You still could buy it in another (less expensive) EU country....or wait for a Canon cashback offer!I'm praying the UK 15-35 comes in under £2,300. The article prices quoted and my gut says otherwise.
Upvote
0
You still could buy it in another (less expensive) EU country....or wait for a Canon cashback offer!I'm praying the UK 15-35 comes in under £2,300. The article prices quoted and my gut says otherwise.
You will replace a couple of thousand from your wallet at the same timeI have RF 85 1.2 and EF 16-35 4.0 IS with my EOS R. Can't wait to replace EF 16-35 4.0 with RF 15-35 2.8.
Ouch. So much for Canon continuing to have cheaper lenses than Sony and Nikon... I've been predicting much lower prices than this, but incorrectly it seems.
Although, the 24-70 2.8 price is only $200 more than the EF version 2 was at release, so this might just be the early adopter premium. (or the currency conversion isn't accurate)
Canon released the 35, 28 and 24mm EF primes in 2012 and the 40mm pancake a couple of years later, but there hasn't been much since then. There is already the RF 35 mm, but I am not sure there will be much more any time soon, at least from Canon. Some non L zooms seem more likely.It’s totally in line for L glass. But I hear you. Canon needs to get more non-L primes out for the RF mount asap. And Im sure they’re on it. But yes, going heavy on the L glass to start does make it difficult if you dont want to use and adapter
Yes.Canon released the 35, 28 and 24mm EF primes in 2012 and the 40mm pancake a couple of years later, but there hasn't been much since then. There is already the RF 35 mm, but I am not sure there will be much more any time soon, at least from Canon. Some non L zooms seem more likely.
If Canon releases an "x" body, we should see the 100-400 either before or shortly after. A 70-300 "L" would be logical since it makes a nice travel lens and would pair nicely with a mirrorless body.
Yes, my first thought too, was that these seem expensive.
but really, who is expected to be buying these lenses? Is it the average amateur, or weekend snap shooter? No. It’s the serious amateur and pro. So the difference in price, percentage wise, isn’t really that much. And those groups won’t care too much.
if you’re a pro, it makes no difference at all. For you, it’s a capital expenditure. Your accountant knows how to deal with that.
if you’re a serious amateur, you wait a bit longer to save up the extra cash.
i don’t see this as affecting sales in any real way. If these lenses are as good as the ones released so far, Canon won’t be able to make enough of them.
“... if you’re a serious amateur, you wait a bit longer to save up the extra cash...”
Yeah, that would be a valid proposition in a perfect binary world where your choices are : Canon glass or nothing.... in reality though, this is not what it may look like
Options, options, options.
Possibly. Except we don't know what percentage of the 70-300 non L zooms are sold to APS-C owners. I would not be surprised if 80-90% are in the hands of crop sensor owners. The release of the 24-240 RF lens pretty much fills the slot currently held by Canon's non-L 70-300 zooms. I don't see them feeling the need to offer a cheap 70-300 anytime soon, especially since the 24-240 fills that need better and is more versatile. Admittedly, they may not be in a rush to produce a 70-300 L lens that duplicates the existing EF lens. But, it not only has a weight advantage, but a significant size advantage over the 100-400 as well.With the 70-200 coming out right away, if the 100-400L gets released first I would expect a 70-300 non-L before the L version. They'll sell way more copies of that one due to the lower price point, and the 70-300L has always been less popular than other L zooms, especially since the 100-400L IS II came out. The 70-300L has a weight advantage, but not much else over other lenses.
what are you going on about?
Why don't you compare Sony GM lenses versus Canon and see how close you come out to. or does that kind of ruin your narrative.
I'm sure the Tamron's will sooner or later be available on both the Z and the RF mount as well, so that's probably in the long run kind of immaterial. The tammy are great lenses, but they are known for being great bang for the buck lenses. They don't compare well to Sony's GM series lenses and probably won't for the RF lenses either. Neither GM series nor RF series lenses are designed for 24MP sensors. The Tamron's probably are - because at 28mm and 35mm the 28-70 doesn't look that great on a A7R III.
Comparing cheap third party versus OEM is always a fools game. Do you bitterly complain about the price of Sony GM lenses as well?
Sigma and Tamron have been putting out some great glass so I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re right. IQ and build is definitely not “cheap” compared to OEM. For twice the cost with Sony, Nikon, Canon, you’re definitely not getting twice the quality.Hmm. Well, all things are subjective I suppose but the-digital-picture.com has a great comparison of the Tammy vs GM... if you really want to compare the “cheap third party” lens vs the OEM. Perhaps your experience is different but gonna have to say your right, the GM doesn’t compare to the Tammy. Costs more for worse performance.
So far, of the announced or released lenses, three have been primes and six have been zooms. (If I have counted correctly) While primes are popular on this forum, they are not nearly as popular among consumers. At best, I think prime lovers might see the continued 2 to 1 ratio of releases, but honestly, I am expecting quite a few more zooms before we see a lot of prime lenses.
It depends on how much we’re talking about. If it’s 10-15%, then I think people would wait to save up. If it’s 30%, they might buy something else. And we’re talking list. After some time, the selling price drops a bit. Each time Canon or Nikon came up with a newer 70-200, the price was higher. And after a bit of grumbling, people bought them. I believe the same thing will happen here.“... if you’re a serious amateur, you wait a bit longer to save up the extra cash...”
Yeah, that would be a valid proposition in a perfect binary world where your choices are : Canon glass or nothing.... in reality though, this is not what it may look like
Options, options, options.
Yes, my first thought too, was that these seem expensive.
but really, who is expected to be buying these lenses? Is it the average amateur, or weekend snap shooter? No. It’s the serious amateur and pro. So the difference in price, percentage wise, isn’t really that much. And those groups won’t care too much.
if you’re a pro, it makes no difference at all. For you, it’s a capital expenditure. Your accountant knows how to deal with that.
if you’re a serious amateur, you wait a bit longer to save up the extra cash.
i don’t see this as affecting sales in any real way. If these lenses are as good as the ones released so far, Canon won’t be able to make enough of them.
Not tax-deductible unfortunately ,...... otherwise, good idea!. I would simply buy better scotch to go with my dinner.
100% agree and pretty much do the same. I don't drive as public transportation is incredibly good in Dubai, I'm not a full time photographer/videographer, I don't go shopping for clothes and o don't done out or go out to meet people at a pub cause drinking doesn't make logical sense to me. I also live in a highly affordable shared space (although after 5 yrs and crossing 33yrs of age my patience has worn thin for this living option). Plus I also am an established actor in my city so I make do with what I have and am able to feed my expensive hobby a fair bit.Yup! Just about the same here, except I drive a 2016 Hyundai. I eat a lot of cheap chicken leg quarters ($6 for 10 lbs), Ramen, and wear my clothes until they are thread bare. My whole wardrobe consists of 2 pair of jeans and about 6 t-shirts+underwear and socks and shorts. My wife almost never goes shopping for clothes. When she does, she's happy with the clearance racks at Walmart.
Sacrifices allow us to live a better life in other ways.