Fuji Are fuji lenses overpriced?

Geez, I really don't think so from my vantage point. After being a Leica camera/lens and Voigtlander lens user for a number of years the Fuji XF series seems very reasonable to me, especially acknowledging the optical quality.
. . . David
 

CaptZoom

Veteran
Mar 22, 2013
I don't think the OP is suggesting that the only difference between the current fine lens offerings from Fuji and an entry level lens should be price alone. I think the OP may be suggesting that Fuji release one or two lenses at a lower price point and the lenses should have corresponding levels of build and optical quality. The idea being to allow for easier access to the Fuji system and hope for future purchases by the entrant. It's a strategy that has worked well for Nikon and Canon. I don't think Fuji is ready to compete in that market. It's quite crowded.

I'm considering moving to the Fuji system from Leica and as far as I can tell, Fuji is offering the best performance to cost value (and that's before considering the current rebates).

As an aside, unlike most Leica users I am not well off. Until recently (i.e. Fuji) Leica were the only game in town for the control layout I prefer and good implementation of manual focusing.
 

Jody Criswell

Rookie
Feb 19, 2014
I don't think the OP is suggesting that the only difference between the current fine lens offerings from Fuji and an entry level lens should be price alone. I think the OP may be suggesting that Fuji release one or two lenses at a lower price point and the lenses should have corresponding levels of build and optical quality. The idea being to allow for easier access to the Fuji system and hope for future purchases by the entrant. It's a strategy that has worked well for Nikon and Canon. I don't think Fuji is ready to compete in that market. It's quite crowded.

I'm considering moving to the Fuji system from Leica and as far as I can tell, Fuji is offering the best performance to cost value (and that's before considering the current rebates).

As an aside, unlike most Leica users I am not well off. Until recently (i.e. Fuji) Leica were the only game in town for the control layout I prefer and good implementation of manual focusing.
In a way they do ofer an entry level price lens I got the 35 for just a couple hundred bucks in a kit. Very good lens very good price. searching on internet you can find good lens to start with when you buy the camera. Much better than any Ive found before. let third party lens makers do the cheap build and selling they don't have the R and D to contend with. Don't get me wrong I wish the were 10 dollars apiece, but I just don't think over priced.
 

flysurfer

Hall of Famer
Aug 31, 2011
I hope that Fuji will not compromise on optical quality in order to meet lower price points. The entry-level XC zooms are optically very good, but they are smaller, more lightweight, less sturdy (plastic), lack an aperture ring and don't support the LMO. They are also less bright. So the compromise is where it should be: everywhere except for optical quality.

I assume that Fuji may offer more affordable primes in the future, like a less bright 35mm lens.
 

cgeorges

New Member
Mar 24, 2014
IMO, Fuji lens are better price compared to Canon lens at similar quality. F.i. Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L is 1,329 USD vs. Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 at 449 USD. It's just that Canon makes more lenses and some are cheaper and lower quality whereas Fuji focused for now only on excellent or very good quality lens. I chose Canon as an example since I am more familiar with their system.
 

Delphititan

Rookie
Jul 23, 2012
Portland, Oregon
Dan Ferrall
I guess it is just me then. I do agree that skimping isn't good but the two kit lenses are twice as expensive{or more} than other brands. From all I have read on these lenses they are not much better if any than other brand kit lenses. Those two plus the 27mm f2.8 should be around $200 IMHO.
Can you please post your links to where you have read that the 18-55 f2.8-4 kit lens isn't "any better than other brand kit lenses?" Every review I have read which commented on the 18-55 f2.8-4 has marveled at how much better it is than other brand kit lenses.

Dan
 

CaptZoom

Veteran
Mar 22, 2013
Maybe he's comparing specs and not referring to reviews? And on the spec sheet, the Fuji zooms/kit lenses are not much better (just some aperture gains). In practice and use tell a dramatically different story.
 

Mikey

Veteran
May 15, 2013
Louisville, KY
The short answer is NO.

To elaborate: while Fuji lenses are indeed priced higher than your average lens from any other camera system, none can be considered just average. In fact, the XF lenses have top notch image quality and high grade build while the XC lenses though of plastic build also have excellent image quality. The one and only lens whose MSRP has been questioned was the 27/2.8. The fast (1.4 to 1.2) lenses they've released would've commanded double to three times as much from other camera companies. Take the case of the Panasonic-Leica's 42.5/1.2 which costs 1599usd at release.

What does need to happen later on is for Fuji to build up its lineup of quality XC lenses by introducing slower prime lenses, akin to the nifty 50 or thrifty 50's that most every CaNikon owner has.
 

jacobsen1

Rookie
Jan 21, 2014
let's not confuse overpriced with expensive here. The 23mm, 56mm and 10-24mm are all right around $1,000. That's a lot of money. My 23mm has replaced a sigma 35mm 1.4 that was $900? The 56mm replaced a 85mm 1.8 that was $400? The fuji's are built better and have better IQ ignoring the sensor swap. The 10-24mm replaces my 16-35II which cost a lot more but it was 2.8. The 10-24mm is more expensive than the 10-22 or 17-40L that are closer comparisons. But it's still built better than the 10-22 by a LOT and at least on par with the 17-40 (but better optically). So they're certainly expensive. The 56 is a 1.2 so it gets a pass on the comparison with the 85mm 1.8, especially in terms of cost. The 23mm is built better than the sigma 35 that it costs more than and it costs less than the canon that it's similar to. So yeah, they're not out of line IMHO. Plus, set retail high, let the suckers pay it, let the rest of us wait out these rebates.
 

ean10775

All-Pro
Feb 13, 2013
Cleveland, Ohio
Eric
One thing to think about with this discussion (here too, but mostly in other forums) is that there are three types of comparisons I see happening and many people are using them both within the same argument:

[1] comparing focal length and aperture apples to apples - for example Fuji 35mm f1.4 vs Canon 35mm f1.4
[2] comparing similar FOVs using a FF sensor as reference and light gathering ability of the lens - for example Fuji 56mm f1.2 vs Canon 85mm f1.2 or Fuji 35mm f1.4 vs Canon 50mm f1.4
[3] comparing similar FOVs using a FF sensor as reference and DOF equivalent also using a FF sensor as reference - for example Fuji 56mm f1.2 vs. Canon 85mm f1.8


Which of these parameters I see people choosing to base their argument from seems directly correlated to what conclusion they wish to draw. If I want to talk about what a great deal Fuji lenses are I'll compare them according to [1]. If I want to say they are overpiced, I'll compare them using [3]. From my perspective I don't think that any one is correct since it all depends on what the features of the lens you find most engaging for your type of photography and often a combination needs to be considered.

For example, the Fuji 35mm f1.4 is priced at $599 MSRP whereas the FL and aperture equivalent is priced at $1479 (Canon) or $899 (Sigma). Big difference, but this comparison only makes sense to me if you are shooting on a crop sensor Canon as the Canon 35mm f1.4 becomes a completely different lens on a FF camera. If you are shooting APSC, perhaps you need to also consider the Sigma 30mm f1.4 which is similar in FL, has the same aperture and is $100 cheaper than the Fuji at $499. For those that I've seen say the Fuji 35mm is overpriced at $599 because its an equivalent 50mm FOV and should therefore be compared against the Canon 50mm f1.4 lens which is some $200 cheaper or a nifty 50 at $120 (because the DOF of the Fuji 35mm is greater), you also need to factor in the price difference between a Fuji camera and the FF Canon camera you need to use that lens on to get that FOV and DOF. Then we need to talk about sharpness wide open, AF speed, size advantages, etc - my point being, the discussion of 'value for dollar' is a lot less clear cut then simply looking at specs - you have to also look at how the lenses will be used.
 

Armanius

Bring Jack back!
Jan 11, 2011
Houston, Texas
Jack
IMO, they are not overpriced. Most Fuji X lenses are made of metal, and feel a whole lot better in my hands than their DSLR or m4/3 equivalent. Optically, they are generally better too. What I think Fuji lenses are lagging on is the AF motor in the lens in terms of both speed and quietness.
 

Biro

Super Moderator
Aug 7, 2011
Jersey Shore
Steve
In general, while Fuji lenses aren't cheap, I really can't say they are overpriced given the price of good glass from the competition. And at least Fuji puts its lenses on sale occasionally. The current instant rebates on lenses allowed me to get into the Fuji X system for the first time: the 27mm pancake for $199 and the 18mm for $399. Perhaps neither is Fuji's best X-mount lens but I am quite happy with both. Next up when I can swing it: the 35mm f/1.4.
 

lernyingl

New Member
Mar 31, 2014
Melbourne
I'm new both to the X system and this forum, and have read this thread with interest. Like most people, I like both high quality and a low price, and can understand why it's hard to get both. In general, Fujifilm lens pricing strike me as reasonable, and having just started to shoot with the 18-55 think it's more than fair value for a kit lens.

However, there's one aspect to this discussion which I don't think has been mentioned, namely the price of the 60mm macro. I'm sure it's great optically, but with a widest aperture of f2.4, no image stabilisation, and most importantly a maximum reproduction ratio of 1:2, it doesn't spec up well for a non-discounted price of $US650. I like shooting macro, and by comparison the Tamron 60mm that I use with my Nikon APS-C camera goes to f2 and reproduces at 1:1. It's a terrific piece of glass, my favourite lens by far, and it cost me about $US400 new a few years ago. The new 90mm Tamron, which is also full-frame compatible and throws in IS and that I don't have but is supposed to be equally good, can be bought at the moment here in Australia with a local guarantee for the equivalent of $US460.

Points in the Fuji macro's defence are that it's more solidly constructed and much lighter. Even so, the optics is the critical thing, and the relative unattractiveness of Fuji's macro offering deterred me from buying into their system for a full year. It was only the availability of the $US400 discount price that persuaded me to jump in (I have the lens on order from Amazon), but even with the discount the price seems no better than OK to me. It's another subject, I know, but I wish Fuji would have a 90 or 100mm stabilised 1:1 macro on their roadmap.
 

Mikey

Veteran
May 15, 2013
Louisville, KY
I'm new both to the X system and this forum, and have read this thread with interest. Like most people, I like both high quality and a low price, and can understand why it's hard to get both. In general, Fujifilm lens pricing strike me as reasonable, and having just started to shoot with the 18-55 think it's more than fair value for a kit lens.

However, there's one aspect to this discussion which I don't think has been mentioned, namely the price of the 60mm macro. I'm sure it's great optically, but with a widest aperture of f2.4, no image stabilisation, and most importantly a maximum reproduction ratio of 1:2, it doesn't spec up well for a non-discounted price of $US650. I like shooting macro, and by comparison the Tamron 60mm that I use with my Nikon APS-C camera goes to f2 and reproduces at 1:1. It's a terrific piece of glass, my favourite lens by far, and it cost me about $US400 new a few years ago. The new 90mm Tamron, which is also full-frame compatible and throws in IS and that I don't have but is supposed to be equally good, can be bought at the moment here in Australia with a local guarantee for the equivalent of $US460.

Points in the Fuji macro's defence are that it's more solidly constructed and much lighter. Even so, the optics is the critical thing, and the relative unattractiveness of Fuji's macro offering deterred me from buying into their system for a full year. It was only the availability of the $US400 discount price that persuaded me to jump in (I have the lens on order from Amazon), but even with the discount the price seems no better than OK to me. It's another subject, I know, but I wish Fuji would have a 90 or 100mm stabilised 1:1 macro on their roadmap.
It is a razor sharp lens and quite compact I should say but I share the same concerns about the 60/2.4 -- that it's not 1:1 and does not have OIS (also I hate that the inner lens barrel protrudes far out with macro focusing). Am hoping for a 100/2.8 OIS as well.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom