Value in lenses ?

F

flinty

Veteran
Is the high cost of lenses realy value for money,i managed to get a Pana 14mm f2.5 for £ 270 sterling as the seller through amazon had split the lens and body and sold separately,normaly they are £370 and a good 42" hd tv can be bought for less,is the value there and this is only a very cheap lens compared to some.Are we being ripped off or do the makers know lens collectors are like art collectors and value does not realy come into it.

Edit i am not comlaining Barry and i guess i know what answers will say, if you want it you have to pay even if it does seem true value.
 
Last edited:
Hi flinty

I may get jumped on but I feel that M4/3 lenses are less of a future investment because of the lenses are limited only to M4/3 system...having electronic connections to control aperture and focus limits it to the system its designed for....even manual control with these are electronic....currently theres a HK m4/3 to Nex adapter...that cannot control aperture/focus....so pretty useless (except for the voigtlander 25mm)

Now if the m43 format dies out one day (can happen)...it'll either be the case some genius makes adapters with electric connections or the lenses (like the great 20mm f1.7) will be totally redundant.
Camera manufacturers are sly... looking for profit now but not all as future investments for the consumer....if they change the system with all new connections you have to buy new lenses.


I have been selling off my m4/3 lens collection (taking advantage of the supply shortage) and bought some voigtlanders (f0.95,f1.4) complete pentax 110 set (cheap and fun and some have gone up in value) and stick with my FDs.

I also have a nikon 35mm f1.8 dx that has electronic connections but at least it has a aperture control pin on the back so it can be used on other systems with adapter.

Lens investment should be about future use across formats and if your lucky increase in value.
Best investments are solid physically manual lenses that you can use on different makes of camera bodies...that makes your lens purchase more valueable.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE=mimirsan

You sound wiser than me but i am probobly older and hopefully the four thirds system will last me out.
 
Hopefully yeah...Im not that wise (is 35 old?) but I have limited budget and dont want to be buying lenses all the time...hopefully this'll be it for me (my missus hopes so!) haha
 
35 is only a boy ha,i cant understand how a 1" long lens can be more expensive than large screen tvs,but look what some rings etc cost and they are tiny and just glisten.
 
Haha thanks I feel younger now!
Value is what it means to you...so with lenses I guess if it gives you the images you want and lasts...then cost becomes secondary....still cant justify it though! haha
 
The m3/4 format is here to stay for a while. It may morph into something slightly different in the future.
But "Direct" sensor to lens, is more likely the future with respect to Video DLSRs.
With the introduction of the Sony Alpha a55, we see a huge step in shooting speeds, video (dynamic focusing), and a smaller cheaper package. Sony sees a step in this direction with a translucent mirror.
Canon has their S95 and G12 which are much more popular then they where a few years ago, as well as Nikon's P7000.
It will only be a matter of time before Canon and Nikon go from Fixed lens, to interchangeable feature packed cameras.
I think the true question, is how will these 2 giants enter this market? Will they produce adaptors along with smaller lenses, will they have native mounts, or will they enter in the fray with m3/4?
If your worried about your future investment, im pretty sure your camera stock these days will last as long as your band new computer processor stays relevant!

Dai-Lon
http://www.dailonweiss.com/
http://www.kristinaweiss.com/Magyar/
 
The first thing to keep in mind is that the raw cost makes sense for the amount of testing, quality assurance, detailed manufacturing process on the glass and the rather complicated pieces that fit together so well. Those particularly lenses also have some serious electronics behind it. But that's all true for TV's, which you're comparing to. In that case, it's entirely a question of scale. The m4/3 cameras have sold insane numbers, but nothing compared to TVs. Even if one line of a TV doesn't sell well, the parts are the same ones used in other lines, so those parts are mass produced at such a scale that the costs can be covered with small margins. Photographers and video people are a smaller market than the people who watch things. Even then the prosumer market is smaller. And even then the prosumer market using m4/3 equipment is smaller. These chips and parts can't be used for anything else, so economies of scale kick in. I don't have time to type much more, but that's a good basic idea.
 
Future of m4/3 and lens costs are two different subjects. But yes, I think most people here agree that there is mixed feelings about investing in expensive m4/3 glass.

FF glass is always the best investment. Personally I'm not a lens collector, I just buy what I need and try to keep everything minimalistic (basic zoom coverage + vintage FF primes).

And I would not say lenses are overprized, I think the "you get what you pay for" is very true on lenses. Of course there is always alternatives that you can save money on, also important to remember that the glass most of us use is intended for photography, and thus we're paying extra money for extra functions and flawed design.
 
I think the price trend is up for "new" lens production as the raw material and the labor cost climb up. Good old lenses prolly retain values. e.g. Canon L lenses

M43 lenses except Voigtlander 25.9... thank gawd the price drops rapidly so that poor guys like me can buy at cheaper price.

Don't worry about future of m43. Just take lots of photo and video w/ m43 lenses. Forget about resale values...
 
Panasonic designed two way communication between lens and body. The mirror was removed to do it efficiently. Each successive generation of m43 lenses will be much better than previous generation. What we have now is only 1st generation. 7-14, 14-140, 20.7, 14-45, 14-42, 8, 14.5. None of them is collectible. Buy what you need and start shooting... a lot. Milk it out.
 
Martin Oller said:
FF glass is always the best investment. Personally I'm not a lens collector, I just buy what I need and try to keep everything minimalistic (basic zoom coverage + vintage FF primes).
Click to expand...

The image circle (whether it's FF or not) is not the only criteria. FFD (flange focal distance) is even more important. You won't be able to mount FD lenses, even though they cover Full Frame, on modern FF or APS cameras. The lenses designed for longest FFD (and covering full-frame) are always the most future-proof choice...
 
Martin Oller said:
And I would not say lenses are overprized, I think the "you get what you pay for" is very true on lenses. Of course there is always alternatives that you can save money on, also important to remember that the glass most of us use is intended for photography, and thus we're paying extra money for extra functions and flawed design.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more! Lenses and glass these days are for photography, you can save money by investing in cheaper solutions... c-mount comes to mind.
At the end of the day, its what the end result is and your satisfaction with "hard" work and penny saved.
 
stonebat said:
I think the price trend is up for "new" lens production as the raw material and the labor cost climb up. Good old lenses prolly retain values. e.g. Canon L lenses

M43 lenses except Voigtlander 25.9... thank gawd the price drops rapidly so that poor guys like me can buy at cheaper price.

Don't worry about future of m43. Just take lots of photo and video w/ m43 lenses. Forget about resale values...
Click to expand...


Indeed get the most out of them.. that's the true value!
But me... ive taken to selling mine off at the current market to gain a profit thus landing me the Nokton when before it becomes unreachable ;-)
 
Last edited:
I'm sad that I didn't press the button when the Nokton was low $800.

A set of m.zuiko 12mm 2.0, nokton 25mm 0.95, and a nifty-fifty would be wonderful w/ GH2's ETC feature.

A set of lumix 20.7, hexanon 40.8, and any 85mm 1.8 would be nice, too.

M43 zoom... I just need it for continuous AF and OIS to capture fast action while I'm in motion. 14-140 would be the best, but I got 14-42 as $50 bundle deal.
 
Subjects move. I move. New bodies. New lenses. New post-processing techniques. Everything is in motion. Motion is beautiful.

We should learn and have fun and share continuously. Cheers.
 
stonebat said:
Subjects move. I move. New bodies. New lenses. New post-processing techniques. Everything is in motion. Motion is beautiful.

We should learn and have fun and share continuously. Cheers.
Click to expand...

i agree stonebat... nothing ever progressed by staying the same :smile: join the journey everyone instead of searching for a destination.
 
Lenses , good ones especially, are expensive because unlike many products they still have to be built by hand. New design and manufacturing techniques make higher quality at lower cost more practical than it used to be, but there is no shortcut for assembly.
For high end premium glass like Cookes there is a lot of labor involved. A new lens first gets assembled with no markings, it is then tested for precise focal distance and exposure apertures and the rings are marked temporarily by hand. the lens is then disassembled, the rings and witness marks engraved. The lens is reassembled and tested for accuracy with the engraved rings. Then it is disassembled completely a third time for cleaning and lubrication prior to final assembly and testing.
 
Razz16mm said:
Lenses , good ones especially, are expensive because unlike many products they still have to be built by hand. New design and manufacturing techniques make higher quality at lower cost more practical than it used to be, but there is no shortcut for assembly.
For high end premium glass like Cookes there is a lot of labor involved. A new lens first gets assembled with no markings, it is then tested for precise focal distance and exposure apertures and the rings are marked temporarily by hand. the lens is then disassembled, the rings and witness marks engraved. The lens is reassembled and tested for accuracy with the engraved rings. Then it is disassembled completely a third time for cleaning and lubrication prior to final assembly and testing.
Click to expand...

Yes i see the point but would that apply to my pana 14mm f2.5 though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top