EF Pancake and 18-135 II + 200-400 at $11k

http://www.canonrumors​.com …02/new-lenses-coming-cr3/

Really Canon?

Let me guess, 40mm f/2.8 Pancake will be $1000, Hood will be $100 also i note theres no USM designation...Let me guess... buzzy as hell annoying micromotor... Why this instead of updating the 50mm f/1.4?

The 18-135 II...wooo USM...Why didnt the first one you came out with 3 years ago have this? Not exactly a stunning lens to begin with, Why does THIS lens need an update when you have about 20 others that need it worse? How bout some new %#^$%^ing lenses? How bout an APS-C prime for example... Or something, Anything!

And the 200-400 will be $11k apparently..WTF..Nikon​'s 200-400 f/4G VR II is $7000, $4000 more for a built in Tcon?

I'm starting to get really annoyed with Canon it seems...

Big mistake, imo. They should price it at $90,000 to maximize profits. Only need to make a few per year, and it simplifies their marketing strategy to focus only on royalty, wall street types, and professional athletes. (since it is clear that they are not going for volume sales at that price!)

If it comes in at $11k, I'm out. At $7000-ish it would at least be in the realm of possibility.

Oh well!

KenjiS wrote in post #13945017
http://www.canonrumors​.com …02/new-lenses-coming-cr3/

Really Canon?

Let me guess, 40mm f/2.8 Pancake will be $1000, Hood will be $100 also i note theres no USM designation...Let me guess... buzzy as hell annoying micromotor... Why this instead of updating the 50mm f/1.4?

The 18-135 II...wooo USM...Why didnt the first one you came out with 3 years ago have this? Not exactly a stunning lens to begin with, Why does THIS lens need an update when you have about 20 others that need it worse? How bout some new %#^$%^ing lenses? How bout an APS-C prime for example... Or something, Anything!

And the 200-400 will be $11k apparently..WTF..Nikon​'s 200-400 f/4G VR II is $7000, $4000 more for a built in Tcon?

I'm starting to get really annoyed with Canon it seems...

Can't argue with you on any of those points....

The pancake would be very interesting. I don't see any info about price or autofocus.

Tommydigi wrote in post #13945520
The pancake would be very interesting. I don't see any info about price or autofocus.

I'm just basing it on current trends... After all the 24 and 28 f/2.8 IS primes are $850 and $800 respectively...

I definately don't need the pancake and I will probablly waffle on the 200-400.

Canon is on crack with their pricing...and that was a primary reason why I switched to Nikon.

Voaky999 wrote in post #13945651
I definately don't need the pancake and I will probablly waffle on the 200-400.

lol

I'm guessing it's a pipe dream to think the 18-135 II is going to be anything incredible from an IQ standpoint, huh?

An 18-135 that performs like the 15-85 (as in, massive increase in IQ from the past version) would be incredible, but since they're touting the silent USM, i'm guessing that's about all we'll get.

col4bin wrote in post #13946509
Canon is on crack with their pricing...and that was a primary reason why I switched to Nikon.

I don't know if they are on crack, maybe a bit wishful. Sony is on crack (at least with their new 500mm f4)

themadman wrote in post #13948988
I don't know if they are on crack, maybe a bit wishful. Sony is on crack (at least with their new 500mm f4)

Well....a crack habit would explain the pricing

So I want a 200-400, do I give Canon 11k$, which will equate to at least 10k€....or buy a new Nikon 200-400 and used D3s for less money? Won't have to think about it too long I can tell you.

Looks like the convenience of being able to add a tele-convertor with-out having to dismount and remount the lens comes at a high price.

I wonder if a 200-400 with-out the built in tele-convertor will be brought out eventually?

Built in TC or not, at that price, regardless of how good the IQ is, it becomes something for pro's who either don't have to pay for their gear, or make enough to write a good portion of it off on their tax returns.

And for those who simply have a lot of gear and could sell a few items to buy one, I wonder who can look around at their gear, and come up with anything near $11k in gear they'd be willing to give up for a 200-400 f/4 lens? I mean we'd be talking giving up (based on recent used selling prices) a 300mm f/2.8IS, 500 f/4, and a 70-200 f/2.8 MKII....

All of a sudden I'm feeling a lot better about dropping $2,500 on the new Sigma 120-300 OS...mine focuses perfect, and for the price savings I'll happily change my own TC's and deal with any IQ shortcomings the Sigma will have against the Canon.

Hopefully this price isn't correct...but it's going to have to be REALLY not correct to get it to a point that makes sense.

I have to admit, $11,000 is out of control for a 200-400 lens. I remember the good ol' days (just a year or two ago) when it only cost someone $5,000 - $6,000 to get into the super-tele game. Now it's easily double!

Bryan