In itself you are absolutely right. And the IF for me would be if they made the lens of good quality and not a "Holga plastic like" lens. And we won't know that until we see, hold, feel and test this lens. But looking at their track record I'm hesitating to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Lomography used to be a lot of plastic & marketing that people were willing to pay for and having fun with it. Even normal film is expensive at their site.
But then, maybe they are outgrowing their former reputation? Might the Lomo Belair X 6-12 be such an example? A big step up from the Holga (also a very good camera in its own field, mind you) but value for your money? For that kind of money you also have the choice between several "old school" folders with much better quality.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to downsize Lomography. I love my Holga's (especially the pinhole 6x12) for the fun they give me. And they are very successful at Lomography with their brand creating a whole new market in itself.
But that's not my point. If they want to sell this lens as the better recreation of a Petzval lens, I'm not sure if they will be living up to it.
But then, apparently the Lomo-gang doesn't mind, so what am I complaining about?
Yes: it is nice they make this possible for 35 mm film cameras like Nikon en Canon. And maybe it will get people more interested in the "real" old school cameras and photography (instead of sticking it to their DSLR).
And i hope they prove me wrong by posting a lot of beautiful analogue images on APUG.
But then: how many of these backers end up dropping this lens on a shelf or Ebay in a year time??? I'll wait until then to get me a cheap one and am spending my money on a real 790 mm ULF lens from Reinhold for now....
(Just ignore my rambling please)