Canon EOS 1-D, 16-35 2.8L, 400 OD IS Press releases

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

It's official now: See press releases at

http://www.usa.canon.com/

***

-- Rod (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), September 25, 2001

Answers

DO, that is: EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM Lens List Price $8900. ***

-- Rod (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), September 25, 2001.

That price is insane.

I'd far rather have the 300 F2.8L IS + 1.4X TC for less money. I think Canon have seriously misjudged that one.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), September 25, 2001.


Awww bullshit...Christ almighty, the 600/4L IS costs this much, and it's an f4 lens at 600mm! And, the 400/2.8L IS doesn't cost nearly this much. If the actual street price of this unproven EOS 400/4 IS DO lens is more than ~$2500.00-$3000.00, then Canon can kiss my A$$.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), September 25, 2001.

As I've said before, I suspect the 400/4 DO IS will be a specialist lens for those NEEDING a light 400mm IS lens - and those who NEED it will have to pay for it. In addition I suspect that they will also pay a toll in reduced image quality under some conditions. I really don't see DO lenses as a replacement for conventional lenses. With a list price close to $9K I'd suspect it will sell for around $6K to a small market of those who really NEED the lens and those with deep pockets who simply can't live without owning the latest offerings from Canon.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), September 25, 2001.

Why don't you all get a grip. As with any new technology, the first samples are usually quite expensive. This has been true of early CD players, laserdisc players, DVD players, etc. But in time prices will drop. Early DVD players were initially several hundred dollars. Today you can buy a decent one for under $200! Manufacturers depend on a number of "early adoptors" who will pay the premium for the latest technology.

Consider that Canon must have invested a considerable amount of money to develop this technology. I don't blame them for trying to recoup some of it as soon as they can. It's economics, pal. Canon isn't a charity. Years from now you'll be kissing Canon's ass because you'll be thankful that they poured their money into DO and IS technology so that you could carry around and handhold a high-mag tele without breaking your back.

-- Peter Phan (pphan01@hotmail.com), September 25, 2001.



Peter,

You're right in most respects. However, there was no better substitute when the CD player arrived on the scene (it was better than anything else out there).

I pretty sure, like Bob mentioned as well, that the 400mm f/2.8 lens will still be better optically than the 400mm f/4 DO. I just can't see the DO element being better than good old fashioned (expensive) low-dispersion glass. Lighter in weight, you bet, better quality, I seriously doubt it.

-- S Ratzlaff (ratzlaff@ticnet.com), September 25, 2001.


I agree with Peter. You guys get a grip on yourselves.

When the first IS lens came out it was available at B&H for about $500. Now you can pick one up for only $460. The price has fallen like a rock.

I'll bet in 5 years the price on the 400mm f/4.0 IS DO lens will be down to $6000 and we will laugh at how silly we were to gripe about the price. NOT!

I cannot believe the price on this lens. This reminds me of racing equipment, be it bikes, motorcycles, or cars. The stuff is made of exotic material like unobtainium. Shaving a few ounces can cost megabucks.

I would like to buy a standard 400mm f/4.0 L IS lens. I'm sure it would be about half the price. I could spend the difference on film and gym fees.

-- Marc Bergman (mbergma2@ix.netcom.com), September 26, 2001.


I don't think Canon produced this lens to make lots of money. I think it was an excercise in "one upping" Nikon. I also think they found it much harder (and more) expensive to do than they first thought, but having announced it some time ago they had to bring it to market or look stupid. My guess is that we will not see a long line of other DO lenses introduced anytime soon (if ever).

For some reanon the 400/4 has never been a popular lens. In fact only Tamron ever made one as far as I know. Nikon had a 400/3.5, Minolta have a 400/4.5 and everybody has a 400/2.8. I guess a 300/2.8 + 1.4x does most of the job that a 400/4 would and the 300/2.8 is a big seller.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), September 26, 2001.


Agree DO price outrageous. I guess time will tell if this is the first of a series to come with declining prices or an exotic footnote in the history of photographic oddities.

Comments on the other two releases:

I think the image size of 4MP for a top of line digital SLR body is dramatically small. The engineering tradeoff of 4MP for 8fps is not the one I would have chosen; I'd rather have an option: more MP as default and select for less if you use high fps. Or simply more MP and less available fps.

The 16-35L 2.8 looks quite auspicious however; if the reported improvements in the optics are as claimed it could be well worth the premium in price over the current 17-35L 2.8.

***

-- Rod (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), September 26, 2001.


Now that Canon have finally released the apparently super expensive 400mm f/4.0 IS DO lens, they will hopefully make a priority of upgrading the already outstanding EF 400f/5.6 into a close-focussing, 400f/5.6 with Image Stabilizing at a reasonable price.

-- John Merriman (mer@odyssey.net), September 26, 2001.


More detailed info and product images at canon europa:

http://www.cps.canon-europa.com/

****

-- Rod (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), September 27, 2001.


The canon europa site has a link to a nice web promotion for the EOS 1-D. Although 4MP does seem rather small, it will be interesting to see test results / field experience to evaluate just how well this body blends image quality, capture rate, and workflow effectiveness.

***

-- Rod (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), September 27, 2001.


I have been waiting for the 400 f4 DO lens since the first press release last year, thankfully I did not buy a camera for it yet. I think Canon has stabbed consumer photography in the back with that price. Well it looks like if nikon comes out with a 400 f4 for a normal price, thats the way i'll go. Very dissapointing . I read this release yesterday and have already written a letter to Canon.

-- (Robertolling@msn.com), September 27, 2001.

I don't understand why people are angry at Canon for releasing an expensive lens. It costs what they want it to cost and if you object to the cost you don't have to buy it. It's certainly not a consumer lens, no matter what the internet hype has been. People have bought into the hype so much that they now feel they just HAVE to have the lens and the fact that it's expensive is taken as almost a personal insult!

Nobody writes to Canon to complain about the cost of the 50/1.0L. They just don't buy one. I think the D30 is way overpriced, and guess what, though I'd like a digital SLR I'm not going to buy a new D30.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), September 27, 2001.


Excellent point. I could have sworn I saw something about less expensive in the original prototype announcement, but I've looked back again and reread it twice; no such verbiage is there unless I somehow missed it. It demonstrates again that we often see what we wanna see.

http://www.canon.com/do-info/index.html

The closest text is "Canon will continue its research and development efforts with the aim of incorporating the Multi-Layer Diffractive Optical Element in a variety of products, such as interchangeable SLR camera lenses ...", which would imply a product diffusion / cost reduction model. I guess as far as we can tell that's still the plan.

***

-- Rod (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), September 27, 2001.



This product diffusion / cost reduction model is the same as the DVD example that Peter Phan posted earlier. Interestingly enough, diffractive optics are mentioned in the prototype announcement as being used in DVD players; hopefully that's a good sign for the price curve!

(Personal aside: I'm just now converting from VHS to DVD. If that's any indication I should expect to buy my first DO lens sometime around the year 2006!)

***

-- Rod (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), September 27, 2001.


I said, "bullshit" because I'm very skeptical that this lens will be released with a preliminary street price of anywhere near $9000.00, let alone the $6000.00 price tag that some are predicting. By quoting an initial U.S. market MSRP of $8900.00, it may be that Canon is simply conditioning consumers to be thrilled and ecstatic when this lens might miraculously turn out to have an initial street price of perhaps "only" ~$4000.00-$4500.00. Many might then say, "Wow, what a deal! Sign me up!". And then a year later (if that), the street price may fall to ~$3000.00 (after a rebate), which is what I'm predicting the true market value of this lens to be within the next year or so. If this lens does indeed prove to have an initial street price of anywhere from $5000.00-$7000.00, I predict it will languish and collect dust on dealer shelves, because the "specialist" market niche that Bob Atkins imagines, will be far too small to even begin to make this lens profitable for Canon, let alone just recouping their R&D costs for this lens. I predict that most professional and advanced amateur photographers with any common sense will scoff at this unproven lens if it costs anywhere near the suggested MSRP, because the price:benefit ratio can't compete with, for example, the 400/5.6L, or the 300/4L IS + 1.4TC, combined with outstanding films like Provia 100F pushed one stop. Nor would the 400/4 IS DO's price/benefit ratio compete well with the highly regarded and highly proven Canon "big glass" lenses, in which we must ask, "Is the weight and size reduction of the 400/4 IS DO (and its unproven optical performance) really worth thousands of dollars?" How much money shall we assign to each pound of weight reduction compared to the current Canon big glass lenses? $500.00-1000.00 per pound?

By announcing a MSRP of $8900.00 for the soon-to-be-released EOS 400/4 IS DO lens, Canon has perhaps sent up a "trial wind balloon" in order to gauge the current level of consumer tolerance and acceptance of their inflated price for this new lens. If so, those of you who see no problem with this raping of the consumer, well...you are not only fools, but you are also unwittingly encouraging such price-gouging, and you're encouraging Canon to charge just as much as they think the consumer will tolerate. If you had any sense at all, you would join and support those of us who are saying "NO!" to the proposed price of this lens, and in an expression of world-wide solidarity, letting Canon know that we as a group of consumers (who are in fact vastly empowered by the Internet) will boycott this unproven lens so long as it is non-competetively and absurdly priced in comparison to the current big glass offerings from Canon.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), September 27, 2001.


Gee, and to think I had my priorities all wrong.... I never thought to join in an expression of worldwide solidarity for the sake of a lens. But now... it's like the scales have fallen from my eyes!

Relax, everyone. Have an cupcake! As Canon does not act as a charity, nor force anyone to buy their products, I see no reason to equate the price with price-gouging and consumer rape. If you can't afford this lens, here's the solution: DON'T BUY IT! TA DAA! Ok, where's that cupcake.

-- Ming Kuo (mtkuo@hotmail.com), September 27, 2001.


Cupcakes...ahh, I see "Let them eat cake"...

Anyway...I'm adding another comment to this thread to say that www.usa.canon.com now sports a greatly improved section on EF lenses including the notorious EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM lens, complete with large image of lens unmistakably sporting its stylish Green ring. Includes sample image taken with lens. Droolingly cool.

-- Rod (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), October 04, 2001.


Interestingly, Canon supplies MTF charts for its lenses on the new (wonderfully improved) EF Lenses section of its web site. Compare the 400 2.8L IS MTF with the 400 4DO IS MTF (check the 500 f4, too). The MTF on the 400 f4 DO lens looks respectable, but is not nearly as clean as the 400 2.8 (or 500 f4) charts.

-- Rod (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), October 04, 2001.

There were two major points about the DO technology. One is that it allows the lens to be smaller and lighter. The second, however, is the crux of the matter, in that the element is very much cheaper to produce than Fluorite or UD elements to achieve the same performance.

The $8900 price is reasonable, when you place it alongside the 300mm F2.8L IS, which would be its "matching" lens (like the 500 F4 and 600F4 are matching, and the 300 F4L and 400 F5.6L were). However, if canon are pushing the "cheaper to produce" angle, then the price is not so reasonable. I think wait and see, esp. in a few years, when there are several DO lenses.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), October 05, 2001.


The 400DO f4 IS lens does not escape expensive glass; it has one fluorite CaF2 element. I agree, after the intitial shock, with the notion that Canon can charge whatever it wants for its products. The value proposition of this lens at its current price does not seem compelling, at least to me.

-- Rod (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), October 05, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ