L Lens Packaging and Hoods, Cost-cutting Effort?

danfaz

Coffee Fiend
Jul 14, 2015
919
1,727
www.1fineklick.com
Interesting discovery yesterday as I opened a new RF 24-70 L...
First, the internal packaging the lens sat in used to be thick, snug-fitting Styrofoam, and the pouch and literature sat in a cardboard insert above the top Styrofoam.

Now, the lens sits in thin, not-so-snug plastic molds and the pouch and literature sit in the empty space of the top plastic mold.
This is similar to consumer-grade lenses I've purchased before. Not a HUGE deal, but I noticed the lens is a little loose in this setup and wobbles about a bit, and it just looks a bit cheap IMO.

Second, the lens hood is made in China now. All my L hoods are made in Japan. Here, too, not a HUGE deal, but just seems a little bit cheaper. And of course, these cost-cutting efforts don't reduce the price of the lens, but maybe it's keeping the price from going up?

What do you all think?
 
Last edited:
Jul 21, 2010
31,091
12,855
Injection-molded plastic packaging is generally recyclable via household recycling programs, styrofoam is generally not...so, a switch from styrofoam to plastic would be an environmentally responsible choice whether it is cheaper for Canon or not (probably is, but I don't know).

I have 5 RF lenses (14-35/4L, 24-105/4L, 28-70/2L, 70-200/2.8L, 100-500L), all the hoods are made in Japan. Also, all the boxes have the styrofoam packaging (the RF 1.4x and 2x extenders were just in bubble wrap in the boxes). I got the 24-105 along with my EOS R in 2019, the other four lenses I bought last summer, after the announcement of the R3 and in anticipation of switching to that (from the 1D X) as my primary camera.

I doubt these cost reductions affect the price Canon sets for the lenses, rather they just mean more profit for Canon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,572
4,109
The Netherlands
[..]ow, the lens sits in thin, not-so-snug plastic molds and the pouch and literature sit in the empty space of the top plastic mold.
This is similar to consumer-grade lenses I've purchased before.[..]
The RF15-30 STM released this month has 1.3 layers of bubblewrap around it, so something molded is already a big step up from that :)

It is the stingiest packaging for a Canon lens I've seen so far. But it worked, so I'm not going to spend more thoughts on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,091
12,855
The RF15-30 STM released this month has 1.3 layers of bubblewrap around it, so something molded is already a big step up from that :)

It is the stingiest packaging for a Canon lens I've seen so far. But it worked, so I'm not going to spend more thoughts on it.
As I said, the RF extenders come like that. At least the bubble wrap is the thick stuff, and the boxes are thick cardboard. Some of my EF-M lenses came in thin bubble wrap in thin cardboard.
 
Upvote 0

danfaz

Coffee Fiend
Jul 14, 2015
919
1,727
www.1fineklick.com
a switch from styrofoam to plastic would be an environmentally responsible choice whether it is cheaper for Canon or not (probably is, but I don't know).

I doubt these cost reductions affect the price Canon sets for the lenses, rather they just mean more profit for Canon.
Good points!
 
Upvote 0
One more observation – for two of the L lenses above, the pouch was in a plastic bag, but for the other three the pouch was just ‘naked’ above the cardboard partition at the top of the box.
Good, no plastic bag for the pouch means less packaging waste.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

danfaz

Coffee Fiend
Jul 14, 2015
919
1,727
www.1fineklick.com
Did the goods arrive damage-free? If yes then let us look for ways to reduce the carbon footprint.
Well, as far as I can tell for now. The wobble factor initially concerned me. I know it's L glass, but I do prefer the solidity of the Styrofoam.
Perhaps they could make the plastic more form-fitting.
Also, I'm not into waste, either. I keep all of my boxes and packaging in case of resale, I never throw them away.
 
Upvote 0