As you probably know, Fstoppers has recently switched over our video system from Nikon D750s to Panasonic GH5s. The GH5 is absolutely perfect for our style of shooting and I really don't have much to complain about... Except the lenses. Why do they cost so much?
We now own five GH5s and I tried to replicate all of the lenses I had for my Nikon full-frame cameras. Because the GH5 has a micro 4/3 sensor, you can simply half the millimeters of the lens to get a similar field of view. For example a 24-70mm lens on a full-frame sensor would be a 12-35mm on my GH5. Because aperture ratings are determined based on the focal length of the lens, a 2.8 aperture will let the exact same amount of light into the camera no matter the sensor size but the depth of field on a M43 sensor will be equivalent to 5.6 on a full-frame sensor with a similar field of view. Because the sensor is almost a quarter of the size of "full frame" the lenses can literally be half the size and retain the same apertures.
These are the lenses we decided to buy:
Let me first start by saying that Panasonic lenses that we own are an absolute pleasure to use. They are small, light, and the zoom ring feels extremely smooth. The issue is that the build quality isn't comparable to any other pro lenses that I have owned but the prices aren't that much cheaper. In some cases they are even more expensive.
The Panasonic 12-35mm 2.8 II is about $1,000 and if you compare it to the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 VR at $2,400, the Panasonic version actually appears to be pretty fairly priced. There's no doubt the Nikon version is superior in almost every way but it's also 140 percent more expensive. The problem is that third-party lenses have flooded the full-frame and APS-C market and have made fast glass far more affordable. You could buy the Tokina 24-70mm 2.8 for just $959 or our personal favorite, the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 for $1,100. Soon Sigma will be releasing an Art Series 24-70mm that may be better than all of the competition. We don't know the price yet but it will probably be significantly cheaper than Nikon's version.
The most difficult lens purchase I made for our GH5s was the Olympus 7-14mm lens. Unlike the Panasonic lenses, this one is built quite well and is at least on par with my Nikon pro lenses. This little lens cost me $1,300. The Nikon equivalent, the 14-24mm 2.8, is currently $1,900 and it certainly feels like it's worth more than $500 over the Olympus version. What makes this lens particularly hard for me to justify is that we don't own the Nikon version of this lens, we own the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 which is a fantastic lens and it only costs $1,200. Oh and I forgot to mention, the Tamron version has stabilization and neither the Nikon or Olympus version do. So I spent a hundred dollars more on a lens that is half the size and has less features.
Many M43 shooters I've spoken to agree with me about the prices of these lenses and their subpar build quality while other shooters argue that smaller lenses should cost more because "they are more difficult to build." I'm not sure I believe that because every APS-C lens is cheaper than it's full frame equivalent. I think it all comes down to competition. There aren't as many M43 users and therefore third-party lens makers haven't jumped into this market yet.
I'd personally like to see Tamron or Sigma come into this market and start making ultra fast lenses that have a better build quality. It's possible to create f/1.8 zoom lenses for M43 cameras that are smaller than their full-frame f/2.8 equivalents. Yes, it's possible to use a speedbooster and Canon glass today but I personally am not totally happy with the way the lenses work with an adapter. I want native glass.
If the M43 market continues to grow I'm sure we can expect to see some cheaper lens options but as of today, expect to spend at least a thousand dollars for each of your lenses. For us, it's a small price to pay because the GH5 is the most convenient camera we've ever filmed with.
Only slight inconsistency in your comparison is wet the Olympus lens..lack of stabilization...it's in body for their cameras...generally though you are right in terms of build quality, but then Leica rangefinder lenses are hardly large and most certainly not cheap...quality and price are not necessarily tied to size...
That's true but it's one less thing they have to put into the lens and therefore it should be cheaper. Leica gear is also incredibly overpriced IMO as well but at least it's built well.
If you're up for it, used m4/3 can be had for a great price. I recently bought and subsequently sold the Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 and the Panasonic Leica 15mm f/1.7. New retail price on B&H are $597.99 and $547.99. Bought both for $295 each in mint condition.
Also there's a large market for m4/3 sold grey market. If you're ok with buying grey market 40-150mm f/2.8 that's sold for $1,499 new US retail can be had for around $900-950 new grey market.
Great tips, thanks
Also being a relatively new system compared to say Nikon or canon there isn't a glut of older and second hand alternatives to newer lenses which means manufacturers are not competing with that market to win you over either.
There are plenty of cheap m4/3 lenses, unless you want pro quality and fast glass........maybe that is why they cost more. Also saying that aps-c only lenses are cheaper doens't take into account that they are are not as good as the top of the line m4/3 glass for the most part. Even Fuji doesn't really have comparable lenses but theirs are kinda close in price. Sure I would like th be cheaper but the results they give make up for the sticker shock.
I haven't done any tests myself but I've heard a few people say that Panasonic lenses aren't that sharp compared to other brands. Not true?
I have not played much with the Panasonics but the Oly's are pretty sharp. The primes are amazing for the price IMO
As a former Panasonic user and current Fuji owner, I have to disagree with your assessment on fujis glass. It absolutely destroys Panasonic I need image and build quality and the price is roughly the same.
That said, I will admit that the 42 noctircon is definitely the one lens they built that stands above the rest.
And if you don't mind an all manual experience the .95 voigtlanders are dreams to use.
Not true. Mine beat the pants off my Canon glass, especially in edge sharpness.
Sounds like we should do some comparison videos
Lee I think your gonna find the 12-35 and the 35-100 to be too sharp and have to dial back the sharpness in camera. Those lenses are eye bleeding sharp even wide open :)
There is no such thing as too sharp. There are sensors that make people who don't understand the gear they use think this however - and most of these sensors are m43 ones. The actual problem is that sensors with small pixels resolve high contrast features much better than low contrast ones, so the high contrast detail (eyelashes, acne) comes out exagerrated relative to low contrast detail (subtle skin variation.) This is why, say, a 6D is a much safer camera to take a headshot with than a GX8, although they're much more even for, say, a forest landscape shot where resolving leaf edges is the key to image quality.
>> Even Fuji doesn't really have comparable lenses
In the sense that the Fuji lenses are better, this is true. I've shot both systems, and the MTF tests back me up - the Fuji 90mm gives real Leica glass an ass-kicking, never mind Leica branded Panasonic.
Which isn't to say that m43 lenses aren't good - many are. But you are talking nonsense when you claim they are somehow exceptional.
No, because you didn't factor in the higher sensor area of APS-C Fuji: in order for the APS-C lens have equivalent "sharpness" as the smaller format, it must actually provide a higher aerial resolution. The larger format has an inherent advantage of lower magnification at any viewing size, so a lens on a larger format can therefore actually be less sharp in absolute terms (lpmm) yet appear as-sharp to the viewer.
A comparison of MTF results, say
www.lenstip.com/367.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_G_X_VARIO_12-35_mm_f_2.8_ASP...
vs
www.lenstip.com/433.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_16-55_mm_f_2.8_R_L...
shows that the Panasonic gets almost 80lpmm, versus the Fuji's 73.4 - the Panasonic is actually a sharper lens (corners, too). The issue is that you must magnify the smaller image of produced by the m43 sensor more, and the sensor has a smaller cell pitch, leading to an apparent loss of sharpness vs. the larger format.
1. You're comparing results produced with n older version of lightroom. This pulls resolution for the Fuji waaaaay down.
2. You've not taken account of sensor limitations - both lenses are going to be sensor bottle necked on those cameras.
Ie these MTF results are not measuring lens performance - they're measuring the performance of obsolete sensors while one of them is handicapped by a defective post processing chain...
And
3. The relative performance of two samples of two lenses doesn't - can't! - establish the superiority of one system over the other. Really - if you knew anything about lenses then you'd these results differ by less than the typical sample variation for two samples of the same zoom! If you're going to compare systems on single samples of single lenses, then at least use primes - they don't have the sample variation problems of zooms. In fact you've chosen the absolute worst case - wide to short tele zooms:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/08/wide-angle-zoom-mtf-and-variati...
As your attempt at technogoobledegook... just no. "Ariel resolution" is particularly hilarious. I suspect you meant "angular"... but that would be sane but still incompetent (for reasons I'll hold in reserve.)
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-quality-mtf-resolution.htm
Start here. Then try a Google search.
In your rush to condemn, you missed the point: The Fuji will indeed always seem sharper because of its larger sensor. No need to work up an excuse of Lightroom, it has a natural advantage.
The point was that m43 lenses are no less sharp than other quality glass. Since, as you so well note, MTF readings are a combination of lens + sensor + processing, m43 will always be at a disadvantage from larger sensors in relation to maximum resolution. It is not due to a failure of the lens, it is inherent in the design. Is it OK enough? Only each individual user can decide.
Comparable might have not been the perfect word choice. What I was trying to say is that the price of Fuji glass is pretty close to that of the m4/3 pro series lenses but they are not as fast or not all weathered sealed. Fuji has some stunning lenses but do they make a 70-200 (300)mm equivalent 2.8 lens? No. The only zoom they make at 2.8 is the 16-55 right? That thing is not cheap either......that was the only point I was trying to make.
I have been using the micro 43rd system for around 4 years now and I have no regrets since switching from the Canon 60D. The cameras and lenses are smaller and lighter which works wonders when doing multi day backpacking trips and other excursions. When reviewed the lenses and say they don't have the oomf, the weight, and feel of the bigger lenses, I say that's a plus and a half! The whole point for the micro 43rds system is to be small and light.
With that said, I agree 100% the lenses are way over priced! They are using less glass than the big lenses, and like you said (in some cases) use less resources for image stabilization and other features.
Unfortunately it is the only option we have right now. Fortunately not all micro 43rd lenses are way over priced, but all the pro series lenses are ridiculous! I've been loving all the Lumix lenses like the 100-300 &12-60. Lumix has been making all the right lesnes and the idea that they have been teaming up with Leica is great. But This f/2.8-f/4 is stupid. I was so excited for an ultra wide Lumix / Leica lens, and they throw this crap at us? That sucks! I thought they were trying to compete with Olympus, but now I'll have to go with he 7-14 f/2.8. Oh well.
Thanks for sharing Lee!
"They are using less glass"
You're not paying for bauxite, resin and silica. You're paying for design, engineering, and production overhead. Keep in mind, the LP/MM resolution of MFT glass is significantly higher than other formats because the lenses must resolve onto smaller sensors and pixels. MFT is an extremely high-rez system. A 35mm sensor with the same pixel pitch would have 80MP. Nonetheless, most MFT glass boasts better edge sharpness than most APS and 35mm lenses. My 7-14 f4 substantially outperforms my 17-40 f4L at the same price. I call that a bargain.
"Overpriced" just means YOU can't justify the cost for YOUR uses. Applying that standard, I find most 35mm format gear overpriced, which is why I switched from Canon 1-series to MFT three years ago. I think most MFT glass is priced appropriately, even though I can't afford some of it.
Hey Jacques, you make a lot of valid points. MFT being the only system I use, I have to dish the money to get the good glass. I guess that's why I don't have any pro grade MFT lenses as of yet, although I plan on getting some sooner than later. Just gotta save up my pennies.
I agree the lenses are great, but other lenses are just as great for other systems for less, like shown in the video. I guess since there isn't much in the way of competition right now, Olympus and Panasonic are taking advantage by upping the prices on their lenses. Business is business, and our complaining probably won't change much, until 3rd party lenses start becoming more predominate in the MFT world.
But now I'm just being repetitive of the video. Oh well.
You can cherry pick a few examples of other formats' lenses that are better value and/or performance. However, on balance, I find MFT glass performs as well or better, often for less. For example, my Panasonic 7-14 f4 has better edge sharpness than my Canon 17-40 f4L at about the same price. Same with my Panasonic 20 f1.7 and Canon 35 f2. And, my Panasonic 14-140 stomps all over my Canon 28-135. In particular, for the kind of edge-to-edge sharpness available from MFT wide-angle lenses, you have to spend a LOT more for APS or 35mm DSLRs. In part, that's a mirrorless advantage, since, as with film rangefinders, the lenses don't need to be designed to retrofocus past a mirrorbox.
Great video and great points.
I own a D810 primarily for paid work and an Olympus OMD EM10 to simply have in my pocket or as a street camera. Came to some of the same conclusions but realized the issue for price isn't too do so much with competition but engineering. Think of it, how hard must it be to design a smaller lens, with smaller components, to work on a smaller sensor, and then put all of that into a lens at a high aperture ? In some ways these are all brand new designs of lenses that previously have no past design (think of Nikon or Canon series lenses that have been redesigned over the years). Agree that some of the Panasonic lenses are a bit expensive (in saying that I own the 20mm 1.7 and its a great lens) but with the Olympus Pro series I think you get what you pay for, third party lenses have historically always been cheaper and only in the last 5 years have been real contenders (I also own the Sigma ART 35mm for Nikon).
I haven't used the Panasonic 12-35mm lens, but I did used to own a Nikon 24-70/2.8 and when I switched to m43 I went the Olympus route and got their 12-40/2.8 PRO. What I discovered is that the 12-40/2.8 PRO is by a long margin better than the Nikon lens I used to have. It's way sharper for one and it's also splash proof.
Doesn't have stabilisation built in but on a GH5 that's not needed.
Added: Oh, if you want a real bargain for your GH5's you need to look at the Sigma DN Art series. Those lenses are insanely good and they only cost $199 each. Try the 60mm - your eyes will be amazed.
when comparing sharpness in lenses of different formats it's important to do it at the equivalent aperture to have an unbiased perspective.
Why? If I want to shoot at f/2.8 or f/1.8 (dim lighting, shallow DOF, etc.) Why would I compare lenses at equivalent diaphragms?
Knowing the equivalent f-stop allows you to compare low-light performance and DOF between different camera systems. DOF and light gathering are tightly linked. Lee's article is a bit misleading about this.
Can you demonstrate this with photos taken with a m4/3 and APS-C lens or FF lens?
Because if your shot requires a specific DoF, you will need the equivalent aperture, not the same aperture.
If you believe that, I have a bridge you might want to buy.
There is no point in trying to make "equivalency theory" work across different formats. Sharpness is sharpness. You either get or you don't.
Hey Lee, I'm curious about 2 things.
Why did you choose mainly Penasonic lenses over Olympus (for video)? I bet it's for stabilisation. But Olympus lenses have a clutch so that when you use them in manual mode, they have a focus ring with stops on both ends and you can pull focus consistently with the same results. Not so with the Panasonic for which the ring is non linear and has no stops.
Are you ok with the not-so shallow depth of field you have at f/2.8 on m43 sensor (equivalent to f/5.6 on full frame)? Metabones can be used with canon glass of course, but like you said, it's bulkier again ... and I am really wondering if this metabones/canon setup is working quickly enough for auto-focusing for photography?
Thanks.
"Because aperture ratings are determined based on the focal length of the lens, a 2.8 aperture will let the exact same amount of light into the camera no matter the sensor size"
This comment is rather misleading. At f/2 the physical aperture of a 50mm lens is 25mm. On a 25mm lens it's 12.5mm. With the shorter focal length lens the physical aperture is smaller meaning the sensor is gathering less total light. That is what accounts for the better low light performance and shallower depth of field of the full frame 35mm sensor vs the micro four-thirds.
F-stops are relative to the focal length: if you change the focal length then the physical aperture must change, if you keep the relative (f-stop) the same.
I feel the need to reply, but I don't want to turn this thread into the usual argument and counter-argument of potential misinformation that sensor size comparisons almost always result in.
You are absolutely correct to say that physical aperture decreases as focal length decreases. But field of view widens as focal length decreases, and a wide angle lens gathers more light than a telephoto lens of the same physical aperture. The change in field of view versus the change in physical aperture is exactly the reason why f/2 on a 25mm lens results in the same exposure as f/2 on a 50mm lens.
All things being otherwise equal in terms of sensor design, the reason why larger sensors have better low light capability is due to pixel pitch and the light gathering ability of the physically larger photosites. As mentioned by Jacques Cornell in the comments above, a 35mm sensor with the same pixel pitch as the best MFT sensors would have 80MP. But most common full frame sensor cameras today are in the 24MP-30MP range.
Relative aperture (f-stop) relates to irradiance: the amount of light, or number of photons per unit area that hit the sensor. The larger sensor has a larger area and so, for a given irradiance, collects more photons. It's easier to separate this higher number of photons from the base noise, so the low-light performance of the larger sensor is better than the smaller one.
Err, wait:
You compare like-to-like OEM m43 & APS-C lenses and admit that the APS-C lenses are more money.
Then you compare OEM m43 lenses to third-party APS-C lenses and declare that the m43 lenses are overpriced. While failing to nail home the exact same comparison: OEM APS-C lenses to third-party APS-C lenses. Doing so notes that, by the same comparisons, OEM APS-C lenses are also "overpriced".
Therefore, the article can be titled "All OEM lenses are overpriced compared to third party", but you didn't do that.
Bit of confirmation bias here?
Sorry to be so blunt but your article is based on a fundamental comparison of apples to oranges - OEM m43 vs third-party APS-C - and then try to make a declarative. Third-party m43 are ALSO less money than OEM m43, which makes them less than APS-C third-party.
So where does that leave this comparison?
I see this video rant has been put up again but without the comments from the first uploading which really panned if for the inconsistencies..
Sadly Lee, you have brought on similar comments that are pointing our the flaws of your arguments, particularly when comparing OEM's with Third Party Lenses.
Instead of complaining about the price of the Olympus Lenses (which are a cut above the third party ones) and the Panasonic lenses why not be proactive and write/email,... communicate with the third party manufacturers and get in their ear about making lenses, or adaptors even, that will fit straight onto the fabulous 4/3rds camera's like the Olympus OM-D EM-1 and it's MK II version.
But really, you bought a pile of the Panasonic GH 5 cameras for their video capability. it certainly doesn't stack up to the Oly EM-1 Mk II in any other aspect.
And as far as comparing the Oly 7-14 f2.8 with the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 - well you're dreaming. the Nikon is a good lens but not as sharp as the Olympus and certainly not as clean at the edges of the Oly.
Nonetheless, I do agree with one comment you've made on the subject though.
"Lee Morris - a day ago Jacques Cornell
- Sounds like we should do some comparison videos"
Yep! doing your own homework and not relying on hearsay.
You can save a lot by using them used. The first version of the 12-35 goes for only $550, even on ebay.