IS on a wide can be a godsend for anyone doing interiors while traveling light. If you don't need it that's fine but there are many of us who think it is a very worthwhile addition. Obviously, the folks at Nikon saw a market as well.
To a number of the posters, sorry to hear that your 17-40 is such crap. Mine isn't so I guess I will add that to my list of things for which to be thankful.
The assumption, no the certainty reflected here, that the new Nikkors will be better than current offerings without even having seen the lens (much less images from the lens) is just silly. As long newer and more expensive are the only standards by which we judge quality, manufacturers will just continue ride our sorry asses to bank.
Hrow wrote:
IS on a wide can be a godsend for anyone doing interiors while traveling light. If you don't need it that's fine but there are many of us who think it is a very worthwhile addition. Obviously, the folks at Nikon saw a market as well.
I can see where you're coming from but I hope you can also understand that for the folks who don't need IS, paying an extra $400-700 (based on Aussie retail price for the 70-200 f/4 & f/2.8) for the IS may seem like a waste of money.
Solution? Just like the 70-200 lenses I used as example, there should be both IS and non-IS version.
n0b0 wrote:
I can see where you're coming from but I hope you can also understand that for the folks who don't need IS, paying an extra $400-700 (based on Aussie retail price for the 70-200 f/4 & f/2.8) for the IS may seem like a waste of money.
Solution? Just like the 70-200 lenses I used as example, there should be both IS and non-IS version.
Looking at Canon's trend lately, all of their new lenses will have IS.
I have a good 17-40L but even stopped down the corners are worse than those 5D mkII examples and I'm using a 5D.
Methinks the VR is aimed straight at video use where it will come in very handy for that lens. I wouldn't mind a 17-40L IS, not sure if I'd pay double for it though and I'm a very strong advocate for a 24-70L IS myself.
n0b0 wrote:
I can see where you're coming from but I hope you can also understand that for the folks who don't need IS, paying an extra $400-700 (based on Aussie retail price for the 70-200 f/4 & f/2.8) for the IS may seem like a waste of money.
Solution? Just like the 70-200 lenses I used as example, there should be both IS and non-IS version.
Having both options is the best way to go IMO and its one of Canon's strong points. I just am getting a little tired of people asserting that since they don't need IS on a wide that it is a stupid idea. It isn't, they just don't need that feature.
The best analogy is GPS. My wife drives to about 5 places and that's it. She knows where they are and how to get there. She thinks my GPS is the stupidest thing on earth and doesn't understand why I benefit from it since she knows where she is and where she is going. On the other hand, I drive places where I have never been and on back roads that aren't on most maps. To me the GPS has a lot of value. Different strokes. For her a GPS is stupid. For me, it is not.
kewlcanon wrote:
Not sure if IS is needed for f/4 wide angle lenses, for f/2.8 I'll agree.
Not sure I follow the logic on this. If anything, having the extra stop helps reduce the need for IS - from a camera shake perspective only.
One of the things that is often missed is that is frequently not desirable to have to open up to get a "non-shake" shot. If I need F8 for DOF purposes but have to open up 4 stops to preserve sharpness that would otherwise be lost to shake then I am not in the situation that I want.
omarlyn wrote:
Because you wouldn't be able to justify the price of $1259.95 without it!
Omar
In my view it's still untenable.. These mfgs are getting like the oil companies where no price is too high. As long as we suckers continue to pay insane prices for gear that was once reasonable, it will continue going up...
Anyone want Canon to release a new 24-70? How does $2500 sound?
Yeah, the new lenses are more expensive than a Canon (not a big surprise), but you only need to buy one to get a good one and they have a 5 yr warranty as opposed to a 1 yr REBATE
Funny that, I don't remember buying my MP-E 65mm and TS-E 17mm more than once... how much would you have to pay for the Nikon vers... no wait... They ain't got one. Teehee.
n0b0 wrote:
Funny that, I don't remember buying my MP-E 65mm and TS-E 17mm more than once... how much would you have to pay for the Nikon vers... no wait... They ain't got one. Teehee.
Funny that, I don't remember buying my 135/2, 85/1.2, 24-105-4 IS, 70-200/4 IS and 35/1.4 more than once... how much would you have to pay for the Nikon vers... no wait... They ain't got one. Teehee.
rhyder wrote:
Yeah, the new lenses are more expensive than a Canon (not a big surprise), but you only need to buy one to get a good one and they have a 5 yr warranty as opposed to a 1 yr REBATE
Hrow wrote:
Having both options is the best way to go IMO and its one of Canon's strong points. I just am getting a little tired of people asserting that since they don't need IS on a wide that it is a stupid idea. It isn't, they just don't need that feature.
The best analogy is GPS. My wife drives to about 5 places and that's it. She knows where they are and how to get there. She thinks my GPS is the stupidest thing on earth and doesn't understand why I benefit from it since she knows where she is and where she is going. On the other hand, I drive places where I have never been and on back roads that aren't on most maps. To me the GPS has a lot of value. Different strokes. For her a GPS is stupid. For me, it is not.
Same thing with IS - even on wides. ...Show more →
The problem with IS is that it introduces a very large markup on lenses. The 70-200 lenses shows the disparity in pricing between IS and non IS versions. The F/4 IS version is several hundred dollars more. The new F/2.8 IS version looks like it can be almost a grand more. Maybe this is a drop in the bucket for you, but this pricing certainly puts these lens well beyond the grasp of most photographers. I'm not independently wealthy, so I tend to have to forego most of Canon's offerings anymore because of how much money they are.
It's about cost/benefit. I really don't feel that IS benefits wide angles as much as it benefits longer lenses. Moreover, if there's going to be a several hundred dollar markup for a feature that has very little benefit (to me at least), the cost of that feature is difficult to swallow.
This isn't like the video feature of SLR cameras where the cost is merely in the software and its cost gets swallowed up over time. The IS hardware seems to be a real extra cost that will continue to make lenses more expensive compared to those without IS.
jamesf99 wrote:
In my view it's still untenable.. These mfgs are getting like the oil companies where no price is too high. As long as we suckers continue to pay insane prices for gear that was once reasonable, it will continue going up...
Anyone want Canon to release a new 24-70? How does $2500 sound?
I agree completely. But it is happening because digital has brought about a shift in how we view the images our cameras produce. Our perceived needs have shifted to the point that gearheads have created a higher end market that didn't previously exist... At least not in enough size to support these newer products.
Nobody stood and stared at the bottom right corner of a large print and declared the corners soft. But now everything has to be better, regardless of whether or not the extra detail, speed, is, or shallower dof.
Honestly it has gotten idiotic. I don't begrudge those who need these advancements, or even those who just like to collect and can afford them as toys. But I hate the hysteria and the false sense of need.
kakomu wrote:
I've never needed IS with my EF 20-35 f/3.5-4.5. IS in a lens with a focal length that short seems superfluous. When I use my 28-135, I barely notice the IS at the shorter focal lengths compared to the longer focal lengths.
Perhaps you consider IS superfluous because the subjects you shoot wouldn't benefit from it. Other people have other needs and uses, and Canon seems to have come to the conclusion that giving people the option is the right thing to do. If the new 70-200/2.8L IS II is beyond your means, then you don't need it. Adding IS to consumer-grade lenses doesn't seem to have jacked the price by 400 to $600. Canon jacked the price because they knew a whole bunch of us would still buy it.
nads wrote:
Honestly it has gotten idiotic. I don't begrudge those who need these advancements, or even those who just like to collect and can afford them as toys. But I hate the hysteria and the false sense of need.
Turning over the consumer photography industry to computer geeks has created a level of conspicuous consumption of expensive gear that I doubt the industry could have imagined 15 years ago. Prior to that photos were photos, and there wasn't much to be done with them except hang a few on the wall. Digital images are subjected to all sorts of scrutiny that is laughable in comparison.
Jeff wrote:
Perhaps you consider IS superfluous because the subjects you shoot wouldn't benefit from it. Other people have other needs and uses, and Canon seems to have come to the conclusion that giving people the option is the right thing to do. If the new 70-200/2.8L IS II is beyond your means, then you don't need it. Adding IS to consumer-grade lenses doesn't seem to have jacked the price by 400 to $600. Canon jacked the price because they knew a whole bunch of us would still buy it.
This is true that I don't need it. I shoot moving objects in poorly lit indoor areas. The point I'm getting at is that IS adds a lot to the cost of a lens. This increase is what hits people like me (who have fun with photography, but don't have tons of cash) the most (and partly why I just moved to manual focus).
However, it's incorrect to state that adding IS didn't increase the price of consumer lenses. While not directly comparable, the 28-105 was several hundred less than the 28-135. The 75-300 IS was several hundred more than the plain-jane 75-300 and the 70-300 is still 3x the cost of the 75-300. IS definitely increases the cost.
I just hope that future lenses have the same IS or non-IS choice that the 70-200 series affords.
kakomu wrote:
The problem with IS is that it introduces a very large markup on lenses. The 70-200 lenses shows the disparity in pricing between IS and non IS versions. The F/4 IS version is several hundred dollars more. The new F/2.8 IS version looks like it can be almost a grand more. Maybe this is a drop in the bucket for you, but this pricing certainly puts these lens well beyond the grasp of most photographers. I'm not independently wealthy, so I tend to have to forego most of Canon's offerings anymore because of how much money they are.
It's about cost/benefit. I really don't feel that IS benefits wide angles as much as it benefits longer lenses. Moreover, if there's going to be a several hundred dollar markup for a feature that has very little benefit (to me at least), the cost of that feature is difficult to swallow.
This isn't like the video feature of SLR cameras where the cost is merely in the software and its cost gets swallowed up over time. The IS hardware seems to be a real extra cost that will continue to make lenses more expensive compared to those without IS....Show more →
Canon and Nikon have proven that the cost of IS / VR is reasonable by including it in many of their lower priced lenses. That they jack up the price on their premium lenses is much less because they are recovering the costs of IS then it is because they can. As long as people are willing to pay ridiculous prices then that's what we will get.
Nobody knows if Canon will release a 24-70 IS and nobody knows if it will be $1,000 more. All of that is simply speculation and rumor. More over, even if we find it to be true at point X in the future, nobody here knows how much of that is the IS. Certainly a portion of the price of the lens will be IS but there is a lot more that goes into determining pricing. In fact, Canon could almost certainly lower the price significantly if they choose to and still make money. The problem for us is that their economists have determined that they can make more money following the low volume / high price model. This is a way different reality than IS makes lenses too expensive.
Cost/benefit is real thing for all of us. IS on a wide benefits me greatly. It doesn't benefit you as much. Hopefully we will both have lens options that meet our needs.
