EF 35 f/1.4L II & EF 24-70 f/2.8L II on January 3, 2012? [CR2]

[briansquibb]

As for the IQ, not many people see anything wrong with the 70-200II IQ and it has IS...

I believe in IS for longer lens - especially for panning.

I find hand shooting with the 400f/2.8 hard work (that pan was handheld) and the tripod + gimbal doesn't work for me for panning.

If the current (Adorama) price is $1300 then by historical inference the IS version would be some $2500+. Now if we do the same for the 16-35 then the price would increase by some $1400. So to add IS onto these two lens would get close to the upgrade to a 1DX, which would happily accomodate 1 or 2 stops to eliminate any need for IS.

So the question would be: Do you

- buy a 1DX and a 16-35 + 24-70

or

- buy a 5DII and a 16-35IS + 24-70IS

I have already made that decision by moving to the 1D4 in the interim and will end up with a 1D4 and a 1DX - how about you?

 

[Loswr]

So the question would be: Do you

- buy a 1DX and a 16-35 + 24-70

or

- buy a 5DII and a 16-35IS + 24-70IS

I would buy a 1D X, 16-35 IS, and 24-70 IS, if those lenses were available. But as you agreed above, if there's an IQ hit, then I'd skip the IS.

I'm not sure that IS will add as much as that - keep in mind that the IS versions of the 70-200mm lenses are also weather sealed, which likely adds something to the cost difference, too. But there's really no other basis for comparison, as other examples of non-IS vs. IS for the same focal length(s) also add the L-treatment.

 

[briansquibb]

I'm not sure that IS will add as much as that - keep in mind that the IS versions of the 70-200mm lenses are also weather sealed, which likely adds something to the cost difference, too. But there's really no other basis for comparison, as other examples of non-IS vs. IS for the same focal length(s) also add the L-treatment.

The 2 instances that came to mind are the 70-200 which basically doubled the prices in both cases.

 

[Loswr]

The 2 instances that came to mind are the 70-200 which basically doubled the prices in both cases.

Well, the f/2.8 IS MkII is double the price, but the more relevant comparison is the f/2.8 non-IS vs. the f/2.8 IS MkI, where the difference was around a 50% increase. So, we have n=1 50% increase, and n=1 100% increase, and both added weather sealing in addition to IS, whereas the 24-70 is already a sealed lens. Regardless, Canon would charge what they think the market will bear...

 

[niccyboy]

Hahaha what a thread. Bring on jan 3!!

I will definitely buy the 24-70 regardless of IS as I love my current one, and i like new toys...although I'm not spending over 2k for it, I can wait..



I think to summarize.... We all WANT IS if we can have it, some of us just dont want it enough to justify a possible large price rise or iq loss...

I don't think IS has ever been a negative inclusion on any L lens... Just whether the price is right vs the specific photographers needs.

 

[Radiating]

If the current (Adorama) price is $1300 then by historical inference the IS version would be some $2500+. Now if we do the same for the 16-35 then the price would increase by some $1400. So to add IS onto these two lens would get close to the upgrade to a 1DX, which would happily accomodate 1 or 2 stops to eliminate any need for IS.

I think you are confused about IS again. IS in no way adds $1400. It costs Canon very little to add it without any IQ hit. Easily $250 or so for the module and upgraded lens optics. This is based on several hours of research into the spare parts prices of similar lenses. Canon would probably introduce the lens at $2000 no matter what but the price would soon fall to $1600. Canon probably in either scenario would eat the cost of IS. So there would be zero price change. To them it is likely more about if the additional sales from including IS justify the reduced profit that would result.

As for the 1Dx having 1-2 stops better ISO. That is a fanciful proposition. A half stop would be the most you could expect, which is still biblical. The photo detectors in cameras are already gathering near their maximum theoretical number of photons. It is just impossible to get much more out of them. In fact since the 20D Canon's pixels have improved a half stop only in efficiency. The real improvement of the 1Dx is in noise reduction which trickles down to all cameras through updates to RAW processors.

If you want to talk strict price comparisons for IS vs non-IS:

Lens introductory prices adjusted for inflation and exchange rate:

70-200mm f/2.8 $3008
70-200mm f/2.8 IS II $3005
70-200mm f/2.8 IS $3630

70-200mm f/4.0 $1675
70-200mm f/4.0 IS $1817

The intro price for the 24-70mm f/2.8 adjusted for inflation and exchange was $1893, based on the historical data I presented this pegs it around $2000 with IS. If you look at adjusted historical data for many other lenses Canon has upgraded without adding IS over the years, adjusted for inflation and exchange rate they have nearly identical prices at intro. So that supports my original assertion that no matter what the lens will cost the same varying maybe $100-$300 if not $0 with IS.

I think maybe Canon wants to milk the market more before they release the IS version. The problem is that Canon needs an IS lens like this NOW for videographers. There are absolutely no image stabilized fast normal lenses available.

 

[Loswr]

IS in no way adds $1400. It costs Canon very little to add it without any IQ hit. Easily $250 or so for the module and upgraded lens optics. This is based on several hours of research into the spare parts prices of similar lenses.

Perhaps not a productive use of time? If it only costs $250 or so, why does Canon charge $635 for the 70-200mm f/4L and $1200 for the 70-200mm f/4L IS. The cost of the parts is irrelevant. They charge what the market will bear. A 32 GB iPhone 4S has $207 in parts, but Apple gets paid $750 for that phone. Conversely, the Kindle Fire about the same as an iPhone 4S to produce, about $201, and Amazon is selling them for $199.

 

[Maui5150]

I am also sure IS costs them more in development costs, R&D, and a whole lot more in Quality Assurance out the door, as well as spoilage and rework. Pricing is a lot of what the market will bear, but a lot of it is also more than just the cost of parts and labor of the final product

 

[axismundi]

If the 24-70 II is announced on jan. 3 , when will it be in stock for sale?
3 months?
What's your guess / vote?

 

[JR]

If the 24-70 II is announced on jan. 3 , when will it be in stock for sale?
3 months?
What's your guess / vote?

I asked that same question earlier and was told it could take up to 3 months. Canon may time the availability of these new lenses with their new body. I would say the earliest would at least one month delay, so somewhere between 1-3 months we should see those lenses in store hopefully...

 

[briansquibb]

I think you are confused about IS again. IS in no way adds $1400. It costs Canon very little to add it without any IQ hit.

I think you need to start reading my posts more carefully. I said the selling price would double based on historical precedence.

Perhaps you think it is constructive to make derogitory personal comments which are based on supposition?

 

[japhoto]

So the question would be: Do you

- buy a 1DX and a 16-35 + 24-70

or

- buy a 5DII and a 16-35IS + 24-70IS

I have already made that decision by moving to the 1D4 in the interim and will end up with a 1D4 and a 1DX - how about you?

Sorry about the absence, I've been a bit busy with "real life stuff".

Well in an ideal situation I'd say that 1Dx + 16-35IS + 24-70IS would be the way to go, but as it so happens, I don't have that much money.

I'm shooting with a 7D now and figuring out if I want a second hand 5D MkII or a used 1Ds MkII. This would be my second body since I'm not ready to give up my 7D. So yeah, I'm going in a different direction in a way and yes, IS would help me to overcome some of the current issues (referring to your point about future).

In any case I'd spend willingly a lot more in lenses than I would in bodies. It's great that you have the money to go with 1D MkIV or the new 1Dx, but if I don't find a substantially better paying job, I can't justify dropping that amount of money in a body. I always think that lenses outlive the bodies by a fair margin, so that's why they are a better "investment" so to say.

I also don't think better ISO performance to be a "magic bullet" or a "golden egg" like you mentioned about IS.

Regarding the IQ taking a hit when IS system is added, I'd ask how substantial the IQ loss is. The only way to know this of course if Canon decides to release the lens with and without IS when they can go head to head. If the new lens doesn't have IS and it's optically superb and if it has IS, it's probably still optically better than the current model, but we won't know how much better it would be without it.

The only thing we can do is test it out and see if it's a better lens than the current one. And even if we knew the "amount" of IQ loss and it's not substantial, I'd still go with the IS model.

I'm not going to speculate how much higher would IS push the price since I'm pretty sure the actual parts wouldn't cost much to Canon, but added complexity in the manufacturing, R&D etc. will have to be covered.

This is of course only a part of the final pricing, since I think it's safe to say that almost everything that has something to do with photography has a fairly large profit margin built in. Sure the material costs are high and R&D and manufacturing isn't cheap, but when the "suggested price" for the 70-200II is 2925€ here in Finland and it's constantly "on sale" at 2499€ and there's a margin for the retailer, margin for the importer (which is controlled by Canon), I'd say that there's a healthy margin still in it for Canon.

So yes, new coatings, adding IS etc. will bring the actual cost up a certain amount, but as neuroanatomist said, it's more what the market can be expected to pay for it than anything else. And in case of a new or re-designed lens there's a golden opportunity to push the margin to say fix the facilities and get a bigger slice for the stockholders. It would be interesting to see what the actual manufacturing costs are and also the price-point for the first distributor. That could be a real eye-opener for a lot of people...or not...

 

[jweu]

Will we get any MTF data sheet with more that 30 line pairs per mm? 60 Lines pairs per mm are even less that the resolution of the 15MP!

EF 24-70 is should be much better at F/4 than EF 24-105. Will canon publish any data about that?

 

[japhoto]

Today I was photographing in a dimly lit hangar with my 7d & Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and man did I want the lens to have IS.

I was at about f/1.6-4 depending on the light and ISO 160-640, again depending on the light.

So not surprisingly there are a bunch of blurry photos (I do take multiple shots of the same subject to have even one sharp one). All "still life", so yeah, I would have wanted IS today.

Not to mention if I had 24-70mm lens that only goes down to f/2.8. So bring it on at least to lenses that are f/2.8, but I wouldn't mind seeing them in "fast primes" as well.

 

[whatta]

Today I was photographing in a dimly lit hangar with my 7d & Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and man did I want the lens to have IS.

do you use AFMA with your sigma lens? if yes, how much? thanks

 

[japhoto]

I'd be happy to answer your question, but first I'll have to ask, what is AFMA?

The only thing I could think of is Auto Focus Micro Adjustment, but I'm not sure. If that's the case, I do have +3 dialed in, but then again, that's just for this lens/camera combination.

 

[whatta]

I'd be happy to answer your question, but first I'll have to ask, what is AFMA?

The only thing I could think of is Auto Focus Micro Adjustment, but I'm not sure. If that's the case, I do have +3 dialed in, but then again, that's just for this lens/camera combination.

you have answered, thanks

As you can see I have the same lens and it is my first superfast lens, but I don't know yet how much I miss afma.. certainly not all of my photos are "keeper", but I have not done a proper test. For me the focus looks ok if look at the camera screen at 10x magnification for the center with center AF point (which is the only f2.8 btw).

 

[Loswr]

As you can see I have the same lens and it is my first superfast lens, but I don't know yet how much I miss afma.. certainly not all of my photos are "keeper", but I have not done a proper test. For me the focus looks ok if look at the camera screen at 10x magnification for the center with center AF point (which is the only f2.8 btw).

Likely with a 30mm lens, you'd only notice an issue with very close subjects. Even then, at 5' distance, you've got almost 6" of DoF - so if you're focusing on a person's eyes, for example, there's a bit of leeway. Longer lenses show AF issues more readily.

 

[Loswr]

A 1DX with a 24-105 will take care of all low light situations

One concern I would have would be AF accuracy. On a current 1-series body, the center AF point is high-precision with an f/4 lens, but on the 1D X you need an f/2.8 lens to get the high-precision center point functionality.

 

[photogaz]

Today I was photographing in a dimly lit hangar with my 7d & Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and man did I want the lens to have IS.

do you use AFMA with your sigma lens? if yes, how much? thanks

I think this perticular lens doesn't suffer from issues like other Sigmas. I love it and have even kept my 30D when I moved to Full Frame just to still be able to use the 30mm Sigma.