Pricing: 35mm f1.4G vs 50mm f1.4G

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

I feel attacked for thinking a product is overpriced.

No, I think it is because you said this:

Might as well screw the consumer, people will pay it happily for the good glass.

You've attacked Nikon saying they are screwing their customers. Pros want Nikon to produce those 1.4 lenses, and are willing to pay for them. We have not had lenses like that for a long time, and want to encourage Nikon to produce them.

I wish people didn't purchase it so they would bring the price back to reality

That's not how it works. When Nikon produced the 28mm f/1.4 AF, it didn't sell well. Did the price drop? No, the lens was discontinued and the used price shot sky high.

Think about it from the pro's viewpoint: We have been begging for Nikon to produce fast primes, and when someone comes along blasting Nikon, you're peeing in our pool.

High priced? Agreed. Over priced? Maybe, but maybe not. Those lenses deliver the goods at prices not far from the competition. I wish they were cheaper, but at least there is a product I can use.

I'm sure you'll see a Nikon 50mm f/1.2 AF-S at a $1500 price tag with performance like a shorter 85mm f/1.4 AF-S. Then everyone that complains about the 35 vs. 50 price difference will feel better.

Go price a Hasselblad or Leica S2 and lenses and you'll understand why pros are less inclined to call Nikon pro glass "over priced".

--
Ken Elliott
Equipment in profile.

 

[Ilkka Nissilä]

It just happens that a wide angle for (D)SLRs is much more difficult to make
and requires a more complex optical design. Normally, a lens that short would
protrude very close to the sensor, where the mirror is in a DSLR. But it can't
occupy the same space with the mirror, so it has to be made using a different
design. SLR wide angles are retrofocus designs, and DSLR wide angles are
also close to (image space) telecentric, in order to avoid color errors
due to angle of incidence. Finally, to make such a lens fast (f/1.4) requires
further difficulties in order to obtain images that are sharp to the corners.
The way Nikon went about this is by making some of the lens elements by hand,
which takes weeks or months. This is why they're expensive. The image quality
is very special, so I'd say they succeeded.

Finally, most people do not need the wide angle to be really fast, since they
are easy to hand-hold. So the market for the necessarily expensive fast wide
angle is comparatively small. This further increases price. Nikon can expect to
sell maybe 5000-10000 of these f/1.4 wide angles, whereas they sell 24-70's
in hundreds of thousands of units!

A normal lens for an FX camera on the other hand is easy to make and the research
was done many decades ago. They can be made inexpensively and still they retain
very good image quality.

 

[nelsonal]

There's a very nice article in the WSJ this morning where they outlined an estimate of the cost of a pair of $300 jeans, retail mark up was half the price (marketing was most of the remainder).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303365804576429730284498872.html#project%3DJEANS0711%26articleTabs%3Darticle

Remember that lenses require more time and much more expensive materials than even made in the US denim jeans.

 

[Cope]

Can anyone explain the price difference between the 35mm f1.4G and the 50mm f1.4G? There is a yawning chasm between them, with the 35mm being almost four times the price of the 50mm in most markets. Is is production costs, marketing needs, greed, or the fairies? I can almost understand a doubling in price if there are significant changes in quality and production methods, but four times the price?

I just looked at the pair on Amazon, and the 50mm is $219.95 and the 35mm is $199.95.
--

'A man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.'
Winston Churchill

 

[BenCarl]

Thats for the 1.8, not the 1.4.

 

[Cope]

I see, said the blind man.
--

'A man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.'
Winston Churchill

 

[NikonJunkieGirl]

Well, I have the 24mm f/1.4, the 50 f/1.4 and the 85 f/1.4--

50 was cheap by comparison to the other two, however, it is the most expensive of all the 50mm lenses.

ALL of my lenses (noted here and elsewhere) were made in Japan--with ONE exception:

The 50 f/1.4G. It was made in China.

Perhaps that explains it?