once you take away the software corrections.
It seems to me Panasonic is pricing their lenses as if they were a prestigious brand. I just don't see it.
I guess they figure they can get away with it given the lack of alternatives. If there were one or two other 20 1.7's, I bet the price would be very different. I wonder if there is any sort of behind the scenes collusion going on between the M43rds players such as Olympus and Panasonic with regard to who produces which lenses and at what speeds. The lack of overlapping focal lengths, price points and lens speeds might look suspicious to some.
What I'm saying is, Panasonic skirted by charging a LOT of money for their lenses by reminding people of their Leica partnership. People said "oooh! Leica!" and plunked down $1000+ for a superzoom or "50/1.4".
Now that Panasonic isn't hiding behind Leica's skirt, how are they going to justify these high prices? On optical quality? None of their recent solo efforts (LX3, 14-45, 450-200, 14-140) have been that impressive once you take away the software corrections.
It seems to me Panasonic is pricing their lenses as if they were a prestigious brand. I just don't see it.
The 14-45 and 45-200 are unusually well built for their class (Metal mounts, partially metal barrels, high-grade plastic elsewhere) and are designed to use a combination of optical quality and software correction to achieve high performance in compact packages. The same goes for the 14-140 as well as its innovative silent and stepless aperture mechanism. Note Hasselblad is using the exact same system on the H3 series bodies with their 28/4.5 which costs multiple thousands. It's one thing to design a lens which needs software corrections and doesn't get it by default (17-40L anyone?) but an entirely different thing to design a system which integrates software corrections, in fact that's probably the best way to achieve a compact and high quality optical system.
The 7-14 is by all reports absolutely superb.
Panasonic has been selling lenses of high build quality and excellent optics. The PanaLeica's were generally overpriced IMHO, but the current lot are priced reasonably for what you're getting. And yes, I'm including the new 20 and 45 primes there. The 20 is $100 more than the Oly 17, 1.5 stops faster, has roughly twice the AF speed and has a metal barrel to the Oly's plastic barrel/metal mount.
Oly has serious pricing issues with the E-P1 and especially its lenses. Panasonic's only serious pricing issue so far has been the GH1 kit and they seem to have learned from that with the GF1 (which is the first Panasonic to have a body-only option)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I guess they figure they can get away with it given the lack of alternatives. If there were one or two other 20 1.7's, I bet the price would be very different. I wonder if there is any sort of behind the scenes collusion going on between the M43rds players such as Olympus and Panasonic with regard to who produces which lenses and at what speeds. The lack of overlapping focal lengths, price points and lens speeds might look suspicious to some.
Note that the 4/3rds lenses have distinct overlap aside from the 25/1.4 (Panasonic made 2 14-50's and 14-140, Oly has 4-5 different lenses in the 14-50ish range and a superzoom of their own). The m43 lenses seem to come down to Oly not stomping on Panasonic's toes (we've known about the 20/1.7 for a year now). What we're actually seeing is Panasonic moving to m43 in its entirety while Oly concentrates on the 4/3rds lineup and throws m43 users an occasional bone, not any sort of collusion. Remember we're seeing a 2 lens lineup from Oly with one matching a Panasonic lens and the other fairly close in FoV and size to another Panny lens. and nothing new coming before next year and a 6 lens lineup from Panasonic with 3 more pre-announced for next year.
Sam Bennett wrote:
$400 for a niche, low volume fast prime doesn't seem too outlandish to me. That's what, 1/10th the price what you'd pay for a Leica M equivalent?
I think your equation may be a little off. The M equivalent covers a format twice as large, the Leica is much more labour intensive to produce and the Panasonic will almost certainly sell in much greater quantities to a larger market. The cost of producing a lens of at least the same quality to cover a format twice the size is likely exponentially more expensive, even when done using more automated techniques. Gee, all of a sudden the Leica seems like a great deal! In any case, I don't see Panasonic having an issue selling every one of the 20 1.7's they produce given the lack of alternatives. If alternatives did exist, you can bet the price would be 25-40% cheaper.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think your equation may be a little off. The M equivalent covers a format twice as large, the Leica is much more labour intensive to produce and the Panasonic will almost certainly sell in much greater quantities to a larger market. The cost of producing a lens of at least the same quality to cover a format twice the size is likely exponentially more expensive, even when done using more automated techniques. Gee, all of a sudden the Leica seems like a great deal! In any case, I don't see Panasonic having an issue selling every one of the 20 1.7's they produce given the lack of alternatives. If alternatives did exist, you can bet the price would be 25-40% cheaper. ...Show more →
And likely the build would be worse as well. As it is, the Panny is pretty much the only metal-barrel AF normal prime in anything approaching its pricerange (the Pentax 40 and 43 Limiteds are the only other similar lenses that come to mind)
I agree its a bit pricey for a f1.7 normal, but Panasonic seems to have decided to go for a little more build to justify the higher price.
Yes, the build quality does appear to be nice. No Canon 50 1.8 plastic fantastic here. Optically though, my copy of the plastic fantastic was surprisingly good, even close to wide open. Not bad for a relatively fast, FF normal under $100!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yes, the build quality does appear to be nice. No Canon 50 1.8 plastic fantastic here. Optically though, my copy of the plastic fantastic was surprisingly good, even close to wide open. Not bad for a relatively fast, FF normal under $100!
I've had 2 plastic fantastics and they're bloody good lenses for the money. Both of mine were sharp until very close to wide open and acceptable wide open.
Makten wrote:
Let's hope that Sigma jumps on the micro 4:3 train.
That would be great. However they got to find it financially justifiable to design something that is not very mainstream and can not be adapted to other platform (or at least for now) for them to do it.
I like metal over plastic but I used to work in plastic and know very well that good plastic is far more suitable as high grade material for most purposes. Metals are mostly the old way and people dont' know enough about plastic so we have this reflexive bias against plastics. Of course good plastic can be extremely expensive.
Leicaphiles (which I'm one of) like to point out how labor intensive the production is, so as to justify the price. And it is true. Little elves with good medical plans apparently made Leica lenses, slowly and painstakingly. Then a little fairly boxes it up and delivers it to you along with aspirin to help with the blood pressure when you see the price tag. Good quality done the old fashioned hand lapped way does cost. But we have gotten used to that and don't seem to reference the other side of the coin. The reason Leica is so pricey, and overpriced is that they don't have economics of scale and their old fashioned ways .... are now simply old fashioned. Robotics done with medium prices in mind are superior. Times have moved on, but Leica has not. Their prices are not commensurate with their performance. People too often think it is ... due to the name and the price.
Leica is in a price spiral that may be impossible to get out of. THe old ways pricier and pricier every year demand higher prices. Higher prices get lower volumes ... and on and on. Yes leica is nice stuff. But it is nice stuff with Film. On digital the difference is minor because software enhancement is where its at. Panasonic is ahead of the curve in the same way that Leica was in the thirties with portability. Remember Leica was considered the worst image quality due to its tini film size. Portability won out however.
I see this a a digital deja-vue.
Panasonic is ramping up. If this goes well we will see price drops on their stuff even without competition. They aren't trying to be a low volume high profit outfit. No. they are an electronics firm. They want numbers. Righ now we are paying for R&D. But $400 for such a gem? C'mon ... this is cheaper than the crummy build Nikon 50 f1.4. Now that is a rip off!
I'm actually quite pleased with the price entry to play on this new field. Quite relieved actually ...after the price of the GH1 (mind you the price may be justified for the fact of the new technology in the lens .. but it is just too much for me ... just the same)
Navyblue wrote:
That would be great. However they got to find it financially justifiable to design something that is not very mainstream and can not be adapted to other platform (or at least for now) for them to do it.
By the acceptance thus far, something tells me it will not be long before M43rds is indeed mainstream.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
By the acceptance thus far, something tells me it will not be long before M43rds is indeed mainstream.
Agreed. Right now the biggest problem towards uptake has been availability. Panasonic has really fallen down on that. It's pretty hard to recommend the G1 when you can't reliably get one, let alone a GH1 or E-P1. Panasonic needs to get supply in order. Pricing is also an issue but I think that will end up solved as Panasonic rounds out their lineup.
I don't know if m43 will ever truly be mainstream, but I expect the basic idea behind it to be a major market within 18 months especially if Sony or Canon do one, Samsung already is although we might have to wait as long as PMA to finally see the NX, and it's strongly rumoured that Ricoh will as well.
mawz wrote:
What we're actually seeing is Panasonic moving to m43 in its entirety while Oly concentrates on the 4/3rds lineup and throws m43 users an occasional bone, not any sort of collusion. Remember we're seeing a 2 lens lineup from Oly with one matching a Panasonic lens and the other fairly close in FoV and size to another Panny lens. and nothing new coming before next year and a 6 lens lineup from Panasonic with 3 more pre-announced for next year.
That seems absolutely right. However, I find the 4/3 lenses to be quite adaptable to M43. I've been using the Olympus 4/3 lenses on the EP-1, and find them to be absolutely superb lenses that don't weigh me down too much. My EP-1 with a 14-54 f/2.8-3.5, and a 11-22 f/2.8-3.5 take up the the same amount of space in a bag as a 20D with a 17-40, and a lot less space than a 1-series EOS. Plus, the entire kit in a bag with extra batteries weighs a lot less than my wife's purse. I contemplated doing a 12-60 Olympus in the place of the two-lens solution, but found the superzoom to be a bit too large for this camera. (My wife also liked the extra 1mm on the 11-22). The 20mm f/1.7 will be a very nice overall addition to this kit; indeed, I think it will really complete it.
lordarka wrote:
That seems absolutely right. However, I find the 4/3 lenses to be quite adaptable to M43. I've been using the Olympus 4/3 lenses on the EP-1, and find them to be absolutely superb lenses that don't weigh me down too much. My EP-1 with a 14-54 f/2.8-3.5, and a 11-22 f/2.8-3.5 take up the the same amount of space in a bag as a 20D with a 17-40, and a lot less space than a 1-series EOS. Plus, the entire kit in a bag with extra batteries weighs a lot less than my wife's purse. I contemplated doing a 12-60 Olympus in the place of the two-lens solution, but found the superzoom to be a bit too large for this camera. (My wife also liked the extra 1mm on the 11-22). The 20mm f/1.7 will be a very nice overall addition to this kit; indeed, I think it will really complete it.
While I've found the 4/3rds lenses to work well on m43 (You haven't tried anything until you stick a 35-100/2 on a m43 body, it's an experience and a bloody amazing lens) I find the compact m43 lenses or RF lenses to be a better match, with just about the only exception being the 40-150/4-5.6 due to its small size and lack of similar m43 option. If I'm going to haul my 14-54 for example, I'll just bring the E-30.
I agree that the Oly f/2 zooms are incredible, but they are both heavy and expensive. The 35-100 weighs as much as my 70-200 f/2.8 (a lens that I thought was too heavy even for my SLRs).
On another note, I actually shot with the EP-1 and a 14-45 at a wedding today (as a guest), and found the AF on the camera to be almost useless; I manually focused most of the time. I didn't expect great AF, of course, but coming from a Canon 1-series AF, it's a bit jarring. Have you read anything about a possible firmware update to improve the quality of the EP-1's AF?
Also, what do you think of the AF on a E-30 or E-3? I've been debating the idea of getting a full blown, weatherized SLR to use my Olympus optics on, perhaps as a lighter event and landscape camera than the one I have now.
lordarka wrote:
I agree that the Oly f/2 zooms are incredible, but they are both heavy and expensive. The 35-100 weighs as much as my 70-200 f/2.8 (a lens that I thought was too heavy even for my SLRs).
Yeah, they're monsters. Kinda fun to try on my G1 though.
On another note, I actually shot with the EP-1 and a 14-45 at a wedding today (as a guest), and found the AF on the camera to be almost useless; I manually focused most of the time. I didn't expect great AF, of course, but coming from a Canon 1-series AF, it's a bit jarring. Have you read anything about a possible firmware update to improve the quality of the EP-1's AF?
The GF1 is the E-P1's AF upgrade. I'm pretty sure we won't see any significant performance increases, but Oly might surprise. There's apparently an E-P1 firmware upgrade due on the 15th.
Also, what do you think of the AF on a E-30 or E-3? I've been debating the idea of getting a full blown, weatherized SLR to use my Olympus optics on, perhaps as a lighter event and landscape camera than the one I have now.
Arka C.
I actually just finished shooting Ryerson's Frosh Week with an E-30. AF speed is good, tracking is mediocre. It's really pretty close to the high-end Sony's in performance, with very fast and accurate AF on the centre point, moderate performance on the other points (actually better than the Sony's since there's more cross-type points) but auto point selection is mediocre and there's no point-to-point tracking unlike CaNikon. Oly's marketing about their AF is 110% BS, even with the 12-60 SWD AF performance is quite good but not even best in class at release.
The E-30 is not sealed, but has a better control layout and sensor than the E-3. The E-3 is larger, has a better finder, deeper buffer, better build, the best sealing on the market and a control layout that one can trip over easily.
I read at some forums about people being happy to get a 20/1.7 as they finally will get a lens with shallow DOF for their µ4/3 camera.
Here is one of the problems. Come on, shallow DOF from an equiv 40/3.4 lens? And how fun is it with a 45/2.8 (equiv 90/5.6) for portraits and creative work?
I sold my G1 as I felt trapped inside that small sensor. It is perfectly good for casual snapshots but until the system grows and we see some 25/1.0 and 50/1.0 and similar lenses it won't do much me. For fine art photography I gather the noise at base ISO is too high.
I loved the G1 viewfinder and I'll be happy to return to the µ4/3 world when these problems above are solved. Until then I can live with an LX-3 or something similar for a small pocketable camera. If I still need a bag I can just as well put a bigger sensor camera in it.
Jonas B wrote:
I read at some forums about people being happy to get a 20/1.7 as they finally will get a lens with shallow DOF for their µ4/3 camera.
Here is one of the problems. Come on, shallow DOF from an equiv 40/3.4 lens? And how fun is it with a 45/2.8 (equiv 90/5.6) for portraits and creative work?
I sold my G1 as I felt trapped inside that small sensor. It is perfectly good for casual snapshots but until the system grows and we see some 25/1.0 and 50/1.0 and similar lenses it won't do much me. For fine art photography I gather the noise at base ISO is too high.
I loved the G1 viewfinder and I'll be happy to return to the µ4/3 world when these problems above are solved. Until then I can live with an LX-3 or something similar for a small pocketable camera. If I still need a bag I can just as well put a bigger sensor camera in it.
Maybe Panasonic is on the way with the 20/1.7?...Show more →
That's an interesting take. I haven't found achieving shallow DoF to be an issue with m43. It's there where I want it with fast 28-50mm lenses and it's achievable close in with wider lenses like my 17/2.8. I do find myself shooting a bit wider open than I do with 35mm but overall the shallow DoF I want is available at the FoV I want.
I also have no issues with noise at base ISO, or even at most working ISO's for daylight. I've only once ever tripped over noise under ISO 1250 and that was a dim overcast day and I was shooting a telephoto handheld and ended up having to do a real shadow boost which brought some visible noise into the shot.
I agree with the shallow dof in a way, but the thing is that with the quarter size sensor in the 4/3 format and an aperture of 2 or better while the dof is never extreme, it is not terrible neither. One can make changes to shooting to make it a bit better as well.
On the 5Dmkii I get really great extreme dof, the kind I want on a percentage of shots ... but I'm always fighting the dof at the other end. F 8.0 is such a pain with not enough dof for so much.
So the 4/3 sensor along with a fairly fast lens is a lot like Baby bears middle ground - just right!
