EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

[Zv]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Sure are a lot of assumptions of what lens will come with the 6D. I'm pretty sure it will not be an L designation. Any focal length L offered by Canon for a general use lens is too high priced for a 6D to not get into 5D3 territory. The exception would be the 24-105. And doing that would simply shoot sale of the new 24-70 f/4 L lens in the foot. Has Canon ever kitted an 'outgoing' lens with a new body?

Amazon.jp is taking pre-orders of the 6D with and without the 24-105L, so will they offer a choice of two lenses when the 24-70 f4 is released? How will that work then since the 24-105 kit will be much cheaper? Interesting! ???

For reference the body is ¥178,000 and kit is ¥268,000

 

[noncho]

Re: canon - the new leica???

well,
2.300 $ - 24-70L II, f 2.8 (no IS)
1.500 $ - 24-70L Is, f 4.0
900 $ - 35mm, f 2.0 (non L)

that´s competion for leica. pricewise.

i´ve got a couple of canon lenses. seems that i have to change my route...

I was thinking the same - if 35/2(which should be good budget prime) goes to 900$ I don't wanna know the price of new 100-400 or 400 5.6 IS.

Thank you Canon

 

[RLPhoto]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

I remember everyone thought I was crazy for calling the 24-70 f4L DOA.

Well, for 1500$ I consider that DOA.

 

[wickidwombat]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

I remember everyone though I was crazy for calling the 24-70 f4L DOA.

Well, for 1500$ I consider that DOA.

+1000

 

[well_dunno]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

I guess Canon will not learn anything about competitive pricing until Nikon and Sony get a juicy bite from their market share.

Also lately Canon seems to be trying to defend by countering Nikon's announcements more and more, only with what appears to be higher price tags and less value offerings... :

How many were actually expecting this 24-70 f/4 prior to the 14-24 f/2.8, the new 100-400 or even the 200-400?

 

[cptobvious]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Canon continues to dig into its own hole. Everything they've introduced in the past year or so has either been uninspired or overpriced with the exception of the 40mm pancake. I can see them falling into third place behind Nikon and Sony in a couple of years.

 

[Marsu42]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

so will they offer a choice of two lenses when the 24-70 f4 is released? How will that work then since the 24-105 kit will be much cheaper?

The 24-105 kits will be just there as long as they've sold all old lenses and the new 24-70 are in volume production.

And the 6d+24-70/4 kit might not be more expensive, the price for the lens alone is likely to be overpriced because Canon wants to make the kit appear more discounted and attractive - otherwise the 6d is sure to loose big time against the d600.

I can see them falling into third place behind Nikon and Sony in a couple of years.

As soon as their strategy appears even non-working to Canon shareholders, they'll come around and fire their executives and revise their pricing. The only ones sure to loose are the customers paying the current high prices until Canon realizes this won't work forever.

 

[tron]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

I remember everyone thought I was crazy for calling the 24-70 f4L DOA.

Well, for 1500$ I consider that DOA.

And I had agreed with you.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10597.msg189704#msg189704

Unfortunatelly I was wrong about this rumor being CR0

It seems that Canon spends valuable resources for nonsense...

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

so will they offer a choice of two lenses when the 24-70 f4 is released? How will that work then since the 24-105 kit will be much cheaper?

The 24-105 kits will be just there as long as they've sold all old lenses and the new 24-70 are in volume production.

And the 6d+24-70/4 kit might not be more expensive, the price for the lens alone is likely to be overpriced because Canon wants to make the kit appear more discounted and attractive - otherwise the 6d is sure to loose big time against the d600.

I can see them falling into third place behind Nikon and Sony in a couple of years.

As soon as their strategy appears even non-working to Canon shareholders, they'll come around and fire their executives and revise their pricing. The only ones sure to loose are the customers paying the current high prices until Canon realizes this won't work forever.

I agree the pricing is unreasonable on the 24-70, but people in many cases are paying for it -- Canon thinks that these are the prices the market will bear. Hell, the EOS-M was #3 on Amazon's best seller list despite a high price + years late to the mirrorless market + numerous reviews panning it for having a glacially slow AF system.

I know their sales numbers on aggregate haven't been stellar, but in general, the company wouldn't be here very long if it couldn't course correct as needed.

 

[RLPhoto]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

I know their sales numbers on aggregate haven't been stellar, but in general, the company wouldn't be here very long if it couldn't course correct as needed.

And then there is Kodak.... :

 

[Marsu42]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

I know their sales numbers on aggregate haven't been stellar, but in general, the company wouldn't be here very long if it couldn't course correct as needed.

A large enterprise like Canon doesn't just disappear because they can soften the fall and distribute profits and losses between divisions. They can survive quite a long time without good sales if their shares don't plummet and there's a hostile takeover. And Canon just has the advantage of a user base that is tied to their system, so they are quite safe unless they completely screw up.

That's why it takes them so long to correct a flawed strategy in one segment like dlsr - in a smaller company the execs would get fired much faster enabling changes. But if they are really persistent to ignore reality they'll indeed go the way of Kodak and all other long-gone electronics companies.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS


All good points on how companies adapt and evolve.

I don't feel the Kodak analogy is appropriate b/c that's a much more stark black/white scenario of accepting change in a changing world. That analogy would only be appropriate if Canon demonstrated true head-in-the-sand behavior, like (hypothetically) if they decided to never enter the mirrorless market.

FWIW, I liken Canon/Nikon to Toyota/Honda in that they have a mature, segmented market with very set expectations, pricing strategies, and a conservative take on innovation. Then, Sony, who I liken to Nissan/Kia/Hyundai, is trying to create new markets, or offer 'tweener' products that straddle two segments. They play a combination of innovation / disruptive offerings to shake things up in an attempt to rope in mindshare and proponents. I personally think they should be looked at more seriously by the photography community, b/c the disruptive gameplan is pretty brave -- that fixed lens FF compact (RX1, I think?) is a bold offering.

- A

 

[kubelik]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

I wonder how much of it is just a calculated, multi-year gamble by Canon -- where they said, let's keep raising prices until the consumer market really revolts. then we can always cut prices down.

many people have mentioned how Canon is acting a little bit like Apple in trying to really stretch out their profit margins. while we complain that Canon doesn't currently offer a complete package of top technology (yes, the sensors are behind Nikon, yes, Canon still likes to be late to the game with AF upgrades), Canon does have a high reputation in the consumer market that's been built up over a long time, so there's a lot of prestige that they can lean on. plus, we tend to exaggerate how big the differences between Nikon and Canon are because, as gear heads, that's all we think about all day.

I don't blame Canon for trying to shore up profit margins while they can, because the alternative is a race to the bottom, and while that spells short term gain for the consumer, it's a long term disaster for the industry. that being said, I do think a lot of the current prices are too stiff for the general populace, even the big prosumer crowd. so I'll vote with my wallet and wait to see the prices come down, which I do believe they will. it may mean waiting quite a few years -- people also seem to forget that, more often than not, a lens' lifespace can go decades, not just a couple years, and thus I expect Canon's pricing strategies also span multiple years.

 

[aznable]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

it is dubbed hybrid is just because the lens is almost a macro (0.7 macro factor...wow)

Agree agree agree. That's the only arrow in the quiver (along with better IQ, to be fair) that might justify this $1800 price from the translation.

I'm probably in the minority here that I'm more likely to bring my relatively small and light 100L macro over my 70-200 F/2.8L IS II on trips. So if this magnification is true, this could become an epic kill-two-birds-with-one-not-so-big-or-heavy-stone sort of lens for travel.

i dont think that taking the japanese price and converting on other currency is a good thing...the jap prices are generally higher than other countries

and yes...i agree with you...haveing a standard zoom lens that is able to do some macro works is a very nice thing

 

[aznable]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

You are both wrong.
Hybrid IS means it compensates for two types of camera/lens movement.

Read here:
http://www.canon.com/news/2009/jul22e.html

It is for angle shake and shift shake.

It is ideal for recording handheld video.

infact the first lens where hubryd is has been implemented is the macro 100L IS, that's the ideal for video recording

the hynrid IS has been devloped for macro shooting

 

[tron]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

What the point of having a 24-70 4L IS AND 24-105 4L IS in the line-up? Isn't it a no-brainer to just get the 105?

Wouldn't be a no-brainer thinking the 24-70 f/4 would have better optic quality than an older lens? Sorry if I sound sarcastic, but it is the truth. And most people wouldn't need the extra reach.

Who are 'most people'? Maybe you. Not me.

+1 for the extra reach comment. I for one do need the reach. Plus we do not know the IQ of the new lens. While I believe it will be really good I am not sure about quality control. So let's not play Canon representatives. If the new lens is really good, buyers will say so. Not fans who haven't bought it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

If the new lens is really good, buyers will say so. Not fans who haven't bought it.

Oh how naïve you are. Fans who haven't bought it are already saying lots on both sides...

 

[Aputure]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Short focal lengths? What about 50mm to 70mm? I don't think that's short at all. It'll especially be useful on the long end. And the IS will also be useful with the "slow" f/4 aperture. Even if you're getting a shutter speed of 1/10 at the 24mm wide end, wouldn't it be nice to have IS then? The IS will also certainly help the macro shooting. So it serves a great purpose on this lens, I think.

The choice between this and the f/2.8 should be clear = pro wedding shooters who need the speed and bokeh will go for the 2.8, hobbyists and video shooters will go for the f/4.

A few more thoughts on this lens: http://www.aputure.com/blog/?p=4228

Correct me if i'm wrong but what's the point of IS in such short focal lengths?

With the release of 24-70 f/4L IS it will be a tough choice for some to decide with the 2.8 non IS version, what do you think?

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Short focal lengths? What about 50mm to 70mm? I don't think that's short at all. It'll especially be useful on the long end. And the IS will also be useful with the "slow" f/4 aperture. Even if you're getting a shutter speed of 1/10 at the 24mm wide end, wouldn't it be nice to have IS then? The IS will also certainly help the macro shooting. So it serves a great purpose on this lens, I think.

The choice between this and the f/2.8 should be clear = pro wedding shooters who need the speed and bokeh will go for the 2.8, hobbyists and video shooters will go for the f/4.

A few more thoughts on this lens: http://www.aputure.com/blog/?p=4228

Correct me if i'm wrong but what's the point of IS in such short focal lengths?

With the release of 24-70 f/4L IS it will be a tough choice for some to decide with the 2.8 non IS version, what do you think?

@Aputure (nice blog, btw) -- there has been a healthy 50-75% of us on this forum that IS is not needed on wide glass, and that speed should always trump IS w.r.t. Canon's spec decisions. I cannot discern if this is due to...

• Classical thinking -- the old rule of thumb that you need 1/[focal length] for shutter speed, and therefore, wide glass needs IS less than long glass.
• Value thinking -- why should we pony up extra for IS when it's not truly a must, I got by without it for years, etc.
• In the 'I hope the new announcement is the lens I want' / 'Canon only makes so many lenses' department, it could be sour grapes, frustration, incredulity etc. that Canon chose IS instead of a fast aperture -- see all threads re: these recent lens announcements
• A stigma that IS is for beginners, soccer moms, etc. and not for enthusiasts or pros.

...but it's probably a combination of the above.

I personally believe that IS helps at all focal lengths as I am frequently shooting at toxically high ISO without a flash or a tripod. So IS effectively buys me stops, plain and simple.

Now, this is predicated on the thought that the slower glass + IS buys me a virtually faster lens than the current fastest glass (again, I'm rarely shooting moving objects in very low light). This is due to some simple math of:

[# stops of IS] - [# stops slower than the fastest lens in this length] yielding a positive number.

So if, somehow, the proposed new lens had a watered down 2 stop IS or if the aperture was much slower than the fastest alternative, then that IS lens would be less attractive than its fast non-IS alternative.

Keep in mind that IS is improving far more quickly than camera companies have been offering faster glass. Consider that Canon had a constant F/2.8 standard zoom in 1993 and nothing faster has ever been developed. (Some of this is cost and weight, but still, they aren't exactly rushing an F/2 standard zoom out, much to the chagrin of this forum community.)

One wonders if in 10 years, the majority of camera glass will be unbelieveably small/light F/4, F/5.6 glass with 7-8 stops of IS. I know that's heresy for this forum -- who constantly push their gear to get the most out of their shots -- but it's a possibility, right?

- A

 

[Random Orbits]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

One wonders if in 10 years, the majority of camera glass will be unbelieveably small/light F/4, F/5.6 glass with 7-8 stops of IS. I know that's heresy for this forum -- who constantly push their gear to get the most out of their shots -- but it's a possibility, right?

- A

While I don't doubt that IS will eventually make its way down to more lenses in the future, what you suggest would not work for those shooting action. IS elements would also have to be larger to accomodate more travel to counteract lower frequency jitter/shake, which is a sizing issue.