Pricing for the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM has leaked
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Im sure that 50mm will be close to $150 in no time.
I'll wait for reviews, but, very probably, this 50mm will be in my bag just for his size and price!
Isn't a necessary lens, but yes a piece of cake and desired lens, being so cute!
Isn't a necessary lens, but yes a piece of cake and desired lens, being so cute!
It's a Canon lens, no need to wait for a review!
I have the RF 50 F1.2 but may get this for quick travels. I have high hopes to take my R5 everywhere I go. With USB-C charging, this is much more possible.
First technical data of the new lenses are available (Nokishita).
The RF 70-200 f/4 is 85 g lighter and 57 mm shorter than the EF counterpart, and only 3.5 mm wider. Filter diameter is 77 mm (vs. 72 mm). Maximum magnification is 0.28x vs. 0.27x with a minimum focusing distance of 0.6 m (vs. 1 m)
I don't remember the IS-rating for the EF lens, but the RF seems to rated at 7.5 stops on the R5/R6 and 5 on the R/RP.
The RF 50 mm f/1.8 is exactly as light as the EF 50 mm f/1.8 (160g), only 1.2 mm longer (40.5 mm) and with identical diameter (69.2 mm). Filter size is 43 mm (vs. 49 mm) and max. magnification is 0.25x (vs. 0.21x), minimum focusing distance is 0.3 m (vs. 0.35m)
The RF 70-200 f/4 is 85 g lighter and 57 mm shorter than the EF counterpart, and only 3.5 mm wider. Filter diameter is 77 mm (vs. 72 mm). Maximum magnification is 0.28x vs. 0.27x with a minimum focusing distance of 0.6 m (vs. 1 m)
I don't remember the IS-rating for the EF lens, but the RF seems to rated at 7.5 stops on the R5/R6 and 5 on the R/RP.
The RF 50 mm f/1.8 is exactly as light as the EF 50 mm f/1.8 (160g), only 1.2 mm longer (40.5 mm) and with identical diameter (69.2 mm). Filter size is 43 mm (vs. 49 mm) and max. magnification is 0.25x (vs. 0.21x), minimum focusing distance is 0.3 m (vs. 0.35m)
I love the RF70-200 F2.8L and while the extra stop is nice, I think F4 would be fine for what I shoot. I could have saved a bundle if the price is correct, even at £1599. That would have been £1,000 towards either the RF24-70 F2.8 or RF28-70 F2. I suppose that's the price I pay for being an early adopter. Too late now & not worth trading the 2.8 in so may as well enjoy it and keep saving for the 24-70.
Too late now & not worth trading the 2.8 in so may as well enjoy it and keep saving for the 24-70.
>The RF 70-200 f/4 is 85 g lighter and 57 mm shorter than the EF counterpart,
Which counterpart. f/4 IS (1) or f/4 IS II ? (760g or 780g)
Or maybe even the f/4 one without IS: 705g ?
85 difference seems low...
Which counterpart. f/4 IS (1) or f/4 IS II ? (760g or 780g)
Or maybe even the f/4 one without IS: 705g ?
85 difference seems low...
The extending mechanism probably adds extra weight. The length saving is impressive tho, almost 6cm shorter.
That is a good price point for the 70-200! Now I just have to wait until Black Friday next year to grab one for $1k lol.
Here in the UK, pricing is a little different. We are regularly forced to pay £ per $ price for new Canon equipment. The £ is far higher in value compared to the $ and our bills and housing prices are way steeper vs the salaries here. So this lens is $1299 in the US...this will equate to £1299 ( or $1688 accounting for the real worls exchange rate). I can currently buy a new ef 70-200 f4 LIS for £699 UKP. So this new lens is nearly twice as much as the comparable EF lens. Not so much of a bargain here in Blighty.
Now we have a 2300$ 50L and a 190$ cheap 50mm. The Nikon Z 50mm f1.8S for 500$ seems to be the better compromise than no compromise with Canon. Those who'd buy a cheap 50mm can't afford an R-body and those who want small lenses with superior quality are forced to go with Nikon. It would make sense if the cheap RF 50mm would equal the IQ of Nikons Z 50mm, but I have my doubts.
Probably nothing noticeable, considering how good is the EF. But the EF with the adapter is almost twice the length and considerable heavier.
As usual, included VAT makes the biggest difference in US vs European prices. The rest is mostly higher employee costs due to higher income taxes and better protections.
You seem to be in the minority here about that price furthermore you might want to brush up on your Canon 70-200 f/4L pricing history and value. Bemoaning the f/4L line has never been an issue for most anyone.
The IS II (780 g). The RF lens is apparently 695 g, so still a bit lighter than the "original" EF f/4 without IS
OK, at $1299 i would have been all over this. $1599 dampens my enthusiasm, but I thought it was going to be $2k so at least its not that. If this lens picks up a $100 or $200 rebate sometime in the future, that will be the time to strike. Honestly once reviews come out and we actually see how compact it is on the camera, that may drive me to change my mind and get in sooner. We'll see. I could see an RF camera bag with the 24-105F4L, 70-200F4 L, and a prime of choice (35/50/85) being a complete travel kit.
-Brian
-Brian
I'm having trouble coming up with a zoom to accompany my RF100-500. The 24-105 f/4L and 24-240 STM are at similar price points and both have good reviews for the things I want to do with it.
I have the EF24-105L and EF70-200 f/4L non-IS, but both were kinda "meh" on the RP and the R5 makes them look even worse when cropping
