Sony 70-200mm f2.8 G SSM II

[bfitzgerald]

Someone is smoking something very strong though!

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-sony ... _source=aw

£2499.00

[mikeriach]

Quite pleased I picked up a second hand Mk1 for £1000 off eBay.

Mike

[Dusty]

$3k in the US, vs. $2k of the original one. Even Canon and Nikon only get $2500 for theirs, and the have IS built into the lenses at that price!

Dusty

[bfitzgerald]

I'm sure the price will drop, but it's pretty crazy to have a price like that to start with (WEX are not always the best price on some items)
I think Tamron must be rubbing their hands in delight, once the Sony MkI is off the market, just a little over £1000 secures the new Tamron and it's got universally good review from sites and users...and it's got some sealing too.

[bfitzgerald]

$3k in the US, vs. $2k of the original one. Even Canon and Nikon only get $2500 for theirs, and the have IS built into the lenses at that price!

Dusty

Maybe it's a sign of a mount wind down cash grab on margins?
I can't honestly see Sony selling many of those at that price

Looking at the E mount lenses too they're far from well priced either some of them are not great at all.
Third party makers will hammer Sony on lenses unless they change direction.

I said ages ago non IS/VR lenses should offer a price incentive for IBIS users to encourage growth. Sony ignored that and that's why they're losing market share.
Pricing above IS/VR lenses is commercial suicide

[Dusty]

I said ages ago non IS/VR lenses should offer a price incentive for IBIS users to encourage growth. Sony ignored that and that's why they're losing market share.
Pricing above IS/VR lenses is commercial suicide

It was an actual incentive for me to get the Sony w/ IBIS and make all of my lenses stabilized, but i wonder with the push to 6 and 7 digit ISOs if the need for stabilization is really a thing of the past except for long, l-o-n-g lenses? I used to shoot ISO 400 or 1600 film for really fast action/low light, but if I can get decent results at ISO 128,000, why do I need it?

Dusty

[bfitzgerald]

Depends really. Canon 6d is very good from what I've seen at high ISO. If I were low light shooting that might be a body to use.
I agree to a point it does make IBIS less of a pull. But for APS-C I think it's still got some firepower.

Full frame maybe less so (24mp Nikon's are good in low light too)
Did I miss IBIS with the D7000, well yes and no. High ISO was very good for a crop body. It's when I pulled lenses like the 90mm f2.8 tamron out or a 50mm that the lack of IBIS came into play. I just held the camera more steady! Worked ok.

But IBIS is nice no question, esp when used with legacy glass

[Dusty]

I said ages ago non IS/VR lenses should offer a price incentive for IBIS users to encourage growth. Sony ignored that and that's why they're losing market share.
Pricing above IS/VR lenses is commercial suicide

It was an actual incentive for me to get the Sony w/ IBIS and make all of my lenses stabilized, but i wonder with the push to 6 and 7 digit ISOs if the need for stabilization is really a thing of the past except for long, l-o-n-g lenses? I used to shoot ISO 400 or 1600 film for really fast action/low light, but if I can get decent results at ISO 128,000, why do I need it?

Dusty

Make that ISO 409,600
Today Nikon announced the new Nikon D4s ... of $6,500.

Dusty

[bfitzgerald]

I'm sure the D4s is great in low light to the point where you'd not need IBIS, problem is the £5000 price tag to get that!