Ok guys, what about the OTUS lenses?

[NB23]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Puzzled. Is there something wrong with "markup"? Or profit?

It's what keeps companies in business. No profit, no business.

It's not as if a Leica is an essential nutrient.

Of course there's absolutely nothing wrong. And it isn't synonym with higher quality either, altough they tend to go hand in hand.

[Peter H]

You guys lost me.

 

 

 

Well, we certainly got separated.  Who lost whom is another matter.

[LocalHero1953]

Of course there's absolutely nothing wrong. And it isn't synonym with higher quality either, altough they tend to go hand in hand.

Mark up is just the difference between what you sell for and what it costs to make. It's the latter figure which is difficult to pin down: the cost of materials plus labour? The cost of the machinery used? The cost of the R&D? The cost of marketing & distribution? The cost of recalls and free repairs? Anyone who claims to have an insight into these figures gets my respect - if they can back it up.

[Peter H]

Mark up is just the difference between what you sell for and what it costs to make. It's the latter figure which is difficult to pin down: the cost of materials plus labour? The cost of the machinery used? The cost of the R&D? The cost of marketing & distribution? The cost of recalls and free repairs? Anyone who claims to have an insight into these figures gets my respect - if they can back it up.

 

 

Cost is far from the only constituent of price, and sometimes it isn't even the most important one.

 

Value is more important to me. 

[pgk]

My simple argument was as follows: there are markups and, in Leica's case, there is a final extra markup on top of it all only because of the brand.

 

... and the brand has established a price point for a whole host of reasons some of which I referred to earlier. Whether though, there is an extra markup simply because Leica can add one because of their name is something else. To a certain sector of the market this might be true, but certainly not to all because the Leica brand is not recognised by many these days. And doesn't the same go for Zeiss who use their name and reputation to supply lenses (from Japan rather than Germany) at high prices too trading on their 'German expertise' in a similar way? If the option was a 'Bloggs' Otus I doubt the price would be at the same height or even a high price feasible at all regardless of apparent performance.

[dem331]

Cost is far from the only constituent of price, and sometimes it isn't even the most important one.

 

Value is more important to me.

Value is more important to me too, but it is not really a constituent of price. Demand is. (Of course you could argue that the demand function is just the value attributed to the product offered by consumers at each price point)

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Value is more important to me too, but it is not really a constituent of price. Demand is. (Of course you could argue that the demand function is just the value attributed to the product offered by consumers at each price point)

 

 And I do!

[asiafish]

I used to go for the smallest lenses possible on my M and the fastest possible for my SLR.  Well, the Zeiss ZE 35/1.5 and Otus 55/1.4 are now gone, and the 50 Lux ASPH and 35 LUX FLE have replaced them.

 

the Orus may be ever so slightly better than the 50  Lux, but I like the images (and the process of capturing them) a lot more with the Leica lenses.