For those who would presume to preach to others about economics, maybe they should begin by not showing their ignorance with the incorrect use of the word "amortize" Obviously you do not know what the word means, or what you are talking about. You may now look up the word amortize and learn to use it correctly in a sentence. I will also let you research the correct economic principle and correct terminology for what you describe as "amortizing development costs" as it applies to mass production. Look up price elasticity of demand as it applies to generic products, including 3rd party lenses while you're at it too, now that you have at least correctly identified yourself as the Rokinon/Sigma/Tamron 3rd party lens forum fanboy who knows nothing about which he speaks...
I'm not a fanboy of anything, except for image quality. I just understand that physics are physics. A lens' image quality is dependent on its design and the quality of its materials, not what name is written on the side. The materials that go into these lenses come from the same planet as Nikon or Canon lenses, and the engineers come from the same universities and are bound by the same laws of physics. To disregard a product because of which company it comes from, instead of the merits of the product itself, is completely foolish.
I never once ever said that this lens was superior to the Nikon or Canon version, only that the "holding its value" proposition is a false economy, as you have to invest 2.5 times to get that benefit.
And by the way Mr. Bernake, with your deep and thoughtful understanding of economics, you need to finish your analysis. Not just that 3rd party lenses are cheaper, but WHY are they cheaper? It isn't necessarily because of lower build quality, but because they can amortize the development costs of a lens across multiple mounts. When you design a single lens, and can sell it to both Nikon AND Canon users, plus the lesser-used Pentax and alpha mounts (and the handful of Sigma DSLR users themselves), then you have a much larger pool of potential clients.
Not quite. If that were the case, then lens deals for Nikon or Canon lenses WOULD be sold out very quickly? Do a cursory search and you will find that to not be the case whatsoever. It's just a rather small pool of people that are looking to spend more money on a lens than they did on a camera body. If you go look at 3rd party lens deals that are more reasonably priced (i.e. not full-pro workhorse lenses) then you'll see that they sell out just as quickly. Examples would be the various Rokinon lenses, more modestly priced Sigmas and Tamrons, etc.
Go research these lenses, and you will find that MANY people use them very successfully.
- Only 28 people actually bought this - not a good deal after all ! Figured as much coming from 3rd party lenses. On the other side, Canon refurbished lenses sells so fast you can't even get them.