kakomu wrote:
The thing that concerns me is that by stocking Canon's lens lineup with mostly expensive L lenses and only a few consumer lenses, Canon-branded photography is increasingly becoming further and further removed for amateurs like myself.
Is Nikon all that much different compared to where Canon seems to be heading?
Sure, they updated the 85 1.4, and the 50 1.4 a little while back... but look at the prices. The 16-35 f/4 is at least double the Canon 17-40L. Their new 70-200 2.8 is within a couple hundred of the new Canon... If you want a basic Nikon 2.8 zoom set, you're looking at over $5000.
Regarding the super teles... it's been 11 years, they have to update them eventually and it just happens to be now, which is apt because it's following relatively closely on Nikon's upgrade of the same lenses.
michael49 wrote:
A FF fisheye zoom and a L version of the 70-300 IS? Am I the only one who's saying what the Hell?
Why not an updated UWA reticular like the Nikon 14-24? - now that's a lens that I could get excited about. Or the lens that would sell like crazy - the 24-70 f/2.8 IS? Or how about a decent 50 1.4 with true USM? This is definitely a strange release offering IMO.
While I agree, being a 16-35 II owner with mixed feelings about its performance, it's simply too soon. The lens was revised in 2007 and the 14 II was also released at around that time. I'm sure Canon has a '5 year plan' and they want to stick to it, even if it concedes some performance to a competitor.
My guess is the 24-70 will come with the 1DsIV so that it can be showcased as being especially redesigned to the demands of a ~30ish MP FF sensor.
I was shocked to see the UK prices of the new lenses today - equipment prices are extortionate enough here as it is.
The new 300F2.8L IS II is available to pre-order for £7499.99. At the tourist exchange rate of $1.5 to the £ this equates to a cost of $11250 approx. In other words $4250 more expensive than the US price. I know UK VAT is high, and it goes up to 20% in January, but does that really make the lens over a 1/3 more expensive in the UK than the US.
The new 400F2.8L IS II could be bought in the US for around the price of the new 300F2.8L IS II in the UK.
I was interested in the 8-15F4L Fisheye - till I saw it is nearly £1500.
michael49 wrote:
A FF fisheye zoom and a L version of the 70-300 IS? Am I the only one who's saying what the Hell?
Why not an updated UWA reticular like the Nikon 14-24? - now that's a lens that I could get excited about. Or the lens that would sell like crazy - the 24-70 f/2.8 IS? Or how about a decent 50 1.4 with true USM? This is definitely a strange release offering IMO.
A 15 FE replacement makes sense, given the lenses age and the competition, but I don't know where the heck the 70-300 L came from. Perhaps Canon figured they were loosing too many 70-200/4 sales to the 70-300 IS and so they designed an L to insure it wouldn't continue to happen? I agree about an updated UWA zoom--this is a must IMO. With the recent releases I think Canon is beginning to show their cards--I honestly don't think the EF (non-L) line has a future. If we do see a 50/1.4 USM it wouldn't surprise me at all to see it in either EF-S or L form. As for the 24-70, I still have hope for an IS version or at the very least an MKII to role around.
M Vers wrote:
[snip] Canon is beginning to show their cards--I honestly don't think the EF (non-L) line has a future. If we do see a 50/1.4 USM it wouldn't surprise me at all to see it in either EF-S or L form. As for the 24-70, I still have hope for an IS version or at the very least an MKII to role around.
Agree. I think its safe to say that as Canon sees it its, EF-S for consumers and EF L for those who can afford it.
ScooberJake wrote:
... While I realize that the super-teles are important to a lot of wildlife and sports folks, there is nothing here for portrait, wedding, and landscape photogs....
I sort of disagree here. Last year Canon updated/add to their wide angle lineup with lenses like the 24/1.4LII, TS-E 17L & 24LII. I think these lenses are valuable to landscape photographers.
Now they're updating their superteles for the sports and wildlife shooters. Maybe next year it's gonna be the standard and medium teles that portrait/wedding photographers use.
That said, the 85/1.2LII is only four years old and the 50/1.2L is 3 years old so I'm not sure what else could be updated. Maybe the 135L.
If you're talking about the more affordable non-L EF lenses, it's probably better not to hold your breath although it could be a very nice surprise if some of them are updated.
n0b0 wrote:
...That said, the 85/1.2LII is only four years old and the 50/1.2L is 3 years old so I'm not sure what else could be updated. Maybe the 135L.
The 24-70, 35/1.4 and the 135/2 are in line for an update, IMO. The 85L and the 50/1.2 and 50/1.4 could all use one as well, even though two of them are relatively new. We'll see what happens
timpdx wrote:
Door is wide open for Tokina, Tamron and Sigma. I would love to see some modern primes like the Sigma 30 (but for FF) and QUALITY CONTROL. Anyways. Nothing here for me. Still waiting on for the Tokina 16-28 2.8 to start shipping for Canon.
That's what I think too (as suggested by my reference to the new Tamron 70-300 above). However, it is Sigma that is poised to clean up in my opinion. They already have a pretty complete EF compatible lineup, including their recent Sigma 50 and 85 primes and the new 70-200 OS. While the 50 has issues, the consensus seems to be that a good copy outperforms the Canon. Sigma also has fantastic macro primes, a pretty new/good 24-70, and excellent 100-300, and some wide-primes (though these are reportedly not very good) that don't have exact Canon competitors. If Canon phases out their regular EF lineup, Sigma will clean up on more value oriented customers who were previously very happy with Canon's EF non-L offerings. Canon could really be dropping the ball here...
Jim Levitt wrote:
I think at this point the claim that Canon is less expensive than Nikon no longer holds water.
Yes, this is a game changer. The reason a lot of us have put up with Canon's at times shoddy bodies of late is because of prime lens selection and lens price. Nikon is starting to come up to bat on the lens side and the prices of Canon recently have gone through the roof, it makes a switch to Nikon a little easier to stomach.
I dont get the 70-300, it looks like they took the existing model and slapped on some white paint and maybe some lens coatings and called it an L, then jacked the price 2.5x, WTF is that?
Also, 1500 for a fisheye? and why the decision to do circular, that is silly.
dwweiche wrote:
My guesses, and only Canon knows for sure, is that the current non-L 70-300 IS lens is one of their top sellers. Now, they create a "premium" version they can charge more for and people will go for it. Almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because they charge more, it must be better, a-la a BMW...
It's one of the better sellers BECAUSE of it's price and quality. It's NOT L quality, but it's close enough, and it is the cheapest thing you can get to a long zoom. Them jacking the price 2.5x is not going to gain them any sales, quite the contrary... is Canon asleep at the wheel or has marketing totally taken over.
Yes, yes. All of you should switch to Nikon and flood the market with cheap, used Canon gear! I love that idea (as soon as my stuff sells of course...)
troy12n wrote:
I dont get the 70-300, it looks like they took the existing model and slapped on some white paint and maybe some lens coatings and called it an L, then jacked the price 2.5x, WTF is that?
We have yet to see how the lens actually performs--until then judging it based on very little information is useless. We already know it no longer has an extending barrel, it is fully weather sealed and it has the latest IS implemented. If the AF is as fast as, say, the 70-200 series and the IQ holds up to the posted MTFs I think the lens would be a very nice addition to the lineup--even though I personally would have no use for it.
troy12n wrote:
Yes, this is a game changer. The reason a lot of us have put up with Canon's at times shoddy bodies of late is because of prime lens selection and lens price. Nikon is starting to come up to bat on the lens side and the prices of Canon recently have gone through the roof, it makes a switch to Nikon a little easier to stomach.
I dont get the 70-300, it looks like they took the existing model and slapped on some white paint and maybe some lens coatings and called it an L, then jacked the price 2.5x, WTF is that?
Also, 1500 for a fisheye? and why the decision to do circular, that is silly....Show more →
I think you guys are completely missing the point. The release of these new lenses does absolutely nothing to the thousands upon thousands of current superb telephotos with IS already out there. If anything, these lenses will get cheaper on the used market as those with the budgets upgrade.
Canon will always have these lenses (great supertelephotos with IS) available on the used market at great prices available to those who cannot afford the newest. However if you insist on buying new, then yea, you're going to have to pay for it.
thedigitalbean wrote:
And without having even seen any of these lenses, cue the bitching and moaning and prognostications of Canon's demise in... 3... 2... 1...
I agree with Aravind. While the new prices come with a huge dose of sticker shock its important to keep in mind how many super tele's are still available. Up until now I would have never considered a used lens, but this has been a deciding push for me, unless of course I win the lotto.
But after I got my 500 I's lens foot replacement today I changed my mind.
