Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. After reading all the comments on the 12-35, the 35-100, and the upcoming Schneider lenses, I'm left wondering why people get so upset and sometime even belligerent when they see the price?

    I realize many can't afford high-end lenses (myself included), but it's not something that offends me in any way. It's confusing how someone could judge something before it's even released, let alone something they've haven't even handled/tested themselves.

    So why the hostility? :confused:
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Basic human nature my friend ..haahahahaah
    Grapes are sour kinda story hahaahahhah including me :rofl::rofl::rofl:
    But jokes apart - 12-35 mm is overpriced .It should be around USD799 mark .
  3. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    This sort of remark seems to prove the OP's point, to a degree. On what basis have you determined that the P12-35 is overpriced? Seems to me that Panasonic (and the market) have set the price at a point where they feel they'll maximize their profits -- it's just Econ 101.

    Every consumer needs to make their own individual decision if the "value" to them of a particular lens (or body, or anything) equals or exceeds the price at which it is offered. If so, they make the purchase, if not, they don't. For example, I'd love to own a Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, but I don't happen to have an extra quarter million dollars or so sitting around to make that a reality; that doesn't make the Ferrari "overpriced" but rather just not a "value" to me.

    If the price on any particular product is set to a point where the producer cannot sell as many as they need to, the price will be adjusted. Any further discussion that any item is "overpriced" is all just pointless whining.
    • Like Like x 7
  4. KVG

    KVG Banned User

    May 10, 2011
    yyc(Calgary, AB)
    Kelly Gibbons
    Because my wife will give me that look when I buy it and she hears the price:flowers_2::mad:
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Djarum

    Djarum Super Moderator

    Dec 15, 2009
    Huntsville, AL, USA
  6. Muntjack

    Muntjack Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 26, 2010
    You actually tell her how much this stuff is costing!!!!

    Schoolboy error my friend.

    • Like Like x 1
  7. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    Bhupinder probably hit it mostly right, humor aside - grapes are sour :wink:

    I think mainly it comes down to many people can't (or won't) buy expensive lenses, where "expensive" is user-defined, and naturally it's frustrating to see expensive lenses rolling out which means R&D time used that could have been applied to the next "affordable" lens.

    There's multiple factions here, from what I can see here on the forum:

    1) People who think m4/3 is supposed to be "affordable" i.e. cheaper than other systems, so they feel expensive lenses are eliminating the format's benefits. (This counts the same for people that think any increase in body size is the death of m4/3).

    2) Those who want more lens options they can afford, so they'd like to see more $150-300 lenses. It's no fun if the format is bristling with lenses but they're all out of your price range.

    3) Those who feel that a lens should cost whatever amount they decide and anything more than that is overcharging for it (see DeeJayK's comment above).

    Personal note
    Personally I have no problem with a manufacturer creating high end lenses, or charging high prices for them. Even if I can't afford it, high quality lenses means more investment in the format, more use by pros and high end users, and a better chance of the format surviving for the long term. Not to mention I like looking at the great images these lenses help make possible :smile:

    Granted, I can afford some expensive lenses - but then that's because a) I'm willing to pay for them and b) I make other sacrifices for that to happen. I may sell other things to fund a purchase, or work extra hours for example. It's all in what's prioritized & worthwhile to you.
    • Like Like x 3
  8. ^ good points.

    I wonder why it is that some assume m43 should be cheaper? Smaller doesn't always = less expensive, especially when things contain electronic components. I realize smaller materials often mean smaller cost, but development that goes into making things smaller can often be far more expensive (making assumptions).

    I totally agree that having HE lenses in the m43 system is important because of the investment and longevity of the format.

    ...I don't see anyone bursting into flames when Schneider releases 5-figure lenses for other formats, so why the hate on m43?
  9. LeoS

    LeoS Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 6, 2012
    Because high price tag is like antacid (or activated charcoal) to one's GAS problem...
    • Like Like x 2
  10. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    I can only assume because of the compromises entailed (smaller sensor, more plastic build, less buttons & features) people feel like the price should be commensurately smaller. And of course with every release there's always the group that uses the less materials = less cost argument.

    When I first got into m4/3 I just wanted a small camera that took good pictures. When I wanted to get deeper into photography, I was all set to "upgrade" to a DSLR so I did plenty of research. Ultimately I ended up staying with m4/3, but saving money wasn't a major factor. It was clear to me that high end optics and high end bodies was going to cost me a good chunk of change regardless of camera system, so I went into it with that expectation.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. pxpaulx

    pxpaulx Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 19, 2010
    How've you arrived at this conclusion? There really isn't a basis for comparison, however if you look at the 'comparable' lenses with equivalent field of view from Nikon or Canon that are F2.8 (the 24-70mm's or 16/15-XXmm's) that are also F2.8, the Panasonic is at the bottom of the pile on price point. Although smaller, considering the R&D that would go into designing completely new lenses that are in fact compact and still of excellent high quality, saying they are worth $799USD just seems silly to me!
    • Like Like x 1
  13. charleychen

    charleychen Mu-43 Regular

    May 13, 2012
    New York
    I have to admit, when I first got the EM-5, I thought I would be net positive when I sold off my Pentax K5 kit (15,21,40,70,77, 55-300, and accessories). Right now, my EM-5 kit is costing me more than the K5 kit and I haven't even gotten the 35-100 2.8 yet.

    While I understand Econ 101 (supply and demand). The pentax limited primes seemed to be better built and cost less than m4/3 primes. It's hard to do an exact comparison as the focal lengths are so different but if I were to add up the cost of the 12/2, 20 1.7, 25 1.4, 45 1.8, 75 1.8, it will cost more than the pentax limited lens even after I include the 100 macro.
  14. Pim

    Pim Mu-43 Regular

    Pricey lenses don't upset me at all... if somebody thinks it will benefit their pictures and are willing and able to pay the price I see no problem with that. Personally I would never pay $1,500 for a lens (or in my case 1,500 euro probably), but that does not mean the lens is not worth that. I am all in favor of more choice for all, and there are plenty of cheaper and very decent lenses available as well. Seldom however do I look at my pictures and wish I had had a better lens when I took it. More often I look at the pictures and wish I had composed it slightly differently or had waited a few more seconds for that annoying tourist to pass...:)

    Point in case: I recently took a trip in Norway and carried 4 lenses, none of them can be classified as expensive, in fact I took the majority with just the very humble Olympus 14-42 kitlens, and I am extremely pleased with quite a few of the pictures, and the ones I was less pleased with were usually because of my mistakes. That does not mean that I would not like the 2.8 zooms, for me they are just not worth the price, keywords being for me...
  15. Spuff

    Spuff Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Dec 5, 2010
    Berkshire, UK.
    It seemed to me that when m43 was new a lot of people were asking for 'high grade' lenses. Looking at the price of high grade lenses for other systems that means very high price. So if these expensive m43 lenses are the sort of high grade lenses people wanted, then high is the price to expect.
    It's not like we don't have a choice now.
  16. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    One of the problems with m4/3 is "damned if you do, damned if you don't" when it comes to build quality. If you make the build quality equal to other quality lenses from other systems, it's also usually heavier (metal weighs more than plastic, after all) and more expensive. So you have people simultaneously complaining that high grade lenses are too expensive, too heavy, and that build quality isn't good enough on the rest of the lenses.

    Don't get me wrong, I get where you're coming from completely. But if the 20mm f/1.7 for example was an all metal build quality it'd weigh (and cost) more, and you'd almost certainly have people panning it for being too heavy for a pancake and costing too much for such a small lens. Take a lens like the Voigtlander 25mm, Olympus 75mm f/1.8 or Panasonic 12-35mm that are top notch build quality, lots of metal and glass... and you'll find complaints they're too heavy & too expensive.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Its very simple , logical and involves mathematics .. Doesn Panasonic want to manufacture these lens as limited quantity version and sit on them ? Or do they want people to embrace this format and feel happy about reasonabily priced lenses ? Now when most of us have invested in this system , these guys have started to roll out over priced lenses in name of IQ and built quality . Lets assume price is USD 799 - How many Panny will sell? Probably 2-3 times more than the current number . Now many of us will think ten time s before dumping USD 1200 on a lens which doesnt even replace a singe useful prime lens . Its just a walk around lens . To add more even aperture is not constant . Olympus 4/3 vesrion of 14-54 mm Mark II is an exellent piece of glass and available at cheaper price , Why? This is my logic in IMHO .Its not about affordabiity , its about sensibiity and makin g sure u get what u pay for . My OLY 45 mm 1.8 is a perfect Lens and If Panny makes such a lens , they will over price it like 45 mm 2.8 .Newly announced Fuji 18-55 mm 2.8 is priced at USD 699 .. why????
    • Like Like x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.