# Patent: Multiple small RF prime lens optical formulas



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 12, 2019)

> Canon News has uncovered a patent that shows Canon is working on small RF prime lenses, like non-L.
> Japan patent 2019-152683 does include the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro in one of the embodiments, but keep in mind that lens design can sometimes build off of existing lenses.
> *RF prime lens optical formulas in this patent:*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## nitram (Sep 12, 2019)

Would be wonderful to have further options with some pancake lenses...


----------



## uri.raz (Sep 12, 2019)

Canon didn't discontinue the EF 20mm f/2.8, and other manufacturers have made new ones in recent years (Nikon AF-S 20mm f/1.8G ED, Sigma 20mm F1.4 DG HSM Art).

I would be surprised if Canon did not release a 20mm lens in the RF mount.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 12, 2019)

I'd really like to see a non STM RF35 as the current one isn't great and acquiring focus at a distance on low contrast areas (the Macro curse) and in servo mode the STM isn't very responsive.


----------



## Stichus III (Sep 12, 2019)

These look like affordable RF lenses. 

Canon if you are reading this, where's the f/4 trinity?


----------



## unfocused (Sep 12, 2019)

I'd expect there will be a 24mm f2.8 eventually to match the EF version.


----------



## Tom W (Sep 12, 2019)

The 20 would be interesting in f/2. Throw in a 28/2 and a 50/2 or 50/1.4 and you'd have a decent family of moderately-priced wide-normal lenses. Maybe an 85/2 also. 

I know that they're working on the high-end first, but us regular people need lenses too. Although I have no problem adapting my EF lenses to the RP.


----------



## BillB (Sep 12, 2019)

Reactions to the EF 24 f2.8, 28 F2.8 and 35 f2.0 have been mixed since they came out in 2012, and I don't think Canon has ever sold that many of them. Some people are content to make do with a zoom, which isn't that hard to do, the 16-35 f4 being what it is. Other people want moderately priced,smallish, high quality primes. Canon may have decided that the way to make a little money selling moderately priced, smallish, high quality primes is to spend a larger amount of money developing and building them.


----------



## honestlo (Sep 12, 2019)

looking forward f/4 trinity (15-35mm f/4 L IS pls) coming next year !


----------



## canonnews (Sep 12, 2019)

Stichus III said:


> These look like affordable RF lenses.
> 
> Canon if you are reading this, where's the f/4 trinity?


in development probably. they can only produce so many new lenses per year.

With Nikon having the F4's already done, you can bet Canon won't be too far behind.


----------



## Adelino (Sep 12, 2019)

honestlo said:


> looking forward f/4 trinity (15-35mm f/4 L IS pls) coming next year !


I would like the f/4 trinity except with a 24-70 2.8. I'm saving.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 12, 2019)

BillB said:


> Reactions to the EF 24 f2.8, 28 F2.8 and 35 f2.0 have been mixed since they came out in 2012, and I don't think Canon has ever sold that many of them. Some people are content to make do with a zoom, which isn't that hard to do, the 16-35 f4 being what it is. Other people want moderately priced,smallish, high quality primes. Canon may have decided that the way to make a little money selling moderately priced, smallish, high quality primes is to spend a larger amount of money developing and building them.



I'd have thought that the 35mm f2 IS is a pretty liked and fairly reasonably priced lens. The 24mm f2.8 IS and 28mm f2.8 IS are more difficult to justify.


----------



## mclaren777 (Sep 12, 2019)

Canon's 40mm pancake is an amazing lens. If we got something similar in RF format, that would be great!


----------



## Stichus III (Sep 12, 2019)

canonnews said:


> in development probably. they can only produce so many new lenses per year.
> 
> With Nikon having the F4's already done, you can bet Canon won't be too far behind.



The f/4 trinity is a much better fit for the R and the RP. I hope that we'll see it soon.


----------



## hmatthes (Sep 12, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Canon didn't discontinue the EF 20mm f/2.8, and other manufacturers have made new ones in recent years (Nikon AF-S 20mm f/1.8G ED, Sigma 20mm F1.4 DG HSM Art).
> 
> I would be surprised if Canon did not release a 20mm lens in the RF mount.


Sadly I just sold my EF20 2.8 -- what great lens! I found it big with the adapter and I usually shoot it manually.
Now I shoot a Voigtlander 21/4 Skopar until I find a good Leica 21mm that is not over-priced.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Sep 12, 2019)

I like the EF 35 IS too. I use it for about 60% of my pictures...
The RF 35 1.8 STM is variable in length because of macro. I dislike this very much, and this is the main reason for switching NOT to RF. One lens I would use native (the 35 of course!) and the rest I can adapt easily. But I don't ever buy this current 35 STM.
My hopes for a similar 35 IS was not very high. They probably bring a L with 1.4 or 1.2, which is 800gr and 1500€ or more... (see the current 85). They might be superb, but I like the handy smaller ones.
So maybe they really announce some more smaller effective prime lenses... I can't understand the differences in length on different f-stops (maybe the numbers are switched?), because a f/2.8 should be tinyer than a f/2 ?!


----------



## Ale_F (Sep 12, 2019)

Do you like a new affordable R without viewfinder (like sigma) and its relative pancake?


----------



## padam (Sep 12, 2019)

Ale_F said:


> Do you like a new affordable R without viewfinder (like sigma) and its relative pancake?


The RP is cannibalised enough already, they won't go any lower than that (The M system is there for those, who need smaller and/or cheaper).
And no, the Sigma might not be that cheap overall.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 12, 2019)

Yesss, Canon! 
Bring it on the table.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 12, 2019)

BillB said:


> Reactions to the EF 24 f2.8, 28 F2.8 and 35 f2.0 have been mixed since they came out in 2012, and I don't think Canon has ever sold that many of them. Some people are content to make do with a zoom, which isn't that hard to do, the 16-35 f4 being what it is. Other people want moderately priced,smallish, high quality primes. Canon may have decided that the way to make a little money selling moderately priced, smallish, high quality primes is to spend a larger amount of money developing and building them.


Reaction was mixed in part because Canon introduced the trio of lenses at a substantial price premium over their non-IS predecessors. After about two years they announced substantial price cuts on all three, bringing them much more into line with their actual value. 

I agree that most people prefer zooms and with the optical quality of modern zooms you aren't really giving up much, if you don't need a fast lens. These primes may not be big sellers, but they are a nice, reliable stable product the rarely needs updating. I would agree that Canon may view them as a small, but reliable source of income and I suspect that if they mirror the EF versions they probably won't require much additional investment by Canon.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 12, 2019)

unfocused said:


> *Reaction was mixed* in part because Canon introduced the trio of lenses *at a substantial price premium* over their non-IS predecessors. After about two years they announced *substantial price cuts* on all three, bringing them much more into line with their actual value. ...


This!

I just bought my second one of those three for less than 40% of the initial release price.
They are great performers but were totally overpriced at the start.

*
*


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Sep 12, 2019)

That 35mm f/2 would be nice! Especially if it really is that small.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Sep 12, 2019)

This RF 16-35mm f/4 will be really welcome to my bag, if it costs less than 1000€


----------



## mchris (Sep 12, 2019)

Can't wait for the 16-35 f4. I hope it will have IS and will be much cheaper than the 2.8 version.


----------



## David (Sep 12, 2019)

I wonder why L lenses must be fast and heavy. How gladly would I pay a premium for a small and light F2 L lens with all the benefits of the L line.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 12, 2019)

Fran Decatta said:


> This RF 16-35mm f/4 will be really welcome to my bag, if it costs less than 1000€


The EF version was about $1,200 at introduction. I would guess the R version will be at least that much at introduction.


----------



## melgross (Sep 12, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Why do you think that only the zoom will be coming? Why bother to patent all of those lenses, which are perfect for the less expensive R series bodies if Canon isn’t going to produce them? It seems that these are the lenses people have been complaining aren’t here.


----------



## melgross (Sep 12, 2019)

Stichus III said:


> The f/4 trinity is a much better fit for the R and the RP. I hope that we'll see it soon.


I don’t get the desire for f4 lenses. For an inexpensive zoom, yes, but otherwise, no. 2,8 is small and inexpensive enough.


----------



## JoTomOz (Sep 12, 2019)

The interest in a 20mm prime on this thread gives me hope! For some reason 24mm doesn’t do much for me as a focal length. Glad the patent is for f2- for me it’s harder to justify primes for most focal lengths unless they are f2 or faster. Been thinking about that rf mount designed for mirrorless laowa 15mm f2- even though it is manual focus.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Sep 12, 2019)

unfocused said:


> The EF version was about $1,200 at introduction. I would guess the R version will be at least that much at introduction.


I know, but this one seems to lack of IS, may be this can put a cheap price tag. Anyways, I never purchase any of those items at introduction price, I feel no hurry


----------



## BillB (Sep 12, 2019)

melgross said:


> Why do you think that only the zoom will be coming? Why bother to patent all of those lenses, which are perfect for the less expensive R series bodies if Canon isn’t going to produce them? It seems that these are the lenses people have been complaining aren’t here.


There already is the RF 35, which seems to be the key lens in meeting the demand for smallish, moderately priced high quality primes with an RF mount. There are also a bunch of third party manufacturers who may or may not be able to back engineers RF compatible small, or at least moderately priced, primes, as well as a bunch of Canon EF primes that easily adapt to the RF mount, along with third party EF primes. So, we shall see how Canon puts together a plan for dealing with this situation


----------



## BillB (Sep 12, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> This!
> 
> I just bought my second one of those three for less than 40% of the initial release price.
> They are great performers but were totally overpriced at the start.


I've always suspected that the exchange rate had something to do with the initial pricing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2019)

melgross said:


> I don’t get the desire for f4 lenses. For an inexpensive zoom, yes, but otherwise, no. 2,8 is small and inexpensive enough.


Let me guess...you’re a body-building billionaire.

At 5” long, 1.85 lbs and $2300, the RF 15-35/2.8L IS lens is neither small nor inexpensive.
At 5” long, 2 lbs, and $2300, the RF 24-70/2.8L IS is neither small nor inexpensive. 

Nice try, though.


----------



## melgross (Sep 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Let me guess...you’re a body-building billionaire.
> 
> At 5” long, 1.85 lbs and $2300, the RF 15-35/2.8L IS lens is neither small nor inexpensive.
> At 5” long, 2 lbs, and $2300, the RF 24-70/2.8L IS is neither small nor inexpensive.
> ...


Did you bother to actually read what I wrote? I said that for an inexpensive zoom, yes, f4. So why did you point out large, expensive zooms? Mostly, there were prime lenses in that list—just one zoom. One could easily have realized that I was otherwise referring to those primes Canon got patents for.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Reaction was mixed in part because Canon introduced the trio of lenses at a substantial price premium over their non-IS predecessors. After about two years they announced substantial price cuts on all three, bringing them much more into line with their actual value.


To be fair. Canon launched these lenses when the Yen at as a historic high. So the USD prices were inflated because of it.

Canon didn't reduce the price because of the market, because the yen dropped back down, there was price adjustments across the board during that period of time, up down, left right and sideways. it was a mess for all vendors.


----------



## slclick (Sep 13, 2019)

melgross said:


> Did you bother to actually read what I wrote? I said that for an inexpensive zoom, yes, f4. So why did you point out large, expensive zooms? Mostly, there were prime lenses in that list—just one zoom. One could easily have realized that I was otherwise referring to those primes Canon got patents for.


I read his reply as referencing RF lenses currently available, basically Mel, keeping in context. I had no idea while reading your post we must be thinking outside the blurred lines of what you wrote.


----------



## melgross (Sep 13, 2019)

slclick said:


> I read his reply as referencing RF lenses currently available, basically Mel, keeping in context. I had no idea while reading your post we must be thinking outside the blurred lines of what you wrote.


I thought it was very clear. I don’t see how anyone could have confused it. I said that for an inexpensive zoom, f4 was ok, but for other lenses, obviously not zooms, since I just mentioned an inexpensive zoom, that f2.8 was better. Since we’re talking about the lenses in the article, and no other, or should be, I just can’t see how someone could be confused about what I was referring to.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 13, 2019)

melgross said:


> I thought it was very clear. I don’t see how anyone could have confused it. I said that for an inexpensive zoom, f4 was ok, but for other lenses, obviously not zooms, since I just mentioned an inexpensive zoom, that f2.8 was better. Since we’re talking about the lenses in the article, and no other, or should be, I just can’t see how someone could be confused about what I was referring to.




The sense I got was that you thought f/4 primes were pretty much pointless. So I shared your reaction at someone perceiving you to be jumping on 4.0 zooms.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2019)

melgross said:


> Did you bother to actually read what I wrote? I said that for an inexpensive zoom, yes, f4. So why did you point out large, expensive zooms? Mostly, there were prime lenses in that list—just one zoom. One could easily have realized that I was otherwise referring to those primes Canon got patents for.


I don’t think you actually read what you wrote. Let’s revisit that, shall we? 



melgross said:


> Stichus III said:
> 
> 
> > The f/4 trinity is a much better fit for the R and the RP.
> ...



You replied to a post about the “f/4 trinity,” stating that f/4 is ok for a cheap zoom but otherwise f/2.8 is small and inexpensive enough. One could easily realize that you were referring to primes only if one was aware of an ‘f/4 trinity’ of prime lenses. I’m not aware of any such trinity...are you? **

You quoted a reply that was obviously referring to zoom lenses, then you referred to zoom lenses. But somehow it should be evident that your main point was about prime lenses?

It certainly wasn’t, to me at least. Thus my listing of f/2.8 zooms that are neither small nor inexpensive. 


** Well, there is the 400 DO / 500L / 600L trinity of primes, so maybe that’s what you meant. And in that case, the 300/2.8 is comparatively smaller and less expensive. Somehow, I doubt that’s what you meant.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2019)

melgross said:


> I thought it was very clear. I don’t see how anyone could have confused it. I said that for an inexpensive zoom, f4 was ok, but for *other lenses, obviously not zooms, since I just mentioned an inexpensive zoom,* that f2.8 was better.


So your logic here is that lenses that are not ‘inexpensive zooms’ must be primes?



melgross said:


> Since we’re talking about the lenses in the article, and no other, or should be, I just can’t see how someone could be confused about what I was referring to.


Because your reply quoted a post referring to an ‘f/4 trinity’. Convention is that if you quote a post, your reply is to that post.

There’s this concept called _context_, and it’s pretty important to keep in mind if you want to have an intelligent discussion.

The post which you quoted was obviously referring to the fact that the patent includes a 16-35/4, one of the three lenses in Canon’s EF f/4 trinity (16-35, 24-70, 70-200). The RF lineup now has a matching f/2.8 trinity (or will once the announced RF 70-200/2.8 is launched) which corresponds to the EF f/2.8 trinity. The poster stated that an f/4 trinity is better suited to the R series, and you replied that f/2.8 is small and inexpensive enough. Context.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2019)

SteveC said:


> The sense I got was that you thought f/4 primes were pretty much pointless. So I shared your reaction at someone perceiving you to be jumping on 4.0 zooms.


I don’t find my 600mm f/4 prime to be ‘pretty much pointless’.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t find my 600mm f/4 prime to be ‘pretty much pointless’.



I didn't say it was...I said I thought HE said 4.0 primes were. (He probably wasn't thinking of the really long primes.) In the interest of full disclosure, however, I was inclined to agree with him, but I was thinking of short primes (e.g., 85mm, 50, 35, and so forth), just as he likely was.

That 600mm f/4 must be a royal pain to buy (front) filters for!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2019)

SteveC said:


> That 600mm f/4 must be a royal pain to buy (front) filters for!


That’s why there’s a drop-in slot and a CPL, and a holder for other 52mm filters.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s why there’s a drop-in slot and a CPL, and a holder for other 52mm filters.



Just from looking at the page on B&H it's not threaded up front.

Come to think of it, that makes my statement even more true. It really would be a royal pain...

It's way beyond my level in either case. I might end up with that 100-400 L someday, but before I pull the trigger on that I'll want to see how much of an improvement (vast, or very vast?) it is over my 18-400 Tamron.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 13, 2019)

SteveC said:


> I didn't say it was...I said I thought HE said 4.0 primes were. (He probably wasn't thinking of the really long primes.) In the interest of full disclosure, however, I was inclined to agree with him, but I was thinking of short primes (e.g., 85mm, 50, 35, and so forth), just as he likely was...


Same here. I thought it was pretty clear he was referring to prime lenses at smaller apertures than f2.8 and was thinking of it in relation to the wide angle lenses mentioned in this thread. This is a good example of why people should not shoot first and aim later. To be fair he was responding to someone who mentioned an f4 "trinity." For many of us older photographers this would be referencing a wide angle, a normal and a short telephoto – all primes.

I never use the term because I think it is stupid and smacks of jargon. Most jargon is used by people who want to feel superior to others by speaking in coded phrases, when simple language would be much more suitable and precise.

In my younger days, I routinely carried three lenses: 24mm, 50 mm and 135 mm. They covered most situations. Other photographers preferred a 28 mm or a 35 mm and a few stuck to an 85mm at the long end. I guess you could call these a "trinity," but I never knew a professional photographer who used the term and only learned of the term when I started participating in this gearhead forum. 

Ironically, I think Mel probably misunderstood the post he was reacting to, which referenced f4 lenses but didn't make clear whether the poster was thinking of primes or zooms. I don't know anyone who has suggested f4 primes, so I doubt that is what the person was thinking of. 

So, to recap: Mel made a comment that was probably based on a misreading of another person's post. Then Neuro jumped down his throat based on a misreading of Mel's comment.

Another glorious day at the Canon Rumors outhouse.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> To be fair he was responding to someone who mentioned an f4 "trinity." For many of us older photographers this would be referencing a wide angle, a normal and a short telephoto – all primes.


When was there an f/4 trinity of primes? In the Canon lineup, I had to go back to the Serenar lenses around 1950 to find short telephoto primes (100-135mm) that were f/4, and even then their 35/50/85mm counterparts were at least f/3.5 and usually faster.

Sorry, I’m still not seeing how anyone could see the phrase, “f/4 trinity,” and think that’s a reference to prime lenses. Maybe I’m too young. Perhaps there was an f/4 trinity of primes back when daguerreotypes and magnesium flash powder were state of the art?

Incidentally, Mel subsequently ‘clarified’ (and I use the term loosely and sardonically) that, “...we’re talking about the lenses in the article, and no other, or should be...” I guess I missed the three f/4 prime lenses in the patent that he included the quote about...or maybe Mel was talking about lenses even _he_ says he shouldn’t have been discussing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Just from looking at the page on B&H it's not threaded up front.
> 
> Come to think of it, that makes my statement even more true. It really would be a royal pain...


Definitely!!

Wonderpana makes 186mm filters and a holder for the 11-24L. Maybe one of those and some duct tape?


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 13, 2019)

Why is it I get the impression that even the non-L RF lenses will also be stellar lenses?


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 13, 2019)

2.0 20mm might be a good ultrawide for my purposes - seldom use of ultra wide lenses if I want to capture more atmosphere. And the 2.0 would make it a good lens for some homeopathic bokeh in the background ... a 1:4 maximum reproduction would be great for some "atmospheric" close up work.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 13, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Why is it I get the impression that even the non-L RF lenses will also be stellar lenses?



Canon is definitely putting a lot of effort into what they've long known how to do...lenses. As near as I can tell from all the third and fourth hand things I've been seeing, they're rapidly catching up on the sensor side of things. The next bunch of R body releases will fill in the other half of a truly awesome system. Then at their leisure they can add longer and shorter lenses--the range of R lenses runs, I believe from 24 to 240 right now.

I'd love to see the M series get one tenth this much love...but it appears third parties will be filling in the gap.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 13, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Canon is definitely putting a lot of effort into what they've long known how to do...lenses. As near as I can tell from all the third and fourth hand things I've been seeing, they're rapidly catching up on the sensor side of things. The next bunch of R body releases will fill in the other half of a truly awesome system. Then at their leisure they can add longer and shorter lenses--the range of R lenses runs, I believe from 24 to 240 right now.
> 
> I'd love to see the M series get one tenth this much love...but it appears third parties will be filling in the gap.


I'm in love with the R. I can hardly believe how good it is for the price. I'd like to get the 80 mega pixel camera when it comes out, but that would also mean spending thousands to upgrade my 6 year old computer that already has trouble with 30 mega pixel files. That, and somebody would have to die for me to collect my inheritance. I'm in no hurry for that.  Dad will probably outlive me. He still runs marathons at 76. Tough old Marine.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 13, 2019)

BillB said:


> Reactions to the EF 24 f2.8, 28 F2.8 and 35 f2.0 have been mixed since they came out in 2012, and I don't think Canon has ever sold that many of them. Some people are content to make do with a zoom, which isn't that hard to do, the 16-35 f4 being what it is. Other people want moderately priced,smallish, high quality primes. Canon may have decided that the way to make a little money selling moderately priced, smallish, high quality primes is to spend a larger amount of money developing and building them.



I passed on the 24mm & 28mm f/2.8 because I have the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L on my camera as default, and the 24mm f/2.8's IQ is mediocre.

If things changed on the RF mount, e.g. the f/4 trinity of zooms is small or the 24mm prime is f/2.0, I might very well buy it.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 13, 2019)

My EF 35, 85, 105 primes are up for sale. I am gonna keep the 100 L f2.8 IS Macro for now. 
16-35 / 2.8 III is going to be the next one to follow.


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 13, 2019)

I think this is fantastic news 

The switch to RF would be breathtakingly expensive if the only glass was best-in-the-world-class

However if Canon were to provide a suite of small lightweight RF primes (and f4 zooms) and a small lightweight R camera then this would make an awesome replacement for their existing APS-C and EF-S range 

I for one would be thrilled at such a prospect 

My journey with Canon started with an 80D and a few of the cheaper EF lenses (50,85 and 24-105) and then upgraded to a 5D and f/2.8 zooms

I can see a few cheaper primes and f/4 zooms offering a very realistic and attractive way in to the world of RF


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 13, 2019)

melgross said:


> Why do you think that only the zoom will be coming? Why bother to patent all of those lenses, which are perfect for the less expensive R series bodies if Canon isn’t going to produce them? It seems that these are the lenses people have been complaining aren’t here.



Maybe lots of patents is like the presidential motorcade having lots of cars so you don't know which is the real president's car ...


----------



## PeterT (Sep 13, 2019)

melgross said:


> Why do you think that only the zoom will be coming? Why bother to patent all of those lenses, which are perfect for the less expensive R series bodies if Canon isn’t going to produce them? It seems that these are the lenses people have been complaining aren’t here.



One possible answer to your question is that this way they want to make the job of third party lens manufacturers harder. They do not want them to produce small and inexpensive lenses that would eat into the Canon's cake.


----------



## PeterT (Sep 13, 2019)

BillB said:


> Reactions to the EF 24 f2.8, 28 F2.8 and 35 f2.0 have been mixed since they came out in 2012.



I cannot speak for all, but my reaction to these lenses was:
(1) the 35mm f2 IS is on my list (which is postponed till the time I finally decide whether to stay with Canon or go somewhere where they have IBIS on APS-C)
(2) I was eagerly waiting for the 24mm IS (when it was only in the stage of rumor) hoping that it would be F2.0 so it could serve as the moderate wide angle for my APS-C camera. But it came out as 2.8 so I lost my interest. Since then I have no affordable wide primes for my APS-C DSLRs because Canon decided not to produce such...


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 13, 2019)

BillB said:


> I've always suspected that the exchange rate had something to do with the initial pricing.


Don't think so! 
I believe Canon was thinking that renewing and adding IS to the lenses would make the people rush on them and tried to milk the market. 
And when that didn't happen they had to accept that the value to the market was lower.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 13, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> Don't think so!
> I believe Canon was thinking that renewing and adding IS to the lenses would make the people rush on them and tried to milk the market.
> And when that didn't happen they had to accept that the value to the market was lower.






Those lenses were announced in 2012 during the height of the yen.

Canon Japan exports to Canon USA, so currency exchange plays a huge factor.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 13, 2019)

canonnews said:


> Those lenses were announced in 2012 during the height of the yen.
> 
> Canon Japan exports to Canon USA, so currency exchange plays a huge factor.


I live in Germany. The Yen was just about 20 % lower (better said higher, as the scale is the other way around) to the Euro in 2012 than today.




This "height" does not describe a price drop in MRSP from about 800€ to now about 550€ (more than 30%) and a street price lower than 420€ (more than 47%). And I bought for 377€ (more than 52%) at a well known retailer.
Currency effects take place here, yes.
But it was more about "supply and demand" IMO.




(time scale of both charts is different; would love to sync but too much work)


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 13, 2019)

hmatthes said:


> Sadly I just sold my EF20 2.8 -- what great lens! I found it big with the adapter and I usually shoot it manually.
> Now I shoot a Voigtlander 21/4 Skopar until I find a good Leica 21mm that is not over-priced.


DON'T !!!!
I have the 21 Leica M lens (non-aspherical).
Mounted on the EOS R, it generates a reddish hue on the sides of the pictures, like all M lenses below 35 mm, you can even see it in the viewfinder!
The Leica sensors have therefore specifically oriented microlenses against this phenomenon.
Maybe (?) the asph. type behaves differently, even though I doubt it.
PS: the Leica R 21 mm is not really good...


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 13, 2019)

Non L Primes!! Happy Day!!! Been waiting for this. I hope we see them announced at least by year end.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 13, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I passed on the 24mm & 28mm f/2.8 because I have the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L on my camera as default, and the 24mm f/2.8's IQ is mediocre.
> 
> If things changed on the RF mount, e.g. the f/4 trinity of zooms is small or the 24mm prime is f/2.0, I might very well buy it.



+1. The only way I see a f/2.8 prime would sell in this focal length range is if it is a pancake like the EF 40 f/2.8. With the RF 24-70 having IS, what would the RF f/2.8 primes offer? You carry a couple primes to cover the focal length range, and if Canon launches them near 800 again, I'd rather pay more for the zoom.

With the camera market contracting as it has been the last few years, manufacturers will have to stick to the more popular focal lengths. I can't see them launching $800 f/2.8 lenses like Canon had with the f/2.8 IS primes.


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Same here. I thought it was pretty clear he was referring to prime lenses at smaller apertures than f2.8 and was thinking of it in relation to the wide angle lenses mentioned in this thread. This is a good example of why people should not shoot first and aim later. To be fair he was responding to someone who mentioned an f4 "trinity." For many of us older photographers this would be referencing a wide angle, a normal and a short telephoto – all primes.
> 
> I never use the term because I think it is stupid and smacks of jargon. Most jargon is used by people who want to feel superior to others by speaking in coded phrases, when simple language would be much more suitable and precise.
> 
> ...


Thanks - I like what you say about only carrying 24,50 and 135 primes ... It sounds like a great combination 

Im trying to wean myself off zooms and travel light .. I have the Canon 135 f/2 and 85 f1.4 which are not exactly super-light but I love both

I can see carrying something like an RP with new RF 24, 50 and 135 lenses would be incredibly light and hopefully excellent IQ

Hopefully eventually they will release a camera as light as the RP but with a stunning viewfinder such as the a7r4 .. that would be wonderful

Basically Canon - if you are reading this - I'd like a small light camera for small primes and a chunky big camera for big white lenses - could you arrange that please ?


----------



## unfocused (Sep 13, 2019)

canonnews said:


> View attachment 186596
> 
> 
> Those lenses were announced in 2012 during the height of the yen.
> ...



I don't believe it is as simple as that. Canon has never let prices fluctuate with currency exchange rates.

A strong Yen is not going to make the manufacturing of a Japanese product more costly if the product is manufactured in Japan. The company still pays the same wages to its workers. If the product or parts are manufactured in another country, a strong yen might lower the net cost, as a strong Yen would mean that they would be able to "buy" more labor in another Asian country with the same amount of money.

In addition, in-country costs such as marketing and distribution, which can be as large or larger than manufacturing costs are huge inputs into the final price. Canon USA pays marketing costs and distribution costs in the U.S. and thus is paying in dollars. Rudy Winston and all of the other Canon USA employees get paid in U.S. dollars and their wages don't change with the Yen. The warehousing and distribution of products in the U.S. are paid in dollars.

In addition, we don't know how Canon reconciles their costs between divisions. Are they charging Canon USA the value of the product in Yen, or are they charging them in dollars? And, is this just a paper transaction to reconcile costs between the regions? This is not anything at all like,. for example, Amazon importing Chinese made products for sale in the U.S.

Finally, in this specific instance, the price cuts were not consistent across the board. There was actually quite a bit of discussion about these price cuts at the time and it was pretty clear from industry sources that it was an intentional reduction because the introduced prices were too high for the market.


----------



## BillB (Sep 14, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I don't believe it is as simple as that. Canon has never let prices fluctuate with currency exchange rates.
> 
> A strong Yen is not going to make the manufacturing of a Japanese product more costly if the product is manufactured in Japan. The company still pays the same wages to its workers. If the product or parts are manufactured in another country, a strong yen might lower the net cost, as a strong Yen would mean that they would be able to "buy" more labor in another Asian country with the same amount of money.
> 
> ...


So , what lessons might Canon have learned about trying to make money selling small, moderate priced primes?


----------



## melgross (Sep 14, 2019)

Im just not go8ng to bother with this thread. You guys are going crazy over something that hardly is important. I guess you do post here too much.


----------



## hmatthes (Sep 17, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> DON'T !!!!
> I have the 21 Leica M lens (non-aspherical).
> Mounted on the EOS R, it generates a reddish hue on the sides of the pictures, like all M lenses below 35 mm, you can even see it in the viewfinder!
> The Leica sensors have therefore specifically oriented microlenses against this phenomenon.
> ...


Thank you Del Paso... As soon as I really used the Voigtlander Skopar 21 -- I returned it to the dealer. Terrible magenta in all corners and Adobe RAW could not remove it by profile. Then I went to eBay and bought another Canon 20mm f2.8 -- a treasure of a lens!


----------

