A brief survey of MSRP and street prices for new new Canon lenses

The topic of prices and how MSRP and street prices begin to differ over time came up in a recent thread, so I did a brief survey of 12 new Canon lenses from the last 3 years or so. The date is of the press release, the price is from B&H.


I thought it was an interesting bit of trivia:

• 2006-August: 50mm f/1.2: $1,600 -> $1,480 (8%)
• 2006-August: 70-200 f/4 L IS:$1,250 -> $1,210 (3%)
• 2007-February: 16-35 f/2.8 L II: $1,700 -> $1,520 (11%)
• 2007-August: 14mm f/2.8 L II: $2,200 -> $2,120 (4%)
• 2007-August: 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS: $300 -> $260 (13%)
• 2008-January: 800mm f/5.6 L IS: $12,000 -> $10,900 (9%)
• 2008-January: 200mm f/2 L IS: $6,000 -> $5,300 (12%)
• 2008-August: 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS: $700 -> $600 (14%)
• 2008-September: 24mm f/1.4 L II: $1,700 -> $1,700 (0%)
• 2009-September: 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro: $1,050 -> $950 (10%)
• 2009-September: 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS: $500 -> $450 (10%)
• 2009-September: 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS: $800 -> $720 (10%)

The average difference between MSRP and street is 8.7%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

• 2008-September: 24mm f/1.4 L II: $1,700 -> $1,700 (0%)

---

This is the one that concerns me. Maybe the 70-200II will have a higher demand that will warrant higher yields and allow a price break sooner.


I still feel pretty good about the 70-200 2.8 IS I picked up for $1499 back in May.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

• 2008-September: 24mm f/1.4 L II: $1,700 -> $1,700 (0%)

---

This is the one that concerns me. Maybe the 70-200II will have a higher demand that will warrant higher yields and allow a price break sooner.


I still feel pretty good about the 70-200 2.8 IS I picked up for $1499 back in May.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I would not be too concerned, for the following reasons:

1. The Mark I has been a very popular and well-regarded lens. There are a LOT of copies of this lens out there. I project that the market for the Mark II will not see sustained demand, unless Canon's supply is restricted (either deliberately or due to manufacturing tolerance/QC issues).
2. Low demand of the Mark II will likely cause Canon to cut prices, not sustain them. They cannot hold out for higher margins when the overhead costs to design and build the Mark II has already been paid. And because of the abundance of Mark I copies, Canon cannot discontinue the Mark I as a means of forcing a significant number of consumers to buy the Mark II.
3. My theory is that prime lenses tend to retain their value better than zooms, on the basis that they are more often used by people who need optimal quality at any price. Thus pricing trends of L primes may not be a good model for that of L zooms, especially those as popular as the 70-200mm series.
4. I project that the yen will weaken against the dollar somewhat in the next 12 months, but that's neither here nor there. LOL

So...I am still salivating over the EF 300/2.8L IS. I can't get that lens out of my mind. If I sell my 70-200/2.8L IS I for $1500, and sell my 300/4L IS for $900, that gives me $2400. I might even be able to bump it up to $2700 if I sell my 85/1.8. Heck, I would even sell my 24-105/4L IS for $800 but that leaves me with no wide angle. I can't go around shooting with just a 100/2.8 and 300/2.8. To be honest I feel a little trapped by my lens lineup at present. What I really want are 15/2.8 FE, 24-70/2.8L, 85/1.2L II, and 300/2.8L IS. The only lens I know you'd have to pry from my cold dead hands is the 100/2.8L macro IS. But I feel like that leaves a huge gap from 100-300mm, yet I don't really find myself using the 70-200 I already have.


Okay that was totally off topic, sorry. Just had to get that off my chest. [:P]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

But I feel like that leaves a huge gap from 100-300mm, yet I don't really find myself using the 70-200 I already have.

---

I know what you mean. My 70-200 was my least used lens and I was considering selling it but then I got a gig shooting community sports for a local paper so now it is a necessity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

I would not be too concerned, for the following reasons:

1. The Mark I has been a very popular and well-regarded lens. There are a LOT of copies of this lens out there.

---

The popularity of the lens is a mixed bag. On the one hand, if they sell a lot, they don't need to drop the price. On the other hand, as there are a lot of 70-200mm f/2.8s already out there, and most photographers either won't need the improved IQ, or aren't willing to pay the increase and take a loss on sales of the original. The new 70-200mm likely won't see huge sales after the initial professional rush is done.


Look at the 70-200mm F/4 L IS... an awesome and popular lens. A lot of people want one of the 70-200mm lenses, want IS, but can't afford the existing f/2.8 variety. They settle for the F/4 IS. As a bonus, the F/4 is sharper, has a lower MFD, and an improved IS system. I imagine they sell plenty of them, and as such, they only have a 3% discount over initial MSRP. They don't need to reduce the prices, BECAUSE it's a popular lens. You only need to lower prices when demand falls off.


Luckily for those of your considering the new 70-200mm lens, it will be out reach for the majority of hobby photographers. It will be a serious-amateur/pro-only lens. The majority of people who fit into this category will already have the mark I, and won't see a need to pay for the upgrade. After the initial pro rush, the low demand will force a price drop.


So, so I think. :)

My first 70-200mm Llens was the f4 IS. I still have it. I have bought 4 of the 70-200 F2.8 lenses (1 was non IS) when they showed up on our local craigslist for too low of a price. Their sharpness was pretty much equal to the F4 at the same aperture, but slightly softer at larger apertures and at 200mm.


I sold all 4 merely because they were too heavy, and the one time I was in a low light situation, they did not have a wide enough aperture. I use the f4 and carry it with me, and use a prime for low light. My 135mm L is a favorite with my 5D MK II, with the 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.4 are close behind.


I'd like to get a long lens with short mfd that is sharp enough to work with a teleconverter on my 1D MK III. I did once have a 400mm F:/5.6, but without IS, I needed a fast shutter speed which limited me toexcellent lit scenes, and the mfd was too long.


I like the 300mm 2.8 and the 100-400 L, but I sold my 100-400mm L four years ago when I was justgetting started because I could not master the push-pull. I'm holding off until later this spring to see if anything new comes out, the Sigma 50-500 OS sounds interesting, but the MTF curves really do not look impressive at 500mm.