EF 24-70 f2.8 II pic

[Moreorless]

They are doing it with the longer primes as well, way more expensive than the corresponding Nikkor ... could be a clever ploy, which would see Nikkor prices drift upwards rather than Canon have to set them lower.

As has been said though that price seems to just be the MRP which generally seems to be 30-40% more than the street price in the UK.

As far as the primes go my guess is that the reason for the relatively modest appature is that the focus has been put on sharpness, espeically boarder sharpness for landscape users hence the IS. Look at the MTF's and they seem like they may well be alot sharper than the likes of the 24-105 and 17-40 stopped down.

 

[Martyn...]

As has been said though that price seems to just be the MRP which generally seems to be 30-40% more than the street price in the UK.

Nikon lenses seem to settle around 25% below MRP. It seemed an awful lot of money to be penalised for being an early adopter.

 

[StewartR]

At various points over the last couple of months I've seen this lens (with instant rebate) at $1999 USD in the states, which is approx £1200

I would expect the 24-70 II to follow a similar price pattern, so given you'd effectively get the air fare for free, maybe a nice holiday to the US is in order .... xmas shopping in NY anyone?

USD equivalent to £1200 actually means £1400+ over here - RIP off britain springs to mine.

It doesn't work like that, and this isn't rip-off Britain.

$1999 is £1269 at today's bank exchange rates, but those rates aren't available to consumers. If you bought a lens out there using a credit card, or if you bought dollars here before you travelled, you'd pay about £1302.

The UK import duty on lenses is 6.9% which means it's £1392 by the time you've brought it into the UK.

Then, unless you're a VAT-registered business you need to allow for 20% VAT (and the UK price you quoted included VAT, which makes it a fair comparison). That brings the price to £1670.

Within the last couple of months (when you saw that $1999 price), some UK retailers have been selling it for £1649. And that's without any "instant rebate".


If you think I've used some sleight of hand somewhere, look at today's prices for the same 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. B&H in New York are selling it for $2374 minus $200 instant rebate = $2174. Convert $ to £ at tourist rates, add duty and VAT, and it comes to £1816. But the lowest price currently quoted on Camera Price Buster is £1770.

 

[StewartR]

40% is a fair premium for the early birds

As has been said though that price seems to just be the MRP which generally seems to be 30-40% more than the street price in the UK.

Not quite. For the Canon lenses I mentioned, the stable price 6-12 months after introduction is about 40% lower than MRP. That means MRP is 67% higher than the long-term street price, so the early adopters tax is 67%.

 

[StewartR]

Nikon lenses seem to settle around 25% below MRP.

You're right. I've looked at the 24/1.4, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4, and they've all done that, roughly.

Canon lenses generally aren't reckoned to be more expensive than their Nikon equivalents though, at least when comparing street prices. I think what's happening here is that Canon are being a bit cleverer and spotting a greater opportunity to fleece the early-adopters.

 

[Martyn...]

Not quite. For the Canon lenses I mentioned, the stable price 6-12 months after introduction is about 40% lower than MRP. That means MRP is 67% higher than the long-term street price, so the early adopters tax is 67%.

You are not making it any better Stewart

 

[Ploddles]

It doesn't work like that, and this isn't rip-off Britain.

$1999 is £1269 at today's bank exchange rates, but those rates aren't available to consumers. If you bought a lens out there using a credit card, or if you bought dollars here before you travelled, you'd pay about £1302.

The UK import duty on lenses is 6.9% which means it's £1392 by the time you've brought it into the UK.

Then, unless you're a VAT-registered business you need to allow for 20% VAT (and the UK price you quoted included VAT, which makes it a fair comparison). That brings the price to £1670.

Within the last couple of months (when you saw that $1999 price), some UK retailers have been selling it for £1649. And that's without any "instant rebate".

If you think I've used some sleight of hand somewhere, look at today's prices for the same 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. B&H in New York are selling it for $2374 minus $200 instant rebate = $2174. Convert $ to £ at tourist rates, add duty and VAT, and it comes to £1816. But the lowest price currently quoted on Camera Price Buster is £1770.

Don't forget you need to add Sales Tax in the USA. Where B&H are located that is 8.875% so $2174 now becomes $2367.

 

[Wyshniukas]

Only first impression, but I would say valid photos of lens.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/...campaign=Feed:+canonrumors/rss+(Canon+Rumors)

 

[Moreorless]

Not quite. For the Canon lenses I mentioned, the stable price 6-12 months after introduction is about 40% lower than MRP. That means MRP is 67% higher than the long-term street price, so the early adopters tax is 67%.

I can't say I'v followed them closely in the past but the impression I had was that Canon's prices are alot lower than MRP right from lanch. The new 100mm L macro for example has an MRP of over £1000 yet I don't ever recall seeing it sold at anywhere close to that.

 

[lifethroughalens]

Can't see the point really... There's nothing wrong with the original 24-70 :shrug:

I would love to see less vignetting at f2.8. Apart from that, I agree with you, it's a superb lens as is. Certainly, I can't see why I'd want to pay another £500-600 for the MK2?

Mind you, I felt that way about the MK2 70-200mm 2.8 IS - until I tried it

 

[Photogaz]

Mind you, I felt that way about the MK2 70-200mm 2.8 IS - until I tried it

I spent £500 upgrading to a Mark II 70-200mm. It was certainly worth it though. The Mark I always bugged me at f2.8 200mm but the Mark II is blisteringly sharp. I can't wait for the new 24-70mm. I'm waiting till the end of the month to see if the 5D X is announced as it might come as kit lens.

I think Canon doing a refresh of their top lenses means we're going to have some sharp kit across all the board, you just have to pay for it if you want it though.

 

[Moreorless]

I think Canon doing a refresh of their top lenses means we're going to have some sharp kit across all the board, you just have to pay for it if you want it though.

As I said my guess is this could be the reason behind the new 24mm and 28mm 2.8 IS's. If producing zooms that offer the edge to edge sharpness to fully exploit new ultra high megapixel sensors is going to result in prices beyond what many can pay then primes do seem like the obvious alternative.

Perhaps explains why they have IS and the 24-70 doesnt aswell, users who can only afford the primes are also more likely not to be using a tripod when needed so will give up a bit of sharpness(while still remaining sharper than the 24-105) for IS.

 

[Raymond Lin]

All these price guessing is funny. Either way, it is going to be at least 50% more expensive than the current lens even if you take the US $ as the figure ($2,000/£1,200). You can get the current Mk1 got £800.

Is it 50% better lens? I don't think it is. It is not faster, it doesn't have IS. The current one's AF is brilliant, don't mind the weight nor its reverse zoom at 24mm.

It is a good update if you don't have a 24-70 but there are other lenses due an update before the 24-70, 45mm TS for one since the 17 and 24mm TS both got updated to L. Granted, they probably sell 10x more 24-70 than a TS lens.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

It is a good update if you don't have a 24-70 but there are other lenses due an update before the 24-70, 45mm TS for one since the 17 and 24mm TS both got updated to L. Granted, they probably sell 10x more 24-70 than a TS lens.

Isn't 45mm TSE one of the sharpest, despite the lack of the ring that you could easily paint on.

The ones that canon really needs to deal with urgently include, but are not limited to:
* 17-40 - I just can't stand it till f/11
* 16-35mm's - not the best possible reviews given the price and 82mm thread. Make it 15-30mm?
* 50mm f/1.4 and 1.2L are full of serious compromises here and there
* 50 1.8 looks laughable against the new nikon
* 35 2.0 and 20 2.8 might do with an update
* 400 5.6 badly needs IS (or make it 500 5.6 if that's not too big and expensive)
* 100-400 is poor at 400mm, IS very out of date

 

[Moreorless]

I'd guess Canon probabley view the Nikon alternative as defining the most urgent updates, in that respect the existing 24-70 was clearly lagging behind before where as it now looks like it might have an advanatge. Given just how many 24-70 mk1's there are out there its not like those who want one will have a problem picking it up used, probabley for a bit less now.

Besides that I'd say the most urgent high end update/new lens is something to rival the Nikon 14-24mm although the size and filter issues would probabley be worth looking at. Maybe make it f/4 instead and either come up with some kind of in house filter system or a drop in one like the new Pentax 645D UWA?

 

[squishy]

* 400 5.6 badly needs IS (or make it 500 5.6 if that's not too big and expensive)
* 100-400 is poor at 400mm, IS very out of date

I dispute both those points. Granted a 400 f/5.6 IS would be very welcome (I would probably own one), but the current one is most popular with birders who don't need IS because they're either shooting BIF's with fast shutter speeds or using it supported in hides or such. Plus it's more simple optics without IS make it very lightweight for it's focal length.
And the 100-400 is a very long way from "poor" at 400mm. But still, if they updated it with similar construction to the 70-300L, new IS and slightly improved optics it would be excellent. But likely significantly more expensive.

 

[Photogaz]

It doesn't work like that, and this isn't rip-off Britain.

$1999 is £1269 at today's bank exchange rates, but those rates aren't available to consumers. If you bought a lens out there using a credit card, or if you bought dollars here before you travelled, you'd pay about £1302.

The UK import duty on lenses is 6.9% which means it's £1392 by the time you've brought it into the UK.

Then, unless you're a VAT-registered business you need to allow for 20% VAT (and the UK price you quoted included VAT, which makes it a fair comparison). That brings the price to £1670.

Within the last couple of months (when you saw that $1999 price), some UK retailers have been selling it for £1649. And that's without any "instant rebate".


If you think I've used some sleight of hand somewhere, look at today's prices for the same 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. B&H in New York are selling it for $2374 minus $200 instant rebate = $2174. Convert $ to £ at tourist rates, add duty and VAT, and it comes to £1816. But the lowest price currently quoted on Camera Price Buster is £1770.

Surely travelling back you could easily avoid the import duty, take the lens on your camera with you as hand luggage and say you owned it before hand. It's not like you're talking a non travel based item.

 

[tiler65]

Surely travelling back you could easily avoid the import duty, take the lens on your camera with you as hand luggage and say you owned it before hand. It's not like you're talking a non travel based item.

That is evading paying import duty so technically illegal.

 

[Photogaz]

That is evading paying import duty so technically illegal.

Didn't say I was doing it, but I'm just thinking who would actually declare something that you'd almost certainly get through with no problems. Buying from the US you've also got to think about what would happen if it goes wrong.

 

[HoppyUK]

I dispute both those points. Granted a 400 f/5.6 IS would be very welcome (I would probably own one), but the current one is most popular with birders who don't need IS because they're either shooting BIF's with fast shutter speeds or using it supported in hides or such. Plus it's more simple optics without IS make it very lightweight for it's focal length.
And the 100-400 is a very long way from "poor" at 400mm. But still, if they updated it with similar construction to the 70-300L, new IS and slightly improved optics it would be excellent. But likely significantly more expensive.

400L 5.6 does stand out to me as a bit of a weakness. Great lens though it is, without IS and quite a long minimum focus, its appeal is limited. Rumours of a 400L 4 IS are about, and that would make a nice 560 5.6 with extender. The current 400 DO 4 is optically weak, and expesnive. But my guess is a new 400L 4 would be well on the far side of £2k, ie at least double.

The venerable 100-400L is still doing the business very well. Mine was pretty sharp (wish I never sold it) and just so versatile, great value, and holds it price.

The 100-400L has also be 'replaced' in a couple of different ways. By the 70-200L 2.8 Mk2, which is a fantastic lens on its own, and pretty much on a par even with a 2x extender. If you think of it as two lenses in one, it's a real bargain.

Then there's the new 70-300L, which is a brilliant all-rounder that will do most things the 70-200 and 100-400 can in a handy package. Affordable too. It seems to be catching on.

It's not like we're short of options from Canon.

 

[StewartR]

Surely travelling back you could easily avoid the import duty, take the lens on your camera with you as hand luggage and say you owned it before hand. It's not like you're talking a non travel based item.

Firstly, as already pointed out, that's illegal.

Secondly, the people who claimed that the US is cheaper and UK is a rip-off were comparing a legal UK price with an illegally imported US price. I can't see how that makes any kind of sense. You may as well say that the UK is cheaper because you can nick one from your local camera shop for nothing, whereas to nick one from the US you'd have to pay the air fare.

 

[StewartR]

The ones that canon really needs to deal with urgently include, but are not limited to:
* 400 5.6 badly needs IS (or make it 500 5.6 if that's not too big and expensive)
* 100-400 is poor at 400mm, IS very out of date

Granted a 400 f/5.6 IS would be very welcome (I would probably own one), but the current one is most popular with birders who don't need IS because they're either shooting BIF's with fast shutter speeds or using it supported in hides or such. Plus it's more simple optics without IS make it very lightweight for it's focal length.

Great lens though it is, without IS and quite a long minimum focus, its appeal is limited.

Absolutely. That's the whole point of that lens. It's designed for one specific job which it does very well.

And the 100-400 is a very long way from "poor" at 400mm. But still, if they updated it with similar construction to the 70-300L, new IS and slightly improved optics it would be excellent. But likely significantly more expensive.

The venerable 100-400L is still doing the business very well. Mine was pretty sharp (wish I never sold it) and just so versatile, great value, and holds it price.

Agreed, the 100-400 could do with an update. But compare it with Nikon's "equivalent" and you'll see why it's still so popular.

 

[DoctorBob]

Firstly, as already pointed out, that's illegal.

Secondly, the people who claimed that the US is cheaper and UK is a rip-off were comparing a legal UK price with an illegally imported US price. I can't see how that makes any kind of sense. You may as well say that the UK is cheaper because you can nick one from your local camera shop for nothing, whereas to nick one from the US you'd have to pay the air fare.

Nice analogy

 

[Byker28i]

Now a write up on the CPN site on the three new lenses

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/canon_reveals_three_new_ef_lenses.do

Canon has expanded its EF lens range with the addition of three new lenses – the EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM L-series standard zoom and the EF24mm f/2.8 IS USM and EF28mm f/2.8 IS USM lenses, which are the first ever wide-angle prime lenses to incorporate Canon’s Image Stabilization (IS) technology.