The Myth of outrageous new Canon lens prices...

Next up, the 3 50mm prime lenses:
TIME FOR UPDATE CANON!!! Ya hear?

Next we have the medium - long telephotos (85mm-300)

Almost there...
Here come the MONSTERS!

Lastly, we have the extenders and the single tilt shift lens that has some history...

if original lens costs $100 and the version 2 costs $150 that is about 50% increased.
if original lens costs $10000 and the version 2 cost $13000 that is about 30% increased.

Percentage is kind of useless for me.

Andrikos,

Great stuff. Interesting and very well put together. Thanks.

I just noticed you had asked me about the Tamron 24-70. I have had a good chance to use it now (went on a holiday for a few weeks using it as my walk around lens). I wont go into too much detail here: it has a great focal range as you know. I am very impressed with the build quality and the vibration control. The image quality is good but not exceptional IMO. Maybe I am just too used to Canon primes because the Tamron is sharp but the image is different, maybe the color reproduction is different to what I am used to. The vignetting can be very heavy. I also came across the onion bokeh in quite a few of my shots which is annoying when it happens. I hoped I could keep the lens on the camera the whole time I was away, but when it came to a really nice landscape scene I changed over to my Canon 24mm because I wasn't content with the Tamron (Landscapes are what I love to shoot most). I was impressed with the sharpness and VC but after using it for the whole holiday I am really looking forward to swapping it over for the Canon 24-70 II. For the price, the Tamron is great. It just probably takes some getting used too and some pp for the vignetting.

Also, I notices in your sig that you are using a crop body. If you aren't planning on upgrading to a full frame camera any time soon, I definitely wouldn't reccomend the Tamron when the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is available cheaper than the Tamron. It outperformed the Tamron in nearly every way and has a much more useful focal range as a walk around camera on a crop body.

Hope that helps. And hope I didn't make the Tamron sound like a bad lens, because it is a great lens, it just has a few downfalls.

maximus_73 wrote in post #14859145
if original lens costs $100 and the version 2 costs $150 that is about 50% increased.
if original lens costs $10000 and the version 2 cost $13000 that is about 30% increased.

Percentage is kind of useless for me.

Ok....

I don't see what would be more useful for you. The thread was brought about by people saying Canons new pricing scheme is ridiculous, the thread demonstrates very well why that isn't the case.

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14860514
Andrikos,

Great stuff. Interesting and very well put together. Thanks.

I just noticed you had asked me about the Tamron 24-70. I have had a good chance to use it now (went on a holiday for a few weeks using it as my walk around lens). I wont go into too much detail here: it has a great focal range as you know. I am very impressed with the build quality and the vibration control. The image quality is good but not exceptional IMO. Maybe I am just too used to Canon primes because the Tamron is sharp but the image is different, maybe the color reproduction is different to what I am used to. The vignetting can be very heavy. I also came across the onion bokeh in quite a few of my shots which is annoying when it happens. I hoped I could keep the lens on the camera the whole time I was away, but when it came to a really nice landscape scene I changed over to my Canon 24mm because I wasn't content with the Tamron (Landscapes are what I love to shoot most). I was impressed with the sharpness and VC but after using it for the whole holiday I am really looking forward to swapping it over for the Canon 24-70 II. For the price, the Tamron is great. It just probably takes some getting used too and some pp for the vignetting.

Also, I notices in your sig that you are using a crop body. If you aren't planning on upgrading to a full frame camera any time soon, I definitely wouldn't reccomend the Tamron when the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is available cheaper than the Tamron. It outperformed the Tamron in nearly every way and has a much more useful focal range as a walk around camera on a crop body.

Hope that helps. And hope I didn't make the Tamron sound like a bad lens, because it is a great lens, it just has a few downfalls.

Hi Matt,
Thanks for the mini-review of the Tamron, and no you are not making it sound bad. You are definitely re-confirming all the findings that others had regarding the lens.

I am planning to go FF in the near-medium future and I'm planning to buy a "normal" zoom at some point. I'll see what the 24-70L II brings (other than high prices, probably spectacular performance)...
Thanks for the kind words, cheers!

Well, it looks like some of my data (regarding the 16-35L III release prediction) is making its rounds around the "interwebs" so I'm linking it here for posterity and the sake of hilariousness!

POTN prediction link:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1217837

Canonrumors link:
http://www.canonrumors​.com …-zoom-discussion-opinion/

started here at Northlight images:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new​_lenses.html

Now it's up to Canon to prove me right.
You can do it Canon!

andrikos wrote in post #14864904
Well, it looks like some of my data (regarding the 16-35L III release prediction) is making its rounds around the "interwebs" so I'm linking it here for posterity and the sake of hilariousness!

POTN prediction link:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1217837

Canonrumors link:
http://www.canonrumors​.com …-zoom-discussion-opinion/

started here at Northlight images:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new​_lenses.html

Now it's up to Canon to prove me right.
You can do it Canon!

Well at least they are giving you full credit for your prediction

Also, if I'm right in my prediction, I was told I'll get a free 16-35L III. Right Canon*?

* Even a 16-35L II will do, I'm not picky.

Back for more (pain).

I expanded my historical data because I wanted to see the "whole picture".
My charts are now bigger but hopefully easier to read.
I'll post them one by one so there's room for analysis and data.

I'm also updating the OP in case this gets too large and labyrinthine...

First up, the zooms.
I added quite a few models and now the file is huge.
Hopefully, there are no more lenses to add...

Next we have the UWA and WA primes:

Here we have the tortured history of the 3 fifties...

Next up we have the medium telephotos