PanaLeica 10-25 - $2,500 and released in Q3

Status
Not open for further replies.

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,960
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
For all the video-minded folks out there, a new EF-m43 Metabones runs $400 and a new Sigma 18-35 runs $800, putting you at 1/2 the cost of the PL lens (and you could spend far less if you buy a used SB and lens, as both are plentiful on the used market). Plus, you'll still have a faster lens in the end, important for keeping the ISO as low as possible, along with maintaining a true mechanical focusing ring (vs. focus-by-wire on the PL).
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
I think $2500 might be a little bit much based on the info given in the post? In constant currency, it is 8/9ths the price of the Panasonic S1, which costs $2500 in most markets (but $2800 in Russia, where the price was listed). So for Americans, that would be just over $2200, not $2500.

Which honestly is not a crazy price. If this were a high-quality FF constant aperture f3.4 zoom, you would expect it to be priced in between the f/4 options and the f/2.8 options, so that sets the price range at $1800 +/- $200 right there. Now add the fact that this is a wildly useful 20-50mm focal range that has never been made before, that f/1.7 optics are legitimately more complicated than f2.8 optics (equivalent light gathering aside, just engineering here), and then sprinkle on a small dose of Leica tax and it's hard to expect any lens anything like this to be made by an OEM for less than $2200-2500.

Again, I'm not in the market for this lens, and I'm sure most of the people on this forum aren't, either. But I'm sure as shit not in the market for a $2000 FF body and a $2000 FF lens (that doesn't even exist!) as an alternative, either.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,960
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
@Turbofrog I agree about the usefulness of the zoom range. This is a perfect lens for walking around a European city. But at $2,500, I truly wonder how many people are going to buy one.

Personally, I would've preferred that they drop the "Leica" name (since it means absolutely nothing, as the lens was more than likely designed by Sigma and manufactured by Panasonic), and make the lens an f/2 instead of f/1.7 (m43 lenses are tack sharp wide open anyways, and f/2 would help make the lens a wee-bit smaller, lighter, and cheaper).

It's an interesting lens, but at $2,500 it certainly won't be flying off shelves...
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
It's an interesting lens, but at $2,500 it certainly won't be flying off shelves...
Though as a counterpoint, at $2500 it probably won't need to be flying off shelves to be a profitable product.

Every camera manufacturer is looking through their actuarial tables and trying to figure out that ideal balance between volume and margin. And everyone seems to be coming down on the side of margin, volume be damned.

(There is an interesting sidebar about the Canon RP as a potential counterpoint to that argument, but I contend that the RP is actually an upsell for buyers would would otherwise get an $800 EOS M5 or M50 kit, rather than those who are looking downmarket from a $2300 EOS R or $3000 5D IV. So in that light, a $1300 RP is actually lower volume, higher margin sale to entice entry level buyers vs. the traditional crop kit).
 

tkbslc

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
7,551
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
I've said on every thread for this lens, that we could have used a 10mm f1.7 prime a whole lot more than this behemoth. I already have myriad ways of covering 12-25mm with fast glass, so that part of the zoom range is not worth the weight and price premium.
 

DanS

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
1,760
Every camera manufacturer is looking through their actuarial tables and trying to figure out that ideal balance between volume and margin. And everyone seems to be coming down on the side of margin, volume be damned.
If you look at the M43 lens catalog, its not surprising. M43 already has a pretty complete catalog, so the only thing left are niche and halo lenses.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,960
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
If you look at the M43 lens catalog, its not surprising. M43 already has a pretty complete catalog, so the only thing left are niche and halo lenses.
While I agree with you regarding the general completeness of the m43 lens catalog, I don't really consider a wider than 24mm FoV lens to be "niche". It's a pretty common UWA prime focal length (20-21mm), but for some reason m43 has failed to produce an AF version, despite it being the most mature mirrorless system on the market.

We have some fantastic UWA zooms, but no UWA primes (that autofocus). However, the Laowa lenses appear to be great for those that are OK with manual focus (7.5mm f/2 and 9mm f/2.8).
 

Pluttis

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
745
Location
Sweden
Real Name
Peter
But at $2,500, I truly wonder how many people are going to buy one.
People have bought and buy more expensive lenses for other systems so dont see why people dedicated to m43 would not buy this lens...but sure i doubt it will be a topp seller.

Look at prices on native lenses for FF, zoom lenses with 2.8 aperture cost over $2000, Canons 28-70 f2.0 is $3000
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
I've said on every thread for this lens, that we could have used a 10mm f1.7 prime a whole lot more than this behemoth. I already have myriad ways of covering 12-25mm with fast glass, so that part of the zoom range is not worth the weight and price premium.
It is puzzling that there's no 9mm or 10mm AF prime. Really puzzling.

But I guess they looked at the numbers and found that people don't really buy those, and would generally prefer a zoom for ultrawide focal lengths?

I have no idea. All I know is that I would only buy a 10mm/f1.7 if it was around $400-500, and that can't be the price range that Panasonic wants to sell it to me at. I'm just a humble hobbyist.

But the people shooting commercial video (really the only growing imaging business category) will drop $2500 on a lens like 10-25/f1.7 and pay it off on the first job. Panasonic must know which side its bread is buttered on, surely.
 

D7k1

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
2,250
GH5s and this lens makes a very unique video tool. IMHO for this specific combination it is a a good price when you consider the cost of most "real" video lenses. Not for mere mortals at this time, but I consider it a special tool that has a unique price/value ratio in certain circumstances.
 

DanS

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
1,760
While I agree with you regarding the general completeness of the m43 lens catalog, I don't really consider a wider than 24mm FoV lens to be "niche". It's a pretty common UWA prime focal length (20-21mm), but for some reason m43 has failed to produce an AF version, despite it being the most mature mirrorless system on the market.
I've always assumed their just isn't enough demand for the manufactures to invest the time and money required to develop them. Not to mention you almost don't need auto focus with UWA lense because the dof is so great.
 

tkbslc

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
7,551
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
. Not to mention you almost don't need auto focus with UWA lense because the dof is so great.
That's what everyone says, yet I sure have a lot of OOF shots when I operate that way. I find AF to be important with UWA because the details are so small as a portion of the frame that it is hard to tell what is in critical focus without LCD magnification.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,960
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
People have bought and buy more expensive lenses for other systems so dont see why people dedicated to m43 would not buy this lens...but sure i doubt it will be a topp seller.

Look at prices on native lenses for FF, zoom lenses with 2.8 aperture cost over $2000, Canons 28-70 f2.0 is $3000
I would say that the vast majority of m43 users view the system as more "budget friendly" compared to a FF system. And in general, I would say that pricing and reactions from the user base support that viewpoint:
  • When the E-M1 II launched at $2k, many people were critical of its price point. When the A7 III and Z6 launched at $2k, people applauded them for being affordable (most FF cameras cost significantly more than $2k)
  • An Olympus 45mm f/1.8 and f/1.2 cost $350 and $1200, whereas a Canon 85mm f/1.8 and f/1.2 cost $420 and $2000
  • An Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 costs $1000, whereas a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 costs $1900.
I would wager a guess that the majority of m43 users got in to the system because of the smaller and cheaper lens and camera bodies. But if prices and sizes continue to approach those of a FF system, why not simply go FF to get the benefits of the larger sensor?

I understand why Panasonic and Olympus are going up-market as of late. A volume-driven sales strategy simply isn't sustainable given today's market, and thus they need to focus on improving their margins. However, are people really going to be receptive to $3,000 m43 cameras and $2,000 m43 lenses? I know I certainly wouldn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom