Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM & Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM II Discontinued

EOS 4 Life

EOS RP
Sep 20, 2020
457
309
Why do you assume the R and RF line is more profitable? You are equating profits with cost, but they aren't the same. The R and RF lines are more expensive, but the profit margins on the EF line are likely much higher since all the development and embedded costs have long since been paid for.
I agree.
The RP and R are much cheaper than the latest 6D and 5D.
I assume that new versions of those cameras would cost about the same as R6 and R5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

-pekr-

EOS R5
CR Pro
That doesn't follow, unless you didn't show some step in your argument.

They could discontinue every EF and EF-S lens and not touch EF-M.

In my book, it follows perfectly. Many ppl will state, that having larger lens does not fit the EOS-M and that ppl were not buying EF lens while on Rebels, thinking, that one day, they might use those on their FF body. Wrong!

So, the first mistake for Canon was not providing a compatibility with RF lens. The second mistake is, that they somehow EOL useful lenses preliminarily imo. Of course we can argue, how many ppl would have any such transition options in mind, but I had and every single DSLR Canon user I have met, discussiong the lens option, had that in mind too.

I can see only two ways from that:

  1. Canon really having balls to continue with the EOS-M, announcing new lens designs for the M mount.
  2. Canon slow scrapping EOS-M, doing the smallest possible APS-C with the RF mount, including the dedicated APS-C RF lens.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,563
1,391
[..]
People want mirrorless - like I said yesterday, I’m not sure if they know WHY they want mirrorless but it’s the trend and it’s what the marketing is pushing and it’s becoming harder and harder to convince the masses to look at DSLR when all of their friends are driving the latest mirrorless.[..]
For me, it started with wanting a smaller Canon ILC to take on my honeymoon and noticing the EOS-M fire sale. After getting back I discovered that Exposure Simulation and on-screen magnification makes using the MP-E almost easy!
But that's a very, very niche use case :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bert63

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
355
206
Australia
You joking right? Yeah joking...
No, not at all. Only the 24-70 f/2.8L is of interest. Apart from that in Australia the RF glass is a total rip-off, 30% dearer at least than the EF versions. Also hate the new super-slow superteles, so as a birder they offer nothing to entice me into RF glass.
 

MartinF.

EOS 6D, 5D mkIV and some good EF lenses. DPP4 user
Feb 2, 2016
83
56
Denmark
So no 5D5 then? Anyone?

(if anyone still seriously doubted that Canon was done with higher end DSLRs then I think is the proverbial writing on the wall... Stick a fork in it.)
Unfortunately I don't think so. It has earlier been leaked from Canon that there will be no direct 5D mkIV successor. My personally quess is/was that there will be one final EF mount camera - something between 6D mkII and 5DmkIV. Just to finish off the EF mount era, and a final camera for all the EF lenses out there. They have not yet official abandoned the EF mount - I quess that will be within the next five years. So a final EF mount DSLR with tree years form now? - well just guessing....
 

MartinF.

EOS 6D, 5D mkIV and some good EF lenses. DPP4 user
Feb 2, 2016
83
56
Denmark
Yeah, it definitely does. A lot of people have been predicting this for a long time now.
still guess for at final EF mount DSLR - something between 6D mkII and 5DmkIV - a officiel final tribute one or to years before they kill off the EF mount lens production approx five years from now (just guessing).
 
  • Like
Reactions: dwarven

hollybush

EOS M6 Mark II
Feb 1, 2012
54
31
If it's really true that the 70–200mm f/4 IS II is being discontinued, I think Canon are playing with fire.

I can't be the only one who isn't ready for an all-mirrorless system but is considering adding one mirrorless body to my Canon SLR system. In my case it is the the R6, for video and better AF with bird and animal photography, but for others it might be other some other reason like wanting a silent shutter.

But for things I won't need the R6 for I want to continue using my DSLR. Therefore, I need lenses, and if one of my lenses breaks I want to be able to buy a new replacement from Canon, rather than used. And of all my lenses, my 70–200mm f/4 IS is the second oldest and the most worn, and they are known to have a pattern failure with the AF. I've had orphaned systems before where lenses had to be hunted down used (not so easy for some rarer lenses in Australia) and I'm not going back there ever again.

If I really won't be able to replace one or two lenses should I need to, that changes the whole calculation about whether to get the R6 at all, because then the mirrorless isn't a second body for special uses but the main body. And, frankly, the R6 is not good enough and the R5 is a ludicrous price here in Australia. (Pro tip for Canon: 1 AUD = 84 YEN, 5% *higher* than its usual value of 80 ¥. The prices are just chiselling.)

Nobody expects Canon to keep cruft like the 85mm f/1.8 EF around now, or to keep the EF L lenses around for another decade. But it's altogether too soon to be discontinuing bread and butter L lenses like the 70–200mm f4 IS II if Canon want to coax customers gradually over to the R system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbr and dtaylor

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,053
2,310
Unfortunately I don't think so. It has earlier been leaked from Canon that there will be no direct 5D mkIV successor. My personally quess is/was that there will be one final EF mount camera - something between 6D mkII and 5DmkIV. Just to finish off the EF mount era, and a final camera for all the EF lenses out there. They have not yet official abandoned the EF mount - I quess that will be within the next five years. So a final EF mount DSLR with tree years form now? - well just guessing....


It was pure sarcasm based on the discussions here previously..

I knew there would be no 5D4 when the R5 announced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,682
1,241
Nobody expects Canon to keep cruft like the 85mm f/1.8 EF around now, or to keep the EF L lenses around for another decade. But it's altogether too soon to be discontinuing bread and butter L lenses like the 70–200mm f4 IS II if Canon want to coax customers gradually over to the R system.

What is the source claiming the 70-200 f/4L IS II is being discontinued? It's in stock at B&H, Adorama, and Amazon. Mind you B&H shows the 40mm as discontinued.

Edit: I realized after posting this that it sounds like I'm asking CR to reveal a source. I'm not. For some reason I thought it was showing as discontinued at some store and that's how this started.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,939
705
Davidson, NC
Hey, I like that lens!!! :D
I do, too. I bought a refurb when it was on sale. I was using the 100mm macro for portraits, but thought the look too “clinical.” So I got the very affordable 85mm and found it much better than I expected. I’m not part of the crowd that wants portraits with one eye in focus and one eye blurry, so f/1.8 is plenty big for me.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,939
705
Davidson, NC
What is the source claiming the 70-200 f/4L IS II is being discontinued? It's in stock at B&H, Adorama, and Amazon. Mind you B&H shows the 40mm as discontinued.

Edit: I realized after posting this that it sounds like I'm asking CR to reveal a source. I'm not. For some reason I thought it was showing as discontinued at some store and that's how this started.
My friend who works at a camera store in RI posted that he got a list a month ago from Canon of lenses to be discontinued.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,878
3,051
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
What is the source claiming the 70-200 f/4L IS II is being discontinued? It's in stock at B&H, Adorama, and Amazon. Mind you B&H shows the 40mm as discontinued.

Edit: I realized after posting this that it sounds like I'm asking CR to reveal a source. I'm not. For some reason I thought it was showing as discontinued at some store and that's how this started.
I also question the source. I'll wait to see some solid evidence before believing this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EOS 4 Life

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,581
1,897
Hamburg, Germany
I have to disagree.

Canon has an interest in maintaining two product lines if they cannot successfully migrate existing customers to the new line. The camera market is shrinking and they can ill afford to just write off even 20% of their embedded customer base, so if they find they are going to lose loyal customers with high levels of disposable income they will adjust accordingly. I doubt if Canon knows the answer to that at this time and are probable hedging their bets.

Why do you assume the R and RF line is more profitable? You are equating profits with cost, but they aren't the same. The R and RF lines are more expensive, but the profit margins on the EF line are likely much higher since all the development and embedded costs have long since been paid for.

I'd like to see what heavy incentives Canon is offering to convert users to the R line. So far, I'm not seeing any incentives to customers. The R and RF lines are more expensive and there have been no rebates or other incentives offered that would reduce the cost to customers. Simply discontinuing EF lenses and DSLR bodies is not an incentive.
You make a few points that I don't see the same way.

The market is shrinking. But that does not mean that Canon has to focus on maximizing the absolute number of customers they maintain. Survival in a market niche isn't about size, it is about the relation between the prices customers are willing to pay and what it costs the manufacturer to provide the respective goods. It is better to specialize into products that are really profitable instead of insisting on capturing the whole market only to just scrape by. Currently, Canon has two seperate product lines that cover overlapping markets. There are both customers that are not interested in mirrorless for a variety of valid reasons (battery life, latency, eye fatigue, ...) and customers that are not interested in DSLR (just coming into photography from a smartphone, or prioritizing size over other aspects, for example). But for the most part, I believe the market Canon targets is just people who just want to take high quality images in an enjoyable fashion, and most customers will not restrict their purchase to either DSLR or mirrorless and focus on more important specs.

You say I am equating profits with costs, but I fully agree they are not the same. Although I believe you meant price there - which is also very different from profit, which I understand to mean price minus costs here. So why do I assume the RF ecosystem is more profitable? Well, for one that is what Canon seems to want investors to believe, since they use that wording in the financial reports I've seen. But it also makes sense just from this:

They have two product lines. There are a number of processes and components that they can share between both. The batteries, Digic X SoC, image sensor manufacturing, memory interface, etc. Then there are those that differ, like the specific tooling for the seperate body shapes and mounts, but at least the materials are the same. And then there are differing components.

Exclusive to EF are mostly the mirror, the seperate metering and focusing sensor assemblies. In the RF ecosystem, there are EVF screens, which aren't shared with DSLR, and technically also the IBIS assembly, though I'll get back to that later. While high density OLED displays are an improving technology that is also heavily used in seperate consumer electronics industries (smartphones, VR headsets, ...), the mirrors are a mature technology and for the metering and focusing it is just extra CMOS sensors for the latest generation of DSLR we've seen (1DX III, D6). Crucially, these are the components that need to improve to offer technical advancements in FPS and AF tracking. Given that even in their most expensive, professional tool Canon could not match the AF capabilities already found in the much lower end R6 (that is just a marginally newer product), I think it is fair to assume pushing the capability of DSLR AF is more expensive than even a 1 series customer base can justify.

In short, I'm under the impression that the components exclusive to the RF ecosystem are cheaper to source/produce and develop, than those exclusive to EF. If you have some differing view of that, I am interested.

As for lenses, it is simpler. The RF mount lifts some design constraints, making development easier or enabling new desings like the RF 28-70 mm 2.8 for more attractive offerings. And they have the benefit of being designed specifically for the current level of manufacturing technoloy and most importantly automation.

So with the assumption that the market for both ecosystems is largely the same and that the manufacturing costs exclusive to EF is greater than those for RF, that means two things:

- Most of the time, Canon will either sell an EF or an RF body. Meaning if they want to maximize profit, they should promote the more profitable one.
- With sales going down, there is more room to breathe in the RF portfolio pricing. For one, they have already established it as being more pricy. And the exlusive components are most likely being sourced externally and therefore not subject to as much economy of scale effects as the AF/metering sensors, which I assume are made in house.

So the more people stop buying EF, the more costly EF becomes to keep around.

There is another factor to consider with regards to the shrinking market. It is not shrinking the same way and for the same reasons at all price segments. On the low end, there is substantial shrinking going on, mostly due to people just not caring enough about IQ to justify spending and carrying so much over their already decent smartphone. And while also true for all other segments, saturation plays a role in the high end. With both the RF mount and RF lenses, Canon can stimulate demand somewhat just by offering something new and shiny that people can buy all over again. So while you are right that R&D for most of the EF lens portolio has fully been paid for, for most EF lenses the people who wanted one have already bought one. So mid-term you can expect a higher number of units sold for a given RF design, than the EF counterpart, lowering costs due to economies of scale. That's not what I meant with the incentives you questioned though.

While I disagree that 'crippling' EF (no eye EF update for the 1DX III in LiveView, no 7D III, no 5D V, ...) is not incentivizing towards RF, there are clear benefits to the RF system that elevate it above EF. You Get What You See is the classic one, but AF performance and mostly the IBIS are others. The EF image circle restraints and the mirrorbox, as well as the issue of misalignment between the OVF image and the sensor image mean that IBIS on EF would have never come close. For AF, I already discussed it. And of course the exciting lens designs that the lack of equivalents in EF (or other DSLR mount) indicates would not have been feasible otherwise.

I could elaborate further, but I think I have made my point. In any case, Canon has not shown much effort into keeping EF customers optimistic about the ecosystem. I think they very much have made their choice, and if you are unstatisfied with my explanation for that, attempting to get in touch with someone actually involved in the company would be you best bet for getting a more meaningful one, I think.
 

canonnews

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2017
852
1,401
Canada
www.canonnews.com
What is the source claiming the 70-200 f/4L IS II is being discontinued? It's in stock at B&H, Adorama, and Amazon. Mind you B&H shows the 40mm as discontinued.

Edit: I realized after posting this that it sounds like I'm asking CR to reveal a source. I'm not. For some reason I thought it was showing as discontinued at some store and that's how this started.
we went through this on this post, and possibly the reason why these lenses are being said as being discontinued. It certainly appears as if they are.

 
Last edited:

bdeutsch

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 20, 2011
80
18
www.headshotsnyc.com

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,556
536
Never had a problem.
Thank you, interesting.
So, you just call sales dept and ask them what's the best price they can give you?

Have you done this on both bodies and lenses?

Thanks in advance,
C
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,878
3,051
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
You make a few points that I don't see the same way.

The market is shrinking. But that does not mean that Canon has to focus on maximizing the absolute number of customers they maintain. Survival in a market niche isn't about size, it is about the relation between the prices customers are willing to pay and what it costs the manufacturer to provide the respective goods. It is better to specialize into products that are really profitable instead of insisting on capturing the whole market only to just scrape by. Currently, Canon has two seperate product lines that cover overlapping markets. There are both customers that are not interested in mirrorless for a variety of valid reasons (battery life, latency, eye fatigue, ...) and customers that are not interested in DSLR (just coming into photography from a smartphone, or prioritizing size over other aspects, for example). But for the most part, I believe the market Canon targets is just people who just want to take high quality images in an enjoyable fashion, and most customers will not restrict their purchase to either DSLR or mirrorless and focus on more important specs.

You say I am equating profits with costs, but I fully agree they are not the same. Although I believe you meant price there - which is also very different from profit, which I understand to mean price minus costs here. So why do I assume the RF ecosystem is more profitable? Well, for one that is what Canon seems to want investors to believe, since they use that wording in the financial reports I've seen. But it also makes sense just from this:

They have two product lines. There are a number of processes and components that they can share between both. The batteries, Digic X SoC, image sensor manufacturing, memory interface, etc. Then there are those that differ, like the specific tooling for the seperate body shapes and mounts, but at least the materials are the same. And then there are differing components.

Exclusive to EF are mostly the mirror, the seperate metering and focusing sensor assemblies. In the RF ecosystem, there are EVF screens, which aren't shared with DSLR, and technically also the IBIS assembly, though I'll get back to that later. While high density OLED displays are an improving technology that is also heavily used in seperate consumer electronics industries (smartphones, VR headsets, ...), the mirrors are a mature technology and for the metering and focusing it is just extra CMOS sensors for the latest generation of DSLR we've seen (1DX III, D6). Crucially, these are the components that need to improve to offer technical advancements in FPS and AF tracking. Given that even in their most expensive, professional tool Canon could not match the AF capabilities already found in the much lower end R6 (that is just a marginally newer product), I think it is fair to assume pushing the capability of DSLR AF is more expensive than even a 1 series customer base can justify.

In short, I'm under the impression that the components exclusive to the RF ecosystem are cheaper to source/produce and develop, than those exclusive to EF. If you have some differing view of that, I am interested.

As for lenses, it is simpler. The RF mount lifts some design constraints, making development easier or enabling new desings like the RF 28-70 mm 2.8 for more attractive offerings. And they have the benefit of being designed specifically for the current level of manufacturing technoloy and most importantly automation.

So with the assumption that the market for both ecosystems is largely the same and that the manufacturing costs exclusive to EF is greater than those for RF, that means two things:

- Most of the time, Canon will either sell an EF or an RF body. Meaning if they want to maximize profit, they should promote the more profitable one.
- With sales going down, there is more room to breathe in the RF portfolio pricing. For one, they have already established it as being more pricy. And the exlusive components are most likely being sourced externally and therefore not subject to as much economy of scale effects as the AF/metering sensors, which I assume are made in house.

So the more people stop buying EF, the more costly EF becomes to keep around.

There is another factor to consider with regards to the shrinking market. It is not shrinking the same way and for the same reasons at all price segments. On the low end, there is substantial shrinking going on, mostly due to people just not caring enough about IQ to justify spending and carrying so much over their already decent smartphone. And while also true for all other segments, saturation plays a role in the high end. With both the RF mount and RF lenses, Canon can stimulate demand somewhat just by offering something new and shiny that people can buy all over again. So while you are right that R&D for most of the EF lens portolio has fully been paid for, for most EF lenses the people who wanted one have already bought one. So mid-term you can expect a higher number of units sold for a given RF design, than the EF counterpart, lowering costs due to economies of scale. That's not what I meant with the incentives you questioned though.

While I disagree that 'crippling' EF (no eye EF update for the 1DX III in LiveView, no 7D III, no 5D V, ...) is not incentivizing towards RF, there are clear benefits to the RF system that elevate it above EF. You Get What You See is the classic one, but AF performance and mostly the IBIS are others. The EF image circle restraints and the mirrorbox, as well as the issue of misalignment between the OVF image and the sensor image mean that IBIS on EF would have never come close. For AF, I already discussed it. And of course the exciting lens designs that the lack of equivalents in EF (or other DSLR mount) indicates would not have been feasible otherwise.

I could elaborate further, but I think I have made my point. In any case, Canon has not shown much effort into keeping EF customers optimistic about the ecosystem. I think they very much have made their choice, and if you are unstatisfied with my explanation for that, attempting to get in touch with someone actually involved in the company would be you best bet for getting a more meaningful one, I think.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. You make a number of valid points.

My primary objection is to those who make unequivocal statements that Canon is abandoning the EF and DSLR segment. They might be. I honestly don't know. I was a relatively early adopter of the R and while I personally like it and can see the protentional, I recognize that there remain many advantages for DSLRs as well. I personally view myself as somewhat agnostic on Canon's future direction. I can see and make arguments both in favor of continuing DSLR and R lines and against continuing both.

I feel there are just too many unknowns for anyone to accurately predict the future direction Canon will take. Honestly, I doubt if Canon knows. Nikon has said they will continue to develop and release DSLRs, which given the history of the two companies, would argue that Canon is likely to do the same. At this point, Canon can keep their options open and see where the market goes.

I would, though, like to address your comments about survival in a niche market. I agree with your statement that it "isn't about size, it is about the relation between the prices customers are willing to pay and what it costs the manufacturer to provide the respective goods." Pursuing 100% of a market is a good way for any company to go bankrupt, so yes, the cost/benefit of keeping all Canon customers may not be cost effective. On the other hand, the cost of keeping a customer is always less than that of capturing a new customer, especially in a market that is either stable or shrinking.

The unknown is what percentage of existing customers Canon can retain with the R system and what percentage they will lose either to competitors (If Nikon does indeed continue to develop DSLRs) or simply lose to people deciding not to purchase new cameras (the current state of DSLRs and EF system is good enough that one can argue that no one truly 'needs' a new camera or lens and given the aging out of the customer base, it is certainly plausible that many current customers may never buy another camera if the R system does not excite them).

I would argue that given that Canon currently is well-positioned to maintain both lines (since that is what they have been doing and are making a profit) it is most likely that they will continue to develop the R system and carefully watch the numbers. If at some point they determine they have maxed out on converting existing customers to the new system and see they still have a sizeable base of customers who remain attached to DSLRs, we may see them update their DSLR and EF lines. The refresh cycle may be longer and future EF lenses may simply be III, IV or V versions of existing lenses, but it is certainly plausible that could occur.

The biggest problem of course, is not RF vs. EF, it is interchangeable lens cameras vs. everything else. And, as far as that goes, I wouldn't even venture a guess as to where things are headed.
 
<-- start Taboola -->