Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM II mentioned [CR2]

[roby17269]

"Never give a sucker an even break" (Canon, advised by W.C. Fields).

That's it, another one joins the meanie list

 

[Del Paso]

what's not to like about me?!? I'm a lovable guy
I've spent so much money with Canon.... (yes yes I know that in the grand scheme of things, I do not matter to Canon.... but they matter to me)
You and @neuroanatomist are just meanies

You do matter to Canon!
If it weren't for you, they would never have designed an RF 1,2/35, never!
They will even name it Robynon.
(Written in the entrails of a roadkilled Meep Meep.)
PS: I don't want to join the meanie list.

 

[neuroanatomist]

PS: I don't want to join the meanie list.

 

[Sporgon]

If you look at the ef 70-200mm f2.8 LIS mk II's S/H value compared to the very slightly improved mk III (mostly flourine coatings to the front element). The mkIII sells for a lot more than the mkII even though they are essentially the same lens.

I believe the mark 3 version may have improved ‘closed loop’ AF with the camera body, resulting in more precision. Not something Canon ever publicised.
But agree with the points you’ve made.

 

[Sporgon]

That's your answer? You sound like a Canon fanboy. i'm not going to buy a 9 year old EF lens that needs an adapter everytime i want to use it. EF is now an obsolete system!

But have you ever tried the EF 35/1.4 II ?
Perfection is hard to beat.

 

[AlanF]

That's it, another one joins the meanie list

Don't take it personally - it's a comment on Canon's general marketing policy.

 

[roby17269]

Don't take it personally - it's a comment on Canon's general marketing policy.

Just kidding! Nothing personal

 

[roby17269]

You do matter to Canon!
If it weren't for you, they would never have designed an RF 1,2/35, never!
They will even name it Robynon.
(Written in the entrails of a roadkilled Meep Meep.)
PS: I don't want to join the meanie list.

At this point, the witchcrat ritual and the naming are the bare minimum to placate my righteous ire

OK ok you're safe... for now

 

[EOS 4 Life]

How would #2 benefit Canon? They are in the business of selling lenses (and cameras and other stuff). If someone buys a lens and then never upgrades that is not good for Canon.
Do you think that most people getting EF lenses are buying them new? Otherwise people sticking to EF lenses or buying them second hand are not bringing Canon much revenues.

They have to introduce new lenses to induce people to upgrade (at least for people moving from EF to RF).
Now it is entirely possible that a fast 35L was de-prioritized compared to 50, 85 and 135 because the EF equivalent 35 1.4L II was more recent than the EF equivalents of the other 3.
But still, 35mm is a classic focal length and one of the most represented in all systems.

In any case, it doesn't matter to Canon that I want it badly. I still want it though

Those EF lenses still exist.
The question is whether enough people would buy a new RF version for Canon to make enough profit.

 

[EricN]

At this point, the witchcrat ritual and the naming are the bare minimum to placate my righteous ire

OK ok you're safe... for now

I have some H. P. Lovecraft books if you think it can help you locate the fabled Necronomicon!

 

[roby17269]

I have some H. P. Lovecraft books if you think it can help you locate the fabled Necronomicon!

NecronomicANon

 

[roby17269]

Those EF lenses still exist.
The question is whether enough people would buy a new RF version for Canon to make enough profit.

Not sure I understand what you mean?
My point was simply: saying that we do not need a new fast RF 35L because there is already a great EF 35mm f/1.4L II may be logical, but it does not do Canon much good, financially speaking

 

[neuroanatomist]

My point was simply: saying that we do not need a new fast RF 35L because there is already a great EF 35mm f/1.4L II may be logical, but it does not do Canon much good, financially speaking

What are the current sales numbers for the EF 35/1.4 II? You’re assuming they’re weak, but none of us know. Canon does.

 

[roby17269]

What are the current sales numbers for the EF 35/1.4 II? You’re assuming they’re weak, but none of us know. Canon does.

Yes I am indeed assuming that. I may be wrong of course.

But would you assume differently? Would you assume that Canon would use manufacturing resources for EF lenses while they cannot make enough RF lenses to fulfil demand? And would you assume that many people are still spending money on new EF lenses? Like a $2K new EF 35 1.4L II? I assume that the second hand market is still healthy.

In the end, yes I don't know. I am stating my opinions based on my logic. It could be that Canon made a boatload of EF 35 1.4L II and they're waiting to sell them before introducing a new RF 35. Don't know. Canon won't tell me

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes I am indeed assuming that. I may be wrong of course.

But would you assume differently? Would you assume that Canon would use manufacturing resources for EF lenses while they cannot make enough RF lenses to fulfil demand? And would you assume that many people are still spending money on new EF lenses? Like a $2K new EF 35 1.4L II? I assume that the second hand market is still healthy.

In the end, yes I don't know. I am stating my opinions based on my logic. It could be that Canon made a boatload of EF 35 1.4L II and they're waiting to sell them before introducing a new RF 35. Don't know. Canon won't tell me

I doubt they're making more, but it is possible that there is a significant inventory of the EF version. If so, that would give them two very good reasons not to make an RF version.

 

[roby17269]

I doubt they're making more, but it is possible that there is a significant inventory of the EF version. If so, that would give them two very good reasons not to make an RF version.

2 reasons? what would be the other one?
In any case, should Canon be delaying the RF 35 because of unsold inventory of the EF 35, I'd expect I'd have to wait a long time. I'd be really surprised if niche EF lenses are selling well new nowadays, given how aggressively Canon has been retiring non RF stuff

 

[neuroanatomist]

2 reasons? what would be the other one?

An inventory to sell, and the fact that there's an inventory to sell would suggest they overestimated demand for a 35/1.4L.

 

[David - Sydney]

An inventory to sell, and the fact that there's an inventory to sell would suggest they overestimated demand for a 35/1.4L.

If that was the case, then perhaps there would be discounts on the EF35/1.4ii to clear the stock. I haven't seen it on any discount advertising to date.
Canon still doesn't have to replace it with a RF version but existing stock would be costing them money.

 

[Del Paso]

What are the current sales numbers for the EF 35/1.4 II? You’re assuming they’re weak, but none of us know. Canon does.

I just bought one 3 weeks ago....

 

[Sporgon]

I just bought one 3 weeks ago....

Congratulations ! If Heineken made lenses…….
But I’m forgetting, you need 1.2 for low light.