# The price 300mm 2.8 IS--is just greed--maybe?



## dano415 (Oct 25, 2011)

1. We all have know about the Canon 300mm 2.8 L lens.

2. Canon saw the good reviews(I wish Atkins did a better study though)--saw the demand--and quickly raised the price . Maybe it greedy dealers and not 
Canon. I don't know what the wholesale price is?

3. Yes--they added IS, but almost every good shot I have seen lens, it has been tethered to a sturdy tripod.

4. The lens made sense to price conscious consumers because it wasn't the price of a car, and you could extend it by a 1.4 adapter.

5. If the high prices are because of a short supply because of the tragedy--I understand--if not, it's just scandalous.

6. There are some of you that will pay anything for a L lens, but I'm not one of those guys. Professional photography is going through a huge metamorphosis right now. It's too easy to take great pictures, and I've met more that a few Doctors, and Software engineers who basically went out and spent 40 grand on equipment and take great pictures.

7. As for me. I'll wait until Canon gets it's manufacturing back to normal and see if the $7600.00 300mm 2.8
drops to what it should be under 5 grand. 

8. I will further boycott their products until I find out what happened.

9. Please don't email me if your a Professional Photographer--you people irritate me.


----------



## xROELOFx (Oct 25, 2011)

so what's your point?


----------



## oilbeefhooked (Oct 25, 2011)

Wow, I guess theres no need for professional photographers any more. I didn't realize " It's too easy to take great pictures". I must be doing something wrong.


----------



## TexPhoto (Oct 25, 2011)

Time to "Occupy Canon?" 

Canon is run as a for profit buisness. If you don't like the prices, buy a used, buy a Sigma,... stand closer to your subject. 

The biggest factor in the higher prices is the lower value of the dollar to the yen. (and other currencies). That's not likly to change soon, but if it does, perhaps your boycot can end.


----------



## mjbehnke (Oct 25, 2011)

So.... What are you trying to say? You can't afford one and canon needs to drop the price so you can?

>6. There are some of you that will pay anything for a L lens, but I'm not one of those guys. Professional >photography is going through a huge metamorphosis right now. It's too easy to take great pictures, and I've >met more that a few Doctors, and Software engineers who basically went out and spent 40 grand on equipment >and take great pictures.
................ And that's a problem???

Not sure what you are really saying? I borrowed many "L" lenses and some of those photos were pretty bad. You know, A Lens is only as good as the person using it. If you think that a person who Buys an "L" lens is going to be a better photographer than you, then you don't understand photography.

hmmmm


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 25, 2011)

ALL my 300 2.8 pictures are hand-held. I use my tripod for other things. But not for interrupting my speed of use with my supertelephoto lens! Yes, it hurt at first. No, I'm not going to be using a tripod... (yes, I do have a good tripod!)

But all that said, in about 10 years, I am going to drop the 7 or 8 or 9 or whatever thousand for the Mark II. I already have the Mark I, and am sure it will last that long and longer. The 300 2.8 Mark I is great, frankly, a lens beyond my comprehension for goodness! 

That being said, I'm wondering what the OP's point is - perhaps, the 300 2.8 should be cheaper? And who are these mysteriously wealthy lawyers, doctors, and engineers he knows? Could he introduce them to me? ;D Maybe they could get me a 1DX for Christmas, with a 600 f4 kit lens!  

Anyway, I don't mind Canon charging a hoard for gear; they have to make money too... I wish it were cheaper, but I also wish I had a free Bacon dispenser in my living room...

If the OP wants to boycott Canon, he may feel free to, though I don't think it will do much to them... As for the professional photographers, I think this forum is kind of loaded with them and their little brothers, the semi-pros (slave by day, artist by night...)... I myself being a part-time money maker, I do feel that remark to be rather inconsiderate...


----------



## dstppy (Oct 25, 2011)

1) Anyone who buys this stuff new should be able to afford it since it's their livelihood. 

2) You can rent for a reasonable price, and save up for one of your own.

3) Why buy new if money means that much to you?

4) How many "canon is screwing us" Spartacus threads do we really need?

If money is your problem, the F/4 is priced exceptionally well. If principal is your issue (since under $5k is what you call reasonable) then get a MK1 which can be had for $5500, less if you find a deal used.


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 25, 2011)

I do have some sympathy with the OP's view. Here in the UK, the best available price on a 600mm f4L II is about the same as a Volkswagen Polo. There's no denying that, in absolute terms, that's a huge amount of money for for what is essentially 16 pieces of glass in an alloy tube. Also, version II is about Â£3,000 more than version I (which incidentally has 17 elements). That's pretty hard to reconcile.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 25, 2011)

AdamJ said:


> that's a huge amount of money for for what is essentially 16 pieces of glass in an alloy tube. .



Obviously, they have a big markup, there is no one making a compatible lens nearly as good so no reason to sell it for cutrate prices and skimp on quality.

There is good reason why the Chinese can not yet build them and flood the market with cheap but good lenses. It is probably going to happen in a few years. Nikon has opened Chinese plants and when the Chinese have learned the tricks and developed the tools and skills, they will compete. They are certainly smart enough and skillful, but you need the glass, the tools, and the process.


The grinding has to be so accurate that it cannot be done by machine tools, or even measured directly by lasers, etc.

What they do is to build "Gold" sample lens elements that are as perfect as can be made. Accuracies are to the atomic level on the order of Angstroms.

Then the production lenses are finish ground by hand and accuracy is measured by viewing the Newton rings compared with the "Gold" sample ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtons_rings ). The process has to be repeated over many hours with the most skilled craftsmen to get the lens accurate to almost unimaginable dimensions. The materials, skills, and techniques just plain make a big lens like this expensive.

Before I retired, i was manager over a optical product that had to do the same thing. Quality Assurance wanted a process to directly measure accuracy, but no such tool exists, the finished part exceeded specifications, but no one could physically measure the individual parts. Gold samples were made, and production parts made by comparing them. Everything had to be done by hand, and the prices made Canon 300mm f/2.8 lenses look cheap.

I've seen some other aerospace products made by using Newtons rings to measure the surface variation to angstrom dimensions.


----------



## smirkypants (Oct 25, 2011)

Hey! I can't afford this lens! I really want it but I can't afford it! So you know what? I'm going tothrow a hissy and call it a boycott!


----------



## -zero- (Oct 25, 2011)

I can't afford a BMW therefore it is overpriced and I will not buy them untill they are the same price as a hyunday (as it should be)

I won't repeat what has been said (mtspokane has nicely explained why this lense is so expensive) but canon does need to make a profit with these lenses, they are not there to give you free stuff


----------



## photophreek (Oct 25, 2011)

It might surprise the OP what the markup really is on these lenses. It certainly is not 100%. Canon is not only competing with other lens manucfactures, Canon is basing their pricing more on the economic marketplace and the consumer's disposable income. Canon and other large companies don't price there products based on greed, but as dilbert states, pricing is determined on many cost related factors. In addition, selling price includes a reasonable return on the investment to produce such a lens/camera.

Based on a 20% m/u, the cost to retailers would be about $6250 for the 300 II. It's probably more like 15% or $6520. The retailer then has to pay staff, buy the lens from Canon and finance the lens through some floor-plan finance arrangement, operate the store and the costs mount up. The net profit on the sale of the lens should bring to the retailer at least 4% return. If not, the retailer is better not to sell the lens and sell some other product which has a better return on the retailer's investment. Retailing is not an instant get rich scheme. Welcome to capitalism!


----------



## unfocused (Oct 25, 2011)

Lots of great responses to a ridiculous post. 

I would just add one thing. I was surprised when Canon celebrated their 50 millionth EOS and their 70 millionth lens, because I realized just how few lenses they sell in comparison to cameras. Does anyone have any idea how many of this specific lens Canon sells in a year?

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon barely breaks even on these high-end lenses. Yes, these lenses are expensive, but without knowing the cost that go into the product, claiming that any company is "greedy" is just ignorance.


----------



## Meh (Oct 25, 2011)

TexPhoto said:


> Time to "Occupy Canon?"



Nice one! +1


----------



## Meh (Oct 25, 2011)

It's strange that there is such emotion on the pricing of things we want but can't justify the price. It turns into a rant about corporate greed... there is such a thing as corporate greed but the pricing of products is an open and transparent thing and they aren't taking advantage, if you don't like the price don't buy. What do you think the cost to produce any Apple product is... what's the markup on an iPhone... yet Apple and Steve Jobs are heroes.

There is so much to running any business far beyond just the cost to manufacture a product. Who's to say what Canon spent on R&D to improve any given lens, re-tool the manufacturing process, etc. Then there's marketing, distribution, overhead.

Even if Canon is making a killing on any particular product, so what? If the market doesn't like the price and no one buys they will lower the price after a while. Ultimately they're going to sell it for what the market will bear. I wonder if the people who complain so much about corporate greed would sell their house for 20% less than market value because the business press reported widespread over-valuation in the housing market?


----------



## photophreek (Oct 25, 2011)

> I was surprised when Canon celebrated their 50 millionth EOS and their 70 millionth lens, because I realized just how few lenses they sell in comparison to cameras. Does anyone have any idea how many of this specific lens Canon sells in a year?



I may be missing something, but it looks like Canon sells 1.5 lenses to every EOS camera on average since 1987. It would be interesting to see what specific lenses sell in a given year.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2011)

photophreek said:


> I may be missing spmething, but it looks like Canon sells 1.5 lenses to every EOS camera on average since 1987. It would be interesting to see what specific lenses sell in a given year.



I know we'll never see those figures from Canon, but if I had to guess, for every 1 EOS camera, the breakdown of the 1.5 lenses would look like this:


0.95 EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (various flavors)
0.30 EF-S 55-250mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
0.15 EF 50mm f/1.8 II
0.05 EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
0.0499999999 all other lenses except the supertele primes
0.0000000001 supertele primes


----------



## unfocused (Oct 26, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> photophreek said:
> 
> 
> > I may be missing spmething, but it looks like Canon sells 1.5 lenses to every EOS camera on average since 1987. It would be interesting to see what specific lenses sell in a given year.
> ...



I think you're probably pretty close. Don't forget the various flavors of 75-300 zooms that Canon has sold over the years.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2011)

unfocused said:


> I think you're probably pretty close. Don't forget the various flavors of 75-300 zooms that Canon has sold over the years.



I did, thanks! Probably split 0.05 from the 55-250mm for those...


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 26, 2011)

Ahhh... the 70-300... my favourite lens before I got my 300 F4 (which was my favourite before I got my 300 2.8)! There are always a lot of 7X-300s for sale on ebay, so it would seem a lot of them have sold over the years...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 26, 2011)

Your breakdown is probably within the ballpark, but don't forget, the 50mm f/1.8 and 35-80mm zoom were kit lenses for millions of Canon EOS Rebel and other 35mm cameras for several years. The 35mm-80mm zooms are found used everywhere.


----------



## Leopard Lupus (Oct 26, 2011)

Canon is out to make a profit, we all are. They supply the demand for their product, simple. Boycotting a brand because you find the price to be too high for your budget is unrealistic. That is why point and shoot cameras were made. "We" annoy you? Personally, people who post moronic topics as you have, annoy me. I prefer to login to this site and find topics that discuss Canon products/reviews/and rumors. Please stop posting your dissatisfaction with a brand, on a site dedicated to what you dislike so much. Comments and posts should be constructive.


----------



## Zuuyi (Oct 26, 2011)

I have issues with corporate greed when they manipulate the markets in dealing with actual necessities.

But this is not a necessity; it is a high-end luxury good for some or a high-end precision tool for others who are pro photographers.

Individuals who actually need this lens to do work will pay the price others will look elsewhere. If you want 300MM you can get a 75-300 for $200. Ohh you want the high end high quality Great low light ability with IS & USM and you want L quality glass. You can pay whatever they suggest or try your luck elsewhere.

Their greed is only controlled by the availability of comparable lenses; if you want that lens you can pay the price they set.


----------



## seanmcr6 (Oct 26, 2011)

dear dano....

Since you clearly aren't a pro...maybe you've missed this fact....but you do know you can RENT lenses right?!


----------



## TexPhoto (Oct 26, 2011)

unfocused said:


> Lots of great responses to a ridiculous post.
> 
> I would just add one thing. I was surprised when Canon celebrated their 50 millionth EOS and their 70 millionth lens, because I realized just how few lenses they sell in comparison to cameras. Does anyone have any idea how many of this specific lens Canon sells in a year?
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if Canon barely breaks even on these high-end lenses. Yes, these lenses are expensive, but without knowing the cost that go into the product, claiming that any company is "greedy" is just ignorance.



I recall an article a few years ago that said Canon makes a particular super telephoto for 2 weeks, then switches to a different lens. They make between a hundred and a thousand, (depending on popularity) and those are stored and sold over a period of 1-2 years. As the stock is depleted, a new 2 week build cycle is planned. The gist of the article was for really rare glass like the 800mm, the factory run is very small, for something like the 300 2.8, they make more but still a very small number compared to a kit lenses, and popular lenses.


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 26, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> I know we'll never see those figures from Canon, but if I had to guess, for every 1 EOS camera, the breakdown of the 1.5 lenses would look like this:
> 
> 
> 0.95 EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (various flavors)
> ...



Being the obsessive aspie that I am, I applied your estimated fractions to the number of EF lenses actually made and calculated that Canon have made 0.007 supertele primes! 

EDIT: correction - 0.004666 supertele primes


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 27, 2011)

Leopard Lupus said:


> Comments and posts should be constructive.


You vaguely reference supply and demand, and if anything it's pretty clear that there is a large demand for the 300mm f/2.8 IS series but that is certainly offset by the supply - for the EOS mount you can just about adopt monopoly pricing. There has been at least one other 300mm f/2.8 option for a long while now (the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 in its OS and non-OS variants) which is very nearly as good (edit: not sure what I could say in comparison to, not having used it - think I mean in comparison to their 120-300mm).

So, in terms of "constructive criticism," maybe Canon had better get competitive. Or perhaps the 300mm f/2.8 is that much better than the zoom (it does appear to be with a teleconverter; otherwise, not much of a difference you can point to) and Canon has no wish to compete on a price basis. I assume the latter option is what everybody assumes to be true, but at $3100 the Sigma is almost all the way there - I have to wonder what its optical qualities would be like if it were a prime instead of a zoom, and even Michael Reichmann (who retired the 100-400 as he found it was limiting new cameras - back in 2002!) called it "a world-class lens." Sigma's own 300/2.8 prime is quite old (non-OS) and just a bit less expensive than the new zoom, perhaps a sign that they want just one lens to fit in this category (similar to Canon's reasoning, I'd guess).

Often there's some nuggets of truth in even a post that looks like simple sour grapes.


AdamJ said:


> Being the obsessive aspie that I am, I applied your estimated fractions to the number of EF lenses actually made and calculated that Canon have made 0.007 supertele primes!


I kind of eyeballed it and thought it would come out far too low as well. Thanks for running the numbers  To neuro's credit, magnitude changes of decimal place add up faster than one might expect.

Ironically, according to Neuro's numbers all of the Canon lenses I own belong to the last 5% group (not including superteles of course), except perhaps the EF 28-90mm III film Rebel kit zoom. I think that the number of primes out there in these groups could be higher than 5% of the total makeup, but I do see a lot of 55-250 and 70-300mm zooms out there being sold as part of DSLR kits (or are trying to be sold).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2011)

Nah...I just thoughtlessly typed a bunch of zeros...then I went back and added a couple more for good measure, clearly over the top. :-[


----------



## Axilrod (Oct 27, 2011)

I agree with most of the comments in this thread, you get what you pay for. I guess the Occupy Wall Street mentality has overflowed into electronics now. 

I was just going to add that I really don't think that the markup is that high on these things. I tried to pick up a 16-35mm f/2.8L II locally (B&H had it for $15xx at the time on rebate), pulled out 16 $100 bills and the guy said that he wished he could but they barely make anything off of the higher end stuff, he wouldn't budge. Ended up finding one used for $1250 a couple weeks later.


----------

