Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: Do you think canon is releasing new version of EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM?

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,899
    Quote Originally Posted by gandhi View Post
    I have been seeing double dip price drop for the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, do you suspect Version III coming into the market very soon due to which they are trying to get rid of these old lenses?
    I believe so. The new 24-70mm f/2,8 III IS is about to be released. It has twice the resolution to handle the new 80mp camera that Canon is releasing next year. Also the price of the new lens and camera will be about $15K.

    Now for the inaccurate part of my post. I think anybody that wants one should grab it now before the price goes back up.

    Side Note (This is the most activity I have seen on a TDP thread in a very long while.)

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    70
    I just tried to purchase through Adorama and was very surprised to learn they were going to charge me 7% tax on $1999 (NJ resident). I suspect Adorama has a warehouse in NJ or something like that. Next I tried the Amazon link above, the lens was $2299 (yes I tried the "more buying choices" on the right), not sure if I was forced to pay tax or not. I will pay close attention in the near future, I'd be very happy to get this lens in the near future for $1699 net cost to me.
    Scott

  3. #13
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,716
    Yes, Adorama does have their main warehouse in New Jersey, so New Jersey residents will pay state sales tax on purchases.

    Amazon is now starting to collect sales tax on behalf of more and more states. I know they start doing it for Massachusetts on November 1.

  4. #14
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,104
    Been following a thread over on CR on UV filters for the 24-70 II. Seems like it may be relevant to several of us here at TDP.

    The two most informative items to come out of it for me were:
    • From our favorite Neuroanatonist, the XS-Pro (3.4 mm thick) mount, the F-Pro mount (5 mm thick) nor those two filters stacked resulted in additional vignetting on the 24-70 II. John, given your observations, is there a reason to select the XS-Pro ($119) over the F-Pro ($79)?
    • A good link on filters from Roger Cicala. In addition to the $30 price difference, this post has me leaning toward the F-Pro.


    BTW...I am one of the people that jumped at this sale today. It is ironic, as I've been evaluating a lot of lenses lately and had just yesterday convinced myself, after looking at my own photos and test charts, that the 24-105 is unfairly maligned by a lot of folks (mostly on CR) and was a very solid lens.

    Now I just have to figure out how I am going to pay for it....

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,899
    Congrats Brant, it is an awesome lens.

    I quit buying expensive filters, although I still have a large collection. When I am using the camera I take the filters off and put them back on afterwards. The only pictures I have the filters on anymore are the ones taken very quickly.

    I know you asked John but I would prefer the XS-Pro with MRC-Nano rather than the F-Pro.

  6. #16
    Moderator Steve U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    1,942
    Good for you Brant, great pick up at that price.
    Steve U
    Wine, Food and Photography Student and Connoisseur

  7. #17
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,104
    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    Congrats Brant, it is an awesome lens.

    I quit buying expensive filters, although I still have a large collection. When I am using the camera I take the filters off and put them back on afterwards. The only pictures I have the filters on anymore are the ones taken very quickly.

    I know you asked John but I would prefer the XS-Pro with MRC-Nano rather than the F-Pro.
    Thanks Rick (EDIT-and Steve!)...I've been debating whether I even need to upgrade anything for awhile. I've been looking at some prime lenses, the 70-200 II, the 24-70 II, etc. Then this happened and along came my answer.....

    I should have made it an open question. I do have one MRC-Nano filter and it does seem to stay a little cleaner than my MRC filters. At least, I don't recall having to clean it as often. I had thought this was just my perception, but I've recently read other people making similar claims (so it must be true).

    Why are you taking your filters off? This is an open question. A post caught my attention the other day where I saw that Jonathan Huyer takes his filters off for night scape photography. I'll be posting a few photos I took this weekend of "Water Fire" in Providence, RI. I have several shots I like, but I am noticing a slight halo around the fire. Is that the type of effect you are trying to avoid by removing your filter?

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Kayaker72 View Post
    Thanks Rick (EDIT-and Steve!)...I've been debating whether I even need to upgrade anything for awhile. I've been looking at some prime lenses, the 70-200 II, the 24-70 II, etc. Then this happened and along came my answer.....

    I should have made it an open question. I do have one MRC-Nano filter and it does seem to stay a little cleaner than my MRC filters. At least, I don't recall having to clean it as often. I had thought this was just my perception, but I've recently read other people making similar claims (so it must be true).

    Why are you taking your filters off? This is an open question. A post caught my attention the other day where I saw that Jonathan Huyer takes his filters off for night scape photography. I'll be posting a few photos I took this weekend of "Water Fire" in Providence, RI. I have several shots I like, but I am noticing a slight halo around the fire. Is that the type of effect you are trying to avoid by removing your filter?

    I prefer the MRC-Nano because I have both versions and I think the MRC-Nano versions give a bit better IQ. Both are good filters.

    I take the filters off because of the small improvement in IQ. Any glass you put in front of your lens will degrade the image, even if it is slight. This is true of any filter you use no matter how much you spend or how great it is.

    I have had a DSLR now for five years. I know the reasons to have the filters to protect the lens, it keeps it clean and it helps with weather sealing. If I look back only once did I drop a lens and then filter didn't matter. I seldom take pictures when it is raining or I am in a dirt storm. So overall the protection the filters provide is minimal, at least for me. The big selling point for me is that my most prized lenses, the supertele's have no filter at all. They run naked and I have never had a problem.

    So now I leave both the threaded filter and the lens cap on. I just unscrew the filter drop it in my pocket and go. If it is raining or I am in a dusty place I might leave it on. If I have an accident with a lens, that is why I pay for a gold CPS membership.

    If I looked at it as insurance to protect my lens and compared to the cost versus the value over 5 years for repairs I have done no repairs that the filter would have protected or stopped. I have spent well over $1000 for filters, as insurance goes they do not pay off.
    Last edited by HDNitehawk; 10-16-2013 at 10:40 PM.

  9. #19
    Moderator Steve U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    1,942
    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    They run naked and I have never had a problem.
    Very progressive of you.
    Steve U
    Wine, Food and Photography Student and Connoisseur

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    Posts
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    Congrats Brant, it is an awesome lens.

    I quit buying expensive filters, although I still have a large collection. When I am using the camera I take the filters off and put them back on afterwards. The only pictures I have the filters on anymore are the ones taken very quickly.

    I know you asked John but I would prefer the XS-Pro with MRC-Nano rather than the F-Pro.
    XS-Pro vs F-Pro is just the thickness of the filter ring, both should ( or could be) available in MRC Nano. Using XS-Pro filters allows for more stacked filters (for example if I'm too lazy to take of the clear filter before I add a ND or CPL, or if I want to combine CPL and ND). If you think it is unlikely that you stack certain types of filters, or if the lens is not prone to additional vignetting with stacked filters, you might as well choose the F-Pro version. Might be slightly easier to handle as well.
    Last edited by ahab1372; 10-17-2013 at 01:25 AM. Reason: typos
    Arnt

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •