24-70 II - why the price?

gjl711 wrote in post #15290277
why would they change?

They started losing sales if you check the latest quarterly report. This will force them to change - reaction from people not willing to pay. Some will have a lesson learned with 5D MKIII. MKIII is still a nice to have, not must have upgrade. People will learn.

asay82 wrote in post #15289877
An increase in optical performance and a lot of greediness.

Greed? No, it's what the market will support, and there are too many people and companies who will gladly pay the price for this lens.

Canon last quarter had a 900 million dollar profit. They didn't get that profit by basement pricing their equipment.

My guess is Canon probably spends 2 maybe 3 hundred bucks manufacturing this lens, and after it's all said and done (all the other expenses) probably profits 5 hundred or more. It's good to be Canon.

keyframe14 wrote in post #15290202
I don;t get your comparison either. It doesn;t make any sense and this lens is in no way better than a nikon or a sony and in any case it's not a $1000 better than the old version.

Let your eyes be your guide.
If you still think the Nikon or Sony are better go ahead and buy those but I'm guessing you'd have to change systems.

I'm not justifying the price. It's too expensive for me but I'm not a professional. If I were I would only buy the Canon and not consider the Tamron or Sigma even at half the price.

Canon vs. Nikon at 24mm wide open:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0


Canon vs. Nikon at 35mm wide open:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=0


Canon vs. Nikon at 70mm wide open:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

The difference is pretty clear and the Nikon is not exactly cheap.

andrikos wrote in post #15290449
Let your eyes be your guide.
If you still think the Nikon or Sony are better go ahead and buy those but I'm guessing you'd have to change systems.

I'm not justifying the price. It's too expensive for me but I'm not a professional. If I were I would only buy the Canon and not consider the Tamron or Sigma even at half the price.

Canon vs. Nikon at 24mm wide open:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0


Canon vs. Nikon at 35mm wide open:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=0


Canon vs. Nikon at 70mm wide open:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

The difference is pretty clear and the Nikon is not exactly cheap.

useless to give links to a comparison by a HUGE canon fanboy who puts down just about anything unless its canon made and almost everyone of his comparison charts will put the canon better then the non canon. Even though many users out there have real world proof that x lens is just as good or better then the Canon version TheDigitalPicture will just make you think nothing is better then canon. I would never trust ANY comparison chart off that site.

A simple picture that might help to form a historical perspective on the price of this lens throughout its evolution:

05Xrunner wrote in post #15290464
useless to give links to a comparison by a HUGE canon fanboy who puts down just about anything unless its canon made and almost everyone of his comparison charts will put the canon better then the non canon. Even though many users out there have real world proof that x lens is just as good or better then the Canon version TheDigitalPicture will just make you think nothing is better then canon. I would never trust ANY comparison chart off that site.

I don't share your view of TDP but to each their own.
You don't like the lens's price, buy something else from a competitor. Or better yet, switch to Nikon (the only other viable dSLR competitor Canon has at this point).
If enough people do that it will put pressure on Canon.
It's called "free market".

PS I too would probably rather have a D800 rather than a 5D mkIII if I started now. But that might change in a year and I don't need a new camera now as I'm perfectly happy with my 7D.

I wasnt talking about you. TheDigitalPicture is a Fanboy and all his comparisons test ALWAYS show canon to be better then the 3rd party. I will never trust anything said from that site

05Xrunner wrote in post #15290483
I wasnt talking about you. TheDigitalPicture is a Fanboy and all his comparisons test ALWAYS show canon to be better then the 3rd party. I will never trust anything said from that site

So, you are saying, the guy at thedigitalpicture purposely mis-focuses 3rd party lenses, so that Canon comes out on top on the ISO crops?

I think he'd take exception to that.

I have looked at plenty of those comparisons and knowing the lens he is comparing to is top quality and some how he comes out with his test showing like he used a 75-300. Nothing I have seen on those ISO test seem to really prove to what I have seen others post countless times and other reviews out there. However he does it he makes Canon look better

davidc502 wrote in post #15290490
So, you are saying, the guy at thedigitalpicture purposely mis-focuses 3rd party lenses, so that Canon comes out on top on the ISO crops?

And distortion. He must apply distortion also.

Oh, and vignetting.

LV Moose wrote in post #15290505
And distortion. He must apply distortion also.

Oh, and vignetting.

Well, while you went there, he must also be using photoshop to add lens lens aberrations on the flare tests too.

05Xrunner wrote in post #15290483
I wasnt talking about you.

I realized it a few minutes later and edited my post.

05Xrunner wrote in post #15290500
I have looked at plenty of those comparisons and knowing the lens he is comparing to is top quality and some how he comes out with his test showing like he used a 75-300. Nothing I have seen on those ISO test seem to really prove to what I have seen others post countless times and other reviews out there. However he does it he makes Canon look better

So you're saying he's the Bizarro-DXO?

andrikos wrote in post #15290449
Let your eyes be your guide.
If you still think the Nikon or Sony are better go ahead and buy those but I'm guessing you'd have to change systems.

I'm not justifying the price. It's too expensive for me but I'm not a professional. If I were I would only buy the Canon and not consider the Tamron or Sigma even at half the price.

Canon vs. Nikon at 24mm wide open:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0


Canon vs. Nikon at 35mm wide open:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=0


Canon vs. Nikon at 70mm wide open:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

The difference is pretty clear and the Nikon is not exactly cheap.

Looks to me like he needs to get a better D3X. The one he's using is out of calibration.

Bob_A wrote in post #15290581
Looks to me like he needs to get a better D3X. The one he's using is out of calibration.

Or maybe he's using a Canon camera with the Nikon lenses...
What's a couple of mm of registration between friends?