06-28-2015, 01:19 PM
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
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