What was Sigma thinking?

Paul Furman wrote:
William Graham wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Michael Benveniste wrote:

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Alan Browne wrote:



A million dollars? Was that a typo?

Hardly. If it was twice that I wouldn't be surprised either.

It's not that the lens is especially worth a million dollars, but
the cost of production makes it necessary to charge that much. If
they sold like hotcakes.....Several dozen a day in every photography
store in the country, they could probably be made for under 10 grand
or so. but how many people are going to want or need a lens like
that? Not near enough to pay for a full scale production assembly
line. They are hoping against hope that they will find a few cooks
with more money than they know what to do with who will buy a few of
them and cover their humongous production costs.......I see that the
number of billionaires in this country is up by 10% or so over last
year......Maybe a few of them are amateur photographers....:^)

The first time I saw this, it had Arabic writing on one side. It's
quite possible that was just one comissioned lens.

The description noted that it was produced specifically for the needs of a
particular client.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

THO wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

Doug McDonald wrote:
Imagine the depth of field looking at a bird 50 feet away.

This thing will sell well, even at $10,000, if it works.

Doug McDonald
I would not doubt that it's well over $1,000,000, possibly much more.

A million dollars? Was that a typo?


Not for the Zeiss: they stated the price somewhere. I think it was
a bit less than one million, in fact, quite a bit less. Still
well more than $100,000.

I was of course referring to the Sigma, not the Zeiss.
Does the Zeiss even focus that close?

Doug McDonald