EF 300 & 400 f/2.8L IS II Shipping to Selected Dealers

[Edwin Herdman]

The economics of the markets for super-telephoto lenses and car engines are very different.
I suspect that there is not much demand elasticity in the market for super-telephoto lenses - the people who buy them are, mostly, people who have to have them for their work, pretty much regardless of price.  That means that if Canon decreased the price, there would be no corresponding increase in demand.  Similarly, if Canon increase the price, there is little or no decrease in demand.

I share your suspicion!  I do think, however, that this theoretical analysis somewhat ignores the potential for great differences in technology requirements on pricing and also the impact of the used (or the currently satisfied) markets on that overall demand:  Consumer surplus is actually quite high in this market.  You get a lower price, you get a lot more bang for your buck.  The real point where economic elasticity factors in is where it affects the producer, not the consumer.  Part of the reason I'm on the EOS system, after all, is because of the large list of not only EF lenses but third party lenses available as well.  Many people are "locked in" to the EOS system (or with Nikkors) but Canon cannot realistically get away with being seen selling lenses similar to their competitors at a price far above, unless there is some specific justification - and even then, most people will save their money and make do with something slightly less sophisticated (assuming that fast autofocus and great sharpness are standard features in these lenses, which they are).

There isn't much wiggle room for either manufacturer to sell new lenses at not just lower prices but also at lower quality, for lenses specified similarly - but reducing the price of these lenses will help them out in the price wars and would help them make sales to upgraders.  A lot of pros will probably be very skeptical about their need for the new lenses - I'd just about expect weight considerations to be as big a selling point for many as the slightly-refined optics, since you would have to blow a tiger print up to a rather silly size or have to crop severely to start benefiting from that extra resolution - and the old lenses still get you most of the way there.  This is where things are getting iffy for the manufacturers - launching the top-end lenses certainly is an investment in their lineup for the next few (or however many years), not an expectation that the economy is going to rebound joyously and people will rush to dump their old lenses on the market.  Realistically, I would expect that the older lenses will continue to be used as long as possible by many pros.

A car engine may be highly engineered but it was only recently that manufacturers started paying serious attention to some of the most expensive engineering projects centered around fuel efficiency.  Their economies of scale allowed them to basically ameliorate all of the front-end costs and cut out inefficiencies related to actual production.

The high-performance lenses don't benefit from such exceptional economies of scale.  But knock down the price of car engines (cars specifically) and lenses and you will always sell a lot more of them; they're desirable items.

[dr croubie]

I do not understand :-/  The time to precision-grind glass?   Umm...

Don't forget the time to actually grow the fluorite crystals before grinding. The 1200 f/5.6 allegedly took nearly a year to grow the crystal for each lens. The fluorite lens in the 400 f/2.8IS mk1 doesn't look nearly as big, but i wouldn't be surprised if it took a few weeks to grow...

[UncleFester]

The 300 is backordered  already.

[jvirta]

Nobody seems to remember one big thing that affects prices; inflation!

Canon EF 400/2.8 L IS USM was released back in the 1999, let's say (because I didn't find the actual figure) it was $ 7,999 as it is it's current msrp.

If you add the US inflation to that price from 1999 to 2011, it would be $10,847.24.
Not that far away from the mark II lens that is currently selling at $11,499. Only 650 US dollars difference!

[Sunnystate]

Great, everybody seems to be eager to pay price of a small car for a lens, glad you are doing so well.

Strange thing is that the photography is probably the only high tech industry where prices are climbing with time exponentially, just compare ti with the prices of storage, memory, computers, TV sets etc.
There is more to the story and certainly some elements of the healthy free market are missing in my opinion.

It amazes me that some users of this forum are bluntly conditioning us to accept the situation, wonder how many of you have said: "Since Nikon 200-400mm cost $7000 than, I expect Canon 200-400mm, "PLUS" 1.4 converter build in  (few such a nice professionally looking screws, levers and bell shaped forms) to cost no less than $11,000.00"
Let's write similar statements hundred more times on all forums and Canon will just surprise us in to submission  releasing this lens with $14,990.00 price tag, why not!

[dnhjr]

Man! Canons big lens prices sure have gone up. Much higher the Nikons now.

[Edwin Herdman]

Nobody seems to remember one big thing that affects prices; inflation!

I usually mention inflation but not this time - you're right though, buying a new car engine isn't like buying a lens of a ten-year old design.  It's appropriate though - when you pay for old technology you are getting less (compared to what is now possible) than you would have in 1999 (I know some people will disagree but I mean this in a purely economic sense, not in terms of how capable the lens actually is for users, and so on).

[markIVantony]

A (translated) update from the Canon.jp website:
>>
Notice of product supply EF300mm F2.8L IS II USM

August 31 (Wednesday) to Okimashi to EF300mm F2.8L IS II USM for sale, and have gotten orders far exceeding initial expectations, the period of time, is expected to stimulate your time before delivery of the product.
We apologize to our customers that will apologize for the inconvenience you.
Today, it strives for a stable supply of products on the relevant departments, thank you as your understanding.
>>

Same for EF400mm II

[Scott_7D]

The GM 2.2L is hardly a good example here. It's the automotive equivalent of an old EF28-90mm f/3.5-5.6 or (insert terrible, cheap Canon lens here). It is as basic and unrefined an engine you'll find these days, though it has been discontinued for 5 years or so. Your average brand-new 2-2.5L 4 cylinder costs about $5k and some, like Honda's awesome Type-R grade K20A is about $13k.

A 400mm f/2.8 is an ultra-high performance product with low production volumes. Think of it as a Porsche GT3 or Ferrari engine. Those go for $50k and up.

Just the time taken to grow the crystals for the Fluorite elements is huge, never mind grinding and producing all the "regular" glass elements.

argh!  why are these lenses so expensive??  I recently installed a new engine in a friends S10.  We paid $2100 for a brand new GM 2.2L engine, NEW, from the local GM dealership.  Think of how much metal, engineering, etc is in an engine.  For the price of ONE lens, we could buy three new engines!

I do not understand :-/  The time to precision-grind glass?   Umm...

LOL, I still want one!

[markIVantony]

yes it was a poor example.  I'll be sure not to make that mistake in the future.