Scotsman wrote:
Nice to see and all that but, I think it's the biggest rip off that canon's pulled - I mean £1000 more expensive than the MKI. Won't be on my shopping list that's for sure
It's all relative, I guess. I found the receipt for my 70-200 2.8 IS MkI recently, which I purchased in 2002 for $2700 CAD. Compared to the current price, that's not all that far off, just that in the 8 or so years between then and now, the price for the MkI came down considerably (for various reasons) here in Canada.
Back then $2700 CAD = $1750 US, though I'm not sure what the actual US selling price was then. Right now the CAD and USD are nearly on par.
In 2002 1 USD = 125 Japanese yen, now it's worth 91 yen.
In 2002 1 GBP = 182 Yen, now it's worth 136 yen, which is a similar percentage drop to the USD/JPY. But compared to the USD/JPY which held somewhat steady for much of the decade (see graph below) and recently lost value, the GBP gradually gained against the yen for much of the decade until it crashed in 2008. It's no wonder, from a historical perspective, UK buyers are seeing very high prices. From what I understand, Canon UK made some dramatic price increases last year or in 2008. So, in light of that, and they're still charging £1000 more? Not sure I can explain that.
I don't think the exchange rate explains everything. It's possible Canon has changed their pricing strategy compared to 5 or so years ago. My feeling is it used to be based on volume sales to drive revenue. There could have been a desire to make the upgrade path from consumer DSLR with kit lens to prosumer DSLR with L lens more palatable through 'reasonable' prices to lock in more users. Back in 2003 or so, digital point and shoot cameras were relatively expensive and profit margins were healthy, but that changed a few years later with many cameras selling in the $200-300 range (and even lower now). SLR systems are different because they are systems and people buy lenses. If they can be tempted to buy more, or upgrade to premium versions with higher profit margins, all the better. I can say with a great degree of certainty that Canon's strategy since last year has been based on profitability, even if at the expense of volume. The exchange rates vs. the JPY and the state of the economy are primary factors for this change.
As we can see here and with other MkII threads, people are buying the new lens at the higher price. Would it have made sense for Canon to sell it for $2000? More people would buy it, but enough to offset the lower margin?
But we're still in the early adopter, gotta buy it first phase. Who knows, maybe it will end up on the next round of rebates...? And the 70-200 2.8 is a popular lens, therefore a high volume seller. At least with this lens the chance are better that it will eventually come down in price compared to other similarly priced but much more niche lenses, such as recent new the TS-Es.
I would venture from looking at those photos it's NOT 2500 dollars sharper than the Mark 1 version. Lets get real at f4 or 5.6 or 8 there will be no visible difference when making a print or viewed online from the Mark 1. Buy some fast primes and ditch the zooms and gain an extra stop or two.
My guess is you could take an identical exposure with a Mark I and a Mark II and no-one could tell the difference. I went thru that with an 85 1.2 I and II. I suppose there are reasons to upgrade. I just haven't figured out what they are...Both models produce great photos.
John Power wrote:
My guess is you could take an identical exposure with a Mark I and a Mark II and no-one could tell the difference. I went thru that with an 85 1.2 I and II. I suppose there are reasons to upgrade. I just haven't figured out what they are...Both models produce great photos.
The 85L I vs. II has the exact same optical formula, only the coatings changed. The 70-200 2.8 MkII is totally new (one fluorite and 5 UD vs. 4 UD), and already from just a few 100% crop comparisons, I can see that the MkII is sharper than the MkI (based on my 8 years of experience with a lackluster MkI).
Maybe if you don't show the images side by side it will be more difficult to tell, which is fine. But there is a difference and it will matter to some people.
I had the first version for a long time but I didn't use it that much. When the f/4.0 IS became available, I went for it and I sold the f/2.8 version several months later. I love the lighter and really sharp f/4.0 IS version and use it quite a bit, mostly for travel. For anything else, I use my primes. So, this lens is not for me then .
M Vers wrote: Should he have shot at ISO 6400, 1/15, 200mm @ f/2.8? Would that have made his samples more legit? His images were supposed to show off the lenses IQ, not the camera's ISO performance or the lenses IS effectiveness.
IQ is already available in the Canon 70-200 series so why else do you drop all of that $$$$ ??
to be able to deal with low light...
the flash pretty much takes the $$ and tosses it in the in the trash as I see it
John Power wrote:
My guess is you could take an identical exposure with a Mark I and a Mark II and no-one could tell the difference. I went thru that with an 85 1.2 I and II. I suppose there are reasons to upgrade. I just haven't figured out what they are...Both models produce great photos.
It would be interesting to see some comparisons that take more in consideration than sharpness: i.e. color, micro-contrast... the usual suspects.
leftbob wrote:
IQ is already available in the Canon 70-200 series so why else do you drop all of that $$$$ ??
to be able to deal with low light...
the flash pretty much takes the $$ and tosses it in the in the trash as I see it
So your saying the only reason to buy the MKII over the MKI is because the MKII offers a 4-stop IS system over the MKI's 3-stop IS system? How does that make any sense to you?
M Vers wrote:
So your saying the only reason to buy the MKII over the MKI is because the MKII offers a 4-stop IS system over the MKI's 3-stop IS system? How does that make any sense to you?
Well near everone that has a 70-200 2.8 IS MK1 swears hand over heart that it is a perfect lens ......so it would seem the improved IS is THE deal....
leftbob wrote:
Well near everone that has a 70-200 2.8 IS MK1 swears hand over heart that it is a perfect lens ......so it would seem the improved IS is THE deal....
Being an owner of the MKI I can tell you that isn't true. The lens (MKI) is very sharp, yes, but there is room for improvement (especially if you want to use the lens with a TC). I can assure you that most people looking to upgrade from the MKI to the MKII are not looking to do so solely for the extra stop of IS effectiveness--they will do so mainly for the IQ boost the MKII is reported to have.
.
f4 version.
