kshapero
South Florida Man
The CV 35mm/f1.4 is $579 while the CV 40mm/f1.4 is only $369. Why the disparity? $210 s a lot of jack!
ferider
Veteran
The two Biogons made in same factory and slower cost even more ...
sevres_babylone
Veteran
Are you sure you didn't mean to ask: Why is the 40mm so cheap?
sanmich
Veteran
Maybe, only maybe....
the 40 is not so popular as the 35 FL and needs a liitle "help" to be sold.
But that would mean the 35 1.4 COULD have been sold aproximately in the same range of prices, and is higher because "we" want it more.
Damn!
the 40 is not so popular as the 35 FL and needs a liitle "help" to be sold.
But that would mean the 35 1.4 COULD have been sold aproximately in the same range of prices, and is higher because "we" want it more.
Damn!
bucks11
Established
I'm with Michael on this one. I think the 35 is so much more because the people want it so much more...
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Since the 35 came out, I've wondered if there's any difference in "quality" or "character" that justifies the extra cost. I can't tell by looking at reviews or images on the web. If anyone here has both, do you feel the extra cost gets you more of something... other than the more useful (?) FL? If not, I'd certainly agree with Michael.
sanmich
Veteran
Of course there is another part to this economical logic:
setting the 35 1.4 in the ~400$ mark would kill the little skopar.
The 40 1.4 is riding alone, so....
But frankly, this scheme could be completely wrong, and there could be some additional difficulties to produce or even design the 35 1.4 over the 40.
I don't even know if they have the same number of elements?
does someone knows about the optical design?
setting the 35 1.4 in the ~400$ mark would kill the little skopar.
The 40 1.4 is riding alone, so....
But frankly, this scheme could be completely wrong, and there could be some additional difficulties to produce or even design the 35 1.4 over the 40.
I don't even know if they have the same number of elements?
does someone knows about the optical design?
chris00nj
Young Luddite
Exactly. Look at the used Leica market, where prices are set purely by user supply & demand, not the OEM. The 35mm Summicron sells for at least $850, whichever version, while 40mm Summciron sells for about $300.
oscroft
Veteran
The 35/1.4 has 8 elements in 6 groups, the 40/1.4 has 7 in 6.
ferider
Veteran
The 35 has one more element.
But, guys, come on, in this business, prices are not correlated closely to manufacturing costs.
Value is subjective. If a lens doesn't sell it gets cheaper. Or vice versa.
Roland.
But, guys, come on, in this business, prices are not correlated closely to manufacturing costs.
Value is subjective. If a lens doesn't sell it gets cheaper. Or vice versa.
Roland.
oscroft
Veteran
Oh, and I see there's actually not much difference in the prices in the UK.
The 40 sells for £350 plus VAT and the 35 for £390 plus VAT.
The 40 sells for £350 plus VAT and the 35 for £390 plus VAT.
mich8261
Well-known
what's the bokeh like at 1.4 for the 35? On the 40 it's not so pretty (the out of focus highlights can be distracting).
photogdave
Shops local
The 40mm had been around for much longer and Cosina has realized a profit from it. The 35mm is a newer lens - maybe R&D costs were higher, and demand was high so they would want to capitalize on that.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Agree with the framelines comment. Although if you are an RD1 user I think the 35mm framelines are covered almost perfectly with 40mm. The 1.4/35 is a bit sharper open but I would not consider either to be sharp open as say the Nokton 1.5/50 is (still far from perfect). Still I love the little 1.4/40. What a bargain
rya
Established
It makes me wonder how initial prices can be set for new lenses, especially with how uncertain the outcome is without testing. When the first prototype of a new lens is produced, do they shoot it and then judge the character internally?
For example, if the 35 Nokton 1.2 had bokeh like the 35 classic, would VC have offered at a lower initial price? Buyers obviously set demand and the price is adjusted after the initial offering, so basically I am asking how producers estimate what demand they will face for lenses with such subjective qualities. It is hard to put a price on things like glow, character, bokeh, and the transition out of focus.
For example, if the 35 Nokton 1.2 had bokeh like the 35 classic, would VC have offered at a lower initial price? Buyers obviously set demand and the price is adjusted after the initial offering, so basically I am asking how producers estimate what demand they will face for lenses with such subjective qualities. It is hard to put a price on things like glow, character, bokeh, and the transition out of focus.
rya
Established
I have lately considered picking up a CL and 40 cron/rokkor, or an old Minolta or Canon G for their 40 1.7s. If it weren't for all the electronics hassle, it would be more appealing.
Could an M be theoretically retro-fitted with 40mm framelines? I'd rather have that than my 28s on the M6. But then those old 40s wouldn't be so cheap.
Could an M be theoretically retro-fitted with 40mm framelines? I'd rather have that than my 28s on the M6. But then those old 40s wouldn't be so cheap.
sanmich
Veteran
The pricing thing goes without saying, and it is perfectly normal.
But I think the pricing adjustments are more difficult to be done.
There are several vicious circles involved:
if a lens is predicted to be a high demand item, prices can go up.
but then the demand will go down..
And if Ii know that a manufacturer is adjusting its prices constantly, I would find it diffficult to bite the bullet just when the product is announced, thus, lowering the demand, thus...lowering the price...
Did someone mentioned the bessa III?
Please mett the egg, and here is the chicken...
ferider
Veteran
Remember that 100$ pre-orders were taken in the US (Stephen and Photov) for the 35, before the price was set.
Cheers,
Roland.
Cheers,
Roland.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I dont think the 35f1.4 Nokton is expensive - however I think a used Summilux 35f1.4 pre-asph at $1000 is overpriced!
The cost of developing a lens and manufacturing it it is related to the complexity of the design. Just adding 1 more element changes the whole design criteria. The 40f1.4 was designed to be a good performing, semi-normal focal length and the "look" was designed to give a modern look to its image (though we have the choice of MC and SC to).
The 35f1.4 Nokton was designed to give a more "vintage" look to its rendition, more like a Summilux 35. In so doing CV also corrected for some of the obvious weak spots of the Summilx 35 - flare sensitivity, coma and some of the spherical aberations, but without touching the "look". The 35f1.4 pre-asph had an almost "cult" like following in Japan with prices reaching fantasy levels and the Nokton 35f1.4 allowed users to get a better, but similar lens at an affordable price.
Product pricing is not always the fault of the manufacturer either. Dealer and distributors play a large role here. A popular lens that flies of the shelves can take a bit of a price hike - and to some extent "subsidize" the less popular lenses.
All the major distributors pay virtually the same for a given product - it is then up to them to price it and if they feel that lens A can handle a higher price, they will put it higher and if lens B is slow mover, they can drop the price to make it attractive.
And talking about expensive. I just used the Summilux 21mm f1.4 Asph - list is about $6000!!!! It is a incredible piece of optics - and it is the only one of its kind - hence the price can be what the market will handle. If, at some time in the future, another manufacturer comes out with a similar lens - the price would have to be adjusted. Is it worth $6000 - I dont know, but if I had $6000 I would buy it! Now a 2.8 works fine too - and you can get a Zeiss 21f2.8 for $1100. Just like with super-cars - it is those last 40-50mph or 0.1 of a sec off 0-60 thats costs money.
The cost of developing a lens and manufacturing it it is related to the complexity of the design. Just adding 1 more element changes the whole design criteria. The 40f1.4 was designed to be a good performing, semi-normal focal length and the "look" was designed to give a modern look to its image (though we have the choice of MC and SC to).
The 35f1.4 Nokton was designed to give a more "vintage" look to its rendition, more like a Summilux 35. In so doing CV also corrected for some of the obvious weak spots of the Summilx 35 - flare sensitivity, coma and some of the spherical aberations, but without touching the "look". The 35f1.4 pre-asph had an almost "cult" like following in Japan with prices reaching fantasy levels and the Nokton 35f1.4 allowed users to get a better, but similar lens at an affordable price.
Product pricing is not always the fault of the manufacturer either. Dealer and distributors play a large role here. A popular lens that flies of the shelves can take a bit of a price hike - and to some extent "subsidize" the less popular lenses.
All the major distributors pay virtually the same for a given product - it is then up to them to price it and if they feel that lens A can handle a higher price, they will put it higher and if lens B is slow mover, they can drop the price to make it attractive.
And talking about expensive. I just used the Summilux 21mm f1.4 Asph - list is about $6000!!!! It is a incredible piece of optics - and it is the only one of its kind - hence the price can be what the market will handle. If, at some time in the future, another manufacturer comes out with a similar lens - the price would have to be adjusted. Is it worth $6000 - I dont know, but if I had $6000 I would buy it! Now a 2.8 works fine too - and you can get a Zeiss 21f2.8 for $1100. Just like with super-cars - it is those last 40-50mph or 0.1 of a sec off 0-60 thats costs money.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
"CV"? Is that code in some elitist club?