It's the only Canon zoom I'm interested in buying. Yippee! Finally a zoom that makes sense to me: almost as good optically as a great prime (I'm sure not as good as my 85mm f1.8 or my 135mm at equivalent fstops, but still quite good); relatively light; IS; great build. If it were black and smaller, I'd be in heaven.
Even accounting for Import tax and Vat adding 22% to the (wholesale) price - That still a good few dollars extra to account for.
I'm afraid in this case our barking is well warranted.
I dunno - if you take a 70-200 IS which costs about £1300 here (Park Cameras) and $1700 there (B&H) and then add FedEx plus import duty +VAT you would only save about £30 on the deal.
A Canon 5D at $3000 is more than we would pay in the UK after you add VAT (no import duty on this)
Am I the only one who's excited about the IS improvement to the now claimed 4 stops? The question is not only IS or not IS, also about how good the IS works. The difference between 2 stop and 4 stop IS is just as great as between the IS on many of the current L tele lenses and those without.
This could mean that it is now a point for Canon to upgrade some of the older L IS lenses, (unfortunately also to a new higher price tag though)
alundeb wrote:
Am I the only one who's excited about the IS improvement to the now claimed 4 stops? The question is not only IS or not IS, also about how good the IS works. The difference between 2 stop and 4 stop IS is just as great as between the IS on many of the current L tele lenses and those without.
This could mean that it is now a point for Canon to upgrade some of the older L IS lenses, (unfortunately also to a new higher price tag though)
alundeb wrote:
Am I the only one who's excited about the IS improvement to the now claimed 4 stops? The question is not only IS or not IS, also about how good the IS works. The difference between 2 stop and 4 stop IS is just as great as between the IS on many of the current L tele lenses and those without.
This could mean that it is now a point for Canon to upgrade some of the older L IS lenses, (unfortunately also to a new higher price tag though)
NO, i am just as excited..........the 70-200 f/4 is one of my best image makers.........the thing is so sharp you'd swear you were using a prime. if the new version is just as sharp, then i will be upgrading.
from some of the responses, i believe there is some envy going on here......
Patrick Cox wrote:
Well said. Thank you. I don't understand why there is so much complaining about the price of this lens. We are all free to buy it or not. And Canon should price the lens in order to maximize profits for the company and it's shareholders. And in the end, the market will determine the correct price.
People are bitching because they'd love to buy this lens and have just been smacked in the face with a price higher than anyones worst imaginings.
There is NO precedent in Canons lens range for an increase due to the addition of IS on this scale.
The 70-200/4L has always been a popular quality lens relatively inexpensive and a good seller. Its a volume L. The new one doesn't carry on that tradition. On your own list, the 2.8IS carries a premium of 33%. The 4.0 is 55%.
While there will always be two sides to the coin when dealing with a lens like the 50/1.2L, I'm staggered beyond belief at the people here prepared to justify on Canons behalf, the price of the IS. What the hells the matter with you?
Do you not understand there are no historical, technical, practical or manufacturing reasons why this lens is priced so high. Its greed, pure and simple. You deserve to be ripped off. Congratulations.
"There is NO precedent in Canons lens range for an increase due to the addition of IS on this scale."
Wrong.
Look at my earlier post comparing the cost of IS and non-IS versions of the 70-200mm f/2.8 L, and then remember that new Canon (and other company's) products are virtually always introduced at full list price for a variety of reasons.
(Or look at it the other way. How much do you save by purchasing the non-IS version of the f/2.8 lens rather than the IS version? How much would you save by purchasing the non-IS version of the f/4 lens?)
I, too, would love to see the IS version come out for, oh, a couple hundred more than the non-IS version but there is no reason to expect such a thing.
I've got some older magazines and looked up the cost fo the 70-200 f4 back in 2001. It was $749.95 at B&H, and that was in 2001 $. If we translate into today's dollar using say a 2.5% inflation rate, then we get a $876 lens. Looking at it this way, then the IS on this lens is less than $400 more. I believe the price is in the ballpark for this new lens. If you don't , then do not buy it. There are many other options open to you...but please don't cry to us on this board about your disappointments.
I'm not crazy about the price either ... but, if we are doing a fair comparison to the 70-200 f/4 I think we need to add a tripod collar to the price of the 70-200 f/4 (because it appears that the 70-200 f/4 IS will come with a tripod collar). Say $585 plus $115 for a total of $700. Then you will be comparing a $700 street price setup to a probable $1250 street price setup for the 70-200 f/4 IS. You will have a $550 difference. There is no doubt that the IS version is a much more complex lens and warrants a higher price. Is $550 to much? I would like to wait and use the lens before making a final decision on the price differential.
UCSB wrote:
I'm not crazy about the price either ... but, if we are doing a fair comparison to the 70-200 f/4 I think we need to add a tripod collar to the price of the 70-200 f/4 (because it appears that the 70-200 f/4 IS will come with a tripod collar).
No the 70-200 IS doesen't come with the tripod collar either.
timmyquest wrote:
And you sound like the typical pixle peeper...there are much more to these lenses then sharpness
Tim, I think that most people would rather have a sharp less expensive lense than a more expensive soft lense. It doesn't matter if you pixel peep or not. What is this more you speak of please explain. Should it only say Canon on it? If you believe Canon is the only one capable of making a sharp lense then you are what is known as a Canonite Your comment makes very little sence.
can we actually compare the 2.8L IS with the 4L IS? i thought it is different? cause i thought in low light condition, it is the f that matters and not the IS? i mean, if we shoot at low light, 2.8 will help more than 4 right? especially if we wanna freeze the action. IS is great for camera shake...which in 200mm will definitely help..i am not sure...
sivrajbm wrote:
Tim, I think that most people would rather have a sharp less expensive lense than a more expensive soft lense. It doesn't matter if you pixel peep or not. What is this more you speak of please explain. Should it only say Canon on it? If you believe Canon is the only one capable of making a sharp lense then you are what is known as a Canonite Your comment makes very little sence.
I'm not even talking about the sharpness of lenses...
If the price of the new IS just goes down a bit (which it will), you get the 70-200/4 IS + a 135L for about the same price as a 70-200/2.8IS. Of course, for some the big, heavy workhorse (2.8 IS) will be indespensible, but the "pack of 2" indeed convers a lot of stuff to and you get two very, very portable lenses, for sure.
danmitchell wrote:
"There is NO precedent in Canons lens range for an increase due to the addition of IS on this scale."
Wrong.
Look at my earlier post comparing the cost of IS and non-IS versions of the 70-200mm f/2.8 L, and then remember that new Canon (and other company's) products are virtually always introduced at full list price for a variety of reasons.
(Or look at it the other way. How much do you save by purchasing the non-IS version of the f/2.8 lens rather than the IS version? How much would you save by purchasing the non-IS version of the f/4 lens?)
I, too, would love to see the IS version come out for, oh, a couple hundred more than the non-IS version but there is no reason to expect such a thing.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant as a percentage increase. The 2.8IS was not over double the cost of the non-IS. Also IS was a newer, more expensive technology then. I'd find it incredible that the system isn't considerably more cost-effective to implement today.
chez wrote:
I've got some older magazines and looked up the cost fo the 70-200 f4 back in 2001. It was $749.95 at B&H, and that was in 2001 $. If we translate into today's dollar using say a 2.5% inflation rate, then we get a $876 lens. Looking at it this way, then the IS on this lens is less than $400 more. I believe the price is in the ballpark for this new lens. If you don't , then do not buy it. There are many other options open to you...but please don't cry to us on this board about your disappointments....Show more →
Sorry mate, but thats just comical. The 70-200/4IS wasn't available in 2001 but they're both available in 2006. Whats a more valid comparison? One is under $600, the other $1250. Its as clear as that.
As for expressing opinions and disappointment, are you actually serious? This is a widely read forum. If not here then where, or are you happy to buy anything at any price as long as its got a Canon badge on it?
Sprout Crumble wrote:
Sorry mate, but thats just comical. The 70-200/4IS wasn't available in 2001 but they're both available in 2006. Whats a more valid comparison? One is under $600, the other $1250. Its as clear as that.
As for expressing opinions and disappointment, are you actually serious? This is a widely read forum. If not here then where, or are you happy to buy anything at any price as long as its got a Canon badge on it?
That's all that matters to some blokes Mick, a Canon Badge d**n the cost.
Did I spell blokes right
