Sony lenses are EXPENSIVE!!!

I went to a Ritz Camera store today hoping to check out the new Sony DSLR.

Unfortunately, they didn't get it in yet. However, the clerk looked up what

Ritz was selling the Sony lenses for. They were showing the lenses at Sony's

FULL MSRP. These prices were reported by Chad M. a few weeks back. At that

time, I posted that Canon's comparable lenses had a lower 'street price'. The

Canon lenses are some 20-30% lower!!! Even a check of K/M's prices for the

same lenses in photo magazines, shows that Sony has raised prices. This is

very arrogant of them and no way for them to capture a sizable slice of the

DSLR pie.

 

I might just buy a Sony body, because I own most of the lenses I want. But

their prices for their lenses are way out of line, especially since they are

in most cases, re-labelled Minolta lenses. Sony is ripping off the consumer

with their pricing structure. The good thing is that the re-sell value of my

Minolta AF lenses has gone up.

 

Hopefully, Canon or Nikon will develop their own version of Sony's Super

Steady Shot, at which point I'll dump my present equipment and go with another

line. Even Olympus looks good at this point.

Yeah, I thought the same thing when I was looking through the new B&H ad in a photo magazine. I think they'll still capture a big chunk of the DSLR pie. Why? Because they're gearing toward the entry-level consumer and K/M users. Entry-level consumers will buy the Sony because of the 10.2MP bold print in their ads along with they're on-body IS. This will be a huge selling point at places like Best Buy, Circuit City and the likes where Joe Consumer is being sold a camera by Billy ("I-don't-know-jack-about-photography") Saleskid. What Billy Saleskid does know is "specs" of the cameras. Looking at specs of the camera body the Sony looks awesome and he'll push those features on the Joe Consumer. By the time JC gets home, shoots with his camera for a few months, and realizes he wants a new lens, he's already stuck with a system.

 

From that perspective it's pretty smart marketing. Sony is number 2 in digital cameras overall after the second quarter 2006 at 16% market share. I imagine they're cemented there with their new entry into the DSLR market. Canon may even have a fight on it's hand for the number 1 spot with 21% market share. I'd imagine that's what Sony is after. . . We'll see.

Ritz isn't a discounter. Most of their outlets around here are in malls and they aren't selling to a typically sophisticated photographic audience. They are seldom competitive with B&H or Adorama. For example, the KM 24-105 which is listed at B&H for $329.85/$349.95 is listed at Ritz for $459.95. Ritz might be a good place to buy a body early in the availability cycle when everyne is at or near suggested prices, and then even their service policies might be a reasonable idea (if so inclined and the fine print warrants), but they aren't a great indicator of long term pricing trends.

"Sony lenses are EXPENSIVE!!!"

 

I KNOW!! I am completely SHOCKED!!! The arrogance!!

 

And to top it off, they have this new camera. Can you believe that people have the GAUL not to be selling it at the same price as the Canon 350D,.even though this Sony camera is SOOO new that a large number of stores do not even have it yet?!?!?

 

DAMN that Sony! I KNEW they were going to screw it up by doing the same thing every other camera company does during the first couple months after they introduce their new, hot, gotta have it product (camera body, flash, or LENS) by charging MSRP!

 

Who do they think they are? Really!

 

Seriously, you guys have to relax. If they are selling the lenses at the same price a year from now, then you will have something to complain about.

 

chad

Gaul is a frenchman, you probably want to use Gall

Chad's point is valid in that it is unlikely that anyone will start discounting a new product right from the start especially if the product is selling well. If the pattern from the launch I attended is repeated at others and elsewhere ( see my post on "Sony Alpha launch" of 2006-08-02 ) then discounting will take some time to arrive.

 

Robert - I catch your drift but the existing Minolta lenses out in the world and still available, albeit second hand, are not expensive although going up in price - glad I have got virtually all I want already :) Why would Canon for example bother with SSS/AS in the camera body when they are doing nicely thank you ( at present ) selling their expensive IS lenses to a fairly large, captive Canon user base that already exists ?

 

Many people will I am sure be able to do the sums for an SSS camera plus lenses as opposed to a non-SSS camera with every lens having IS, so it will be very, very interesting to see if the initial surge continues.

 

It is not much more than a year since the first Minolta/Sony link up and only 4 months since Sony took over the Minolta photographic operation that KM did not want/could not make work. I think they have made great strides in a pretty short time and should get credit for that and I would think a little more patience is justified.

Bill, since most of the NEW Sony lenses are re-labelled Minolta lenses, there is no reason for them to be so expensive.

 

Chad, why wouldn't Canon want to put in an anti-shake feature into their camera if they could? It just gives them just that much more ammo to fight off any newcomers. The best way to lose market share is to become complacent, just ask AOL. If their customers want it, because they like the feature in the Sony, you don't think they're going to figure a way to do it?

Maybe the reason for the high lens prices is that Sony is losing money on the body and trying to make some back from the lenses. I hope they do get to second or first place and then develop another 2-3 bodies at different levels to shake up the market some more. A 16MP body for the price of 200D? 6MP for $400? Canon (and Nikon) have become too complacent at the top of the hill. Some new winds are good for the consumer, regardless of what brand you end up buying.

Robert - I think you have answered your own point with "NEW" - and not everybody knows the history - for example do existing Sony owners/users who wish to upgrade know much about the Minolta legacy ? Are they prepared to buy second-hand ?

 

I think you are burdening Chad with the contents of my posting - I will try and put it another way - will Canon not undermine the sales of their IS lenses from which they make nice fat profits if they were to put SSS/AS in their cameras ?

 

Complacency is indeed a dangerous thing - perhaps the response from Canon will be to drop their prices on IS lenses !? Nikon have already done so on some of their roughly equivalent cameras.

You have to pay extra for those four letters "SONY". Check the price of any Sony item. It's always more expensive.

 

Craig

Ilkka:

 

If you want a 6 MP dSLR for less than $400, all you have to do is get the ist DL at Amazon ($440) and send in the $100 rebate form.

First off, in my experience Ritz never means a cheap price. Case in point the 7D i bought a few months ago. $999 at Ritz, $799 at a local Jewelry store that also sells camera gear. They actually normally rival B&H on price. The other posters are on the money too about the new product equals premium price. I bought a Maxxum 7 when they first hit the market and paid a premium price for it. Then as production wound down I got one of the last Dynax 7s from Aodorama for a fraction of the price the original Maxxum 7 cost. Bide you time, the prices will come down.

Anything new to the marketplace will yield a higher price. Wait for the pipeline to fill, watch the mass marketer's, prices will drop.

 

(just try to get a new Z06 corvette below MSRP.... sticker price plus $5 - 10,000 dealer addon pricing !!!! low supply, high demand)

 

kent

.

 

Okay, our subject lines / headlines are getting better, but I think this thread, [sony lenses are EXPENSIVE!!!] should really be called:

 

[Ritz NOT discounting new (a few day's old) Sony Alpha lenses and accessories YET - none in stock, either!]

 

... BUT notice that ALL their Quantaray/Sigma/Tamron Minolta-AF-fit lenses IMMEDIATELY fit and work on the Sony Alpha A100 (we hope!). So try 'em and let us know how they please you (or not).

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Rokkor Alpha DiMage Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

If you can't afford it, buy something else. If you think the early amateur lenses are expensive, wait till you price the higher quality versions.

Chad, perhaps I should have put in the subject line- 'Canon lenses are cheaper than SONY'. At the price that Sony will be selling a 300mm f/2.8, I can buy a Canon IS 300mm f/2.8, 15mm f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8 USM, 50mm f/2.5 macro, MT-24EX Twin macroflash, and still have money left over. I know you'll say that only the Canon 300mm has the Image Stabilizer, but rarely do I need it for wide angle shots, as my hands aren't that shakey, I can handhold a 15mm or 20mm at around 1/20th of a second and get a sharp picture. And with the macro lens, I would use a tripod.

 

So, looking at the prices Sony is charging for the four lenses I mentioned above, I can probably buy a Canon 5D., a full-frame sensor DSLR.

 

Anyway, I hope Sony does come out with a full-frame pro-level DSLR at a cheap price, as I have most of the lenses I need to upgrade. I'll let the suckers just getting into the Sony/Konica/Minolta system pay those inflated prices Sony wants.

I think the point is that the high-end Sony lenses will beat Canon L, just as do Leica lenses (lots of folks use Leica on Canon). People who need optical quality, pay for optical quality.

John, as most of the 'Sony' lenses are re-badged Minolta lenses that's a laughable statement. Based on what you're saying, K/M was way under pricing their lenses.

 

I don't know why you and others can't just admit that Sony has way over priced their lenses.

John, OMIF?

One observation I make is that KM lenses at the prices KM were charging for them did not exactly put them over the top in the (staying in business) business. Sony now has an anti shake system that puts them in a top competitive spot to sell lens at premium prices.

Gerry, uh, did you forget that the Sony anti-shake was bought from Konica/Minolta? When K/M had it, it didn't keep them in the photographic market. The body installed AS, is good, but it isn't the only thing camera buyers look at. A DSLR buyer is more concerned with the overall system the manufacturer offers. And even if a lens like a 300mm has either AS, IS or VR, most owners have a tripod. People have gotten along without AS, IS, or VR for decades. The availabilty of those features is a nicety, not a necessity. I've shot great pictures with a 300mm without having the advantage of AS, or even a tripod. It's not like I woke up one morning and said I can't live without it.

 

If I were a newbie to the DSLR market, not having any lenses or other equipment that would tie me to a certain brand, I would look at the features a DSLR body has, the overall system offered, and the prices for everything. The fact that the prices Sony is selling the lenses, most of which are re-labelled K/M lenses, and which previously sold for 20-30% less. would be a large turn-off. It's just price gouging for having SONY on it. AS is more important in a telephoto lens and the Sony (former K/M) 300mm f/2.8 sells for $5999. True it is now has SSM, but the Canon 300mm f/2.8, with IS sells for $2000 less.

I have a Sony t-shirt from many years ago. I think I am going to go home and burn it because they are charging full MSRP for items that are too new to even be on the shelves yet.

 

Damn that Sony for doing the same thing every other company does when they are offering a new product!

 

When demand softens, so will the prices.

"Demand"?!? What demand are you talking about? I don't know too many people breaking down the doors to pay $5999 for a 300mm f/2.8, or even $2400 for Sony's 70-200mm f/2.8. Especially when Sony only has an lower level DSLR and talks about only having DSLRs in the lower end of the market. And the 75-300mm and 50mm macro, or 18-200mm lenses, among others, are re-labelled K/M lenses that are available either new or used, with the only difference is that they don't say SONY. Those lenses are so common, they will never be considered collectables.

 

Chad, I guess you working in a camera store 18 years ago, gives you special insight, but my gawd, that was 18 years ago. You mentioned in a previous post that you're beginning to sound like someone else. To my ears (eyes), you are. However, the other person made more sense than you do.

Personal attacks now?

 

Robert, I am sorry you are so disheartened by Sony's pricing policy, but this is all too familiar.

 

chad

None of this is "special insight." It's simple experience, simple economics. The "market" will continue to set prices as supply settles out to be more balanced against demand.

 

Outside of a few of the consumer lenses, much of the supply for more advanced parts of the "Maxxum" system has been erratic or non-existent for quite a while. A lot of the lenses have not been available. And a quick glance around at places like B&H and Adorama won't show that the high end lenses are sitting around in stock/unsold.

 

There is a lot of pent up demand for a lot of items. There remains little or no known or steady supply for many items needed to build a system. That's not the kind of situation that makes sense for getting a realistic price picture. Let demand be met for a while and develop some confidence in the supply chain and prices will settle. The longer the bodies are out, the prices will also begin to fall. Right now, those are mostly paper prices. It will be easier to judge when those prices are on products in stores.

 

And when it comes down to it, the $3000-$7000 lens crowd isn't part of the same market as the typical consumer. It's like Timex and Rolex. Or the various "If you have to ask, you can't afford it." types of products. If you are buying $10,000 cars, it really doesn't matter if the same company is or isn't making and selling $200,000 cars.