Cost of native u43 Lens vs other systems

[Armanius]

With that reasoning why even have a front and rear cap? Obviously it adds to the cost, so we should do without those accessories as well.

When I bought my NEX3 with dual kit lenses, Sony did NOT include a body cap for the camera, and a rear cap for the second lens!!!!

And then I couldn't even buy a body cap or rear cap from Sony, because they were out (in spite of the fact they were charging $20 for them)!!

I eventually got a third party body cap and rear lens cap for $10 total.

 

[Djarum]

With that reasoning why even have a front and rear cap? Obviously it adds to the cost, so we should do without those accessories as well.

You deem a lens hood and a pouch as a necessary accessory. I don't.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

You deem a lens hood and a pouch as a necessary accessory. I don't.

If you shoot zooms all day that's fine, but for Olympus to be selling prime lenses such as the 12 & 45 that will be switched out more likely in the field, a pouch and hood are necessary protection for most field photographers. Just because YOU don't need it, doesn't mean other photographers don't need it as well.

 

[Djarum]

When I bought my NEX3 with dual kit lenses, Sony did NOT include a body cap for the camera, and a rear cap for the second lens!!!!

And then I couldn't even buy a body cap or rear cap from Sony, because they were out (in spite of the fact they were charging $20 for them)!!

I eventually got a third party body cap and rear lens cap for $10 total.

I think lens caps are necessary, and if they don't come with them, I'll purchase them seperatly if availabe. I don't personally think a lens hood is necessary, considering part of the mFT system is about size, and adding a lens hood increases the size of the lens, especially if the hood isn't reversable to keep the lens/hood compact.

When I run into issues with glare with the kit lens, I just put my hand on the outside of the lens to block the stray light. No biggie for me.

 

[Linh]

has a terrible feel for manual focus

This is actually one thing I found surprising on the oly 45... it feels really good to turn... just lacks physical stops. And while I found it cheaper feeling relative to the other panasonics I own (and the 12), it certainly is way better than the 50/1.8 mk2. That thing felt like a toy. But $100 for it is a hell of a value despite it's flaws.

Regarding pricing, the 45 is a medium telephoto prime. That's how I tend to view it, and it fits well into the competition. It just depends on how you value it's features.

 

[Armanius]

I think lens caps are necessary, and if they don't come with them, I'll purchase them seperatly if availabe. I don't personally think a lens hood is necessary, considering part of the mFT system is about size, and adding a lens hood increases the size of the lens, especially if the hood isn't reversable to keep the lens/hood compact.

When I run into issues with glare with the kit lens, I just put my hand on the outside of the lens to block the stray light. No biggie for me.

I never use lens hood!!! I find them troublesome. What's a little glare anyway? I just say that I did it on purpose! :smile:

 

[Djarum]

If you shoot zooms all day that's fine, but for Olympus to be selling prime lenses that will be switched out more likely in the field, a pouch and hood are necessary protection for most field photographers. Just because YOU don't need it, doesn't mean other photographers don't need it as well.

I do switch lenses out, quite a bit, actually. I swap out the kit zoom with the 40-150 quite a bit during a day of vacation, then usually to swap that back to the 17mm at night.

a. As far as a pouch goes, this seems utterly silly to me. First off, I have a camera bag I put my lenses in. It allows me quick operation to swap lenses. Adding a pouch to the mix just adds time to the swap. The only value of a lens pouch I see is maybe long term storage of a lens. Now, I have no problem with those customers who value lens pouches for whatever reason. There are plenty of aftermarket choices out there for this type of accessory.

b. To the point of a lens hood and the pouch: the problem is the charge of adding it in to every lens means that everybody is paying for something they might not need. Why should I pay for a lens hood or pouch as part of the price of the lens if I don't need it? As you cleverly pointed out I dont't need it, so why should I have to pay for it just to satisfy other customer's needs. Doesn't it make more sense for the customers who need an accessory to buy it instead of putting the charge of that accessory onto customers who don't need it?

[soapbox]
Nothing in life is for free. Be it a plastic lens hood for a cheap kit lens or a metal lens hood for a high end all metal lens. As I stated before, Olympus could charge 899 for the lens including hood. Is Olympus being cheap about it? Maybe. As I also stated, then customers don't have to buy the products. Olympus is going to be affected by those spending or not spending money on their lenses. The whining and bellyaching about it doesn't solve a whole lot in my opinion.
[/soapbox]

 

[Djarum]

I never use lens hood!!! I find them troublesome. What's a little glare anyway? I just say that I did it on purpose! :smile:

Keep in mind I'm not saying there isn't value to a lens hood. The problem with a lens hood I have found is that I typically only need it on occasion. I can leave the lens hood on all the time but it makes the system larger. I can put it on when I need it just to miss the shot. Overall I find it easier just to use my baseball cap or hand to block out stray light.

 

[Ned]

I think lens caps are necessary, and if they don't come with them, I'll purchase them seperatly if availabe.

The nice thing about the traditional Four-Thirds mount is that it can use the same rear cap as the Olympus OM mount. It took me a while to discover that, but now I just get old OM rear caps if I'm missing one for a Four-Thirds mount. Too bad there's no such equivalence (that I've found) for Micro Four-Thirds!

 

[Promit]

Shrug. At the end of it I'm looking for the best glass for the money. Pouches, caps, and hoods can be acquired at pretty much any price/quality point I want, thanks to the mighty power of eBay and China. For the most part that's meant Panasonic lenses but Oly's new primes are impressive too. Though I am holding out for that first discount...

 

[ssgreenley]

a. Now, I have no problem with those customers who value lens pouches for whatever reason. There are plenty of aftermarket choices out there for this type of accessory.

...

[soapbox] Olympus is going to be affected by those spending or not spending money on their lenses. The whining and bellyaching about it doesn't solve a whole lot in my opinion.
[/soapbox]

On lens pouches, it's annoying that Olympus doesn't even make lens pouches for some of their lenses (for the 75-300, for example, Olympus suggests you use their old 9-18 pouch which, according to numerous amazon reviews, doesn't fit).

Regarding your point re:whining, I guarantee Olympus pays somebody in marketing to read sites just like this one and find out what we think about things. I'd also wager that lots of other folks that work there also read this site. So, while I think there's a real possibility that Olympus could read our whining, there's no harm whatsoever in our using our time and electricity to write it. Just my two cents...

 

[GaryAyala]

Honestly and personally, I could care less too. But I'm sure someone would complain if all Olympus offered was a plastic lens hood for an all metal lens.

LOL ... never can be too careful on the internet ...

G

 

[fredlong]

For the OP. The cost of similar quality and function seems to be in line with other manufacturers. One issue is there there aren't really any low quality, low cost options right now.

For those complaining about the lack of a free hood or pouch. Nothing that comes in the box is free. Lens, caps, hood, pouch, case; the manufacturer knows how much each item cost to make, pacage and ship and how much profit they want. They set their prices accordingly. If they think the perceived value is worth it they WILL include the extra goodies and they WILL get paid for them.

Fred

 

[meyerweb]

I was mad to see the 20mm on amazon for $320 yesterday. It is back up to $350 now, but I paid $360.

I do agree that m43 lenses are generally overpriced though. I could understand it if the quality was better, but the 45mm for example is still plastic and it costs 4x as much as a Canon or Sony fast fifty. I don't think the price is really justified TBH.

The Canon 50/1.4 is only $380, and I think it is a better lens in many ways.

Canon's 50mm lenses are plastic, too. What makes you think they're not?

As far as price, in terms of optical formula the 45 1.8 is more akin to Canon's 50 1.4, not the 1.8. Canon's 50 1.8 is a very simple lens, with adequate performance wide open, but certainly not better than adequate. And it has an antique micro motor focus system. If you compare price with the 50 1.4, which is much more comparable, then things don't look so bad. The Oly, as a brand new design, is $400. The Canon is $380, after years of amortizing R&D and production costs.

But, you say, the Oly is only a 1.8 and the Canon a 1.4. Yeah, true, but that has little impact on cost. The cost of manufacturing a lens has little to do with the cost of the glass, and much more to do with the cost of molding or cutting the glass, grinding and polishing the elements, precision assembly and testing. Add in the fact that Oly has to amortize the cost of R&D, and Canon did that years ago, and it's really the Canon lens that's overpriced.

But I don't suppose any of this matters to you. You don't like the pricing model, so you'll always think it's too expensive. But if $400 for the 45 1.8 is too high, then nearly $400 for Canon's 50 1.4 is also too high.

 

[drizek]

I don't think about it that way.

I think about it in terms of how much value the lens will lose over the time that I want it. If I think I can buy the Oly for $400 now and sell it for $350 in 2 years, it is worth it.

I think it will drop a bit first though, and it would make more sense to buy it for $370 and sell it for $320 in 2 years.

I think the Canon 50/1.4 lens with its mechanical focus ring and aperture scale and all the other nice bits is better priced and less likely to lose its value over time. If the Oly 45mm was faster or if it had the same build quality as the 12mm the price would make more sense.

 

[flash]

I don't think about it that way.

I think about it in terms of how much value the lens will lose over the time that I want it. If I think I can buy the Oly for $400 now and sell it for $350 in 2 years, it is worth it.

I think it will drop a bit first though, and it would make more sense to buy it for $370 and sell it for $320 in sayers.

I understand this but I don't, personally, subscribe to it. I think about value in terms of what images I can get from a lens. As for cost. I generally write that off at the moment of purchase. Probably because I always assume I'll have it forever or break it.

Personally I don't see the m4/3 lenses as being particularly overpriced. Bricks an mortar stores in Oz are typically far too expensive, but I have established relationships at a few stores and tend to pay close to web prices anyway. And on the whole I've not been disappointed with any m4/3 lens. I certainly have with Canon and others.

Accessories on the other hand are just stupidly priced. In Oz the remote for a GH2 is over $100! The external mic is $250! Batteries are over $100. It's obscene and the worst bit is you have no idea until you're already invested in a system and someone like Panasonic changes the firmware so you HAVE to buy their overpriced accessories.

As for hoods. Personally I'd never buy a metal hood. Plastic all the way. A metal hood can be too easily deformed and damaged and is more expensive. I just buy cheap plastic hoods on the bay and be done with it.

Sounds like you guys have a couple of new entries for the 100 things I hate thread

Gordon

 

[Hikari]

What is everyone complaint about? The 25mm lens for my Pentax DSLR cost $5000! Of course the hood is built in.

sCent form mt iPas

 

[Luckypenguin]

Accessories on the other hand are just stupidly priced. In Oz the remote for a GH2 is over $100! The external mic is $250! Batteries are over $100. It's obscene and the worst bit is you have no idea until you're already invested in a system and someone like Panasonic changes the firmware so you HAVE to buy their overpriced accessories.

As for hoods. Personally I'd never buy a metal hood. Plastic all the way. A metal hood can be too easily deformed and damaged and is more expensive. I just buy cheap plastic hoods on the bay and be done with it.

Sounds like you guys have a couple of new entries for the 100 things I hate thread

Gordon

One of the things I factor into buying used camera equipment is the value of the accessories, which can easily add to to hundreds of dollars worth. I owe my entire supply of spare batteries, filters, etc to the second-hand market. I almost bought a used GH1 the other day just for the spare batteries it came with, but it may have been a bit too blatant to turn around and sell the camera again a week later. Perhaps if it had had a lens I wanted as well...

On, and +1 on plastic vs metal hoods. If plastics work for load-bearing components such as lens mounts, it seems a bit pointless making a hood out of a heavier material.

 

[GaryAyala]

What is everyone complaint about? The 25mm lens for my Pentax DSLR cost $5000! Of course the hood is built in.

sCent form mt iPas

And the pouch ... is that built in also?

 

[Hikari]

And the pouch ... is that built in also?

Not only a free pouch, but also a free polarizer. Can't beat that for value!