# Two New 24-70's Coming in 2014? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 20, 2013)

```
<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/2013/12/two-new-24-70s-coming-in-2014-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/two-new-24-70s-coming-in-2014-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Two new 24-70 lenses coming in 2014?


</strong>We were told a long time ago that IS in the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II wasn’t yet dead, as prototypes do exist with image stabilization.</p>
<p>Canon chose to go the route of smaller size and lighter weight for the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II and created possibly the best performing standard zoom lens on the market.</p>
<p>We’ve been told that two new 24-70 type lenses with IS are a possibility and could appear in mid to late 2014. The first being a non-L 24-70 with IS and STM, along with a variable aperture. This lens would obviously be the least expensive lens of the 24-70 lineup.</p>
<p>The second would be an EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS, which would be larger and have optical performance that rivals the current non IS version. It wouldn’t be a replacement to the current lens, just a very expensive bigger brother.</p>
<p><strong>CR’s Take</strong>

I find all of this plausible, we were told a long time ago that Canon had basic plans in place for 4 different 24-70 lenses for various budgets and needs. If such a lens does appear, It’s going to cost A LOT!</p>
<p>This latest bit of information comes from parts unknown, so take it with a grain of salt.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA/Canon_5175B002_EF_24_70mm_f_2_8L_II.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II $1699 (Reg $2299) via B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## SlasherMcGee (Dec 20, 2013)

Well the last week has gotten me in a tizzy. My wants for the new year are:

new 1.4 35mm II L
new 24-70 f2.8 IS L

Maybe both will be released?

Wish in one hand, crap in the other.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 20, 2013)

I like the idea of 24-70 STM not L for a price around $ 500. : However I prefer a zoom range like 24-85mm. 8) The long awaited 24-70 F2.8 IS should be so expensive that people will stop complaining about the price of version F2.8 ii. :-X


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 20, 2013)

Frankly, I'm more interested in the Sigma 24-70/2 OS rumor. That would allow me to consolidate three lenses to one. A 24-70/2.8 IS would not, and so would be worth substantially less to me (less than the current sale price of $1,699).


----------



## cellomaster27 (Dec 20, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Frankly, I'm more interested in the Sigma 24-70/2 OS rumor. That would allow me to consolidate three lenses to one. A 24-70/2.8 IS would not, and so would be worth substantially less to me (less than the current sale price of $1,699).



+1 

Honestly, don't know if this is really smart route for canon.. I feel like they're digging a hold for the 24-70mm market. If and when the sigma comes out, that has it's own market foothold with its f2. STM isn't a must have for many ppl. Sure it's super quiet and good for video but is it necessary? With the IS USM version, that might become a dead horse. First due to canon's pricing and to competition, aka sigma. If the IS version came instead of the version II, think that might have done better? All these tiny incremental upgrades for sky high prices.. This lens is going to cost close to 3k..


----------



## tomscott (Dec 20, 2013)

How ridiculous


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Dec 20, 2013)

I wouldn't be the least surprised by a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS USM. It might have lower IQ than the IS-less' lens, as I think some people would be willing to compromise on price & IQ to get IS for the hand-hold-ability.

As for another 24-70mm, I'm not so sure. If it's f/4 IS-less, how would it compete with the cheap 24-105mm f/4 IS USM? What else could it be?


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 20, 2013)

"It wouldn’t be a replacement to the current lens, just a very expensive bigger brother"-- Anybody want to take a guess on the price tag :


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 20, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I like the idea of 24-70 STM not L for a price around $ 500. : However I prefer a zoom range like 24-85mm. 8) The long awaited 24-70 F2.8 IS should be so expensive that people will stop complaining about the price of version F2.8 ii. :-X



My crystal ball is no better than anyone else's, but it's plausible that by the time a 24-70/2.8L IS hits the market, the price of the 24-70/2.8L II will have settled in somewhere around (or below) its current post-rebate sale price of $1700. Then the IS version could be priced at or near the same ($2300?) introductory price of the current vII.

Like ajfotofilmagem, I'd much rather see it in a 24-85 zoom range (is this practicality, or simply nostalgia for my first Canon lens?). Then I could more easily retire my 24-105, which will continue to serve 70%+ of my photographic needs in the meantime. (I'm currently on my second copy.)


----------



## sanj (Dec 20, 2013)

tomscott said:


> How ridiculous



Ya man. Do NOT appreciate.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 20, 2013)

Looks like a reasonable proposition, given the history of having four 70-200 'L lenses'. Besides that, the natural progression of full frame to more affordable levels means the need for uprated consumer level full frame-zooms is a real one.


----------



## Ricku (Dec 20, 2013)

I don't care if they release five new 24-70mm, as long as they give us a sharp UWA-zoom first.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 20, 2013)

Regarding non-L, I don't think so. Instead I think we will see the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 II IS USM. Remember, the 7D2 will likely be coming out so updating the 17-55 would probably be a better bet than a non-L 24-70.

In terms of L, the 24-70 IS would be welcome for videographers, even if it is a bit lower IQ than the 24-70 II. The market is simply too large to ignore.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 20, 2013)

Ricku said:


> I don't care if they release five new 24-70mm, as long as they give us a sharp UWA-zoom first.



I would not be surprised to see a bulbous 14-24. It does not appear a super sharp UWA zoom can be made unless the front element is bulbous.


----------



## lol (Dec 20, 2013)

If full frame is going to push its way down, then a non-L kit lens makes some sense. Still, if variable aperture, a longer zoom range would also be desirable like a replacement to the 28-135.

I would be in the market for a 24-70 f/2.8L IS, but certainly the likely price (above non-IS) is likely to hinder that.


----------



## clicstudio (Dec 20, 2013)

*24-105 2.8...*

I want a 24-105 2.8L. I don't care for IS. Or if it is bigger and heavier...
I find my 24-70 II to be too short sometimes.
Maybe Sigma should do it. They did the world's first 1.8 zoom…
I think it's possible.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 20, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> I wouldn't be the least surprised by a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS USM. It might have lower IQ than the IS-less' lens, as I think some people would be willing to compromise on price & IQ to get IS for the hand-hold-ability.
> 
> As for another 24-70mm, I'm not so sure. If it's f/4 IS-less, how would it compete with the cheap 24-105mm f/4 IS USM? What else could it be?





Ruined said:


> Regarding non-L, I don't think so. Instead I think we will see the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 II IS USM. Remember, the 7D2 will likely be coming out so updating the 17-55 would probably be a better bet than a non-L 24-70.
> 
> In terms of L, the 24-70 IS would be welcome for videographers, even if it is a bit lower IQ than the 24-70 II. The market is simply too large to ignore.



These comments surprise me, if only because the Tamron 24-70 VC offers exactly what you say people are looking for at a price that already seriously undercuts the Canon non IS version. I don't personally think that a new version is worth more than the original price point of the 24-70LII unless it offers something more than just IS, particularly if that comes at the cost of higher weight and slightly compromised optics.


----------



## RC (Dec 20, 2013)

If Canon has room for four 24-70s in the lineup, then why not four 50s (I'm not counting the 2.5 macro)? Can we get a quality 50L 1.4 that is sharp wide open and stopped down, WS, with a ring USM please?

It still amazes me that a major camera manufacture does not offer a 50mm lens worth buying. I'm not talking about the (front/back focus) 50L which is more of a specialty lens. I'm not interested in the plastic 1.8 or weak USM 1.4 with choppy bokeh.

Ok, I'm done ranting.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 20, 2013)

JonAustin said:


> My crystal ball is no better than anyone else's, but it's plausible that by the time a 24-70/2.8L IS hits the market, the price of the 24-70/2.8L II will have settled in somewhere around (or below) its current post-rebate sale price of $1700. Then the IS version could be priced at or near the same ($2300?) introductory price of the current vII.



I very much doubt that Canon will compromise on the iq for IS as this is a "flagship" product, they didn't stop tweaking 70-200L until the newest version was top notch. If there are people around that are able to afford and handle a 200-400L there's certainly a market for a 24-70IS for €3000+ if it "has it all" vs. Tamron:

* hybrid IS
* across the frame sharpness
* no vignetting wide open
* af speed
* af precision with newest Canon bodies
* cps



RC said:


> It still amazes me that a major camera manufacture does not offer a 50mm lens worth buying. I'm not talking about the (front/back focus) 50L which is more of a specialty lens. I'm not interested in the plastic 1.8 or weak USM 1.4 with choppy bokeh.



I tend to believe the rumors that Canon will release a 50/IS prime in early 2014, so that's covered.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 20, 2013)

tomscott said:


> How ridiculous



Yes. Not sure about your reasoning, but I have absolutely no interest in a 24-70 range. I'll keep my 24-105 thank you.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 20, 2013)

RC said:


> If Canon has room for four 24-70s in the lineup, then why not four 50s (I'm not counting the 2.5 macro)? Can we get a quality 50L 1.4 that is sharp wide open and stopped down, WS, with a ring USM please?
> 
> It still amazes me that a major camera manufacture does not offer a 50mm lens worth buying. I'm not talking about the (front/back focus) 50L which is more of a specialty lens. I'm not interested in the plastic 1.8 or weak USM 1.4 with choppy bokeh.
> 
> Ok, I'm done ranting.



It's a little off topic (and talked to death too on several occasions, like beating a dead horse) but you're right. I don't like any of the current Canon offerings so I covered the 50 mm 'prime' focal length with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (which does require some tlc to get pinsharp results) and the Canon 1.8 Mk I that has ancient but reasonably good build however... pentagonal bokeh. Compromises, compromises! But at least I got 35 mm covered now to utter satisfaction with the new Sigma 

As for 'normal' zooms - I care less for these nowadays and in reasonable light I have the 25-105 to 'do it all' if needed. Else there's the primes of course  

It's great if Canon breathes life into variable aperture normal zooms for full frame though. And it would show that FF technology is trickling down further in future. When was the last time they released such a lens???


----------



## Haydn1971 (Dec 20, 2013)

lol said:


> Still, if variable aperture, a longer zoom range would also be desirable like a replacement to the 28-135.



I'd really like to see a 24-135mm f4 IS L - make I'd a tad smaller than my 24-70 2.8 II and bingo - daytime walkabout lens - a 15-85mm EF-S for full frame ;-)


----------



## Ruined (Dec 20, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> These comments surprise me, if only because the Tamron 24-70 VC offers exactly what you say people are looking for at a price that already seriously undercuts the Canon non IS version. I don't personally think that a new version is worth more than the original price point of the 24-70LII unless it offers something more than just IS, particularly if that comes at the cost of higher weight and slightly compromised optics.



Perhaps, although you could argue that the Tamron 24-70 VC had/has a QC/manufacturing issue significantly greater than anything in the 24-70 II:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue

Also I have read of some getting error codes with the Tamron. But, never a good thing when lens elements fall off.

Finally, the Tamron is lower IQ than the 24-70 II in the corners - whether Canon can improve on that is another question. The AF is also slower.

But the Tamron is an option.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 20, 2013)

Ruined said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > These comments surprise me, if only because the Tamron 24-70 VC offers exactly what you say people are looking for at a price that already seriously undercuts the Canon non IS version. I don't personally think that a new version is worth more than the original price point of the 24-70LII unless it offers something more than just IS, particularly if that comes at the cost of higher weight and slightly compromised optics.
> ...



Regarding the report from Roger - if you read his updates, you would have seen that this issue was only in the very first batch and has subsequently been fixed. Furthermore, if you have noticed this thread: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15231.0;topicseen you will know that Canon has had its own manufacturing issues with its newest 24-70. I wouldn't say that either issue invalidates the overall lens and its quality.

Regarding your points on the other limitations on the Tamron: you aren't wrong about those, but my point was that I was reading that people would be willing to pay more for an IS version even if it wasn't as good optically as the 24-70II. A slightly inferior lens optically with image stabilization already exists - the Tamron (and it doesn't cost more).

P.S. I have shot tens of thousands of shots in just about every kind of weather condition with my Tamron 24-70 VC, including at least one shot that has been used in promotions by Canon (now there's a bit of irony!) and it has served me flawlessly. I did encounter the battery drain issue with the VC that has been widely reported, but had my lens back to me after sending it to Tamron within a week and a half, so I have no complaints about what I've gotten out of my copy.


----------



## ugly.|.face (Dec 21, 2013)

Great, I just went ahead and bought myself the 24-70 II...no IS for me... :'(


----------



## AdamF (Dec 21, 2013)

So how much do you people guess a Canon 24-70 F2.8 L IS would cost ?


----------



## Triggyman (Dec 21, 2013)

AdamF said:


> So how much do you people guess a Canon 24-70 F2.8 L IS would cost ?



Like CR said, a LOT. Big and heavy. I would say in the neighborhood of $2600-$3000 US.

I can imagine some people who'd been demanding this kind of lens for a long time won't be able to afford it when it comes


----------



## K13X5C (Dec 21, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Looks like a reasonable proposition, given the history of having four 70-200 'L lenses'. Besides that, the natural progression of full frame to more affordable levels means the need for uprated consumer level full frame-zooms is a real one.



I have to agree. I've often wondered why Canon didn't take the 24-70 range down the same marketing path of the 70-200s. When was the last time anyone has discussed a third party alternative in the 70-200 range ? Is there even a third party alternative in the 70-200 range ? Canon absolutely owns this segment and it's because they have offered a full range of price points and features that no other manufacturer can touch, and has done so for a long time. The only lens that is considered a legitimate contender is the Canon 70-300 L.

That Canon may be taking the same approach with their 24-70/105 offerings is no surprise to me. It's a tack that is long overdue and even though additional Canon products in this wide-to-normal zoom range will be entering a crowded market Canon is big enough to wade in at this late date and take back some market share. That should eventually lead to a battle over price points and that is a battle that Canon can win. It's also a battle that would benefit buyers. 

I'm all for it.

As for the IS or no IS debate, you can be sure that Canon knows that there is a significant number of people with the means to purchase an EF 24-70 f2.8 L IS. They will line up to buy it with no complaints. That is all that matters. Will IS add too much weight ? Canon will work on that issue before releasing it. They aren't fools.

Competition is good. We all benefit from the competition. Eventually.


----------



## candc (Dec 21, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't be the least surprised by a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS USM. It might have lower IQ than the IS-less' lens, as I think some people would be willing to compromise on price & IQ to get IS for the hand-hold-ability.
> ...



Here's a tip for canon, instead of wasting millions on developing their own 24-70 is just buy tamrons for $1000, put a red ring on them and sell them for $3000


----------



## duydaniel (Dec 21, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> "It wouldn’t be a replacement to the current lens, just a very expensive bigger brother"-- Anybody want to take a guess on the price tag :



http://youtu.be/qMxX-QOV9tI


----------



## ewg963 (Dec 21, 2013)

tomscott said:


> How ridiculous


 +1


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Dec 21, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't be the least surprised by a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS USM. It might have lower IQ than the IS-less' lens, as I think some people would be willing to compromise on price & IQ to get IS for the hand-hold-ability.
> ...



Exactly - Tamron is taking sales away from Canon, so I expect Canon to release a lens to compete with it.


----------



## dufflover (Dec 21, 2013)

Kudos for Tamron for forcing Canon's hand (ok so I don't have proof of that, but makes sense to me) to possibly produce a final product 24-70 IS, although it would not be a lens I personally would buy due to primarily being crop telephoto user, and the price. Anything that looks like Canon is taking other brands more seriously even though it will always have the die hard L-only snobs. On that note I predict $2700-3000 debut price, if it's as sharp as the current model.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 21, 2013)

Just my 2 cents, but I think that Canon really needs to stop charging such ridiculous initials MSRP's for their new lens.

$2499 for 24-70II to well under $2000 in just over a year.
$1699 for 24-70 f/4 to under a $1000 street price (as cheap as $899) in less than a year.
$849 for 35mm f/2 IS to $549 in about a year.
Etc... (and don't even get started on the EOS M)

I've heard the arguments that early adopters pay the premium. Fine, but when a clear trend emerges that new products start well above market value and reach their true value in a year or less some light bulbs start going off, and that core, important audience starts closing their wallets and waiting. I just think it is a bad business practice. Yes, market forces often drive the value of new goods down over time, but, in the case of the EOS and the 24-70 f/4 you are talking about near 50%.

I'm a value conscious shopper. I personally am not inclined to buy any new Canon product within 6 months of release because I fear that my investment is going to be wasted. Premium lenses are often exceptional at holding their value, but try telling that to someone who is trying to sell a year old 24-70 variant when new prices have dropped by $600+.

The Tamron 24-70 entered the market at a $1299 price point. Current price is about $1049 for the Canon version, although the Nikon is still at about $1299 for some reason. That is what I consider more like typical market forces. One of the advantages in the past to buying a Canon over a third party was the conventional wisdom that the Canon would have a higher resale value. But what if that advantage is removed? I bought my Tamron for $1149 by negotiating and shopping around. I can sell it for at least $900, possibly more. But at worst I have lost $250. If I had paid $2499 for the 24-70MKII and was looking at a market of, say, $1800, to sell it, I think I would be pretty ticked.

In conclusion: if Canon does release a new 24-70mm f/2.8 IS, I think it pricing it over $2500 is a mistake.


----------



## optikus (Dec 21, 2013)

Hello from Germany,

it is fact - third party sources bring more and more lenses in a quality and with specifications, that canon has to answer. And what we saw last time in the "L" lineup is an answer. I expect, perhaps together with the rumored 1Dx-successor perhaps with high megapixel sensor that there will come more in top level area for the clientel using those equipments, perhaps with a wider spreaded typology of "L"-segment lenses and a separate lineup more for consumer purposes also in full format area. I think there will be some thinking of the future of APS-C system, we see the problems and volumes of small sensor systems in the last months and the intensive discussion on lower price 35mm-bodies - 2014 can bring some surprises. 

If there will be a top level 24-80 IS then it will find it's market. No bodxy expects a 200-400 to be a mass product, but canon needs products in its lineup to demonstrate it's "No. 1"-status, and what might to this better as a prime/zoom-series competing e.g. with Zeiss Distagon 1,4/55 and the other announced products of that series? Price allone is not the objective, I think.

Jörg


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 21, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I've heard the arguments that early adopters pay the premium. Fine, but when a clear trend emerges that new products start well above market value and reach their true value in a year or less some light bulbs start going off, and that core, important audience starts closing their wallets and waiting.



Early adopters aren't naive - everybody buying smartphones, computers, cameras knows that they loose value very fast, but some people want to have it right now for whatever reason. The lenses are simply adapting to the rest of the product world.

The non-L primes were overpriced and Canon seems to have admitted this if the rumors are correct, but why should Canon throw away money for L lenses? The only consequence of people getting more cautious is that the lens "early adopters premium" will be lifted faster, but many will never buy 3rd party lenses and very few will switch to Nikon so it's still win-win for Canon.


----------



## optikus (Dec 21, 2013)

Hi,

I think it is important to have two things in mind:

For a professional the akquisition of equipment is a commercial calculation: what is the effect I have on my productivity and the quality of my results = the chance for having good prices for my images when akquiring what equipment - and how long does it last to compensate the invest by the inproved income. If the effect to be expected e.g. for low light shooting is good then the pricing for a special lens as the 2,8 IS will be one is secondary. And that's one side of beeing No. 1 to have such equipment in the program.

For consumer or prosumer the individual estimation in what can a new lens or body bring for the individual feeling os more important in combination what happens at home when communicating the intention to buy such expensive parts. There is a wide variety of possible tolerances and that's why you have the different product lines for private buyers.

If - as we see with the STM-Lenses and other good products in the EF-S / EF-M lineup you have secondary effects as a small equipment for the pro or video shooting in the semi professional segment then this may be inmportant to - but I think that's not the motor driving the development this moment. The increasing risk for canon that the buyer expects third party products to be as good or better than the own ones are more critical. And the pricing canon has in the prosumer and consumer area is relative high, to high as I think. The advantages to buy canon compared to sigma/tamron and how ever the brands are is not so significant that the user pays the higher canon price. 

And the had serious quality problems in the past - that is in the media and therefore present in the public.

Jörg


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 21, 2013)

dilbert said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Just my 2 cents, but I think that Canon really needs to stop charging such ridiculous initials MSRP's for their new lens.
> ...



Wow, that is a pretty huge generalization with absolutely no merit to discussion at hand. You've never sold a lens to invest in something else that fits a need or to upgrade to a newer/better product? You don't care about your gear holding value? If the answer to both of those questions is no, then we certainly are different.

I categorically reject your final assessment. I believe my work speaks for itself.


----------



## duydaniel (Dec 23, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> $2499 for 24-70II to well under $2000 in just over a year.
> $1699 for 24-70 f/4 to under a $1000 street price (as cheap as $899) in less than a year.
> $849 for 35mm f/2 IS to $549 in about a year.
> Etc... (and don't even get started on the EOS M)



It shows their overpriced policy backfired and supply was over demand making the lens drop in value


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 23, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > $2499 for 24-70II to well under $2000 in just over a year.
> ...



Probably not. More like a variation of first degree price discrimination. Canon has a price that it willing to sell at for a profit. Anything they get above that is gravy. Early adopters are willing to pay more, and Canon is turning that willingness into additional profit.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Dec 24, 2013)

dilbert said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I'm gonna have to say... that most of us does not want to pay a premium. Especially seeing the trends of canon's recent pricing/marketing. Just wait a bit for the price to come down. Of course, you are probably gonna keep your purchases but it is disheartening when the price goes down so much in a short time. (not the case for all lenses obviously)
But then, you do buy lenses primarily to take photographs with, I hope. I have to say that most people don't take photos to make money with in the first place. Most are hobbyists, amateurs, and enthusiasts like me and it wouldn't be smart to invest in glass. Most things depreciate over a short time, especially electronics.. Unless you're talking about instruments like a cello. Good wood appreciates over time that's taken care of!  
Hey, if you could get a lens for a better price and for taking photos, bang! You're happy. I think all arguments are valid considering that they aren't taken to extremes.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 24, 2013)

dilbert said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Just my 2 cents, but I think that Canon really needs to stop charging such ridiculous initials MSRP's for their new lens.
> ...



That's not really a fair assessment. For those of us who aren't making money off of our gear, the tendency for the price to plummet after a year or two is a serious concern even if we have no intention of ever selling it. When used lenses drop in price, new lenses also tend to drop in price. As a result, when choosing whether to buy a lens, rather than asking how much extra value we'll get from owning a lens, we're forced to ask whether the extra value we'll get from owning the lens over the next few months is worth half the price of the lens. If it isn't, we should wait a year and buy it then.

In practice, that means that it never makes sense to buy any lens until it has been on the market for at least a year or two unless you're actively making a lot of money with your lenses, and it rarely makes sense even if you are. This makes new lenses a much tougher sell, and pretty much shuts enthusiasts out of the new lens market entirely.

If Canon stabilized the prices a bit by setting the SRP closer to the wholesale price, the used lens price would have less effect on the new lens price, so the price of new lenses wouldn't collapse as much, early adopters would pay considerably less, late adopters might pay slightly more, and early adoption would become accessible to a much broader market, which would mean that the R&D costs of designing a new lens would pay for themselves sooner, and we'd see a more rapid roll-out of new lenses.

Of course, the story is different for bodies, because they're constantly coming up with new, improved versions of those. We expect body prices to come down whenever a replacement rears its ugly head. But there's no good reason for that to happen with lenses when they aren't getting replaced with newer versions. Such drops indicate that there's too much dealer markup initially, and that the prices are being artificially inflated for no good reason.

Unless, of course, Canon sets the initial MSRP ridiculously high because they can't handle the demand, in which case they need to get their act together.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 24, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> In practice, that means that it never makes sense to buy any lens until it has been on the market for at least a year or two unless you're actively making a lot of money with your lenses, and it rarely makes sense even if you are.



I would like to offer an alternative assessment: If you know that the lens price will drop 1/3rd in the first year, you can simply decide if this "rent" to own this lens right now is "worth it" for whatever reasons.

There will be enough people who will pay, look at all the "I was happy to pay $3500 for my 5d3" posts around here... it doesn't matter if you try to evaluate your personal amateur fun value, or the professional return of invest. This cost is just another small part in the "total cost of ownership" for the gear that also includes insurance and repair costs.

Canon is not around to make friends but profit, and the current situation that you can re-sell an L lens at same or above value is a complete irregularity when it comes to technology products anyway, if you're looking for a steady investment with some recreational use look at buying a good oil painting


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Nov 17, 2014)

Too bad this rumor didn't pan out this year. We saw another patent for an EF 24-70 f/2.8 IS USM in April of this year, but no additional hints as to whether Canon plans to expand its 24-70 offerings any time soon.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 17, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Too bad this rumor didn't pan out this year. We saw another patent for an EF 24-70 f/2.8 IS USM in April of this year, but no additional hints as to whether Canon plans to expand its 24-70 offerings any time soon.



The first part of the rumor came true, an IS, variable aperture, STM, non-L 24-105 arrived or is about to.
But yeah not the second part.


----------

