What makes this lens so expensive?

<p>Hopefully this won't be a stupid question, but let's see....<br>

The EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens is about $300. So, why is the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM over $1200? Is the aperture the determining factor basically? Why is this lens so much more expensive while covering less of a focal range?<br>

Thanks...</p>

 

<p>Build quality is the first thing that comes to mind.<br>

Quality of materials to make the latter.</p>

 

<p>Does the fixed aperture have anything to do with it? If so, why would it increase the pricing?</p>

the 'L' word = better glass or more of it, better build = metal vs plastic, double coated vs single coated, wider aperture at all stops, higher image quality, fast vs slower AF, noisy vs quiet IS, better USM motor, weather sealed, are just a few of the things that makes the 70-200 more expensive.

<p>Lenses are not priced by focal range but by --> optical quality, build quality, durability, constant aperture. Basically consumer grade vs. professional grade. </p>

<p>There are a lot of factors, including those listed by Peter. Lens design is much more difficult the more area that the optics need to cover with a quality image. APS sensors are smaller and so the technology not as critical with full frame. Then, of course, there is the constant aperture. Here again, the technology is more involved than when you have a variable aperture.</p>

<p>It's more complicated to build a constant aperture lens. </p>

<p>It has a fluorite element. Those are very expensive to manufacture.</p>

<p>Other factors: Build quality, internal zoom and focus, better image stabilizer, ring USM with full-time manual focus. Also economies of scale must play some part - they're selling a lot more of the 55-250s.</p>

<p>One is a low cost, slow, mostly plasic, lens with a 27mm image circle, a micro DC motor and no special glass.</p>

<p>The other is a faster, mostly metal lens with a 43mm image circle, a ring USM motor and special glass.</p>

<p>Plus it has a red ring. But seriously worlds apart in over all quality. </p>

<p>Off-white paint is far more expensive than black.</p>

<p>The EFS lens is "a darn good value for the price and plenty of lens for many DSLR shooters. The L lens is as good as lenses get with solid construction - and it looks really, really cool.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Robert,</p>

 

<p>If you think the 70-200 f/4 L is expensive, don’t even think to check out the 70-200 f/2.8 L

IS. And <em>especially</em> don’t look at the 200 f/1.8, the 300 f/2.8 L IS, or the TS-E

17.</p>

 

<p>And let’s not even mention the 1200 f/5.6, shall we?</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>Most of the factors behind the higher price listed here applies to the non-IS 70-200/4L too. And that lens is only around $600.</p>

<p>Just borrow that L lens and mount it on your camera for a couple hundred shots and you'll answer your own question. You'll also not want to give it back. </p>

<p>Anders have a point. Is it really two times more expensive to make the IS version ? Canon decides what prices they want for their products. It has very much to do what the market are prepared to pay. With an excelent lens as the 70-200 4L IS, its no problem to ask for 1200 USD especially since no other manufactor have anything like it.<br>

The EFs 55-250 is under a totally different enviroment of competition and is also aimed at a more price sensitive category of custumers.</p>

<p>simplest answer is :<br>

go to canon, try both lenses on the same body, same focal lenght, everything same!<br>

you will get your answer. i used both! both will perform great if you consider it's value!<br>

happy shooting<br>

prasad</p>

<p>How can I "borrow" an L lens? Do you know if I can rent lenses affordably?</p>

<p>Lenses cost $1/gram. 55-250 weighs 300 grams. 70-200/4 IS weighs 1.2 kilograms.</p>

<p>I've rented several lenses from here and got great service:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/for-canon">http://www.lensrentals.com/for-canon</a></p>

<p>You don't have to borrow it, to tell the difference. Actually, all you need to do is go to a camera store, and hold the 55-250 IS in one hand, and hold any Canon 70-200 L in the other hand... and you will understand what people mean about the build quality. Of course, it won't tell you about Image quality, but you get the idea. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is much larger, if you really want to see the difference. You can also compare the f/4 vs f/2.8.</p>

<p>As mentioned, there is a Canon 70-200 f/4 L (with no IS), it currently runs $600-650. I own the 55-250 IS, it is okay, but I'm saving for a 70-200 f/4 (IS) or f/2.8.</p>

<p>The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS runs about $1700-1800. This is the top-dog of the 70-200's, for Canon.</p>

<p>EFS = Toy</p>

<p>L = Pro, full frame</p>

<p>Also, while I do not know this to be true, I strongly suspect it -- the 55-250mm IS may be a "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader">loss leader</a> ".</p>

<p>At one time both Nikon and Canon made some lenses that were clearly intended to be for the miserly new user who would want something cheap. At some point, Nikon figured out that they could upgrade their "kit" lens to a higher optical quality. For several years, every camera magazine harped on how sh*tty the Canon kit lens was compared to the equivalent Nikkor. So a year or two ago, Canon decided to put an end to that and introduced the new kit 18-55mm lens with greatly improved optical quality and image-stabilization. While they were at it, they responded to other competition from Nikon by also making a good and cheap 55-250mm IS lens.</p>

<p>They certainly wouldn't admit it if it's true (for legal and import reasons); but I suspect, as I said, that the profit margin on these kit lenses are either very low or perhaps even subsidized by both Nikon and Canon to "suck in" the new buyers with some real bargains.</p>

<p>Plus all the other reasons already given for L lenses costing more because they include much more expensive, harder to make and shape special optical glasses, and so on.</p>

<p>"EFS = Toy"<br>

I guess you haven't seen the 17-55 f/2.8, Ken!</p>

<p>Many of the responses are correct, some are sarcastic.<br>

The other factors that will greatly affect the price are:</p>

<p>EFS lenses tend to be geared for the mass market (i.e. consumer grade) and are typically mass produced (in relative terms, there are no SLR lenses that come close to the production runs of consumer electronics) by automated manufacturing techniques.</p>

<p>By comparison, L series lenses are practically hand built for a very specific market (i.e. serious hobbyist or professional) who's primary concern is build and image quality. That's why there aren't any 15:1 super zooms from Ziess or Cannon L series. This is an example of: "You get what you pay for".</p>

<p>It's like comparing a Porsche to a VW, both from the same corporation, yet built for totally different markets.</p>

<p>Ed.</p>