We’ve received the pricing for the new RF lenses

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
359
161
Yes, my first thought too, was that these seem expensive.

but really, who is expected to be buying these lenses? Is it the average amateur, or weekend snap shooter? No. It’s the serious amateur and pro. So the difference in price, percentage wise, isn’t really that much. And those groups won’t care too much.

if you’re a pro, it makes no difference at all. For you, it’s a capital expenditure. Your accountant knows how to deal with that.

if you’re a serious amateur, you wait a bit longer to save up the extra cash.

i don’t see this as affecting sales in any real way. If these lenses are as good as the ones released so far, Canon won’t be able to make enough of them.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,421
674
In one of the Canon interviews or maybe a financial report, Canon mentioned one of the benefits of the "R" system was that lenses were selling in larger numbers than expected, and profits were much better than for EF lenses. Right then, I expected to see prices much higher than current EF prices, but I did not expect $2800 for a 70-200.
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
302
230
117
Williamsport, PA
Ouch. So much for Canon continuing to have cheaper lenses than Sony and Nikon... I've been predicting much lower prices than this, but incorrectly it seems.

Although, the 24-70 2.8 price is only $200 more than the EF version 2 was at release, so this might just be the early adopter premium. (or the currency conversion isn't accurate)
Perhaps they are planning on the gotta have it first crowd grabbing them up regardless of price for bragging rights. Especially with these particular lenses. Then they will hopefully come down in price to allow mere mortals to acquire them if so desired.
The only lens of interest to me if I get the RF mount is the 24-240 which does seem like a pretty sweet lens. But I am still waiting for IBIS. Once I go mirrorless my current excellent EF and EFs lenses will do quite nicely with the control ring adapter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KeithBreazeal

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,111
356
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
Canon released the 35, 28 and 24mm EF primes in 2012 and the 40mm pancake a couple of years later, but there hasn't been much since then. There is already the RF 35 mm, but I am not sure there will be much more any time soon, at least from Canon. Some non L zooms seem more likely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,887
1,163
65
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Canon released the 35, 28 and 24mm EF primes in 2012 and the 40mm pancake a couple of years later, but there hasn't been much since then. There is already the RF 35 mm, but I am not sure there will be much more any time soon, at least from Canon. Some non L zooms seem more likely.
Yes.

So far, of the announced or released lenses, three have been primes and six have been zooms. (If I have counted correctly) While primes are popular on this forum, they are not nearly as popular among consumers. At best, I think prime lovers might see the continued 2 to 1 ratio of releases, but honestly, I am expecting quite a few more zooms before we see a lot of prime lenses.

If Canon releases an "x" body, we should see the 100-400 either before or shortly after. A 70-300 "L" would be logical since it makes a nice travel lens and would pair nicely with a mirrorless body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

flip314

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2018
201
239
If Canon releases an "x" body, we should see the 100-400 either before or shortly after. A 70-300 "L" would be logical since it makes a nice travel lens and would pair nicely with a mirrorless body.
With the 70-200 coming out right away, if the 100-400L gets released first I would expect a 70-300 non-L before the L version. They'll sell way more copies of that one due to the lower price point, and the 70-300L has always been less popular than other L zooms, especially since the 100-400L IS II came out. The 70-300L has a weight advantage, but not much else over other lenses.
 

SecureGSM

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 26, 2017
1,155
189
Yes, my first thought too, was that these seem expensive.

but really, who is expected to be buying these lenses? Is it the average amateur, or weekend snap shooter? No. It’s the serious amateur and pro. So the difference in price, percentage wise, isn’t really that much. And those groups won’t care too much.

if you’re a pro, it makes no difference at all. For you, it’s a capital expenditure. Your accountant knows how to deal with that.

if you’re a serious amateur, you wait a bit longer to save up the extra cash.

i don’t see this as affecting sales in any real way. If these lenses are as good as the ones released so far, Canon won’t be able to make enough of them.
“... if you’re a serious amateur, you wait a bit longer to save up the extra cash...”
Yeah, that would be a valid proposition in a perfect binary world where your choices are : Canon glass or nothing.... in reality though, this is not what it may look like :)
Options, options, options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Photo Hack

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
113
149
“... if you’re a serious amateur, you wait a bit longer to save up the extra cash...”
Yeah, that would be a valid proposition in a perfect binary world where your choices are : Canon glass or nothing.... in reality though, this is not what it may look like :)
Options, options, options.
Seems like a serious opportunity for third party lens manufacturers. I’ve enjoyed having 4 different Art Prime lenses for the price of 2 L Primes these past few years.

Fast Zooms seem to be a different story....haven’t been able to find better alternatives than Canon’s. Tamron and Sigma haven’t been good to me with their lowlight focusing performance.
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,887
1,163
65
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
With the 70-200 coming out right away, if the 100-400L gets released first I would expect a 70-300 non-L before the L version. They'll sell way more copies of that one due to the lower price point, and the 70-300L has always been less popular than other L zooms, especially since the 100-400L IS II came out. The 70-300L has a weight advantage, but not much else over other lenses.
Possibly. Except we don't know what percentage of the 70-300 non L zooms are sold to APS-C owners. I would not be surprised if 80-90% are in the hands of crop sensor owners. The release of the 24-240 RF lens pretty much fills the slot currently held by Canon's non-L 70-300 zooms. I don't see them feeling the need to offer a cheap 70-300 anytime soon, especially since the 24-240 fills that need better and is more versatile. Admittedly, they may not be in a rush to produce a 70-300 L lens that duplicates the existing EF lens. But, it not only has a weight advantage, but a significant size advantage over the 100-400 as well.

Of course, the way Canon is going with the RF lenses, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a 70-300 constant aperture f4 lens in the RF mount.
 
what are you going on about?

Why don't you compare Sony GM lenses versus Canon and see how close you come out to. or does that kind of ruin your narrative.

I'm sure the Tamron's will sooner or later be available on both the Z and the RF mount as well, so that's probably in the long run kind of immaterial. The tammy are great lenses, but they are known for being great bang for the buck lenses. They don't compare well to Sony's GM series lenses and probably won't for the RF lenses either. Neither GM series nor RF series lenses are designed for 24MP sensors. The Tamron's probably are - because at 28mm and 35mm the 28-70 doesn't look that great on a A7R III.

Comparing cheap third party versus OEM is always a fools game. Do you bitterly complain about the price of Sony GM lenses as well?
Hmm. Well, all things are subjective I suppose but the-digital-picture.com has a great comparison of the Tammy vs GM... if you really want to compare the “cheap third party” lens vs the OEM. Perhaps your experience is different but gonna have to say your right, the GM doesn’t compare to the Tammy. Costs more for worse performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Photo Hack

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
113
149
Hmm. Well, all things are subjective I suppose but the-digital-picture.com has a great comparison of the Tammy vs GM... if you really want to compare the “cheap third party” lens vs the OEM. Perhaps your experience is different but gonna have to say your right, the GM doesn’t compare to the Tammy. Costs more for worse performance.
Sigma and Tamron have been putting out some great glass so I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re right. IQ and build is definitely not “cheap” compared to OEM. For twice the cost with Sony, Nikon, Canon, you’re definitely not getting twice the quality.

I’m most familiar with the ART lenses and would say they rival Canon in IQ.... but as you would expect, the AF performance isn’t perfect. But again we’re talking minute differences but huge cost difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joelhazel

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
814
110
So far, of the announced or released lenses, three have been primes and six have been zooms. (If I have counted correctly) While primes are popular on this forum, they are not nearly as popular among consumers. At best, I think prime lovers might see the continued 2 to 1 ratio of releases, but honestly, I am expecting quite a few more zooms before we see a lot of prime lenses.
I think this ratio would last for a while, then drop like a stone.

First is Canon has to remake all the EF lenses in RF, and that includes the primes.

Second is the fast & wide primes give Canon an opportunity to show off what it can do with the new RF mount, which is why the f/1.2 primes came first. My bet is the 14mm and 24mm will come soon, e.g. maybe we'll see a fast 14mm prime to compete with Sigma's 14mm f/1.8 Art lens.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
359
161
“... if you’re a serious amateur, you wait a bit longer to save up the extra cash...”
Yeah, that would be a valid proposition in a perfect binary world where your choices are : Canon glass or nothing.... in reality though, this is not what it may look like :)
Options, options, options.
It depends on how much we’re talking about. If it’s 10-15%, then I think people would wait to save up. If it’s 30%, they might buy something else. And we’re talking list. After some time, the selling price drops a bit. Each time Canon or Nikon came up with a newer 70-200, the price was higher. And after a bit of grumbling, people bought them. I believe the same thing will happen here.
 

OneSnark

Canon Fanboy
Aug 20, 2019
18
6
Yes, my first thought too, was that these seem expensive.

but really, who is expected to be buying these lenses? Is it the average amateur, or weekend snap shooter? No. It’s the serious amateur and pro. So the difference in price, percentage wise, isn’t really that much. And those groups won’t care too much.

if you’re a pro, it makes no difference at all. For you, it’s a capital expenditure. Your accountant knows how to deal with that.

if you’re a serious amateur, you wait a bit longer to save up the extra cash.

i don’t see this as affecting sales in any real way. If these lenses are as good as the ones released so far, Canon won’t be able to make enough of them.
Three points;

1) I read a number of posts justifying the price.

Price relative to current "L" glass.
Price relative to Yen/USD exchange rates.
Price relative to production cost.

To all this I say: MALARKY. Price is set by market. Production cost is merely the "floor". The only reason they don't cost $3000 is because sales volume will drop off too far relative to $2300 The only reason they don't cost $1500 is because there are more than enough buyers who will pay $2300.

2) The well heeled amateur.

Well. . . .. I am a serious amateur. Honestly, I have loads of discretionary income.
I have been buying an expensive piece of Canon glass or hardware every year or two for . . . .a long time.

HAVING SAID THAT - - - - - - I am now priced out of the market.
$2300 for a single lens?? Holy-schmoley that's a lot of clams. And it's not $2300 for a lens. Any real kit would be a 2 lens ante, plus a $2000 body. So we are talking $6600. Plus accessories. Tax. and you KNOW that when the 100-400 comes out. . . I will need it.

Sorry . . .that's a bit much money considering that your average *phone* is really not that bad.
And what the phone can't do, my Canon dSLR. . . .with pretty much the same sensor tech. ."L" glass. . . plus lighting equipment . . . plus tripods and whatnot. . . . pretty much can.

What does the new RF line offer? Improved ergonomics by being mirrorless? A little less weight in the bag? I am not sure anyone is claiming truly superior AF performance or sharper images, or improved dynamic range.

To be honest. . . . .I got off the train with the new generations of "L" EF glass.
All the rev 1's were in the $1000-$2000 range. Steep. . .but I thought there was a real difference jumping from prosumer glass. The Rev 2's and Rev 3's pushed to the $1500-$2500 range for only modest optical improvements.

I opted out. Off the train. I know a fad when I see one. More to be gained with superior computers and lighting equipment. I also have other expensive hobbies I can finance.

This is my opinion, and mine alone.
YOUR MILAGE MAY VARY.
Feel free to buy one of these lenses and I wish you well.

3) The Pro

"Your accountant knows how to deal with that".

I am not an accountant. But I know accountants. I work with accountants.
When I say I need to buy $10,000 of camera gear, the first question is "How much will this increase your income?"

Not sure customers are *demanding* mirrorless. I am pretty sure most would only notice if you showed up with and iPhone.
The current mirrorless bodies don't even have dual card slots - - > so it ain't improving reliability on a shoot.
Are the images any better than a good FF alternative with quality glass attached?

So - not sure why a pro would *need* this stuff. If you need some higher expenses as a writeoff. . . I would simply buy better scotch to go with my dinner.

0 0 0 0 0 0

Anywho. . . done with my ranting.

Yeah, I am not dumb. I know the future is mirrorless.
But my next camera will be a dSLR; or a new "G" series P&S. (OR BOTH - - - I have money).
The *canon* mirrorless stuff just ain't there yet, in my opinion.

I will let others merrily blaze this path with THEIR hard earned money.
Hopefully, the price eventually will drop down to prices I can tolerate on my well-above-average-income-with-few-expenses budget.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Photo Hack

Joaquim

I'm New Here
Aug 20, 2019
10
6
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. :)
100% agree and pretty much do the same. I don't drive as public transportation is incredibly good in Dubai, I'm not a full time photographer/videographer, I don't go shopping for clothes and o don't done out or go out to meet people at a pub cause drinking doesn't make logical sense to me. I also live in a highly affordable shared space (although after 5 yrs and crossing 33yrs of age my patience has worn thin for this living option). Plus I also am an established actor in my city so I make do with what I have and am able to feed my expensive hobby a fair bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy