You're welcome. An economist would probably define the expected cost of ownership of a lens as something along the lines of purchase price net of any eventual sales price plus the cost of repair or replacement times its probability of being needed. The balance of evidence here on mu-43 suggests that, after controlling for differences in unit volumes, Olympus kit is more likely to need repair or replacement than Panasonic kit. Since the details vary by the specific issues of particular bodies and lenses, it's been quite difficult for me to estimate if there's a meaningful difference in averaged or maximum likelihood maintenance costs between the two brands.
Personally, I'm unlikely to own any Panasonic-Leica lenses other than the 45 Elmarit I already have since I'm either not interested in them or they're in price ranges above my willingness or ability to pay. Given the collective shift upmarket in response to falling ILC demand, this is also true of most E, L, R, X, and Z mount lenses and bodies. Some repairs seem to still sit around $/£/€ 200 but most of the things I'd be likely to send a lens in for run 300-400, if not 500-700. Whereas all of the m43 lenses I use can usually be found for 175-350 used. This makes value of repair debatable, creating a certain immunity to Panasonic's servicing decisions, but I'd have to accept more risk if I wanted to use an 8-18 instead of a 9-18.
I think this tradeoff becomes pernicious for lenses priced in the 750-1000 range. They're expensive enough it makes more sense to repair than to replace but repair costs often aren't too much below used pricing. Beyond that, it seems like repair-replace spreads tend to increase, though repair costs often still go up. To the extent service is part of total cost of ownership and cost drives purchasing decisions, this means greater competitive disadvantage for Panasonic's choice to replace the more expensive a lens is. It strikes me as implausible the company's blind to this but it's not to their advantage to be open about it and I find it difficult to construct a scenario where there'd be enough competitive pressure to motivate a change.
Cleaning a 50-200's probably also a special case in that no parts are required. From what I've read, Panasonic doesn't seem to make those available to enable third party repair.
. Excellent communication at all times. In this case Panasonic's service is almost non-existent , takes a lot, in cases of 35-100 2.8 mm the price of fix of the objective is the same as when buying it from secondhand. Also some 100-400 have been split by the saddle and there is no possibility of arrangement.In fact the Olympus SAT is well above those of more brands, at least here in Spain.
