Posts: 7,950
Threads: 1,830
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
45
Quote:Let me fix that for you 
- Pany 200 f2.8: 8,75 x 17.4 cm, 1245g, $3000
- Canon 200 f2.8: 8.38 x 13.72 cm, 765g, $750
- Canon 400 f5.6: 9 x 25.6 cm, 1250g, $1250
Doesn't change much about the conclusion, though. Yep, insanely expensive, even though it comes with a free TC...
The Oly 300mm f/4 is "just" 2500USD.
The Leica 100-400mm is pretty much the bargain alternative at 1800USD ( ... or 1300USD locally ...  )
Seriously 3k$? That's 1k too much no matter how you look at this.
It's even more weird when considering the fairly reasonable costs for the new Leica zoom lenses (8-18mm, 12-60mm). The upcoming 50-200mm f/2.8-4 is probably also in the same ballpark as those.
Posts: 7,950
Threads: 1,830
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
45
Conversely ... the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 is now listed at just 449USD!
Posts: 1,580
Threads: 22
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
7
Quote:The Oly 300mm f/4 is "just" 2500USD.
The Leica 100-400mm is pretty much the bargain alternative at 1800USD ( ... or 1300USD locally ... )
Seriously 3k$? That's 1k too much no matter how you look at this.
It's even more weird when considering the fairly reasonable costs for the new Leica zoom lenses (8-18mm, 12-60mm). The upcoming 50-200mm f/2.8-4 is probably also in the same ballpark as those.
It appears to be very good, actually. See official Pana MTF chart below
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
Some reviews:
http://www.photobyrichard.com/reviewbyri...-8-review/
https://www.lumixgexperience.panasonic.c...gTByIiQzmH
Check the 100% crop bird's head in the second review; I think it is page 2..
Whether it is expensive, too expensive, or just right in the end is a matter of whether people who think they need it will indeed buy one.
As to some of the comparisons made: the "equivalent" EF 400 F/5.6 L is very old, and has no IS. A new version with IS would likely come in at around $2000 if not more.
However, it still is a 200 mm F/2.8 lens, and a pro version for that matter.
Personally, I will not likely buy one. I don't shoot at 400 mm equivalent very much, and besides, I do happen to have a Canon 100-400L IS II, and a bunch of Metabones adapters, for the occasion I do need to do so.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
Posts: 7,950
Threads: 1,830
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
45
Well, the Nikkor 300mm f/4 VR PF is brand new and costs half that money (used on an APS-C DSLR for comparison).
And it's actually also half the weight.
As much as I like MFT, it's WAY over the top.
Posts: 642
Threads: 18
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
2
Latest offerings of Oly and Pany grew in size and weight big time, let alone the prices. Their top cameras entered the territory of APS-C format for sure, or Sony A7 bodies. I just checked at camerasize.com and found this:
Sony A7R III [657 g] weights 14% (83 grams) more than Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II [574 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
and this:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#724.395,692.614,ha,t
Posts: 3,030
Threads: 158
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
15
Ephotozine has already got sample images of the lens, which means an imminent review!
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/leica...otos-31620
Dave's clichés
Posts: 7,950
Threads: 1,830
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
45
Quote: Latest offerings of Oly and Pany grew in size and weight big time, let alone the prices. Their top cameras entered the territory of APS-C format for sure, or Sony A7 bodies. I just checked at camerasize.com and found this:
Sony A7R III [657 g] weights 14% (83 grams) more than Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II [574 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
and this:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#724.395,692.614,ha,t
Well, at the end of the day the CAMERA size is not really determined by the sensor size.
The sensor is always tiny compared to the rest of a camera.
It's more about processing power, cooling (were Sony tends to have issues), viewfinder, battery capacity (or the mirror box).
Seems like the x-e3 shrunk in size compared to the x-e2. Anyway I agree that these lenses seem kind of large. maybe it takes a lot of glass to make a well corrected lens but i though the 200mm was one of the easier designs (esp compare to 14mm).
Posts: 642
Threads: 18
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
2
Klaus, I agree with you.
However, I wanted to point out that high performance came at the expense of size and price, and not only in cameras, but also lenses.
Quote:Don't say that too loud ... you may be wrong there. At least regarding the Canon.
Couldn't agree more.
Canon is so far behind these days on almost every aspects...
|
