The folks over at Canon are smoking some serious crack - I must meet their drug dealer.
Yes but have you compared the MTF charts? This new, according to the charts, just utterly blows the old version out of the water at f/2.8 and even handily beats it at f/8. The new one has charts that look better than even the wide canon L primes.
skibum5 wrote:
Yes but have you compared the MTF charts? This new, according to the charts, just utterly blows the old version out of the water at f/2.8 and even handily beats it at f/8. The new one has charts that look better than even the wide canon L primes.
MTF charts mean nothing to me. Real pictures are what matter.
WoW.... $2300
How in the world would someone who is starting out photograhy able to afford this pricetag? $1000+ is already pushing them at the edges.
The more i'm thinking about these new prices, the more i see how dumb protographers are (myself included and sorry if it's offending to you). Keep spending more and more money into new gears while our price for the Gig isnt increase at same rate or anywhere near it. Do you charge B&G double when you upgrade from v1 to V2? I realize i'm exxagerating but let step out the box and think about it. Why cant it be a slight increase from previous version? Their lense making process surely doesnt cost double.
erikburd wrote:
MTF charts mean nothing to me. Real pictures are what matter.
yes but they strongly hint that the real pictures will be a lot better from the new version
of course it remains to be seen, but there is certainly reason to be hopeful
vuilang wrote:
WoW.... $2300
How in the world would someone who is starting out photograhy able to afford this pricetag? $1000+ is already pushing them at the edges.
The more i'm thinking about these new prices, the more i see how dumb protographers are (myself included and sorry if it's offending to you). Keep spending more and more money into new gears while our price for the Gig isnt increase at same rate or anywhere near it. Do you charge B&G double when you upgrade from v1 to V2? I realize i'm exxagerating but let step out the box and think about it. Why cant it be a slight increase from previous version? Their lense making process surely doesnt cost double....Show more →
they get the tamron 28-75 2.8 or maybe 24-70 VC or hte 24 2.8 IS, etc.
or start with aps-c and get a tamron 17-50 or even canon 18-55 IS kit lens which isnt so bad really
skibum5 wrote:
they get the tamron 28-75 2.8 or maybe 24-70 VC or hte 24 2.8 IS, etc.
or start with aps-c and get a tamron 17-50 or even canon 18-55 IS kit lens which isnt so bad really
a few hundred$ lense to a $2K+ is a HUGE gap.
vuilang wrote:
WoW.... $2300
How in the world would someone who is starting out photograhy able to afford this pricetag? $1000+ is already pushing them at the edges.
The more i'm thinking about these new prices, the more i see how dumb protographers are (myself included and sorry if it's offending to you). Keep spending more and more money into new gears while our price for the Gig isnt increase at same rate or anywhere near it. Do you charge B&G double when you upgrade from v1 to V2? I realize i'm exxagerating but let step out the box and think about it. Why cant it be a slight increase from previous version? Their lense making process surely doesnt cost double....Show more →
You don't really need to buy the most expensive zoom lens if you just is starting out photography.
And why do you need to double your price for a gig if you buy this lens for twice the price of the old? Do you only use the lens for one gig or? Even if you only raised the price with $ 10 for a gig, the lens would have been paid a long time before you need to replace it.
All the better to match whatever new high MP camera is coming down the pike, likely also for a pretty penny (though they will have to keep in mind the D800's price point to some extent).
skibum5 wrote:
Whoa did anyone look at the MTF for this new 24-70! Whoaaaa! Beats the new 24 2.8 IS prime's MTF! AND it destroys the old 24-70 MTFs and it even handily beats the 24 1.4 II MTF at 24mm!!
Not that they are everything and Canon does the fake computer generated charts, but it does hint that a good copy of this zoom may deliver out of this world insane image quality.
Wow at 24mm this new 24-70 simply DESTROYS the old 24-70 if the MTF charts are to be believed. Just kills it at f/2.8 AND at f/8! And at 70mm it utterly annihilates the old 24-70 at f/2.8! Just destroy all monsters it! And beats it at f/8 as well.
More shocking, according to the charts it also beats the new 24mm 2.8 IS at f/2.8 and f/8 and the 24 1.4 II at f/8 (and maybe even f/2.8 for all we know).
Assuming things work out as the charts imply, of course, and who knows about bokeh or CA, etc. ...Show more →
I'd pay $1700 for a 24-70 that is as good as Nikon's current version. I'd pay $2200 for one that's noticeably better than Nikon's.
If the 24-70 MKII is better than the MKI in the same degree that the 70-200MKII was better than the MKI, then you can definitely count me in. As much as you might hate the new price, this lens coupled with the next generation of high-ISO bodies has the potential to replace 3 expensive L-primes if you don't need super-thin DoF. When put in that perspective, $2300 is a bargain!!
skibum5 wrote:
yes but they strongly hint that the real pictures will be a lot better from the new version
of course it remains to be seen, but there is certainly reason to be hopeful
At that price, I would certainly hope so. I'll believe it when I see it.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
You don't really need to buy the most expensive zoom lens if you just is starting out photography.
And why do you need to double your price for a gig if you buy this lens for twice the price of the old? Do you only use the lens for one gig or? Even if you only raised the price with $ 10 for a gig, the lens would have been paid a long time before you need to replace it.
no, they wouldnt need to purchase the lastest n greatest, but what else is available (comparable quality) for them if they would like to step up once the V1 isnt availble?... my point is: The prices differences between these new L's vs consumers lense (28-135,17-85) are way too steep for them to make the step-up.
vuilang wrote:
no, they wouldnt need to purchase the lastest n greatest, but what else is available (comparable quality) for them if they would like to step up once the V1 isnt availble?... my point is: The prices differences between these new L's vs consumers lense (28-135,17-85) are way too steep for them to make the step-up.
Beside Canon's marketting strategies, could anyone explain: " Why cant it be a slight increase from previous version? Their lense making process surely doesnt cost double"
Why would the v.1 be unavailable? You can still easily find the 28-70L if you want one. Stop making quality glass sound like the 1%. Are we supposed to organize Occupy Canon marches now? The fact is there is PLENTY of high-quality glass for people with all budgets to shoot with. If you want the very best, then you get to pay for it. Why do people get so offended at where products are priced? If you don't like it, don't buy it. If enough people don't buy, the price will drop or the innovation will drop. Either way, the markets tend to work these kinds of things out.
vuilang wrote:
Beside Canon's marketting strategies, could anyone explain: " Why cant it be a slight increase from previous version? Their lense making process surely doesnt cost double"
The previous 24-70 was released 10 years ago. In that time the value of the Yen against the USD has doubled. Also, during the mid 2000s Canon seemed to be very aggressive with their lens prices, beating out Nikon by considerable margins at times. It's a guess, but possible they sacrificed margins in an attempt to attract the booming growth in advanced amateurs coming to digital SLRs by offering a comprehensive selection of lenses at 'good' prices to lock them into the Canon system. That all seemed to change around 2008 when the price hikes started.
It seems to me the new 24-70 is targeted at the next 10 years where sensor resolution will certainly continue to climb ever higher, therefore a new line of higher resolving, but (maybe) more expensive to manufacture lens are required.
But how many need 24MP, 36MP, etc.? It's possible Canon anticipates a participation drop off in the upgrade game. If volume will be lower, then prices will go up to compensate. Those who really need/want the apparent increase in performance will pay for it, just like there are those who bought the then outrageously priced 800L. Little did we realize that the 800L was just a precursor to what would soon become the norm from Canon's pricing strategy.
So, if the new 24-70 is too rich, there's always the 24-105. Just bump the ISO one stop higher.
