Why do Micro Four Thirds primes seem more expensive than Canon’s 50mm f/1.8?
Asked 7/25/2014
5 views
2 answers
0
I’m comparing portrait prime options for an Olympus OM-D E-M10. My brother uses Canon’s 50mm f/1.8, which is famously inexpensive, while the closest Micro Four Thirds option I’ve found is the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 at a much higher price. Why does the MFT lens cost so much more? Is Canon’s 50mm f/1.8 just an unusually cheap outlier, or are Micro Four Thirds lenses generally more expensive? And if I’m mainly trying to keep costs low as a casual photographer, does it make sense to switch systems for lens prices alone?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
12y ago
2 Answers
16
The basic answer is that Canon's 50mm f/1.8 is an exception even within Canon's lineup. It's an old, simple design with nothing fancy, and made to be mass-produced cheaply. Compare the Canon 85mm f/1.8, at AU$360.
Basically, almost no lenses are as cheap as the one you're using as your reference point, so your perception is skewed. The Olympus lenses aren't cheap, but they're not expensive either. (And they are generally regarded as high quality and fairly priced.)
Consider the total cost of the basic collection of lenses you want ("need") — a portrait lens like the 45mm, maybe a normal prime (around 25mm on micro 4/3rds), perhaps a wide angle zoom (to upgrade your kit lens) and then maybe a telephoto zoom. Then compare.
It's also helpful to look at the big picture. I got my favorite lens about a decade ago when I got my first DSLR, and back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that over that time, it's cost me about 0.2¢ per frame. Over the same time, camera bodies have cost about 2.5¢ per frame. Convert cents to dollars if you consider images worth keeping. But either way, if I'd paid 10× the price for the lens, it'd still be less than camera bodies. (Or lighting equipment, for that matter, although the value of that per image is skewed significantly because I don't use it constantly.)
Originally by user1943. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1943
12y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Canon’s 50mm f/1.8 is the exception, not the rule. It’s an old, very simple design that was mass-produced cheaply, so using it as your benchmark makes most other lenses look expensive.
The Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is generally considered a good-quality, fairly priced lens, not an overpriced one. In mirrorless Micro Four Thirds, lens design can also be less straightforward than a classic DSLR 50mm f/1.8, which limits how cheaply some lenses can be made.
A better comparison is to look at equivalent lenses across systems, not just Canon’s bargain 50/1.8. Once you compare similar fields of view and similar roles in a system, Micro Four Thirds pricing is often broadly competitive and sometimes cheaper.
Also note that Micro Four Thirds has a smaller sensor, so if you want the same background blur as a larger-sensor camera, you typically need a faster lens.
If budget matters, compare the total cost of the camera plus the set of lenses you actually want. Switching systems just because of Canon’s 50mm f/1.8 usually doesn’t make sense by itself.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI12y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Panasonic Lumix G 25mm f/1.7 vs Olympus M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.8: is the Olympus worth more?
How noticeable is the image quality difference between Micro Four Thirds and APS-C for a beginner?
Are there affordable faster zoom options for Micro Four Thirds, or should I use primes instead?
Does aperture equivalence change with sensor size the way focal length/field of view does?
Should I buy a Rokinon/Samyang Micro Four Thirds lens, or a Nikon-mount version and adapt it?