Canon RRP down by 300 SGD on 5d Mark III

[Learnphotography]

thanks guy.

can roughly predict 5Dmk3 and 6D will not drop much in their 1st two years. so its safe to buy after 2-3 mths after their release.

 

[ageha]

thanks guy.

can roughly predict 5Dmk3 and 6D will not drop much in their 1st two years. so its safe to buy after 2-3 mths after their release.

Nobody can predict that for sure.

 

[avsquare]

thanks guy.

can roughly predict 5Dmk3 and 6D will not drop much in their 1st two years. so its safe to buy after 2-3 mths after their release.

Oh dear, 5D3 has dropped LOTS since launch :bsmilie:

Referring to street prices though. Not RRP.

 

[Learnphotography]

Oh dear, 5D3 has dropped LOTS since launch :bsmilie:

Referring to street prices though. Not RRP.

icic, tt's good to hear. drop drop more

 

[avsquare]

icic, tt's good to hear. drop drop more

Most likely it would, but at a slower pace I guess

 

[venus09]

Just had a walk in funan n asked abt 5dmkiii body onli,

Click! - $4k+
Slrr - $4k++
Tk - $4199
Alan - $4140

 

[Jedi]

Just had a walk in funan n asked abt 5dmkiii body onli,

Click! - $4k+
Slrr - $4k++
Tk - $4199
Alan - $4140

Yes, no drop in body price. Only kit set, Canon is trying to clear the 24-105mm to make way for the up coming 24-70 f4.

Canon won't drop the 5D 3 body price so fast. Even the 6D is no threat to it.

 

[dliem]

Yes, no drop in body price. Only kit set, Canon is trying to clear the 24-105mm to make way for the up coming 24-70 f4.

There is no point to clear 24-105L for the new 24-70 f4
Both are f4, but 105 has longer coverage (and it's already has IS)
Choose between these two, surely I'll choose 24-105L

Actually, I see no point to release this new lens.

 

[nitewalk]

There is no point to clear 24-105L for the new 24-70 f4
Both are f4, but 105 has longer coverage (and it's already has IS)
Choose between these two, surely I'll choose 24-105L

Actually, I see no point to release this new lens.

It was something which puzzled me as well. For most enthusiasts or hobbyist, that extra 35mm makes it an attractive lens for travel.

 

[ageha]

It was something which puzzled me as well. For most enthusiasts or hobbyist, that extra 35mm makes it an attractive lens for travel.

lol, the additional 35mm at the long end make almost no difference but the 0.7x max. magnification does.

 

[Learnphotography]

0.7x max means its 70% of what marco lens can do, assuming focal length, settings etc etc etc are same?

 

[ageha]

0.7x max means its 70% of what marco lens can do, assuming focal length, settings etc etc etc are same?

0.7x is pretty amazing for a zoom and a non-dedicated macro lens in general. Some macro primes have only a magnification of 0.5x like from Zeiss and Leica. If it's sharp and the artifacts are minimal this lens could be a real winner.

 

[doodah]

lol, the additional 35mm at the long end make almost no difference but the 0.7x max. magnification does.

This is VERY useful for traveling when one wants to do some impromptu macro shot without having to lug another heavy lens around...

Many people claim the extra 35 mm is useful. I look through the EXIF data of my travel photos and few make use of that focal length range. It SOUNDS useful, but it really isn't... just like a number of camera features.... :bsmilie:

Convert that useless 35 mm range into gorgeous performance in the 24 to 30 mm range, and I'll grab it without second thoughts...

 

[ageha]

This is VERY useful for traveling when one wants to do some impromptu macro shot without having to lug another heavy lens around...

Many people claim the extra 35 mm is useful. I look through the EXIF data of my travel photos and few make use of that focal length range. It SOUNDS useful, but it really isn't... just like a number of camera features.... :bsmilie:

Exactly! The problem is most people don't even know what max. magnification means. The majority still thinks the min. focus distance would be meaningful.

 

[Learnphotography]

sounds like this 24-70 feature is 1 stone kill 2 birds. very nice. but f4 hmm okok

 

[Jedi]

There is no point to clear 24-105L for the new 24-70 f4
Both are f4, but 105 has longer coverage (and it's already has IS)
Choose between these two, surely I'll choose 24-105L

Actually, I see no point to release this new lens.

Depending on which angle are you looking at. EF 24-105 has been around for years since the launched of EOS 5D mark 1. Now that Canon has officially launched the 24-70mm f4 regardless of rationality of launching, Canon has to get rid of 24-105 lens as much as possible. This is business perspective. From consumer's perspective, many will be attracted to get the 24-70 f4 given that it is a new product which offers new features/better IQ, etc. The demand for 24-105 will definitely fall. So Canon has to drop the price of the 24-105 to push for sales.

 

[ageha]

Depending on which angle are you looking at. EF 24-105 has been around for years since the launched of EOS 5D mark 1. Now that Canon has officially launched the 24-70mm f4 regardless of rationality of launching, Canon has to get rid of 24-105 lens as much as possible. This is business perspective. From consumer's perspective, many will be attracted to get the 24-70 f4 given that it is a new product which offers new features/better IQ, etc. The demand for 24-105 will definitely fall. So Canon has to drop the price of the 24-105 to push for sales.

That's probably only the case if they have a warehouse full of those lenses and I'm not sure if the demand will fall coz the new lens costs twice as much.

 

[Jedi]

That's probably only the case if they have a warehouse full of those lenses and I'm not sure if the demand will fall coz the new lens costs twice as much.

It is everybody guess. I don't have the answer. But you can look at the bigger brother 24-70 f2.8 mark 2. it costs nearly 2900-3000 but people are snapping it up like nobody business.

Accordingly to Canon USA, 24-70 f4's SRP is 1499 while 24-105 is 1149, a difference of 350. The question remains for each customer is whether you will pay the extra 350 for 4-stop IS, better IQ, closer magnification, etc at the expense of shorter focal length. It is up to each individual I must say.

 

[ageha]

It is everybody guess. I don't have the answer. But you can look at the bigger brother 24-70 f2.8 mark 2. it costs nearly 2900-3000 but people are snapping it up like nobody business.

Yeah but because of that the old version didn't sell for less than before.

 

[nitewalk]

This is VERY useful for traveling when one wants to do some impromptu macro shot without having to lug another heavy lens around...

Many people claim the extra 35 mm is useful. I look through the EXIF data of my travel photos and few make use of that focal length range. It SOUNDS useful, but it really isn't... just like a number of camera features.... :bsmilie:

Convert that useless 35 mm range into gorgeous performance in the 24 to 30 mm range, and I'll grab it without second thoughts...

Depends on how and what u shoot on travel. Most of the time, i would not use 70-105 range as well. But when you need it and you dont have that, might just miss a shot.

But then again, if u like a bit more close up, the magnification will come in useful. And same situation, when u need close up and u dont have it, might just miss the shot also. In the end, it really boils down to how you shoot.