you think lenses are costly?

[cfusionpm]

Canon | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Autofocus Lens | 7042A002 | B&H

Yes, I think lenses are costly.

The new IS II is even more than that.

But I know very well that the craftsmanship and hands-on attention to detail is well worth it. I never knew what it was like to use a $2k+ lens before, but once I did the difference was immense.

 

[SushiWarrior]

With the mindset of this thread ANYTHING made seems cheap... welcome to the world of manufacturing.

 

[usayit]

I wonder if the price difference between the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and IS II has less to do with the cost of manufacturing and materials and more to do with other factors.

For me, Leica products have become less obtainable in part by the falling dollar versus the Euro (Germany's currency). My 100-400L was $1400 7 years ago and BH has it listed for just over $1600 now... a lens that has yet to be improved on since 1998.

 

[den9]

I wonder if the price difference between the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and IS II has less to do with the cost of manufacturing and materials and more to do with other factors.

For me, Leica products have become less obtainable in part by the falling dollar versus the Euro (Germany's currency). My 100-400L was $1400 7 years ago and BH has it listed for just over $1600 now... a lens that has yet to be improved on since 1998.

i was reading threads were the 50mm f/1.8 was 80-90 now its 125 dollars, this also has to do with shipping and fuel costs, and the cost of living goes up every year also. every lens went up alittle in price, just like the price of eggs.

i dont know how much the new is II costs, but im sure the only reason why it will cost more is simply the demand. im sure it cost alittle more to make, but its truely marketing and supply and demand.

 

[cfusionpm]

i dont know how much the new is II costs, but im sure the only reason why it will cost more is simply the demand. im sure it cost alittle more to make, but its truely marketing and supply and demand.

Don't forget all the research and development. The old IS was released nearly 10 years ago and a lot of new advancements have been made since then. The new IS II is leaps and bounds better than the original

 

[usayit]

Don't forget all the research and development. The old IS was released nearly 10 years ago and a lot of new advancements have been made since then. The new IS II is leaps and bounds better than the original

I'm not convinced. Lens groupings are similar and they are of similar designs. The MTF charts are practically identical. The IS is improved by one stop but much of the R&D for IS has been around for years. The 70-200 f/4L IS already has the 4 stop IS. There are a few lenses in their lineup that are older.. the 100-400L being one of them.

But.. yeh.. If it makes you feel better, the II is "better" by "Leaps and Bounds".


Leica shooters go through the same thing.... claiming a particular "zen" or "Leica" glow versus the "plastic" look of Canon/Nikon images.. and what not to justify the premium cost.

 

[cfusionpm]

Some horribly bias reviews agree with me.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Review

 

[FrankLamont]

But don't forget the disclaimers that run through the video... 'different techniques/processes are used for other types of lenses'. Hmm - just that this was of the 500mm that costs quite a few thousand, eh?

It's definitely up there, but I doubt - highly - the level of care for the lens shown goes into a 50mm f/1.8.

 

[usayit]

Some horribly bias reviews agree with me.

 

[den9]

But don't forget the disclaimers that run through the video... 'different techniques/processes are used for other types of lenses'. Hmm - just that this was of the 500mm that costs quite a few thousand, eh?

It's definitely up there, but I doubt - highly - the level of care for the lens shown goes into a 50mm f/1.8.

oh definitely, im sure the equipment is very old also, cheaper materials, and the biggest factor of course, the 2 dollars an hour workers in china.

 

[Garbz]

Production and raw material probably adds very little to the overall cost of a lens. I'd be inclined that the cost comes into R&D, premium product markups and the such.

You think it's scary polishing and working glass and that contributes to the insane cost, then you should go have a look at how an oil refinery works. For literally weeks, crude oil is slushing around at insane temperatures over catalysts made of platinum and gold, mixed with hard to mass produce gasses at pressures that would make your jaw drop, and yet what comes out at the bowsers is a very refined liquid that is cheaper than bottled water!

Having a few people manhandling some sand is the tip of the cost iceberg.