POLL? How many are preordering the EOS R?

docsmith

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 17, 2010
855
235
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?
I am glad Canon released the 28-70 f/2. It is a statement lens. Perhaps you are right and the final market might not be large (I think it will be large, btw). But I am glad to see Canon making statements showing what they can do in general, and, more specifically, what they can do with a new mount. 50 f/1.2...another statement. Granted, it is really similar to the Sigma 50A...so that is a bit of a one up (f/1.2) and mostly a "me too" statement. But I am still glad to see Canon putting out a lens like that.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1225&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=941&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
 
  • Like
Reactions: bokehmon22

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,569
2,004
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.
Please don't be disingenuous. There's a world of difference between a $3K lens and $13-80K gear. There are lots of 5-series cameras sold, a $3K lens that at f/2 can potentially replace multiple prime lenses is rather reasonable and will likely find its way into many kits. That's very different from Red camera or a $13K lens like my 600/4 II.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,569
2,004
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?
4K VIDEO. Forefront of PHOTOgraphy. Geez, do I need to draw you a map? :rolleyes:
 

sdz

EOS RP
Sep 13, 2016
225
124
Pittsburgh, PA
Please don't be disingenuous. There's a world of difference between a $3K lens and $13-80K gear. There are lots of 5-series cameras sold, a $3K lens that at f/2 can potentially replace multiple prime lenses is rather reasonable and will likely find its way into many kits. That's very different from Red camera or a $13K lens like my 600/4 II.
There is nothing disengeneous about the point I made. To me, there is no great difference between Canon's EF 200 F/2, a Red 8K camera or an Otus. They are too expensive. I won't buy them. I won't because I can't. There are many like me. We are strongly budget constrained. For me, a $3,000 lens is as unobtainable as a $90,000 lens. The markets for choice gear are small because many lack the disposable income to purchase this gear. If some can make money from the 28-70 that they would not be able to make otherwise, so be it.

I'm certain that everyone who complained about the 24-70 F/2.8s will quickly and joyfully rush to market their old gear while dropping nearly $6,000 on an EOS R, a lens and an adapter.

I'm not sure what point of mine you want to oppose or if you merely want to pick nits for the sake of having an argument.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,569
2,004
There is nothing disengeneous about the point I made. To me, there is no great difference between Canon's EF 200 F/2, a Red 8K camera or an Otus. They are too expensive. I won't buy them. I won't because I can't. There are many like me. We are strongly budget constrained. For me, a $3,000 lens is as unobtainable as a $90,000 lens. The markets for choice gear are small because many lack the disposable income to purchase this gear. If some can make money from the 28-70 that they would not be able to make otherwise, so be it.

I'm certain that everyone who complained about the 24-70 F/2.8s will quickly and joyfully rush to market their old gear while dropping nearly $6,000 on an EOS R, a lens and an adapter.

I'm not sure what point of mine you want to oppose or if you merely want to pick nits for the sake of having an argument.
The point is that regardless of your inability to afford them, the 5DIV, 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 II are staple items in the kits of many wedding/event photographers, and they cost $3500, $2300, and $2500 at launch, respectively. All are in the ballpark of an EOS R and a 28-70/2 launching at $2300 and $3000. Your 'comparators' of a $13K lens and an $80K camera are disingenuous at best, but asinine would be as apt a description.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,097
1,576
Canada
The point is that regardless of your inability to afford them, the 5DIV, 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 II are staple items in the kits of many wedding/event photographers, and they cost $3500, $2300, and $2500 at launch, respectively. All are in the ballpark of an EOS R and a 28-70/2 launching at $2300 and $3000. Your 'comparators' of a $13K lens and an $80K camera are disingenuous at best, but asinine would be as apt a description.
Myself, I wear two hats.....

At work, I NEED! low light ability as I shoot in some very poorly lit areas. The idea of a F2.0 24-70 is very tempting.... it would certainly be the right tool for the job!

At home, I worry more about portability and have greater budget restrictions. Although I can afford the lens, I have no need for it and most certainly do not want to carry it around for days/weeks..... One of the things that I am hoping to see from the M cameras (and lenses) are some SLOWER L quality lenses, so that I can have quality and low(er) weight, but at the expense of aperture....

That said, they have only introduced a few lenses so far..... way to early to comment on the R lens lineup, but what I will say is Kudos to Canon to keeping the EF lenses compatible with the new mount, and adding the control ring on the adapter is brilliant! Eventually, I will get an R, and that adapter ring will be programmed for ISO.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximilian

pwp

EOS 5D MK IV
Oct 25, 2010
2,521
13
I won't be tempted by the EOS R with this first release. It's a 6D MkIII as I see it. There's too much missing.

Future pro level R Series bodies will definitely be a part of my kit without doubt. It's the future.

-pw
 

sdz

EOS RP
Sep 13, 2016
225
124
Pittsburgh, PA
The point is that regardless of your inability to afford them, the 5DIV, 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 II are staple items in the kits of many wedding/event photographers, and they cost $3500, $2300, and $2500 at launch, respectively. All are in the ballpark of an EOS R and a 28-70/2 launching at $2300 and $3000. Your 'comparators' of a $13K lens and an $80K camera are disingenuous at best, but asinine would be as apt a description.
The pieces I used to compare with the 28-70 were apt. The reason: you claimed the 28-70 will have a market, or that Canon believed this to be so. Since I never stated anything to the contrary, your point was a red herring. I went on to stat that pricier gear also havery markets. This point is not asinine. How could it be when it's true. I stated this because your claim was irrelevant to the points I made and, besides being irrelevant, was trivially true in any case. Would Canon seek to sell a lens it believed lacked a market? No, it would not.

All of this because I described some of the factors in play when someone considers buying this lens....

I'm done with this one. You've already indulged in ad hominen remarks and have ignored the gist of my argument. So, I see no reason to discuss or debate this with you. You're wasting my time.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,080
399
The pieces I used to compare with the 28-70 were apt. The reason: you claimed the 28-70 will have a market, or that Canon believed this to be so. Since I never stated anything to the contrary, your point was a red herring. I went on to stat that pricier gear also havery markets. This point is not asinine.
Perhaps not, but the assertion that there is no great difference between them because you can not afford them certainly is.

You also, by extension, can’t afford a Gulfstream, but a jet is greatly different from a lens. So is a cinema camera.

A fundamental difference between the 28-70 and the products you mentioned is their markets. The latter (notwitstanding the Leica lens) will mostly be purchased by businesses, at whom they are aimed. Many businesses may buy 28-70/2 lenses (event photographers for example might be able to replace multiple primes with it), but a sizable portion of owners I expect will be enthusiasts.
 
Last edited: