And during those 16 years, have L series lenses been cheaper than this at release?Ooops, my budget isn't in line with the future price tags of Canon mirrorless lenses. Time to switch brand after 16 years with Canon.
Upvote
0
And during those 16 years, have L series lenses been cheaper than this at release?Ooops, my budget isn't in line with the future price tags of Canon mirrorless lenses. Time to switch brand after 16 years with Canon.
I'm too lazy to search for historical prices, but current RF prices look higher than their (rough) EF equivalents.And during those 16 years, have L series lenses been cheaper than this at release?
In the R 'ecosystem', there will be a lot more existing Canon EF users than newcomers. I'd expect Canon to encourage them to switch to RF by setting more attractive prices on RF glass, but of course it's entirely up to Canon.
I wonder what they are capable of resolving? If the rumor of 60+++mo sensor... might be at those levels??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.
Bottom line is - nobody is forcing anyone to get new RF glass when there are EF lenses with amazing performance (new or used) and they work as good on both systems.
With negative interest rates becoming a bitter reality we might be worrying about more than the price of a luxury good.With negative interest rates becoming bitter reality, better spending on a lens that keeping money in the bank!
The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II released at $2,499 nine years ago. The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II released at $2,299 seven years ago... without IS. Prices come down over time. So these release prices are in line with the past. There is absolutely no comparable lens to the RF 28-70mm f/2L from any other manufacturer. Not even in a 24-70 zoom. As far as I know, Sony does not make an 85mm f/1.2.This probably won't be a popular opinion as most people on here justifying the price of these lenses, but after releasing the R, imho if these are the prices canon is absolute mad for releasing these lenses at this price. One long time argument for staying with canon was that sony or nikon glass were too expensive and that you could get much more value for canon glass, will no longer be the case. I'm not saying that these lenses won't be spectacular, but there is now a used market for sony glass and brand new these lenses will be $300 more expensive than their counter parts for the 15-35mm and 24-70mm RF you could get a 24-70gm 16-35mm gm and a monitor or other professional equipment. This just continues the trend of canon trying to increase the barrier of entry whereas new manufacturers are lowering the barrier of entry introducing more people to the technology. With my 6d mii and 24-70mm EF it just doesn't make sense for me to upgrade to the R and a 24-70mm RF finically or professionally. Hopeful this works out for canon in the long run catering to a different market, we shall see.
The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II released at $2,299... without IS. The EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II released at $2,499. Both were released years ago. So, adjusting for inflation, I think the new f/2.8L lenses are right on track with past release prices. Judging from what I have seen so far, I think the RF lenses will be better. We'll have to wait and see for that. You know as well as I that prices will come down. Early adopters pay a premium. Always have.I'm too lazy to search for historical prices, but current RF prices look higher than their (rough) EF equivalents.
In the R 'ecosystem', there will be a lot more existing Canon EF users than newcomers. I'd expect Canon to encourage them to switch to RF by setting more attractive prices on RF glass, but of course it's entirely up to Canon.
$2,699+Three RF zoomz, that IIhave absolooly no interest in gteting. When will the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS prime arrive, and at what price?
Crazy strategy IMO, second rate cameras and high end L glass and not a single affordable lens in sight other than a szuperzoom 24-240 that I would have zero interest in owning. I much prefer Nikon's strategy of starting with mid-tier f/1.8 primes and the workhorse 24-70 f/2.8, with more high end offering so come over the next 12 months. 24-70 f/2.8 IS should have been out well before the crazy 28-70 f/2 and the old clunker 85 f/1.8 replaced by a new RF version. Yes the lenses are good, but it's bizarre to see such a yawning chasm between lens and camera qualities. These high end offering should have been coming after their 5DsR replacment.
$2,699+
Longtime Nikon shooter, but I'm impressed with these lenses especially the 70-200 2.8. Canon continues to pump out some great glass. Pricing is pretty much to be expected at this stage for pro mirrorless equipment. Good time to be a photographer.
Canon should also come out with a $499 RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM and a RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM for about $1,099 at lens release time. In the mean time, people will have to adapt EF glass they already own without a hit to IQ and no AFMA. TBH, if Canon had come out with the f/2.8's first, that is what I would have got. Then I'd be pretty upset with myself (because we never know what they will do very far in advance) when the super lenses came out. Then it would have been impossible for me to buy them. That's just my personal viewpoint. I know Canon doesn't care about me as an individual. The RF 24-240 is too dark for me, and at $899 wouldn't be worth it to me. I suspect it will be very popular. For what I do the R isn't second rate, even compared to the 5D Mark IV which costs far more. But I mainly shoot portraits and nothing that moves fast. So it works for me.Crazy strategy IMO, second rate cameras and high end L glass and not a single affordable lens in sight other than a szuperzoom 24-240 that I would have zero interest in owning. I much prefer Nikon's strategy of starting with mid-tier f/1.8 primes and the workhorse 24-70 f/2.8, with more high end offering so come over the next 12 months. 24-70 f/2.8 IS should have been out well before the crazy 28-70 f/2 and the old clunker 85 f/1.8 replaced by a new RF version. Yes the lenses are good, but it's bizarre to see such a yawning chasm between lens and camera qualities. These high end offering should have been coming after their 5DsR replacment.
We’re talking about the 85 1.2 DSAnd the RF extends during zoom, so maybe the optical arraignment? There might be other differences, but I don't know. No reviews yet. I guess if Canon comes out with an RF 135L before an RF 70-xxx f/2 that doesn't extend, I'll get the 135mm and be done buying lenses.
Oops. Sorry. So many different lenses being discussed in a single thread got me confused.We’re talking about the 85 1.2 DS