Re: [OM] How much should a lens cost?

[Winsor Crosby]

On Friday, October 31, 2003, at 10:10  AM, Danrich wrote:

> There has been lots of debate on what the proper comparison between E1
> lenses and OM lenses, all triggered by a $7,000 list price on one lens.
> I have no opinion on that lens, but would comment that the cost to make
> a lens depends on manufacturing volume; build quality; physical size;
> number, size, and curvature of optical elements; how many of those
> elements move independently; and how many adjusting rings/pins there
> are.  The cost does not much depend on focal length, field of view, or
> intended use, except in how those affect the prior list.

Not sure what you are saying here. Focal length, field of view and intended use all affect your stated cost elements. I think you left out the cost of the materials themselves unless you lumped that into something else. ED glass is much pricier than other glass. Optical glass is pricier than optical plastic. 

However supply and demand has more to do with the selling price and consequently the manufacturing cost of the lens. Olympus has already made a substantial cut in the price of the E-1 and their projected profit because they ignored the market place. They will probably have to do it again.  When their $7000 300mm lens does not sell its price will go down too, or Olympus will not sell many. The question is whether their mark up is such that they can get the price of the lens down enough so that it will sell and a profit still be made.

There is also the thought that if Olympus cannot build a competitively priced lens with similar specs to the competition something may be very wrong. A Tamron 300/2.8 AF lens costs $2200. When they put an Oly mount on it how many $7000 Zuikos will be sold even if it is little better?



Winsor
Long Beach, California
USA