We’ve received the pricing for the new RF lenses

Mr Majestyk

EOS 80D
Feb 20, 2016
182
73
The R isn’t a second rate camera. Nobody but you cares what you want; clearly the market analytics say the market disagrees with you in just about every way.
The market is lauging at Canon, the R isn't setting the sales world alight that's for sure, neither is the RP. Absolutely ludicrous to release a boatload of $2-4K lenses at this stage. The R doesn't even match up to the 5D4, it's a 6DII/5D4 hybrid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RayL

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,155
1,715
Irving, Texas
The market is lauging at Canon, the R isn't setting the sales world alight that's for sure, neither is the RP. Absolutely ludicrous to release a boatload of $2-4K lenses at this stage. The R doesn't even match up to the 5D4, it's a 6DII/5D4 hybrid.
I just wish you were on the corporate board to straighten this mess out.:cry: I've been laughing and giddy for a couple of months now. My tummy is sore.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,807
3,299
There is a perfectly logical case to have high end RF lenses available as a prelude to releasing a high end body to encourage sales of that body. The naysayers would have a field day if Canon released a high end body without available lenses to match.
 

edoorn

EOS RP
Apr 1, 2016
239
156
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."
Well I’m a pro, not the ‘really special kind’ if I’m honest but I deliver good quality and service, and those low ballers don’t really affect my business that much. Weddings slightly but I’ve been focussing more on commercial work which offsets that. The job doesn’t make me rich but there’s budget next year to upgrade to two pro R bodies and a nice set of RF lenses. (thinking the 24-70, 70-200 and 85 DS to start with).

I’m able to do that because I ask reasonable prices and like you rightly say so, those people that charge not enough can’t, but to be fair there’s no future in their business anyway.
 
Last edited:

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
514
304
There is a perfectly logical case to have high end RF lenses available as a prelude to releasing a high end body to encourage sales of that body. The naysayers would have a field day if Canon released a high end body without available lenses to match.
That's exactly what Nikon did, with the result you mention.
 

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,627
746
Southeastern USA
Strange the prices listed in THB as just checked the Canon TH website and only have prices for the 35, 50 and 24-105
the 28-70 is listed but no price and no sign of the RF85 F1.2
The RF50 F1.2 is listed as $2299.00 on US site which is approx ฿70350 at current rates
On Canon TH it is listed as ฿85290 which at current rate is approx $2790
Exactly! The prices in Thai money do not accurately tell us what the asking price will be in the United States.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LesC

LesC

EOS RP
Jun 27, 2013
253
53
Essex, UK
500px.com
Always good to have excellent glass irrespective of the body you use. I've had a 6D, 6D MKII & now the EOS R but have the EF24-70 F2.8L MKII & other L lenses. I don't need a 'pro' spec body but it is worth having the best lenses. FWIW, a pro friend of mine uses his R rather than his 5D MKIV 90% of the time now.
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,230
792
Always good to have excellent glass irrespective of the body you use. I've had a 6D, 6D MKII & now the EOS R but have the EF24-70 F2.8L MKII & other L lenses. I don't need a 'pro' spec body but it is worth having the best lenses. FWIW, a pro friend of mine uses his R rather than his 5D MKIV 90% of the time now.
Exactly! I like the current situation with the midrange R and brutally perfect lenses much better than the other way around. I think it’s a very good strategy by Canon; they have two bodies that many more people can afford than let’s say a $4000 body, and for those wanting the high end lenses they can still have a great body that for them. And the people buying the R and RP that doesn’t want, or can’t spend the money on RF-L’s can use the tons of EF lenses available for cheap both new and used. Plus, those who buy the RF-L’s and want something better than the R, already know for sure it is coming.
 

edoorn

EOS RP
Apr 1, 2016
239
156
lenses are indeed important and they will last much longer than the bodies. I've used my 70-200 for 10 years now and it's still going strong. Will probably sell it and upgrade for the RF version next year, but that could very well last another decade as well.
 

SUNDOG04

EOS T7i
Mar 1, 2015
66
15
I think the majority of people would feel that both $1800 and $2800 lenses are “for rich people.”
I would agree to an extent. For a retired, advanced photographer, those prices would be out of my price range. Canon supertelephotos would be for rich people, but I see non-rich amateurs buying them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
576
545
Crazy strategy IMO, second rate cameras and high end L glass and not a single affordable lens in sight other than a szuperzoom 24-240 that I would have zero interest in owning. I much prefer Nikon's strategy of starting with mid-tier f/1.8 primes and the workhorse 24-70 f/2.8, with more high end offering so come over the next 12 months. 24-70 f/2.8 IS should have been out well before the crazy 28-70 f/2 and the old clunker 85 f/1.8 replaced by a new RF version. Yes the lenses are good, but it's bizarre to see such a yawning chasm between lens and camera qualities. These high end offering should have been coming after their 5DsR replacment.
Another second-rate comment!(n)
 
  • Like
Reactions: flip314 and tron

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,153
390
Crazy strategy IMO, second rate cameras and high end L glass and not a single affordable lens in sight other than a szuperzoom 24-240 that I would have zero interest in owning. I much prefer Nikon's strategy of starting with mid-tier f/1.8 primes and the workhorse 24-70 f/2.8, with more high end offering so come over the next 12 months. 24-70 f/2.8 IS should have been out well before the crazy 28-70 f/2 and the old clunker 85 f/1.8 replaced by a new RF version. Yes the lenses are good, but it's bizarre to see such a yawning chasm between lens and camera qualities. These high end offering should have been coming after their 5DsR replacment.
The RF 35mm and the RF 24-105 are affordable by current standards, along with a lot of EF glass.
 

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,627
746
Southeastern USA
lenses are indeed important and they will last much longer than the bodies. I've used my 70-200 for 10 years now and it's still going strong. Will probably sell it and upgrade for the RF version next year, but that could very well last another decade as well.
Thank you for reminding us of this important point.
 

BroncosFan

I'm New Here
Oct 19, 2017
15
7
Boston
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)



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.
Yeah...but it’s mirrorless! What’s better than that?
 

BroncosFan

I'm New Here
Oct 19, 2017
15
7
Boston
;)
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)



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.
Yeah...but...but...but.....it’s mirrorless!
 
so as Canon et al dont like to use conversion rates for the UK market but seem to like 1 pound = 1 dollar. Have been thinking of switching to mirrorless from the Canon 5D MKIII to reduce weight,sizes etc but after reading various articles on the weight of some of the RF lenses and now the pricing it certainly puts me off switching to mirrorless for quite a while
OR for nearly the price of the 70-200, you could buy a Sony A7III, Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 AND the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Which are indeed small and lightweight and incredibly sharp. I loved my 5DIV and I loved the R for the brief moment I had it but I have very few regrets in jumping ship (other than the menus, shoot me now).
 
Because switching saves you money. /s
Tamron 17-28 - $900 vs $2400 (save $1500)
Tamron 28-75 - $900 vs $2400 (save $1500)
A7RIII -$2500 and your still $500 ahead. Like getting a free camera.

Switching is cheaper than most people realize. Especially factoring in the worth of your current lenses.Even if you “lose” money selling gear, if your able to swap out to comparable lenses for no “additional” cost... did you lose anything? That money was spent X number of years ago either way. Only thing you did was gain yourself a new lens warranty you didn’t have on your old gear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia