Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 19 Aug 2012 (Sunday) 01:31
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

200-400 with x1.4 - why the crazy price?

 
lancebroad
Senior Member
lancebroad's Avatar
396 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Brisbane, AU
Aug 24, 2012 04:46 |  #76

And if we look at Launch price for 24-70 MKI and MKII its a 2.2% increase on the launch price from I to II. 2.2% isnt even inflation.

Move along nothing else to see in this thread.


Canon 6D | Canon 7D | Canon 5D mkII | 14L MK II | 24-70L | 70-200 f/2.8L | 100-400L | 400L f/2.8 | Zenitor 15mm | 580EX II |
http://facebook.com/la​nceb.avgeekexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Evan
Goldmember
Evan's Avatar
1,327 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Oregon
Aug 24, 2012 05:26 |  #77

For those of you who have posted about production costs, in most retail circumstances the markup is 2x what the item was manufactured for (directly from the head of Nike Baseball Design; whom I am friends with). So if Canon sells a lens for $100 to a company like BH. Then that means that the lens was produced by Canon for $50, and BH will sell for $200.

So a lens like the 200-400 that is rumored to retail for $11,000. Was sold to the retailer for $5,500; and produced by Canon for $2750.

I showed him the recent pricing of super teles and asked him what his take was on it. He said "most likely Canon is using standard retail procedure, as the majority of electronics related companies use this method (he was refering to 2x manufacturing price), but also adding in their market niche that they currently have right now against Nikon." He then went on to add that pricing might be totally different for a product that is so expensive to make like a lens. But he still thought that they most likely used 2x pricing.

Hope this helps some people understand Canon's prices. :rolleyes:
For me it doesn't matter one way or another. They are too dang expensive!!!:)

Evan


--
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Lowner's Avatar
12,924 posts
Joined Jul 2007
Salisbury, UK.
Aug 24, 2012 06:44 |  #78

BirdBoy wrote in post #14900147external link
For those of you who have posted about production costs, in most retail circumstances the markup is 2x what the item was manufactured for (directly from the head of Nike Baseball Design; whom I am friends with). So if Canon sells a lens for $100 to a company like BH. Then that means that the lens was produced by Canon for $50, and BH will sell for $200.

So a lens like the 200-400 that is rumored to retail for $11,000. Was sold to the retailer for $5,500; and produced by Canon for $2750.

I showed him the recent pricing of super teles and asked him what his take was on it. He said "most likely Canon is using standard retail procedure, as the majority of electronics related companies use this method (he was refering to 2x manufacturing price), but also adding in their market niche that they currently have right now against Nikon." He then went on to add that pricing might be totally different for a product that is so expensive to make like a lens. But he still thought that they most likely used 2x pricing.

Hope this helps some people understand Canon's prices. :rolleyes:
For me it doesn't matter one way or another. They are too dang expensive!!!:)

Evan

Spent my life in the wrong trade then. Those mark ups are waaay higher than we used to have in the electrical contracting game. Much as our accountants used to dislike it, we operated on wafer thin margins of 2 or 3%. OK, our gross on costs were nearer 20%, but start subtracting fixed costs and it soon reduced. The trouble was that it was actually better to invest the cash than try to run a profitable business. I've been out of it now for 16 years, but I'd be mighty surprised if it is very different.


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
andrikos
Goldmember
andrikos's Avatar
1,905 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Stuttgart, Germany
Aug 24, 2012 06:53 |  #79

Lowner wrote in post #14900252external link
we operated on wafer thin margins of 2 or 3%.

Wow, I sure hope you had "Tesco-like" contract volumes...

My experience is quite the opposite.
I've been an EE in the semiconductor industry for the last 15+ years. My previous company's products were unique in the market and we would easily sell them at a 10,000%+ gross margin. We also had leadtimes of 6 months that were designed in.

Scarcity is the magic word...


If it was that easy to produce "magical" lenses with the EF mount (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina et al) and charge a 1/3rd of the price with great profits, you'd think someone would have done it so far...
Rokinon comes close but the lack of AF really puts them at a disadvantage. It's like selling only manual transmission cars in the U.S.


Think new Canon lenses are overpriced? Lots (and lots) of data will set you free!

LOG IN TO REPLY
light_pilgrim
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
light_pilgrim's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
Aug 24, 2012 06:59 |  #80

lancebroad wrote in post #14900081external link
I dont think there was ever 100-150 between the two at time of release. More like 800-900 more. specifically here in Australia. Got some evidence?

I suggest you stop naming numbers from thin air and read this http://photography-on-the.net .../showthread.php?t=1​174561

If you dont like canons pricing points, I suggest you switch to Sony, Nikon, Pentax or any of ther other SLR companies.

Hold your horses. In Poland, where I was purchasing the lens, the different was max 200 USD, I remember it clearly.


www.lightpilgrim.comexternal link ||1x.comexternal link ||500px.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Evan
Goldmember
Evan's Avatar
1,327 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Oregon
Aug 24, 2012 07:10 as a reply to light_pilgrim's post |  #81

^What happened to discussing the price of a certain 200-400 lens ;) A heated separate sub-discussion is beginning in this thread :D


--
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Lowner's Avatar
12,924 posts
Joined Jul 2007
Salisbury, UK.
Aug 24, 2012 07:58 |  #82

andrikos wrote in post #14900268external link
.....Wow, I sure hope you had "Tesco-like" contract volumes.....
.

Each contract was a seperate deal, some a lot larger than others. But it was a fact of life in my trade, we were no different to our competitors in that way. As I said, I doubt whether things are any better now, possibly in this recession it might be worse.

Immediately after my retirement I did some work for another electrical contractor. His attitude was as long as the contract "broke even", it was employing his staff and himself, they were taking home a wage packet and not actually loosing money. I wish my own employer had been so enlightened!


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Larry ­ Weinman
Goldmember
1,403 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Aug 24, 2012 08:39 |  #83

BirdBoy wrote in post #14900147external link
For those of you who have posted about production costs, in most retail circumstances the markup is 2x what the item was manufactured for (directly from the head of Nike Baseball Design; whom I am friends with). So if Canon sells a lens for $100 to a company like BH. Then that means that the lens was produced by Canon for $50, and BH will sell for $200.

So a lens like the 200-400 that is rumored to retail for $11,000. Was sold to the retailer for $5,500; and produced by Canon for $2750.

I showed him the recent pricing of super teles and asked him what his take was on it. He said "most likely Canon is using standard retail procedure, as the majority of electronics related companies use this method (he was refering to 2x manufacturing price), but also adding in their market niche that they currently have right now against Nikon." He then went on to add that pricing might be totally different for a product that is so expensive to make like a lens. But he still thought that they most likely used 2x pricing.

Hope this helps some people understand Canon's prices. :rolleyes:
For me it doesn't matter one way or another. They are too dang expensive!!!:)

Evan

I really doubt this. I think the profit margin on the supertelephotos given their lesser numbers produced compared to lenses like a 24-105 has a much much smaller profit margin.


7D Mark II 6D 100mm f 2.8 macro 180mm f 3.5 macro, MP-E-65 300mm f 2.8 500mm f4 Tokina 10-17mm fisheye 10-22mm 17-55mm 24-105mm 70-300mm 70-200 f 2.8 Mk II 100-400mm Mk II 1.4 TCIII 2X TCIII 580EX II 430 EX II MT 24 EX Tamron 150-600

LOG IN TO REPLY
Larry ­ Weinman
Goldmember
1,403 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Aug 24, 2012 08:45 |  #84

Phoenixkh wrote in post #14895733external link
I guess I don't really understand the idea that lenses like the new 200-400L are for professionals only. I think it all comes down to available resources, esp. for hobbyists. I know my own purchases for hobbies fluctuate depending on how well we are doing at the time. I'd be willing to bet that quite a few of these lenses will find their way into the hands of amateur enthusiasts as well as professionals.

As has been stated in various POTN threads over and over, some hobbies are far more expensive than photography. I have friends who own $100k sailboats but only get out on them a few times a year. For that pleasure, they spend thousands on maintenance and marina fees each year as well. Same with hi end audio equipment.

If someone has the cash, I think it's cool they use some of it for their interests away from work or to enhance their retirement years.

This was a very general statement referring to professional photographers who are expected to produce excellent results every time they go on a shoot. Of course there are people with allot of discretionary income who will buy a lens like the 200-400. There are however many people who don't have the income to commit to a lens of this price, more I would say then those that do.


7D Mark II 6D 100mm f 2.8 macro 180mm f 3.5 macro, MP-E-65 300mm f 2.8 500mm f4 Tokina 10-17mm fisheye 10-22mm 17-55mm 24-105mm 70-300mm 70-200 f 2.8 Mk II 100-400mm Mk II 1.4 TCIII 2X TCIII 580EX II 430 EX II MT 24 EX Tamron 150-600

LOG IN TO REPLY
andrikos
Goldmember
andrikos's Avatar
1,905 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Stuttgart, Germany
Aug 24, 2012 09:25 |  #85

Larry Weinman wrote in post #14900534external link
I really doubt this. I think the profit margin on the supertelephotos given their lesser numbers produced compared to lenses like a 24-105 has a much much smaller profit margin.

I have a feeling you meant to say bigger rather than smaller:

"...has a much much smaller profit margin"


Think new Canon lenses are overpriced? Lots (and lots) of data will set you free!

LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike55
Goldmember
Mike55's Avatar
4,206 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Chicago, Illinois
Aug 24, 2012 10:35 |  #86

Neilyb wrote in post #14899979external link
FACT is there are many ex-Canon shooters, wildlife togs, that switched to Nikon in order to use a 200-400 f4. So your quote is trash. ;)

A little dramatic, don't you think?


6D | 70D | 24-105 L IS | 17-40 L | 300 F4 L IS | 50 1.8 II | 1.4x II | LR5 | HV30 | bug spray | wilderness
Gallatin National Forest, Montanaexternal link/Lassen Volcanic NP Campgroundsexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Neilyb
Cream of the Crop
Neilyb's Avatar
Joined Sep 2005
Munich
Aug 24, 2012 10:53 |  #87

Mike55 wrote in post #14900936external link
A little dramatic, don't you think?

Nope I have read scores of blogs and sites that clearly state the tog wanted the 200-400 range at f4 so swapped. Try Andy Rouse for one!


http://natureimmortal.​blogspot.comexternal link

http://www.natureimmor​tal.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Phoenixkh
a mere speck
Joined May 2011
Gainesville, Florida
Aug 24, 2012 13:54 |  #88

Larry,

I couldn't agree more. This lens along with many others will be a stretch for many of us, me included. I have some investments I made a couple years ago that might enable me to upgrade my gear list if a few things happen. We'll see. If not, I will only be able to dream about a more advanced camera than my 60D and the lenses what would accompany it.

I don't blame Canon. That's how life is sometimes. I have a couple custom Petros acoustic guitars I bought when our financial situation was in a different sphere. I would never be able to afford them at the moment. Even though I can't afford the best Canon has to offer, I'm still getting some good shots with the gear I presently own. I still have a lot to learn. I'll continue to save up and buy new lenses to expand my horizons (like the 100L macro I have in my sights).


Kim (the male variety) Canon 1D IV | 6Dc | 16-35 f/4 IS | 24-105 f/4 IS |100L IS macro | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 100-400Lii | 50 f/1.8 STM | Canon 1.4X III
RRS tripod and monopod | 580EXII | Cinch 1 & Loop 3 Special Edition

LOG IN TO REPLY
pyrojim
Goldmember
1,882 posts
Joined Jan 2010
San Jose, CA
Aug 24, 2012 16:40 |  #89

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14876891external link
Folks, why would anyone pay $10 000 for this lens?
It is a normal 20-400 F/4 IS and it can also use the x1.4 teleconverter as it is built in, so it can become 280-560? Why the crazy price for F/4 lens with teleconverter?

I am ignorant in this area, just curious.
http://www.canonrumors​.com ...-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x-cr2/external link

Working as one of two mathematicians on a single wavelength optical system, I am going to ask you:

Have you ever built an optical system?

:)


PhaseOne H25
Camera agnostic

LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,566 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Utah, USA
Aug 24, 2012 16:47 |  #90

pyrojim wrote in post #14902347external link
Working as one of two mathematicians on a single wavelength optical system, I am going to ask you:

Have you ever built an optical system?

does two magnifying glasses and an anthill count?


Taylor
Galleries: Flickrexternal link
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

13,326 views & 0 likes for this thread
200-400 with x1.4 - why the crazy price?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00273 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.07s
Latest registered member is ciao1968
757 guests, 386 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017