What makes this lens so expensive?

[robert_g.2]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>So does the camera or the lens or both determine if it's "full framed"?<br>

(Not sure what "full framed" means exactly but I will google it.)</p>

[keith reeder]

<p><strong>Edit</strong> : unnecessary repetition of valid points already well made...</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Robert, I'd check out the EFS lens first, as it might satisfy your needs. US$1200 seems alot of money for such a slow zoom lens, and you may not need to pay the premium for build quality that you don't necessarily need.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>Robert, "Full Frame" means the lens can cover the larger format of the pro Canon bodies. These have sensors roughly the same size as film in a 35mm SLR. EFS lenses are not designed to cover that format, only the smaller format of the lower-end bodies like the Digital Rebel. Full-frame lenses work fine on the crop-format bodies, but EFS lenses will probably show black corners on full-frame bodies.</p>

[Michael Eckstein]

<p> I have the EFS-18/135 and the 70/200L and when used at ƒ8 and printed to 13" x 19" I don't think anyone could tell the difference. BTW the EFS 60 macro and 10/22 are definately not toys!</p>

[steve_crist]

<p><em>"Why is this lens so much more expensive while covering less of a focal range?"</em><br>

As others have said it's the quality of the entire product including quality control during manufacture. If you really want to go scratch your head check out the prices on the lens hoods for the Canon super-telephotos (2.8 series with white lens hoods). $550 and up. Wow!</p>

[alec_myers]

<blockquote>

<p>What makes this lens so expensive?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Purely and simply because that is the price that Canon have decided will maximise their benefit on the item. Mostly profit, I guess, but also having an item at the "right place" in the product line-up, and other touchy-feely issues. <br>

Now, if you were to ask "what makes it worthwhile to the user to pay so much more for the lens?" then you have a whole range of answers, like better image quality, better user experience, more robust, better AF drive, more robust IS, whatever. All of which contribute to the higher build price. But there's no absolute connection between build price and sale price. </p>

[dom1]

<p>The 55-250 has 12 elements (pieces of glass) in 10 groups. The 70-200 has 20 elements in 15 groups. Almost twice as much glass. That is why it weighs more. I have never been so impressed with a lens as I have with my 70-200. It's a fine "piece of glass".</p>

[KenPapai]

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

<p>A agree -- I meant "toy" in stature due its smaller circle for the APS-C. Supposedly the EF-S 10-22 kicks ass too.</p>

[lawrence_li]

<blockquote>

<p>I have the EFS-18/135 and the 70/200L and when used at ƒ8 and printed to 13" x 19" I don't think anyone could tell the difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The point here is that if you are using the lens at f/8, outdoors bright sunlight and huge DoF then yeah, either lens would work. Instead the point of this expensive L lens can be used fully wide open and has superb and consistent IQ across the entire image combined with flawless focusing that will work every single time. If you're always stepping down then there's no point in buying a fixed large aperture zoom lens. Save yourself the money (and your neck!) and buy your other half something nice.</p>

[kparratt]

<p>Has <strong>economy of scale</strong> been mentioned?<br>

The RD and tooling up to produce any lens is enormously expensive. Some because their materials and complexity, all the factors mentioned above, will cost more to produce than basic units, much more. But the cost to the consumer will be even greater because they know that fewer will purchase it in any event. Whereas the bread'n'butter lenses can run in numbers of thousands, spreading the RD and tooling costs over the entire run. It's as simple as that.</p>

[ronaldwebb]

<p>Two reasons for the increased cost. First, the more expensive lens has a fixed maximum aperture size (f-4) throughout the focal range. The less expensive lens maximum aperture decreases (from f-4 to f5.6) as the lens is zoomed to longer focal lengths. That is 1 full stop of light loss at the longer focal lengths. Second, the "L" designation indicates that "low dispersion" glass is used in the lens. It is definitely a higher quality glass. </p>

[colin_fischer]

<p>I love this site for this 1 feature alone <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=452&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=456&CameraComp=452&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=452&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=456&CameraComp=452&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0</a><br>

The devil is in the details as they say, and you should be able to pretty easily tell the difference in the details, especially mid and centre when you get into the very fine lines.<br>

Edited the link so the comparison uses the same camera body.</p>

[avijitsett]

<p>Seeing is believing. Try both the lenses and then compare. 70-200mm is absolutely stunning.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p dir="ltr">Alec Myers is right. Price is determined first and foremost by marketing considerations. And BTW, I traded two pro, full frame lenses for two toys two years ago and am very happy I did. Surprisingly, the toys offer slightly better IQ than the pro, full frame lenses.

<p dir="ltr">

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

<br />

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

</p>

<p dir="ltr"><br />

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

[robert_g.2]

<p>Which "toys" Yakim?</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">10-22 and 17-55. I traded 17-40 and 24-105 for them. I also have another toy, the 60/2.8. I traded 100/2.8 for it. However, this one is not an L so I didn't count it. :-)</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">All these toys are stupidly good (IQ wise), and which can rival any lens, be it L, prime or whatever. In fact, the 17-55 made my <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/607298">35/1.4 L</a> and <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/717198">Sigma 50/1.4</a> redundant. After several months of co-ownership I noticed that I always reach for the zoom so I sold them. The 10-22 is also so good that it chased out on any other lens within these FL's. Don't want Zeiss, don't want L, don't want Nikon.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">But that's only because I am a man. And you know how much men like their toys......</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

[dogbert]

<blockquote>

<p>What makes this lens so expensive?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its expensive because Canon think they can charge a lot for it. As someone else pointed out the 70-200 f4L non IS is only $600. Canon knows that IS is very valuable and the 70-200 f4 was popular, so they figured they can get away with charging a lot for a popular lens with IS added, even it it is $500 more than the non IS model.<br>

Conversely they can put IS in powershots and kit lenses for probably $25 in the price conscious end of the market.</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>I thought the EF-S 50-250 IS has a UD element. It certainly has very good IQ.</p>

 

[dogbert]

<p>Come to think of it, the new EF-S 15-85 f4-5.6 IS is a lens Canon would have charged maybe $450 for a few years ago. It can't be much harder to make than the full frame 28-135 f4.5.6 IS.<br>

I guess they realise that with people willing to pay $1000 for a digital body today compared to $250 for a film body a few years ago, people will also happily pay $800 for a lens compared to maybe a few hundred in the good old days.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>"Its expensive because Canon think they can charge a lot for it."</p>

<p>It is expensive because Canon <strong>KNOWS</strong> they can charge a lot for it.</p>

<p>They got my money. I would do it again in a heartbeat. It is my favorite lens of all time.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Just a reminder that when things were priced at lower levels "a few years ago" that the yen was lower and the dollar was higher. I am sorry to see them bucking up the prices, but the old dollar "ain't what she used to be." $800 <em><strong>is</strong> </em> the new $500, alas.</p>

[fxdonny]

<p>The L lenses are much more expensive due purely to one reason alone: "bragging rights".<br />Kid aside, I would say, it's more like comparing Honda (such as Honda Civic) to Acura (Acura TSX). Both made by the same company, different in quality..</p>

[alexdi]

<p>It costs what it does because you'll pay that much. And if you won't, others will.</p>

<p>There are certain features that merit a higher price. It has a fluorite element, weather-sealing, a more sophisticated IS system, and a USM motor. It's also somewhat larger and faster than the 55-250, and a full-frame lens with commensurate superiority in edge performance. In the 70-200 range, it is the least-comprised lens available.</p>

<p>But most of these apply equally to the 70-200/4L. That lens has always been considered something of a bargain, so perhaps the $1200 cost of the IS version is simply adjusting the pricing curve to where Canon believes it should have started.</p>

[chrisjb]

<p>It helps if you understand what makes a better lens. at f8 you may not see much, if you shoot wide open and want better colour rendition, edge sharpness, contrast, less aberation and silent motor +++ etc then pay a lil more. this page from canon has a lil info but many are satisfied with the lower priced model<br>

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=GlossaryAct&fcategoryid=216<br>

_</p>