The Myth of outrageous new Canon lens prices...

1Tanker wrote in post #14291124
It very much does apply to manufacturing though, and all modern lenses use transistors, are designed with CAD programs, and assembly lines are computerized. The glass itself may be somewhat free of Moore's Law, but the remainder of the R&D, prototypes, and much of the manufacture isn't.

Lenses benefited hugely with the first introduction of computer design in the 70s. Since then, computer design is computer design. More powerful computers provide better products (today's lenses are marvels compared to those from the late 70s), but it's not particularly cheaper because programmers don't get cheaper. Especially not well-paid Japanese programmers.

The transistorized components of lenses are a very minor portion of their construction.

No, to a great degree, the assembly lines for lenses are not computerized (do you have in mind some process out of "Futurama?")--you got rows of women with bins of parts, yes, even today. Well-paid Japanese women.

andrikos wrote in post #14290927
What would stop someone from just buying the lens from Japan for a 30+% savings?

Well, I'm in Japan, and the lenses are just as expensive here because (A) the yen rate is crap, and (B) I'm paid is USD not yen.

NavyShrink wrote in post #14291514
Well, I'm in Japan, and the lenses are just as expensive here because (A) the yen rate is crap, and (B) I'm paid is USD not yen.

NavyShrink,
Are there any Japanese taxes on top of the MSRP like a sales tax in the U.S. or they're contained in the price like EU VAT?

Oops, I did it again! I added a crapload of lenses. Other than a couple of (yet) unknown prices (in red), it's complete... I hope it was worth the couple of sleep deprived nights...

Pt. 1 below:

pt.2 here:

I think it's the relative pricing of the new offerings, as well as the absence of new mid-priced fast primes that is bothering many people. The new Nikon 28mm 1.8 FF G prime at MSRP $699 (gold ring included), versus Canon's $799 2.8 28mm (admittedly with IS but of questionable need at the focal length with today's ISO's) is a case in point. Excellent work by the way. Take a look at the ages of the non-L prime lenses though.

That's a good point. The feeling is that Canon is releasing nothing for the mid-market. Go big or shoot old crap and kit lenses.

tkbslc wrote in post #14292378
That's a good point. The feeling is that Canon is releasing nothing for the mid-market. Go big or shoot old crap and kit lenses.

that's exactly what i feel with my kit lenses. There aren't any worthwhile mid-level lenses to grow into. I feel like (I actually am) I have to save up big to get worthwhile upgrades. I mean, it doesn't help lurking around these forums either as that further inspires gear lust.

andrikos wrote in post #14290927
That's a great question actually, I don't have an answer for you.
What would stop someone from just buying the lens from Japan for a 30+% savings?
I'm sure we're ignoring a few taxes that are not present in the Japan MSRP.

I have a long time friend originally from Japan who now lives in USA. He goes back there for extended lengths of time about annually. I know that he went back there and went shopping for a Nikon camera and lens, and spent a lot of time to find the best deal at some small shops (not just the tourist haunts in Tokyo). The body price was much better there, the lens price was much better here (I might have that switched, but the reality is the same)...so the cheapest way to buy was to get one item here and one item there! So we know that the 'USA price is higher' apparent difference is not always true.

As I've been spending a few hours learning the history of Canon's lenses this is what I surmised so far:

1) They used to release a LOT more prime lenses and a lot more often. There are some primes that are ~20 years old without modern replacement (50 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4). The 24 & 28 f/2.8s were some of the oldest primes in the EF lineup that just got an (expensive) IS & USM update. Irony of ironies they're geared towards the video crowd...

2) Zoom lenses used to be crap but with modern technology they've been closing the gap with primes. It'd be impossible to find a constant f/2.8 zoom lens in the FD lineup and the early EF lineup. Now, they're quite common and, quite honestly, spectacular.

3) Because of above, we'll be seeing fewer and less often prime updates that are geared toward the L fetishist (. Expect zooms to be dominating the dSLR world in the near and medium future until we'll be able to record gigapixel 3D images on our retinas!

1Tanker wrote in post #14291124
It very much does apply to manufacturing though, and all modern lenses use transistors, are designed with CAD programs, and assembly lines are computerized. The glass itself may be somewhat free of Moore's Law, but the remainder of the R&D, prototypes, and much of the manufacture isn't.

About the only thing unaffected by Moore's Law (other than the glass blanks/cutting/polishi​ng/coatings), is all the Big-Wigs' Salaries....which continue to escalate ad nauseum!

I think you have misapplied "Moore's Law", which is about a rule of thumb that the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. While that allows costs per transistor to drop, the 'law' is really about density and increase in performance, over time.

In semiconductors, it applies because the shrinking of the size of items (like transistors) in the circuit makes for a smaller size per circuit. And there is further increase in the production efficiency...the silicon wafer (upon which circuits are built) have grown in size from 2" diameter back around 1970 to massive 12" diameter (and they are experimenting with 18" ones!). If one was to process a single silicon wafer, you now have 36x the area, so the cost per circuit drops because more can be built with the processing of a single silicon wafer. There is absolutely nothing comparable to silicon circuit fabrication efficiency increases which supports the drop in manufacturing costs in hard manufacturing of lenses!

Wilt wrote in post #14292546
I think you have misapplied "Moore's Law", which is about a rule of thumb that the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. While that allows costs per transistor to drop, the 'law' is really about density and increase in performance, over time.

In semiconductors, it applies because the shrinking of the size of items (like transistors) in the circuit makes for a smaller size per circuit. And there is further increase in the production efficiency...the silicon wafer (upon which circuits are built) have grown in size from 2" diameter back around 1970 to massive 12" diameter (and they are experimenting with 18" ones!). If one was to process a single silicon wafer, you now have 36x the area, so the cost per circuit drops because more can be built with the processing of a single silicon wafer. There is absolutely nothing comparable to silicon circuit fabrication efficiency increases which supports the drop in manufacturing costs in hard manufacturing of lenses!

Wilt sounds like a fellow semiconductor industry professional. 100% agreed.

andrikos wrote in post #14292702
Wilt sounds like a fellow semiconductor industry professional. 100% agreed.

My first job out of college was in semiconductor manufacturing. I was running a new fab test area, so I worked much more closely with manufacturing engineering than is usual. We had 3" process at the time, and they were playing with 4". Furtunately I got laid off, as I would not like the perpetual ups and downs of the industry, so I transitioned to semiconductor CAD equipment for about 4 years. Ancient history!

For those who aren't aware Japan has been in a deflationary state almost constantly since 1999, with overall inflation being about -1% (so If something cost 100 yen in 1999 it probably costs 99 yen today in Japan). One impact of this is that any price increase since 1999 is a REAL price increase. That is not something we are used to in the US where a 2.75% annual increase in price is actually no increase at all because inflation has averaged about 2.75% since 1999. Until you realize this about the Japanese economy it makes it hard to understand why a 1% annual increase for the last 13 years on the chart above is actually a significant increase... Since that would be a decrease of 1.75% per year in the US.

So in relative terms if the price for a product has remained the same in Japan from 1999 to 2012 then it actually will have increased in price in the US by about 35%. This is the real source of the massive spike in price of these lenses and cameras. If it weren't for this the price would be about 75% of what it is now, so the 24-70 II would be about $1725. Still an increase, but not nearly so bad of one.

arentol wrote in post #14293033
For those who aren't aware Japan has been in a deflationary state almost constantly since 1999, with overall inflation being about -1% (so If something cost 100 yen in 1999 it probably costs 99 yen today in Japan). One impact of this is that any price increase since 1999 is a REAL price increase. That is not something we are used to in the US where a 2.75% annual increase in price is actually no increase at all because inflation has averaged about 2.75% since 1999. Until you realize this about the Japanese economy it makes it hard to understand why a 1% annual increase for the last 13 years on the chart above is actually a significant increase... Since that would be a decrease of 1.75% per year in the US.

So in relative terms if the price for a product has remained the same in Japan from 1999 to 2012 then it actually will have increased in price in the US by about 35%. This is the real source of the massive spike in price of these lenses and cameras. If it weren't for this the price would be about 75% of what it is now, so the 24-70 II would be about $1725. Still an increase, but not nearly so bad of one.

In fact, here's a graphic of said inflation: