Is that 6k UK or US? The reason I ask is when the M3 came out at 4500 I know Canada was almost 5600.00.
But for the difference I would still go for the 2.0 with IS and all the improvements. As long as I hold a good piece of glass over time it is worth it and the price difference would not matter. I have bought and sold a lot of lenses but the ones that stay around are the good ones.
holy crap that's expensive. the 135 f/2 L costs, what, under $1000 now. add 65mm to the focal length + an IS system and you suddenly get a lens that costs $5000 more ? am i the only who is having trouble grasping this?
Mike Hatam wrote:
Actually, the way Canon announced the price was that the "estimated street price" is $5,999. So it may be quite a while before we see the lens available at $3,500.
Like never
We will be lucky to see the price approaching $5,000 after 2 years.
For 6 grand you can get a Nikon 200/2VR AND a D300 with a VG.
Jeeesh... that is WAY too high.
Hopefully it will end up being like all other Canon "list" prices. The list price of the 70-200IS is something like $2500 or more isn't it? But it sells for about $1500 or so.
I can't see this lens selling for any more than the Nikon counterpart. Actually based on the prices of Canon's other fast L telephoto lenses compared to Nikon it should sell for LESS.
Wow. I've never seen something fall upwards before Weird.
Oh, and I take back my comments about going w/ the 200/2IS... At $6k... (heck even at $5k), I'd try and just get a ~$3k 200/1.8
I don't think you will see the 200 f/1.8Ls selling around $3k for much longer. I am guessing that they will soon start going upward. I am not saying back to where they were, but probably not at $3k either though. I think the $3k prices came out because people were extremely optimistic about what the 200 f/2L IS would sell for.
Il Medico wrote:
For 6 grand you can get a Nikon 200/2VR AND a D300 with a VG.
Jeeesh... that is WAY too high.
Hopefully it will end up being like all other Canon "list" prices. The list price of the 70-200IS is something like $2500 or more isn't it? But it sells for about $1500 or so.
I can't see this lens selling for any more than the Nikon counterpart. Actually based on the prices of Canon's other fast L telephoto lenses compared to Nikon it should sell for LESS.
Gene
Canon changed their pricing structure about 2-3 years ago. They aren't playing the game of selling things for far less than their suggested price any more. They actually made some sort of announcement at the time. If you look at the trend, Canon has been racking up the price of all of their newer lenses. The best deals are on the older ones. It isn't just because of age either. Canon has been adjusting their pricing upward on lenses.
BrianP wrote:
Canon changed their pricing structure about 2-3 years ago. They aren't playing the game of selling things for far less than their suggested price any more. They actually made some sort of announcement at the time. If you look at the trend, Canon has been racking up the price of all of their newer lenses. The best deals are on the older ones. It isn't just because of age either. Canon has been adjusting their pricing upward on lenses.
Maybe so, but I cannot see them continuing this pricing policy. Nikon has released some killer lenses in 2007 ... and killer bodies to go with it. Canon will price themselves out of the market unless they buck this trend. I am sure they are aware that the new Nikon products are causing a major stir in the market place.
p.3 #10 · Any News on Canon 200mm F/2 Lens Release
maybe we can gage the effectiveness of canon's pricing structure by analyzing price trend of a specific product, starting from the time of its release.
if enough people are not buying the product, say a 200/2, then we should see a price drop (+ rebates). significant price drops signal a flawed pricing structure that is way off the mark. if the price sticks, i imagine that there are enough people buying it at that price.
how canon comes up with these astronomical price tags is beyond me. but if they continue to do this, i think it will hurt their sales.
p.3 #12 · Any News on Canon 200mm F/2 Lens Release
BrianP wrote:
Canon changed their pricing structure about 2-3 years ago. They aren't playing the game of selling things for far less than their suggested price any more. They actually made some sort of announcement at the time. If you look at the trend, Canon has been racking up the price of all of their newer lenses. The best deals are on the older ones. It isn't just because of age either. Canon has been adjusting their pricing upward on lenses.
Right.......come to think about it, wasn't the 50 f/1.2 announced at $1.6k MSRP ? Lo and behold, the lens started selling at $1,599 or something.
Actually, it is fun to try to summarise some forum reactions at that time, because they follow a common circular pattern:
(1) Canon is not responsive to photographers' needs for a quality fast normal prime. (prior to announcement)
(2) The lens is overpriced, Canon is a corporate greed villain. (upon announcement)
(3) The lens is crap. (after the lens release)
(4) Canon is not responsive to photographers' needs for an updated 50 f/1.4. (present)
p.3 #13 · Any News on Canon 200mm F/2 Lens Release
It will be around $3500 street price. Look up the 300 f2.8 - $6499 suggested retail price (Amazon), sell price around $3800. Canon just sets MSRP, they dont' set the street price. That's determined by how low their largest vendor is willing to go. Canon doesnt' seem to have a very strict MAP policy, at least not compared to the likes of Apple. Yes, there will be a premium initially but that should be gone in the first year at the latest, and probably won't be more than $500+/-.
? am i the only who is having trouble grasping this?
Weird.