1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Canikon lenses are so cheap...

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by Promit, Apr 12, 2012.

  1. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    I know there's a ton of reasons mirrorless isn't in the same price range as SLRs, but I never really looked at the pricing in Canikon systems. Now I have, and ouch :frown:

    Those guys get a whole bunch of lenses for very little money. Now I'm sure they're not well built or durable or any of that, but when I'm seeing the ability to put together an entire kit for the price of a lens or two on the :43: side...it's no wonder mirrorless is a tough lens to the general consumer crowd. 35mm normal lens, 200. Nifty fifty for portraits, 130. Standard tele zoom, 150. And we're barely over the price of the Oly 45 alone.

    Somebody, make me feel better about our expensive lenses :mad: 
  2. mister_roboto

    mister_roboto Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jun 14, 2011
    Seattle, WA, USA
    It's all relative, don't be bummed :wink:

    µ4/3 is a newer, more compact system- and as a result, there's the extra costs associated. The amount of legacy lenses though should also be taken into consideration too- you can mount with the right adapter just about anything on a µ4/3 body- as long as you don't have to have AF with everything.

    One of the reasons why the Canon 50mm f/1.8 costs what it does- is that canon has probably sold as many of that one lens as all of the µ4/3 lenses combined (more or less).

    With my µ4/3 camera + lenses though: I carry them everywhere- ALL the time. I always have the 14mm +20mm pancakes, CV 25mm, and a 50mm nikon with adapter, it takes up about 1/3 of my everyday carry bag. When I was DSLR toting it: I would not carry my camera everyday (most days though) and never had more than 1 lens. The best camera you have is the one you have with you- and it's always with me. So in the end I suppose if you go by cost of lens vs. amount of days carried on person- the µ4/3 camera system wins hands down (if you're me :wink:)
  3. zettapixel

    zettapixel Mu-43 Veteran

    Aug 12, 2010
    Thing is, to compare things to 45/1.8 you gotta think of 85/1.8 or something similar, a high optical quality portrait lens. OK, 85/1.8 is better built and would give you smaller DOF, but 45/1.8 is way smaller and lighter, there you are.

    35/2 and 50/1.8 are just really old. Granted, no such things in :43: but there are not much else. Overall :43: are a bit (10-20% maybe?) more expensive. Oly 40-150 is cheap, kit lenses are about the same price, 9-18 is about the same price as Canikon UW, 7-14 is some more... Comparable lenses cost similarly imho, Canikon is still a cheaper overall, but not by that much.

    I hope you feel better :smile:
  4. Hyubie

    Hyubie Unique like everyone else

    Oct 15, 2010
    This is a bad post. :smile:

    I get what you are saying, so I checked out the prices at Amazon, and boom. Suddenly I have an itch to go back and try the XSi. I have the Canon kit zoom (which is surprisingly good), the 50mm f/1.8 and a 55-200 Sigma zoom.

    I heard :43:'s call because at that time I think the XSi was too advanced for me. I did learn most of what I know from :43:, but you got me thinking that maybe I should apply what I've learned to the XSi. Don't want to completely switch from :43:, but I'm thinking upgrade to the E-PL3, and I've got 2 good systems: E-PL3 (with the tilt screen and fast AF) + 20mm + 14mm + 45mm, then the XSi + 50mm + zooms. Maybe add an 85mm, and I'm good.

  5. OPSSam

    OPSSam Mu-43 Regular

    Dec 18, 2010
    All I will say is a Nikon D-40 kit 18-55 lens my father had was such a piece of junk the rear focusing element fell into the lens for no apparent reason. Only after trying to force the zoom against the wayward element that was sideways and blocking the viewfinder did I realize what had happened. So far the construction of the Oly and Pana lenses at least seem to justify the cost by comparison. Nikon still does have some good lenses at the low end of price but still good (like a 50mm), but since some lack a built in drive motor you have to have a $1000 plus (original price) SLR body to drive them with.

    Nikon kit lenses are garbage. Anything decent is approaching m43 prices, and is still questionable as to value versus cost. I have seen results from a 45mm F1.8 that trump lenses for Canikons at $1000 price tag levels.

    I don't deny right now we are paying a premium for micro four thirds lenses because they are 'micro'.

    I like m43, and I'm sticking to it.
  6. tanngrisnir3

    tanngrisnir3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 18, 2011
    Ugh. I live with a semi-pro Canon shooter who uses almost all "L" glass from them.

    Try looking at the prices for those. You'll be positively overjoyed at the prices of M4/3 lenses.
  7. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    lol, my how the tables have turned. I remember using the Four-Thirds E-System, how every High Grade Zuiko lens I bought was on average $1,000 cheaper than any similar lens I could buy from Canon or Nikon. :biggrin:
  8. songs2001

    songs2001 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 8, 2011
    Nikon 35 1.8 and the 50 1.8, 85 1.8 are all new lenses. Then there are the 40 2.8 Macro and 85 3.5 macros. These lenses are at least 50% off their M43 counterparts.

    Where the M43 system shines is wide angle primes. There isn't a EFS or DX versions of the 12 2.0, 14 2.5, 17 2.8 or the 20 1.7. Plus you won't get stabilization with the Canikon Bodies.

    Also the Nikon 80-400 and Canon 100-400 are much more expensive than the Panasonic 100-300 or the Olympus 75-300.
  9. linkedit

    linkedit Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 6, 2010
    New Jersey, USA
    Micro 4/3's equipment is at a point where the image quality is as good or better than entry level and some mid level SLR's.

    As far as I can see the price premium we pay is for the portability of the system nothing more.
  10. RichDesmond

    RichDesmond Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Nov 18, 2011
    You have to compare apples to apples, i.e. similar FOV, speed and IQ:

    (Just Cannon stuff below since I don't own Nikon, and assuming APS-C)
    Panny 14-42 vs. Canon 18-55
    Panny 7-14 vs. Canon 10-22
    Oly 45 vs Canon 60
    Panny 45-200 vs. Canon 75-300

    If you look up all those prices you'll see there's not a lot of difference.
  11. speltrong

    speltrong Mu-43 Veteran

    May 8, 2011
    Northern California
    Compare them to similar Hasselblad and Leica lenses, and you'll wonder how you're getting off so cheap ;) 
  12. kinlau

    kinlau Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 29, 2012
    SLR lenses have the advantage of years of development, and an existing user base at least 10x more than m43.

    It'll take a while to catch up, but I think it will.
  13. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    You misunderstand me. I am not complaining about the pricing of current m4/3 equipment, as I believe those are largely fair or close to fair prices. The trouble is that we've got no cheap options -- or expensive options, for those of you bringing up L glass.

    The Oly 45 is a wonderful lens, but I might be perfectly happy with the janky Canon 50/1.8 for half the price to do a similar job on APS-C. Or I might want the professional grade f/1.2L. I wish we had the luxury of making that choice.
  14. RichDesmond

    RichDesmond Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Nov 18, 2011
    Um, your original post was completely a complaint about price. :confused: 
  15. zettapixel

    zettapixel Mu-43 Veteran

    Aug 12, 2010
    Give it time for expensive options, they'll come. Actually, 7-14, 25/1.4 and 12/2 kind of qualify already. Looking at all brands, the only new cheap options are going to be slow zooms, for all brands. Mirrorless system actually can make a better use of MF lenses on the cheap, so I would argue that we have pretty nice variety of inexpensive glass. Let's see ...
    Canon FD 50/3.5 Macro ~ $50
    Canon FD 135/2.8 ~ $40 (that aw a steal)
    Konica 57/1.4 ~ $70
    Nikon 28/2.8 ais ~ $100
    All of them are way better than thrifty fifty
  16. I've got more glass for DSLR than I do for M 4/3 but sticking to what is in my personal kits and only comparing those lenses that I use in similar situations I don't see a huge difference in lens price but YMMV (DSLR bodies are often more expensive from what I've seen so far though).

    Nikon 35mm f1.8G $235 / Panasonic 14mm f2.5 $210
    Nikon 50mm f1.8G $230 / Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN $215
    Nikon 85mm F1.8D $435 / Olympus 45mm F1.8 $365
    Tamron 70-300mm Di VC USD $479 / Olympus MZD ED 40-150mm $245
    Tamron AF 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II LD $383 / Olympus 14-42 $207
  17. speltrong

    speltrong Mu-43 Veteran

    May 8, 2011
    Northern California
    I'll bet if they scratched the "Leica" from the PL25/45's names, they could have sold them at half the price. That name is really costly to print on things.
  18. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    I was doing the same, comparing my D7k kit to an m43 kit.

    However, I don't think you can compare the Nikkor 35mm/1.8 with the Panny 14. One is a 50mm eq, the other 28mm.
  19. bedojo

    bedojo Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 14, 2011
    I just switched from canon to m4/3
    You are crazy :) 
    Most of the cheap lenses don't compare to the nice m4/3 primes.
    50 1.8 horrible bokeh, lame contrast and color, but for 100 bucks it is good.
    Sigma 50 1.4 my love. Lol I won't compare this lens b/c I love this lens, let's just say its a canon 50L at $500
    85 1.8 great lens 3-400$, horrible purple fringe wide open, I like the 45 1.8 better.

    Cheap zooms are garbage IMO.
    L zooms are great and my 12 mm is equally good or better (its amazing) then the 24-70, IMO it is better because it is f2.0 and sharp at it

    I'll get back to you when my 24-70 and 70-200 sell and I pick up the PL 25mm

    Oh yeah I forgot about the cheap 28mm f2.8 I had , it was rubbish
  20. True but I was trying to stick with lenses I already had in my kits and I didn't have anything in M 4/3 that was closer (I guess I need to buy another prime) :wink:
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.