Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Yipe! Canon 24-105 big $

Reply
Thread Tools

Yipe! Canon 24-105 big $

 
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2005
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/cont...ughType=search


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert R Kircher, Jr.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2005
"MarkČ" <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/cont...ughType=search



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

--

Rob


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Skip M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2005
"MarkČ" <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/cont...ughType=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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Pix on Canvas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2005
MarkČ 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/cont...ughType=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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Siddhartha Jain
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2005
MarkČ (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/cont...ughType=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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Kinon O'cann
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2005

"MarkČ" <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/cont...ughType=search
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
deryck lant
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2005
The message <PI9Se.15422$sw6.7537@fed1read05>
from "Skip M" <(E-Mail Removed)> contains these words:

> "MarkČ" <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/cont...ughType=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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Skip M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2005
"deryck lant" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> The message <PI9Se.15422$sw6.7537@fed1read05>
> from "Skip M" <(E-Mail Removed)> contains these words:
>
>> "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>> news:al9Se.43$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/cont...ughType=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


 
Reply With Quote
 
deryck lant
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2005
The message <8xiSe.16288$sw6.3550@fed1read05>
from "Skip M" <(E-Mail Removed)> contains these words:

> "deryck lant" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > The message <PI9Se.15422$sw6.7537@fed1read05>
> > from "Skip M" <(E-Mail Removed)> contains these words:
> >
> >> "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> >> news:al9Se.43$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/cont...ughType=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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lucas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2005

"MarkČ" <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/cont...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


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GIDS 2009 .Net:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf ASP .Net 0 12-26-2008 09:29 AM
GIDS 2009 .Net:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf ASP .Net Web Controls 0 12-26-2008 06:11 AM
GIDS 2009 Java:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf Python 0 12-24-2008 07:35 AM
GIDS 2009 Java:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf Ruby 0 12-24-2008 05:07 AM
Big JARs = Big Problems? kk_oop@yahoo.com Java 11 09-18-2005 05:54 PM



Advertisments