Is the cost for canons teleconverters too high?

[Canon-F1]

compared to canon lenses i wonder why a teleconverter from canon cost 400-500 euros.

i mean a teleconverter is much simpler and cheaper to build ... isn´t it?
less glass, less electronic, no AF motor etc.

[TexPhoto]

Canon's extenders seem to be designed and intended for their supertelephoto L lenses.  In fact the design means they will not fit onto many of their other lenses.  You cannot for example use them on the Canon Macros to get closer and longer like you can with some.

So if you just shelled out $11,500 for a 400mm f2.8 IS II is $1000 (or a little less) too much to ask for 2 matched teleconverters that give you a useable 640 and 800mm lens?  No.  But that's like saying if you jumped out of the airplane with no parachute is it crazy to take your pants off?

Sadly it is what it is.  Your choice is the aftermarket, but Sigmas 2X APO DG is a surprising $299.

[neuroanatomist]

I don't think they're too expensive.  For example, they have approximately the same number of elements as similarly priced prime lenses (85/1.8, 100/2), and while they don't need AF motors or iris diaphragms, they are constructed to L-series lens standards, including metal barrels and weather-sealing.

[Canon-F1]

So if you just shelled out $11,500 for a 400mm f2.8 IS II is $1000 (or a little less) too much to ask for 2 matched teleconverters that give you a useable 640 and 800mm lens?

so if 1000 euro for 2 converters is fine for you why not sell them for 2000 euros?
i mean when you have bought a 8000 euro lens you sure can buy 2 converters for 1000 euros each?   

even when the production cost is more in the range of 150 euros.... if you bought a 8000 euro lens.. who cares?

they have approximately the same number of elements as similarly priced prime lenses

but everything is fixed. you don´t have moving parts.
so production should be much simpler.

i have the impression that canon is milking it´s customers here.
as with some other accessory that is overpriced.

thought.... i bought the new 1.4x III teleconverter... 

[TexPhoto]

So if you just shelled out $11,500 for a 400mm f2.8 IS II is $1000 (or a little less) too much to ask for 2 matched teleconverters that give you a useable 640 and 800mm lens?

so if 1000 euro for 2 converters is fine for you why not sell them for 2000 euros?
i mean when you have bought a 8000 euro lens you sure can buy 2 converters for 1000 euros each?   

even when the production cost is more in the range of 150 euros.... if you bought a 8000 euro lens.. who cares?

If the production cost is $150, or $50, or $1000, so what, nobody is forcing you to buy it.  And you can buy much cheaper ones from other companies.  You can buy a VII or VI used.  There are options, but in the end it's Canon's business, why can't they charge what they want?

[Canon-F1]

You can buy a VII or VI used.  There are options, but in the end it's Canon's business, why can't they charge what they want?

spare me the fanboy stuff please. 
canon can charge what they want and i can ask questions if people think that´s ok.

the question for me is.. is the price justified when you look at the material and production cost?
or is canon charging so much money because gearheads are willing to pay the price. 

i payed the price... but to be honest i feel a bit ripped off.
 

[TexPhoto]

Calling me a fanboy and using emoticons has damaged me.    I take back the part where I said you cannot ask questions. 

Please show me your source of "$150 production costs". And explain why R&D, marketing, and shipping is not a factor.

[markIVantony]

I plan to use a 7D as my 1.6x teleconverter ;-)

[Gothmoth]

Please show me your source of "$150 production costs". And explain why R&D, marketing, and shipping is not a factor.

These are factors for a Lens too or not?

I also wondered many times what makes a Canon Teleconverter more expensive then lets say a EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS lens.

For example, they have approximately the same number of elements as similarly priced prime lenses (85/1.8, 100/2),

Well the EF 50mm  f1.8 has 6 elements.. not that this says anything about the value.

[neuroanatomist]

There are options, but in the end it's Canon's business, why can't they charge what they want?

spare me the fanboy stuff please.

It's not fabnoy stuff, it's Business 101.  Canon is a for-profit company, their goal is to make a profit, and they set their prices accordingly.  The fact that you paid the price the set for that product indictes that Canon is doing it's job well.

[Flake]

I have to say that this is true of many of Canons lenses - nearly £2000 for a prime lens???  and each new one seems to double the price of the one it replaces, of course this is unsustainable and perhaps Canon are trying to find the point at which a critical percentage of its customers just say no.  It's not as if the profits from lenses are marginal, Canon makes huge profits from Dslr and lens sales so the answer to the question are we being ripped off is yes, but it's only because we let them.

[Gothmoth]

It's not fabnoy stuff, it's Business 101.  Canon is a for-profit company, their goal is to make a profit, and they set their prices accordingly.  The fact that you paid the price the set for that product indictes that Canon is doing it's job well.

But.... this does not answer his question.   

[wickidwombat]

when you compare them against something like the kenko 1.4DGX TC then yeah they are too expensive especially considering you can use the kenko on any lens really love adding it to the macro

[Meh]

@Canon_F1: The prices also strike me as high but they are a precision lens with the latest technology, glass, coatings, precision manufacturing, yada, yada, yada.  I bought the 1.4X III for Canadian $550.  I think it was a worthwhile purchase.

@Flake:  Product prices go up over time unless there is a change in technology, design, materials, manufacturing process that significantly lowers manufacturing costs.  In the absence of such reductions, costs of materials and labor only go up.   But sure, Canon might also just increase the price to see if it sticks... they can always lower the price if it doesn't.

[neuroanatomist]

It's not fabnoy stuff, it's Business 101.  Canon is a for-profit company, their goal is to make a profit, and they set their prices accordingly.  The fact that you paid the price the set for that product indictes that Canon is doing it's job well.

But.... this does not answer his question.   

Sure it does.  Canon is going to charge the price the market will bear, and they've picked the prices they picked.  People will buy them, or not.  The OP did.

Beyond that, there is no answer to this question.  Is a Mercedes overpriced?  That's up to the potential buyer, and that's all that really matters.