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

Folks, why would anyone pay $10 000 for this lens?
It is a normal 20-400 F/4 IS and it can also use the x1.4 teleconverter as it is built in, so it can become 280-560? Why the crazy price for F/4 lens with teleconverter?

I am ignorant in this area, just curious.
http://www.canonrumors​.com …-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x-cr2/

Canon is on crack

Beats me but I hope my local store rents it when its released (:lol

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14876891
Folks, why would anyone pay $10 000 for this lens?
It is a normal 20-400 F/4 IS and it can also use the x1.4 teleconverter as it is built in, so it can become 280-560? Why the crazy price for F/4 lens with teleconverter?

I am ignorant in this area, just curious.
http://www.canonrumors​.com …-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x-cr2/

People pay $11K for a 500 MM F4 thats a prime easy to make no crazy zoom stuff. Just saying..... all big Canon lenses jumped what $3-4K the last few years.

simple, because people will pay it.

rick_reno wrote in post #14877717
simple, because people will pay it.

Not sure this is the case.
When somebody comes to you and asks to pay 2 million dollars for Bugatti Veyron you know it is the normal price for this car, but when people come to you and to charge $300.000 for VW Passat, it stinks.

If 2.8 then may be.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14876891
Folks, why would anyone pay $10 000 for this lens?
It is a normal 20-400 F/4 IS and it can also use the x1.4 teleconverter as it is built in, so it can become 280-560? Why the crazy price for F/4 lens with teleconverter?

I don't think the price is out of line at all, when compared to the new prices for the updated supertelephotos. The new 400 f2.8 is $10,000 to $11,000. The new 500mm f4 is $11,000. The new 600mm f4 is $13,000 to $14,000. The 800mm is also $13,000 to $14,000.

I don't think the "built in teleconverter" is adding that much to the price. IF it were just a 200-400 f4 with IS, with no teleconverter, it would probably be about $9000. Nikon's is $7,000, and all of the newly released Canon telephoto lenses are being priced significantly higher than the comparable Nikon offerings.

So, the way I see it is that the new 200-400 f4, at $10,000 to $12,000 falls right in line with the other recent Canon supertelephoto releases.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of these lenses are not bought by individuals. They are primarily sold to media corporations and agencies.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #14877852
I don't think the price is out of line at all, when compared to the new prices for the updated supertelephotos. The new 400 f2.8 is $10,000 to $11,000. The new 500mm f4 is $11,000. The new 600mm f4 is $13,000 to $14,000. The 800mm is also $13,000 to $14,000.

I don't think the "built in teleconverter" is adding that much to the price. IF it were just a 200-400 f4 with IS, with no teleconverter, it would probably be about $9000. Nikon's is $7,000, and all of the newly released Canon telephoto lenses are being priced significantly higher than the comparable Nikon offerings.

So, the way I see it is that the new 200-400 f4, at $10,000 to $12,000 falls right in line with the other recent Canon supertelephoto releases.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of these lenses are not bought by individuals. They are primarily sold to media corporations and agencies.

No, they are all out of line. Just because the 200-400 is in the same range as the other super teles does not make the price in line.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14877739
Not sure this is the case.
When somebody comes to you and asks to pay 2 million dollars for Bugatti Veyron you know it is the normal price for this car, but when people come to you and to charge $300.000 for VW Passat, it stinks.

I don't know if I would call that lens a Passat in this comparison, but I would like to see a more Passat priced new release from Canon covering out to 400mm. Something like a 100-400 II or a 400/5.6 IS maybe a 200-500/5.6 in a price not to exceed $2k.

This lens, including its pricing, is already being discussed in this thread.

Hogloff wrote in post #14877913
No, they are all out of line. Just because the 200-400 is in the same range as the other super teles does not make the price in line.

The price is in line with those of the other supertelephotos I mentioned. A "line" has been established, whether you agree with it or not. And this price falls within the line that Canon has established for it's recently released supertelephoto offerings.

If I am hoping to land a cover image on Sports Illustarted I am guessing the lens price will not be a big deal.

I don't think they pay very much, unless it's an image acquired via contract with a agency like Getty, in which case the photographer gets 40% or less.
Publications don't pay very much for their cover photos, or any other photos; a few hundred bucks, if it's a big, nationally distributed publication with a circulation over 1,000,000, like SI. $50 to $300 for publications with a lower circulation and smaller distribution area.
It aint like the old days.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #14877852
I don't think the price is out of line at all, when compared to the new prices for the updated supertelephotos. The new 400 f2.8 is $10,000 to $11,000. The new 500mm f4 is $11,000. The new 600mm f4 is $13,000 to $14,000. The 800mm is also $13,000 to $14,000.

this...if you want to go long, it get's expensive...be that the R&D...size of the optics...who knows...but it's going to cost you

this zoom is a whole new animal that canon has nothing else like right now...the ability to go from 200f4 to 500f5.6 with the flick of a switch and the twist of a zoom....the versatility of it is also why it's going to be a lot more $$