24-70 II - why the price?

andrikos wrote in post #15290467
A simple picture that might help to form a historical perspective on the price of this lens throughout its evolution:

This chart I do not understand. The MKI version is 1400 USD and MKII is 2300 USD. It is 900 USD more expensive.

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.

I might agree. On the other side, tell me why there are such differencies between two copies of the same beast? Shouldn't there be some sort of output quality control at Canon? For such a price tag...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=1&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

light_pilgrim wrote in post #15290669
This chart I do not understand. The MKI version is 1400 USD and MKII is 2300 USD. It is 900 USD more expensive.

The point of the chart is that the MkI costs about the same when it was released almost 10 years ago. So why is everyone complaining?

convergent wrote in post #15290704
The point of the chart is that the MkI costs about the same when it was released almost 10 years ago. So why is everyone complaining?

It's got to be hard to want/lust this lens and it be out of reach. Of course anyone could just charge it, but I think we have smarter people here than to just do that.

Let them vent. The price will come down eventually.

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.

Again you are missing the point. Nobody brought into disscution the tamrom, sigma and you compare lenses that are not the topic of this discussion. Compare to me nikon and sony 24-70 and show us how canon is net superior and deserve to be the most expensive.

I would love to have a 24-70 II, but it's out of my price range. Canon is charging what the market will bear. It's a company making the most profit it can. If people won't pay that price, they won't charge that price.

I'm not going to get my banana hammock in a twist over it.

My plan is wait to see what the 24-70 f/4 IS can do, wait a little while for the price to stabilize, and jump on that (if I like it). But that's just me.

LV Moose wrote in post #15290782
I would love to have a 24-70 II, but it's out of my price range. Canon is charging what the market will bear. It's company making the most profit it can. If people won't pay that price, they won't charge that price.

I'm not going to get my banana hammock in a twist over it.

My plan is wait to see what the 24-70 f/4 IS can do, wait a little while for the price to stabilize, and jump on that (if I like it). But that's just me.

I'm with you on the 24-70 f/4! Let's see what it can do first. The 24-70 f/2.8 mk2 is out of my price range as well.

LV Moose wrote in post #15290782
I'm not going to get my banana hammock in a twist over it.

LOL --- and OUCH!!!

keyframe14 wrote in post #15290743
Again you are missing the point. Nobody brought into disscution the tamrom, sigma and you compare lenses that are not the topic of this discussion. Compare to me nikon and sony 24-70 and show us how canon is net superior and deserve to be the most expensive.

You probably don't have a good source of references and don't read enough. Both Roger at Lensrental test and Lloyd Chambers' review indicated that Canon 24-70 is better than Nikon 24-70, and not by a small margin either. These are the best reliable and independent reviews I have known. There are a plenty of other reviews also. Most said that Canon is better than Nikon and none showed that Nikon is better.

The Sony one is irrelevant because rarely anyone sticks with Sony for a DSLR system, even though I doubt the Sony is better than Canon anyway.

davidc502 wrote in post #15290717
It's got to be hard to want/lust this lens and it be out of reach. Of course anyone could just charge it, but I think we have smarter people here than to just do that.

Let them vent. The price will come down eventually.

It is interesting that all these discussions seem to have no historical perspective. It is also kind of funny that a year ago the 24-70 Mk1 was the lens to have according to many folks, but now its a boat anchor and should be thrown out. Personally, if I didn't already have a 24-70 AND 24-105 in the bag, I probably wouldn't have got the 24-70 II. It was a lot easier for me to justify selling these two to get one better lens. I have had these two for many years, and 95% of the time would use the 24-105 because I hated the ergonomics of the 24-70. Now I'm quite happy, but realize it was a lot of coin for this lens. I plan to keep it for a very long time, and as long as I take care of it I'll get the use I want from it, for what the net would be after price drops in the future.

If people want to complain, the drop in value of bodies is much more immediate and impactful. I just sold a 1D3 for under $1300 that I paid $4600 for a few years ago, and if I had wanted to buy the new equivalent, I would have paid $6800. Now THAT is something to vent about. But it is also the nature of digital... advances in technology are happening so much faster there than with the lenses.

So to me, I actually looked at the combination of 5D3 and 24-70 II as being able to replace several lenses, and avoid some primes that I was thinking about picking up. I found that many places were out of stock last week when I went to buy it, which tells me that Canon isn't going to be dropping the price anytime soon.

convergent wrote in post #15290854
It is interesting that all these discussions seem to have no historical perspective. It is also kind of funny that a year ago the 24-70 Mk1 was the lens to have according to many folks, but now its a boat anchor and should be thrown out. ...

I don't think anyone is saying that the MkI is a boat anchor and has to be thrown out. It is not a black and white issue. It's ok for things to be gray.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #15290669
This chart I do not understand. The MKI version is 1400 USD and MKII is 2300 USD. It is 900 USD more expensive.

You shouldn't need a chart. The MKI is over ten years old, the dollar is losing value, and it costs more to manufacture and ship then it did ten years ago.

I am not excusing the price, but you can easily see why there is a difference here....

Why shouldn't it cost as much ?
People still buy it.
Canon is not a in "Every L-Lens to everybody" business. Canon has responsibility to their shareholders to provide maximum profits.
Think Canon makes too much money on lenses ? Buy Canon's stock.

Kirill wrote in post #15290935
Why shouldn't it cost as much ?
People still buy it.
Canon is not a in "Every L-Lens to everybody" business. Canon has responsibility to their shareholders to provide maximum profits.
Think Canon makes too much money on lenses ? Buy Canon's stock.

In this case, why not 2800 USD and only 2300?

No offense, but you guys should stop asking stupid questions and perhaps pick up a book on Economics 101, Supply and Demand, and also on demand elasticity and substitute goods.

Canon 24-70 mkii was offered in its competing spaces, obviously Canon pricing has to take into account buyer's demand and prices of other lenses including: Canon fast primes and standard Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Sony lenses. I could see that Canon considering that Canon 24-70 mkii is better than other competing products and should and can have a higher offering price.