Canon must have been well aware of the large chunk of its customer base hoping or expecting IS on this lens. If the price for this one without it is over $2000, how high would a 24-70 with it go?
pjbishop wrote:
Canon must have been well aware of the large chunk of its customer base hoping or expecting IS on this lens. If the price for this one without it is over $2000, how high would a 24-70 with it go?
MDJAK wrote:
As of now, it's more expensive than the 70-200 II. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
NOT.
Yeah. It doesn't seem to make any sense that a non-IS 24-70 would cost more than the 70-200 ii. I guess the 70-200 ii is a refresh of an older design while the 24-70 seems to be an entirely different animal, but for what you get it's no contest which one gives you more for your money.
Fr3d wrote:
I thought the MRSP of the 70-200 II was 2500 which is above that of the new 24-70 II, no?
I think we're thinking in relative terms, not MSRP. If the 24-70 sells at the MSRP and the 70-200 is around $2000, then you're getting a lot less glass for the money. And who knows how long it will take to come down in price to a more reasonable level?
Kohala wrote:
I have the original 24-70. It is tack sharp and one of my favorite lenses. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone who owns the original would fork out over two grand for the "upgraded" one. As a matter of fact, if I didn't own the original I would purchase a used one.
Kohala
Rally? Lucky you. When I had Canon system, I had 24-70 and then I bought Tamron 28-75 just to check it out. Turned out that I sold the Canon L quickly as it was pretty much destroyed by the Tamron.
I truly hope that Canon will fix this with 24-70 II as many actually switched to Nikon to use their 24-70 lens.
alaskalive wrote:
Why not just price it at $5795.99?
No IS...
OMG, why in the world would they want to create version 2 with no IS and charge 2500.00 for it?
Only 99% of all other prime or zoom lenses in that range are non IS lenses So why getting that upset If you don't like it, or think it's too expensive. Don't buy the lens
How does the 24-70 F2.8II on a FF compare to a 17-55F2.8IS on a crop body?
Aside from slightly wider, less tele and weather sealing...are these two lens comparable?
I mean both should be terrific in lowlight since the 24-70 would have the FF advantage and the 17-55 would have the IS to its advantage.
Kohala wrote:
I have the original 24-70. It is tack sharp and one of my favorite lenses. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone who owns the original would fork out over two grand for the "upgraded" one. As a matter of fact, if I didn't own the original I would purchase a used one.
Kohala
My 24-70 2.8 I was NOT good at all at 50-70mm and f2.8-4 to the point of being almost unusable at that setting. It was good at 24mm though. I sold it.
The 17-55mm IS (on an 1.6x body of course) is much better optically than the 24-702.8I on FF.
For me I can't wait for it since this is my most used focal length, I don't care about IS. all I care about is that the lens is sharp wide open. and it perform similar to 70-200II then it will help me reduce my kit. and keep one lens like the 24f1.2 for the extreme low light. having the range 24-200 covered by only 2 lenses that are super sharp wide open at 2.8 is actually a dream come true.
If this is super sharp and distortion is low and great wide open, then I will pick one up sell my much loved 24LII and 24-105 to afford it. Will help me downsize the kit a bit and get me great pics in my most used focal lengths.
The key here for canon is being about to reproduce an accurate quality lens. There is no reason it should take going through 4 or 5 copies to get a good one like the old 24-70 and the 50L. If they are accurate and consistant like the 70-200f4IS and the 24-105 they will have a winner. All it will take is a few bad copies to get folks bitching and the sales will stumble ala 1DMkIII and 50L.
Will people buy it? I think so. I willing to pay a little more for a good lens right from the get go.
Just make sure you get it though this site to support Fred!!
At that Price the 24-70mm II must have IS since it is useful not only for still but for Video. It's a shame Canon did not include it since video in DSLRs is obviously a priority in DSLR design nowadays.
.
If you don't like it, or think it's too expensive. Don't buy the lens