# EF 100-400 Version 2 Coming [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 29, 2010)

```
<strong>Coming in 2011</strong>

An email showed up this evening confirming a new 100-400 will hit the world sometime in 2011.<strong> </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html">NL</a> also received the same information in person at an event in London.</p>
<p>No word on zoom design.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>
```


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 29, 2010)

Oh goodie! Now we get to fight about whether it should be push-pull or 2-touch. I vote for 2-touch since I have the current version and hate the push-pull action. Also, given the way prices on newly introduced lenses have been going, the new 100-400 will probably cost $2500.


----------



## ronderick (Oct 29, 2010)

I'm a happy camper as long as it's WEATHER-SEALED and no bigger than the 70-200 f/2.8...

Finally... a nex gen model after all these years...


----------



## kubelik (Oct 29, 2010)

oh snap! totally excited about this ...

bob, I don't know about $2500 ... probably more like $2000? that would be like a 35% price increase already.

my vote is for 2 touch as well.

as each year goes by, the likelihood of the eternal 100-400 rumor turning into fact becomes more and more likely ... but that being said, canon could easily make us sweat it out for 2 more years. but you gotta admit, when the other rumor about canon upgrading popular L glass in 2011 came out, you all were thinking the same things too: 24-70 and 100-400 (and maybe a few thinking 35 prime also).


----------



## RichFisher (Oct 29, 2010)

Could this be a lens that goes head to head with the Nikon 200-400F4???

I sure hope so. IQ of the current lens is simply not good enough  for the high res dSLR.

I expect the price of a 200-400 F4 lens to be $6,000 - $7,000


----------



## spam (Oct 29, 2010)

RichFisher said:


> Could this be a lens that goes head to head with the Nikon 200-400F4???



It could, but then the rumor would be completely wrong. A lens with half the zoom range, larger aperture, much higher weight and 2-3 times the price would hardly be a 100-400 replacement.


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Oct 29, 2010)

Whether or not this year-long rumor turns into reality, I simply refuse to buy the current 100-400 with its dated IS, strange handling (which I might get used to, though...) and its renown for considerable sample variation. So an updated one with improved IQ, IS, and handling and if the Canon brass can keep their greed under control and leave it with say, a 20% price increase, and I will definitely get one. Otherwise, someone else might get the money (and that could even be something other than a lens manufacturer )


----------



## tzalmagor (Oct 29, 2010)

spam said:


> RichFisher said:
> 
> 
> > Could this be a lens that goes head to head with the Nikon 200-400F4???
> ...



I agree.

The current EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 cost $1,500. A 30% raise is reasonable. A 60% is borderline. Anything more and I go for the Sigma, which is $500 cheaper than the current model to begin with.


----------



## Waleed Essam (Oct 29, 2010)

tzalmagor said:


> spam said:
> 
> 
> > RichFisher said:
> ...



The funny thing is that the Current 100-400/4.5-5.6 is 1500 USD, the Nikon's 200-400/4 is 7000$

So anything in between can be anything in between...

It's a bit disturbing to think about it... If canon made it fixed f/4 aperture, it will for sure be at least 4000-5000$, if not more given that it has a wider range.

If they made it the same apertures as the current one, they will for sure increase the price quiet much, they see what Nikon lenses are being charged for, and this encourages them to increase the prices (70-200 2.8 II ?)


----------



## Flake (Oct 29, 2010)

Which Sigma though? There are loads around this focal length with various apertures, the 100 - 300mm f/4 is reckoned a great performer there's the Bigma 150 - 500mm now with OS although the aperture is a bit slow, or perhaps the 120 - 300mm f/2.8 (also now with OS) which is 170 - 420mm at F/4 or 240 - 600mm f5.6 with teleconverters, also a very good performer and the cheapest way to get to 600mm and still maintain autofocus.

Then there's the 120 - 400mm OS the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 will take a TC, and also lets not forget the 200 - 500mm f/2.8 if you have bottomless pockets and huge muscles!

Choices choices!


----------



## tzalmagor (Oct 29, 2010)

Flake said:


> Which Sigma though? There are loads around this focal length with various apertures



The 150-500mm, which is indeed a bit slow. It's a compromise I would apparently have to do because my pockets are not bottomless pits of cash.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 29, 2010)

Even though I just bought the current 100-400L, an update would be great. I'm happy with the current version, but better IQ, faster autofocus, weathersealing, and a 4 stop IS would get me to trade up. But I hope they stay away from the Nikon and it's price range.

As mentioned by others above, I am hoping that the rumors that Canon is going toward big megapixel camera is necessitating the update of their "flagship" lenses to improve IQ. But, we'll see.


----------



## traveller (Oct 29, 2010)

A 70-400mm, like the Sony equivalen, would be good. 

Given the suggested retail price of the new 70-300mm lens, I can't see a 100-400mm selling for less than Â£2000 (sorry, can't be bothered to convert to US$!).


----------



## kubelik (Oct 29, 2010)

as a sigma owner, I have to say I'd be surprised if the 150-500 comes anywhere close to the performance of the 100-400, not in terms of AF, but image quality. it's got the harshest bokeh out of any of my lenses and is fairly soft across the board, even when stopped down to f/8.

the sigma 100-300 is a totally different story; light, fast, good range, crisp optics ... too bad there's no OS in it but perhaps sigma will fix that soon


----------



## Justin (Oct 29, 2010)

I don't get why we need this lens. I'd rather have a proper 400 f/4 and carry around the 70-200 2.8 for the rest of the range. I admit I've never really used the 100-400, because it is such a mixed bag, but I question how useful it really is. I guess as part of a light kit when combined with the 24-105 it is a pretty neat 2 lens getup. I just know that I can't afford much redundancy. Each lens has to count. I have to find a good way to rationalize the focal length redundancy. Maybe if the new optic is really superb, it will make sense. But I have to say a 100-400 makes the August announcement of a 70-300 look even stranger. I mean how many zoom lenses does Canon need between 70 and 400? There must be at least 10 now.


----------



## spam (Oct 29, 2010)

Justin said:


> I don't get why we need this lens.



I agree that the 70-300 L was a bit of a surprise since the non-L 70-300 IS is pretty good. Personally I don't get why we'd need another fixed 400mm or a 70-200 F2.8 for that matter, while the 100-400 is one of my most used lenses and a upgrade would be great.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 29, 2010)

Justin said:


> I don't get why we need this lens. I guess as part of a light kit when combined with the 24-105 it is a pretty neat 2 lens getup. But I have to say a 100-400 makes the August announcement of a 70-300 look even stranger. I mean how many zoom lenses does Canon need between 70 and 400? There must be at least 10 now.


Yep....I have two main lenses that I travel with and it is, now, one of them. Read "Roger's Take" at http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/supertelephoto/canon-100-400mm-f4.5-5.6l-is. I also suspect that most normal people only have 1-2 lenses in their kits. Say a general purpose zoom and a single telephoto zoom.

As for the 70-300L lens, I still don't know what all the fuss is about. Having offerings from 70-200, 70-300, and 100-400 with different variable/fixed apertures, weights and prices seems like a nice range of offerings for all the potential Canon users to choose. Of course, I am assuming the 70-300L is really the replacement for the 70-300 DO. What seems somewhat extravagant is the 4 different 70-200 mm lenses, but as each represents a distinct price point, so I get it from a business perspective.


----------



## AJ (Oct 29, 2010)

No, the 70-300L is not a replacement of the 70-300 DO. The DO caters to people looking for minimal size and weight. The L does not do the job there.

Personally I can't get my head wrapped around the 70-300L. I'm sure the IQ will be top-notch. I have no doubt about that. But in the end it's just a 300/5.6, just like a million consumer zooms. Kinda like a wood-paneled station wagon made by Jaguar? I honestly can't figure out who in their right mind would buy this lens.

Now, being able to go out to 400 mm takes things to the next level. 100-400 has always been very popular. Birders, safari, and so on. I'm sure a 100-400 mk2 will sell really well.

FWIW the 100-400 goes head-to-head with Nikkor 80-400, not 200-400/4 which is a completely different beast.


----------



## tzalmagor (Oct 29, 2010)

kubelik said:


> as a sigma owner, I have to say I'd be surprised if the 150-500 comes anywhere close to the performance of the 100-400, not in terms of AF, but image quality. it's got the harshest bokeh out of any of my lenses and is fairly soft across the board, even when stopped down to f/8.



Which is why I'd prefer to split over twice as much for an upgraded Canon lens. Beyond that, the depth of my pocket would force me to fix the bokeh as best I can in software.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 29, 2010)

AJ said:


> No, the 70-300L is not a replacement of the 70-300 DO. The DO caters to people looking for minimal size and weight.


Ok...I see your point, it is smaller and lighter..... but as the 70-300 non-L IS is even lighter, really the primary advantage of the DO is that it is small. But hey, if it has a market...we'll see.


AJ said:


> Personally I can't get my head wrapped around the 70-300L.


If you want and "L" quality general telephoto zoom lens that at least goes to 300 mm and you are only going to buy 1 telephoto lens, what are you going to buy? To me it comes down to 100-400L, 70-200 f/2.8 plus extender (expensive), and now the 70-300L. But say your general purpose lens only goes to 55 mm....perfect compliment would be the 70-300L for a 2 lens kit. Plus, there is a long history with the ~70-300 range and now there is a "flagship" L lens at the top.

At least, that was part of my logic, but I went with the 100-400L (mk I) and am now excited by the potential Mk II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2010)

Justin said:


> But I have to say a 100-400 makes the August announcement of a 70-300 look even stranger.



That's why I think this rumor is bogus. I just don't see Canon spending the R&D money on the 70-300mm L, a variable-aperture zoom lens with L-build and optical quality, and simultaneously developing an update to another variable-aperture zoom lens. The new 70-300mm L *is* the replacement for the 100-400mm. People who need more focal length should get a prime lens (and I certainly hope they update the 400/5.6 with IS!!). 

I do think the 100-400mm is a useful focal range, and certainly I want the extra 100mm on the long en more than the 30mm on the wide end. But, the main advantage that the 100-400mm offers is that it's the only way to get a native 400mm with IS for under $2K (and delivers better IQ than the 300/4+1.4x). If they offered a 400mm f/5.6L IS prime, I'd take that over the 100-400mm in a heartbeat.


----------



## AJ (Oct 29, 2010)

70-300 DO - lightest
70-300 - medium weight
70-300 L - heaviest.

Th 70-300 DO has been one of these obscure lenses. People that I know who have them are minimalist travelers or people with injuries who are unable to hoist heavier gear. i.e. those who will pay the extra $$ to shave off a few ounces.

I had not thought about 70-300L being the replacement for the 100-400L. If this is truly the case, then that's very disappointing. Birders won't be happy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2010)

AJ said:


> I had not thought about 70-300L being the replacement for the 100-400L. If this is truly the case, then that's very disappointing. Birders won't be happy.



I'm not a birder but I shoot a lot of birds. I'd be happier with a 400mm f/5.6L IS than with a 100-400mm II - the former would combine the BIF utility and IQ of the 400mm prime with the static shot utility of IS in a package that would be lighter and shorter (vs. extended) than the 100-400mm. Weather sealing could be added with less cost (no zoom mechanism to seal).


----------



## Son of Daguerre (Oct 29, 2010)

Waleed Essam said:


> tzalmagor said:
> 
> 
> > spam said:
> ...


As *AJ* said, the Nikon equivalent of the 100-400 is the *AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED*, not the 200-400mm f/4.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 29, 2010)

AJ said:


> 70-300 DO - lightest
> 70-300 - medium weight
> 70-300 L - heaviest.


At least according to canon's website:
70-300 non-L IS= 630 g
70-300 DO = 720 g
70-300L = 1050 g
But I totally see your point, the DO is much smaller and both the non-L IS and the DO are much lighter then the L.


AJ said:


> I had not thought about 70-300L being the replacement for the 100-400L. If this is truly the case, then that's very disappointing.


Agreed. 
But, just to point out, canon did annouce the 70-200 f/2.8 IS MK II and the 70-300L in the same year. Yes, the 70-200 is constant aperture (and f/2.8 at that!), so they are different. But Canon seems willing to annouce two telephoto lenses in close proximity to each other.


----------



## weilin (Oct 29, 2010)

This is indeed interesting, this just further makes me feel like Canon should have made the 70-300 L a fixed F/4.0. This could then replace the 70-200 F/4.0 line giving the photographer the choice of 70-200 F/2.8 or 70-300 F/4.0 like 24-70 F/2.8 vs 24-105 F/4.0...

That being said... I would absolutely welcome an update to the 100-400. Give me 2-touch, 4 stop IS and a constant F/4.0 and my wallet will be that much lighter the day after...


----------



## Justin (Oct 29, 2010)

Well then I'd like to see Canon get a little wider and make 5x a 80-400. 



AJ said:


> No, the 70-300L is not a replacement of the 70-300 DO. The DO caters to people looking for minimal size and weight. The L does not do the job there.
> 
> Personally I can't get my head wrapped around the 70-300L. I'm sure the IQ will be top-notch. I have no doubt about that. But in the end it's just a 300/5.6, just like a million consumer zooms. Kinda like a wood-paneled station wagon made by Jaguar? I honestly can't figure out who in their right mind would buy this lens.
> 
> ...


----------



## AJ (Oct 29, 2010)

Docsmith, you are correct! Seems like the only thing DO buys you is smaller size.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 29, 2010)

> The new 70-300mm L is the replacement for the 100-400mm.



I don't agree. As others have pointed out elsewhere on this forum, the extra 100mm makes a huge difference in many ways. Generally, I think these two focal lengths get used in quite different ways.

The current 100-400 is one big lens and not something most people will be taking with them for a hike in the woods. On the other hand, if you want to do any wildlife photography, the extra 100mm can be critical. You can pack a 300mm zoom in your bag, carry it with you and hand hold it under most circumstances. Even with IS, I'd need to spend a lot more time at the gym if I were going to routinely hand hold a 100-400mm and I'm not about to be carrying it on a long hike.

Yes, I would consider a 400mm IS prime, but I've used both primes and zooms and I'd say that even though the prime might be sharper, the ability to zoom can outweigh the sharpness. (And, I am assuming that a new 100-400mm will be sharper than the current model).

I've scratched by head over the 70-300mm L for months. I still don't fully understand it, but I am now willing to concede there may be a niche for it. It seems to have been designed for persons needing an all-purpose zoom that can be carried in the bag or backpack and used under extreme conditions. 

I can only speak for myself, but I would say that I would be willing to pay over $2,000 for a new 100-400mm L, but I cringe at the thought of spending $1,500 for the 300mm L zoom.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2010)

unfocused said:


> > The new 70-300mm L is the replacement for the 100-400mm.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree.



Just to be clear, _I_ don't think it's a replacement, personally. I was suggesting that Canon's marketing department might view it as a replacement. The seem to have gone to reasonable lengths to point out in their positioning paper that the 70-300mm is great for APS-C, stating, "_With these cameras, the effective 1.6x multiplier means its field of view is like a 112mmâ€“ 480mm lens on a full-frame camera._" I think they're saying it's better than a 100-400mm from an APS-C perspective (again, I don't agree - I need 400mm or more on my 7D!). 

The 100-400mm is a very popular lens, and whether or not they consider the 70-300mm a replacement, it's certainly a rather similar lens. I'd be surprised if they release a new 100-400mm any time soon. I'm sure they've done design work on a 100-400 II, but I bet they'll wait to see what the sales of the new lens look like, and if they cut into the 100-400mm sales, that will confirm that the customer base thinks it's a replacement, and they will have no desire to release a 100-400 II anytime soon.


----------



## AJ (Oct 30, 2010)

unfocused said:


> I've scratched by head over the 70-300mm L for months. I still don't fully understand it, but I am now willing to concede there may be a niche for it. It seems to have been designed for persons needing an all-purpose zoom that can be carried in the bag or backpack and used under extreme conditions.
> 
> I can only speak for myself, but I would say that I would be willing to pay over $2,000 for a new 100-400mm L, but I cringe at the thought of spending $1,500 for the 300mm L zoom.


Yup. Like you say, there must be a niche market for it. Kinda like the 28-300 L


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 30, 2010)

The sheer number of 70-300mm lenses in Canon's lens history is a testament to the range's popularity, not to mention I've seen plenty of evidence that the length is widely used and carried.

Personally, I also would be more interested by a 100-400mm, and I'm glad I've held off on the 70-300mm since the 100-400 might hold a wide aperture longer than the 70-300mm did (certainly it's the case that the current one does). It only needs to have a zoom ring.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 31, 2010)

Canon Rumors said:


> <strong>Coming in 2011</strong>
> 
> An email showed up this evening confirming a new 100-400 will hit the world sometime in 2011.<strong> </strong></p>



This lens has been so badly in need of an update for so long that it's now too late. The 70-200/2.8L IS II is so good with TCs while having far superior handling and IS that a new 100-400L isn't really needed anymore.

If they are really going to do this, it needs to be designed from the beginning to use the 1.4xTC well with the highest pixel density 1.6-crop sensors they expect to produce in the next 10 years, and it needs to be a coordinated release with a 7D replacement having high-performance f/8 AF sensors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2010)

Lee Jay said:


> a 7D replacement having high-performance f/8 AF sensors.



I believe someone here previously used the phrase, "pigs will fly over snowbanks in hell first." I'm inclined to think that statement applies here. If they do that, why even have a 1D-series?


----------



## spam (Oct 31, 2010)

Lee Jay said:


> This lens has been so badly in need of an update for so long that it's now too late. The 70-200/2.8L IS II is so good with TCs while having far superior handling and IS that a new 100-400L isn't really needed anymore.



So you expect a 2.85x zoom lens and a TC to "replace" a 4x zoom lens? The 70-200 F2.8 alone costs quite a bit more, then add the price of a TC and you're around 50% higher than the current 100-400 for a combo that's not even close to the convenience of a single lens. It's also slower through the whole zoom range, except at 400mm unless you remove the TC.


----------



## kubelik (Oct 31, 2010)

spam said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > This lens has been so badly in need of an update for so long that it's now too late. The 70-200/2.8L IS II is so good with TCs while having far superior handling and IS that a new 100-400L isn't really needed anymore.
> ...



totally with spam on this one. I would be in total disbelief if the latest 70-200 with new 2x TC were to match a new 100-400 ... just use the existing models as a basis for comparison. if canon can improve the 70-200 that much, there's no reason they won't do the same for the 100-400


----------



## unfocused (Nov 1, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > a 7D replacement having high-performance f/8 AF sensors.
> ...



I don't know, this doesn't seem *that* implausible. The next generation of the 7D will need some new features and this seems like a reasonable one to me. I don't see this hurting the 1D-series as I doubt many people buying either the 1Ds or the 1D are going to switch to the 7D because of the ability to auto-focus in low light. 

There might be technical reasons that I'm unaware of, but assuming that this is a feature that could be added to the 7D for a reasonable cost, I wouldn't be all that surprised. 

Gotta give 7D owners some reasons to upgrade. I don't think a few more megapixels alone will do it. But, improved low-light autofocus, autofocus in movie mode and a few other goodies might help. 



> The 70-200/2.8L IS II is so good with TCs while having far superior handling and IS that a new 100-400L isn't really needed anymore.



On the other had, as others have pointed out, *this* doesn't make any sense.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 1, 2010)

Having just bought the current 100-400L recently, I considered the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II with extenders as an option. But honestly, while it would be way better from (70)100-200, and pretty darn good out to 280, ultimately everything I saw said that the 100-400L had it beat for IQ from 280-400. Plus you could then add a 1.4 extender (loosing AF) onto the 100-400L and get out to 560 mm, if needed. Then throw in the fact that AF slows way down with extenders, I bought the current 100-400L.

Finally, I'd expect the "new" model to perform even better than the current model. If they bring up the 100-400L to the current level (4 stop IS, weather sealing, IQ, etc), it is going to be one great lens.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 1, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > a 7D replacement having high-performance f/8 AF sensors.
> ...



Let me see, weather sealing, dual card slots, faster frame rate, larger sensor, better viewfinder, built-in portrait grip, ergonomics designed for use with gloves, more/faster AF processors, more AF points, longer shutter life, etc.

If it doesn't happen, I just won't buy it. No big deal.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 1, 2010)

kubelik said:


> spam said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I bought the 70-200/2.8L IS I and TCs because I couldn't find a decent 100-400L. It worked. Now I have a 100-400L too and prefer the 70-200 with TCs.

The new 70-200 seems to work well even with stacked 2x and 1.4x TCs on the high-density 18MP sensors:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=36223399


----------



## MILTON (Nov 8, 2010)

The 100-400 is principally a bird shooter lens, this is why you need it to:
1-have very fast AF
2-be a very sharp-image catcher 
3-have a fast zoom-in/out system as the push/pull
4-be adapted to support the high pixel density of the new cameras
5-have a last generation and on-tripod-efficient IS system for panning etc.
6-to be water and dust resistant
7-be "light-weight"

You have to look at the 100-400 as a "400mm f/5.6 L series zoom", with the adding of a fast zoom system to let you catch your escaping sobjects, to understand the reason of it's being, that's it!!!

For ceremonies, in door sports, etc., you can take one of the 70-200 S, 70-300, 28-300... of course i will suggest the magnific 70-200 f/2.8L IS II...

When the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II will be released, I'm going to be one the already sure buyers!!!


----------



## scalesusa (Nov 8, 2010)

Canon has made 100-300, 70-300, and 75-300 models galore. That focal length range obviously sells well. Those who like this focal length range will make it very popular. My 100-400mm L is excellent, and when telescoped, it fits pretty well in a camera bag. 300mm is not enough for my FF and 1DMKIII, I'd like to have longer. But then my 600mm f/4 wasn't long enough either, so I have to be happy with 400mm.


----------



## Ago (Nov 8, 2010)

This lens has very strong position among non professional nature photographers, and even having obvious issues it still is a great choice.
In my opinion, if Canon will be modest and keep the price in the similar range, than an upgrade will be a great news, even for somebody like me, that hate constantly swapping equipment this may be tempting offer.
If the price will exceed what semi pro, and advanced amateurs will pay for, than this will be a flop, since this is not a lens that professionals will chose for that focal range.


----------



## scalesusa (Nov 8, 2010)

I do not think that everyone needs every lens. If you don't, and I don't, thats fine, we have other lenses we use, however many others will want this lens, and thats fine, more power to them!

If Canon only made the lenses that I use, 90% of their lenses would go away, and there would be lots of unhappy photographers.


----------



## PorkyKat (Nov 10, 2010)

I've owned a good version of a 100-400 for about 4 years and I use it a lot and have generally been very pleased with the results. If I've managed to keep it steady . I'd be very interested in an updated version that had better IS and IQ. Physically smaller or weighing less would also be an advantage, but aren't essential. 

I'm happy with f4-f5.6 and have a good idea what would happen (to size and price) if Canon made it constant F4. 

If I can buy it from a retailer for ~Â£1500 I'd buy one, significantly more Â£1500 I'd have to think long and hard about it.


----------



## tzalmagor (Nov 10, 2010)

scalesusa said:


> Canon has made 100-300, 70-300, and 75-300 models galore. That focal length range obviously sells well. Those who like this focal length range will make it very popular. My 100-400mm L is excellent, and when telescoped, it fits pretty well in a camera bag. 300mm is not enough for my FF and 1DMKIII, I'd like to have longer. But then my 600mm f/4 wasn't long enough either, so I have to be happy with 400mm.



I'm wondering for a long time why is there a 'knee' at the 300mm line - Canon has plenty of primes and zooms at a variety of prices up to 300mm, but only one zoom and view primes over the 300mm point, and those are rahter expensive.

Is this due to customer demand, or is there something in the physics behind making those lenses ?


----------



## scalesusa (Nov 10, 2010)

Pricing is likely set by estimating the number of sales, and then amortizing the development and tooling cost. Then, the cost of components assembly and testing. A reserve is created for warranty cost.

Advertising, cost of salesmen, transportation, cost of money for keeping a stock in inventory, etc is also added in.

Its likely that the amortized cost of development and tooling is much higher for lenses that sell only a small number of copies, and the cost of special one of a kind or limited production components is also very high.

Then, there is profit. Canon likely makes much of their profit from lens sales, and sell bodies for a small markup, knowing that owners will then have to shell out for lenses.

I'd expect that the actual cost of production was a small part of the final selling price.


----------

