Canongarcon wrote:
You also have to include shipping cost, storage costs. support costs. What kind of mark up to you think Canon has on most of it's lenses?
I highly doubt the shipping, storage and support costs of lenses are any different than any other consumer product. They're stored and shipped in the some containerized fashion as any other product that is shipped over seas. I've noticed that most lenses are packaged in a similar fashion as computer monitors and printers (Styrofoam padding inside a cardboard box). Support shouldn't be any more sophisticated than support for any other consumer product with call centers and inspection facilities meant to handle warranty claims.
I don't know what kind of mark up Canon has on their lenses, considering I don't know the manufacturing costs. This is why I asked the initial question. Though, it seems many people just take it as a given that, somehow, lenses cost more to manufacture and assemble than other run-of-the-mill electronics. I'm willing to bet that the markup on higher end lenses is much greater than on lower end lenses.
kakomu wrote:
I highly doubt the shipping, storage and support costs of lenses are any different than any other consumer product. They're stored and shipped in the some containerized fashion as any other product that is shipped over seas. I've noticed that most lenses are packaged in a similar fashion as computer monitors and printers (Styrofoam padding inside a cardboard box). Support shouldn't be any more sophisticated than support for any other consumer product with call centers and inspection facilities meant to handle warranty claims.
I don't know what kind of mark up Canon has on their lenses, considering I don't know the manufacturing costs. This is why I asked the initial question. Though, it seems many people just take it as a given that, somehow, lenses cost more to manufacture and assemble than other run-of-the-mill electronics. I'm willing to bet that the markup on higher end lenses is much greater than on lower end lenses....Show more →
Lens cost more manufacter than other electronics because they have lots of glass. I wouldn't even cost lenses electronics because some manual focus lenses don't have much electronics in them and they cost a lot as well.
Of course higher end lenses have a higher markup than lower end lenses. Higher end lenses are not sold in as great of volumes as lower end lenses.
Canongarcon wrote:
Lens cost more manufacter than other electronics because they have lots of glass. I wouldn't even cost lenses electronics because some manual focus lenses don't have much electronics in them and they cost a lot as well.
Of course higher end lenses have a higher markup than lower end lenses. Higher end lenses are not sold in as great of volumes as lower end lenses.
On what do you base the assertion that glass costs so much money? Simply because lenses have historically been expensive?
kakomu wrote:
On what do you base the assertion that glass costs so much money? Simply because lenses have historically been expensive?
Have you looked at the prices are eye glass lenses? Or how much a fine crystal glassware is, or how expensive custom glass blown art is? Have you ever seen what it takes to create glass? Glass is expensive to produce, especially good glass.
Canongarcon wrote:
Have you looked at the prices are eye glass lenses? Or how much a fine crystal glassware is, or how expensive custom glass blown art is? Have you ever seen what it takes to create glass? Glass is expensive to produce, especially good glass.
Neither is a particularly good example for a few reasons:
A) eye glass lenses are expensive due to custom nature of grinding them to fit a frame or having to form multiple lenses into a piece of glass. Transition lenses too require a lot of handiwork to fit a specific prescription. In contrast, Camera Lenses are produced on a non-custom, mass scale.
B) Lenses aren't blown art. Art is also, intrinsically, more expensive than non-art stuff. For an example, note the price difference between art pencils and regular non-art pencils to give you a good idea of the difference in price.
The price that the end user pays for glasses and glass art says NOTHING of the cost of manufacturing either product. Glass, as a whole, is not a particularly expensive product.
I understand that the glass in my office window (which is large and heavy) or my pint glasses at home are not the same as optical glass (or fine art glass, for that matter), but both still requires a fair amount of similar procedures to that of making optical glass, such as heating the glass into a molten state to be poured into a mold, polishing to a transparent state and in the case of window glass: cutting to size and polishing the edges.
This, again, goes back to the original question: on what do you base the assertion that optical glass in lenses is expensive? Can you cite any actual manufacturing costs of glass? What is the difference in price between the sediment that composes run-of-the-mill window glass with higher grade optical glass? Or, do you just base your assumption on the historical prices of camera lenses?
kakomu wrote:
Neither is a particularly good example for a few reasons:
A) eye glass lenses are expensive due to custom nature of grinding them to fit a frame or having to form multiple lenses into a piece of glass. Transition lenses too require a lot of handiwork to fit a specific prescription. In contrast, Camera Lenses are produced on a non-custom, mass scale.
B) Lenses aren't blown art. Art is also, intrinsically, more expensive than non-art stuff. For an example, note the price difference between art pencils and regular non-art pencils to give you a good idea of the difference in price.
The price that the end user pays for glasses and glass art says NOTHING of the cost of manufacturing either product. Glass, as a whole, is not a particularly expensive product.
I understand that the glass in my office window (which is large and heavy) or my pint glasses at home are not the same as optical glass (or fine art glass, for that matter), but both still requires a fair amount of similar procedures to that of making optical glass, such as heating the glass into a molten state to be poured into a mold, polishing to a transparent state and in the case of window glass: cutting to size and polishing the edges.
This, again, goes back to the original question: on what do you base the assertion that optical glass in lenses is expensive? Can you cite any actual manufacturing costs of glass? What is the difference in price between the sediment that composes run-of-the-mill window glass with higher grade optical glass? Or, do you just base your assumption on the historical prices of camera lenses?...Show more →
Why are 2.8 zooms a lot higher priced than their 4.0 counterparts? Principle reason is more glass. Here is a little thing on glass production.
kakomu wrote:
Neither is a particularly good example for a few reasons:
A) eye glass lenses are expensive due to custom nature of grinding them to fit a frame or having to form multiple lenses into a piece of glass. Transition lenses too require a lot of handiwork to fit a specific prescription. In contrast, Camera Lenses are produced on a non-custom, mass scale.
B) Lenses aren't blown art. Art is also, intrinsically, more expensive than non-art stuff. For an example, note the price difference between art pencils and regular non-art pencils to give you a good idea of the difference in price.
The price that the end user pays for glasses and glass art says NOTHING of the cost of manufacturing either product. Glass, as a whole, is not a particularly expensive product.
I understand that the glass in my office window (which is large and heavy) or my pint glasses at home are not the same as optical glass (or fine art glass, for that matter), but both still requires a fair amount of similar procedures to that of making optical glass, such as heating the glass into a molten state to be poured into a mold, polishing to a transparent state and in the case of window glass: cutting to size and polishing the edges.
This, again, goes back to the original question: on what do you base the assertion that optical glass in lenses is expensive? Can you cite any actual manufacturing costs of glass? What is the difference in price between the sediment that composes run-of-the-mill window glass with higher grade optical glass? Or, do you just base your assumption on the historical prices of camera lenses?...Show more →
Comments like " Glass, as a whole, is not a particularly expensive product" is a very misleading comment. It's like saying " Metal, as a whole, is not a particularly expensive product.
Glass like metal is not one product. Some glass or metal is really cheap. Others are very expensive.
I'm sure glass like fluorite that Canon use in their expensive lenses are rather expensive. When you can't find large enough pieces in nature for using it in lenses. But instead you have to come up with a technology to develop synthetic fluorite crystal production.
Even mass production of commonly used ground-glass in aspherical lenses is a rather new technology. They couldn't do this when I started to buy lenses.
And if you belive eye glass lenses should be more expensive due to the grinding to make them fit the frame then you are plain wrong. It's a simple task that even my local optometrist can do for me if I give him a few minutes. It's an easy task that doesn't require any precision. Most eye glass lenses are more of a mass production than camera lenses also.
I'm sure Canon is trying to make a good profit on their sales. But what company in what area is not doing that...............
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Comments like " Glass, as a whole, is not a particularly expensive product" is a very misleading comment. It's like saying " Metal, as a whole, is not a particularly expensive product.
Glass like metal is not one product. Some glass or metal is really cheap. Others are very expensive.
I'm sure glass like fluorite that Canon use in their expensive lenses are rather expensive. When you can't find large enough pieces in nature for using it in lenses. But instead you have to come up with a technology to develop synthetic fluorite crystal production.
Even mass production of commonly used ground-glass in aspherical lenses is a rather new technology. They couldn't do this when I started to buy lenses.
And if you belive eye glass lenses should be more expensive due to the grinding to make them fit the frame then you are plain wrong. It's a simple task that even my local optometrist can do for me if I give him a few minutes. It's an easy task that doesn't require any precision. Most eye glass lenses are more of a mass production than camera lenses also.
I'm sure Canon is trying to make a good profit on their sales. But what company in what area is not doing that............... ...Show more →
+1 Lars is 100% correct.
Eyeglasses are quite cheap, and only have the most superficial resemblance to camera lenses. They are small (as they are very thin), not complex in design (not even a cemented doublet), and do not need to be well-corrected for aberrations (the wearer looks through the center). Their non-circular shape is easy to create with a machine that traces the shape of the rim and duplicates it on the lens.
The reason why camera lenses are expensive is because they have to project an image that is relatively free of aberrations in a rectilinear fashion without losing too much light, without color shift, over a variety of focusing distances and/or focal lengths, and without flare. There are many, many more criteria to satisfy than for a simple pair of eyeglasses, which is basically just a simple diopter. More sophisticated prescriptions might require correction for ophthalmic astigmatism (not the same as astigmatism in the Seidel sense), but that's about it. You don't even get correction for chromatic aberrations.
StarNut wrote:
There are few things as silly, and amusing, as a bunch of people, most of whom have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, "debating" economic theory (to be nice about it) on a photography board, where it has no place.
Some guy is nice enough to give us warning of an impending price increase, in case we're seriously contemplating a purchase in the near future, and it turns into a mostly-laughable, utterly off topic, debate.
Some on here are very qualified to talk economic theory...what makes you think that being interested in photography means a poster doesn't have some useful qualifications?
Let me put this proposition.....if every photographer (at whatever skill or professional level) decided that the kit he/she had was ok for their needs...and future improvements would come from maximizing the potential of their gear through better technique etc...would it be a bad thing?
The regular non-rebate price is $1970. It was as low as $1840 with the rebate. It's now gone up to $1999 at B&H/Adorama (still $1970 at a few stores). Canonpricewatch has this lens pegged to be at $2088, so my guess is a few more increases are still to come. (I checked with someone who works at a camera shop and he confirmed this.)
Looking through the list the price rises are pretty in-line with the posted predictions. Some have gone straight to the new price. Others have gone roughly halfway....Show more →
Agreed, I overlook BH. I am even more happier that I got my 85L for rebate price Stupid me selling my first copy of this lens 3 years ago when it cost even less...
anthonygh wrote:
Let me put this proposition.....if every photographer (at whatever skill or professional level) decided that the kit he/she had was ok for their needs...and future improvements would come from maximizing the potential of their gear through better technique etc...would it be a bad thing?
Who on here couldn't cope in that situation?
The answer to that question is: the ones who buy expensive lenses because they have no other way to distinguish themselves as photographers. It's not so much about collecting or trading in more glass or certain types of glass, but rather, the idea that certain people lack the talent and creativity to make compelling images, so the only other way they can claim to be photographers is to brag about owning the latest and greatest equipment.
I see plenty of so-called photographers who buy the 1D-series bodies, have extensive collections of expensive L lenses, and for all that money, can't seem to take better photographs than some with a Rebel + 50/1.8, or even someone with a Holga and a plastic lens. I've seen some of the most amazing work done with nothing but a box, photosensitive paper, and a piece of tinfoil with a pinhole. A good photo is all about light, subject, process; not how sharp or aberration-free your extreme corners are at f/1.4.
Don't get me wrong, it's good to have sharp glass and high-performance bodies. But they're only as good as the photographer who knows how to wield them. And the ones who do know, are the ones who don't get hung up on what they happen to be using.
Let us not forget that there are reliable photo gear online sellers in Canada as well.
The Canadian Canon prices have been relatively stable as of late, and some lenses are already significantly less expensive than the same items by major price increase leaders in the States.
PetKal wrote:
Let us not forget that there are reliable photo gear online sellers in Canada as well.
The Canadian Canon prices have been relatively stable as of late, and some lenses are already significantly less expensive than the same items by major price increase leaders in the States.
I obviously can't tell what the near future will do to Canon Canada retail prices.
Sadly, Canon has been very good at squeezing out any arbitrage situations where it's cheaper to buy in Canada compared to the US. They have a rather large US retailer base to protect. I'd be surprised if the prices in Canada that are substantially cheaper than the US stay that way for very long.
PetKal wrote:
Let us not forget that there are reliable photo gear online sellers in Canada as well.
The Canadian Canon prices have been relatively stable as of late, and some lenses are already significantly less expensive than the same items by major price increase leaders in the States.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Comments like " Glass, as a whole, is not a particularly expensive product" is a very misleading comment. It's like saying " Metal, as a whole, is not a particularly expensive product.
Glass like metal is not one product. Some glass or metal is really cheap. Others are very expensive.
I'm sure glass like fluorite that Canon use in their expensive lenses are rather expensive. When you can't find large enough pieces in nature for using it in lenses. But instead you have to come up with a technology to develop synthetic fluorite crystal production.
Even mass production of commonly used ground-glass in aspherical lenses is a rather new technology. They couldn't do this when I started to buy lenses....Show more →
Of course different glasses cost different moneys, but most glasses are very cheap. So what makes optical glass so much more expensive? Do you have any prices or costs of lens glass production to follow these claims?
I'm not particularly concerned about the various appeals to tradition or appeals to authority that people represent as rationalization for excessively expensive camera lenses. I'd like some reliable sources that can produce an actual number. Otherwise, it would appear that no one really knows what the lenses cost and merely accept that lenses are really expensive simply because the lens manufacturers sell them for a lot of money.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
And if you belive eye glass lenses should be more expensive due to the grinding to make them fit the frame then you are plain wrong. It's a simple task that even my local optometrist can do for me if I give him a few minutes. It's an easy task that doesn't require any precision. Most eye glass lenses are more of a mass production than camera lenses also.
I'm sure Canon is trying to make a good profit on their sales. But what company in what area is not doing that...............
I believe the prices on glasses are marked up by a very large margin because of the extra labor in fitting lenses to glasses frames. It's like getting an oil change. It's not a particularly difficult task, but it can cost $40-$50 (normal price) for labor, despite being a short, easy task. However, as I've already mentioned, the prices that the end user pays say NOTHING about the actual production costs of the products. For instance, I bought frames for $120, which I'm sure cost closer to $1.20 to produce.
Canongarcon wrote:
Lenses have been historically expensive because they are expensive to make.
Considering a fair amount of the actual manufacturing process is automated, it would seem that costs should have gone down over time. Do you have any sources that document the costs to produce lenses at any point in time, or even the raw materials?
Edit: As an aside, I've done a little hunting, and optical glass prices to end users seems to range anywhere from $10-$150 per pound, which means the cost of manufacture is probably substantially lower. Even if Canon does something a little extra, I still find it difficult to believe that lenses aren't marked up to oblivion.
