Canon adds two new lenses to the short supply list

[AJ]

I guess sometimes you just gotta get in line.

Free bread = free lens hood.

 

[roby17269]

Posted this in another thread but this is probably more apt.

For what is worth... yesterday I went to Adorama and pre-ordered one 200-800. The friendly rep told me that they had 131 orders for this lens in the queue before mine. It looks like I will have to wait for a while...

No idea if this is a big or average or small number of pre-orders, but the rep seemed mildly impressed. Of course no idea about how many of those orders will be fulfilled, since some will be of people hedging their bets and ordering the same lens from different sellers...

I have sold to them my 800 f/11 and 24-240 for a discount on the 200-800. Happy with that... Adorama will give you less money than selling by yourself, but the transaction is painless and they offer you more if you use the proceeds of the sale as discount for something else you buy from them.

 

[David - Sydney]

It is actually easier than that.
They can base the number of units on store orders starting with preorders.
It is easier to apologize to the customers than to the investors.

That might be possible for the a9ii (and R5) given the 6 month announcement to first delivery date but less so for these lenses where Canon has given a minimum of 3 weeks (shipping 1-Dec) and max of 7 weeks (shipping 31-Dec) worth of notice. Delivery forecast have been known to slip dates as well. There are also day 1 preorders but pre-orders can technically occur anytime within the announcement to delivery period.
I don't know what the leadtime for components is but generally that is much longer than the manufacturing and distribution leadtime. For new products and especially bigger lenses then the leadtime would be longer than you think.

 

[LSXPhotog]

The good news is that there are plenty of RF-S 10-18 IS lenses to go around.

I love the faux enthusiasm from reviewers for what is a very VERY lame lens. Worse than the EF-S 10-18 in aperture value and all around worse than the beautiful EF-M 11-22. For the life of me, I don’t understand why they didn’t just port that lens over to the new mount. It was spectacular for its size/weight/cost.

It further demonstrates to me that Canon doesn’t care about APS-C at all and they never really have. The EF-M 22mm and 32mm should be no-brainer easy mount changes but we get these new, super dark aperture duds.

 

[DhlcadR6]

I love the faux enthusiasm from reviewers for what is a very VERY lame lens. Worse than the EF-S 10-18 in aperture value and all around worse than the beautiful EF-M 11-22. For the life of me, I don’t understand why they didn’t just port that lens over to the new mount. It was spectacular for its size/weight/cost.

It further demonstrates to me that Canon doesn’t care about APS-C at all and they never really have. The EF-M 22mm and 32mm should be no-brainer easy mount changes but we get these new, super dark aperture duds.

Everyone seems to forget RF/RF-S has longer flange distance than EF-M. So EF-M cannot easily port over. Only the other way around (RF to EF-M) but that won't happen.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Everyone seems to forget RF/RF-S has longer flange distance than EF-M. So EF-M cannot easily port over.

Shhhh. Don't tell that to the RF-S 18-150, which is the optics of the EF-M 18-150 in a new barrel with a new mount.

 

[LSXPhotog]

Everyone seems to forget RF/RF-S has longer flange distance than EF-M. So EF-M cannot easily port over. Only the other way around (RF to EF-M) but that won't happen.

We're talking a 2mm difference. Depending on the lens' construction, that could safely shift the lens groups back toward the sensor on design that allow for it. But looking at my 22mm f/2, I can see that it has some elements that exist at or behind the mount.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Shhhh. Don't tell that to the RF-S 18-150, which is the optics of the EF-M 18-150 in a new barrel with a new mount.

I'm not an expert in lens design...but could be 18-150 have some design redundancy to make it retain the same focal length and aperture in both EF-M and RF-S. So far it's the only exception.

 

[scyrene]

It further demonstrates to me that Canon doesn’t care about APS-C at all and they never really have.

APS-C has constituted the majority of their camera sales for the whole digital era, right? I think they probably care about it.

 

[john1970]

I pre-ordered the 200-800 a few minutes after it came on line. If I have to wait then so be it - the lens isn't going to transform my photography.

Same here. I pre-ordered the lens as well, but as long as I receive it by mid-Q2 2024 I will be fine.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm not an expert in lens design...but could be 18-150 have some design redundancy to make it retain the same focal length and aperture in both EF-M and RF-S. So far it's the only exception.

Not from an optical standpoint. Looking at the designs of the other EF-M lenses, they could be rehoused for RF-S. Canon is choosing not to.

As @scyrene just said, Canon sells a lot of APS-C cameras and they care about that market. More importantly, they obviously understand that market…and most importantly, they understand how to profit from it. When people like @LSXPhotog post drivel like ‘Canon doesn’t care about APS-C’ such people just make it obvious they are clueless about the camera market and/or have less business acumen than a bowling ball.

The APS-C market is shrinking. It used to represent 90% of the ILC market, now it’s down to around 75%. if one is selling fewer units and wants to at least maintain the same profit, then the profit margin must be increased. Business 101.

The 18-150 was likely already optimized for lowest production cost with that range (it was the penultimate M lens to be released). The other RF-S lenses are all simpler designs that cost less to make, and two of them launched at the same price as their M counterparts (the 10-18 costs less than the 11-22, but is also obviously a cheaper design, e.g., no metal mount).

The other obvious factor is that while we know which M lenses we personally like, Canon knows how many of each M lens they sold. That’s most likely why, for example, the 18-150 was the seventh lens for M, but one of the first pair of lenses that launched with APS-C R.

 

[koenkooi]

[...] It further demonstrates to me that Canon doesn’t care about APS-C at all and they never really have. The EF-M 22mm and 32mm should be no-brainer easy mount changes but we get these new, super dark aperture duds.

I don't want to use words like 'caring', I think it's more due to Canon being able to put in extremely low amounts of effort and still outsell the competition by a massive margin.

I don't like that and I will keep wishing for a competent EVF-less RF mount camera and lenses that match or exceed the EF-M primes, but I don't have high hopes.

 

[LSXPhotog]

Not from an optical standpoint. Looking at the designs of the other EF-M lenses, they could be rehoused for RF-S. Canon is choosing not to.

As @scyrene just said, Canon sells a lot of APS-C cameras and they care about that market. More importantly, they obviously understand that market…and most importantly, they understand how to profit from it. When people like @LSXPhotog post drivel like ‘Canon doesn’t care about APS-C’ such people just make it obvious they are clueless about the camera market and/or have less business acumen than a bowling ball.

The APS-C market is shrinking. It used to represent 90% of the ILC market, now it’s down to around 75%. if one is selling fewer units and wants to at least maintain the same profit, then the profit margin must be increased. Business 101.

The 18-150 was likely already optimized for lowest production cost with that range (it was the penultimate M lens to be released). The other RF-S lenses are all simpler designs that cost less to make, and two of them launched at the same price as their M counterparts (the 10-18 costs less than the 11-22, but is also obviously a cheaper design, e.g., no metal mount).

The other obvious factor is that while we know which M lenses we personally like, Canon knows how many of each M lens they sold. That’s most likely why, for example, the 18-150 was the seventh lens for M, but one of the first pair of lenses that launched with APS-C R.

You’re so arrogant it’s ridiculous and lack any form of respectful courtesy in your reading comprehension. As you’ve demonstrated, you only look to belittle people to make yourself feel better and intelligent - that’s honestly sad. What a childish comment to make toward a successful business owner that’s actually involved in the professional photography industry. Check your ego, sir.

My statement of them “not caring” about the APS-C market relates to them not providing any sort of fast standard zooms or primes for any APS-C mount. Aside from the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and the EF-M 22mm f/2 and 32mm f/1.4 they haven’t offered anything “fast” for APS-C. These lenses sell in lower volumes and have higher margins. They don’t CARE TO MAKE THESE lenses and it’s why I switched my APS-C to Fujifilm and don’t travel on vacation with Canon anymore. It’s frustrating that Canon doesn’t appear to have any interest in building out more in this space and view it purely as a beginner/consumer category.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You’re so arrogant it’s ridiculous and lack any form of respectful courtesy in your reading comprehension. As you’ve demonstrated, you only look to belittle people to make yourself feel better and intelligent - that’s honestly sad. What a childish comment to make toward a successful business owner that’s actually involved in the professional photography industry. Check your ego, sir.

My statement of them “not caring” about the APS-C market relates to them not providing any sort of fast standard zooms or primes for any APS-C mount. Aside from the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and the EF-M 22mm f/2 and 32mm f/1.4 they haven’t offered anything “fast” for APS-C. These lenses sell in lower volumes and have higher margins. They don’t CARE TO MAKE THESE lenses and it’s why I switched my APS-C to Fujifilm and don’t travel on vacation with Canon anymore. It’s frustrating that Canon doesn’t appear to have any interest in building out more in this space and view it purely as a beginner/consumer category.

Lol. Ok, because they don't offer the lenses you personally think they should, they "don't care". It's not personal, it's business. Fuji "cares about APS-C" in your opinion, because they make the high-end APS-C gear you want. News flash: they target that niche market segment (of which you are apparently a part) in large part because Canon does not. Neither Canon nor Fuji "care" in the sense you mean. Certainly they don't care about you, or me, or any other individual customer. Your ascription of personal attributes to business decisions is laughable. It's great that you have a successful photography business. That suggests that you know how to use a camera, but doesn't mean you have a clue about the camera market.

 

[LSXPhotog]

I

Lol. Ok, because they don't offer the lenses you personally think they should, they "don't care". It's not personal, it's business. Fuji "cares about APS-C" in your opinion, because they make the high-end APS-C gear you want. News flash: they target that niche market segment (of which you are apparently a part) in large part because Canon does not. Neither Canon nor Fuji "care" in the sense you mean. Certainly they don't care about you, or me, or any other individual customer. Your ascription of personal attributes to business decisions is laughable. It's great that you have a successful photography business. That suggests that you know how to use a camera, but doesn't mean you have a clue about the camera market.

I refer back to my previous comment of reading comprehension. You’re shouting at a cloud now. I’m saying Canon doesn’t have interest in developing fast lenses for APS-C. Not once did I say they cared about me personally nor was that ever inferred. Haha Would you not agree that a camera system is complete when it offers a full range of lenses? From affordable to more boutique? Their full frame lenses certainly cover that and always have. Canon has never built out their APS-C lens lineup. Therefore, I conclude that Canon doesn’t care to develop their APS-C line and shows no indication they ever will. They’re perfectly happy with an incomplete, beginner/consumer lens selection. This has nothing to do with knowing camera markets, as it’s obviously an incomplete lens lineup by any metric. They sell plenty sub-$1000 cameras and slow lenses and creating a fast standard zoom is not worth Canon’s R&D to do so. I made my opinion on an observation. You’ve told me both my opinion and observation are wrong because I don’t know the camera market? Right.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I refer back to my previous comment of reading comprehension. You’re shouting at a cloud now. I’m saying Canon doesn’t have interest in developing fast lenses for APS-C.

You might want to work on comprehending your own statements for starters. What you actually said was essentially Canon doesn’t care because they’re not making the lenses you think they should. Maybe you need a reminder. Read this, slowly and carefully.

It further demonstrates to me that Canon doesn’t care about APS-C at all and they never really have.

After being called out on your BS, you moved the goalposts. Or, if you want to argue that you meant ‘Canon doesn’t care about APS-C because they don’t make fast lenses for crop’, how can you also say they never really cared when they did make the 17-55/2.8, 22/2 and 32/1.4. The last one is very recent in terms of lenses.

Not once did I say they cared about me personally nor was that ever inferred.

How do you know it wasn’t ever inferred? An inference is what someone interprets for themselves. Seems you mean implied, not inferred. If you’re going to call someone out on reading comprehension, it would be best if you used proper vocabulary. Just a tip.

Would you not agree that a camera system is complete when it offers a full range of lenses? From affordable to more boutique? Their full frame lenses certainly cover that and always have.

Personally, I think a system is complete when it offers all the lenses I want. From a manufacturer’s standpoint, a system is never complete, if it was there’d be no need to offer new products.

Canon has never built out their APS-C lens lineup. Therefore, I conclude that Canon doesn’t care to develop their APS-C line and shows no indication they ever will. They’re perfectly happy with an incomplete, beginner/consumer lens selection.

I agree. Why does offering just a relatively small number of native lenses for crop bodies mean Canon “doesn’t care about APS-C at all”? That was your initial statement. Canon has sold and continues to sell far more APS-C than FF cameras. Of course they care about a segment that generates a significant portion of their revenue.

This has nothing to do with knowing camera markets, as it’s obviously an incomplete lens lineup by any metric.

No, by your metric. Looking at camera and lens sales, most crop camera buyers never buy more than the 1-2 lenses that come with their camera.

They sell plenty sub-$1000 cameras and slow lenses and creating a fast standard zoom is not worth Canon’s R&D to do so.

Indeed. That’s a business decision being made by people who —unlike you— actually understand the camera market.

I made my opinion on an observation. You’ve told me both my opinion and observation are wrong because I don’t know the camera market?

Right. Nothing you’ve said changes that.

 

[Cariboucoach]

Right. So the people who claim, 'this lens is slow and dark and useless' know more about the market than the company who designed the lens and predicted demand would be lower than it is. Sure, sure. Troll logic stinks worse than actual trolls.

I appologise for miscommunicating. Canon, as you have stated many times in the past, knows their market much better than any of us. And no, I am not a nuroanatomist, I am not that smart so my logic may be flawed. I am just an average Joe who likes photography. But I am also Not a troll. It is just disappointing recently it seems like the industry keeps on coming out saying tat demand was higher than they thought it would be.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I’m saying Canon doesn’t have interest in developing fast lenses for APS-C.

Sorry, but it is too early to say that.
I do understand your perspective.
Canon made a lens that you could not care less about.
That does not necessarily mean that they won't make lenses you do care about eventually.
If you got tired of waiting and moved on to Fuji that is fine.
You are under no obligation to wait around for Canon.
I have no way of knowing what lenses Canon will make and when but they still have plenty of holes in their full-frame lineup.
Out of the three lenses that Canon introduced one is an APS-C lens.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It is just disappointing recently it seems like the industry keeps on coming out saying tat demand was higher than they thought it would be.

Well, it is better than "The demand is lower than we thought it would be and we are going out of business." but I tend to look on the bright side.

 

[EricN]

Well, it is better than "The demand is lower than we thought it would be and we are going out of business." but I tend to look on the bright side.

I definitely prefer Canon's "your new lens will arrive slower than we expected," than, "We hope you can accept buying Nikon Z because you won't be able to buy any more Canon."