Why are Canon lenses cheaper?

[mark_audacity_romberg]

I've been looking at prices across the Nikon and Canon systems, and finding that it seems like for

a given FL/max aperture combo, Canon's lens is cheaper (excluding L glass) and half the time has

USM.

Can someone enlighten me as to why? More volume moved, R&D costs already recouped, what?

[zml]

It might be true,especially for "kit lenses", but could you give an example with <b>full names</b> of both Canon and Nikon lenses? Sometimes just one character in the lens name changes the game entirely so you may be comparing apples and hot air baloons (they do look similar from afar...)

[steve_crist]

My understanding is that Canon has 3 lens quality lines (lenses with no stripe or white stripe - lowest quality; lenses with gold stripe - middle quality; lenses with red stripe (L series) - top quality). I came over from Nikon system about 6 years ago and I wouldn't necessarily say Canon lenses are cheaper (I have 4 L lenses and 2 gold series lenses - 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200LIS, 100-400LIS, 50 f1.4, 100 f2.0). The Nikon G series (I think) are pretty cheap kit lenses also which probably compare to the bottom line Canons in price.

[steve torelli]

Look at the price difference between the Nikon and Canon 24-70 2.8s, several hundred dollars. The Canon super teles are a lot less than the Nikon equivalents.There are a few Nikon lenses the same price or slightly lower, but by and large, Nikon is more expensive for glass. I've always thought that Canon being the industry leader for the last couple of decades or so could afford to sell them for less. Maybe not, but I've never understood Nikon's price points either, maybe someone could enlighten us.

[jim olson]

I have noticed this difference also. I am a canon shooter and use mostly L lenses and

to replace them with similar nikon lenses would cost a lot more

 

Jim

[fotograf]

steve crist- Nikon's G series are their newer lenses which have no aperture rings(same as Canon) and aren't considered "cheap", as many have ED glass which is about the same as Canon's L glass. Some of Nikon's ED G lenses are thousands of dollars. Been around for years. Also, I think Canon has two lines- basic consumer lenses and the "L" series, for professional use. And Mark, I believe all of Canon lenses have USM motor, typically ring or micro USM.

[baivab]

I only hope Canon does not read this and hike their prices....!

[robin_sibson1]

Brian, below the L-series lenses the construction of Canon lenses is mainly from engineering plastic rather than metal, although there are also plastic components in some L-series lenses. But there is a big difference in build quality between lenses like the 100/2.8USM and 10~22 on the one hand, and some of the kit lenses on the other hand, and to a good approximation lenses introduced since the mid-1990s do fall pretty clearly into the three groups mentioned by Steve C.

[fotograf]

Robin, I don't think a debate is appropriate and I don't think Canon users really care if there are 2, 3, 4 or 1,000,000 groups in Canon's lineup of lenses.

It is true, Canon lenses go up and down in prices. Perhaps since Nikon has taken a lead in photo recently, Canon is trying to gain a competitive lead.

[anov]

"Perhaps since Nikon has taken a lead in photo recently, Canon is trying to gain a competitive lead."

 

What lead are we talking about here?

 

Is it this one?

 

http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=18407

[JDMvW]

The lenses I really want the most certainly aren't cheaper. As several have worked toward, but not quite clearly said, the lens lines are very difficult to compare, since there are apparent differences in target markets and philosophies of marketing between the two companies. I think it's simply the case that Canon has a more extensive list (think that's still true, but I'm sure someone will correct me if it's not). Some are cheaper and some are more expensive, and you can't just omit the L lens category in a comparison.

 

I suppose that "omitting the top 5 rich people, Donald Trump is the richest man in America" Even if that were true, what would it mean?

[correct_exposure]

Mark,

 

The only reason I selected Canon over Nikon was b/c of lenses. Canon primes have USM and Nikon's lack the 'silent wave' yet cost the same. Next Canon has DO lenses, much cheaper Tilt/Shift glass, super fast primes with USM and the 24-70 price difference is just too crazy.

 

I really like Nikon bodies. They just feel right in my hand, plus they have more features. I recently played with a D3 and it was awesome. Then I took a second look at their lenses in terms of price and selection and decided to stick with my Canon 5D + DO + Fisheye.

[mark_audacity_romberg]

<p>Many of the comparisons I see are not, in fact, the exact same lens, but fill the

same spot in each manufacturer's lineup.</p>

<p>

Examples: <br>

Nikkor 85 f/1.8 D, $400 new<br>

Canon 85 f/1.8 USM, $350 new<br>

Now, that's only $50, but you gain a USM motor which I think of as a big step up!

</p>

<p>

Nikkor 20-35 f/2.8 D IF, $695 used EX<br>

Canon 20-35 f/2.8 L, $599 used EX<br>

These I think are an even more fair comparison, as the Canon has no USM, but still,

$95 price difference is notable, if not huge. And, you're getting LD glass in the

Canon, the Nikkor is not listed as ED.

</p>

<p>

Nikkor 35 f/2 D, $330 new<br>

Canon 35 f/2, $240 new<br>

Another fair comparison, as neither has an ultrasonic motor. That's almost a 33%

discount! Is Canon really saving this much money by making everything

electromechanical?

</p>

<p>

Then there are some asymmetrical comparisons, but ones I feel can be reasonably

made:<br>

Nikkor 28 f/1.4 D, $3000 used when you can find it<br>

Canon 28 f/1.8 USM, $420 new<br>

Now, I realize the Nikkor is a stellar lens, and I'd expect to pay twice as much for a

2/3-stop jump in a superfast prime. But seven times as much? Without USM or a

warranty?<br>

While we're on the superfast wides, what about Canon's 24 f/1.4L, which Nikon

doesn't even make a competitor to, for under $1k? Or the 35 f/1.4L, which Nikon

never made an AF version of?

</P>

[vincent_peri]

You should take into account that Nikon has a five (count 'em, 5) year warranty on their lenses.

[vojislav_mileti__263_]

One thing to consider, though. While Nikkors are generally more expensive (for no reason, really, probably just a bigger markup), newer Canon lenses are extremely overpriced as well - check out the prices for 14/2.8II and 200/2IS and compare them to Nikkors 14-24/2.8 and 200/2VR. Absurd.

[zafar1]

I agree with the warranty issue. I wanted to get my 100-400 recalibrated which is a couple of years old. Canon said: $299. I said, forget it:)

 

It is possible that canon saves some money by reducing the warranty, but the fact of the matter is that most lenses don't need any service within their warranty period (be it one year or five years).

 

As Mark pointed out with specific examples, Canon lens are much cheaper and you have more choice. I also would love to buy D300, but I can't afford to get all the equivalent lenses on Nikon side.

[zml]

Manufacturers have different cost structure (for example, Canon makes its own glass - Nikon farms out a lot of of work.) Then there are trade-offs (say, Nikon consumer-grade lenses lenses <b>on average</b> are better built than the Canon's comparable models, USM notwithstanding. OTOH most Canon L lenses beat Nikon in this department.) Then there are unfair comparisons: Canon 28/1.8 is a POS comparing to the Nikon's 28/1.4. C'mon...

[digitmstr]

Nikon 300 f/2.8 AF (VR) 4,499 vs Canon Ef 300 f/2.8 IS 4,100 - not a huge difference but, a definite one.

 

I think Canon took a lead in sales, worldwide, with the introduction of their IS lenses and has largely recouped those costs. I took a while for Nikon to catch up with developing the VR system and starting to recoup those costs. Both companies are in this to make profits - I am sure, if Nikon could, they'd sell cheaper but, they probably can't do that at the moment.

[shuo_zhao]

I think Canon definitely offers more choices, especially fully modern/functional choices than Nikon. Many of their lenses also happens to be significantly cheaper than their Nikon counterparts. For example, the 24-70 f/2.8 Nikkor is about $500 more expensive than the 24-70 f/2.8L (of course the Nikkor is a newer lens, not sure whether it has more bells and whistles than the Canon L).

 

Nikon don't have any lenses similar to the entire line of f/4 Canon L lenses, which are some very versatile and economical choices. The 17-40 f/4L, the 24-105 f/4L, and the 70-200 f/4L are some of Canon's most attractive (and relatively cheap) offers that Nikon got nothing to directly compete against. I think Canon generally has more lenses usable for a certain task than Nikon.

 

Canon's super teles are also said to be a lot cheaper than their Nikkor counterparts.

[photo5]

You get what you pay for.

[fotograf]

"(for example, Canon makes its own glass - Nikon farms out a lot of of work.)"

 

Michael, Nikon certainly makes its own glass for lenses, as well as Canon. Not sure of your "farms out alot" means.

 

"Canon primes have USM and Nikon's lack the 'silent wave' yet cost the same"

 

All of Canon's lenses- to my knowledge have USM motors, and the statement that Nikon lacks silent wave isn't entirely correct as many Nikon lenses have AF-S which is auto focus silent, basically the same as a silent wave or USM.

[zml]

Actually, Nikon makes "most" of their glass, but by no means all (that's from a Nikon brochure.) Moreover, AFAIK Nikon farms out the entire manufacturing process of their low end lenses to third parties in "emerging economies."

[shuo_zhao]

>> "All of Canon's lenses- to my knowledge have USM motors"

 

Some lower end Canon lenses only have a DC micro motor; while the USM lenses either have a ring type or micro/rod type USM. There are essentially 3 types of AF motors for Canon's lenses. Nikon's lenses either have no AF motor and require to use the motor in the cameras (non AF-S AF-I), or they carry their own motor: AF-S (either a ring or rod type silent wave motor), AF-I (a "ancient" DC motor).

[Jerry_]

"Canon's lens is cheaper (excluding L glass) and half the time has USM."

 

 

 

Does Canon make a AF 105mm f2 DC- or a AF 135mm F2 DC- type lens?

 

 

 

Or a AF 105mm f2.8D Micro- or a AF 200mm f4D Micro- type lens?

 

 

 

L, for Lots of bucks, is one way Canon can stay less costly on some lenses, but you get what you pay for in life.

[fotograf]

None of Canon's lenses have Defocus Control. That's something Nikon made for the 105mm and 135mm lenses. Canon has 200mm f/2 and 200mm f/2.8 but nothing Micro. I think "Micros" is Nikon's term for Macro which does the same thing. Otherwise, Canon's got the 180mm f/3.5L and the 100mm f/2.8 Macro