Yipe! Canon 24-105 big $

[Guest]

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

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:jsKdnWkgqNWXlYfeRVn-qg@giganews.com...
> 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.

Ya... I'm keeping my 2-month-old 24-70...

 

[Guest]

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

The message <31303030313839354319CCB803@deryck.com>
from deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> contains these words:

> 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!

I've just found Walters in UK advertising a 5D kit. The 5D is being sold for
2500 UKP the 24-105 for 870 UKP. The kit for 3000 UKP including both items.
I would expect US to have similar deals.

Deryck

 

[Confused]

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

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 14:29:10 -0700
One of the Mark²'s wrote:

> Ya... I'm keeping my 2-month-old 24-70...

Darn, I was hoping you'd sell it for $400 ;^)

ô¿ô

 

[lucas]

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> schreef in bericht
news:H9lSe.901$sx2.861@fed1read02...
>
> "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.
>
>

Retail prices for photographic equipment tend to be roughly the same in
absolute number in US-$ versus Euro's in Holland; so if some item is
available in Holland for 999 Euro, chanches are huge that in the US the same
item will be available for US-$ 999.
That, in fact, is the reason why "we Dutch" try to buy in the US: even with
transport an insurance costs, we make quite a profit compared to our local
market. Should be carefull with Dutch customs though.... they also want to
make a profit :-((

Lucas

 

[Guest]

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

"Lucas" <l.cauwels@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
news:431a8583$0$147$3a628fcd@reader2.nntp.hccnet.nl...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> schreef in bericht
> news:H9lSe.901$sx2.861@fed1read02...
>>
>> "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.
>>
>>
>
> Retail prices for photographic equipment tend to be roughly the same in
> absolute number in US-$ versus Euro's in Holland; so if some item is
> available in Holland for 999 Euro, chanches are huge that in the US the
> same
> item will be available for US-$ 999.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

 

[lucas]

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> schreef in bericht
news:kTxSe.972$sx2.101@fed1read02...
>
> "Lucas" <l.cauwels@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:431a8583$0$147$3a628fcd@reader2.nntp.hccnet.nl...
> >
> > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> schreef in bericht
> > news:H9lSe.901$sx2.861@fed1read02...
> >>
> >> "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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Retail prices for photographic equipment tend to be roughly the same in
> > absolute number in US-$ versus Euro's in Holland; so if some item is
> > available in Holland for 999 Euro, chanches are huge that in the US the
> > same
> > item will be available for US-$ 999.
>
>
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&s
ku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
>
>


A lot of retailers don't even know what they will have to pay for this lense
themselves, only Canon knows. Maybe we should discuss this again when the
item is readily available in numbers. I am very confident that what I said
in earlier comments will prove right once again.

For the time being, I tend to look at it this way: if you want te be one of
the first to own this lense, you will have to pay top dollar/euro/yen, if
you are patient enough to wait several weeks, you will pay less,sometimes a
lot less. A bit like our (Dutch) traditional herring race really: the first
ones are sold for thousands, after a couple of days you pay only "normal"
price; same as a cup of coffee or a glass of beer.

....We'll see in some weeks time...

Lucas

 

[Guest]

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

In article <Y8lSe.900$sx2.609@fed1read02>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> says...
> > 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.
>
24-105 f4L-IS
----------
18 elements in 13 groups
Super UD glass lens and two types of aspherical elements effectively
correct aberration
83.5mm dia. x 107mm
Filter Diameter:77mm
IS
RRP A$2000

17-40 f4L
---------
12 elements in 9 groups
2 UD and 3 types of aspherical elements reducing chromatic aberration of
magnification and providing superb image quality
83.5mm dia. x 96.8mm
Filter Diameter:77mm
RRP A$1600

the RRP prices seem to be in about the right ratio, given the extra
elements and IS and other aspects being similar.

BUT, the 17-40L has been around for a while and its street price is much
lower, but today you probably pay RRP for the 24-105L. Maybe expect
about US$900 when things settle down?

 

[Guest]

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

"Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d85267ee7412e8b9898c1@news.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <Y8lSe.900$sx2.609@fed1read02>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> says...
>> > 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.
>>
> 24-105 f4L-IS
> ----------
> 18 elements in 13 groups
> Super UD glass lens and two types of aspherical elements effectively
> correct aberration
> 83.5mm dia. x 107mm
> Filter Diameter:77mm
> IS
> RRP A$2000
>
> 17-40 f4L
> ---------
> 12 elements in 9 groups
> 2 UD and 3 types of aspherical elements reducing chromatic aberration of
> magnification and providing superb image quality
> 83.5mm dia. x 96.8mm
> Filter Diameter:77mm
> RRP A$1600
>
> the RRP prices seem to be in about the right ratio, given the extra
> elements and IS and other aspects being similar.
>
> BUT, the 17-40L has been around for a while and its street price is much
> lower, but today you probably pay RRP for the 24-105L. Maybe expect
> about US$900 when things settle down?

Perhaps, but the 17-40 initially was priced for sale at $799.
The 24-105 is already priced at B&H for $1249.
Clearly there's a huge difference...even in street pricing.

 

[Guest]

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> Perhaps, but the 17-40 initially was priced for sale at $799.
> The 24-105 is already priced at B&H for $1249.
> Clearly there's a huge difference...even in street pricing.

I'm not sure what people expected: it's a big, complex lens with IS. Even
without IS, you'd expect it to be a lot more expensive than the 17-40, and
IS has to bump up the price another US$200 or so (the list price of the
70-200/2.8 IS (in Japan) is US$600 more than the non-IS version). And
there's a premium for being the first on the block. That's three strikes.

Maybe we should think of the 17-40 as being a really good deal instead of
the 24-105 being expensive.

I was just thinking: what I'd really like is a 70-105/2.0 (as long as it
uses 77mm filters, weighs no more than the 24-105, and costs closer to the
17-40 than 24-105). It would be a great portrait, landscape, and club/stage
available light lens, basically replacing the 85/1.8 (which is what this
cheapskate will be buying instead of the 24-105).

Sure, 1.5x is a tiny zoom range, but that slight added flexibility could be
amazingly useful in a lot of situations.

Oh, well. Dream on.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:dfedif$3ve$1@nnrp.gol.com...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps, but the 17-40 initially was priced for sale at $799.
>> The 24-105 is already priced at B&H for $1249.
>> Clearly there's a huge difference...even in street pricing.
>
> I'm not sure what people expected: it's a big, complex lens with IS. Even
> without IS, you'd expect it to be a lot more expensive than the 17-40

I wouldn't, given that it's only an f4.
If it was an f2.8, then yes. It is not.

, and
> IS has to bump up the price another US$200 or so (the list price of the
> 70-200/2.8 IS (in Japan) is US$600 more than the non-IS version). And
> there's a premium for being the first on the block. That's three strikes.

Canon is marketing it as part of the f4 line of lenses, which is a
"second-tier L" line, of sorts.
This would place it with others like the f4 versions and f5.6 versions of
larger, faster, more expensive zooms and fixed lenses. It is without
question the most expensive normal zoom they've ever offered that isn't
f2.8.

> Maybe we should think of the 17-40 as being a really good deal instead of
> the 24-105 being expensive.

Canon must love you, David.

I don't say it's ridiculous...I'm just surprised, and see it as a bit odd
for Canon's statements of f4 lens line placement.

> I was just thinking: what I'd really like is a 70-105/2.0 (as long as it
> uses 77mm filters, weighs no more than the 24-105, and costs closer to the
> 17-40 than 24-105). It would be a great portrait, landscape, and
> club/stage available light lens, basically replacing the 85/1.8 (which is
> what this cheapskate will be buying instead of the 24-105).
>
> Sure, 1.5x is a tiny zoom range, but that slight added flexibility could
> be amazingly useful in a lot of situations.
>
> Oh, well. Dream on.

I can see the appeal of a lens like that, but not a wide enough appeal for
Canon...
Oh well...

 

[Guest]

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

Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>"Kinon O'cann" <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote in message
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message

>>> 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.

Have you been looking at the cost of IS lately? It adds $500 to the
cost of the 70-200mm f2.8. Plus the new lens is a 4.4x zoom and the
17-40 isn't a 2.4x zoom.

But if you think it's too expensive, don't buy it. Most companies
that produce good really don't care very much what you think
something should cost.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

 

[Guest]

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

Ray Fischer wrote:
> Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>> "Kinon O'cann" <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote in message
>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
>>> message
>
>>>> 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.
>
> Have you been looking at the cost of IS lately? It adds $500 to the
> cost of the 70-200mm f2.8. Plus the new lens is a 4.4x zoom and the
> 17-40 isn't a 2.4x zoom.
>
> But if you think it's too expensive, don't buy it. Most companies
> that produce good really don't care very much what you think
> something should cost.

I will eventually buy it.
-Just maybe not as soon as I thought.
Again...I'm not saying it should necessarily be lower...I just expected it's
"f4-ness" to bump it down a bit more.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 21:08:47 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> 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.

So, get a better job.


**************************************************************

"There has always been war. War is raging throughout the world
at the present moment. And there is little reason to believe
that war will cease to exist in the future. As man has become
increasingly civilized, his means of destroying his fellow man
have become ever more efficient, cruel and devastating.
Is it possible to put an end to a form of human behavior which
has existed throughout history by means of photography?
The proportions of that notion seem ridiculously out of balance.
Yet, that very idea has motivated me.

James Nachtwey
War Photographer
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

 

[Guest]

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

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 21:08:47 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> 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.
>
> So, get a better job.

What does registering surprise at a price have to do with a job, or whether
I can afford the lens?
I have bought about $7-8K worth of Canon lenses over the last 10 years
(though I recently sold two). Just because I can afford something doesn't
mean I shouldn't care what things cost.

 

[Guest]

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

Ray Fischer wrote:
> Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>"Kinon O'cann" <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote in message
>>
>>>"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>
>
>>>>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.
>
>
> Have you been looking at the cost of IS lately? It adds $500 to the
> cost of the 70-200mm f2.8. Plus the new lens is a 4.4x zoom and the
> 17-40 isn't a 2.4x zoom.
>
> But if you think it's too expensive, don't buy it. Most companies
> that produce good really don't care very much what you think
> something should cost.


You are talking about f/2.8. The lens elements are larger. Perhaps you
should compare the old 300/4 vs. 300/4 IS.

 

[Guest]

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

l e o wrote:
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Kinon O'cann" <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
>>>> message
>>
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Have you been looking at the cost of IS lately? It adds $500 to the
>> cost of the 70-200mm f2.8. Plus the new lens is a 4.4x zoom and the
>> 17-40 isn't a 2.4x zoom.
>>
>> But if you think it's too expensive, don't buy it. Most companies
>> that produce good really don't care very much what you think
>> something should cost.
>
>
> You are talking about f/2.8. The lens elements are larger. Perhaps you
> should compare the old 300/4 vs. 300/4 IS.

My point exactly.
f2.8 lenses are usually in an entirely different price range from f4 lenses.

 

[Mikey]

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

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 21:33:53 -0700, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
mumbled:

>"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...


The IS adds at least 250.00

 

[Guest]

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

Mikey wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 21:33:53 -0700, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
> mumbled:
>
>> "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...
>
>
> The IS adds at least 250.00

Ya, but f4 usually subtracts substantially more than that from most f2.8
counterparts...
Whatever though... It will still likely find it's way into my bag at some
point...