How much would it cost if the human eye was sold as a camera lens?

Well, Pentax sold a 24mm f2.8 standard lens for its Auto 110 system (all lenses for the Auto 110 were f2.8, due to the way the camera was constructed) - Pentax only built SLRs at the time, so a 110 format SLR seemed an obvious step. It worked well as a standard lens for an excellent system that never really got a chance (110 film was already on the way out by the time it was introduced).

Unfortunately, a camera lens of similar performance to the human eye would be so awful that nobody would buy it. While a small central area produces an acceptable image, that area is tiny, and your field-of-view is actually processed through your brain with your memory filling the gaps (unless you're looking directly at an object, your memory shows you what you'd expect to see - that's why it takes a moment when you first walk into a strange place).

It wouldn't be worth as much as a drop of water from the ocean.

Trying to rate it for optical quality, it seems to provide very good center sharpness, and I see no chromatic aberration. Away from the center, sharpness falls off a LOT. I don't know how much to blame the limitations of the retina. No vignetting.
Of course our eye-brain connections may compensate for things differently from a camera. That is very obvious with things like dynamic range and white balance, but those are not lens issues.

You realize it is impossible to use a human eye as a camera lens ? With no blood flow, the eye would dry up in a short period of time. Nikon or Canon mount ?
Sorry , this question make zero sense.