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

Aug 22, 2010
1,608
304
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
Seriously? The EF version doesn't have IS!


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?
Joules...I've been here a long time....please don't troll. You may not know much about lens construction....but some of us have been shooting professionally for a very long time. My first Professional Canon camera body was Pre AF....in fact I still have it. I also have an original ef 50mm f1.8 from the first year of EOS.
Go look up some of my photos....many are to be found on these forum pages.
 

flip314

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2018
201
239
Joules...I've been here a long time....please don't troll. You may not know much about lens construction....but some of us have been shooting professionally for a very long time. My first Professional Canon camera body was Pre AF....in fact I still have it. I also have an original ef 50mm f1.8 from the first year of EOS.
Go look up some of my photos....many are to be found on these forum pages.
That's a complete non-sequitur... Taking photos doesn't really teach you anything about building lenses. You've also chosen a basic double-gauss lens as an example, probably the simplest optical formula you will see in any modern lens. The RF 24-70 2.8 has 21 elements (even more than the EF II's 18 and FAR more than the 50 1.8's 6 elements). It's also got IS.

I don't think healthy skepticism is "trolling"... You made a claim that the RF 24-70 should cost no more than the EF version, but without evidence. It does seem to me like the extra IS group makes the lens design (and calibration, if not manufacturing) more complex, but then again I don't own a camera without AF so I don't know anything.
 

Joules

EOS RP
Jul 16, 2017
244
158
Hamburg, Germany
Go look up some of my photos....many are to be found on these forum pages.
No offense, but I fail to see what your artistic skills and experience with this forum have to do with your expertise in lens design and manufacturing.

Optical products appear to be very hard to design and expensive to manufacture from an outside perspective. After all, good glasses aren't cheap, neither are telescopes and microscopes. Photography lenses are far from cheap either.

But you claim such optical formulas and lens elements are relatively simply jn development and production, do you not? So what are the reasons products involving these are so pricy?

I was just asking a question, so since you claim such a deep knowledge of the topic that daring to question it is already trolling, would you kindly give us some insight? Sure, I asked my questions fairly snarky. Sorry for that, I wrote it in the train after a mediocre day of work. But as question, they are still valid I think.

My understanding is that Canon had to put a lot of upfront investment in a completely new set of lenses that aim to make use of a mount that is new to the designers. Canon already has to invest a lot initially in order to design many new top quality products in relatively short time, for a new system and new market. And on top of that this market is smaller than the DSLR market currently, therefore these higher costs have to be spread out over fewer customers. A jump in price does not seem unreasonable considering we can also expect improvements in IQ and got IS in some cases. If you could point out the flaws in that thought, please feel free to do so.
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,112
670
I haven’t really followed this thread so forgive me if this has been covered.

I just read at DPReview that the RF70-200 has an mfd of 0.7m? Is that seriously correct?