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).And you can bet whatever the prices are, they'll be even more expensive in the UK
"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...
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?
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.
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.
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)
Ah...worst lens they make. No wonder I have 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.
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
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.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.
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)
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.
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.
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.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.)
