1K for a lens hood? What am I missing here? I see Nikon lens hoods for $20-$30, seems overpriced for a piece of plastic...then I come across one for $1,078 the HK-38 lens hood:...

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

What am I missing here? I see Nikon lens hoods for $20-$30, seems overpriced for a piece of plastic...then I come across one for $1,078 the
HK-38 lens hood: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Lens-Hoods/HK-38-Lens-Hood.html
Jeez! I could buy a D5200 for that much!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

georgevedwards wrote:

What am I missing here? I see Nikon lens hoods for $20-$30, seems overpriced for a piece of plastic...then I come across one for $1,078 the
HK-38 lens hood: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Lens-Hoods/HK-38-Lens-Hood.html
Jeez! I could buy a D5200 for that much!

my guess is that they probably make only 200 a year - and they have to distribute the engineering and tooling costs against expected sales. If you have that 800mm lens, you'd be well advised to hold on to your $1000 lens hood.

I'm sure someone in China will see a profit opportunity, and make one that you can buy for $100. And still make money on it. :)

CEJ Loc: Cresson,Pa

georgevedwards wrote:

What am I missing here? I see Nikon lens hoods for $20-$30, seems overpriced for a piece of plastic...then I come across one for $1,078 the
HK-38 lens hood: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Lens-Hoods/HK-38-Lens-Hood.html
Jeez! I could buy a D5200 for that much!

Price is wright, that hood goes on a a $18,000.00 800mm lens

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

Oh! Yeah, I was starting to wonder if it was for one of those $10,000 lenses- anyone who could afford that could probably spring another thousand with no problem for a device that might protect the lens from being destroyed when the top heavy tripod tips over. What is it made of though, platinum?

CEJ wrote:

Price is wright, that hood goes on a a $18,000.00 800mm lens

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

georgevedwards wrote:

What am I missing here? I see Nikon lens hoods for $20-$30, seems overpriced for a piece of plastic...then I come across one for $1,078 the
HK-38 lens hood: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Lens-Hoods/HK-38-Lens-Hood.html
Jeez! I could buy a D5200 for that much!

It always pays to shop around.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918854-REG/nikon_4985_hk_38_lens_hood_for.html

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

Its just a lens hood! they just fit on the end...what kind of engineering costs could there be on a device that is basically just a shade with no parts? Maybe it is made of titanium. I bet some one could make it on a 3d printer for a couple of bucks.

Gene51 wrote:

my guess is that they probably make only 200 a year - and they have to distribute the engineering and tooling costs against expected sales. If you have that 800mm lens, you'd be well advised to hold on to your $1000 lens hood.

I'm sure someone in China will see a profit opportunity, and make one that you can buy for $100. And still make money on it. :)

Hacksaw Loc: Pacific Northwest

You could always use a paper plate; spray paint it black first. Some scissors and duct tape and you're all set! :lol:

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

Maybe it's gold-plated and they forgot to put that in the specs.
OTOH, the lens it is intended for costs almost 18,000 so maybe the thinking was: What's another 1000 bucks?

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

georgevedwards wrote:

Oh! Yeah, I was starting to wonder if it was for one of those $10,000 lenses- anyone who could afford that could probably spring another thousand with no problem for a device that might protect the lens from being destroyed when the top heavy tripod tips over. What is it made of though, platinum?

From the surface texture I would say it is NOT a piece of injection molded plastic, which costs pennies to make. It appears to be carbon fiber. If so, that could help explain at least some of the price.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Gene51 has the answer. Nikon does not want to lose money on any products, so it must spread the cost of development over the few items that get produced.

It's the same with the military and the high cost of much of their equipment. You have highly-specialized items made in very small numbers. The tools used to work on the SR-71 are a good example. Custom-made tools fashioned out of titanium can be expensive.

http://www.cultofmac.com/305827/wanderers-sci-fi-short-erik-wernquist/

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

jerryc41 wrote:

Gene51 has the answer. Nikon does not want to los... (show quote)

No doubt, the hoods are limited production. Another reason for the expense.
As far as the SR-71 tools, did you know that all the production tooling and dies were destroyed after the initial batch of planes were built? On the orders of Sec of Defense McNamara. Neither he nor the AF brass wanted anything to do with the SR-71, in large part because it was conceived as a CIA project, plus it was very expensive. They were more interested in spending their budget on fighters to fight battles that could very well be avoided by the kind of intelligence that the SR could provide. All that taxpayer money melted down. The most amazing jet aircraft to ever fly was unwanted by the fighter jocks who run the Air Force.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

LFingar wrote:

No doubt, the hoods are limited production. Anothe... (show quote)

Not surprising at all. It's "the old boys' club" mentality. There was a good show on TV about the army's search for a new rifle. An "outside" company came up with the best sample, but it wasn't seriously considered. The usual vendors were given preference. When their guns couldn't perform, the army reluctantly looked at the outsider's model and went with that. It might have been the M-16.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

LFingar wrote:

No doubt, the hoods are limited production. Anothe... (show quote)

The idiot McNamara was too busy dismantling the DOD. The Pentagon became very concerned when it became obvious in Vietnam that US fighter pilots couldn't fight. Why are you surprised that USAF didn't want the SR? They didn't plan it, develop it or even need it. It was another agencies debacle. Remember, the Air Force became the dumping grounds for the other branches that misdeveloped their own problems. Remember the FB-111? The Dept of the Navy ordered the plane for a carrier based fighter. The entire concept was a disaster. Guess which branch got stuck with it? USAF was still the new kid on the block and really got hammered by the east coast liberal mentality of the 1960's. McNamara had a dislike for USAF and didn't want it around. He was strictly a Kennedy boatman. Never was a S. of D. so disliked by the Pentagon, and rightfully so, IMHO.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

davidrb wrote:

The idiot McNamara was too busy dismantling the DO... (show quote)

Air Force pilots couldn't fight in 'Nam because the AF had embraced the idea that air-to-air missiles had made guns unnecessary and never designed the Phantom to have a gun, nor gave the pilots any gun training, plus, the missiles of the day were less then perfect. Considerably less. Once the nose mounted 20mm Gatling and proper training were incorporated the kill ratio jumped dramatically.
The SR-71 a debacle? Hardly. It did everything it was designed to do and a whole lot more. It went into service with very few of the issues that were a normal part of many of the planes that the AF loved.
The FB-111 was actually a rather successful design. Used with considerable success by the USAF and a number of our allies for years. Remember the bombing of Libya? That very successful mission was carried out by FB-111's. The after-action recon was carried out by the SR-71. Flown by Major Brian Suhl. His books, "The Untouchables" and "Sled Driver" are excellent reads. When he retired he opened a photo studio in northern Ca. Who knows, he may even be a member of the Hog!

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

georgevedwards wrote:

What am I missing here? I see Nikon lens hoods for $20-$30, seems overpriced for a piece of plastic...then I come across one for $1,078 the
HK-38 lens hood: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Lens-Hoods/HK-38-Lens-Hood.html
Jeez! I could buy a D5200 for that much!

Have you decided to buy it, or just shoot without it?