The Myth of outrageous new Canon lens prices...

tkbslc wrote in post #14361476
Tech pays good, but not THAT good.

CCNA can.

'Course, if he can get a CCNA, he probably didn't bother with a philosophy degree.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #14361752
A mid level Nissan is about 25,000 dollars (not including the outlier GT-R). A 1Dx is 6,899 dollars. That is 28% which is different from 10%. Almost three times more.

Oh shucks, I forgot to add the MF drive to the F1, as the 1Dx has its drive built in.

All very nice economic discussion. The sad fact for me remains that Canon is dropping mid-priced lenses and replacing them with high priced lenses (see 70-300 vs 70-300L, 100 macro vs 100 L macro - both better of course but there won't be a new mid-priced offering). They are also not introducing moderately pried high quality primes (see Canon new 28 2.8 versus Nikon 28 1.8 G lens, absence of any new Canon 50mm prime etc.). If Nikon can make such choices, so could Canon. For many of us therelatively affordable high quality lens selection was a key factor in selecting Canon in the first place. It is sad to see that going away and I don't think external economics are entirely to blame.

tkbslc wrote in post #14360069
That's what we are all doing. When the answer is no we can't afford them, no they are worth it, and that is the trend for all new Canon lenses, then it makes many of us sad we can't afford to enjoy the hobby as we might have 5 years ago. When we are sad, we might complain. You can explain it 99 more times, but that won't make us excited that the prices are higher, nor will it increase the value of the dollars in my pocket. So I will keep saying the new prices suck big time and they are too expensive (for me). Is Canon evil? No. Can I buy their new lenses? No.

I agree with everything you just said except for important point, that you won't get excited about Canons higher prices - the "trend" for all new Canon lenses. That was my whole point, that Canons prices have not risen in price unreasonably. Quite the opposite in fact. I was responding to people constantly saying the "new" prices are outrageous. The only basis for that claim is comparing current Mark I prices to Mark II prices. You saying they are too expensive and not worth it to you is a completely fair point that I would never argue with. That is not what most people are saying. Even you said "their new prices suck big time". What new prices? Prices have increased VERY little; some of them being 15 years later! Canon cant possibly price new lenses to compete with the used market. What I would understand being annoyed at is if Canon stopped up dating low to mid level lenses. Even then you still have the used market which is how most people including me get their lenses anyway. But this I would understand if it was true.

lungdoc wrote in post #14362526
All very nice economic discussion. The sad fact for me remains that Canon is dropping mid-priced lenses and replacing them with high priced lenses (see 70-300 vs 70-300L, 100 macro vs 100 L macro - both better of course but there won't be a new mid-priced offering). They are also not introducing moderately pried high quality primes (see Canon new 28 2.8 versus Nikon 28 1.8 G lens, absence of any new Canon 50mm prime etc.). If Nikon can make such choices, so could Canon. For many of us therelatively affordable high quality lens selection was a key factor in selecting Canon in the first place. It is sad to see that going away and I don't think external economics are entirely to blame.

Where are you getting the information that Canon are dropping these lenses (100 macro, 70-300 etc?). Those lenses seem to be alive and well in the line up? Even if that is true, and I understand being annoyed if they weren't introducing new moderately priced high quality primes, give them some time before you complain. Canon doesn't have to follow Nikons schedule. Many people are thrilled with the new lenses Canon has released lately. That doesn't mean Canon isn't working on mid level lenses as we speak. Nikon shooters would be complaining that Nikon isn't keeping up with Canons latest lens offerings. Neither can release everything all at once, they update according to demand. In fact if someone did a chart showing new lens releases over the last 10 years I'm sure many mid level lenses were updated along with high priced lenses. Also, I suspect Canon would assume people using EF lenses would prefer the best quality they can get, rather than releasing sub-prime lenses cheaper. There are many of those lenses available already. People want what new technology can offer now. Nothing's stopping anyone buying the 100mm Maro AFAIK and it's nice to have the new 100L as an option

lungdoc wrote in post #14362526
All very nice economic discussion. The sad fact for me remains that Canon is dropping mid-priced lenses and replacing them with high priced lenses (see 70-300 vs 70-300L, 100 macro vs 100 L macro - both better of course but there won't be a new mid-priced offering). They are also not introducing moderately pried high quality primes (see Canon new 28 2.8 versus Nikon 28 1.8 G lens, absence of any new Canon 50mm prime etc.). If Nikon can make such choices, so could Canon. For many of us therelatively affordable high quality lens selection was a key factor in selecting Canon in the first place. It is sad to see that going away and I don't think external economics are entirely to blame.

Hey Mark,
If you want to see whether a Canon lens is current or "extinct", you can go here:

http://www.usa.canon.c​om …ts/cameras/ef_l​ens_lineup

As you can see below, there's a cornucopia of EF 7x-300mm lenses to choose from:

EF
70-300mm
f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

$1,399.00


EF
70-300mm
f/4-5.6 IS USM

$649.99


EF
70-300mm
f/4-5.6L IS USM

$1,599.00


EF
75-300mm
f/4-5.6 III USM

$234.99


EF
75-300mm
f/4-5.6 III

$199.99

RDKirk wrote in post #14362355
CCNA can.

'Course, if he can get a CCNA, he probably didn't bother with a philosophy degree.

CCNA is an entry level cert that is probably worth about $40-60K depending on actual work experience and where you work. (I passed it back in '00, it's fairly basic)

There aren't many I.T. jobs in the $150k range unless you are talking about contract work in specific high specialty areas.

Here's a major salary survey done for 2011, only 4% break $150k and that's the top tier: http://redmondmag.com …/Bigger-Bucks.aspx?Page=1

Not that this has a whole lot to do with the topic, just pointing out that tech guys aren't paid like surgeons!

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14364035
I agree with everything you just said except for important point, that you won't get excited about Canons higher prices - the "trend" for all new Canon lenses. That was my whole point, that Canons prices have not risen in price unreasonably. Quite the opposite in fact. I was responding to people constantly saying the "new" prices are outrageous. The only basis for that claim is comparing current Mark I prices to Mark II prices. You saying they are too expensive and not worth it to you is a completely fair point that I would never argue with. That is not what most people are saying. Even you said "their new prices suck big time". What new prices?

In my currency:

28mm f2.8 is now $800
24-70 is now over $2000
5D is now $3500
Should I go on?

As I have said, I realize things are not more expensive in Yen, at least not much. But what's that go to do with me? Nothing. I don't get paid in Yen. I can only evaluate what things cost to me and my bank account, which is in dollars. Prices on new products have definitely risen based on what leaves my wallet.

tkbslc wrote in post #14367355
In my currency:

28mm f2.8 is now $800
24-70 is now over $2000
5D is now $3500
Should I go on?

As I have said, I realize things are not more expensive in Yen, at least not much. But what's that go to do with me? Nothing. I don't get paid in Yen. I can only evaluate what things cost to me and my bank account, which is in dollars. Prices on new products have definitely risen based on what leaves my wallet.

Believe me, nobody is disputing that. We already know the prices are what they are in USD. The conversation is about why they are what they are and we're seeing many many factors that are outside of Canon's power.

This is a conversation of understanding how product pricing policies are affected by competition, changing technology and market demands.

If the competition could produce a 70-200 f/2.8 with supreme AF and IS for a third of the price of the Canon lens, I'm sure Canon would do something about it.

andrikos wrote in post #14367481
Believe me, nobody is disputing that. We already know the prices are what they are in USD. The conversation is about why they are what they are and we're seeing many many factors that are outside of Canon's power.

I understand that, and I have said that. I agreed with your approach. But the other conversation is that people are saying we should be happy about it or shut up. I am merely saying that people are justifiably unhappy about it, regardless of cause.

I do agree putting the blame solely on Canon is not fair.

andrikos wrote in post #14367481
Believe me, nobody is disputing that. We already know the prices are what they are in USD. The conversation is about why they are what they are and we're seeing many many factors that are outside of Canon's power.

This is a conversation of understanding how product pricing policies are affected by competition, changing technology and market demands.

If the competition could produce a 70-200 f/2.8 with supreme AF and IS for a third of the price of the Canon lens, I'm sure Canon would do something about it.

What would they do? The concensus here, seems to be that they're charging these prices.. because they HAVE to! That's what a few of us non-sheeple are arguing.. that they charge these prices.. because they can.

1Tanker wrote in post #14367726
What would they do? The concensus here, seems to be that they're charging these prices.. because they HAVE to! That's what a few of us non-sheeple are arguing.. that they charge these prices.. because they can.

Sure, but name a lens on the market - in EF mount - that's better than the 70-200 II. Name one better than the 24-70 II.

As sucky as it is, Canon can afford to charge more than the competition because they are making a better product. There are other forces that help drive up the costs that Canon can not control, as well.

If you can't afford the new lenses, you're left with the options of: a) switching systems in the name of seeking out more affordable lenses, b) buy used, c) buy 3rd party, or d) just don't buy it, then come to the interwebs to complain.

These tables by the OP are all well an good, but really ... they're really quite meaningless. Seriously, who is going to look at historical pricing, and say "yep, Canon's new lens pricing is not really 'outrageous'" We all look at pricing relative to some reference point. And I say that the reference point is comparing the new lens to the previous generation (Mk I) or verses the competition (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) in TODAY's pricing. I really don't care about the initial rollout pricing 10 years ago because that simply is not relevant. Take for example the 24-70L Mk 1 and 2. The prices delta is about $1000 USD. Is this outrageous? The Mk 1 is already pretty dang good. Will the Mk 2 be twice as good? I guessing the Mk 2 will be really good, but not twice as good, so the $1000 price delta is "outrageous" to me. Also, Tamron has just delivered a lens in this space (with VC) so again the price seem too high. --- Just my two cents

chantu wrote in post #14367921
Take for example the 24-70L Mk 1 and 2. The prices delta is about $1000 USD. Is this outrageous? The Mk 1 is already pretty dang good.

Excellent! So you're in the market for the Mk.I then, Canon still wins and so do you.

chantu wrote in post #14367921
Will the Mk 2 be twice as good?

They never are. Is the Zeiss 2,8/15 twice as good as the 14L or the 16-35L? No, but for those who appreciate the extra performance, it's definitely worth the extra $$$. And it's a MF lens! Oh the humanity! How 19th century is that?

chantu wrote in post #14367921
I guessing the Mk 2 will be really good, but not twice as good, so the $1000 price delta is "outrageous" to me.

You are the decider and you decided NO on the mk II. Totally your right and same for the people who do decide to spend the ca$h to buy one. Free market magic!

chantu wrote in post #14367921
Also, Tamron has just delivered a lens in this space (with VC) so again the price seem too high. --- Just my two cents

So maybe Tamron will put some price pressure on Canon. History tells us no, but you never know, it might happen.
And I welcome it, because stiff competition means we consumers win with better, cheaper products.

The very fact that we can afford all these toys should be a cause for celebration in itself. Let's no forget that.

1Tanker wrote in post #14367726
What would they do? The concensus here, seems to be that they're charging these prices.. because they HAVE to! That's what a few of us non-sheeple are arguing.. that they charge these prices.. because they can.

Just because you don't agree with one group doesn't make you a non-sheep, it just means you roam with a different flock/herd/whatever.

it's all fear of the unknown, everyone's an expert. when you have no information you have to fill the space with SOMEthing, conspiracy, whatever.

no one on this forum knows how canon prices their products, but i will tell you that they price them as high as they can to make the most incremental profit while sustaining the product life cycle as long as they can, when the curve starts to drop, the price can come down a bit until the curve drops a little more and the new version they have been working on since the day the old one came out can now get announced.

there is no mr. burns sitting back in his fat cat chair at canon pressing his fingertips together devising new ways to put it to ya, joe consumer.

damn right they charge what they can, wouldn't you? you going to make just enough to eat balogna at night? what if you never sell another lens tomorrow? no cash reserves to stay afloat since you made a dollar a day? come on. your company's evil profits feed your family. they pay for r&d so they have something to sell tomorrow, not just today.

andrikos wrote in post #14368046
Excellent! So you're in the market for the Mk.I then, Canon still wins and so do you.

They never are. Is the Zeiss 2,8/15 twice as good as the 14L or the 16-35L? No, but for those who appreciate the extra performance, it's definitely worth the extra $$$. And it's a MF lens! Oh the humanity! How 19th century is that?

You are the decider and you decided NO on the mk II. Totally your right and same for the people who do decide to spend the ca$h to buy one. Free market magic!

So maybe Tamron will put some price pressure on Canon. History tells us no, but you never know, it might happen.
And I welcome it, because stiff competition means we consumers win with better, cheaper products.

The very fact that we can afford all these toys should be a cause for celebration in itself. Let's no forget that.

That is the problem...we all cannot afford Canon's new pricing for their latest generation of gear. Show me anyone who is overjoyed at laying out $7,000 for a 300 f2.8 lens when a year ago you could buy one for half that.