Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

A few New Canon items

avro707 said:
When you get away from the USA, you get ripped off with camera and lens purchases. It cost me AUD$7100 for a Nikon D3S, and AUD$10,300 for a 200-400mm AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor. At the same time I got the D3S, the D3X was AUD$10,999. Outrageous. :( But if I'm not mistaken, the EU has a pretty big VAT added to purchases as well. I should mention, when I got the D3S, the AUD$ was almost busting parity with the US Dollar too. Yes I know, all the stock was brought in when the dollar was poorer, but still. :( Yikes. I however did have the Nikon internal prices for a while, so I was able to crowbar some retailers into chopping their prices (reluctantly) - but it doesn't help you when a particular product is mostly sold out and one retailer is the only one who has the product in stock and not back-ordered.
Click to expand...

You guys have a GST that is added to everything. We have sales taxes here which are analogous to your GST, but they are fairly easy to circumvent (a huge reason why we order so much stuff via the Internet). Your customs duties are very stiff as well.

It tripped me out one night when I was watching TV while in Sydney to catch a prime time show featuring your customs service.
 
The GST is only 10%, thankfully, Not 20% like the EU one. :eek:

I've never imported really expensive stuff - certainly nothing over $1000. Most expensive imported item I got was a set of very limited edition books (Sled Driver and The Untouchables) by Major Brian Shul (USAF Retired). I'll treasure them for the rest of my life - and I'm shocked at what they are now worth. :eek:

I tend to buy the really expensive camera gear locally due to the satisfaction of picking it up myself from the retailer in person - but also because the NPS requirements dictate Australian market gear only. :rolleyes:

I might be stuck to Nikon, but to be honest, give me a Canon equivalent and I'd still make it work. But that's what you do, make the most of what you've got to worth with.
 
Last edited:
Hisdem said:
I see. However, the Rebel XS lens was not IS, or at least didn't have the stabilizer switch on it, which is what makes me think about it. Honestly, I can't see why Canon wouldn't add this, basically every competitor to the 1100D has this, either built-in (Sony) or in the kit lens (Nikon).
Click to expand...
You may have the kit without the stabilized lens, which is not as common.

The EOS Rebel XS or 1000D can ship as body only, with the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II or some variant and with the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II for usually, an extra $50.

You are right that Canon selling only an entry level body without an unstabilized lens would be absurd. That's because they didn't.
 
avro707 said:
//edit//When you get away from the USA, you get ripped off with camera and lens purchases. It cost me AUD$7100 for a Nikon D3S, and AUD$10,300 for a 200-400mm AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor. At the same time I got the D3S, the D3X was AUD$10,999. Outrageous. :( But if I'm not mistaken, the EU has a pretty big VAT added to purchases as well. I should mention, when I got the D3S, the AUD$ was almost busting parity with the US Dollar too. Yes I know, all the stock was brought in when the dollar was poorer, but still. :( Yikes. I however did have the Nikon internal prices for a while, so I was able to crowbar some retailers into chopping their prices (reluctantly) - but it doesn't help you when a particular product is mostly sold out and one retailer is the only one who has the product in stock and not back-ordered.
Click to expand...

That lens is $6800 in the US, which converts to $6702AUD. And it retails in Australia for $10,111AUD??? That is a killer VAT. How can anyone down under afford photography?

I feel for you!

Dale
 
Designer Dale said:
That lens is $6800 in the US, which converts to $6702AUD. And it retails in Australia for $10,111AUD??? That is a killer VAT. How can anyone down under afford photography?

I feel for you!

Dale
Click to expand...

We have to live with it. No other choices - we are a small market, it's the price we pay. If you are a known important customer - you can throw your weight around and get better deals - but it's not easy. :( And they lure people into buying local with the attraction of NPS / NPS Lite. While it's a support scheme, it's also a way of stopping people buying their gear from overseas.

If it weren't for the duties and so on, I'd buy all my stuff from B&H in New York, who I've found to be superb.
 
The 100-400 may be on the way out. I think it is being replaced by two lenses, the 28-300 L and the 200-400 L. So far I'm happy with my choice of the Sigma 120-400.

Dale
 
I don't believe the 100-400mm is on the way out, and nor do a few others who are reasonably well informed.

This is a decent performing lens of its type, and the push-pull zoom operation is extremely convenient for some things. 28-300L is not an option for anyone who wants an OEM 400mm lens that doesn't cost $6000-8000 (or more possibly).

Some people don't want Sigma lenses because they don't like the distributor/service agent for Sigma in their country. (that's all I'll say)
 
I'm just hoping for a new 24 70 2.8 this year! hopefully with IS would be nice.
 
neutrino23 said:
So with the release of a 200-400mm L zoom does that signal that Canon won't refresh the 100-400mm L?
Click to expand...
The two lenses are entirely different beasts: The 200-400 mm is a very expensive lens that is supposed to compete with highly acclaimed Nikon's 200-400 mm zoom (which costs about the same). Compared to the new lens, the 100-400 mm is much, much cheaper and lighter, it isn't aimed at the same crowd. If the Nikkor is any indication, you need a tripod for the 200-400 mm (I haven't found any mention of the weight of the new lens).
 
avro707 said:
I'd love to try the 200-400mm Canon lens with a 1D Mk.IV.. Although I'm glued to Nikon permanently, I used to use Canon back in the film days.
Click to expand...

Same here, I had the A1 with a wonderful set of primes. Then I switched to digital Canon gear. Not I'm giving it all up, I'm content with the new Fuji X100 that's coming out. :)
 
Designer Dale said:
..The 200-400 is an odd bird. The swing-out extender adds more mechanics and/or electronics in the lens. The 100-400 f/4.5 IS with the Mark 3 extender totals $2100.
Click to expand...

As another has pointed out, the 100-400 IS isn't f/4.5 fixed ... it grows to f/5.6 at 400mm, which after a 1.4x teleconverter is added becomes an f/8, which thereby losing autofocus capability on most digial Canon bodies (all except the 1's).


avro707 said:
Well, if Nikon's 200-400 and the 1.4x TC is anything to judge by, optics will be perfectly fine. I've had lots of super-sharp images at 560mm using the Nikon combination (VR Mk.1 version of the 200-400mm on D700/D3S).

This is brilliant thinking by Canon - it's time consuming to swap in the TC, not only that, it also increases the risk of dusk getting in the camera. Having it built in, and designed so you can switch it in when needed is the ultimate combination.

Canon obviously did some research on how people will use this kind of lens. It'd be ideal for airshows...
Click to expand...

And probably a lot of other applications too (such as Wildlife/Safari). Better hold off telling my wife about this lens for awhile...


-hh
 
OreoCookie said:
So where's the problem: cough up $7k and buy the 200-400 mm f/4 Nikkor (whose reputation to my knowledge is also very, very good) ;)
Click to expand...

Er, why would I do that? :confused: I already own that lens. :D

What I was suggesting was that with current equipment being so good, it's now down to the user to make it work, and that I (like many others) would get the same results regardless of camera (provided of course it's not a Sigma SD14). ;)

-hh said:
And probably a lot of other applications too (such as Wildlife/Safari). Better hold off telling my wife about this lens for awhile...
-hh
Click to expand...

Oh the pain of it all. :) For Safaris, I'd probably prefer a prime with a TC - such as a 400 F/2.8 with a 2.0x TC (extender), or a 600/4 with a 1.7xTC (extender). Those will yield better results in my experience - although you lose the flexibility that the zoom gives you. Even though the zoom and TC will give okay results, the prime is usually even better.

Or else, something like a 300-800mm Sigma, if you only intend to borrow it for a short time and then give it back. ;)
 
Last edited:
avro707 said:
Er, why would I do that? :confused: I already own that lens. :D
Click to expand...
Lucky bastard ;)
Is it as good as I hear it is (obviously I have no experience with such an expensive and heavy piece of glass)?
avro707 said:
Or else, something like a 300-800mm Sigma, if you only intend to borrow it for a short time and then give it back. ;)
Click to expand...
I thought when you buy the real Bigma, you get an assistant free of charge (Sigma call 'em caddies, I think) :p
 
avro707 said:
Oh the pain of it all. :) For Safaris, I'd probably prefer a prime with a TC - such as a 400 F/2.8 with a 2.0x TC (extender), or a 600/4 with a 1.7xTC (extender). Those will yield better results in my experience - although you lose the flexibility that the zoom gives you. Even though the zoom and TC will give okay results, the prime is usually even better.

Or else, something like a 300-800mm Sigma, if you only intend to borrow it for a short time and then give it back. ;)
Click to expand...


I had pretty good success (Tanzania) with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS with a 1.4x on a Crop Body (1.6x) ... 150mm - 450mm effective. But I still would have liked to have had some more reach, particularly for birds. This 200-400 seems to be a viable alternative to lusting for a 400mm DO IS f/4.


-hh
 
OreoCookie said:
Lucky bastard ;)
Is it as good as I hear it is (obviously I have no experience with such an expensive and heavy piece of glass)?

I thought when you buy the real Bigma, you get an assistant free of charge (Sigma call 'em caddies, I think) :p
Click to expand...


Yes, it's very good actually. :) I took this image with that lens and a 1.7x TC:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Australia---Air/General-Dynamics-RF-111C/1792847/L/

And with a good camera body (D3S) it's great at night, wide open at F/4.0:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Emirates/Airbus-A380-861/1810589/L/
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7004954
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7032005

Canon 1D Mk.IV and the Canon 200-400mm will probably achieve similar results at night - but with higher resolution, and probably a bit more noise. I'd love to try similar shots with the Canon stuff just to see how the 1D4 really performs, and see what that 200-400 is like. The fixed F/4.0 aperture, along with a good IS/VR system and a sensitive camera lets you get those night time shots of some fast moving dark object, like that Antonov. It arrived more than 5 hours late, so instead of the nice easy daylight shot, I had a really tricky low shutter speed night-time photo of something pretty dark. With these new cameras like D3S and 1D Mk. IV, these 200-400mm F/4.0 type lenses suddenly become really useful and negate the need to use the heavy 400mm F/2.8 primes for most applications.

-hh said:
I had pretty good success (Tanzania) with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS with a 1.4x on a Crop Body (1.6x) ... 150mm - 450mm effective. But I still would have liked to have had some more reach, particularly for birds. This 200-400 seems to be a viable alternative to lusting for a 400mm DO IS f/4.


-hh
Click to expand...

Someone I know who has the Canon 800mm F/5.6 (along with the 500 and 600mm Canon primes, and numerous 1D4's/1DS3's) reckoned that 400 F/4.0 DO was pretty dodgy. The 200-400, despite its size might be the better solution.
 
Last edited:
Interesting rumor circulating today about an EFS 15-60 f2.8 to replace the 17-55. If it has the build of the newer 15-85, 4 stop IS, and this extended focal range, I'd be all over it. However, once again, I wonder how they would price it. :eek:

Coming May 2011? A replacement of the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS could take the form of an EF-S Â 15-60 f/2.8 IS. It would have the same build quality of the current 15-85. May 2011 was mentioned for an announcement.

CR’s Take I’ve seen similar stuff about the 17-55 in the past. It’s a lens that could use a refresh to keep the EF-S range from becoming stagnant. Canon is committed to APS-C.
Click to expand...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,597.0.html
 
HE15MAN said:
For the price of the 200-400, why not just buy a 600mm?
Click to expand...

The prices are not going to be the same.

For example, Nikon's 200-400 f4 zoom is $6800 while their 600 f4 is over $10,000. Canon's new 600 f4 is shown at $12,000 by B&H and I would expect their 200-400 with integrated teleconverter to be priced above Nikon's lens. That teleconverter takes away a stop of light, so the Canon lens with the TC engaged becomes 280-560 f5.6 and is not directly equivalent to the 600 f4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back