No competition for Canon IS-lenses?

[mark_chappell]

<I>And something like 2400 $ more than the equivalent Sigma:<P>

 

Canon 500mm f4 IS: 5360 $<P>

 

Sigma 500mm f4,5: 2950 $</i><P>

 

I guess this depends on how strictly you want to define 'equivalent'. I wouldn't define an

f4.5 lens -- which will NOT autofocus with a 2X converter on even 1-series cameras -- as

'equivalent' to an f4 lens (which will AF with a 2X converter). Nor would I define a non-

stabilized lens as equivalent to a stabilized lens. The lower price of the Sigma seems

reasonable given these deficits compared to the Canon. It's harder for me to rationalize

the considerably higher price of the unstabilized Nikon 500/4.

[henrik.ploug]

"The lower price of the Sigma seems reasonable given these deficits compared to the Canon."

 

Reasonable because f4 and autofocus with a 2X converter is worth 2400 $ for you as a photographer? Or reasonable because 2400 $ is the cost Canon pays at their factory to enable those features?

 

If Sigma can build a lens without those features for 2950 $, then I'm sure that Canon would be able to build a lens with those features for less than 5360 $. But why should they? They have no competition.

[mark_chappell]

<I>Reasonable because f4 and autofocus with a 2X converter is worth 2400 $ for you as a

photographer?</i><P>

 

Yup. That and stabilization, and better construction quality and weather-sealing (at least

it seems that way when I compared the two lenses side-by-side). I shoot wildlife mainly

and the ratio of Canon 500 mm lenses to Sigma 500 mm lenses in use by by fellow wildlife

shooters I've encountered is probably 20:1 in favor of Canon. So I'm far from the only one

who came to the

same conclusion.<P>

 

You seem surprised that Canon charges more than Sigma and doesn't make a less

expensive, lower-featured version. Why in the world should they? They're in this business

to make money, not out of altruism.

[henrik.ploug]

"You seem surprised that Canon charges more than Sigma and doesn't make a less expensive, lower-featured version. Why in the world should they? They're in this business to make money, not out of altruism."

 

I'm not surprised. And I agree, that Canon is in this business to make money, not out of altruism. But so is Sigma, Tokina and Tamron. And I'm surprised that they don't give Canon any competion regarding IS-lenses.

[oceanphysics]

<i>And something like 2400 $ more than the equivalent Sigma:</i>

<p>

Thanks for that blinding glimpse of the irrelevant. That third-party lenses are cheaper than manufacturer lenses has always been true, and is hardly a function of the IS.