Why do lenses cost so much?

In particular, why do L lenses cost so much?

Why doesn't Canon just make L lenses?

I understand R&D costs, but after some point, isn't it just a matter of putting lenses closer or farther apart, different sizes types of glass (which I'm sure the materials for are pennies per lens), and implementation of existing technology to focus accurately and sometimes IS?

Is it really the simple explanation that Canon is making lots and lots of money off of lenses and something everyone accepts (about the price)? Or do the materials really really cost that much money and Canon barely makes a profit?

Or maybe I'm the only one wondering about this since I can't afford L lenses but everyone else can. Just curious.

Thanks for your input
Micah

Why does Canon make the Rebel series? If you can answer that, then you know why they make a lot of lens that aren't L lens.

They'd lose so much of the market if they didn't. And then they make some great non-L lens anyway. For the consummer its a win, because we don't have to pay super huge prices for lens like the 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 35 2, 100 2, 100 2.8 Macro, etc.

Canon charges what people will pay. Period.

Lenses cost a lot to make. Especially L's. More glass, more accurate design, nicer focus mechanism, weather seals, fluorite glass, made mostly of metal instead of plastic like consumer lenses, etc. There's a reason they're so much more than their counterparts in the consumer field.

I say more power to Canon for being able to mark them up so much and still make billions each year.

As Ronald S. Jr said, "more glass, more accurate design, nicer focus mechanisim, weather seals, fluorite glass, metal construction".

Have you ever compared a Mercedes or a BMW to a Pontiac?

That's like the difference between L and non-L glass.

I drive a Pontiac but given the money . . . . .

Why does Canon make L lenses? Because putting an L on the box and a red ring on the lens will make some people pay more money for it.

Why does Canon make some non-L lenses? To get money from the people who don't want to pay the price of an L lens.

If Canon made two identical lenses, say a 24-70 f/2.8 and marketed one as an L, you would be suprised how many people would pay more for the L version because they assume it is better. You would also be surprised how many people would save money by purchasing the non-L version, and then buy the hood that was not included in the box, bringing the total price to the same as the L lens which comes with hood.

Some of us would do a great deal of complaining about having to pay extra for the lens hood. Others would buy both lenses so they could use the hood from the L lens on their non-L lens.

ScottE wrote in post #2250529
If Canon made two identical lenses, say a 24-70 f/2.8 and marketed one as an L, you would be suprised how many people would pay more for the L version because they assume it is better. You would also be surprised how many people would save money by purchasing the non-L version, and then buy the hood that was not included in the box, bringing the total price to the same as the L lens which comes with hood.

For people who do more research and know a little, like a decent amount on this forum, there would be a lot who bought smarter. However, for Canon, there is only one 24-70 2.8L.

Sigma and Tamron make similar lens, but they do not have everything there. Is what they lack worth like 2-3x what they cost? depends on the shooter and the applications that are involved.

Your underestimating the cost of glass and grinding it.
The bigger the lens the more the glass costs and the more expensive it is to grind it.
Then coating it adds another expense.
multiply that by all the # of elements and it adds up to a nice percentage of the cost.

Small improvements in the quality and grinding of the glass lead to big price increases.
.5% improvement can bring a 3x price increase in the blanks and grinding costs.
When it comes to lens blanks a few mm in size can increase the price 10x.
Remember that not only does a larger lens need a wider blank but also needs a thicker one.
It adds up in a hurry.

Add in more expensive motors and electronics and assemble and it adds up.

Then there is marketing and marketing position but im betting the mark up isn't as much as some people think it is.

segasaturn wrote in post #2250195
In particular, why do L lenses cost so much?

Why doesn't Canon just make L lenses?

I understand R&D costs, but after some point, isn't it just a matter of putting lenses closer or farther apart, different sizes types of glass (which I'm sure the materials for are pennies per lens), and implementation of existing technology to focus accurately and sometimes IS?

Is it really the simple explanation that Canon is making lots and lots of money off of lenses and something everyone accepts (about the price)? Or do the materials really really cost that much money and Canon barely makes a profit?

Or maybe I'm the only one wondering about this since I can't afford L lenses but everyone else can. Just curious.

Thanks for your input
Micah

It's simple.

1. Some people want the best no matter the cost.
2. Some people want cheap no matter the quality.
3. Some people want quality but can't afford the best.
4. Some people dont know the difference.
5. Some people dont care even though they know.

Canon gets all 5 types doing things the way they do.

If Canon would apply the same profit margins to their L lenses as their non L lenses, the prices would put them out of the market completely. An L lens is much more expensive to design and manufacture.

Its because Canon CAN and people will pay for the previledge to have it!!! And that is it. No logic require.

Canon L lenses can have up to 3 Aspherical elements and even a few UD elements. These are very hard to manufacture and are grinded out of a single piece of glass instead of throwing a plastic extension on the end as is done with regular glass.
These technologies plus others are what make these lenses so sharp and accurate.

L series lenses are made to a higher standard and take much more expensive recourses to make.

does anyone know for example how much the 24-70mm L would cost to make for example??

You also need to understand that as far as precision tools go, these lenses are NOT expensive in real terms. L lenses are meant for professional use, and are built accordingly. If those of us who are hobbyists want to play with this stuff, it will cost us - out our own pocket rather than out of a business budget.

Most modern hobbies that require us to purchase equipment ARE expensive - look at what it costs to race motorcars, climb mountains, go camping , skydive...all this stuff costs money, and in all things you can do it on a budget or go for the best. If you can't afford to buy even consumer lenses, then you can still take great pictures on an advanced compact with 12 x zoom.

As far as Canon L lenses go, these are the best. But no one is forcing you to buy L lenses, and just because you can't afford it does not mean that you can't take great pictures. Many of the consumer lenses are deservedly praised, and just because they can't hold up to a gruelling professional level of use and abuse, doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them.

Assuming that Canon is simply taking our cash and shelling out rewards to shareholders and executives is disingenuous. Sure, investors are entitled to a return on their cash, and people who perform are entitled to be rewarded - and Canon as a company is booming. But most of what you are paying is store mark up - about 50%, if you aren't careful, of the cost you pay is the store's mark up. Of the rest, you can assume that Canon is making a profit too - perhaps a quarter of the price you pay will be Canon's slice of the pie - and this profit goes towards running the company and funding R&D so we have more toys to choose from.

It's called capitalsim, if it didn't exist we'd none of us have the lifestyles we do.

And there is one sure fire way to get the lenses you want - start saving. even a tiny amount salted away on a regular basis will mount up.

If you think Canon L lenses are expensive, check the prices on Leica. A Leica 75 mm f/1.4 manual focus lens is $3,595 US at B&H. A Canon 85 mm f/1.2 L with autofocus is $2,000 US.

How can Canon make L lenses so cheap?

ScottE wrote in post #2252018
How can Canon make L lenses so cheap?

They use monkeys wherever possible.