pixelman wrote:
I guess I need to gear swap with some amateur for my vacations. They can cart a 1 around and I can use a rebel. After all people swap houses, cars and spouses maybe we start this with glass too.
I can see a new cheezy reality show on the way! "Lens Swap"
"We take 2 photographers and turn there world upside down, One owns a professional setup, but is tired of the attention, While the other owns a entry level setup but wishes for more"
"Im soooo tired of being the center of attention, I just want to blend in with the crowd, I just want to walk down the street without being reconized"
"My current setup is just not doing it for me anymore, I need something that will satisfy my needs, I need more pleasure from my photography"
Holy crap! We are not going to pay 1.2k for 70-200f4 just because we have kept telling loudly that we need IS in 70-200 f4. In any case, it will be a real hard sale item for Canon.
1). Suman, plenty of people will buy it, and they're not stupid for doing so. I might buy it, thank you.
2). Tim, they can't replace a good action-stopping shutter speed @ say ISO400 with the same speed @ 800. It just won't work. If anything, they might put DO glass in the 2.8 version to make it smaller.
chez wrote:
Maybe we are looking at this price from the wrong end. Everyone says the 70-200 f4 non-IS lens is a bargain for an L lense. Maybe it's price is out of line and should have been more like $700 rather than $550. This would put the pricing on the IS version back into line with the 2.8 versions.
This is exactly what I have been saying. If the non-IS were introduced today, rather than in 1999, it would price at more like $800.
I just can't say why anyone would spend more money on a 70-200 f/4 when there is the 70-200 f/2.8
I figure they want you to buy the 70-200 f/2.8 IS...my paper owns 3 70-200's...none of them are IS's, and i couldnt care less because of the same reason i didn't spend money on IS.
If however the 2.8 only had IS, then i guess i'd have little choice.
timmyquest wrote:
I'm sure this has been brought up, but anyone thought of the idea that this is the first stage in phasing out the 70-200 f/2.8
All speculation of course but I don't think so (or I hope not). They are really two different beasts altogether. I have the 2.8L as I like to use it for a range of things from sports including hockey, portraits, theater, scenics. For sports, portraits I often shoot (well almost always) wide open or at f/3.2. With that said this new f4 IS is a great addition for the traveller/hiker it would actually be great to have both... but that's not happening for me.
I wanted to add also on the 20D and I assume the 30D also the autofocus is more reliable with an f/2.8 lens.
chez wrote:
Tim, much of my photography comes from hiking around the Rocky Mountains and let me tell you after 15 km of ups and downs, every ounce helps.
For landscape work one certainly doesnt need a fast f2.8 zoom. Or even IS since a lot of times one uses a tripod for that type of work. The IS is great for low light event type work.
Since the price of the new 70-200 f4 IS is more than the non IS f2.8 version I think im gonna get the 2.8 non IS instead. The extra stop allows to isolate the subject better and has a really nice look to it. That non IS f2.8 70-200 is also a very sharp lens, think its Canons sharpest zoom in production.
The main point of a f4 zoom is to save money over the 2.8 version.
timmyquest wrote:
I kind of view the 70-200 as being small...
I guess a membership to the gym might be cheaper
yes Tim, sports photogs and PJ's do indeed view the 70-200 2.8 as being small because for us, it is small, and granted we do think of people as being a bit of a wuss if they want to know about using a 70-200 on a monopod, if its handholdable etc alot of times, makes us feel all tough and masucline, were the true photogs or whatever I guess but thats rather shortsighted of us in all honesty.
If your shooting landscapes for example, f2.8 is not really an apeture one uses and all that extra weight does add up. Maybe people dont want to have to visit the gym to enjoy their camera gear ?
Just because your happy with your 2.8 non IS and "couldnt care less" does that make all the people who bought the 2.8 IS fools or something ? Maybe they dont shoot the same things you do ? Or just because a 1 series isnt too big at all for some, are those who want a compact body wrong somehow for wanting that ?
Size and weight and IS are the most important factors for a lenses to some people just as apeture is to others, such as yourself.
So what if the f2.8 version is the same price, if you want a compact lenses with IS, what good will a larger and heavier f2.8 non IS lens do you ? Its a better "value" ?? Not hardly because it doesnt have a single thing you wanted in a lenses.
A store in the Netherlands has the 70-200/4.0 IS for sale for € 1399,- lots of money for that lens. It is not the cheapest store, so we'll she some lower prices here.
But I doubt the price will be below € 1000,- for a long time.
It is just absurd an unrealistic for some to think or say a lense would more than double in price to add a known and old technology to it. Sometimes I think "L" and a red stripe mean SUCKER in Japanese. The only way Canon will price things right is when people stop justifying it for them. Sure it's a "L" so what, that red paint stripe is mighty expensive. It doesn't cost a lot more to manufacture a "L" from an 18-55. Remember supply and demand, we can call the shots with our wallets. I don't mean to offend anyone but, "L's", red stripes and white barrels are not always what they should be....
Is this ~Master~ thing part of the official designation, and if so, what does it mean (if anything)? I looked through the first 9 pages of this thread and didn't see anything about this.
JohnLL wrote:
Is this ~Master~ thing part of the official designation, and if so, what does it mean (if anything)? I looked through the first 9 pages of this thread and didn't see anything about this.
No it is not, Jeff made 'Master' threads, because else we would have 15 topics about the 70-200/4.0 IS
sivrajbm wrote:
It is just absurd an unrealistic for some to think or say a lense would more than double in price to add a known and old technology to it. Sometimes I think "L" and a red stripe mean SUCKER in Japanese. The only way Canon will price things right is when people stop justifying it for them. Sure it's a "L" so what, that red paint stripe is mighty expensive. It doesn't cost a lot more to manufacture a "L" from an 18-55. Remember supply and demand, we can call the shots with our wallets. I don't mean to offend anyone but, "L's", red stripes and white barrels are not always what they should be.......Show more →
That's the most pertinent post I've read regarding this way overpriced lens.
Canon are taking a lot of people for mugs, they are ripping the p#~s.
I'll be voting with my wallet too.
Canon gives you a huge choice of lens to cover this range together with a range of price. You pick the features / quality...you pay the price. I don't see what the problem is. Here are options for you if you want a zoom to cover the 70 - 200 / 300 range:
75 - 300 f4.0 / 5.6 $189.95
70 - 200 f4.0 L $584.95
70 - 300 f4.5 / 5.5 IS $559.95
70 - 200 f2.8 L $1139.95
70 - 300 f4.5 / 5.5 DO IS $1149.95
70 - 200 f4.0 L IS $1250.00 estimated
70 - 200 f2.8 L IS $1699.95
Now figure out YOUR price / performance mark, order that lens and quick bitching about something being priced too high. If it's too high...don't buy it. Simple as that. I'd love to drive a Honda S2000 Roadster, but at this time it is out of my price range so I drive a Honda Civic. Should I go bitch at Honda about their price gouging on the Roadster?
