Hrow wrote:
Does anyone remember what the cost of a 300 F2.8 non IS was at the time the new version introduced and what the new lens's price was? I could be wrong but my recollection is that the two were very close in price and that there was not a huge premium that could be attributed to the IS.
This is a great question and one I will try to research.
kakomu wrote:
This is true that I don't need it. I shoot moving objects in poorly lit indoor areas. The point I'm getting at is that IS adds a lot to the cost of a lens. This increase is what hits people like me (who have fun with photography, but don't have tons of cash) the most (and partly why I just moved to manual focus).
However, it's incorrect to state that adding IS didn't increase the price of consumer lenses. While not directly comparable, the 28-105 was several hundred less than the 28-135. The 75-300 IS was several hundred more than the plain-jane 75-300 and the 70-300 is still 3x the cost of the 75-300. IS definitely increases the cost.
I just hope that future lenses have the same IS or non-IS choice that the 70-200 series affords....Show more →
EF-S 18-55 IS $100, so how much has IS added to the price?
Hrow wrote:
Does anyone remember what the cost of a 300 F2.8 non IS was at the time the new version introduced and what the new lens's price was? I could be wrong but my recollection is that the two were very close in price and that there was not a huge premium that could be attributed to the IS.
According to the camera museum 300 f/2.8L was 470 000 Yen at introduction in 1987, and 300 f/2.8L IS was 690 000 Yen. The 300 IS price dropped considerably after a few years, not sure about the price evolution of the non IS version.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
EF-S 18-55 IS $100, so how much has IS added to the price?
It's $150-$170 new (unless you're going through no-name stores or ebay or you're getting a refurb unit). The non-IS version was never sold in retail, only as part of a kit.
kakomu wrote:
It's $150-$170 new (unless you're going through no-name stores or ebay or you're getting a refurb unit). The non-IS version was never sold in retail, only as part of a kit.
Not true, the 18-55 II (precursor to the IS version but after the original) was sold as not part of a kit, I believe it ran $140.
snowboarder wrote:
Geez, I thought I would choke Perfection? Yeah, right....
WTF is that supposed to mean? I like sharp lenses and "little" things like AUTOFOCUS. You can go walk around the warehouse I just shot and take you Zeiss or whatever and just try to AF in the almost complete darkness.
Sort of sick of the ALT crowd chiming in saying how sharp their glass is when it doesn't do a damn good when it don't freakin' autofocus.
And yes, I own alt glass, CY 35-70 3.4 and a Rokinon (Samyang) 85, plus a few old Mamiya MF lenses. I wouldn't want to try them for where I was shooting today. For a still life, or macro, the CY is an amazing choice. But if you shoot something that, like, MOVES, I stand by my "24LII is pretty much perfection" statement.
Are alt lenses really sharper? People always throw around the Zeiss, Leica, whatever moniker as if its supposed to mean something, but to an ignorant digital age mass market goods consumer such as myself, sorry your words are lost on me
I don't see any alt lenses outperforming the Canon L series. Some are similar, or different, but I can't think of one single Canon L lens that is blown away by an alternative (not even a Nikon)
(thanks for saying that) No, alt glass is not "blown away" sharper than Canon L offerings. It is not like comparing a kit lens to an L lens. The performance is just a little better. As you go out on the price to performance curve, you begin to pay a lot more for a little bit more performance.
My Honda Civic will do about 135 MPH for about 15K USD. (removing the limiter) and you can pay $70K do do 10MPH more.
Same with computers, Intel charges almost double to do 15% more in processing speed.
Same with camera gear. The 24L is expensive enough, but you can pay $500 more for 5% better performance. I call it good at the 24L (well, great, that is) IMO its crazy to spend what I spent, much less *even more* for a lens that doesn't autofocus and really isn't any sharper unless you are on the computer at 200% extreme corner crop or some such madness.
Dawei Ye wrote:
Are alt lenses really sharper? People always throw around the Zeiss, Leica, whatever moniker as if its supposed to mean something, but to an ignorant digital age mass market goods consumer such as myself, sorry your words are lost on me
I don't see any alt lenses outperforming the Canon L series. Some are similar, or different, but I can't think of one single Canon L lens that is blown away by an alternative (not even a Nikon)
Just because of your limited knowledge, it does not mean alternative lenses couldn't outperform your L lenses. Canon does have some nice lenses, but on certain focal lengths, Canon lenses couldn't hold any candles against Zeiss or Leica, or even Nikon.
For example, Canon probably has the best 24mm lense, but at the 20-21mm, the Zeiss 21f2.8 is still the gold standard. You have the 200f2L, which is one of the best. It's only competition is probably the Leica 200f2 APO, but one lense could buy your whole kit so not too many people have it.
kakomu wrote:
This is a great question and one I will try to research.
Canon lists prices at time of introduction at the Canon Museum. The 300 vs. 300 IS were separated by about 12 years, which is too far apart. I looked at the 400 MKII and the 400 IS, which were only about 3 years apart. The IS was 16% more expensive than the II. The impression I had at the time was that IS added around $800 to an L lens. The 70-200 2.8 IS was around $750-800 more expensive than the non-IS version, but at this price point $800 is more like a 40% increase, which is pretty much the difference reflected in the price of each lens on the Canon Museum site.
bluetsunami wrote:
Doesn't it just become a lens with out IS at that point (not effecting any other functions like focusing or being able to zoom in and out?). But even then, I haven't read of any pandemic of IS breakdowns with Canons 70-200mm lenses. True, its another thing that can break but one shouldn't be afraid of it.
There was definitely a problem with early 70-200 2.8 IS lenses. I remember a lot of discussion on the old Rob Galbraith forum about camera lock-ups with that lens, and I experienced it with my 1D at the time. IIRC the advice at the time was to have the IS module replaced. I didn't... About 2-3 years later after the problem seemed to have gone away with the 1DII, the IS module died. It was also necessary to replace the AF motor and cost around $800 Canadian. My impression at the time was that I wasn't alone in this regard, but lately I can't say I've heard/read much about IS failures (though wasn't there a problem with the EFS 17-55?).
Tri Tran wrote:
Just because of your limited knowledge, it does not mean alternative lenses couldn't outperform your L lenses. Canon does have some nice lenses, but on certain focal lengths, Canon lenses couldn't hold any candles against Zeiss or Leica, or even Nikon.
For example, Canon probably has the best 24mm lense, but at the 20-21mm, the Zeiss 21f2.8 is still the gold standard. You have the 200f2L, which is one of the best. It's only competition is probably the Leica 200f2 APO, but one lense could buy your whole kit so not too many people have it.
But why? Is there any proof that Canon lenses are inferior to these other companies?
I was being trollish in my comments, but I think there's just a romantic notion that there's some "Zeiss magic" or "Lieca look" which I think is just BS
Is there any objective tests to show that lenses from these manufacturers do outperform lenses from Canon/Nikon on a systematic basis?
I find it hard to believe that Canon, a multi billion dollar conglomerate with one of the biggest R&D budgets in the world and the very latest in optical technology innovation is unable to match offerings from relatively small companies like Leica or Zeiss on a systematic basis
Dawei Ye wrote:
But why? Is there any proof that Canon lenses are inferior to these other companies?
I was being trollish in my comments, but I think there's just a romantic notion that there's some "Zeiss magic" or "Lieca look" which I think is just BS
Is there any objective tests to show that lenses from these manufacturers do outperform lenses from Canon/Nikon on a systematic basis?
I find it hard to believe that Canon, a multi billion dollar conglomerate with one of the biggest R&D budgets in the world and the very latest in optical technology innovation is unable to match offerings from relatively small companies like Leica or Zeiss on a systematic basis...Show more →
You probably paid about $1400 for Canon profit and marketing department on the 85f1.2L then. Explain how a $240 Rokinon could beat the L wide open You want proofs, just do a search.
And that's a disappointing thing that after 50 years of Optical Innovation and Technology and $Millions if not $billions invested by the world's leading optical companies, a Zeiss 21 f/2.8 developed in 1961 is still claimed to be the sharpest wide angle lens
Tri Tran wrote:
You probably paid about $1400 for Canon profit and marketing department on the 85f1.2L then. Explain how a $240 Rokinon could beat the L wide open You want proofs, just do a search.
My $100 50 f/1.8 II is sharper wide open than both the 85 f/1.2L II and 35mm f/1.4L I have, but what does that prove? They are completely different lenses
it proofs that one of Canon's best lense couldn't beat a cheaper alternative lense at the same focal length.
yes that is kinda sad if your cheapo Nifty fifty could beat both the 85L and 35L.
You should visit the alternative forum more.
But the 85L (and 35) win when at f/1.8. The 50 f/1.8 can't actually go to f/1.2, and neither can the Rokinon.
The 35L and 85L also have USM motors that give a good hit rate with AF, and have good quality builds
At the end of the day, no matter how slightly better or cheaper an alternative lens is, the Pro OEM lens brigade can always default back to the "We have AF" rhetoric
I've been checking out the reviews/comparisons on the 85 f/1.4...to be honest I am unconvinced that it is optically superior to the 85 f/1.2L II. Is it better value if you don't need f/1.2 or AF? Definitely.
But Value is a ratio of utility and price. What's the point of a low price if its utility is also low?
kakomu wrote:
Again, you aren't understanding the point. The cost of IS makes many lenses prohibitive. $500 is almost the cost of a 17-40 or 70-200 f/4. If lenses are being replaced with IS versions which make the price jump up by several hundred dollars, it removes the ability to purchase such lenses from those who aren't independently wealthy or have a vested interest in photographic equipment (the professionals).
And what is the problem with this? Why should everyone be able to afford this stuff? If it's simply a matter of want rather than need, if you can't afford it, you don't buy it. If you need it, you find a way to afford it. $500 is not in the realm of being independently wealthy. Stop buying $3 coffees for 167 days and suddenly one has $500. Sell the car and take public transit instead... There are always solutions, it just depends on your priorities.
I think what we're seeing from Nikon is also how we've seen Canon price recent lenses. New lenses are an opportunity for the manufacturers to reset price points and achieve profit levels similar to what they achieved with past equipment but prior to the rise of the Japanese Yen vs. many major currencies. Since no one knows exactly how currency rates (or the general economy) will move over the next few years, the manufacturers may be erring on the side of caution to preserve as much profit as possible. Over the years I've sat through a number of annual meetings for one of the major camera makers and in 2009 there was a marked shift in priorities away from increasing year over year volume to maximizing profitability. Since lenses are somewhat less price sensitive than cameras, I believe we're seeing the profitability over volume philosophy in play, especially on premium 'pro' level lenses. It's also possible Nikon is following Canon's tendency to introduce lenses high, then allow the street price to settle (drop) after a number of months once initial demand has been met.
