Originally posted by texandrews I've got a pretty full range of A and FA lenses, so I'm not exactly in the market for anything (except this newly announced 28-45...), but I am a bit curious. The lenses seem about 40-50% (or more...) higher priced than would seem like appropriate to me. The most expensive lens I ever had was the CZ 16-35 f 2.8 for Sony FF---a big lens, lots of glass, really excellent, and not one that was probably made in a huge quantity. But some of these Pentax lenses are more than 2x- 2.5x as expensive. So what accounts for the price difference---I don't think the glass is any better or more exotic, nor the build quality better. Is it truly down to economies of scale---considering that not a lot of those 16-35's were made?
Does anyone know what the legacy A and FA lenses cost originally?
Pentax needs to make their money somewhere, and margins on pro products can be huge sources of income. The newer lenses are without question superior to the old ones in terms of both optics (nano coating, optimized for digital, etc.) and build quality (weather sealing, quick shift, in-lens AF), even though the practical difference in image quality may not be that big. Still, the newer lenses could easily be sold for half the price and Pentax would still be making a profit, but if people are willing to pay what they cost (which they are), then there's your answer
Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (
Site Usage Guide |
Site Help |
My Photography)
PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by
donating or purchasing one of our
Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates,
Adorama,
B&H Photo,
KEH, or
Topaz Labs, and get
FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers: