Pricing for the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM has leaked

[Traveler]

I’ve been saying that it’s hard to recommend Sony due to their overpriced lenses, even their f/4 ones.
Now Canon is getting even crazier. The 50 f/1.8 for 199 is alright but the 70-200 for 1599 is a joke.

 

[eosuser1234]

Like most of Canon's pricing, these pricing will probably stay at the MSRP for the first 6 months while demand is high. They will then be reduced, once demand is at normal levels. This is just simple economics.

 

[blackcoffee17]

The 70-200 f/4 seems fantastic at $1300 and not bad at $1600. Definitely not unexpected for current Canon pricing. That's $0 to $300 more than the EF version, and an upgrade delta of ~$1100 to the 2.8 version which is an even wider gap than the EF f4 vs f2.8 comparison. The EF versions right now are $1300 and $2000 (sale), and a comparable savings for the RF f4 would put it in the $1700-1800 range.

The 50mm is too much. I suppose I'll still pick one up at some point...but it's a huge jump. I was really hoping for $160, and $150 if we got lucky.
Given that EF adapters are cheap/almost free with a body on sale, and you can find the EF version for $100, I wouldn't use that as a price comparison. It's a wash, but at the small size, you really will notice not having the adapter in the way.

Im sure that 50mm will be close to $150 in no time.

 

[Fran Decatta]

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!

 

[analoggrotto]

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!

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.

 

[AlP]

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)

 

[Starting out EOS R]

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.

 

[davidcl0nel]

>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...

 

[blackcoffee17]

>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...

The extending mechanism probably adds extra weight. The length saving is impressive tho, almost 6cm shorter.

 

[chasingrealness]

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.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

 

[David]

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.

 

[Maru]

i wonder what will be the picture quality difference between RF 70-200 F4 and EF 70-200 F4/F2.8... will it perform better! because we can assume that we are saving $200 on adapter

 

[blackcoffee17]

i wonder what will be the picture quality difference between RF 70-200 F4 and EF 70-200 F4/F2.8... will it perform better! because we can assume that we are saving $200 on adapter

Probably nothing noticeable, considering how good is the EF. But the EF with the adapter is almost twice the length and considerable heavier.

 

[Sharlin]

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).

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.

 

[slclick]

I’ve been saying that it’s hard to recommend Sony due to their overpriced lenses, even their f/4 ones.
Now Canon is getting even crazier. The 50 f/1.8 for 199 is alright but the 70-200 for 1599 is a joke.

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.

 

[AlP]

>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...

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

 

[bbasiaga]

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

 

[danfaz]

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

This is what I was thinking, too, a great small kit (assuming not the 85 1.2)!

 

[koenkooi]

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.

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