# Lens Price Increases Taking Affect



## Isurus (Jan 29, 2011)

Looks like B&H and Adorama are applying the rumored Canon price increases. Many lenses have gone up a decent amount. I noticed that their Macro flashes have also increased.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 29, 2011)

guess we'll have to see what it all looks like once spring rebates roll around... it'll probably just take certain lenses back to their pre-hike levels


----------



## Isurus (Jan 29, 2011)

That is my guess as well. It seem to usually work that way. I was kind of surprised by the flash price hike. Almost $800 for the MT-24EX macro flash seems a bit absurd, especially since it is quite outdated technology. Nikon's far superior wireless macro flash system is significantly cheaper.


----------



## Flake (Jan 30, 2011)

Isurus said:


> That is my guess as well. It seem to usually work that way. I was kind of surprised by the flash price hike. Almost $800 for the MT-24EX macro flash seems a bit absurd, especially since it is quite outdated technology. Nikon's far superior wireless macro flash system is significantly cheaper.



I wonder if you've used the Nikon system? Firstly of course Nikon doesn't have a competitor to the MP-e 65mm so it's sole use is for Macro, and it seems an awful lot of money to spend when you can illuminate with a conventional flash.

The other issue it has is two flash heads which both need independant battery power this is provided by very expensive non rechargeable Li specialised units, it also means the heads are much larger and weigh! This flash system absolutely cannot be used with extending lenses like the Sigma or Tamron as the focus motor will burn out. They struggle with the relatively lightweight Canon system.

I tried (& failed) to find a guide number for these units, but Nikon don't seem to quote one, several sources say it can only be used for macro, so I assume that they aren't very powerful.

Be careful what you wish for! At first sight Nikon might seem to have a better system, but when you dig a little deeper it's not all it appears to be.

I'm quite happy with the MT24-EX replacement to remain wired & high power, with conventional AA rechargeable, & the tech inside like the 580EX II (or III)


----------



## unfocused (Jan 30, 2011)

Anyone notice that Canon bodies are dropping in price? Could just be a coincidence, but 7D is at an all-time low (just under $1,500). Looks like 60D and T2i have dropped as well, but not nearly as much.


----------



## Isurus (Jan 30, 2011)

I own both the MP-E 65mm and the MT-24EX, but I have used the Nikon system. I understand that Nikon has no equivalent to the MP-E, which is why I use Canon, but that has nothing to do with the flash systems. 

I actually don't always connect the MT-24EX flash heads right to the lens. Instead, I often use RRS flash brackets, which I've also used with the Nikon flashes. When used with these brackets, the choice of lens really doesn't matter. While there are pros and cons to having wires, I find the lack of wires more convenient and would prefer that Canon ditch them in their revision. Given today's technology, there is no reason they couldn't pack similar power into independent flash heads that could be fired without the wires and big commander.




Flake said:


> Isurus said:
> 
> 
> > That is my guess as well. It seem to usually work that way. I was kind of surprised by the flash price hike. Almost $800 for the MT-24EX macro flash seems a bit absurd, especially since it is quite outdated technology. Nikon's far superior wireless macro flash system is significantly cheaper.
> ...


----------



## Flake (Jan 31, 2011)

Isurus said:


> I own both the MP-E 65mm and the MT-24EX, but I have used the Nikon system. I understand that Nikon has no equivalent to the MP-E, which is why I use Canon, but that has nothing to do with the flash systems.
> 
> I actually don't always connect the MT-24EX flash heads right to the lens. Instead, I often use RRS flash brackets, which I've also used with the Nikon flashes. When used with these brackets, the choice of lens really doesn't matter. While there are pros and cons to having wires, I find the lack of wires more convenient and would prefer that Canon ditch them in their revision. Given today's technology, there is no reason they couldn't pack similar power into independent flash heads that could be fired without the wires and big commander.
> 
> If that is what you want then there's nothing stopping you using a couple of normal flash heads and the ST-E2. As you say there is no technical reason why each flash head can't be independently powered and still retain a decent power output, but there is a drawback, and that is size. Currently all flash guns use 4x AA batteries to get enough volts for a quick recharge, to get the voltage there's a switch mode power supply and a coil, there's a capacitor to store the charge. The Nikon system does this on a much smaller scale and the flash heads are as large & heavy as I'd like to go!


----------



## Isurus (Feb 1, 2011)

Exactly; size becomes a major issue doing that with Canon's normal flashes. I wished they'd at least offer small ones like Nikon. Regardless, I'm not moving away from the MP-E and I can deal with the MT-24EX. It does work very well after all, even if a bit inconvenient.


----------



## rumorzmonger (Feb 2, 2011)

kubelik said:


> guess we'll have to see what it all looks like once spring rebates roll around... it'll probably just take certain lenses back to their pre-hike levels



Based on past history, when the next rebates are announced the big stores (B&H, Adorama) will just increase prices again, by the amount of the rebates, so there will be no net change.


----------



## StepBack (Feb 5, 2011)

Canon controls the prices of their goods. Last week everyone was selling the 300 f/4 IS for 1249 except NewEgg which took another 100 off. Now they are out of stock and everyone from Adorama to BHPhoto to Amazon are selling at exactly 1376. If you understand currency trading you'll know this is a white wash. I will take a cue from the experienced users here and wait them out. Spring to Winter I'll look for a sale with a sponsored coupon.


----------



## Flake (Feb 5, 2011)

StepBack said:


> Canon controls the prices of their goods. Last week everyone was selling the 300 f/4 IS for 1249 except NewEgg which took another 100 off. Now they are out of stock and everyone from Adorama to BHPhoto to Amazon are selling at exactly 1376. If you understand currency trading you'll know this is a white wash. I will take a cue from the experienced users here and wait them out. Spring to Winter I'll look for a sale with a sponsored coupon.



I can't agree that any of the Camera companies control prices, if you want to see an example of price control take a look at Apple. Take a look at Canons recommended retail prices and how far from those street prices are. In the UK we have a website called camera price buster which lists prices for gear from different suppliers, the big names are normally close to each other because they watch each others prices, but the independents are hugely varied, either over or under.


----------



## AprilForever (Feb 5, 2011)

Got my 24-105 just ion time!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2011)

*Re: Canon Lens Price Increases*



dilbert said:


> Quite by accident I found myself looking at a review of the 70-200L F/4 IS USM from 2007. Quoted price? $1060. Today's price? $1220 on Amazon. Is that just the latest announcement/change or is that a culmination of successive changes?
> 
> What other lenses have changed in price substantially without being re-issued?



A culmination. There was an increase in 2008 and again in 2009. If you go HERE then click on a lens, you can scroll down to see a graph of the price history over the past few years, as well as past rebates.


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 14, 2011)

Prices go up amd up. Own a L lens for 5 years, and as long as it is a popular one still inproduction, you can likely sell it for what you orginally paid. 

Its not free, but it is different from a body which will decline in price a large amount over five years.


----------



## cheeseheadsaint (Feb 27, 2011)

I wanted to get the 50mm f/1.8 and I remembered several days ago seeing the recommended retail price be $100. Now I see it has been increased by 25 dollars or so. Some day I want to get a longer tele and I've been holding off because I am just a hobbyist and I am hoping for a price drop(sounds like a hopeless dream).

Better to buy now or wait?


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 28, 2011)

cheeseheadsaint said:


> I wanted to get the 50mm f/1.8 and I remembered several days ago seeing the recommended retail price be $100. Now I see it has been increased by 25 dollars or so. Some day I want to get a longer tele and I've been holding off because I am just a hobbyist and I am hoping for a price drop(sounds like a hopeless dream).
> 
> Better to buy now or wait?



A few years back, the 50mm f/1.8 was $79. Now, the big online retailers list it at $119. Quite a jump. Used ones go for $80 and up.


----------



## Flake (Feb 28, 2011)

I could sell nearly every one of my lenses for more than I bought them for! Canon have been pushing prices ever since it realised that sales were relatively unaffected by the cost when it raised prices the first time because of exchange rates.

Now we see Canon looking for nearly 30% increase in profits from a world market which is in recession, there is only one way that they can realise that because it's not going to come from volume, they're going to be reaching into our pockets for it.

I have more of less all the lenses I need or want at the moment so I'm going to hold off buying and in my own small way make a little stand against the corporate machine. If everyone else did the same Canon would soon realise they've killed the golden goose.


----------



## motorhead (Feb 28, 2011)

I'm less convinced that lenses retain their resale value. I'm considering swopping my existing EF70-200 f/2.8L for the new mark 2 IS version and have been only been offered a low Â£410.

The problem is probably due to the very lens I'm thinking of buying. When a better lens appears, however good they are the previous version (or in the case of the 70-200, versions) must be devalued.

My non IS f/2.8 version cost Â£936 in November 2005, so it's dropped 56% in that time. That's despite still being in excellent condition.


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 28, 2011)

motorhead said:


> I'm less convinced that lenses retain their resale value. I'm considering swopping my existing EF70-200 f/2.8L for the new mark 2 IS version and have been only been offered a low Â£410.
> 
> The problem is probably due to the very lens I'm thinking of buying. When a better lens appears, however good they are the previous version (or in the case of the 70-200, versions) must be devalued.
> 
> My non IS f/2.8 version cost Â£936 in November 2005, so it's dropped 56% in that time. That's despite still being in excellent condition.



They hold their value pretty well, when sold on the private market, such as ebay or Craigslist. However, if you want to trade it in to a dealer, they will need to mark it up when they go to sell it, so you will get a lot less, probably 50% of its value.


----------



## IWLP (Feb 28, 2011)

motorhead said:


> I'm less convinced that lenses retain their resale value. I'm considering swopping my existing EF70-200 f/2.8L for the new mark 2 IS version and have been only been offered a low Â£410.
> 
> The problem is probably due to the very lens I'm thinking of buying. When a better lens appears, however good they are the previous version (or in the case of the 70-200, versions) must be devalued.
> 
> My non IS f/2.8 version cost Â£936 in November 2005, so it's dropped 56% in that time. That's despite still being in excellent condition.



Wow, I wish I could find one that inexpensively.

I'm debating the Mk. II version, but now I have a wife who needs convincing. I suppose I shouldn't sit on the sidelines, or I'll get priced out entirely (See: My experience with Gibson Les Pauls).


----------



## motorhead (Feb 28, 2011)

IWLP,

Once the lens has the dealers mark up wacked on you'd be right. Probably doubles the Â£410 as a minimum. But a reputable reseller would be expected to offer a warranty period and I would hazard a guess that they buy insurance to cover it. Then again most shops have masses of used kit that just sits there, not selling - which is money not working.

But it is annoying. Especially as I have always been very careful with my kit, keeping all the boxes, instructions etc and barring accidents making sure I never put a mark on them.


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 28, 2011)

motorhead said:


> IWLP,
> 
> Once the lens has the dealers mark up wacked on you'd be right. Probably doubles the Â£410 as a minimum. But a reputable reseller would be expected to offer a warranty period and I would hazard a guess that they buy insurance to cover it. Then again most shops have masses of used kit that just sits there, not selling - which is money not working.
> 
> But it is annoying. Especially as I have always been very careful with my kit, keeping all the boxes, instructions etc and barring accidents making sure I never put a mark on them.



Yes, it is annoying. Many people use Craigslist. Dealers around here give the traditional 10 ft or 10 minute warranty. It is also void once you leave the store. I've yet to hear of a private party purchasing a warranty to provide with a used lens. They usually offer it for a little less than store prices, and the buyer can meet you and try it out.

List it on Craigslist, or on ebay if you want the best price. I'm not sure if there is a local blog like Fred Miranda to list cameras on, but ask around, A local Photography club might also be a good place to sell it.


----------



## Flake (Feb 28, 2011)

motorhead said:


> IWLP,
> 
> Once the lens has the dealers mark up wacked on you'd be right. Probably doubles the Â£410 as a minimum. But a reputable reseller would be expected to offer a warranty period and I would hazard a guess that they buy insurance to cover it. Then again most shops have masses of used kit that just sits there, not selling - which is money not working.
> 
> But it is annoying. Especially as I have always been very careful with my kit, keeping all the boxes, instructions etc and barring accidents making sure I never put a mark on them.



Quick check on Ebay for the last month shows them fetching about Â£740 in good condition of course you have to pat Ebays monsterous charges but they max out at Â£40 then there's Paypals 4% as well. I don't think Craigslist is very active in the UK, some of the mags used to have some classifieds. Â£410 is very low though, I'd be loathe to let it go for that amount.


----------

