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

[Rienzphotoz]

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

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

I don't think it is about us collectively believing anything ... its more to do with how Canon is pricing their lenses these days ... For everyone's sake I hope Canon does price it at around $1700 ... but than again, I don't think that's gonna happen.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

1999$

LOL, that is pretty specific ... so what you are saying is that if it is $2000 you will not be willing to pay the extra dollar? ;D

 

[Rienzphotoz]

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

OK, lets say it is much more sharper than the the current version ... how much would you be willing to pay?

 

[Rienzphotoz]

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.

Actually 30% is not too bad a deal for some peace of mind with local warranty ... in the middle east 24-70 II is selling for a $3700+ ... about 10 days ago I bought 24-70 f/2.8 VC (from Japan) for $1049, here in the middle east it is selling for $2000+ ... this is the reason why I order all my gear from USA (or sometimes Japan) and give up on local warranty.

 

[J.R.]

... in the middle east 24-70 II is selling for a $3700+

 

[RLPhoto]

1999$

LOL, that is pretty specific ... so what you are saying is that if it is $2000 you will not be willing to pay the extra dollar? ;D

I would wait for BVI to have the sale.

 

[Dylan777]

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

OK, lets say it is much more sharper than the the current version ... how much would you be willing to pay?

No more than $2599

 

[wickidwombat]

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

OK, lets say it is much more sharper than the the current version ... how much would you be willing to pay?

No more than $2599

If it was noticably sharper than the current II
I would say maybe $2800

 

[Dylan777]

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

OK, lets say it is much more sharper than the the current version ... how much would you be willing to pay?

No more than $2599

If it was noticably sharper than the current II
I would say maybe $2800

count me out @ that price...I rather buy a tiny Sony rx1 with giant sensor for travel over sea. And yes, I did. It will arrive this coming thur.........Can't wait

 

[J.R.]

I rather buy a tiny Sony rx1 with giant sensor for travel over sea. And yes, I did. It will arrive this coming thur.........Can't wait

Congrats! Enjoy your trip and do post some pics on your return

 

[RJB]

Just my tuppence-worth...

I bought the new 24-70 for £1700. I use it in nearly every shoot I do (Documentary shoots, NGO work, Conflict, Events) and I haven't once wished that I had IS.
The iso performance on the 5d3 is so good that I can just bump it to compensate if necessary. Although expensive, the 24-70ii is sharp, lightweight enough to use all day in 100F+, and perfect for my needs.
It paid for itself within 2 projects and I just don't see a time when I'd be prepared to pony up another grand to buy an IS version. Just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Pagesphotography]

I think it would be nice to have IS on the 24-70, as it would just be another tool to use for our benefit in certain situations, but my main concern is that extra cost of IS on that lens would make it like a $3k lens

 

[syder]

.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.

Again... For video IS is a massive +

Remember that the general rule for getting sharp images is focal length/shutter speed = <1

And that for video you are stuck at a shutter sped of 1/50th second if you want natural looking motion at 24/25 frames per second.

For the 135 that means you're very unlikely to get usable hand-held footage (unless you only need a very brief cutaway).

With a 4-stop IS system, you would be able to shoot reasonable hand-held video with a 135mm lens. Consequently for video shooters this would be a killer feature. It has nothing to do with poor technique (unless you count not having every shot locked off on a tripod/dolly/crane as poor technique I guess - but this is hardly feasible for low-budget event/documentary jobs). Much the same can be said about shooting handheld at 70mm - you might get away with it as it's closer to a 1:1 focal length to shutter speed ration - but IS will give you a steadier shot on a more consistent basis.

IS may not be what you look for or need for your own particular usage, however for others (particularly those focussed on video, or who make significant usage of video) IS is a massive advantage in a lens.

 

[eyeland]

+1 for IS as a video feature.
IMO some form of stabilization is absolutely crucial for video.
Granted, this will often be gravity-based (tripod), gravity/inertia-based (balanced steadycam), but the feature of build-in IS (regardless of how it works) is nothing short of amazing for handheld video.
Keep in mind that for video it is not a question of sharpness in relation to shutter speed as much as a smooth continuity from image to image.

If I was about to pull the trigger on a 24-70II (currently 2100$ here) I think I'd be "happy" to add 100-200$ for IS without blinking.

 

[Meh]

Image stabilisation is magical. Of all the modern advances in camera tech, IS is one of the truly great advantages compared to days gone by. Worth every penny.

 

[sandymandy]

Hm really? I think AF is more useful. I can live without IS on my lenses but i dont wanna trade AF. Useable high ISO might be the best i think. Way more than IS.

 

[Meh]

Hm really? I think AF is more useful. I can live without IS on my lenses but i dont wanna trade AF. Useable high ISO might be the best i think. Way more than IS.

You talkin' to me Willis?

Yes, really. I did say "one of". I did not use the word "best" and I did not use the word "useful". No wonder so many arguments get started, when you paraphrase someone and change the meaning, then disagree with your paraphrased version you have committed a logical fallacy called a "straw man" argument. I'm just havin' some fun...

I agree that the other two you state are also in that same category. An exact rank ordering of what is best, second best, etc. would involve a lot of factors including personal preference so best to avoid trying to do that.

AF has been around since the late 70s so whether we lump that in with other so-called "modern advances" is a choice. But sure, if I had to choose of course I'd take AF over IS.

High ISO capability is great, but distill it down a little further... being able to change ISO from shot to shot is even more useful/beneficial/wonderful/magical. In film days, there were different ISO films... but once you put a roll in, you shot at that ISO until you were done (do I have that right, I never shot film). Or imagine going out shooting for a day, planning to shoot say 5 rolls of film, but not sure what ISO you'd be using... man, you'd have to take along 5 rolls of film of each ISO you thought you might use. Yikes!

 

[well_dunno]

1999$

+1

EDIT: Actually I would only consider it for an unrealistic €1500-1600

 

[agierke]

IS may not be what you look for or need for your own particular usage, however for others (particularly those focussed on video, or who make significant usage of video) IS is a massive advantage in a lens.

as a still shooter this is something that i have come to understand despite not having any real experience shooting video.

my question is however, how useful is a mid range zoom for video? would a prime be more desirable at those focal ranges? i see plenty of 70-200mm 2.8 IS lenses being used by video guys on the weddings i shoot but they are always locked down on tripods/dollys and as far as i know the focal length is not being changed during filming.

i still contend for still shooting that IS is usually a bad solution for low light at wider focal lengths. i completely understand it for longer focal lengths in all lighting conditions but i think faster shutterspeeds at higher ISOs is always a better solution. IS cannot overcome the physics of motion in the scene below 1/60th of a sec. only faster shutterpeeds can and on occasion strobed light.

 

[CarlTN]

$1799, that's what I would pay...and that was the question. Not what I think would be the initial asking price. Initially I'm sure they would ask $3199, and all the doctors, lawyers, and other overpaid professionals would buy almost their entire inventory. Just like they did with the 5D3 last year. If they ever produce a special gold edition 5D3, those same people would buy all of those. Snob appeal, period.