8-15 Fisheye - $1400
70-300L - $1500
300 f/2.8 IS II - $7000
400 f/2.8 IS II - $11000
TCs - $500 / each
500 and 600 coming next year, no date or price on those.
yikes 70-300L $1500! better hope it matches 70-200 f/4 for quality over 70-200 and then adds 200-300 (if it DOES do that, then it might actually be VERY interesting though.... especially if it somehow managed to at least still do f/4.5 at 200mm)
the new TC potentially sound the most interesting to me, say if the 2.0x TC III works as well as the old 1.4x TC with even the old 300 2.8 IS then that would be quite interesting indeed.... but wow $500 even for the 1.4 yikes! They better work WAY better.
wow new super-tele are as bad as the horror show joke predictions I can been spreading around "CANON: This time the nightmare is REAL!"
wow I figured maybe a big jump to $5800 but $7000 yowowowowowowowow
just glad I got my at the 'mere' price of $3600 a few years ago. I'd never ever ever ever be able to justify one of them now
Very impressive MTF for the new 300 and 400. Just keep in mind that these are theoretical, and don't account for diffraction. Even at f/8, diffraction will limit the real MTF when it is so close to 1.0
As much as I value my 300 2.8 IS, it needs to be stopped down when used with 2X teleconverter.
With the upgraded line, it looks like the use of teleconverters will get a revival, with expected excellent performance wide open.
If the 500 gets a weight reduction similar to the 400, it might be the one I will lust for.
RobertLynn wrote:
lol, I wonder how many people are going, where's my 24-70 IS!
I'm one of them! I mean, come on: how many people need an improved 24-70, with stabilization, compared to the number who are going to use an 8-15mm fisheye on any regular basis? Who makes these decisions?
7 Grand for the 300/2.8L IS? OUCH!
I think at this point the claim that Canon is less expensive than Nikon no longer holds water.
wickerprints wrote:
There's some truth to this, even though the EF 100/2.8 macro was not discontinued when the 100/2.8L macro IS was introduced.
Just look at the evidence: almost NONE of the EF non-L lenses have been updated in recent years. The only lenses that have been touched are the L and EF-S designs. They'll probably continue making the non-L lenses for a while, but the L glass is where all their profit comes from...especially considering their pricing on the new stuff
as I said on another thread they have not introduced a non-L, non-DO prime since last millenium! (well one lens that is already cancelled, the macro)
sadly i think we can kiss the 50mm 1.4mm ring-USM non-L good bye
RobertLynn wrote:
I gotta say, I don't think I'm ever going to get to own a 400 f/2.8 ever, ever, ever.
Hey, don't get down on yourself. This is now the fourth generation 400 2.8 Canon has released in the EF mount. That means there are more 400s out there now than ever before. I'm sure you'll be able to find a nice 400 IS or even a Mark II non-IS for very attractive prices in the next couple years. The only hiccup might be that the high price of the Mark II IS might keep resale value for the original IS relatively high...
Weird that the 1.4x III is stunning in the center, resolution still pegged at 1.0 with the new lens and yet the edges fall apart way worse than with the new 2.0! weird!!!!
Are those MTF for the new 300 2.8 actually any better than the old one?
EDIT: yes a tiny bit, doesn't seem much though
the new 400 2.8 has simply insane MTF charts though
wickerprints wrote:
Why did they even make a 70-300/4-5.6L IS? That confuses the hell out of me and I never would have expected such a move. And for $1500? You'd be better off with the 100-400, or a 70-200, or both.
The MTF shows some promise it could match the 70-200 f/4 IS, if so then they may have something. But how can it do that if it only has 2 UD and the f/4 IS has 2 UD plus a fluorite?
omarlyn wrote:
Canon just announced a few days ago their development of a 120mp AP-H sensor. Even if that was just a 'showcase' piece it clearly shows the ultimate direction where everything is headed. Where once I thought that 50mp might be the ultimate advancement in FF sensors (due to lens limitations) it seems that Canon is going to push the bounds of optical designs to allow 100 or even 200mp FF sensors.
The loss of affordable FF lenses is something I lament a great deal as the market for professional photography changes, it becomes harder in many fields to make a (or as much of a) profit. The non-professional photographer will have to dig VERY deep to pursue the 'art of photography'. Here's another possibility that I lament coming true...the 35/2 may be a 'dog' in the corners and have a slow archaic AF system but is VERY sharp in the center & VERY affordable. Use it carefully within it's limitations and it is great on full frame without breaking the bank. Eventually, it'll get updated at three times the price or eliminated all together leaving the 35/1.4 as the only (expensive) choice. Of course, even the 35/1.4 will have to be updated to handle the new 'super sensors'
Your quote about the professional photography market is interesting. I'm trying to be a professional photographer but it is difficult. There seems to have been a lot of price erosion where competition is willing to work for much less, or the market has been devalued by an influx of part time photographers just looking to make some extra money without really considering the real cost/value of their services.
If professional photographers are having a tougher time, and earning less, then fewer will buy the new super tele lenses. In a way, they're being priced out of the market. But maybe that's precisely why they are so expensive. Canon recognizes that they will sell a significant percentage fewer of these (after the initial early adopter demand) and have bumped the prices to justify the lower production volume.
I also work at a newspaper and over the last few years the company has cut back dramatically on spending. It would be an extremely difficult sell to replace a 400 2.8 with a new one. As it stands now, it's like pulling teeth just to replace staple lenses such as 17-35s or 28-70s.
An interesting tidbit (which I also brought up with the 70-200 2.8 IS II). Back in the 1990s these lenses were a significant premium. In 1993 I paid over $9000 (CAD) for the 400 2.8 MkI. Same again in 1997 for the MkII. In that respect, the current pricing isn't all that much out of line, if these are indeed typical Canon prices that drop about 10% within a year (or are included in rebates). It's just that the 2000s were a bit of an anomaly with flat or lowered prices for so long.
Wow - has Canon EVER announced this many lenses at one time - even though two are just future release announcements. Despite the number, the only one I was interested in was a new 24-70L IS or an improved 24-105L. Ideal would have been a 24-105 f2.8L IS
Sheldon N wrote:
I was wondering the same thing about the 70-300 myself. It's likely a revamped and improved version of the existing 70-300 USM IS (which appears to be discontinued now). When they improved it, they decided to make it an "L" lens by putting it in a white barrel. My guess is that it's still going to have an extending front barrel (black color is my prediction) and that it will look somewhat odd in use.
By putting it in a white barrel and calling it an L lens, Canon has made it much more desirable than it otherwise would have been, and is able to charge probably $750 more for the L label alone. ...Show more →
When I defended the 'crazy' CR report that said the EF prime line was dead (that even the CR guy said was absurd) I think I understated it! It looks like the EF zoom line too!! Looks like it will be EF-S and L. Aside from a very few low end EF hangers on for primes and a few lowest end EF zooms.
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...
But $1500 vs. $500, in this economy, man.... not so sure.
Re the end of the EF line of lenses (meaning: non-L):
It's possible Canon is leaving this aspect of the market for third party manufacturers. There's already Sigma, Tamron and Tokina for AF options. If one is looking for premium primes, then Zeiss addresses this very nicely with the ZE line, and to some degree Cosina. And don't forget about Samyang.
To a certain extent Canon's pricing trend has got me thinking beyond Canon towards other options. If a Canon prime lens is going to cost at minimum around $1000, then I might as well also look at Zeiss. Or maybe even another system altogether, such as an M9 with a few ZM lenses. It would be similar in cost to a 1D body with a couple lenses. Sure, different functionalities, but where I'm at now I'm not sure I want or need all the Canon bells and whistles.
rscheffler wrote:
Your quote about the professional photography market is interesting. I'm trying to be a professional photographer but it is difficult. There seems to have been a lot of price erosion where competition is willing to work for much less, or the market has been devalued by an influx of part time photographers just looking to make some extra money without really considering the real cost/value of their services.
If professional photographers are having a tougher time, and earning less, then fewer will buy the new super tele lenses. In a way, they're being priced out of the market. But maybe that's precisely why they are so expensive. Canon recognizes that they will sell a significant percentage fewer of these (after the initial early adopter demand) and have bumped the prices to justify the lower production volume.
I also work at a newspaper and over the last few years the company has cut back dramatically on spending. It would be an extremely difficult sell to replace a 400 2.8 with a new one. As it stands now, it's like pulling teeth just to replace staple lenses such as 17-35s or 28-70s.
An interesting tidbit (which I also brought up with the 70-200 2.8 IS II). Back in the 1990s these lenses were a significant premium. In 1993 I paid over $9000 (CAD) for the 400 2.8 MkI. Same again in 1997 for the MkII. In that respect, the current pricing isn't all that much out of line, if these are indeed typical Canon prices that drop about 10% within a year (or are included in rebates). It's just that the 2000s were a bit of an anomaly with flat or lowered prices for so long.
Ron ...Show more →
I paid $3200 at CPS prices for the 70-200 f2.8L IS lens (2001/2002?? time frame). so the new replacement at $2400 didn't seem as bad. But then in Canada we tended to get a lot more screwed over on pricing then we currently do. We still are getting screwed - just not as hard anymore
I totally agree on the price erosion. There are now wedding photographers willing to do photo AND video under $1000, whereas, I wouldn't even consider doing photos only at that price - not worth my time. I recently was at a wedding of an acquaintence, who had asked me to shoot the wedding, but I politely declined, without even discussing price. They ended up getting someone to shoot the wedding for $300 (a six hour east indian wedding), where the photographer simply provided the photos on DVD only!!!
khurram1 wrote:
Wow - has Canon EVER announced this many lenses at one time - even though two are just future release announcements. Despite the number, the only one I was interested in was a new 24-70L IS or an improved 24-105L. Ideal would have been a 24-105 f2.8L IS
From what I understand, Canon will announce over 80 products this year, with a pretty even split for each half. I haven't been keeping count, but there could still be more to come. Of course, by product that would also include P&S camera, printers, etc...
Back in 1999 I believe all four super tele lenses were announced at the same time, though just like now, two were released a couple months before the other two.
rscheffler wrote:
Back in 1999 I believe all four super tele lenses were announced at the same time, though just like now, two were released a couple months before the other two.
This is because all four lenses are optically very similar. They have the same arrangement of elements; only the curvatures and air spacings are different. So when that formula gets changed, they all can be changed.
The exceptions are the 200/2L IS and the 800/5.6L IS, which are slightly different (but still quite similar).
This is why I am very eager to see the block diagram for the Mark IIs. I wonder what kind of changes they made to enable such weight savings on the 400/2.8L IS II.
"CANON: This time the nightmare is REAL!"
? OUCH!
