pricing of new L lenses

[kubelik]

I've read some comments around the web regarding differences between Canon's MSRP and actual retail prices, saying that Canon's new 300 f/2.8 L IS II and 400 f/2.8 L IS II will likely come below the $7K and $11K prices that Canon initially quoted at its announcement.

is there any substance to this, or am I just getting my hopes up? I know sigma does this with their lineup to an extreme amount (40-50% below MSRP) and canon often offers rebates somewhere in the 10% range ... but does new glass really show up for retail below its MSRP? especially fancy L glass?

also, I noticed that the current 500 f/4 L IS is actually about a grand cheaper than the 400 f/2.8 L IS ... what do you guys think regarding the likelihood that the II version of the 500 f/4 will continue to be cheaper than the II version of the 400 f/2.8?

I'm going to the galapagos sometime late next year and I'm seriously consider shelling out for at least one of these beauties...

 

[Jaszek]

I've been eying the 400mm for a while now. I hope the new ones are somewhat cheaper, so the old ones will drop even more in price

 

[jdgagne]

From history, I think announced prices are not far from reality when introduced in the market. Also, don't hold your breath: prices for new lenses are ALWAYS higher than previous generation due to enhancements and new material used.

Just take these examples: 14 f/2.8L II, 24 f/1.4L II, 85 f/1.2L II, 70-200 f/2.8L II 24 TS-E II were all around 30% higher in price than predessors.

So if your are looking to buy a long lens, well hurry to buy the actual versions...they are all very performant and the price are still decent...

JD

 

[kubelik]

thanks for the feedback guys; not exactly what I was asking about, however.

Canon's already posted estimated MSRPs for the new lenses -- $7,000 for the 300 f/2.8 L IS II and $11,000 for the 400 f/2.8 L IS II.

my question is, what is the difference between the expected actual retail price versus canon's listed price? $500? a grand?

 

[neuroanatomist]

my question is, what is the difference between the expected actual retail price versus canon's listed price? $500? a grand?

Seems to depend on the lens, the timing of your purchase relative to the release date of the lens, and the country in which you're purchasing the lens. When the 70-200 II was released early this year, all the US retailers were selling it for the full estimated retail price of $2500. Now, it's going for $2270. Similar for the 100mm L macro.

Try checking http://www.canonpricewatch.com/ - if you click on a lens, at the bottom of the page you'll see a plot of the average selling price over time.

 

[kubelik]

thanks for the link and the info, neuro ... seeing the price hikes it really makes me wish I'd gotten serious about my photography a year or two earlier! can't believe how much everything got jacked up at the beginning of 2009 ...

I'd consider buying the new 400 f/2.8 even at its full list price just because of the extra reach and the weight savings ... I don't know that the new 300 justifies the bloated sticker, but a 1 kilo weight savings on the 400 takes it into hand-holdable and carry-able territory, which is crucial.

I'm crossing my fingers for the new 500 f/4; if it turns out to be modestly cheaper and modestly lighter than the 400 f/2.8, I may get it instead, if it releases in time

 

[Justin]

Very much looking forward to a year or two from now to being able to pick up the 500 f/4 and pair it with a safari and trip to Alaska. Beyond that I want to chronicle all the bird species that visit my farm. Times awasting for sure.

thanks for the link and the info, neuro ... seeing the price hikes it really makes me wish I'd gotten serious about my photography a year or two earlier! can't believe how much everything got jacked up at the beginning of 2009 ...

I'd consider buying the new 400 f/2.8 even at its full list price just because of the extra reach and the weight savings ... I don't know that the new 300 justifies the bloated sticker, but a 1 kilo weight savings on the 400 takes it into hand-holdable and carry-able territory, which is crucial.

I'm crossing my fingers for the new 500 f/4; if it turns out to be modestly cheaper and modestly lighter than the 400 f/2.8, I may get it instead, if it releases in time

 

[kubelik]

I'm hoping that, given the fact that the new 500 and 600 lenses were already on display at photokina, they may be ready for a january/february launch either to go with CES or PMA ... which would mean they would start showing up on market before the summer ...

 

[Jaszek]

The prototypes were also on display at the Canon Expo.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Just take these examples: 14 f/2.8L II, 24 f/1.4L II, 85 f/1.2L II, 70-200 f/2.8L II 24 TS-E II were all around 30% higher in price than predessors.

The old TS-E 24mm is selling at Amazon for $1,399.95; the new one, $1940. So that indeed is around 138% of the price of the new one - but nobody is going to try to pawn off the old one for a price like the new one. I thought that the price would have started out higher, and been lowered over time, but interestingly Photo.net's 1999 review has it priced at $1100. As I suspected before looking up the numbers, I believe inflation has more impact on the price difference: What Canon could make a profit off at $1100 retail now has become more expensive. (Inflation calculator: "What cost $1100 in 1998 would cost $1440.94 in 2009.") I also think that the lens hasn't been going down in price because these were never high-volume lenses, but instead are made for specific professional needs. (The inflation calculator also supports this point.) Alternatively, it could always be possible that the old item is staying high in price, or even going up, because supply is short - though I usually see disreputable players trying to take advantage of this, by offering old cameras (especially) for more than most people would pay simply because they can't be found.