brian43053 Loc: Buffalo, NY

as long as people are willing to pay - they'll keep over charging!! There's an old saying in ythe commodity trading business - "Nothing cures high prices like high prices"

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

From my viewpoint it could just be simple supply and demand that makes the big white hoods so costly. How many of a 600mm lens does Canon sell worldwide each year, 500, 1000, 2000? I don’t know but I doubt the number is large. So part of what drives the cost is the small market and the costs that have to be amortized over that limited number. What person would realistically use that lens without a hood? So if a hood is damaged or lost it needs to be replaced but again what is the volume of replacement hoods sold each year, probably very low.

So if you had to go to a machine shop and get them to make you a hood what would it cost you in terms of time and money? A lot more than what Canon charges you I expect. I have a friend who makes Woodworking tooling and some of it seems expensive for what it is and does. We have discussed this and it is the same deal, number sold versus costs to produce. We see the same thing in auto parts when repairing wreck damage. If you add up the cost of the separately purchased, packaged and shipped parts it is much greater than a factory assembled car. And we have not even talked about labor to put it back together.

My son is a drag racer. The car he drove in 2017 had a motor that cost $125k. A crank for that motor was $6,500. Pistons $250 each, piston ring set $1600, $2000 for a set of valve springs. The block was machined form billet aluminum, as were the heads. The intake is hand made and welded up
from aluminum. It is costly. If you hire someone to work on such a motor it is about $100 per man hour. Tear down of a motor at that rate alone is $4000. I remember saying something about thinking about buying some camera gear for $600 and my son’s comment was that there was really nothing that you could buy for a race car for $600. It’s mostly supply and demand Kids...

And if you are using it for business hopefully you pay your money and go on. There is an amazing amount of money and wealth out there floating around...

Naptown Gaijin

Many of you could save a lot of money by just going to a M43 system like I did. Got me a Pany Lumix GX-9 that does just about all the big boys do, and has some features they don't, not to speak of smaller size, lighter weighr, and lower prices.

Camera body (minus kit lens), native 24-70 f2.8, 200-600 f3.5-5.6, and Oly 120mm Macro TOTAL cost was about $1,800. Then I added a native 85 f1.2 Noctiron for another $1,500.

I can now cover every focal length I need, get great photos, and all 4 lens hoods included for free along with 3 leather pouches. So, for around $3,300
TOTAL price, this here part time pro can take night surveillance photos, portraits, and gnats asses, a for less than the Canon lens and hood costs.

And some of you who don't go larger than 8x10 or 11x17, hell, even 24x30, don't need anything more. Like the wise men say, "It's what's behind the camera that is most important."

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Once again, a pointless argument started over nothing. The Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 L comes with a lens hood.
Here's the ad. Scroll down to where it says "In The Box".

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1477265-REG/canon_rf_85mm_f_1_2l_usm.html

I guess it is easier to just throw rocks and make baseless accusations then to check out the facts.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

I get the supply and demand issue from back in the days of high school. But I would like to add that when I was in high school the newest fad was the red dial LED watch for upwards of $200 instead of the standard analog watch. Within a short time people realized the impracticality of using your free hand to push the little button. Now you can buy those things for for $19.95! Personally I have my $50 watch that I have had for well over 25 years. Guess what folks? It still works and it is not the shiniest one there is. If I can get something good for less somewhere else, I'm going there. IMHO, Good glass does not necessarily need to be expensive glass. So I'm happy with what I have, shoot what I can and just move on.
To all the naysayers out there, if you have a $30,000 camera and a $6000 lens, great. I'll shake your hand, look at your photos and give critique if need be. But, I'll expect the same from you. I'd rather spend my money for jewelry for my wife and college for my kids. I'm funny that way, I guess.
As for greedy camera manufacturers, I'm not so sorry I'm not buying your expensive lens until you drop the hefty price tag, please.
Happy

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

A quick comment to Notorious T.O.D: I'm a proud father too. What ever interest my children, I support whole-heartedly. As for race-car driving, I'm hope that your son stays safe.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Thank you. Racing can be dangerous but the cars are built to be very safe. He had a crash in 2015 when a parachute tether tangled in his wheelie bars. He walked away fine. Probably more dangerous driving to and from the races than down the track. He understands and accepts the risks.

Products usually come to market at high prices and the price falls over time and market growth. Calculators, VCRs, CDs, cell phones, computers have all been that way... maybe that will happen with Canon’s R lenses too...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A mistake is posted 100 times while the truth is busy editing.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I have a feeling the lens performance at f/1.2 will be breathtaking. Whether it justifies a $2700 price, the market will determine. The EF 11-24mm f/4L also is jawdropping expensive at $2700, but the images are unique and again the market for this uniqueness supports the asking price.

Haydon

You may be right but at that price I can almost buy (2) Canon EF 85mm 1.4L's. There's definitely a big price to pay for early adoption. Even the 24-70 2.8L II retailed on release for $2300.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Not all the prices are over the top. The RF 24-105 f/4 L IS is $1099. Currently on sale for $899. The EF 24-105 f/4 L II is also $1099. Currently on sale for..........$1099.
Those are probably two of Canon's most popular lenses in their respective mounts, hence the similar price, I would guess. Hopefully, as the market for other RF lenses develops we will see better prices.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

When the EOS system was developed, some of Canon's greatest lenses were introduced, like the EF 300 f/2.8L, EF 200 f/1.8L, EF 50 f/1.0L. I still use the original EF 50 f/1.8. The 135L has never been updated, now in the catalog for 22+ years, since 1996. A lens many of us use and recommend, the EF 85 f/1.8, dates to 1992.

I continue to believe Canon is 'all in' now on the RF mount. I think the only thing we won't see is the super whites redesigned to the RF. But, what if a 200 f/1.8 makes a comeback?

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Well I'm blaming my mistake on the misleading email I received from Adorama, but it is good to know that Canon is not going that route with their expensive lenses as they already do with their consumer line.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

I call it the boutique lens. Canon is by far not the most greedy. But I have
wanted to go with their cameras both camcorders with or without interchangeable lens
and their DSLR's a few years ago. I was getting into more video and wanted more gear.
Their pricing kept me out of it. And I tried to continue with Nikon (had some lens) and
the image was good but camera not ready for video and stills in my mind.

The alternative was Sony and frankly this turned out so much better. The had the sensors
with new technologies layered and mirrorless in cropped and FF down. So far the cameras
I have are just great. I have Sony lens not cheap but their are alternatives in the line.
I think they have shown once again with the recent a7III for 2k that they are ready
to play. I always wanted a Canon C300 but it was too expensive like 16k maybe 13k now.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

I think their is a movement towards different cameras right now. That does
not mean i dont see the excitement over Canon and Nikon in mirrorless .
Read an detailed article by a travel art shooter that does great stuff.
He wrote what I have learned that a smaller discreet camera really
works. And some of them even with dedicated lens have different
look to their visuals. He said if he took his Canon FF with Canon glass
he would have a lot of problems in different countries.
I can take my RX100 4 or a6300 with 16 70 zeiss or FF a7s II
and get great video and stills without looking obvious.
With the RX10 III 24 600 ican shoot great stills and video
from a great distance. And the visuals or a bit brighter.