Ralph Conway wrote:
RobertLynn wrote:
I think a 24-70 f/4is is stupid. But at $1800, it's really stupid.

I was excited about the 35, as I have a non-is version and it is great! But at $900 count me out of upgrading.

I think a new 24-70 f/4 IS is great. But I am with you. At this price it would be really stupid ...

Ralph

I also think the new 24-70 IS will be great.

12monkeys wrote:
Oooh! Sigma 35mm f1.4 is finally out at $899. I know where my money's going.

As prices are similar, for me IS is worth more than an extra stop.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Yakim Peled wrote:
12monkeys wrote:
Oooh! Sigma 35mm f1.4 is finally out at $899. I know where my money's going.

As prices are similar, for me IS is worth more than an extra stop.

Same for me, but I expect at this focal range we are a minority

retrofocus wrote:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:


As the popular saying of the moment goes, we have another Canon FAIL....


As the popular saying of the moment goes, we have yet another Canon bashing from you....


Lars, I think it is not about bashing a company here, more that some members (including me) here express criticism in one way or another how things are currently moving in Canon land. Don't get me wrong - I really like the Canon gear which I built up over many years and which I am actually using consistently (if I am not posting here for a while, it just means I am just often out there actually taking photos ). But recent developments in regard to DSLR camera bodies and lenses, as well as pricing makes me wonder a lot. I personally think Canon went off track, and I am just hoping that they get back on track soon.
Fortunately I don't really need to care about new lenses since I am fully set now with the lens gear which I own. I suspect my only next bigger purchase might be a future high MP FF DSLR in the 5D line if it ever happens. Until then, my 5D II is fully sufficient for me.

Might be considered bashing when people are deliberately using the wrong prices to exaggerate their negative views. At least use the facts when making claims about the new gear.

retrofocus wrote:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:


As the popular saying of the moment goes, we have another Canon FAIL....


As the popular saying of the moment goes, we have yet another Canon bashing from you....


Lars, I think it is not about bashing a company here, more that some members (including me) here express criticism in one way or another how things are currently moving in Canon land. Don't get me wrong - I really like the Canon gear which I built up over many years and which I am actually using consistently (if I am not posting here for a while, it just means I am just often out there actually taking photos ). But recent developments in regard to DSLR camera bodies and lenses, as well as pricing makes me wonder a lot. I personally think Canon went off track, and I am just hoping that they get back on track soon.
Fortunately I don't really need to care about new lenses since I am fully set now with the lens gear which I own. I suspect my only next bigger purchase might be a future high MP FF DSLR in the 5D line if it ever happens. Until then, my 5D II is fully sufficient for me.

Actually, Lars is right in the respect that I'm assessing their "business decisions/behavior" and finding them wanting. He chose to call it Canon bashing; so be it. However, I am not assessing the quality of the lenses - which I almost universally like (unknown in this case).

Not everything Canon does has to be endorsed/supported, nor does it deserve to be. Canon is out of touch (has been for 5 years now). DPR said it best when they recently wrote (I'm paraphrasing) "Canon does as little as possible to get by...", and I would add, "for as much as possible". News flash - it's not a winning strategy.

jamesf99 wrote:

Unfortunately, some here think that everything Canon does has to be endorsed/supported. It does not, nor does it deserve to be.

Not me. I never asked for a 35mm prime and I am still not interested in one. So for me Canon created a needless 35mm 2.0 IS next to their existing one without IS. They are both much overpriced. Maybe I would purchase one and spend the price of an 50mm 1.8 for one if it offers much better IQ.


Canon is badly out of touch (has been for 5 years now). DPR said it best when they recently wrote (I'm paraphrasing) "Canon does as little as possible to get by...", and I would add, "for as much as possible". News flash - it's not a winning strategy.


DPR forgot to say that after over one decade now Nikon the first time does enough to follow and overcome Canon AND undercuts Canon pricing sheme to get some part of the market. That has not been the case in the past decades. It started 10 month ago.

12monkeys wrote:
Oooh! Sigma 35mm f1.4 is finally out at $899. I know where my money's going.

OOOh indeed; looks damn nice.

Price aside it's a hard choice between f/1.4 and f/2 with 4 stop IS. I'll await a head-to-head and it would be nice to throw in the superb Zeiss 35 f/2 for comparison.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
12monkeys wrote:
Oooh! Sigma 35mm f1.4 is finally out at $899. I know where my money's going.

OOOh indeed; looks damn nice.

Price aside it's a hard choice between f/1.4 and f/2 with 4 stop IS. I'll await a head-to-head and it would be nice to throw in the superb Zeiss 35 f/2 for comparison.

+1

New 35mm f2 looks very exciting, sadly the price places it out of my reach. Don't know if its me subjectively, or whether its the bad world economy, but Canon kit seems to be getting more and more expensive. 3 or 4 years ago I would be cheerfully planning my next up grade. Now my outfit is static. With the exception of the new 40mm prime nothing has leapt out at me as being good value recently, and new purchases will be limited to absolute must have items, which subjectively to me are not being released.

In the last 2 years I have bought no Canon kit, the first time I have not bought photographic equipment since around 1980. Photographic equipment seems to be migrating upwards from luxury goods to super-luxury status.

Thanks for letting me gripe, but the price of new releases is often quite surprising. At least I don't need supertelephotos, and I bought my 24L a long time ago now.

Ralph Conway wrote:

Not me. I never asked for a 35mm prime and I am still not interested in one. So for me Canon created a needless 35mm 2.0 IS next to their existing one without IS. They are both much overpriced. Maybe I would purchase one and spend the price of an 50mm 1.8 for one if it offers much better IQ.

DPR forgot to say that after over one decade now Nikon the first time does enough to follow and overcome Canon AND undercuts Canon pricing sheme to get some part of the market. That has not been the case in the past decades. It started 10 month ago.

Regarding Nikon, I've never suggested that they're perfect, nor are they always the right choice.

You're also right that Canon has traditionally offered better pricing options than Nikon. Where we see things differently is that Nikon - since moving to Sony CMOS sensors vs CCD sensors - has often been offering better real value in terms of usability.

Nikon offered the D3 and D3x in 2007, and both were more than competitive when it comes to performance. Now - to me - the D600/800 offers something significant (high DR) that Canon can't at any price. Comparing a more expensive Nikon lens with a 5-year warranty also adds some real value.

Canon started down the wrong road in 2007 with the 1D3 release. Everything about that initial release, from the AF problem to the last minute $500 price hike, has set the wrong tone to the market. Some will point to stock prices and sales as proof that I'm wrong, but it takes years for the problems to surface, and by then it's too late. There are some real problems at Canon, and they're easy to see if you look.

Now they're replacing a $350 35mm lens with a $900 lens (close to what I paid for my 35mm f/1.4), just because they added IS? They're giving us a new 24-70 f/4 at $1800 when you can buy a 24-105 f/4 for $800-$900? The world economy, the Euro/USD to Yen exchange rate are not the real problems; it's Canon's management decisions. The forced crippling continues, the unnecessary price hikes (because Canon drinks their own bath water) will eventually take it's toll.

jamesf99 wrote:

...

Now they're replacing a $350 35mm lens with a $900 lens (close to what I paid for my 35mm f/1.4), just because they added IS? They're giving us a new 24-70 f/4 at $1800 when you can buy a 24-105 f/4 for $800-$900? The world economy, the Euro/USD to Yen exchange rate are not the real problems; it's Canon's management decisions. The forced crippling continues, the unnecessary price hikes (because Canon drinks their own bath water) will eventually take it's toll.

Can you stop using $1800. That isn't the price and you certainly know that if you have been following the threads or Canon release.

Thanks.

jamesf99 wrote:
...
Now they're replacing a $350 35mm lens with a $900 lens (close to what I paid for my 35mm f/1.4), just because they added IS? They're giving us a new 24-70 f/4 at $1800 when you can buy a 24-105 f/4 for $800-$900? The world economy, the Euro/USD to Yen exchange rate are not the real problems; it's Canon's management decisions. The forced crippling continues, the unnecessary price hikes (because Canon drinks their own bath water) will eventually take it's toll.

Yes, now they are replacing a 22 year old lens design at 2.5 x the (introduction) price.
I do not see IS implemented only. I see 9 curved shaped aperture blades instead of 5, too.
And I am pretty sure, the optical quality will be much better, too.

The MSPR difference in 24-70 4.0 IS and 24-105 is not a 100% add on like you mentioned, but additional Euro 270 what makes an increase of around 22% in reality. Imo not to bad for an complete new competitor to an 7 year old lens design.

Like "jctriguy" mentioned: the MSPR of the new 24-70 was $ 300 less when announced, than what you are telling.

Ralph

Ralph Conway wrote:
Yes, now they are replacing a 22 year old lens design at 2.5 x the (introduction) price.

I guess people who remember what the price was 22 years ago will think it's a good deal. For everyone else, no

Ralph Conway wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
...
Now they're replacing a $350 35mm lens with a $900 lens (close to what I paid for my 35mm f/1.4), just because they added IS? They're giving us a new 24-70 f/4 at $1800 when you can buy a 24-105 f/4 for $800-$900? The world economy, the Euro/USD to Yen exchange rate are not the real problems; it's Canon's management decisions. The forced crippling continues, the unnecessary price hikes (because Canon drinks their own bath water) will eventually take it's toll.

Yes, now they are replacing a 22 year old lens design at 2.5 x the (introduction) price.
I do not see IS implemented only. I see 9 curved shaped aperture blades instead of 5, too.
And I am pretty sure, the optical quality will be much better, too.

The MSPR difference in 24-70 4.0 IS and 24-105 is not a 100% add on like you mentioned, but additional Euro 270 what makes an increase of around 22% in reality. Imo not to bad for an complete new competitor to an 7 year old lens design.

Like "jctriguy" mentioned: the MSPR of the new 24-70 was $ 300 less when announced, than what you are telling.

Ralph

Haven't looked at the prices or specs again since I saw them originally, so that's my mistake. A $300 savings is good, but probably not enough to make a huge difference; it's still a f/4 lens. If it has exceptional IQ, that will be great but I'm not going to get excited about it. I have a 24-70, a 24-105, so I'm not seeing a big need for this right now.

BTW - I've never really had a problem with Canon's lens quality. I like almost everything they make, or have made since the FD days. There have been a few exceptions but over all they've been good.

PS - Please tell that guy who's getting upset that I'll use the right number and he can calm down.

Yakim Peled wrote:
12monkeys wrote:
Oooh! Sigma 35mm f1.4 is finally out at $899. I know where my money's going.

As prices are similar, for me IS is worth more than an extra stop.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Don't forget weight and size. As much as I enjoy the flexibility of zooms and the extra stop sometimes saves the day, for general use, the new 35 f/2 IS will probably live on my camera.

24-70/4L IS is supposed to be a kit lens for 6D (MSRP $2099). I don't think it will be $1800.

Ralph Conway wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
...
Now they're replacing a $350 35mm lens with a $900 lens (close to what I paid for my 35mm f/1.4), just because they added IS? They're giving us a new 24-70 f/4 at $1800 when you can buy a 24-105 f/4 for $800-$900? The world economy, the Euro/USD to Yen exchange rate are not the real problems; it's Canon's management decisions. The forced crippling continues, the unnecessary price hikes (because Canon drinks their own bath water) will eventually take it's toll.

Yes, now they are replacing a 22 year old lens design at 2.5 x the (introduction) price.
I do not see IS implemented only. I see 9 curved shaped aperture blades instead of 5, too.
And I am pretty sure, the optical quality will be much better, too.

Very likely. And ring USM replaces the archaic AFD.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Fred Miranda wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
12monkeys wrote:
Oooh! Sigma 35mm f1.4 is finally out at $899. I know where my money's going.

As prices are similar, for me IS is worth more than an extra stop.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Don't forget weight and size. As much as I enjoy the flexibility of zooms and the extra stop sometimes saves the day, for general use, the new 35 f/2 IS will probably live on my camera.

If I'd remain in DSLR that probably be the situation for me as well.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Fred Miranda wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
12monkeys wrote:
Oooh! Sigma 35mm f1.4 is finally out at $899. I know where my money's going.

As prices are similar, for me IS is worth more than an extra stop.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Don't forget weight and size. As much as I enjoy the flexibility of zooms and the extra stop sometimes saves the day, for general use, the new 35 f/2 IS will probably live on my camera.

Fred sounds like you are perfect candidate for the Sony RX1.

Fred Miranda wrote:
Don't forget weight and size. As much as I enjoy the flexibility of zooms and the extra stop sometimes saves the day, for general use, the new 35 f/2 IS will probably live on my camera.

I was hoping that I'd reached some plateau in gears buying. But then I've upgraded my 100 macro and 70-200 f4 to the IS versions, guess its time for the 35 f2. Its a bit heavier, but I really like the 35 mm perspective and it retains the close focus. Then there is the 5D3 that will someday focus at f8 with my 100-400 + 1.4x. Then surely my gears buying will be done! I won't even tell my wife that I believe this to be true.