Why is Canon 200 f2 so much more expensive than Nikon's?

<p>Never looked at the price of the Canon 200mm f2 before, but I just did and was amazed that it is £4850, compared to **only** £3100 for the Nikon. I have the Nikon and it's just beyond brilliant, and I can't possibly believe that the Canon is any better in optics or build (though maybe as good), so why the huge price difference? Both have IS too, weird.<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>Where's that link to Billy Goats Gruff when I need it? Ah there it is (<a href="http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0122e.html">link</a>).</p>

<p>On some things Nikon is higher, on others Canon. Your point is?</p>

<p>I thought my point was quite obvious? Just wondering why one is so much more expensive than the other when they seem pretty similar spec - wondering if there was something I didn't know about - that's what the forum's about, learning stuff, no? What's your point?<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>In the US, the Canon is $5300 and Nikon is $4899. btw I also want to know why the Nikon's 500mm f/4 costs $8499 while Canon's only $6140, both have IS. Do you know why?</p>

<p>Thing is none of these other price differences come close to this one in the UK on the 200s, the Canon is well over 50% more expensive than the Nikon, that's what really surprised me. I've got no agenda, just curious if there really is any major difference between the two?<br>

In the Uk the Nikon and Canon 500 f4s are about identical in price.<br>

<br /> Steve</p>

<p>Universal Health Care to blame?</p>

<p>Steve, I think you'll find relatively few people who have used both lenses. Among the people who have are the folks over at lensrentals.com. In their specs they list the Canon as being 0.8 pounds lighter. They describe the Nikon 200/2 in these terms,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Faster than Paris Hilton, sharper than my ex-wife’s tongue, more contrast than a Democratic Primary, and backgrounds as beautifully blurred as my memories of that weekend in Cancun, this lens is just the bomb. Its phenomenal just as it is. With a set of teleconverters it can be any lens you want it to be from 200mm to 400mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And the Canon lens in these terms,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Faster than Paris Hilton, sharper than my ex-wifes tongue, more contrast than a Democratic Primary, backgrounds as beautifully blurred as my memories of that weekend in Cancun, but more expensive than an Illinois Congressman on vacation with a lobbyist. This lens is phenomenal just as it is. With a set of teleconverters it can be any lens you want it to be from 200mm to 400mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So you see, both lenses are faster than Paris Hilton, sharper than the ex, more contrasty than the Democrats, etc. But only the Canon offers the additional perk of being more expensive than an Illinois Congressman. So that's why the Canon costs more - because it's more expensive.</p>

<p>Hope that helps.</p>

<p>Blimey, did all you guys get out of the wrong side of bed this morning?<br />I thought I was only asking a simple question, wasn't expecting all this sarcasm.<br>

If it's of no interest to anyone else then fine, just don't reply, I just thought it was a bit odd and wondered if there was a reason for it, and after several responses I'm still none the wiser, just a bit annoyed and perplexed at the responses.<br>

Sorry to have bothered you all.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>In the US the 200/2 L IS is often included in the rebates (last time $500) which makes it often less expensive than the Nikon's offering. I use the Canon's EF 200/2 and have used the Nikon a few times: the Nikon is heavier and its VR is not as effective.</p>

<p>Why do you guys care? Do you shoot with Nikon?</p>

<p>I did indeed get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning.</p>

<p>But the point I was trying to make is that nobody knows why the prices are different. They're both great lenses. And as Mr Novisto points out, the prices are actually quite similar in the US. As to why they're so different in Great Britain, I have no idea.</p>

<p>There are major differences in the lens design and construction:</p>

<p>Nikon 13 elements, 9 groups, ed glass $5,099 weighs 6.4lb<br>

Canon 17 elements, 12 groups, fluorite element(s) lighter weight, 5.5 lbs, adds up to more expensive, with a sticker price of $5,999, a difference of $900 in the US.</p>

<p>Maybe Nikon UK are overstocked and want to get rid of them. Retail pricing also includes expected warranty repair costs and the old "what can we sell this for" factor.</p>

Maybe with the Canon you are paying for the lighter weight. Canon has a reputation for their long-angle primes (big white lenses), so in part you might be paying for the reputation. Not that Nikon isn't reputable, but their reputation doesn't directly play into this area. Also, the Canon goes to f/32. I believe the Nikon only goes to f/22. The Canon also uses circular aperture blades. The Canon also has 17 lens elements, while the Nikon only has 13. Not that these differences make any practical difference at all in shooting conditions, but it might indicate that Canon is spending a little more money in the manufacturing than Nikon on this particular lens.

<p>:-)<br>

why is gras green?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Brian, that's one thing I'm trying to say, you don't have to care, it's just something I was idly wondering about, it's not a big deal I was just wondering if there was something that was the reason for the difference - even if it was just exchange rates or something - I don't know, that's why I asked.<br /> Not trying to pit one make vs another, and I'm sure in this case it'd be pointless as they'd both almost certainly be equally brilliant. Just when I've looked at prices in the past Canon vs Nikon it's always tended to be fairly close (EOS 1ds vs D3x, 1dmkIV vs D3, 400 2.8, 600 f4 etc., anything on the same level and spec), but this is way over 50% more for essentailly the same bit of kit as far as I can see. I thought it was interesting - I was obviously alone.<br>

Thanks for the later responses, more like the answers I was hoping for.<br>

<br /> Steve</p>

 

<p>Craig, what difference does the circular aperture blades make? If it's bokeh, I thought that was one of the strong points of the Nikon.</p>

<p>Gerhard, thanks, useful question.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>:-)<br>

why is gras green?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Exactly what do think you're contributing Gerhard? I don't understand.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Steve,<br /> I think you are getting such strange responses because there's no real answer why one lens is more expensive than the other one. The price is set by the Canon marketing department, it actually reflects the amount of money a person would pay for it, that's all. I don't think there're lots of people who actually compared the lenses and have an answer. That's it. Well, it's more expensive and this is a fact, nothing more</p>

<p>Thanks Vladimir, if that's what it is then fine, that's what I wanted to know.<br>

It's just that sometimes there are reasons that are not obvious, and that's what I was wondering - that's why it's totally stupid to ask "why is GRASS green", because my question is one that could potentially have answers - that's why I asked it.<br>

Another thing I always did wonder was why before Nikon had VR lenses their 600 f4 without VR was as expensive or even more so than Canon's 600 f4 with IS - again your answer is probably the right one there too.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>I have no answer to your question.</p>

<p>But to contribute to discussion<br>

Neil van Neikerk used both :<br>

http://neilvn.com/tangents/2008/07/29/canon-200mm-f2/<br>

http://neilvn.com/tangents/2009/02/12/model-lauren-syn/</p>

<p>Steve, Let's see, a Nikon shooter comes on a Canon forum and asks why one particular Canon item is more expensive than the "beyond brilliant" Nikon lens. Now after getting answers you don't much care for, you're wondering why people treated this as a troll?</p>

<p>I will admit my general rule is to eliminate incompetence as an explanation before falling back on conspiracy, so perhaps I erred in this case. If so, I apologize for all of us. ;)</p>

<p>JDM,<br>

I'm not a "Nikon shooter", I use all sorts of stuff, and I'm a TV cameraman by profession so if anything I'm a Panasonic and Sony shooter.<br>

I did say in first post that I assume the Canon is every bit as good as the Nikon, and I said above that "I'm sure the Canon is equally brilliant", so as I've said severa; times I have no agenda or a wish to compare the 2 quality wise (unlike many who frequent these forums).<br>

And it's not that I got answers that I didn't care for, except in terms of sarcasm and implying that I'd asked a stupid and meaningless question when I didn't think I did.<br>

All I did was visit a website that I sometimes buy gear from, see the price of the Canon and think "crikey, that's a hell of a lot more than I paid for my Nikon one, I wonder why". This seemed to be the place to answer my idle pondering - my mistake.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p><em>> I'm a Panasonic and Sony shooter</em><br>

Then you should be very familiar with the erratic pricing schemes of these two, right..?</p>

<p>That's a very good point Michael, yes I am!<br />Steve</p>