Antony wrote:
I couldn't agree more - this has the potential to be a great lens at a good price
I think the reverse is true. Their last 5 lenses (except 70-300IS) are all US$1250 or more, and now you're just acclimated to being robbed. A 17-55IS + 70-200/4IS will cost around $2500. A tamron 17-50/2.8 and sigma 70-200/2.8 come to around $1300. They can keep the IS, I think I'll just use my monopod or tripod, thanks.
timbop wrote:
I think the reverse is true. Their last 5 lenses (except 70-300IS) are all US$1250 or more, and now you're just acclimated to being robbed. A 17-55IS + 70-200/4IS will cost around $2500. A tamron 17-50/2.8 and sigma 70-200/2.8 come to around $1300. They can keep the IS, I think I'll just use my monopod or tripod, thanks.
I wasn't saying I think the prices are great. I personally think they are all ridiculous even though I own some of them. I'm just saying that this lens in particular is getting more complaining because the price is being compared against the much lower non-IS version.
Had that non-IS version never existed, then the pricing being at or around that of the 24-105is and 17-55is would not be so surprising. In other words, people would still be complaining about pricing in general being too high, but this lens would not be any different than the others getting complaints rather than this one getting complaints because it's much higher than it's non-IS brother.
dcmiller wrote:
I'm not aware of anyone who is forced to buy Canon.
I despair when I read comments like this, I really do. Its almost like its a sin to question the mighty Canon and the amount of apologists here is beyond belief.
This lens above all others released recently is a startlingly blatant attempt to rip off all those Canon users who've been clamouring for it. An obvious demand for it has made this lens a home run for Canon, yet instead of making a healthy profit on each one, and its clear the non-IS has been a great profit maker for them, they've decided to make an outright killing. Despicable.
And Mr.Miller, the point is anyone that wants or needs this lens IS forced to buy Canon and maybe that alone explains the price.
To the other poster who made the point that this is a completely new lens and not an upgrade, I'd make the counterpoint that that isn't necessarily a good thing. The current 70-200/4L is a superb optic and there are precedents for IS versions not being superior to their predecessors.
I believe this lens will be an excellent optical specimen within it's range of capabilities, just as it's non-IS older brother is. Although I would definately enjoy the IS, I plan on waiting a good while before I consider a possible "upgrade". The estimated price is a bit higher than I anticipated, but if it performs, produces excellent images and enhances your photography, maybe it's worth your dollar. Like any other purchase, this should come down to how much it fulfills your needs relative to it's price. That's just my $1250
Sprout Crumble wrote:
I despair when I read comments like this, I really do. Its almost like its a sin to question the mighty Canon and the amount of apologists here is beyond belief.
This lens above all others released recently is a startlingly blatant attempt to rip off all those Canon users who've been clamouring for it. An obvious demand for it has made this lens a home run for Canon, yet instead of making a healthy profit on each one, and its clear the non-IS has been a great profit maker for them, they've decided to make an outright killing. Despicable.
And I find the amount of whiners here equally beyond belief. People seem to believe they have some right to expect Canon to release newer better lenses for the same prices they have been in the past. Sorry but the ability to buy high quality glass cheap isn't some inalienable right. I don't apologize for Canon. I wouldn't care if Canon priced their 70-200 f/4 IS at $10k. If I don't think its worth it I won't buy it. Simple as that. L glass isn't a basic need, it isn't food or water or medicine. Canon or any company for that matter has no obligation to provide us with cheap lenses. In the free market economy it is Canon that has the right to try to make as much profit as it possibly can (along with every other corporation) and if you are going to indict Canon for their behaviour then you may as well indict every other corporation and indict the free market economy that we live in itself.
thedigitalbean wrote:
And I find the amount of whiners here equally beyond belief. People seem to believe they have some right to expect Canon to release newer better lenses for the same prices they have been in the past. Sorry but the ability to buy high quality glass cheap isn't some inalienable right. I don't apologize for Canon. I wouldn't care if Canon priced their 70-200 f/4 IS at $10k. If I don't think its worth it I won't buy it. Simple as that. L glass isn't a basic need, it isn't food or water or medicine. Canon or any company for that matter has no obligation to provide us with cheap lenses. In the free market economy it is Canon that has the right to try to make as much profit as it possibly can (along with every other corporation) and if you are going to indict Canon for their behaviour then you may as well indict every other corporation and indict the free market economy that we live in itself. ...Show more →
You seem to think we need Canon more than they need us.
Wouldn't call 28 years 'new' mate. Again, quality is not the issue. The 70-200/4L is a superb lens of the highest quality. Its about value and by no stretch of the imagination can the addition of IS be deemed real value when it doubles the price. The current version is a cheap L, but not a cheap lens so its not like they're reintroducing lost profit from the non-IS version. I'm fully aware of the lens market; its why I've commented so strongly on recent Canon lens prices. I've never felt the need before but, to me anyway, Canon have pushed too far.
Got to admit that Leica stuff is REALLLLLY expensive, but they're a niche, its individually hand tested and Leica don't have a massive dominance of the market and the scales of volume that Canon do.
Interesting comment from the head of Canon UK in an interview with the British Journal of Photography. Apparently lens sales have gone from 0.5 per body sold, to 1.2. A 140% increase in comparitive volume (probably even more given the numbers are linked to bodies sold which have also greatly increased), yet lens prices are getting higher, even faster. What other consumer product market has prices that INCREASE with much greater volume?
While I admit there is a certain amount of perception to value based on the individuals needs, there's always room to comment when prices fly in the face of market conditions. I genuinely don't understand Canons reasoning. Making popular products, especially one as potentially huge as this one, a luxury makes no sense. Fewer buyers, less loyalty and a practical narrowing of the lens range for many buyers due to overpricing appears on the surface to suit Canon as little as its suits its users. Surely they can't be that short-sighted?
thedigitalbean wrote:
In the free market economy it is Canon that has the right to try to make as much profit as it possibly can (along with every other corporation) and if you are going to indict Canon for their behaviour then you may as well indict every other corporation and indict the free market economy that we live in itself.
Have you just watched National Lampoons Animal House again........?
You missed out the bit where you're not going to stand around while people bad-mouth the good old Corporation of Canon....
Where in a definition of the free market economy does it say that the consumers have to be quiet while they're shafted? Its not whining to make your views known in a place where people from that corporation likely hang out. I'd say the volume of comment on price in this thread and the 50/1.2L one is clearly stating that somethings wrong and maybe, just maybe, someone might be taking notes.
Anyway, my final comment on this issue. Its clearly something that, inexplicably, has polarised opinion. So be it. I shall continue to take shaky photos and that nice IS feature that would let me take sharp photos through even bigger hangovers will have to wait.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
You seem to think we need Canon more than they need us.
I certainly didn't read that in his post. He said if he didn't think a lens was worth the price, he wouldn't buy it. I think his post was right on. Sure, I wish lenses were cheaper. I wish the 500 F4 IS was $2000, but it is not. And therefore I can't afford one. But there are plenty of lenses that I can afford and those are the ones I will purchase.
Sprout Crumble wrote:
Have you just watched National Lampoons Animal House again........?
You missed out the bit where you're not going to stand around while people bad-mouth the good old Corporation of Canon....
Where in a definition of the free market economy does it say that the consumers have to be quiet while they're shafted? Its not whining to make your views known in a place where people from that corporation likely hang out. I'd say the volume of comment on price in this thread and the 50/1.2L one is clearly stating that somethings wrong and maybe, just maybe, someone might be taking notes.
Anyway, my final comment on this issue. Its clearly something that, inexplicably, has polarised opinion. So be it. I shall continue to take shaky photos and that nice IS feature that would let me take sharp photos through even bigger hangovers will have to wait.
My guess is that a significant percentage of the people complaining about the price of this lens will end up buying one anyway. That is why they are complaining. They really want the lens but they don't want to shell out $1250 for it. And I don't blame them! I want this lens too and I don't want to pay this price!! And at this point, I am not sure what I am going to do. But even though I think the price is too high, I can't blame Canon for trying to maximize their profits. It sounds to me like we should be buying Canon stock instead of Canon lenses!
Well said Patrick. I'm a ditto on just about all of it including the stocks. The only exception would be that as some said this may be a good price for a very good lens. We'll just have to wait and see some results from the two new lenses from FM members. Hopefully there will be some good Christmas deals coming on the two new lenses.
Yesterday I bought a slightly used 70-200/2.8 IS for 1450$. Made at 2003, glass clean, operation flawless, only slight usage marks on the outside. It is certainly heavier than the 70-200/4 IS but on my 1D it balances perfectly. Don't know what about you but I think these extra 200$ were well spent. For that I got an extra stop (which I think is extremely valuable for low light work and shallow DoF) and a tripod collar (which will not see much use).
For me - as an Israeli citizen rather than as a USA one - the difference is actually in favor of that used lens. If I had bought the 70-200/4 IS (1250$ at B&H) I'd have to add the Israeli VAT as well as S&H. The total cost - again, for me - would be about 1550$.
But even if it was not so and I'd go to B&H and faced with the option of buying a used 70-200/2.8 IS for 1450$ or a new 70-200/4 IS for 1250$ I'd pick the former without hesitation.
These 1450$ were a major effort for me as I am far from being a wealthy guy (one salary, wife, three kids....). Then again, I think they represent an excellent value for the money.
Congratulations Yakim, I think you have chosen wisely, that zoom is really one ripping mean ueberobjektiv.
The only problem I see with it is that too many of us are not using the EF 70-200 zooms enough.
The difference in price between the new 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and the non-IS version is much greater than between the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and the non-IS version of that lens.
As per B&H prices (on Sept. 3, 2006), the f/2.8L IS lens sells for 1,569.95 while the non-IS version sells for $1139.95. That is only a $430 difference or about 38% more.
The 70-200mm f/4L IS sells for 1249.95 while the non-IS version sells for $574.95. That is a $675 difference or more than twice as expensive.
Owners of the Non-IS f/4L should be happy at the great difference in price because it will keep the value of a used Non-IS f/4L high.
The price will also keep the sales of the present f/4L going at a good clip.
Often the price of a product is based on how adversely that price (if too low) would impact the sales of existing products in the same line.
The price of the f/4L IS may not also impact the sales of the f/2.8L IS or the f/2.8L non-IS to any great degree.
If they placed the price of the new f/4L IS at, say $850, it might IMO seriously impact the sales of both the present non-IS f/4L and both versions of the f/2.8L.
If we think of marketing stategy only - the price is probably very good for Canon. It will establish a nitche for this lens and may not adversely impact the sales of any of the previously mentioned three lenses.
The people who want this lens will buy it and the people who think it is too expensive will bitch at the price.
Edited by Richardpcrowe on Sep 03, 2006 at 05:58 PM GMT
Edited by Richardpcrowe on Sep 03, 2006 at 06:07 PM GMT
Edited by Richardpcrowe on Sep 03, 2006 at 06:10 PM GMT
