Sprout Crumble wrote:
You don't have to be able to afford it to recognise value. How many won't bother to save up the extra because it doesn't seem worth it?
The 50/1.2 has certainly split opinions but by no stretch of any imagination can this be called value when the difference is even much greater than the more expensive 2.8 version. Amongst all of Canons decisions over the last couple of years, the pricing of this lens is the most confusing. The price differential is without precedent in Canons own range and Nikon, I'm sure we can agree is hardly a crap brand, charge a reasonable extra premium for its VR. But this............Show more →
I'll join in here real quick to voice my surprise about the price. As I read the announcement I thought Canon had another winnder here, I was expecting maybe $300-$400 at the most above the current f/4 L which would put it at close to $1000, but $1249 (and they do say estimated "street" price which means this is what B&H and others will sell for) is really pushing it for the reasons that most have already written. Very interesting, if it was cheaper I would have bought one for my wife, but at this price point I'll be satisfied with the non-IS and get her something else for the extra $700.
Seeing what Canon is doing with their prices...I'm seriously thinkin of switching brands before It's too late and i have too much invested. Even their EF-S lenses are gettin' a little ridiculous. And alot (not all) of their non L zooms are mostly useless to me.
I'm not ready to jump ship just yet...but they are realy pushin' the prices into a place where I can't go.
Everyone negative insists on comparing list price of the new lens to street price of other lenses. After initial demand is met the price will fall $150-$200 U.S.
If the real MTF of the new lens is as good or better than the non-IS, the f4 IS is worth more to me than the f2.8 IS.
If the new MTF is accurate, Canon didn't just add IS, they upgraded the whole lens. The best current and future cameras are going to need very, very good lenses. This pricing trend is going to continue for the high-end lenses. If that's going to make people feel inferior as a photographer, they should switch brands. Buying into a brand that will never have a high-end professional line will eliminate the problem.
At some point we will have a 70-200 2.8 IS MKII for $500 more than the current model. Sorry.
It seems as if the reoccuring theme in this thread is price-based. I agree, it's really high. However, there do seem to be a number of additions to the lens other than the IS. As well, I think this lens will target a different market than the 2.8. I don't even *want* a 2.8, I want this. I have been whining for years that Canon needs to make this lens. The fact it has super-duper 4 stop IS, weather sealing, and possibly even better optics? How sweet.
I probably won't buy it right away, wait for the feeding frenzy to happen and when it creeps down on some dell sale next year will hopefully pick it up for sub 1K. Yes, that's still expensive, but for a lens that would probably end up being the most used lens in my kit, that's not too bad.
In the meantime there is the excellent 70-300is to work with at a reasonable price.
I believe the high initial price is a calculated move most likely to be followed by a significant price reduction in +-6mo. The initial demand from early adopters will be relatively more inelastic than long term demand. (Some people just need to have the newest, latest, and greatest, cost be damned) This way, Canon maximizes their profits by essentially using price discrimination over time. Those who are willing to pay more for the lens will do so at the higher price, and once the pent up demand for these lenses at higher prices is satisfied, they will lower the price in order to increase the quantity sold and therefore total profit. If they just started off with a lower price, they would lose that increased margin from everyone who would have bought it at the higher price. The per-unit marginal cost on these is surely much lower than the retail price and the invested capital costs significant, so you can bet over the long term that they can (and almost surely will) lower the price to the point at which it sells well without damaging the sales of other lenses thereby affecting overall firm profit.
This is likely what they did with the 5D as well, with the $300 rebate so soon after its initial introduction. I don't know think the new 70-200 F/4 L IS will go down to $1000 right away, but maybe a $50 triple rebate in the Spring and quietly lowering the price a little after that.
At least, that's the educated guess of this (undergrad) economist.
Edited by kendallkoning on Aug 24, 2006 at 09:22 AM GMT
Edited by kendallkoning on Aug 24, 2006 at 01:37 PM GMT
Aephid wrote:
Seeing what Canon is doing with their prices...I'm seriously thinkin of switching brands before It's too late and i have too much invested. Even their EF-S lenses are gettin' a little ridiculous. And alot (not all) of their non L zooms are mostly useless to me.
I'm not ready to jump ship just yet...but they are realy pushin' the prices into a place where I can't go.
Just curious where you will go and what they have to offer that is of better quality and/or a better value?
Patrick Cox wrote:
Just curious where you will go and what they have to offer that is of better quality and/or a better value?
I agree, there is also nobody making you buy this lens. If it's not a business expense, and you can't justify the price there are other options from Canon. The original 70-200/4 is a fantastic lens, as is the 70-300IS. Neither of these pieces of glass will hold you back at all.
Apparently it isn't as unreasonable as you'd think. Just look at how many people originally bashed the 24-105L when it first came out! "I'd never buy a f/4 lens for that much money!" is what I read a lot. A year later and look how many 24-105L lenses they have sold now...
There is absolutely no advantage to an f/4 lens except weight and size. For many people these are important characteristics. I can't even begin to tell you about the number of people who have held my 70-200 f/2.8 IS and cringed at the weight of that thing!
kendallkoning wrote:
I believe the high initial price is a calculated move most likely to be followed by a significant price reduction in +-6mo. The initial demand from early adopters will be relatively more inelastic than long term demand. (Some people just need to have the newest, latest, and greatest, cost be damned) This way, Canon maximizes their profits by essentially using price discrimination over time. Those who are willing to pay more for the lens will do so at the higher price, and once the pent up demand for these lenses at higher prices is satisfied, they will lower the price in order to increase the quantity sold and therefore total profit. If they just started off with a lower price, they would lose that increased margin from everyone who would have bought it at the higher price. The per-unit marginal cost on these is surely much lower than the retail price and the invested capital costs significant, so you can bet over the long term that they can (and almost surely will) lower the price to the point at which it sells well without damaging the sales of other lenses thereby affecting overall firm profit.
This is likely what they did with the 5D as well, with the $300 rebate so soon after its initial introduction. I don't know think the new 70-200 F/4 L IS will go down to $1000 right away, but maybe a $50 triple rebate in the Spring and quietly lowering the price a little after that.
At least, that's the educated guess of this (undergrad) economist.
Edited by kendallkoning on Aug 24, 2006 at 09:22 AM GMT...Show more →
Oh no, you can't compare lens price strategy to body price strategy. Over time, the price and quality of Canon lenses will rise in real dollars. The retail price of the new lenses will come down as soon as retailers have unsold inventory. I wouldn't be surprised, if over the last ten years, Canon has -never- lowered a wholesale price of a lens.
rockitman wrote:
might as well get the 2.8 IS for $300-$400 more. This seems like a silly release from my POV.
It's not pointless, but not a good deal either. I guess that this is targeted for those who want lighter and smaller to put on their 400D. Once you factor in the tripod collar, the thing is only $250 less than the 2.8IS - so the only benefit is the weight and 10mm narrower diameter. Even if the price drops $100 over time, I am not sure it has a clear advantage over any of the other 70-200's. Who knows, maybe their strategy is to compel you to buy both an f/4 and f/2.8 version.
When you really think about it, the 70-300IS is a great bargain considering the alternatives.
I too am disappointed about the price. The non IS version is arguably the best value in L lenses. The quoted $1250 for the IS version certainly, in my mind, isn't a great or even good value, especially considering that the f/2.8 IS is just $400 more.
To those posters telling us to stop whining, well, shouldn't we, as Canon's customers, let the company know we're disappointed? Hell, forums like this ar great market research for them. Why shouldn't we voice our opinions? Would you rather have us just "shut up and take it like men" when instead we can try to influence Canon?
To those posters telling us this is no surprise and that Canon seems to have changed pricing strategies, sadly I agree. But one of the *previous* attractions of the Canon system was that their lenses were less expensive/better values than that of Nikon. This seems to no longer be the case. For instance, I'm dying for a 100-400 f/4 IS or something similar but now I know it'll be far out of my price range assuming Canon retains its new pricing strategy.
To those saying that they don't need f/2.8, please remember that AF relies on detecting contrasts and the wider the lens opens, the more light reaches the sensors and the more accurate and speedy your AF will be. That alone would be worth the extra $ for the f/2.8 version, at least for me (and will be since I now plan on buying either the non-IS or the IS f/2.8 version of the lens given the price of the f/4 IS version). Also, don't forget that only f/2.8 lenses allow the use of the more accurate center AF sensor capabilities on certain Canon DSLRs.
For those of us who need a small light sharp 70-200 travel lens, seems to me the non IS f/4 version of the lens is still the way to go. But then again what do I know, I'm just a very good Canon customer. Maybe I should just shut up and stop whining!
Patrick Cox wrote:
Just curious where you will go and what they have to offer that is of better quality and/or a better value?
That's why I'm not jumping ship just yet...but in the past I never even gave a second look at the competition. Now I'm starting to look at my options. I know Canon are still providing some of the best quality products, and both the new lenses are tools that I would love to have at my disposal. It just seems like the lenses I want are going to keep moving further out of reach for me.
I know I'll get slammed for all this talk of other brands - and it's not too likely that I'll change - but just as a way of looking at it.
I'll get what, $450 sellling off my existing version, leaving me with $800 to find. For $200 more I can buy into a whole new system, Sony, with built-in IS on any lens I find, new or a second-hand minolta, and the porspect of some nice CZ glass. It will also widen my future choices if I keep Canon too.
Like I said, I'm not likely to change - but I think it's a good example of the ludicrous price we as consumers are being asked to pay basically for IS (70-200 is already an optically stellar lens).
