Big Sony DSLR price changes

I just was looking at the SonyStyle website and noticed a price drop on the A900 down to $2699 USD. Here are some other changes I noticed:

300mm f2.8 new $6299 old $5999
CZ 24-70mm new $1599 old $1749
CZ 16-35 new $1899 old $1799
70-400mm new $1599 old $1499

I guess I was just in time for the Zeiss 16-80. Last week I ordered it for $699.99 from SonyStyle. Now its $749.99
--
From the original Pheanix:
'Shoot first (pictures that is); ask questions later'
Keith (me) - the original pheanix

Count yourself lucky it must be that the Canon 5D Mk2 sales are starting to have an effect on the US market. Elsewhere Sony prices are rising , faster in some countries than others.

Keith-C

Sucks, I did not think that was going to happen.
Sad.

The CZ 24-70mm f2.8 dropped in price, as noted in the original post.

Bryan

And that's very good news.
--
Good luck and good light.
http://www.kennedyphotography.net

BH Photo is still showing old prices, better hurry. Ordered 16-80 and 100 macro yesterday.
--
Thanks
Ayan (Sonian)

Bryan89 said:

I just was looking at the SonyStyle website and noticed a price drop
on the A900 down to $2699 USD. Here are some other changes I noticed:

300mm f2.8 new $6299 old $5999
CZ 24-70mm new $1599 old $1749
CZ 16-35 new $1899 old $1799
70-400mm new $1599 old $1499

Click to expand...

Good marketing strategy on Sony's part. Drop the price of the a900 to entice camera buyers and make up for it with the lenses after the sale. Hewlitt-Packard made this marketing strategy famous with their low-ball prices on their printers and high prices on their ink cartridges. It worked for them.
--Phil

Bryan89 said:

I just was looking at the SonyStyle website and noticed a price drop
on the A900 down to $2699 USD. Here are some other changes I noticed:

300mm f2.8 new $6299 old $5999
CZ 24-70mm new $1599 old $1749
CZ 16-35 new $1899 old $1799
70-400mm new $1599 old $1499

Click to expand...

I also see the the 70-300G is now $849.99!! Ouch! Glad I picked up one for $559 at the Circuit City liquidation sale.
-Phil

$6299 for a 300/2.8. The old price was already ridiculously high; the new one is even more absurd. For other makes this is a relatively popular focal length for a super telephoto, as it is the least expensive of the super telephotos and can pair with matched 1.4x and 2x converters to provide pretty good flexiblity while retaining good performance, even with the 2x. Sony's price for this lens really is a non-starter, and a big drawback to anyone interested in sports or wildlife photography, for which these lenses are most commonly used. It is more than $2,000 more expensive than the Canon or Nikon counterparts. You could buy a Nikon D300 and 300/2.8 just for the price of the Sony lens, and probably have something left (or a Canon 50D and 300/2.8 and definitely have something left for another lens or flash).

I understand that the generally increasing value of the yen may be the cause for most of these price increases, but Sony really has to address the totally unreasonable cost of the 300/2.8. Given its attempts to be cost competitive for most (but not all) of its other Alpha products, it sticks out like a sore thumb and is why I continue to shoot my "ancient" late 1980's era Minolta 300/2.8 that I've had for over 15 years. Now that was a good investment.

--
Mark Van Bergh

I've been thinking about the 70-400G. Amazon had one left at the old price...it's on its way ;-)
--
Winston

I agree completely Mark. There is no reason this lens needs to be this expensive. There is not really an ideal wildlife lens for Sony that is reasonably expensive. Hopefully, this will be addressed before Summer.

Bryan

Mark VB said:

$6299 for a 300/2.8. The old price was already ridiculously high;
the new one is even more absurd. Sony's price for this
lens really is a non-starter, and a big drawback to anyone interested
in sports or wildlife photography, for which these lenses are most
commonly used.
--
Mark Van Bergh

Click to expand...

The 300/2.8 is the last lens that needed a price increase IMO.

Canon - $4100
Nikon - $5000
Sony - $6000 (now $6300)

You can buy a nice camera body for the $2200/$1300 difference. If you are in the market for a system w/300 2.8 then Sony is pretty much a non-starter.

--
Rick

Agree, the 300/2.8 price is just plain silly, and sony style has it still for $6300k. I've enjoyed the system and have some serious reservations unless some changes are made. I shoot sports, and primes are just plain lacking. The only alternative is the Sigma 300/2.8, but that lacks SSM.

This might be a case of having two systems, Sony for 300mm if sports/wildlife is your thing.

BTW, has any used the Sigma 300/2.8?

restonbrewco said:

Agree, the 300/2.8 price is just plain silly, and sony style has it
still for $6300k. I've enjoyed the system and have some serious
reservations unless some changes are made. I shoot sports, and
primes are just plain lacking. The only alternative is the Sigma
300/2.8, but that lacks SSM.

This might be a case of having two systems, Sony for 300mm if
sports/wildlife is your thing.

BTW, has any used the Sigma 300/2.8?

Click to expand...

The truth is that a 300/2.8 is a fairly important lens for a complete system. It is very valuable for sports and wildlife (especially with a TC). It is important enough for Sony to have carried it over from Minolta as one of their original Alpha lenses.

IMO if it is important enough to have in your lineup it is important enough to price it sanely compared to the competition.

--
Rick

agree, its an even better deal now, for the best 24-70 ever produced
--
http://www.CarlGarrardPhotography.com

Mark VB said:

It is more than $2,000 more expensive than the Canon
or Nikon counterparts. You could buy a Nikon D300 and 300/2.8 just
for the price of the Sony lens, and probably have something left (or
a Canon 50D and 300/2.8 and definitely have something left for
another lens or flash).

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's not like the CZ lenses where $100 or $200 is justifiable ... it's a good, but not-exactly-new KM design that's so much more expensive than the competition that you can buy a second system just for sports/wildlife and break even or come out ahead. A Canon IS 300/2.8 is $2200 less; more than the price of the 50D and almost enough to buy a 5D-II !

If I were a Sony user (which I am looking to buy such a lens for serious sports/wildlife photography, I'd buy Canon in a heartbeat and keep the Sony system for other uses.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Minolta controls the price of the 300. Sony doesn't make lenses, they contract them out.

steelhead3 said:

Minolta controls the price of the 300. Sony doesn't make lenses,
they contract them out.

Click to expand...

Sounds like they need a new supplier to me. Maybe CZ?

--
Rick

Yes, the 300 & 70-200 were always overpriced (relative to competition) by KM to start with, and KM didn't really price high, so it's probably a cost problem.

The 70-200 has come down some though.

Maybe after Sony gets around to announcing the 500/4.5 (or whatever it is they'll work on revamping the 300/2.8 and scrap the overpriced KM-based model.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com