Canon USA increasing prices on select RF and EF lenses

[Bdbtoys]

I quite like the RF 24-105/4, bought it with the EOS R. I had the EF 24-105/4 and swapped it for the EF 24-70/2.8 II. But one of the big advantages of an f/2.8 lens on a DSLR was better AF performance, and that doesn't apply with MILC AF systems. I agree, it was tough to sell myself on the 24-105/4 AND the 24-70/2.8 IS, so rather that swap the former for the latter I kept the former and added the 28-70/2. A beast of a lens, but amazing.

This hit's close to home... I had the 24-105/4 but sold it with my R (after I got the R5) to replace it w/ the 28-70/2 since the R5 has IBIS. But in hindsight was a bit of a mistake on getting rid of one lens before getting the other (as the 28-70/2, by itself wasn't the lens for me). I actually returned the 28-70/2 and got the 24-70/2.8 instead. Although it played a small role, I had the 50/1.2 which factored in as well (which I was keeping). Although I'm happy with what I have, your setup was a very close second place for me... where the AND makes a lot more sense (if not a must).

 

[Bdbtoys]

So, getting the RF 24-105mm F4 L as a beginner (or new to the R system) now, would be/ is 58% more expensive than the deal I got. This is absolutely insane...

Yeah, I always figured it would get cheaper... not more expensive. But I guess that's how things are working out now.

 

[Hector1970]

For the short term a smart move by Canon to exploit shortages to increase prices.
I'm not sure if its smart in the longer term. I think it will create inertia.
Alot of purchasers will stop and think whether they want to get caught up on the R system as its cost is increasing rather than falling over time.
Even a user like me who is used to spending alot on photography find the R prices prohibitive.
Hopefully this will reverse with supply chain improvements.
It's where we need a strong Nikon, Sony, Sigma to provide price competition.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

A lot of purchasers will stop and think whether they want to get caught up on the R system as its cost is increasing rather than falling over time.

Yup, that's happening already. My future father-in-law wanted to get into the R System (currently he shoots with a 750d) after he tested my R and some lenses over a few weeks. So he looked at the 24-105mm F4 and decided definitely NOT BUY IN...

Instead, in two weeks from now he's going a "touch-n-try" workshop to test Sony and Nikon gear. It goes this fast.

If I were in his position, I wouldn't join the R system anymore. I also expect a lot people to join Sony because they have tons of good and affordable options lensewise. I personally am glad I got all my lenses I wanted/ need expect for a UWA lense because that way I can stay with Canon

 

[StevenA]

Fortunately I anticipated this some time ago and picked up all of the RF glass I needed/wanted. It's only going up in value from here, folks.

 

[entoman]

I noticed the RF800 retailing in the UK for £1099 recently, when previously I'd seen it for £999. There's definitely a psychological barrier at a thousand! And I was hoping it would come down in price (though I've seen it for less occasionally).

You can still get the RF 800mm F11 for just £790, from Panamoz, and it comes with a 3 year parts and labour UK warranty. I've used them for years and they usually deliver within 4-5 working days. This was one of a series taken with the RF 800mm yesterday on the Hampshire coast.

 

[entoman]

I quite like the RF 24-105/4, bought it with the EOS R. I had the EF 24-105/4 and swapped it for the EF 24-70/2.8 II. But one of the big advantages of an f/2.8 lens on a DSLR was better AF performance, and that doesn't apply with MILC AF systems. I agree, it was tough to sell myself on the 24-105/4 AND the 24-70/2.8 IS, so rather that swap the former for the latter I kept the former and added the 28-70/2. A beast of a lens, but amazing.

RF24-105mm F4L is an extremely sharp lens and among the fastest focusing too. My only gripe is that the zoom and focus rings are much too close together, and have the same rubber texture, so I quite often find myself grabbing the wrong one.

 

[entoman]

I am seeing price increases of IT/teleco equipment manufacturers across the board at the moment. Some may be taking the excuse to increase margins given a lower sales volume due to shortages though

The price of just about everything is rising sharply - food, fuel, gas, electricity, electronics, holidays, you name it! It's a worldwide issue.

There seem to be multiple reasons, but primarily supply/demand issues, and companies trying to compensate for lost income due to Covid restrictions. In the photography industry, there's also the issue of smartphones which have virtually eliminated the compact/novice camera, so manufacturers are having to concentrate more on high end products that have lower unit sales.

 

[macrunning]

And they wonder why the market is shrinking so much and everyone uses iPhones to take pictures. Being a photographer for fun is not very attainable for most and is very unfortunate. Please don't give me that crap about there are plenty of cheap cameras/lenses out there because that's exactly what they are.

 

[neuroanatomist]

RF24-105mm F4L is an extremely sharp lens and among the fastest focusing too. My only gripe is that the zoom and focus rings are much too close together, and have the same rubber texture, so I quite often find myself grabbing the wrong one.

They are close together, but the texture is different and the zoom ring has a ‘bump’ from a diameter increase while the focus ring is flat. The 14-35/4L zoom ring has that same ‘bump’.

Across all 5 of my RF lenses, the focus rings all have the same finer texture with smaller ridges and the zoom rings all have the same coarser texture with larger ridges.

Of course, with gloves on you just have to remember the relative positions…and those are reversed on black vs. white lenses.

 

[Surab]

The biggest disappointment to me is the price increase on the 24-105 F4.
I must say that as an amateur the E mount is looking more and more like the "sane" choice thanks to Sigma and Tamron. Hopefully they'll release RF glass soon as well.

 

[entoman]

They are close together, but the texture is different and the zoom ring has a ‘bump’ from a diameter increase while the focus ring is flat. The 14-35/4L zoom ring has that same ‘bump’.

Across all 5 of my RF lenses, the focus rings all have the same finer texture with smaller ridges and the zoom rings all have the same coarser texture with larger ridges.

Of course, with gloves on you just have to remember the relative positions…and those are reversed on black vs. white lenses.

Yes, when I said the texture was the "same", I should have said "very similar to the touch"

The "bump" helps to distinguish them, but the rings are only separated by *about* a couple of millimetres, and I often find myself grabbing the wrong one, when quickly raising the camera. I consider it to be a design flaw - more widely separated rings with instantly recognisable textures would I think have been a better choice.

Perhaps there were engineering constraints that led to the reversed ring positions on black v white lenses, but again it is confusing to users, particularly those who only swap lenses infrequently.

I haven't checked other brands, as I only own Canon gear, so I'm not sure how commonplace these odd choices are.

 

[entoman]

And they wonder why the market is shrinking so much and everyone uses iPhones to take pictures. Being a photographer for fun is not very attainable for most and is very unfortunate. Please don't give me that crap about there are plenty of cheap cameras/lenses out there because that's exactly what they are.

I agree that photography can be a very expensive activity - over the years I've built up my system and now own about $20K worth, but with some camera bodies at $6000 and several lenses that I'd love to own costing $14K each, I absolutely concur.

But it's wrong to say that "cheap" cameras are "crap". People very often spend $600-1000 on a mobile phone in order to get the best phone-camera (the cameras are the most heavily advertised aspect of phones), but for the same money you could buy an economy smartphone, an APS DSLR or MILC camera body, and a couple of perfectly good lenses. By doing so you'd get better image quality than any smartphone can produce, and infinitely greater versatility.

 

[GMAX]

They are close together, but the texture is different and the zoom ring has a ‘bump’ from a diameter increase while the focus ring is flat. The 14-35/4L zoom ring has that same ‘bump’.

Across all 5 of my RF lenses, the focus rings all have the same finer texture with smaller ridges and the zoom rings all have the same coarser texture with larger ridges.

Of course, with gloves on you just have to remember the relative positions…and those are reversed on black vs. white lenses.

One of the major reasons, I've chosen the RF 4.0 70-200 over the 2.8 was because the 4.0 has the focus ring in the "right" position. Even it's a white one ;-)

 

[neuroanatomist]

One of the major reasons, I've chosen the RF 4.0 70-200 over the 2.8 was because the 4.0 has the focus ring in the "right" position. Even it's a white one ;-)

Thanks, I didn’t know the RF 70-200 lenses were different that way. I never seriously considered the f/4 version to replace my EF 2.8 II.

 

[GMAX]

Thanks, I didn’t know the RF 70-200 lenses were different that way. I never seriously considered the f/4 version to replace my EF 2.8 II.

Only the 4.0 is different. Agree to the EF 2.8 II. Mine is not for sale too, because of different use cases. Happy to own both