I was wondering what was going on with the 24-105 a couple of weeks ago when they were part of the big discounts on the refurb site - they were something like $640 after the discount.

dirb9 wrote:
Does the 24-70 officially replace the 24-105, or is the 24-105 remaining in the lineup?

24-70L f/4 IS... huh? Seems obvious now why Canon has left the 2.8 II without IS. I find this company hard to follow these days. We already have a 24-105L f/4 IS duh

why all the talk for the 24-70? Wheres the love for the new 35?

I am trying to decide if I should pre order now or wait until the price comes down a little for the 35. Seems to be a great lens. What I like most is the 8 circular apperature blades ( will now have round out of focus highlites instead of jaged edges of the 35L), newer focus confirmation than 35L (Roger at Lens rentals has mentioned newer lens is more consistant focus with newer bodies), and 4 stop image stabalizer!! I am not worried about losing the 1.4 because I rarely shoot the 35 wide open anyway. As long as the lens is sharp, good contrast and color this will be a real winner!! This could be a real gem and a steal at 850 or less.

Oh, and not sure what difference this will make but seems promising also. 35L is a 72mm thread while the 35 2.0 is a 67mm thread. Double the light difference but only a 5mm difference in the filter size. Even the 50 1.4 is only a 58mm filter. Anyway interesting why it is so large for a 2.0 lens.

Also interesting B+ H says it comes with lens case and lens hood. Not that I will use either but interesting they are including these items with a non L lens.

fotosculptor wrote: Canon needs to be punched in the face for those prices.

Skipped your anger management counselling?

If you don't like the price, don't buy.

eosfun wrote:
But if I have to choose between 2.8 and 4.0 I choose 2.8. More light to the sensor, more creative possibilties with DOF and bokeh, higher shutter speeds, or lower ISO settings. I made that choice for the 70-200 zoom that I have in 2.8 and not 4.0. For the same reason I have the fastest primes as well. I know, this is not for everyone and as a general hiking setup or street photography kit the 4.0 lenses are a much better combo, but if size matters, there are already much more attractive alternatives, like an m4/3 or NEX setup. Canon is definitely missing some important buying decision factors here. The move from many photographers to those platforms does have good reasons. And Canon's latest introductions made it clear they don't get it yet that a lot of customers want other kinds of EOSfun than what they presented us lately.

You have summed up the current situation fairly well.

However, it is worth noting that Nikon sales for interchangeable cameras and lenses have improved in 2012 as compared to 2011. Nikon, like Canon, is mostly a traditional DSLR company, so it's worth pondering why their sales have improved unlike Canon. Sure they have their 1-series mirrorless cameras, but those sales numbers are much smaller compared to their traditional DSLRs.

I do not think Canon is wrong in releasing lenses like the 35 f/2 IS and 24-70 f/4 IS, especially since we all know the prices of these lenses will fall in time to come. The folks who can afford those heavy and expensive f/2.8 zooms or f/1.4 primes really belong to a minority.

My hypothesis is that Canon's failure to address their sensor shortcomings, propensity to handicap their lower-end cameras (particularly in important things like AF), underwhelming products such the EOS-M with its hopeless AF, tendency to over-price their products and failure to address market needs in a timely manner (e.g. pixel count of 5D3 vs D800) are the underlying reasons for their loss of market shares. Nikon made huge strides since the advent of their D3/D300, hopefully Canon can do the same. Otherwise, it's all doom and gloom for them.

It's also worth noting there are more folks switching to m43 from the Canon camp than from Nikon.

thw2 wrote:
Nikon, like Canon, is mostly a traditional DSLR company.

Nikon is a traditional optical imaging company mainly making cameras, microscopes etc, Canon is a massively diverse company making everything from photocopiers, through scanners to lithographic printers and cameras.

Dslr sales account for very little of Canon's profits.

Not sure what the 24-70mm f/4 target market is. It's slower and honestly do you need IS at that focal length? As far as the 35mm f/2, I'll wait until I see the results.

I find more reason the 135 f/2 being replaced by an IS version which is where IS is much needed.

My two cents.

dhphoto wrote:
thw2 wrote:
Nikon, like Canon, is mostly a traditional DSLR company.

Nikon is a traditional optical imaging company mainly making cameras, microscopes etc, Canon is a massively diverse company making everything from photocopiers, through scanners to lithographic printers and cameras.

Dslr sales account for very little of Canon's profits.

Technically, Nikon is run by photographers, while Canon is run by photocopier and printer technicians.

dhphoto wrote:
thw2 wrote:
Nikon, like Canon, is mostly a traditional DSLR company.

Nikon is a traditional optical imaging company mainly making cameras, microscopes etc, Canon is a massively diverse company making everything from photocopiers, through scanners to lithographic printers and cameras.

Dslr sales account for very little of Canon's profits.

Sorry to differ but Nikon as a company has far more diversity than Canon. Where Nikon makes cameras, camera lenses, binoculars, microscopes, ophthalmic lenses, measurement instruments, and the steppers used in the photolithography steps of semiconductor fabrication, of which it is the world's second largest manufacturer - Quote from Wiki. Whilst Canon only specialised in the manufacture of imaging and optical products, including cameras, camcorders, photocopiers, steppers and computer printers.

dhphoto wrote:
thw2 wrote:
Nikon, like Canon, is mostly a traditional DSLR company.

Nikon is a traditional optical imaging company mainly making cameras, microscopes etc, Canon is a massively diverse company making everything from photocopiers, through scanners to lithographic printers and cameras.

Dslr sales account for very little of Canon's profits.

For the first 9 months of 2012, the imaging division ( cameras ) contributed $2 billion profit to Canon's overall $3.2 billion profit. That is basically 2/3 of the profit coming from cameras. Thst is not very little.

Daan B wrote:
24-70L f/4 IS... huh? Seems obvious now why Canon has left the 2.8 II without IS. I find this company hard to follow these days. We already have a 24-105L f/4 IS duh

I suspect it is just an act of desperation: instead of removing the already introduced 24-70/2.8 from the market after Tamron offered the similar lens with image stabilizer for a much better price, Canon quickly tuned around and made the 24-70/4 IS to keep the face straight. Very questionable if this was a good decision - the market will show in a couple of months if this will have worked for Canon. I doubt it.

Regarding the 35/2 EF lens, at least it is an alternative to the 35/1.4 L lens. Problem with the new 35/2 is the price - a few hundred bucks more and you can get the faster L lens. If the 35/2 would be priced around $500, things would look much different and it would be a real lower priced but still fast alternative to the L lens.

chez wrote:
For the first 9 months of 2012, the imaging division ( cameras ) contributed $2 billion profit to Canon's overall $3.2 billion profit. That is basically 2/3 of the profit coming from cameras. Thst is not very little.

You might care to read what I actually wrote, I said dslr's don't make up a huge amount of Canon's profits. Most of it comes from compacts.

dhphoto wrote:
chez wrote:
For the first 9 months of 2012, the imaging division ( cameras ) contributed $2 billion profit to Canon's overall $3.2 billion profit. That is basically 2/3 of the profit coming from cameras. Thst is not very little.

You might care to read what I actually wrote, I said dslr's don't make up a huge amount of Canon's profits. Most of it comes from compacts.

Can you post your reference to the split in profits by type of cameras. I've never seen this. I am interested.

If Canon can meet the standard of the 70-200 f4 IS with the new 24-70 it will sell, even at a high price.

sandycrane wrote:
If Canon can meet the standard of the 70-200 f4 IS with the new 24-70 it will sell, even at a high price.

The biggest advantage of having the 70-200/4 IS over the f/2.8 IS version is reduction of weight and better portability with the slower version (about half the weight of the f/2.8 version). Comparing both 24-70 versions, the weight difference here is very small - only 200 grams. Customers will likely go for the faster 24-70 version (even considering a different brand or simply just the 24-70/2.8 vers. I).

849 and 1499

B&S Forum: $650 and $1200 .

not interested in the zoom, but i'm very interested in the 35 f/2. considering the prices of the new 24 and 28's, i'm not surprised it's $850. that said, i won't be buying it until that price drops around $200. non-L, non-weather sealed primes for $850 is a non-starter for me.

guess i'll wait to see the price on that new sigma 35 f/1.4...

retrofocus wrote:
sandycrane wrote:
If Canon can meet the standard of the 70-200 f4 IS with the new 24-70 it will sell, even at a high price.

The biggest advantage of having the 70-200/4 IS over the f/2.8 IS version is reduction of weight and better portability with the slower version (about half the weight of the f/2.8 version). Comparing both 24-70 versions, the weight difference here is very small - only 200 grams. Customers will likely go for the faster 24-70 version (even considering a different brand or simply just the 24-70/2.8 vers. I).

There is still a $800 price difference and IS. I would definitely take the f4 version over the f2.8 version. Also consider the 77 vs 82 filters. And 200g is nearly a half pound on a lens that weighs less than 2 pounds.

Personally the biggest reason I bought the 70-200 f4 IS was the cost difference. You get similar performance for roughly half the price.