Us Nikon shooters have to pay more for CV

[NIKON KIU]

I was reading another thread and noticed a member mentioned that CV 25mm F4 screw-mount cost $275(black),$245.00(silver) coustesy of Mr Gandy:

http://www.cameraquest.com/inventor.htm

Now scroll down the page and check out the same lens in Nikon/Contax mount, $369.00 Ouch!

How about a holiday discount for us Nikon Lovers Stephen?

Kiu

 

[varjag]

SC version is relatively rare, and, unlike screwmount, RF coupled. That might explain the price.

 

[KoNickon]

Yes, the Nikon (and Contax) lenses were limited editions, so I am sure there were many fewer of them made, so fewer lenses to amortize the costs over. I may be wrong here, but I think the Nikon and Contax mounts cost more to manufacture also.

 

[VinceC]

The coupled mount definitely adds to the cost. However, all the CV S-mount lenses cost more compared to their Leica-mount equivalents.

 

[Lonely Driver]

The real mystery to me is why black lenses cost more than their chrome counterpart. Imagine Apple charging more for the same iPods but in different colors. That I really don't get.

 

[VinceC]

Black cameras usually cost a little bit more than chrome ones ... at least, that's the way it was for Nikon SLRs back when they offered both. I think the black finishes are more labor-intensive.

 

[Terao]

There is an even bigger premium on them this side of the pond from Robert White - the 21mm f/4 is around $700 compared to $400 for the LTM version...

I'm still trying to decide whether to get the 21 or the 25...

 

[wyk_penguin]

Wait till you find out the outrageous price they ask for the Contax --> M mpunt adapter.

 

[Huck Finn]

Black cameras usually cost a little bit more than chrome ones ... at least, that's the way it was for Nikon SLRs back when they offered both. I think the black finishes are more labor-intensive.

However, the CV lenses are not chrome. It doesn't cost any more to paint the camera or lens silver than it does to paint it black. I think these silver lenses are just discounted because there isn't the same demand for them as for the black.

 

[KoNickon]

I think that's so -- black lenses go well with either color body, but silver lenses don't look so great with black bodies.

Terao, get the 25mm. 21 just isn't as versatile.

 

[VinceC]

Terao,
I'm also a big fan of the 25mm. A very versatile focal length that you can use for everyday situations.

 

[Terao]

Yep, that's my thought on the 25 as well - the 21 is great fun but I'm used to shooting it on the R-D1 (using the R-D1 "D" finder as well). Since the demise of my T I've not had a chance to use it on a film body but I think it would be way too wide (I rarely use my 12mm these days, even on the R-D1).

Always liked my Nikon SLR 24mm, so it makes sense to get a similar focal length lens for a "Nikon" rangefinder...

 

[NIKON KIU]

See what I am saying:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...MEDW:IT&viewitem=&item=120072014988&rd=1&rd=1

Here is a USED R2s and it did $90 less than a new one! I was hoping I could snatch it for a couple of hundred dollars and it did over $400.
Mr Gandy is selling new bodies(NHS edition) for $499.00
May be these cameras/lenses are turning into collectibles 😉

Kiu

 

[rxmd]

The real mystery to me is why black lenses cost more than their chrome counterpart. Imagine Apple charging more for the same iPods but in different colors. That I really don't get.

Welcome to reality. Apple, for example, sells their MacBook models in black and in white. Black ones cost $200 extra. Inside they are the same (the only differences being colour and a slightly larger hard drive, which definitely does not account for a $200 difference).

Philipp