# How much would you pay for Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 4, 2013)

I know at this point it is hypothetical but if Canon were to release 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS lens in 2013 or 2014 (which I think they won't), how much would you be willing to pay for it? and what would you give up / sell (if any)?

I think I would be willing to stretch myself to painfully cough up max US$ 3500 ... I'd sell my Tamron 24-70 VC & Sigma 150-500 OS lenses to partially fund the 24-70 f/2.8 L IS.

How about you?


----------



## J.R. (Feb 4, 2013)

There are wayyy to many variables here. I'd probably stretch it to $ 3,500 if it was announced NOW and I would be buying it in 2015 - gotta save up in the long term for the lenses!

If it was announced after two years ... who knows.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 4, 2013)

J.R. said:


> gotta save up in the long term for the lenses!


You bet! .. darned things aint cheap ... with $3500, in India, one can buy a brand new car and still have some money left over to buy a motorcycle. Imagine the price of 200-400 f/4 L IS ... after buying that lens, one can buy a car to use it as a lens case on wheels.


----------



## M.ST (Feb 4, 2013)

I don´t want an IS version. So I am willing to pay nothing for it.

Canon decide against the IS version because the lens was to big and heavy.

A lot of pros want a lightweight 24-70 2.8 lens and thats exactly what they get with the 24-70 2.8 II.


----------



## candyman (Feb 4, 2013)

M.ST said:


> I don´t want an IS version. So I am willing to pay nothing for it.
> 
> Canon decide against the IS version because the lens was to big and heavy.
> 
> A lot of pros want a lightweight 24-70 2.8 lens and thats exactly what they get with the 24-70 2.8 II.


 
Tamron 24-70 with VC is only 20 gram more. How much more would it be if Canon add a stabilizer?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 4, 2013)

M.ST said:


> Canon decide against the IS version because the lens was to big and heavy.


Is that official, I mean did Canon actually announce that they did not make the IS version due to its size and weight? ... btw my question is not a sarcastic reply, just a genuine question.


----------



## AmbientLight (Feb 4, 2013)

I really do wonder about that argument regarding weight increase.

I believe we can all accept that a lens may be heavier with IS in it, that is kind of obvious. Nevertheless it appears to me that Canon has shied away from trying to minimize lens weight to make up for the weight increase due to IS being added. Tamron appears to have managed to achieve this, but then again their lens design is not the same.

What weighs most in a lens is glass, followed by lens barrel material. It will be difficult for Canon to reduce in these areas without seriously compromising lens quality unless they go for a complete overhaul of their lens design, which may lead to a model more similar in weight to the Tamron lens.

Probably only Canon's product designers will be able to supply the information as to which reasons compelled Canon to omit IS in this lens.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 4, 2013)

AmbientLight said:


> I really do wonder about that argument regarding weight increase.
> 
> I believe we can all accept that a lens may be heavier with IS in it, that is kind of obvious. Nevertheless it appears to me that Canon has shied away from trying to minimize lens weight to make up for the weight increase due to IS being added. Tamron appears to have managed to achieve this, but then again their lens design is not the same.
> 
> ...


I agree ... but, (assuming that it meets all your requirements), how much would you be willing to pay for it?


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 4, 2013)

2500, same price as the 70-200 IS II when that first came out. But the IQ would have to be similar to or better than the 24-70 II.


----------



## wayno (Feb 4, 2013)

It would be an amazing lens if so. I just spent a weekend using the II constantly - it is amazing. Dare I say worth the current price. I'd pay $2500-3000 for an IS but for the way I use the current II, i don't see the need for IS.


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 4, 2013)

Nothing. Zilch. Nada. $0.

Now, if you ask me about a metal barrel version of the 24-70 II then we're talking. I'd pay a couple grand for that.


----------



## syder (Feb 4, 2013)

Its an interesting question... For many photographers IS on a standard zoom isn't a feature that would be worth an awful lot, as the extra stabilisation means that you can handhold a steady shot for far longer than your subject is likely to stay still (unless you're a still life or landscape photographer, in which case using a tripod isn't likely to be an issue). Of course this isn't the case when you think about a lens like the 70-200, let alone the supertele lenses, where IS is a huge advantage for stills.

On the other hand, for video, having IS in a standard zoom is still a really sought after feature - you're (mainly) stuck at a shutter speed of 1/50th, and IS is thus really really useful. As someone who does more paid video than stills work I would be prepared to pay extra for a 24-70 IS. But it would have to offer a superior performance/price ratio to the Tamron (which is sharper than the Canon 24-70 mk 1 and costs half the price of the mark ii). Given that the mark ii is now available for under £1700, I'd consider a 24-70is at £2k - but at 2.5x the price of the Tamron it would have to be a spectacularly good lens to justify the cost. I mean for the £1200 difference I could pick up (for example) the Samyang 24+35+85mm f1.4 primes as well.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 4, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> 2500, same price as the 70-200 IS II when that first came out. But the IQ would have to be similar to or better than the 24-70 II.



2nd that


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 4, 2013)

1999$


----------



## Scott911 (Feb 4, 2013)

Answering how much more 'should' it cost, I'd say $700 more.

the 70-200 f/2.8 without IS cost, $1300, the same lens with IS cost $2000. So all the tech can certainly be accommodated at a 'pro IS level' with a $700 up-charge, maybe a touch more if they want to add special coatings of what not to the is lens element.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 4, 2013)

Unless IS version will be sharpner than current f2.8 II, otherwise, I don't have the needs for IS.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 4, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > 2500, same price as the 70-200 IS II when that first came out. But the IQ would have to be similar to or better than the 24-70 II.
> ...



Lucky guys you in the US. In my country lenses are expensive by 30% across the board. The current MRP of the 24-70 II is the equivalent of USD 2,700 - no discounted deals usually.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Feb 4, 2013)

.28 cents... about as much as I'd pay for a pegusus or the Man/Bear/Pig. I have never understood the need for eveything IS... like the masses begging for the 135 w/IS. It won't save poor technique or much beyond still work. I love the ability of it on a tele... like the 70-200 but honestly it is off 95% of the time on mine.


----------



## K-amps (Feb 4, 2013)

Scott911 said:


> Answering how much more 'should' it cost, I'd say $700 more.
> 
> the 70-200 f/2.8 without IS cost, $1300, the same lens with IS cost $2000. So all the tech can certainly be accommodated at a 'pro IS level' with a $700 up-charge, maybe a touch more if they want to add special coatings of what not to the is lens element.



I am curious how and when we collective believed that it costs Canon $400-700 to add IS. I mean really?

It probably does not cost $50 in materials and I am stretching it. The R&D is sunk cost anyway... Add another $30 per unit for re-tooling; retraining Other overheads and you do not cross $100 for IS... 

Canon "does" charge a premuim for it, but we the consumers put a value of 700 on it when we should probably not... I had so much hoped that Tamron would resolve their QC issues (AF lens falling) that people would begin buying more of that great value at $1300.... and knock some sense into Canon.

Anyway... I'd be willing to Pay $1700 for it. Given Canon's better IQ and QA.


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 4, 2013)

K-amps said:


> Scott911 said:
> 
> 
> > Answering how much more 'should' it cost, I'd say $700 more.
> ...





I think the OP is asking the correct question. It's not what Canon's cost are. That should be completely and utterly irrelevant. Any business that is still working on a cost+markup basis is bound to fail. And I don't get the impression that Canon is operating like that or sets its pricing structure like that.

What clients are willing to pay is exactly the right start. Even better: what value does such a lens have for you and what is that worth to you?

Hence my answer: nothing. In fact, I would account it as a negative value since it is likely to shorten the lifespan/increase the likelihood of repairs. and I tend to keep my gear for a very long time usually so that is a factor. To others that may not matter.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 4, 2013)

K-amps said:


> I am curious how and when we collective believed that it costs Canon $400-700 to add IS. I mean really?
> 
> Anyway... I'd be willing to Pay $1700 for it. Given Canon's better IQ and QA.


I don't think it is about us collectively believing anything ... its more to do with how Canon is pricing their lenses these days ... For everyone's sake I hope Canon does price it at around $1700 ... but than again, I don't think that's gonna happen.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 4, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 1999$


LOL, that is pretty specific ... so what you are saying is that if it is $2000 you will not be willing to pay the extra dollar? ;D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 4, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Unless IS version will be sharpner than current f2.8 II, otherwise, I don't have the needs for IS.


OK, lets say it is much more sharper than the the current version ... how much would you be willing to pay?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 4, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Lucky guys you in the US. In my country lenses are expensive by 30% across the board. The current MRP of the 24-70 II is the equivalent of USD 2,700 - no discounted deals usually.


Actually 30% is not too bad a deal for some peace of mind with local warranty ... in the middle east 24-70 II is selling for a $3700+ ... about 10 days ago I bought 24-70 f/2.8 VC (from Japan) for $1049, here in the middle east it is selling for $2000+ ... this is the reason why I order all my gear from USA (or sometimes Japan) and give up on local warranty.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 4, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> ... in the middle east 24-70 II is selling for a $3700+


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 4, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 1999$
> ...



I would wait for BVI to have the sale.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 4, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Unless IS version will be sharpner than current f2.8 II, otherwise, I don't have the needs for IS.
> ...



No more than $2599


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 5, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



If it was noticably sharper than the current II
I would say maybe $2800


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 5, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



count me out @ that price...I rather buy a tiny Sony rx1 with giant sensor for travel over sea. And yes, I did. It will arrive this coming thur.........Can't wait


----------



## J.R. (Feb 5, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> I rather buy a tiny Sony rx1 with giant sensor for travel over sea. And yes, I did. It will arrive this coming thur.........Can't wait



Congrats! Enjoy your trip and do post some pics on your return


----------



## RJB (Feb 5, 2013)

Just my tuppence-worth...

I bought the new 24-70 for £1700. I use it in nearly every shoot I do (Documentary shoots, NGO work, Conflict, Events) and I haven't once wished that I had IS. 
The iso performance on the 5d3 is so good that I can just bump it to compensate if necessary. Although expensive, the 24-70ii is sharp, lightweight enough to use all day in 100F+, and perfect for my needs. 
It paid for itself within 2 projects and I just don't see a time when I'd be prepared to pony up another grand to buy an IS version. Just doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Pagesphotography (Feb 5, 2013)

I think it would be nice to have IS on the 24-70, as it would just be another tool to use for our benefit in certain situations, but my main concern is that extra cost of IS on that lens would make it like a $3k lens


----------



## syder (Feb 5, 2013)

ChilledXpress said:


> .28 cents... about as much as I'd pay for a pegusus or the Man/Bear/Pig. I have never understood the need for eveything IS... like the masses begging for the 135 w/IS. It won't save poor technique or much beyond still work. I love the ability of it on a tele... like the 70-200 but honestly it is off 95% of the time on mine.



Again... For video IS is a massive +

Remember that the general rule for getting sharp images is focal length/shutter speed = <1

And that for video you are stuck at a shutter sped of 1/50th second if you want natural looking motion at 24/25 frames per second.

For the 135 that means you're very unlikely to get usable hand-held footage (unless you only need a very brief cutaway).

With a 4-stop IS system, you would be able to shoot reasonable hand-held video with a 135mm lens. Consequently for video shooters this would be a killer feature. It has nothing to do with poor technique (unless you count not having every shot locked off on a tripod/dolly/crane as poor technique I guess - but this is hardly feasible for low-budget event/documentary jobs). Much the same can be said about shooting handheld at 70mm - you might get away with it as it's closer to a 1:1 focal length to shutter speed ration - but IS will give you a steadier shot on a more consistent basis.

IS may not be what you look for or need for your own particular usage, however for others (particularly those focussed on video, or who make significant usage of video) IS is a massive advantage in a lens.


----------



## eyeland (Feb 5, 2013)

+1 for IS as a video feature.
IMO some form of stabilization is absolutely crucial for video.
Granted, this will often be gravity-based (tripod), gravity/inertia-based (balanced steadycam), but the feature of build-in IS (regardless of how it works) is nothing short of amazing for handheld video.
Keep in mind that for video it is not a question of sharpness in relation to shutter speed as much as a smooth continuity from image to image.

If I was about to pull the trigger on a 24-70II (currently 2100$ here) I think I'd be "happy" to add 100-200$ for IS without blinking.


----------



## Meh (Feb 5, 2013)

Image stabilisation is magical. Of all the modern advances in camera tech, IS is one of the truly great advantages compared to days gone by. Worth every penny.


----------



## sandymandy (Feb 5, 2013)

Hm really? I think AF is more useful. I can live without IS on my lenses but i dont wanna trade AF. Useable high ISO might be the best i think. Way more than IS.


----------



## Meh (Feb 5, 2013)

sandymandy said:


> Hm really? I think AF is more useful. I can live without IS on my lenses but i dont wanna trade AF. Useable high ISO might be the best i think. Way more than IS.



You talkin' to me Willis?

Yes, really. I did say "one of". I did not use the word "best" and I did not use the word "useful". No wonder so many arguments get started, when you paraphrase someone and change the meaning, then disagree with your paraphrased version you have committed a logical fallacy called a "straw man" argument.  I'm just havin' some fun... 

I agree that the other two you state are also in that same category. An exact rank ordering of what is best, second best, etc. would involve a lot of factors including personal preference so best to avoid trying to do that.

AF has been around since the late 70s so whether we lump that in with other so-called "modern advances" is a choice. But sure, if I had to choose of course I'd take AF over IS.

High ISO capability is great, but distill it down a little further... being able to change ISO from shot to shot is even more useful/beneficial/wonderful/magical. In film days, there were different ISO films... but once you put a roll in, you shot at that ISO until you were done (do I have that right, I never shot film). Or imagine going out shooting for a day, planning to shoot say 5 rolls of film, but not sure what ISO you'd be using... man, you'd have to take along 5 rolls of film of each ISO you thought you might use. Yikes!


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 5, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 1999$



+1

EDIT: Actually I would only consider it for an unrealistic €1500-1600


----------



## agierke (Feb 5, 2013)

> IS may not be what you look for or need for your own particular usage, however for others (particularly those focussed on video, or who make significant usage of video) IS is a massive advantage in a lens.



as a still shooter this is something that i have come to understand despite not having any real experience shooting video. 

my question is however, how useful is a mid range zoom for video? would a prime be more desirable at those focal ranges? i see plenty of 70-200mm 2.8 IS lenses being used by video guys on the weddings i shoot but they are always locked down on tripods/dollys and as far as i know the focal length is not being changed during filming.

i still contend for still shooting that IS is usually a bad solution for low light at wider focal lengths. i completely understand it for longer focal lengths in all lighting conditions but i think faster shutterspeeds at higher ISOs is always a better solution. IS cannot overcome the physics of motion in the scene below 1/60th of a sec. only faster shutterpeeds can and on occasion strobed light.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 5, 2013)

$1799, that's what I would pay...and that was the question. Not what I think would be the initial asking price. Initially I'm sure they would ask $3199, and all the doctors, lawyers, and other overpaid professionals would buy almost their entire inventory. Just like they did with the 5D3 last year. If they ever produce a special gold edition 5D3, those same people would buy all of those. Snob appeal, period.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Feb 5, 2013)

syder said:


> ChilledXpress said:
> 
> 
> > .28 cents... about as much as I'd pay for a pegusus or the Man/Bear/Pig. I have never understood the need for eveything IS... like the masses begging for the 135 w/IS. It won't save poor technique or much beyond still work. I love the ability of it on a tele... like the 70-200 but honestly it is off 95% of the time on mine.
> ...



Yes, but we are talking about DSLRs where video is a niche. As a commercial/professional photographer I do take video but my bread and butter is from still work. I've always felt that video is a nice addition but not really the main concern for my body selection. I buy a video unit for video and a DSLR for still, so insisting that every lens has IS because it video friendly is like insisting all Ferraris must have a trailer hitch. You know, for that 5% of Italian sports car camping fanatics that travel with a camper.

Canon makes cinema lenses... buy one if that is your interest, leave the cost and weight out of the design of most DSLR lenses.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 5, 2013)

sandymandy said:


> Hm really? I think AF is more useful. I can live without IS on my lenses but i dont wanna trade AF. Useable high ISO might be the best i think. Way more than IS.


I don't think anyone is disputing how important AF is ... AF literally propelled Canon into top position.
What we are talking about is IS in the lens without compromising on AF, sharpness, IQ etc ... what if that lens is the sharpest canon lens ever, with the fastest and the most accurate AF ever and with minimum 4 stops IS, what would you be willing to pay?


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 5, 2013)

ChilledXpress said:


> syder said:
> 
> 
> > ChilledXpress said:
> ...



Excellent and hilarious points! I'm tired of all these people who insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video. You know, because stills photography is for old timers. Go buy a C100, educate yourself, and try to do some quality work, if you really need to do video.


----------



## picturesbyme (Feb 5, 2013)

$5000, but if it comes with the new cap maybe $7500.
:


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 5, 2013)

ChilledXpress said:


> Yes, but we are talking about DSLRs where video is a niche.
> 
> Canon makes cinema lenses... buy one if that is your interest, leave the cost and weight out of the design of most DSLR lenses.


A lot of wedding photographers are now using fusion, mixing video with stills ... and more and more couples are asking for fusion ... it would be foolish for those photographers to invest in Canon cinema lenses as they cost a fortune. Besides, the 24-70 f/2.8 L II is there for people like you who don't want IS, since it is new, it won't go anywhere *if* (hypothetically speaking) canon releases an IS version in 2013 or 2014. I don't think a general purpose zoom lens with IS will be all that heavy, I am sure we will still be able to carry it all day comfortably, unless someone is extremely weak.


----------



## ablearcher (Feb 5, 2013)

i'll be happy to pay for 24-105 2.8 IS around $2300 price. That would be a golden lens. Not really interested in 24-70 fl.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 5, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> I'm tired of all these people who insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video. You know, because stills photography is for old timers. Go buy a C100, educate yourself, and try to do some quality work, if you really need to do video.


I read all the posts in this thread but nobody said "stills photography is for old timers", neither did I see anyone "insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video" ... so relax, no need to get tired with unnecessary imaginations.
Just because we want to do a bit of video and feel IS would be an advantage to us, does not mean we have to buy C100, that's pretty foolish advise. Besides for those who don't need IS there is already an excelent 24-70 f/2.8 L II lens ... for those who would like IS, let us live in peace without giving us "holier than thou" comments like "educate yourself and try to do some quality work" ... I am sure everyone here is educated and trying to do quality work, thank you!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 5, 2013)

picturesbyme said:


> $5000, but if it comes with the new cap maybe $7500.
> :


Please do not joke about such things ... Canon might take you seriously and we'd all be 5crewed, having to pay $7500 for our beloved lens. ;D


----------



## syder (Feb 5, 2013)

agierke said:


> my question is however, how useful is a mid range zoom for video? would a prime be more desirable at those focal ranges? i see plenty of 70-200mm 2.8 IS lenses being used by video guys on the weddings i shoot but they are always locked down on tripods/dollys and as far as i know the focal length is not being changed during filming.



A standard zoom is about as useful for video as it is for stills tbh - very. For most event work it gives you the flexibility to go from a general view/establishing shot to a medium close up. A 70-200 is a close up lens - also massively useful, especially at things like conferences where you can't necessarily get anywhere near the action.

Would a prime be better... Well it's much the same as with stills. If you have time to set things up just the way you want them then a prime will generally beat a zoom. For weddings/events/documentary style action then you don't really have that luxury, so having a zoom that will cover a bunch of useful focal lengths (24, 35, 50, 70) is pretty handy.



Rienzphotoz said:


> ChilledXpress said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but we are talking about DSLRs where video is a niche.
> ...



+1 

DSLR video is a way an awful lot of people make at least some of their money. Telling them they HAVE TO buy a £4k camera and £4k lenses just because you use your gear differently is just plain dumb.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 5, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > I'm tired of all these people who insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video. You know, because stills photography is for old timers. Go buy a C100, educate yourself, and try to do some quality work, if you really need to do video.
> ...



You're sure everyone here is educated? I'm not...I meant, educate yourself formally...as in, go to film school. Learn how to shoot a "film" the right way, and not by following fads and trends of the wedding market. And stop telling me something is foolish just because you think it costs too much. Your competition may very well eventually budget for a C100, or similar (if they haven't already)...and steal your customers, so you might as well work toward getting one yourself. If you already own several DSLR bodies, a C100 would only take the place of two. Oh, and I'm perfectly relaxed...are you? Sheesh. Like I said, I'm tired of people who have the DSLR video mindset, thinking they can dictate how those who shoot primarily stills, should think. Control freak much?

I'm not against a 24-70 IS. But I am against one if it is meant primarily as a video lens...I doubt it would sell very well. I actually enjoy lenses with IS, for shooting stills. If the IS is working properly and used properly, it can add sharpness to a picture regardless of the shutter speed...fast or slow...in my opinion. It's just that there are varying levels of IS quality, depending on the individual lens, and focal length. I agree that a lens like the 24-70, at least at the wide end...could have problems with IS switched on, as was stated above.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 5, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...


Thanks for your response. But I'm still waiting for where in this thread you saw anyone say "stills photography is for old timers", or "insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video" ... I mean that's what got you "tired" right? ;D
Coming to your question about if I was "sure everyone is educated?" ... yes I am sure ... education does not necessarily come only from going to a film school ... the fact that all these people come to forums like Canon Rumours to read others post their views shows their desire to learn. By the way there is nothing wrong if some photographers are "following fads and trends of the wedding market" coz not all photographers need C100 but "following fads and trends of the wedding market" could very well mean they are earning their daily bread with that or paying their mortgage or putting their kids through college ... it is not a crime or something to be ashamed of to follow fads and trends of the wedding market ... despite "following fads and trends of the wedding market" artistic pursuits can still go on. So lets not be so self-righteous.


----------



## picturesbyme (Feb 5, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> picturesbyme said:
> 
> 
> > $5000, but if it comes with the new cap maybe $7500.
> ...



Haha.. I think it's too late, they already grabbed on to the idea..

The way I see camera gear is a tool for the "professionals" and a toy for big kids, hobbyists.
Nothing wrong with that but as every school yard, there are always kids who have more money than the rest and they want to be popular by "flashing" their stuff . 
I see the same here. Some could take an amazing photo with a piece of emmental some couldn't with a 5d3/1dx if his life depend on it. Yet, these people have money and can and will buy the most expensive and/or the newest stuff even if they don't "need" it, because it's a status symbol. Look at me I have a .... 
They (especially the flock of non pro early birds) practically "outbidding" each other and ensuring Canon that the price is not high.
More people, more social media and photography is getting more and more popular. Now there is a larger pool who can afford a lens at $2500 then many yrs ago.
Canon realized this (like Apple) and now the more they charge the more people want to buy.

A fun BBC movie "Secrets of the superbrands" pretty much explains it.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 5, 2013)

I don't think I would be willing to pay much more than $2500, and it would depend on the IQ compared to the 24-70L II. I just don't think that IS is very necessary for a 24-70mm. Sure, at 70mm I guess it would be helpful, but when I had a 24-70mm I shot mostly between 24-50mm, which IS doesn't really help much. I guess for video it could be a more beneficial, but for stills I don't think it would be worth the price difference.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Feb 5, 2013)

$8


----------



## Daniel Flather (Feb 5, 2013)

ablearcher said:


> i'll be happy to pay for 24-105 2.8 IS around $2300 price. That would be a golden lens. Not really interested in 24-70 fl.



A.K.A. EF 100/2.8L macro.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 5, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I rather buy a tiny Sony rx1 with giant sensor for travel over sea. And yes, I did. It will arrive this coming thur.........Can't wait
> ...



I just got back US last friday. Here are some pictures I took during the walk with my co-workers - around "L" Hotel areas, in Hong Kong. I still have 3 more trips to China this year, Sony RX1 will travel with me from now on 

http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/UYeiZxIK/1/5940288#imageID=179366059

If you ever plan visit HK, I recommend you book the "Executive Harbour View Room" at "L" Hotel. It has great view at night time. As you can see, I was shooting through 1" thick glass window. Not very clear, but you get the idea of this view.

Hotel site: http://www.lhotelcausewaybayhv.com/


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 6, 2013)

syder said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > my question is however, how useful is a mid range zoom for video? would a prime be more desirable at those focal ranges? i see plenty of 70-200mm 2.8 IS lenses being used by video guys on the weddings i shoot but they are always locked down on tripods/dollys and as far as i know the focal length is not being changed during filming.
> ...



+1000

mixed media is become an increasingly more common client request


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 6, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> $8


If Canon sells it for $8, I will become Santa Claus, order 100 EF 24-70 f/2.8 L IS lenses and gift 99 to the followers of Canon Rumors as my Christmas present ... first one will be for you ;D I'll keep the 100th one (the first 99 will be beta testers, so I can keep the sharpest copy of the lot ;D) 
But on second thoughts I don't think that's gonna happen coz 'picturesbyme' 5crewed us all with his $7500 offer, and word has it that Canon "already grabbed on to the idea" ;D


----------



## Meh (Feb 6, 2013)

picturesbyme said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > picturesbyme said:
> ...



May I offer you some cheese to go with that wine?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 6, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> I just got back US last friday. Here are some pictures I took during the walk with my co-workers - around "L" Hotel areas, in Hong Kong. I still have 3 more trips to China this year, Sony RX1 will travel with me from now on
> 
> http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/UYeiZxIK/1/5940288#imageID=179366059
> 
> ...


Nice! ... thanks for the tip ... will keep "L" in mind for my next trip to Hongkong, hopeully in December.


----------



## picturesbyme (Feb 6, 2013)

Meh said:


> picturesbyme said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



A good man indeed!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 6, 2013)

picturesbyme said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > picturesbyme said:
> ...


See, I told you not to joke about such things! ;D


picturesbyme said:


> A fun BBC movie "Secrets of the superbrands" pretty much explains it.


Just saw the vid on yotube, very interesting vid, thanks for sharing. 
I suppose its alright for big businesses to create hype and make good profits to sustain long term ... the choice still remains with us if we want to buy or not ... on the other hand they do provide employment opportunities for millions of people ... when they stop making profits none of us touch them with a ten foot pole e.g. Nokia. 
Hey whatever makes people get "high" 
In my case, if a particular product is within my budgeted range I buy what I feel will help me to get what I want, it could be a $1 app on Apple Store or a $3500 5D MK III. But when I see others with their fancier gadgets, I try not to think about it in the context of "oh, they are just flashing" or that "they are not pros" etc coz when I start thinking that way, I tend to get cynical, judgemental and basically nagitive about the world in general (I am not accusing you of that, but that's how I react to such thought process, so I try not to think of it that way). I feel that kinda thought process works against my hobby as a photographer to see beauty and potential in the world around me ... I am a father of 3 great kids and if I start viewing the world cynically I'm afraid I'll pass on that vibe to my kids (the darned newspapers & tv channels are already doing a great job of spreading negativity and cynicism) ... if I start viewing the world with cynicism I'm afraid I'll end up taking pictures of a people being dragged on the streets and killed, or a soldier being shot in the head etc ... I know there is a time, place and need for such images, but not for me ... photography is a hobby for me to destress myself and try to capture the abundant beauty that the world has to offer. I know that one can make a comepelling picture evenn with a toy camera ... image getting the photo of a terrorist being killed, no one will care or discuss if that pic stuck to the rule of thirds or if it complies with the basics of proper lighting etc and it does not matter if it is captured by a toy camera with lots of noise, but it will be more "compelling" and more popular for majority of the people than what an Ansal Adams could have ever produced. Having said, I do have my moments (lots of'em) of being cynical and negative :-[


----------



## michi (Feb 6, 2013)

I don't understand why all these people keep saying IS is not necessary. Do you people never use your 24-70 in poor light? I just got back from an evening show and took some fantastic pictures of the building from the outside at night and with the snow falling. Could have really used IS, instead needed to clear some snow off a fence so I could use it as support.

As to price, I would pay $2,300 for a 24-70 2.8 IS. The current new 24-70 2.8 should be around $1,700.

A 24-105 2.8 would be awesome, but I think it would be too big and heavy. The 24-70 2.8 is already pushing the limit weight wise. And it would be too expensive for me.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 6, 2013)

michi said:


> A 24-105 2.8 would be awesome, but I think it would be too big and heavy. The 24-70 2.8 is already pushing the limit weight wise. And it would be too expensive for me.


It truly would be awesome! ... for such a lens I think I'd be willing to put up with the weight up to 1KG (i.e. around 50% more than its current weight), but not if it weighs like the 28-300 L lens.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Feb 6, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



You don't sound relaxed at all. Anyways, DSLRs are always going to be primarily for stills. I have no idea where you got the idea where people say that the future of DSLR usage is video. What I do believe is that it's a natural progression for both the market and people who are starting out and/or transitioning from stills to video because of the more appealing starting price point, which I may add, hasn't affected the pricing of DSLRs themselves. No one *has* to buy a C100 to prove that they're a pro just like no one has to buy a medium format camera to prove they're above DSLR users. People are going to steal customers, but not because of the quality of their gear, and more so because of the quality of their work. It's not like back in the day when we had less gear to choose from, requiring higher budgets. We are in modern times, we should have a modern mindset. They won't release an EF 24-70 2.8 IS for just video use. I am in no way scared that they will. Even if they do, it will be up in the cinema lenses line and cost a horrendous amount of money.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 6, 2013)

Look um, this is long. I'm sorry, I don't feel like editing it down. Read this line, then the bottom paragraph, then go on to the next post.

I'm as relaxed as any of you. I'm just too verbal! I'm not afraid of a video-only lens, nor do I see that coming. It's really not even a big deal to me, I just like to converse and debate stuff like this. I go off on tangents. My bad. I don't even have plans to buy the non-IS version. It's overpriced...even if it is "best". 

I'm not saying someone has to buy a C100 to do pro work, but a better tool can and will yield better results, in the right hands. I simply question the logic of (perhaps more established) wedding pros who would spend the coin on a fleet of DSLR's and ignore a "bottom of the line" cinema camera. That was really what I was getting at. And they sure seem to be doing that. I personally am intrigued by these cameras, and the fact that they keep falling in price. And that Canon is one of the leaders of the charge. And, a film education could be the ticket to becoming very successful. Or it couldn't. But at least you wouldn't be trying to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. So much of the photo and video fields is arbitrary and whimsical...One person's "cool" is another's "played-out". And there's just too damn many photographers nowadays! 

Hey, I am not a big time, world class stills photographer either...and I am not just starting out. I have a lowly fine art education. It's not exactly proven valuable to me, so far anyway. It's partly my own fault, though. I'm not against people who are beginning their career. I wish them well. But I do see a pervasive mindset that is too narrow, especially among younger people, that DSLR's for video, is the ultimate creative exercise...which I disagree with. (Almost like making music videos and posting them on youtube, is like Hillary's first summit of Everest or something. They think they were the first to ever do something like that.) I don't care if this mindset has been specifically stated in this thread. It's something I have gathered from all I have read, and from all the people I have talked to, and some of the work I've seen, over the last few years. 

A forum poster's thoughts on a subject, certainly need not be limited to direct quotes from previous posters! You just took it personally that I was singling you out, when I wasn't. I was saying it seems pervasive. I don't claim to be all-knowing, I'm just voicing my own (I say, somewhat informed-but not perfect) opinion...and no one has been able to convince me I'm wrong. Sure, I can judge people harshly at times, or make snap judgements, just as they have me. That's life. And hey, I don't exactly enjoy weddings...or couples...haha. We all have our biases. I'm an angry guy in the belltower when it comes to weddings! Maybe you have the right idea...a wedding isn't _worthy_ of a cinema camera! I've never had my own wedding...maybe someday I'll compensate for that by becoming a bigomist or something? Obviously I have a personality for success there! Most married people I know, either tell me I made the smart choice...or else it becomes apparent that I did when I see them together! :-D

Hey, at least those of you who do weddings, are making a profit, and making the customer happy.

Let's all just make an action movie or something? Maybe a drama in 3D? It could feature teenage vampire superheros with huge neck tattoos, armed with crossbows and hammers...who ride a steam train to school...in Narnia. The train's conductor is Keith Richards...below his torso, his body is that of a snow leopard. The kids form a hip hop dance group on the way. Then one of the female cast, derides another one (the hotter one), then cries about it for 15 minutes. At the end of act two, the train gets ambushed by mutant android ewoks with serious issues, wearing jetpacks. After much mayhem, Dr. Drew makes them all sit down and endure a circle of shame. The End. with Narration by: Arrianna Huffington and Groundskeeper Willie...Don't laugh, it could be a contender at Sundance!!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 6, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> A forum poster's thoughts on a subject, certainly need not be limited to direct quotes from previous posters!


I agree ... but sometimes in the context of the topic, things can get muddled.


CarlTN said:


> You just took it personally that I was singling you out, when I wasn't.


No hard feeling bro ... I did not thnk you were singling out me or anyone else, and I certaily did not take it personally. 
But I did gather that you are just like any of us, but on "rage mode" ;D so I can certainly agree that you are an angry dude ... no issues as long as you don't attack me with a gun or any other deadly weapon. ;D ... all good, peace.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 6, 2013)

Not really in a rage mode either...I'm just highly opinionated at times. I guess it's just nice that anyone would read my thoughts on anything at all, haha! I commend you and anyone else for doing so. Nah, when I get in a rage, I cannot type or think well. Thankfully, as I get older, I have less rage. The problem is, the older I get, the more knowledge I take in, and the more opinions I have. Let's hope a kernel of wisdom will bud and take over!!


----------



## Alex (Feb 7, 2013)

It should be free to all CPS platinum members. They have already spend enough lol


----------

