I think people are underestimating the weight advantage. My wife would never use the 70-200 f2.8L IS. THat think is huge. Heck, I wouldn't want to carry that around all the time. The 300L IS is only 1100g and that's enough for me thanks. For the weight of the 2.8IS, you can have the 24-105L, the 70-200 f4L and an extender. If I need speed for better focusing, that's what the 135L is for.
That being said, everyone has different shooting styles and types of shooting. I will agree $1250 is pretty high, but I'd rather save the 400$ and get the f4LIS for travel, wife, myself and use the extra toward a 135L.
I guess I don't get the 4th stop thing. I mean, I don't know how often I'll wait around 2.5 seconds for a pic.
Very interesting
Sony, which began selling its ``alpha DSLR-A100'' on July 21, had a 21.6 percent share in the month and a 19 percent share in the three weeks to Aug. 20, compared with the Tokyo-based company's target for 10 percent of the global market this year, according to data compiled by BCN.
Canon's market share fell to 33.3 percent in July from 51.6 percent in the previous month. Nikon's dropped to 27.4 percent, from 32.6 percent.
Not exactly a huge shock. Sony releases a brand new DSLR and the first month sales beat those of the competitors two year old offerings.
Lets see the numbers after the D80 and 400D are released, that will be a much better gauge of market share.
I agree with Chris. Not to brand this as a lens for women, but this is a lens i will probably get for my girlfriend. She loves the F4 because of the size and weight. This will only add a little weight and the IS will improve her number of keepers.
I also like the idea of this lens for myself for travelling with just two lenses. The addition of IS here makes the 70-300 IS lose a lot of its appeal to me.
Admittedly MB - and there must have been a bunch of Minolta people waiting to buy as well. I don't think the figures will stay there at all, but it does point to a sucessful introduction by Sony, bringing a completely new range of products to market.
mjcabrera wrote:
I guess Canon is telling us to forget about on body IS for prosumer bodies.
"Short focal length lenses require smaller sensor deflections; 24 or 28 mm lenses might need only 1 mm or so. Longer lenses necessitate much greater movement; 300 mm lenses would have to move the sensor about 5.5 mm (nearly 1/4”) to achieve the correction Canon gets with its IS system at the same focal length. This degree of
sensor movement is beyond the range of current technology."
from White Paper
It sounds like the in camera IS is a compromize for the larger lenses. I would be interested in a comparision of in camera IS with a 400 mm lens and Canon's system.
It doesn't sound like the in-camera IS is on the near horizon for Canon DSLR's.
Well i've not jumped into the big whites market yet but i'm having one of these for xmas, i would have liked a 100-300is like DavidP to go with his big P&S camera 24-105is combo, but IS wins it for me being unsteady on my feet
Graham.
Agreed, people are getting confused by the difference between list and street price here. I suspect we'll see the street price settle out with the f4IS and f2.8 non-IS at the same price (~$1000-1050) for a while, and that the non-IS versions will disappear quietly next year. They'll rely on the 70-300IS to hold down the low end. It looks more and more like Canon wants all L lenses to be over the magic US$1000 mark, as they seem to have no shortage of buyers at that price.
The price will drop on this one rather quickly, I predict. The 24-105IS stayed near list for a long time, but that lens was (still is) unique across brands. This is simply yet another 70-200 in a market choked with 70-200 variations.
fourfa wrote:
Agreed, people are getting confused by the difference between list and street price here. I suspect we'll see the street price settle out with the f4IS and f2.8 non-IS at the same price (~$1000-1050) for a while, and that the non-IS versions will disappear quietly next year. They'll rely on the 70-300IS to hold down the low end. It looks more and more like Canon wants all L lenses to be over the magic US$1000 mark, as they seem to have no shortage of buyers at that price.
The price will drop on this one rather quickly, I predict. The 24-105IS stayed near list for a long time, but that lens was (still is) unique across brands. This is simply yet another 70-200 in a market choked with 70-200 variations....Show more →
I don't think it's list price confusion... according to Amazon, the list price for the 70-200/4 (non IS) is $1350. There's no way the 70-200/4IS is lower. Unfortunately, I think these are true street prices.
I'm very disappointed in Canon. They've priced me out of two lenses I'd very much like to own. I could easily dump $3000 today on both these lenses if I wanted to, 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'll wait until Canon finally puts ring USM in the 50/1.4.
Hopefully Canon will backpedal on the price after all the people with more money than sense buy their copies, like they did with the 70-300IS.
The thing is that we've been trained to spend huge amounts on our camera equipment, The price this new entry level 400D will sell at would have bought a EOS 3 in the old days but now we buy 5D's for £2500 and watch them depreciate by £1000 in 6 months, so what the heck is a grand for a lens when you already have your credit card out?
Effectively a $1370 lens (with the $120 tripod ring - price from bh) - bh sells the 70-200f2.8IS for $1700 - that's $330 difference ($450 without the tripod ring).
Price may come down in a while, but I'm torn - I need to try out an f2.8 lens to see just how much an issue the weight is - I do a lot of walking/hiking, and weight is a big deal, but then, so is f2.8!
There is nothing wrong with more choice. To me at least, the lens is a welcome addition to the line-up, and that's coming from having just puchased my 70-200/4 a few months ago. In no way am I regretting the $531 purchase (after shipping and rebate, which I just cashed today!).
Would I have considered the IS version if it was available? Probably... since at the time I had also "considered" the 2.8 and 2.8IS, but just couldn't justify the additional cost. Down the road after all the hype, maybe I'll upgrade, and maybe I won't, but at least I can thank Canon for giving me the choice.
did anyone ever think that the reason the prices have gone up is because of the weaker us dollar. Everyone says the 24-105 is more expensive than the 24-70 in canada it's the other way around, the 24-105 was released when our exchange rate with the us dollar was more even than ever. The 70-200IS price difference is roughly almost 800 dollars between the us and canada but the 24-105 is maybe including taxes maybe around a 100 dollars different even less when on sale.
shadesofafrica wrote:
Effectively a $1370 lens (with the $120 tripod ring - price from bh) - bh sells the 70-200f2.8IS for $1700 - that's $330 difference ($450 without the tripod ring).
Price may come down in a while, but I'm torn - I need to try out an f2.8 lens to see just how much an issue the weight is - I do a lot of walking/hiking, and weight is a big deal, but then, so is f2.8!
Ideally, I'd like them both!
You can actually get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS for $1599 at B&H using the PSAUG code.
Since I would probably take a much longer lens than the 70-200 on a hike the weight difference between the f/4 and f/2.8 is really not an issue.
I have never found the 70-200 f/2.8L IS to be heavy during use. I don't even leave the tripod collar on because I have no need to use it on a tripod.
What I like about the new f/4 is the size hasn't changed from the original. When traveling size is more important to me than weight.
I dunno.. I think lots of people (not me) have been wanting this lens.
I think they were hoping it would only be 300 or so more than the non IS.
If you could get this lens for 1000 or less it would be an amazing thing indeed.
sleepwalker33 wrote:
So basically this lens is pointless, if you can afford it get the much better 70-200 2.8ISL .
I have no idea why this was made, certainly there were other lenses that could have been made.
Well, if the fact that the current F4 version is half the weight of the 2.8 version and that it is physically smaller doesn't appeal to you, then go for the 2.8. I on the other hand would much prefer the smaller F4 version. Also, how can you say "the much better 200 2.8ISL" when the new F4 version hasn't even been released I do agree that my preference would have been for another lens now like an updated 100-400 IS, but this is still a useful lens, albeit an expensive one!
OK. I might be the one person who finds a need for this lens... I use my mid tele zoom for extracted landscapes while hiking. I would have loved to have it yesterday, an eleven mile hike during which I gained and lost three thousand feet. I had my 70-200 4 but a lot of the hike was in a steep sided gorge with a heavy canopy. I had my tripod but some of the locations were somewhat less than ideal for setting it up. The IS would have seriously come in handy.
The 70-200/4L IS is a Sigma killer, or it should have been. The Sigma sits between the standard 4L and the 2.8L non-IS version. A street price of $900 and you are there. At this price, forgetaboutit.
Costs are different than prices, but it is hard to justify the pop when you can get a whole 70-300IS for the price of the upgrade. The 2.8 version non-IS to IS pop is about $500, but that is bigger elements to have to move around. In some ways Canon gets a black eye since the 4L non-IS is only $600 bucks, its a great value.
Don't accuse me of being cheap, I bought a 2.8L IS earlier this year, so it isn't the price that dissapoints me, it the value.
Look at it a different way, why not pop for the 2.8L IS and have the ability to add a 2x multiplier and keep AF?
Or have better AF with the 2.8L non-IS?
I agree a 100-300/4L IS would have been better choice. Would have made a nice companion to a 400/5.6L IS and a 24-105/4L IS.
It seems Canon is loosing its way. The 30D is an orphan and a there still is no offset to the Nikon D200.
People say not to belly-ache about pixel count and a hundred dollars here and there on lenses, but if I were coming at this with a clean slate, I'd have to say with the recent lens and body offerings from Nikon, thats the way to go.
Why does Canon not make the on-camera flash a master for slave flashes? Why is there still not an ISO expsosure mode?
Canon cleaned Nikon's clock when AF came out and did well when DSLRs first came out. Maybe Nikon is getting hungry, Canon getting fat and maybe well see a reversal.
If they don't bring out the 1Ds MKIII now, I think it is pretty clear that Canon is just mailing in the effort and thinks they can just skate by. With E-bay and the buy&sell here, you can switch in and out of equipment with out much penalty, as long as stuff is pretty current. I like my 20D, but when it comes time to buy my next body, I'm going to really be tempted to switch if Canon keeps up like this.
Its important to me that Canon keep its bodies competitive, even if I'm not going to buy them, because it keeps the EOS system alive and protects the money I've put into lenses.
I do agree that my preference would have been for another lens now like an updated 100-400 IS, but this is still a useful lens, albeit an expensive one!