Is the EF purge beginning? The EF 200mm f/2L IS USM is now listed as discontinued

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,195
1,264
Photography is a niche. One should expect prices for photographic equipment to be priced according to value and not demand. Value Marketing.
Value or simply features???
I just can't imagine the R5 and 100-500 being so much more expensive to produce than 5 DIV and 100-400...
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7

vladk

EOS M50
Mar 10, 2021
33
48
Value or simply features???
I just can't imagine the R5 and 100-500 being so much more expensive to produce than 5 DIV and 100-400...

You forget about R&D. Canon spent a fortune on development of new MILC technologies recently, and the most expensive model carries most of R&D price tag.
5d line have not offered anything really new since probably 5d2 introduced video. It more like inherited and implemented techologies already proven by Canon to work. And it was announced 6 years ago at $3300. The price difference is not as extreme as it looks today.
 

YuengLinger

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,462
1,903
USA
Value or simply features???
I just can't imagine the R5 and 100-500 being so much more expensive to produce than 5 DIV and 100-400...
Are you taking inflation into account? Plus the better performance of and higher resolution of the R5 over the 5DIV? Please, please, please remember how the EU, and to a much larger extent the USA, have been printing money and dumping it into investment markets at historically low interest rates. So, whatever inflation gauge you might have used in the past cannot apply now.

Try to go back and look at what prices for everyday goods looked like 20, 10, and 5 years ago. We might be told "real" inflation is only a little higher, but just look at actual price increases.

Then factor in the loss of bread-and-butter point-and-shoot units. To remain profitable, camera companies have to make more per unit on high-end gear. There has been a shift.

It isn't good news for long-time customers, but either we have a few companies that make great, reliable gear, or we have very mediocre, commodity type low-end knockoffs.

Just my observations and 20 cents worth. (Right, 2 cents was from the time of our great-grandparents. Now opinions are worth ten times more!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

vladk

EOS M50
Mar 10, 2021
33
48
It is wrong to put 5D4 and R5 on the same scale. Even R6 offers a lot more than 5D4 IMHO, and cost the same at the moment. The only advantages of 5D4 are probably more megapixels, built-in GPS, and more bulletproof body.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,195
1,264
Are you taking inflation into account? Plus the better performance of and higher resolution of the R5 over the 5DIV? Please, please, please remember how the EU, and to a much larger extent the USA, have been printing money and dumping it into investment markets at historically low interest rates. So, whatever inflation gauge you might have used in the past cannot apply now.

Try to go back and look at what prices for everyday goods looked like 20, 10, and 5 years ago. We might be told "real" inflation is only a little higher, but just look at actual price increases.

Then factor in the loss of bread-and-butter point-and-shoot units. To remain profitable, camera companies have to make more per unit on high-end gear. There has been a shift.

It isn't good news for long-time customers, but either we have a few companies that make great, reliable gear, or we have very mediocre, commodity type low-end knockoffs.

Just my observations and 20 cents worth. (Right, 2 cents was from the time of our great-grandparents. Now opinions are worth ten times more!)
What I had in mind was what happened in the last 4 years, inflation cannot justify everything. New computers are faster, better, and, based on my limited experience, cost far less than 4 years ago. No so cameras (mirrorless are more or less computers).
As to development costs: the R&D salaries haven't changed much, tooling costs, testing cost can be considered partly a reason for the raise.
On the other hand, automation of lens and camera production has been raised to an extremely high level, certainly resulting in lower manufactoring costs. I'm quite sure that sales prices are dictated by what customers are ready to pay. Just look at the Swiss watch industry, sales prices are pure fantasy (Rolex watch production is almost 100% automated, and retail prices have nevertheless exploded).
I didn't intend to criticize Canon, I just believe that, in my opinion, the readiness of a shrinking market to swallow such high prices isn't that evident. Time will tell...
My fear is that we could assist to a "Leicalike" development, cameras unfortunately made more and more for status seekers or collectors, and less for average income photographers.
Anyway, I want that 14 mm TSE:love:, and have started saving!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7 and YuengLinger

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
905
270
What I had in mind was what happened in the last 4 years, inflation cannot justify everything. New computers are faster, better, and, based on my limited experience, cost far less than 4 years ago. No so cameras (mirrorless are more or less computers).
As to development costs: the R&D salaries haven't changed much, tooling costs, testing cost can be considered partly a reason for the raise.
On the other hand, automation of lens and camera production has been raised to an extremely high level, certainly resulting in lower manufactoring costs. I'm quite sure that sales prices are dictated by what customers are ready to pay. Just look at the Swiss watch industry, sales prices are pure fantasy (Rolex watch production is almost 100% automated, and retail prices have nevertheless exploded).
I didn't intend to criticize Canon, I just believe that, in my opinion, the readiness of a shrinking market to swallow such high prices isn't that evident. Time will tell...
My fear is that we could assist to a "Leicalike" development, cameras unfortunately made more and more for status seekers or collectors, and less for average income photographers.
Anyway, I want that 14 mm TSE:love:, and have started saving!
I completely agree about Canon's pricing of the RF system. Simply saying that current model cameras offer improvements over older models doesn't seem much of a justification for higher prices. As you've said, technology advances and things get better without necessarily getting more expensive - and potentially while actually getting cheaper. In fact, I think I remember one of the early claims about mirrorless was that it was going to allow cameras to be cheaper(!).

Another issue is how valuable some of the improvements in cameras like the R5 and R6 are. For example, if a camera can shoot at say 8 or 10 FPS, that is enought for me. The fact the R5 and R6 can shoot faster really isn't a draw card for me. YMMV of course.

There is also the issue of economy of scale. If the camera market is shrinking already, increasing prices might just cause it to shrink further, putting more pressure on prices to go up if manufacturers are to remain profitable. Obviously that potentially becomes a vicious circle. If cameras cannot be profitably sold at a price enough people are willing and able to pay, manufacturer's are in trouble.

Also, there is the issue of what the competition is doing. Until about a year ago, when anyone asked me for a recommendation about which camera system they should buy into, I would usually have recommended Canon (unlesss the person had some specific need which I thought would be better met by another system). Canon has completely lost me with the RF system though. Most of the RF gear may be excellent, but I just don't see the value in most of it. A friend of mine recently bought her first "serious" camera and she looked hard at the RF system (and also at Fuji), but she is now the happy owner of a Sony A7 III. She did prefer the R6 body but she got the A7 III plus Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DN lens for less than the price of an R6 body alone. And Canon EF 24-70 2.8L II still costs close to A$1,000 more than the Sigma, let alone looking at the RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS. And she now has access to a good range of native lenses including Sony's G Master lenses if she wants something like an L series lens, and a range of really good - and often small and light, and good value - Sony and third party lenses (eg Sony 55 f/1.8, Tamron 70-180 f/2.8, Sigma DN Art lenses, Samyany "tiny series" lenses, Samyang 85 f/1.4, etc). Well, they're certainly good value compared with anything Canon is offering in the RF system. Back in the old EF days (yes, I know EF isn't completely gone yet!), I felt like the value was there with Canon, but I just don't anymore. I have to say I struggle to understand Canon's thinking ... although I assume the answer is they have access to market data which tells them that enough customers will pay and they are, in fact, doing exactly the right thing to maximise their profits.

I know I'm not really supposed to say this sort of thing on a Canon forum, but as an enthusiast rather than a pro, I just feel disappointed with where Canon has gone so far with the RF system. On the plus side, since I have lost interest in buying any new gear for now (until either prices change for RF gear or I make the move to Sony), maybe I'll spend more time using the gear I have now :)
 
Last edited:
Oct 31, 2020
149
164
I know I'm not really supposed to say this sort of thing on a Canon forum, but as an enthusiast rather than a pro, I just feel disappointed with where Canon has gone so far with the RF system.
Same here. I fell in love with the R System at the photokina 2018. Before and after a looked at the prices of EF/ RF, Sony, Fuji and Nikon before I decided to stay with Canon (which I actually wanted to anyway). But the price comparisons at the time was:

RF 24-105mm F4 at 1.199 € minus cash back (899 € as a kit and CB) compared to
EF 24-105mm F4 IS ii USM at 1.059 €
--> basically same price

RF 35mm F1.8 at 549 € minus cash back compared to
EF 35mm F2 at 489 € (up to 539 € some places)

The price mark-up seemed to be negligible at the time. The price of the RF 50mm F1.2 should have been a warning, but it seemed to be most outstanding, not before reached performance...

So far, seemingly all lenses that followed had at least a 35% mark-up compared to the EF equivalents...therefore, I still just own two native RF lenses, the two mentioned above. I will certainly "overpay" for a maximum of one lense
On the plus side, since I have lost interest in buying any new gear for now (until either prices change for RF gear or I make the move to Sony), maybe I'll spend more time using the gear I have now :)
Same here! I get a lot of use out of my three lenses :)
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
861
695
If only.

By some measures a dollar today is worth somewhere between 1 and 2 cents in 1913.
Inflation depends on what is being measured.
1DC was $15K US in 2013.
It is $2K today and a new full-frame digital camera with similar specs would cost less than that.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,350
2,194
Inflation depends on what is being measured.
1DC was $15K US in 2013.
It is $2K today and a new full-frame digital camera with similar specs would cost less than that.

You may have missed that I was talking about nineteen thirteen.

And indeed by one crude measure an ounce of gold cost USD 20.67 that year...it was by definition $20.67 in fact, and today gold is $1730 or so, which would imply that dollar today is between 1 or 2 cents.

Now gold is a commodity subject to momentary fluctuations, but the long term trend is there. You can compare other things that are not electronics and you'll probably get similar answers. Electronics is different because we're literally learning how to be more productive with them at an exponential pace (Moore's law).
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,195
1,264
After reflection, having taken a look at the :eek: pricing of the Sony Alpha 1, I must humbly confess that the R5 seems a real bargain...
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,742
1,298
Expensive? Yes. Poor sales? It seems like I’ve seen this lens(or the 1.8) owned/carried by almost every professional (Canon)still photographer(especially sports) I’ve shot next to in the last ~2.5 decades.
Meaning they've already purchased one. How many new sales is Canon seeing each year? Canon has to weigh that against the cost of producing another batch versus dedicating those manufacturing resources to an RF version. Canon super teles are not simple lenses to manufacture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vladk

ctk

Refurb EOS R Kit
Mar 25, 2020
65
66
If people don't understand business they can't really complain about business focused decisions

Frankly if you have been looking at this lens for 13 years (or the 200/1.8L for 33!) but haven't pulled the trigger.... realistically you're prob never gonna buy it. Canon can't tie up resources to placate the peanut gallery... their focus is on paying customers
 
  • Like
Reactions: EOS 4 Life
Feb 7, 2013
111
34
Make sense to gradually cut EF lenses that aren't selling in sales ££/ volume and switching these to RF mount (Same with Nikon).

It is a superb lens from Canon and one that Canon will do in RF mount
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
861
695
Make sense to gradually cut EF lenses that aren't selling in sales ££/ volume and switching these to RF mount (Same with Nikon).

It is a superb lens from Canon and one that Canon will do in RF mount
Canon will discontinue RF lenses that do not sell also.
I do not see how this is any sign of a trend.
 
Aug 7, 2018
253
199
An RF version of this lens can't be a replacement, as it will not fit on an EF mount. I still have a big problem with mirrorless cameras, as they only give me a fake copy of the world in the viewfinder instead of the real world. We used to say "looking THROUGH a viewfinder", but we might have to find a new word, because the light does no longer go through the viewfinder, but is produced in the viewfinder. Even if mirrorless cameras have many advantages, they detach the photographer from reality.

This decision makes it even clearer, that Canon wants to end the production of DSLRs. That is very sad. Like the end of the production of TVs with a screen 4:3 screen ratio.
 

afolickman

AF Canon
Mar 12, 2018
10
4
Georgia, USA
Boy, they just really want to get rid of everything "EF". It never occurred to them to support and continue both lines? Just say the hell with all you people who like your EF products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dominic_siu