The benefits of the large diameter of the EOS R’s RF mount explained

Mar 14, 2012
2,171
87
#41
A few thousand, is a few compared to the 100 million EOS lenses Canon has sold over the years. Even the low tens of thousands would be regarded as few.

Tens of thousands is not a small number, so it would not be "few." It may still be a small number relative to the total number of EOS lenses in the millions, but that's not what few means. It is not relative like "minority." EF 1200mm lenses definitely quality as few.

few
[fyo͞o]

DETERMINER
  1. (few)
    a small number of.
    "may I ask a few questions?" ·
    [more]
    "I will recount a few of the stories told me" · "many believe it but only a few are prepared to say"
    synonyms:
    not many · hardly any · scarcely any · a small number of ·
    [more]
    a small amount of · a small quantity of · one or two · a handful of · a sprinkling of · little · a couple of · a small number · a handful · a sprinkling · one or two · a couple · two or three · not many · hardly any
    antonyms:
    many · a lot
  2. used to emphasize how small a number of people or things is.
    "he had few friends" ·
    [more]
    "few thought to challenge these assumptions" · "very few of the titles have any literary merit" · "a population of fewer than two million" · "sewing was one of her few pleasures" · "ask which products have the fewest complaints" · "one of the few who survived"
    synonyms:
    not many · hardly any · scarcely any · a small number of ·
    [more]
    a small amount of · a small quantity of · one or two · a handful of · a sprinkling of · little · a couple of · scarce · scant · scanty · meager · insufficient · negligible · in short supply · thin on the ground · scattered · seldom met with · few and far between · infrequent · uncommon · rare · sporadic
 
Aug 16, 2012
4,417
632
#43
Don't know how. It doesn't say it at all. You mean the notion you had?
Highdesertmesa is correct. It's not his arbitrary notion, he is being precise - both distance and diameter come into the equation. Canon decreased the flange distance without changing the flange diameter, and if you are just going to concentrate on one point in comparisons, it is usually the one that changes.
 
Sep 17, 2010
798
109
#44
I don't understand the monstrous 95mm front element on my 28-70mm.

What gives?
f/2....that is what gives. :)

Still need to gather a lot of light to have a f/2 lens.

This is more about the rear element. My simplistic observation has been to look at the distance the light has to travel from the last element. The shorter the distance, the easier it is to place the light where you want it. The flange distance, of course, plays a huge role in this, but so does a bigger final element, which especially helps in the corners.
 
#45
Highdesertmesa is correct. It's not his arbitrary notion, he is being precise - both distance and diameter come into the equation. Canon decreased the flange distance without changing the flange diameter, and if you are just going to concentrate on one point in comparisons, it is usually the one that changes.
I agree with you AlanF, I suspect that Canon were inferring that the flange diameter is larger compared to all the other brands of mirror-less full frame camera formats. Not compared to their own EF range.
 

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
1,020
213
49
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
#46
They could have titled THIS article: "reduced flange distance combined with keeping the same, large mount diameter..." // This article title just keeps this false notion circulating that RF went up in diameter from EF.
That's not how I read it, it went up in diameter compared to their other mirrorless mount, the EF-M mount, which would have been a reasonable contender (as the article suggests) for the FF mount.
 
Nov 2, 2016
257
77
#47
Do you know how many f/1.2s have been sold? Without those figures, the discussion is meaningless.
I don’t think the numbers are out there where they’re easily found. I’ve looked. But my customers, hundreds of pros, even thousands, over the years, rarely had one.
 
Nov 2, 2016
257
77
#48
Tens of thousands is not a small number, so it would not be "few." It may still be a small number relative to the total number of EOS lenses in the millions, but that's not what few means. It is not relative like "minority." EF 1200mm lenses definitely quality as few.

few
[fyo͞o]

DETERMINER
  1. (few)
    a small number of.
    "may I ask a few questions?" ·
    [more]
    "I will recount a few of the stories told me" · "many believe it but only a few are prepared to say"
    synonyms:
    not many · hardly any · scarcely any · a small number of ·
    [more]
    a small amount of · a small quantity of · one or two · a handful of · a sprinkling of · little · a couple of · a small number · a handful · a sprinkling · one or two · a couple · two or three · not many · hardly any
    antonyms:
    many · a lot
  2. used to emphasize how small a number of people or things is.
    "he had few friends" ·
    [more]
    "few thought to challenge these assumptions" · "very few of the titles have any literary merit" · "a population of fewer than two million" · "sewing was one of her few pleasures" · "ask which products have the fewest complaints" · "one of the few who survived"
    synonyms:
    not many · hardly any · scarcely any · a small number of ·
    [more]
    a small amount of · a small quantity of · one or two · a handful of · a sprinkling of · little · a couple of · scarce · scant · scanty · meager · insufficient · negligible · in short supply · thin on the ground · scattered · seldom met with · few and far between · infrequent · uncommon · rare · sporadic
Those definitions aren’t relevant. They’re meant in regards to far smaller overall numbers. When you’re talking in numbers well in excess of 100 million lenses, two or three doesn’t apply. The other words used there have more meaning: a small number of, a sprinkling of, negligible, seldom met with, few and far between, infrequent, uncommon, rare, sporadic. All of those better illustrates the concept.
 

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
1,020
213
49
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
#49
Those definitions aren’t relevant. They’re meant in regards to far smaller overall numbers. When you’re talking in numbers well in excess of 100 million lenses, two or three doesn’t apply. The other words used there have more meaning: a small number of, a sprinkling of, negligible, seldom met with, few and far between, infrequent, uncommon, rare, sporadic. All of those better illustrates the concept.
Comparing a kit lens that may be mass produced at such a price that the profit on each lens sold by Canon as part of a kit may be a few dollars vs a significant profit margin on a smaller volume L series lens isn't really helpful to anyone.
 
Nov 2, 2016
257
77
#50
Comparing a kit lens that may be mass produced at such a price that the profit on each lens sold by Canon as part of a kit may be a few dollars vs a significant profit margin on a smaller volume L series lens isn't really helpful to anyone.
Manufacturing isn’t one thing or the other. There’s a basic cost, and there’s a marketing price. The maximum profit is a relation of number of item sold, and price. The higher the price, the fewer sold, and the lower the price, the more sold. Somewhere in that is the ideal price and sales. That where the maximum profit is. This is economics 101.

Companies don’t always adhere to that principle. We don’t know where Canon is where this. The more lenses produced, the lower the production cost per lens, up to the point where a new factory needs to be built, and run, for more product. Then cost rises again.

The point is that these are, as you say, expensive lenses. Therefor, Canon sells few of them. If they decided to bring the cost down somewhat, they would sell more. No one expects Canon to sell a large number of these, no matter what. But it is also fact that lens prices are rising a great deal as companies raise optical quality.

Since cheap lenses have been getting better as well, I wonder just how many people feel that these very expensive lenses are worth it for the extra half stop
 
Aug 16, 2012
4,417
632
#51
Manufacturing isn’t one thing or the other. There’s a basic cost, and there’s a marketing price. The maximum profit is a relation of number of item sold, and price. The higher the price, the fewer sold, and the lower the price, the more sold. Somewhere in that is the ideal price and sales. That where the maximum profit is. This is economics 101.

Companies don’t always adhere to that principle. We don’t know where Canon is where this. The more lenses produced, the lower the production cost per lens, up to the point where a new factory needs to be built, and run, for more product. Then cost rises again.

The point is that these are, as you say, expensive lenses. Therefor, Canon sells few of them. If they decided to bring the cost down somewhat, they would sell more. No one expects Canon to sell a large number of these, no matter what. But it is also fact that lens prices are rising a great deal as companies raise optical quality.

Since cheap lenses have been getting better as well, I wonder just how many people feel that these very expensive lenses are worth it for the extra half stop
That might be Economics 101. But, Economics 102 has "Veblen Goods" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good whereby increasing the price of a luxury item can increase demand. The Canon super telephotos are so expensive it's not clear whether supply and demand law comes in.
 
Nov 2, 2016
257
77
#52
That might be Economics 101. But, Economics 102 has "Veblen Goods" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good whereby increasing the price of a luxury item can increase demand. The Canon super telephotos are so expensive it's not clear whether supply and demand law comes in.
That only works to a certain extent. It’s certainly not eco 102. Doubling the price of a product doesn’t double demand. It likely lowers demand by a lot.

These Canon lenses aren’t Leica, or Hasselblad. Those are luxury brands, and can have high prices. Canon is a working camera company. When they come out with a new 50 F 1.4 for R, we’ll see what the price differentiation is. If it costs about $1,500, about what we;re seeing for the newer 50 f 1.4s these days, then what does that $800 get you other than a half stop?

Assuming the 1.4 is as good, that’s a lot of money for a little bit more light.
 
Aug 16, 2012
4,417
632
#53
I was challenging your sweeping statement:
........The higher the price, the fewer sold, and the lower the price, the more sold. Somewhere in that is the ideal price and sales. That where the maximum profit is. This is economics 101.
because that does not necessarily hold with luxury goods, as for Veblen goods. It can also break down for essential items as in Giffen's Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good. I think that Canon big whites are actually so expensive that they don't strictly follow the law of pricing and demand.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 14, 2012
2,171
87
#54
...
Assuming the 1.4 is as good, that’s a lot of money for a little bit more light.
That is a big assumption.

I think it's more likely that a RF 50 f/1.4 IS follows what the RF 35 f/1.8 IS and EF 35 f/2 IS are compared the 35L II, and the RF 35 f/1.8 IS and EF 35 f/2 IS are priced in the $500-$600 range. And now, CR reports that a RF 85mm f/1.8 IS is in the works. I'm guessing that the RF 85mm lens would be similar in size to the RF 35 to provide good performance in a small package at a much lower price than the L glass. It is not designed to replace the 85mm f/1.4L. I would see the RF 50 f/1.4 IS filling a similar role -- to be an affordable and compact option for the budget users of the future and not a EF 50L/RF 50L/Sigma 50A competitor.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

Spends Too Much Time on This Forum
Mar 25, 2011
14,901
313
#55
I was challenging your sweeping statement:

because that does not necessarily hold with luxury goods, as for Veblen goods. It can also break down for essential items as in Giffen's Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good. I think that Canon big whites are actually so expensive that they don't strictly follow the law of pricing and demand.
There are indeed certain items which rely on being exclusive to sell products at a high price. Even mass produced items like Apple iPhones and watches are sold for huge profits are marketed and seen as status symbols.

Leica falls in that category, handmade, low volume, and high price.

I don't believe that the Canon big whites quite make it into the ultra exclusive status symbol category, but they do have a high price.

Cameras and lenses in general are a declining industry, there is no end in sight to the drop in sales volume at the low end.