Reading mode: Light Dark

GF lenses prices by weight

Go to last post
JimKasson

JimKasson

Community Leader
Forum Moderator
Messages
52,259
Solutions
52
Reaction score
59,049
Location
Monterey, CA, US
There was some speculation about the GF lens pricing algorithm. I've broken the code.



b076912aa1a04d8ebcf22f97c2e8bab0.jpg.png



--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.
blog.kasson.com blog.kasson.com
 
What's the spot price for flooby dust per gram?
 
F/8 and three dollars a gram and be there.
 
Nicely done....

I remember an exec at GM telling me years ago (when working in NASCAR) that it costs about $1 a pound to build any car, from a pickup to a Cadillac. Profits are made by 'Marketing Profit' to promote the premium brands. Graphs like this just hit home.

Now if there was ever a reason to try to travel light....
 
Last edited:
I love my 35-70. I never thought I would. I wanted to hate it. But I use it all the time, even when i have the entire GF arsenal at my fingertips.
 
Greg7579 said:
JimKasson said:
photonor said:
Which lens is the cheapest and which is the most expensive in terms of dollars per gram?
Click to expand...
de78d30077f44254942c72c4f9c21d8f.jpg.png

63 is the most expensive per unit weight.

100-200 is the cheapest.
Click to expand...
That is amazing. The 63 is the worst GF lens and the 100-200 is an incredible accomplishment and fantastic lens.
Click to expand...
Optically, the 63 is far from the worst GF lens.

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.
blog.kasson.com blog.kasson.com
 
Greg7579 said:
JimKasson said:
photonor said:
Which lens is the cheapest and which is the most expensive in terms of dollars per gram?
Click to expand...
63 is the most expensive per unit weight.

100-200 is the cheapest.
Click to expand...
That is amazing. The 63 is the worst GF lens and the 100-200 is an incredible accomplishment and fantastic lens.
Click to expand...
I won't argue with that. Let me rephrase. The 100-200 is extremely valuable to the GFX system. Without it we would be limited even morevthan we already are. It is an amazing lens with really good IQ (despite its unjustified IQ reputation). It has noteworthy size and weight and makes MF sing at that range in a very nice package.

The 63 is by far the least appealing lens in tbe entire GFX lineup and is as wortless as a feral hog on a ranch in Texas.

What is our solid proof in this bold claim?

The proof is simple. I love the 100-200 and I think the 63 is so unnappealing that I never bought it!

Me not buying a GFX lens is an astounding thing. It goes against nature and is the kiss of death. Looking at you Mr 80!

LOL. (But I'm actually kind of serious ).

Edit later. I made a bad cut here. I was responding to Jim's response to me where he said that was not the case optically when I said the 100-200 was better than the 63. Haha....

--
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums
 
Last edited:
I remember some attempts to use $ vs weight in Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimates for spacecraft optics back in the day. However the function was exponential rather than linear!
 
Rob de Loe said:
It's obvious why. The more expensive ones use more unobtanium than the cheaper ones.
Click to expand...
Great explanation.

unobtanium!!! "rare earth,” thorium oxide or lanthanum oxide, into the glass?" :-D

Like value of gold per gram 20years ago and today, I feel it doesn't changes the fact with the amount unobtanium used in older or newer lenses.

Thankfully these days, we can also find excellent Sigma ART or Canon premium grade L lenses with more "unobtanium" at great value for GFX / Hass.
 
JimKasson said:
There was some speculation about the GF lens pricing algorithm. I've broken the code.

b076912aa1a04d8ebcf22f97c2e8bab0.jpg.png
Click to expand...
Go ahead, fit the curve. You know you want to do it. Give us the linear regression best-fit for this relationship. It looks like there's a pretty strong one.
 
Hi,

Except for racing cars. Then it costs a bundle to Add Lightness. ;)

Even in the days when NASCAR was actually using stock cars. First thing was to rip half the car off and toss it.

Stan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top