[stevebrot]

Just a few comments:

First:

Might it be that the lens was sold on commission with the seller, not B&H setting the price?

Second:

The low price for a single sale does not indicate the "real" price and/or value. Case in point...I bought my FA 77 Limited new-in-box this last spring with full warranty and additional 7 year extended for $525. The price I paid indicates nothing more than my extreme good fortune and does not reflect on the quality, value, or desirability of the lens.

Steve

[Biro]

how much is the brand new Sigma anyway? the Sigma is a different lens. it has a different rendering which is less flexible or of little use once out of it's comfort zone. it's a good lens in a special way, but not an excellent overall performer.

Yes, I understand your point. I was just trying to pull up an alternative at the moment I was typing. But many Pentaxians opt for the FA 35mm f/2.0 because they want a fast prime for general low-light use - and can't afford the FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited (and they may also want auto focus, which rules out many older lenses). In this sense, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a viable alternative - but it is a more-specialized lens. New at B&H for $439:

Sigma | 30mm f/1.4 EX DC Autofocus Lens for Pentax | 300109

Another, slightly less expensive alternative (if the size of the lens doesn't bother you), is the Sigma 28mm f/1.8. And 28mm is the perfect normal focal length on cameras with APS-C sized sensors. New at B&H for $349:

Sigma | W/A 28mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Macro AF Lens

Of course, another alternative would be to buy the Pentax K-x and take advantage of its excellent high ISO abilities and opt for the DA 35mm f/2.8 macro Limited or the DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited.

[Pentaxor]

Yes, I understand your point. I was just trying to pull up an alternative at the moment I was typing. But many Pentaxians opt for the FA 35mm f/2.0 because they want a fast prime for general low-light use - and can't afford the FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited (and they may also want auto focus, which rules out many older lenses). In this sense, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a viable alternative - but it is a more-specialized lens. New at B&H for $439:

Sigma | 30mm f/1.4 EX DC Autofocus Lens for Pentax | 300109

Another, slightly less expensive alternative (if the size of the lens doesn't bother you), is the Sigma 28mm f/1.8. And 28mm is the perfect normal focal length on cameras with APS-C sized sensors. New at B&H for $349:

Sigma | W/A 28mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Macro AF Lens

Of course, another alternative would be to buy the Pentax K-x and take advantage of its excellent high ISO abilities and opt for the DA 35mm f/2.8 macro Limited or the DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited.

too bad the FA28 is not that great. I just wish it renders something like it's MF 28/3.5 older cousins. let's hope Pentax does an MKII version of the FA or much better is to make an FA28/2 with the optical characterictics of the 28/3.5, yummy.

[pentaman]

I understand $269 may not be the true market value for the FA 35mm f/2.0 right now. But it really is all the lens is worth. Anyone who pays more than $300 is paying too much. This is a good lens with a solid reputation. But the hyperbole espoused on this Web site and others made it sound like this was a poor man's 31mm f/1.8 Limited. And it's just not that. All the talk drove up demand in recent years. And since the lens is no longer in production, the price went up as well. But it's gotten out of hand. So, it's true... the "price" of the lens seems to range from $350-$500 depending on new/used/condition, etc. And that price is obviously fair to many. I don't fault them - I almost bought one earlier this month myself. But it's really only "worth" about what it was selling for back when it was still in production. Once you pass $300, you're probably better off buying a brand-new Sigma 30mm f/1.4 with a warranty.

First question: How did you determine that number?

Anyone who puts a price on anything, is essentially putting their price (or in other words, their perceived value). The same way if someone offered me a pricey Nikon lens for which I have no use, I would buy it for $10 if I didn't know its market price. What does this mean - means for me, it is worth $10.

In the same vein, like any other commodity, the price is usually dictated by the average or last or median price (or other statistical method) of the item. So, unless you can somehow control that (usually by controlling the supply), there is no way you can control what others pay or don't pay for that item.

E.g. Because of cold in Florida, this year's orange crop will cost more. So, unless you can wait it out, you probably have to buy oranges at the market cost this year.

[Alfisti]

He gets the price from 35's from other marques. The Nikon 35 is going new what the 35/2 is going for used .... bit iffy imo.

[Pentaxor]

speaking of true value, market value, price value or whatever, how much would you buy or sell an MF K55/1.8 nowadays?

I recently checked the lens review section, and there are 3 people who bought the lens for a whooping $400-$500 dollars late last year. that's right, it's not $40 or $50 and by no means a typographical error, IMO. I have no idea on how much this lens really costs since I got mine for free. but for me, I guess this would go for around $50 bucks. 50 bucks gone up to 500? that is 10x more of the selling price of a used copy in the marketplace. is it worth this much nowadays, or is it simply a rip-off?

[Jewelltrail]

SylBer: In fact, price (thanks to marketing) reflects what people are willing to pay for a good.

Precisely, price equals whatever the market will bear--------------------------it is that simple...........................period!!!

[Biro]

Precisely, price equals whatever the market will bear--------------------------it is that simple...........................period!!!

Exactly, which is why I acknowledge what the market price for the FA 35mm f/2.0 is right now. But I personally feel it is only worth $300 tops. I also acknowledge others may feel differently - and can't fault them for it. But I still feel they are overpaying.

[stevebrot]

...But I personally feel it is only worth $300 tops. I also acknowledge others may feel differently - and can't fault them for it. But I still feel they are overpaying.

Apparently, this is a lens that does not appeal to you. I paid $299 (just under your top dollar) and feel that I got a real bargain at that price considering build, size, speed, and performance. It is a very good fit for my needs and I feel that it is a rotten shame that distribution outside Asia is currently extremely limited. What I am curious about is why you have such strong opinions about a lens that you neither own nor would own?

Steve

[Pentaxor]

Apparently, this is a lens that does not appeal to you. I paid $299 (just under your top dollar) and feel that I got a real bargain at that price considering build, size, speed, and performance. It is a very good fit for my needs and I feel that it is a rotten shame that distribution outside Asia is currently extremely limited. What I am curious about is why you have such strong opinions about a lens that you neither own nor would own?

Steve

maybe because he wants one for $200?

[pentaman]

Interesting, but very common observations - people trying to buy things want to buy it lower than people trying to sell. The bid/ask the stock market is a clear indication. The buyer and seller then meet mid-point, and the final price depends on who has more "power."

Let us try this social experiment - whoever said this lens is worth only about $300, assume I will sell you this lens, brand new, for $300. The only condition is, you have to sell it back in the same condition to another person. What price will you sell it at?

[Alfisti]

Let us try this social experiment - whoever said this lens is worth only about $300, assume I will sell you this lens, brand new, for $300. The only condition is, you have to sell it back in the same condition to another person. What price will you sell it at?

No need to experiment, I have been in many a recent tussle with sellers who are trying to flog lenses used at prices that are higher than they bought them new. I plain refuse to buy from them.

[wallyb]

speaking of true value, market value, price value or whatever, how much would you buy or sell an MF K55/1.8 nowadays?

I recently checked the lens review section, and there are 3 people who bought the lens for a whooping $400-$500 dollars late last year. that's right, it's not $40 or $50 and by no means a typographical error, IMO. I have no idea on how much this lens really costs since I got mine for free. but for me, I guess this would go for around $50 bucks. 50 bucks gone up to 500? that is 10x more of the selling price of a used copy in the marketplace. is it worth this much nowadays, or is it simply a rip-off?

I hate to tell ya.... but without background checks and purchase verification.... people have a tendency to inflate or flat-out fabricate the price of how much they got a lens for. To drive the prices up, to drive them down, or to just act silly. No one would pay $500 for a $50 lens...

[pentaman]

I hate to tell ya.... but without background checks and purchase verification.... people have a tendency to inflate or flat-out fabricate the price of how much they got a lens for. To drive the prices up, to drive them down, or to just act silly. No one would pay $500 for a $50 lens...

Unless you are the US government.

[pentaman]

No need to experiment, I have been in many a recent tussle with sellers who are trying to flog lenses used at prices that are higher than they bought them new. I plain refuse to buy from them.

But the point made in this forums is, market sets the price. So if you refuse to buy them, and so do a few more, the price goes down to a point where it can be sustained. However, if others buy it at inflated prices, the lens would now have a new price - even if it is used. People may not want to pay the price, but it is what it is.