So in other words you can justify the price of the lens being $900 because it's so small.

I still think 900$ for f7 is a slap in the face, might as well and sell me a mirror lens

How about this µ4/3 fans!

Before the earthquake, a Nikon 35mm ƒ1.8 lens was $200 USD - the Panasonic 20mm ƒ1.7 was over $300 USD!

There's another slap in the face for ya' from yours truly, Panasonic....

At most places the 40-150mm is less than $200. You're looking in the wrong places. I could find the 55-200mm for $350 easily if I wanted to.

So was I...

Panasonic ain't innocent either...GF2 is bloated in price along with the 20mm.....

I haven't got a Nikon or Canon, but I have a Pentax K-r. Besides the lower build quality of the body and the kit lens, that system hasn't got much to offer compared to Olympus. Prices are almost the same or even higher (Comparing 4/3 to Pentax K glass) and the choice of bodies is limited to two models only. So it is either Olympus and Pentax are in the same boat (that is either soon to get out of business or become niche markets) or it is like this all over the interchangeable cameras market.
Lisandra, you have a Sony alpha besides your m4/3 system. Do you think prices are more reasonable there?

Allow me to jump in on this. At this point, both companies are simply selling niche products at inflated prices, that produce less than spectacular results. The more I use Nikon, the more I am taken back by the huge price gouging from the m4/3 companies. 

Like Panther said, and is easily seen by many more examples. m4/3 lenses are proven, time and time again to be more expensive, and built with equal or less quality than other competitors. On top of that, the fact that all of the old Nikon lenses are compatible with the newest cameras, unlike Oly where you have to buy an adapter and carry it around with you just to adapt Olympus lenses. There is nothing better than the sharpness of some of those older lenses, plus they can be had for chump change compared to anything from m4/3, and they're much much faster.

The arguments get more outrageous as Panny and Oly make more outrageous price points. So let's all agree that there is no price advantage to owning a m4/3 system, it's as simple as that - it's a moot point. Lisandra, it's nice to dream that Oly or Panny will make their "pro" lenses less than $1000, but there are a couple of problems with that. One, if they do they will be built of such low quality, that I'd be afraid to put them in my bag for fear they'll fall apart. Two, if they include the type of glass and speed true pro shooters require (which will also make them expensive), then any size advantage of the m4/3 system becomes null. Three, the history of their pricing shows no such direction.

Traveler,
That's a valid point 

This is were I get lost. Lets take a look at nikon. Comparing new lenses (because m4/3s is new and its not fair to compare old lenses. its silly actually.) lets look at the prices and lenses they offer.
First, m4/3s lenses are quite sharp. Theres little or no garbage. True, you can buy a brand new 50mm 1.8 nikon for 150$, with no IS, no ED glass, non internal focusing, and no SWM. In fact, if you want an IS version of any of nikons primes you cant, theres no such thing. A 21mm equivalent f2.8 non IS goes for 1900$. But lets compare the resolution of the 50 lens with the panny 20mm 1.7
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=30,62&fullscreen=true&av=4,4&fl=50,20&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F2
Lets find something in the all-around super zoom area (like pannys 14-140 or olys 14/40-150). The nikon 18-200 3.5-5.6 falls nicely in that category, and at 850$ its on par with the panny. So lets compare resolution:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=8,57&fullscreen=true&av=5,5&fl=18,18&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4
Longer reach? the 28-300 is 1050$ and also happens to be the worst performing (resolution wise) lens in DxO marks nikon database. The lumix 100-300 and the oly both go longer AND outperform the nikon.
Theres not one nikon macro lens in existence that does 80 l/ph of resolution like the panna/leica.
You can certainly get cheap lenses, and with them you get cheap performance. Its a front, theres a lot of choices but most of them are not all that good. You want good, fast, IS performance? the 70-200 2.8 vr 2 is 2400$ (the most expensive between canon, sony, and sigma), the 200-400 f4 is 6300$, the 24-70 2.8 (non IS) is 1900$, the 16-55 f4 is 1300$. The list goes on.
So in the end m4/3s are delivering excellent performing "normal lenses" at prices a bit higher than what the people expected (but again, proven good performance). Theres even a couple of lenses that that perform right up there with medium format lenses (the voigt and the pannaleica). When they start making pro lenses, all they have to do is be cheaper than the rest. I doubt the 12-50 f2.5 panny is gonna be as expensive as the nikon 24-70 f2.8, Im also willing to bet that itll be sharper.
The last thing Ill say is that if m4/3s starts cutting costs at the sake of resolution, then Ill switch systems again.

But m4/3 has its pros and cons, doesn't it?

Of course! more cons that I would like! But changing systems because m4/3s is too expensive doesnt make any sense.

This knows what the deal is....

Marty4650    says:
Here's the Pen dilemma:

The whole concept is based on "smaller and lighter" and this is it's main appeal.

So to keep weight down, the cameras ship with fairly slow zoom lenses. They even make lenses that collapse, to make them seem smaller when not in use. Because that is what the typical M4/3 user wants. Small and light.

And this is fine for people who use a Pen as their second camera, to supplement a proper DSLR.

But then there are some folks want to use a M4/3 as their only camera, so they start clamoring for fast primes and faster zoom lenses. And they even want internal focusing zooms with constant apertures. Plus they will want it weather sealed.

And if Olympus builds these lenses, some of these folks will buy them. But these are perhaps only 10% of the Pen owners. The other 90% are perfectly happy with the slower lenses that already exist. Because they already have an E3, or a K5, or a 60D for more critical work.

If Olympus decides to build something like a 12-50mm f/2.8 lens for M4/3, this lens will NOT be small, NOT be cheap and NOT be light. It will weigh almost a pound and cost over $1000.

It will not make your EPL2 pocketable.

A handful of M4/3 users rush out and preorder the lens, paying full list price. Everyone else shakes their heads in amazement and decides it would be better to spend that same money for a ZD 12-60mm, or a Canon 15-85mm, or a Nikon 16-85mm for their main camera.

Once all the early adopters own the new lens, the market for them evaporates. And the R&D costs are never recovered. And to make matters worse... the people who bought the high end M4/3 lens are now demanding a weather sealed pro body!

The problem is a very vocal minority asks for very expensive high end lenses to be built, and half of them will never buy the lens. They just say they will. And this leaves the manufacturer in the lurch.

If I can see this scenario, then so can the Olympus management team. And this might be why they are moving very slowly and cautiously, and why they are willing to change course when they see they misjudged the market for something.
Originally posted 13 hours ago. ( permalink )
Marty4650 edited this topic 13 hours ago.