Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens,$200more expensive than his Nikon rival-WHY?

[igmolinav]

Hi,

This canon lens:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Canon+15-85&N=0&InitialSearch=yes

is $200 more expensive than this very similar lens:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545654-GREY/Nikon_2178_16_85mm_f_3_5_5_6G_ED_VR.html

But WHY ??? If they are almost, if not the same thing !!!

Isn't a bad move from Canon to introduce a lens with a
more expensive price than Nikon, (that is already in the
market) ??

In advance, thank you for your comments,

igmolinav.

 

[elitesouth]

The differences are subtle:

1. Canon has a lower minimum focus distance
2. Canon also has the name "Canon" on it

 

[compuwar]

But WHY ??? If they are almost, if not the same thing !!!

Materials, manufacturing techniques, capacities, demand and profit margins are all reasons for different pricing.

Isn't a bad move from Canon to introduce a lens with a
more expensive price than Nikon, (that is already in the
market) ??

Even when it comes to supertelephotos, where Canon is much cheaper than Nikon people will rarely switch brands for a single lens, so no from a company standpoint the price compared to Nikon is not an issue. If it were the case that lens pricing were that much of an issue, we'd see fewer third-parties involved because manufacturers would have to price them down and out of the market.

If you have a Canon, you'll purchase the lens if you need it, so why would Canon price it to get less money than they can from it?

 

[Cliff3]

is $200 more expensive than this very similar lens:

Your math skills need some work. The US version of the Nikon lens is $630, compared to the Canon at $720. I make that price difference to be $90. The gray market import you linked to is $20 less than the US import, resulting in a $110 price difference.

The Canon is probably priced a bit higher because it was released 6 weeks ago and dealers are hoping to profit on demand for a new lens. The Nikon lens has been on the market for nearly 2 years. IIRC the Nikon lens was originally priced a bit higher than its current price. I would expect the price on the Canon lens to decline a bit over the next 6-9 months as demand is satisfied and dealers adjust the price to keep their inventory turning over.

 

[compuwar]

The Canon is probably priced a bit higher because it was released 6 weeks ago and dealers are hoping to profit on demand for a new lens.

More than likely Canon's hoping to recoup the investment in the production line changes sooner. I'm pretty sure the manufacturer's prices are higher at the start, not just the dealer's prices- I'm not sure that the dealer's margins on products change that much over time unless they're moving serious volumes. (IOW-- Yes, a higher price should mean higher margins, but that's generally more of a manufacturer-driven thing, rather than a dealer or distributor-driven thing.)

 

[OreoCookie]

The grass is always greener on the other side. But you can't switch every time your favorite manufacturer (the manufacturer of your camera body ) doesn't have the lens you want at the price point you'd like it to be.

Nikon doesn't have a lens to compete against the 17-40 mm f/4 (which is affordable and very high quality). Canon doesn't have a cheap 35 mm prime optimized for crop sensors (yet). Neither of them offers a 50-135 mm f/2.8 (a very sensible focal length range on crop sensors), but Pentax does (well, that's really a Tokina lens with an addition ultrasonic motor), etc.

If you really want the lens, you just gotta wait or pony up the additional $200. Canon knows that if you already own a Canon, you don't really have a choice Or you look into other lenses, also those made by third-party manufacturers.

 

[Troglodyte]

Canon's lens is pretty new and hasn't really bedded down to it's real 'street' price yet. I expect it to become much like the 17-85 - expensive boxed but relatively cheap as a white box/second hand.

 

[Westside guy]

Huh - usually it's the other way around, Canon's lenses are cheaper than the equivalent Nikon glass. And I say that as a Nikon shooter.

BTW add to the calculation the fact that, when you buy a lens from them, Canon doesn't include the lens hood for some reason... I've never understood that.

 

[Troglodyte]

BTW add to the calculation the fact that, when you buy a lens from them, Canon doesn't include the lens hood for some reason... I've never understood that.

They include lens hoods with the L lenses but not with their 'consumer' lenses. IMO they're being a bit cheap by not including them - especially on expensive lenses like the 17-55 f/2.8

 

[joelypolly]

As others have mentioned is is pretty new. Given some time I think the price will be cheaper or around the same as the Nikon.

Also 1mm when you're at 15~16 mm does make a big difference in full frame, in this case since both are designed for cropped sensors (1.5 Nikon vs 1.6 Canon) there is a less of a difference.

 

[Acsom]

If I own a Canon, the price of the Nikon lens means nothing to me.