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

[picturesbyme]

$5000, but if it comes with the new cap maybe $7500.
 

Please do not joke about such things ... Canon might take you seriously and we'd all be 5crewed, having to pay $7500 for our beloved lens.

Haha.. I think it's too late, they already grabbed on to the idea..

The way I see camera gear is a tool for the "professionals" and a toy for big kids, hobbyists.
Nothing wrong with that but as every school yard, there are always kids who have more money than the rest and they want to be popular by "flashing" their stuff .
I see the same here. Some could take an amazing photo with a piece of emmental some couldn't with a 5d3/1dx if his life depend on it. Yet, these people have money and can and will buy the most expensive and/or the newest stuff even if they don't "need" it, because it's a status symbol. Look at me I have a ....
They (especially the flock of non pro early birds) practically "outbidding" each other and ensuring Canon that the price is not high.
More people, more social media and photography is getting more and more popular. Now there is a larger pool who can afford a lens at $2500 then many yrs ago.
Canon realized this (like Apple) and now the more they charge the more people want to buy.

A fun BBC movie "Secrets of the superbrands" pretty much explains it.

May I offer you some cheese to go with that wine?

A good man indeed!

[Rienzphotoz]

$5000, but if it comes with the new cap maybe $7500.
 

Please do not joke about such things ... Canon might take you seriously and we'd all be 5crewed, having to pay $7500 for our beloved lens.

Haha.. I think it's too late, they already grabbed on to the idea..

See, I told you not to joke about such things! 

A fun BBC movie "Secrets of the superbrands" pretty much explains it.

Just saw the vid on yotube, very interesting vid, thanks for sharing.
I suppose its alright for big businesses to create hype and make good profits to sustain long term ... the choice still remains with us if we want to buy or not ... on the other hand they do provide employment opportunities for millions of people ... when they stop making profits none of us touch them with a ten foot pole e.g. Nokia. 
Hey whatever makes people get "high" 
In my case, if a particular product is within my budgeted range I buy what I feel will help me to get what I want, it could be a $1 app on Apple Store or a $3500 5D MK III. But when I see others with their fancier gadgets, I try not to think about it in the context of "oh, they are just flashing" or that "they are not pros" etc coz when I start thinking that way, I tend to get cynical, judgemental and basically nagitive about the world in general (I am not accusing you of that, but that's how I react to such thought process, so I try not to think of it that way). I feel that kinda thought process works against my hobby as a photographer to see beauty and potential in the world around me ... I am a father of 3 great kids and if I start viewing the world cynically I'm afraid I'll pass on that vibe to my kids (the darned newspapers & tv channels are already doing a great job of spreading negativity and cynicism) ... if I start viewing the world with cynicism I'm afraid I'll end up taking pictures of a people being dragged on the streets and killed, or a soldier being shot in the head etc ... I know there is a time, place and need for such images, but not for me ... photography is a hobby for me to destress myself and try to capture the abundant beauty that the world has to offer. I know that one can make a comepelling picture evenn with a toy camera ... image getting the photo of a terrorist being killed, no one will care or discuss if that pic stuck to the rule of thirds or if it complies with the basics of proper lighting etc and it does not matter if it is captured by a toy camera with lots of noise, but it will be more "compelling" and more popular for majority of the people than what an Ansal Adams could have ever produced. Having said, I do have my moments (lots of'em) of being cynical and negative

[michi]

I don't understand why all these people keep saying IS is not necessary. Do you people never use your 24-70 in poor light?  I just got back from an evening show and took some fantastic pictures of the building from the outside at night and with the snow falling.  Could have really used IS, instead needed to clear some snow off a fence so I could use it as support.

As to price, I would pay $2,300 for a 24-70 2.8 IS.  The current new 24-70 2.8 should be around $1,700.

A 24-105 2.8 would be awesome, but I think it would be too big and heavy.  The 24-70 2.8 is already pushing the limit weight wise.  And it would be too expensive for me.

[Rienzphotoz]

A 24-105 2.8 would be awesome, but I think it would be too big and heavy.  The 24-70 2.8 is already pushing the limit weight wise.  And it would be too expensive for me.

It truly would be awesome! ... for such a lens I think I'd be willing to put up with the weight up to 1KG (i.e. around 50% more than its current weight), but not if it weighs like the 28-300 L lens.

[Chosenbydestiny]

I'm tired of all these people who insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video.  You know, because stills photography is for old timers.  Go buy a C100, educate yourself, and try to do some quality work, if you really need to do video.

I read all the posts in this thread but nobody said "stills photography is for old timers", neither did I see anyone "insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video" ... so relax, no need to get tired with unnecessary imaginations.
Just because we want to do a bit of video and feel IS would be an advantage to us, does not mean we have to buy C100, that's pretty foolish advise. Besides for those who don't need IS there is already an excelent 24-70 f/2.8 L II lens ... for those who would like IS, let us live in peace without giving us "holier than thou" comments like "educate yourself and try to do some quality work" ... I am sure everyone here is educated and trying to do quality work, thank you!

You're sure everyone here is educated?  I'm not...I meant, educate yourself formally...as in, go to film school.  Learn how to shoot a "film" the right way, and not by following fads and trends of the wedding market.  And stop telling me something is foolish just because you think it costs too much.  Your competition may very well eventually budget for a C100, or similar (if they haven't already)...and steal your customers, so you might as well work toward getting one yourself.  If you already own several DSLR bodies, a C100 would only take the place of two.  Oh, and I'm perfectly relaxed...are you?  Sheesh.  Like I said, I'm tired of people who have the DSLR video mindset, thinking they can dictate how those who shoot primarily stills, should think.  Control freak much?

I'm not against a 24-70 IS.  But I am against one if it is meant primarily as a video lens...I doubt it would sell very well.  I actually enjoy lenses with IS, for shooting stills.  If the IS is working properly and used properly, it can add sharpness to a picture regardless of the shutter speed...fast or slow...in my opinion.  It's just that there are varying levels of IS quality, depending on the individual lens, and focal length.  I agree that a lens like the 24-70, at least at the wide end...could have problems with IS switched on, as was stated above.

You don't sound relaxed at all. Anyways, DSLRs are always going to be primarily for stills. I have no idea where you got the idea where people say that the future of DSLR usage is video. What I do believe is that it's a natural progression for both the market and people who are starting out and/or transitioning from stills to video because of the more appealing starting price point, which I may add, hasn't affected the pricing of DSLRs themselves. No one has to buy a C100 to prove that they're a pro just like no one has to buy a medium format camera to prove they're above DSLR users. People are going to steal customers, but not because of the quality of their gear, and more so because of the quality of their work. It's not like back in the day when we had less gear to choose from, requiring higher budgets. We are in modern times, we should have a modern mindset. They won't release an EF 24-70 2.8 IS for just video use. I am in no way scared that they will. Even if they do, it will be up in the cinema lenses line and cost a horrendous amount of money.

[CarlTN]

Look um, this is long.  I'm sorry, I don't feel like editing it down.  Read this line, then the bottom paragraph, then go on to the next post.

I'm as relaxed as any of you.  I'm just too verbal!  I'm not afraid of a video-only lens, nor do I see that coming.  It's really not even a big deal to me, I just like to converse and debate stuff like this.  I go off on tangents.  My bad.  I don't even have plans to buy the non-IS version.  It's overpriced...even if it is "best".

I'm not saying someone has to buy a C100 to do pro work, but a better tool can and will yield better results, in the right hands.  I simply question the logic of (perhaps more established) wedding pros who would spend the coin on a fleet of DSLR's and ignore a "bottom of the line" cinema camera.  That was really what I was getting at.  And they sure seem to be doing that.  I personally am intrigued by these cameras, and the fact that they keep falling in price.  And that Canon is one of the leaders of the charge.  And, a film education could be the ticket to becoming very successful.  Or it couldn't.  But at least you wouldn't be trying to reinvent the wheel, so to speak.  So much of the photo and video fields is arbitrary and whimsical...One person's "cool" is another's "played-out".  And there's just too damn many photographers nowadays!

Hey, I am not a big time, world class stills photographer either...and I am not just starting out.  I have a lowly fine art education.  It's not exactly proven valuable to me, so far anyway.  It's partly my own fault, though.  I'm not against people who are beginning their career.  I wish them well.  But I do see a pervasive mindset that is too narrow, especially among younger people, that DSLR's for video, is the ultimate creative exercise...which I disagree with.  (Almost like making music videos and posting them on youtube, is like Hillary's first summit of Everest or something.  They think they were the first to ever do something like that.)  I don't care if this mindset has been specifically stated in this thread.  It's something I have gathered from all I have read, and from all the people I have talked to, and some of the work I've seen, over the last few years. 

A forum poster's thoughts on a subject, certainly need not be limited to direct quotes from previous posters!  You just took it personally that I was singling you out, when I wasn't.  I was saying it seems pervasive.  I don't claim to be all-knowing, I'm just voicing my own (I say, somewhat informed-but not perfect) opinion...and no one has been able to convince me I'm wrong.  Sure, I can judge people harshly at times, or make snap judgements, just as they have me.  That's life.  And hey, I don't exactly enjoy weddings...or couples...haha.  We all have our biases.  I'm an angry guy in the belltower when it comes to weddings!  Maybe you have the right idea...a wedding isn't worthy of a cinema camera!  I've never had my own wedding...maybe someday I'll compensate for that by becoming a bigomist or something?  Obviously I have a personality for success there!  Most married people I know, either tell me I made the smart choice...or else it becomes apparent that I did when I see them together!  :-D

Hey, at least those of you who do weddings, are making a profit, and making the customer happy.

Let's all just make an action movie or something?  Maybe a drama in 3D?  It could feature teenage vampire superheros with huge neck tattoos, armed with crossbows and hammers...who ride a steam train to school...in Narnia.  The train's conductor is Keith Richards...below his torso, his body is that of a snow leopard.  The kids form a hip hop dance group on the way.  Then one of the female cast, derides another one (the hotter one), then cries about it for 15 minutes.  At the end of act two, the train gets ambushed by mutant android ewoks with serious issues, wearing jetpacks.  After much mayhem, Dr. Drew makes them all sit down and endure a circle of shame.  The End.  with Narration by: Arrianna Huffington and Groundskeeper Willie...Don't laugh, it could be a contender at Sundance!!

[Rienzphotoz]

A forum poster's thoughts on a subject, certainly need not be limited to direct quotes from previous posters! 

I agree ... but sometimes in the context of the topic, things can get muddled.

You just took it personally that I was singling you out, when I wasn't.

No hard feeling bro ... I did not thnk you were singling out me or anyone else, and I certaily did not take it personally.
But I did gather that you are just like any of us, but on "rage mode" so I can certainly agree that you are an angry dude ... no issues as long as you don't attack me with a gun or any other deadly weapon. ... all good, peace.

[CarlTN]

Not really in a rage mode either...I'm just highly opinionated at times.  I guess it's just nice that anyone would read my thoughts on anything at all, haha!  I commend you and anyone else for doing so.  Nah, when I get in a rage, I cannot type or think well.  Thankfully, as I get older, I have less rage.  The problem is, the older I get, the more knowledge I take in, and the more opinions I have.  Let's hope a kernel of wisdom will bud and take over!!

[Alex]

It should be free to all CPS platinum members. They have already spend enough lol