By the amount of daytime many younger members that should be gainfully employed seem to be spending on this and similar fora, I'd say that the are giving their god one heck of a special attention. Fortunately for me, my business has been shut down for good some time ago when we decided to retire. In that regard I think I am well ahead even of B&H nowadays ....we are never open for business any more.
Fair enough .. we both agree that B&H is awesome. That's all that matters.
Whether or not you believe in God isn't a small, unimportant issue. I think you (and anyone else) would benefit to think about what I said seriously and not brush it off. Yes, we do both at least agree that B&H is great.
In that regard I think I am well ahead even of B&H nowadays ....we are never open for business any more.
I am bringing this thread back because the 100mm f/2.8L IS macro lens has recieved a decrease in its price. It is now $999.
I think that we will see more price drops as the year goes on and Canon (possibly) releases more lenses and camera bodies. We've made it past Christmas and New Year's, so hopefully it will only get better from here.
If the 500 drops to $5500 or close to it, I may finally succumb to the tempration and get one. Paying $5200 to 5500 on a used one out of warranty is not too tempting.
Quote
I am pretty sure Canon is responsible. If it were the retailers, then why wouldn't Adorama (for example) keep their prices lower than B&H for competitive reasons? I don't see any other logical reasons why Adorama raises their prices when B&H does.
-----------------------
Another logical reason is price fixing.
Some pretty big companies have been caught doing it in the UK (e.g. British Airways and Virgin).
saaketham wrote:
If the 500 drops to $5500 or close to it, I may finally succumb to the tempration and get one. Paying $5200 to 5500 on a used one out of warranty is not too tempting.
It aggravates me how you pay the same for a used lens today as for that same lens, new, a couple years ago.
BTW- bigrob, you can quote a message by clicking the insert quote button (second from the bottom on the side) or click the quote button at the bottom of a post.
Dpic_arctic wrote:
It aggravates me how you pay the same for a used lens today as for that same lens, new, a couple years ago.
Now that the Canadian dollar is back to being close to par with the US dollar, I would consider a 500/4L IS. However, it hurts me immensely to the point of holding back, that I would pay the same price in US$ for a used lens as I would have paid for a new lens a few months ago. I will sit on the fence given I haven't had the 500/4L IS in my entire life, and it isn't a critical necessity to me at this point.
BTW- bigrob, you can quote a message by clicking the insert quote button (second from the bottom on the side) or click the quote button at the bottom of a post.
Dpic_arctic wrote:
Yes it's been pretty low....back in the day.
It's also been much higher...way back in the day. Going back 8/9 years, the lens was higher in price and we are talking about 8/9 years of inflation since.
Dpic_arctic wrote:
It aggravates me how you pay the same for a used lens today as for that same lens, new, a couple years ago.
We talk about price-fixing by retail stores. What about by private sellers. 500mm lenses that are 2 years or more old are selling for $5000 to $5500. Isn't that price-gouging/fixing? Because when they bought the lens, it probably only cost them $5500 or less.
All of us in the USA and Canada should be very happy we don't have European or Australian prices. Even with the recent increases, we still have some of the lowest prices in the world. Not saying I like the recent increases, just that I'm happy that prices aren't even higher.
Because when they bought the lens, it probably only cost them $5500 or less.