Messages

1

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L Non-IS Discontinued?

« on: June 14, 2013, 10:22:01 AM »

Overall, I like the decision.  BUT, and it's a big BUT - the IS tech should be included for no more than $200 extra.

Canon puts IS into a kit lenses that might cost them $75 to make -  so let's pretend the IS stuff in there costs canon $10.

Let them upscale it all because it's going into an "L" lens.  So they spend TWENTY times more on the IS for the "L" lens.

And then price the L's IS at $200 more than the non IS version.

2

Canon General / Re: Why did you choose Canon?

« on: March 13, 2013, 12:17:35 PM »

I was a Member of special interest house at RIT's school of photography a couple decades ago. 

Between Canon and Nikon, Canon was preferred by students 9 to 10, because it was thought to have higher durability.  Most new cameras had gaffer's tape applied to logos and any shiny parts right out of the box, so it wasn't like people we touting brand - they just went with what they thought would last a trip to initial dessert storm, caving trip to WA, etc...

3

Lenses / Re: How much would you pay for Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS

« on: February 04, 2013, 09:11:00 AM »

Answering how much more 'should' it cost, I'd say $700 more.

the 70-200 f/2.8 without IS cost, $1300, the same lens with IS cost $2000.  So all the tech can certainly be accommodated at a 'pro IS level' with a $700 up-charge, maybe a touch more if they want to add special coatings of what not to the is lens element. 

4

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS Resolution Tests

« on: January 04, 2013, 03:36:57 PM »

You will have to pry my 24-105L off my cold dead hands

Why? The tamron and 24-70 IS clearly test better, especially at 24mm.

As always, everything is a package deal....lets not discount the added reach the 24-105L offers with IS and decent IQ and contrast.

24-105 has added reach, but also added distortion and a 70-200/300 lens delivers much better 70-105mm quality plus a LOT more reach.

Thing is, 24-105 covers a lot of range as a quality walk around lens.  No doubt a pair of lens (like a 24-70 & 70-200) give you more in multiple metrics, namely quality & reach, but one len / one body has it's benefits for casual trips where you don't even take a bag...  That's why I like my 24-105. 

5

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS Resolution Tests

« on: January 04, 2013, 03:28:51 PM »

just an embarrassing note - maybe add " bigger number is better / worse" type text to future graphs. 

6

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]

« on: December 20, 2012, 09:53:25 AM »

time to buy stock in third party lenses?

When I was in photo school in late 80's, early 90's, the general thought was that the third party lenses were almost canon quality, the main reason you'd pay canon money was to retain strong re-sale value.

Although I have yet to buy a non canon lense in all these years - it seems like one has to strongly consider tamron / sigma options after looking at these canon prices.

What is the profit margin on these things?

7

Contests / Re: Gura Gear Giveaway!

« on: December 07, 2012, 08:17:51 AM »

i want to win too!

8

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD Hands-On

« on: November 29, 2012, 08:53:23 AM »

Looks like a great option to consider.  Glad to see another choice available for when I get to the point of needing to seriously look at that focal range in a f/2.8 lens.

9

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro

« on: November 27, 2012, 09:53:06 AM »

I've owned the non-L version of the lens many, many years...  wonder lens.  I've never thought of upgrading to L because I couldn't imagine a sharper lens, and to me, the IS hold little value as nearly all macro must really be done on a tripod...

I'm curious about the difference the rounded aperture blades of the L makes - I can't say I've ever been bothered with the non-L's effect, but it would be interested to see an A - B comparison between the lenses that highlights this difference.

10

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: November 07, 2012, 02:28:16 PM »

What do lens, in general, cost Canon to make?

macrumors, for example, usually reports to the penny what an i-device costs after a tear down.

I know R&D costs will very between lenses, and that those R&D cost are distributed in much different rates due to the popularity of a lens, but anyone have any thoughts?

For example, let's take this lens - at $2200.  It is claimed to be a kit lens, so a relatively high number will be made, spreading our R&D. 

What's canon making on this lens - $400 or $1800 ?