Latest "that system has it so why don't we?" thread

[Quentinquirelino]

But the options are not clear to the novice buyer. Isn't that what we're talking about? How to get more novice buyers into the system?

If you see it that way, the solution would be taking lens options from the market and not releasing new ones.

...what makes you think lenses above $2000 will attract a novice buyer? I told you of my experiences talking to people thinking of getting into photography, and how they thought $2000 lenses were crazy. What are you basing your price ranges on?

I made completely different experiences. For most people I know, spending that amount of money in a hobby isn't out of the world.

The point about '1 in 10,000' is that 10,000 people considering something a halo product is a lot better than 1 person considering something a halo product. Not 'you sell more the more you drop the price.'

I think it's not 1 in 10000. It's more something in between 1 in 10 and 1 in 100.

Look how Canon build their RF System with great success. Look at the pricing of Nikon Z or Sony E. Those systems working successfully and they all have those expensive lenses, more than we have in L-Mount. And those expensive lenses from Canon, Nikon and Sony are selling good.

 

[Travis Butler]

I think that the 50mm f1.4 S PRO is the elite of Lumix FF lenses. But the elite lenses in the L-mount system are the APO Leica lenses, because they are perfect.

"the elite" is the part I have a problem with - there can be more than one! You can agree that the APO Leica lenses are at the top of the heap, and still think the S Pros are top-line lenses that are among the best manufacturers can do.

Also, I just wanted to make it clear: I don't have a problem if you or anyone else wants one for yourself! I don't have a problem with wanting more of them, either.

But this sub-thread started when people talked about bringing more novice photographers into L-mount, and there I think the S Pros are a) not going to bring in novice users, and b) if that's important to you, they should have a lower priority than lenses that will.

 

[Travis Butler]

That would be an interesting test with exteme peeping on different subjects from close to infinity at same apertures.

Would they think to do that, though? More to the point, would they even notice the difference?

I'm only half-joking; I've seen novices ignore problems I notice right off, until I point them out. It takes time and experience for many people to develop the eye.

I'd imagine even a novice would have a good idea that the more expensive larger heavier lens at 1/2 the zoom reach would be the better lens pure IQ wise but may not know about aperture and the advantages of constant lower aperture.

A lot of people need to have the reason why primes have better IQ explained to them, after all! As for size/weight and price - like with zoom range, the obvious bits outweigh the subtle improvements until you learn enough to know better. I've seen people complain about the size/weight of a high-end lens, because the difference in IQ isn't obvious to them and the greater weight is.

 

[Oíche]

They might do a £50k 500mm f1.8 APO you never know, it would get noticed anyway

 

[Oíche]

I've seen people complain about the size/weight of a high-end lens, because the difference in IQ isn't obvious to them and the greater weight is.

Agree 100% the compromise doesn't matter to them... Hence the 28-200 which some peepers complain about... Which is the IQ compromise. If you are a good photographer you can do great stuff with it so good enough for the non enthusiast who just had £2000 burning their pocket with a safari holiday booked

£2000 or so = S5ii & 28-200 kit last year

Plus best FF stability on the market, especially video

 

[Markuswelder]

interested in bouncing some ideas around?

I honestly have zero clue about lens design and optical formulas. All I know is when I see something that I like. Quite often, a little bit of CA seems to be present in the images produced by those lenses. Whether that has something to do with it, I do not know. Some of those include the m4/3 PL 25mm, Sigma 30mm f1.4, and Lumix S 50mm f1.4. Quite a few shots from some of the Leica lenses are not immune from it either. I can't remember exactly where I saw the review, but I do remember being quite surprised seeing it when lots of "lesser" lenses get a hammering for it.

 

[Travis Butler]

I honestly have zero clue about lens design and optical formulas. All I know is when I see something that I like.

<nod> Yeah, I don't know a whole lot - basically on the level of that LensRentals article. Simplified picture of how the lens design process works, three breakthroughs in the last 50 years that revolutionized lens design, and how that led to today's designs.

Quite often, a little bit of CA seems to be present in the images produced by those lenses. Whether that has something to do with it, I do not know. Some of those include the m4/3 PL 25mm, Sigma 30mm f1.4, and Lumix S 50mm f1.4. Quite a few shots from some of the Leica lenses are not immune from it either. I can't remember exactly where I saw the review, but I do remember being quite surprised seeing it when lots of "lesser" lenses get a hammering for it.

Yeah. As I was implying earlier to @xaviergut, I'm not really a fan of bland, utterly neutral rendering; I prefer a lens to have a voice. Vivid colors, strong contrast, edges that stand out from microcontrast, maybe even a bit of spherical aberration - any of those to give it some personality. The PL15 and 20-60, or the Panny 20, had it on M4/3; the Konica lenses I've used tend to have it as well.