Why is Nikon Glass more expensive than Canon?

I've been playing the "pretend I have lots of money and am going to go out tomorrow and buy a big boy telephoto lens" and am wondering why Nikon glass is so much more expensive than Canon...

Nikon 600mm f4 = $10,300
Nikon 500mm f4 = $ 8,500
Nikon 400mm f/2.8 = $8,900
Nikon 300mm f/2.8 = $5,500

Canon 600mm f4 = $8,750
Canon 500mm f4 = $6,700
Canon 400mm f/2.8 = $7,600
Canon 300mm f/2.8 = $4,600

All prices are from Amazon.com.

Is Canon just trying to undercut Nikon? Or is Nikon glass worth the extra $$?

*Thanks for the correction on the Nikon 500 f4

Luke you do realize you opened a can of worms whose size is just a wee bit smaller than the 'Film vs. Digital' argument.

Let the fun begin!

--P

AAAAAAAAAAAUGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Thanks, feel better now.

It may just be that Canon has put more effort into cutting manufacturing costs, who knows. But as far as the "is Nikon glass better", that's a yes and a maybe and a no, all depends. I doubt there's much difference on the big teles, but as a Canon user I can tell you that the Canon 16-35mm/2.8 doesn't even belong on the same zip code as the Nikon 14-24mm, that's why many Canon folks are paying through the nose for an adapter just so they can use the Nikon lens on a 5D2. I'll be doing the same eventually.

So there's a safe "Canon guy praises a Nikon lens" example!

(probably didn't answer your question though, lol)

The Nikon super tele's are newer than the Canon ones. Newer by close to a decade I think. I doubt that has much of a bearing on the image quality that comes out of them, but it does mean that their R&D costs are more recent, and thus they may need to charge more to recoup the costs. Their manufacturing may not be as streamlined. I also would not be surprised if Canon ships a much higher volume of super tele's, at least averaged over the last decade.. Canon used to be pretty much the only game in town when it came to super tele's (for sports and such), until Nikon finally released the image stabilized line.

If you look at Canon's newer super tele's, they are more in line with the Nikon pricing. The 800mm/5.6 is over $12,000! And really, it can't be that much more complicated than a 600m + optimized 1.4x teleconverter, so personally I think it's overpriced by at least $2k.

Simple answer....Nikon glass is more expensive because it costs more!

Because they can. Go ahead and buy one of those big Nikon lenses. You will probably be put on a long waiting list. They seem to not be able to build them fast enough.

Check those prices again.

The Nikon 500mm F4 on Amazon at $7500 is used. The B&H price is $8499.

Luke,

I believe you are seeing a marketing strategy based upon loyalty. Also Nikon is probably thinking they might sell a few less lenes but from a bottom line standpoint come out ahead of the game. I think the real bargins will be in the used market when Canon people start to trade up to the new glass. There are lots of stunning shots coming from the old series glass and I do not think it would be a mistake to look for a deal on a good used copy. The new glass might be slightly better but marketing will try to position it as something you can't live without. What I would look at is what the non paid (Canon Payroll) pros are doing. If they don't flock over to the new glass assume the cost is not worth the benefit. There is still lots of 30-40 year old Zeiss and Leica optics out there that can't be beat. Improvements at this point will be marginal at best. The technology surrounding optics is fairly well established.

I sense a longer lens in your future.

I probably don't have to tell you this but the equipment is as good as the person using it. Old or new vintage I don't see you having a problem generating beautiful images.

I think for my next topic I'll pose a question about Macs Vs. PC's! jk..

Sounds like Steve makes the most reasonable argument - in that Canon is releasing new stuff that will cost a bundle. Also, I'm remembering that Canon is/was the industry standard for sports which of course is where these big boys are used most and are a sponsor of the NFL (though Nikon has been making in-roads in baseball, like with the Mets).

As for IQ, I think we are reaching a plateau and the improvements to lenses are now focused on reducing weight and improving IS/VR. Both of these innovations allow for hand-held shooting or shooting in lower light/less than idea conditions. More shots in more places I suppose... especially when coupled with a camera that can really handle a high ISO.

Another factor: size of the company and size of the market. I've always read that Cannon is a much larger company with more capital and a larger customer base for certain lenses, so they can spread their R&D costs over more units for a lower per unit cost. Also Nikon lenses used to get manufactured in batches, so if you are "far" from a batch production date the inventory of a particular lens may be very low and prices therefore at a premium.

I could add the question of reliability as well, but all I have is anecdotal reports about needed replacement of AF motors and bearings in tripod collars etc.

Well all of the major players in camera lenses (Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Tamron) have their US HQ's on Long Island and Canon is currently constructing a MASSIVE new facility, while Nikon's is quite moderate in size. I suppose that is good evidence to your point Rich.

Well, being a manufacturer I can tell you that price has nothing to do with manufacturing efficiency or volume sold or any other costs. The price is always calculated by what the manufacturer or seller thinks the market (that's us) will bear. The manufacturing costs only determine how much profit you can make.

Obviously Nikon is either in a better position in the market or they are just smarter marketers. It would be really nice to be in a position where you have a captive market where it is so difficult to change brands. My bet is that Cannon is learning something about pricing from Nikon and will eventually catch up.

Canon may be forced to keep a lower pricing structure to drive more volume to absorb the overhead of larger facilities. I am sure their marketing people have done lots of analysis on where their economic sweet spot is. I agree with Walt that selling price has absolutely no relationship to the cost of manufacturing and item with one exception that no sane business person would sell below cost. I am sure a $10,000 lens cost far less than $2000 to produce from a variable cost standpoint but once R&D, Marketing, and other assorted expenses are added in the number approaches the $3000 to $6000 range. Good marketing is what creates premium pricing! Most companies define their niche and desired market share and develop pricing strategy accordingly.

As some indicated, I think the difference is nothing to do with quality or cost of manufacturing. It's very possible though that Canon has a lower cost for making lenses - given they are doing it for a long time (learning curve) and they are bigger (economies of scale). But I think that Nikon realized that they can demand higher pricing anyway beacuse most people like to stay with the brand - looks like Canon is realizing that too. That's a bad news for us - we all need to switch brands from time to time to tell them that there is no loyalty, just pricing matters!

the answer is simple, Nikon glass is better, look at all the MTFs, CA, vignetting analysis for both companies pro lenses and all Nikon glasses outperform Canons, (I say all not some). Many photographers attracted to Nikon because of their lenses. Nikon is dedicated imaging company, they don't make printers, papers, or LCDs, so their business is more focused on one subject.