The new 24 1.4L mk2 is $1700. My mk 1 was only $1100.
I am scared about future releases.
The new 24 1.4L mk2 is $1700. My mk 1 was only $1100.
I am scared about future releases.
how did that song go ...whar ever will be will be .....im tired about all the talk about these so called hugh price increases...like the talk about the new 100-400 canon ...when is all this supposed to happen ...next month the month after ,,,,or 5 minutes fron now
I'm pretty sure I asked about a lens that is already out and it's $600 more than it's predecessor.
Good talk.
I wonder how it compares, factoring in inflation, with the initial price of the original.
From Bryan's examples, it seems like a superior lens.
OTOH, my 35mm f/1.4 isn't a mkII, and cost about the same as the 'cheap' version. I don't know how it'd compare to the new mkII, but I was doing some center focus comparisons with my 16-35mm f/2.8, and I thought the zoom lens was pretty impressive, until I took a close look at the prime. Geez. For an old lens, it looks STUPID good at 100%. I'm sure it was much softer at 1.4... still.
I'm not introducing any new information, but there seems to be a point when performance improvements are largely academic, for practical, real use purposes. There comes a point from the resolution camp that we'd just say go large format with a scan back. Near impossible to get most of the pictures we use our dinky SLR cameras for, but the DETAIL!
Used lenses, from what I see, hold their value incredibly well, compared to electronics, cars, underwear... When my 16-35mm became discontinued, it bothered me for awhile, just because. If the 100-400 is replaced soon, well, I guess the refurbished one I ordered will be old too. Worry about it then, when I've got money. Until that time, it'll match nicely with my vintage 5D
After seeing the price jump on the 24L Mk2 and with the talk of the 100-400 being replaced I decided to buy the current version. I feared paying $2k for the new one.
I would love to have the new 24L mk2 but I can't justify it when my mk1 does a fine job.
I will always go for the newest lenses if I need to addone into my kit no matter how expensive. If I cannot afford at this moment I'll just wait and work hard to get more money. That's pretty much my way of doing it, since that the updated lens is ALWAYS better than the original more or less. I just cannot stand it phycologically -there is a new lens on the market and I just spent 70% of its value on something old...
The 100-400 is not a lens I personally will make money with. It is a hobby lens really so that was my take on that.
And even if I do make money, I'll make the same with the old lens as I would the new so.
I'm more concerned with the price of existing lenses (and most other Canon accessories).
Over the last few weeks my Amazon (UK) basket has taken a pounding. The 70-200 f/4 IS has gone from £750 to over £1000, the 24-105 has gone from £750ish to £870, a genuine battery for my 40D has gone from £35 to £60 and the 580EX II has gone from £300 to £400.
Has anyone else noticed this or am I just really unlucky?
Originally Posted by Benjamin
I could have waited to get a 5D mkII for the same price thatI paid ( I think, or close enough) for my 5D. However, I'd have missed out on a lot of pictures....
Actually in Canada we see very incredible price increase just right after the beginning of the economy crisis last year. Canadian $ became weak, and everything photography wise increase like 20% immediately. Fortunately other IT stuff like computers and iPods stay at where they were, but i'm a photography guy... Just give you a hint, the 24-70L in Canada now is sold at CAD$1529, while B&H is selling it for US$1190. They're still pretty much the same value but to people who use Canadian $ all time this is certainly something to burden my wallet.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote