# Canon L Glass is currently priced at over $1200 / pound



## RGF (Apr 20, 2013)

Okay I'll admit I am crazy enough to put this analysis together. Then again after a year of retire (from Director of Marketing Analytics at a major CPG company) I miss number crunching.

Glad to share the data, I am sure that there a few items I missed. Right now all I am interested in is the top line. When I went deeper into the data, I found that older lens (2006 and early) had lower cost per pound $750 versus more current lenses $1,200. Lots of reasons for this - could be new lenses are more technologically advanced and harder to manufacture, include more expensive glass and metals, harder to raise prices than introduce a new product at a higher price point ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 20, 2013)

*Re: Canon L Glass costs over $1200 / pound *

Finance people sometimes price items by the pound, more often by the part count.

One salesman at a unnamed company where I worked back in the 1970's was said to have picked a price based on the number of a railroad train car going by his window after the customer asked for a better price. He made the sale, and it was big bucks


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 20, 2013)

*Re: Canon L Glass costs over $1200 / pound *

I loved math until it betrayed me in calc 3. but I still dabble in meaningless number play. give me a good standard deviation spreadsheet and there I go trying to make sense or of nothing. so I appreciate what you did here.

Mr initial feeling is that your regression line is not where i would have put it, but I presume the computer made that decision.


----------



## RGF (Apr 20, 2013)

*Re: Canon L Glass costs over $1200 / pound *



jdramirez said:


> I loved math until it betrayed me in calc 3. but I still dabble in meaningless number play. give me a good standard deviation spreadsheet and there I go trying to make sense or of nothing. so I appreciate what you did here.
> 
> Mr initial feeling is that your regression line is not where i would have put it, but I presume the computer made that decision.



I constrained the line to have a zero intercept, without the constraint the intercept is around -900. Implications very light lens might be free ;D

There are actually several parallel lines, post 2005 vs 2005 and earlier. I am sure that there are other factors (zoom vs prime) .... 

A couple of key learnings for me:

1. Around 2005 Canon had a major change in their price strategy
2. Price is protional to size (weight).

And remember what Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Apr 20, 2013)

*Re: Canon L Glass costs over $1200 / pound *

Very interesting, but I would say that there are 4 to 6 lenses which are driving the average price per pound up.


----------



## thewaywewalk (Apr 20, 2013)

*Re: Canon L Glass costs over $1200 / pound *

what about inflation-adjustment?

that's the least you should do, and really split up primes and zooms.


----------



## SouthTune (Apr 20, 2013)

*Re: Canon L Glass costs over $1200 / pound *

I think the word "cost" is not correct, this is a "list price/pound". In manufacturing terminology cost means the real "parts" price plus the cost of the "labour hours"...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2013)

*Re: Canon L Glass costs over $1200 / pound *

All we need now is a plot of photographer income per pound of body weight, and we can start to put this all together...


----------



## Click (Apr 20, 2013)

*Re: Canon L Glass costs over $1200 / pound *



neuroanatomist said:


> All we need now is a plot of photographer income per pound of body weight, and we can start to put this all together...



Ha ha ha That's very funny ;D


----------



## RGF (Apr 20, 2013)

*Re: Canon L Glass costs over $1200 / pound *



thewaywewalk said:


> what about inflation-adjustment?
> 
> that's the least you should do, and really split up primes and zooms.



Current prices, not prices at time of introduction.

Looked at primes vs zooms, not as significant (eye ball test).


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 20, 2013)

*Re: Canon L Glass costs over $1200 / pound *



SouthTune said:


> I think the word "cost" is not correct, this is a "list price/pound". In manufacturing terminology cost means the real "parts" price plus the cost of the "labour hours"...



+1.....plus product future warranty service. Canon will *not* sell their products @ cost.


----------



## RGF (Apr 20, 2013)

*Re: Canon L Glass costs over $1200 / pound *



RAKAMRAK said:


> Very interesting, but I would say that there are 4 to 6 lenses which are driving the average price per pound up.



Yes there are.

Great Whites (super teles, mostly mark II plus 800) plus 24-70 II and TS-E (speciality lens).

Pertains future prices we might see. Great glass will command high price.


----------



## RGF (Apr 20, 2013)

*Re: Canon L Glass costs over $1200 / pound *



Dylan777 said:


> SouthTune said:
> 
> 
> > I think the word "cost" is not correct, this is a "list price/pound". In manufacturing terminology cost means the real "parts" price plus the cost of the "labour hours"...
> ...



okay should be price to consumer (or cost to me). I do not mean internal cost. I"ll see if I can change the title to avoid a semantic flame war


----------



## RGF (Apr 20, 2013)

*Re: Canon L Glass costs over $1200 / pound *



RGF said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > SouthTune said:
> ...



Are you happy now that I reflect a more accurate statement to reflect what the end user pays versus the COG? Sorry for the careless use of the term cost :


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 20, 2013)

*Re: Canon L Glass costs over $1200 / pound *



RGF said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


 ;D ;D ;D...


----------



## SouthTune (Apr 20, 2013)

*Re: Canon L Glass costs over $1200 / pound *



RGF said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Sorry, I just told that because when I first saw the subject I supposed that is reffering to the real cost of the glass. No intention for flame.... forget my post...


----------



## RMC33 (Apr 20, 2013)

Great post! I like Neuro's idea of weight vs income. Should add a 3rd variable there of Married/not married~ Being in the "not married" category I think gives me a bit more spending options on my gear~


Technically, the 200 f/2 is a gen 2 lens, replacing the 200 f/1.8 as it shares a load of features with the other great whites. I love that lens.....


----------



## RGF (Apr 20, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> Great post! I like Neuro's idea of weight vs income. Should add a 3rd variable there of Married/not married~ Being in the "not married" category I think gives me a bit more spending options on my gear~
> 
> 
> Technically, the 200 f/2 is a gen 2 lens, replacing the 200 f/1.8 as it shares a load of features with the other great whites. I love that lens.....



Yea, lots of nuisances here. Could look at married/not married, kids/no kids, age or is mortgage bad off, does spouse have passion, ... but in the end I am not focus on what people spend (need a lot more data for that)

Rather lens prices tend to a function of (1) when original introduced which reflects marketing/pricing strategy at the time of introduction and (2) size of the lens as measured by its weight. Yes there are subtrends related to market size (TS and Great Whites have limited sales and are priced higher than more popular lens - except for the new 24-70 II).


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 20, 2013)

When I retire, I will take the pounds of white glass and shoot pics with them. But then again, I am a numbers "phobe"

What is even scarier than this is the price per gallon of printer ink. I remember an article where the ink is something like $4,000.00 per gallon in some cases.

sek



RGF said:


> Okay I'll admit I am crazy enough to put this analysis together. Then again after a year of retire (from Director of Marketing Analytics at a major CPG company) I miss number crunching.
> 
> Glad to share the data, I am sure that there a few items I missed. Right now all I am interested in is the top line. When I went deeper into the data, I found that older lens (2006 and early) had lower cost per pound $750 versus more current lenses $1,200. Lots of reasons for this - could be new lenses are more technologically advanced and harder to manufacture, include more expensive glass and metals, harder to raise prices than introduce a new product at a higher price point ...


----------



## RGF (Apr 20, 2013)

scottkinfw said:


> When I retire, I will take the pounds of white glass and shoot pics with them. But then again, I am a numbers "phobe"
> 
> What is even scarier than this is the price per gallon of printer ink. I remember an article where the ink is something like $4,000.00 per gallon in some cases.
> 
> sek



$4,000 does not surprise me, though I have never thought about that way. One US gallaon is 3785 MLs. At 12 ml per cartridge which costs around $12 (or $1 / ml) - that is close to $4,000 gallon. Yeeks - I buy 125 ml cartridges for my 4880 which cost around $50 or only $1500 gallon !! ;D


----------



## skitron (Apr 20, 2013)

LOL, I'm on the "hamburger diet". Everything I have is in the $486 to $779 per pound range.

None of that fillet mignon priced stuff in my bags!


----------



## eml58 (Apr 22, 2013)

RGF said:


> Okay I'll admit I am crazy enough to put this analysis together. Then again after a year of retire (from Director of Marketing Analytics at a major CPG company) I miss number crunching.
> 
> Glad to share the data, I am sure that there a few items I missed. Right now all I am interested in is the top line. When I went deeper into the data, I found that older lens (2006 and early) had lower cost per pound $750 versus more current lenses $1,200. Lots of reasons for this - could be new lenses are more technologically advanced and harder to manufacture, include more expensive glass and metals, harder to raise prices than introduce a new product at a higher price point ...



And I think your not far off the Mark, from the Canon guys at the January Singapore "Look" at the new 200-400f/4 (1.4x), they were Guestimating USD$10,500-$11,500 and I would say that's about right. Good work by the way, I like it when I see others that have, like me, loads of time and develop strange ways to fill it.


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 22, 2013)

My 400mm f2.8 IS was 4250 used (3 years ago). A stunning bargain at $380 lb!


----------



## Grumbaki (Apr 22, 2013)

From an econometrics stand point, your regression curive is kinda flawed as the top 6 data point are very far of the rest of the group and thus have too much influence on its determination.

Nice idea tho!


----------



## RGF (Apr 22, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> From an econometrics stand point, your regression curive is kinda flawed as the top 6 data point are very far of the rest of the group and thus have too much influence on its determination.
> 
> Nice idea tho!



Yes the points in the uppper right hand corner determine the slope. Not driven by a single point rather a cluster of points most determined by the new Great Whites. Besides from the Great Whites, the most expensive (on a mass basis) lens are specialized lens (14mm, 17 and 24 TS-E, 8-15 fisheye, 50 F1.2) with the exception of the 24-70 MII.

If you look at the data table you see several trends. Key is new lens tend to have higher prices ($ / mass) trended around $1,200 / pound.

Here are the 10 top lens based upon price / pound. Half are great white, 4 out of the 5 five are specialized lens, the last is the 24-70 MII. Could this indicate future price trend at Canon?

EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM $1,260
TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II $1,280
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM $1,297
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM $1,300
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM $1,314
EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM $1,337
TS-E 17mm f/4L $1,384
EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM $1,480
EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM $1,482
EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM $1,660


----------



## archiea (Apr 22, 2013)

interesting topic,

I think 2005 defined the maturity with digital... thats when I got my 20D and I felt that I had finally replaced my film camera. Id had a digital camera since 2001 but never really felt it replaced film until my 20D. Also at that time, I think we were hitting the resolution threshold of 35mm film so lenses had to change. Plus if you look at the emerging technologies of that time: IS, the technologies needed to achieve IS with f2.8 and F4 continuous zooms and primes, the glass technology required for this and how many people feel confortable with zooms when primes previously were exclusive. Keep in mind, the whole time, the image sensor has gotten better and better. Less of the lens artifacting could be hidden by the imaging system (film or digital). So what we as consumers are receiving as an end product is a lot of value.

Oh and its still made in japan, it hasn't been sourced to a cheaper labor pool. So your money goes to supporting a japanese worker standard of living. 

My humble F1.4 50mm is still around and is on its third camera body. Thats value. I never regret the price of a lens as long as it fulfills a need and I didn't just get it to get it. That wouldn't be the lenses fault but mine. Luckily I research a purchase like a madman. 
Take the 5D3.. a $1000 markup from the mark2, which was cheaper than the mark1!. But what did we get? The AF from the 1DX minus the contribution of the 100,000 pixel AE. "Baby 1D" functionality and build, while the 6D fulfilled the bracket that the markii had previously but with better IQ. 

Look at the changes at the xxD product line: 20D-50D were the semipro models until the 60D moved into the "super rebel" realm where we lost the joystick, mag alloy body, etc... So to get the evolution of the xxD model line, which used to be ~$1300, you had to get the 7D which was now in the ~$1800 range. In other words, to get an upgrade in the xxD model range, it cost $500 more! Now with the 5D, same thing.. the 6D gets you a full frame super rebel, and to get a feature upgrade (they way we did from 20D-50D), you have to pay like $700 more for a 5DmarkIII! 

Same with lenses, you want to get the successors to the 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm, you are paying at least $700 more! 

The flip side to this is that there has been a demand for these products and more people are monetizing their photography.


----------



## pj1974 (Apr 22, 2013)

What an interesting thread - and the price per weight aspect is interesting to think about. I realise that quantity of high quality optical glass (and lens barrel / body) does bear some correlation to overall price.

At the same time, there are certainly lots of other variables to consider too. Eg technology like IS, built in tele-converts, focus mechanism, etc.

Just a quick point... that it appears not all the date fields in your table about lenses are accurate. Eg the 24-70mm f/2.8 II and 24-70mm f/4 were both released 2012 (early and late, respectively).

Cheers

Paul


----------



## kaihp (Apr 25, 2013)

Always fun with a little data analysis 

A couple of observations from my side and a suggestion for improving the predictions:
- Confining the starting point to zero cost is not realistic - there is a transaction cost (salaries etc), so a positive cost at zero lbs would make more sense to me.
- There seems to be two regimes - one for the light/"cheap" lenses up to about 4 lbs, and the other regime for the Big Whites. It would be interesting if the OP could go back and see how much such a division would effect the outcome ($/lbs).

Maybe add parameters like IS/non-IS and aperture so see if their impact.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 25, 2013)

Interesting


----------



## Kit. (Apr 25, 2013)

During the late film era it was reasonably safe to assume that the glass you are buying would cost you about $1 per gram of its weight.

The camera bodies were much cheaper than now too.


----------



## infared (Apr 25, 2013)

COOL! Than means that the new Zeiss 135mm f/2 is an incredible bargain @ $1035.12/lb! 8)


----------



## motorhead (Apr 25, 2013)

*Re: Canon L Glass costs over $1200 / pound *



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> One salesman at a unnamed company where I worked back in the 1970's was said to have picked a price based on the number of a railroad train car going by his window after the customer asked for a better price. He made the sale, and it was big bucks



I knew an electrical engineer who priced the electrical installation in new schools by the number of toilets shown on the plans. It was a nightmare working out the schedule of rates for extras when his jobs were accepted. It did seem to work, weird as it sounds.


----------



## RGF (Apr 26, 2013)

*Re: Canon L Glass costs over $1200 / pound *



motorhead said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > One salesman at a unnamed company where I worked back in the 1970's was said to have picked a price based on the number of a railroad train car going by his window after the customer asked for a better price. He made the sale, and it was big bucks
> ...



All proxies for something else - effort, value, size of the job.


----------

