We’ve received the pricing for the new RF lenses

mjg79

EOS 80D
Feb 19, 2016
114
54
Canon has a long standing policy of charging a high price for top quality lenses on introduction and over the following years gradually reducing the price. It's a sensible policy. In the past it was more to do with recouping R&D costs. Today it is the only sensible approach to take as the camera market contracts - there are "money no object" amateurs who think that better lenses make them better photographers (said in no spirit of contempt - I used to think that way too), youtube "reviewers" etc who Canon can just ask what they want and get it. Someone like Jared Polin for example can now finally be satisfied he is using a 2.8 zoom lens and talk about how "pro" he feels using it for his snapshots etc etc. It's all a bit silly but Canon has to milk these people.

Look at Apple to see how it's properly done - new form factors tend to come one year, then new tech the next. When they introduced the iPad they didn't give it a front facing camera - they knew that early adopters would buy it regardless.

Canon would be mad to not charge full whack for these great new lenses and given how well adapting EF to R lenses works it means Canon continues to have a good flexible line up. The EF lenses are often priced very competitively, even ones released just a couple of years ago, and they can be used perfectly on the R. In general, apart from wide angles, there are no serious size benefits to going mirrorless. So now on an EOS R one can buy the 70-200/2.8 EF III for a good price (or II for a bargain price) and it's unlikely the RF 70-200 will be that much better optically but is of course smaller - does one prefer fixed or extending design? At any rate I prefer my 70-200 II on the 5D as it balances much more nicely on a deeper, heavier body. There isn't going to be a "perfect" one size fits all camera.

As the the 24-70 - again I am doubtful the RF one will be that much better optically. The EF 24-70 II is near perfect, perhaps a bit more contrast would be good when there is flare but it's still sharper than even the new Nikon Z 24-70. But it will have IS. I have the R and use my EF 24-70 adapted and won't update for a few years until the price falls.

The only one I am tempted by is the wide angle. It will almost certainly be smaller - look at Sony to see how it goes - a 24-70 or 70-200 gets no size benefit, nor do primes 35mm and longer but Sony's 16-35 GM is an outstanding design that is sharp and small and has low vignetting just sadly has the usual Sony build quality issues, on lensrentals they said one would need to go through several copies to find one that performed well at the long end, the Sony 24/1.4 GM is an excellent lens too and small - their 35 and 50 1.4s are SLR lens sized. I actually sold my 16-35 III as the vignetting compromised its use for astro. I am currently using the Tamon 15-30 and find its VC to be extraordinary. If the RF 15-35 has equally good IS and is a lot smaller than I might bite the bullet and accept the financial cost of being an early adopter with that one.
 
Last edited:

The Fat Fish

VFX Artist
Jul 29, 2017
89
54
26
Exeter, UK
Ambitious. At these prices I think Canon really need to release some more compelling bodies to go with them. The EOS R and RP are far from what competitors are doing.

That said, if they can improve their bodies they will have a great mirrorless system.
 

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,294
199
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
While the prices are higher than that of the predecessors but ... inflation + surely some advantages in IQ and or usability might explain the prices. If the 70-200 has 40mm less length it would make the difference for a hiking professionals or traveling journalists. The 15-30 might have less vignetting while using the lower flange distance.

Maybe the advantages in terms of IQ are only fully exploited with a high res EOS R camera?
 

edoorn

EOS RP
Apr 1, 2016
237
155
Great. Lenses for rich people.
Rather, lenses for pro photographers who should adjust their rates in the years accordingly. For the 24-70 there’s also a much more affordable f4 alternative, hopefully the wide angle and telezoom will get these options too. And affordable lightweight prime lenses like the 35.
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,217
782
Not true for everyone. If you are just talking price, maybe true for some with the current RF offerings and prices. But prices will come down just like they did for EF. Switching, for me, was all about the glass. I rented the RF 28-70 f/2L for ten days and just had to buy. That's all it took to convince me + Viggo showing me the sharpness of the RF 85mm f/1.2 at f/1.2. I can survive on those two lenses alone for a very long time (I'll have to. ;)) I don't need a speed demon of a camera and 30mp is fine for me. The R beats my former 5D Mark III. Sold it and all my EF glass. IBIS would be nice, but I know how to get the shutter speed up. There wasn't any IS on my 24-70 or 35 or the 400 f/5.6 when I had it.
That’s not true for me either, I had for example the 35 L II and the 85 L IS with my 1dx2. And I actually switched because of the R, and the introduction of the RF50, but kept the 35 and 85 for a while. Not ONE second have I regretted the switch.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,112
1,666
Irving, Texas
Rather, lenses for pro photographers who should adjust their rates in the years accordingly. For the 24-70 there’s also a much more affordable f4 alternative, hopefully the wide angle and telezoom will get these options too. And affordable lightweight prime lenses like the 35.
I could very probably be wrong, but I think the current contraction of the camera market is also hitting the professionals (I am not) for many of the same reasons. The market got saturated over the years with the advent of digital and flooded with people who would never work in a darkroom, but are willing to do so with the digital equivalents like Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. Then there are those who think smartphone photos are good enough.

There are people around here (DFW Texas) who advertise, on local social media pages, shooting wedding photos for people at $150 and promising loads of photos... digitally. Then the bride and groom can get prints wherever they want. I don't understand how they do it. I don't understand how the time can be worth it, but they do it, and apparently that is good enough for many people. People who advertise senior photos at $30-$40. Head shots at $30-$40. So I think the high end fantastic photographers are probably still finding work. The low end looks, to me, like it is being crushed right now. I have a cousin that does this in Mississippi and she stays real busy, but I just don't see a way that makes it worth the time and effort for the photographer. She only uses the pop-up flash on her Rebel and has EF-s lenses... yet she gets all kinds of work. I saw the same phenomena when I lived in Nevada.

All that just to say that raising prices, for people willing to shoot a wedding for $1,000 - $1,500 (the old low end), find it hard enough to stay in business and have a whole lot of pressure to keep their prices low. The high end photographers, who are really special people, aren't affected as much in my opinion. Their clientele have money and are willing to spend it. The low end? "We can get a washer and dryer or the latest smart phone. Hire the $150 photographer."
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,112
1,666
Irving, Texas
I’m certainly not rich, but my car is 52 years old, my iMac is 10 years old and most of my clothes are at least 12-14 years old :ROFLMAO:
Yup! Just about the same here, except I drive a 2016 Hyundai. I eat a lot of cheap chicken leg quarters ($6 for 10 lbs), Ramen, and wear my clothes until they are thread bare. My whole wardrobe consists of 2 pair of jeans and about 6 t-shirts+underwear and socks and shorts. My wife almost never goes shopping for clothes. When she does, she's happy with the clearance racks at Walmart.

Sacrifices allow us to live a better life in other ways. :)
 

felipeolveram

I'm New Here
Dec 14, 2018
22
15
memphis, tn
www.felipeolveram.com
This probably won't be a popular opinion as most people on here justifying the price of these lenses, but after releasing the R, imho if these are the prices canon is absolute mad for releasing these lenses at this price. One long time argument for staying with canon was that sony or nikon glass were too expensive and that you could get much more value for canon glass, will no longer be the case. I'm not saying that these lenses won't be spectacular, but there is now a used market for sony glass and brand new these lenses will be $300 more expensive than their counter parts for the 15-35mm and 24-70mm RF you could get a 24-70gm 16-35mm gm and a monitor or other professional equipment. This just continues the trend of canon trying to increase the barrier of entry whereas new manufacturers are lowering the barrier of entry introducing more people to the technology. With my 6d mii and 24-70mm EF it just doesn't make sense for me to upgrade to the R and a 24-70mm RF finically or professionally. Hopeful this works out for canon in the long run catering to a different market, we shall see.
 

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,008
1,365
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
First, I think it would be wise see what the actual in-country prices are, as I don't have a lot of confidence in the accuracy of these converted prices. But, even if they are accurate, the only one that really surprises me is the 70-200 f2.8.

If my quick research is correct (Canon Price Watch), it looks like the 15-35 with IS is $300 more at introduction than the EF 16-35 without IS and the 24-70 with IS is $200 more than the introduction price of the 24-70 EF without IS.

On the other hand, the 70-200 is $700 more than the most recent EF version at introduction.

Certainly, all of these prices will settle in over the coming years as the market wins out. But, I don't think it is too far out of line to pay a $200 premium for IS or in the case of the 15-35, a $300 premium for IS and 1mm wider (which actually does make a difference in wide angles).

To me the head-scratcher is the 70-200. I doubt it will be much improved optically over the EF version (in part because there just isn't a lot of room for improvement and even less room for improvement that will be discernible outside of test charts.) The external zoom is appealing because of the room it saves in the camera bag, but I have to believe that external zooms are less expensive to design and build. Canon priced the two 24-105's (EF and R) the same, so I expected they would do that as well with the 70-200. I know the perceived small size (which really isn't any smaller when zoomed out to 200mm) has generated a lot of buzz. Maybe Canon is pricing it at a premium based on capitalizing on that buzz.

I'm looking forward to how this all plays out over the next few years. The only lens here that I was interested in was the 70-200 and realistically, that was just because I thought it was cute. My cooler head reminded me that I need a 70-200 that works on both EF and R lens mounts, so my hope is that this new lens will simply drive down the price of the 70-200 III, which as I said earlier, I may buy at some point because my II version is showing its age (actually more showing the hard use it has received).

I appreciate how well the Canon adapters work with all my EF lenses and even with third party lenses, so I'm feeling no pressure to go out and buy any of these R lenses since I am not ready to go all-in of the R system. I like knowing that 10 years from now, all my EF lenses will continue to work just fine with R bodies. Maybe by that time the picture will be more clear and I will have decided whether or not to go all in with mirrorless. In the meantime, I will continue to use and buy EF lenses and I look forward to the price drops that the new R lenses will help drive in the EF world.

Looking forward to some Big White R lenses which might make it possible for me to finally afford an EF Big White.
 

felipeolveram

I'm New Here
Dec 14, 2018
22
15
memphis, tn
www.felipeolveram.com
Also take note, electronic IS is not the same as having a stabilizer such as a glide cam or motorized gimbal. IS is intended to reduce some slight shakiness from hand held photography from slower shutter speeds. Saving $200 for $200 more you can purchase a ronin sc or zhiyun. The best system out there with IBIS and internal lens stabilization is panasonics, and we have yet to see canon announce a camera with ibis.