16-35mm f/4L IS is here!

Scott_online wrote in post #16899977
The 24-70 f/4 IS is a case in point. My guess is that in time, this will replace the 24-105 but it will be a gradual transition. If they launched the 24-70 at the same price as the 24-105 then they would never sell whatever inventory is in the channel and they would devalue the 24-105. So instead, they let both lenses co-exist for a few years, gradually reducing the price of the newer one. The 24-70 started out at £1500 in the UK. It's down to £935.

I suspect the same will happen with the 16-35 f/4 IS. It will be expensive to start with but reduce towards the 17-40 over time.

The reason the lens drop do much in value is because they are over valued out of the gate and nobody buys then. Canon lately has been pricing their new lenses extremely expensive and Sigma has been coming in with great gear at a reasonable price, forcing Canon to lower their prices. Ain't competition great.

Hogloff wrote in post #16900003
The reason the lens drop do much in value is because they are over valued out of the gate and nobody buys then. Canon lately has been pricing their new lenses extremely expensive and Sigma has been coming in with great gear at a reasonable price, forcing Canon to lower their prices. Ain't competition great.

I think Canon know exactly what they're doing with the pricing of their lenses. They've sold 90 million of them after all (and that doesn't include pre EF).

Scott_online wrote in post #16899858
The 10-18 STM is clearly meant to accompany the 18-55 and 55-250 STM consumer lenses so will likely slot in below the 10-22. I would guess at maybe 2/3 the price? There are many, many Rebel/XXXD owners who would like a wide-angle option but aren't willing to pay more than they spent on the body. If they get the price right, they'll sell a boatload of these.

If that is true and this is going to be a good deal cheaper than the 10-22 then it might make sence, but I would rather have the 18-22 range in the 10-22 than have IS.

On the full frame side, I have to say I was/am hoping for the 16-50/4 IS instead.

Scott_online wrote in post #16900016
I think Canon know exactly what they're doing with the pricing of their lenses. They've sold 90 million of them after all (and that doesn't include pre EF).

Really? Just like they knew what they were doing when the priced the EOS-M at $800 and it sold like a brick.

Canon is not living in a bubble and their competition has a direct influence on the price of their gear. Why do you think they came out with a cheap full frame camera ( 6d )... Just because they are good guys. Competition is the great price monitor...without it Canon could charge whatever they like, with it they need to be always held in check.

Hogloff wrote in post #16900029
Really? Just like they knew what they were doing when the priced the EOS-M at $800 and it sold like a brick.

Canon is not living in a bubble and their competition has a direct influence on the price of their gear. Why do you think they came out with a cheap full frame camera ( 6d )... Just because they are good guys. Competition is the great price monitor...without it Canon could charge whatever they like, with it they need to be always held in check.

I could talking out of my behind, but I think that he was referring to the high opening price, knowing that they would get some of eager buyers, followed by a planned downward adjustment when supply is stabilized.

Hogloff wrote in post #16900029
Really? Just like they knew what they were doing when the priced the EOS-M at $800 and it sold like a brick.

Canon is not living in a bubble and their competition has a direct influence on the price of their gear. Why do you think they came out with a cheap full frame camera ( 6d )... Just because they are good guys. Competition is the great price monitor...without it Canon could charge whatever they like, with it they need to be always held in check.

I never said they were perfect and I never said competition was a bad thing.

They came out with a cheap full frame camera because there was a market for one. Not because their competitors offered one.

And yes, the EOS-M flopped in the US. So they cleared out the inventory at cost, and didn't send any M2s that way. Compare that to Nikon's approach - they're still trying to offload D90s and 1st generation 1-series cameras.

I'm no Canon fanboy, but I appreciate that you don't get to be the industry leader without knowing something about what the market wants and what the market will accept.

Also, I still don't understand the speculation by some that the 16-35 f/4L IS will be a replacement for the 16-35 f/2.8L II. Is it simply because the FL range is identical? If so, that seems silly to me: is it aperture, much more than FL range, that is indicative of where a lens lands in terms of the hierarchy.

This is disappointing.....I want the rumored sigma 16-20 2.8.....

If it would be around $1000 and very sharp and low distortion I would be a lot more excited I guess. I like to hand hold interiors and I have nothing jumping out at me based one performance/value. I would be more tempted to adapt a Nikon 14-24 for the prices being guessed here....

Nick3434 wrote in post #16900096
This is disappointing.....I want the rumored sigma 16-20 2.8.....

If it would be around $1000 and very sharp and low distortion I would be a lot more excited I guess. I like to hand hold interiors and I have nothing jumping out at me based one performance/value. I would be more tempted to adapt a Nikon 14-24 for the prices being guessed here....

It hasn't even been officially announced yet, let alone released. How do you know that it's not sharp and low distortion?

A 16-35 with IS sounds pretty good for hand-held interiors, and if you're considering the 14-24, then why not the TS-E 24L II? You won't get any sharper at that focal length and it's distortion free and/or correcting.

Getting back on topic (sort of), it looks like the 10-18mm has a plastic lens mount which would put it in Canon's entry-level range.

Scott_online wrote in post #16900075
I never said they were perfect and I never said competition was a bad thing.

They came out with a cheap full frame camera because there was a market for one. Not because their competitors offered one.

And yes, the EOS-M flopped in the US. So they cleared out the inventory at cost, and didn't send any M2s that way. Compare that to Nikon's approach - they're still trying to offload D90s and 1st generation 1-series cameras.

I'm no Canon fanboy, but I appreciate that you don't get to be the industry leader without knowing something about what the market wants and what the market will accept.

Yes being a leader has some clout. Staying an innovative leader...now that is something else. Very few companies that are leaders in their field are innovative leaders. I really don't care who ownes market share...I give my money to the companies willing to step out of the masses and innovate. I don't need to stay in the herd.

As far as Canon knows what they are doing...if this knowledge is to drive the price of camera gear to the elitist status, those with huge dispossible income...they can shove it. There has never been so much competion in the digital world and I'm not one to support a product because they know what they are doing by lining their own pockets.

Nick3434 wrote in post #16900096
This is disappointing.....I want the rumored sigma 16-20 2.8.....

If it would be around $1000 and very sharp and low distortion I would be a lot more excited I guess. I like to hand hold interiors and I have nothing jumping out at me based one performance/value. I would be more tempted to adapt a Nikon 14-24 for the prices being guessed here....

I've seen nice shape 14-24 go for under $1,500. My bet is this new 16-35 will be more than a used 14-24. If only it wasn't such a pain to use filters with the 14-24...I'd be all over it.

Scott_online wrote in post #16900127
It hasn't even been officially announced yet, let alone released. How do you know that it's not sharp and low distortion?

A 16-35 with IS sounds pretty good for hand-held interiors, and if you're considering the 14-24, then why not the TS-E 24L II? You won't get any sharper at that focal length and it's distortion free and/or correcting.

Maybe because 14mm and 24mm are not quite the same...let alone the focal lengths between 14 and 24.

Hogloff wrote in post #16900254
As far as Canon knows what they are doing...if this knowledge is to drive the price of camera gear to the elitist status, those with huge dispossible income...they can shove it. There has never been so much competion in the digital world and I'm not one to support a product because they know what they are doing by lining their own pockets.

Canon is publicly traded and releases financial statements. Their 2013 report indicates that they see 6% Return On Sales. From what I understand, 5% is typical of a manufacturer. That hardly sounds like evil moneybags territory to me.

I for one am interested in this and happy about the news. I'll withhold my judgment until I see the edge/corner sharpness, price, and if it is weathersealed.