Canon going to release two new lenses.

[fuzzybabybunny]

Copied from FredMiranda, hope this isn't a repost.

EF 70-200/4L IS

MSRP: $1250


Description:

* Telephoto zoom lens - 70 to 200mm focal range, fast f/4 aperture

* Image Stabilizer gives equivalent effect of a shutter speed three stops faster during hand-held shooting

* High level dust and moisture resistance - designed for use in harsh conditions

* Inner focus design with Ultrasonic Motor (USM) offer fast and virtually silent operation

* Fluorite element and UD element offering exceptional performance throughout zoom range

* Manual focussing enabled even during AF mode (full time mechanical focusing)

- Lens Hood ET-74
- Lens Cap E-67U
- Lens Soft Case LP1224
- Tripod Mount Ring A II (W)
- Dust Cap E


Specs:

Focal Length & Max. Aperture: 70-200mm 1:4

Picture Size: 24 x 36mm

Filter Diameter: 67mm

Diagonal Angle of View: 34° - 12° (43.2mm)

Vertical Angle of View: 19° 30' - 7° (24mm)

Horizontal Angle of View: 29° - 10° (36mm)

Lens construction: 20 elements in 15 groups

Minimum aperture: f/32

No. of aperture blades: 8

Closest focusing distance (m): 1.2m

Focus drive: Ring-type USM

Dimensions: 76.0mm dia. x 172.0mm

Weight: 760g



EF 50/1.2L

MSRP: $1600


Description:

* Standard lens - 50mm focal length, fast f/1.2 aperture

* Large diameter high precision aspherical element achieves superb image quality

* High level dust and moisture resistance - designed for use in harsh conditions

* Large maximum aperture for available light shooting and attractive background defocus

* 45cm minimum focus distance

* Ring-type Ultrasonic Motor (USM) for fast and virtually silent operation

* Manual focussing enabled even during AF mode (full time mechanical focusing)

Accessories
- Lens Hood ES-78
- Lens Cap E-72U
- Lens Soft Case LP1214
- Dust Cap E


Specs:

Focal Length & Max. Aperture: 50mm 1:1.2

Picture Size: 24 x 36mm

Filter Diameter: 72mm

Diagonal Angle of View: 46° (43.2mm)

Verticle Angle of View: 27° (24mm)

Horizontal Angle of View: 40° (36mm)

Lens construction: 8 elements in 6 groups

Minimum aperture: f/16

No. of aperture blades: 8

Closest focusing distance (m): 0.45m

Focus drive: Ring-type USM

Dimensions: 85.4mm dia. x 65.5mm

Weight: 545g

The prices are just... wow. Note that you have to purchase the lens tripod collar for the 70-200mm seperate, so tack on another $100 if you want to have a tripod collar for it. I know that there were a LOT of people hoping for a sub-$1000 70-200mm f/4L, so they'll be very dissappointed. Nonetheless, Canon has every right to price their lenses however they want, since lenses aren't exactly necessary things like medicine, although I personally feel this price point may be something of a folly from a business perspective. I think they could sell more lenses and reap greater profits if they lowered the prices. But then again I don't know the real-world market data, and they probably have a better idea than me, so whatever.

 

[Mark R]

Holy **** - $1600 for a 50mm prime.

What's it got in it? Gold bars?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Mark R
Holy **** - $1600 for a 50mm prime.

What's it got in it? Gold bars?

lol. Not quite. Although for some people it may be worth it. f/1.2 is drool-worthy, and at 50mm, it's good for people on a 1.6x crop body using it as a ~80mm portrait lens, where the DOF would be really useful.

For people on full frame, I guess you can find situations where the f/1.2 would be useful.

Zeiss and Leica can be more expensive though, I think.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Kind of a repost

I will certainly buy the 70-200 F4L IS.

Over at DPreview, many are boo-hooing the $1600 50 F1.2L. Many doubt it's worth 5x the price of the EF 50 F1.4. And why didn't Canon just make an updated 50 F1.4 MkII and sell it for $400?

Anyway, for $1600, I think I'd rather buy the 35 F1.4L AND 50 F1.4 USM.

Edit: The 85 F1.2L MkII that they came out with doesn't get rave reviews.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Kind of a repost

I will certainly buy the 70-200 F4L IS.

Over at DPreview, many are boo-hooing the $1600 50 F1.2L. Many doubt it's worth 5x the price of the EF 50 F1.4. And why didn't Canon just make an updated 50 F1.4 MkII and sell it for $400?

Anyway, for $1600, I think I'd rather buy the 35 F1.4L AND 50 F1.4 USM.

Edit: The 85 F1.2L MkII that they came out with doesn't get rave reviews.

Gah! Poopy search funtion, although there are so many ways to write lens specs, and I think that's what messed with the search.

f/4L
F4L
f/4 L
F4 L
70-200
70-200mm
70-200 mm

If I had the money the 70-200 f/4L IS would probably be somewhat of a good buy. It says it has a "High level dust and moisture resistance - designed for use in harsh conditions" which I take to mean that it's weathersealed.

So basically:

The lightness of a regular 70-200mm f/4L.
Weathersealed (something people hadn't bargained for originally)
IS
Hopefully great resolution, higher than that of the original non-IS

Smack this on a weathersealed 1D or 1Ds body, and you're good to go out into the rain, sand, etc, something that would personally be really useful to me. And the light weight would be just heavenly.

I agree that for $1600 I'd also rather have the two lenses than one 50mm f/1.2

 

[GTaudiophile]

Fuzzy: Which package would you prefer to have?

Package #1
Next-Gen EOS-40D
EFS 10-22 F3.5-4.5 USM
EFS 17-55 F2.8 IS USM
EF 70-200 F4L IS USM
EF 35 F1.4L USM

OR

Package #2
Next-Gen EOS-6D
EF 17-40 F4L USM
EF 24-105 F4L IS USM (Too bad they don't make an EF 24-70 F2.8L IS USM)
EF 70-200 F4L IS USM
EF 50 F1.4 USM

 

[DurocShark]

I have a 50 1.2 for my Minolta. I actually find I use my 1.4 more. Just seems a bit sharper though I haven't done any real testing.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Fuzzy: Which package would you prefer to have?

Package #1
Next-Gen EOS-40D
EFS 10-22 F3.5-4.5 USM
EFS 17-55 F2.8 IS USM
EF 70-200 F4L IS USM
EF 35 F1.4L USM

OR

Package #2
Next-Gen EOS-6D
EF 17-40 F4L USM
EF 24-105 F4L IS USM (Too bad they don't make an EF 24-70 F2.8L IS USM)
EF 70-200 F4L IS USM
EF 50 F1.4 USM

Oh god. The full frame vs. cropped frame thing. I LOVE the extra reach of the cropped sensor because I'm a telephoto nut, and I also LOVE the advantages of full frame.

In a perfect world, I would get both.

If I absolutely had had had had to make a choice, probably package two. I'd just have to get more adept at stalking animals, like poofy little grizzly bears or better yet, their fluffy little cubs! Awwwww....

The main reasons for Package 2:

Large, bright, beautiful viewfinder. This ranks way up there for me.
Probably better noise control and dynamic range in the sensor.

Although what I would really prefer to have is:

Next-Gen EOS 1DMKIII (something like 12MP, 8fps, full frame instead of 1.3x, weathersealed goodness, etc)
EF 17-40 F4L USM
EF 24-105 F4L IS USM (Too bad they don't make an EF 24-70 F2.8L IS USM)
EF 70-200 F4L IS USM
EF 50 F1.4 USM

 

[GTaudiophile]

I am planning on Option #2 but with the next-gen EOS-6D or whatever they call it.

But I would easily trade my 24-105 F4L IS for something faster with IS...ideally a lighter version of the 24-70, say one that telecopes, with F2.8 and IS. The FF crowd needs their own version of the 17-55 F2.8 IS.

 

[mugs]

Wow... that 50mm is crazy expensive considering the f/1.4 is only $300.

The 70-200 sounds about right considering the f/2.8 is $1700.

 

[timswim78]

Would someone please explain, in layman's terms, why these lenses are so great? Is it the fast speed, the image stabilization, or what?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: timswim78
Would someone please explain, in layman's terms, why these lenses are so great? Is it the fast speed, the image stabilization, or what?

Yes.

Also, these are L lenses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_l_lens

 

[jiwq]

i guess some people are willing to pay $1000+ extra for 1/2 stop of light (over the 50 1.4)... and the red stripe

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: timswim78
Would someone please explain, in layman's terms, why these lenses are so great? Is it the fast speed, the image stabilization, or what?

L lenses are special for several reasons...

1) Usually optically superior (better glass, better glass coatings, etc.)
2) Better build quality
3) Often (but not always) weather-sealed against the elements/dust

 

[Eos]

I think the MSRP is not the street price. I'm thinking closer to $900 for the f/4L zoom.

B&H prices

Oops...

I recall the non IS f/2.8 was $1250 and the IS f/2.8 was $1500 back in 2001 when I bought my non IS.

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Mark R
Holy **** - $1600 for a 50mm prime.

What's it got in it? Gold bars?

lol. Not quite. Although for some people it may be worth it. f/1.2 is drool-worthy, and at 50mm, it's good for people on a 1.6x crop body using it as a ~80mm portrait lens, where the DOF would be really useful.

For people on full frame, I guess you can find situations where the f/1.2 would be useful.

Zeiss and Leica can be more expensive though, I think.

Zeiss and Leica are always more expensive

Koing

 

[Gooberlx2]

I dunno, the prices seem about right to me. Especially considering they're 'L' glass...I mean, they are meant for the pros, so I'm sure prices have always been inflated in that regard.

I have to wonder though, with Olympus, Pentax and some other DSLR makers coming out with in-body IS, will Nikon and Canon ever break and do the same thing? That, price and many of the other specs have made the Pentax K10D quite an attractive DSLR. Despite what I've said before, I actually would consider a Pentax DSLR now....if only I weren't tied down by all my Canon gear!

 

[AndrewR]

Well, I already have an image stabilized constant f/4 from 70-210mm, and it only cost me $150 for the Minolta mount (since the body is stabilized).

Just felt like needling the Canon folks!

fuzzybabybunny: Since you mentioned Zeiss, I thought I'd post that the closest equivalent to that 50mm from CZ for the Sony/Minolta mount is the upcoming 85mm f/1.4 which has an MSRP of $1499. So far, CZ has only announced three lenses for Sony -- the other two are the 135mm f/1.8 ($1649) and the 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 (somewhere around $600-700, it's plastic as opposed to the metal construction for the other two). There's a rumored 24-75mm (maybe f/2.8), but there's been no official announcement.

If it's any consolation on price, the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM has an MSRP of $2499. :Q

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Holy thread bump!

Yeah, lens prices are rediculous. I'd actually like to know the cost of manufacturing these things.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Canon gets away with bloody murder.

Even the "value" lenses like the EFS 17-55 are $1000+. And they refuse to update their cheap primes like the EF 50 F1.4 with modern USM.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Holy thread bump!

Yeah, lens prices are rediculous. I'd actually like to know the cost of manufacturing these things.

Wow, I didn't notice the two month lag!

The part that annoys people about Sony is that they increased prices on all the lenses even though they inherited everything from Konica-Minolta (ok, just Minolta) and are using the same facilities to put them together and nearly the same people. Sony is acting like they already own the market for some reason.

They are supposedly releasing the follow-on to my beloved Maxxum 7D early next year (or at least announcing it), and that will be my decision point on sticking with Sony or moving to someone else.

BTW, your pictures are fantastic, fuzzy.

 

[aceO07]

I tried out the Canon 24-105f4ISL last weekend. I wish I was crazy enough to afford it. It has a nicer range than my 17-40f4L.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Canon gets away with bloody murder.

Even the "value" lenses like the EFS 17-55 are $1000+. And they refuse to update their cheap primes like the EF 50 F1.4 with modern USM.

Ehhhh... they're probably just doing what's right for their markets and the desired profit margins. Most people are content with a $200 18-200mm super zoom and a lower end body, so even if they did lower their prices on the L line, they probably still wouldn't sell that many of them and wouldn't make as much as if they kept prices where they are now. Likewise, even more consumers are just happy with a P&S, especially now that we've got widespread superzooms with IS cameras, which takes sales away from DSLRs and their lenses as a whole. I say the consumer also has to shoulder a lot of the blame. If the majority of *all* consumers demanded higher quality glass and refused to buy those cheap $200 superzoom lenses, the price of the L serious would probably fall.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
BTW, your pictures are fantastic, fuzzy.

Hanky! I need to get newer pictures though; I haven't gone on a decent shoot in more than a month

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: aceO07
I tried out the Canon 24-105f4ISL last weekend. I wish I was crazy enough to afford it. It has a nicer range than my 17-40f4L.

Buy it! Just ignore the price that you paid for it; ignore it and it'll go away