New STM 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS

The question becomes--once again and as it's been all along: wh is the EF-S 15-85 lens more expensive than this EF lens?

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #17156757
The question becomes--once again and as it's been all along: wh is the EF-S 15-85 lens more expensive than this EF lens?

because it's harder to go from 24-15mm than it is 85-105mm?

and has that been a question for many? i've never seen anyone wonder that before...

Yes, it has. You've never asked yourself why that lens is a good $700? I and others have. Check out Roger Cicala's comments at Lensrentals for example.

Canon EF 24-105 f3.5-5.6 IS STM: $599 at launch, 525 grams
vs.
Canon EF-S 24-136 f5.6-9 (eq.) IS USM: $799 years after launch, 575 grams

I think my comment was more in relation to the quoted poster's comparison of the $600 MSRP for the STM lens to the $600 true street price of the L. The L is still listed way higher ($1,149, I think), so it's not really a fair comparison

DreDaze wrote in post #17156742
meh...if you look at every single lens on B&H right now, and compare it to the MSRP at canonusa...they are exactly the same

yeah, there are periods where one can get a lens cheaper through rebates and such...but for the most part throught out the year, they are going to be right at the MSRP...if it were a sigma MSRP, i'd agree with you

Talley wrote in post #17156302
Speak for yourself. I got mine for $475 and I've seen a bunch for 500-550.

New?

DreDaze wrote in post #17156742
meh...if you look at every single lens on B&H right now, and compare it to the MSRP at canonusa...they are exactly the same

yeah, there are periods where one can get a lens cheaper through rebates and such...but for the most part throught out the year, they are going to be right at the MSRP...if it were a sigma MSRP, i'd agree with you

I think that, pretty much by definition, prices in a retail store (as B&H or Adorama) cannot possibly be considered to be 'street prices'.

i totally missed the 'street' part of his comment...

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #17156787
Yes, it has. You've never asked yourself why that lens is a good $700? I and others have. Check out Roger Cicala's comments at Lensrentals for example.

Canon EF 24-105 f3.5-5.6 IS STM: $599 at launch, 525 grams
vs.
Canon EF-S 24-136 f5.6-9 (eq.) IS USM: $799 years after launch, 575 grams

I haven't checked out Roger's comments at Lensrentals, but I doubt that your comparison is a fair one.

For one thing, except for extra long telephoto, I don't see that focal length is in itself a huge price determinant.

Second thing is that, if you were to compare an EF and EF-S lens for the purpose of functionality, you should calculate the EF lens' focal length with the crop factor too, as I'd only assume that you'd use both lenses on a crop (unless you intend to use the crop lens on a FF - with modifications, in which case calculating the crop factor becomes irrelevant). By doing that calculation, you get something like:

Canon EF 38-168 f3.5-5.6 IS STM: $599 at launch, 525 grams
vs
Canon EF-S 24-136 f3.5-5.6 (the amount of light it lets in is the same) IS USM: $799 years after launch, 575 grams

Now, we're left with a better basis for comparison. And what my conclusions would be are the following:

-both lenses have relatively similar focal lengths, however one is definitely not wide enough, for most users, on crop - most people who want to adopt the 24-105 f4L on crop do so for the constant aperture imo (that's the only reason why I'd do it);
-both have pretty much the same aperture, in that it is variable and definitely on the slow side;
-I don't know how good the IS would be on the new 24-105, but the one on the 15-85 is darn good, so I'll assume they'd be more or less equal;
-STM is better for video (still good for stills), USM is more geared for stills.

So, in the 24-105 STM, you have a lens that has: the same drawback as the 15-85 (variable aperture), the main drawback of the 24-105L (for crop users) and doesn't have the same advantage (constant aperture), and it has an inferior AF system if you're a still shooter.

I can't possibly believe that *anyone* would ditch their 15-85 or 17-55 or 24-105L to buy this lens unless you're heavily into video...with your DSLR. I'll assume that this is a rather narrow consumer-heavy market. I can't believe that anyone would be interested in shelling out the big bucks for that, and with the experience of the 24-70 f4L and the EOS-M, I'd expect that Canon had its lesson with how they price their new offerings.

So, in conclusion, since the 15-85 and the 24-105 STM aren't aimed at all at the same market, I believe it's rather pointless to even compare them.

As for why the 15-85 retained its price so well, I can only speculate, but for one it remains a strong design, with its main drawbacks being the lens creep and the variable aperture.

DreDaze wrote in post #17157030
i totally missed the 'street' part of his comment...

That would explain it

Apricane wrote in post #17157046
I haven't checked out Roger's comments at Lensrentals, but I doubt that your comparison is a fair one.

For one thing, except for extra long telephoto, I don't see that focal length is in itself a huge price determinant.

Second thing is that, if you were to compare an EF and EF-S lens for the purpose of functionality, you should calculate the EF lens' focal length with the crop factor too, as I'd only assume that you'd use both lenses on a crop (unless you intend to use the crop lens on a FF - with modifications, in which case calculating the crop factor becomes irrelevant). By doing that calculation, you get something like:

Canon EF 38-168 f3.5-5.6 IS STM: $599 at launch, 525 grams
vs
Canon EF-S 24-136 f3.5-5.6 (the amount of light it lets in is the same) IS USM: $799 years after launch, 575 grams

Now, we're left with a better basis for comparison. And what my conclusions would be are the following:

-both lenses have relatively similar focal lengths, however one is definitely not wide enough, for most users, on crop - most people who want to adopt the 24-105 f4L on crop do so for the constant aperture imo (that's the only reason why I'd do it);
-both have pretty much the same aperture, in that it is variable and definitely on the slow side;
-I don't know how good the IS would be on the new 24-105, but the one on the 15-85 is darn good, so I'll assume they'd be more or less equal;
-STM is better for video (still good for stills), USM is more geared for stills.

So, in the 24-105 STM, you have a lens that has: the same drawback as the 15-85 (variable aperture), the main drawback of the 24-105L (for crop users) and doesn't have the same advantage (constant aperture), and it has an inferior AF system if you're a still shooter.

I can't possibly believe that *anyone* would ditch their 15-85 or 17-55 or 24-105L to buy this lens unless you're heavily into video...with your DSLR. I'll assume that this is a rather narrow consumer-heavy market. I can't believe that anyone would be interested in shelling out the big bucks for that, and with the experience of the 24-70 f4L and the EOS-M, I'd expect that Canon had its lesson with how they price their new offerings.

So, in conclusion, since the 15-85 and the 24-105 STM aren't aimed at all at the same market, I believe it's rather pointless to even compare them.

As for why the 15-85 retained its price so well, I can only speculate, but for one it remains a strong design, with its main drawbacks being the lens creep and the variable aperture.

Ya, ya, ya...legitimations and rationalizatiins notwithstanding it still does not explain why the EF-S lens is a good $799.

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #17157062
Ya, ya, ya...legitimations and rationalizatiins notwithstanding it still does not explain why the EF-S lens is a good $799.

Hmm ok, I'll bite and take a crack at that.

-Based on what I've seen here, more and more people see the 18-135 STM and the 15-85 USM as more or less equivalent in quality for a standard zoom, with the 18-135 STM is cheaper and is becoming more popular - you could argue that demand has shifted away from the 15-85; and
-Even when it was newer (I bought mine in Nov 2011, a bare two years after it was released), and back then it was (wrongfully, imo) overpriced for what it was;
-Canon seems to be moving in the direction of STM lenses for its more consumer level/EF-S (and even EF) lenses.

So, these assumptions could form the hypotheses that demand for the 15-85 is diminishing while supply is staying constant and that Canon, for policy reasons, wants to reduce the market for consumer-level USM levels in favor of (presumably) cheaper STM models, so supply is diminishing as well. Assuming both movements are equally strong, the price would remain constant, but since I assume it may be Canon's wish to fully phase out production of this lens in the next few years while recouping their R&D on it, that would mean that prices would go up.

Which is ****ty, I know, because it is one of the most versatile lenses for crop.

(And yes, just to reiterate, those are very much hypotheses). And I might even have gotten the economics wrong haha, but I doubt it.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17155226
Heya,

Street price will have to be closer to $300~400 for this to ever be worth while to anyone. Seeing as the market is full of $600 24-105F4L's. Seems to me that the 24-105 STM is just filling a niche for video people. But I just don't understand the whole dSLR as a "video" platform when there's better. I guess it's just a way to "dabble" with video.

True, but now that the L is being phased out of the kits, that's not going to last. Maybe they'll be using this new lens as the kit lens and bringing the kit price lower? Who knows, I don't think it's pointless, but definitely not for me.

At best, speculation.

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #17157173
At best, speculation.

Hence why I said "maybe".

Wow. I liked the idea of this lens until I read this thread. This lens is EF, right? It will undoubtedly be better than the 24-105. Less distortion at the wide end. Sharper at the long end. I'm interested. Throw in that retail is half the price of the 24-105 and what's not to like? And don't say aperture. F/3.5-5.6 is not horribly different than f/4. If you need f/2.8, this isn't your lens.

I am not understanding the dislike on this one. I am trying to shoot my 6D with primes, because good zooms are outrageously expensive (24-70 II) or mediocre and costly (24-105). If this lens is optically better than the 24-105, I'm in. If I need aperture, I've got primes.