Specifications and pricing for the Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS and Canon RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS

True. Neither is the RF 85mm f/1.2L. But the 6D is. The 7D is, but not the 7D Mark II. There are 30 non-L lenses including EF-s models listed. I won't even go into the accessories. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: Seems Canon needs to work on that page. :)

Anyway, whether or not it is a pro camera depends entirely on who is using it. That's my opinion. ;)
The difference is you can register your gear in the CPS portal, and you guys in the US have a point system, we don't have that in Canada. But you can only have CPS Prices on top lens like L-Series and pro body. It doesn't make any sense that We don't have CPS prices for the RF L series lens! I have contacted Canon CPS Canada I'm supposed to have a call back from a rep over there to try and clarify this. the 85 1.2 and the @8-70 F2 are over 3K in Canada, I sure hope they get there ducks in a row and we can get CPS prices for those!
 
  • Sad
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

David Hull

EOS RP
Jun 28, 2012
272
18
In terms of the optical design it is indeed very good. It's hard to say it's better than the EF III - it is smaller and lighter and about the same sharpness though the GM has much less vignetting. But lenses wider than 24mm is the area we have seen some benefits to a short flange distance.

But without question it's one of the better GM lenses. However Roger at Lensrentals who sees and tests thousands of lenses and repairs them had to conclude that if one wants a 16-35 GM that is useable at the longer end one would have to test several copies to find that one. I've not seen anything to change that opinion and indeed the same guy has long been adamant that the "later batches improve" theory has no evidence.

I have dabbled with Sony - drove myself mad trying to find a 35/1.4 that was acceptable given its price. There's no question they have some great lens designers, I believe quite a few came over from Nikon. However they still seem to be building even top lenses as if they are consumer electronics - "good enough" quality control and also rarely building it in such a way that allows easy repairs and adjustment later.

In many respects that is the way the whole industry is going. Nikon too has started down that line in terms of repairs and adjustment.

But Canon does remain better and when it comes to things like quality control, build quality, service etc the 16-35L III will be in another league from the GM.
I would love to know what Sony service and support is like with respect to camera equipment. They suck WRT consumer electronics (even their “high end” audio stuff). Canon, on the other hand, is awesome WRT service. You call, they know exactly where your work is and the status, they keep you appraised, etc. This was one of the reasons I decided to stay with Canon, given that I knew that moving to mirrorless would entail upgrading lenses — so now might be a good time to consider a system switch, we’re I so inclined — Canon is so good to work with.
 

mjg79

EOS 80D
Feb 19, 2016
114
55
I would love to know what Sony service and support is like with respect to camera equipment. They suck WRT consumer electronics (even their “high end” audio stuff). Canon, on the other hand, is awesome WRT service. You call, they know exactly where your work is and the status, they keep you appraised, etc. This was one of the reasons I decided to stay with Canon, given that I knew that moving to mirrorless would entail upgrading lenses — so now might be a good time to consider a system switch, we’re I so inclined — Canon is so good to work with.
Well it's very hard to full say what such thigns are like because of course online one only hears the negatives a lot of the time.

What I think is beyond dispute is that Sony has an approach that is rather like a consumer electronics company. So they will tend to mass produce as much as possible, producing extra units for warranty replacements and try to keep repair work to a minimum. I knew someone who had one of the (very lovely I'll admit) Sony "Zeiss" 50/1.4s and it was a great sharp copy but was in the recall for rear elements that go foggy. He sent it in and it came back wildly decentered. So he phoned them up and got to talk to a real person and it was explained that essentially a greta part of the optics of the system just comes in a pre-sealed group from Sony and get swapped in and out. His well centred group was taken out and a badly centred one put in.

He kicked up enough of a fuss that they gave him a replacement though it was a big fight. Nikon has gone down that same route too - I bought a copy of the Nikon 35/1.4G lens as I've always liked the rendering and have an old D800 and wanted to play with it. I got a very good price on one on ebay so rolled the dice, it arrived and seemed to have a titled element, the plane of focus was at a strange angle. I got in touch with a couple of different repair shops, both authorised ones, and both told me that the lens doesn't allow adjustment, it would be a case of identifying the suspect elements and replacing them.

Now to be fair to Nikon I think with things like their super telephoto lenses they will allow adjustment etc. But clearly at least some of Nikon's glass, even fairly high end stuff, is taking the Sony approach.

Admit I dislike it. I think it's fair enough for a DVD player or TV - if there's a problem swap it and move on. But photography equipment is meant to be used, it might get a bit wet, it might get bumped. It should be adjustable and repairable.

So my biased and without a great deal of, though with a little, evidence suggests that if you care about repairs and service Canon remains the best option. Look at the lens rentals tear downs of the Canon 35mm L II and the 100-400L II - both not only built like tanks but built with easy access to optical adjustments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,166
1,740
Irving, Texas
The difference is you can register your gear in the CPS portal, and you guys in the US have a point system, we don't have that in Canada. But you can only have CPS Prices on top lens like L-Series and pro body. It doesn't make any sense that We don't have CPS prices for the RF L series lens! I have contacted Canon CPS Canada I'm supposed to have a call back from a rep over there to try and clarify this. the 85 1.2 and the @8-70 F2 are over 3K in Canada, I sure hope they get there ducks in a row and we can get CPS prices for those!
I'm not a CPS member, so that may make a difference. What I am looking at is the qualifying products page where the 3 memberships are listed on the About CPS page. Maybe once inside your CPS account you can register? My gear is registered for warranty. That was not a problem. :)
 

Ramage

EOS M50
Aug 27, 2019
37
28
The difference is you can register your gear in the CPS portal, and you guys in the US have a point system, we don't have that in Canada. But you can only have CPS Prices on top lens like L-Series and pro body. It doesn't make any sense that We don't have CPS prices for the RF L series lens! I have contacted Canon CPS Canada I'm supposed to have a call back from a rep over there to try and clarify this. the 85 1.2 and the @8-70 F2 are over 3K in Canada, I sure hope they get there ducks in a row and we can get CPS prices for those!
All my gear is registered in the Canada CPS portal.

CPS.JPG


I have not looked into CPS pricing but Camera Canada offers it on the 500mm and 600mm F4's (Hope is it ok to post the link)

 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
304
117
With 3 more blades, RF 24-70 is 95g heavier than EF 24-70/2.8 II. It is slightly longer. I guess part of it is due to IS. And the rest may be more aberration correction? It will be interesting to see the optical performance as EF version is already so good.
I'm going to predict that the RF 24-70 wide open is sharper and higher contrast than the EF 24-70 is at any aperture. CAnon's either 1) gone smaller with the RF and maintained quality (35, 24-105) or 2) gone bigger and had quality go through the roof.
 

xanbarksdale

Canon Collector
Jul 18, 2019
10
5
I’d really like the 15-35 for my EOS R, but to be honest I have fallen in love with the 16-35 III and the variable nd adapter. It is so much more convenient then having a filter on the front. Since I shoot mostly video this is necessary and think it would be hard to go back to a “regular” variable nd filter.
 

francomade

EOS R, 1DX II
Sep 22, 2018
4
8
I’d really like the 15-35 for my EOS R, but to be honest I have fallen in love with the 16-35 III and the variable nd adapter. It is so much more convenient then having a filter on the front. Since I shoot mostly video this is necessary and think it would be hard to go back to a “regular” variable nd filter.
So true. Im currently using the variable nd adapter with 16-35 iii together with a polariser filter on the lens itself. It's really perfect.
 

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
538
142
It depends on the genre the pro is working in. As a UK Self employed Wedding photographer...the margins are really tight. I would have my camera bodies (3) on a 4 year replacement cycle, each year I buy one camera body (within a specified price point) and I retire the oldest camera. I buy them before the beginning of the season, not during. The camera is a tool not a life enhancement toy...so it's a business purchase and I'm really not fussed if I'm buying last year's model. Each camera needs "price to features" consideration. Lens wise, I buy one lens per year and are on a 10 year re-fresh. I never buy "new to the market" lenses...I wait until the initial rush is over so the price settles. I tend to run the trinity of f2.8 zooms and a complement of fast Primes too, plus macro and fisheye options.
I know very few wedding Togs' who can afford a direct fire sale and system swap / change up / change out. Currently...my gear services all of my photographic needs very very well and it's proven thing for me.

The Wildlife guys I know...already have their big whites and they look on the EOS R as a nice toy...But they need a 5D4 or 1DXII...these guys have not issue in buying a £4K Schatler fluid head and video tripod...specific gear is important. The sports guys tend to fall in a similar category.

Landscapers are generally looking to see how the features and pricing settles and the run and gun portrait photographers tend to really like the new EOS R and lenses...but that's because a lot of the new lenses are specifically for them!

If a new Pro oriented RF camera body comes along...great...but not at the initial premium pricing. So for me, the RF mount is on the distant but inevitable horizon. But it's likely 2 years away for me and I need to carefully integrate a new camera into my existing workflow and capabilities...and lets face it the 5D3/4 are amazing cameras. Big shoes to fill and all that.
Of course a pro has to look at it as a business decision.
A pro that would ditch their 3-5 year old lenses to get these either has a lot of money or they really believe the new lenses will make some difference to their work.
If this is a time for them to replace a well worn lens the prices of the new ones won't make them weep.

I currently use all my EF lenses with adapters and have no need to upgrade any lens other than my 70-200 2.8 L IS as I got it in 2002 and still has decent resale.

I have used all the Canon DSLRs over the years starting with the 10D in a full time pro environment. When I shot weddings (stopped about 5 or 6 years ago) I longed for a FF mirrorless for dark venues and silent shutter. I did use mkIIs and mkIIIs and while they did well, the Panasonic GX-7 left them for dead when silence was needed.
My R is miles better than that GX-7 and in situations that require it (on set of film and video) candids of meetings etc. it is a superb performer.
As for action, the buffer on the R beats the mk4 by a mile . Frame lag is a bit of an issue but not one that so many want to make it out to be.

People spending thousands on 600mm and 800mm lenses are not about to ditch them in favor of an RF version as the IQ will scarcely be significantly better. An adapter will be the best option for them. I suspect that mirrorless bodies will advance far faster than many think and the naysayers will be proven wrong.

Of course some will always stick with DSLRs. Fine.
 

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
538
142
Interesting perspective, thanks for writing it. I am not a professional but I am often bemused by the posts on here that seem based on the idea that professionals have unlimited money and will splurge on the new stuff that is an unknown quantity. I know a few professionals and one who is very successful is extremely conservative with gear and still uses two 5D IIIs - for him it's not just wanting to not spend money needlessly but also not taking risks when he has gear that he knows inside and out. I've been guilty of chasing newer technology and he often tells me he would be happy to have a camera with less dynamic range as most people like contrasty photos at weddings!

I think both Nikon and Canon have figured out what you wrote though. And Sony certainly did. Which is why the R is a 5DIV sensor in a body more like a 6D (and in Nikon land the Z7 is a D850 sensor in a D750 like body) - ie aiming them at wealthy prosumers who care more about image quality than build quality. It seems a sensible approach.
Pros don't have unlimited money. No one does.
However, unlike enthusiasts who buy and sell seemingly on a daily basis judging by the posts I read, they do not howl about the price of a new tool as it is weighed against need and ROI. They use the metrics of utility.
I have some lenses that are pushing 20 years old. I bought a 17TS-E when it came out and everyone was gasping at the price. It was paid for on the first job and has been regularly used since I bought it. The same with the 11-24.
Every lens I own was bought with the understanding that it would be a significant contributor to my revenue.
I bought the R for that same reason. Two issues make it a mandatory buy for me: AF and silent shooting.
No DSLR is as accurate at focusing as the R and I have had them all. Even with adapted glass the AF is fast and hyper accurate over the whole frame. The DSLRs were pretty good but every once in a while they miss focus slightly. Often still saleable but annoying to me. Sharp images are mandatory for a pro. We don't get to go back and shoot something again or make excuses to the client.The R does not do that. In addition it performs this feat in dark venues when my mk4 gives up.
And the silent shooting is fast and mandatory in a variety of settings.

A good pro is a good businessperson. I know a lot working with older modest gear making a good six figure income. I also know some who are brilliant but can scarcely make ends meet because they load up on the latest shiny stuff. They have spouses with actual jobs that make the rent.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
579
551
Well it's very hard to full say what such thigns are like because of course online one only hears the negatives a lot of the time.

What I think is beyond dispute is that Sony has an approach that is rather like a consumer electronics company. So they will tend to mass produce as much as possible, producing extra units for warranty replacements and try to keep repair work to a minimum. I knew someone who had one of the (very lovely I'll admit) Sony "Zeiss" 50/1.4s and it was a great sharp copy but was in the recall for rear elements that go foggy. He sent it in and it came back wildly decentered. So he phoned them up and got to talk to a real person and it was explained that essentially a greta part of the optics of the system just comes in a pre-sealed group from Sony and get swapped in and out. His well centred group was taken out and a badly centred one put in.

He kicked up enough of a fuss that they gave him a replacement though it was a big fight. Nikon has gone down that same route too - I bought a copy of the Nikon 35/1.4G lens as I've always liked the rendering and have an old D800 and wanted to play with it. I got a very good price on one on ebay so rolled the dice, it arrived and seemed to have a titled element, the plane of focus was at a strange angle. I got in touch with a couple of different repair shops, both authorised ones, and both told me that the lens doesn't allow adjustment, it would be a case of identifying the suspect elements and replacing them.

Now to be fair to Nikon I think with things like their super telephoto lenses they will allow adjustment etc. But clearly at least some of Nikon's glass, even fairly high end stuff, is taking the Sony approach.

Admit I dislike it. I think it's fair enough for a DVD player or TV - if there's a problem swap it and move on. But photography equipment is meant to be used, it might get a bit wet, it might get bumped. It should be adjustable and repairable.

So my biased and without a great deal of, though with a little, evidence suggests that if you care about repairs and service Canon remains the best option. Look at the lens rentals tear downs of the Canon 35mm L II and the 100-400L II - both not only built like tanks but built with easy access to optical adjustments.
And, I might add, CPS repairs are extremely fast!
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,621
317
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
Pros don't have unlimited money. No one does.
However, unlike enthusiasts who buy and sell seemingly on a daily basis judging by the posts I read, they do not howl about the price of a new tool as it is weighed against need and ROI. They use the metrics of utility.
I have some lenses that are pushing 20 years old. I bought a 17TS-E when it came out and everyone was gasping at the price. It was paid for on the first job and has been regularly used since I bought it. The same with the 11-24.
Every lens I own was bought with the understanding that it would be a significant contributor to my revenue.
I bought the R for that same reason. Two issues make it a mandatory buy for me: AF and silent shooting.
No DSLR is as accurate at focusing as the R and I have had them all. Even with adapted glass the AF is fast and hyper accurate over the whole frame. The DSLRs were pretty good but every once in a while they miss focus slightly. Often still saleable but annoying to me. Sharp images are mandatory for a pro. We don't get to go back and shoot something again or make excuses to the client.The R does not do that. In addition it performs this feat in dark venues when my mk4 gives up.
And the silent shooting is fast and mandatory in a variety of settings.

A good pro is a good businessperson. I know a lot working with older modest gear making a good six figure income. I also know some who are brilliant but can scarcely make ends meet because they load up on the latest shiny stuff. They have spouses with actual jobs that make the rent.
In Canon marketing world..most pros use pair of 1DXII's, a 5DSR and a 5D4. In reality the most used Pro camera kits are a well worn pair of 5DII or III's. If you have newer kit than that then you are doing very well as a pro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flip314

SUNDOG04

EOS T7i
Mar 1, 2015
66
15
The 15-35 looks fantastic. A few years ago I sold the 40-70 for the 16-35 f4 and was extremely pleased with an increase in sharpness and no more purple fringing with tree/sky in landscape photos.

I am not switching to mirrorless, but am drooling over that lens.
 
Last edited:

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
538
142
In Canon marketing world..most pros use pair of 1DXII's, a 5DSR and a 5D4. In reality the most used Pro camera kits are a well worn pair of 5DII or III's. If you have newer kit than that then you are doing very well as a pro.
Not just Canon marketing. The impression I get from reading enthusiast posts is that all pros are constantly buying gear and that anything short of top of the line latest bodies and lenses means you can't be taken seriously.
A pro buys gear and amortizes the cost over several years with the revenue generation factored in to yield the greatest ROI.
An enthusiast just hides the credit card bills from their spouse.
 

DanCarr

I'm New Here
Apr 15, 2015
17
15
I ask for some RF price lens today (85 F1.2+28-70 F2), And I was told that they are not consider for CPS, the buyer confirmed that with the Canon Rep. That sound strange to me I can see that on the U.S. they are! Did you guys tried and get some CPS prices on the RF lens yet?
I was told this as well when I talked to The Camera Store. "RF lenses are not considered pro lenses" Then another store told me they only did discounts on L-series lenses and not RF lenses. I tried to explain that there are many L-series RF lenses already, but they just seemed confused and I gave up.

This seems ridiculous. These are the likely the best lenses they have ever produced, and as L-series they are pro level by definition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viggo

PVCC

Arts & Engineering
Jul 5, 2019
76
18
I think Canon has been very wise with the Eos R and Rp...it's not the camera anyone wants. But it's new...exciting...and it's got all those lovely posh lenses that no one can afford.
I bolded that, it made me smile. Yes, even if they're great lenses, Canon has gone mad...

Some fortunate people may buy them, but I found those prices crazy...
 
  • Like
Reactions: GMCPhotographics
Aug 22, 2010
1,621
317
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
I bolded that, it made me smile. Yes, even if they're great lenses, Canon has gone mad...

Some fortunate people may buy them, but I found those prices crazy...
Yes i recon Canon have done an internal review / cost analysis to see what they stand to loose (profit wise) in the declining market. Then they have passed that profit loss back on to us as the consumer....those lenses are great...but deliberately expensive. There is no technical reason why a RF 24-70 is going to be more expensive than the EF variant. It's in the comparative lenses that the pricing disparity is exposed. After all...it's just an optical formula...optics and plastic. Component wise, most lenses are relatively cheap to develop and make...lenses are a massive profit for Canon, way more than the Cameras.
 

Joules

EOS RP
Jul 16, 2017
371
295
Hamburg, Germany
There is no technical reason why a RF 24-70 is going to be more expensive than the EF variant
Seriously? The EF version doesn't have IS!

After all...it's just an optical formula...optics and plastic. Component wise, most lenses are relatively cheap to develop and make...
Any reference for that? It seems hard to believe. Relative to what? Component wise? What does that mean?

If developing lenses were such an easy and inexpensive task, why would it take so many years for any mirrorless system to flesh out it's lens offerings? And why would the manufacturers not lower prices to compete with smartphones better?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brikna