Mirrorless equipment prices

Messages
3,347
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
Now i have been looking lately at a few different options as i was about to buy either a DSLR or some sort of mirrorless set up but i have been really surprised at the prices of some of the mirrorless gear and i am swaying back toward a dslr.

One example is the Olympus 25mm f1.8 lens which is selling on here second hand for roughly £270.

I think this is very expensive for essentially a 50mm f1.8 lens unless i'm missing something. The 45mm f1.8 has fantastic reviews and sells regularly for £150 so what's the deal with this thing?

I think there are certainly some bargains to be had body wise with an OMD-EM5 selling over at AV Forums for £280 but new bodies are released so often the value just tumbles.

I was just wondering if others think some of these mirrorless lenses are way overpriced. I can't think of a Canon lens where i've thought it was shockingly overpriced and i don't mean the hugh zoom lenses that cost thousands as i've no knowledge of them.
 
Once you get away from the kit zooms mirrorless lenses can seem expensive but once you realise that you should be comparing them to DSLR lenses of equal quality and above the entry level they seem more reasonably priced. You could compare the Oly 25mm f1.8 with a Canon 50mm f1.8 costing much less but I think that the Oly would very possibly beat it on image quality.

Also, one advantage that has to be remembered is that some CSC's are useable from wide open whereas some DSLR lenses are really relatively poor at their widest apertures.

All in all I personally think that CSC are reasonably priced... once you look at the image quality you're getting and accept that you're paying for good kit.
 
Once you get away from the kit zooms mirrorless lenses can seem expensive but once you realise that you should be comparing them to DSLR lenses of equal quality and above the entry level they seem more reasonably priced. You could compare the Oly 25mm f1.8 with a Canon 50mm f1.8 costing much less but I think that the Oly would very possibly beat it on image quality.

Also, one advantage that has to be remembered is that some CSC's are useable from wide open whereas some DSLR lenses are really relatively poor at their widest apertures.

All in all I personally think that CSC are reasonably priced... once you look at the image quality you're getting and accept that you're paying for good kit.
Same thing can be said for their external quality. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 literally tears apart after some heavy use, while I haven't had any issues with my Olympus 25mm f/1.8.
On the primes, I think Fuji has become "cheaper" than MFT. It's just that the former has only high-end options, and the latter has both high-end and mid-range options.
 
Once you get away from the kit zooms mirrorless lenses can seem expensive but once you realise that you should be comparing them to DSLR lenses of equal quality and above the entry level they seem more reasonably priced. You could compare the Oly 25mm f1.8 with a Canon 50mm f1.8 costing much less but I think that the Oly would very possibly beat it on image quality.

Also, one advantage that has to be remembered is that some CSC's are useable from wide open whereas some DSLR lenses are really relatively poor at their widest apertures.

All in all I personally think that CSC are reasonably priced... once you look at the image quality you're getting and accept that you're paying for good kit.

Id agree, just because the lens has the 'same/equiv numbers' as a dslr lens doesnt mean its comparable in terms of performance. The 25 1.8 is a great little lens and well worth its price imo. Its very sharp wide open and AF is fast and accurate, slays the £80 Canon lens.
 
Last edited:
Ok folks. Good to know. I have never used the 25mm so i was just wondering. Just having experience of Canon lenses i thought the 25mm was over priced compared with say the 85mm f1.8 which sells for £70-£100 less on here and the 70-200 F4L which is slightly more expensive but not having used the 25mm i'll bow to your superior knowledge. Cheers for the insight.
 
Last edited:
ive heard you need better glass to make up for the smaller sensor area, so that jacks up the price
 
I use the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 on my E-M10 and have owned most of the Nikon offerings (both f/1.4 & f/1.8 AF-S) and also a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and it can hold it's own amongst that company, no problem at all. The small form factor is fantastic and the AF is blindingly fast and accurate...highly recommended.
 
ive heard you need better glass to make up for the smaller sensor area, so that jacks up the price

I think that the only disadvantage image quality wise from the smaller sensors may be due to the higher magnification images may need and noise due to the teeny tiny pixels. I've always thought that the magnification / need for sharper lenses issue is overblown as I seem to get very sharp results using old Rokkor and Zuiko lenses. IMVHO with the latest generation of CSC the only advantages high end DSLR's have is slightly better focus tracking and better stratospheric ISO performance.
 
Once you get away from the kit zooms mirrorless lenses can seem expensive but once you realise that you should be comparing them to DSLR lenses of equal quality

^This. Some 4/3rd lenses are astoundingly good quality, and are heavily optimised for the smaller format. They cost more to make therefore. Just a case of you get what you pay for with lenses usually... unless you get into the whole Zeiss thing then there are some questionable price/performance stats.. but on the whole.. the 25mm is that much because it's a great lens, or so I've been reliably informed. 4/3rds really does punch above it's weight in terms of quality, and a lot of that has to do with the lenses.
 
Back
Top