Canon is developing more super-telephoto lenses [CR2]

Ph0t0

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 27, 2015
54
34
Do people here not know that we can rent lenses?
No one should buy any of these lenses unless they are going to use them often.
I think you are the one that does not know that not everyone lives where it is easy or even possible to rent every lens. Especially for a reasonable price.
 

JohnC

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
151
166
Gainesville,GA
Uhhm, for some definition of "most" I guess :D Even a single big white is nowhere near affordable to the vast majority of photographers in the world, never mind one per year! That's definitely 1% territory (or more like 0.01% territory, globally speaking).
I agree, a 15k per year budget for what many consider hobby is quite a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: H. Jones

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
784
799
Scotland
Okay so this is wildly off topic but I have to point a few things out, as I live in Scotland but most forum members don't, and may be swayed by your statements. Your original suggestion that an average photographer could afford a ~£10k lens per year was silly, and you're massaging the figures even as you pull back from it (next it was 'not just once in a lifetime'!).
Did you also read that my original statement was in reply to someone saying I could never afford one or any photographer. Or that my estimates only changed the taking into account for people living in countries that don't have as high wages?

You've ignored income tax, national insurance, and a whole host of other living expenses - phone? Internet? Clothing? A computer to process your photos? Even then, rents are considerably higher than you state - I've just checked and the average for a 2 bed property is only just under £500/mo in a handful of postcodes, most are much higher, and for a 3 bed, far higher still. Buses don't generally take you where a big lens is useful - trust me, I've spent years doing wildlife photography without a car and public transport doesn't tend to go where the birds are (or at the best times for them); it's not impossible, but seems an odd choice if you're also saying a car is affordable (but once again, you've missed off insurance, road tax, fuel, maintenance, etc). Living alone is more expensive than sharing, btw, as some costs are fixed.

I didn't ignore income tax and national insurance. I based my figures on take home pay. The chaps in the co-op take home around £12,000 and the most junior position I can think of with a degree (of which you can get 2 for free) has a take home pay of £26,000.

I live not to far off St Andrews and a 3 bed stone built house is £500 a month, this is what I pay. If I want a cheeper house I could rent a brick built house.

No one said anything about taking the bus to your photography destination, I said you don't need to own a car. I worked 20 years without a car and only finally bought one with 11,500 miles on it for £2000 and it sits there. Car insurance is £26/month, road tax is £20 a year. And a car is not a necessity. You can buy a lens this year and a car next year.

You don't need a phone. BT full fibre 910 is under £100/year. You don't need to buy new clothes, mine have been fine for 20 years.

Any £10k+ purchase is a big, rare thing for almost everyone, and when it is non-essential, as these lenses are for even the vast majority of photographers, making it sound casual and easy is ridiculous. Saving £100 a month (which is a lot on a modest income!) it would take over eight years (although in any case I suspect more people buy them on credit and pay it back over several years, rather than saving up). Let's be realistic. (This is why the budget super telephoto lenses are so important - far far more people can justify a £1000 lens even with numerous compromises).

No one said it isn't a big purchase, I said I expect a photographer could buy one a year as I based that on the known incomes of photographers in my area. As for hobbyists, well that depends on your day job but I would still expect it to be possible to buy more than one if this was your passion in life. Frick my neighbours happily pay the equivalent in golf club memberships.

I don't know why we have changed from a specific set of photographers to all photographers. Why would a wedding and events photographer buy a 600mm f/4 and why would I buy a 85mm f/1.2? Why in a forum where people are happily buying £4000 R5's on release day that it is unexpected that photographers would buy more than one super tele lens? Having a 300 f/2.8, 180/200-400 f/4 and a 500 or 600mm has always seemed to be the norm for this set, I can see this on every YouTuber and other photographers I meet.

This is a incredibly daft discussion to be having. I can't imagine a photographer is slaving away for the absolute minimum wage yet is happily touting along two R5's, the trinity, and one or more fast prime.
 

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
784
799
Scotland
Do people here not know that we can rent lenses?
No one should buy any of these lenses unless they are going to use them often.

It is close to £400 and sometimes more to rent a 600mm f/4.0, if you need it more than a few occasions a year that money was just burned. It is more economical when you know that this one weekend in the year that you know you need a 600mm f/4.0 and that your regular lenses aren't going to cut it. But for a working pro, they are regularly using the lens/lenses for the assignment and maybe can't be on a waiting list, fork out that money, or they aren't permitted to take it abroad. I am sure there are many more reasons, but cost is the biggie for me. I will happily save and buy a big lens, but I wouldn't want to rent one multiple times. And some of the rental places want a deposit, so you have to have a credit card for the value of the lens and then have that card sitting minus the value of the lens until it passes inspection on return all the while you are treating this thing like it is a baby.
 

JohnC

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
151
166
Gainesville,GA
You would end up with a lot in the bank. The 300mm f/2.8 + 200-400mm f/4.0 + 600mm f/4.0 would only take 2 years and after that you run out of things to buy.
Sure, if big white lenses were all I needed to budget for. In fact I’d just buy them all the first year quite easily.

My point is that the average non pro isn’t in a position to budget over 1k per month on photography. If they were there would be a far larger number of these lenses sold.
Does it happen? Absolutely. Is it normal? Not even close.
 

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
784
799
Scotland
Or 300-800 f5.6 like the big old Sigma! Maybe with new technology...it could be really nice!?

I also hope that the 200-500 gets the 1.4TC included!
And please not the silver back like the two new white RFs...

I think silver is here to stay, though hopefully they can make it more elegant in a new design. I think the built in 1.4x TC is great, but with the lens already getting to 500mm would be happy without the built in TC.
 

lnz

I'm New Here
Jul 9, 2020
13
15
If Canon comes out with a RF200-500 4.0, where is the place for a RF500 4.0? Besides (maybe) extreme lightweight and portability? Still better optics? Any guess?
Price EF200-400 F4 is 11k, 400 F4 is 7k
 

dilbert

EOS M6 Mark II
Aug 12, 2010
65
51
Car loan? The bus is cheeper and you can have a sleep on a bus. And you can buy a decent car for under £2000 (mine was exactly £2000) if you really need one and can't use the bus. And yes, a normal photographer should be able to afford one a big white. For some it'll be nothing, for me I can do one a year, for others it might take three years. But for a wildlife shooter you are likely to have more than one and it shouldn't be unthinkable on a forum full of photographers that that is an expectation. Especially not in a thread about these lenses.

EVERYONE has seen what kind of car £2000 buys you on Top Gear. It's not pretty. And who exactly is going to take the bus to a photoshoot with £25000 worth of camera gear in their back pack? Yeah...
 

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
784
799
Scotland
EVERYONE has seen what kind of car £2000 buys you on Top Gear. It's not pretty. And who exactly is going to take the bus to a photoshoot with £25000 worth of camera gear in their back pack? Yeah...

My car does car things and cost £2000. No one said you use it for photography and no one said you take the bus to the highlands. Runabout George gets me to the squirrel hide and back just fine, when I need a bigger car I rent one for the days I need it. Or I take the train or bus. However, the discussion was about affording things, and cars often come up with my co-workers. They don't get the need for £25,000 camera equipment, and I don't get the need for a £25,000 car when mine gets me to the same places, is only on 30,000 miles after 3 years, and has only needed a new calliper and brakes. And I did almost 20 years without a car due to epilepsy disallowing me.

Why is it so impossible to believe that people can skip buying a car the year they need a big lens or cut some other expense. Clothes were mentioned too, you only need new clothes every 10-20 years. I am not saying this should be your yearly norm, I am saying a professional photographer should be able to afford more than one super-tele lens and originally I state'd one a year was reasonable (based on income levels in Scotland).
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,194
2,067
My car does car things and cost £2000. No one said you use it for photography and no one said you take the bus to the highlands. Runabout George gets me to the squirrel hide and back just fine, when I need a bigger car I rent one for the days I need it. Or I take the train or bus. However, the discussion was about affording things, and cars often come up with my co-workers. They don't get the need for £25,000 camera equipment, and I don't get the need for a £25,000 car when mine gets me to the same places, is only on 30,000 miles after 3 years, and has only needed a new calliper and brakes. And I did almost 20 years without a car due to epilepsy disallowing me.

Why is it so impossible to believe that people can skip buying a car the year they need a big lens or cut some other expense. Clothes were mentioned too, you only need new clothes every 10-20 years. I am not saying this should be your yearly norm, I am saying a professional photographer should be able to afford more than one super-tele lens and originally I state'd one a year was reasonable (based on income levels in Scotland).

A LOT of people are into buying a new car every few years. A car payment is a part of their lives.

I'm not one of them. The only time I bought a new car, I kept it for over 25 years. It didn't owe me so much as a farthing when it finally blew a valve, that's for sure! (I'd buy another one if they still made them--and probably end up owning it until dead.)
 

FamilyGuy

EOS 90D
Feb 5, 2020
168
272
Car loan? The bus is cheeper and you can have a sleep on a bus. And you can buy a decent car for under £2000 (mine was exactly £2000) if you really need one and can't use the bus. And yes, a normal photographer should be able to afford one a big white. For some it'll be nothing, for me I can do one a year, for others it might take three years. But for a wildlife shooter you are likely to have more than one and it shouldn't be unthinkable on a forum full of photographers that that is an expectation. Especially not in a thread about these lenses.

Normal wage here starts at £18,000 to £26,000 per year with £500/month to rent for a 2-3 bed house, £160 council tax, and £200 to food, with £120 covering 4 weekly bus passes. A photographers wage should be way higher than that I should hope. The normal monthly expense for a person is £1000/month assuming they are living alone in a 2 bed house.

Technically the math works if one exists to eat, sleep, and take pictures. I’ve got kids to feed, college, vacations we take the family on, a future to save for, health to maintain, etc...
 

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
784
799
Scotland
Technically the math works if one exists to eat, sleep, and take pictures. I’ve got kids to feed, college, vacations we take the family on, a future to save for, health to maintain, etc...

College/university is free. All health matters are free. I am sure professional photographers are on more than the most minimum income.
 

JohnC

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
151
166
Gainesville,GA
College/university is free. All health matters are free. I am sure professional photographers are on more than the most minimum income.
I don’t believe those things are “free” for a lot of people. In fact they are not actually free for anyone. In one way or another people are paying for it...at least most are.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,861
8,926
College/university is free. All health matters are free. I am sure professional photographers are on more than the most minimum income.
In Scotland they are free. College/university is not free in the rest of the UK, USA etc.
 

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
784
799
Scotland
I don’t believe those things are “free” for a lot of people. In fact they are not actually free for anyone. In one way or another people are paying for it...at least most are.

If you pay £0 tax a year or £1m tax a year you get the same access to education and healthcare services so they are indeed free as in free beer. Certainly not a 'expense' you should be budgeting for when deciding how much money you are spending on business and/or hobbies. And again, the topic keeps devolving into all kinds daft scenarios to fight the case that photographers can buy these lenses... if pro's can't buy them, who can? How is a business surviving if it can't buy the tools?
 
<-- start Taboola -->