Pricing on New Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 IS L

Posted on 26 August 2006

There is considerable gnashing of teeth in a Fred Miranda discussion thread about the new IS version of the excellent Canon 70-200mm f/4 lens. A number of writers think that the IS feature should be added on the cheap, and are outraged at the $1250 list price of the lens. Some are suggesting a (rather hopeless) boycott of the lens to force Canon to lower the price, and some feel that “L” lenses are no better than the $200 alternatives and that only fools would purchase L lenses.

I don’t think the pricing of the new lens should be much of a surprise. The more expensive f/2.8 version of this lens comes in IS and non-IS versions. At one online retailer you pay a $560 premium for the IS version.

B&H sells the old non-IS version of the f/4 lens for $585. Add the $560 premium for IS (based on the additional cost of that feature on the f/2.8 version) and you might predict a realistic cost for the new lens of about $1150.

It seems a bit overpriced at list, but if it drops $100 it should be right about where you would predict – and the price will drop after the lens is out for awhile. There is no reason to think that the price for adding IS to the 70-200 f/4 L would be much different than that for adding it to the f/2.8 lens.

While I can’t say that every L is better than every non-L (there are some excellent non-L lenses), there really is a difference in optical quality and build quality – and some of us find these differences to be significant.

I predict the following will happen once the whining dies down:

Some people – impatient, or really needing it right now – will buy this lens at full list price as soon as it comes out.
A bit later the price will drift downwards – as the price of new gear always does – and others will purchase it.
Despite the proposal to boycott the lens (yeah, right… ;-) Canon will sell plenty of them over the next decade or so.
The lens will end up with a reputation as one of Canon’s best, especially for those who value lighter weight, want to save a few hundred dollars over the f/2.8 IS, and/or don’t need f/2.8. *
Some people will buy the less expensive non-L lenses and be quite happy with them.
Others will buy a less expensive non-L lens, be happy with it for awhile, gradually discover the difference, and upgrade to a better lens.

* The non-IS version of this lens has a stellar reputation. It is said to be as sharp as (or sharper than) the excellent f/2.8 version of the lens – I know that mine is a great performer. In addition, it is smaller and lighter and considerably less expensive than the f/2.8.

Once the price softens I’m pretty certain that I’ll sell my non-IS 70-200 f/4 L and upgrade to the IS version.

Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

(Basic EXIF data is available by “mousing over” large images in blog posts. Leave a comment if you want to know more.)