EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
I really don't see this being priced too much higher than the current 24-70 2.8. I think Canon would hurt themselves more by pricing it so high. My personal prediction is for this lens to come in around $2499 while the current 24-70 drops to between $1899 and $1999.
Hey, I could be very wrong, but there's not way I'll be picking one up at that price. I'll be waiting a couple years for it to become a bit more reasonable (And even then, I'll probably go with the cheaper non-is version)
Hey, I could be very wrong, but there's not way I'll be picking one up at that price. I'll be waiting a couple years for it to become a bit more reasonable (And even then, I'll probably go with the cheaper non-is version)
Upvote
0
I don't think its just a matter of price... I actually think that they really need to push the release date as far as possible in order to avoid infuriating current buyers. If a new lens is just out of the oven, you don't expect the company to put out in the market exactly what this should have been in about a year... every person that bought the mII will feel cheated, and that is not a good practice!!!
(Although Apple does it every time they put out a new product in the market almost identical to the previous one and everyone pays them... so what do I know really!
)
The other problem is that the mII release price was just too much!... it should have been $1900 not $2500, so now they have no price to ask for this one, as no one will pay $3000 for this one over the Tamron, even if its 3 times better. I really can't understand Canon current lens roadmap, save for the pancake 40!
Rafa.
(Although Apple does it every time they put out a new product in the market almost identical to the previous one and everyone pays them... so what do I know really!
)The other problem is that the mII release price was just too much!... it should have been $1900 not $2500, so now they have no price to ask for this one, as no one will pay $3000 for this one over the Tamron, even if its 3 times better. I really can't understand Canon current lens roadmap, save for the pancake 40!
Rafa.
Upvote
0
In case you haven't noticed...Canon's pricing policies since the Tsunami have been off the charts....
IS. Meh. IS isn't going to stop your subjects moving. Period. Also I quite like the higher ISO grain noise of the 5D Mark III. IS is not an issue at this focal length
The most noise is from fanboys who don't actually shoot - they just want all the feature boxes ticked on their shiny equipment they don't use much, and not having it gives them something to complain about in forums like this. My advice - get the current Mark II, stay off the caffeine and learn how to hold the camera properly with steady hands, build a bridge and then get over it.
The most noise is from fanboys who don't actually shoot - they just want all the feature boxes ticked on their shiny equipment they don't use much, and not having it gives them something to complain about in forums like this. My advice - get the current Mark II, stay off the caffeine and learn how to hold the camera properly with steady hands, build a bridge and then get over it.
Upvote
0
Canon Rumors said:
It's not a surprise that Canon has been researching this. However, a fact that has been flogged repeatedly on these forums is that Canon is out to make money, not just produce great gear. Is it really cost-effective for Canon to support both of these lenses? Either this is targeted to the video crowd (supposing strong sales of the non-IS Mk II to the stills-only crowd) or the Mk II isn't selling well enough. If the problem is lack of Mk II sales, then maybe the IS model would replace the Mk II. That would be weird, though...
This just doesn't make sense unless they had delays with the IS version, and felt compelled to release the non-IS Mk II as an interim solution.
It's all just idyll speculation (pun intended) on my part since I can only dream about lenses too expensive for my hobby budget.
Upvote
0
That may be true for your shooting style, but at evening events I shoot with flash & like to hold the background as much as possible. That means slower shutter speeds. Of course IS is not going to stop motion blur, but it definitely delivers a higher percentage of keepers. Also handy for low light industrial shoots when you've got to move fast and don't always have time to set up the tripod. IS is handy for heaps more applications too. It's just another tool in the kitbag that you learn the limitations of and use it to the max.Gcon said:
Hah! Yes, it's often the case.Gcon said:
-PW
Upvote
0
They just cant release that right now!
Why? They already gone the wrong way. They released the 24-70 II for the price that would fit better for the IS-Version of this lens. The IS-Version has have to be somewhat more expensive and that would be a Problem when comparing to the Tamron one now that the non IS II is priced like an IS one should be.
And since ppl buy the totally overpriced 24-70 II they just cant bring it now. I guess II will drop to the price of the old 24-70 and the IS will be about the price you pay for the II now.
Why? They already gone the wrong way. They released the 24-70 II for the price that would fit better for the IS-Version of this lens. The IS-Version has have to be somewhat more expensive and that would be a Problem when comparing to the Tamron one now that the non IS II is priced like an IS one should be.
And since ppl buy the totally overpriced 24-70 II they just cant bring it now. I guess II will drop to the price of the old 24-70 and the IS will be about the price you pay for the II now.
Upvote
0
With a FF body, IS is not needed for the 24-70 range unless you are doing video. A video 24-70 model will certainly exceed $3,000. Right now, I've seen the version 1 going for $2049 at Adorama, thats likely as low as it gets for the next few months.
Upvote
0
"It won't stop action" LOL, that's what the somewhat fast aperture is for, with IS you can do the exact opposite which, believe it or not, can yield some great creative stuff, and if that made you think blurred water, it tells me you're missing out what IS really let's you do..
Upvote
0
I like the idea of this lens but the pricing fills me with dread. Likely you will need a 1Dx to balance this beast and arms like Popeye to wield it.
I think the IS is more important for video than for stills.
I plan to buy the 5D III in the New Year but which lens to buy?
I've heard good things about the 24-105 f/4 which seems to be excellent for video. Since I currently use a crop sensor, the f/4 on FF will be similar to f/2.8 on crop so I may just get the 24-105 f/4 with extra reach and not go for the second mortgage for a 24-70 f/2.8. Personally I won't wait for this lens to make an appearance. I reckon it will be affordable for me some time in 2016.
I can understand why owners of the 24-70 f/2.8 II would be annoyed at having their purchase effectively de-valued by this IS version. Even so, you should expect the mark II to maintain a very healthy re-sale value.
I think the IS is more important for video than for stills.
I plan to buy the 5D III in the New Year but which lens to buy?
I've heard good things about the 24-105 f/4 which seems to be excellent for video. Since I currently use a crop sensor, the f/4 on FF will be similar to f/2.8 on crop so I may just get the 24-105 f/4 with extra reach and not go for the second mortgage for a 24-70 f/2.8. Personally I won't wait for this lens to make an appearance. I reckon it will be affordable for me some time in 2016.
I can understand why owners of the 24-70 f/2.8 II would be annoyed at having their purchase effectively de-valued by this IS version. Even so, you should expect the mark II to maintain a very healthy re-sale value.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
