Daniel Sepke wrote:
> While I am thinking about has anyone else's jaw hit the floor when looking
> up the prices on the 35-100 and 90-250? I was genuinely shocked when I saw
> the 6K price tag on the 90-250. I am sure this was not a cheap lens to
> design or will be to build but the fact remains it is not really that
> exotic. Granted no one in else has the exact same length in actual or
> equivalent terms. The closest I could find to the equivalent would be the
> Sigma 300-800mm f5.6 which does have a 6K price tag but is really a
> completely different beast than the 90-250. Canyon meanwhile have a 70-200mm
> f2.8 IS lens for just $1600. Have Oly lost the plot with this lens? (sorry
> for the rant but this one has been bugging me for a while)
>
One problem with pricing something like this is sales volume. If every
home in the developed world needed one, they could probably sell it for
$600 and make lots of money. Can*n sells LOTS of 70-200/2.8s. Oly can
anticipate selling only a small fraction of that number of 90-250s. Now
maybe the next pro E-thingie will be a huge success, leading to greater
sales of the fast, pro lenses, then the price can come down.
One of the two big factors at work are start-up costs incurred before
even one production lens goes out the door. That includes R&D, tooling,
etc. If you spend $1,000,000 getting a new product started up and
anticipate selling one million of them, you only have to cover $1 with
each sale. If you anticipate selling 1,000, the per unit cost is $1,000.
The other big up front factor is economies of scale, which can have even
greater impact on cost differences. It might be nice if this weren't how
it works, but .....
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|