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

DreDaze wrote in post #14878095
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 $$

That versatility will also cut into sales of other Canon lenses, a point which Canon knows and will have built into the price.

This.... is less burden that Sigma's green cannon...

My personal opinion is that those days are gone when agencies pay big money for images. More and more expensive gear is being purchased by amateurs, but....this price is crazy.

But who am I to say....I would personally pay 3500-4000 for this lens, not more.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14878155
y personal opinion is that those days are gone when agencies pay big money for images. More and more expensive gear is being purchased by amateurs, but....this price is crazy.

But who am I to say....I would personally pay 3500-4000 for this lens, not more.

This is exactly the reality Canon has to look at. Let's say this lens retails at 11K, the retailer has to make money as well. For ease let's say Canon wholesales this lens for 9K and they're cost including R&D over the first 5 years of production is 4.5K(things get cheaper to produce over time and once R&D is paid for). Now if Canon cut they're profit in half and sold the lens for 6.75k with a retail of 8k do you think they would sell twice as many? I don't and I doubt if Canon does. Simple fact is that for most of us here anything above the 3-4K mark is out of reach, so it matters not if they sell it for 6K or 12K, they are not targetting us with this lens.

Note: These are all made up numbers and in no way do I know what Canon's cost of production is on this lens or they're profit margin.

For me, Canon went crazy with their recent pricing.
The new 24-700 is $800-1000 overpriced for me (I will never even consider it for what it is and for how much it costs). Same with many other lenses....but who cares....I am done with lenses. Worst comes to worse I can add a Teleconverter to 70-200 and I ready to photograph bears.
But....I am not the target audience with these prices for sure

It's an economy of scale...

They'll probably produce 5,000 "Thrifty Fifties" for every individual 200-400

Obviously I can't speak for anyone but myself, but the 200-400 could, in theory, replace three lenses in my line up:
100-400
300 f/2.8
500 f/4

The power of versatility can't be underestimated. One lens to do the work of three means less time setting down and picking up cameras and more time with my eye to the viewfinder.

According to what I've heard, the 200-400 was very well received at the London Olympics and performed very well.

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.

True guess I wont get the $3500 per cover image at the MX venues any longer. I just gave a quote out last week for full use rights at $4K and the president of the company said not at that price. I am like really......

[QUOTE=light_pilgrim;1​4878155]My personal opinion is that those days are gone when agencies pay big money for images. More and more expensive gear is being purchased by amateurs, but....this price is crazy.

But who am I to say....I would personally pay 3500-4000 for this lens, not more.[/quote]

then you'll never own the lens and that's probably what's bugging you !

I don't think a Mercedes is worth 60K, either. But Mercedes isn't making those cars with me in mind.

[QUOTE=ed rader;14879710]

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14878155
My personal opinion is that those days are gone when agencies pay big money for images. More and more expensive gear is being purchased by amateurs, but....this price is crazy.

But who am I to say....I would personally pay 3500-4000 for this lens, not more.[/quote]

then you'll never own the lens and that's probably what's bugging you !

Not really.....you see, I am not questioning 400 f/2.8 II which costs a lot of money and I cannot afford it. I was surprised that this lens is priced 10.000 because for me it looks like a 3-4k lens.

But what cheap 400mm f4 options are you comparing it to?

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14880536
Not really.....you see, I am not questioning 400 f/2.8 II which costs a lot of money and I cannot afford it. I was surprised that this lens is priced 10.000 because for me it looks like a 3-4k lens.

but where do you come up with 3-4K? i mean the only way you're getting 400mm f4 is either a 300mm f2.8 IS with a TC, or a sigma 120-300f2.8 OS with a TC...both of those options are going to cost you though...

i mean i understand thinking things are overpriced, but not seeing the value to others is different...for me i think the 5D III is overpriced for what benefits it offers over the 1/2 priced 5DII...but obviously you thought it was worth it...there will be plenty that see the value in a 200f4-560f5.6 lens...which is basically what this lens is

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.

Considering this is Canon's first 200-400 f4 zoom and it's first photographic lens with a TC attached I think Canon will make it whatever price they want, just like Bugatti did.

Neilyb wrote in post #14880962
Considering this is Canon's first 200-400 f4 zoom and it's first photographic lens with a TC attached I think Canon will make it whatever price they want, just like Bugatti did.

Sorry...I do not get the logic. You can integrate VW Passat with a bicycle, but I will not pay the Bugatti Veyron Price for it.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14881096
Sorry...I do not get the logic. You can integrate VW Passat with a bicycle, but I will not pay the Bugatti Veyron Price for it.

Well, many people have voiced their arguments for it's pricing. You aren't changing your mind. That IS your prerogative, but it does sound like you're just sore, that you can't get one. This is a Koennigseg/Veyron of the lens world.. or a Zonda/Aventador/ Maclaren SLR, whatever. Yes, you can go buy a Vette or Viper, and get 3/4+ the performance of the machines, for under a 10th the price.. but, that extra 25% does make a difference.

**** Since you seem to want to make this about cars, i had to use your analogies, in order for you to have a glimpse of hope, of understanding.****