Is the price charged for lenses justified?

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Is the price charged for lenses justified? 

"John Bean" <waterfoot.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote"
> "David J Taylor" wrote:
>
>>Discussion topic:
>>
>>Is the price charged for lenses justified?
>>
>>I.e. is the price a fair reflection of the design and production costs, or
>>are lenses a high-profit item?
>
> Like most things it's driven by the market, I doubt that any
> single answer will reflect reality for all lenses.

Yep. Different niches have different phenomena.

The folks at Cosina (who make some of the Zeiss Ikon lenses) must be
laughing all the way to the bank. They're getting US$1200 and US$1500 sorts
of prices for fairly simple primes: no exotic materials, no aspherics
elements.

Of course, the Zeiss Ikon users are happy, too: better than Leitz quality
(according to the Japanese reviews) at less than 1/2 the price.

Now if Canon would only produce an M-mount rangefinder with the 5D sensor.
Sigh.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Is the price charged for lenses justified? 

On Nov 7, 11:22 am, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM... RemoveThis @hotmail.com>
wrote:
> What "justifies" a price?
>
> Production cost? Quality? Image? Distribution cost? Market Value?
>
> As an Economist, I can't answer that question since there are many many
> answers to that question. In the end each of us must answer it for
> themselves.
>
> "David J Taylor" <david-tay... RemoveThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
> wrote in messagenews:P6fYi.43567$c_1.21822@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> > Discussion topic:
>
> > Is the price charged for lenses justified?
>
> > I.e. is the price a fair reflection of the design and production costs, or
> > are lenses a high-profit item?
>
> > David
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia 's Muire duit

As an economist, it would be an easy answer. You just make the non-
disjoint, utility argument. If Util(lens) > Util($), then you buy the
lens. So the answer is "yes, it is obviously worth it to ME" but
maybe not to YOU" (or visa versa).
 >> Stay informed about: Is the price charged for lenses justified? 

On Nov 7, 12:04 pm, "Frank Arthur" <A... DeleteThis @Arthurian.com> wrote:
> "Andrew Koenig" <a... DeleteThis @acm.org> wrote in message
>
> news:1akYi.62707$kj1.4495@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> "David J Taylor"
> > <david-tay... DeleteThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
> > messagenews:P6fYi.43567$c_1.21822@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> >> Discussion topic:
>
> >> Is the price charged for lenses justified?
>
> > If you think the answer is no, there is an easy way to prove it:
> > Make your own lenses and sell them for less.
>
> Excellent reply!


No it's not. It's a circumstantial ad hominem argument.

It's an argument of the form: "of course you don't think the price is
justified; you're not a lens manufacturer."

There's also the ubiquitous Usenet tactic of demanding proof going on
here - a form of the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy. Namely,
arguing proposition X is true unless and until someone proves not-X.
 >> Stay informed about: Is the price charged for lenses justified? 

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor RemoveThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
wrote in message news:P6fYi.43567$c_1.21822@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Discussion topic:
>
> Is the price charged for lenses justified?
>
> I.e. is the price a fair reflection of the design and production costs, or
> are lenses a high-profit item?
>
> David
>
Pretty clearly the purpose of creating "Image Stabilized" lenses instead of
put the gyro in the body is a profit driven decision. Minolta discovered
they couldn't make any extra bucks selling lenses when they included a focus
motor in their camera bodies.

Canon on the other hand have crippled their EOS range for no other reason
than to sell lenses otherwise not needed. They make their cameras default to
1/60th shutter speed for flash when it would be no harder to do it at
1/125th.

They could only do such a thing for profit motives. Syncing at the lower
speed cause non IS lenses to produce soft and out of focus images as the
mirror slaps into (more deliberate engineering) hard stops resulting in the
sale of "IS" lenses to overcome what must surely be the most deliberate and
blatant design decision based on profit alone.

I guess one day, it will all mean nothing but today each lens Canon sell
with a gyro in it, results in profit they would not make if they put the
gyro in the body and only manufactured one type of lens (as Olympus do).

Such is life when your shareholders dictate your methods.

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: Is the price charged for lenses justified? 

What "justifies" a price?

Production cost? Quality? Image? Distribution cost? Market Value?

As an Economist, I can't answer that question since there are many many
answers to that question. In the end each of us must answer it for
themselves.

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor.DeleteThis@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
wrote in message news:P6fYi.43567$c_1.21822@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Discussion topic:
>
> Is the price charged for lenses justified?
>
> I.e. is the price a fair reflection of the design and production costs, or
> are lenses a high-profit item?
>
> David
>

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit
 >> Stay informed about: Is the price charged for lenses justified? 

On Nov 7, 1:48 pm, "Andrew Koenig" <a....TakeThisOut@acm.org> wrote:
> <new....TakeThisOut@plcom.net> wrote in message
>
>
> No it's not. It's an argument of the form: "A price for an item is
> justified if both a buyer and a seller are willing to conduct the
> transaction at that price."
>
> If you think that an item is being sold for an unjustifiably high price, but
>
> 1) Buyers are willing to buy it at that price, and
> 2) No potential sellers are willing to sell it for less than that price
>
> then which is more likely--that the market is wrong, or that you are?

I don't disagree, but that's not what you wrote.

There are different issues associated with the OP's question.

1. Is the price justified in terms of added benefit to the
photographer?
2. Is the price justified in terms of development and manufacturing
costs?
3. Is the price justified from a market economy point of view?

For me the answers to 2nd and 3rd questions are "usually". The answer
to the first one is less clear. In photography you are always paying a
lot for a little extra.
 >> Stay informed about: Is the price charged for lenses justified? 

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.RemoveThis@gol.com> wrote in message
news:FsqdnTuTergEEqzanZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "John Bean" <waterfoot.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote"
>> "David J Taylor" wrote:
>>
>>>Discussion topic:
>>>
>>>Is the price charged for lenses justified?
>>>
>>>I.e. is the price a fair reflection of the design and production
>>>costs, or
>>>are lenses a high-profit item?
>>
>> Like most things it's driven by the market, I doubt that any
>> single answer will reflect reality for all lenses.
>
> Yep. Different niches have different phenomena.
>
> The folks at Cosina (who make some of the Zeiss Ikon lenses) must be
> laughing all the way to the bank. They're getting US$1200 and
> US$1500 sorts of prices for fairly simple primes: no exotic
> materials, no aspherics elements.
>
> Of course, the Zeiss Ikon users are happy, too: better than Leitz
> quality (according to the Japanese reviews) at less than 1/2 the
> price.
>
> Now if Canon would only produce an M-mount rangefinder with the 5D
> sensor. Sigh.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
There is no factual way that Cosina is making any pofit for its Zeiss
lenses.
You need to determine the cost of material, labor, tooling and
advertising costs plus
overhead expenses and the number of units actually sold and the amount
of money
accumulated in order to know if they are making money or how much.
 >> Stay informed about: Is the price charged for lenses justified? 

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
wrote in message news:P6fYi.43567$c_1.21822@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Discussion topic:
>
> Is the price charged for lenses justified?
>
> I.e. is the price a fair reflection of the design and production costs, or
> are lenses a high-profit item?
>
David,
I may be wrong, but I sincerely think that the price of goods isn't fixed on
the cost + distribution + a profit + anything else I might have left out.
As far as I'm concerned, the price of goods has something to do with what
people are prepared to pay.
If you look at the prices of houses now, it's not the price of the land +
services + materials + labor + whatever... It's more with what I said
before. A thought.
Marcel
 >> Stay informed about: Is the price charged for lenses justified? 

David J Taylor <david-taylor.DeleteThis@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
> Discussion topic:

> Is the price charged for lenses justified?

That depends on the lenses.
The 50mm f/1.8 from Canon certainly is excellent value for the
money, the kit lens (18-55mm f1/3.5-5.6) is more on the cheap side.

> I.e. is the price a fair reflection of the design and production costs,

There is no such thing as a "fair reflection of the design
and production costs", except that prices below that would be
price dumping. Not in a market driven world.

Why pay tons for a manually designed, hand-polished and assembled
lens --- which obviously had none too low design and production
costs --- and less for a machine manufactured, easily designed lens?
Especially if the first lens is atrocious and the latter of
high optical and build quality?

> or are lenses a high-profit item?

Depends on the lens. Comparing a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 with a
70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens, with constant length, unmovable front lens,
weather sealed, build like a tank, ... is a bit misleading.

So is comparing a 50mm f/1.8 for <$100 with a 600mm f/4 lens.

-Wolfgang
 >> Stay informed about: Is the price charged for lenses justified? 

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02.DeleteThis@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:rmm805-tt8.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
> David J Taylor <david-taylor.DeleteThis@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Discussion topic:
>
>> Is the price charged for lenses justified?
>
> That depends on the lenses.
> The 50mm f/1.8 from Canon certainly is excellent value for the
> money, the kit lens (18-55mm f1/3.5-5.6) is more on the cheap side.
>
>
Wolfgang,
You're the second person to recommend this lens.
I already have two lenses (17-85 IS USM, 70-300 IS USM).
How useful would this lens be for me? In what circumstances?
Thanks,
Marcel
 >> Stay informed about: Is the price charged for lenses justified? 

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor.RemoveThis@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
wrote in message news:P6fYi.43567$c_1.21822@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> Discussion topic:

> Is the price charged for lenses justified?

If you think the answer is no, there is an easy way to prove it: Make your
own lenses and sell them for less.
 >> Stay informed about: Is the price charged for lenses justified? 

"Andrew Koenig" <ark DeleteThis @acm.org> wrote in message
news:1akYi.62707$kj1.4495@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:P6fYi.43567$c_1.21822@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>> Discussion topic:
>
>> Is the price charged for lenses justified?
>
> If you think the answer is no, there is an easy way to prove it:
> Make your own lenses and sell them for less.
>
Excellent reply!
 >> Stay informed about: Is the price charged for lenses justified?