LFG530 said:
Sorry for that "noob" question, but I can't seem to get an answer to that, I'm sure there's a quite simple physical explanation for that...
In other words, why is a 35mm/24mm 1.4 so more expensive/heavy/long than a 50mm 1.4 or 1.2 ? This seems counter intuitive since the aperture has to be about 24mm large on a 35 and 35mm large on a 50...
I do not think your prices are quite, at least, not in the USA.
The simple answer is that the 50mmL costs more than the 35mm L, not less. They are both old designs, so the tooling and development costs are paid off long ago. The 24mmL is relatively new, so the tooling and development costs that must be paid for are still affecting the price. The special nanocoating on the glass is expensive as well.
The 50mm f/1.2 has a MSRP of $1619 while the 35mm f/1.4 L has a MSRP of $1479. The 24mm L MSRP is $1749.
Presumably the MSRP is related to the cost of production. However, the street prices may be related to the law of supply and demand.
Street price for the 50mm f/1.2L is $1749, The 24mm L is 1749, and the 35mm L is $1579 all are listed as available on Amazon.com.
As for the 50mm f/1.4L, it is a much cheaper and simpler lens and does not have the heavy duty construction, a true USM focus motor or the exotic glass that the "L" lenses have. Its a bargain!