RF Plans for Big Lenses? Keep 400mm f2.8 IS III or send it back?

Hi Optics Patent!
So... I sent it back. Thanks Adorama for the VIP360 60 day trial including free shipping both ways.

I decided that my demand curve hadn't yet risen high enough to offset the uncertainties that worried me. ...
I would like to make a step back on your OT.

Why would you want to send it back now?

Before you do that (I hope you haven't done it already) please answer yourself those few questions:
  • Do you need/want that FL and aperture for your pics?
  • Do you think this will improve your photography?
  • Can you afford it?
  • Did you look at the second hand prices of e.g. the Mark II or Mark I version of this lens?
If you can answer the first three questions with "yes", I tell you what I'd do now if I was having that lens in my hands like you do:

As it is the only true option you have right now for EOS R I'd keep it, I'd use it, I'd enjoy it and the results it will give to me.
If by the time - no matter if it was in 2 or 10 years - Canon would bring out an RF 400/2.8 I'd relax, wait some time for reviews and some rebates on the new lens and take a look what more it offers to me than my EF lens.
And if I'd decide that it gives me more advantages than the EF version I'd be glad that the used prices of big whites are so good, that I would be able to handle the gap to the RF.

So keep it, if such a tool is useful to you.

Or send it back if not - but then maybe please think first before order again.
I am with privatebydesign although I wouldn't say it in that way.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I believe people gaming the refund policy is immoral, I don't care if it's you doing it or somebody else, that doesn't mean I have to read your mind or anybody else's any more than I'd need to understand the machinations of any other fraudster...

It turns out we agree that "gaming" the system is unethical. A fine system when intentions are good, yet open to abuse that we agree is unethical (you use "fraudster" and "immoral" which seem a bit over the top). The only difference is in the mind of the purchaser.

Your criticism of my actions is entirely reliant on knowing my mental state, which you seem to acknledge you can't possibly know. How about we walk things back a bit and focus on more genial subjects?

I can guarantee that Canon (like the retailer) makes more profit from me with this generous policy even with my sending back their most expensive offering.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Max, those are all good points and much like my thought process as the “undeserving amateur” I introduced myself as. You can bet I did and always think before ordering. I thought awfully hard on this one and was darn sure I’d end up keeping the sucker. I use CPS to try items I’m less than likely to want to keep. The return benefit of the big retailers is for me a great way to reduce resistance and increase Canon’s profits. If not for it I wouldn’t have switched to Canon.

I even suspect that my promoting the benefit to others (as their top referrers do) serves to increase everyone’s profits. The premium I paid for VIP was justified because it took more than a month to resolve the decision.

Perhaps in hindsight I should have anticipated that using an adapter would undermine the appeal. I’ll certainly be more biased toward RF lenses in the future.
Upvote 0
I was surprised that Adorama would be reducing the price of a returned $12,000 lens by only $500. But, indeed they have done. UK sellers would have had a much larger reduction for an "open box" return.
Upvote 0