Canon 200-400mm price

[sara_rayan]

<p>The launch of Canon 200-400mm lens is bittersweet. While it seems to be a great lens, the price seems unreasonably high. Particularly when considering that the Nikon version is almost half its price. </p>

<p>Does anyone know why this lens is being priced so high? </p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>New lenses tend to be expensive, especially at the high end. Someone's got to pay for the recovery from the Earthquake and tsunami of 2011. Canon probably feels confident that their lens is superior to the Nikon 200-400.</p>

<p>Notice how Nikon's 800/5.6 is far more expensive than the Canon EF 800/5.6. Over time this kind of price hikes will probably be seen across the lineups in both brands.</p>

[wolf_weber]

<p>Why..?<br /> New model, long overdue... Will come down, not to worry. By at least 1/4 within a year. Seems to be <em>better</em> than the Nikon version. It<strong> better be</strong>. The Nikon does not have the 1.4x incorporated; quite ingenious. Canon's IS on this particular lens probably more efficient. Test results will tell for sure.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>It has a built in matched converter that is not found in the Nikon. Got to be worth quite a bit if the optical performance is maintained, to say nothing of the improved operating convenience. It's clearly not a lens for the masses.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I don't think the price will drop. Canon typically doesn't lower prices on lenses, especially their top (expensive) lenses.</p>

<p>In June 2011 the price of the newly introduced 600/4L IS II USM was $11,999. Today the price is $12,799. The 500/4L IS II USM was introduced in 2011 at $9499 and it's now $10,399. Those are street prices. There's little or no discount from Canon's MSRP on those lenses.</p>

<p>So don't hold your breath for the price of the Canon 200-400 to drop. In fact buy one now before the price goes up.</p>

<p>I'm sure Canon priced the lens at what they think the market for that lens (professionals, hedge fund managers, doctors and dentists etc.) can bear and what will maximize their return on investment. They're not dumb. If they thought they wouldn't sell any at that price, they'd have priced it lower. They won't sell one to me, but then they wouldn't be able to sell one to me at any price and still make a profit. In fact they'd probably have to take a big loss if they lowered it to a price that I could afford!</p>

<p>If you want to save money, you could buy the Nikon 200-400/4 VR, a 1.4xTC and a D800 body for significantly less then the price of the Canon 200-400/L IS.</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>I think this lens is going to be at the top of its class for ten years or more. Compare it to any one (or two) lenses... a 200 2.8, 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 f4, 600 f4... compare the price... size.. weight... this lens will come close to doing what any of those single lenses will do.... perhaps even sharper than some primes. All in one lens! I think it is very reasonably priced for what it is. Do I want one? Yes! Do I need one. no. Will I buy one? Maybe.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Such optics are expensive because they are low demand luxury items assembled by hand and constructed of pricy high precision materials. </p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>It will be interesting to see what it rents for when it starts getting into the rental shops. A lot of use of these high-end lenses comes through that approach. I would love to try it on a track weekend once that settles out, and I haven't yet decided what price-point I would be able to swallow. I'm used to renting a 100-400 before I found a good used version from a photo.net member. Rentals were about $200 for a weekend - so I would expect the new lens to be at least double that amount. </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>It could be worse. I've seen a price of 11999 UK pounds or 11800 euros quoted. Those prices include taxes (VAT) I think, but even so...</p>

<p>11999 UK pounds = $18306</p>

<p>11800 euros = $15303</p>

<p>The worst case here is buying in NYC and paying the 8.75 city/state sales tax</p>

<p>$11999 + 8.75% = $13049</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>A rental price in the US is going to be about 360 to 400 dollars for 4 days give or take a few 20's. (based on guestimating prices on other lenses close in price at Lensrental.com)</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>@Richard - that's about what I was hoping it would be (or at least it wouldn't exceed) anything more than that would be beyond consideration. Still a lot, so I'd have to know I could get some return on the cost of the rental.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>I'm not sure that comparing this lens to a bunch of primes really tells the story. It's a stop slower and a heck of a lot heavier than the samples listed. In any situation, if I didn't need to be changing focal lengths quickly, I'd obviously prefer the primes.</p>

<p>However, for the guys that need the flexibility over that focal length range along with premium performance and a decent max aperture, this is a great lens and the price won't be a deterrent. Professional sports and news guys, press agencies and well heeled wildlife photographers will be thrilled (if the performance is as stellar as I expect). It's not for me - I never shoot beyond 300mm and and am very happy with my current gear - but I'll read the reviews with interest and I'm sure I'll be seeing some around before too long.</p>

[dom1]

<p>Looking at international currency exchange and the devaluation of the YEN recently may be cause for an adjustment. I'm certainly curious.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Camera companies don't change prices because of exchange rates, at least not in the short term</p>

[dogbert]

<blockquote>I'm sure Canon priced the lens at what they think the market for that lens (professionals, hedge fund managers, doctors and dentists etc.) can bear and what will maximize their return on investment. They're not dumb.</blockquote>

<p>I agree they are not dumb. Nonetheless history is replete with examples of manufacturers and products that misjudged the market. I am not saying that they did so here, but I also don't think camera companies have a gaurenteed formula for turning their output into profit just through market research.<br>

EOS M anyone? How are those $800 24/28/35 IS primes selling?</p>

[sara_rayan]

<p>One thing that bothers me is that there was a time when competing companies cared to price their products competitively.</p>

<p>Now this lens could be superior to the Nikon version but its actually a little heavier (Will probably match the Nikon if a 1.4 TC is attached to it) and has pretty much the exact same dimensions. While these two are not the only factors to compare, if it bettered the Nikon in these aspects, it would have certainly helped to explain the high cost. </p>

<p>Looking at the prices of the newer high-end IS II version lenses, its somewhat worrying to me that Canon wouldn't even bother to price its products competitively to comparable Nikon versions. </p>

[sara_rayan]

<blockquote>

<p>If you want to save money, you could buy the Nikon 200-400/4 VR, a 1.4xTC and a D800 body for significantly less then the price of the Canon 200-400/L IS.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Bob: You spoke my mind. I have a Canon 5D Mark II + 100-400 mm. I was hoping this new lens could be a possible upgrade when the time comes. But the Nikon option seems more like it now. </p>

[rick_m.]

<blockquote>

<p>Canon probably feels confident that their lens is superior to the Nikon 200-400.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yea right. Uh ha. They would have to think it is twice as good. It is time a Nikon shooter stopped by this thread to call ya'll on wishful thinking. Make no mistake. Both lenses are expensive. Canon is not ripping off Nikon shooters with this price. We could care less what you pay for your kit. This is a problem for Canon shooters. Nobody buying lenses at this caliber are going to jump ship over some imagined or even minor difference between these two lenses. This is a simple example of Canon getting into the pockets of the home team. This has nothing at all to do with Nikon. <br /> We do get to giggle though. $11,700.00. Giggle.</p>

<p>Fairness though requires that I mention that I do not intend to buy the Nikon version either. I already own a Nikon 300 F/2.8 and both crop sensor and full frame cameras. I don't need VR. I will try not to wiggle for $6800.00.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>It's all a matter of priorities. I spent $18 grand on a car when I needed a reliable car. If I needed a high quality 200-400, I would find a way to afford it, just as people find ways to afford their cars. Luckily, I don't need this lens and wouldn't want to carry it anyway. But for those who need this kind of optic, the price should not be an insurmountable object.</p>

<p>For the rest of us, there are options such as the 100-400 and Sigma's 120-300.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Or you could spend $6800.00 on the Nikon version and well throw in an D4 for free. Or a D800 and two D7100's. See what I mean? This is a serious problem for Canon shooters. I think it points out a decided change in the way Canon sees high-end sales and its relationship with professionals. Here is another example.</p>

<p>In order to become a member of Nikon Professional Services you have to be a professional. A real one. Full time. And Nikon gives you the service and perks that professionals who are loyal to their products deserve. In order to become a member of Canon Professional Services all you have to do is fill out a form and you get a nifty pin and ID Card. That is an insult to professionals who have been buying expensive kit for decades. Some newby with a 3TI gets in the club. But if the real professional wants to have some of the same perks that he would get for free from Nikon he/she has to pay $500.00.</p>

<p>So I take something I said back. If I were a Canon shooter who needed a 200-400 and Nikon offered me a free D4 or a D800 and two D7100's to chose the Nikon 200-400 VR over the Canon I might take it. And Nikon would welcome me into the club to boot. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Rick, I am a Nikon user. I'm commenting in this topic because I'm in the market for a long lens and the topic has general interest to me (beyond what currently is offered by Nikon). Even though a Canon user <em>could</em> buy a D4 or D800 with 200-400/4 instead of the EF 200-400/4 Extender for about the same money, if they already have a couple of 1D X's what will they have gained? A slightly different camera that has to be brought along when shooting with this one lens. If the camera fails, they cannot use the lens (without backup body). No actual functionality is gained by the purchase of the lens and camera from Nikon, instead of just the lens from Canon While the 200-400/4 Nikkor is used by many wildlife photographers, it does get its own share of criticism. If Canon has succeeded in making a better and/or more universally applicable lens, there is some justification for the price difference, but I still don't know where they think the photographers get the money for it. I think the difference in price (6700€ vs. 12000€) will reduce the number of buyers by 80%.</p>

<p>Someone who is looking into buying into a new system will certainly look at the prices of lenses that they're interested in. The idea that professionals do not care about what their tools cost is unrealistic. The competition in professional photography is intense and few people make a lot of money from it. Successful advertising and fashion photographers may make a lot of money from it, but this lens is not for those fields of photography. Magazines and newspapers have been sizing down their staff and forcing former employees to move to freelance and pay for their own gear rather than using company equipment. Paper subscriptions are on the way down and the mainstream media haven't really figured out how to make enough money from internet content to sustain their operations. Images are now accepted from readers (much cheaper!) instead of professionals, and the media companies now demand all rights for future use of the images as they please (including resale to third parties), for the previous price of a license for one-time publication. With digital capture, probably five times as many people want to be professional photographers than the number that can be sustained by the economy. If the professional photographers want to make ends meet, costs including lenses must be justified carefully. It is an entirely different situation for amateurs who work in well paid fields; but generally it is the case that those who have enough discipline to make money are usually also careful in how they spend it.</p>

<p>Andy Rouse makes a case for the zoom (+extender) in giving him freedom for composition and expression, and for situations where the subject is approaching the camera. However, despite the limitations of fixed long primes in practical use I can only see that the new zoom will make the 300/2.8 and extenders seem like a bargain and boost their sales. Long primes such as 400/2.8 and 600/4 allow a different look where the subject pops out of the page visually and advertisements are conveniently blurred beyond recognition (this can be important for the publisher, as they don't want to give "free" advertising; also the viewers enjoy the visual clarity). A 400/4 or 560/5.6 may or may not give that kind of blur over long distances typical of sports photography in large fields. For close-ups of small animals, sufficient blur is no doubt obtained.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Back in 2006, I paid $5100 for version 1 of Nikon's 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR. That lens is so good optically and in other aspects that I don't think another 200-400mm/f4 zoom from anybody, Canon, Nikon or others, can be "significantly better," and I have used some of the latest Nikon 500mm/f4, 600mm/f4 lenses. A couple of years ago Nikon updated it to version 2 with minor improvements but the price went up to $6700 or so.</p>

<p>The fact of the matter is that newer lenses are more expensive. Actually the likes of Canon, Nikon, and other Japanese camera companies do adjust prices according to exchange rates. The yen went way up from around 110 yen for a US$ in 2008 to some 75, 76 yen a year or two ago, and camera prices went way up in early to mid 2009 and continued to go up until 2011, 2012. However, the yen has gone way down in the last 6, 7 months from 76 to now 102 yen to a US$ (and continues to change). Hopefully we'll see some corresponding price changes in the US.</p>

<p>A couple of months ago, Nikon set the price for their new 800mm/f5.6 AF-S VR to $17800. The same argument was made that with that amount of money, you could get the Canon version, introduced several years back, plus a high-end Canon body and still have money left.</p>

<p>I am glad that I got my Nikon 200-400mm/f4 way back before these price increases, and I also have 7 years worth of good images (and bad images) with it. Yes, the newer lenses (be it Canon or Nikon) are significantly more expensive, but don't kid yourself; they are not much better than the cheapers ones introduced 5, 10 years ago.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I have yet to try an external teleconverter that meets my expectations for image quality, and I've owned several from Canon, Nikon, and Pentax. If Canon's internal teleconverter can magnify the image without an appreciable degradation in quality (as has been suggested in some reviews), that's a significant engineering achievement that you can't get by purchasing the other brand's eight-year-old design.</p>

<p>If you're a professional Canon sports shooter (or agency) that makes a good living capturing sharp, fast, telephoto images, you're not going to think twice about buying this lens, especially when you consider the tax benefits to your business. Over the course of years of use, the original purchase price will be returned many times over in revenues from published images. It's a solid business investment for someone in that position.</p>

<p>For the vast majority of us who don't shoot the Super Bowl and the Olympic Games, there are lower priced alternatives. This lens wasn't designed for everyone, just as those ultra-expensive Canon cinema lenses aren't designed for everyone. These are specialty tools for people whose businesses can support the price of cutting edge lens engineering. </p>

[don_pugh]

<p>I don't get the comments that pretend the Nikon 200-400 lens plus a 1.4 TC is the same thing as this lens, which is a 200-400 with a 1.4 TC built in. The built in TC is designed specifically for this lens, so I suspect it might be faster and deliver better IQ than a separate TC that works with many lenses. In addition, and more importantly, with the new Canon lens a flip of the switch coverts the lens from a 200-400mm f/4 to a 280-560mm f/5.6. A photographer can do that and keep tracking and shooting the same subject at a greater distance. With the Nikon, the photographer has to take off the lens, add the TC and put the lens back on the TC; then if the subject comes back into closer range another switch is required. For a professional photographer shooting sports or wildlife, I would think being able to have a 200-560mm range with the flip of a switch in either direction would be a tremendous advantage. Isn't the primary reason professional photographers often have more than one camera/lens combination hanging from their necks because they can't spare the time to change lenses?</p>

 

[rick_m.]

<p>@Ilkka I completely agree with your assessment of the PJ and sports business. I fit into it all the way having gone from staff to freelance to contract and back around again. There is simply not as much money thrown at content as there once was. Fairness also demands that we PJs recognize the quality of work being done by amateurs these days. Our old motto was "F8 and be there". Now the camera sets the f-stop and there are a ton of them there. I think we tend to forget that virtually everyone in the country is carrying a digital camera these days. </p>

<p>Shun makes a very good point about equipment too. The acquiring of new equipment has always been a hard sell. I remember when the D2H came out. That was the last time it was easy to convince an editor to buy a new camera. The speed of that camera was a game changer for sports guys who didn't have it. No upgrade since then has been easy. Though I own newer cameras I still use, publish and sell rodeo and racing shots taken with a D2X and sometimes for fun, the D2H. <br>

This lens decision on Canon's part may reflect their assessment that regardless of the cost they will sell very few of these lenses. They may have to price them this way because they will be made in such small quantities. I am often criticized because I refer to some equipment purchases as "Rolex" lenses. There is absolutely nothing wrong with well-heeled amateurs buying expensive lenses because they want to take their hobby to a different place. Hobbies are like that and if the money doesn't matter, why not? Self employed professionals mostly have to be more practical. We learn early on that it is easy to attempt to justify any purchase as just a business expense. My guess is that very very few self-employed professionals will need or buy this Canon lens. My comments about what seems to me to be a deteriorating respect on the part of Canon for professionals, I stand by. It is a discussion I have with others frequently. Clearly Canon does not even take the term "professional photographer" seriously anymore. Perhaps they are right. Perhaps the line is too blurred these days to matter much. Obviously amateurs are driving the markets. </p>