There's another priority for the GM lenses: focus speed, especially their last few lenses focus extremely fast. Some of those lenses are too expensive indeed, but if you look at the 24 1.4 GM, it's actually cheaper than it could have been.
Wait a second... Do people still to this day, in 2023, do not realize that everything they own is overpriced? ALL lenses, ALL camera bodies, ALL strobes and LEDs, ALL and EVERYTHING that you use and own - is overpriced. There's not a single lens in existence, that costs more than 1,000 USD/EUR to manufacture, not a single one! With MOST LENSES costing anywhere from 50 USD/EUR to 400 USD/EUR to manufacture! (And that's with all manufacturing costs included, yes overhead, labor, tooling - EVERYTHING included!) And YES, this includes your 10-15 thousand USD/EUR DZO, Hasselblad, PhaseOne, Leica and Zeiss glass! None of their lenses cost more than 400-1,000 USD/EUR to manufacture! They have a pure and clean NET profit margin of 400-900%!!! Let that sink in for a minute! 400-900% pure NET profit - and that's their NET profit BEFORE the whole MSRP and RETAIL pricing adjustments! Yeah, let that sink in... You know that Leica camera that you bought for 11,000 USD/EUR?! Well, guess what - I'm sorry to burst your bubble but that camera costs like 600-700 USD/EUR to manufacture and is realistically not worth more than 1,500 - maybe 2,000 EUR if we're being generous!
Picked up my Sony 24mm 1.4 in addition to the amazing 55mm 1.8. OMG, that autofocus in video mode is just stunning. Have had Sigma 35 1.4. It was a pain in the butt to get pictures in focus and stabilise it on the very first generation Zhiyun Crane I own. So maybe they had gimbal users in mind. In terms of the weight - it is always a welcome news that the GM are substantially lighter than any of the counterpart Nikon, Canon or Sigma lenses.
Siddhi Adhikihal it maybe the fact, I’ve never owned a full on metal lens, but I wouldn’t of thought nothing of it. Not like I plan on dropping it or what not’
Shyne On Sites Did you even watch the video? He says they are professional lenses that feel cheap. And he’s right. How is that being a canon fanboy? He’s stating the facts
I just wish they had more prime lenses, just bought a 24-70mm G master, but I love my old canon L 50 & 35mm prime glass. If they made a 50mm Gmaster or 35mm I would be happy
Well, being light is the catch of the mirrorless. When you attach a heavy lens on your light body, it makes it unbalanced. Moreover, sony sells its ff bodies at a relatively low price, selling lenses at a higher price might work out in terms of profiting
That was the plan...Sony just took a page from laser printer producers which sell ink cartriges for the prices you can just buy a new printer with cartriges includes...Likewise, there are off brand cartridges out there much cheaper, so are the cheap but good manual lenses out there. It is a free market, isn't it?
Good video, another reason for the prices of GM lenses is the AF performance capability of 20fps plus for use with cameras such as A9. A lot of older glass just cannot keep up.
I suggest reading the manufacturer's literature that talks about the features of the lenses. In other words, the manufacturer tells you why they're expensive. Creating a mirrorless version of a lens involves reimagining how autofocus is accomplished. This means huge investments in R&D and in new, higher power autofocus motors. Some of the lenses also have 2 autofocus motors that work simultaneously (imaging writing the firmware to control such a lens!). The result is best in class autofocus speed like seen in the 85 and especially the newly released 135. The lens elements also use the latest in lens manufacturing techniques, extreme aspherical elements, and ultra low dispersion glass. The GM's are often compared to MUCH older lens designs which use much fewer of these expensive lens elements and have much slower autofocus for DSLR mounts that have been around for decades.
@@StrikeFromTheSkies I'm not saying don't be skeptical. If you have information that contradicts the manufacture though, feel free share it with everyone.
@@DennisKapatos How about the old marketing slogan from the Wally: ALWAYS the lowest prices...This stroked a few nerves from other retailers and Wally changed it to "low" prices...Lens design is an old tech, some were patented a century ago, even on ED glasses. Only electronic parts are the latest addition, but that has nothing to do with optics performance...
@@slchang01 on that I have to disagree! We are stretching every manufacturing technology to it’s limits since the first introduction. It’s a constant evolution and in some cases revolution. Same for lens design and manufacturing as well as materials … The latter is especially important for lightweight. It’s not only electronics and algorithms
@@theMuritz I have no doubt that there are new technologies involved in design and manufacturing the lenses including coatings...My post was about the physics of the optics which is known for over 100 years, even for the ED glasses. The glass material selection with different refractive indexes still has to follow these basic optics law of physics...
Exterior design not turning any heads? I'd most definitely look if I see that 'G' logo at the side of the lens with the brushed orange metal. And also the construction is magnesium alloy.. one of the more light weight and professional build material used for camera's. I think you didn't do the amazing build quality justice at all. They are one of the best out there.
Try this and you'll understand. Get a piece of cardboard with size more than enough to cover the front element of your lens. Cut a star shape in the middle of the cardboard with a height the same as the diameter of your front element and then put it over the front element and try shooting a subject at wide aperture with some lights at the back to produce bokeh balls. What you'll notice is that the bokeh balls are shaped as stars. :) Basically, inside the lens is just an another filter called apodizing filter which is like a graduated ND filter but round! where it is fully clear or transparent at the center and gradually becomes darker toward the edge. Just like the one with the star shape cut out, but in this case it's shaped like an eye contact lens.
A lot of people praise Sonys 100mm for its bokeh. Personally, I don't like it at all. I think it lacks character. It's so smooth that it looks fake. Reminds me of photoshop or iPhone bokeh. 85mm G master, on the other hand, is gorgeous.
I can't think of a reason for me to purchase a G Master lens any time soon, but I don't think they are overpriced because they are exceptionally good. Sony can strategically price their gears and kill their competitors as can they refuse to sell image sensors to them but that's not happening AFAIK. Using less good gears doesn't always translate to inferior photo quality, but more likely lower efficiency. Time is money, you pay with either one.
Great "review", thank you. From my own perspective, coming from a Canon 1DX + 70-200 f/2.8 + 500 f/4.0 combo to an A7III + 100-400G combo, the number of keepers I get now, combined with the obscenely fast and spookily intelligent focus of the Sony body + Sony combo, makes me think their price matches the results. Or, maybe the results justify the price.
these might seem expensive, but look at the new Canon RF lenses: $2,100 for the 50mm 1.2, and $2,700 for the new 85mm 1.2. sure they're half a stop brighter but also extremely heavy. Not to mention the Nikon 56mm 0.95, Lord knows how much that will cost.
Good video and a fair assessment. I own a 100 - 400mm G Master and it is fantastic. I have also owned a Canon 100 - 400mm f4.5-5.6L IS II, a Nikkor 300mm f4 PF ED VR, a Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6 and Olympus 300mm f4 PRO. With the exception of the Oly 300mm, the G Master is considerably more expensive than the other lenses: but I believe it is also superior. From a practical (rather than lens chart) point of view, I rate my G Master 100 - 400 the equal of my old Canon 300mm f2.8L IS - I believe it to be that good. My point of view will not necessarily be upheld by others: but no one puts a gun to our heads and makes us buy a particular lens, it is our choice. When I moved from Nikon/Olympus to Sony I was fully aware of the cost of Sony lenses. It should be remembered, however, that there are quite a few Sony lenses available on the secondhand market now, and considerable savings can be made.
G master lenses are the highest quality lenses I have ever held. I think you get what you pay for, they're optically excellent and built from metal. Canon L glass is optically great but it's pretty plasticky, same with the Nikon Gold rings. That 85mm lens isn't worth it though. The sony 85mm 1.8 has the same optical quality and costs a third of the price.
Over priced 100%! Tamron is in the process of changing our options to a more reasonable price point whilst still giving us great quality. Take the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 for example. Got mine for $799. I use that lens on EVERY shoot I have whether it's photo or video. It got lens of the year! Tamron is set to release the trinity 17-28mm and 75-185mm both f2.8 in the near future. This will slow down Sony's lens sales significantly. It might even force them to reduce the price of their current line up as well. Sony knows how to properly price their products, the a7III for $2k is a perfect example. Hopefully this thinking will trickle down to their lens prices.
Could you talk about the new Sigma ART primes like the 28, 40, and 105mm f1.4 primes an why they're almost twice the price of their other similar FL primes?
I've viewed a lot of images through Sony mirrorless cameras with e mount lenses. I can tell you that the GM series produce magnificent images. These native lenses are a symphony of cooperation and function between the Sony mirrorless body and the lenses. That said, I can also state for a fact that some of the Sigma lenses on a Sony, in particular the Sigma "Art" series produce, absolutely positively drop-dead, nonstop spectacular images. The Sigma Art 105 f 1.4 produces images I would judge are better than real vision.
OMG, WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT? Why and how could a company think to make their most expensive gear for the professionals? The nerve of them to make more expensive glass optically superior! And then on top of that to make only lenses in focal ranges that people would actually use? UNBELIEVABLE.
UPDATE 4:30 GOSH, they designed camera lenses to take good pictures??? Man, I didn't want to hate but this whole video is a joke. Your production quality is way too high to have lackluster content like this. Disappointed.
IMO, those who really would like to know "why it's expensive" are better off reading the Lens Rentals Blog. For example, here's a teardown of the Sony 400mm: www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/01/the-great-400mm-teardown-comparison-part-ii-the-sony-400mm-f2-8-g/ And here's their conclusion: "The Sony 400mm f/2.8 G is exactly what we expected; a very solidly built lens that is everything construction-wise you would hope for in a big beast of a super telephoto that costs $12,000. It has excellent weather sealing, heavy-duty engineering between the barrel segments, a very solid chassis, and components that all appear up to the task."
I am really good with a telescope, so I wanted to get into astrophotography...I've been taking pics with my cell phone camera for awhile...and it's a crap camera... When looking at the equipment I cant see why it's so expensive, and all I find on the topic is "it's worth it"...that just doesnt sell me...to be honest I have a feeling it is like golf, hockey, skiing...they appeal only to the snobs, and do nothing as a segway for beginners to become interested.
i owned an SAL70-300Gf4.5~5.6 or my Sony A77 before it tanked on me and all i have to say about that is it was the best lens i ever used even if it was hellishly expensive at the time.
Hi! Maybe you could explain why the panoramic roll film (120) holder back for 4x5 large format cameras costs like bloody $500?! It's basically a piece of plastic or metal that just holds the film roll at the back of the camera so that you can shoot 120 in 6x17 format on a 4x5inch large format camera. Cool content btw!
I have been shooting with the 70 to 200 on my a7iii for a year and a half and like every photo that comes out is ready to be stuck on a webpage. You just can't go wrong. It is like yes I have other lenses that maybe I use for video and I love my 35 mm, but the gmaster is always with us just because.
@@TheJudge064 Agree that the Noctilux is very impressive - and can understand why the $12K pricetag, but the Summicron with only 1:2 is $8K, and 3 times as much as the old non-APO Summicron.
@@zy_cheng that lens is still amazing, considering the design is over 40 years old, I think it's a bargain compared to what they are charging for the APO.
Hello, I hope you reply to comment on 4 months old video- Most of the G Master lenses are old tech, around 2012. I want to know how are they able to keep up with the todays fast alpha bodies? No matter how high tech lenses are introduces later. No matter how high tech lens elements, coatings, linear motor types, they keep develloping, they are on the top rated highly corrected and fast focussing, like forever. How? Do they keep upgrading the electronics, coatings and elements upto date, and keep selling with same names and model numbers?
Hello, Thank you love your videos very informative. Big fan of yours. Can you please recommend to me a good g master lens for Sony a1 which is zoomable and prime I am not a professional and I am looking to take pictures for my family, Outing in the day and night? I will be grateful if you can recommend to me a great lens
Does anyone agree that this is a native APSC mount stretched near to limits with incredible enigneering and software to create fast full frame lenses? So they cost.
I wonder what the reject rate for the lens elements are. covering the cost of the rejects could be part of the reason. If they make 10 front elements and only 6 are usable they have to cover the cost of the 4 rejects. That Plus R&D plus actually manufacturing, plus the insane amount of "influencer" advertising they do all add to the cost.
Sony lenses are overpriced because for the longest time there was no third party competition, and even today, there isn't much, especially for the zooms. Additionally, their pricing strategy seems to be selling camera bodies for slightly less than the cost of competing bodies from other manufacturers, and charging more for lenses, which they will sell more of vs interchangeable lens bodies. It's not about quality it's about maximizing profit.
From the comments I can conclude that this review has been done by someone who has never used somy and has no idea what these lenses are for and made from. “Left the video”
For me, 24-70/2.8 GM Lens are the best 24-70 lens that my fam ever owned, period. For 85, I still prefer Sigma’s 85 Art lens, and still is priced abt the same with 85 GM lens.
Warning, i'm not a native english and don't care about mistakes in this comment, don't take everything literally, my goal isn't to destroy you but make you produce better content. Do you compare the quality of sony lenses against Canon L series and say that they are expensive ? This is right, they are not cheaper, but they doesn't cost that much because you make money with them. But, at least, are they better ? Does the found is right ? YES (compared to DSLR lens) But this is even due to the fact that they are younger, and we produce better lenses with the time... Do you use this lenses in a professional way ? Did you take a long time with them ? The answer is "n"-"o", NO ! I'm sorry but even if you had more lenses in your hands than mines, you cannot compare lenses until you shot with them during at least 3 month ! You should have called your video serie as "review of high-end flagship lenses" rather than "Why it's expensive" ! If you call your serie as you did, make us visit lens factory, to show us Why is it really expensive ! Or be more accurate in your review, for example : they are made of fluorite, wich is a lightweight material wich isn't really easy to craft. Moreover, this lenses are containing aspherical elements and explain us what are the benefits and how it is made... Explain us "Why it's expansive !" and not, they are just good. You should even compare them on DXOmark to see that most of them are better than Canon lenses (EF mount) ! And compare it with a chart at your home, so let's start a lens database =) Read reviews, lots of them with trustable sources. Take a step back and tell us what you think, conclude. And give us your sources and your bibliography. So, have a good day. See you soon =)
Well that's Sony, they make an excellent product and put a premium price on it. Sigma offers more or less the same quality lenses for a lot less. I hope Sigma will make a full frame 70-200 lens soon so I can buy that instead of the Sony GM. Right now I have an A7 III with 2 Sigma lenses.
GM masters are priced in line for what they are. How is this something that even needs discussion? Everything at the top end of the market (for lenses) are in that price range - that's what you pay for top end professional kit. Its the same for canon, fuji etc. as well as Sony. You are chasing diminishing returns on quality v.s. price with lenses once it gets up to that segment, but the prices have been pretty consistent for decades. How is this a "hot take"?
Great video!!! And YES. G MASTERS ARE OVERPRICED. I only have 1 G Master lens 70-200F2.8 and it took me a year to save up for that. But the images and quality are superb.
Well, they have only just started to get competition, and as time moves on, they will see alot more competition from the bigger brands. Then they woun't be able to overprice their lenses as much
@@AugmentedGravity the thing is canon is overpricing its rf lenses as well, even more so. I'm counting on 3rd party lenses see if Tamron or Sigma can produce more lenses with the quality of Tamron 28-75
@@LumpySangsu actually, the RF lenses aren't what i would call overpriced. They are simply put pretty much the best glass you can buy. It is future proofing as well as a replacement.
No word about the fact those basicaly are the only lenses that can focus fast enough for 20-30fps and that the optics are sharp enough for super high res future sensors? You basically skip the whole point of GM lenses. Modern optics at modern prices. Canon L lens were good, in 2001
Seems it needs an update since the release of the 135 1.8GM etc. As for overpriced lenses, I think we need to look at Leica. Sony is on average a little higher than Nikon or canon but not by much if you average the whole range of them.
