I don't profess to have any knowledge of this stuff, but is it possible that Canon can't manufacture enough of the special optics needed for these lenses in the quantity that would be needed if they sold a $3,000 500mm or 600mm? Maybe the costs of expanding manufacturing and tooling to produce a large quantity of less profitable lenses is something that Canon aren't interested in? Or, perhaps there is a desire to maintain a level of exclusivity- as silly and unfair as that may seem to us consumers.
I don't profess to have any knowledge of this stuff, but is it possible that Canon can't manufacture enough of the special optics needed for these lenses in the quantity that would be needed if they sold a $3,000 500mm or 600mm? Maybe the costs of expanding manufacturing and tooling to produce a large quantity of less profitable lenses is something that Canon aren't interested in? Or, perhaps there is a desire to maintain a level of exclusivity- as silly and unfair as that may seem to us consumers.
I think it's a chicken and egg situation. Do you build the capacity up front and hope you get enough demand to keep the lines running optimally, or do you just work with a limited production line and produce small batches now and then? The latter allows them to keep prices high, as you always have demand and not enough lenses to go around. But the other approach gives them higher volumes at smaller profits per lens. I guess you have to do a cost-benefit analysis and see what's the best approach.
Maybe as Canon robotises their production lines, they could increase throughput. The intend to have fully robotic lines within a few years, but I don't know if that applies to something like the superteles and I highly doubt it, at least not fully robotised.
Imagemaster wrote:
I said 500 f5.6, not 500 f5.6 IS, for around $3,000.
Regardless, $3,000 to $5,000, it would still outsell the 500 f4 by a hundred to one.
I'm not so sure at the $5K price level it would sell that well. Certainly better then the 500/4 but that's still a pretty stiff price to pay and not many people have $5K in this economy to spend on one lens.
Also, I seriously doubt Canon will ever release a 500mm super-tele without IS.
The swan is from the link Fred posted on page 7. A few more on there if you haven't looked. The shot settings are listed on that page. 600mm, 800 ISO, f/9, 1/640
So in a polite way there are many many of us that resent $10-13k costs of lenses but we appreciate what they can do and are willing to understand that there will be some concessions that come with $2k lenses attempting to do the same as their most expensive leaders??
Competition is good to keep things in check on IQ and in pricing. There isn't any long bargain lenses with Canon only the big whites as you are restrained to 300mm otherwise and that is in a zoom only.
This Tamron offering may be the perfect mid-upper level hobbyist lens! I am hoping I don't see much a need for a TC on it with 600 reach though occasionally a few long reach stills will be worth a TC shot for me.
arbitrage wrote:
The swan is from the link Fred posted on page 7. A few more on there if you haven't looked. The shot settings are listed on that page. 600mm, 800 ISO, f/9, 1/640
Aha, thanks. So posted here, no doubt without permission.
yes, ultimate image quality goes to the $12000 big white lenses no doubt
What the $2K Tamron 150-600 will do that the 600mm F4 IS II cannot do is be hand held
fast lenses are fine until you are handcuffed to the tripod
abqnmusa wrote:
yes, ultimate image quality goes to the $12000 big white lenses no doubt
What the $2K Tamron 150-600 will do that the 600mm F4 IS II cannot do is be hand held
fast lenses are fine until you are handcuffed to the tripod
600 II is hand holdable IMO, just clearly not at eye level for extended periods. For BIF flights I would use it hand held, but otherwise I'd have it on a monopod at least.
Tammy will make the ultimate travel lens, especially where portability is an issue, like on smaller airplanes with strict weight limits.
If the IQ/AF holds up and the price is $1500 it could make a killing in this market. Canon has largely abandoned the $1000-$1500 price range for higher quality lenses especially with any reach. 100-400 still sits there but if updated will move into the $3K range.
ggreene wrote:
If the IQ/AF holds up and the price is $1500 it could make a killing in this market. Canon has largely abandoned the $1000-$1500 price range for higher quality lenses especially with any reach. 100-400 still sits there but if updated will move into the $3K range.
Canon's strategy reminds me of Clayton Christensen's (HBS) disruptive innovations research on why industry leaders often fail -- they cede the low end of their market to less capable firms who eventually get better and take the lead. Intel took note of his ideas and came out with the Celeron (and engaged in anticompetitive practices with PC manufacturers foreclosing AMD from much of the market), which successfully thwarted AMD from becoming a serious contender.
One difference between Christensen's set of examples and the lens example is that the "disruptive innovations" are usually new technologies producing inferior products, not similar technologies producing inferior products. In Christensen's examples, the new technologies improve and eventually become better than the old guard's tech. It's harder for the low end to take over the high end when they are using similar tech, just lagging in their implementation of it, as is probably the case with lens design & manuf.
rongoe wrote:
Canon's strategy reminds me of Clayton Christensen's (HBS) disruptive innovations research on why industry leaders often fail -- they cede the low end of their market to less capable firms who eventually get better and take the lead.
Well, to be fair, this is all relative as well. The $1000-$1500 price range is hardly the low end.
Will be interesting to see what happens with Apple. They make no pretense to satisfying the low end market for any of their products and so far it has netted them ~150B in liquid reserves. That gives them a huge economy of scale advantage for ordering parts in quantity to sustain margins. Granted, that model is largely based on carriers subsidizing the cost of iphones and spreading it out over a 2 year term.
ggreene wrote:
Well, to be fair, this is all relative as well. The $1000-$1500 price range is hardly the low end.
Will be interesting to see what happens with Apple. They make no pretense to satisfying the low end market for any of their products and so far it has netted them ~150B in liquid reserves. That gives them a huge economy of scale advantage for ordering parts in quantity to sustain margins. Granted, that model is largely based on carriers subsidizing the cost of iphones and spreading it out over a 2 year term.
$1000-1500 is really low end price, when talking about 600mm lenses. I have never seen a 600mm lens for that price except mirror lenses
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
$1000-1500 is really low end price, when talking about 600mm lenses. I have never seen a 600mm lens for that price except mirror lenses
That was more in response to rongoe's "disruptive innovations" reference.
I don't think the price has been set yet but let's hope so. A 4.5lb 600mm option would be nice to have if the IQ and AF hold up in reviews.
I don't see much a need for a TC on it with 600 reach though occasionally a few long reach stills will be worth a TC shot for me.