The Myth of outrageous new Canon lens prices...

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14371769
Someone mentioned the Playstation so I will use it as an example. In Australia a number of years ago the Playstation 2 was released at around $600. Now, years later, I can go into any electronics store and buy that very same system for $350. When the Playstation 3 was released at $650, was I upset that Sonys 'new pricing stategy' was ridiculous?

Playstation is a horrible example. Sony sells every playstation at a loss, because they make their money off licensing fees from the games being made for it, not from the playstation unit sales themselves. Not a good comparison to photographic hardware pricing.

koala yummies wrote in post #14373212
Playstation is a horrible example. Sony sells every playstation at a loss, because they make their money off licensing fees from the games being made for it, not from the playstation unit sales themselves. Not a good comparison to photographic hardware pricing.

^Maybe not so bad. Canon sells you a new body to go with that new lens, new printer..plus, hopefully, get's you more entangled in the L-series drug... and you become a lifelong L-fan, who will buy the next best thing they release.. no matter the price.

1Tanker wrote in post #14373804
^Maybe not so bad. Canon sells you a new body to go with that new lens, new printer..plus, hopefully, get's you more entangled in the L-series drug... and you become a lifelong L-fan, who will buy the next best thing they release.. no matter the price.

So what part of the system did they sell below cost to suck you in?

Playstation is not a good analogy.

These lenses are so expensive. Why can't they make all the lenses like $300? The lenses I want are like $1100 or $2000.

BeerWolf wrote in post #14374159
These lenses are so expensive. Why can't they make all the lenses like $300? The lenses I want are like $1100 or $2000.

Not excusing Canon's pricing, but they are a lot more complex than a few years ago, electronics (IS & AF), and glass types.

RDKirk wrote in post #14374135
So what part of the system did they sell below cost to suck you in?

Playstation is not a good analogy.

My point is, that they don't necessarily have to make beau-coup bucks off the lens, to come out ahead in the long run.

I agree, the PS example does not apply here.
Canon doesn't sell loss-leaders like Sony or Kroger's...

1Tanker wrote in post #14374211
My point is, that they don't necessarily have to make beau-coup bucks off the lens, to come out ahead in the long run.

Not making "beau-coup bucks" has nothing to do with the loss-leader sales strategy, which has been around at least since the introduction of the disposable razor blade by Gillette in 1901.

BeerWolf wrote in post #14374159
These lenses are so expensive. Why can't they make all the lenses like $300? The lenses I want are like $1100 or $2000.

Well, why don't you like set up a factory to like make lenses like Canon's but sell them for like $300?

Frank, you rascal!

hollis_f wrote in post #14374696
Well, why don't you like set up a factory to like make lenses like Canon's but sell them for like $300?

If I can't afford an $1100 lens, I can't afford a factory to make lenses.

Guys, the playstation was just a product that came to mind. You can replace playstation with any product you wish. The old versions of any product reduce in price dramatically over time. Comparing new lens prices to the street price of an old model will never make sense no matter how you look at it. Like I have said many times, complain about the high cost of lenses all you want and how it affects you, just stop complaining that Canon has been increasing their prices outrageously when they have certainly not.

Can I use my TV as an example perhaps? My Samsung TV was $4800 when I bought it 4 years ago, today I can walk into any shop and buy it for ~$2000. The new model is now out at ~$4800. Has Samsung raised prices ridiculously because the Mark II is currently $4800 while my old Mark I sitting on the shelf next to it is ~$2000. No. The Mark II has not increased in price, the Mark I has decreased. How is this so hard to understand? If Samsung followed peoples suggested pricing strategy in this forum the Mark III would be free next year! That would be nice lol.

chantu wrote in post #14372131
We can have all this academic disscussion about Canon marketing till the "cows come home", but in the end it's how we speak with our pocketbooks that really counts. I noticed that you've ordered the Tamron. It's a good $1000 cheaper than the Mk II. You may have not considered the MK II pricing "outrageous" but Tamron has some obvious appeal. (I, myself, am keeping close tabs on the Tamron.)

I fully understand the OP position on historical pricing. Interesting, but in MY MIND, not relevent. I do appreciate his efforts researching this info .

It should be relevant to you so you can be happy that the Mark I has dropped intrigue so much. Look at it glass half full. I think you understand that prices have not risen, you just don't like the price of new lenses. Imagine paying $2100 for the 24-70 in 2002, that was even more money back then. FYI I have ordered the Canon 24-70 Mark II but as it was taking so long I bought the Tamron to try out in the mean time. Now Canons lens delays that's something worthy of complaining about!

BeerWolf wrote in post #14378689
If I can't afford an $1100 lens, I can't afford a factory to make lenses.

You missed his point.

Anyway, why should Canon sell a lens worth $1000-2000 for $300? And they are worth that much IMO......

You hit the nail on the head, no one here can make a factory and create any of these lenses by themselves. When you look at it from the R&D / Time it would take for someone to build a lens like that, Canons prices seem pretty good to me. Let me put it this way, a person may make $1000 a week at work.

Two weeks work = Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mark II

How long and hard would you work to make one yourself. You could spend a lifetime and still couldn't do it. Canon has evolved to the point they can mass produce them and sell at this price, and for me looking at it that way, I'm happy I have the choice to purchase one.

BeerWolf wrote in post #14374159
These lenses are so expensive. Why can't they make all the lenses like $300? The lenses I want are like $1100 or $2000.

lenses are expensive because of low sales volume. Canon has produced only 70 million EF lenses since 1987, as many CPUs as Intel did in three months!

aximrocks wrote in post #14378863
lenses are expensive because of low sales volume. Canon has produced only 70 million EF lenses since 1987, as many CPUs as Intel did in three months!

Exactly right. And most of those are kit lenses (that are a dime a dozen)
So imagine how few 200L, 300L, 400L, 500L, 600L and 800L have been sold.