I am looking at the price on amazon.com and the price is close to $2000 now. Is there a shortage of these lens or is the demand high even though the MKII is around the corner?
Why is the 24-70 MK1 price so high.
- Thread starter RayValdez360
- Start date
- Status
RayValdez360 said:
The price for the mk1 is ridiculous, I guess it's because...
* supply is low (there isn't the mk2 around, so people don't sell their mk1 (yet)),
* demand is high (some people hate Tamron or love cps & just realized that the mk2 will be that much more expensive and delayed until october, so they figure "grab a mk1 now").
Upvote
0
Hi Ray
I purchased the Canon 24-70 /f2.8L USM on the 20th of Jan 2012. The price of the lense (at the same shop) is now 8.73% lower than what i paid for it in Jan. You are being ripped of, do not pay more, rather wait or shop around.
Regards
Marius
I purchased the Canon 24-70 /f2.8L USM on the 20th of Jan 2012. The price of the lense (at the same shop) is now 8.73% lower than what i paid for it in Jan. You are being ripped of, do not pay more, rather wait or shop around.
Regards
Marius
Upvote
0
The lens is out of production, and those who feel they need it are willing to pay more fpr the few that are available. Waiting does not help, they will soon be all gone.
I've had five of them, none were what I'd call excelent, so I won't miss them.
I've had five of them, none were what I'd call excelent, so I won't miss them.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Even the Tamron 24-70 is said to be sharper than the Canon mk1 (depending on aperture and region) - this tells the whole story :-o ... the only thing I found attractive about the Canon was the ingenious fixed lens hood that didn't extend when zooming out - but what is it good for if this design doesn't allow for top iq.
Upvote
0
I'd likely consider a Tamron, but I've since developed a preference for primes, and found f/2.8 still too slow for really low light. I might buy one if I get a D1 X where I can crank up the ISO and still retain some reasonable amount of detail. I'm waiting for Neuro to post his opinion and tests. He understands how to do a proper test.Marsu42 said:
Upvote
0
Are the newer copies better? I tried to look at a pattern in the reviews depending on the date at BH. It seems like most new reviews are positive but the older ones are pretty bad. I don't know if that means anything though.birdman said:
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
A Tamron on a 1dx
... beware, the camera might have a built-in self-destruct if combined with 3rd party lenses!Mt Spokane Photography said:
Dr. Neuro said he'd test the Tamron? If so, I'd probably wait for this test too, there are so many different opinions on how fast & precise the af is.
But the most problematic thing about seems to be quality control, that's why existing reviews state that it's either sharper at 24mm or 70mm etc.
RayValdez360 said:
Probably only means that reviewers are afraid to tear a long-term standard L lens to shreds... but then again, manufacturers are known to silently fix issues and optimize the process.
Upvote
0
D
DB
Guest
birdman said:
True, but which is more important. I've had both lenses and just last month sold the EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM because it was too slow, uses up your batteries really fast and the pictures look cold. On the other hand, my 24-70 f/2.8L mark 1 is a late-2011 manufacturer copy, is 9/10 for sharpness, but 10/10 for colour and 10/10 for AF speed. People say to me "wow those colours are amazing" - never got that with the other L lens.
Upvote
0
I'm waiting for his review of the D1 X.Marsu42 said:Mt Spokane Photography said:
A Tamron on a 1dx
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Dr. Neuro said he'd test the Tamron? If so, I'd probably wait for this test too, there are so many different opinions on how fast & precise the af is.
There are good reviews of the Tamron, and it sounds OK for the price, but I'd only consider a f/2.8 lens for low light where I can use ISO 25600 or even 51200. I use f/1.4 at ISO 12800, and need more shutter speed. For that type of situation, depth of field is not my first concern, as I am usually back away from the subject. I did not find the 5D MK III to be a big step up over my 5D MK II so I returned it and bought another 5D MK II refurb for $1400 thru CLP.
Upvote
0
Didn't that lens retail for about $1400? There is no way I would pay $2000 for a discontinued lens that most people said was soft. I opted for the 24-105mm IS which was said to be sharper, I believe, which it should be as it is an f/4. You have the IS to help out in low light...but you get beat on the bokeh if you need it.
I liked that lens...but I sold it back in the early spring, anticipating the release of the 24-70mm II hoping that this new offering will have the reported sharpness of my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II..which is AMAZINGLY sharp....For $2300 and a 6-month or more wait, (with no medium range zoom!!!).. This new lens had better deliver. LOL!
I liked that lens...but I sold it back in the early spring, anticipating the release of the 24-70mm II hoping that this new offering will have the reported sharpness of my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II..which is AMAZINGLY sharp....For $2300 and a 6-month or more wait, (with no medium range zoom!!!).. This new lens had better deliver. LOL!
Upvote
0
How was the lens soft? Did it not auto-focus correctly or the image was a bit blurry? I have seen quite a few pics on here from that lens and they looked great.
Upvote
0
About a week ago I got a Like new Canon 24-70 2.8 L on Craiglist for $800! June 2009 build date. Couldn't beleive the guy was selling for that. Got to try it out and it seems to work great and sharp. Not a scratch or wear mark to be seen, both end caps, and soft case. I had it bought about an hour after it showed up on CL. Even if I decide to go with the MII when it really shows up I don't think I will go backwards on this copy. I have used it some now and it looks good to my eye.
Upvote
0
B
bkorcel
Guest
I agree with you. My 24-70 I picked up used. Found the IQ to be outstanding. Any issues I had were resolved with Micro Focus Adjustment. I too had the 70-200 f4 for a time and it did suck batteries...almost as if it drained them when it was sitting in the case. I now have a 70-200 2.8L II and can shoot all month without a recharge. Probably improvements with power consumption in the IS system is the only thing I can think of.
Honestly never needed IS on the 24-70 so that's a waste of money in my opinion. IS is great for telephoto lenses though that have to be hand held.
Honestly never needed IS on the 24-70 so that's a waste of money in my opinion. IS is great for telephoto lenses though that have to be hand held.
DB said:
Upvote
0
B
bkorcel
Guest
B&H has it new in stock for 1600.00
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&sku=264304&is=USA&sub=cpw&A=details&Q=
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&sku=264304&is=USA&sub=cpw&A=details&Q=
Upvote
0
That's pretty normal for UK pricesDB said:
. Actually, from memory it was selling for just over £1000, so that is high even for the UK. Most mainstream sellers don't have any for sale though now. The MkII is marked at £2299, which is around $3570. It should come down in price eventually (often quicker than in other markets), although the 70-200 f/2.8 MkII hasn't reduced much I don't think.
Upvote
0
- Status
