[Brightcolours]

First of all - this thing has to be compared to a 400mm f/5.6 L IS - not a 200mm f/2.8. If we agreed on that logic in the past we should stick to it regarding price comparisons as well.

 

There is no modern FF prime with these specs but there are zoom lenses - the gang of xxx-400mm IS/VR/OSS.

They all cost between 2000 and 2500 USD.

The ancient 400mm f/5.6L doesn't count here - in the stone age lens prices were cheaper and we don't even know whether this one is still in production (rather than supplied from pre-produced batches).

 

Thus in this context 3000USD are not bizarre but "only" overpriced. Just like with the Oly 300mm f/4 there is, of course, a reason for this - the production volume will be tiny compared to CaNikon. They did a business case and this was the result. Super high-end prime lenses are no money maker in MFT land. Let's face it - Canon also has no business case for an updated 400mm f/5.6 L IS - because consumers are buying the 100-400L II in vastly higher volumes.

Thus it is commendable that Panasonic made the effort but it's not more than a halo lens for showrooms in my opinion.

Of course, the lens should be compared to an equivalent, when you look at what the lens actually does. However, production-price wise it is not at all strange to look at what this lens costs in comparison to a 200mm f2.8 FF lens.

 

Treating it as if both things are contradictory or not compatible is disingenuous.

 

Of course, the Olympus has many more lens elements (15) as the particular Canon (9) we mentioned before (of course, the smaller image circle means (some of those) elements can be smaller). That, and the Leica badge on it, and the introduction date, all make it "naturally" so that the price is higher. Too high still? Yes, I think we agree on that.

 

And to JoJu: "the ISO game" of course works, it always has and nothing has changed in physics the last year. :ph34r: