So that $2100 in 2002 dollars is roughly equivalent to $2625 in 2012 dollars. The MSRP of $2299 is then a price decrease over the 2002 MSRP for version 1 of this lens
someone else did the math & said what I've been saying all along =D thanks!
So that $2100 in 2002 dollars is roughly equivalent to $2625 in 2012 dollars. The MSRP of $2299 is then a price decrease over the 2002 MSRP for version 1 of this lens
Oh snap, better watch out, someone is going to call you a bullying jackass!
So there ya have it, the new 24-70, does what the old one did, better, an costs less.
Buy one, dont buy one, get te wahmmmbulsnce or get over it. I don't care.
If the improvement is to the 24/70 what the 70-200 improvement was, count me in.
Chris, I'm not even going to dignify everything else you said with a response. You have you opinions, I have mine. The lens didn't double in price (this is before the inflation being taken into account). Msrp (mvers I disagree with you, I do not think that it will sell for that and if it does it surely won't be long...think mk2 70-200) of version one was 10 years ago and only 200 less.
If you don't like me, that's fine. If you do like me, that's fine too. If you don't like the new lens offering from
Canon, I really don't know what to tell you.
RobertLynn wrote:
Did you honestly think they would release a New awesome lens for less than the previous lens?
So instead of your "personal attack" question, here's one for you.
Why is it that anytime canon releases anything, people just complain about every single thing about it? These releases are supposed to be a FUN time for us all, not a complaining time or a time for so much negativity. Yet, it's always just complaining.
Not for me. But Robert, I did not think they would release a new (awesome) lens for less then the previous one. I expected of course a price increasment. About 100 to 300$. But really not about 120%.
Your second part: I am well known as a fanboy. I seldom complain except about others complains (like you do). Here I do. No IS? No enhancement to me. + 120% to an old already much overprized lense? How bad has it been? This imo is bare of any realism. This is not Canon but Leica philosophy. A niche company, standing a couple of times befor bancrupty. Still only existing somehow because there are some people outside spending € 10.000 for gear not worth 1.000 compared to anything else, competing.
They have a fangroup and that is the cause wy they still exist. But this is not Canon that I knew. A company that offered me good gear at fair prices. What comes next? A 5D II follow up at € 5.500? To close tha gap to 1D X?
4x4rock wrote:
The original 24-70 was released in 2002 with the price of $2100. If people was paying that 10 years ago, I assume they will pay $2300 for a new one - at least in the first few months before it drops.
In 2002 the US and Europe weren't in the toilet like they are now and that lens price dropped pretty quickly already by 2003. Not sure how many well heeled people they think are still out there that can justify their new pricing across the range.
jdben622 wrote:
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, $2300 is a bargain!!
+1
plus prices will drop, just look at the MRSP of the 70-200 II and the street price now.
Ralph Conway wrote: Not for me. But Robert, I did not think they would release a new (awesome) lens for less then the previous one. I expected of course a price increasment. About 100 to 300$. But really not about 120%.
Your second part: I am well known as a fanboy. I seldom complain except about others complains (like you do). Here I do. No IS? No enhancement to me. + 120% to an old already much overprized lense? How bad has it been? This imo is bare of any realism. This is not Canon but Leica philosophy. A niche company, standing a couple of times befor bancrupty. Still only existing somehow because there are some people outside spending € 10.000 for gear not worth 1.000 compared to anything else, competing.
They have a fangroup and that is the cause wy they still exist. But this is not Canon that I knew. A company that offered me good gear at fair prices. What comes next? A 5D II follow up at € 5.500? To close tha gap to 1D X?
Chris Beaumont wrote:
I genuinely don't understand so many people on this board.
So it's a little sharper? Is that REALLY worth >$1000 (ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS!) to some people.
Just to remind you...the range is the same, the amount of light it gathers is the same.
Are you seriously prepared to drop close to a month's salary on something that will not in anyway whatsoever allow you more creativity, or improve your photography in any way, shape or form, purely so that when you zoom in 100% on a monitor you can say (presumably in a nasal tone) "mmm....yes, I would have got 4.62% less detail if I'd stuck with my Mark One"
Poke yourself in the eye until your vision is a bit blurry then give the $1000 to a 3rd world charity!...Show more →
I haven't got a dog in this fight. But you are making some questionable assumptions.
First, light gathering could improve (not by much, but not nothing either) given T stop is probably around 3.2 to 3.4. It's a lighter lens, various optical problems may have been resolved. If you have the thing bolted to your camera most of the time, it could easily justify the price.
And close to a month's salary....for some, yes. For some, it's a week's salary, and for others even less.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
In 2002 the US and Europe weren't in the toilet like they are now and that lens price dropped pretty quickly already by 2003. Not sure how many well heeled people they think are still out there that can justify their new pricing across the range.
No one pays MSRP, it'll drop on this one too.
Look at the 70-200 variants?
Currently, Nikon's 24-70 is like 1800-1900 dollars. I expect Canon to street at about the same.
stanj wrote:
Well, I pre-ordered one. I'm a whore.
I don't think you're a whore at all Stan. I think this lens, based upon MTF's addresses a lot of concerns that you had with the previous one, and I think that this lens will work out well for you.
I don't like the idea of an increased price, but I'm not going to let the 2300 MSRP scare me away. I'm going to wait on Canon's body offerings, and realize that not too long ago, you couldn't get a 70-200 mk2 for less than 2500, and for a few months they were sub 2K.
I hope you get yours soon and put it to good work.
watkinssr wrote:
They wouldn't. Most people don't start out with L glass, let alone the latest L glass.
I used a 50 1.8 for a few years and then a third party 24 2.8 in addition and nothing more. And then got a new system, EOS, and used nothing but a 35-70 for years until well now things have gotten a bit out of control .
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.
1. If they shoot APS-C they have tons of fantastic options all the way along the price range.
2. If they shoot FF, well, was the 24-70 really that much of a step up other than AF? And they can buy one used or hopefully the new Tamron will have at least reasonably fast AF.
PetKal wrote:
Indeed, MTF charts are for internet bloggers to fuss over, and little else.
The realities of practical photography revolve around lens price/field performance/handling/robustness.
Yes, but nobody can try it yet and the MTF charts do look out of this world so is it so wrong to mention that they look great? They have been a least a semi-reasonable indicator in the past....
phuang3 wrote:
Canon is certainly out of his mind. How can you expect a 600D or 1000D user to pay 800 for a limited, slow prime lens? For that kind of price, I'd rather get a 17-40L or something used.
For APS-C they probably don't make tons of sense since stuff like tamron 17-50 and canon 17-55 IS and all do very well but for FF none of the zooms (other than likely the new 24-70) really deliver great edges even at landscape apertures and these cost half the price of the 24 1.4 II.
The IS, one probably is around 24-28mm low shutter speeds enter mirror slap zone so hopefully the IS can counter that otherwise I'm not sure it will help a ton, but for video maybe it's nice.
SchnellerGT wrote:
No they didn't. It costs $300 more.
Actually, I assumed they would match the Nikon offering at $1900, so it's actually $400 more than anticipated.
$2300 with IS? Sure.
yes but some people say the current Nikon version is barely better than teh current canon and the new canon shows promise that it may be radically better....
Not for me. But Robert, I did not think they would release a new (awesome) lens for less then the previous one. I expected of course a price increasment. About 100 to 300$. But really not about 120%.