POLL? How many are preordering the EOS R?

[canonmike]

Maybe it's me but I like having the latest available. I will preorder the new iPhone XS Max or whatever they decide to call it as soon as it comes out next week. I am even considering the EOS R as a backup for my A7R III since I just sold my 1DX II. I like new things that do more than they did a year or 2 ago...
Maybe it's just me. I think the price is a steal for what you get. I love the mid-size body. It's just right for small or big hands and the available vertical grip will give you better handling if u need it. I think the 28-70 is amazing but too expensive for the moment. Although it's a breakthrough in the industry and I applaud Canon for doing something unique and different. I think they did it to improve the chances to sell the EOS R. Some people will get the Camera, just because it can take the new F2.0 zoom... It easily replaces 2 or 3 lenses... Low light, available light, landscapes. That 28-70 might never leave your camera...
Just my opinion...

I love this new RF 28-70 F2 lens and would love to have one but at $3000.00, it's not too difficult to resist, especially without IS at that price point.

 

[Durf]

I love this new RF 28-70 F2 lens and would love to have one but at $3000.00, it's not too difficult to resist, especially without IS at that price point.

This 3 thousand dollar lens (without IS) is for those that have more money than sense in my opinion; sure it may be a nice lens, but I just don't see 3 grand of nice lens! Especially not having IS and being limited to the RF mount....

 

[neuroanatomist]

Very much surprised that there is not a better break on RF 24-105mm kit pricing. Buy them separate or buy them together, basically same price. In fact, you can buy them separate and save a dollar. Explain that marketing strategy, Canon, or Canon retailer.

The strategy is to avoid having lots of discounted white box versions showing up on the market.

 

[sdz]

This 3 thousand dollar lens (without IS) is for those that have more money than sense in my opinion; sure it may be a nice lens, but I just don't see 3 grand of nice lens! Especially not having IS and being limited to the RF mount....

The $3,000 price for the 24-70 MM lens is far from being the most expensive of Canon's lenses. Some buy these pricey lenses. That said, there are few substitutes for an 800 MM lens whereas the customer can choose from more than one of the many 24-70 MM lenses on the market, every one of which costs less than the new 28-70 MM. Having choices means having to justify the purchase price for the costliest lens. Much like when a buyer considers buying a Zeiss Otus, the buyer must answer what he or she would one be willing to pay for the small increases in image quality that distinguish these expensive lenses from their less costly kin? The 28-70 MM lens may be superior to every 24-70 MM lens, but are these quality differences worth the price differences?. Moreover, that $3,000 price would need to include the cost of the EOS R as well. That's a lot of money for minor improvements located on the margins of cost/quality curves.

 

[Durf]

The $3,000 price for the 24-70 MM lens is far from being the most expensive of Canon's lenses. Some buy these pricey lenses. That said, there are few substitutes for an 800 MM lens whereas the customer can choose from more than one of the many 24-70 MM lenses on the market, every one of which costs less than the new 28-70 MM. Having choices means having to justify the purchase price for the costliest lens. Much like when a buyer considers buying a Zeiss Otus, the buyer must answer what he or she would one be willing to pay for the small increases in image quality that distinguish these expensive lenses from their less costly kin? The 28-70 MM lens may be superior to every 24-70 MM lens, but are these quality differences worth the price differences?. Moreover, that $3,000 price would need to include the cost of the EOS R as well. That's a lot of money for minor improvements located on the margins of cost/quality curves.

Yeap, to own and use the 28-70 it would cost one approx. 5500.00 bucks.....personally I don't believe this will be one of Canon's best selling and most popular lenses! LOL

 

[3kramd5]

That's a lot of money for minor improvements located on the margins of cost/quality curves.

The 28-70 has a full stop wider aperture than the 24-70.

If you compare the price of the 70-200 f/4 to that of the /2.8 (also a full stop apart), you’ll find that the latter is about 65% more expensive.

This R lens asks for roughly the same premium over the 24-70.

 

[sdz]

The 28-70 has a full stop wider aperture than the 24-70.

If you compare the price of the 70-200 f/4 to that of the /2.8 (also a full stop apart), you’ll find that the latter is about 65% more expensive.

This R lens asks for roughly the same premium over the 24-70.

Although your argument can justify the price difference in absolute terms, which suggests that Canon is not overcharging for the new lens, it cannot motivate per se anyone to spend their money for the 28-70 MM. Some cannot afford the 28-70. Some can afford it but do not see the need for that lens when the alternatives to that lens are good enough. That's why I characterized the changes as occurring at the margin. The buyer pays dearly for just 1 stop of light.

 

[sdz]

Yeap, to own and use the 28-70 it would cost one approx. 5500.00 bucks.....personally I don't believe this will be one of Canon's best selling and most popular lenses! LOL

Purchasing the EOS R will, for most, include purchasing an adapter for the EF lenses. That's hundreds more!

 

[Durf]

Purchasing the EOS R will, for most, include purchasing an adapter for the EF lenses. That's hundreds more!

basic adapter to use EF lenses on the EOS-R is 100.00 bucks.....

 

[Viggo]

The only reason I don’t use zooms is because the slow aperture, this lens splits the difference, and buying primes from 28, 35, 50, 85 for example is a lot more than 3 grand and a lot more bulk, changing lenses etc too. I think they know what they’re doing

 

[bhf3737]

basic adapter to use EF lenses on the EOS-R is 100.00 bucks.....

The basic adapter is included in the box with the EOS-R body only and lens kit versions. The other ring and ND/CPL adapters are optional.

 

[Mikehit]

The basic adapter is included in the box with the EOS-R body only and lens kit versions. The other ring and ND/CPL adapters are optional.

In the UK (and probably the whole EU) the bundling of the adapter is advertised as part of 'pre-order now and get the adapter'. I don't know if this will go past the pre-order period but previous releases such offers (eg 'get a free battery grip') stop once the camera has been released.

 

[privatebydesign]

In the UK (and probably the whole EU) the bundling of the adapter is advertised as part of 'pre-order now and get the adapter'. I don't know if this will go past the pre-order period but previous releases such offers (eg 'get a free battery grip') stop once the camera has been released.

The 1DX MkII's came with a CFast card and reader and that continued for quite a while after release.

 

[3kramd5]

Although your argument can justify the price difference in absolute terms, which suggests that Canon is not overcharging for the new lens, it cannot motivate per se anyone to spend their money for the 28-70 MM. Some cannot afford the 28-70. Some can afford it but do not see the need for that lens when the alternatives to that lens are good enough. That's why I characterized the changes as occurring at the margin. The buyer pays dearly for just 1 stop of light.

I wasn’t trying to justify it (I’m not buying the camera so the lens is out of the question), just wrap it in some context.

With that said, people often use a relative measures to justify purchases. That’s why car dealers often pinpoint a customer’s price point and show them something far more expensive before showing them the target item: doing it that way makes the target seem cheaper. People are weird.

To some, a “just” 100% increase in light gathering capability will be worth the expense. To most, it will not.

 

[Durf]

Perhaps in a year or two when they come out with a ramped up and tricked out pro version EOS-R Camera they might sell a bunch of these 28-70 lenses.....as it stands right now and in my opinion only a select few will buy this lens (those with a pocket full of cash and nothing better to spend it on)....

I just can't see a bunch of pro wedding and/or event photographers running out to buy this 3 grand lens when all they have is the EOS-R to shoot it with.

Seems a bit like an expensive novelty item to me right now.....

 

[neuroanatomist]

Although your argument can justify the price difference in absolute terms, which suggests that Canon is not overcharging for the new lens, it cannot motivate per se anyone to spend their money for the 28-70 MM. Some cannot afford the 28-70. Some can afford it but do not see the need for that lens when the alternatives to that lens are good enough. That's why I characterized the changes as occurring at the margin. The buyer pays dearly for just 1 stop of light.

That stop of light always costs dearly, whether the lens is an ultrawide angle or a super telephoto. If there were no market for that extra stop of light, I trust that Canon would not release such a lens

 

[sdz]

That stop of light always costs dearly, whether the lens is an ultrawide angle or a super telephoto. If there were no market for that extra stop of light, I trust that Canon would not release such a lens

There is a market for the lens. It's a small one. The markets for this, this and this are also small. Like the latter, the 28-70 may also find a home and a large audience at the rental houses.

 

[Takingshots]

So 4K video is required to be at the forefront of photography? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

I did not state that it is an absolute requirement of the forefront for photography. Are you're saying people like yourself is okay paying a newer phone(2018) with a camera that is 2 megapixel. Our argument is why Canon spec in crippled features 4K (1.7) while competitors are offering full 4K as std features with better or similar pricing. So don't be defensive but who can blame you ... perhaps you work for them?

 

[takesome1]

There is a market for the lens. It's a small one. The markets for this, this and this are also small. Like the latter, the 28-70 may also find a home and a large audience at the rental houses.

Why not compare it with lenses at its price point.
Those comparisons just made your point look ridiculous.

 

[Mikehit]

I did not state that it is an absolute requirement of the forefront for photography. Are you're saying people like yourself is okay paying a newer phone(2018) with a camera that is 2 megapixel. Our argument is why Canon spec in crippled features 4K (1.7) while competitors are offering full 4K as std features with better or similar pricing. So don't be defensive but who can blame you ... perhaps you work for them?

It's not 'crippled'. Canon have made it clear that they do not believe they have the technology to deliver FF downsampled to 4K with the reliability they want to deliver. That isn't 'crippled' that is called not being able to do it.

Why do you assume someone who disagrees with you, or points out the failure in your logic, is working for Canon? Do you come here and criticise Canon because you work for Sony?

For me, Canon spend their dollar on things I would rather use than video.