# Pricing of the New Lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 7, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/pricing-of-the-new-lenses/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/pricing-of-the-new-lenses/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/pricing-of-the-new-lenses/"></a></div>
<strong>*UPDATE*

</strong>Canon USA pricing is now official, and it looks like a significant price bump for the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II. It better be the best built, best focusing and have the best optical quality of any Canon zoom lens!</p>
<p><strong><strong>Available April 2012</strong>

</strong>EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM $2299</p>
<p><strong>Available June 2012

</strong>EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM $849

EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM $799</p>
<p>I am surprised the 24mm and 28mm are so closely priced. I figured the 24mm would cost a considerable amount more. These primes are NOT priced for the mass market, I’d love to hear the reason for these two lenses and their price point.</p>
<p><strong>From Canon Germany

</strong>The bad news? Below is pricing released on the Canon Germany web site. Still waiting to see official USA pricing.</p>
<p><strong>Available April 2012</strong>

EF 24-70mm 1:2,8L II USM 2299 Euro</p>
<p><strong>Available June 2012

</strong>EF 24mm 1:2,8 IS USM 829 Euro

EF 28mm 1:2,8 IS USM 799 Euro</p>
<p><strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.canon.de/About_Us/Press_Centre/Press_Releases/Consumer_News/Cameras_Accessories/Class_leading_performance_unrivalled_flexibility.aspx">Canon Germany</a></p>
<p><em>Thanks all</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<div class="prli-social-buttons-bar"><a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/delicious_32.png" alt="Delicious" title="Delicious" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/stumbleupon_32.png" alt="StumbleUpon" title="StumbleUpon" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/digg_32.png" alt="Digg" title="Digg" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=RT @prettylink:  [url=http://www.canonrumors.com/]http://www.canonrumors.com/[/url] (via @prettylink)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/twitter_32.png" alt="Twitter" title="Twitter" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.mixx.com/submit?page_url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/mixx_32.png" alt="Mixx" title="Mixx" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://technorati.com/faves?add=http://www.canonrumors.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/technorati_32.png" alt="Technorati" title="Technorati" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&t=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/facebook_32.png" alt="Facebook" title="Facebook" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&h=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/newsvine_32.png" alt="News Vine" title="News Vine" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/reddit_32.png" alt="Reddit" title="Reddit" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/linkedin_32.png" alt="LinkedIn" title="LinkedIn" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/yahoobuzz_32.png" alt="Yahoo! Bookmarks" title="Yahoo! Bookmarks" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a></div>
```


----------



## kevl (Feb 7, 2012)

> Available April 2012
> EF 24-70mm 1:2,8L II USM 2299 Euro



LOL that's $3011.35 Canadian. This has to be a mistake... or the Europeans are getting seriously ripped off. Or maybe they throw in a 7D with a kit lens if you pre-order?  

Kev


----------



## Nejko (Feb 7, 2012)

say whaaaaaaat? 

Canon 24-70 mk1 -> mk2 = 900€ premium... that´s just sick.. 


edit:
"The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens is expected to be available in April for an approximate retail price of $2,299.00. "
Japanese people think $ and € are the same... wth?!


----------



## edmund (Feb 7, 2012)

Canon USA press release:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e0248044cf6e



> The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens is expected to be available in April for an approximate retail price of $2,299.00.
> ...
> The EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM lens is expected to be available in June for an approximate retail price of $849.99, while the EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM lens is expected to be available in June for an approximate retail price of $799.99.


----------



## LuCoOc (Feb 7, 2012)

I'd prefer the 24mm L if they ask 800 Bucks for a 2.8 prime lens.


----------



## kevl (Feb 7, 2012)

edmund said:


> Canon USA press release:
> http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e0248044cf6e
> 
> 
> ...



2,299 US is obviously much better than 2,299 EUR, but even still that's $1,000 more than the Mk I. I'm still LOL'ing. 

Kev


----------



## photophreek (Feb 7, 2012)

Wow - $2299 for no IS, zoom lock, 50g lighter and 82mm. This lens better be tack, tack sharp. I was contemplating buying the 24L II in the spring, but that's now on hold until I see what this thing will do. I could see $1899, but $2299 is a little too rich.


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 7, 2012)

Generally, the lenses have the same kind of numerical price regardless if it is in Euro or USD - you might frequently see prices quoted as 1500 EUR/US$. So yep, we on the other side of the ocean are paying some 30% more : taxes...


----------



## candyman (Feb 7, 2012)

kevl said:


> > Available April 2012
> > EF 24-70mm 1:2,8L II USM 2299 Euro
> 
> 
> ...




This is the case since the introduction of the EURO


We see often a 1:1 converting between US dollar and euro
Also in the price included - in the Netherlands - there is 19% VAT


So....we have to be patient waiting for prices to drop. 
But the 24-70 should have *stellar performance* if I want to buy it.
I was planning to upgrade more lenses for my growinpath towards FF. I guess 24-105 is a serious alternative.


Edit: EF 24-70mm 1:2,8L II USM 2299 Euro that is 3010 US dollar (rate February 7th 2012)
Holy cow.....700 US dollar more on this side of the ocean


And, 1200 euro more than the 24-70 MKI...pffff


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2012)

$1000 for 10 cm shorter and a few grams lighter, with a less effective hood design, the possibility of lens creep (they felt the need for a zoom lock), and the added expense of 82mm filters?

Optically, this lens had better be *damn* good...


----------



## Astro (Feb 7, 2012)

way too expensiv.

FF DSLR bodys are still out of reach for most normal "consumers"... and now such an expensiv replacement .... where is this going?

with µ43 replacing more and more of the entry DSLR market i fear that the EF system one day in the not so far future will ony be for the wealthy and pros.

i mean.... come on 3000 euro (i guess) for a new FF body (5D MK3) and 2200 euro for a essential zoom lens?

and i thought in 2006 we would have FF in "consumer" cameras by 2012. :


----------



## cjedj (Feb 7, 2012)

My eyes are watering... 

I was hoping to be able add one of these to my collection, but at that price I can forget it. :'(


----------



## funkboy (Feb 7, 2012)

Given that my 24-105 f/4L IS was <1000€, the new primes would have to be as good as the Zeiss ZE 25 and 28 in order to pique my interest...


----------



## CMDVisuals (Feb 7, 2012)

Damn. The 70-200 2,8 IS II was 2300€ when it was introduced. And that thing has IS and way more glass in it. And the performance of the 70-200 2,8 IS II is stellar, the 24-70 II can't be that much better.

There has to be a mistake in the pricing. If not, then... Yeah, then what? I thought I had saved enough money for both the 5d mk III and a new "kit"-lens... And i'm not going to buy an old 24-70. Maybe I'll have to stick with the 24-105 then.


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> $1000 for 10 cm shorter and a few grams lighter, with a less effective hood design, the possibility of lens creep (they felt the need for a zoom lock), and the added expense of 82mm filters?
> 
> Optically, this lens had better be *damn* good...


I have to admit, I'm shaking my head. Price/IS/filters. 82mm filters... This is one of those things that people don't really think about buying the lens but I have about $1500 worth of 77mm filters. I'd need about $3k to get up and running for outdoor portrait work. This lens is so DOA for me.


----------



## candyman (Feb 7, 2012)

Are those prices introduced to compensate the loss of income while facing productionproblems in the past 2 years?
I am stunned


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 7, 2012)

candyman said:


> Are those prices introduced to compensate the loss of income while facing productionproblems in the past 2 years?
> I am stunned



After all, we are innocent of the losses in the past 2 years but it looks like we are to pay the bill... :-\


----------



## Gothmoth (Feb 7, 2012)

Astro said:


> way too expensiv.
> 
> FF DSLR bodys are still out of reach for most normal "consumers"... and now such an expensiv replacement .... where is this going?
> 
> with µ43 replacing more and more of the entry DSLR market i fear that the EF system one day in the not so far future will ony be for the wealthy and pros



nobody needs DSLR anymore to make good pictures.

for most people who want a digital camera micro four third is good enough.
it´s small, it´s lightweight and offers very good image quality for the print needs of 95% of all customers.

bigger sensors still have the DOF advantage for portraits.
but face it that is not important for average joe customers.

some micro four third lenses are very good too, with very good MTF numbers.
and they are getting better and better. 
for the 2200 euro you can get a whole set of good micro four third lenses.

so i guess we are already at the point where DSLR cameras are for serious (because of the cost) amateurs or pros.


----------



## missitnoonan (Feb 7, 2012)

Wow the pricing of the primes is shocking. Who are they marketing them towards? I have been waiting for a USM update on some of the older primes (really want to replace my 35mm f2 with a modern focus motor) and the 28mm looked like a decent standardish focal length for APS-C. But $800! For f2.8 and IS that I don't really want? Insane. 

Time to look at some 3rd party options.


----------



## ntranc19 (Feb 7, 2012)

all we know professional photographers choose the 24L lens not this 2.8 IS USM 

so who will buy 24 2.8 at nearly $1000 ? amateurs ?


----------



## cx1 (Feb 7, 2012)

Was waiting for these primes to be announced and feel a bit shocked at the price. I guess I'll save for L primes because these prices make no sense.


----------



## Tov (Feb 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> $1000 for 10 cm shorter and a few grams lighter, with a less effective hood design, the possibility of lens creep (they felt the need for a zoom lock), and the added expense of 82mm filters?
> 
> Optically, this lens had better be *damn* good...



At this price diff *damn* good... is an understatement.


----------



## sheedoe (Feb 7, 2012)

I guess the 24-70mm II will no longer be a blind buy for me like I had originally planned. Heck at these prices, if a buy at all for that matter!


----------



## wtlloyd (Feb 7, 2012)

24-105 f/4 IS L FTW!

Seriously, pros can afford this lens, and might buy it for f/2.8 and that just slightly better perimeter optics...but the rest of us? The lack of IS at this price point is stupefying. 

The economy has tightened up and likely will never return to the flush days...you have to take seriously your equipment expenditures, truly evaluate how an item will make you money you couldn't get other ways.

That 24-105 always astonishes me with it's value. You can readily find mint used copies for well under $1K.

Of course, it DOES lack a zoom lock switch....


----------



## preppyak (Feb 7, 2012)

ntranc19 said:


> so who will buy 24 2.8 at nearly $1000 ? amateurs ?


I guess the IS can have some advantages for video, but, an f/2.8 lens won't appeal to them like a non-IS f/1.8 or f/2 lens would. Hell, you can have both the old 24mm and 28mm non-L primes for that price


----------



## preppyak (Feb 7, 2012)

dilbert said:


> But now I can see why Tamron waited to price their lens - I imagine that their 24-70 for the Canon will now be more expensive than if the 24-70L was going to be $1899.


Even then, every dollar below $1000 Tamron can sell it for makes it that much more attractive. Because they already have a similar zoom in the 28-75 without IS that goes for $400ish, if they can move the 24-70 w/ IS for a reasonable price, they may get some converts from both Canon and their own 28-75.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2012)

sheedoe said:


> I guess the 24-70mm II will no longer be a blind buy for me like I had originally planned. Heck at these prices, if a buy at all for that matter!



Indeed. For $1699 I would likely have preordered. Now, I'm going to seriously consider the MkI or the 50L instead.


----------



## fotografiasi (Feb 7, 2012)

all 3 lenses are too expensive, much too expensive. I am very dissapointed


----------



## marekjoz (Feb 7, 2012)

There is already 70-200 2,8 mk2 in this price range. So next step would be 16-35 mk3 (although it's only 5 years old) at the similar price level. As the gear for pros only 135 2L seems to be too cheap yet...


----------



## Canon-F1 (Feb 7, 2012)

don´t take this too serious. 

canon has abandoned the DSLR for the consumer market.
maybe they will use the EF-S lenses for their mirrorless system.

we will see a few new rebel models .. until canon decides in 2014 to stop producing cheap DSLR cameras. 

canons new mirroless APS-C system will cover the mass market.

the pro sector will be occupied by >2000$ DSLR cameras and EF lenses that start at 800$


----------



## dstppy (Feb 7, 2012)

Nejko said:


> Japanese people think $ and € are the same... wth?!



Maybe they know something we don't ;D

Seriously, for the price, it'll have to be good . . . and the market will determine that, which is fine.


----------



## stabmasterasron (Feb 7, 2012)

damnation, I hope Canon doesn't decide to update the 24-105 f4L. Unbelievable prices. I don't know what Canon is thinking.
I know how these things work. The price usually has less to do with the cost of manufacturing the lens than it does with finding the price point that maximizes profit (profit per unit X number sold). And once production ramps up, I find it hard to beleive this lens will be more expensive to manufacture than the mk I version. 

I find it difficult to believe that this is the best price point for this lens. I think Canon has missed the mark.


----------



## Z (Feb 7, 2012)

If anyone would like a laugh:

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-ii-usm-lens/p1529492

£2299.00 = $3,638.09

Of course, this is a pre-order and prices are subject to change... blah blah. The sad thing is, I doubt they'll change much.


----------



## EchoLocation (Feb 7, 2012)

I was hoping to upgrade from the 24-105 and 5DC to the 24-70 2.8 II and a 5DX, but at this price, I will most likely just get the body and keep the 24-105 or possibly look at the tamron.
This puts Canon's lens pricing more in line with that of Nikon's, and dangerous territory for them when people start upgrading to the new release of FF cameras in the next year.


----------



## funkboy (Feb 7, 2012)

Now, let's all calm down for a minute. These prices are MSRP.

The MSRP of the EF-s 60mm f/2.8 macro is $750, & B&H sells it for $450 (plus there's a $40 rebate on top of that at the moment). So if we assume that after the "new" factor wears off & a lot of the new primes get into the channel they'll be selling at about the same 40 points off MSRP as the EF-s macro, then we're looking at about $480 for the 28mm and $510 for the 24mm. They may be a little more than that for a while as production ramps up, but I'd be very surprised if the 24mm was more than $599 at B&H this summer.

If the new primes were f/2 or faster (or if they had done a 20mm or wider as well) I seriously would have considered one them at the prices above if the IQ was up to snuff. As it is, between my 24-105L and my 20mm f/3.5 Voigtländer pancake I think I'll stick with what I've got in the wide prime department...

Given the price point & the target market, I really have a hard time understanding why they went with f/2.8 instead of replacing the 28mm f/1.8 USM. Do they really think anyone wants slower primes? Perhaps they felt that a 24mm f/2 IS USM was too close to the 24 f/1.4L & would cannibalize sales...

I imagine that there were two reasons for announcing the 24 USM at the same time:

- unlike 28mm & 20mm, there was never a 24mm non-L USM (same goes for 35mm).

- the 28 and 24 are so similar that they were designed from the beginning to have a very high degree of parts commonality (perhaps even some of the optical elements like the IS group), so it makes sense that they would do both at the same time to increase the economies of scale. I think it could even be said that we got the 28 "for free" as a result of it being a very minor redesign of the new 24 (which was missing in the lineup, unlike the old 28 they dropped last month).

I would even hypothesize that this parts commonality could be the reason for the slower aperture; perhaps a 28mm f/1.8 IS USM couldn't be made as identical to, say, a 24mm f/2 IS USM as these twins are.

The upside of all this is that it's possible that they release other lenses on this new common IS USM prime "platform", like a 35mm f/2...


----------



## candyman (Feb 7, 2012)

Z said:


> If anyone would like a laugh:
> 
> http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-ii-usm-lens/p1529492
> 
> ...




Look on the bright side: you can save 25% on a 82mm filter  (just joking) 
serious: it doesn't need to get worse.....what a price


----------



## charleswagoner (Feb 7, 2012)

A question and some observations:

Aren't the official prices for Canon lenses always higher than their actual selling price? So wouldn't it be reasonable to think that the real-world pricing will be lower?

People's reactions to these announcements since yesterday have been, in my opinion, a bit too knee-jerk. Some people are acting like this is the best Canon can do for us, as though there will be nothing else announced at later dates. But the 24mm and 28mm primes are replacing the oldest primes in Canon's lineup (they were built in 1997-98 1987-88*). That may be why Canon chose to release these first. Be patient.

Others are let down by the f/2.8 and IS on these lenses, comparing them to faster lenses of the same focal length. Again, Canon will surely announce replacements to their faster counterparts later. After all, as of yesterday there were two different version of the 24, 28, 35, and 50mm primes. One thing at a time people. Canon can't just start announcing stuff that's not ready. I mean, they could I guess. But that's not how they roll.

Me personally, I'm willing to wait it out a while, but the next time I upgrade my body I'll be closely considering Nikon. I only shoot with a 550D and a 50mm f/1.4, so I'm not locked into the EF system. But Nikon seems to be more attentive to the needs of consumers like myself and more clear about their pricing. Canon really needs to address the 35 and 50mm f/1.8 G primes that Nikon released recently, because they seem to have it where it counts in terms of quality for the price.

*Dates corrected by Kyle STL.


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 7, 2012)

The MSRP listed prices have nothing to do with what their actual prices will settle in at. I think we should relax a little.

For example: The EF 100mm f/2.8L has a list price at $1,700.00USD on Amazon all the time, but it sells at around $900 all day.


----------



## michi (Feb 7, 2012)

Really surprised. Finally the second version of the 24-70 which we all awaited, but no IS and way out of reach for even the enthusiastic amateur photographers in the price department. On top of that, they release two primes which are inside of the zoom range of the new zoom, and they have the same 2.8 aperture value as the zoom. And also a incredibly high price. I just don't get it. Does Canon realize that right now we are in a depression and most people don't have money to throw around? Do they realize how attractive IS would have been on the 24-70 zoom? Do they realize that most people would have preferred a new 50mm 1.4 prime rather than a 24 and 28mm?


----------



## mkln (Feb 7, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> don´t take this too serious.
> 
> canon has abandoned the DSLR for the consumer market.
> maybe they will use the EF-S lenses for their mirrorless system.
> ...


they can't use EF-S (or EF) on a mirrorless system.

the lens-to-sensor distance for EF-S lenses is just too large for a mirrorless camera. you would need either an adaptor, or a huge camera (which would become useless)
same goes for EF.
mirrorless = new mount.

by the way since EF-S and EF require the same distance to the sensor, there would be absolutely no point in making a "EF-S only" adapter for a potential mirrorless system.



anyway, canon seems to have applied the usual +$500 rule for IS. 
take price of non-IS > add $500 if you want IS > final price of newly announced lens.
then again, those prices are list prices, I guess they'll be somewhat lower after some time.
also as there is no equivalent from the competition, Canon had a bit of freedom in establishing the price.

$849 for the 24/2.8 is exactly $500 more than the current very old lens without IS. 
if (a big if) they improved it optically (and the old 24 is not that bad already) then that price could be justified somehow.


----------



## funkboy (Feb 7, 2012)

mkln said:


> they can't use EF-S (or EF) on a mirrorless system.
> mirrorless = new mount.



I think Pentax/Ricoh disagree with you.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 7, 2012)

there is no way I am paying $800 for a max f/2.8 prime. are you kidding me??? really, really very disappointed in this move by Canon. I'm a big fan of IS but IS does not give you more light for AF and shallower DOF. this is in no way equivalent to having a 28mm f/1.8 ... and yet it costs more. that's appalling.

I've moved away from 3rd party lenses but in the future I will be waiting for Sigma to step up its game in the FF prime market because this sort of pricing behavior and marketing choice by Canon is just totally boneheaded.

all of you that know me on the forum know I'm a big fan of Canon and usually argue in favor of the company line but this ... if you can show me how the pricing on these primes makes sense, I'd be happy to hear it.

the $2300 for the 24-70, that's something I can handle better, they've been moving in that direction with the high end lenses and judging from the MTF charts, they have every reason to expect that much money will be paid for such a strong, multi-purpose performer.


----------



## aloper (Feb 7, 2012)

I'm wondering with the higher prices if were going to see a general, across the board price increase in any new EF and EF L lenses...to make room at the lower end for a mirror less system? If moving forward, your average L lens is in the $1500-2500 range and standard EF lenses are now in the $800-1500 range, you now have room at the lower end, $400-800 for mirror less lenses. Given the prices for these new primes, any replacements for the current 50/85mm EF's, would easily have list prices close to or over $1000, if they keep their 1.4 apertures...

If this theory is true, you will see the same shift up in any new camera bodies as well...price the 5dMk3 around $3000-3200, the 7DMk2 at $1999-2400 and the 70D around $1200-1600. Shift the pricing up so they can introduce a mirror less camera body at around $1000 (my guess...it will be a modified GX1)...


----------



## KyleSTL (Feb 7, 2012)

charleswagoner said:


> ... But the 24mm and 28mm primes are replacing the oldest primes in Canon's lineup ( they were built in 1987-88 ).



Fixed it for you. You were a decade off. They were among the very first lenses in the EF system.


----------



## charleswagoner (Feb 7, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> charleswagoner said:
> 
> 
> > ... But the 24mm and 28mm primes are replacing the oldest primes in Canon's lineup ( they were built in 1987-88 ).
> ...



Thanks for catching that!


----------



## unfocused (Feb 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> sheedoe said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the 24-70mm II will no longer be a blind buy for me like I had originally planned. Heck at these prices, if a buy at all for that matter!
> ...



Whoa...when Neuro suggests a lens is too expensive...well...Canon seems to have reached a new high.


----------



## AJ (Feb 7, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> The MSRP listed prices have nothing to do with what their actual prices will settle in at. I think we should relax a little.
> 
> For example: The EF 100mm f/2.8L has a list price at $1,700.00USD on Amazon all the time, but it sells at around $900 all day.


Yes. Maybe the price will settle around $1900. That's what Nikon's 24-70 sells for.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 7, 2012)

Okay, I was just teasing with the last post.

Seriously though, what went through my head when I saw these prices were:

1) Boy, I'm glad I bought a refurbished 100-400mm. It may be old, but I can't imagine what they'll charge for the next model if they ever get around to updating it.

2) I guess I'll be sticking with APS-C for awhile. The under-$2,000 price for the 5DII had me tempted, but I couldn't get past the additional investment in lenses, plus the loss of the 1.6 crop. Now, I think I'll just wait and see how they improve the 7D. That refurbished 17-55 f 2.8 with IS is starting to look like a bargain.

BTW, this isn't really true: 


> The MSRP listed prices have nothing to do with what their actual prices will settle in at... For example: The EF 100mm f/2.8L has a list price at $1,700.00USD on Amazon all the time, but it sells at around $900 all day.



Amazon list prices can be pure fantasy. The true MSRP can be found on the Canon Direct Store site. They are higher than the street prices, but not by that much. 100mm 2.8 L Macro MSRP is $1,049. With rebate, $979. Street price at B&H and Adorama is $926 -- so difference of about $53. 

Street price will drop, but probably not right away and not as much as we might hope. Fortunately, Canon seems to be moving to year-round rebates, which help a little...sometimes...but not much when they do their forced pricing.


----------



## p-ivo (Feb 7, 2012)

mkln said:


> if (a big if) they improved it optically (and the old 24 is not that bad already) then that price could be justified somehow.



yep.

This is where it makes sense for me.
The list price seems shocking at first, but we need to wait until it cools off a bit.

Than the price upgrade od few hundreds over the old 24/2.8, could easily be seen in the upgrades in


USM motor

hand-holding / video ability with IS


improved optical performance as seen in recent canon upgrades of lenses

_and then it is good bye my lovely 20mm f/3.5 Voigtländer pancake (600$)_



[/list]


----------



## mkln (Feb 7, 2012)

funkboy said:


> mkln said:
> 
> 
> > they can't use EF-S (or EF) on a mirrorless system.
> ...



yeah they also write 

"And on handling a pre-production version we noticed that, because it features a full depth K-mount, it is a pretty big camera. Below we demonstrate how its size compares to the company's flagship K-5 DSLR."


----------



## kubelik (Feb 7, 2012)

p-ivo said:


> The list price seems shocking at first, but we need to wait until it cools off a bit.



why are so many people on this forum convinced that Canon lists prices far higher than they see retail for? we're talking Canon glass here, not Sigma. when the new 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II came out, Canon asked for $2499. more than a year later, if you look at the non-promotional price, it's still pretty much around $2400 ... so about a 4% reduction in price.

I don't see the 24-70 coming down much in price as it is L glass. as for the two primes, even if you dropped their price by 10% or even 15% they'd still be dramatically overpriced (by $200 or so). and I don't see Canon slashing the price on brand new lenses by that much.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 7, 2012)

kubelik said:


> p-ivo said:
> 
> 
> > The list price seems shocking at first, but we need to wait until it cools off a bit.
> ...



Exactly. Compare the MSRP on the Canon website to the street price from B&H or Adorama. They are not that much different and during rebate times (which is pretty much year-round these days) the difference is even smaller. (due to the forced-pricing).

Also check Canon Price Watch and you can see that the trajectory of prices is not that great and can go up and down. I bought the 100 2.8 macro "L" shortly after it came out (during one of the first rebates) and paid less then than what it is going for now.

If you haven't read it yet, this is a fun read: http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-lenses-better-stocks/


----------



## t.linn (Feb 7, 2012)

Those arguing the the street price of the new 24-70 will be significantly lower than the list price should take a closer look. At least on the L lenses that I follow this is not the case. 

I have to admit that I'm probably experiencing a bigger case of sticker shock over this lens than any other announced lens to date. It has been on my wish list for some time despite misgivings about its substantial weight. Now I have to admit that any temptation I might have been feeling to take the plunge is gone. I'm still looking forward to the reviews but I can't see ever buying one. 

One thing I do like is the reduction in weight. To put things in perspective for U.S. customers 145g is about .3 lbs. It's not nothing—but the lens is still a beast.


----------



## aeturnum (Feb 7, 2012)

It's worth noting that, at least according to Amazon, the 24-70 f/2.8L Mk1 also has a list price of $2300. The lens will probably come down in price to match its predecessor over time.


----------



## t.linn (Feb 7, 2012)

@aeturnum

It's also worth noting that Amazon tend to exaggerate the list price of lenses (and other goods) to make their price seem better than it really is. Canon USA's list price is actually $1399.

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_2_8l_usm


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 7, 2012)

aeturnum said:


> It's worth noting that, at least according to Amazon, the 24-70 f/2.8L Mk1 also has a list price of $2300. The lens will probably come down in price to match its predecessor over time.



Canon is likely a better source of the MSRP than Amazon, who seems to just make those MSRP's up with what ever number is on the side of a railroad car passing by. 

I worked for a company that did that. A customer was in demanding a lower price, and the salesman saw a train passing by and jotted down the number from a box car. Sale was closed!  



$1399 MSRP

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_2_8l_usm


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 7, 2012)

Canon has been cheaper than nikon across the board from bodies to lenses... perhaps they are just playing catchup.


----------



## iaind (Feb 7, 2012)

You can get the 28mm 1.8 for less than half price of new 28mm 2.8IS.

Canon has decided the Euro, USD and GBP have achieved parity. Dont expect to see massive sales of new primes


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 7, 2012)

michi said:


> Really surprised. Finally the second version of the 24-70 which we all awaited, but no IS and way out of reach for even the enthusiastic amateur photographers in the price department. On top of that, they release two primes which are inside of the zoom range of the new zoom, and they have the same 2.8 aperture value as the zoom. And also a incredibly high price. I just don't get it. Does Canon realize that right now we are in a depression and most people don't have money to throw around? Do they realize how attractive IS would have been on the 24-70 zoom? Do they realize that most people would have preferred a new 50mm 1.4 prime rather than a 24 and 28mm?



I'm with you 100% ...can't wait to see user reviews on the new Tamron f2.8 VC lens


----------



## tt (Feb 7, 2012)

In the UK, couldn't you buy now, ~£1340 24mm 1.4L & 28mm f/1.8 £380 for roughly the same price as the buying both the new 24mm and 28mm 2.8's with IS?


----------



## nomolos (Feb 7, 2012)

£2299 for 24-70mm ƒ2.8 L II with no IS; you can buy a 1.6x crop body with an EF-S 17-55mm ƒ2.8 IS and have money left over for the filters, lens hood etc for that price. The 17-55 is quality glass that also covers the 24 and 28mm range with IS at ƒ2.8. Would the 24 and 28mm primes really out perform it that much to justify such price tags?


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 7, 2012)

tt said:


> In the UK, couldn't you buy now, ~£1340 24mm 1.4L & 28mm f/1.8 £380 for roughly the same price as the buying both the new 24mm and 28mm 2.8's with IS?



Interesting point, but I don't know who would buy both a 24mm and 28mm prime, though.

I guess we should have expected this from Canon given some of their recent EF lenses:


EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro: ~2x the price of the non-IS version
EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye: ~2x the price of the 15mm f/2.8 prime Fisheye, while losing a full stop

The success of these lenses (not to mention the Zeiss ones) has obviously emboldened Canon to continue this strategy in replacing these old, non-USM primes. So how about we all just agree not to buy any of these new ones and see the effect of supply and demand?!?


----------



## pranav (Feb 7, 2012)

I have not read all the posts, so pardon me if point has already been made:
I agree the sentiments that lens is priced high; that said -
Lack of IS complainers: Lack of IS is on this range of focal length may be a good thing. Quality wide angle lenses are hard to design an manufacture compared to telephoto. So if Canon had tried to jam in IS, one of the two will happen - a) sacrifice in image quality. b) heavy monster with even bigger front element and at least costing $2000 more. I don't know how many would like that!!!!! Yeah, ideally I would like a lens that could make me focus in pitch dark hand held, weather sealed, light to carry and under 1000 but...... we all know the rest.
Logic of 24 and 28 IS primes within the zoom range - If they pulled off stellar IQ wide open with IS, its a win win. Those you don't absolutely need the zoom can have excellent IQ with IS at relatively lower prices, although I agree it would have been better $200 less. 
Reality is, they can't possibly satisfy each and every photographer. At least I can see the point why they came out with this lot and config..........


----------



## bp (Feb 7, 2012)

They have completely lost their minds.

2300 bucks?!?!?! Yeah, I shelled that out for the 70-200 MKII, and it was worth it. But that's a huge hunk of hardware, with reach and amazing IS. I shelled out almost that much for the 85 mkII, and also felt that was worth it. IMHO, 24-70 is the boring area of the focal range - they didn't add IS, different filter size, no wider aperture... 

I don't care how sharp this is, its not worth 2300. the idea is almost laughable


----------



## kubelik (Feb 7, 2012)

DJL329 said:


> The success of these lenses (not to mention the Zeiss ones) has obviously emboldened Canon to continue this strategy in replacing these old, non-USM primes. So how about we all just agree not to buy any of these new ones and see the effect of supply and demand?!?



I agree. these products should be boycotted; let Canon do some rethinking as to their current price strategy.

the thing I don't get is what prompted this new level of corporate profit-mongering. yes, I get corporations need to be profitable. yes, I get that the price of the old lenses was somewhat artificially low because of their age. yes, I get that Canon is doing some future-pricing. I assume they did a lot of cost-benefit analysis regarding the MSRP versus the market uptake. I'm just surprised that their conclusion was to price slow glass higher than fast glass. what's more, Canon has had a few banner years based on fairly priced products. I know a lot of people specifically buy Canon glass because Nikon's is occasionally overpriced. why did Canon feel that their current model was suddenly unsustainable and that they suddenly have to gouge the consumer in order to make profit?


----------



## tron (Feb 7, 2012)

LuCoOc said:


> I'd prefer the 24mm L if they ask 800 Bucks for a 2.8 prime lens.



+1 My idea exactly. With the 1.4L we also get low light capabilities, background blurring, speed.


----------



## mobilebucky (Feb 7, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Canon has been cheaper than nikon across the board from bodies to lenses... perhaps they are just playing catchup.


How true, I still have tough time looking at the price increase between EF 300 2.8 IS I to II.


----------



## Mooose (Feb 7, 2012)

iaind said:


> Canon has decided the Euro, USD and GBP have achieved parity. Dont expect to see massive sales of new primes



Just be glad they didn't decide the Yen has achieved parity with the others.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 7, 2012)

The good thing: There is one less thing to speculate about in the future.

Canon marketing obviously has decided to sell to three different groups of users: fun users with urge for good quality will buy the new compacts, amateurs are set to use ef-s and then there's the rest. The ones that aren't satisfied with the very good 18MP+ef-s simply are people with enough money to burn or professionals - and some 100 bucks won't matter if a lens will be your daily working gear.

So: If you are were waiting for the next ef (non aps-c) lens to be released or updated at an affordable price: forget it.


----------



## gillcleeren (Feb 7, 2012)

Once it's available, will it still be possible to buy the MK I or not?


----------



## papa-razzi (Feb 7, 2012)

As far as I can tell, Canon's policy has been to keep US $ pricing consistent regardless of fluctuations in the exchange rate - for the most part. Instead, it seems that Canon has been "catching up" for the exchange rate with the pricing of new products.

The US dollar purchased ~ 130 yen in 1997. Today, it purchases ~ 75 yen.
http://www.indexmundi.com/xrates/graph.aspx?c1=JPY&c2=USD&days=5475

So, if it cost Canon 13,000 yen to build the EF 28 f/2.8 in 1997, and that cost in yen has remained constant until today - That same cost in US dollars has increased steadily from $100 in 1997 to $173 in 2012.

In reality, we in the US have been enjoying a steady decrease in the price we pay for Canon cameras & lenses because our dollar is worth less and less over time. The new product pricing has given us sticker shock because we are getting the exchange rate adjustment all at once.


----------



## Mikedurg (Feb 7, 2012)

kubelik said:


> DJL329 said:
> 
> 
> > The success of these lenses (not to mention the Zeiss ones) has obviously emboldened Canon to continue this strategy in replacing these old, non-USM primes. So how about we all just agree not to buy any of these new ones and see the effect of supply and demand?!?
> ...



My thoughts exactly!! I'm all for capitalism and profits but I think they missed the sweet spot in terms of pricing and market demand. I have a feeling there aren't going to be nearly as many pre-orders as Canon is projecting.


----------



## drummstikk (Feb 8, 2012)

pranav said:


> Lack of IS is on this range of focal length may be a good thing. Quality wide angle lenses are hard to design an manufacture compared to telephoto. So if Canon had tried to jam in IS, one of the two will happen - a) sacrifice in image quality. b) heavy monster with even bigger front element and at least costing $2000 more. . . . Logic of 24 and 28 IS primes within the zoom range - If they pulled off stellar IQ wide open with IS, its a win win. Those you don't absolutely need the zoom can have excellent IQ with IS at relatively lower prices, although I agree it would have been better $200 less.



Bulls Eye.

I am a little surprised Canon is not offering IS as a choice, but as a longtime owner of the 24-105 4.0 IS, I have to say I very seldom if ever notice an affirmative effect on image quality attributable to IS. All but the most jittery coffee drinkers can hand hold a wide angle at slow shutter speeds. It simply takes more camera motion to cause a noticeable effect.

I can only detect benefit from IS at about 50mm and up, which means IS would probably be helpful at only about the longest 1/3 of the zoom range on a 24-70. Would that really be worth the extra cost and bulk?

All lenses are a trade off in one way or another. I chose to trade an f-stop for an additional 35mm in zoom range when I went with the 24-105 over the 24-70. This is just the time of year I *LOVE* the 24-105. On the 7D it's a powerful basketball lens, giving me great coverage from 3-point range to right under the basket. The 70-200 is too tight in close and the 24-70 would not have enought reach. (I either use my own monolights or the client's permanently mounted lights, so f/4.0 is not an issue for me.)




02_2059.21_58 by Progeny of Light, on Flickr

The trade off in the new 24 and 28 lenses is less clear to me. As I said, I don't find IS to be terribly useful in wide lenses, and for the money they seem to be asking, even considering these are probably MSRP and not "street" prices, I'd *MUCH* rather have a 28mm 1.8 non-IS for a roughly comparable price, or keep saving money and get a 24mm 1.4L.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 8, 2012)

Astro said:


> way too expensiv.
> 
> FF DSLR bodys are still out of reach for most normal "consumers"... and now such an expensiv replacement .... where is this going?
> 
> ...



Why should Canon worry about gearing professional equipment towards consumers? Any L lens or 5 series body is professional equipment, I don't think Canon is concerned with cheapening a camera to satisfy the average consumer.. The sensor is the most expensive part of the 5DII, so until they get cheaper im sure ff cameras will stay pricey.


----------



## Minnesota Nice (Feb 8, 2012)

"EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM $2299"

Yikes that's out of my range, but man do I really want that lens.

That or the 16-35mm F/2.8 L. I love that lens!


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 8, 2012)

gillcleeren said:


> Once it's available, will it still be possible to buy the MK I or not?



MK I models usually go away in short order. If you want the 24-70mm MK I, now is probably the best time, while it's on sale, as the prices of the used ones will probably go UP, because of the much higher price of the MK II.


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 8, 2012)

drummstikk said:


> The trade off in the new 24 and 28 lenses is less clear to me. As I said, I don't find IS to be terribly useful in wide lenses, and for the money they seem to be asking, even considering these are probably MSRP and not "street" prices, I'd *MUCH* rather have a 28mm 1.8 non-IS for a roughly comparable price, or keep saving money and get a 24mm 1.4L.



Completely agree on the 28mm f/1.8 (I love my current one). Oh and btw, nice shot!


----------



## edmund (Feb 8, 2012)

The Sigma 30mm f1.4 looks better with every day... :-\


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 8, 2012)

DJL329 said:


> I guess we should have expected this from Canon given some of their recent EF lenses:
> 
> 
> EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro: ~2x the price of the non-IS version
> ...



I think it's illogical to compare the prices of the 8-15mm f/4 and the 15mm f/2.8 as (a) a zoom lens is more complex than a prime, and (b) the 8-15mm can do the work of both a FF circular fisheye prime and a FF diagonal fisheye prime.


----------



## 00Q (Feb 8, 2012)

I dont care what the build quality is. The bottom line is that it is expensive. Canon thinks they can get away with it buy saying its top image quality. 

If everyone in the world refuses to buy this lens, boycot canon, lets see who's more cocky at the end of the day.


----------



## drummstikk (Feb 8, 2012)

00Q said:


> If everyone in the world refuses to buy this lens, boycot canon, lets see who's more cocky at the end of the day.



Ummm. . .My money is on Canon to be more cocky at the end of the day. They think they can get away with it because they can.

You won't buy one because you're ticked off about the price. I won't buy one because it's just not a compelling zoom range for the kind of work I do. But there will never be a boycott of this lens. Uptake may be slow at first because of the price, but loads of people all over the world will buy one, whether it's because it's the newest shiny object in their field of view or because it's a bread-and-butter lens for their work.


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 8, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> DJL329 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess we should have expected this from Canon given some of their recent EF lenses:
> ...



Canon _replaced_ their existing fisheye lens with one that costs twice as much. Yes, the new one has more functionality (with the loss of light), but the fact remains if you want a fisheye lens from Canon, you now have to spend twice as much money.  It's just an observation.


----------



## kpk1 (Feb 9, 2012)

24-70 was no.1 on my shopping list. But the price is huge. I cannot justify this amount. 
Sorry Canon, next time maybe. You don't have a new 35/1.4, the 50/1.2 lacks sharpness wide open, the 85/1.2 lacks fast AF, but there is one parameter that is exponential rising, the price. Doesn't work for me.
I'm keeping an eye on Nikon's bodies. At least they are for the last years the pioneers. Now they have the first bigest FF sensor on the market. The optics line is all refreshed. All I need is a chopped D4 body.


----------



## michi (Feb 24, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Astro said:
> 
> 
> > way too expensiv.
> ...



I'm going to guess that the majority of L lenses is not bought by "pro's" but rather by avid hobbyists or whatever you want to call most of us. If they priced all lenses so that only pro's and very rich people could buy them, they would lose a lot of business. They're kind of heading that way it seems...


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 24, 2012)

michi said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > Astro said:
> ...



Also, I was under the impression that Canon did have an expressed strategy of promoting APS-C shooters to FF which does not seem to add up with the latest pricing....


----------



## kdsand (Feb 24, 2012)

Anyone else notice this?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843011-REG/Canon_5179B002_EF_28mm_f_2_8_IS.html

"Silent and smooth operation makes it suitable for video shooting."

Claiming "silent" seems fairly dogmatic? I wonder if that means is a totally different usm system and image stablization?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 25, 2012)

Mikedurg said:


> I have a feeling there aren't going to be nearly as many pre-orders as Canon is projecting.



How do you know what they're projecting? I'd rather guess they'll squeeze as much money as possible out of pros and early adopters and then lower the prices if no one is left to buy their stuff.



drummstikk said:


> Lack of IS is on this range of focal length may be a good thing. Quality wide angle lenses are hard to design an manufacture compared to telephoto.



... on full frame, that is. This is one of the few advantages ef-s has (next to the side-effect "more tele reach on ef lenses") - it's easier to design a wide angle lens because of the smaller mirror there is less space between lens and sensor. That's part of why I'm not that sad to have to stay on aps-c because of budget considerations - I'll get the new tokina 11-16 once it's out.


----------



## Gothmoth (Feb 25, 2012)

bp said:


> I don't care how sharp this is, its not worth 2300. the idea is almost laughable



well it´s all relativ.
my aunt just bought a handbag for 2500 euro. :


----------

