First reasonably priced new lenses?

I am really surprised when i read that text about canons new UWA zooms:

The Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM and the EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM ultra-wide zoom lenses are scheduled to be available in June for estimated retail prices of $1,199.00 and $299.99, respectively. For more information about Canon EF Lenses visit: www.usa.canon.com/cusa​/consumer/products/cam​eras/ef_lens_lineup.

Seems like canon is going for cheaper lenses or do i just read wrong?

To me that means the 16-35L is 1200$ which is not bad and 300$ for that 10-18mm seems very cheap to me?

Oops wrong forum, mods please move :S

Yep, Sigma has been pushing Canon of late with prices much lower and quality just as good. Canon has no other choice but to compete at this same lower price levels. That's competition at work.

Heya,

They're not wide aperture. I don't expect to see a high price. Also, the build quality of the 10-18 will not be stellar. It's a plastic lens, probably good optics, STM and IS are nice features, and it's nice and wide. But it's narrow aperture and made of probably all-plastic, so it's cheap and it's EF-S only, so you have an entry but good lens there. No one is going to sell their setup, go crop body, just to use this lens.

Before everyone sings praise, wait until we see real world photos that show edge sharpness, coma, etc, as these are more important in an ultrawide, than STM/IS are, at least in my opinion.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #16901419
Heya,

They're not wide aperture. I don't expect to see a high price. Also, the build quality of the 10-18 will not be stellar. It's a plastic lens, probably good optics, STM and IS are nice features, and it's nice and wide. But it's narrow aperture and made of probably all-plastic, so it's cheap and it's EF-S only, so you have an entry but good lens there. No one is going to sell their setup, go crop body, just to use this lens.

Before everyone sings praise, wait until we see real world photos that show edge sharpness, coma, etc, as these are more important in an ultrawide, than STM/IS are, at least in my opinion.

Very best,

Well the 24-70 f4 was not wide aperture and that did not stop Canon from pricing it ridiculously. I really think with Sigma right on Canon's butt with their latest releases...it's making Canon rethink the pricing on the consumer / prosumer lenses.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16901419
Heya,

They're not wide aperture. I don't expect to see a high price. Also, the build quality of the 10-18 will not be stellar. It's a plastic lens, probably good optics, STM and IS are nice features, and it's nice and wide. But it's narrow aperture and made of probably all-plastic, so it's cheap and it's EF-S only, so you have an entry but good lens there. No one is going to sell their setup, go crop body, just to use this lens.

Before everyone sings praise, wait until we see real world photos that show edge sharpness, coma, etc, as these are more important in an ultrawide, than STM/IS are, at least in my opinion.

Very best,

Doesn't one usually shoot UWA at smaller apertures anyways? If so, then the slow wide open tendencies of the new 10-18 won't really matter. I guess maybe skyscapes are a different situation perhaps? Should be a very interesting lens!

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16902295
Doesn't one usually shoot UWA at smaller apertures anyways? If so, then the slow wide open tendencies of the new 10-18 won't really matter. I guess maybe skyscapes are a different situation perhaps? Should be a very interesting lens!

From a landscape point of view, maybe.

But if you look through what people do with a 24 F1.4L, it's actually interesting for portraiture. I happen to really like the effect. I use an ultrawide that is F2.8 for this purpose as well. Makes for neat "portraits" in theme parks with the kids, and doubles for fireworks at night, etc, as well as for my wide field astro work.

Very best,

Hogloff wrote in post #16901408
Yep, Sigma has been pushing Canon of late with prices much lower and quality just as good. Canon has no other choice but to compete at this same lower price levels. That's competition at work.

Could have fooled me!
200-400 L :-0
24-70 F2.8 L II. :-0

Any fast lenses are pretty pricey in the UK. The slower lenses are naturally much cheaper .
But still not cheap!

Submariner wrote in post #16902503
Could have fooled me!
200-400 L :-0
24-70 F2.8 L II. :-0

Any fast lenses are pretty pricey in the UK. The slower lenses are naturally much cheaper .
But still not cheap!

Those were introduced before the latest onslaught of Sigma, etc. The 200-400 isn't a consumer lens anyways, so you can exclude that from the list.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16901419
Heya,

They're not wide aperture. I don't expect to see a high price. Also, the build quality of the 10-18 will not be stellar. It's a plastic lens, probably good optics, STM and IS are nice features, and it's nice and wide. But it's narrow aperture and made of probably all-plastic, so it's cheap and it's EF-S only, so you have an entry but good lens there. No one is going to sell their setup, go crop body, just to use this lens.

Before everyone sings praise, wait until we see real world photos that show edge sharpness, coma, etc, as these are more important in an ultrawide, than STM/IS are, at least in my opinion.

Very best,

I have a couple of Tammy's that are all plastic, and they take great photos. This reminds me of the magnesium vs composite body discussions.

wait till the successor to the 16-35L II comes out. you'll get your $2500 wish then

Sweet. Was looking to pick up a 10-22mm but will now wait to see how this 10-18 will perform first.

ed rader wrote in post #16903107
wait till the successor to the 16-35L II comes out. you'll get your $2500 wish then

LOL! No joke!!

I was surprised when I saw the prices as well, especially the 10-18, but it will most likely be built like the 18-55, which means they serve the range of 10-18, 18-55, 55-250: all STM, all IS. The 10-18 for $299 has the potential of being a great bargain if it is optically nice. Cheaping out on build quality helps keep costs down.

p00kienrayray wrote in post #16903133
Sweet. Was looking to pick up a 10-22mm but will now wait to see how this 10-18 will perform first.

I'd just go ahead and get the 10-22mm... it's an excellent lens. I doubt the 10-18mm will be replacing it, just offering STM for video and IS for those who think they need it on an ultrawide.

The 16-35/4L IS is probably a replacement for the 17-40/4... also adding IS for those who think they need it.

Frodge wrote in post #16902542
I have a couple of Tammy's that are all plastic, and they take great photos. This reminds me of the magnesium vs composite body discussions.

Heya,

Pointing out that it's all plastic isn't a negative, it's simply part of why the lens costs less.

And the reality is, if you want a lens that will last 20~30 years, plastic just doesn't do well. Even metal doesn't do that great. Most of my 20~30 year old lenses are fairly in good shape, but they were taken care of. Metal pentax stuff mostly, a few Tamron's that are metal. They last though. Plastic? Not sure. But I haven't had a plastic lens yet for 20+ years, so it's hard to say. Granted, most people would assume one would replace these lenses by then. But good optics are good optics, and I don't see a reason to replace it just because a new one comes out every year.

Very best,

First reasonably priced lens? What about all the primes they came out with in the past couple of years, or the new STM zooms? People love to crap on Canon about their pricing, the reality is that their prices have been very consistent through the years.

All the new IS primes cost almost exactly the same as the non-IS primes they replaced when you compare prices at launch and factor in inflation. Same goes for this new 16-35mm, which to me is an obvious replacement for the 17-40L.