EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS Preorders

[dstppy]

Wow, four pages of 'this is too expensive'.

IIRC people complained about the 15-85mm price, but it's really worth the money, so I'll wait and see.  From the description of the 35mm, I'm wondering why it doesn't get an "L" label, is it because they only carry one L at a time?

The 24-70 actually makes sense to me now; if they'd have given the 24-105 the same workover/upgrade, we'd be staring at $2200 to $2400.  Then we'd have complaining for four pages . . . oh wait.

In all seriousness, a lot of people here treat MSRP like it's built in stone. Anyone that can't get a 5DmkIII for around $2900 with a light amount of work/patience isn't trying very hard, so let's stop pretending like these aren't going to be bundled/adjusted.

The 40mm pancake can be had for $150 recently, so let's wait and see where the price drops come before we wail, lament, and move to Nikon.  With this announcement, no one's gear burst into flames, we need to stop acting like it.

[AdamJ]

WTF 1500 bucks?!?

Me: "WTF?"

Canon: "...a maximum magnification of 0.7x – reducing the need for photographers to carry a dedicated macro lens.  So, what you short-sighted complainers fail to understand is that while you may think this lens seems expensive, if you add up the cost of the 24-105L and 100L Macro, this lens is significantly cheaper, and thus it's a real bargain!"

Me: "WTM-F'nF?!?"

Neuro, I have a lot of respect for you, but this lens is ridiculously overpriced. Maybe some people expect to pay $1500 for an f4 lens, but I think that's absurd.
The Canon 24-70 2.8 II should have been $1800 or less, and this F4 lens should be no more than $1200 starting price.
This Macro thing should be a perk for people paying 1000 dollars for a lens, not a reason to double the price of the current 24-105(which was on sale for $750 just a few weeks ago.) I don't believe this lens takes the place of the 100L.

You misunderstood Neuro's post. He was saying "WTM-F'nF" to Canon's supposed belief that the macro function makes this lens a bargain.

[neuroanatomist]

WTF 1500 bucks?!?

Me: "WTF?"

Canon: "...a maximum magnification of 0.7x – reducing the need for photographers to carry a dedicated macro lens.  So, what you short-sighted complainers fail to understand is that while you may think this lens seems expensive, if you add up the cost of the 24-105L and 100L Macro, this lens is significantly cheaper, and thus it's a real bargain!"

Me: "WTM-F'nF?!?"

Neuro, I have a lot of respect for you, but this lens is ridiculously overpriced.

I know. What part of WTM-F'nF?!? makes you think I think it's reasonable?   

[Canon 14-24]

Another 6 month period of announcements with no 14-24 lens, with my 14-24 savings account growing larger each time. At this point I wouldn't mind dropping up to $3500 (more than the Zeiss 15mm) on a Canon 14-24 2.8 than wait years on other oddball lens announcements! If Canon wants to charge a super premium on that lens, I couldn't care less, just push it up the pipeline for production!

[Canon-F1]

In all seriousness, a lot of people here treat MSRP like it's built in stone. Anyone that can't get a 5DmkIII for around $2900 with a light amount of work/patience isn't trying very hard, so let's stop pretending like these aren't going to be bundled/adjusted.

2900 euro.... and is it worth 600 euro more then the D800? ..... imho not.

850 euro (you know what that is in dollar?) for a 35mm f2.... pffhhh.
and that´s a preorder price i saw.


sigma here i come!!

[EchoLocation]

WTF 1500 bucks?!?

Me: "WTF?"

Canon: "...a maximum magnification of 0.7x – reducing the need for photographers to carry a dedicated macro lens.  So, what you short-sighted complainers fail to understand is that while you may think this lens seems expensive, if you add up the cost of the 24-105L and 100L Macro, this lens is significantly cheaper, and thus it's a real bargain!"

Me: "WTM-F'nF?!?"

Neuro, I have a lot of respect for you, but this lens is ridiculously overpriced. Maybe some people expect to pay $1500 for an f4 lens, but I think that's absurd.
The Canon 24-70 2.8 II should have been $1800 or less, and this F4 lens should be no more than $1200 starting price.
This Macro thing should be a perk for people paying 1000 dollars for a lens, not a reason to double the price of the current 24-105(which was on sale for $750 just a few weeks ago.) I don't believe this lens takes the place of the 100L.

You misunderstood Neuro's post. He was saying "WTM-F'nF" to Canon's supposed belief that the macro function makes this lens a bargain.

Ok, that would make more sense. And thus, we agree..... WTH!!!! $1500? $800 for a non L prime? What happened to the reasonably priced segment of lenses that were only $400(old mid level primes) to $900(24-105)? $900 is a lot of money!

[bchernicoff]

Personally, this just reinforces my decision to wait for a sale on the Tamron 2.8 VC.

Probably time for a road trip up to B&H to play with one.

[RustyTheGeek]

PRICE RANT Ahead...   (and sorry for the length)

First, I gotta say that all the non-Canon/Nikon companies are loving this.  Tamron, Sigma, Sony, Samsung, Fuji, Pentax, etc.  At least for the market that isn't yet heavily invested in lenses.  But I don't think that market is really the market Canon wants.  Are you a photo enthusiast?  Read on...

I've watched and waited for new Canon gear with anticipation for a couple years.  When prices were released for the 5D3, 24-IS and 28-IS  I was shocked, esp for standard EF prime lenses.  Then the 24-70 f/2.8 II arrived.  Well, compared to the overpriced 70-200 f/2.8 II not surprised but still disappointed with Canon.  Now the new 24-70 f/4 arrives, huge shock.  After the previous insane EF 24-IS and 28-IS (non L!) lens prices, the EF 35-IS price was no surprise either but all of these prices are a big disappointment and just stupid expensive.  Most every photo product that Canon has released this year including the G1X, etc shows a consistent Canon pricing trend to heavily gouge the market.  They are trying to re-establish the general base price line upward and train everyone to pay more across the board.  Perhaps they are following Apple's practice of demanding 40% margins.  The real suckers that Canon is aiming for are the enthusiasts that are willing to spend more than pros on whatever the coolest current thing is, over and over.  Pros don't upgrade the tools of their trade at the drop of a hat, they have a business to run.  They take pictures for profit and mostly buy what they need.  It takes time/effort to upgrade to a new body and if the expense doesn't result in a better business, it can wait.  Enthusiasts buy because they need another endorphin high that results from another cool toy to add to their collection.  They equate better pictures with better hardware.  Canon loves these folks and is taking marketing to them to a whole new level.  Most experienced photographers, those folks that have taken thousands of pictures over the years, don't buy equipment as often because they already have gear that works for them.

I (finally) just bought a new $2899 5D3 deal recently because that price was closer to the price I think the 5D3 should be worth and I've patiently waited for quite a while.  I would have waited more if necessary.  I've used a 5Dc for years and I skipped the 5DII.  I bought a few L lenses (most used) while I waited.  I get satisfaction knowing I got a great lens for a good deal and then enjoy taking pictures.  The 5Dc and I take great pictures together.  Guess what?  The 5D3 didn't make me a better photographer.  In fact, it has temporarily made me worse until I get as comfortable with it as my trusty 5Dc.  It has a mountain of new things to learn.  I'm an IT guy, I can learn new tech, but it still takes time and effort.  All my EF and L lenses are still good lenses.  I'm sure as hell not going to start replacing them with new (or even used) at the current insane prices today!  Take a look at what you currently have.  Is it that lacking?  Really?  Or could it wait 6 months to send Canon a wake up call to drop their prices?  When I read books from legendary photographers, I see stellar images and think, "That image was made 10 or 20 years ago and it's breathtaking."  You don't need a 5D3 and/or a 24-70 f/2.8 II to make wonderful pictures.  And even if you think you do, you don't need it immediately at these insane prices.  Those that jumped right away at $3499 for the 5D3 paid $600+ more than the camera was worth IMHO and sent a message to Canon that $3499 is a good price point, keep it up!

Come on everyone - Wake Up!  Do you really need this stuff at these prices?

Canon has lost me for quite a while until they WTFU and get past this insanity.  I am running away from these prices.  In fact, I'm considering selling a few things now, not buying more.  Unfortunately, there are thousands of fans out there that simply MUST buy all this new gear right away at whatever price is asked which will delay the return to reasonable prices for at least a year or two instead of just a few months.  If the market (enthusiasts) ran away at these prices, they would quickly drop.  But Canon expects enough enthusiasts to accept and swallow this price point to demand it and rake in cash which is a real shame.  In this case, Canon equates "Enthusiasts" to = "Suckers".  Our society has become so impatient and demanding of instant gratification at any cost that most consumers have truly become sheep.  Upgrade cycles for expensive luxury items have become months, not years.  Sorry if this offends you but if it does, then think a minute about why it offends you.  Then go shoot some pictures in a 3rd World Country or even just a poor part of town.

[Canon-F1]

  Enthusiasts buy because they need another endorphin high that results from another cool toy to add to their collection.  They equate better pictures with better hardware.  Canon loves these folks and is taking marketing to them to a whole new level.

+1 !!

and im honest i feel it too. 

i don´t need a new 35mm but for a decent price i would buy a new one.
so i should be thankful that canon decided to come up with such overpriced gear. 

same for camera bodys.
NO WAY i buy a 6D... but my desire for a second (backup) FF body is great.

6D... not with such a "artificial" crippled AF!

hell i don´t buy apple products.... so why should i buy overpriced canon products.
 

[jm345]

How useful will the macro be? Dpreview says, "This all looks great in paper, but in practice things are a little more complicated, because the working distance in macro mode ends up being only about 3cm / 1.2" from the front of the lens to the subject. At this point, you're shooting an image area of about 51mm x 34mm (2" x 1.3") using a lens with a front diameter of 83mm (3.3"), which might make lighting your subject relatively difficult."

Plus, you would need adapters to attach one of the Canon macro-flashes.

[bchernicoff]

Rusty, I think your post is right on the money for the most part. Like you I have patiently shopped for used or refurbished lenses and bodies. I fall firmly into your enthusiast category with a collection of lenses. I owned a 7D and loved its AF and overall speed, but then sold it for the 5D Mk II's IQ. I was really looking forward to what the Mk3 would offer. When it was announced I salivated at the thought of even more speed and image quality, but was also shocked at the price. The speed and improved AF would help me take better pictures based on my shooting style... I don't do a lot of planning or tripod shooting and the AF on the Mk II did cause me to miss shots. Deciding that the Mk 3 represented the perfect camera for me and the one I would keep for the next 4-5 years, I preordered. I felt sick when the first killer deals popped up at the end of the summer, but then remembered all the rad shots I've gotten since my camera arrived.

Which brings me to the new lenses. I get a ton of use out of my 24-105 and none of the recent offerings are better enough to justify me spending any money. With the Canon 24-70 2.8, I would gain one stop and IQ, but lose IS and focal length...not worth nearly 3x the street price of 24-105. With the 24-70 f/4 IS, I would gain IQ, but lose focal length...for a similar price to 24-105, sure...for 2x the cost, no way. Which brings me to the Tamron. It would loose focal length, tie IQ, and gain a stop for 1.5 the cost...that is starting to get more interesting. If I see a sale I will probably buy one.

[neuroanatomist]

Plus, you would need adapters to attach one of the Canon macro-flashes.

There's not even a 77mm Macrolite adapter - you'd have to get a step-down ring for the Macrolite 72C.  The mount ring for the MR-14EX and MT-24EX is 58mm.  On a lens with a 77mm front element, even at the tele end of the zoom, I suspect you'd get mechanical vignetting from the mount.  So to make it work, you'd need the MT-24EX and a amcro flash bracket like the RRS setup.  That brings the cost of the lens + macro flash setup to around $3000.  This bargain just keeps on getting better, doesn't it?   

[RustyTheGeek]

Thanks for the +1 confirmation Canon-F1.

The brutal truth is that great pictures can be made with a Rebel and kit lenses.  I simply buy the D range bodies and L lenses because I take a LOT of pictures in harsh conditions for several groups that have come to appreciate, expect and depend on the images.  So it matters somewhat in my case but not so much that I'll lose my head.  I'm a new buyer to replace some of my old gear at about 60%-70% of the current insane prices.  So I'll wait and continue to enjoy what I have.

[mortadella]

Trying to figure out what this will mean for the 24-105?  Seems like many believe these 2 lenses can't coexist in the Canon lineup and if they do it's too pricey to be a kit lens.

This is how I break it down:

24-105L MSRP is $1149, when purchased in a kit you save $349.  A savings of ~ 30%.

Use that example in trying to determine whether the 24-70f4 will be a kit or not you end up with this:

30% off the $1500 MSRP will give you $1000 addition to the body only price to make it a kt, or if you use the $350 number it would be $1150 adder. 

6D kits would either be $3099 or $3249 - MSRP

5Dmk3 kits would either be $4499 or $4649 - MSRP

At those prices I would say it's plausible that this may replace the 24-105L as the new kit lens.  Everything else is getting more expensive why wouldn't the kit??

[RustyTheGeek]

bchernicoff, thanks for the kind words.

If I were to buy anything soon, it would be other lenses I have wanted that are now bargains compared to the new lenses, esp used.  Like the 100mm L Macro.  Or the 35mm L.