|
Re: metal isn't that expensive
In reply to sigala1,
4 months ago
|
sigala1 wrote:
glokenpop wrote:
sigala1 wrote:
glokenpop wrote:
OK $500 dollars is $500 dollars and that is a lot of money. But lens are expensive what are people expecting?
The 14-42mm IIR lens is only an extra $50 with the camera. That is sort of a base for expectations, isn't it?
The 17mm f/1.8 is about the same size, same number of elements, same number of aspheric elements, why does it cost ten times as much?
It's a consumer lens the whole point of it is it's cheap.
Because way more than ten times as many people will buy the 14-42mm.
Molding something out of cheap plastic is ten times easier than crafting something out of metal.The build quality of the 14-42 is really just adequate, the back cover things are rubbish.
The shelves of Walmart are full of metal doodads that only cost a few cents to a few dollars.
Well just wack one of those doodads in front of you camera and you'll be laughing.
I understand it's sucks that specialty lens are expensive. It seems strange to buy an add on for your camera the costs more than the camera itself but that's the reality and the reality is - $500 for a brand new premium build specialty lens is definitely on the cheap end of the spectrum.
| Post (hide subjects) | Posted by | When | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 months ago | 1 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 1 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 4 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago |
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
