[Pentaxor]

Ok, so the Samyang 85mm is $300, the Sigma 85mm is $900. The Samyang 35mm is (allegedly) $500, the Sigma 35mm is........uh, that's right, there isn't one.

I hate to say it again, but if the Samyang had AF, I can almost guarantee it wouldn't be in K-mount. MF, they just slap on the mount throw a chip that communicates aperture, and away they go. They're in it to make money. If they had AF, they would most likely focus on Canikon only. I understand that wouldn't disappoint you in the slightest. I'm not trying to argue with you to get you to like it. But scoffing at it because it's a $500 manual focus lens is a bit silly. Leica, Carl Zeiss, Voigtlander don't have AF. Nikon still makes AI-s lenses. They wouldn't be doing that if there weren't a market for it. And all of those manufacturers in that focal length are more than the Samyang.

I'm not here to dish the Samyang, but the Manual Lenses that you had mentioned had already built a great and impressive reputation. the Samyang as a newcomer has yet to prove itself if it's on the same category as the Leica, Carl Zeiss and Voigtlander. MF lenses that they are, they are proven already and have their own follower base which the Samyang hasn't built that yet. now, if the Samyang is going to target the CaniKon Market, it still has to compete against the cheaper and a stop slower AF lenses that CaniKon offers. again, it doesn't eliminate the fact that it has to prove itself against those lenses. a stop advantage is one thing, but is that the only thing that most consumers look for? consumers are most likely are looking for the best bang for the buck lens that would give them great overall performance. if the Samyang doesn't show that optical superiority over what the others would offer, $500 would be nothing like a huge money wasted.

oh btw, the Sigma doesn't have a 35mm, it has a 30mm just so you know. for the Pentax, this wouldn't matter. and for other mounts, it doesn't either for APS-C users. for Full Frame digital enthusiasts, if most of them can afford to pay a higher premium FF digital camera, it wouldn't make much sense to go cheap on unproven lenses. people knew the costs of using FF, and it ain't cheap.

---

Last edited by Pentaxor; 03-05-2011 at 04:52 PM.

[Jewelltrail]

Rory: I hate to say it again, but if the Samyang had AF, I can almost guarantee it wouldn't be in K-mount. MF, they just slap on the mount throw a chip that communicates aperture, and away they go. They're in it to make money. If they had AF, they would most likely focus on Canikon only. I understand that wouldn't disappoint you in the slightest.

Rory, I am not able to get through to you. I will make one last attempt, then I must move on. I have no interest in AF Samyang. I only use AF lenses from other makers to make my point that IMO, the Samyang 35mm f 1,4 is over priced, @ $500. I will reproduce an earlier post, from this thread, once again--hoping it sinks in.

Jewelltrail I have no interest in Samyang AF glass. When I spend in the $500 range for MF glass, it is not to Samyang I look.
Samyang's future competition is not from producers of new MF glass; rather, their competition comes from all the awesome MF glass of years past, which still mounts on Pentax bodies, and which is plentiful.

Rory: But scoffing at it because it's a $500 manual focus lens is a bit silly. Leica, Carl Zeiss, Voigtlander don't have AF. Nikon still makes AI-s lenses. They wouldn't be doing that if there weren't a market for it. And all of those manufacturers in that focal length are more than the Samyang.

Rory, I am not here to mock Samyang--I like what they have done for K-mount, hitherto--I already said this in this thread. You are reading into the text, things which do not exist. Nowhere have I mocked Samyang. I laughed @ Clinton's joke, because I spontaneously erupted with laughter when I envisoned any poor man with the weight of 2, 35mm 1.4s hanging from his nipples. I was laughing at the image, not mocking Samyang.

You can buy the Samyang 35 f 1.4 when it releases, no problem. But, for me, I find the Samyang 35mm f 1,4 too highly priced, @ $500. It is my opinion, and I am sticking to it. Now, I hope to God I have been clear enough this time. Samyyang is no Leica, no Zeiss--No way

I am out of here--if my point has not stuck yet, it never will.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

But, for me, I find the Samyang 35mm f 1,4 too highly priced, @ $500. It is my opinion, and I am sticking to it.

And Samyang's opinion is that their 35/1.4 lens is worth $500 and they're sticking to it.

Glad we've cleared things up. It's been a productive thread.

[Damian]

And Samyang's opinion is that their 35/1.4 lens is worth $500 and they're sticking to it.

Samyang's opinion may be that thier lens is worth $500, but Samyang isn't the end retailer and does not set the final price. They have an MSRP of around $550.00 to $600.00 but that, as the 'S' stands for in MSRP, is the "suggested" price. The retailer sets the price at the market level, and, in the end the consumer controls the price the lens will sell for. If no one buys it at $525.00 the price will drop. Keep in mind how retail works. Samyang sells that lens to retailers at less then half the MSRP. The retailer has the option of selling at MSRP or selling below or above if they wish. It's all controlled by demand. Demand will determine the retail price in the end. The performance of the lens will determine the demand. If it turns out to be the best lens ever made by anyone in the known univers, the price will skyrocket quickly. If it turns out to be simply a good lens on par with many others in the $500 range, it's price will probably stay put. And of course if it is found to be lacking, expect the price to be 1/3 to 1/2 less then we see now. Supply and demand. The real question is, is anyone willing to take the risk and buy one now, not knowing if it's amazing or just another 35mm lens.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

If no one buys it at $525.00 the price will drop.

Have you seen that happen for a lens? I only see lenses being still produced or lenses being discontinued. Price doesn't fluctuate as result of demand. If the lens is successful, it keeps getting made; if it's not, it gets discontinued. The FA 31 price hasn't been hiked because the lens is amazing. And no lens had their price dropped. Of course, once a lens is discontinued, you may be able to get it with a discount from sellers that want to get rid of the stock, but no company will lower the price and keep producing a lens. Just check what happened with the Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses in K mount.

I imagine this is because the margins are probably smaller in this industry, and no manufacturer can afford heavy discounts. Stuff like $50 off special promotions - maybe, but not on a regular basis. If it doesn't sell, there's no point in making it. These are not T-shirts that cost 50c to make but you slap a designer logo on them and you ask for $60 during the summer and then you sell them for $10 in the fall.

[Damian]

Laurentiu, you may have a point there, I don't really know as I have not been watching enough lens pricing for long enough to confirm. What I do know is that there are lenses about that have dropped in price. The Tamron 18-200 is a prime example (or would that be a zoom example). It originally retailed for between $350 and $400 and now sells new for around $200 to $225 from various sites. As far as I know this lens is still in production. The reason it sells for so little is that Tamron also makes an 18-270mm which is superior. Prior to the 18-270 the 18-250 was also superior. Sigma's 18-200 is also arguably superior to the Tamron. So why would Tamron keep around a Zoom lens that is inferior to the competition and other products in thier own lens lineup? Tamron probably decided to keep the 18-200 as a budget super zoom, even though it is inferior to other available super zooms. The point being, the 18-200 is still in production and sells for almost half of it's original retail price.

[nater]

The FA 31 price hasn't been hiked because the lens is amazing.

Are you sure?

And no lens had their price dropped.

The counter examples are many, but here is one.

Next time consider using pricetrace before you start talking about what prices do and don't do.

[Rory]

I'm not here to dish the Samyang, but the Manual Lenses that you had mentioned had already built a great and impressive reputation. the Samyang as a newcomer has yet to prove itself if it's on the same category as the Leica, Carl Zeiss and Voigtlander. MF lenses that they are, they are proven already and have their own follower base which the Samyang hasn't built that yet. now, if the Samyang is going to target the CaniKon Market, it still has to compete against the cheaper and a stop slower AF lenses that CaniKon offers. again, it doesn't eliminate the fact that it has to prove itself against those lenses. a stop advantage is one thing, but is that the only thing that most consumers look for? consumers are most likely are looking for the best bang for the buck lens that would give them great overall performance. if the Samyang doesn't show that optical superiority over what the others would offer, $500 would be nothing like a huge money wasted.

oh btw, the Sigma doesn't have a 35mm, it has a 30mm just so you know. for the Pentax, this wouldn't matter. and for other mounts, it doesn't either for APS-C users. for Full Frame digital enthusiasts, if most of them can afford to pay a higher premium FF digital camera, it wouldn't make much sense to go cheap on unproven lenses. people knew the costs of using FF, and it ain't cheap.

Well, Samyang has been around for quite a while; however, you're right that they don't necessarily have a name for themselves.

I shoot full frame and film, and I would consider the Samyang at the $500 price if it's proven, once real world shots are in. If the Samyang perfoms how the 85mm did, then it would be between a $1900 Nikon 35G or a $500 Samyang. If the performance is there, I don't consider it "being cheap" to sacrifice AF for $1400. That $1400 could buy a Sigma 85mm, and a flash.

[Pentaxor]

Well, Samyang has been around for quite a while; however, you're right that they don't necessarily have a name for themselves.

I shoot full frame and film, and I would consider the Samyang at the $500 price if it's proven, once real world shots are in. If the Samyang perfoms how the 85mm did, then it would be between a $1900 Nikon 35G or a $500 Samyang. If the performance is there, I don't consider it "being cheap" to sacrifice AF for $1400. That $1400 could buy a Sigma 85mm, and a flash.

Yup, exactly. if they hit the homerun on the 35/1.4, it may become a start for them. had the Samyang 85 (Rok version) before. very good lens, great bokeh (personally speaking) and great for portraits. a bit lacking on contrasts which would had made it a more flexible lens for other purposes. the only thing I didn't like about it is I struggled using it. that gave me the reason to go for an AF sigma. I like it better than the J-9 though, although the J-9 is easier for me to use and has character. the M85 however would be my top preference of the 3 lenses. small, easy, very sharp and contrasty, but the blue fringing sucks.

anyway, what I'm hoping is that the 35/1.4 would not only be limited for wide open use but also has significant outstanding use for other purposes. meaning, it shouldn't under-perform on such situations.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

What I do know is that there are lenses about that have dropped in price. The Tamron 18-200 is a prime example (or would that be a zoom example). It originally retailed for between $350 and $400 and now sells new for around $200 to $225 from various sites. As far as I know this lens is still in production. The reason it sells for so little is that Tamron also makes an 18-270mm which is superior. Prior to the 18-270 the 18-250 was also superior. Sigma's 18-200 is also arguably superior to the Tamron. So why would Tamron keep around a Zoom lens that is inferior to the competition and other products in thier own lens lineup? Tamron probably decided to keep the 18-200 as a budget super zoom, even though it is inferior to other available super zooms. The point being, the 18-200 is still in production and sells for almost half of it's original retail price.

Yes, but it didn't get at this price because of demand. It got to have this price because Tamron has come out with an upgrade and decided to keep producing this lens as a budget option. Maybe they even changed something in the lens production to keep it cheaper.

Lens prices do fluctuate - but they don't fluctuate due to demand. Not from what I've seen. They fluctuate due to economic changes and they can change if the company strategy changes or if the production technology changes, but they won't change because a lens doesn't sell well or sells very well.

Are you sure?

Yes, I'm sure. Follow those seller links. Adorama sells it for 964.95. B&H offers it at the same price. Look again at pricetrace's chart and you'll see that the low price hasn't changed for a while - it's always been 964.95. 1299.88 is just a bogus price to make 964.95 look good, but pricerate is not smart enough to figure that one out.

The FA 31 price did increase at least once - that was when the yen went up and all lens prices followed course. But it didn't increase because of demand.

Note I didn't say prices don't change - they just don't change as a result of demand.

The counter examples are many, but here is one.

Next time consider using pricetrace before you start talking about what prices do and don't do.

The Rokinon has been available at $250 for more than a year. I don't need to check priceline - I've been watching Pentax lens prices for the past 3 years.

[nater]

Yes, but it didn't get at this price because of demand. It got to have this price because Tamron has come out with an upgrade and decided to keep producing this lens as a budget option. Maybe they even changed something in the lens production to keep it cheaper.

Lens prices do fluctuate - but they don't fluctuate due to demand. Not from what I've seen. They fluctuate due to economic changes and they can change if the company strategy changes or if the production technology changes, but they won't change because a lens doesn't sell well or sells very well.



Yes, I'm sure. Follow those seller links. Adorama sells it for 964.95. B&H offers it at the same price. Look again at pricetrace's chart and you'll see that the low price hasn't changed for a while - it's always been 964.95. 1299.88 is just a bogus price to make 964.95 look good, but pricerate is not smart enough to figure that one out.

The FA 31 price did increase at least once - that was when the yen went up and all lens prices followed course. But it didn't increase because of demand.

Note I didn't say prices don't change - they just don't change as a result of demand.



The Rokinon has been available at $250 for more than a year. I don't need to check priceline - I've been watching Pentax lens prices for the past 3 years.

I looked at the links, and I think you're right in these instances about prices moving primarily in terms of exchange rates. The historical data on pricetrace is probably thrown off by MAP (minimum advertised pricing) requirements placed on auhtorized resellers, making their graphs as historical price indicators unreliable.

However, there are at least four lenses in the last few years which did experience price fluctuations due to supply/demand:

1) Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4
2) Pentax FA 35mm f/2
3) Sigma 24-60mm F2.8 EX DG
4) Tamron SP AF 24-135mm F/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical

A few years ago, 1) and 2) were $200 and $300 respectively, for many months, from all major resellers. As they started to sell out, and demand went up, their prices rose everywhere, at different rates and different times, but they did ultimately rise everywhere.

There was also a lack of demand for 3) and 4) due to both of those companies coming out with more recent APS-C designs covering the same focal length, so 3) and 4) were cleared out for the very low prices of $200 (Nov 2008) and $158-$180 (Dec 2010) respectively at Amazon. I watched the Tamron very closely, and saw how as Amazon sold off the remaining stock they raised the price a little bit a few times as sales picked up, after attracting attention at $158.

These are the cases I know about for sure, and while they both demonstrate price increases and decreases due to market demand (or lack thereof), I do realize they are not extremely common, and these days, with Pentax doing better on average in the marketplace, are less likely to happen again.

However I wouldn't go so far as to say they don't/won't/can't happen.

[Rory]

I want them to make a ton off of it so they can put out a good tilt/shift. The only options are one that works very well and has Zeiss glass, but no electronic reading, and one with electronic readings that only does one axis.

[gnaztee]

I looked at the links, and I think you're right in these instances about prices moving primarily in terms of exchange rates. The historical data on pricetrace is probably thrown off by MAP (minimum advertised pricing) requirements placed on auhtorized resellers, making their graphs as historical price indicators unreliable.

However, there are at least four lenses in the last few years which did experience price fluctuations due to supply/demand:

1) Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4
2) Pentax FA 35mm f/2
3) Sigma 24-60mm F2.8 EX DG
4) Tamron SP AF 24-135mm F/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical

A few years ago, 1) and 2) were $200 and $300 respectively, for many months, from all major resellers. As they started to sell out, and demand went up, their prices rose everywhere, at different rates and different times, but they did ultimately rise everywhere.

There was also a lack of demand for 3) and 4) due to both of those companies coming out with more recent APS-C designs covering the same focal length, so 3) and 4) were cleared out for the very low prices of $200 (Nov 2008) and $158-$180 (Dec 2010) respectively at Amazon. I watched the Tamron very closely, and saw how as Amazon sold off the remaining stock they raised the price a little bit a few times as sales picked up, after attracting attention at $158.

These are the cases I know about for sure, and while they both demonstrate price increases and decreases due to market demand (or lack thereof), I do realize they are not extremely common, and these days, with Pentax doing better on average in the marketplace, are less likely to happen again.

However I wouldn't go so far as to say they don't/won't/can't happen.

I think you're attributing "demand" to these price changes when other factors were the cause. First, the FA 50/1.4 is still in production. It's price went up at the same time as every other Pentax lens as part of an across-the-board price increase for Pentax lenses. I believe that the remaining stock of the FA 35/2 was caught in this increase as well.

On the other two lenses you cite, you give what I think is the actual reason for their prices dropping (they were discontinued), but then turn around and attribute price drops to demand. When the items are discontinued, retailers will drop the price to move product. Demand didn't change, there are just newer models that need shelf/warehouse space and the old stock has to go quickly.

The pricerate thing seems unreliable unless using specific parameters. If they're taking the lowest price found anywhere at any time, they don't take into account the individual decisions of retailers. Just because one decides to lowball (for any of a variety of possible reasons), the graph shows a dip in price. This may not be indicative of prices in general.

[nater]

I think you're attributing "demand" to these price changes when other factors were the cause...

I do understand and hear all the points being made about how so many prices appear fixed - I think what I was trying to communicate is that while the lens market isn't a perfect supply/demand microeconomic marketplace, neither is it some sort of protected marketplace free from the effects of varying levels of demand from consumers (which was someone else's thesis). Prices do move, though the major camera/lens makers do try to operate as much like a cartel as legally possible (with MAP and authorized resellers, no warranty on 'grey-market goods' etc.) and they typically try to hide supply/demand price changes as much as possible (preferring rebates over sales), specifically because giving the appearance of total price stability/lock gives them the upper hand - and ultimately greater profits. (I'd like to think that by commenting in this thread in this way I can raise greater awareness among the general consumer that the 'fixed' and 'stable' prices are really a corporate construct and not a true reality.)

[Jasvox]

My FA35/2 is smaller, lighter, has AF and is proven to be a stellar lens, wide open. I'll pass on this Chinese lens.

Jason