Canon Deals at Adorama, EOS 6D, EOS 7D, 70-300L & 50 f/1.8 II

[Canon Rumors]

Tweet

From Adorama
Adorama has some deals on current Canon goodies. We’re now seeing the EOS 6D drop below $2099, to the $1999 mark that it should have been at launch. The EF 50 f/1.8 II is also being reduced heavily by retailers, perhaps a replacement on the horizon? The EOS 7D is also being heavily discounted by retailers, we should see a replacement of the camera in the first half of 2013.

• Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS – Add to cart price $1099
• Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II – Add to cart price $89.99

• Canon EOS-6D Digital SLR Camera Body – Add to cart price $1999.00

• Canon EOS-7D Digital SLR Camera Body – Add to cart price $1199.00

cr

[albron00]

What about minimum advertised pricing (MAP)?

[Trovador]

What about minimum advertised pricing (MAP)?

They just put something like "Add to cart to see price" and apparently problem solved.  What a relief lol.

[jebrady03]

I've been debating buying the 50mm 1.8 or the 1.4 (which is $299 at Adorama when you add it to your cart).  I'm using a 60D and have the 15-85, 60mm macro, 55-250 (not really relevant to this post) and the 430 EXII.  The current main purpose of adding an additional lens would be for pictures of my (almost) 5 month old daughter now, and in the future.

I'm not a huge fan of flash as I think that it renders unnatural colors.  The obvious solution is faster lenses - hence my above internal debate.  The problem is, I'm not sold on whether or not 50mm is the focal length I need.  I'm wondering if either of the new 35mm lenses (Canon's f/2 IS or Sigma's f/1.4 - probably the Sigma due to the larger aperture) would be better suited to my needs.

The more I think about it, the more I think the 35mm focal length is the better solution - but this being my first child I admit I don't have much experience to go off of.  Currently, I'm using my 60mm macro wide open and standing (or lying) a fair distance away.  Occasionally when more versatility is needed, I'll use the 15-85 with the 430 EXII (but as I said, I'm not a fan of flash).

I'm wondering if I should reserve the 60mm macro + flash for occasional use and go with either of the 35mm's for majority use.

Is anyone with a similar shooting situation able to chime in and help me out?  If you recommend a 50mm, is the f/1.4 worth the extra $210 over the f/1.8?

Heck, maybe even the 35 f/2 non-IS is the way to go since the major criticism I've read is that it falls apart at the corners and since I'm on APS-C, that might not matter as much.  Any thoughts there?

Thanks!

[TonyMM]

Amazon has Canon 6D body only at $1999 with additional 6% back in Amazon credits (good as cash to me) for net out at $1879 no tax/shipping.  Would like to order the kit with 24-105mm, may wait for same percent back deal on kit ....

[Trovador]

Amazon has Canon 6D body only at $1999 with additional 6% back in Amazon credits (good as cash to me) for net out at $1879 no tax/shipping.  Would like to order the kit with 24-105mm, may wait for same percent back deal on kit ....

I got in on the Amazon 6D offer a few days ago.  They just received stock yesterday.  The offer is good until January 1st.

[Dekaner]

The problem is, I'm not sold on whether or not 50mm is the focal length I need.  I'm wondering if either of the new 35mm lenses (Canon's f/2 IS or Sigma's f/1.4 - probably the Sigma due to the larger aperture) would be better suited to my needs.

The more I think about it, the more I think the 35mm focal length is the better solution - but this being my first child I admit I don't have much experience to go off of.  Currently, I'm using my 60mm macro wide open and standing (or lying) a fair distance away.  Occasionally when more versatility is needed, I'll use the 15-85 with the 430 EXII (but as I said, I'm not a fan of flash).

I'm wondering if I should reserve the 60mm macro + flash for occasional use and go with either of the 35mm's for majority use.

Is anyone with a similar shooting situation able to chime in and help me out?  If you recommend a 50mm, is the f/1.4 worth the extra $210 over the f/1.8?

Heck, maybe even the 35 f/2 non-IS is the way to go since the major criticism I've read is that it falls apart at the corners and since I'm on APS-C, that might not matter as much.  Any thoughts there?

I have tried both the 50 1.8 and the 1.4, and hands down the 1.4 is a better lens.  Just the build quality alone is worth the extra $200.  Now that being said, I didn't fall in love with the focal length until I got it on my 5DIII.  On my 7D, the pictures were good, but I always felt that it had too much reach on the APS-C sensor.  I ended up purchasing the 24 1.4L and was much happier with the shorter focal length.  If I were doing a lot of portrait work, I might feel differently, but for casual shooting 50mm x 1.6 was too long.  (This seems consistent with your comment regarding the distance you need to be using your 60mm.)  Regarding the 35 f/2 non-IS, I don't think you need IS in this lens.  For what you're talking about, you're most often going to want to shoot wide open in order to get a nice bokeh.  That's going to keep the shutter speed up, which shouldn't require IS as well.  I haven't read the reviews on the 35 (it's not a lens I'm pursuing given the 24 and 50 I already have), but I believe you are correct that on an APS-C body, anything happening on the fringes should not be visible as it will be cropped out.  Hope this helps - anyone feel free to jump in here if my logic is incorrect.

[Grendel]

Canonrumors seems to have become a pricewatch site lately. Would love to see less noise about existing cameras and more about what's comming up !

[Gino]

Canonrumors seems to have become a pricewatch site lately. Would love to see less noise about existing cameras and more about what's comming up !

Personally, I love getting the best of both worlds....rumors of future camera gear and notification on the best prices on current camera gear!

[Canon Rumors]

Canonrumors seems to have become a pricewatch site lately. Would love to see less noise about existing cameras and more about what's comming up !

It's just the season, this will all calm down in the new year. I'm also developing something for the sidebar of the site so this stuff isn't in the main blog (unless it's a crazy deal).

I do get a lot of "thank-you's" when people buy through deals.

[silversurfer96]

jebrady03,
   Likewise, I am in the same boat, but have a little different situation.  I'd been wanting the 50 1.4 for a while, but didn't want to pay full price for it.  Then the 40mm pancake came along last month before Thanksgiving and with the $50 instant saving, I bought it.  Since that time, the prices on the 50 1.4 and 1.8 have come down.  For the build quality, I would go for the 1.4, but since I have the 40mm, I can't justify buying a 50mm for double the price of the 40mm.  Two lenses with 10 mm focal length apart.  If I didn't have the 40mm, it's a no-brainer that I would go with the 1.4 and be done with.

  Still not sure what to do, but I might just keep the 40mm.  Either way, can't go wrong with either one.  You can't beat the current deal though.

[Trovador]

Amazon has Canon 6D body only at $1999 with additional 6% back in Amazon credits (good as cash to me) for net out at $1879 no tax/shipping.  Would like to order the kit with 24-105mm, may wait for same percent back deal on kit ....

Oh and by the way, the 6% Amazon rewards credit also applies for the kit.

[maxcolefilms]

The Frys Electronics store in Austin Tx had the 7D at $999.99, I'm pretty sure other Frys had the deal too. I saw this deal on Dec. 26th, not sure if it was a one day price.

[sdsr]

I've been debating buying the 50mm 1.8 or the 1.4 (which is $299 at Adorama when you add it to your cart).  I'm using a 60D and have the 15-85, 60mm macro, 55-250 (not really relevant to this post) and the 430 EXII.  The current main purpose of adding an additional lens would be for pictures of my (almost) 5 month old daughter now, and in the future.

I'm not a huge fan of flash as I think that it renders unnatural colors.  The obvious solution is faster lenses - hence my above internal debate.  The problem is, I'm not sold on whether or not 50mm is the focal length I need.  I'm wondering if either of the new 35mm lenses (Canon's f/2 IS or Sigma's f/1.4 - probably the Sigma due to the larger aperture) would be better suited to my needs.

The more I think about it, the more I think the 35mm focal length is the better solution - but this being my first child I admit I don't have much experience to go off of.  Currently, I'm using my 60mm macro wide open and standing (or lying) a fair distance away.  Occasionally when more versatility is needed, I'll use the 15-85 with the 430 EXII (but as I said, I'm not a fan of flash).

....

You could easily decide whether you find 35 or 50 the more useful length by setting your zoom accordingly and seeing how you like each length (or checking the photos you've taken of her using your zoom and seeing what the focal lengths you used most often are).  I tend to like fairly "tight" portraits without being so close as to distract/alarm the subject, so my preference would likely be one you haven't mentioned, 85mm 1.8 (I recently took a bunch of photos of a friend's baby with the 135L on a FF; it's much the same focal length as 85 on crop); you would end up with better isolation/blurred backgrounds that way too - but of course you may not want that; we're all different....

[Daniel Flather]

I've been debating buying the 50mm 1.8 or the 1.4 (which is $299 at Adorama when you add it to your cart).  I'm using a 60D and have the 15-85, 60mm macro, 55-250 (not really relevant to this post) and the 430 EXII.  The current main purpose of adding an additional lens would be for pictures of my (almost) 5 month old daughter now, and in the future.

I'm not a huge fan of flash as I think that it renders unnatural colors.  The obvious solution is faster lenses - hence my above internal debate.  The problem is, I'm not sold on whether or not 50mm is the focal length I need.  I'm wondering if either of the new 35mm lenses (Canon's f/2 IS or Sigma's f/1.4 - probably the Sigma due to the larger aperture) would be better suited to my needs.

The more I think about it, the more I think the 35mm focal length is the better solution - but this being my first child I admit I don't have much experience to go off of.  Currently, I'm using my 60mm macro wide open and standing (or lying) a fair distance away.  Occasionally when more versatility is needed, I'll use the 15-85 with the 430 EXII (but as I said, I'm not a fan of flash).

I'm wondering if I should reserve the 60mm macro + flash for occasional use and go with either of the 35mm's for majority use.

Is anyone with a similar shooting situation able to chime in and help me out?  If you recommend a 50mm, is the f/1.4 worth the extra $210 over the f/1.8?

Heck, maybe even the 35 f/2 non-IS is the way to go since the major criticism I've read is that it falls apart at the corners and since I'm on APS-C, that might not matter as much.  Any thoughts there?

Thanks!

Fast lenses are not a substitute for low light quality.  If your flash is giving you unnatural colors, then something else is wrong.