I think a lot of peole were hoping for a 400mm F5.6L IS but would that have killed the 400mm F4 DO?? Who knows? I'm in agreement with Jim Victory on this one though............I've just purchased the newer MACRO vesrion of the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8, fantastic value for money at $888 & boy at 33'' closest focusing distance,wel, it's a great lens even without IS !!
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.
Oh, I DEFINITELY have a use for this lens. It would be a great landscape lens, and I'd love to own one. But at this price, yeah, it's pointless.
If Canon truly can't build this lens for, say, $900, then it's truly a flaw in the lens' design, as bad as CA or poor sharpness. But I doubt this price is the result of any kind of material or R&D cost.
Didn't really think about the rumours about this lense because I didn't think I would want one. Now when it's real, it suddenly becomes very apparent to me how nice it would be with a compact IS lens in this category (which can be used with a 1.4x to make a very packable tele solution when I cant bring my 300/2.8). Coupled with a 135/2 (if money was no object) you would have a very flexible and compact solution.
In any case, I'm sure Canon will sell as many if these as they can produce....at some price. Its an interesting enough lens to a big enough populuation and if the price turns out to be a bit high it will go down a bit until it will start selling LOTS.
If Canon truly can't build this lens for, say, $900, then it's truly a flaw in the lens' design, as bad as CA or poor sharpness. But I doubt this price is the result of any kind of material or R&D cost.
The price has very little to do with the cost to produce the lens. The price is set by marketing at a level they feel the market will bear and at a point that will optimize their return on investment. Canon believes this lens will sell at the price point they have set. Time will tell if Canon is right...or will we see a hefty rebate in the spring followed by a price drop...much like the 5D camera.
I have to admit the Canon strategy does seem to revolve around overpricing something at the start, and all the must-haves buy it at full price, then they offer a rebate (in which the paperworks mysteriously vanishes into a black hole at whatever company is paid to process their rebate claimes ) to get it to a more realistic price and make it seem like a great deal. The triple rebate situation luring you into buying more and more gear that is actually just being sold at where they should have priced it in the first place.
Or maybe I'm just bitter cos I wanted this lens to remain a bargain.
I said the same in the 50 1.2L thread... and I will repeat it here again. The prices for these lenses are too high... the EOSfun is evaporating. I've seen many posts requesting this very lens but I'm sure people saw an IS version for around $850 in their minds...not $1250 . Canon is riding the wave of the increased popularity in digital photography.
At least on paper, that sounds like a very nice lens......realatively small/light, portable and hopefully with IQ as good as in the other 70-200 siblings.
The price is what one would expect from the package, relative to other L offerings.
Also, my perception is that the 70-200 range is getting increasingly congested with all kinds of options. However, it is entirely probable that Canon knows their lens market better than we do.(he, he)
I do regret not seeing that IS retrofit effort applied to the EF 400 f/5.6....the end result could have been a killer telephoto lens. However, perhaps the next time around.
Pricing, MSRP is one thing, street price is another......esp after the first of the year, once the reviews start popping up,,,,,,actual price after 1st should be quite a bit less that the $1250 stated,
Regarding the price of the current 70-200 f/4 vs the new 70-200 f/4 IS and the question of what is a reasonable premium for IS on a Canon L lens...
The f/2.8 version of this lens comes in IS and non-IS versions. At B&H you pay a $560 premium for the IS version.
B&H sells the old non-IS version of the f/4 lens for $585. Add the $560 premium for IS (based on the additional cost of that feature on the f/2.8 version) and you might predict a realistic cost for the new lens of about $1150.
It seems a bit overpriced at list, but if it drops $100 it should be right about where you would predict. There is no reason to think that the cost of adding IS to the 70-200 f/4 L would be less than adding it to the f/2.8 lens.
There is no reason to think that the cost of adding IS to the 70-200 f/4 L would be less than adding it to the f/2.8 lens.
Like I said before, the price is not dictated by the cost of adding IS, it is dictated by the preceived value of IS. Canon believes the value of IS is around $600. Cost wise if might be less than $100.
chez wrote:
Like I said before, the price is not dictated by the cost of adding IS, it is dictated by the preceived value of IS. Canon believes the value of IS is around $600. Cost wise if might be less than $100.
You are almost right. I actually believe that if the 70-200 F4 non-IS were released today, it would sell for around $800. That is because we are in a totally different market than we were back in 1999 when the F4 was released. I don't have any figures to back this up but I feel confident that the demand for these lenses is considerably higher than even 5 years ago. And demand is one significant driver of price. Also, people are simply willing to pay more for this equipment. The digital age has energized people and really gotten them enthusiastic about photography - and the companies are taking advantage of that. And until proven wrong by lagging sales, Canon will continue to price their products in this manner.
at a street price, this might make sense. Performance of the non-IS 70-200/4 is stellar... and you don't always want to lug around a lot of weight just for one stop (not me anyway)... and with IS... should be very useful... how many people have opted for the 24-105 over the 24-70?
True, but not really a fair comparison since the 24-105 and 24-70 are close in price. if you had a 24-70 like I did, would you pay double for the 24-105? I wouldn't have.
mh2000 wrote:
at a street price, this might make sense. Performance of the non-IS 70-200/4 is stellar... and you don't always want to lug around a lot of weight just for one stop (not me anyway)... and with IS... should be very useful... how many people have opted for the 24-105 over the 24-70?
The funny thing is it's not that hard to learn how to hold a camera and lens steady. Were not talking 12 pounds of 400mm monster pie plate here. it's a cute little tube with a bit of glass in it. If you look around you most of the time there is a tree or fence or something to brace on. On the bright side they have not increased the price of the non is....... yet. Steve
RGS65 wrote:
True, but not really a fair comparison since the 24-105 and 24-70 are close in price. if you had a 24-70 like I did, would you pay double for the 24-105? I wouldn't have.
Well if you are comparing the 70-200 non-IS f/2.8 to this new lens, the prices are close. I opted for the 24-105 just for the IS.
) to get it to a more realistic price and make it seem like a great deal. The triple rebate situation luring you into buying more and more gear that is actually just being sold at where they should have priced it in the first place.