Us Nikon shooters have to pay more for CV

SC version is relatively rare, and, unlike screwmount, RF coupled. That might explain the price.
 
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.
 
The coupled mount definitely adds to the cost. However, all the CV S-mount lenses cost more compared to their Leica-mount equivalents.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
VinceC said:
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.
 
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...
 
Last edited:
Lonely Driver said:
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
 
Back
Top Bottom