# Is the cost for canons teleconverters too high?



## Canon-F1 (Nov 29, 2011)

compared to canon lenses i wonder why a teleconverter from canon cost 400-500 euros.

i mean a teleconverter is much simpler and cheaper to build ... isnÂ´t it?
less glass, less electronic, no AF motor etc.


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 29, 2011)

Canon's extenders seem to be designed and intended for their supertelephoto L lenses. In fact the design means they will not fit onto many of their other lenses. You cannot for example use them on the Canon Macros to get closer and longer like you can with some.

So if you just shelled out $11,500 for a 400mm f2.8 IS II is $1000 (or a little less) too much to ask for 2 matched teleconverters that give you a useable 640 and 800mm lens? No. But that's like saying if you jumped out of the airplane with no parachute is it crazy to take your pants off?

Sadly it is what it is. Your choice is the aftermarket, but Sigmas 2X APO DG is a surprising $299.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2011)

I don't think they're _too_ expensive. For example, they have approximately the same number of elements as similarly priced prime lenses (85/1.8, 100/2), and while they don't need AF motors or iris diaphragms, they are constructed to L-series lens standards, including metal barrels and weather-sealing.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 29, 2011)

> So if you just shelled out $11,500 for a 400mm f2.8 IS II is $1000 (or a little less) too much to ask for 2 matched teleconverters that give you a useable 640 and 800mm lens?



so if 1000 euro for 2 converters is fine for you why not sell them for 2000 euros? 
i mean when you have bought a 8000 euro lens you sure can buy 2 converters for 1000 euros each? 

even when the production cost is more in the range of 150 euros.... if you bought a 8000 euro lens.. who cares? 




> they have approximately the same number of elements as similarly priced prime lenses



but everything is fixed. you donÂ´t have moving parts.
so production should be much simpler.

i have the impression that canon is milking itÂ´s customers here.
as with some other accessory that is overpriced.

thought.... i bought the new 1.4x III teleconverter... :


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 29, 2011)

Canon-F1 said:


> > So if you just shelled out $11,500 for a 400mm f2.8 IS II is $1000 (or a little less) too much to ask for 2 matched teleconverters that give you a useable 640 and 800mm lens?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If the production cost is $150, or $50, or $1000, so what, nobody is forcing you to buy it. And you can buy much cheaper ones from other companies. You can buy a VII or VI used. There are options, but in the end it's Canon's business, why can't they charge what they want?


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 29, 2011)

> You can buy a VII or VI used. There are options, but in the end it's Canon's business, why can't they charge what they want?



spare me the fanboy stuff please. 
canon can charge what they want and i can ask questions if people think thatÂ´s ok.

the question for me is.. is the price justified when you look at the material and production cost?
or is canon charging so much money because gearheads are willing to pay the price. 

i payed the price... but to be honest i feel a bit ripped off.


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 29, 2011)

Calling me a fanboy and using emoticons has damaged me. :-[ I take back the part where I said you cannot ask questions. 

Please show me your source of "$150 production costs". And explain why R&D, marketing, and shipping is not a factor.


----------



## markIVantony (Nov 29, 2011)

I plan to use a 7D as my 1.6x teleconverter ;-)


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 29, 2011)

TexPhoto said:


> Please show me your source of "$150 production costs". And explain why R&D, marketing, and shipping is not a factor.



These are factors for a Lens too or not?

I also wondered many times what makes a Canon Teleconverter more expensive then lets say a EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS lens.




> For example, they have approximately the same number of elements as similarly priced prime lenses (85/1.8, 100/2),



Well the EF 50mm f1.8 has 6 elements.. not that this says anything about the value.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2011)

Canon-F1 said:


> > There are options, but in the end it's Canon's business, why can't they charge what they want?
> 
> 
> 
> spare me the fanboy stuff please.



It's not fabnoy stuff, it's Business 101. Canon is a for-profit company, their goal is to make a profit, and they set their prices accordingly. The fact that you paid the price the set for that product indictes that Canon is doing it's job well.


----------



## Flake (Nov 29, 2011)

I have to say that this is true of many of Canons lenses - nearly Â£2000 for a prime lens??? and each new one seems to double the price of the one it replaces, of course this is unsustainable and perhaps Canon are trying to find the point at which a critical percentage of its customers just say no. It's not as if the profits from lenses are marginal, Canon makes huge profits from Dslr and lens sales so the answer to the question are we being ripped off is yes, but it's only because we let them.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 29, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's not fabnoy stuff, it's Business 101. Canon is a for-profit company, their goal is to make a profit, and they set their prices accordingly. The fact that you paid the price the set for that product indictes that Canon is doing it's job well.



But.... this does not answer his question.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 29, 2011)

when you compare them against something like the kenko 1.4DGX TC then yeah they are too expensive especially considering you can use the kenko on any lens really love adding it to the macro


----------



## Meh (Nov 29, 2011)

@Canon_F1: The prices also strike me as high but they are a precision lens with the latest technology, glass, coatings, precision manufacturing, yada, yada, yada. I bought the 1.4X III for Canadian $550. I think it was a worthwhile purchase.

@Flake: Product prices go up over time unless there is a change in technology, design, materials, manufacturing process that significantly lowers manufacturing costs. In the absence of such reductions, costs of materials and labor only go up. But sure, Canon might also just increase the price to see if it sticks... they can always lower the price if it doesn't.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It's not fabnoy stuff, it's Business 101. Canon is a for-profit company, their goal is to make a profit, and they set their prices accordingly. The fact that you paid the price the set for that product indictes that Canon is doing it's job well.
> ...



Sure it does. Canon is going to charge the price the market will bear, and they've picked the prices they picked. People will buy them, or not. The OP did.

Beyond that, there is no answer to this question. Is a Mercedes overpriced? That's up to the potential buyer, and that's all that really matters.


----------



## EELinneman (Nov 29, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't think they're _too_ expensive. For example, they have approximately the same number of elements as similarly priced prime lenses (85/1.8, 100/2), and while they don't need AF motors or iris diaphragms, they are constructed to L-series lens standards, including metal barrels and weather-sealing.



The cost of the glass must be a significant portion of the cost using your model. I'm not arguing, just working through the logic. Which brings to mind the thought that the teleconverter is dirt cheap based on components, construction and glass compared to the cost of filters now adays.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 29, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Beyond that, there is no answer to this question. Is a Mercedes overpriced?



Well you sure can argue that way and say nothing is overpriced... if you like. 

A italian Artists Sh*t was sold for over 120000$ so what are 500$ dollar for a Teleconverter. 

But thatÂ´s what this topis is about... if people THINK that canon charges too much.
What is too much? 200% profit... 300% profit or 50% profit?

And how much profit is it that Canon makes with a Teleconverter? 

Compared to a 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS the price seems a bit high to me.
I donÂ´t see how a 1.4x Teleconverter can cost more in production + material then that Lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> What is too much? 200% profit... 300% profit or 50% profit?



As TexPhoto asked, show us the production costs for the teleconverters. Then show us the R&D costs that went into the design. Then we can judge based on profit margin.



Gothmoth said:


> Well you sure can argue that way and say nothing is overpriced... if you like.



Rather, I'd argue that you get what you pay for. You can buy a Bower 2x TC for 20% of the price of the Canon 2x III. If you're happy with the quality from that one, then the Canon one is overpriced. OTOH, if the IQ of the Bower TC is crap, it's overpriced even at 1/5 the price of the Canon.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 30, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> As TexPhoto asked, show us the production costs for the teleconverters. Then show us the R&D costs that went into the design. Then we can judge based on profit margin.



I canÂ´t give you the numbers .. unfortunately Canon is not giving me this information.. as you know.

But i can compare the material and design to a EF 70-300mm IS Lens.
And to me the the canon Teleconverter looks overpriced then.

I say that as customer not as sales person.
I could argue the other way too and play the devils advocat... sure.... i mean, i sell Leicas too. ;D


----------



## Meh (Nov 30, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> Well you sure can argue that way and say nothing is overpriced... if you like.



Actually, it's funny you make that tonge-in-cheek statement because it can be argued that from the consumer's point of view nothing can be "overpiced" per se unless it's something you are forced to buy. If not, then you simply vote with your dollars and don't buy it. From a company's point of view, a product is overpriced if by lowering the price, sales volumes increase resulting in a higher total revenue.

Would any of us sell our house for less than the current market value because it was widely reported that there was a real-estate bubble and houses were overvalued by 20%?


----------



## smirkypants (Nov 30, 2011)

I don't know how many "if you don't like the price, don't buy it" posts I've read. I think the question here is "does it represent a good value" rather than "does Canon have the right to charge whatever the hell they want." Of course we have the right to vote with our feet, but that doesn't mean we don't feel robbed when we pay fifty bucks for a lens hood.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 30, 2011)

Meh said:


> Would any of us sell our house for less than the current market value because it was widely reported that there was a real-estate bubble and houses were overvalued by 20%?



what if your neighbors are the kennedys and they can sell a identical house for 100% more then you because they are the kennedys?

that example is lacking i know... because the TC from canon is better then, for example, the kenko ones.

but we see this often.. print the canon logo on it and you can charge 100% more then third party companys, for the same stuff.

of course i know that companys can (and will) charge what people are willing to pay.
you donÂ´t have to be a genius to know that. 

but when you compare canons TC to canon lenses (R&D, material cost, etc. itÂ´s just a guess... but you can guess when you know the design) ... you really think the price for the 1.4x or 2x TC is fair? 






> but that doesn't mean we don't feel robbed when we pay fifty bucks for a lens hood.



damn right!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 30, 2011)

One way to determine is to look at the OEM competition, Nikon. B&H sells them in the $500-$550 range. There is Kenko, Tamron, and Sigma who sell TC's as well. Kenko is said to be pretty good, about equal to the Canon MK II version.

I have both Canon TC's, MK II version, and they were less expensive and very good. The MK III versions have more elements, and special coatings, and, as usual, the price went up. I don't see enough improvement to entice me to pay it, but for some, its worth it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2011)

Canon-F1 said:


> because the TC from canon is better then, for example, the kenko ones.
> 
> print the canon logo on it and you can charge 100% more then third party companys, for the same stuff.
> 
> but when you compare canons TC to canon lenses (R&D, material cost, etc. itÂ´s just a guess... but you can guess when you know the design) ... you really think the price for the 1.4x or 2x TC is fair?



Are we having it both ways? First, you state that the Canon product is better. Then, you state they're charging more for the same thing. But, as you just stated, the Canon product is better. It's optically better, has 9 elements instead of 7, has a metal barrel instead of plastic, fluorine coatings for easier cleaning of exposed elements, and is weather sealed. Clearly not the same thing. They're charging more...for something _better_.


----------



## willrobb (Nov 30, 2011)

They are pricey, but the main aim of them is to make your big telephoto zooms and primes longer for a cheaper price than you would pay to buy another lens. Yes, you do lose IQ, but it's a pretty damn good option. 

I just bought a 2XIII converter for a shoot where the press pit for an event was about 25m from the stage we had to shoot at. My 70-200mm lens became a 140mm-400mm lens and I got the shots I needed and my client is happy and get re-hired next time around. Well worth the price, no one twisted my arm to buy it and it was much cheaper than buying a 400mm prime.


----------



## siebzehn (Nov 30, 2011)

The Canon TC are expensive especially in compare to Kenko. The image quality dose not justify this price difference. The advantage of the Canon TC is that autofocus works with the 70 200 2.8L.
I thought about buying one of the 2x TC from canon but for some extra money I can get a a 300 f4. So I am not sure which is the better deal.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 30, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are we having it both ways? First, you state that the Canon product is better. Then, you state they're charging more for the same thing.



no.. itÂ´s WAY more (too much) thatÂ´s what i state. :



> It's optically better, has 9 elements instead of 7



ok the canon 1.4x TC has 7 elements the 2x TC has 9 elements and both cost the same here.
but you can repeat it another 3 times... i donÂ´t see how the "number" (*) of elements directly relate to the price. 
more elements can mean more steps in the production process sure.
but more elements do not make, per se, a lens better or more expensive.

coatings, materials.. yes... but as someone wrote, the cheap 50mm f1.8 has also 6 elements.

(*) i prefer to have one piece of 1kg gold then 100 pieces of 1g gold.


----------



## EELinneman (Nov 30, 2011)

Be careful about the comparisions to housing. If the market decides that your neighborhood is overvalued, you are going to have an interesting time refinancing if you are underwater or near to that. 

We live in the golden age as far as cameras go. If you think the Canon gear is overpriced, you can always get a very, very good 3rd party product. Compare what IQ you get from Sigma for example to what we had 15 or 20 years ago. Plus the sensor technology gets better and better as well as the software to post process the images. 

If Canon is not moving enough of the 2x TC's they will be forced to lower the price or cut back on production. Most Japanese companies opt for the lower price to keep cash flow going which finances the R&D, production costs, their own salaries, etc. Much like the rush for electronics when they first come out and people pay a premium where the later apdopters get it cheaper - except for Apple products. 

I would recommend that you look at renting a TC for a few days or a week to see if it's worth the cost. Also, is it needed for business or just to add to your collection and give you new capabilities - as is my situation.


----------



## Halfrack (Nov 30, 2011)

The Canon 1.4x and 2x teleconverters are designed to match up with their high end primes. Canon would have to do a non-L teleconverter if it wanted to drop the price any, and then they'd have 2 lines to keep going. Let the 3rd party mfg's do a low-end, and let Canon do the high-end.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 2, 2011)

FWIW, the outsides of the current Mark III teleconverters are some kind of plastic. There definitely is metal undergirding them, though (and seven screws on the lens side of the TC!), but it's hard to tell if the metal goes through the whole lens or what. Viewed from the side you see an outer layer (of some thickness) of whitish plastic, then something black underneath that (at least on the connection ends; on the lens side this is the rubber seal, on the body side, it's just some hard plastic) and then the metal of the mount. You can't see far into the TC itself as Canon has taken care to apply black velvet material to stop internal reflections. I suppose somebody could always pull one apart to tell...it does seem very well-built, though. I wouldn't try to stop a tank or even a car with it but I wouldn't worry about the lens ripping off the end of it. The camera body side will give way first (which strikes me as the sensible design, in that unfortunate circumstance).

Also, the TC works fine with the TS-E lenses I've tried it on, so you can get some near-macro capability. It does show the flaws with the older generation of lenses, however (i.e. the TS-E 90mm seems to lose a lot of sharpness).


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 2, 2011)

TexPhoto said:


> Sadly it is what it is. Your choice is the aftermarket, but Sigmas 2X APO DG is a surprising $299.



The other TCs are a good point - a good bit cheaper, but there is also a performance delta.
When looking at the overall money spent on that gear I wouldn't want a mere 200$ saving to have any impact on the final picture.
Also: Canon did their homework when designing the current generation of TCs, there is some R&D to be paid for as well as some compensation for the 300/2.8 and 600/4 I won't get.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 4, 2011)

Lawliet said:


> there is some R&D to be paid for as well as some compensation for the 300/2.8 and 600/4 I won't get.


Actually, I use my 2X on a 300mm f/2.8 lens, which happens to be a zoom. It's just Canon's misfortune not to have a comparable offering (that and the fact that their 300mm 2.8 prime is much, much more expensive than the Sigma zoom).


----------



## DanoPhoto (Dec 4, 2011)

VALUE is what matters to most to me when I invest in my gear.


Are they higher priced than other TC's...obviously. However, IMO, they also provide significantly higher results than other TC's. 


Every decision is a trade off. Make a decision based on the VALUE you personally are willing to settle for and go from there.


----------



## real memories (Dec 4, 2011)

if you have to worry about the cost of gear then you dont need to be in this BIZ i do very well for my self as a photographer and this is something that lets me afford the best of the best after market doesnt even come out of my mouth and the photo is the most important thing to be so is you worry about price maybe you need to find something other to do cause your not making money cause your gear is sub par and that will show in your work and IN YOUR PAY GRADE


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 4, 2011)

real memories said:


> if you have to worry about the cost of gear then you dont need to be in this BIZ i do very well for my self as a photographer and this is something that lets me afford the best of the best after market doesnt even come out of my mouth and the photo is the most important thing to be so is you worry about price maybe you need to find something other to do cause your not making money cause your gear is sub par and that will show in your work and IN YOUR PAY GRADE


Most photographers have enough pride not to claim that it's only the price of their gear that is keeping them competitive. Please don't go around insulting random strangers.

If Canon released their new stuff for Medium Format prices, I'd bet you'd be complaining too. There is a price that is too high for any person.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Dec 4, 2011)

We don't have the data to draw a supply and demand diagram to demonstrate the optimal price, and the issue is complicated by teleconverters cannibalising sales of super teles, but it basically goes like this:

You can sell more for less, or sell less for more. There is a point at which the amount you sell and the amount you charge returns the most money, and that is the 'right' price to charge.

I suspect the teleconverters are not optimally placed on this chart, but that this is for calculated reasons.


----------



## Kobayashi (Dec 4, 2011)

I agree that Canon`s percentage from every bit of photo gear it makes is high. But you have to consider that these are not cellphones or some kind of consumer device that will sell in millions of copies. But even cellphones are selling for quite a big price compared to what it costs the manufacturer to produce. How much is an iphone going to sell contract free? $600? How much it costs to make? Probably $120-150. Or so people say. Nevertheless, you can purchase it with a contract so you`re getting in cheaper, but you`re still paying for it. 
Now, how many tc`s Canon is gonna sell? I really don`t know the numbers, and i don`t really care, but it`s not millions. Not by a long shot. It`s probably in the tens of thousands, at best. They need to make a big profit from tc`s, lenses, accessories and everything, because those money is going into r&d, and paying all those engineers to satisfy your cravings for new and better lenses, cameras, etc. They cannot afford to stay behind everybody and sell these cheap, and you need to realize this. And i`m not talking about Canon only, i`m talking about every major photo gear brand out there. You can point to Sigma, but is Sigma a major player? I think not. Granted, they`re big enough and they`re doing ok, but they`re not among the best and that is because they are not making the profits Canon or Nikon does. And they also cannot charge more because everyone will then go buy brand item, not third party. They`re being the underdog, offering cheap items which don`t work as good as brand ones. 
You cannot beat big companies as their game, you need to come with something else, in this case Sigma and all the other third party manufacturers are doing just that. I remember their quality control being less than satisfactory, and why is that? You guessed it, not big enough of a budget to work with, costs need to be cut somewhere.
And another point you may want to consider: How often would you buy a tc? Seriously! You bought that 1.4x, and that`s that. You may get the 2x sometime down the road, and you`ll stick with those for many many years. If you think about it, that`s a bargain.


----------

