We’ve received the pricing for the new RF lenses

[Michael Clark]

And you can bet whatever the prices are, they'll be even more expensive in the UK

Isn't VAT/sales tax included in the UK price? In the U.S. sales tax rates are variable based on locale and so they listed price does not include sales tax, which can be about 8-10% for most places. There are a couple of small states that have no sales tax (but very high property taxes).

 

[Michael Clark]

I would agree to an extent. For a retired, advanced photographer, those prices would be out of my price range. Canon supertelephotos would be for rich people, but I see non-rich amateurs buying them.

"Rich" is almost always a relative term. Practically no one considers themselves "rich." The "rich" are always those who make/have more than "we" do. Someone making $20K thinks a person making $50K is rich. Someone making $120K thinks a person has to make around $300K to be rich. Someone whose net worth is $250K thinks only those over $1M are "rich". Those with $1M think "the rich" are those with more than $100M net worth. Etc...

 

[Michael Clark]

You shouldn't contradict a troll, no chance to ever convince him...

Says the pot to the kettle...

 

[Michael Clark]

It looks like Canon is going for a new busyness model: "buy a lens and get the mirrorless camera for free". I can understand the intention to attract professional photographers to migrate to the R system, however, if they want to migrate the XXD or XXXD customers, they will have to come up with something in the 500-1000$ non L lenses. something like the 35-135mm, 75-300mm, those kind of lenses which price will be more reasonable. Unfortunately, they are currenly loosing the 7D customers, for the 90D is not the matching upgrade everyone was looking for.

The 75-300? Are you kidding? It's the worst lens currently in Canon's catalog. Do you mean the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II instead?

Also, to whom are they losing 7D customers? Nikon has already officially announced a D500 replacement will not be made. No one else has ever really made and APS-C high performance sports/action/wildlife camera built like a tank and with an OVF.

 

[Del Paso]

Isn't VAT/sales tax included in the UK price? In the U.S. sales tax rates are variable based on locale and so they listed price does not include sales tax, which can be about 8-10% for most places. There are a couple of small states that have no sales tax (but very high property taxes).

VAT in Europe is about 19%...

 

[Michael Clark]

You are right. What I meant by losing value was that Canon knows at introduction there are people who will pay more. As time goes on, not so much. So the price gradually comes down to meet sales goals and other needs, as you said. I don't expect that the current RF lenses will be full price in two years or even a year.

Adorama bundles stuff with lenses and cameras, but it isn't usually high quality stuff in my opinion.

In June I bought a 5D Mark IV from B & H for $2,599 plus tax. The "freebies' were a BG-E20 battery grip currently retailing for around $295 (way too much, IMHO) in the U.S. and 13 months of "CarePAK" for no additional charge. That's an extra month of warranty coverage plus accidental damage not covered by the warranty. It was a Canon USA promotion and the dealer was compensated for the cost of the discount on the body and giving away the grip, as were several other dealers during the same promotion. Canon USA assumes the cost of the Carepak coverage without any cost to the dealer.

 

[Michael Clark]

VAT in Europe is about 19%...

Yes, and it is included in the sticker price. Even assuming one Euro or one Pound equals one US Dollar, if the retail price in the USA is $1000, then the equivalent retail price in Europe would be $1190, since the dealer is only getting $1000 of that, just as the dealer in the U.S. is only getting $1,000 of the $1,080 or $1,090 that the customer is spending.

 

[Michael Clark]

Yes.

So far, of the announced or released lenses, three have been primes and six have been zooms. (If I have counted correctly) While primes are popular on this forum, they are not nearly as popular among consumers. At best, I think prime lovers might see the continued 2 to 1 ratio of releases, but honestly, I am expecting quite a few more zooms before we see a lot of prime lenses.

If Canon releases an "x" body, we should see the 100-400 either before or shortly after. A 70-300 "L" would be logical since it makes a nice travel lens and would pair nicely with a mirrorless body.

i don't know that I've ever seen an EF 100-400mm (either version) on a 1-series camera. (I assume that's what you mean by "x" body -a mirrorless 1D X)

I've seen a LOT of EF 100-400mm lenses on xoD and 7D bodies.

I'm sure there are 1-series owners out there (and here) that use 100-400mm lenses with 1-series bodies, but I've never seen one in the wild. Almost all of the 1-series bodies I see when out shooting have f/2.8 zooms, faster non-telephoto primes, or super telephotos in the fastest available f-number on them.

 

[Michael Clark]

I think this ratio would last for a while, then drop like a stone.

First is Canon has to remake all the EF lenses in RF, and that includes the primes.

Says who? One of the first RF lenses released was the 28-70mm f/2L. There's no equivalent EF lens to that one.

Canon will not duplicate their entire EF catalog before they give us lenses that are not available in the EF mount. They've already done so with the RF 28-70mm f/2L.

 

[SteveC]

The 75-300? Are you kidding? It's the worst lens currently in Canon's catalog. Do you mean the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II instead?

Ah...worst lens they make. No wonder I have one.

(Actually it was sold to me as part of a $150 package of extras when I bought the Rebel T3 (1100D I believe) as a kit.)

 

[Antono Refa]

Says who? One of the first RF lenses released was the 28-70mm f/2L. There's no equivalent EF lens to that one.

You misunderstood my intention. I meant that Canon will remake all the EF lenses in RF before discontinuing the EF mount, not before it makes RF lenses with no equivalent EF lenses.

 

[marioslrzn]

Tamron 17-28 - $900 vs $2400 (save $1500)
Tamron 28-75 - $900 vs $2400 (save $1500)
A7RIII -$2500 and your still $500 ahead. Like getting a free camera.

Switching is cheaper than most people realize. Especially factoring in the worth of your current lenses.Even if you “lose” money selling gear, if your able to swap out to comparable lenses for no “additional” cost... did you lose anything? That money was spent X number of years ago either way. Only thing you did was gain yourself a new lens warranty you didn’t have on your old gear.

That’s assuming that the Tamron will give you the same image quality and performance which we know the rf lenses are on another level. That’s like saying I’ll buy a mustang because it’s a sports car like a Ferrari but cheaper, not the same experience. We’re only a couple of months away from a Canon RF pro body, will be crazy to see IBIS and the 5 stops of lens stabilization working together. I for one am happy with the R, i tested the A7 series and wasn’t impressed otherwise I would of bought one. RF lenses are on another level and if you want the best glass unfortunately it cost more. I get my rf15-35 this week and I’m excited, vs the tamRon it’s 15mm-35mm f2.8 with IS vs 17-28, Sharper image quality, weather sealed, dual pixel focus works better on native lenses and reliability, things that matter a lot to me. People that say otherwise is people that haven’t try the rf lenses with the R. After I tried the RF50 1.2 I can’t ever go back to anything but an RF lens, fast, accurate and beautiful images

 

[CanonFanBoy]

In June I bought a 5D Mark IV from B & H for $2,599 plus tax. The "freebies' were a BG-E20 battery grip currently retailing for around $295 (way too much, IMHO) in the U.S. and 13 months of "CarePAK" for no additional charge. That's an extra month of warranty coverage plus accidental damage not covered by the warranty. It was a Canon USA promotion and the dealer was compensated for the cost of the discount on the body and giving away the grip, as were several other dealers during the same promotion. Canon USA assumes the cost of the Carepak coverage without any cost to the dealer.

Now that is one beautiful story. I usually get a set of cheap filters, a lens brush and blower, etc. I always miss the good stuff.. Lucy keeps taking the ball away.

 

[wockawocka]

If prices are correct, Canon is not exactly making it easy for ppl to switch to mirrorless. Isn't it like shooting your own foot ? Well, we won't have to wait long to find out.

It's easy to switch to mirrorless when you have a native ef - rf adapter. I think at this stage they might make more money on the older lenses.

 

[Michael Clark]

You misunderstood my intention. I meant that Canon will remake all the EF lenses in RF before discontinuing the EF mount, not before it makes RF lenses with no equivalent EF lenses.

I'm not sure that's going to happen, either. If we haven't seen an update for the EF 300mm f/4L since the 1990s, I doubt we'll see one in the RF mount. Ditto for the EF 400mm f/5.6, as well as lower cost non-L lenses like the EF 50mm f/1.4 (1993) and EF 85mm f/1.8 (1992)

 

[unfocused]

I'm sure there are 1-series owners out there (and here) that use 100-400mm lenses with 1-series bodies, but I've never seen one in the wild...

Perhaps I'm the only person in the world who shoots soccer, baseball, track, softball, golf and other outdoor sports with a 1Dx II and a 100-400. But, I kind of doubt it.

 

[bluezurich]

Perhaps I'm the only person in the world who shoots soccer, baseball, track, softball, golf and other outdoor sports with a 1Dx II and a 100-400. But, I kind of doubt it.

More than most other combos on sidelines. Really, this is ridiculous. It's like saying, not many drive Fords, I've only seen one on the roads by my home.

 

[Antono Refa]

I'm not sure that's going to happen, either. If we haven't seen an update for the EF 300mm f/4L since the 1990s, I doubt we'll see one in the RF mount. Ditto for the EF 400mm f/5.6, as well as lower cost non-L lenses like the EF 50mm f/1.4 (1993) and EF 85mm f/1.8 (1992)

Those lenses make a profit for Canon, or it would have discontinued them, same as it did with the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro and 135mm f/2.8 soft focus. I doubt Canon is going to drop profitable lenses, esp as those are the cheap alternatives, and my unprofessional impression is those would be easy to redesign for RF (make the barrel a little longer, upgrade the electronics).

 

[koenkooi]

Those lenses make a profit for Canon, or it would have discontinued them, same as it did with the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro and 135mm f/2.8 soft focus. I doubt Canon is going to drop profitable lenses, esp as those are the cheap alternatives, and my unprofessional impression is those would be easy to redesign for RF (make the barrel a little longer, upgrade the electronics).

I've been thinking about that, Canon extending the barrel (with filter slot!), updating electronics and motors and adding their newest coatings.
My suspicion is that Canon hasn't shown these in public is because it would look lazy and from a spec sheet PoV nothing would have changed compared to the EF versions. Why would I stop using my EF85mm f/1.8 + filter adapter and switch to the RF version?

 

[stevelee]

I have a

Ah...worst lens they make. No wonder I have one.

(Actually it was sold to me as part of a $150 package of extras when I bought the Rebel T3 (1100D I believe) as a kit.)

I have an old version of that lens. It was $100 with my first Rebel. At f/11 it made pretty decent solar eclipse shots with my T3i. After I got the 6D2 I got the 100-400mm II.