« on: December 13, 2011, 05:27:44 AM »
If the current (Adorama) price is $1300 then by historical inference the IS version would be some $2500+. Now if we do the same for the 16-35 then the price would increase by some $1400. So to add IS onto these two lens would get close to the upgrade to a 1DX, which would happily accomodate 1 or 2 stops to eliminate any need for IS.
I think you are confused about IS again. IS in no way adds $1400. It costs Canon very little to add it without any IQ hit. Easily $250 or so for the module and upgraded lens optics. This is based on several hours of research into the spare parts prices of similar lenses. Canon would probably introduce the lens at $2000 no matter what but the price would soon fall to $1600. Canon probably in either scenario would eat the cost of IS. So there would be zero price change. To them it is likely more about if the additional sales from including IS justify the reduced profit that would result.
As for the 1Dx having 1-2 stops better ISO. That is a fanciful proposition. A half stop would be the most you could expect, which is still biblical. The photo detectors in cameras are already gathering near their maximum theoretical number of photons. It is just impossible to get much more out of them. In fact since the 20D Canon's pixels have improved a half stop only in efficiency. The real improvement of the 1Dx is in noise reduction which trickles down to all cameras through updates to RAW processors.
If you want to talk strict price comparisons for IS vs non-IS:
Lens introductory prices adjusted for inflation and exchange rate:
70-200mm f/2.8 $3008
70-200mm f/2.8 IS II $3005
70-200mm f/2.8 IS $3630
70-200mm f/4.0 $1675
70-200mm f/4.0 IS $1817
The intro price for the 24-70mm f/2.8 adjusted for inflation and exchange was $1893, based on the historical data I presented this pegs it around $2000 with IS. If you look at adjusted historical data for many other lenses Canon has upgraded without adding IS over the years, adjusted for inflation and exchange rate they have nearly identical prices at intro. So that supports my original assertion that no matter what the lens will cost the same varying maybe $100-$300 if not $0 with IS.
I think maybe Canon wants to milk the market more before they release the IS version. The problem is that Canon needs an IS lens like this NOW for videographers. There are absolutely no image stabilized fast normal lenses available.