Question on Lens pricing...

[nello]

Why is it that the 135L f2 costs more than the 200L 2.8? Like hundreds of

dollars more? I would think they'd at least be close in price? (I find this

question actually applies to lots of lens comparisons...) How does Canon

price its lenses? Is it purely based on materials, or is there some weird

marketing strategy at work here? The pricing doesn't quite seem obvious....

[rintintin]

I have absolutely no idea how Canon goes about it, but it does seem to me that lens manufacturers base cost in ranges by focal length with differences within that range driven primarily by lens speeed (max aperture). And in your case, the 135 and 200 are both mid to standard range teles, but the 135 has a full extra stop's worth of glass in it.

[eoghan]

It's a whole stop faster and is supposedly slightly sharper.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>It's an interesting question. Don't forget that you can't just compare the maximum aperture of two lenses without also taking into account the focal length. "f/2" literally means that the diameter of the aperture is the focal length divided by two, which is why a 50mm f/1.4 is smaller than a 400mm f/5.6 despite being a whopping four stops faster. The diameter of the aperture of the 200/2.8 is actually slightly larger than of the 135/2.</p>

 

<p>Both lenses have two elements using exotic (read: costly) UD glass. These elements look to be roughly similar in size, as do most of the other elements in the front part of the lens. Towards the back, the 135/2 has an extra element, and each of the elements back there look to be larger than the elements at the rear of the 200/2.8, so I wouldn't be surprised if the materials costs were higher for the 135. The 200 has a slightly wider, longer barrel, but plastic and metal are not the expensive parts of a lens; the glass is.</p>

 

<p>I doubt the price is purely based on materials. There are fixed costs for designing and testing the lens, making any necessary production equipment, designing and proofing the packaging and manual, etc. These costs are the same whether they sell one copy of the lens or a million copies, but they need to be recovered, so they will be amortized across the expected production run. Two lenses which have similar fixed costs and similar materials costs but are expected to have different production runs would sell for different prices as a result.</p>

 

<p>There may also be some marketing input; the marketing folks may decide (say) that the 135/2 will be in high demand among portrait photographers who will be willing to pay extra for it.</p>

[mark u]

If you want to try explaining Canon's pricing policies, have a go at a rational explanation for why, correcting for tax differences, lenses are available so cheaply in USA that they can be imported into Europe with costly one-at-a-time shipping, with all import taxes properly paid and undercut the cheapest available European price by a wide margin. Before you start claiming that costs are so much higher in Europe, bear in mind that the lens is manufactured in Asia, and Canon are merely marketing and distributing in Europe and the US; and also you have to explain why no such arbitrage is possible if you're buying Sigma or Tamron lenses.

 

The answer is that Canon often charges what they think the market will bear, and they're not shy of charging a higher price for a lens that has no perceived competition. Premium pricing is also used to convey an impression of superiority, relying on brand image, even where none exists or the Canon product is actually inferior (this applies particularly to the consumer end of the market, where end consumers are usually poorly informed). Slight changes in models are also used to convey an impression of new (true) and improved (quite often not the case at the lower end of the market - in fact frequently cheaper build/less good). New extra features such as IS often attract a price premium that bears no relation to cost. They also are reluctant to change prices with any regularity, especially upwards (as would be justified by the plummeting value of the dollar internationally). They use market segmentation techniques. They discriminate in terms of wholesale prices within a market - your local photo store may not be able to buy wholesale from Canon at the price you can get from B&H retail including shipping. They discriminate internationally, using warranty/refusal of servicing even on a paid basis as a weapon to discourage cross-border purchasing into high priced markets. They attempt to spread FUD (quite successfully in the light of many postings in these forums) about the competition. These are all classic business practices aimed at profit maximisation. Did you expect anything else?

[pics]

Aside from lenses, how do they charge $8000 for a digital camera that most likely be replaced by something better in 2-3 years.

[scavallucci]

...because they know there are people (read professionals) willing to spend those money both today and in two years...

[anthony_auriene]

For Mark U.....

Agreed, but don't just blame Canon, Mamiya is guilty of the reverse--Prices on USA Mamiya's are almost double that of England, And they also are an Asian camera company. Go figure.

[pics]

Actually I'm willing to bet most buyers are well-to-do amateurs. There don't seem to be many overly wealthy pro photographers.

[yakim_peled1]

Interesting question. The 135/2 was my dream lens and I was thinking of buying it alongside the 85/1.8. However, seeing the price (and thinking on my wife reaction...) I went for the 70-200/4. When I sold it I again considered purchasing it but again decided on a 85/1.8 + 200/2.8 combo as it was much cheaper. Eventually I found to like the 200mm focal length better then the 135mm one. Go figure.....

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.