At 07:53 PM 6/19/1998 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>> If anything, the 135/f2.8 with its larger optical
>>> elements should be costlier to make. Yet, one can
>>> easily buy a pair of the 135mm lenses for the price of
>>> a single 100/f2.8, and the 85mm lens costs even more.
>
>Gary R. responded:
>
>>The 135's have lost inflation adjusted value (used) over the last decade. My
>>take is that they were produced in very large quantities and are now slow
>>movers. The 100 has appreciated slightly and the 85 significantly, thus
>>indicating the 100's were either produced in greater quantity than the 85's,
>>or the 85 has a higher demand to supply ratio than the 100's and especially
>>the 135's. Nothing profound here - just an analysis which shows no relation
>>to cost of manufacturing.
>
>Joel Wilcox added:
>
>>Hi Gary [R.], I imagine you're right. I think back to the "pre-zoom"
>>days when a 35, 50, and 135 were sort of the "complete" amateur's kit.
>>The 135 now suffers from 80-200 zoom-itis.
>
Gary S. in response cried out in just indignation:
>Argh, I feel soooo misunderstooood!!! Must be my miserable communication
>skills.
Hi Gary:
Nope. You communicate splendid. We just took off in a different direction.
I hate it when that happens to me. Sorry!
>Let me clarify, pls. I had raised the question of the huge
>disparity in price/demand/desirability/aura/vogue/mystique of the fast,
>medium range telephotos: 85mm, 100mm, and 135mm.
--snipping--
>Here's a little case study. I decided to look at three fast medium teles:
>85/f1.4, 100/f2, and 135/f2. Not surprisingly, only N*k*n makes all three
>of them. (I had used my extensive collection of photogear literature as a
>source of technical data, and B&H 6/98 catalog new USA prices as my refs).
>
>In manual focus, N*k*n offers 85/f1.4, 105/f1.8, and 135/f2. All 3 are
>similar in construction (5/7, 5/5, and 5/6 groups/elements, respectively),
>size, and weight. All three produce a similarly shallow DOF wide open,
>adjusted for shooting distance so that the sublect size remains constant.
>If anything, the 135/f2 is a larger, more complex lens. Guess which one
>is most expensive? Right, the 85mm.
--snipping more--
>In every
>single case, the 85mm is a "prestige" grade lens, with prices to match.
>
>Furthermore, close inspection of the B&H price list reveals that relative
>to the other two focal lengths, the 85mm "grey market" prices are not as
>high as their "USA market" prices, meaning that at least N*k*n USA knowingly
>inflates the 85mm prices to profit from their current status and popularity.
>
>I am still in the dark as to the reason, or common-sense(!) explanation
>for the 85mm lens desirability and/or supremacy. Is it just a fad, esp. in
>the U.S., or is there some very important point that I'm missing?
Gary, Do you think it might be a combination of both the fadded
desirability of the 85 and the opposite problem with the 135?
The 85 is considered a great portrait lens; the 135 can be used for
portraits, perhaps not so greatly. It is useful for flattening the faces of
folks with big noses. That could be useful if people want that (models,
etc.). I just bought a 135/f3.5; I'll see what I think when it arrives.
I'm guessing I'll still prefer the 85.
In the end, you're probably right. They probably just charge more for the
85's because they can. On the other hand, the 85's -- both my Zuiko and my
Nikkor -- are desert-island lenses for me. If I could have but one lens,
it probably should be a 35, could be a 50, butight well be the 85. If I
could choose two, the 85 would certainly be one of the two. Would anyone
say that about the 135?
Joel
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|