OFFICIAL: 24-70L II, 24 2.8 IS, 28 2.8 IS

Thats a flippin joke! Canon is out of control claiming $2300 or so for this lens! Wtf?

I'm with everyone else. Quite a disappointing release. With all the discounts, I was worried they were going to release some new stuff that was going to make me mad that I just bought a 35L and 135L. They've managed to make me very happy with my choices. I was looking for a 35 f/1.8, a new 50 f/1.4, and maybe something a little more reasonable for the 24-70. That price is just outrageous. Now I know if/when they do release new 35L and 135L II's, they will be close to double the prices and I'll happily keep my version 1's! And I'm a little bummed I didn't grab a 24-70 for $1099 that day Amazon had them on sale!!

This makes the new D800 & D800E that much more appetizing.

It really seems that Canon wants all its users to switch to Nikon - and they are pushing really hard

So...who here with $2,300 has considered that for the price of the new 24-70 II, you could buy a 24-70 v1, AND a 35L...easily in mint condition used, and I believe there are some on here that picked up that combo new over the holidays with the sales for around $2,300.

I shall try to take a step back, be patient, and hopefully see the big picture of what Canon's plan is for future lens/body releases. New Canon lenses as of late have been really good updates, their problem has been prices and which lenses they've chosen to update, or more specifically, NOT update....

In the meantime, I hope the 3rd party guys keep their QC in order for new releases and give Canon something to think about....

ah. gearheads. Just go out and take pictures. :/

It sucks when you're looking to upgrade, but don't want to spend the $2k on a body that will soon be outdated + new lens' cost more than a 5d2 body right now, wtf? Craaaazy!

Canon need to put the pipe down and throw away whatever the hell they are smoking, $2300 for a 24-70 zoom with no IS?!? yea like they gonna sell like hot cake and fly off the shelves. This damn thing better wash my car every weekend.

So why do we need IS for wide angle prime?
And it's pricing WAY above what it should worth.

What's going on with Canon?

The Tamron 24-70 2.8 with VC and USM (or whatever) is looking quite good if the IQ is anything like the old 28-75....

Of course the 5DIII might have in body IS.....

ConverseMan wrote in post #13840816
ah. gearheads. Just go out and take pictures. :/

Proud of it!

calvinjhfeng wrote in post #13840829
So why do we need IS for wide angle prime?
And it's pricing WAY above what it should worth.

What's going on with Canon?

video, video and more video

Maybe Canon would want me to get the 24/2.8 IS, to use on my 40D. Instead of getting a Fuji x100.

calvinjhfeng wrote in post #13840829
So why do we need IS for wide angle prime?
And it's pricing WAY above what it should worth.

What's going on with Canon?

I'm sure there are behind-the-scene factors that we're not aware of because they got away with it with the updated 70-200 and so they must be applying their experience in the gouging department.

IS for a wide angle prime? I don't really get it either. The 24-70 currently NEEDS it on the long end as I've experienced before. Needing 24mm? it never crossed my mind.... EVER.

I remember reading somewhere that several 24-70II prototypes were being tested, one of them having IS and the form and weight being too bulky to appeal to the masses.

When the 70-200 II came out Canon caught my attention and after a year I happily upgraded from my version I. This time with the 24-70 announcement, I'm nowhere near as impressed. The 24-70 copy I have is incredibly sharp and has never let me down other than needing IS on the long end in some situations.

Boo.

Urns.

dgrPhotos wrote in post #13840861
Proud of it!

Hey - at least you admit to it.

I would agree that the lenses are over priced. But, seriously people....just use the old one. It's still great! Heavy, but great.

Even if the price settles down to $1800 I think I'll still keep my version I. There's no point supporting Canon's continuing strategy of price hiking the market. I thought we were supposed to be in a recession?