How much would you pay for Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS

[Rienzphotoz]

I know at this point it is hypothetical but if Canon were to release 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS lens in 2013 or 2014 (which I think they won't), how much would you be willing to pay for it? and what would you give up / sell (if any)?

I think I would be willing to stretch myself to painfully cough up max US$ 3500 ... I'd sell my Tamron 24-70 VC & Sigma 150-500 OS lenses to partially fund the 24-70 f/2.8 L IS.

How about you?

 

[J.R.]

There are wayyy to many variables here. I'd probably stretch it to $ 3,500 if it was announced NOW and I would be buying it in 2015 - gotta save up in the long term for the lenses!

If it was announced after two years ... who knows.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

gotta save up in the long term for the lenses!

You bet! .. darned things aint cheap ... with $3500, in India, one can buy a brand new car and still have some money left over to buy a motorcycle. Imagine the price of 200-400 f/4 L IS ... after buying that lens, one can buy a car to use it as a lens case on wheels.

 

[M.ST]

I don´t want an IS version. So I am willing to pay nothing for it.

Canon decide against the IS version because the lens was to big and heavy.

A lot of pros want a lightweight 24-70 2.8 lens and thats exactly what they get with the 24-70 2.8 II.

 

[candyman]

I don´t want an IS version. So I am willing to pay nothing for it.

Canon decide against the IS version because the lens was to big and heavy.

A lot of pros want a lightweight 24-70 2.8 lens and thats exactly what they get with the 24-70 2.8 II.

Tamron 24-70 with VC is only 20 gram more. How much more would it be if Canon add a stabilizer?

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Canon decide against the IS version because the lens was to big and heavy.

Is that official, I mean did Canon actually announce that they did not make the IS version due to its size and weight? ... btw my question is not a sarcastic reply, just a genuine question.

 

[AmbientLight]

I really do wonder about that argument regarding weight increase.

I believe we can all accept that a lens may be heavier with IS in it, that is kind of obvious. Nevertheless it appears to me that Canon has shied away from trying to minimize lens weight to make up for the weight increase due to IS being added. Tamron appears to have managed to achieve this, but then again their lens design is not the same.

What weighs most in a lens is glass, followed by lens barrel material. It will be difficult for Canon to reduce in these areas without seriously compromising lens quality unless they go for a complete overhaul of their lens design, which may lead to a model more similar in weight to the Tamron lens.

Probably only Canon's product designers will be able to supply the information as to which reasons compelled Canon to omit IS in this lens.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I really do wonder about that argument regarding weight increase.

I believe we can all accept that a lens may be heavier with IS in it, that is kind of obvious. Nevertheless it appears to me that Canon has shied away from trying to minimize lens weight to make up for the weight increase due to IS being added. Tamron appears to have managed to achieve this, but then again their lens design is not the same.

What weighs most in a lens is glass, followed by lens barrel material. It will be difficult for Canon to reduce in these areas without seriously compromising lens quality unless they go for a complete overhaul of their lens design, which may lead to a model more similar in weight to the Tamron lens.

Probably only Canon's product designers will be able to supply the information as to which reasons compelled Canon to omit IS in this lens.

I agree ... but, (assuming that it meets all your requirements), how much would you be willing to pay for it?

 

[Random Orbits]

2500, same price as the 70-200 IS II when that first came out. But the IQ would have to be similar to or better than the 24-70 II.

 

[wayno]

It would be an amazing lens if so. I just spent a weekend using the II constantly - it is amazing. Dare I say worth the current price. I'd pay $2500-3000 for an IS but for the way I use the current II, i don't see the need for IS.

 

[7enderbender]

Nothing. Zilch. Nada. $0.

Now, if you ask me about a metal barrel version of the 24-70 II then we're talking. I'd pay a couple grand for that.

 

[syder]

Its an interesting question... For many photographers IS on a standard zoom isn't a feature that would be worth an awful lot, as the extra stabilisation means that you can handhold a steady shot for far longer than your subject is likely to stay still (unless you're a still life or landscape photographer, in which case using a tripod isn't likely to be an issue). Of course this isn't the case when you think about a lens like the 70-200, let alone the supertele lenses, where IS is a huge advantage for stills.

On the other hand, for video, having IS in a standard zoom is still a really sought after feature - you're (mainly) stuck at a shutter speed of 1/50th, and IS is thus really really useful. As someone who does more paid video than stills work I would be prepared to pay extra for a 24-70 IS. But it would have to offer a superior performance/price ratio to the Tamron (which is sharper than the Canon 24-70 mk 1 and costs half the price of the mark ii). Given that the mark ii is now available for under £1700, I'd consider a 24-70is at £2k - but at 2.5x the price of the Tamron it would have to be a spectacularly good lens to justify the cost. I mean for the £1200 difference I could pick up (for example) the Samyang 24+35+85mm f1.4 primes as well.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

2500, same price as the 70-200 IS II when that first came out. But the IQ would have to be similar to or better than the 24-70 II.

2nd that

 

[RLPhoto]

1999$

 

[Scott911]

Answering how much more 'should' it cost, I'd say $700 more.

the 70-200 f/2.8 without IS cost, $1300, the same lens with IS cost $2000. So all the tech can certainly be accommodated at a 'pro IS level' with a $700 up-charge, maybe a touch more if they want to add special coatings of what not to the is lens element.

 

[Dylan777]

Unless IS version will be sharpner than current f2.8 II, otherwise, I don't have the needs for IS.

 

[J.R.]

2500, same price as the 70-200 IS II when that first came out. But the IQ would have to be similar to or better than the 24-70 II.

2nd that

Lucky guys you in the US. In my country lenses are expensive by 30% across the board. The current MRP of the 24-70 II is the equivalent of USD 2,700 - no discounted deals usually.

 

[ChilledXpress]

.28 cents... about as much as I'd pay for a pegusus or the Man/Bear/Pig. I have never understood the need for eveything IS... like the masses begging for the 135 w/IS. It won't save poor technique or much beyond still work. I love the ability of it on a tele... like the 70-200 but honestly it is off 95% of the time on mine.

 

[K-amps]

Answering how much more 'should' it cost, I'd say $700 more.

the 70-200 f/2.8 without IS cost, $1300, the same lens with IS cost $2000. So all the tech can certainly be accommodated at a 'pro IS level' with a $700 up-charge, maybe a touch more if they want to add special coatings of what not to the is lens element.

I am curious how and when we collective believed that it costs Canon $400-700 to add IS. I mean really?

It probably does not cost $50 in materials and I am stretching it. The R&D is sunk cost anyway... Add another $30 per unit for re-tooling; retraining Other overheads and you do not cross $100 for IS...

Canon "does" charge a premuim for it, but we the consumers put a value of 700 on it when we should probably not... I had so much hoped that Tamron would resolve their QC issues (AF lens falling) that people would begin buying more of that great value at $1300.... and knock some sense into Canon.

Anyway... I'd be willing to Pay $1700 for it. Given Canon's better IQ and QA.

 

[7enderbender]

Answering how much more 'should' it cost, I'd say $700 more.

the 70-200 f/2.8 without IS cost, $1300, the same lens with IS cost $2000. So all the tech can certainly be accommodated at a 'pro IS level' with a $700 up-charge, maybe a touch more if they want to add special coatings of what not to the is lens element.

I am curious how and when we collective believed that it costs Canon $400-700 to add IS. I mean really?

It probably does not cost $50 in materials and I am stretching it. The R&D is sunk cost anyway... Add another $30 per unit for re-tooling; retraining Other overheads and you do not cross $100 for IS...

Canon "does" charge a premuim for it, but we the consumers put a value of 700 on it when we should probably not... I had so much hoped that Tamron would resolve their QC issues (AF lens falling) that people would begin buying more of that great value at $1300.... and knock some sense into Canon.

Anyway... I'd be willing to Pay $1700 for it. Given Canon's better IQ and QA.

I think the OP is asking the correct question. It's not what Canon's cost are. That should be completely and utterly irrelevant. Any business that is still working on a cost+markup basis is bound to fail. And I don't get the impression that Canon is operating like that or sets its pricing structure like that.

What clients are willing to pay is exactly the right start. Even better: what value does such a lens have for you and what is that worth to you?

Hence my answer: nothing. In fact, I would account it as a negative value since it is likely to shorten the lifespan/increase the likelihood of repairs. and I tend to keep my gear for a very long time usually so that is a factor. To others that may not matter.