You think you are so much better then everyone because you insist on buying lesser lenses?
Are you seriously going to try and convince me that canons 70-200 f/2.8 isn't better then sigmas? I've used both, i'll keep my canon thank you very much. And it has nothing to do with image sharpness. In fact getting sharp images from a lens has really become an easy feat. Any lens that is not capable of doing that is an utter joke to the art.
You think you are so much better then everyone because you insist on buying lesser lenses?
Are you seriously going to try and convince me that canons 70-200 f/2.8 isn't better then sigmas? I've used both, i'll keep my canon thank you very much. And it has nothing to do with image sharpness. In fact getting sharp images from a lens has really become an easy feat. Any lens that is not capable of doing that is an utter joke to the art.
EOS20 wrote:
No the 70-200 IS doesen't come with the tripod collar either.
I think most people do not need (can not justify the cost of) the tripod mount ring for the 70-200 f/4. The IS version should reduce that need even further.
(Observation: the exchange here seems to have become much more vivaceous and sanguine than anything one can see on POTN these days ! )
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?
Mick, all I'm trying to show is that the 70-200 f4 lens started out at a high price, and has finally stablized at a lower price...maybe where it should have started at. The same will happen with the IS version. Over time, it will be reduced in price and will stabalize somewhere under $1000. But if you need one right now...you will have to pay for it.
As far as being a Canon fanboy...you are dead wrong. My main outfit is a Pentax 6x7 system that I use for my landscape photography. I have a Canon system, but use it very rare. I also own the current 70-200 f4 lens and use a tripod with it, so I have no interest in the IS version.
I still stand by my statement of crying on the forums when you don't agree with a price. Why not let Canon know about it. People on this forum cannot change the price for you, but if enough people complain to Canon, maybe they will listen.
I think Canon regularly check these forums out Harry. People here are a good indicator of how things look in the wider world when we're talking about these kinds of pricepoints.
Its not the money for me, its the value. I'll gladly walk 100yds past a store to buy a Coke if the first store is overly expensive. I just have this inbuilt hatred of being ripped off. Its genuinely not the money. In all honesty, the IS is 3 days wages for me at the moment. But every hair on the back of my neck goes up when I think of the value of this thing. I just get a little frustrated that its not so obvious to everybody. Canon's a big corporation with a dominant marketshare and we all expect them to take a little advantage of the current good times. I just feel that they've gone well past that lately , especially with this one and the 85L mk2 and that the prices asked are just outrageous.
Heh... $400 more, and you get f/2.8, and a tripod collar.
If these are the kinds of lens releases and prices we can expect from Canon in the near term, let me just say that I am very happy to be completely satisfied with my lens collection.
Now, if that weather sealed 50 was a couple of hundred bucks cheaper, I might actually consider it... though on second thought....
sivrajbm wrote:
It is just absurd an unrealistic for some to think or say a lense would more than double in price to add a known and old technology to it. ..
I agree!!
Im sure glad I got my 85mm f1.2L mk1 for $1450 before Canon phased it out for the significantly more expensive version 2!
Like someone mentioned they are probably trying to phase out the 70-200 2.8L Non IS!! Im gonna get that soon before Canon forces me to pay much more for the IS version or more for the f4 IS! Thats just wrong.
Also, Im keeping my 50mm f1,4 I got for $300, $1600 for a 1.2L 50mm, ehhh, no thanks. Again that is just Wrong, that lens shouldnt be more than $700.
Lets hope these initial prices are overblown and that the street pricing will be more realistic. Its great to have more choices but man, those prices are sick.
can someone explain the the difference between the 2.8L IS and the 4L IS? i think it's a matter which one is faster.. to me one is brandy and the other is bourbon.. if you wanna drink brandy..go buy brandy..if you want bourbon...buy bourbon... different pubs...different happy hour price guys...hehehe
Sneakyracer wrote:
Also, Im keeping my 50mm f1,4 I got for $300, $1600 for a 1.2L 50mm, ehhh, no thanks. Again that is just Wrong, that lens shouldnt be more than $700.
Sneakyracer wrote:
Like someone mentioned they are probably trying to phase out the 70-200 2.8L Non IS!! Im gonna get that soon before Canon forces me to pay much more for the IS version or more for the f4 IS! Thats just wrong.
they shouldn't phase out the 2.8L, it's two different thing
timmyquest wrote:
If you hate canon so much then why do you use it?
You think you are so much better then everyone because you insist on buying lesser lenses?
Are you seriously going to try and convince me that canons 70-200 f/2.8 isn't better then sigmas? I've used both, i'll keep my canon thank you very much. And it has nothing to do with image sharpness. In fact getting sharp images from a lens has really become an easy feat. Any lens that is not capable of doing that is an utter joke to the art.
Go back to sleep Timmy obviously you not only missed the boat but the point also. Remember you're not talking about sharpness.....By the way Timmy how old are you
Patrick Cox wrote:
Just curious how you arrived at $700?
Nikon sells a Manual Focus, all metal 50mm f1.2 for less than $600. You would think that a much more recently designed lens with all of todays advances in manufacturing technology (cheaper) wont be much more expensive, at least not 2.5+ times more expensive! or 5.3 times!! the price of a the same company's (Canon's) 50mm 1.4
Sneakyracer wrote:
Nikon sells a Manual Focus, all metal 50mm f1.2 for less than $600. You would think that a much more recently designed lens with all of todays advances in manufacturing technology (cheaper) wont be much more expensive, at least not 2.5+ times more expensive! or 5.3 times!! the price of a the same company's (Canon's) 50mm 1.4
I don't know all that much about nikon glass, but is it possible that nikons 50 compares more to canons 1.4? The difference between 1.4 and 1.2 is minimal at best, and i suspect that there is much more to the new canon 50 then a little f/stop
Sneakyracer wrote:
Nikon sells a Manual Focus, all metal 50mm f1.2 for less than $600. You would think that a much more recently designed lens with all of todays advances in manufacturing technology (cheaper) wont be much more expensive, at least not 2.5+ times more expensive! or 5.3 times!! the price of a the same company's (Canon's) 50mm 1.4
You may very well be correct. But the cost has less to do with the price then does the demand. I tend to believe that both lenses that were announced will come down in price, but by how much I am not sure. We will soon see though how these lenses sell and perform right out of the gate.
Agree with most of the other posters. I love my 70-200/4L and would love to have weather sealing and IS but for that price, no way. Especially w/o a tripod collar. Way too high Canon.
I know I had a hard time justifing buying my 24-105 F4L IS for $1250 that was alot of money but that lens is on my Camera 99% of the time. I rarely use my 70-200 F4L I just bought it because its a great bargain and when I need focal lenghts longer the 100mm I use it...let just say its nice to have handy. But for me to spend $1000 + on a lens I rarely use it is too expensive for me. For someone that will have on their camera 99% of the time I'm sure the price is not too bad considering the 24-105 F4L is about the same price.
) 
