Actor, Ameerah Tatum.
I can understand a company's desire to create various "halo" products that are more or less meant to show interested consumers that company "A" has the resources, expertise and will to make just as high performing products as companies "B" and "C" but is the race to make ultimate cameras and lenses getting in the way of the practice of photography? By ordinary people? Are makers intent on just carving out rarified niches of wealthy customers, to the detriment of the usual photography hobbyists?
Not to knock them because I've enjoyed many of their products, but for Panasonic to lead their new lens line-up with a 50mm f1.4 lens sporting a $2,200 price tag seems to be a bit over the top; unless they only intend to go after the (extreme) upper demographic of cameras buyers. But, in this regard, Panasonic is not alone, when I went to purchase lenses for the Pentax K-1 I was a bit disgruntled. They have on offer a 50mm f1.4 lens that's left over from the film days and features a clunky, screwdriver mechanism with which to focus the lens. It's a good lens but not a great lens, optically, and that's okay because most of us don't use anywhere close to the potential that even a middle of the road lens can provide because..... we're lazy when it comes to practicing best technique. My beef with the inexpensive 50mm f1.4 lens is not with its optical performance, only with it's handling and focusing mechanism. If that lens formula got stuck into a new body that featured silent focus (and maybe some updated lens coatings) I think I'd be pretty happy to use it as my all around lens. I may continue to use the old screw-driver 50mm for daily use.
But, imagine my surprise to find that one can also buy a different 50mm f1.4 called the HD 50mm SWD AW, which is the "luxe" version of a 50mm 1.4 lens with a selling price of around $1,000. It's filled with optical spec-candy and I'm sure it's astoundingly sharp but I just can't seem to get past the idea that the company has one ancient 50mm f1.4 and one exotic 50mm f1.4 but nothing for modern users on a budget. I think we need a retrench across all the camera lines. We need the makers to come back to the idea of having some entry level lenses to leaven in between the sparkling and costly gems.
Neither Panasonic or Pentax have a 50mm f1.8, a lens type which was the standard choice among "normal" lenses for decades and decades. It's a lens that's easy to design, delivers tons of quality for the usual price point and should be a staple in every catalog. Even Sony has a full frame 50mm f1.8 at a reasonable price, for goodness sake!
Nikon does have one but it sells for $600. That seems a bit crazy to me.
If you are a Fuji user you can get two flavors of "normal" field of view lenses; the 35mm f1.4 at around $600 and the 35mm f2.0 lens for around $400. Still a bit pricy for the slower lens but not nearly in the "caviar" circle of the Nikon offering...
I guess the makers of the "over the top" stuff are banking on third party makers to come to the rescue of their less well heeled customers with cheaper lenses made to fit in the mount. Sometimes with the bells and whistles of AF and full communication but most times in a plane-jane, manual dress with no chatter at all between camera and lens.
I've watched with fascination as Nikon and Canon have driven prices on their 24-70s and their 70-200s up near ( or over ) the $3,000 mark, nearly doubling in price over the last ten years and with marginal improvements in absolute quality. And some of the Sony "G" series lens prices just make me laugh out loud.
I think we've entered into a new race in which the perception on the part of manufacturers is that only a handful of consumers still have the will (and the means) to spend money on cameras and so each company is trying to maximize the profit per sale by pushing further and further into the territory of excess.
I long for the days when one could assemble a system with f2.0 or f2.8 lenses and not have to go without food or electricity to afford it.
I guess we do have the luxury of buying as much as we can on the used markets. I'm finding that the differences in optical quality between "good enough" and "technically superb" are marginal in every day use. Maybe if we were all using big tripods and such I'd feel differently.
It's just a thought for a mid-week morning. And, yes, I think this line of inquiry is directly related to my having bought yet another used camera just yesterday and wishing I also had a bag of good but inexpensive lenses to outfit it with....
Your thoughts? Anyone out their willing and happy about spending $2200 on a 50mm f1.4? I'd love to hear a compelling rationale.....
I've watched with fascination as Nikon and Canon have driven prices on their 24-70s and their 70-200s up near ( or over ) the $3,000 mark, nearly doubling in price over the last ten years and with marginal improvements in absolute quality. And some of the Sony "G" series lens prices just make me laugh out loud.
I think we've entered into a new race in which the perception on the part of manufacturers is that only a handful of consumers still have the will (and the means) to spend money on cameras and so each company is trying to maximize the profit per sale by pushing further and further into the territory of excess.
I long for the days when one could assemble a system with f2.0 or f2.8 lenses and not have to go without food or electricity to afford it.
I guess we do have the luxury of buying as much as we can on the used markets. I'm finding that the differences in optical quality between "good enough" and "technically superb" are marginal in every day use. Maybe if we were all using big tripods and such I'd feel differently.
It's just a thought for a mid-week morning. And, yes, I think this line of inquiry is directly related to my having bought yet another used camera just yesterday and wishing I also had a bag of good but inexpensive lenses to outfit it with....
Your thoughts? Anyone out their willing and happy about spending $2200 on a 50mm f1.4? I'd love to hear a compelling rationale.....
27 comments:
This L mount from Sigma may be a harbinger of things to come.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1492965-REG/sigma_360969_45mm_f_2_8_dg_dn.html/?ap=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=Cj0KCQjwwb3rBRDrARIsALR3XeYTIMKgwSisn2bCe8OhYwkBsLczdt5BLPO1hedYQ1fx2JsKfIyssBYaAjUXEALw_wcB
I think having relatively affordable lenses is what has kept Canon in the lead for so long despite their not having the most cutting-edge sensors or any other cutting-edge technology (dual pixel autofocus might be the exception). The bodies are affordable. The lenses are affordable. The color science is nice (though I know some will disagree vehemently). And their camera still have great haptics. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Kirk, !!
I couldn't agree more!
There ought to be an outcry from all serious photo amateurs and semiprofessionals!
- - -
[ Personally, I chose the Canon M (after the AF update) some years ago, and now the M5, for the large market of used and new EF mount lenses - so for most purposes there are fairly good lenses at (very) moderate price points, and some really good lenses at $500-1000.
( I guess some other mounts have that possibility, but at that time the Canon M was the only affordable mirrorless I could find without shutter shock problems - and Magic Lantern gave it lots of good stuff Canon had omitted.)]
$500 seems to be my threshold. Anything beyond that and I'm probably not purchasing. Unfortunately, that really limits my choices to a small handful of lenses or used ones. I'm fine with used lenses. The pricing on camera gear is just stupid. At some point, the manufacturers are going to price themselves out of any future markets. A 50mm 1.8 used to be cheap. The older ones still are, I think the old Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF-D is still less than $200 new. The new 1.8 lenses are not though.
I agree, but I also think that full frame is a niche product, and as such is overpriced. One can buy a new Sony a6x00 for a relatively low price, and a set of 3 new Sigma f:2.8 lenses for some 200$ each, and be happy!
I bought a few Canon L lenses about 15 years ago when I was single. I haven't bought any since and the last Canon lens I bought new was the 50 mm f1.8 for just under £100 five years ago. I'm just not a good enough photographer to warrant spending thousands on some esoteric lens.
The last lens I bought was a second-hand Canon 28-80 USM for £2 (yes, two pounds) at a car-boot sale. It's good enough for my photography, and even better for my bank balance!
I like Scott Bourne's line:
"99% of all lenses are better than 98% of all photographers"
I believe this includes the more reasonably priced lenses.
Carry on the good work.
The new lens prices for the big system cameras are what caused me to take a good look at the Fuji GFX system. During the introductory pricing of the GFX 50r, the system that I wanted from Sony was within spitting distance of the Fuji GFX system that I wanted.
Keep in mind that I was coming from the original Sony A7 with adapters and old manual lenses, no system lenses at all.
My needs are purely amateur, no need for blistering speed. What I really wanted was just a bigger digital back for my manual lenses and the option of that new-fangled thing called auto-focus. I actually enjoy the more contemplative approach of yesteryear, by cracky!
In a word, NO. That trend towards bigger more expensive primes is the wrong direction from my point of view. Much too big and much too expensive for marginal gains that have no place in the small screen viewing world of today.
I very much agree with your preference for mid-range f/1.8 lenses. They're certainly more portable than f/1.4 optics, often better optically, and certainly more affordable and facile in use.
Overall, the decreasing number of classic high-quality f/1.8 optics seems to arise for several reasons: the craze for razor-thin f/1.4 depth of field and "bokeh" so heavily promoted by web review sites dependent upon a constant click-buy cycle, the general provision of "kit" zoom lenses as the now-expected entry-level optic for digital cameras, and the higher profits generated by expensive f/1.4 lenses.
Olympus and Panasonic both have a nice range of compact M4/3 lenses in that FOV space that are mechanically and optically comparable to the big, expensive f/1.2-f/1.4 models, but of course those are for M4/3. Still, it's nice to have the option.
In the case of full-frame, Pentax entered that market about 3 years ago without a modern full-frame 50/1.8 but with a range of higher-end classic film-era lenses still in production.
Three of Pentax's full-frame Limited Series lenses (31mm, 43mm, 77mm) are very compact f/1.8 range lenses of excellent optical and construction quality. As you note, they have film-era screw-driven auto-focus, but are easily shifted to classic, purely manual auto-focus via the clutching focus. The 43mm /f 1.9 usually sells for a bit under $500 new. Like those classic f/1.8 lenses of yore, you need to stop it down to about f5.6-8 for optimum wall-to-wall sharpness.
The Pentax full-frame 50/2.8 macro is likewise exceedingly sharp at all distances but with screw-driven focus in a usable but not great plasticky body. Still, it may be the sharpest $350 new general-purpose full-frame lens still available new.
For its long-term APS-C camera ranges, Pentax does have a modern 50/1.8 equivalent, the DA 35/2.4, and a modern 75/1.8 equivalent, the DA 50/1.8. Both are often on sale for about $100 to $130 new. Both are great on APS-C but questionable on in the outer-third of full-frame. Both have modern auto-focus, auto-aperture but the outer bodies are mostly good-quality plastic.
The manufacturers are looking to see where the money is, and right now they seem to think (most of them) that making Howitzer sized lenses is where its at. Personally, I have no interest in big heavy lenses (or cameras), but will pay what I have to, to get good, small lenses. My last lens purchase was a Leica 35mm f/2.4 Summarit. No, it wasn't a bargain by the standards you describe – only by Leica standards! But It is very small, very well built, and has an ingenious lens hood/lens cap design. I want more lenses just like this for whatever camera system I am using.
Peter Wright.
There are spectacular 50/1.4 AF lenses available for most of the established mounts, all for under a grand. On my Nikons, I shoot the Sigma Art if I'm focusing manually in magnified live view on a tripod; handheld using AF, I use my trusty 50/1.8G. I haven't checked prices lately but I would think you could buy both these excellent lenses brand new and have change out of £1000. So I'd perhaps be willing to pay about a grand for a standard lens that had the Sigma's amazing optics and the Nikkor's dependable AF. £2000 and above just seems foolish. It's not beyond criticism but the Sigma is beyond meaningful improvement for most purposes.
Panasonic has had a 25mm f1.7 since 2015. Its also very cheap.
The L-mount is brand new and Sigma may get to it before Panasonic. But we don't know the full lens road map.
As a long time amateur who happily supported the camera makers for many years, I have also noticed that they no longer seem to really want me as a customer. Since there is really zero reason I 'need' a new camera (versus the endorphin hit of buying something just to be buying it), goodbye Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, etc. etc. Give me a call if you every decide to sell much lighter, simpler, cheaper cameras. Something like a digital version of a Nikon FG that can also rival the speed and ease of iphones in transferring photos.
Right now I have 4 digital cameras of varying sizes and ages and I almost never use any of them. In addition to less weight, the iphone makes it so easy to send photos. And since most people do not want prints but would appreciate looking at the photos on their phones quickly, that immediacy becomes very important.
I hope the camera makers don't find themselves going the way of RCA and Westinghouse with their big beautiful expensive wood console radios that were put out of business by crappy little transistor radios (that got a lot better and stayed a lot cheaper).
PS the I'm not a robot check is really really annoying
"I'm just not a good enough photographer to warrant spending thousands on some esoteric lens."
I gotta print out that quote and glue it to my credit card asap as a reminder if I ever get GAS for expensive lenses.
Ken
It's not just the cost but the way gear can lose value these days. I took a real loss on the Olympus Pro kit I sold. Anything new will be either used or marked way down.
$1600 isn't $1600 anymore, we just think it is.
It seems to me that the manufacturers are not thinking long term. The history of consumer photography has been "small but good enough" since Kodak created the Brownie. Now the manufacturers are all chasing the big rig market. Considering the way most images are shared now, it seems pointless to me. I've made 13x19 prints from every digital camera I've had except my first one. My m43 kit includes a 25/1.7 for $150, a 42.5/1.7 for $249, and a 45-150/4-5.6 for $149. My most expensive lens is the 12-35/2.8 for $699 (sale price). I really don't want to go beyond that, so I'm happy staying in the lightweight (and price) class.
Mmmm, a new Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 was about $350 Canadian in 1979. I bought a used one for $125. Today, a Nikkor Z 85mm f/1.8 will launch for $1050. The present day value of $350 from 1979 is about $1200. The 85 is a much better lens and cheaper than the 105 (of which I own two). I think we are doing okay compared to years past.
Maybe the idea that a "full-frame" digital camera with $2000 lenses is a "consumer" item is bogus. Maybe your average every day consumer doesn't actually really need one of those so it's not so surprising that once a market is saturated manufacturer sales should drop.
We live in affluent cultures, people aspire to buy the best even though most people don't need them nor use them very much. Think of all the people in BMWs and Infinitis sitting at red lights. If they sat in the passenger seat of a moderately competent race driver at a race track they'd wet themselves. We mostly buy illusions.
When I decided to get back into Nikon I was a bit taken aback by their lens prices for the full frame cameras. Their pro line of DSLR lenses (f/1.4, metal build, usually made in Japan, etc.) was over the top for my pocketbook. But their f/1.8 line of prime lenses was not only reasonable but almost bargain priced. I took my time reading reviews online and discovered many--well, most, actually--reviewers found the lower priced "prosumer" Nikkors to be equal in image quality to the expensive line. Some were even better than their high priced cousins. The f/1.8 line was made in China or Thailand instead of Japan, used plastic instead of metal in some parts (but the lens mounts are still sturdy metal) and didn't feel as precision made as the more expensive alternatives but they were damn good at making pictures. Since I'm not one to beat up my equipment these days, I picked up several of the lower priced models to fill out my most used range--24, 35, 50, 85 plus a 60mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. Really, I have no complaints about them. And the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G Nikkor is currently selling for just under $200 on B&H. It might not have the pro cachet but it's a fine lens for making photographs.
No, it's crazy and it isn't just a question of affordability either. My Canon 50mm is a used version of the f2.5 macro, bought mint for £99. If I need a faster lens, my Olympus (OM) 55mm f1.2 works admirably via an adapter.
Not only are the new lenses expensive. They are also getting quite big and heavy too.
You don't buy K-1s to put new lenses on them; you buy them to enjoy all the great and various used lenses that are out there.
Well this is what happens when the market pushes for high res cameras. The lenses need to resolve the current and near future sensors, which are pushing 60mp now. That Nikon 50mm f/1.8 S is by most accounts as good as the Otus 55/1.4 at 10x the price, so an absolute bargain. Not that it matters in any real life to any of us, but still.
On Sony you can buy the 50/1.8 FE for $200, and Samyang 45/1.8 for $400. On m43 the Olympus 25/1.8 is a gem and around $250.
You are on the worst system possible for a 50/1.8 :)
As others have observed, there are definitely affordable systems out there, just not the ones you chose! I started reading this blog many years ago when I was using an Oly E-P1. You bought an E-P2 not long after I started reading, if I recall. You have surfed across various systems (and I'm not judging you for doing so; you're a pro and you know what you're doing, while I'm just a hobbyist with a much more limited gear budget), while I've stuck with mu43 the whole way. As a result, I've spent less than k$2 on lenses and I have a very nice kit. When my wife picked up the mu43 bug (after borrowing my old E-PL3), she dropped another k$1.5 on glass, and my access got even better. Between the two of us, we have a great f/2.8 normal zoom and a wonderful set of ~f/1.8 primes from 17-75 mm, and all for about the price of a full-frame f/2.8 zoom. I fear for the end of mu43 that I think may be coming, because when my current body fails, if there's no replacement in the pipeline, I don't know whether I'm willing to drop k$10 to get a bigger, heavier kit that covers the same range and doesn't do anything meaningful to improve my photos.
Post a Comment
We Moderate Comments, Yours might not appear right after you hit return. Be patient; I'm usually pretty quick on getting comments up there. Try not to hit return again and again.... If you disagree with something I've written please do so civilly. Be nice or see your comments fly into the void. Anonymous posters are not given special privileges or dispensation. If technology alone requires you to be anonymous your comments will likely pass through moderation if you "sign" them. A new note: Don't tell me how to write or how to blog! I can't make you comment but I don't want to wade through spam!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.