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

[dano415]

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]

so what's your point?

[oilbeefhooked]

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]

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]

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]

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?  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]

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]

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 £3,000 more than version I (which incidentally has 17 elements). That's pretty hard to reconcile.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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]

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!

[dilbert]

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. 

Tell me, how do you know what a 300mm/f2.8 lens should cost?

Do you work in camera lens design and manufacturing?

Do you know what the R&D costs are?

Do you know what the material costs are?

Do you know how long it takes to manufacture each piece of glass?

Do you know how long it takes to manufacture just one lens?

Do you know how many production runs they make of these lenses each year?

[-zero-]

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]

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]

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]

Time to "Occupy Canon?"

Nice one!  +1