Pricing of the New Lenses

[nomolos]

£2299 for 24-70mm ƒ2.8 L II with no IS; you can buy a 1.6x crop body with an EF-S 17-55mm ƒ2.8 IS and have money left over for the filters, lens hood etc for that price. The 17-55 is quality glass that also covers the 24 and 28mm range with IS at ƒ2.8. Would the 24 and 28mm primes really out perform it that much to justify such price tags?

 

[DJL329]

In the UK, couldn't you buy now, ~£1340 24mm 1.4L & 28mm f/1.8 £380 for roughly the same price as the buying both the new 24mm and 28mm 2.8's with IS?

Interesting point, but I don't know who would buy both a 24mm and 28mm prime, though.

I guess we should have expected this from Canon given some of their recent EF lenses:

• EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro: ~2x the price of the non-IS version
• EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye: ~2x the price of the 15mm f/2.8 prime Fisheye, while losing a full stop

The success of these lenses (not to mention the Zeiss ones) has obviously emboldened Canon to continue this strategy in replacing these old, non-USM primes. So how about we all just agree not to buy any of these new ones and see the effect of supply and demand?!?

 

[pranav]

I have not read all the posts, so pardon me if point has already been made:
I agree the sentiments that lens is priced high; that said -
Lack of IS complainers: Lack of IS is on this range of focal length may be a good thing. Quality wide angle lenses are hard to design an manufacture compared to telephoto. So if Canon had tried to jam in IS, one of the two will happen - a) sacrifice in image quality. b) heavy monster with even bigger front element and at least costing $2000 more. I don't know how many would like that!!!!! Yeah, ideally I would like a lens that could make me focus in pitch dark hand held, weather sealed, light to carry and under 1000 but...... we all know the rest.
Logic of 24 and 28 IS primes within the zoom range - If they pulled off stellar IQ wide open with IS, its a win win. Those you don't absolutely need the zoom can have excellent IQ with IS at relatively lower prices, although I agree it would have been better $200 less.
Reality is, they can't possibly satisfy each and every photographer. At least I can see the point why they came out with this lot and config..........

 

[bp]

They have completely lost their minds.

2300 bucks?!?!?! Yeah, I shelled that out for the 70-200 MKII, and it was worth it. But that's a huge hunk of hardware, with reach and amazing IS. I shelled out almost that much for the 85 mkII, and also felt that was worth it. IMHO, 24-70 is the boring area of the focal range - they didn't add IS, different filter size, no wider aperture...

I don't care how sharp this is, its not worth 2300. the idea is almost laughable

 

[kubelik]

The success of these lenses (not to mention the Zeiss ones) has obviously emboldened Canon to continue this strategy in replacing these old, non-USM primes. So how about we all just agree not to buy any of these new ones and see the effect of supply and demand?!?

I agree. these products should be boycotted; let Canon do some rethinking as to their current price strategy.

the thing I don't get is what prompted this new level of corporate profit-mongering. yes, I get corporations need to be profitable. yes, I get that the price of the old lenses was somewhat artificially low because of their age. yes, I get that Canon is doing some future-pricing. I assume they did a lot of cost-benefit analysis regarding the MSRP versus the market uptake. I'm just surprised that their conclusion was to price slow glass higher than fast glass. what's more, Canon has had a few banner years based on fairly priced products. I know a lot of people specifically buy Canon glass because Nikon's is occasionally overpriced. why did Canon feel that their current model was suddenly unsustainable and that they suddenly have to gouge the consumer in order to make profit?

 

[tron]

I'd prefer the 24mm L if they ask 800 Bucks for a 2.8 prime lens.

+1 My idea exactly. With the 1.4L we also get low light capabilities, background blurring, speed.

 

[mobilebucky]

Canon has been cheaper than nikon across the board from bodies to lenses... perhaps they are just playing catchup.

How true, I still have tough time looking at the price increase between EF 300 2.8 IS I to II.

 

[Mooose]

Canon has decided the Euro, USD and GBP have achieved parity. Dont expect to see massive sales of new primes

Just be glad they didn't decide the Yen has achieved parity with the others.

 

[Marsu42]

The good thing: There is one less thing to speculate about in the future.

Canon marketing obviously has decided to sell to three different groups of users: fun users with urge for good quality will buy the new compacts, amateurs are set to use ef-s and then there's the rest. The ones that aren't satisfied with the very good 18MP+ef-s simply are people with enough money to burn or professionals - and some 100 bucks won't matter if a lens will be your daily working gear.

So: If you are were waiting for the next ef (non aps-c) lens to be released or updated at an affordable price: forget it.

 

[gillcleeren]

Once it's available, will it still be possible to buy the MK I or not?

 

[papa-razzi]

As far as I can tell, Canon's policy has been to keep US $ pricing consistent regardless of fluctuations in the exchange rate - for the most part. Instead, it seems that Canon has been "catching up" for the exchange rate with the pricing of new products.

The US dollar purchased ~ 130 yen in 1997. Today, it purchases ~ 75 yen.
http://www.indexmundi.com/xrates/graph.aspx?c1=JPY&c2=USD&days=5475

So, if it cost Canon 13,000 yen to build the EF 28 f/2.8 in 1997, and that cost in yen has remained constant until today - That same cost in US dollars has increased steadily from $100 in 1997 to $173 in 2012.

In reality, we in the US have been enjoying a steady decrease in the price we pay for Canon cameras & lenses because our dollar is worth less and less over time. The new product pricing has given us sticker shock because we are getting the exchange rate adjustment all at once.

 

[Mikedurg]

The success of these lenses (not to mention the Zeiss ones) has obviously emboldened Canon to continue this strategy in replacing these old, non-USM primes. So how about we all just agree not to buy any of these new ones and see the effect of supply and demand?!?

I agree. these products should be boycotted; let Canon do some rethinking as to their current price strategy.

the thing I don't get is what prompted this new level of corporate profit-mongering. yes, I get corporations need to be profitable. yes, I get that the price of the old lenses was somewhat artificially low because of their age. yes, I get that Canon is doing some future-pricing. I assume they did a lot of cost-benefit analysis regarding the MSRP versus the market uptake. I'm just surprised that their conclusion was to price slow glass higher than fast glass. what's more, Canon has had a few banner years based on fairly priced products. I know a lot of people specifically buy Canon glass because Nikon's is occasionally overpriced. why did Canon feel that their current model was suddenly unsustainable and that they suddenly have to gouge the consumer in order to make profit?

My thoughts exactly!! I'm all for capitalism and profits but I think they missed the sweet spot in terms of pricing and market demand. I have a feeling there aren't going to be nearly as many pre-orders as Canon is projecting.

 

[drummstikk]

Lack of IS is on this range of focal length may be a good thing. Quality wide angle lenses are hard to design an manufacture compared to telephoto. So if Canon had tried to jam in IS, one of the two will happen - a) sacrifice in image quality. b) heavy monster with even bigger front element and at least costing $2000 more. . . . Logic of 24 and 28 IS primes within the zoom range - If they pulled off stellar IQ wide open with IS, its a win win. Those you don't absolutely need the zoom can have excellent IQ with IS at relatively lower prices, although I agree it would have been better $200 less.

Bulls Eye.

I am a little surprised Canon is not offering IS as a choice, but as a longtime owner of the 24-105 4.0 IS, I have to say I very seldom if ever notice an affirmative effect on image quality attributable to IS. All but the most jittery coffee drinkers can hand hold a wide angle at slow shutter speeds. It simply takes more camera motion to cause a noticeable effect.

I can only detect benefit from IS at about 50mm and up, which means IS would probably be helpful at only about the longest 1/3 of the zoom range on a 24-70. Would that really be worth the extra cost and bulk?

All lenses are a trade off in one way or another. I chose to trade an f-stop for an additional 35mm in zoom range when I went with the 24-105 over the 24-70. This is just the time of year I *LOVE* the 24-105. On the 7D it's a powerful basketball lens, giving me great coverage from 3-point range to right under the basket. The 70-200 is too tight in close and the 24-70 would not have enought reach. (I either use my own monolights or the client's permanently mounted lights, so f/4.0 is not an issue for me.)


02_2059.21_58 by Progeny of Light, on Flickr

The trade off in the new 24 and 28 lenses is less clear to me. As I said, I don't find IS to be terribly useful in wide lenses, and for the money they seem to be asking, even considering these are probably MSRP and not "street" prices, I'd *MUCH* rather have a 28mm 1.8 non-IS for a roughly comparable price, or keep saving money and get a 24mm 1.4L.

 

[Axilrod]

way too expensiv.

FF DSLR bodys are still out of reach for most normal "consumers"... and now such an expensiv replacement .... where is this going?

with µ43 replacing more and more of the entry DSLR market i fear that the EF system one day in the not so far future will ony be for the wealthy and pros.

i mean.... come on 3000 euro (i guess) for a new FF body (5D MK3) and 2200 euro for a essential zoom lens?

and i thought in 2006 we would have FF in "consumer" cameras by 2012. :

Why should Canon worry about gearing professional equipment towards consumers? Any L lens or 5 series body is professional equipment, I don't think Canon is concerned with cheapening a camera to satisfy the average consumer.. The sensor is the most expensive part of the 5DII, so until they get cheaper im sure ff cameras will stay pricey.

 

[Minnesota Nice]

"EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM $2299"

Yikes that's out of my range, but man do I really want that lens.

That or the 16-35mm F/2.8 L. I love that lens!

 

[DJL329]

Once it's available, will it still be possible to buy the MK I or not?

MK I models usually go away in short order. If you want the 24-70mm MK I, now is probably the best time, while it's on sale, as the prices of the used ones will probably go UP, because of the much higher price of the MK II.

 

[DJL329]

The trade off in the new 24 and 28 lenses is less clear to me. As I said, I don't find IS to be terribly useful in wide lenses, and for the money they seem to be asking, even considering these are probably MSRP and not "street" prices, I'd *MUCH* rather have a 28mm 1.8 non-IS for a roughly comparable price, or keep saving money and get a 24mm 1.4L.

Completely agree on the 28mm f/1.8 (I love my current one). Oh and btw, nice shot!

 

[edmund]

The Sigma 30mm f1.4 looks better with every day... :-\

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I guess we should have expected this from Canon given some of their recent EF lenses:

• EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro: ~2x the price of the non-IS version
• EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye: ~2x the price of the 15mm f/2.8 prime Fisheye, while losing a full stop

The success of these lenses (not to mention the Zeiss ones) has obviously emboldened Canon to continue this strategy in replacing these old, non-USM primes. So how about we all just agree not to buy any of these new ones and see the effect of supply and demand?!?

I think it's illogical to compare the prices of the 8-15mm f/4 and the 15mm f/2.8 as (a) a zoom lens is more complex than a prime, and (b) the 8-15mm can do the work of both a FF circular fisheye prime and a FF diagonal fisheye prime.

 

[00Q]

I dont care what the build quality is. The bottom line is that it is expensive. Canon thinks they can get away with it buy saying its top image quality.

If everyone in the world refuses to buy this lens, boycot canon, lets see who's more cocky at the end of the day.