Yipe! Canon 24-105 big $

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mark², Sep 3, 2005.

  1. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    Mark², Sep 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "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/con...s&Q=&sku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search



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

    --

    Rob
    Robert R Kircher, Jr., Sep 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark²

    Skip M Guest

    "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/con...s&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
    Skip M, Sep 3, 2005
    #3
  4. 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/con...s&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.
    Pix on Canvas, Sep 3, 2005
    #4
  5. 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/con...s&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.
    Siddhartha Jain, Sep 3, 2005
    #5
  6. Mark²

    Kinon O'cann Guest

    "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/con...s&Q=&sku=397662&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
    >
    Kinon O'cann, Sep 3, 2005
    #6
  7. Mark²

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <PI9Se.15422$sw6.7537@fed1read05>
    from "Skip M" <> 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/con...s&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
    deryck lant, Sep 3, 2005
    #7
  8. Mark²

    Skip M Guest

    "deryck lant" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The message <PI9Se.15422$sw6.7537@fed1read05>
    > from "Skip M" <> contains these words:
    >
    >> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    >> news:al9Se.43$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/con...s&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
    Skip M, Sep 3, 2005
    #8
  9. Mark²

    deryck lant Guest

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

    > "deryck lant" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > The message <PI9Se.15422$sw6.7537@fed1read05>
    > > from "Skip M" <> contains these words:
    > >
    > >> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    > >> news:al9Se.43$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/con...s&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
    deryck lant, Sep 3, 2005
    #9
  10. Mark²

    Lucas Guest

    "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
    Lucas, Sep 3, 2005
    #10
  11. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    "deryck lant" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The message <PI9Se.15422$sw6.7537@fed1read05>
    > from "Skip M" <> contains these words:
    >
    >> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    >> news:al9Se.43$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/con...s&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.
    Mark², Sep 3, 2005
    #11
  12. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    "Pix on Canvas" <> wrote in message
    news:43195512$...
    > 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/con...s&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... :)
    Mark², Sep 3, 2005
    #12
  13. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    "Kinon O'cann" <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "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...
    Mark², Sep 3, 2005
    #13
  14. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    "Lucas" <> wrote in message
    news:4319c249$0$157$...
    >
    > "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.
    Mark², Sep 3, 2005
    #14
  15. Mark²

    deryck lant Guest

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


    > "deryck lant" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > The message <PI9Se.15422$sw6.7537@fed1read05>
    > > from "Skip M" <> contains these words:
    > >
    > >> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    > >> news:al9Se.43$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/con...s&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
    deryck lant, Sep 3, 2005
    #15
  16. Mark²

    Leonard Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > "deryck lant" <> wrote in message
    > news:...


    >>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
    Leonard, Sep 3, 2005
    #16
  17. Mark²

    wavelength Guest

    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)~
    wavelength, Sep 3, 2005
    #17
  18. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    "deryck lant" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The message <n4lSe.898$sx2.799@fed1read02>
    > from "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> contains these
    > words:
    >
    >
    >> "deryck lant" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > The message <PI9Se.15422$sw6.7537@fed1read05>
    >> > from "Skip M" <> 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/con...s&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.
    :(
    Mark², Sep 3, 2005
    #18
  19. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    "Leonard" <> wrote in message
    news:FAmSe.2504$...
    > Mark² wrote:
    >> "deryck lant" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...

    >
    >>>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.
    :(
    Mark², Sep 3, 2005
    #19
  20. Mark²

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <>
    from deryck lant <> contains these words:

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


    > > "deryck lant" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > The message <PI9Se.15422$sw6.7537@fed1read05>
    > > > from "Skip M" <> contains these words:
    > > >
    > > >> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    > > >> news:al9Se.43$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/con...s&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
    deryck lant, Sep 3, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. J. Cod
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    426
    J. Cod
    Sep 29, 2004
  2. Derek Fountain

    Canon 28-105 vs Canon 28-135 lenses

    Derek Fountain, Mar 10, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    538
    David Griffin
    Mar 12, 2005
  3. Joel Dorfan

    Old vs New Canon EF 28-105 f/3.5 - 4.5 II USM Lens

    Joel Dorfan, Aug 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    921
    Joel Dorfan
    Aug 17, 2005
  4. deryck  lant

    Canon 24-105: A User Report

    deryck lant, Sep 4, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    288
    Dirty Harry
    Sep 15, 2005
  5. Mark²

    DSLR World Market-Share...Yipe.

    Mark², Jan 26, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    830
    ASAAR
    Jan 28, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page