Quote:Hi all.
Does anyone have an idea why (M)FT lenses are much more expensive than their Full Format equivalents, and why most of the time there isn't any equivalent at all?
For instance, you can buy a Nikon 300mm f4 for 1500 Euro, while dealers demand 2500 Euro for the equivalent Four Thirds Zuiko 150mm f2.0.
A Full Format 70-200 f4 can be bought for 1000 Euros new, its Four Thirds equivalent 35-100mm f2.0 costs more than double that amount: 2400 Euros, while a 35-100mm f1.4 isn't offered at all. A 35-100mm f1.4 would be the equivalent of the ubiquitous FF offering 70-200mm f2.8 that is usually priced around some 2000 Euros, i.e. significantly less than its weaker FT sibling.
I wonder why that is. Is it physically impossible to make a 35-100mm f1.4 (M)FT lens that would behave like a 70-200mm f2.8 FF, or much more expensive?
Cheers 
Lens prices due to a number of factors, but one important factor is weight, another number of lenses sold (or expected to be sold), if you are alone in the field, or there are competitors breathing down your neck. Some, like Tamron, sell a lot to other camera manufacturers, which add a little of their own design and call the end product something catchy, like XZ-1, or MX-1. Same focal range, same size sensor, same DR, same ... So obviously such a manufacturer can hold a lower price on their own line of lenses, as the OEM division supports the less profitable, but image-important, Tamron line of lenses.
Olympus have been in dire straits economically, and just can't sell their bigger lenses as cheaply as a huge giant like Nikon can, but their smaller lenses, like the 45, sells in huge numbers, use very little glass, so they can compete efficiently, and are surprisingly cheap!
Really heavy lumps, like long lenses for MF cameras, are extremely expensive, and definitely nothing a small manufacturer dare to invest in.
A 35-100/1.2 would be such a heavy lump, as heavy as Nikon's 200/2.0, at least, and most likely as expensive, and as the market is smaller, you have to spread the development costs on a smaller series, so I'd guess a 50% surcharge, compared to the Nikon lens?!
The 70-300CX is a typical modern lens, with excellent IQ and so on, but as the market is small (Nikon 1 nerds (like me), and Canon Only users — yep, a lot of Canon users have bought Nikon V3s and 70-300CX as a lighter alternative to their 1D Xs, and 100-400 Ls). So the price is roughly 2.5 times higher than Nikon's classic 70-300 VR, which on the other hand isn't nearly as sharp, nor as insensitive to flare (I have owned both, and now own a 70-300CX, a 70-200/4.0G, and a Tamron 70-300 VC).
