wickerprints wrote:
Where did you read that the 400/2.8L IS II has two fluorite elements? The Canon USA website indicates only one, if I am to understand the symbol correctly.
rscheffler wrote:
On the specifications page. On the 'overview' page it only shows one and no UD.
Lens Construction: 16 elements in 12 groups (Including drop-in rear filter, Fluorite: G2 and G4, UD Lens: None)
Interesting...well, that more or less explains the price increase for both lenses, since now they each have two. Two large-diameter fluorite elements is not going to come cheap. Indeed, I'm going to guess that they took the formula from the 800/5.6L IS and used it in these Mark II lenses, and that this change was a long time in coming. This is complete speculation but I wonder if they have improved their fluorite yields since they first designed the previous generation, and as a result, are now able to put twice as many such elements in there.
Frankly, the prices for new professional lenses on both the Canon and Nikon side are becoming so expensive that only working professionals and amateurs with deep pockets can afford to play at this game, at least at the highest level. The solution I turned to when I began building a Nikon kit to parallel the shrinking Canon kit I still own, has been to purchase old manual focus lenses designed by Nikon thirty years ago. This evening I took great pleasure in shooting with a mint copy of a 50 f/1.2 AI-s that can still be purchased retail for $699. I bought mine used on this board for considerably less. It is an absolutely gorgeous lens that takes photos as fine as any I've every captured with an L lens. Yes, it is manual focus, but guess what, I know how to do that...
I guess the moral of the story is that where there is a will to take good photos, a way can be found to continue enjoying the process without needing to bankrupt oneself to own the latest and greatest. For those of you who CAN afford to pay these prices, have fun. I'll be on E-Bay looking for my next manual focus lens to add to the collection below...
wickerprints wrote:
Interesting...well, that more or less explains the price increase for both lenses, since now they each have two. Two large-diameter fluorite elements is not going to come cheap. Indeed, I'm going to guess that they took the formula from the 800/5.6L IS and used it in these Mark II lenses, and that this change was a long time in coming. This is complete speculation but I wonder if they have improved their fluorite yields since they first designed the previous generation, and as a result, are now able to put twice as many such elements in there.
Or due to the higher pricing they're planning to sell fewer units, therefore overall production may not be that much different. Or, they've added more capacity and therefore are charging more for it. All just guesses...
CGrindahl wrote:
Frankly, the prices for new professional lenses on both the Canon and Nikon side are becoming so expensive that only working professionals and amateurs with deep pockets can afford to play at this game, at least at the highest level. The solution I turned to when I began building a Nikon kit to parallel the shrinking Canon kit I still own, has been to purchase old manual focus lenses designed by Nikon thirty years ago. This evening I took great pleasure in shooting with a mint copy of a 50 f/1.2 AI-s that can still be purchased retail for $699. I bought mine used on this board for considerably less. It is an absolutely gorgeous lens that takes photos as fine as any I've every captured with an L lens. Yes, it is manual focus, but guess what, I know how to do that...
I guess the moral of the story is that where there is a will to take good photos, a way can be found to continue enjoying the process without needing to bankrupt oneself to own the latest and greatest. For those of you who CAN afford to pay these prices, have fun. I'll be on E-Bay looking for my next manual focus lens to add to the collection below......Show more →
That's all well and good for you, but what does your 50/1.2 have to do with a 300mm or 400mm f/2.8 supertelephoto lens? They've NEVER been cheap, manual focus or not. Indexed to inflation, lenses may actually be more affordable today than they were decades ago, especially for what you get.
I may not like the exorbitant prices of these new designs, but it's not like I start posting snobbish replies like yours where you give off this aura of being superior just because you don't desire the latest and greatest.
M Vers wrote:
I never was one to trust MTFs
I look at MTFs as a quantitative way on expressing design expectations from the lens. It is up to Canon to have its production tolerance be within that expectation.
Gotta make more money.
Aug 26, 2010 at 03:14 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
rscheffler wrote:
Or due to the higher pricing they're planning to sell fewer units, therefore overall production may not be that much different. Or, they've added more capacity and therefore are charging more for it. All just guesses...
Canon's MSRP will stay for about 6-12 months after initial shipment started then match Nikon prices as it gets closer to the 2012 Olympics.
Now where are those 35L, 135L, 180L Macro updates? Those three lenses should be upgraded by now!
CGrindahl wrote:
Frankly, the prices for new professional lenses on both the Canon and Nikon side are becoming so expensive that only working professionals and amateurs with deep pockets can afford to play at this game, at least at the highest level.
Maybe both companies have joined to devise a secret plan to price pro level equipment out of reach for the majority, thus assuring that at least some pros will still have a technical edge over the unwashed masses currently overrunning the profession.
Or they intentionally let their prices slide in the 2000s to get everyone hooked and now that many are fully invested, they're jacking up the prices knowing it will be prohibitively costly for many to switch systems. And for those that do, the winning brand benefits from selling entire systems at premium prices.
The reality though is that they couldn't care so long as they hit whatever sales projections they've set... by shooting high, they can always lower prices later and in the meantime gain from those willing to pay the premium.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
I was talking about "how many fluorite & UD glass" it had.
yes keep on dreaming if you think a super-tele with
a 2x will be better than another without extender.
Lars, my point was wait for the lens to actually come out. According to Canon the 2xIII is supposed to be a large improvement over the 2xII and the 400/2.8 II also appears to be improved. The difference may not be as large as you think--You never know
dolina wrote:
Canon's MSRP will stay for about 6-12 months after initial shipment started then match Nikon prices as it gets closer to the 2012 Olympics.
Now where are those 35L, 135L, 180L Macro updates? Those three lenses should be upgraded by now!
I agree.
Personally I'd like to see a 300 f/4L IS DO... or a non-DO with a 20-30% weight reduction like the 400 2.8 IS II. Maybe I got a bad copy, but I'm not all that impressed with the 16-35 II....
M Vers wrote:
Lars, my point was wait for the lens to actually come out. According to Canon the 2xIII is supposed to be a large improvement over the 2xII and the 400/2.8 II also appears to be improved. The difference may not be as large as you think--You never know
Like I wrote before. Only you talked about image quality. I was refering to how many Fluorite & UD glass the lens had. We don't have to wait until the lens come out to talk about that
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Like I wrote before. Only you talked about image quality. I was refering to how many Fluorite & UD glass the lens had. We don't have to wait until the lens come out to talk about that
I understand, but as you said after you clarified "yes keep on dreaming if you think a super-tele with a 2x will be better than another without extender. "--that is where the response came from.
Aug 26, 2010 at 03:23 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
)
