24-70 II - why the price?

Just went through prices of other Brands on B&H.

- Nikon: 1800 USD
- Sony Zeiss: 1900 USD
- Canon 24-70: used to be 1400 USD
- Canon 24-70 II: 2300 USD

Sigma, Tamron are much-much cheaper, but I get it.

So what is really driving this price for Canon? What makes this lens so special that it is 20% more expensive that Nikon and Zeiss and twice as expensive as the MK I?

An increase in optical performance and a lot of greediness.

I hear the barrel is made out of platinum-gold-titanium alloy, and the glass is actually diamond...

light_pilgrim wrote in post #15289855
Just went through prices of other Brands on B&H.

- Nikon: 1800 USD
- Sony Zeiss: 1900 USD
- Canon 24-70: used to be 1400 USD
- Canon 24-70 II: 2300 USD

Sigma, Tamron are much-much cheaper, but I get it.

So what is really driving this price for Canon? What makes this lens so special that it is 20% more expensive that Nikon and Zeiss and twice as expensive as the MK I?

Yep, it's very expensive but also the best.
People who want one but don't like the price of, say, an S class, buy a Lexus and are still perfectly happy with it.
There are plenty of choices out there, competition is good!

andrikos wrote in post #15289988
Yep, it's very expensive but also the best.
People who want one but don't like the price of, say, an S class, buy a Lexus and are still perfectly happy with it.
There are plenty of choices out there, competition is good!

The best of what? Better than Nikon? Better than Zeiss? How do you know?
I do not understand your logic about S class and Lexus. Based on what you claim that 24-70 II is S class and how do you know that Sony Zeiss is not Bentley?

asay82 wrote in post #15289877
An increase in optical performance and a lot of greediness.

As an owner of the thing, I think I'd have to agree.

Its not the lens I'd hoped for. I was spoilt when the 70-200 mkII arrived, it was amazing and so I expected a similar advance in the 24-70 mk II. Sadly, although it IS better, its not an earth shattering improvement but just slightly.

I own the 24-70 II and it is a great lens... but I bet the Nikon and Sony versions are great too. Canon's pricing strategy has me baffled. When I switched to Canon from Sony, I found it interesting that while Sony users readily bought Tamron, Sigma and other 3rd party manufacturers' lenses, Canon users seemed to stick with Canon lenses. That seems to be changing. Lots of chatter around here about the Tammy 24-70 VC and the Sigma 35 1.4 in particular. Canon's pricing is too high and they are really testing their customer's loyalty. No doubt consumer grade photo equipment (Canon T3 etc. as well as P&S) make up the vast majority of Canon's sales volume and profit and pros who want the best, will pay what it takes, to a point. It was pricing which led my to Canon versus Nikon 3 years or so ago. If I was switching today I'd be comparing the D800/24-70 combo to the 5D MkIII/24-70 mkII and I'd be moving to Nikon rather than Canon.

darrell52 wrote in post #15290167
If I was switching today I'd be comparing the D800/24-70 combo to the 5D MkIII/24-70 mkII and I'd be moving to Nikon rather than Canon.

Many people share the same sentiment. I think you will pay 1000 USD less for the Nikon combo today.

andrikos wrote in post #15289988
Yep, it's very expensive but also the best.
People who want one but don't like the price of, say, an S class, buy a Lexus and are still perfectly happy with it.
There are plenty of choices out there, competition is good!

I don;t get your comparison either. It doesn;t make any sense and this lens is in no way better than a nikon or a sony and in any case it's not a $1000 better than the old version.

They seem to be having no problem selling them at this price, so that's why.

Canon follows a very predictable price curve. They have done so on every new product I have seen them introduce. When first introduced the price is set high. The early adopters or those that must have the lens and are willing to do so pay the high price giving Canon the greatest profit margin.

After a bit, sales start to fall as those willing to pay the high price have done so. Canon starts offering sales to spur interest. This gets the next tier of buyers, those not willing to pay the high intro price but when they see the sale the believe they are getting a good deal.

For the 27-70II I think we are just entering the first sale phase as the lens is still pretty new.
After a bit more when sales drop, Canon pretty much makes the sale price the full time price and from time to time offers rebates lowering the price further. And so it goes, Canon plays this game trying to maximize profits raising and lowering the price a the market dictates.

What I also started noticing is that you are punished enormously for being an early adopter these days with Canon. People had to pay 3500 USD for 5D MKIII and just last week you could get it for 2600 USD, that is 900 USD or 24% less.

This only tells me that the normal price for 24-70 II is something like 1800 USD and I think it will get to this price eventually.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #15290226
What I also started noticing is that you are punished enormously for being an early adopter these days with Canon. People had to pay 3500 USD for 5D MKIII and just last week you could get it for 2600 USD, that is 900 USD or 24% less.

This only tells me that the normal price for 24-70 II is something like 1800 USD and I think it will get to this price eventually.

It's not punishment, those willing to pay get it early. From Canon's perspective, they can only produce X amount of lenses. If X < market demand even at the high price, they are maximizing their profits. When X > market then it's time to rethink their strategy.

gjl711 wrote in post #15290239
It's not punishment, those willing to pay get it early. From Canon's perspective, they can only produce X amount of lenses. If X < market demand even at the high price, they are maximizing their profits. When X > market then it's time to rethink their strategy.

I do not agree. People purchasing 5D MKIII early followed the logic that was used with 5D MKII which was 2700 USD when introduced and dropped to 2500 one year later and mostly stayed like this for another year, so this is less than 10%.

This teaches me a lesson. When MKIV is going to be out and I would want to upgrade, I will wait 6-9 months and will pay 25% less.

This is a new philosophy from Canon which will trigger a different behavior from consumers.

I am certain that 24-70 II will be 1800 USD for Christmas 2013.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #15290250
I do not agree. People purchasing 5D MKIII early followed the logic that was used with 5D MKII which was 2700 USD when introduced and dropped to 2500 one year later and mostly stayed like this for another year.

I don't think that you can compare one model introduction to another. When the MkII was introduced sure, it's price was lower and it stayed there much longer as well, but that could simply have been because the MkII was selling. The MkIII came out at a much higher price and fell much quicker but that could be because sales fell much quicker.

But your assessment to wait is probably a good one. Early adopters pay more, or maybe it's more accurate to say that those willing to pay the higher price for whatever reason become the early adopters. When people stop buying at the higher price, the price will fall. Remember, Canon's job is not to offer you cameras at a price you are willing to pay. Their job is to maximize profits for their shareholders and if selling fewer cameras at a much higher price does that, why would they change?