Reading mode: Light Dark

Crazy Prices

Go to last post
dan1e

dan1e

Well-known member
Messages
159
Solutions
1
Reaction score
7
Location
Donegal, IE
Just saw the new Canon lenses advertised on a few website stores in the UK. The 300mm f2.8L Mark II is advertised at a price of £7,499.99. How can this extreme price rise be justified.

I was waiting for this lens, and of course I expected it to cost more, but twice the price of the current model. Looks like I'll be purchasing the current version.

Danny
 
The old 300 f2.8 IS recommended price on the canon site is £5,630 while it sells on the street at over £2000 less than that.

The stores are just pumping in the rrp to take advantage of the most desperate, pre-ordering people before competition and stock levels reduces the price as usual.

Wait a while and the price will come down massively in the stores.
 
I think the mark I model (other model) will sell out quickly and the used prices will hold up as there's not mcuh improvement that can be done with IQ in that lens. I think canon sees nikon getting much higher prices in their long lenses and wants some of that gravy without raising their lens prices on existing lens. Just come out with a mark II and raise prices. Of course the new lens is lighter, better IS, and a fw little improvements.

So if your thinking of a 300mm 2.8--better get the older model unless you want to pay a lot more!!

See my portfolio at:

http://belasco.zenfolio.com

dan
 
I would guess that you are right about the msrp, but recently canon lenses have been very inelastic in terms of deviation from msrp. I think $7k for a new 300 is bonkers insanity. I think the 400 that costs the same as the 800 is completely unjustified and perverse. I'd much rather have 800 than the 400 fwiw.
 
Have you guys seen what goes into building these lenses? Much less the R&D that goes into making these beasts.

Stop complaining about lenses that aren't assembled quickly on an assembly line. Here watch these if you must to understand what goes inot making one of these. 500 f/4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKNFW0YwDYw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzpt49qq6v4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bQ3-DWh-rA&feature=related

If you want cheap versions of the lenses they are out there. Sigma 50-500 Canon 400 5.6. Making a 400mm f/2.8 with 4 stops of IS isn't going to cost 3000 bucks.
 
Leave the big glass to the pro's...
Lenses like these can pay for themselves in one shot.

If you have to ask how much it costs, then you probably should be shooting with sigma or hoya glass.
 
If no one buys one the price will drop. However, there will likely be a long waiting list.
 
Prices will drop once initial demand is satisfied, just look at the 70-200 2.8II which is £700 lower than its initial price already.

I'd say maybe 5.5K for the 300 and 8K for the 400 in a year or two (unless Nikon has a major price hike in store). These are lenses that people change systems for and Canon must remain competiitve on price even if their products are a little better than Nikons in some way (new IS mode, power focus etc).

While these lenses are cheaper for 'pros' because they are legitimate business expenses, I imagine most will still find them a big investment. Not a big deal if you're one of the few high profile people who earn huge sums but day to day jobbing photographers are probably going to think long and hard whether trading a 300 2.8 for the new model makes good business sense.
 
You, sir, must be a rich hobbyist. I don't know any pro's that don't consider the cost of their gear unless they are contract with Canon, Nikon, etc. I also don't know many that make $11,000 in "one shot". They probably exist, but are few and far between.
bugeyes said:
Leave the big glass to the pro's...
Lenses like these can pay for themselves in one shot.

If you have to ask how much it costs, then you probably should be shooting with sigma or hoya glass.
Click to expand...
--

'Music creates order out of chaos; for rhythm imposes unanimity upon the divergent, melody imposes continuity upon the disjointed, and harmony imposes compatibility upon the incongruous.'
-Sir Yehudi Menuhin
 
Huh, now this is a joke.
bugeyes said:
Leave the big glass to the pro's...
Lenses like these can pay for themselves in one shot.

If you have to ask how much it costs, then you probably should be shooting with sigma or hoya glass.
Click to expand...
 
Go to a news agent pick up any weekly or monthly, and phone the photographic editor and ask what was the most they payed for a shot single shot in that edition.

You want to earn 10K for a single shot, in 6 months time when Orlando Blume and Miranda Kerr are walking out of the hospital with their new born, take a snap with your digital rebel and your EF300 2.8L II

Those first images are worth how much?

Of course you can make 10K a shot! I didn't say that was the norm!

If you call your self a professional photographer and earn less than 30K PA then you may as well give up and get a job at the post office delivering mail, because that what they earn.
 
dan1e said:
How can this extreme price rise be justified?
Click to expand...
If people buy it at that price, that's all the justification needed.

Unlike something like Gov't Mandated Health Ins. ;) , nobody holds a gun to your head forcing you to buy this product at this price. And there are plenty of alternatives. If it doesn't sell, then Canon will lower the price or withdraw it from production if it's not profitable at a lower price.
 
Yes, Free market is the best system, but it appears to be being dismantled. Sorry, another forum for that.

These prices are insane! Boycott! Don't buy them. I feel lucky I just bought my 300 2 months ago. I would not have one otherwise.

I hear every night about how bad the economy is, so I wonder how bad it really is for Canon or any other manufacturer to RAISE prices.

I can't see how someone who does photography for a living (100% of their income is derived from photography) can purchase those.

I guess they are meant for BIG corporations like Sports Illistrated and National Geographic, I'm sure they will each buy a truck load to suppply the staff.

If sales are low the first year they will have to lower the price.

Hold off the temptation to get those extra few lines per mm.
 
Bugeyes,

I'm very impressed. Which cover shots may I look for that you've done. BTW. It's Bloom not Blume.
 
I looked at both the new 300 mm and 400 mm lenses at Adorama and the suggested price is about double that of the old lenses, one of which I use happily and see no reason to upgrade.

The suggested price tag for the 70-300 f/4-5.6 L lens is actually lower than I was expecting, after seeing the suggested supertelephoto prices.

--
http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug.html
 
My guess is that it's just not the pros that support the high-end market, but the vast number of amateurs with deep pockets.

I've noticed that most "pros" don't buy the most expensive equipment because they either don't need it for their work, or they can't afford it. That limits it to pros that do sporting events (or paparazzi?).

Second, even though the economy has been hit badly, there are plenty of corporations and wealthy individuals who can still afford these things.

The MTFs on these new lenses look absolutely amazing. If the reality is anything like what they look on the MTFs with the new extenders (compare those to older super telephotos!), you can see why Canon is going with these new price tags. They're the Lamborghinis of the camera world, and will add to the Canon aura, which could really boost pro sales. It'll be interesting to see how well these will sell in this economy.

So...does anyone happen to know what the breakdown is for who buys these super-nice super-expensive lenses? Are they mostly pros or deep-pocketed individuals?

Kaz
 
I have noticed that Canon usually raises prices on new lenses and cameras, probably to recover the product development costs from early-adopters of the new technology. No, despite what some people say, a million more consumers buying Elph cameras for Beep-beeping does not mean that the costs to the professional market will be decreased.

--
http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug.html
 
....I worked for the Post Office for 30 years, you don't know what we earn.

Orlando Blume? At least spell his name right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top