The Myth of outrageous new Canon lens prices...

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14378783
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.

TV's are, IMO, an even worse example, and yes, in general, the prices of TV's, even new models, have come down overall in the last 5 years. LED and 3d bumped them back up for some time, but even 3d TV's have quickly come down in price.

Also, you are assuming that the street prices on lenses starts high, and then continuosly goes down in time, but that is not true.

I bought a 300 2.8 IS in 2007 for $3,800, by the time it was discontinued last year it was retailing for around, $5,500, and now the new version is selling for $7,200. So they had already raised the price of the same product $1,700 over 5 years, and then raised it AGAIN when the new product came out. That is the exact opposite of how the TV market works, where prices as a whole drop, and occassionally new technology temporarily brings them back up. With lenses apparently the prices in general go up, and then just go up even more with new models.

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14378783
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!

On an unrelated note, I'd be very interested in how the Tamron stacks up against the Mk 2.

Billginthekeys,

I stated that it doesn't matter which product I pick. You can pick apart any of my examples but the point is valid. You pick the product if you wish. All I am saying is you shouldn't compare the price of a new item to the price of the old item it replaced. I gave every reason needed in my first post so I won't state them again.

chantu wrote in post #14378974
On an unrelated note, I'd be very interested in how the Tamron stacks up against the Mk 2.

I can do a head to head comparison of the two when they arrive if anyone is interested. I have spent time doing such things in the past and got little interest. The Tamron is a pretty hot topic though I guess

Thanks for putting up this list; it certainly puts things into perspective. That being said, I think your calculations are a bit crude when it comes to the annual % price increase.

It looks like you calculated the ave % annual increase like this:

((newest-price / original price)-1) / lifetime ( x 100) = ave % increase

This would be too simplistic because you forget to correct the relative price increase over the previous marginal increase.

By example, according your method a price increase from $100 to $300 in 2 years would be an increase of 200%, with an average of 100%. If we had a steady (absolute) increase in price (which is unlikely), it would look like:

year 0: $100
year 1: $200 (+100%)
year 2: $300 (+50%)

So the average is not 100% (and neither is it 75%...). Because if it were 100%, the price would be 100 x 2 ^ 2 = original price x ave % annual increase ^ lifetime = $400!

In other words, your ave % annual increase describes the % increase relative to the original year (which doesn't make sense nor is it very interesting), and not to the previous year.

You can fix this by using this formula:
((newest price / original price)^(1/lifetime) = yearly factor

For above example this would yield (300/100)^(1/2) = 1.732 (which is a 73.2% annual increase)

So if we increase the original price by this amount, we get:
year 0: $100
year 1: $173 (+73.2%)
year 2: $300 (+73.2%)

The 2.8L wide zoom example: (230,000/128,000)^(1/3​4.23) = 1.0173 = 1.73% increase. Not 2.33%

Bottom line: prices annually increase less than in your data sheet. But like mentioned on page 5, Japan has a deflating economy, which makes this price increases true increases. But your sheets still put things into perspective though. Nice job!

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the tutorial, you're absolutely right about the numbers. I used the "relative error" method and it's not quite as accurate as yours.
I'll change them and re-post the charts.

So... Much... Number... Crunching...... My head hurts

kawi_200 wrote in post #14396082
So... Much... Number... Crunching...... My head hurts

Agreed... i don't need a chart to tell me that i don't like Canon's new-lens prices..period!

1Tanker wrote in post #14396267
Agreed... i don't need a chart to tell me that i don't like Canon's new-lens prices..period!

Face, meet palm.

Hey Matt, do you have the Tamron yet? I'd be interested in your impressions of it.

1Tanker wrote in post #14396267
Agreed... i don't need a chart to tell me that i don't like Canon's new-lens prices..period!

How about if I make a chart for you to adequately explain to you how much you don't like the new lens prices?

andrikos wrote in post #14397404
How about if I make a chart for you to adequately explain to you how much you don't like the new lens prices?

Sure..i'd be much obliged!

There are only 2 "new/newer" lenses that i would consider:

-70-200 f/2.8 IS II @ around the $2000 mark(has already dipped to this price a few times), -24-70 f/2.8(if and when it drops to under $1600).

Well, it's been a while...

I've been updating and adding a bunch of data to my charts...
I think they may be finished (for now).
I'm missing the Yen prices for the new 500L II and 600L II lenses. I assumed the same price increase % as that of the 300L -> 300L II and 400L -> 400L II (~12%)

I'll update them as I get them.

In order not to make one post gigantic (like the first post of the thread) I'll post one chart per post.

First up Zoom lenses:

Second are the Ultrawide and wide angle prime lenses: