as in the title really, why are they so much more than 50mm 1.4 for instance 35mm F1.4: Canon 1100 http://www.camerabox.co.uk/productDA1.asp?ProductName=Canon-35mm-EF-f1.4L-USM&ProductID=9915 Nikon 1650 http://www.camerabox.co.uk/productDA1.asp?ProductName=Nikon-35mm-F1.4G-AF-S&ProductID=17012 50mm F1.4: Canon 270 http://www.camerabox.co.uk/productDA1.asp?ProductName=Canon-50mm-EF-F1.4-USM-&ProductID=4816 Nikon 340 http://www.camerabox.co.uk/productDA1.asp?ProductName=Nikon-50mm-f1.4G-AF-S&ProductID=10719
It's because the shorter focal length requires the light to pass through the elements at a steeper angle, which in turn tends to refract / separate it more meaning more elements / more complex design is needed to prevent chromatic abberations (colour fringing), softness, lack of contrast and other optical nasties. Lenses are easiest to make at around the 50-85mm focal length - you'll notice that these are about the cheapest for a given aperture (going wider or longer costs more) and also where the largest apertures are found...
plus a 50mm lens is decent but in many situations I find I need to stand further away and I can't so a 35mm is more desirable so will also be priced up a bit
Also.. your not talking like for like in terms of lens quality! 50mm 1.2L http://www.camerabox.co.uk/productDA1.asp?ProductName=Canon-50mm-EF-f-1.2L-USM-&ProductID=11014 35mm 1.4L http://www.camerabox.co.uk/productDA1.asp?ProductName=Canon-35mm-EF-f1.4L-USM&ProductID=9915
Sounds logical, but the prices don't rise proportionally as you move to 24mm, they're only a bit more, where as the % step from 24 - 35 is about the same as 35 - 50....
Canon L series lenses are far superior quality lenses from my experience, I highly recommend them. You get what you pay for! Hope this helps
