Why is the 42.5 F/1.2 $1600 when the Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is only $1000?

Started Mar 2, 2014 | Discussions thread
MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 33,953
Re: Why is the 42.5 F/1.2 $1600 when the Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is only $1000?

lighthunter80 wrote:

ironcam wrote:

lighthunter80 wrote:

Martin.au wrote:

lighthunter80 wrote:

Martin.au wrote:

Why is the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS $2700, but the 70-200 f2.8 only $1650? Shouldn't the IS basically be free?

They are two different lenses and years of development between both if you refer to the latest 2.8 IS II version versus the old non-IS version which is perhaps since the 1990s on the market.

Ok, 70-200 f4 IS $1500, 70-200 f4 $900.

Again, these are two different constructions and not simple the same lens with and without IS. I am not saying there is no mark up in price for IS at all but it is far less than you think it might be.

Can you give technical reasons why you think implementing IS in a lens this class is far cheaper than we think?

IS is a well established technology and I think Canon even invented it? The statement that the $600 price difference between the 70-200/4.0 with and without IS cannot simply be the IS itself. They are two different lens constructions. The non-IS version is much older and therefore cheaper.

I don't think IS adds a significant amount to the price of a relatively small lens like the Nocticron. As others mentioned, even cheap kit lenses come with IS. I think the Nocticron is just deliberately overprices as there is no real competitor on the market. The Oly 45/1.8 is no real competitor technically. It is a cheap plastic f1.8 lens vs. a super high quality construction at f1.2.

This argument is based on the premiss that manufacturers make product and then add a fixed profit margin on to the cost.  That is a ridiculous but commonly held layman belief.  Working out the true cost of manufacture of an individual product by any manufacturer that designs and makes tens of thousands of products is something that is not going to be done on a pocket calculator.  There are probably 1,001 ways to figure the cost from direct add-on costs plus contribution to full absorption costing.   More like the bean counters work out how many at what price will make it worth while, a smaller price will mean lower margin requiring more sales, more margin fewer sales necessary to aachive a similar result.  Too high a margin equals no sales, too low then every item sold will make a loss.  Therefore a balance is sought where every item made is actually sold at the required price to give the best posssible result for the vendor, not the consumer.

Therefore arguments over the fairness of any asking price and are about as relevant as those which disregard the fairness of run out sales pricing of failed product and suggest that they ought to be paying more to justify the proper worth of the item they buy.

The consumer holds all the aces, they need not buy anything if the price is seen as too high.  No use whinging about it, the market will sort it all out.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow