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

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.

It does seem a bit pricey. Considering yes, the 2.8L IS II in a 400 is quite expensive(some $11,000) that is a premium built beast for the money. Tons of glass, great technology, AMAZING lens PERIOD(from results I've seen and raves I've heard)!!

Now considering the 200-400 is a F4L is not bad at all but considering the 100-400 4-5.6L is $1,500 or so how is this jumped from that kind of price to over $10,000? I don't understand their math or logic on how they came at this wacky number. Like others have said the Nikon competitors are at some $7,000. That seems like a overall good number for a lens like this. I mean this is no 2.8, not does the build in 1.4x tc jump the price over 1000$+. If we wanted a TC we could buy one for less than half the price!!

Accurate pricing IMHO should be around $7,500-9000. I myself would jump in if it were in this range.

CSMFoto wrote in post #14896120
It does seem a bit pricey. Considering yes, the 2.8L IS II in a 400 is quite expensive(some $11,000) that is a premium built beast for the money. Tons of glass, great technology, AMAZING lens PERIOD(from results I've seen and raves I've heard)!!

Now considering the 200-400 is a F4L is not bad at all but considering the 100-400 4-5.6L is $1,500 or so how is this jumped from that kind of price to over $10,000? I don't understand their math or logic on how they came at this wacky number. Like others have said the Nikon competitors are at some $7,000. That seems like a overall good number for a lens like this. I mean this is no 2.8, not does the build in 1.4x tc jump the price over 1000$+. If we wanted a TC we could buy one for less than half the price!!

Accurate pricing IMHO should be around $7,500-9000. I myself would jump in if it were in this range.

Sure you could go buy a tc for half the price (assuming your numbers are spot on) but wouldn't you want to spend twice as much on a tc knowing that it has been specifically designed for this lens, meaning that the iq Los is probably very very minimal and far better than a tc that will work on any canon telephoto lens. Just something to think about, and yes over 10K will be a bit ridiculous but seeing how all the new lenses have been ridiculously sharp I think no matter the price you will be getting what you paid for.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #14895733
As has been stated in various POTN threads over and over, some hobbies are far more expensive than photography.

This is a good point. It is pretty easy to rack up $10k in a year in many other hobbies (cars, guns, boats, etc...) This is harder to swallow because it comes in one big chunk and what you get is comparatively small in size. But as has been mentioned, I imagine this lens will hold its value better than a sailboat or a state of the art home theater set up. As long as you don't drop it.

I can see many wildlife photogs skipping out on this for the 400 2.8.

Mike55 wrote in post #14898325
I can seem any wildlife photogs skipping out on this for the 400 2.8.

Huh?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Canon's new pricing is utterly bonkers. Be it the new 24-70; the new Super Telephoto lenses or whatever, it is utterly bonkers.

It is what its worth. I would pay it for these lenses If I needed it.

Wookster wrote in post #14899939
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Canon's new pricing is utterly bonkers. Be it the new 24-70; the new Super Telephoto lenses or whatever, it is utterly bonkers.

By what measure?

Mike55 wrote in post #14898325
I can see many wildlife photogs skipping out on this for the 400 2.8.

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.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14899958
By what measure?

$2,300 (or £2,200) for the new 24-70 is just silly. Period. I'm sure there are some folks who won't sniff at that but honestly, now matter how good the lens is that amount of money for a mass market lens is what I call silly.

Its not a mass market lens though is it? Its not like its consumer spec equipment. Its for pros who need the technology thats been invested in creating these products.

How much was 24-70 F/2.8 MKI when released? I have a feeling it was significantly cheaper. I remember that I was contemplating on either 24-105 or 24-70 and the price difference was rather small...something like 100-150$.

Wookster wrote in post #14899991
$2,300 (or £2,200) for the new 24-70 is just silly. Period. I'm sure there are some folks who won't sniff at that but honestly, now matter how good the lens is that amount of money for a mass market lens is what I call silly.

If its good enough, the price will not put me off. But it WILL need to be superb. And rumour has it that there have been problems with the production version hence the delay.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14900061
How much was 24-70 F/2.8 MKI when released? I have a feeling it was significantly cheaper. I remember that I was contemplating on either 24-105 or 24-70 and the price difference was rather small...something like 100-150$.

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 https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1174561

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