Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-14-2009, 08:51 PM   #31
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by lesmore49 Quote
In Canada the price of a Pentax 12-24 is $ 1299 CAD and there is not much difference in the dollar between CAD and USD.
The OP is not in Canada. And in any case, the fact that prices have not gone up as much in the US suggests that whatever is going in in Canada, th issue isn't at the Pentax end.

12-14-2009, 08:53 PM   #32
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
Maybe on your side of the puddle Marc!
In UK Jan 2009 you could have bought DA12-24 for around 600-650 now in December of the same year used ones go for that price and new ones have price tags of 900-949!!!
I believe those are the astronomical price rises OP was referring to...
The OP is in the US.
12-14-2009, 09:13 PM   #33
Site Supporter
Steve Beswick's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario, California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,579
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I must be in a piss mood today, but my understanding is that complaining about things that are reasonable is called whining. Sure, we would all love to have tons of options at a low price, but I will take today's pricing over what we suffered with in the 60s and 70s when a decent lens meant a half-month's salary at minimum wage!

Steve
$7.25 an hour times 160 hours per month = $1,160 ; assumes full time (good luck!)

subtract 20% for taxes and you are down to $928, half of which is $464.

I'm missing the disparity.
12-14-2009, 09:55 PM   #34
Veteran Member
yyyzzz's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 509
Original Poster
Is the rapid rise of price a fact or an illusion?

There are two world views. One view is that there has not been much price increase on wide angle Pentax lenses in general and on 12-24mm in particular. The other view is the opposite.

I happened to be in the second camp. Is the price increase a fact or an illusion?

I do not care about the answer because it is too academic and I only care about my wallet. I do not care about the reasons because there are too many. I only care about the result, because my wallet tells the pain!

As said, some people may be perfectly happy. That is fine. BUT I am not one of them and I would like to tell Pentax about this.

BTW, I use FA 50mm f1.4 as an additional piece of supporting evidence of the pricing policy.

12-14-2009, 10:07 PM   #35
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,422
QuoteOriginally posted by Just1MoreDave Quote
Your point about Russian lenses does go to prove that exchange rates are sometimes behind price hikes...
The interesting thing is that the Ruble is not and has not been high against the dollar while this price increase happened. I suspect that the increase in price is due to all the buzz created around these lenses on this site More seriously, I think the resellers for new J-9s and Zens noticed that the lenses were undervalued and adjusted their prices up until sales started to flatten. They then backed the prices off a little to a new set point.

Steve
12-14-2009, 10:08 PM   #36
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: madison
Posts: 239
Some say the FA50 price only went up by $160. $160 is not a lot.

Well, I say, that is an 80% increase!! That's crazy!!!
12-14-2009, 10:45 PM   #37
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,422
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve Beswick Quote
$7.25 an hour times 160 hours per month = $1,160 ; assumes full time (good luck!)

subtract 20% for taxes and you are down to $928, half of which is $464.

I'm missing the disparity.
Who was making 7.25 an hour in the 70s? The minimum wage in the U.S. in 1974 was $1.45 per hour. At least that was what I was making as a college freshman. That yields $126 gross for half-month's work (2080/12/2*1.45).

Steve
12-14-2009, 10:51 PM   #38
Pentaxian
LeDave's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,904
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Who was making 7.25 an hour in the 70s? The minimum wage in the U.S. in 1974 was $1.45 per hour. At least that was what I was making as a college freshman. That yields $126 gross for half-month's work (2080/12/2*1.45).

Steve
WOW! That's so fast, I didn't think 1.45 a hour would be that little in the 70's. The amount of change in such little time is amazing. I'm guessing cheeseburgers from Mcdonald's were 20 cents each?

12-15-2009, 12:22 AM   #39
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,422
QuoteOriginally posted by LeDave Quote
WOW! That's so fast, I didn't think 1.45 a hour would be that little in the 70's. The amount of change in such little time is amazing. I'm guessing cheeseburgers from Mcdonald's were 20 cents each?
No, the burgers were more than than, but not by much. The average house price was about $38,900.00 and the median income was $11,197.00. Gasoline was about $0.50 per gallon (lower in some areas). First-class postage was $0.08. Inflation was at 13% and rising.

A new Spotmatic F with SMC Takumar 50/1.4 was about $600. That was a little over half the median gross monthly salary at the time. I guess that explains why the 35mm SLR was a status symbol.

Steve
12-15-2009, 01:12 AM   #40
Damn Brit
Guest




I find the combination of fanboys and whining so amusing, you guys make my day whenever I see threads like this.

And to suggest that it's not whining but "The purpose is to let Pentax know the displeasure that some of us have felt." ROTFLMAO

Who do you think is listening? Ned Bunnell? He's having too much fun with his Leica still. John Carlson, Manager of Product Marketing and Support, Mr. Personality himself?
If he's listening it's because he's secretly working as an undercover agent for Nikon.

Here's what I think Hoya's (Pentax) attitude to all this is. The customer is the one who needs Pentax to survive. Hoya don't care, they have options, they can sell Pentax, they can keep Pentax or if Pentax fails, they get a nice right off.

Stop buying those second, third, fifteenth hand 30 year old lenses and buy some brand new, high priced (but comparable to other brands) lenses. After all, what's a few hundred lousy bucks here or there for something you love.
12-15-2009, 02:11 AM   #41
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
...we're talking about only a $100 or so rise - hardly "astronomical" when one considers it is still priced right in line with the 50/1.4's from the other manufacturers. It was severely *underpriced* before.
Thank god, Pentax put that wrong underpricing right!

Marc, excuse the sarcasm but doesn't someone who chose Pentax for their great lens prices and now has to witness one of the biggest pluses going for Pentax (or was it the AF or high ISO performance or sports lenses and frame rates? Ah, sarcasm again...) disappear, deserve a little empathy?

As someone else noted, a $160 increase (not ~$100) doesn't sound much but it is almost a doubling of the price.

I think it is sad that some lenses just disappeared into "out of reach" land for many Pentax shooters. Whether it makes sense for Pentax economically, we'll see. Other K-mount lens manufacturers make nice lenses too...

I'm still a happy Pentax camper. Just not sure anymore if I could still recommend the brand for its underpriced lenses anymore.
12-15-2009, 02:58 AM   #42
Site Supporter
Steve Beswick's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario, California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,579
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Who was making 7.25 an hour in the 70s? The minimum wage in the U.S. in 1974 was $1.45 per hour. At least that was what I was making as a college freshman. That yields $126 gross for half-month's work (2080/12/2*1.45).

Steve
You also said: "...I will take today's pricing over what we suffered with in the 60s and 70s when a decent lens meant a half-month's salary at minimum wage!"

I gave you 1/2 of a months pay at minimum wage. Again, I ask where the disparity is. In my opinion the closet thing we have to "decent lenses" today is the FA limited series. How many lenses can you buy new in the FA limited line for $464?
12-15-2009, 05:03 AM   #43
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,217
MSRP on lenses is meaningless. Sure there are some sellers on Amazon Marketplace and e bay that try to get full price for these lenses, but most people are savvy enough to realize they can get cheaper prices elsewhere. The only time that Pentax actually gets full MSRP is when a product is first released.

Gary is right. The more lens sales (on new lenses) that Pentax gets, the lower the price they can offer those lenses for. There is a lot of cost involved with the development of new lenses that gets spread out through each lens. Certain lenses (the DA 55?) do not sell many copies at all and therefore that cost per lens is probably phenomenal. I think that Pentax at one time was overly optimistic on lens sales and therefore priced their lenses way too low.
12-15-2009, 05:06 AM   #44
Voe
Veteran Member
Voe's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 708
QuoteOriginally posted by Damn Brit Quote
I find the combination of fanboys and whining so amusing, you guys make my day whenever I see threads like this.

And to suggest that it's not whining but "The purpose is to let Pentax know the displeasure that some of us have felt." ROTFLMAO

Who do you think is listening? Ned Bunnell? He's having too much fun with his Leica still. John Carlson, Manager of Product Marketing and Support, Mr. Personality himself?
If he's listening it's because he's secretly working as an undercover agent for Nikon.

Here's what I think Hoya's (Pentax) attitude to all this is. The customer is the one who needs Pentax to survive. Hoya don't care, they have options, they can sell Pentax, they can keep Pentax or if Pentax fails, they get a nice right off.

Stop buying those second, third, fifteenth hand 30 year old lenses and buy some brand new, high priced (but comparable to other brands) lenses. After all, what's a few hundred lousy bucks here or there for something you love.
Totally agree! I couldn't have said it better myself.
12-15-2009, 05:15 AM   #45
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The more lens sales (on new lenses) that Pentax gets, the lower the price they can offer those lenses for.
Or: The more lens sales that Pentax gets for the new higher prices, the more they are encouraged to keep the prices high.

Do you think Pentax would like to sell the FA 50/1.4 for less but cannot and will be able to again if more people bought it?

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think that Pentax at one time was overly optimistic on lens sales and therefore priced their lenses way too low.
I have a hard time believing that the FA 50/1.4 at $199 (now $359, street) was sold at a loss. I believe they could still sell it for $199 and still create a profit.

I rather think that new management introduced a new calculation model that suggests that you can win more by selling less but at a higher price. I might be wrong, I'm not a business person at all, but the skyrocketing that happened (apparently anywhere else but in the US, according to Marc) seems odd.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
12-24mm, alliance, k-mount, outrageous, pentax, pentax lens, price, slr lens, tokina, users
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DC motor tech from Tokina? Tokina and Pentax relationship? kales Pentax News and Rumors 68 10-14-2010 12:34 PM
For Sale - Sold: Tokina 20-35mm f2.8 AT-X Pro, Tokina 28-80mm f2.8 AT-X Pro, Tokina 100-300mm f photobizzz Sold Items 7 01-30-2009 06:04 PM
Tokina/Pentax 11-18 F2.8 ??? xGene Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 09-08-2008 04:04 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: Tokina 17mm, Tokina 100-300mm, Sigma 28-200mm time-snaps Sold Items 2 07-24-2007 03:47 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:11 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top