# The benefits of the large diameter of the EOS R’s RF mount explained



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 17, 2018)

> DCWatch has posted an internal Canon presentation about the advantages of the RF mount’s large diameter. Canon describes why they developed a new mount over using the existing EF-M mount. The large diameter of the RF mount allows for simpler and better-balanced lens design.
> The RF mount allows for the larger lens elements to be near the rear of the lens and closer to the camera mount and the image sensor. This should provide better balance when larger aperture lenses are affixed to the EOS R. While this could technically have been done with the EF-M mount, it’s far easier for Canon to design lenses for the RF mount.
> 
> 
> Comparing EF and RF lens design...



Continue reading...


----------



## KirkD (Dec 17, 2018)

This explains why the RF 50mm f1.2 does not have as large a diameter front element as I would have expected.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 17, 2018)

Very interesting compromises and good to read how engineers made those compromises with explanation.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Dec 17, 2018)

Looking at the photo sample of the 35mm lenses, it is shocking how small the front glass is on the RF version. Traditionally I always thought aperture was a formula of front glass size in relation to lens barrel length. Or maybe I am wrong and it is barrel size not front element size?


----------



## photonius (Dec 17, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> Looking at the photo sample of the 35mm lenses, it is shocking how small the front glass is on the RF version. Traditionally I always thought aperture was a formula of front glass size in relation to lens barrel length. Or maybe I am wrong and it is barrel size not front element size?


from the single lens formula just calculate it: f/2: 35mm/2 = 17.5mm diameter. f/1 lens: 35mm diameter...


----------



## LDS (Dec 17, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> was a formula of front glass size in relation to lens barrel length


AFAIK, it's the entrance pupil - not the front glass size. For some kind of lens designs they can be quite close, but for others they're not. Retrofocus designs have large frontal lenses, but the entrance pupil is smaller.
If you look at the two lenses, the pupils are quite alike, despite the different size of the front lens.
Anyway, keeping larger lenses close to the camera should also make handling the camera more comfortable, especially with smaller and lighter mirrorless.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 17, 2018)

Fascinating!


----------



## degos (Dec 17, 2018)

It's not the *diameter* of the R-mount that is significant, since it's the same as the EF mount. They weren't going to use an APS-C-sized mount in any event. It's the combination of maintained-diameter and shorter flange distance.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Dec 17, 2018)

degos said:


> It's not the *diameter* of the R-mount that is significant, since it's the same as the EF mount. They weren't going to use an APS-C-sized mount in any event. It's the combination of maintained-diameter and shorter flange distance.



Exactly. Please admin: change this article to stop the spread of this wider RF mount misinformation.


----------



## venusFivePhotoStudio (Dec 17, 2018)

Same Mount size, RIGHT! But because is closer to the sensor, you can make bigger back lens elements...

So the article is not so wrong after all.


----------



## canonnews (Dec 17, 2018)

degos said:


> It's not the *diameter* of the R-mount that is significant, since it's the same as the EF mount. They weren't going to use an APS-C-sized mount in any event. It's the combination of maintained-diameter and shorter flange distance.



actually, the diameter *IS* very important. it's a combination of lens registration distance and mount diameter that gives the flexibility.

which is why they didn't use the EF-M mount. they could use the EF-M mount, and the article states that Canon even considered it.

the larger mount diameter allows them to "flip" the elements around, and not use an element to "spread" the light across the entire sensor.

This is why when I wrote CN's article, I compared the RF lens to a similar Sony FE lens, and the differences are as Canon discussed in their presentation.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 17, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> Exactly. Please admin: change this article to stop the spread of this wider RF mount misinformation.


CR guy didn't write the article, so he can't change it. Besides, you and degos misinterpret the point anyway.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 17, 2018)

it is and was rather obvious all along. fairly simple geometry. i stated many times that well chosen mount parameters relative to image circle cannot be understated. 

of course Canon could have "pulled a Sony" and used APS-C optimized M-mount also for FF. But it would have resulted in the same design restrictions that Sony FE lenses suffer from: lenses that are too big, too heavy, too complex and too expensive. 

It was clear (to me) that Canon would not go that route. as with SLRs (EF/EF-S) they continue with 2 mounts for mirrorfree: one optimally chosen for APS-C, 1 for FF image circle.

now all we have to wait for is RF lens prices dropping to EF levels.


----------



## melgross (Dec 17, 2018)

KirkD said:


> This explains why the RF 50mm f1.2 does not have as large a diameter front element as I would have expected.


F stop has to do with the maximum diameter of the diaphragm. Divide the focal length of the lens by the diaphragm diameter, and you get the f stop.

The size of the front element group mostly determines how much light is gathered at the edges and corners. Bigger front elements give less vignetting. It’s not entirely that simple, but that’s the gist of it.

A very short backfical distance allows smaller lens elements overall, because the rear element group still is smaller than what the front would have been. What I’m seeing with all the illustrations here, and elsewhere, is an exaggeration of the size of elements for lens designs for mirrorless. The reality isn’t so exaggerated.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 18, 2018)

To me, it shows that Canon is considering the "long game." They know that in the short term they may be at a disadvantage to Sony with far fewer native lenses, but in the long term, their choice of wider diameter mount will be an advantage. Of course, the constant Sony bias in reviews and Youtube videos usually fails to mention this, even though most pro photographers know that it is the lenses that make the system.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Dec 18, 2018)

The new mount would unlock the development potential especially towards ultra-wide angle end. Would Sony "upsize" the mount? Would Canon scrap the EF-M mount?


----------



## jvillain (Dec 18, 2018)

Canon won't scrap EF-M. It has it's place.


----------



## mclaren777 (Dec 18, 2018)

I don't understand the monstrous 95mm front element on my 28-70mm.

What gives?


----------



## GulliNL (Dec 18, 2018)

I think this lens design could be quite interesting in long telephoto lenses. Would they benefit from the same architecture? 

So maybe instead of huge, tapering, front heavy lenses, we get huge 'rectangular' lens bodies with all the heavy glass near the mount instead of in the front.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 18, 2018)

Ah-Keong said:


> The new mount would unlock the development potential especially towards ultra-wide angle end.



yes, it does. 
no, it will not allow for miracles in design of longer focal lengths/tele lenses



Ah-Keong said:


> Would Sony "upsize" the mount?



no, they won't. Way too late. Sony and their customers now have to live with the consequences of Sony's bad decision to use their crop-sensor E-mount also for FF image circle.

Nikon however may well come up with a second, smaller mount for a mirrorfree APS-C system - if they ever make one.



Ah-Keong said:


> Would Canon scrap the EF-M mount?



no, they will not. Why should they? EOS M/EF-M is the market leading APS-C ecosystem (probably ahead now of EF-S and certainly ahead of Fujifilm C and Sony E), because it offers good capability at affordable prices in very compact gear - thanks to optimally chosen EF-M lens mount parameters. Not possible to the same degree with R mount.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 18, 2018)

melgross said:


> What I’m seeing with all the illustrations here, and elsewhere, is an exaggeration of the size of elements for lens designs for mirrorless. The reality isn’t so exaggerated.



not sure about this - whether or not illustrations and images truly "to scale" ... or not.

illustration and images of the 2 lenses seem to correspond pretty well. does not look "exaggerated" to me.








waiting to read reports of "scratched rear lenses". oO


----------



## jd7 (Dec 18, 2018)

canonnews said:


> actually, the diameter *IS* very important. it's a combination of lens registration distance and mount diameter that gives the flexibility.
> 
> which is why they didn't use the EF-M mount. they could use the EF-M mount, and the article states that Canon even considered it.
> 
> ...


Agree with all of that but I think there has been some confusion around the internet about whether the RF mount is larger than the EF mount. I've seen a few people claim that it is, but of course it isn't - it's the same size as the EF mount. I'm guessing that a few people have jumped to the conclusion that since Nikon just introduced a FF mirrorless camera with a mount larger than its previous FF mount, Canon must have done the same thing with their new FF mirrorless. Anyway, my assumption is the earlier posters were picking up on the sorts of claims I've seen elsewhere and feeling like references to the new RF mount being "large" tend to reinforce that misinformation. Your point is quite different though of course - you are just saying the EF/RF mount is larger than the EF-M mount.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 18, 2018)

jd7 said:


> Your point is quite different though of course - you are just saying the EF/RF mount is larger than the EF-M mount.



more importantly:
* Canon EF and R mount parameters [combo of throat width and flange focal distance] are very well chosen for FF image circle. 
* Sony E-mount is well chosen for APS-C sensor image circle but a very poor choice for FF sensors. 
* Nikon Z mount looks a bit of overkill for throat width. Apparently Nikon wanted to have potential for some exotic ultra-fast "showcase" glass [eg manual focus f/0.95 lenses]. Regular lenses will generally not profit from it.
* Canon EF-M is perfectly chosen for APS-C sensor [Canon 1.6x] but would be a very bad choice for FF image circle.



jd7 said:


> Agree with all of that but I think there has been some confusion around the internet about whether the RF mount is larger than the EF mount. I've seen a few people claim that it is,


Folks who don't even know the basic mount parameters [not you!] should first read up on the subject before posting.


----------



## LDS (Dec 18, 2018)

jd7 said:


> since Nikon just introduced a FF mirrorless camera with a mount larger than its previous FF mount



Nikon was still constrained by compatibility with its old F mount. Canon broke compatibility with the previous FD mount more than 30 years ago and increased the diameter back then. Going even larger would mean also larger cameras, or a new camera design. And may be not needed (yet?)


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 18, 2018)

I was surprised to see the ef 85mm f1.4 LIS launched. I was expecting a slew of new f1.2 lenses (24mm / 35mm / 50mm and 85mm). So I wonder if Canon are holding back the f1.2 feature for the R mount lenses. Purely for a marketing purpose (there really isn't a technical or optical reason).


----------



## 4fun (Dec 18, 2018)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I was surprised to see the ef 85mm f1.4 LIS launched. I was expecting a slew of new f1.2 lenses (24mm / 35mm / 50mm and 85mm). So I wonder if Canon are holding back the f1.2 feature for the R mount lenses. Purely for a marketing purpose (there really isn't a technical or optical reason).



but there is a fairly compelling economic reason. Even in the past a few drooled over f/1.2 lenses, but only very few were sold ... compared to more sensible lens alternatives. Now, with EOS R system launched, exotic-expensive EF lenses will be an even harder sell. So I would not hold my breath for any new/additional f/1.2 EF lenses. As a matter of fact I expect hardly any new/additional EF lenses to appear.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 18, 2018)

4fun said:


> but there is a fairly compelling economic reason. Even in the past a few drooled over f/1.2 lenses, but only very few were sold ... compared to more sensible lens alternatives. Now, with EOS R system launched, exotic-expensive EF lenses will be an even harder sell. So I would not hold my breath for any new/additional f/1.2 EF lenses. As a matter of fact I expect hardly any new/additional EF lenses to appear.



The f/1.2 lenses sold more than "very few." They were staples for event and portrait photographers.


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 18, 2018)

It's only a mater of time before less expensive Ti7 level cameras are produced using the RF mount. With judicious use of plastic and the sizes of the elements the lenses could be made cheaper, especially if they use a smaller sensor size. Add in the existing aps-c sensors or a new line of aps-h sensors to differentiate between full frame and consumer RF mount cameras and it gets even cheaper. 

A aps-h sized sensor might even be a great fit with a 7dII replacement. Less data to process, still less detail than a 1dx replacement.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 18, 2018)

4fun said:


> But it would have resulted in the same design restrictions that Sony FE lenses suffer from: lenses that are too big, too heavy, too complex and too expensive.



Doesn't seem to have prevented the too expensive part


----------



## 4fun (Dec 18, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Doesn't seem to have prevented the too expensive part



oh well ... . 

Will have to wait and see how/as Canon RF lens portfolio develops. f/2 zoom and f/1.2 lenses are "premium products" = price carries a PREMIUM over value. 
There will be more affordable RF lenses too.


----------



## melgross (Dec 18, 2018)

4fun said:


> not sure about this - whether or not illustrations and images truly "to scale" ... or not.
> 
> illustration and images of the 2 lenses seem to correspond pretty well. does not look "exaggerated" to me.
> 
> ...



Well, you’ll see right there, that the difference in rear element size isn’t that different. Assuming that the pics of both lenses are real. We’re seeing an exaggeration of what’s possible in the drawings of the lens designs.

It’s simple arithmetic. Look at the rear of your lens, and see the max diameter element that can fit, minus the metal construction of the lens barrel holding the lenses in place. It’s much smaller than the front elements of a number of current fast lenses. It’s a physical limitation. If they made the mount with a gigantic 70mm size, they could do it. But as it is, the mount is about the same dia as before, just a lot closer.


----------



## melgross (Dec 18, 2018)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I was surprised to see the ef 85mm f1.4 LIS launched. I was expecting a slew of new f1.2 lenses (24mm / 35mm / 50mm and 85mm). So I wonder if Canon are holding back the f1.2 feature for the R mount lenses. Purely for a marketing purpose (there really isn't a technical or optical reason).



Canon has to be realistic about sales. With the new 50 1.2 going for $2,300, how many do they really expect to sell? That and the f2 zoom are more of a; “See what we can do!”. But to sell tens, and even hundreds of thousands of lenses, they need much lower pricing. Really, 1.4 is just a half stop slower, but lenses could cost just half of what the 1.2 versions could cost. F1.2 lenses have always been lenses we generally lusted over, but never bought new.


----------



## melgross (Dec 18, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> The f/1.2 lenses sold more than "very few." They were staples for event and portrait photographers.



No they weren’t. It was a small percentage of sales.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 18, 2018)

I want all f1.2 lenses  okay, I can live with a 100mm in f1.4..

I like this thread


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 18, 2018)

melgross said:


> No they weren’t. It was a small percentage of sales.



Small percentage of sales but that could be said of any L lens besides the kit lenses. A small percentage does not mean "a few."


----------



## bokehmon22 (Dec 18, 2018)

Ah-Keong said:


> The new mount would unlock the development potential especially towards ultra-wide angle end. Would Sony "upsize" the mount? Would Canon scrap the EF-M mount?



I doubt it. I will be a big FU to their supporters, but I would love for that to happens.


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 18, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> Small percentage of sales but that could be said of any L lens besides the kit lenses. A small percentage does not mean "a few."


Really?? Wild guess: There are five times as many 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS lenses sold as there are any f/1.2 lens. Does anybody here have real data?


----------



## highdesertmesa (Dec 18, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> CR guy didn't write the article, so he can't change it. Besides, you and degos misinterpret the point anyway.



They could have titled THIS article: "reduced flange distance combined with keeping the same, large mount diameter..." // This article title just keeps this false notion circulating that RF went up in diameter from EF.


----------



## melgross (Dec 18, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> Small percentage of sales but that could be said of any L lens besides the kit lenses. A small percentage does not mean "a few."



A few thousand, is a few compared to the 100 million EOS lenses Canon has sold over the years. Even the low tens of thousands would be regarded as few.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 18, 2018)

melgross said:


> A few thousand, is a few compared to the 100 million EOS lenses Canon has sold over the years. Even the low tens of thousands would be regarded as few.


Do you know how many f/1.2s have been sold? Without those figures, the discussion is meaningless.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 18, 2018)

melgross said:


> A few thousand, is a few compared to the 100 million EOS lenses Canon has sold over the years. Even the low tens of thousands would be regarded as few.




Tens of thousands is not a small number, so it would not be "few." It may still be a small number relative to the total number of EOS lenses in the millions, but that's not what few means. It is not relative like "minority." EF 1200mm lenses definitely quality as few. 

few
[fyo͞o]

DETERMINER

(few)
a small number of.
"may I ask a few questions?" · 
[more]
"I will recount a few of the stories told me" · "many believe it but only a few are prepared to say"
*synonyms:*
not many · hardly any · scarcely any · a small number of ·
[more]
a small amount of · a small quantity of · one or two · a handful of · a sprinkling of · little · a couple of · a small number · a handful · a sprinkling · one or two · a couple · two or three · not many · hardly any
*antonyms:*
many · a lot
used to emphasize how small a number of people or things is.
"he had few friends" · 
[more]
"few thought to challenge these assumptions" · "very few of the titles have any literary merit" · "a population of fewer than two million" · "sewing was one of her few pleasures" · "ask which products have the fewest complaints" · "one of the few who survived"
*synonyms:*
not many · hardly any · scarcely any · a small number of ·
[more]
a small amount of · a small quantity of · one or two · a handful of · a sprinkling of · little · a couple of · scarce · scant · scanty · meager · insufficient · negligible · in short supply · thin on the ground · scattered · seldom met with · few and far between · infrequent · uncommon · rare · sporadic


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 19, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> They could have titled THIS article: "reduced flange distance combined with keeping the same, large mount diameter..." // This article title just keeps this false notion circulating that RF went up in diameter from EF.


Don't know how. It doesn't say it at all. You mean the notion you had?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 19, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don't know how. It doesn't say it at all. You mean the notion you had?


Highdesertmesa is correct. It's not his arbitrary notion, he is being precise - both distance and diameter come into the equation. Canon decreased the flange distance without changing the flange diameter, and if you are just going to concentrate on one point in comparisons, it is usually the one that changes.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 19, 2018)

mclaren777 said:


> I don't understand the monstrous 95mm front element on my 28-70mm.
> 
> What gives?


f/2....that is what gives.  

Still need to gather a lot of light to have a f/2 lens.

This is more about the rear element. My simplistic observation has been to look at the distance the light has to travel from the last element. The shorter the distance, the easier it is to place the light where you want it. The flange distance, of course, plays a huge role in this, but so does a bigger final element, which especially helps in the corners.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 19, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Highdesertmesa is correct. It's not his arbitrary notion, he is being precise - both distance and diameter come into the equation. Canon decreased the flange distance without changing the flange diameter, and if you are just going to concentrate on one point in comparisons, it is usually the one that changes.



I agree with you AlanF, I suspect that Canon were inferring that the flange diameter is larger compared to all the other brands of mirror-less full frame camera formats. Not compared to their own EF range.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 19, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> They could have titled THIS article: "reduced flange distance combined with keeping the same, large mount diameter..." // This article title just keeps this false notion circulating that RF went up in diameter from EF.



That's not how I read it, it went up in diameter compared to their other mirrorless mount, the EF-M mount, which would have been a reasonable contender (as the article suggests) for the FF mount.


----------



## melgross (Dec 20, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Do you know how many f/1.2s have been sold? Without those figures, the discussion is meaningless.



I don’t think the numbers are out there where they’re easily found. I’ve looked. But my customers, hundreds of pros, even thousands, over the years, rarely had one.


----------



## melgross (Dec 20, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> Tens of thousands is not a small number, so it would not be "few." It may still be a small number relative to the total number of EOS lenses in the millions, but that's not what few means. It is not relative like "minority." EF 1200mm lenses definitely quality as few.
> 
> few
> [fyo͞o]
> ...


Those definitions aren’t relevant. They’re meant in regards to far smaller overall numbers. When you’re talking in numbers well in excess of 100 million lenses, two or three doesn’t apply. The other words used there have more meaning: a small number of, a sprinkling of, negligible, seldom met with, few and far between, infrequent, uncommon, rare, sporadic. All of those better illustrates the concept.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 22, 2018)

melgross said:


> Those definitions aren’t relevant. They’re meant in regards to far smaller overall numbers. When you’re talking in numbers well in excess of 100 million lenses, two or three doesn’t apply. The other words used there have more meaning: a small number of, a sprinkling of, negligible, seldom met with, few and far between, infrequent, uncommon, rare, sporadic. All of those better illustrates the concept.



Comparing a kit lens that may be mass produced at such a price that the profit on each lens sold by Canon as part of a kit may be a few dollars vs a significant profit margin on a smaller volume L series lens isn't really helpful to anyone.


----------



## melgross (Dec 27, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Comparing a kit lens that may be mass produced at such a price that the profit on each lens sold by Canon as part of a kit may be a few dollars vs a significant profit margin on a smaller volume L series lens isn't really helpful to anyone.


Manufacturing isn’t one thing or the other. There’s a basic cost, and there’s a marketing price. The maximum profit is a relation of number of item sold, and price. The higher the price, the fewer sold, and the lower the price, the more sold. Somewhere in that is the ideal price and sales. That where the maximum profit is. This is economics 101.

Companies don’t always adhere to that principle. We don’t know where Canon is where this. The more lenses produced, the lower the production cost per lens, up to the point where a new factory needs to be built, and run, for more product. Then cost rises again.

The point is that these are, as you say, expensive lenses. Therefor, Canon sells few of them. If they decided to bring the cost down somewhat, they would sell more. No one expects Canon to sell a large number of these, no matter what. But it is also fact that lens prices are rising a great deal as companies raise optical quality.

Since cheap lenses have been getting better as well, I wonder just how many people feel that these very expensive lenses are worth it for the extra half stop


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2018)

melgross said:


> Manufacturing isn’t one thing or the other. There’s a basic cost, and there’s a marketing price. The maximum profit is a relation of number of item sold, and price. The higher the price, the fewer sold, and the lower the price, the more sold. Somewhere in that is the ideal price and sales. That where the maximum profit is. This is economics 101.
> 
> Companies don’t always adhere to that principle. We don’t know where Canon is where this. The more lenses produced, the lower the production cost per lens, up to the point where a new factory needs to be built, and run, for more product. Then cost rises again.
> 
> ...


That might be Economics 101. But, Economics 102 has "Veblen Goods" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good whereby increasing the price of a luxury item can increase demand. The Canon super telephotos are so expensive it's not clear whether supply and demand law comes in.


----------



## melgross (Jan 2, 2019)

AlanF said:


> That might be Economics 101. But, Economics 102 has "Veblen Goods" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good whereby increasing the price of a luxury item can increase demand. The Canon super telephotos are so expensive it's not clear whether supply and demand law comes in.


That only works to a certain extent. It’s certainly not eco 102. Doubling the price of a product doesn’t double demand. It likely lowers demand by a lot.

These Canon lenses aren’t Leica, or Hasselblad. Those are luxury brands, and can have high prices. Canon is a working camera company. When they come out with a new 50 F 1.4 for R, we’ll see what the price differentiation is. If it costs about $1,500, about what we;re seeing for the newer 50 f 1.4s these days, then what does that $800 get you other than a half stop?

Assuming the 1.4 is as good, that’s a lot of money for a little bit more light.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 2, 2019)

I was challenging your sweeping statement:


melgross said:


> ........The higher the price, the fewer sold, and the lower the price, the more sold. Somewhere in that is the ideal price and sales. That where the maximum profit is. This is economics 101.


because that does not necessarily hold with luxury goods, as for Veblen goods. It can also break down for essential items as in Giffen's Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good. I think that Canon big whites are actually so expensive that they don't strictly follow the law of pricing and demand.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 2, 2019)

melgross said:


> ...
> Assuming the 1.4 is as good, that’s a lot of money for a little bit more light.



That is a big assumption.

I think it's more likely that a RF 50 f/1.4 IS follows what the RF 35 f/1.8 IS and EF 35 f/2 IS are compared the 35L II, and the RF 35 f/1.8 IS and EF 35 f/2 IS are priced in the $500-$600 range. And now, CR reports that a RF 85mm f/1.8 IS is in the works. I'm guessing that the RF 85mm lens would be similar in size to the RF 35 to provide good performance in a small package at a much lower price than the L glass. It is not designed to replace the 85mm f/1.4L. I would see the RF 50 f/1.4 IS filling a similar role -- to be an affordable and compact option for the budget users of the future and not a EF 50L/RF 50L/Sigma 50A competitor.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 3, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I was challenging your sweeping statement:
> 
> because that does not necessarily hold with luxury goods, as for Veblen goods. It can also break down for essential items as in Giffen's Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good. I think that Canon big whites are actually so expensive that they don't strictly follow the law of pricing and demand.



There are indeed certain items which rely on being exclusive to sell products at a high price. Even mass produced items like Apple iPhones and watches are sold for huge profits are marketed and seen as status symbols.

Leica falls in that category, handmade, low volume, and high price.

I don't believe that the Canon big whites quite make it into the ultra exclusive status symbol category, but they do have a high price.

Cameras and lenses in general are a declining industry, there is no end in sight to the drop in sales volume at the low end.


----------



## Canfan (Apr 25, 2021)

Curious how the new RF mount can benefit supertelephoto technology.
would be nice to see some interesting new supertelephoto lenses like a 500mm 5.6, 200-600mm, 600mmf5.6 or f8 feel these will sell very well. Don’t believe it would canabalize the f4 sales either. Just like 16-35f 2.8 vs f4 or 70-200mmf2.8 and f4 some people would be happy with abit less weight but good performance. Like some of the older seasoned pros who sometimes would like to lug around something less backbreaking.
It nice to have options.
like look at the comparision of the Nikon 500mmf4 vs f5.6


----------

