Hello,
If we're going to compare apples to apples, we should be factoring in any
multiplication factors for the digitals we're talking about. With the Canon,
it's 1.6 I believe. Canon does make a 400/2.8 which would be an effective
640/2.8 with their digital system, so there is an aprox 600/2.8 option from
Canon. I'm not sure what the multiplication factor for Nikon digitals is but
they also make a 400/2.8 so if it's similar to Canon's then they'd also have
a 600/2.8 optoin. Granted, both of these options would be heavier than
Olympus' 600/2.8 offering (which is one of the big advantages of the 4/3
system). The prices for these lenses are 6499.95 for the Canon and 7699.95
for the Nikon so that's around the same price as Olympus' option.
However, I am going to say that I was thinking about this too simply. I was
just thinking that a 300/2.8 should cost around the same as any other
300/2.8 in terms of you're getting a 300/2.8's worth of glass, regardless of
the actual FOV on your chosen system (a 600mm lens uses a LOT of glas so
it's going to cost a lot more). I was neglecting to figure in the cost of
developing a lens and any other associated costs. Part of the price is going
to be a portion of these costs. The lens may have similar production costs
as any other 300/2.8 but they're only going to have the sales volume for a
600/2.8 lens (which is going to be much smaller). Because of this, they're
going to have to increase the price to cover their costs.
I think I just got caught up in the initial gut reaction of seeing ~$7000
for a 300/2.8 without thinking about the bigger issues. Like I said before
though, I have no current need for a 600mm lens to begin with so this was
never a big factor in my decision. Currently, I'm waiting to see some faster
zooms or primes offered to round out the system before I dive in. Hopefully,
if some other manufacturers get on board with the 4/3 system we'll start to
see some greater variety in lens offerings.
Andrew "frugal" Dacey
frugal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.tildefrugal.net/
----- Original Message -----
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Olympus E-1, a dealer's perspective
> The Canon 300 2.8 is $3899 - the 600 f FOUR is $7199 -
> The Nikon 300 2.8 $3499 - the 600 f 4 is $7299
>
> So if you want a "real" 600, it's going to cost you 7K and it's going to
> be an f 4, NOT a 2.8.
>
> Is this about photography, or money? I realize that money dictates
> everyone's ultimate buying choices, including my own. But arguing about
> whether the 300 is a 300 or a 600 and what it should then cost makes
> little sense. It's a 600 2.8 equivalent - and no one else offers that.
> And it's cost, when all is said and done, is quite competitive.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|