> Andrew Dacey <frugal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> However, I am going to say that I was thinking about this too simply.
> I was
> just thinking that a 300/2.8 should cost around the same as any other
> 300/2.8 in terms of you're getting a 300/2.8's worth of glass,
> regardless of
> the actual FOV on your chosen system (a 600mm lens uses a LOT of glas
> so
> it's going to cost a lot more). I was neglecting to figure in the
> cost of
> developing a lens and any other associated costs. Part of the price
> is going
> to be a portion of these costs. The lens may have similar production
> costs
> as any other 300/2.8 but they're only going to have the sales volume
> for a
> 600/2.8 lens (which is going to be much smaller). Because of this,
> they're
> going to have to increase the price to cover their costs.
>
> I think I just got caught up in the initial gut reaction of seeing
> ~$7000
> for a 300/2.8 without thinking about the bigger issues. Like I said
> before
> though, I have no current need for a 600mm lens to begin with so this
> was
> never a big factor in my decision. Currently, I'm waiting to see some
> faster
> zooms or primes offered to round out the system before I dive in.
> Hopefully,
> if some other manufacturers get on board with the 4/3 system we'll
> start to
> see some greater variety in lens offerings.
>
So what was the latest list price of the OM Zuiko 350/2.8 ? Probably not less
than $7K.
Wayne Harridge
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~w_harridge
< 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 >
|