tsangc Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Both 200 f/2 and 800 f/5.6 lenses are of the 2008 technology which pre-dates the Mark II "big white" lenses by three years. From the standpoint of manufacturing logistics and cost alone, I'd expect Canon to aim for a homogenous process where 200 f/2 and 800 f/5.6 should also be made according to the Mark II technology, down to the barrel finishing coat type.
I'm not sure I would make the same argument. I don't think anyone knows the business decision gating process for these things--there's probably a huge amount of capital costs which may or may not have been paid off on the development of these two fairly niche lenses.
I'd actually believe the economics and profitability of the existing lens would drive the decision to make an updated version over any potential cost savings an update featuring commonality would save.
For example, yes, it's true they could use the same finishing paint or material. But the manufacturing process development, QA changes, retraining, etc to apply that same paint would be all net new. Some industrial engineer has to go out and figure out how to paint the 800mm versus the 600mm II, make a set of instructions, tool for any new spray booths, holders, etc. All for $1000 of paint spread out over the 5000 copies 800mm that will be sold in the next year? Probably not worth it.*
Now if you imagine the testing required on say, focus assemblies, electronic controllers, IS modules...that stuff is even more expensive.
* I don't think anyone here knows what those costs are, so it's really hard to debate about it. You can see the reuse of certain things over and over again (the 18MP sensor, the 9 point AF module, the 18-55mm kit lens), but those are typically in products which sell in the millions (eg Rebels)
I think you'll see these updated when
a) Nikon makes a better one and it risks ongoing sales
b) the original costs have been paid off
c) an entire new series (v3?) of supertelephotos is developed and everything is refreshed
|