micro 4/3rds lenses a bit pricey

[RichA]

They range from $350 for a basic kit lens to over $1500 for a wide zoom. Shouldn't kit lenses, 14-45mm and maybe 45-200mm be more in-line with the cost of offerings from Nikon and Canon, about $150/$200 respectively? The new Olympus micro 4/3rds is sugg. at $600! That's a lot for a slow zoom.
Addendum:
Oops! The Olympus is a 14-150mm which is much cheaper than the Panasonic. Olympus does not make a 40-150mm yet.

 

[ustein]

I kind of agree the m4/3 lenses are quite expensive.

 

[s.agar]

With the exception of 7-14mm, I think the prices are quite reasonable. Panasonic 7-14mm is very overpriced because there are no alternatives (yet).

 

[Vivek]

I do not mind high prices for video lenses but for still photography, i think they are over priced.

We shall see how the pricing is going to be for the larger sensored Samsung NX

 

[photoSmart42]

It's the price of early adoption for a new technology. Yes, the price on most of the m4/3 lenses should probably be lower for the most part, but the 7-14 is special because there are few alternatives, and the 45 is still new, so they both demand premium pricing. It's normal. Eventually the prices will come down as alternatives enter the market.

Panasonic has no compelling reason to lower their prices right now, and frankly we should all be happy they're still keeping the prices high because it means the new format is successful enough to still demand premium pricing, which means future products and R&D funds going into the format.

 

[lambert]

The problem with the m4/3rds lens market at present is that only one player (Panasonic) is producing quality glass for this format and they can, therefore, charge a premium. The 20/1.7 is one such example. There seems to be no shortage of EPx buyers willing to pay a premium for this lens. If Olympus could step up and direct some resource into lenses rather than bodies, the situation may change.

They range from $350 for a basic kit lens to over $1500 for a wide zoom. Shouldn't kit lenses, 14-45mm and maybe 45-200mm be more in-line with the cost of offerings from Nikon and Canon, about $150/$200 respectively? The new Olympus micro 4/3rds is sugg. at $600! That's a lot for a slow zoom.
Addendum:
Oops! The Olympus is a 14-150mm which is much cheaper than the Panasonic. Olympus does not make a 40-150mm yet.

 

[kwalsh]

Well, to be fair the 14-45 in a kit isn't all that bad and really is better in IQ and build quality than all the other kit lenses out there. Sold on its own it seems a tad steep. The 45-200 is about the right price. That said, there does still seem to be a bit of premium on almost all of them.

Keep in mind, especially for the more "kit" like lenses (14-45,45-200) that there is probably a bit of hit in way lower volumes than the Canikon kit lenses...

 

[RichA]

Well, to be fair the 14-45 in a kit isn't all that bad and really is better in IQ and build quality than all the other kit lenses out there. Sold on its own it seems a tad steep. The 45-200 is about the right price. That said, there does still seem to be a bit of premium on almost all of them.

Keep in mind, especially for the more "kit" like lenses (14-45,45-200) that there is probably a bit of hit in way lower volumes than the Canikon kit lenses...

That is very likely. For a Nikon, you can buy a 18-55VR, 55-200VR, 50mm f1.8 and a 35mm f1.8 for around $750.00. Pretty cheap.

 

[CPWarner]

Well they are cheap unless you consider how many fewer visits you will make to the chiropractor!

Also, with all the old manual focus lenses that one can adapt, there are very high quality and inexpensive options for those who do not need in lens IS, and autofocus.

I thought the Panasonic 45mm macro was the most expensive of the native m4/3 lenses. The 7-14 is not too bad for a superwide zoom with decent quality. Check out the Nikon or Canon options if you think that is expensive, they are at least double in cost.

 

[Bob]

If the 20mm f/1.7 were made by Leica, and it is every bit or nearly as good as a leica lens, it would sell for five times as much or more.
No, for what you get, I think that the Panasonic lenses are fairly priced, even toe 7-14.
The one exception might be the 45 f/2.8 macro; oops, there is the word "Leica" on the lens barrel :ROTFL:
-bob

 

[pellicle]

Bob

If the 20mm f/1.7 were made by Leica, and it is every bit or nearly as good as a leica lens, it would sell for five times as much or more.

I have noticed the same thing ... but I often fail to see that they really are superior to the Nikons Takumars or Canons

I feel its a bit like my Ducati 750 Sport, low volume production makes it cost twice what a Honda CBR600 does, and on paper has absolutely nothing in advantage. The experienced riders can pick the differences but they are totally sure that its not acutally faster than the honda ... they just happen to like the feel.

Unlike my bikes I have no such nostalgia with optics