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

[Viggo]

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.

What?

 

[Ozarker]

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.

Change is a basic fact of life.

 

[SteveC]

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.

ONE lens which was high-end enough it probably didn't sell very many units, and that's "everything"?

 

[ctk]

ONE lens which was high-end enough it probably didn't sell very many units, and that's "everything"?

It is when you're being dramatic and hyperbolic.

Canon will continue to support EF as long as it makes sense to. Here is an example where they feel it doesn't. Again if you didn't buy one by now you were never going to anyway so there's no need to pretend.

 

[tron]

The paint will be a much better shade of beige!

And, in combination with IBIS it will have 0.5 stop better IS than its EF equivalent

 

[Del Paso]

It is quite funny that on European websites (Calumet for instance), one can still find many immediately available "discontinued" lenses.
So, whoever regrets their disappearance, shouldn't complain but buy!
And, besides, there is still a huge choice of mint used lenses to get from reputable dealers or private owners. There won't be a lack of EF lenses for the next decades...
The stupidity for Canon, a non-welfare company, would be to invest into developing in parallel two lens lines, this would be suicidal regarding the current camera market. That's why, instead of complaining (I did it too!), we should be happy to see Canon investing into their future!
The future is RF. Period!

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The stupidity for Canon, a non-welfare company, would be to invest into developing in parallel two lens lines, this would be suicidal regarding the current camera market.

Canon sells a lot of EF lenses for non-Canon cameras.
RED is the only other camera company to adopt RF.
Canon also sells lenses for other mounts like PL and B4.

 

[koenkooi]

It is quite funny that on European websites (Calumet for instance), one can still find many immediately available "discontinued" lenses.
So, whoever regrets their disappearance, shouldn't complain but buy!
And, besides, there is still a huge choice of mint used lenses to get from reputable dealers or private owners. There won't be a lack of EF lenses for the next decades...[..]

I've been eying the the EF135L for some years now, but I newer could find a good enough excuse to spend the toy budget on that. I think I have a few more years to decide

 

[Del Paso]

I've been eying the the EF135L for some years now, but I newer could find a good enough excuse to spend the toy budget on that. I think I have a few more years to decide

There is absolutely no excuse for not buying the EF 135 f2, it's no toy, but an absolute necessity !
PS: it took me about 6-7 years to decide buying one...

 

[Del Paso]

Canon sells a lot of EF lenses for non-Canon cameras.
RED is the only other camera company to adopt RF.
Canon also sells lenses for other mounts like PL and B4.

This is right, but do these sales justify further EF lens production? Keeping two separate production lines is ruinous, unfortunately...
I guess that sooner or later RF will become the standard mount EF still is for many non-Canon customers.
By the way: 14 out of 15 Canon lenses I own are EF, and I plan to keep them.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

This is right, but do these sales justify further EF lens production?

I assume those lenses are sold at a profit.
The sales not replaced by RF lenses would only be lost revenue.
Canon is in business not only to sell cameras but also to sell lenses.

 

[Del Paso]

I assume those lenses are sold at a profit.
The sales not replaced by RF lenses would only be lost revenue.
Canon is in business not only to sell cameras but also to sell lenses.

My post could easily be misinterpreted, my fault...
Sure, these cinema lenses are sold at a high profit. But what I meant is: are these volumes high enough to keep on producing and developing EF lenses, or shouldn't Canon rather make a clean cut?

 

[unfocused]

...Keeping two separate production lines is ruinous, unfortunately...

Is it? We can't know that. We can only speculate.

It may be that Canon produces a pre-determined number of lenses based on projected demand and then switches a line over to another lens. With certain less popular lenses, a single production line might be used for quite a few different lenses, switching it up as demand changes.

I suspect, but don't know, that the bigger challenge may be parts rather than production lines. What parts are unique to individual lenses and what parts are not? With composite lens bodies, switching up different lenses may be fairly easy, as they might simply change the molds being used to match the particular lenses. I don't think we can speculate with any accuracy about the necessary minimum number of any particular lens that is required to turn a profit.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Is it? We can't know that. We can only speculate.

It may be that Canon produces a pre-determined number of lenses based on projected demand and then switches a line over to another lens. With certain less popular lenses, a single production line might be used for quite a few different lenses, switching it up as demand changes.

I suspect, but don't know, that the bigger challenge may be parts rather than production lines. What parts are unique to individual lenses and what parts are not? With composite lens bodies, switching up different lenses may be fairly easy, as they might simply change the molds being used to match the particular lenses. I don't think we can speculate with any accuracy about the necessary minimum number of any particular lens that is required to turn a profit.

Sigma manages to stay in business making lenses for multiple lines.
If only they had luck making cameras.

 

[Del Paso]

If I remember well, Leica in 2006 made one telephoto lens (Apotelyt f 5,6/1600mm) for sheikh Mohammed Al Thani.
It's been said they charged 2 million dollars.
And they certainly did make a profit...
But what makes sense for a smaller company, mobilizing an entire staff on such a project, wouldn't work that easily for Canon.
Unless: prestige were at stake (NASA, ESA etc...)
Or for a Justin Bieber concert?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If I remember well, Leica in 2006 made one telephoto lens (Apotelyt f 5,6/1600mm) for sheikh Mohammed Al Thani.
It's been said they charged 2 million dollars.
And they certainly did make a profit...
But what makes sense for a smaller company, mobilizing an entire staff on such a project, wouldn't work that easily for Canon.
Unless: prestige were at stake (NASA, ESA etc...)
Or for a Justin Bieber concert?

How about two f/2 1800 mm for 2 billion dollars?

 

[Del Paso]

How about two f/2 1800 mm for 2 billion dollars?

With a 900mm front lens diameter...
Oh, I forgot. The 1600mm Leica lens weighed 60kg or 120 pounds. The proud owner had a Mercedes G wagon customized specifically for his unique lens.
And poor me has started saving for a ridiculous little R5...