For those complaining about the cost. A quick search yeilds an MSRP of $970 for the non-IS f/4, so the MSRP for this new lens is $280 more. In fact, Amazon.com lists a "list price" for the non-is of $1350.99!
That seems pretty reasonable to me for 4-stop IS with very little weight gain. While perhaps the "street" price will be close to MSRP to begin with, I suspect it will drop down fairly soon to a reasonable increment over the non-IS lens. Just my opinion, though.
The weight! If my calculations are corrrect, this IS lens will clock in at just 1.12 oz. heavier than the non-IS 70-200mm f/4L (which I own and love - but, have always wished for IS) and over a POUND AND A HALF LIGHTER THAN THE F/2.8L IS lens.
I carry two bodies and usually three lenses: 12-24mm Tokina f/4, 24-70mm f/2.8L and 70-200mm f/4L. Although I have craved IS on the tele lens; carrying an extra pound and a half of gear convinced me not to go the route of the f/2.8L IS. The 1.12 oz. extra should hardly be felt - even at the end of the day (when every extra ounce seems like a pound). I almost made the mistake of getting the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS because of its light weight but, am glad that I did not considering the recalls of that lens.
Much is often made out of the fact that IS will stop camera shake but, not image motion. However, IMO, lot of motion can be stopped at speeds which I consider too slow (for me personally - might be different for other folks) to successfully hold the f/4L at 200mm. As an example, a lot of image motion can be successfully stopped with speeds of between 1/125 and 1/250 of a second. I don't hold the lens successfully at maximum focal length using these speeds.
As far as the MSRP - street prices (after the first flurry of insane buying) will be lower. I would envision around $1,100-1,250 USD. At somewhere around five to six hundred dollars less and a pound and a half lighter than it's big brother, the f/2.8L IS, THIS IS THE LENS FOR ME!
Regarding the corollary with the purchase decision between the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 24-105mm f/4L IS. I have the f/2.8L and opted not to "upgrade" to the f/4L IS. I don't BELIEVE that I NEED IS at the shorter focal lengths. I KNOW I NEED IS at the longer focal lengths. Besides, my f/2.8L has turned out to be a jewel of a lens and I love it! I am hoping that the 70-200mm f/4L IS will be of equivalent quality.
Will I buy one right away - HECK NO! Given the state of Canon's infamous lack of quality control; I will wait for the other poor fools to reap the heartaches of bumbling Canon production methods and quality control. Then when the dust settles - and street prices come down - HECK YES! I am going to get one!
Light weight is a big advantage for me as well. The 70-200 F4 non-IS has been a fine lens for me, especially on a tripod. Improving hand-holding at longer focal lengths, where I use 1/320 to 1/400 as a minimum, makes this lens attractive. That said, I'll be waiting a few years until the price comes down into a range justifying an upgrade.
danmitchell wrote:
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.
But the IS premium can't be a flat $560. A large factor in that cost has to be the size/weight of the IS elements in a 2.8 aperture lens.
Instead, look at the 70-200/2.8 difference as a percentage (or multiplier) instead of a raw dollar figure.
$1700(2.8IS)/$1140(2.8 non-IS) gives about 1.5x price premium for IS. Apply that to the f/4 IS and you get the price most people were expecting this lens to come in at, around $900.
mbellot wrote:
But the IS premium can't be a flat $560. A large factor in that cost has to be the size/weight of the IS elements in a 2.8 aperture lens.
Instead, look at the 70-200/2.8 difference as a percentage (or multiplier) instead of a raw dollar figure.
$1700(2.8IS)/$1140(2.8 non-IS) gives about 1.5x price premium for IS. Apply that to the f/4 IS and you get the price most people were expecting this lens to come in at, around $900.
anselwannab wrote:
That 1.5x price premiumsounds about right. That's about what it is for some of the cheaper non-L is lenses if I remember right.
I don't think you can apply the 50% price premium for IS of the f/2.8 to the f/4 version. The IS unit of the f/4 will not be much cheaper than that of the f/2.8
For me this is very attractvive lens and I am willing to pay the price. What I would like to see now is a 300/4 L IS II with a four stop IS
"$1700(2.8IS)/$1140(2.8 non-IS) gives about 1.5x price premium for IS. Apply that to the f/4 IS and you get the price most people were expecting this lens to come in at, around $900."
Now, that is interesting logic! ;-)
I guess then that they could add IS to the 50mm f/1.8 for about, what, $35? ;-)
danmitchell wrote:
"$1700(2.8IS)/$1140(2.8 non-IS) gives about 1.5x price premium for IS. Apply that to the f/4 IS and you get the price most people were expecting this lens to come in at, around $900."
Now, that is interesting logic! ;-)
I guess then that they could add IS to the 50mm f/1.8 for about, what, $35? ;-)
If you can't afford the IS version then don't buy it! Buy the non IS version if your after a bargin "L". If you think its over priced and to close to the f/2.8 then buy the f/2.8.
Everyone has been winging for years that they wanted IS on the 70-200 f/4, Now its here they want it for the same price as the non IS version!? Of course its going to be more expensive! The price will come down and then settle after 6-12 months, If you really want it and can't afford it right now then wait! You don't have to be one of the first to own it do you?? We all know you have a nice pile of newspapers laying around waiting to be photographed and that empty space on your living room wall is crying out for a nice large photo of your cat! Or mayby you figure if you buy it now it gives you alot of time to send it into Canon for calibration 10 times?
End of the day Canon has set the price, The retailers will then charge what they charge and there is nothing we (As the consumer) can really do about it, You either buy it or you don't! Nobody is forcing you to buy one are they??
I don't think anyone realistically expected a lens with IS, to be the same price as a "non". But, when you can buy 2 of the non-IS for the price of one? It seems Canon, while reducing prices of Cameras, is making up for it with outrageous lens prices. I don't understand why all new lenses have to cost more than the body. I can't think of too many people that just have the funds to buy $1000 lenses whenever they want.
The pro lenses are far more 'engineered' than the mass-market lenses. They do not fall in price like purely electronic parts, which have been deflating hard over the last few years due to rising manufacturing yields and evermore fresh sources of cheap labour in east Asia.
As such, the are subject to the increasingly severe global inflation taking place. Even sweatshop-made consumer goods will probably stop their relentless fall over the next few years.
The wages of the designers and engineers, oil, transportation costs, metals, etc.are all rising. The cheap goods era is closing.
The thing is, "L" lenses is the luxury series and are aimed at Pros and serious photographers not the average consumer. They are highly priced, Its a matter of Can or Can't I afford to buy it? Or do I really need it?
I don't want to sound rude, but thats the reality. Anyways who knows, If Canon doesen't sell as many as they expect then we may see a huge price drop like we did with the 5D price (Look at the price now compared to when it first hit the market!). We as the consumer can only tell Canon what we think the only way they will listen, and thats with our wallets! If we don't get pulled into the "I want the latest and greatest and I will pay anything to be the first to have it" syndrome then Canon will be forced to drop the price to a more reasonable level!
I personally don't think that the new IS version is priced to un-relisticly, I would like to see it mayby a little cheaper. But the price is what I would have expected (And alot of pepole have predicted that it would be priced around this level if it was ever released). End of the day wait a few months and see how the price settles.
DutchGuy wrote:
Lenses are a much better investments than a DSLR. They can last for more then 10 years. You can sell them without much loss, try that with a DSLR !
I agree with you there, but how do you tell someone entering the dSLR market that "your camera is only $800, but you will have to spend another $5000 if you you want quality pics"?. Now, I know you can say that about home theater equipment or whatever else of the like, but it's a little different. Something for your home vs. something to take pictures of. Does everyone plan on taking pics and making money from them?
But not everyone needs a expensive "L" to take a good picture. Most pepole who will buy the 400D won't need or want a "L" lens. Shure alot of pepole on this (And other) forums will buy one, and use it for serious photography, But there will be far more who will buy it and only have the kit lens and mayby a cheap consumer grade teliphoto lens and that is all they will ever need/use.
