We’ve received the pricing for the new RF lenses

Sep 1, 2018
6
10

This is a Canon authorized dealer. They are selling the RP for 48,900 Thai Bahts, which is $1609.56. $1609.56 x 80.76% = $1300. So...

The 15-35 and 24-70 will both cost about $2195.71. Or in other words, $2200, not $2500. Here's hoping. Who knows? If this RP in Thailand is being discounted right now, it could be even less than $2200. I did not get the 16-35 and 24-105 so I could justify buying this 15-35 IS.
 

PGSanta

EOS 80D
Sep 5, 2018
140
105
San Diego, CA
Well, it's not cheap, but it probably shouldn't be unexpected either. Frankly, if I had an R body I'd snap up one of those 15-35s immediately. I don't pre order anything as a rule, but I'd probably pre order that.
Exactly my plan. I will preorder the 15-35 the second I can, then probably wait until the other lenses I want fall a little in price to save a few hundred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amorse

flip314

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2018
239
347
I'm forgetting, which EF 24-70 2.8L IS is it that you're comparing this to? :)
I'm well aware that none of the EF versions had IS, it's why I've been looking forward to the RF version so much (and I why will probably buy it at any price if I can't wait until the first time a rebate is offered). My point was actually that maybe getting IS for $200 wasn't that bad, even though the RF lens is still more expensive than Sony's (Nikon doesn't have a comparable Z lens since they dropped VR from it)

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
This pricing implies that the RF 70-200 2.8 will be $700 more than the EF 2.8 IS III currently is. That's a third more. What do you get for that? The size advantage when it's unzoomed? People can't even agree that's a good feature, seems that internal zoom would still be desired by some.
 

navastronia

5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
204
226
This pricing implies that the RF 70-200 2.8 will be $700 more than the EF 2.8 IS III currently is. That's a third more. What do you get for that? The size advantage when it's unzoomed? People can't even agree that's a good feature, seems that internal zoom would still be desired by some.
I'm not saying $2800 is a sweet deal, but we also don't know if the IS has been improved, if there's a BR element included (like there is for the 85 1.2), or if the overall image quality and resolving power have been increased by the new design. It's not unlikely that some of these things are true if for no other reason than it would be beyond embarrassing if none of them were. Every RF L lens has come out head and shoulders above the EF version in reviews. No reason yet to believe this case will be different.

EDIT: I do actually wish it was an internal zoom, for the record.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RGB86 and FramerMCB

Dj 7th

EOS R
Apr 22, 2019
4
2
Well, it's not cheap, but it probably shouldn't be unexpected either. Frankly, if I had an R body I'd snap up one of those 15-35s immediately. I don't pre order anything as a rule, but I'd probably pre order that.
Why did you say this? I mean why specifically the 15-35? Maybe I do need a reason to nudge me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillB

JoeDavid

EOS 80D
Feb 23, 2012
165
10
Well, it's not cheap, but it probably shouldn't be unexpected either. Frankly, if I had an R body I'd snap up one of those 15-35s immediately. I don't pre order anything as a rule, but I'd probably pre order that.
That’s exactly what I plan on doing. I did a photography trip to England back in June and took an EOS R with only 3 lenses; EF 11-20/4L, RF 24-105/4L IS, and EF 100-400/4-5.6L IS II. I took the 11-24 mainly for Stonehenge since we had purchased a pass for entry before the general admission starts. The 11-24 was the weakest performer; especially as you move away from the center of an image. I rarely use wider than 16 so the 15-35/2.8L IS should be a good fit for me and an incredible performer based on the other RF lenses.
 

amorse

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2017
477
478
www.flickr.com
Why did you say this? I mean why specifically the 15-35? Maybe I do need a reason to nudge me.
I've been on the hunt for a lens that's fast and wide with a filter thread, and right now that looks like the widest lens in that category! I was really close to pulling the trigger on the 16-35 f/2.8L iii, but with this announced I find myself asking myself if and when I'll move over to the R and if I'd regret the decision. I'm just very indecisive haha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

PGSanta

EOS 80D
Sep 5, 2018
140
105
San Diego, CA
Why did you say this? I mean why specifically the 15-35? Maybe I do need a reason to nudge me.
Well, for me, it's just my most used lens outside of primes, and I've got a trip in November.

That said, as the bottom of the photography market continues to fall away, I think Canon (an others) will start to introduce new products with more padding in their pricing structures. This allows for more pricing qualification to specific consumers. Those willing to pay to get items now will do so, those willing to wait a few months will likely score discounts of 10% or more on a regular basis.
 

Dj 7th

EOS R
Apr 22, 2019
4
2
I've been on the hunt for a lens that's fast and wide with a filter thread, and right now that looks like the widest lens in that category! I was really close to pulling the trigger on the 16-35 f/2.8L iii, but with this announced I find myself asking myself if and when I'll move over to the R and if I'd regret the decision. I'm just very indecisive haha.
Thank you. I think I will pre-order too, I already switched to the R but hoping I can make some decent money out of my EF 16-35 and EF 24-70.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amorse

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,986
1,338
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
My 70-200 is getting a little long in the tooth. I've been watching for a refurbished sale, but also wanted to see what the RF version was going to cost. I'm a little skeptical that this pricing is accurate, but if it is, I know I will be getting more serious about 70-200 III, which I can use on both DSLRs and the R. I cannot imagine there will be any significant improvement in the RF version as the EF version is already near perfect and while the fact that it extends makes for a more compact carrying package, that alone doesn't excite me that much.
 
The RF 28-70 F2 is 3000$ I did a test drive with my CPS ands it's an amazing lens. I'm hopping that the 24-70 F2.8 will be cheaper. I can't buy both and I really need the 4mm extra for some events unfortunately. otherwise I would go for the 28-70 F2 if there is only 500$ difference.
 
My 70-200 is getting a little long in the tooth. I've been watching for a refurbished sale, but also wanted to see what the RF version was going to cost. I'm a little skeptical that this pricing is accurate, but if it is, I know I will be getting more serious about 70-200 III, which I can use on both DSLRs and the R. I cannot imagine there will be any significant improvement in the RF version as the EF version is already near perfect and while the fact that it extends makes for a more compact carrying package, that alone doesn't excite me that much.
All the RF lens I have tested are significantly better that the EF. The one that was miles away was the RF50mm F1.2 compared to my EF 50mm F.1.2
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
514
366
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
For me, moving to RF would be unwise.
If Canon doesn't disappoint with their high-res R, I have enough EF L glass.
If Canon does disappoint, I'll switch to Sony and use my EF lenses with an adapter.
That is, the prospective prices on RF glass won't encourage people to move to RF system. Only those who are new to RF and don't have EF glass will be interested.
 
  • Like
Reactions: camerabug

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
525
132
The prices are in the range of what we can expect from modern premium glass from Canon. The reaction to the prices are also what I expected.
One has to remember that almost all EF lenses are several years old with their R&D costs long ago paid for in old prices for labor. The most recent 70-200 is but a paint job and lens coating refresh of an older design that still acquits itself well.
The new lenses represent a significant investment that seems likely to be spread out over a lower sales volume irrespective of pricing if current sales trends are any indication.

I would expect that there will be lower prices for those willing to wait until after the initial frenzy dies down.
 

camerabug

1D Mark IV
Jul 10, 2011
83
16
The other end of the lens
These new lenses are likely extraordinary, but to be honest buying this glass and reselling 8 L lenses won't bring me more money. I'm glad Canon has a good working adapter for EF lenses. In a declining market, the new system will be a hard sell with glass this expensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ashmadux

jeanluc

EOS 80D
Oct 29, 2012
154
64
The 15-35 will be a very nice lens I bet, probably better than the 16-35L 2.8 III. The fact is though that they do not have an R body that will benefit from anything better than using either the 16-35L F 4 or the 2.8III and an adapter. Unless you consider using an adapter to be a big deal. I don’t mind at all.

I will get the 15-35 as soon as they actually release a hi -res body that will benefit from it.