October 02, 2014, 12:40:26 PM

Author Topic: Canon USA to Start Selling 5D Mark III + EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS Kits Next Month  (Read 6296 times)

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
I'd much prefer the 24-105mmL for way less, they often pop up for $650.  The longer focal length range makes up for the very tiny difference in MTF.  I have the 24-70 f/2.8 MK II.

The distortion in the 24-105 makes it much less useful than it could have been.

Also, if they discontinue the 24-105L it might even (temporarily) increase demand for it, meaning I could sell it for a bit more than I paid! Bonus!  ;)
...
I'm interested in how that new Sigma is going to perform at the wide end. It could be the answer a lot of people are looking for.  ???

You might find that the release of Sigma's lens impacts the ability of you to sell the Canon one at the price you want...

canon rumors FORUM


sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
That tells me the 24-105 is not dead yet.
Despite all of the griping we've heard ever since the introduction of the 24-70/4, there has never been any indication from Canon that the 24-70/4 would replace the 24-105/4.  They are different lenses and it makes good sense to keep both in the product line.  Canon offers many similar products that overlap but don't replace each other.  I would sooner expect a version II of the popular 24-105/4 than its discontinuation.

yep

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
I'd much prefer the 24-105mmL for way less, they often pop up for $650.  The longer focal length range makes up for the very tiny difference in MTF.  I have the 24-70 f/2.8 MK II.

The distortion in the 24-105 makes it much less useful than it could have been.

Also, if they discontinue the 24-105L it might even (temporarily) increase demand for it, meaning I could sell it for a bit more than I paid! Bonus!  ;)
...
I'm interested in how that new Sigma is going to perform at the wide end. It could be the answer a lot of people are looking for.  ???

You might find that the release of Sigma's lens impacts the ability of you to sell the Canon one at the price you want...

Nope. Bought my 24-105L second hand for a very reasonable price. In Japan the 24-105L sells really well and for about ¥75,000 used, (which is more than what I paid). At the very least I'll get 95% money back. Cheaper than renting for the same period so I'd still be happy with that. The Sigma stuff is expensive over here for some reason. The 35mm went back up to ¥89,000 on amazon (¥99,000 in stores). Doubt the new Sigma 24-105 will be much different. The cheaper option will still be the Canon. People like cheaper.

The same was said about the Sigma 18-35 1.8 vs the 17-55 but I managed to sell my 17-55 for the price I wanted. People will pay for the stuff that is tried and tested and same brand. Brand loyalty is a big thing over here in Japan.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2013, 03:41:31 AM by Zv »
5D II | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
I'd much prefer the 24-105mmL for way less, they often pop up for $650.  The longer focal length range makes up for the very tiny difference in MTF.  I have the 24-70 f/2.8 MK II.

The distortion in the 24-105 makes it much less useful than it could have been.

Also, if they discontinue the 24-105L it might even (temporarily) increase demand for it, meaning I could sell it for a bit more than I paid! Bonus!  ;)
...
I'm interested in how that new Sigma is going to perform at the wide end. It could be the answer a lot of people are looking for.  ???

You might find that the release of Sigma's lens impacts the ability of you to sell the Canon one at the price you want...

Nope. Bought my 24-105L second hand for a very reasonable price. In Japan the 24-105L sells really well and for about ¥75,000 used, (which is more than what I paid). At the very least I'll get 95% money back. Cheaper than renting for the same period so I'd still be happy with that. The Sigma stuff is expensive over here for some reason. The 35mm went back up to ¥89,000 on amazon (¥99,000 in stores). Doubt the new Sigma 24-105 will be much different. The cheaper option will still be the Canon. People like cheaper.

The same was said about the Sigma 18-35 1.8 vs the 17-55 but I managed to sell my 17-55 for the price I wanted. People will pay for the stuff that is tried and tested and same brand. Brand loyalty is a big thing over here in Japan.

Everywhere! This also applies to rental business. I rent my gear out and for me buying an 'expensive' canon lens is 'cheaper' in long run as Canon gear will rent out, not off brand even if it may be better....

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14549
    • View Profile
You might find that the release of Sigma's lens impacts the ability of you to sell the Canon one at the price you want...

Agree that this is very unlikely.  The price drop of the 24-105 as a kit lens did affect used prices - a new kitted 24-105 was down to $500 at one point.

I bought a used 24-105 a few years ago, for $800.  Then I bought a 5DII kit with a new copy of the lens ($800 kitted), sold the used copy for $800.  After getting the 24-70/2.8L II, I sold the 24-105 for...$800.  That was before the price drops, fortunately.

The 24-70/4L IS doesn't appeal to me.  Sometimes f/4 vs. f/2.8 means faster OR sharper, but in this case it's AND, and in that focal range I can live without IS.  The near macro sounds convenient, but 0.7x at a working distance similar to my MP-E 65mm isn't optimal.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3000
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
You might find that the release of Sigma's lens impacts the ability of you to sell the Canon one at the price you want...

Agree that this is very unlikely.  The price drop of the 24-105 as a kit lens did affect used prices - a new kitted 24-105 was down to $500 at one point.

I bought a used 24-105 a few years ago, for $800.  Then I bought a 5DII kit with a new copy of the lens ($800 kitted), sold the used copy for $800.  After getting the 24-70/2.8L II, I sold the 24-105 for...$800.  That was before the price drops, fortunately.

The 24-70/4L IS doesn't appeal to me.  Sometimes f/4 vs. f/2.8 means faster OR sharper, but in this case it's AND, and in that focal range I can live without IS.  The near macro sounds convenient, but 0.7x at a working distance similar to my MP-E 65mm isn't optimal.
I was disappointed with the 24-70 f/4 IS as well.  I was hoping it would be a great companion to the 70-200 f/4 IS and just as sharp as the 24-70 f/2.8 II, especially with that price, but obviously it isn't.

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 909
    • View Profile
That tells me the 24-105 is not dead yet.
Despite all of the griping we've heard ever since the introduction of the 24-70/4, there has never been any indication from Canon that the 24-70/4 would replace the 24-105/4.  They are different lenses and it makes good sense to keep both in the product line.  Canon offers many similar products that overlap but don't replace each other.  I would sooner expect a version II of the popular 24-105/4 than its discontinuation.


I'm not convinced of this.  They've flooded the market with so many that they cannot keep the price up.  I see the 24-105 being obsoleted, but not necessarily with this 24-70 kit announcement.

- A

canon rumors FORUM


Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1929
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com


I was disappointed with the 24-70 f/4 IS as well. 

Go and try one. In a couple of years time people will be raving about this lens. It's the 70-300L all over again.

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 909
    • View Profile

I was disappointed with the 24-70 f/4 IS as well. 

Go and try one. In a couple of years time people will be raving about this lens. It's the 70-300L all over again.

Agree 100%.  When I compare it to the 24-70 F/2.8L I that it replaced in my bag, it was a no brainer.  Trading one stop for all of those upsides -- sharper, lighter, IS, and macro -- was a great value proposition to me.

Also, it's a shade shorter, which gets me under the max length requirement of 6" to get it into some stadiums where I live.

- A

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3000
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work

I was disappointed with the 24-70 f/4 IS as well. 

Go and try one. In a couple of years time people will be raving about this lens. It's the 70-300L all over again.

Agree 100%.  When I compare it to the 24-70 F/2.8L I that it replaced in my bag, it was a no brainer.  Trading one stop for all of those upsides -- sharper, lighter, IS, and macro -- was a great value proposition to me.

Also, it's a shade shorter, which gets me under the max length requirement of 6" to get it into some stadiums where I live.

- A
Okay, okay, I'll give it a chance :).  I guess my expectations were just set too high given the initial price, but maybe the "white box" versions will make it more affordable in the near future.

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1929
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com

I was disappointed with the 24-70 f/4 IS as well. 

Go and try one. In a couple of years time people will be raving about this lens. It's the 70-300L all over again.

Agree 100%.  When I compare it to the 24-70 F/2.8L I that it replaced in my bag, it was a no brainer.  Trading one stop for all of those upsides -- sharper, lighter, IS, and macro -- was a great value proposition to me.

Also, it's a shade shorter, which gets me under the max length requirement of 6" to get it into some stadiums where I live.

- A
Okay, okay, I'll give it a chance :).  I guess my expectations were just set too high given the initial price, but maybe the "white box" versions will make it more affordable in the near future.

It is poor value compared with the current prices of the 24-105, I agree. I think of that lens as a 28-105 with 24mm tagged on. But even in the other ranges the new lens is superior, significantly so across the frame.

I am guessing that Canon made it a 24-70 as opposed to 24-105 because they cannot meet the desired optical standard at the greater range for a feasible price. ( It will be interesting to see what the Sigma is like in practice ).

I should point out that I am a 24-105 fan and enjoy its great flexibility, but in some critical situations it can disappoint where the new lens does not.

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
Personally I would not buy the 24-70 f/4 IS because it will be come redundant once the inevitable 24-70 f/2.8 IS comes out.  The 24-105 f/4 IS remains useful though in addition to the 24-70 f/2.8 with the larger range in focal length.

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3813
    • View Profile


I was disappointed with the 24-70 f/4 IS as well. 

Go and try one. In a couple of years time people will be raving about this lens. It's the 70-300L all over again.

Yeah that's what I've been saying. I won't be surprised if it is the 70-300L all over again. I learned my lesson on the 70-300L. When I heard the price and all I thought it was absurd and how could I ever replace my magical 70-200 f/4 IS with it, no way it could be close, how could they not include the tripod ring for the price, etc.

Well, a year later I tried the 70-300L and yeah it was the 70-200 f/4 IS that was the one that got sold.
(although, OK, I still hold to my tripod ring comments though)

I do think it will only become the 70-300L all over again if it keeps turning up on those $1025 deals though.

(also I do have to say the 24-70 II is not getting knocked by me here, that is one awesome lens, best in class across all makers, best AF too when used with a 5D3/1DX with their high precision engine ability)
« Last Edit: October 31, 2013, 06:18:46 PM by LetTheRightLensIn »

canon rumors FORUM


Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
But like the 24-105 vs 24-70 f/2.8, the 70-300 has some advantages over the 70-200 f/2.8, namely an extra 100mm in focal length.

The problem I have with the 24-70 f/4 is that it will duplicate the inevitable 24-70 f/2.8 IS which patents were filed for a while back.  The 24-105 at least though would still have a spot in my kit for that extra range when needed.

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
But like the 24-105 vs 24-70 f/2.8, the 70-300 has some advantages over the 70-200 f/2.8, namely an extra 100mm in focal length.

The problem I have with the 24-70 f/4 is that it will duplicate the inevitable 24-70 f/2.8 IS which patents were filed for a while back.  The 24-105 at least though would still have a spot in my kit for that extra range when needed.

I would be very surprised if Canon ever brought out an IS version of the 24-70L 2.8II. I think the f/4 version was intended to fill that IS void but I think in a sense they kinda failed. I'm not saying the f/4 isn't sharp, I'm sure it is but not close enough to the f/2.8 IMO as we thought it was gonna be, like the little brother of the 2.8. Instead it seems to marginally improve on the 24-105, which isn't hard! If it had been as sharp or close as the 2.8 and without the gimicky macro Canon could have even charged $1500 and I would have likely paid it.

You see the 2.8 shouldn't need IS in theory. Canon's latest generation of pro cameras are able to shoot fairly clean shots at high ISO and the next gen will likely improve on that. Now, for those who NEED the IS there was the 24-105L but this needed an update so the 24-70 f/4 was born. Those who use IS will likely be using the lens for creating more dof for landscapes etc at sunrise or sunset, or traveling with it, which I think is what this smaller and lighter lens was intended for. Note how Canon improved the 24mm end especially over the 24-105.

The 2.8 is more of a studio / pro lens and likely those folk will use a tripod anyway.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2013, 01:03:32 PM by Zv »
5D II | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

canon rumors FORUM