artd wrote:
burningheart wrote:
artd wrote:

Ok for that scenario, let's rephrase to the following: If someone is considering purchasing a lens that costs $1500 they can probably afford to buy a new polarizer too. If one has the means and the willingness to spend $1500 on a lens, would $1650 really be such a back breaker?




For those who are budget minded that live within their means they may have to make the decision to buy the lens only. One thing lost by a lot of people on photoboards myself included is we at times get tunnel vision and don't always look at the real cost. The real cost includes the cost of all the accessories they want to use with the product.

For some they have a budget that says I have $1500 max to spend, they like using polarizers but don't have an 82, thus thier cost now becomes $1650, that extra $150 maybe be earmarked to food, the mortgage, rent or some other basic necessitity for the household.

If the additional cost for a polarizer is a deal breaker then that person needs to reevaluate the want/need to buy that lens or look at other alternatives such as selling the 77mm polarizer and buying a step ring to go with the 82mm they will buy to replace the 77mm or shooting without a polarizer.

I'm not saying people don't have budgets. But, if $150 can make or break your household budget in terms of being able to pay rent or buy food, I would offer a sincerely friendly suggestion to that person that perhaps their desire for a $1500 lens could be reconsidered. There are, after all, many other budget-conscious alternatives.

I agree here with the points made by jctriguy above. Sorry, artd, but $150-200 can very well make a difference to purchase a lens with a higher price tag. If you buy used, this is already above 10% down from the original price of the lens which makes it then not really attractive buying it. The point above is not valid at all in your post.

I recently bought the 24-70 mkII to replace my worn out old version. But now there is this F4 puppy with stabilisation on the block that I wasn't aware of at the time coming onto the horizon, and its with macro. Now I'm not sure if I feel a bit cheated or not. If I had bought the F4 yes it would be a bit duller to look through but 4 stops of stabilisation theoretically means the equivalent of hand held down to F1.4ish (pushing it a bit!) which would be handy and the macro would be good to have too, not that I would use it much. My mkII is superbly sharp especially after upgrading from a tired 8 year old lens, but the F4 is significantly cheaper though still quite a punch in the bank balance. Just undecided - I do like to work with a bright screen, with my middle aged eye sight its pretty important to me and the mkII is undoubtedly sharp will the F4 match it? Right now I feel that what I may of paid a large lump of money for is an extra stop of view finder brightness and thats a whack to pay even as a professional

jctriguy wrote:
Try this...you have 77mm lenses already (70-200, 17-40, etc), you are thinking about 24-70 f4 vs f2.8. Total cost would be $2300+new 82mm filters ($2500) vs $1500 and no new filters.

In this scenario I would weigh if I need the 2.8, and if I did I would pay for it. If I can afford $2300 I can afford $2500.


To use your argument another way. Why do people care about having two camera systems. If they can afford multiple 2-10k lenses and carry them around, clearly it would be possible for them to have 2 different camera bodies (Nikon and Canon) and appropriate lenses for both systems. Why all the fuss about Canon not having great UWA, just get a Nikon FF and a 14-24 and keep all your Canon gear and carry both around.

Well, besides the fact that some people actually do that...let's not carry the point to absurdity. I think the difference between buying and carrying an extra $200 filter weighing a few grams and a whole camera system costing several thousand dollars and weighing 5 or 10 extra pounds is a bit different.

Simondo9 wrote:
I recently bought the 24-70 mkII to replace my worn out old version. But now there is this F4 puppy with stabilisation on the block that I wasn't aware of at the time coming onto the horizon, and its with macro. Now I'm not sure if I feel a bit cheated or not. If I had bought the F4 yes it would be a bit duller to look through but 4 stops of stabilisation theoretically means the equivalent of hand held down to F1.4ish (pushing it a bit!) which would be handy and the macro would be good to have too, not that I would use it much. My mkII is superbly sharp especially after upgrading from a tired 8 year old lens, but the F4 is significantly cheaper though still quite a punch in the bank balance. Just undecided - I do like to work with a bright screen, with my middle aged eye sight its pretty important to me and the mkII is undoubtedly sharp will the F4 match it? Right now I feel that what I may of paid a large lump of money for is an extra stop of view finder brightness and thats a whack to pay even as a professional

According to the MTF charts provided by Canon, both the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II and 24-70 f/4L IS are capable of great resolving power and contrast wide-open and stopped down all the way to the corners. See here.
We will be able to confirm this once Roger posts his Imatest evaluation averaging hundreds of copies!
The 24-70 f/4L IS is equipped with 4-stop Hybrid IS in normal shooting but only a 2.5-stop in macro mode. Keep in mind that the macro capabilities is somewhat limited in the real world because of the extreme close 'lens-subject' distance needed to achieve the maximum 0.7x magnification.

retrofocus wrote:
artd wrote:
burningheart wrote:
artd wrote:

Ok for that scenario, let's rephrase to the following: If someone is considering purchasing a lens that costs $1500 they can probably afford to buy a new polarizer too. If one has the means and the willingness to spend $1500 on a lens, would $1650 really be such a back breaker?




For those who are budget minded that live within their means they may have to make the decision to buy the lens only. One thing lost by a lot of people on photoboards myself included is we at times get tunnel vision and don't always look at the real cost. The real cost includes the cost of all the accessories they want to use with the product.

For some they have a budget that says I have $1500 max to spend, they like using polarizers but don't have an 82, thus thier cost now becomes $1650, that extra $150 maybe be earmarked to food, the mortgage, rent or some other basic necessitity for the household.

If the additional cost for a polarizer is a deal breaker then that person needs to reevaluate the want/need to buy that lens or look at other alternatives such as selling the 77mm polarizer and buying a step ring to go with the 82mm they will buy to replace the 77mm or shooting without a polarizer.

I'm not saying people don't have budgets. But, if $150 can make or break your household budget in terms of being able to pay rent or buy food, I would offer a sincerely friendly suggestion to that person that perhaps their desire for a $1500 lens could be reconsidered. There are, after all, many other budget-conscious alternatives.

I agree here with the points made by jctriguy above. Sorry, artd, but $150-200 can very well make a difference to purchase a lens with a higher price tag. If you buy used, this is already above 10% down from the original price of the lens which makes it then not really attractive buying it. The point above is not valid at all in your post.

An extra 10% associated with professional photography equipment in an upper price bracket is certainly not a deal breaker for me. I don't buy anything unless I feel I can afford it, and if I need to spend an extra 10% on an accessory because I need a particular piece of gear, well that's the cost of doing business. But naturally how you spend your money and assign value to goods is your own prerogative and I can respsect that

(But still...if someone is literally so tight on day-to-day living expenses that at extra $150 could make or break them, I think it is valid to encourage them to evaluate if they truly need to be purchasing a high priced lens.There many other practical and affordable options, and it's easy to get swept up in the consumer culture that encourages buying the best, newest, shiniest thing that hits the shelves. Of course we are getting way OT, sorry about that, I'll stop now ).

The 24-70 f4L IS seems like a great studio lens. Yes, the 24-105L IS is a good lens but optically is way subpar for high end studio work. The new lens' macro capability is key to making much more valuable for studio work. Also, it's optical quality better be better than the 24-105, if not its gonna be a tough sell unless its much lower in price which right now doesnt seem like it will cheaper.

Nobody really likes to spend more money than necessary (maybe I am wrong). But imo most of those price discussions (and statements like XY failed (again )) are held about things that are not necessary anyway. There is no need for purchasing a $ 1500 or 2300 lens (or a $ 3000 body) for anybody, who is crying about the price.
If there is a "must have" (for example to get a job done) you just go out and purchase it to fullfill the need. Most "whiners" imo "want to have" a product for pleasure. Why do so many people want to have expensive products? And why do they want to get them cheap(er)?

Is it really so difficult to accept, that a luxory product (and that is what we talk about here in 95% imo) that is to expensive to be able to afford it (or one just does not want to spend the money upon) is just one thing: It is NOT created for YOU!

Sneakyracer wrote:
The 24-70 f4L IS seems like a great studio lens. Yes, the 24-105L IS is a good lens but optically is way subpar for high end studio work. The new lens' macro capability is key to making much more valuable for studio work. Also, it's optical quality better be better than the 24-105, if not its gonna be a tough sell unless its much lower in price which right now doesnt seem like it will cheaper.

Do you shoot your subjects from 3cm away?

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Do you shoot your subjects from 3cm away?



What Canon says is:
"It offers a minimum focusing distance of 1.25 ft./0.38m across the entire zoom range and has a macro mode at the telephoto end with up to 0.7x magnification (minimum focusing distance becomes 7.87 in./0.2m) and is easily accessible with a one-touch switch."

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_4l_is_usm#Overview

Ralph Conway wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Do you shoot your subjects from 3cm away?



What Canon says is:
"It offers a minimum focusing distance of 1.25 ft./0.38m across the entire zoom range and has a macro mode at the telephoto end with up to 0.7x magnification (minimum focusing distance becomes 7.87 in./0.2m) and is easily accessible with a one-touch switch."

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_4l_is_usm#Overview


Working distance is only a few cm when you take away the length of the expanded lens. Even if working distance where 20cm do you shoot models from this close?

Sneakyracer wrote:
Yes, the 24-105L IS is a good lens but optically is way subpar for high end studio work.


"Sub par"? That's a pretty big statement.

I know at least two people who use it in studio with their 5D MkIIs.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Ralph Conway wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Do you shoot your subjects from 3cm away?



What Canon says is:
"It offers a minimum focusing distance of 1.25 ft./0.38m across the entire zoom range and has a macro mode at the telephoto end with up to 0.7x magnification (minimum focusing distance becomes 7.87 in./0.2m) and is easily accessible with a one-touch switch."

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_4l_is_usm#Overview


Working distance is only a few cm when you take away the length of the expanded lens. Even if working distance where 20cm do you shoot models from this close?

Ups. You are right. I forgot that MFD is not calculated from the lens front element but from sensor position. And right, macro herer works only at 70mm, so fully extended.

Thank you for your correction.

And yes, sometimes I do shoot models from 20 cm working distance . And with the new lens it looks this is possible over the whole zoom range, isn´t it?

I have an excellent copy of the 24-105 (IMO), but I'm thinking of replacing it and my 16-35ii with the 24-70 f4 IS, and picking up a 85 f/1.8 too. This all depends on how good the new zoom is at 24mm and how much the UK price is. I've been told it will retail for £1500 incl. VAT @20%, but I'm hoping that's an exaggeration! Sadly going on recent history I think that price is accurate

It will be € 1449 here in germany including 19% VAT. That is 1555,42 in $ without taxes, $ 1851 tax included. Why the hell is this gear here so much more expensive than in the USA?

Ralph Conway wrote:

Ups. You are right. I forgot that MFD is not calculated from the lens front element but from sensor position. And right, macro herer works only at 70mm, so fully extended.

Thank you for your correction.

And yes, sometimes I do shoot models from 20 cm working distance . And with the new lens it looks this is possible over the whole zoom range, isn´t it?


Human models

I'm clearly not a studio shooter.

Ralph Conway wrote:
It will be € 1449 here in germany including 19% VAT. That is 1555,42 in $ without taxes, $ 1851 tax included. Why the hell is this gear here so much more expensive than in the USA?

We always quote prices including VAT Are the US prices including tax? They seem to have different rates depending on the state... Might be cheaper to catch the Eurostar to Paris and buy it there

Ralph Conway wrote:
It will be € 1449 here in germany including 19% VAT. That is 1555,42 in $ without taxes, $ 1851 tax included. Why the hell is this gear here so much more expensive than in the USA?

We always quote prices including VAT Are the US prices including tax? They seem to have different rates depending on the state... Might be cheaper to catch the Eurostar to Paris and buy it there

Ralph Conway wrote:
It will be € 1449 here in germany including 19% VAT. That is 1555,42 in $ without taxes, $ 1851 tax included. Why the hell is this gear here so much more expensive than in the USA?

That is only $50 more than the US/CAN price of $1499. We don't include tax in any MSRP in North America, each state/province/country has different tax rates (from 0-13% in Canada)

J.D. wrote:
Sneakyracer wrote:
Yes, the 24-105L IS is a good lens but optically is way subpar for high end studio work.


"Sub par"? That's a pretty big statement.

I know at least two people who use it in studio with their 5D MkIIs.

Maybe the copy I used wasnt great. But it was quite bad at 24mm (sharpness, resolution and vignetting) and although it improved a lot by 40mm resolution isnt great away from the center no matter the setting. In the studio I shoot mostly products. I use either the old 50 f2.5 macro or the 100 macro (non-L) at f8~f11. I had the old 24-70 for a while but it was just too heavy for travel and although I used it in the studio a bit with good results I sold it a few years back and no regrets. The new 24-70L IS presents a nice alternative in that focal range due to its versatility.

Fred Miranda wrote:
Keep in mind that the macro capabilities is somewhat limited in the real world because of the extreme close 'lens-subject' distance needed to achieve the maximum 0.7x magnification.

And then there's the fact that the IS only handles movement in TWO dimensions . . NOT the third one (towards and away from the subject).

Movement in THAT direction (at distances used in macro mode) would be far more devastating than movements in the other two directions.