New 70-200 f/4 IS (what a joke)

[wiselion]

What rocket scientist at Canon development came up with this giant marketing scheme???? And for more than twice the price.... Man, I thought they would have done an upgrade on the 100-400 or 400 5.6. What a joke. I think I'm switching to a Nikon D200 and a 200-400VR.



JUST KIDDING
(about the Nikon comment):D

[LightRules]

Yeh, that almost $1300 price tag is steep...very steep. $300 more and you've got the f2.8 IS.

[ed rader]

Yeh, that almost $1300 price tag is steep...very steep. $300 more and you've got the f2.8 IS.

you also have a lens that has the last generation IS and weighs twice as much.

the new 70-200f4 IS is the same size as the 70-200f4 and only weighs a couple of ounces more....and has 3-4 stop IS!

maybe i'll get that new sigma 50-150 instead :D .................

ed rader

[ACDCROCKS]

The Nikon 200-400MM VR looks good actually. So does the Nikon 200mm 2.0 I think it is. A good thing I still have Nikon ;)... I cant get onto B&H's website, anyone else expeirencing this?

[coreypolis]

gotta pay to play. I got my used 2.8 IS for 1400, so either the new lens won't sell, the price will have to come down, or the 2.8 will go up in value :)

[foty89]

What rocket scientist at Canon development came up with this giant marketing scheme???? And for more than twice the price.... Man, I thought they would have done an upgrade on the 100-400 or 400 5.6. What a joke. I think I'm switching to a Nikon D200 and a 200-400VR.



JUST KIDDING
(about the Nikon comment):D

The point of your post eludes me.

[Lord_Malone]

Don't give a rat's @ss about the new 70-200. We had three good ones to choose from to begin with. Four if you count the discontinued Magic Drainpipe. If it ain't broke don't fix it. I agree in that Canon should've introduced a new zoom in the 200-400 IS range.

[Tee Why]

I think if you are willing to buy a $570 lens for $1200 just b/c it has an IS, Canon should throw in one of the remaining Rebel XT for free or something.

Something tells me that since the 70-200 f4L has the same price as the venerable old 70-200 f2.8L non IS, that this lens will become discountinued soon.

I personally think that Canon is trying to gouge folks with these really expensive lenses. The new 50mm f1.2 is suppose to go for $1600??? Jeeze is it really 4 times better than a 50mm f1.4?

Good thing there are alternatives from Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina that provide optically equivalent alternatives for a more realistic price.

[foty89]

It's called MSRP, and only the people who can't control themselves actually pay it. Just like cars, there are always sales and the sticker price is just that, a sticker.

[Lord_Malone]

It's called MSRP, and only the people who can't control themselves actually pay it. Just like cars, there are always sales and the sticker price is just that, a sticker.

True. There will always be an MSRP or List Price and people expect retailers to mark the price down significantly. But everyone thought that the 85L was just a "suggested" price at its introduction, and guess how much it actually sells for. ;)

[grego]

gotta pay to play. I got my used 2.8 IS for 1400, so either the new lens won't sell, the price will have to come down, or the 2.8 will go up in value :)

Although people were willing to pay for the 24-105 4IS. :) I guess the extra focal length gives more motivation.

[ron chappel]

Hellooooo -Link please??!!:evil: :evil:


The price -if any of it is true - is not the least bit surprising .For years everyone has wanted canon to make an IS version.
It's only a rare few who have realised the truth ,that the price would *inevitably* be very high.Why?
Because canon ALWAYS charge an arm and a leg for added IS:( :( :( :(

[Permagrin]

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060824/20060823005780.html?.v=1

Here's the link

[ed rader]

True. There will always be an MSRP or List Price and people expect retailers to mark the price down significantly. But everyone thought that the 85L was just a "suggested" price at its introduction, and guess how much it actually sells for. ;)

i'll bet there isn't a lot of demand for the 85 like there will be for the new 70-200.

the price of the new 50 boggles my mind and the lens holds no interest for me at all.....and i'll bet the 50 sells closer to MSRP than the zoom once the dust settles :D .

ed rader

[ACDCROCKS]

I think if you are willing to buy a $570 lens for $1200 just b/c it has an IS, Canon should throw in one of the remaining Rebel XT for free or something.

Something tells me that since the 70-200 f4L has the same price as the venerable old 70-200 f2.8L non IS, that this lens will become discountinued soon.

I personally think that Canon is trying to gouge folks with these really expensive lenses. The new 50mm f1.2 is suppose to go for $1600??? Jeeze is it really 4 times better than a 50mm f1.4?

Good thing there are alternatives from Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina that provide optically equivalent alternatives for a more realistic price.
I agree, I personally wouln't see that much of a difference in light. It's cheaper to lower the shutter speed ;)

[Lord_Malone]

i'll bet there isn't a lot of demand for the 85 like there will be for the new 70-200.

the price of the new 50 boggles my mind and the lens holds no interest for me at all.....and i'll bet the 50 sells closer to MSRP than the zoom once the dust settles :D .

ed rader

Oh no question. The 50L is going to be one of those lenses most buy for bragging rights no doubt. And the fact that it's currently Canon's fastest 50 in production will keep the price at a premium. It will hold its value much like its older FD mount cousin and EF f1.0 brother in the long run. Some people might see this as a waste of money when the 50 1.4 or 1.8 will suffice for 95% of most shooting situations at that focal range, but given its unbelievable shallow DOF capability, many fine art photographers and PJs needing a durable 50L in the field will treasure this lens and would be more than willing to pay MSRP.

[peterdoomen]

I also don't understand the point of this 70-200 f/4IS. I've upgraded from the f/4 to f/2.8IS and I don't think the weight of the last one is prohibitive. Nothing beats speed.

P.

[Tee Why]

Oh BTW, the 70-200 f4L IS still does not come with a tripod collar.
Geeze, pay $1250 for a "Pro" grade lens and no tripod collar?
I just don't get it. More and more, the Sig 70-200 f2.8 and the 50-150 f2.8 sounds better.
Good thing I already have a 70-200 f2.8L. Canon just seem to be making more and more expensive lenses. Their bodies drop by a $100 or so dollars with every improved body, while just about every lens that they introduce cost over a grand. The only one in recent memory that was under a grand was the 70-300 IS and they aren't available currently b/c of the defect that they are trying to correct.

[AdamJL]

Canon have to start introducing IS to their long zomm lenses, because other manufacturers are building their bodies with IS inbuilt. Canon can't compete with that yet, without p*ssing off a lot of people who have invested heavily into Canon's current setup.
I made a thread predicting IS on this lens a few months ago. It was always going to happen.

[grego]

Oh BTW, the 70-200 f4L IS still does not come with a tripod collar.
Geeze, pay $1250 for a "Pro" grade lens and no tripod collar?
I just don't get it. More and more, the Sig 70-200 f2.8 and the 50-150 f2.8 sounds better.
Good thing I already have a 70-200 f2.8L. Canon just seem to be making more and more expensive lenses. Their bodies drop by a $100 or so dollars with every improved body, while just about every lens that they introduce cost over a grand. The only one in recent memory that was under a grand was the 70-300 IS and they aren't available currently b/c of the defect that they are trying to correct.

You could also have the 70-200 2.8L for the same price. And for a couple hundred more the 2.8IS.

Canon have to start introducing IS to their long zomm lenses, because other manufacturers are building their bodies with IS inbuilt. Canon can't compete with that yet, without p*ssing off a lot of people who have invested heavily into Canon's current setup.
I made a thread predicting IS on this lens a few months ago. It was always going to happen.

Which zooms? 70-200 has an IS already in it. Their 100-400 has an IS in it. They have a new 70-300 IS(although not an L lens). And then their primes have IS in it(at least most of the newer models).

The 3rd party are missing an IS system though like the Sigma 120-300 2.8 or 100-300 4. Much better 300mm zooms by the 3rd party.

[AdamJL]

Which zooms? 70-200 has an IS already in it. Their 100-400 has an IS in it. They have a new 70-300 IS(although not an L lens). And then their primes have IS in it(at least most of the newer models).

The 3rd party are missing an IS system though like the Sigma 120-300 2.8 or 100-300 4. Much better 300mm zooms by the 3rd party.

ALL of them. A few selected IS lenses across the range, can't compete with every single lens having IS as Sony, and Pentax will offer through IS-enabled bodies.

[grego]

ALL of them. A few selected IS lenses across the range, can't compete with every single lens having IS as Sony, and Pentax will offer through IS-enabled bodies.

Then you kick up the price of other lens.

What lens do you want IS in that you need? Its very useful for long lens, but its not as useful for shorter lens(of course there are exceptions from time to time).

Why not move to Sony or Pentax?

[Lightstream]

Ah, I see I am not the only one who isn't fascinated by the latest offering :)

... which is surprising considering that I love good gear (gear fetishist? ;)) and make no secret of it. But the gear does need to fit into my lineup and serve some purpose!

[AdamJL]

Then you kick up the price of other lens.

Then that's what will happen.

What lens do you want IS in that you need? Its very useful for long lens, but its not as useful for shorter lens(of course there are exceptions from time to time).

All of the long zooms.. and even shorter focal lengths can benefit from it in low-light.

Why not move to Sony or Pentax?

Because I trust the Canon brand, and I would like to own an L eventually.
That's my choice. Now Canon need to play catch-up, and they are doing so by releasing this lens.

[In2Photos]

All of the long zooms.. and even shorter focal lengths can benefit from it in low-light.


Again, what zooms. Right now the majority of the longer zooms have IS. 70-200, 70-300, 28-300, 100-400, and even the 24-105, 17-85, and 17-55? What other long zooms do you see needing IS?

[cyrn]

Canon have to start introducing IS to their long zomm lenses, because other manufacturers are building their bodies with IS inbuilt. Canon can't compete with that yet, without p*ssing off a lot of people who have invested heavily into Canon's current setup.
I made a thread predicting IS on this lens a few months ago. It was always going to happen.

If that's Canon's intent. Then why are they having such sky-high pricings.

[grego]

Again, what zooms. Right now the majority of the longer zooms have IS. 70-200, 70-300, 28-300, 100-400, and even the 24-105, 17-85, and 17-55? What other long zooms do you see needing IS?

Didn't you read? He said all zooms. :rolleyes: ;)

[mbellot]

Oh BTW, the 70-200 f4L IS still does not come with a tripod collar.
Geeze, pay $1250 for a "Pro" grade lens and no tripod collar?

That was my first reaction too.

Next they will start making the "L" hoods optional and charging $100 for those as well.

For less than $400 more (much less if you go used or refurb) you can pick up a 70-200/2.8 IS, have an extra REAL stop of light gathering and IS thats good for 2-3 stops. Oh, and you get a tripod collar too. :lol:

[In2Photos]

Didn't you read? He said all zooms. :rolleyes: ;)

Guess I missed that part!:D

[AdamJL]

Again, what zooms. Right now the majority of the longer zooms have IS. 70-200, 70-300, 28-300, 100-400, and even the 24-105, 17-85, and 17-55? What other long zooms do you see needing IS?

Okay, slight misinterpretation here.
Yes, Canon's zomms have IS. I made a thread a few months ago here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=185420
And my argument then was the same. The 70-200 f/4 was always in my opinion going to be upgraded to IS... and people argued stating it would "cut into the 2.8's market share"... I think Canon would know best, but that's another issue.

By stating that "ALL" canon zooms need IS, I'm not at all implying that a lot do not. What I'm saying that for Canon to stay ABOVE their peers in the lens market, they need to ensure that all their zoom lenses (and long primes) need IS, and they are doing just that by adding IS to the 70-200 f/4. Arguing that the f/4 doesn't need IS (because of price, or whatever reason) is mis-guided. Canon are a business at the end of the day, and they have to ensure that they stay ahead of the game because their shareholders would demand no less.

Hope that clarifies my position a bit better :D

[In2Photos]

Again I am still confused as to what lenses you think need IS. Forst you say long zooms, second you say long zooms, then you say the 70-200 f/4, then you say that all their zoom lenses and long primes need IS.

Canon will never put IS on all lenses, think about it, IS on the kit lens???

The shorter zooms have IS if you spend the money but again does the kit lens need IS?

Long Primes- The 400 f/5.6 is the ONLY long tele to not have IS and most agree that it needs it. Otherwise only the mid-teles are missing IS and probably won't get it.

[AdamJL]

Again I am still confused as to what lenses you think need IS. Forst you say long zooms, second you say long zooms, then you say the 70-200 f/4, then you say that all their zoom lenses and long primes need IS.

? I think I'm pretty clear in that regard. All long zooms, and all long primes. But there's scope to add it to all zooms and primes (inclusive of shorts). Why not?

Canon will never put IS on all lenses, think about it, IS on the kit lens???

The shorter zooms have IS if you spend the money but again does the kit lens need IS?

Why not? Sony and Pentax have it as default because of their IS bodies. If you're new to SLRs, I bet you that IS on a Sony (very reputable brand) would be impressive, and possibly enough to tempt you away from Canon who offer a kit lens without IS.

[In2Photos]

? I think I'm pretty clear in that regard. All long zooms, and all long primes. But there's scope to add it to all zooms and primes (inclusive of shorts). Why not?



Why not? Sony and Pentax have it as default because of their IS bodies. If you're new to SLRs, I bet you that IS on a Sony (very reputable brand) would be impressive, and possibly enough to tempt you away from Canon who offer a kit lens without IS.

While I don't disagree that IS in the body would be a bad thing I think you are wrong about the lenses that have IS. Most of the ones that need it, have it. Adding IS to the body woulg give you IS on every lens, but adding IS to an $80 lens is just stupid. That lens would easily become a couple of hundred bucks and no longer weigh 1/4 pound ( 50 1.8 ).

[grego]

I think the coolest test would be to test in camera IS versus lens IS. That would probably be neat.

IS pretty much covers every important lens, I'd say.

[Incredirebelz]

I'd like to see IS become standard like AF is on all lenses. Not that you need it all the time but it helps.

IS doesnt have to be couple hundred bucks altho Canon would like to have everyone believe so. (28-135IS?)... It doesnt have to make a lens huge either, as evident from the size increase in the new F4L IS. The truth really, is whether there is competition out there to get canon to equip all lenses with IS and sell them cheap(er) than our expectations. I guess we'd have to rely on the Sigma/sony/Nikon R&D in that regard.

[wiselion]

The point of your post eludes me.

Well then read it again s-l-o-w-l-y smart guy. If you still can't figure it out, read it a third or fourth time. However long it does take you, don't leave a comment like you did before to make me look like an as*hole. This is a great forum, and it is not cool to make negative comments, especially someone with 85 posts. If you don't like what I wrote, then you should have not commented at all. If you are still having trouble comprehending, it means don't pi** me off.

[wiselion]

I also don't understand the point of this 70-200 f/4IS. I've upgraded from the f/4 to f/2.8IS and I don't think the weight of the last one is prohibitive. Nothing beats speed.

P.

Well said................

[SoaringUSAEagle]

Yeah I would rather throw in just a couple hundred more and get the 2.8 IS... there is a point where a few hundred more really isnt a big deal.

[AdamJL]

Yeah I would rather throw in just a couple hundred more and get the 2.8 IS... there is a point where a few hundred more really isnt a big deal.

which totally depends on your disposable income. Not everyone can afford the difference, even if it's "only" a few hundred bucks.

[In2Photos]

which totally depends on your disposable income. Not everyone can afford the difference, even if it's "only" a few hundred bucks.

Yeah the "only" a few hundred bucks always gets me. Lets look at it another way.

The MSRP is $1250 and the 2.8 version retails for around $1600. So the 2.8 version is $350 more than the f/4 version. With that $350 I could get another lens. That $350 is 28% of the price of the f/4 version. Now, what happens if it retails for less than $1250?

[rklepper]

i am sure it is just as much a bargain as the 24-105 f/4, so what is the issue. I am sure there will be a market for it.

[rklepper]

Just looking at what has happened to the cost of the 30D since I bought mine. The price will probably stabilize somewhere around $1,000. This will also give them time to identify and respond to whatever QC issues exist on this new lens.


Yeah the "only" a few hundred bucks always gets me. Lets look at it another way.

The MSRP is $1250 and the 2.8 version retails for around $1600. So the 2.8 version is $350 more than the f/4 version. With that $350 I could get another lens. That $350 is 28% of the price of the f/4 version. Now, what happens if it retails for less than $1250?