Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/04/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]All true, but the original argument was Zeiss pricing......where size is not a big driver ( compared to Leica ) ..... It is perceived quality and value to the consumer. That equates to higher selling costs, and improved profits.. Frank Filippone red735i@earthlink.net Subject: Re: [Leica] Thoughts on the new Zeiss lenses Frank Filippone wrote: > > It has some component of small volume runs, some labor costs ( > overhead, > time and hourly rate) , and some distribution costs. But the wild > majority > is pure profit. The 50/1.4 ASPH is the best example..... 8 times the > street > cost of a 50/1.4 from Nikon......$300 vs $2500. > > Heh, heh... since Leica is loosing money, there is no profit even at $2500. You might consider the incremental cost of making each lens, i.e. variable cost, but in Leica's case that's less than half the equation. Small manufacturers have relatively higher fixed costs i.e. the cost to design the lens and keep the base operation running. In Leica's case the "wild majority" is the *overhead* (unfortunately). Jonathan