Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews
FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Upload & Sell   
Search Used
1 2
3
4 5 6 end
  

Archive 2010 · New Nikkor lenses
  
 
jamesf99
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · New Nikkor lenses


omarlyn wrote:
kakomu wrote:
I don't understand the necessity for IS in the 17-40.


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?


Feb 09, 2010 at 01:53 PM
rhyder
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · New Nikkor lenses


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

Feb 09, 2010 at 02:06 PM
n0b0
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · New Nikkor lenses


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.

Feb 09, 2010 at 02:13 PM
Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · New Nikkor lenses


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.

This is fun.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Feb 09, 2010 at 02:18 PM
kewlcanon
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · New Nikkor lenses


You can justify anything you want.

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



Feb 09, 2010 at 02:46 PM
kakomu
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · New Nikkor lenses


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.

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.

Feb 09, 2010 at 03:14 PM
nads
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · New Nikkor lenses


jamesf99 wrote:
omarlyn wrote:
kakomu wrote:
I don't understand the necessity for IS in the 17-40.


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?


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.




Feb 09, 2010 at 03:21 PM
Jeff
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #8 · New Nikkor lenses


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.

Feb 09, 2010 at 03:47 PM
kakomu
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · New Nikkor lenses


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.

Feb 09, 2010 at 03:58 PM
Hrow
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · New Nikkor lenses


kakomu wrote:
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.

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.


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.




Feb 09, 2010 at 03:59 PM
Stepanfo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · New Nikkor lenses


MTF comparison of new Nikon AF-S 24mm f 1.4 with Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II.

http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/ad111/kinon02/nikcan24mm.png


Feb 09, 2010 at 04:01 PM
ragebot
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · New Nikkor lenses


Not specifically related to the OP, but I am not sure I understand IS.

Sure I love it on my 500/f4; in fact it has probably saved my buttissmo multiple times.

But when Nikon brought out its 500/f4, at ~$US2k more than the Canon 500, there was the claim that the Nikon IS was newer and good for 4 stops while the Canon was only good for 3 stops (I probably got that wrong, but I know there were claims that the newer Nikon IS was better than the older Canon IS).

It does make sense to me that IS can be improved and that newer IS is better than older IS; I just don't know how much.

But what I am wondering is if the IS in kit lens is the newer first tier IS; or maybe both Nikon and Canon cut corners in the kit lens IS and that is the reason the cost for IS in a kit lens is cheaper than IS in a 500/f4.

I have also seen claims that in body IS is more general in nature and not good for as many stops as lens specific IS.

I can't confirm any of this speculation, and as I said "I don't understand IS"; but I sure like it in my 500.

Feb 09, 2010 at 04:19 PM
Dawei Ye
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · New Nikkor lenses


Hrow wrote:
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.


+100000000000000000000

I would gladly pay $500 extra for IS on my 14mm f/2.8L II...some people don't need it fine, but YMMV (mine certainly does and I have the blurry 1/5 sec shots to prove it)

The same for those who claim they don't need IS on fast primes, it fails to register with some people that a 85 f/1.2 stopped down to f/4 benefits as much from IS as a 70-200 f/4L IS Instead they are content with razor thin DOF and high ISO for every shot to prevent contamination from the impurity of IS

Feb 09, 2010 at 04:43 PM
 



rickyB
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · New Nikkor lenses


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.


I had to send my MP back TWICE! I've had 3 TS-Es and still didn't get a decent one. Got my money back tho.


Feb 09, 2010 at 10:02 PM
Tri Tran
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #15 · New Nikkor lenses


rickyB wrote:
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.


I had to send my MP back TWICE! I've had 3 TS-Es and still didn't get a decent one. Got my money back tho.


Wow, first time I heard some one has to send TS-E and MP lenses back. You must have really high standards.

Feb 09, 2010 at 10:19 PM
kakomu
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #16 · New Nikkor lenses


Dawei Ye wrote:
Hrow wrote:
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.


+100000000000000000000

I would gladly pay $500 extra for IS on my 14mm f/2.8L II...some people don't need it fine, but YMMV (mine certainly does and I have the blurry 1/5 sec shots to prove it)

The same for those who claim they don't need IS on fast primes, it fails to register with some people that a 85 f/1.2 stopped down to f/4 benefits as much from IS as a 70-200 f/4L IS Instead they are content with razor thin DOF and high ISO for every shot to prevent contamination from the impurity of IS


Again, you aren't understanding the point. The cost of IS makes many lenses prohibitive. $500 is almost the cost of a 17-40 or 70-200 f/4. If lenses are being replaced with IS versions which make the price jump up by several hundred dollars, it removes the ability to purchase such lenses from those who aren't independently wealthy or have a vested interest in photographic equipment (the professionals).

Feb 09, 2010 at 10:29 PM
Gregory.Rotter
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · New Nikkor lenses


I for one am glad that the 16-35 f4 will have VR/IS. If it saves me a few stops of Iso I lose out on by not having f2.8, then why not. I'm sure in five years time, we'll laugh at how we all used lenses without it. Just like now we take AF for granted, I'm pretty sure IS lenses will become the norm.

Feb 09, 2010 at 10:31 PM
Tri Tran
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #18 · New Nikkor lenses


IS lenses are prone to breakdown.

Feb 09, 2010 at 10:44 PM
M Vers
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · New Nikkor lenses


Tri Tran wrote:
IS lenses are prone to breakdown.


Don't tell my lenses that....

Feb 09, 2010 at 10:50 PM
keithreeder
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · New Nikkor lenses


jamesf99 wrote:
As long as we suckers continue to pay insane prices for gear that was once reasonable, it will continue going up...


Welcome to capitalism and the free market economy...

Feb 09, 2010 at 10:54 PM
bluetsunami
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #21 · New Nikkor lenses


Tri Tran wrote:
IS lenses are prone to breakdown.


Doesn't it just become a lens with out IS at that point (not effecting any other functions like focusing or being able to zoom in and out?). But even then, I haven't read of any pandemic of IS breakdowns with Canons 70-200mm lenses. True, its another thing that can break but one shouldn't be afraid of it.

Feb 09, 2010 at 11:20 PM
Tri Tran
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #22 · New Nikkor lenses


bluetsunami wrote:
Tri Tran wrote:
IS lenses are prone to breakdown.


Doesn't it just become a lens with out IS at that point (not effecting any other functions like focusing or being able to zoom in and out?). But even then, I haven't read of any pandemic of IS breakdowns with Canons 70-200mm lenses. True, its another thing that can break but one shouldn't be afraid of it.



Not a pandemic, but my friend have a 70-200IS and 100-400IS, both lenses IS mechanism failed. They won't AF. He doesn't use the lenses a lot. You need to be careful and turn off the IS when not needed that's all.

Feb 09, 2010 at 11:23 PM
EB-1
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #23 · New Nikkor lenses


jamesf99 wrote:
Anyone want Canon to release a new 24-70? How does $2500 sound?


Absolutely great! I'd order one, sight unseen. We need better lenses.

EBH


Feb 09, 2010 at 11:27 PM
bluetsunami
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #24 · New Nikkor lenses


Tri Tran wrote:
bluetsunami wrote:
Tri Tran wrote:
IS lenses are prone to breakdown.


Doesn't it just become a lens with out IS at that point (not effecting any other functions like focusing or being able to zoom in and out?). But even then, I haven't read of any pandemic of IS breakdowns with Canons 70-200mm lenses. True, its another thing that can break but one shouldn't be afraid of it.



Not a pandemic, but my friend have a 70-200IS and 100-400IS, both lenses IS mechanism failed. They won't AF. He doesn't use the lenses a lot. You need to be careful and turn off the IS when not needed that's all.


Ahhh, that stinks that it takes out the AF too. Good to know!

Feb 09, 2010 at 11:27 PM
n0b0
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #25 · New Nikkor lenses


Tri Tran wrote:
rickyB wrote:
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.


I had to send my MP back TWICE! I've had 3 TS-Es and still didn't get a decent one. Got my money back tho.


Wow, first time I heard some one has to send TS-E and MP lenses back. You must have really high standards.


Either that or rotten luck. *gestures to ward off evil spirit*

Or maybe just plain old BS, no offense.

Feb 09, 2010 at 11:36 PM




FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Upload & Sell
1 2
3
4 5 6 end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

  Username   Password  
Lost your password?