Yipe! Canon 24-105 big $

Sidebar Sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:al9Se.43$sx2.30@fed1read02...
> http://tinyurl.com/7z5o4
>
> $1249.99 at B&H...
>
> I had hoped that given the fact it is f4 and not f2.8...that it would be
> priced more in line with the $700 17-40 f4 L, rathar than the $1200 16-35
> 2.8 L.
>
> Oh well... Seems rather steep to me.
>
> If you don't trust tiny URL posts...here's the whole B&H link...
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
>
It especially seems steep compared to the 24-70 f2.8L at $1139.95 from the
same source...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:al9Se.43$sx2.30@fed1read02...
> http://tinyurl.com/7z5o4
>
> $1249.99 at B&H...
>
> I had hoped that given the fact it is f4 and not f2.8...that it would be
> priced more in line with the $700 17-40 f4 L, rathar than the $1200 16-35
> 2.8 L.
>
> Oh well... Seems rather steep to me.
>
> If you don't trust tiny URL posts...here's the whole B&H link...
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search


Still very tempting!!!! I guess my 28-135 will have to do for now.

--

Rob
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/7z5o4
>
> $1249.99 at B&H...
>
> I had hoped that given the fact it is f4 and not f2.8...that it would be
> priced more in line with the $700 17-40 f4 L, rathar than the $1200 16-35
> 2.8 L.
>
> Oh well... Seems rather steep to me.
>
> If you don't trust tiny URL posts...here's the whole B&H link...
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

I guess Canon will attribute it to the light weight of the lens. Its a
mere 650gms compared to the 950gms of the 24-70mm.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:al9Se.43$sx2.30@fed1read02...
> http://tinyurl.com/7z5o4
>
> $1249.99 at B&H...
>
> I had hoped that given the fact it is f4 and not f2.8...that it would be
> priced more in line with the $700 17-40 f4 L, rathar than the $1200 16-35
> 2.8 L.
>
> Oh well... Seems rather steep to me.

Not when you consider the range, constant aperture, L quality build, and IS.
For me, when looking at the 24-70 in comparison, it's a much better lens and
far more useful for me. The 24-70 is only one stop faster, has no IS, and a
very limited top end for just a little less money. That's the one that looks
steep to me. I'll have my 28-135 on the market soon and will move to the new
lens.

>
> If you don't trust tiny URL posts...here's the whole B&H link...
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
>
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kinon O'cann" <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote in message
news:H6Sdnf8YFY1rP4TeRVn-hw@comcast.com...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:al9Se.43$sx2.30@fed1read02...
>> http://tinyurl.com/7z5o4
>>
>> $1249.99 at B&H...
>>
>> I had hoped that given the fact it is f4 and not f2.8...that it would be
>> priced more in line with the $700 17-40 f4 L, rathar than the $1200 16-35
>> 2.8 L.
>>
>> Oh well... Seems rather steep to me.
>
> Not when you consider the range, constant aperture, L quality build, and
> IS.

That's my point.
All of those aspects are present on the 17-40, and yet it's only around
$700.
IS doesn't usually add more than a couple hundred to a price of IS version L
lenses compared with non-IS.

> For me, when looking at the 24-70 in comparison, it's a much better lens
> and far more useful for me. The 24-70 is only one stop faster, has no IS,
> and a very limited top end for just a little less money. That's the one
> that looks steep to me. I'll have my 28-135 on the market soon and will
> move to the new lens.

I don't intend to sell my 24-70 2.8 L.
I DID just sell me 28-135 though...
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The message <PI9Se.15422$sw6.7537@fed1read05>
from "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> contains these words:

> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:al9Se.43$sx2.30@fed1read02...
> > http://tinyurl.com/7z5o4
> >
> > $1249.99 at B&H...
> >
> > I had hoped that given the fact it is f4 and not f2.8...that it would be
> > priced more in line with the $700 17-40 f4 L, rathar than the $1200 16-35
> > 2.8 L.
> >
> > Oh well... Seems rather steep to me.
> >
> > If you don't trust tiny URL posts...here's the whole B&H link...
> > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
> >
> It especially seems steep compared to the 24-70 f2.8L at $1139.95 from the
> same source...

Bear in mind you can expect the price to drop in the coming months. Will
probably stabilise eventually at around twice the price of the 28-135.

Deryck
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message
news:31303030313839354319BDFB47@deryck.com...
> The message <PI9Se.15422$sw6.7537@fed1read05>
> from "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> contains these words:
>
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>> news:al9Se.43$sx2.30@fed1read02...
>> > http://tinyurl.com/7z5o4
>> >
>> > $1249.99 at B&H...
>> >
>> > I had hoped that given the fact it is f4 and not f2.8...that it would
>> > be
>> > priced more in line with the $700 17-40 f4 L, rathar than the $1200
>> > 16-35
>> > 2.8 L.
>> >
>> > Oh well... Seems rather steep to me.
>> >
>> > If you don't trust tiny URL posts...here's the whole B&H link...
>> > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
>> >
>> It especially seems steep compared to the 24-70 f2.8L at $1139.95 from
>> the
>> same source...
>
> Bear in mind you can expect the price to drop in the coming months. Will
> probably stabilise eventually at around twice the price of the 28-135.
>
> Deryck

Probably it will drop, but I'm not sure by that much. More in the
neighborhood of 15%, I'd guess, though the 28-135 has dropped by about 30%
but it's an old lens.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message
news:31303030313839354319BDFB47@deryck.com...
> The message <PI9Se.15422$sw6.7537@fed1read05>
> from "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> contains these words:
>
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>> news:al9Se.43$sx2.30@fed1read02...
>> > http://tinyurl.com/7z5o4
>> >
>> > $1249.99 at B&H...
>> >
>> > I had hoped that given the fact it is f4 and not f2.8...that it would
>> > be
>> > priced more in line with the $700 17-40 f4 L, rathar than the $1200
>> > 16-35
>> > 2.8 L.
>> >
>> > Oh well... Seems rather steep to me.
>> >
>> > If you don't trust tiny URL posts...here's the whole B&H link...
>> > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
>> >
>> It especially seems steep compared to the 24-70 f2.8L at $1139.95 from
>> the
>> same source...
>
> Bear in mind you can expect the price to drop in the coming months. Will
> probably stabilise eventually at around twice the price of the 28-135.

??
Not a chance.
The 28-135 is a consumer zoom, while the 24-105 IS is an L series lens.
There are no L lenses of any kind that are priced that low.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The message <8xiSe.16288$sw6.3550@fed1read05>
from "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> contains these words:

> "deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message
> news:31303030313839354319BDFB47@deryck.com...
> > The message <PI9Se.15422$sw6.7537@fed1read05>
> > from "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> contains these words:
> >
> >> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> >> news:al9Se.43$sx2.30@fed1read02...
> >> > http://tinyurl.com/7z5o4
> >> >
> >> > $1249.99 at B&H...
> >> >
> >> > I had hoped that given the fact it is f4 and not f2.8...that it would
> >> > be
> >> > priced more in line with the $700 17-40 f4 L, rathar than the $1200
> >> > 16-35
> >> > 2.8 L.
> >> >
> >> > Oh well... Seems rather steep to me.
> >> >
> >> > If you don't trust tiny URL posts...here's the whole B&H link...
> >> > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
> >> >
> >> It especially seems steep compared to the 24-70 f2.8L at $1139.95 from
> >> the
> >> same source...
> >
> > Bear in mind you can expect the price to drop in the coming months. Will
> > probably stabilise eventually at around twice the price of the 28-135.
> >
> > Deryck

> Probably it will drop, but I'm not sure by that much. More in the
> neighborhood of 15%, I'd guess, though the 28-135 has dropped by about 30%
> but it's an old lens.

I think the 5D might be offered in a kit with the 24-105 which could give
250 USD saving.

It would be a sweet outfit!

Deryck
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> schreef in bericht
news:al9Se.43$sx2.30@fed1read02...
> http://tinyurl.com/7z5o4
>
> $1249.99 at B&H...
>
> I had hoped that given the fact it is f4 and not f2.8...that it would be
> priced more in line with the $700 17-40 f4 L, rathar than the $1200 16-35
> 2.8 L.
>
> Oh well... Seems rather steep to me.
>
> If you don't trust tiny URL posts...here's the whole B&H link...
>
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&s
ku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
>
>

In Holland prices range from 1195 euro's down to 999 euro's (already).
Should be same price or less in US-$. Probably will be soon.

Lucas
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Lucas" <l.cauwels@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
news:4319c249$0$157$3a628fcd@reader1.nntp.hccnet.nl...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> schreef in bericht
> news:al9Se.43$sx2.30@fed1read02...
>> http://tinyurl.com/7z5o4
>>
>> $1249.99 at B&H...
>>
>> I had hoped that given the fact it is f4 and not f2.8...that it would be
>> priced more in line with the $700 17-40 f4 L, rathar than the $1200 16-35
>> 2.8 L.
>>
>> Oh well... Seems rather steep to me.
>>
>> If you don't trust tiny URL posts...here's the whole B&H link...
>>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&s
> ku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
>>
>>
>
> In Holland prices range from 1195 euro's down to 999 euro's (already).
> Should be same price or less in US-$. Probably will be soon.

That's in Euros, though.
999 Euros is even more than the US price.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/7z5o4
>
> $1249.99 at B&H...
>
> I had hoped that given the fact it is f4 and not f2.8...that it would be
> priced more in line with the $700 17-40 f4 L, rathar than the $1200 16-35
> 2.8 L.
>
> Oh well... Seems rather steep to me.
>
> If you don't trust tiny URL posts...here's the whole B&H link...
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
>
>
Happy now you bought the non IS version?

--
Douglas,
My name is but a handle on the doorway to my life.
I change my Usenet ID periodically. I don't like
people including me in their data collection.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:43195512$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Mark² wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/7z5o4
>>
>> $1249.99 at B&H...
>>
>> I had hoped that given the fact it is f4 and not f2.8...that it would be
>> priced more in line with the $700 17-40 f4 L, rathar than the $1200 16-35
>> 2.8 L.
>>
>> Oh well... Seems rather steep to me.
>>
>> If you don't trust tiny URL posts...here's the whole B&H link...
>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
> Happy now you bought the non IS version?

What non IS lens would that be?
There is no such lens.
I did predict that when I bought the 24-70 L...that they'd certainly release
an IS version once they heard I'd bought it... :)
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message
> news:31303030313839354319BDFB47@deryck.com...

>>Bear in mind you can expect the price to drop in the coming months. Will
>>probably stabilise eventually at around twice the price of the 28-135.
>
>
> ??
> Not a chance.
> The 28-135 is a consumer zoom, while the 24-105 IS is an L series lens.
> There are no L lenses of any kind that are priced that low.

Twice the price of the 28-135 is $820 at B&H. Several L lenses are less
than that, eg the 17-40/4L at $680 and the 70-200/4L at $580. I'd have
guessed $800-900 for the 24-105.

- Len
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Leonard" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:FAmSe.2504$7p1.2009@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message
>> news:31303030313839354319BDFB47@deryck.com...
>
>>>Bear in mind you can expect the price to drop in the coming months. Will
>>>probably stabilise eventually at around twice the price of the 28-135.
>>
>>
>> ??
>> Not a chance.
>> The 28-135 is a consumer zoom, while the 24-105 IS is an L series lens.
>> There are no L lenses of any kind that are priced that low.
>
> Twice the price of the 28-135 is $820 at B&H. Several L lenses are less
> than that, eg the 17-40/4L at $680 and the 70-200/4L at $580. I'd have
> guessed $800-900 for the 24-105.

I missed the "twice" part.
🙁
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The message <n4lSe.898$sx2.799@fed1read02>
from "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> contains these
words:


> "deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message
> news:31303030313839354319BDFB47@deryck.com...
> > The message <PI9Se.15422$sw6.7537@fed1read05>
> > from "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> contains these words:
> >
> >> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> >> news:al9Se.43$sx2.30@fed1read02...
> >> > http://tinyurl.com/7z5o4
> >> >
> >> > $1249.99 at B&H...
> >> >
> >> > I had hoped that given the fact it is f4 and not f2.8...that it would
> >> > be
> >> > priced more in line with the $700 17-40 f4 L, rathar than the $1200
> >> > 16-35
> >> > 2.8 L.
> >> >
> >> > Oh well... Seems rather steep to me.
> >> >
> >> > If you don't trust tiny URL posts...here's the whole B&H link...
> >> > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
> >> >
> >> It especially seems steep compared to the 24-70 f2.8L at $1139.95 from
> >> the
> >> same source...
> >
> > Bear in mind you can expect the price to drop in the coming months. Will
> > probably stabilise eventually at around twice the price of the 28-135.

> ??
> Not a chance.
> The 28-135 is a consumer zoom, while the 24-105 IS is an L series lens.
> There are no L lenses of any kind that are priced that low.

Read again what I wrote.

In the UK the list price of the 24-105 is just over twice the price of the
28-135.

Deryck
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message
news:3130303031383935431A02C527@deryck.com...
> The message <n4lSe.898$sx2.799@fed1read02>
> from "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> contains these
> words:
>
>
>> "deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message
>> news:31303030313839354319BDFB47@deryck.com...
>> > The message <PI9Se.15422$sw6.7537@fed1read05>
>> > from "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> contains these words:
>> >
>> >> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>> >> news:al9Se.43$sx2.30@fed1read02...
>> >> > http://tinyurl.com/7z5o4
>> >> >
>> >> > $1249.99 at B&H...
>> >> >
>> >> > I had hoped that given the fact it is f4 and not f2.8...that it
>> >> > would
>> >> > be
>> >> > priced more in line with the $700 17-40 f4 L, rathar than the $1200
>> >> > 16-35
>> >> > 2.8 L.
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh well... Seems rather steep to me.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you don't trust tiny URL posts...here's the whole B&H link...
>> >> > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
>> >> >
>> >> It especially seems steep compared to the 24-70 f2.8L at $1139.95 from
>> >> the
>> >> same source...
>> >
>> > Bear in mind you can expect the price to drop in the coming months.
>> > Will
>> > probably stabilise eventually at around twice the price of the 28-135.
>
>> ??
>> Not a chance.
>> The 28-135 is a consumer zoom, while the 24-105 IS is an L series lens.
>> There are no L lenses of any kind that are priced that low.
>
> Read again what I wrote.
>
> In the UK the list price of the 24-105 is just over twice the price of the
> 28-135.

Yes.
I missed the "twice" part.
🙁
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"wavelength" <sbrisendine@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125776978.364749.111730@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It seems to me that everyone is whining over the price because they
> want one.
>
> Which is why Canon priced it this way. If you really want it, and most
> will, you will pay for it.
>
> It probably cost them $150 to make the damn thing, but because there is
> the demand for such a thing, and it is not a regulated commodity, they
> can charge whatever the hell the want.
>
> Maybe you could start a boycott until they lower the price? Until then
> may I suggest you quit your baby whining :0)~

It's not whining to register surprise. The price is a clear break from
their previous pricing patterns.
I am simply noting that since this lens in a similar line of f4 L lenses, I
would have expected it to be in keeping with that partiucalar line of L
lenses in terms of price.

There are basically two tiers of L zooms... Those with 2.8 constant
aperture, and those with f4.
The f4 line tends to be a little more than half the price of the 2.8 line.
I use the:
24-70 2.8 L
16-35 2.8 L
70-200 2.8 IS L

as the main-stays of my bag.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "wavelength" <sbrisendine@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1125776978.364749.111730@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> It seems to me that everyone is whining over the price because they
>> want one.
>>
>> Which is why Canon priced it this way. If you really want it, and
>> most will, you will pay for it.
>>
>> It probably cost them $150 to make the damn thing, but because
>> there
>> is the demand for such a thing, and it is not a regulated
>> commodity,
>> they can charge whatever the hell the want.
>>
>> Maybe you could start a boycott until they lower the price? Until
>> then may I suggest you quit your baby whining :0)~
>
> It's not whining to register surprise. The price is a clear break
> from their previous pricing patterns.
> I am simply noting that since this lens in a similar line of f4 L
> lenses, I would have expected it to be in keeping with that
> partiucalar line of L lenses in terms of price.
>
> There are basically two tiers of L zooms... Those with 2.8 constant
> aperture, and those with f4.
> The f4 line tends to be a little more than half the price of the 2.8
> line. I use the:
> 24-70 2.8 L
> 16-35 2.8 L
> 70-200 2.8 IS L
>
> as the main-stays of my bag.

I guess the 24-105 is already having an impact: eBay is loaded with
plenty of opportunities to grab a 24-70 now. With a little more
patience they should come down to a very reasonable price.

--
Frank ess
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom