Why are Micro Four Thirds lenses so expensive compared to Canon?

Question

I'm looking at picking up a new prime portrait lens to augment the kit lenses that came with my Olympus OM-D M-10.

My brother has a Canon with a 50mm f/1.8 lens that takes beautiful photos and costs only AU$60 - ideally I'd like to find something similar. (http://cameraparadise.com/Buy-Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-II-Lenses-412.html)

The closest I can find is an Olympus 45mm f/1.8, which can be had for just under AU$300 - 5 times more expensive. (http://cameraparadise.com/Olympus-M.-Zuiko-Digital-ED-45mm-f1.8-1068.html)

A bit of a search seems to show a wide variety of surprisingly cheap Canon lenses available, with most m4/3 lenses cost several times more.

Is this simply a case of Canon producing some very low quality lenses for the bottom end of the market? Is the Olympus substantially better, or am I simply paying for the brand?

As a casual amateur photographer I'm not overly concerned about high end lenses - if I'm more interested in keeping my prices low, am I better off returning the Olympus and picking up a Canon instead?

Answer 1

The basic answer is that Canon's 50mm f/1.8 is an exception even within Canon's lineup. It's an old, simple design with nothing fancy, and made to be mass-produced cheaply. Compare the Canon 85mm f/1.8, at AU$360.

Basically, almost no lenses are as cheap as the one you're using as your reference point, so your perception is skewed. The Olympus lenses aren't cheap, but they're not expensive either. (And they are generally regarded as high quality and fairly priced.)

Consider the total cost of the basic collection of lenses you want ("need") — a portrait lens like the 45mm, maybe a normal prime (around 25mm on micro 4/3rds), perhaps a wide angle zoom (to upgrade your kit lens) and then maybe a telephoto zoom. Then compare.

It's also helpful to look at the big picture. I got my favorite lens about a decade ago when I got my first DSLR, and back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that over that time, it's cost me about 0.2¢ per frame. Over the same time, camera bodies have cost about 2.5¢ per frame. Convert cents to dollars if you consider images worth keeping. But either way, if I'd paid 10× the price for the lens, it'd still be less than camera bodies. (Or lighting equipment, for that matter, although the value of that per image is skewed significantly because I don't use it constantly.)

Answer 2

Camera and lens designs are full of compromises and certain decisions have knock on effect throughout the system.

Olympus decided on a particularly thick filter stack when specifying the micro four thirds system. This and the short backfocus distance of a mirrorless lens mount necessitate a telecentric or near telecentric lens design where rays exit the lens perpendicular to the sensor (this prevents smearing in the corners from the filter stack). This in turn rules out cheap symmetrical double-Gauss lens designs, such as found in the 50mm f/1.8.

My brother has a Canon with a 50mm f/1.8 lens that takes beautiful photos

Be aware that the small sensor in m43 cameras makes it harder to get blurred backgrounds like you may have seen from your brother's camera. You need a 40mm f/1.4 to get the same angle of view and depth of field as a 50mm f/1.8 lens on an APS-C DSLR, which pushes the cost up further.

The smaller sensor in the micro four thirds does allow a much greater degree of shake reduction in the camera, in fact m43 bodies have the best stabilization out there. But there are consequences to every decision as outlined above, increased cost of lenses being one of them, depending on what you want to shoot you may be better served with a APS-C sensor DSLR.

Answer 3

The Canon 50/1.8 II is a pricing anomaly. A better comparison might be the EF 45/2.8 STM pancake lens ($200), and the Olympus 17mm f/2.8 pancake lens ($250).

And if you really think about it, a normal fast lens on Canon APS-C would be a 35/2, which, if you get the non-IS version is about $550, new. The EF 35/1.4L is about $1500. And the Panasonic Leica 25/1.4 is roughly $600.

Overall, I've actually found the mft lineup to be price-equivalent (or cheaper) for the most part. For example, a crop-body fisheye lens, say a Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 lens is $775. The Panasonic 8mm f/3.5 is $640. An EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (non-L) is about $600. The Olympus 60mm f/2.8 Macro is around $450. The EF-S 10-22 ultrawide is about $650. The EF 24-70/2.8L II is about $2100. The Panasonic 12-35/2.8 is about $1000. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II is about $2500. The Panasonic 35-100/2.8 is about $1400.

A single price comparison doesn't accurately represent the lens lineup prices overall.

Answer 4

Part of the reason is probably that Canon and m4/3 have different flange focal distances, which has a big effect on what focal lengths can be done with simple and cheap lens designs.

For the flange focal distances found in typical SLR systems, 50mm is a sweet spot in that regard. For the much shorter distance of the m4/3 system, this is not the case.

Answer 5

M4/3 kit lenses aren't expensive.

Once you look at "specialized" lenses, then it becomes more expensive, but it is my experience that M4/3 lenses can be affordable. Like others said, the EF-S 50mm 1.8, and also Nikkor 50mm 1.8D are "anomalies".

I have managed to collect some micro four thirds lenses, in addition to the body, and it did not end costing me that much. Here is my "collection" at the moment.

• Olympus E-PM2 with 14-42 kit lens: $330
• Panasonic 20mm f1.7: $330
• Samyang 12mm f2.0: $330

Other "candidates" to my "collection":

• Sigma 60mm f2.8: $200 (19mm and 30mm cost the same)
• Olympus 45mm f1.8: $220

If you look at the pricing of Canon lenses, they tend to be more all over the place, and can be significantly pricier than the M4/3 equivalent at some focal lengths, for example for ultra-wide lenses.

My point is that if you look at the big picture, overall, it's not that much more expensive, and not that much of a bad deal, especially if you factor in the reduced weight and size, for which you are paying a premium.

As a bonus: You can get the Nikkor AF 50mm 1.8 D, which has aperture and focus control on the lens, and mount it to your micro four thirds body via a simple Nikkor to m4/3 mount adapter. It would be quite cheap. But since M4/3 have a different crop ratio, you'd end up with 100mm equivalent and manual focus, which might not be at all what you want.