Markuswelder
Well-Known Member
He he he. They're both monsters. The Siggy 40mm is 1.2kg
Mind you the 50mm S Pro is 955gms, so not that far behind.L-MOUNT Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
Latest "that system has it so why don't we?" thread
- Thread starter Jonathan-Mac
- Start date
Mind you the 50mm S Pro is 955gms, so not that far behind.
Jonathan-Mac
Well-Known Member
I agree that more S-Pro primes should exist and would sell because there's a certain type of photographer who will only really accept having the same brand name on both camera and lens (although I think most of those people are Canon shooters). Having just one, even if Sigma offer alternatives, seems far too sparse. I wouldn't buy any such lenses because I'm sure that Sigma would offer just as good quality in 2/3s of the price and I'm a big Sigma fan.
Travis Butler
Well-Known Member
I would have no objection to that… after they make a more mid-tier premium line.
My point is that right now, there is nothing between the baseline and the pro lenses. And maybe I am out of touch with what the mainstream photography market is… but I can’t see anyone but the very very highest-end hobbyist spending more than $1500 on a lens, except in very special circumstances.
I absolutely do. Panasonic might sell a few hundred copies to the kind of people who can afford to drop that kind of money on a hobby - but most sales are going to be pros. They are not mass-market lenses. They are not going to grow Panasonic’s market share.
That’s the point of this exercise for me. Put out a line of high-quality lenses that an ordinary hobbyist can buy out of an ordinary hobby budget. If that means they can’t put in a dozen expensive, heavy specialty elements to achieve perfection, so be it. Perfection isn’t needed; it just has to be an obvious improvement on the baseline lenses that will get ordinary hobbyists to stretch a little. That, I argue, is what will sell systems in numbers that will actually grow market share.
You have a point, but I flip it around and look at it in almost the opposite way. The market I’m positing will indeed look at first-party lenses first - but they need to have affordable premium options from a name they recognize.
That may be where we disagree. The way I see the market breaking down:
- You have the basic hobbyist, who buys the camera and the kit lens and maybe a travel zoom like the 28-200.
- Once they grow out of that stage, there’s lenses like the 24-105 - but they aren’t premium lenses, they’re just a level up from the basics. I’d put the f/1.8 primes in here as well, as they’re perfect for a novice photographer starting to stretch and grow.
- This space left blank.
- The pro lenses, which are out of reach for all but the richest or most dedicated hobbyists.
I think we agree on tactics. The difference is that you seem to think spending $2-3000 on an S-Pro lens that weighs two pounds is something a large number of hobbyists will do, and I couldn’t disagree more strongly.
Travis Butler
Well-Known Member
I haven’t looked at them much myself. ^^;; But if what Markus said is correct, they don’t fit either; they might fit the price guidelines, but you have to be pretty darn dedicated to carry around a normal prime weighing 1.2 kilos!What about the Sigma Art f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses? I have seen discussions online of photographers saying that the Sigma Art 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM / A es even better than the Lumix 50mm f/1.4 S PRO... and these Sigma Art lenses are not that expensive. Unfortunately I never had any Sigma Art lenses, but they have a very good reputation and some people say that they do have the so called "special sauce"
Travis Butler
Well-Known Member
To note, I’m basing my analysis on my experiences looking at film-era kits; I’ve seen literally hundreds of them at estate sales over the last decade, enough for a valid statistical sample. I’d like to think that gives me a pretty good idea of what people historically bought. What I see:
- You have the basic nifty fifty lens, f/1.7-2.0. This is a bit less than half of the kits I see.
- You have the premium f/1.4, usually 50mm but sometimes 55-58mm. These were very popular. They made almost the entire remaining half.
- You have the elite f/1.2, the ones the manufacturers pulled out all the stops on, like the legendary Minolta 58/1.2. The equivalent of the S-Pro. I’ve only seen 3 or 4 of them in the entire decade. I’ve seen more medium format Mamiya 645 camera kits than I’ve seen f/1.2s! And not by a small margin, either; I’ve seen at least 15 Mamiya’s, including one in a sale listing this past weekend.
- Finally, you had some that used a 28 or 35mm as the base lens, or a third-party like Vivitar. They were maybe 10%.
xaviergut
LMF-Patron
Travis, tell me if this is correct with the 50mm L-Mount lenses:
Basic: Lumix f/1.8 + Sigma DG DN f/2
Premium: Lumix S PRO f/1.4 + Sigma DG DN Art f/1.4 + Sigma DG DN Art f/1.2
Elite: Leica Summicron f/2 SL + Leica Summicron f/2 SL APO + Leica Summilux f/1.4
GeorgeHudetz
Well-Known Member
Yes, exactly. The S-pro lenses are not any more expensive than the Sony G-Master lenses, for example. Some are cheaper. So I think their pricing is in line with the rest of the industry in that regard. Which, yes, makes such lenses too expensive for many, but again, in L-mount we currently have plenty of "affordable" but excellent lenses. So I'd like to see them produce more S-Pro lenses.
Travis Butler
Well-Known Member
No, I don’t think so. That’s a misreading of what I’m suggesting; go back and look at my response to Quentin.
All three of the ones you list as Premium I would still put at Elite. They’re all big, heavy, expensive lenses where the manufacturer pulled out all the stops to make the best lens they could manage.
You seem to think that just having something “in the middle” is enough. It’s not. Putting the Leica lenses up there in the stratosphere doesn’t make the S Pro and Sigma Art lenses any cheaper, lighter or smaller. Even if they’re between the Leicas and the S 1.8. They’re still no-holds-barred lenses, and that makes them too large, heavy and expensive for “Premium”.
The difference I see between Premium and Elite is that a Premium lens is a high-quality lens made with reasonable constraints on size, weight and cost. It’s supposed to be a good lens, high-tier, but for everyday use by everyday people. That was the old film-era 50/1.4. A great step up from the base lens, whether it was the MC Rokkor-PG, the Pentax-M, the OM Zuiko Auto-S, or the Nikkor Ai-S - but it was affordable enough that almost as many people owned it as owned the kit lens. It sold systems.
Elite is no expense spared, no holds barred, made without regard to price or whether everyday people would want to lug it around all day. The old Minolta 58/1.2. A superlative lens, sets the standard, lets everyone know you’re a badass lens maker. But very few people actually buy it.
Let’s go back to automotive analogies. A Toyota Camry is basic practical transportation. A BMW sports sedan is a fast, fun car; but it’s practical enough for everyday use and cheap enough for a lot of people to own. A Ferrari Portofino will blow a BMW out of the water- but only a few people can afford one at $215,000 and there’s no way it’s an everyday-use car. Now add the McLaren Elva to the comparison, sitting up there at $1.7 million per car. Does that suddenly make the Portofino into a practical or affordable car matching the BMW?
Markuswelder
Well-Known Member
I think some of the issue might be that the plain Jane S lenses are a bit too good to be able to improve on, without getting into S Pro pricing territory. Take the 50mm, as far as I'm aware, it's the same lens that Leica adds their branding to, and sells as their own. Apparently.
Quentinquirelino
Well-Known Member
I think most of Panasonic lenses and Signs lenses are about mid-tier. The f1.8 line from Panasonic and the Contemporary Series from Sigma are all very capable lenses. All the Panasonic lenses are wether sealed and the S non pro lenses are reasonable priced and optical very good. Price wise I also would account the Art and Sports series from Sigma as mid-tier, but the quality is exceptionally, especially from the Art.
I would put the kit zooms, the 20-60 and 18-40, in low-tier. But only because of the price. The quality is almost to good. Maybe also the 28-200 is low-tier, but it's almost to expensive for low-tier. In the future maybe Meike and other Chinese manufacturer will add more to the low-tier, but I think it's not attractive for Panasonic to put to much effort in the low-tier.
The High-Tier would be the S pros and quality wise some Sigmas. And of course the Leicas.
I think there are many hobbyists that would buy lenses for 2k and more.
I think it definitely would help Panasonic to get market share. Not because everyone would buy those lenses, but because there is an upgrade path, even when many customers don't go that path.
People are used to higher prices that comes with first party options compared to third party. I would go even further and say that many who buy first party first would indicate equal prices compared to third party options with worse quality.
Yes, we disagree.
Yes, we disagree. I think there are enough who buy those lenses. For example I know a couple of camera stores that accepted preorders for the Nikon 35mm f1.2, even when was only rumored and they had a many preorders. Also Olympus/OMDS has needed years to fulfill the demand for the 150-400/4.5.
And even more there are potential costumes who are buying other systems, because those systems have more of those expensive lenses, even they would never buy them.
Travis Butler
Well-Known Member
I guess the problem I have with that argument is that it requires novices making their first system purchase to navigate reviews and the lens lineup with a degree of savvy that I find it very hard to believe they have; the photo-curious acquaintances I talk to certainly don't, and neither do the people I overhear at photo stores. Heck, it took me years to really understand, deep down, why something like the 24-105 would be better than the 28-200; more zoom is always better, right? What is an upgrade and what isn't?
Agreed there.
...
To me, that's like the sailing enthusiast I know who plunked $15,000 down on a catamaran that he couldn't sail without driving an hour to a large-enough lake. Yeah, he exists, but he's also pretty far out on one end of the bell curve, and even at that lake there are only a couple like him. In my circles, you don't spend that kind of money on a hobby unless a) you have money to blow or b) are insanely dedicated.
And this is what I find impossible to believe about the Pro lenses.
Every photo-curious person I talk to says something like WTF?!? when I talk about lenses over $1000. And then goes "Oh, hmm." when I explain it to them. $2000 gets comments like "That's insane, that's more than you spend on the camera!!"
I cannot accept that a large number of curious want-to-be-photographers looking at a new system will view a set of $2000+ lenses as an upgrade path that they would ever consider. That's the entire point of offering a consistent, coherent lineup that is still an obvious quality upgrade, but priced at a point that a novice could go "Oh, hmmm." at when it's explained to them.
If you ask me to name figures, I'd guess there are at least 10,000 potential buyers who might spend $1000-1500 on a lens, for every one that might spend $2-3000 on a lens. Which do you think is going to get more market share?
Travis Butler
Well-Known Member
I know I'm not an optical engineer, but I have read a number of articles on lens design; LensRentals had a great series 10-15 years ago on the history of lens design, sadly before they re-did their blog infrastructure, and it can be hard to piece together now. (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/lens-geneology-part-1/ is a good starter.) I've also read some of the articles companies have posted on the design process for their current flagship lenses. I'd think it's quite possible; interested in bouncing some ideas around?
xaviergut
LMF-Patron
To me elite lenses are the lenses with a price above 3.000 €. In the L-mount system the Leica APO lenses. The Lumix S PRO lenses (Leica certified) are premium lenses. That is my subjective opinion. And yes, I would like more Lumix S PRO lenses.
But, I am afraid that we will see Lumix cine lenses before S PRO lenses. Sigma has already a good bunch of cine lenses. And they are not cheap at all.
Another example of elite Lens is the Nikon Z 58mm f/0.95 Noct. The price in Europe is 8.700 €.
But, I am afraid that we will see Lumix cine lenses before S PRO lenses. Sigma has already a good bunch of cine lenses. And they are not cheap at all.
Another example of elite Lens is the Nikon Z 58mm f/0.95 Noct. The price in Europe is 8.700 €.
Quentinquirelino
Well-Known Member
That is how it is. But the offering for mid range in the L-Mount is very good, probably the best besides E-Mount across all mirrorless full frame systems. You can choose between about four different 35mm, four different 50mm and a couple of 85mm, all between 300 and 1500 $ from good to excellent. There are also several Zoom options if you are searching a standard zoom, a ultra wide zoom or even a telephoto to super telephoto zoom in that price range.
Yes you have to look at reviews and so on, to find what you want or need. But the options are already here.
Hold on. Off course they have to be options below the $2000+ lenses. But those options are already here. What is missing are the options to go even further, above $2000. Currently the system ends slightly above mid range. There is no current camera above the S5IIX and the single two lenses, released after 2020, above $2000 are the Sigma 60-600 and 500/5.6.
I wouldn't say it's 1 in 10000, but I would agree that the sales numbers of $1000-1500 are much higher than the $200-3000 lenses. Also the sales numbers of around $500 lenses are probably even much higher. But that's not the point.
Panasonic needs to extend the S pro line for the same reason TV stores put exceptional good TVs on the shelf between cheaper TVs. Because people tend to rate other TVs of that brand, that makes that exceptional TV, higher and tent to rather buy a TV of that brand and pay a little more for TVs of that brand compared to cheaper options, even if that exceptional TV is out of their reach.
I think Canon does that at best of all camera manufacturers. They even built their RF System almost only with cheap low-tier and expensive high-tier lenses. The mid range of lenses was completely missing and they had that upgrade path, for example from a $150 to a 50mm f1.2 for more than $2000 and no third party option in between. And they had that in about every lens category. They only recently started to fill that gap. Off course, for many, including for me, that was the reason not to choose Canon. Because the mid range is where I buy most off my gear. That's exactly why I've chosen Panasonic. But obviously Canon was very successful with their strategy in gaining market share.
Travis Butler
Well-Known Member
This doesn't make sense to me. It's claiming that an expensive, top-of-the-line lens is not an expensive, top-of-the-line lens just because someone else has an even more expensive lens. It's like claiming a $250,000 Ferrari is not an elite sports car because a $1.7 million McLaren supercar exists. They can both be elite! This is not a contradiction!
By any objective standard I can think of, the S Pro 50/1.4 is an elite lens. Leave aside price for a moment. Panasonic spared no effort in making it the best lens it could make, starting with a high-performance optical formula and adding corrective element after corrective element to remove aberrations and fine-tune performance. This is why it has 13 elements, including 2 aspheric and 3 ED. Reviews say things like 'perfectly corrected' and 'no detectable flaws'. By what definition would you claim it is not an elite lens?*
*Maybe that's the easiest way to define an 'elite' lens for me. 'Elite' is where a manufacturer spares no effort to make a lens that stands out above everything else they make. 'Premium' is where they work to make a high-quality product, but without the all-out attempt to make a lens the best it can be. As for price - I based my $1000/1500/2000 categories on what I see ordinary people around me spend on hobbies and what I've heard talking to people who are interested in getting into photography. Hardcore enthusiasts will spend more, but I thought we were talking about how to get new people into the system. What are you basing 3.000€ on?
But those 13 elements means it is also a large, heavy, and expensive lens. That is the problem I have with it. When I have talked to people interested in getting more into photography, they balked at the idea of a lens costing that much.
That's why I keep arguing for a class of lens that Panasonic puts extra effort into, without the kind of cost-is-no-object approach that is my definition of an elite lens. Start with a high-performance optical formula, but don't put so many resources into correcting every possible flaw, so that the size and cost stay within reasonable limits. Something that is a clear, obvious, and labeled step up for potential buyers, without the sticker shock of the top-of-the-line lenses. I argued to Quentin that the current lens lineup takes some photographic savvy to decode; it's not obvious that the 24-105 is a higher class of lens than the 28-200 to a novice buyer, and in fact I'd argue the opposite. (More zoom good! is easy for a novice to understand; the advantage of a constant aperture is not.)
If no other manufacturer offers that, all the better! It gives Panasonic something that they don't have.
Travis Butler
Well-Known Member
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?
...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?
If I go into the showroom at my local upscale electronics retailer, I don't see $10,000 TV's! I see low-end for $200-400. I see mid-range for $800. I see high-end for $1000-2000. They might have one or two giant ones in the $4000-5000 range, but that's not what they emphasize.
I agree we need halo products! I agree with the philosophy! But my definition of 'halo product' is 'something a consumer thinks they might actually buy, someday.' Not 'AhahahahahahahHAHAHAHAAHAHAH no.'
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.'
xaviergut
LMF-Patron
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.
Because I think that the S PRO Lumix lenses are below 3.000 € new. And not all the Leica SL lenses are elite lenses, to me. Just the APO Leicas.
That would be an interesting test with exteme peeping on different subjects from close to infinity at same apertures.
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.
On the subject (ivity
) is the Leica 90-280mm f2.8-4 APO-Vario-Elmarit-SL Lens more premium than Lumix S Pro 70-200 f2.8? It is 3x the price and definitely lust-worthy. A seemingly difference in hierachy, not just the Leica badge Is one you'd keep until death although one was on Ebay UK for £3000, over 30 years only £100 and hope the L-mount is still in production