uz2work
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #18 · DO theology/technology dead ? | |
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Let me say, DO technology is really quite amazing and it's a tribute to Canon to pull off such superb optical quality with the near wavelength tolerances required. I would hope they continue to develop it, but it's been a long time between drinks and you have to wonder if they've given up or are quietly beavering away?
I think that is both a fair and accurate assessment. When you think about it, the DO technology is really quite amazing. The announcement of the Mark II telephoto lenses, I think, underscores the technological achievement of the DO technology. Considering that a 300/2.8 lens and a 400/4 lens should have very close to the same weight and considering that, even with the newest technology of the Mark II lenses you will still have to add about 50% to the weight of the 400 DO to end up with the new 300/2.8, I think that does highlight what an achievement the DO technology was/is.
I also think that it is pretty clear from numerous responses in this thread (and in every other DO thread) that the number one complaint that some have had about the 400 DO is not its performance, but it has been the price. And, as has been said several times here, with the price structure for super telephoto lenses that will exist when the newly announced lenses become available, the current 400 DO pricing doesn't seem out of line at all, and it may well be the bargain of the bunch. When I bought my 400 DO a few years ago for $5200, I felt like I was paying a stiff premium (and one that was worth it to me) for the weight reduction. When I look at the prices for the new lenses (and even the current 400 DO price), I now feel like I bought mine for a bargain price, and, as long as there is no other way to get to 400 mm at f4 and anything close to 4 pounds, the DO will be an important part of my lens kit.
With regard to DO pricing, I'm confident that the initial prices of the DO lenses after their introduction reflected, like with other new products, Canon's need to recover R&D costs, and statements from Canon would seem to indicate that they had planned, at that time, to eventually have DO lenses be less expensive than their non-DO counterparts. I'm not sure what changed that strategy. Perhaps, sales numbers never allowed them to recover the R&D costs. Perhaps, Canon decided, after R&D costs were recovered, that their bottom line was more positively impacted by keeping the DO as a low volume, high mark up item, or, possibly, there was some other combination of factors.
Les
|
