FYI - Lens price drops

Be interesting to see how much this affects real prices of the 70-200 f/2.8 mk2.

Actually in the process of downgrading back from the f/2.8 mk1 to the f/4.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Be interesting to see how much this affects real prices of the 70-200 f/2.8 mk2..
Click to expand...

What do you mean real prices?

I went into a highstreet photography store when I wanted to look at a 2.8 v F4 in weight and the 2.8 was £2499. This was over a month ago and are now selling in there for around 2K.

Personally I think the price has stayed high because it's both new and they have a load of Mk1's to get rid of around the £1500 mark. I would have settled for a Mk1 had I not read it's main issue is it's not that sharp at some focal lengths on a crop, which has been fixed for the Mk2. As I can never see me going FF in the next 5 years I may as well get the MK2.
 
dannyjo22 said:
What do you mean real prices?

I went into a highstreet photography store when I wanted to look at a 2.8 v F4 in weight and the 2.8 was £2499. This was over a month ago and are now selling in there for around 2K.

They're available at most places for under £2k now and you can get them for £1800 from some sources.

When I say "real" prices, I just meant the actual street prices rather than the Canon RRP :)
Click to expand...
 
antc said:
I only bought a 24-70 about 1.5 weeks ago for £998!!!! And it was from the cheapest place listed on price buster currently.

Wonder if I have a leg to stand on calling them up and asking what they can do for me?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

you get 2 weeks to return it under the distance selling regulations
 
mangobreeder said:
you get 2 weeks to return it under the distance selling regulations
Click to expand...

Only 7 days isn't it? At least you have to notify them within 7 days. This is for products that aren't what you expected when you ordered them online as you are unable to view them. I love the way it gets massively abused by people in search of a sharp copy of a lens!
 
Vertigo1 said:
Be interesting to see how much this affects real prices of the 70-200 f/2.8 mk2.

Actually in the process of downgrading back from the f/2.8 mk1 to the f/4.
Click to expand...

Going from the f/2.8 to the f4 is not a downgrade.

Phate: why not get a 24/70 second hand? They're brilliant lenses.

If the 24/70 IS comes out soon you can have my 24/70, it's in great nick and sharp as a razor!
 
Trick said:
Phate: why not get a 24/70 second hand? They're brilliant lenses.
Click to expand...

Mainly for warranty to be honest. I'm putting away a decent chunk of money right now so I'll be able to afford one very soon. I have no problems buying second hand...but when it's something I'm going to be using most weekends heavily I'd rather a brand new one...just a personal thing.
 
mangobreeder said:
you get 2 weeks to return it under the distance selling regulations
Click to expand...
You get 7-days from the day of delivery to inform the retailer of your intention to return the goods and, in most cases, up to 28-days to return said goods to the retailer.

And while they are obliged to refund the postage you paid on the goods, they are not obliged to reimburse you for the cost of the returning them.
 
Adrianr said:
It is? The f/4 can't do f/2.8, the f/2.8 can do f/4. :confused:
Click to expand...

It depends on what you want. The f/4 is smaller, lighter, sharper. If you don't need f/2.8 then it's not a downgrade. f/2.8 is not the be all and end all. I do not automatically think that the 70/200 f/2.8 is a "better" lens than the f/4. If I did, I'd have bought the f/2.8. There are always others things to consider rather than just the f stops.... I have never missed f/2.8 on my 70/200 f/4 IS. I regularly use my f/4 IS for landscape shots and as such it's a better lens than the f/2.8 IS because f/2.8 is unnecessary for that type of work and the f/4 has better optics. The f/4 is more compact and lighter so it's less of a burden when it comes to lugging it up a mountain. In this case, is the f/4 an upgrade from the f/2.8?
 
Last edited:
Trick said:
It depends on what you want. The f/4 is smaller, lighter, sharper. If you don't need f/2.8 then it's not a downgrade. f/2.8 is not the be all and end all. I do not automatically think that the 70/200 f/2.8 is a "better" lens than the f/4. If I did, I'd have bought the f/2.8. There are always others things to consider rather than just the f stops.... I have never missed f/2.8 on my 70/200 f/4 IS. I regularly use my f/4 IS for landscape shots and as such it's a better lens than the f/2.8 IS because f/2.8 is unnecessary for that type of work and the f/4 has better optics. The f/4 is more compact and lighter so it's less of a burden when it comes to lugging it up a mountain. In this case, is the f/4 an upgrade from the f/2.8?
Click to expand...

Completely agree with you. Depends entirely on what your requirements are.

For weddings - 2.8 IS definately.

Landscapes on a mountain? Nope.
 
yep. In a church, need twice as much light? f/2.8 please.

On a hill in daylight? Heavy bag of climbing and photography kit? f/4 will do fine thanks!
 
Trick said:
It depends on what you want. The f/4 is smaller, lighter, sharper. If you don't need f/2.8 then it's not a downgrade. f/2.8 is not the be all and end all. I do not automatically think that the 70/200 f/2.8 is a "better" lens than the f/4. If I did, I'd have bought the f/2.8. There are always others things to consider rather than just the f stops.... I have never missed f/2.8 on my 70/200 f/4 IS. I regularly use my f/4 IS for landscape shots and as such it's a better lens than the f/2.8 IS because f/2.8 is unnecessary for that type of work and the f/4 has better optics. The f/4 is more compact and lighter so it's less of a burden when it comes to lugging it up a mountain. In this case, is the f/4 an upgrade from the f/2.8?
Click to expand...

Hear Hear.:)

As for the 24-70 IS it's been rumored for the last 5 years so unless there is some hard evidence this time I don't see it coming any time soon... :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom