tr1957 wrote:
Both lenses are listed in the Canon feedback/support forum now. My suggestion is to let them know your opinion on their pricing "strategy", especially with regard to the huge cost difference to roughly comparable Nikon equipment (e.g., D600/24-85 versus 6D/24-70). Can't hurt, and might even help a bit (witness the 5Diii eBay sales).

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/form_display/sup_by_email

Don't think you'll have much luck on the cost difference side of things. Comparing a high-end constant f4 lens to a bargain entry lens might not help your argument.

Reality is that the prices are going up. Nikon is doing the same thing in most areas except body prices. Likely they are trying the loss leader method as suggested by their profit margins.

Canon.. It's pretty clear the inmates are running the asylum.....

PetKal wrote:


Thakfully, I am not going to give them a penny towards 24-70L f/2.8 II or 24-70 f/4, although I would be interested in the faster zoom at its current price only if it came with IS, and only if the barrel components were made of metal, exibiting quality workmanship commensurate to the price.


Couldn't agree more!

jctriguy wrote:

Reality is that the prices are going up. Nikon is doing the same thing in most areas except body prices. Likely they are trying the loss leader method as suggested by their profit margins.

We will see if this works out for Canon and part for Nikon, too. The photography market is by far not booming currently, and many people hesitate to vest in such expensive lenses. I believe the used lens market will flourish instead even prices will go up there, too. People who can afford to buy expensive lenses might rather soon buy Leica or Zeiss glass instead (lack of AF won't stop them here). And Canon is not Leica!

retrofocus wrote:
jctriguy wrote:

Reality is that the prices are going up. Nikon is doing the same thing in most areas except body prices. Likely they are trying the loss leader method as suggested by their profit margins.

We will see if this works out for Canon and part for Nikon, too. The photography market is by far not booming currently, and many people hesitate to vest in such expensive lenses. I believe the used lens market will flourish instead even prices will go up there, too. People who can afford to buy expensive lenses might rather soon buy Leica or Zeiss glass instead (lack of AF won't stop them here). And Canon is not Leica!


Put a Leica lens on a high quality mirrorless with focus peaking (not surprisingly, something Canon doesn't offer) and away you go...

For example, a new Nex-6 or Nex-7 and you've got a good, lightweight solution.

jamesf99 wrote:
retrofocus wrote:
jctriguy wrote:

Reality is that the prices are going up. Nikon is doing the same thing in most areas except body prices. Likely they are trying the loss leader method as suggested by their profit margins.

We will see if this works out for Canon and part for Nikon, too. The photography market is by far not booming currently, and many people hesitate to vest in such expensive lenses. I believe the used lens market will flourish instead even prices will go up there, too. People who can afford to buy expensive lenses might rather soon buy Leica or Zeiss glass instead (lack of AF won't stop them here). And Canon is not Leica!


Put a Leica lens on a high quality mirrorless with focus peaking (not surprisingly, something Canon doesn't offer) and away you go...

For example, a new Nex-6 or Nex-7 and you've got a good, lightweight solution.

Yes, this is absolutely true!

retrofocus wrote:
jctriguy wrote:

Reality is that the prices are going up. Nikon is doing the same thing in most areas except body prices. Likely they are trying the loss leader method as suggested by their profit margins.

We will see if this works out for Canon and part for Nikon, too. The photography market is by far not booming currently, and many people hesitate to vest in such expensive lenses. I believe the used lens market will flourish instead even prices will go up there, too. People who can afford to buy expensive lenses might rather soon buy Leica or Zeiss glass instead (lack of AF won't stop them here). And Canon is not Leica!

I would disagree with your assessment of the photography market. I think we are in the middle of the largest boom in photography we have ever seen. People are getting DSLR's and other high-end cameras at significantly higher rates than in the past. I currently don't know many people that don't have some form of 'good' camera. I'm sure there are flucuations but we are expanding. What was once only available to pro photogs is now in the hands of many thousands of regular amateurs.

And Leica is in an entirely different world with prices. I could buy an amazing kit of a couple camera bodies and some great lenses for the cost of the new M and a lens.

jamesf99 wrote:
retrofocus wrote:
jctriguy wrote:

Reality is that the prices are going up. Nikon is doing the same thing in most areas except body prices. Likely they are trying the loss leader method as suggested by their profit margins.

We will see if this works out for Canon and part for Nikon, too. The photography market is by far not booming currently, and many people hesitate to vest in such expensive lenses. I believe the used lens market will flourish instead even prices will go up there, too. People who can afford to buy expensive lenses might rather soon buy Leica or Zeiss glass instead (lack of AF won't stop them here). And Canon is not Leica!


Put a Leica lens on a high quality mirrorless with focus peaking (not surprisingly, something Canon doesn't offer) and away you go...

For example, a new Nex-6 or Nex-7 and you've got a good, lightweight solution.

Good lightweight solution for what?? For ultimate image quailty, maybe. That will always be the fringes of the photo world. Lots of regular mom and pops are happy to drop $2k on a lens to take pics of their kids sports of dance recitals.

jctriguy wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
retrofocus wrote:
jctriguy wrote:

Reality is that the prices are going up. Nikon is doing the same thing in most areas except body prices. Likely they are trying the loss leader method as suggested by their profit margins.

We will see if this works out for Canon and part for Nikon, too. The photography market is by far not booming currently, and many people hesitate to vest in such expensive lenses. I believe the used lens market will flourish instead even prices will go up there, too. People who can afford to buy expensive lenses might rather soon buy Leica or Zeiss glass instead (lack of AF won't stop them here). And Canon is not Leica!


Put a Leica lens on a high quality mirrorless with focus peaking (not surprisingly, something Canon doesn't offer) and away you go...

For example, a new Nex-6 or Nex-7 and you've got a good, lightweight solution.

Good lightweight solution for what?? For ultimate image quailty, maybe. That will always be the fringes of the photo world. Lots of regular mom and pops are happy to drop $2k on a lens to take pics of their kids sports of dance recitals.

Yeah, not cheap, but it's kind of sad that after Canon goes through their lenses, removing all the affordable ones, all that will be available are $900 "bargain" lenses, or $1800 f/4 lenses... I'm real sure Moms and Pops are going to flock to those...

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

jamesf99 wrote:
As the popular saying of the moment goes, we have another Canon FAIL....

Personally, I'd wait another year or so to sound so decisive. Canon has not become the photographic giant it is by making a series of bad decisions. Sure, there were some along the way (e.g. the 1D3 AF fiasco) but generally, most of its decisions were very good.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Yakim Peled wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
As the popular saying of the moment goes, we have another Canon FAIL....

Personally, I'd wait another year or so to sound so decisive. Canon has not become the photographic giant it is by making a series of bad decisions. Sure, there were some along the way (e.g. the 1D3 AF fiasco) but generally, most of its decisions were very good.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

+1000
Thank you, Yakim.

Internet is an easy to use platform for individuals presenting their mind as everybodies opinion.
Is it really a failure not to do all what somebody wishes you to do?

Even they did not offer answers to my wishes and needs in the past before D600, Nikon seems far away from failing to me. They do very good for others. Same with Canon. They do/did what I wished/need (and they stil do). 5D III, 1D X, 6D look like fantastic (if not the best available) cameras to me I would imediatelly purchase, if I would not have to care about the price. Same with lenses.

If it is as good as I expect I would buy a 24-70 4.0 L IS as soon as possible at its asked price. If I can afford it. If not the question remains: Do they fail in decissions (about their lens range), quality or pricing, because they do not fullfill (or only in part) my wishes/needs? Is it my failure, not to be able to pay the price they ask, although I would like to get this (any) product.

If the new Canon zoom undercuts 24-105s IQ at any price I guess I would call it a failure, too.
I do not expect this will happen. Else in my opinion it is a great new lens that might fullfill many shooters needs (f. e. mine). If the price is not what one can or wants to afford it is not a sign of insight to say the manufacturer "fails".

Imo the new 24-70 L II is an amazing lens. I do not need it, neither want it (price, lack of IS).
Others purchased it and love it. I decided it is nothing for me. That does not mean, Canon failed in developing and producing it.

Ralph

jamesf99 wrote:
jctriguy wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
retrofocus wrote:
jctriguy wrote:

Reality is that the prices are going up. Nikon is doing the same thing in most areas except body prices. Likely they are trying the loss leader method as suggested by their profit margins.

We will see if this works out for Canon and part for Nikon, too. The photography market is by far not booming currently, and many people hesitate to vest in such expensive lenses. I believe the used lens market will flourish instead even prices will go up there, too. People who can afford to buy expensive lenses might rather soon buy Leica or Zeiss glass instead (lack of AF won't stop them here). And Canon is not Leica!


Put a Leica lens on a high quality mirrorless with focus peaking (not surprisingly, something Canon doesn't offer) and away you go...

For example, a new Nex-6 or Nex-7 and you've got a good, lightweight solution.

Good lightweight solution for what?? For ultimate image quailty, maybe. That will always be the fringes of the photo world. Lots of regular mom and pops are happy to drop $2k on a lens to take pics of their kids sports of dance recitals.

Yeah, not cheap, but it's kind of sad that after Canon goes through their lenses, removing all the affordable ones, all that will be available are $900 "bargain" lenses, or $1800 f/4 lenses... I'm real sure Moms and Pops are going to flock to those...

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


Yeah, I don't like this too. In fact, most of my lenses are from the "best bang for the buck" category. I.e. non-L primes and 24-85 USM. Seems like I will have to buy one more silver 24-85 USM while they're available, because cheap good FF lenses are vanishing* from Canon's offerings. And 35/2 too.

* I guess someone got drunk and forgot to put a zero after EF-40/2.8 price.

MintMar wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
jctriguy wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
retrofocus wrote:
jctriguy wrote:

Reality is that the prices are going up. Nikon is doing the same thing in most areas except body prices. Likely they are trying the loss leader method as suggested by their profit margins.

We will see if this works out for Canon and part for Nikon, too. The photography market is by far not booming currently, and many people hesitate to vest in such expensive lenses. I believe the used lens market will flourish instead even prices will go up there, too. People who can afford to buy expensive lenses might rather soon buy Leica or Zeiss glass instead (lack of AF won't stop them here). And Canon is not Leica!


Put a Leica lens on a high quality mirrorless with focus peaking (not surprisingly, something Canon doesn't offer) and away you go...

For example, a new Nex-6 or Nex-7 and you've got a good, lightweight solution.

Good lightweight solution for what?? For ultimate image quailty, maybe. That will always be the fringes of the photo world. Lots of regular mom and pops are happy to drop $2k on a lens to take pics of their kids sports of dance recitals.

Yeah, not cheap, but it's kind of sad that after Canon goes through their lenses, removing all the affordable ones, all that will be available are $900 "bargain" lenses, or $1800 f/4 lenses... I'm real sure Moms and Pops are going to flock to those...

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


Yeah, I don't like this too. In fact, most of my lenses are from the "best bang for the buck" category. I.e. non-L primes and 24-85 USM. Seems like I will have to buy one more silver 24-85 USM while they're available, because cheap good FF lenses are vanishing* from Canon's offerings. And 35/2 too.

* I guess someone got drunk and forgot to put a zero after EF-40/2.8 price.

I actually bought a new 24-85 USM in 1996 and it was a very pricy optic for its day. As I recall it was nearly $600 USD (unless part of the EOS IX kit). The EF 200 2.8L USM cost only a little more in the mid-90s. I don't know how much inflation ensued in those 17 years since but my wages tripled since so certainly in todays money that 1996 24-85 would be $1000 or more. Of course your could buy a new 24-85 for much cheaper a few years later. I can't say it was a great lens but it was very good for the money and I have a lot of fond memories dragging that optic around the world.

My 24-85 review & gallery:

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef24-85usm.htm

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

mmurph wrote:
Nikon has a 24-85 f 3.5-5.6 as their kit lens for the D600. The 24-70 4.0 constant sounds like a nice "competitor." The best way to acquire it will probably be like the 24-105, as part of a kit.

It's f/3.5-4.5. Not that far off.

To me, the 35 could be totally demolished on sales by Sigma's new 35/1.4 which actually starts out at a very similar MSRP of $900.
An f/2.8 zoom that I have covers 35mm, so an f/2 prime in this range is not justified - just one stop isn't enough for me. So, I'd rather have that Sigma if I had need for a 35mm prime (I'd rather wait for a fast 24 from Sigma though, or go for a 24L non-II). It could be different for the f/4 zoom users, but even they might consider the f/1.4 lens instead... there's never enough speed, innit?
As for the ultra-expensive 24-70mm f/4 (especially with the new Tamron cheaper AND f/2.8), let me just quote mr. Ian Anderson: "Now we have two accordions for the price of three!"

Gochugogi wrote:
MintMar wrote:
Yeah, I don't like this too. In fact, most of my lenses are from the "best bang for the buck" category. I.e. non-L primes and 24-85 USM. Seems like I will have to buy one more silver 24-85 USM while they're available, because cheap good FF lenses are vanishing* from Canon's offerings. And 35/2 too.

* I guess someone got drunk and forgot to put a zero after EF-40/2.8 price.

I actually bought a new 24-85 USM in 1996 and it was a very pricy optic for its day. As I recall it was nearly $600 USD (unless part of the EOS IX kit). The EF 200 2.8L USM cost only a little more in the mid-90s. I don't know how much inflation ensued in those 17 years since but my wages tripled since so certainly in todays money that 1996 24-85 would be $1000 or more. Of course your could buy a new 24-85 for much cheaper a few years later. I can't say it was a great lens but it was very good for the money and I have a lot of fond memories dragging that optic around the world.

My 24-85 review & gallery:
http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef24-85usm.htm

I have the 24-85 (cost me about $250 2 years ago, then some $30 for the hood) and I love it.

jamesf99 wrote:
As the popular saying of the moment goes, we have another Canon FAIL....


I am sure many must have felt that way when Canon first leaped from FD to EF mount in 1987...

Gochugogi wrote:
MintMar wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
jctriguy wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
retrofocus wrote:
jctriguy wrote:

Reality is that the prices are going up. Nikon is doing the same thing in most areas except body prices. Likely they are trying the loss leader method as suggested by their profit margins.

We will see if this works out for Canon and part for Nikon, too. The photography market is by far not booming currently, and many people hesitate to vest in such expensive lenses. I believe the used lens market will flourish instead even prices will go up there, too. People who can afford to buy expensive lenses might rather soon buy Leica or Zeiss glass instead (lack of AF won't stop them here). And Canon is not Leica!


Put a Leica lens on a high quality mirrorless with focus peaking (not surprisingly, something Canon doesn't offer) and away you go...

For example, a new Nex-6 or Nex-7 and you've got a good, lightweight solution.

Good lightweight solution for what?? For ultimate image quailty, maybe. That will always be the fringes of the photo world. Lots of regular mom and pops are happy to drop $2k on a lens to take pics of their kids sports of dance recitals.

Yeah, not cheap, but it's kind of sad that after Canon goes through their lenses, removing all the affordable ones, all that will be available are $900 "bargain" lenses, or $1800 f/4 lenses... I'm real sure Moms and Pops are going to flock to those...

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


Yeah, I don't like this too. In fact, most of my lenses are from the "best bang for the buck" category. I.e. non-L primes and 24-85 USM. Seems like I will have to buy one more silver 24-85 USM while they're available, because cheap good FF lenses are vanishing* from Canon's offerings. And 35/2 too.

* I guess someone got drunk and forgot to put a zero after EF-40/2.8 price.

I actually bought a new 24-85 USM in 1996 and it was a very pricy optic for its day. As I recall it was nearly $600 USD (unless part of the EOS IX kit). The EF 200 2.8L USM cost only a little more in the mid-90s. I don't know how much inflation ensued in those 17 years since but my wages tripled since so certainly in todays money that 1996 24-85 would be $1000 or more. Of course your could buy a new 24-85 for much cheaper a few years later. I can't say it was a great lens but it was very good for the money and I have a lot of fond memories dragging that optic around the world.

My 24-85 review & gallery:

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef24-85usm.htm



Yep, that's it: very good for the money.

jamesf99 wrote:
jctriguy wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
retrofocus wrote:
jctriguy wrote:

Reality is that the prices are going up. Nikon is doing the same thing in most areas except body prices. Likely they are trying the loss leader method as suggested by their profit margins.

We will see if this works out for Canon and part for Nikon, too. The photography market is by far not booming currently, and many people hesitate to vest in such expensive lenses. I believe the used lens market will flourish instead even prices will go up there, too. People who can afford to buy expensive lenses might rather soon buy Leica or Zeiss glass instead (lack of AF won't stop them here). And Canon is not Leica!


Put a Leica lens on a high quality mirrorless with focus peaking (not surprisingly, something Canon doesn't offer) and away you go...

For example, a new Nex-6 or Nex-7 and you've got a good, lightweight solution.

Good lightweight solution for what?? For ultimate image quailty, maybe. That will always be the fringes of the photo world. Lots of regular mom and pops are happy to drop $2k on a lens to take pics of their kids sports of dance recitals.

Yeah, not cheap, but it's kind of sad that after Canon goes through their lenses, removing all the affordable ones, all that will be available are $900 "bargain" lenses, or $1800 f/4 lenses... I'm real sure Moms and Pops are going to flock to those...

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....

MintMar wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
jctriguy wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
retrofocus wrote:
jctriguy wrote:

Reality is that the prices are going up. Nikon is doing the same thing in most areas except body prices. Likely they are trying the loss leader method as suggested by their profit margins.

We will see if this works out for Canon and part for Nikon, too. The photography market is by far not booming currently, and many people hesitate to vest in such expensive lenses. I believe the used lens market will flourish instead even prices will go up there, too. People who can afford to buy expensive lenses might rather soon buy Leica or Zeiss glass instead (lack of AF won't stop them here). And Canon is not Leica!


Put a Leica lens on a high quality mirrorless with focus peaking (not surprisingly, something Canon doesn't offer) and away you go...

For example, a new Nex-6 or Nex-7 and you've got a good, lightweight solution.

Good lightweight solution for what?? For ultimate image quailty, maybe. That will always be the fringes of the photo world. Lots of regular mom and pops are happy to drop $2k on a lens to take pics of their kids sports of dance recitals.

Yeah, not cheap, but it's kind of sad that after Canon goes through their lenses, removing all the affordable ones, all that will be available are $900 "bargain" lenses, or $1800 f/4 lenses... I'm real sure Moms and Pops are going to flock to those...

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


Yeah, I don't like this too. In fact, most of my lenses are from the "best bang for the buck" category. I.e. non-L primes and 24-85 USM. Seems like I will have to buy one more silver 24-85 USM while they're available, because cheap good FF lenses are vanishing* from Canon's offerings. And 35/2 too.

* I guess someone got drunk and forgot to put a zero after EF-40/2.8 price.

I'm with you. Most of my lenses are from the best bang for your buck category as well: 35 f/2, 50 f/1.8, 24-85 USM, and I really like all of them, despite their shortcomings. I've been thinking about scooping up some more of the old cheap lenses (old 24 2.8, 100 f2, ) while they are still readily available. You get something like 90% of the performance for 1/4 of the price. I'd love to have the 35 f/2 IS for low light handholdability or 24-70 f/4 IS for a general purpose lens on my 5DII but not at these prices.

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.