I assume the tripod collar/ring mount is the same one for the new f4IS as the non-IS f4. The specs seem similar in terms of size. Can anyone confirm this?
esanchez wrote:
I know I had a hard time justifing buying my 24-105 F4L IS for $1250 that was alot of money...
I know that lens is very useful but again, I prefer and got the 24-70 f2.8L instead. A mid range f4 zoom shouldnt be more than $800-900 at the most, at least in 35mm format! Canon is just taking advantage of these new lenses to jack up the lens prices across the board. Since they "cant" or shouldnt raise the price of the regular 70-200 f4L by $300+ all of the sudden they seemingly are incorprating that increase in the new 70-200mm f4L IS lenses price. Its an obvious trend thats disturbing. But hey, they can do what they please.
Well lets all hope than Sony, or a mix of Fuji, Pentax, Samsung, Nikon or whoever manages to get their act together because this pricing is only going to get worse while Canon dominates the market.
Edited by Richie S on Aug 28, 2006 at 07:34 AM GMT
Does anyone ACTUALLY PAY MSRP for lenses? I have NEVER done that and never will.
What many folks on this thread seem to be doing is comparing the expected MSRP of the new 70-200mm f/4L IS lens against the PRESENT STREET PRICES of the non-IS f/4L model as well as against street prices of both the IS, and non-IS, f/2.8L lenses.
Obviously if you compare MSRP against street price - the MSRP will seem very expensive!
Richardpcrowe wrote:
Does anyone ACTUALLY PAY MSRP for lenses? I have NEVER done that and never will.
What many folks on this thread seem to be doing is comparing the expected MSRP of the new 70-200mm f/4L IS lens against the PRESENT STREET PRICES of the non-IS f/4L model as well as against street prices of both the IS, and non-IS, f/2.8L lenses.
Obviously if you compare MSRP against street price - the MSRP will seem very expensive!
Ive been looking for a list of current MSRP for Canon Lenses and cant find it. Please post a link to one if you can.
I remember when the 24-105 L was introduced, it was selling at $1,249-1,299 too. Now you can find them at some mail order stores like Badgers for $1,099 or lower. Same thing may happen with the 70-200 f/4L IS that price will come down $150-200 after 6-12 months. If Canon offers a rebate on this lens next spring (4/14-7/15), then it will even be a better price. I am interested in this lens, I just need to be patient to wait til next April.
jdee wrote:
Almost no one even mentions the MSRP anymore. $1249 is not the MSRP...it is likely to be the street price of this lens for a while.
There are at least two online shops here in Sweden who has the new 70-200/4 IS in their price lists (Cyberphoto and Scandianavian Photo). They have set the price at about 1.65-1.7x the price of the old 70-200/4. Apply that on the B&H price of the 70-200/4 and you get something like $965-994 for the IS-version. Hopefully.
How about 85f1.8 and 200 f2.8. Not zoom. not IS, but lighter than 2.8 IS, faster than both, about 1/2 the price of either, and can stop subject motion, where IS can't.
So some are willing to pay much more for less weight. Remember the 400 f4 DO cost vs performance.
So we should pay more for 5D than 1DS2, since they are both full frame, but 5D is much lighter.
And consider the similar weight of these combinations:
Series 1 and 70-200f4 IS
30D or 5D and 70-200f2.8 IS
>> How about 85f1.8 and 200 f2.8. Not zoom. not IS, but lighter than 2.8 IS, faster than both, about 1/2 the price of either, and can stop subject motion, where IS can't.
I had both and have nothing but praises on both. Eventually I sold the 200/2.8 as I wanted IS and the 85/1.8 as it was too light on my 1D. However, for what they are, I consider both as flawless.
kendallkoning wrote:
I believe the high initial price is a calculated move most likely to be followed by a significant price reduction in +-6mo. The initial demand from early adopters will be relatively more inelastic than long term demand. (Some people just need to have the newest, latest, and greatest, cost be damned) This way, Canon maximizes their profits by essentially using price discrimination over time. Those who are willing to pay more for the lens will do so at the higher price, and once the pent up demand for these lenses at higher prices is satisfied, they will lower the price in order to increase the quantity sold and therefore total profit. If they just started off with a lower price, they would lose that increased margin from everyone who would have bought it at the higher price. The per-unit marginal cost on these is surely much lower than the retail price and the invested capital costs significant, so you can bet over the long term that they can (and almost surely will) lower the price to the point at which it sells well without damaging the sales of other lenses thereby affecting overall firm profit.
This is likely what they did with the 5D as well, with the $300 rebate so soon after its initial introduction. I don't know think the new 70-200 F/4 L IS will go down to $1000 right away, but maybe a $50 triple rebate in the Spring and quietly lowering the price a little after that.
At least, that's the educated guess of this (undergrad) economist.
Edited by kendallkoning on Aug 24, 2006 at 09:22 AM GMT
Edited by kendallkoning on Aug 24, 2006 at 01:37 PM GMT...Show more →
Many of canon's L lenses have come down significantly over time. What we are seeing is the release of many L lenses for the first time in ages and all have seemingly ridiculous prices. However, many established L's had ridiculous prices at release. The 24-105 has already drifted down $100-150, the 85L II has come down a bit. Early adopters get hammered; it's the same for other devices. If the suckers weren't lining up to buy right away Canon wouldn't charge the price it does.
Xavier Rival wrote:
Looks quite pricy If I was not looking for light weight (which is the reason why I will probably look at this lens one day or another), I would go straight to f/2.8 IS.
I note that the "4 stops" gain vanished in the last links (e.g. the japaneese site mentions "3 stops"). On the good side, the weight is very reasonable: 760g for the IS against 705g for the non IS and size is the same (according to the japaneese site).
Is it me or do they clain for better MTFs for the IS version ? That would be something....Show more →
"The image stabilization achieves three shutter speed steps of camera shake correction within 0.5 seconds after the shutter button is depressed halfway and yields correction for up to four full shutter speeds while handheld, providing a new level of performance."
I have the F4 version and am in the process of selling the F4 to get the F2.8 IS-this now muddies my decision making-may have to hold off and see how the real 'street price' settles down after Xmas and see how the reviews of the F4 IS go........
Edited by loco4olas on Aug 29, 2006 at 08:03 PM GMT
CKrueger wrote:
[but there's no way I'm going to pay more than $1000 to tack IS onto a $550 70-200/4, let alone more than $1000 for a mere 50mm, no matter how wonderful it might end up being.
I think you need to check the specs of the new lens-not jsut bolting IS onto the existing F4 version-it's a NEW lens.
I have been searching out a source for the Non IS 70-200mm f/4 for a while now. This new version is beyond my budget I think I could get 2 of the non is versions and have change left over. I will continue my quest for the older version. After doing some research it seems I can buy new for what is being asked for used. The search continues.
Bought mine at www.buydig.com for about $560.00 (I think) last year-no hassles and good price at the time the F4 is a GREAT lens-best bang for buck from Canon IMO.
Maybe I just drink too much coffee or am starting to feel the effects of aging, but I have trouble hand holding a 70-200 lens without lots of camera shake. While I can compensate in bright sunshine and up the shutter speed most times, when it's overcast, cloudy, morning or evening, I have trouble. I'm looking forward to a 70-200f4IS one of these days to go along with my 24-105IS and 300f4IS.
I prefer the weight of the f4 lenses, and usually can use flash any time I need to shoot indoors, or tripod if needed for night shooting.
I like IS, and my take is that the cost of the 70-200f4IS is crazy, so is the cost of the 24-105IS and the 300IS. I think the only reason people are upset is because they have a comparative base price of the non-is lens to judge the new one against. Should the non-is lens have never existed, this lens release would be no different than any of the new canon L lenses being released.
Comparing a new higher price for anything is always hard, be it camera lenses or increases in taxes or insurance.
Either way, I want one, but will try to make myself hold off until they drop a little. We will see. I've not found anyone listing pre-orders yet anyway.
txbonds wrote:
I think the only reason people are upset is because they have a comparative base price of the non-is lens to judge the new one against. Should the non-is lens have never existed, this lens release would be no different than any of the new canon L lenses being released.
I couldn't agree more - this has the potential to be a great lens at a good price
If I was not looking for light weight (which is the reason why I will probably look at this lens one day or another), I would go straight to f/2.8 IS.