We’ve received the pricing for the new RF lenses

[bluezurich]

$2,699+

Maybe, not sure in his Holland area (just going by the spelling)

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.

Not when you add in RRS plates and other gear made specifically for the model you're selling especially if it's not current. Then there's the perception that a Tammy is a match for a Canon lens. That's a whole other thread. Plus, and this is a big one....Buying item A for less than item B is never saving money, it's just spending less. So basing this on something that isn't even on the market yet for how you 'save' is just ridiculous.

 

[bluezurich]

I'll tell you how to save.

Shoot with what you have and improve your skills. Works every single time.

 

[canonnews]

OR for nearly the price of the 70-200, you could buy a Sony A7III, Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 AND the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Which are indeed small and lightweight and incredibly sharp. I loved my 5DIV and I loved the R for the brief moment I had it but I have very few regrets in jumping ship (other than the menus, shoot me now).

what are you going on about?

Why don't you compare Sony GM lenses versus Canon and see how close you come out to. or does that kind of ruin your narrative.

I'm sure the Tamron's will sooner or later be available on both the Z and the RF mount as well, so that's probably in the long run kind of immaterial. The tammy are great lenses, but they are known for being great bang for the buck lenses. They don't compare well to Sony's GM series lenses and probably won't for the RF lenses either. Neither GM series nor RF series lenses are designed for 24MP sensors. The Tamron's probably are - because at 28mm and 35mm the 28-70 doesn't look that great on a A7R III.

Comparing cheap third party versus OEM is always a fools game. Do you bitterly complain about the price of Sony GM lenses as well?

 

[CanonFanBoy]

OR for nearly the price of the 70-200, you could buy a Sony A7III, Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 AND the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Which are indeed small and lightweight and incredibly sharp. I loved my 5DIV and I loved the R for the brief moment I had it but I have very few regrets in jumping ship (other than the menus, shoot me now).

Another new account from a Sony owner who just wants to let us know.

 

[CanonFanBoy]

Maybe, not sure in his Holland area (just going by the spelling)

Not when you add in RRS plates and other gear made specifically for the model you're selling especially if it's not current. Then there's the perception that a Tammy is a match for a Canon lens. That's a whole other thread. Plus, and this is a big one....Buying item A for less than item B is never saving money, it's just spending less. So basing this on something that isn't even on the market yet for how you 'save' is just ridiculous.

Every time my sister-in-law goes shopping, she talks about how much money she saved at the sales. My brother just shakes his head and pours another drink.

 

[joelhazel]

Maybe, not sure in his Holland area (just going by the spelling)

Not when you add in RRS plates and other gear made specifically for the model you're selling especially if it's not current. Then there's the perception that a Tammy is a match for a Canon lens. That's a whole other thread. Plus, and this is a big one....Buying item A for less than item B is never saving money, it's just spending less. So basing this on something that isn't even on the market yet for how you 'save' is just ridiculous.

Valid point on the “additional gear” part. Each setup is different and what may pencil out for one doesn’t mean it will for all.

Not sure I agree with you on the “saving money” part though. Spending less is saving money, as now the difference can be used to purchase something else.

 

[bluezurich]

what are you going on about?

Why don't you compare Sony GM lenses versus Canon and see how close you come out to. or does that kind of ruin your narrative.

I'm sure the Tamron's will sooner or later be available on both the Z and the RF mount as well, so that's probably in the long run kind of immaterial. The tammy are great lenses, but they are known for being great bang for the buck lenses. They don't compare well to Sony's GM series lenses and probably won't for the RF lenses either. Neither GM series nor RF series lenses are designed for 24MP sensors. The Tamron's probably are - because at 28mm and 35mm the 28-70 doesn't look that great on a A7R III.

Comparing cheap third party versus OEM is always a fools game. Do you bitterly complain about the price of Sony GM lenses as well?

Oh like how in 1972 my Dad switched his Corvair for a Pinto?

 

[PGSanta]

The market is lauging at Canon, the R isn't setting the sales world alight that's for sure, neither is the RP. Absolutely ludicrous to release a boatload of $2-4K lenses at this stage. The R doesn't even match up to the 5D4, it's a 6DII/5D4 hybrid.

And yet Sony isn’t running away with market share..... hmmmmmm

 

[Del Paso]

Every time my sister-in-law goes shopping, she talks about how much money she saved at the sales. My brother just shakes his head and pours another drink.

 

[Del Paso]

And yet Sony isn’t running away with market share..... hmmmmmm

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

 

[BillB]

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.

If you are unhappy with the lenses that you have, and you want a couple of Tamron's, then the deal makes sense. Otherwise, maybe not so much.

 

[edoorn]

Also, as I said earlier, the intended market for these lenses are mostly the pro’s.

The write off on lenses for me is more important than the initial investment amount (in particular with interest rates being virtually zero or even negative; alternative investments in stock market also is quite unstable these days with all the trade wars). Of course the write off in RF lenses would be higher than Tamron but from experience I know they also hold value less on the second hand market. Then there’s the service level: with Canon CPS platinum I have loan equipment available and repair turn around of 2 working days, all free of charge.
With Tamron, a repair might take weeks and I have to rent stuff.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

USD Canon prices for lenses at release.

70-200mm fl2.8L II - $2500 in 2010 - with USA inflation, in 2019 dollars, that's $2941.
24-70mm f/2.8L II $2200 in 2013 - with USA inflation, in 2019 dollars, that's $2423.
16-35mm f/2.8 III $2200 in 2016 - with USA inflation, in 2019 dollars, that's $2352.

So, in terms of adjustments for inflation, the 70-200 looks like it costs less, while the other lenses cost a bit more.

However, there is also the exchange rate, and the US dollar is much stronger now versus the yen, so that will adjust the equivalent price downward depending on the exchange rate. However, that adjustment only applies to the actual wholesale cost charged to Canon USA which is likely half or less of the retail price, since advertising, warranty service, shipping, warehousing, sales all are paid by Canon USA.

So, assuming the 50% figure, the prices with both upward inflation and downward currency adjustments for the stronger US dollar, the 2019 price equivalents would look something like this. I think that the prices below are on the low end.

70-200mmL $2660
24-70mmL $2348
16-35mmL $2296

So, with that adjustment, the lenses all took a jump in price.

If you buy all three, you will pay ~$496, more in 2019 dollars then the total of the three existing lenses when they were announced.

I did not try to check the inflation rates in Japan to see if they were equivalent.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I’m able to do that because I ask reasonable prices and like you rightly say so, those people that charge not enough can’t, but to be fair there’s no future in their business anyway.

There seems to be little future at all, except for high end businesses. More and more people are happy with camera phone photos at the low end, so that business is fading away little by little.

Of course, a person has to start somewhere, and talent will get noticed. If its matched with good business sense, those people can be tomorrows big photographers. Our previous generation of notable photographers often got their start with newspapers, working like dogs for any years, then magazines, and jumping to commercial business. That upward path is pretty well gone.

A new photographer need not have high end equipment, just knowing how to use what they have, having a talent, and being good businessmen. The high end equipment will follow.

 

[CanonFanBoy]

Also, as I said earlier, the intended market for these lenses are mostly the pro’s.

The write off on lenses for me is more important than the initial investment amount (in particular with interest rates being virtually zero or even negative; alternative investments in stock market also is quite unstable these days with all the trade wars). Of course the write off in RF lenses would be higher than Tamron but from experience I know they also hold value less on the second hand market. Then there’s the service level: with Canon CPS platinum I have loan equipment available and repair turn around of 2 working days, all free of charge.
With Tamron, a repair might take weeks and I have to rent stuff.

Pros, boomers, hard core enthusiasts, or anyone that has money is the target. You are right. But it has always been this way in full frame digital. The big whites? I could never afford that, even used.

 

[unfocused]

USD Canon prices for lenses at release.

70-200mm fl2.8L II - $2500 in 2010 - with USA inflation, in 2019 dollars, that's $2941....

Let's not cherry pick. The 70-200 III was introduced in August 2018 (one year ago) at $2,099. (Source: Official Canon USA Press Release)

If you are going to compare prices, you shouldn't be going back nine years and using a previous version.

I'm skeptical that the prices predicted are accurate and we should all wait until we get the actual pricing from Canon, but if the quoted prices are close to correct, the RF version will be significantly more expensive than the most current EF version was at introduction.

 

[bluezurich]

Valid point on the “additional gear” part. Each setup is different and what may pencil out for one doesn’t mean it will for all.

Not sure I agree with you on the “saving money” part though. Spending less is saving money, as now the difference can be used to purchase something else.

No, it's all valid.

 

[CanonFanBoy]

Valid point on the “additional gear” part. Each setup is different and what may pencil out for one doesn’t mean it will for all.

Not sure I agree with you on the “saving money” part though. Spending less is saving money, as now the difference can be used to purchase something else.

So if you spend what you saved, what have you saved? Because your above statement says you'll be spending it. You paid less for X than you did for Y... but they are like comparing a Poodle to a German Shepherd Dog. So you are not buying the same animal. You just decided not to spend as much, but then you're going to spend it on a collar or a dish. Now, Apples to Apples, if you get a discount you saved cost buying from A vs. B. But still, one didn't save anything. If I buy a throw away film camera because I decided to not spend the money on an A7r III and a bunch of lenses, then I just made a different decision. I've still spent money on a depreciating asset as soon as I take it out of the box. A lot of people call lenses an investment. If they are, then they are all poor investments... unless it is something very rare and highly sought after, but is no longer in production. Still, the Canon lenses will hold resale value better than Tamron. So where's the savings? Or, this whole thing is just semantics. Advertisers tell us, "Save $300 this weekend." What they really mean is, "We are giving you a reason to spend your savings, and we hope you bite at our tactic to get you to hand it over."

 

[Kit.]

OR for nearly the price of the 70-200, you could buy a Sony A7III, Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 AND the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Which are indeed small and lightweight and incredibly sharp.

Maybe. But they won't work as a 70-200.

I mean, what's the actual point? Why would one want to buy all that instead of a 70-200?

 

[BillB]

So if you spend what you saved, what have you saved? Because your above statement says you'll be spending it. You paid less for X than you did for Y... but they are like comparing a Poodle to a German Shepherd Dog. So you are not buying the same animal. You just decided not to spend as much, but then you're going to spend it on a collar or a dish. Now, Apples to Apples, if you get a discount you saved cost buying from A vs. B. But still, one didn't save anything. If I buy a throw away film camera because I decided to not spend the money on an A7r III and a bunch of lenses, then I just made a different decision. I've still spent money on a depreciating asset as soon as I take it out of the box. A lot of people call lenses an investment. If they are, then they are all poor investments... unless it is something very rare and highly sought after, but is no longer in production. Or, this whole thing is just semantics. Advertisers tell us, "Save $300 this weekend." What they really mean is, "We are giving you a reason to spend your savings, and we hope you bite at our tactic to get you to hand it over."

If the lenses you now have are still useful, then you don't need to spend anything to take photographs.