Video of 24-70 II

Still not worth 2400.00

dtufino wrote in post #13914081
Still not worth 2400.00

True. The price is too high.

All you people **** about how much more expensive than the old lens seem to not understand how price works.

This is priced at $2300 2012 US Dollars. That's pretty comparable to the (I think) $1500 2002 US dollars.

And when you consider the change in the value of the US dollar against the, it's pretty similar to the original release.

As for the guys in europe.... I don't get why anyone there would buy any of this stuff from the local market. Seems to be significantly more expensive than anywhere else.

nuffi wrote in post #13922930
All you people **** about how much more expensive than the old lens seem to not understand how price works.

This is priced at $2300 2012 US Dollars. That's pretty comparable to the (I think) $1500 2002 US dollars.

And when you consider the change in the value of the US dollar against the, it's pretty similar to the original release.

As for the guys in europe.... I don't get why anyone there would buy any of this stuff from the local market. Seems to be significantly more expensive than anywhere else.

x2. EXACTLY. I'm really tired of everyone complaining about the price, thinking its all Canon's fault for pricing it that high. Blame the U.S. gov't for pushing out new, crispy bills through the Federal Reserve every year. (No I don't want to start any economical/political debate).

I'll give you an example: Presently, the 24-70 Ver. 1 is being sold in Japan for 149,800 Yen, which equals to about $1,880! Had this been 2005 and the exchange rate was close to $1:120 Yen, the price would've been MUCH BETTER.

The 24-70 Ver. 2 is quoted at 195,600 Yen, which is almost $2,450.

So technically, the Ver. 2 should only be "about $500" more than the Ver.1 if we use the pre-U.S. recession exchange rates.

.Ya that may be true and all however my bank account doesnt really understand that. Cant wait to see how the tamron 24-70 IS will compare. I was really hoping to upgrade my sigma to a new canon 24-70 however without is unless the optics are far far superior I think the tamron would be the next upgrade.

^With that said.... STILL NOT WORTH 2400.00

nuffi wrote in post #13922930
All you people **** about how much more expensive than the old lens seem to not understand how price works.

This is priced at $2300 2012 US Dollars. That's pretty comparable to the (I think) $1500 2002 US dollars.

And when you consider the change in the value of the US dollar against the, it's pretty similar to the original release.

As for the guys in europe.... I don't get why anyone there would buy any of this stuff from the local market. Seems to be significantly more expensive than anywhere else.

I'm pretty sure the people who are **** about pricing are doing so because the improvements that we're made to the new version aren't significant enough to warrant a price double vs. the old one. Basically, they'd rather spend $1200 and keep the current lens how it is instead of paying double for basically the same lens. I don't have the 24-70 and wasnt planning on getting the new one either so I don't care one way or the other. This is just how I'm reading into it.

mayerk wrote in post #13923823
I'm pretty sure the people who are **** about pricing are doing so because the improvements that we're made to the new version aren't significant enough to warrant a price double vs. the old one. Basically, they'd rather spend $1200 and keep the current lens how it is instead of paying double for basically the same lens. I don't have the 24-70 and wasnt planning on getting the new one either so I don't care one way or the other. This is just how I'm reading into it.

I geuss... I am jsut pointing out that the pricing from Canon's business POV isn't at all unreasonable.

Also.... Who's to say how much these improvements are worth? None of them have had a play with it yet. They're just **** and moaning cause that's all they can do.

Seems like everyone just wants their dream lens and they want it half the price of the old one. They don't understand or care that the US dollar is half the value that it used to be relative to it's value in 2002 or that inflation alone amkes things even more expensive. They're just keen to blame the entire world's financial crises at Canon's doorstep.

They can all buy the old one second hand if they like. Or they can save and get the new one. Or they could jump ship and get the Nikon one, which is just as expensive, and (I hope, and wait faithfully) expect will be less great than this new Canon one.

my issue withthe price is that it's the SAME exact lens as the one that costs 1200.00.... no VR, nothing... they threw in a new leaf lens cover ohhhhh....

it's like putting nice decals and a wing on a cheap Hyundai Accent and asking 25K for the car.... RIGHT

Def not worth the 2500 for it... it's almost the price of the Rumored 5DmkIII

nuffi wrote in post #13924044
Also.... Who's to say how much these improvements are worth? None of them have had a play with it yet.

The consumer ultimately has the say in how much it's worth and it looks like the value is less then the asking price from their reaction. I haven't seen anyone who is excited to pick this lens up,in fact, I have seen more people leaning toward picking up the tamron.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm very happy with my version 1 lens, oversized hood and all. If the version 2 lens had IS and the same diameter (77mm, instead of 82mm), I would've been interested in picking one up, but only after the street price leveled out. As it stands, I will not be "upgrading" this particular lens. In my opinion, I think Canon missed the boat on this release.

Well, I wont be rushing to replace my 24-70L until i've read a few reviews and the price mellows a bit. I have no need.

But having said that I upgraded my 70-200L 2.8 and the difference was obvious

I really don't have a problem with the price.. I had expected it to be $1800-2200 but don't don't come out with the same lens with an upgrade to the lens and charge so much more. If it had IS I would pre order it with no problem, If it was 2.0 instead of 2.8 no problem at all.

mayerk wrote in post #13924093
The consumer ultimately has the say in how much it's worth and it looks like the value is less then the asking price from their reaction. I haven't seen anyone who is excited to pick this lens up,in fact, I have seen more people leaning toward picking up the tamron.

Now you are missing my point. They may beleive that the changes aren't wrth the asknig price, but they're guessing.

THe only people who've been lucky enough to play with the demo lenses that are out in the wild seem to be unequivocal about how fantastic these things are, and suggest that while the asking price is high, this is well worth it.

The price of the new 24-70 is much too high. Consider that the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II is priced less than the new 24-70. The 70-200 has IS and physically contains much more glass, metal, etc, etc.