# Pricing for the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM has leaked



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 3, 2020)

> Canon will be officially announcing the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM imminently, but pricing has leaked out ahead of the official announcement.
> The Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM will be $199 USD and the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L USM will be $1599.
> Correction: I have corrected the pricing of the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM from a previous typo.



Continue reading...


----------



## toodamnice (Nov 3, 2020)

Cheaper than I thought they'd be...


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 3, 2020)

Very reasonable pricing for f4 L lens.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Nov 3, 2020)

Pandemic pricing


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 3, 2020)

Excellent pricing here! That 70-200 F/4 is going to sell like hotcakes.

I'll definitely drop a pre-order on the RF 50mm F/1.8 just for the hell of it at that price. Super nice and compact 50mm for the R5.


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 3, 2020)

Oh man, a 70-200 f/4 lens that small and at that price combined with what Canon's put into the R5 and R6 has me seriously thinking about jumping back to Canon.


----------



## eikolyco (Nov 3, 2020)

Oh man, the price is amazing!. I will go for the RF 50 f1.8 while wait for the review of the 70-200 F4 to see should I get it or not.


----------



## tmac25 (Nov 3, 2020)

The source tweet says $1599 for the 70-200 f/4, not $1299. Typo?

——

_>The Canon "RF 50mm F1.8 STM" has been added to US retailers for $ 199 and the "RF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM" for $ 1599._


----------



## navastronia (Nov 3, 2020)

Terrific price on the 50/1.8


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 3, 2020)

Well, well Canon. Looks like Canon is addressing the complaints about no cheap lenses for the R mount to some degree. Local EF 50/1.8 is AUD189 so about USD120 + US tax.
RF50mm/1.8 will definitely be cheaper than EF50mm/1.8+adapter and smaller.
RF70-200mm/4 @USD1299 (plus local tax) will be about the same as the EF version ~AUD2050. This sounds a little optimistic but happy to be wrong. Wouldn't be surprised if the local price is higher... at least to cover the local 5 year warranty


----------



## marathonman (Nov 3, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


You had me at nifty!


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 3, 2020)

$199?!?! MONEY GONE


----------



## hobbodanno (Nov 3, 2020)

That's a great price on that 50! I'll have to grab one of those. Good price on that 70-200 too, but I think I'm going to hold off and wait for a 15-35 F4L.


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 3, 2020)

hobbodanno said:


> That's a great price on that 50! I'll have to grab one of those. Good price on that 70-200 too, but I think I'm going to hold off and wait for a 15-35 F4L.


Fortunately the rumor is the 15-35 F/4L is actually a 14-35mm F/4L! Going to be tough for me to decide if I want to replace my 16-35 F4L with that or the 15-35mm F/2.8L.


----------



## DJL329 (Nov 3, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> Fortunately the rumor is the 15-35 F/4L is actually a 14-35mm F/4L! Going to be tough for me to decide if I want to replace my 16-35 F4L with that or the 15-35mm F/2.8L.



The EF 16-35mm f/4L IS is so good they had to do something to entice owners to switch!


----------



## goldenhusky (Nov 3, 2020)

The 50 f/1.8 is cheaper than I thought. On the 70-200 f/4 Nokishitha' tweet says $1599. If that is true yet another over pricing from Canon.


----------



## arbitrage (Nov 3, 2020)

CR needs to learn how to slow down and read more carefully.
Nokishita says $1599 for the 70-200/4


----------



## Joules (Nov 3, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> CR needs to learn how to slow down and read more carefully.
> Nokishita says $1599 for the 70-200/4
> View attachment 193774


Thanks for showing the source with the correct prices!

Simply copying the numbers could have prevented some disappointment. Well, at least the RF 50 1.8 STM looks really compelling at this price.


----------



## danfaz (Nov 3, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> CR needs to learn how to slow down and read more carefully.
> Nokishita says $1599 for the 70-200/4
> View attachment 193774


Goodness, give the guy a break. Ya'll realize 2 is right below 5 on a 10 key? Probably just a typo.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 3, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> Fortunately the rumor is the 15-35 F/4L is actually a 14-35mm F/4L! Going to be tough for me to decide if I want to replace my 16-35 F4L with that or the 15-35mm F/2.8L.


My current 77mm filters can be used on my RF70-200mm, EF24-105 and EF16-35mm/4. CPL/6 stop ND and 10 stop ND are screw in and my grads are 100mm wide on 77mm thread.

Moving from my EF16-35mm/4 to RF would mean new filters for >77mm thread. That will be expensive for me. 82mm for the RF15-35mm/2.8 and would be larger if it is 14-35mm.
Unlikely that a 14-35mm lense would accept a front filter thread ie bulbous and need a special setup like the Nikon 14-24mm or EF11-24mm.
I have my Samyang 14mm/2.8 if I need wider but it is mostly for astrolandscapes ie not using filters
I'm sure that a new RF wide angle zoom will be great but it would add another AUD1k minimum for the new filters.... Much more if 150mm grads would be needed.


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 3, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> My current 77mm filters can be used on my RF70-200mm, EF24-105 and EF16-35mm/4. CPL/6 stop ND and 10 stop ND are screw in and my grads are 100mm wide on 77mm thread.
> 
> Moving from my EF16-35mm/4 to RF would mean new filters for >77mm thread. That will be expensive for me. 82mm for the RF15-35mm/2.8 and would be larger if it is 14-35mm.
> Unlikely that a 14-35mm lense would accept a front filter thread ie bulbous and need a special setup like the Nikon 14-24mm or EF11-24mm.
> ...



I don't think that will necessarily be the case, as the Nikon Z 14-30mm F/4 accepts 82mm filters without any kind of special set-up. Mirrorless lens mounts make wide-angle lenses a lot more manageable to design, so 14mm is possible with filters.

For my own uses, I already have all of my filters on 82mm and use a 82mm adapter on my 100mm Lee square filters, due to the 24-70mm f/2.8L II needing them already.

(Apologies that this a little off-topic on this thread!)


----------



## heysavnac (Nov 3, 2020)

Yep. Totally snagging a 50 to go with my RF 35 and 85! Wish I could get the F4, but I’ll work for it


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Nov 3, 2020)

LOL RF pricing f/4 is the new f/2.8. Another hard pass. With Canon's criminal price gouging in Australia this will run close to $3K.


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 3, 2020)

What's the catch? Seems unexpectedly reasonable for Canon.


----------



## danfaz (Nov 3, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> LOL RF pricing f/4 is the new f/2.8.


You know, that's a pretty realistic statement. I thought spending $1600 on a refurbished 70-200 2.8 was crazy a few years ago. Now, most of the lenses are $2300+ and $1600 sounds almost like a bargain!


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 3, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> LOL RF pricing f/4 is the new f/2.8. Another hard pass. With Canon's criminal price gouging in Australia this will run close to $3K.


Just need to wait for a sale. @USD1599, it would be ~AUD2500 based on mid market exchange rate and 10% GST.
Digidirect has had a 15% off and then a 20% off sale over the last few months. No deals on the R5 pricing though. If local pricing for RF70-200/4 is AUD3k then 20% sale will end up cheaper than the US.
We also get a 5 year warranty which also has a cost associated with it which is not built into the US pricing. If the warranty length isn't important then buy via the grey market to get a local 1 year warranty (they send overseas for repairs).
Or use the great EF lenses (new or second hand) and wait for RF lens pricing to settle down over the next year or two.


----------



## AJ (Nov 3, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Both of these are inline with their EF counterparts.


The EF 50/1.8 sells for $125. So the RF at $200 is a 60% price increase.


----------



## cycomachead (Nov 3, 2020)

The 70-200 f/4 seems fantastic at $1300 and not bad at $1600. Definitely not unexpected for current Canon pricing. That's $0 to $300 more than the EF version, and an upgrade delta of ~$1100 to the 2.8 version which is an even wider gap than the EF f4 vs f2.8 comparison. The EF versions right now are $1300 and $2000 (sale), and a comparable savings for the RF f4 would put it in the $1700-1800 range.

The 50mm is too much. I suppose I'll still pick one up at some point...but it's a huge jump. I was really hoping for $160, and $150 if we got lucky. 
Given that EF adapters are cheap/almost free with a body on sale, and you can find the EF version for $100, I wouldn't use that as a price comparison. It's a wash, but at the small size, you really will notice not having the adapter in the way.


----------



## tataylino (Nov 3, 2020)

I was expecting the 50mm to be around 149 because the EF version is 125.


----------



## JordanCS13 (Nov 3, 2020)

Fine with the 50 price simply because the EF 50 has had the same optical design for over 30 years. It's literally the same lens as the 50/1.8 mark I from 1987 with a different focus motor. Makes sense that a refined design is more expensive. The 70-200/4 is too much at $1600, though. Big price increase over an essentially brand new lens.


----------



## hobbodanno (Nov 3, 2020)

JordanCS13 said:


> Fine with the 50 price simply because the EF 50 has had the same optical design for over 30 years. It's literally the same lens as the 50/1.8 mark I from 1987 with a different focus motor. Makes sense that a refined design is more expensive.



The new design also has the control ring, which I expect to increase the price. Personally, I think $200 is pretty fair price, but once the new-ness wears off, I wouldn't be surprised to see the lens offered on sale at $150 on a pretty regular bases.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Nov 3, 2020)

So I guess we can look for a release announcement tomorrow or perhaps Wednesday? It seems that when we get prices, official announcement seems to follow within 24ish hours...


----------



## KT (Nov 3, 2020)

That's Tamron kind of pricing dressed as a Canon product. They must be serious about moving some R6 bodies this winter.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 3, 2020)

scottkinfw said:


> What's the catch? Seems unexpectedly reasonable for Canon.


One catch might be that the 50mm appears to be an update of Canon's 1960s era Canonet 45mm f/1.7 rangefinder lens. I don't know what reputation that lens had.


----------



## Joules (Nov 3, 2020)

KT said:


> That's Tamron kind of pricing dressed as a Canon product. They must be serious about moving some R6 bodies this winter.


Nope, CR guy just misquoted his source.

The 70-200 4.0 is actually $1599. That is Canon pricing through and through. They'll move alright nonetheless.


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 3, 2020)

hobbodanno said:


> The new design also has the control ring, which I expect to increase the price. Personally, I think $200 is pretty fair price, but once the new-ness wears off, I wouldn't be surprised to see the lens offered on sale at $150 on a pretty regular bases.



All the old designs have a focus ring so that's no excuse.

New lenses are more expensive because Canon is trying it's best to stay profitable in a difficult market. No doubt there will be deals and I'll probably just get them on the grey market as usual and save a heap of cash.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 3, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> One catch might be that the 50mm appears to be an update of Canon's 1960s era Canonet 45mm f/1.7 rangefinder lens. I don't know what reputation that lens had.



The one I used 13 years ago gave me great results, but I scanned the negatives at 12MP or so, so without locating an enlarger I can't say how it would perform on 50-ish MP


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 3, 2020)

The pricing for the 50mm seems very reasonable to me in comparison to the EF version because one has to consider that the EF 50mm has been around for several years. The current version has been in stores since 2015 - older version with the same optical design have been around for nearly 30 years or even more.


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 3, 2020)

<EF version goes on ebay>


----------



## Traveler (Nov 3, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> My current 77mm filters can be used on my RF70-200mm, EF24-105 and EF16-35mm/4. CPL/6 stop ND and 10 stop ND are screw in and my grads are 100mm wide on 77mm thread.
> 
> Moving from my EF16-35mm/4 to RF would mean new filters for >77mm thread. That will be expensive for me. 82mm for the RF15-35mm/2.8 and would be larger if it is 14-35mm.
> Unlikely that a 14-35mm lense would accept a front filter thread ie bulbous and need a special setup like the Nikon 14-24mm or EF11-24mm.
> ...


Exactly my thoughts! I was hoping for RF15-35 f/4 and the same filter thread. 
With the 2.8 version, they managed to keep the 82mm from EF16-35 f/2.8 on the RF15-35 f/2.8 despite it being wider. 
So I guess they could do it too with a 15-35 f/4. But 14mm is too much I think


----------



## Traveler (Nov 3, 2020)

I’ve been saying that it’s hard to recommend Sony due to their overpriced lenses, even their f/4 ones. 
Now Canon is getting even crazier. The 50 f/1.8 for 199 is alright but the 70-200 for 1599 is a joke.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Nov 3, 2020)

Like most of Canon's pricing, these pricing will probably stay at the MSRP for the first 6 months while demand is high. They will then be reduced, once demand is at normal levels. This is just simple economics.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 3, 2020)

cycomachead said:


> The 70-200 f/4 seems fantastic at $1300 and not bad at $1600. Definitely not unexpected for current Canon pricing. That's $0 to $300 more than the EF version, and an upgrade delta of ~$1100 to the 2.8 version which is an even wider gap than the EF f4 vs f2.8 comparison. The EF versions right now are $1300 and $2000 (sale), and a comparable savings for the RF f4 would put it in the $1700-1800 range.
> 
> The 50mm is too much. I suppose I'll still pick one up at some point...but it's a huge jump. I was really hoping for $160, and $150 if we got lucky.
> Given that EF adapters are cheap/almost free with a body on sale, and you can find the EF version for $100, I wouldn't use that as a price comparison. It's a wash, but at the small size, you really will notice not having the adapter in the way.



Im sure that 50mm will be close to $150 in no time.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Nov 3, 2020)

I'll wait for reviews, but, very probably, this 50mm will be in my bag just for his size and price!
Isn't a necessary lens, but yes a piece of cake and desired lens, being so cute!


----------



## analoggrotto (Nov 3, 2020)

Fran Decatta said:


> I'll wait for reviews, but, very probably, this 50mm will be in my bag just for his size and price!
> Isn't a necessary lens, but yes a piece of cake and desired lens, being so cute!


It's a Canon lens, no need to wait for a review!  

I have the RF 50 F1.2 but may get this for quick travels. I have high hopes to take my R5 everywhere I go. With USB-C charging, this is much more possible.


----------



## AlP (Nov 3, 2020)

First technical data of the new lenses are available (Nokishita).

The RF 70-200 f/4 is 85 g lighter and 57 mm shorter than the EF counterpart, and only 3.5 mm wider. Filter diameter is 77 mm (vs. 72 mm). Maximum magnification is 0.28x vs. 0.27x with a minimum focusing distance of 0.6 m (vs. 1 m)
I don't remember the IS-rating for the EF lens, but the RF seems to rated at 7.5 stops on the R5/R6 and 5 on the R/RP.

The RF 50 mm f/1.8 is exactly as light as the EF 50 mm f/1.8 (160g), only 1.2 mm longer (40.5 mm) and with identical diameter (69.2 mm). Filter size is 43 mm (vs. 49 mm) and max. magnification is 0.25x (vs. 0.21x), minimum focusing distance is 0.3 m (vs. 0.35m)


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Nov 3, 2020)

I love the RF70-200 F2.8L and while the extra stop is nice, I think F4 would be fine for what I shoot. I could have saved a bundle if the price is correct, even at £1599. That would have been £1,000 towards either the RF24-70 F2.8 or RF28-70 F2. I suppose that's the price I pay for being an early adopter.  Too late now & not worth trading the 2.8 in so may as well enjoy it and keep saving for the 24-70.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Nov 3, 2020)

>The RF 70-200 f/4 is 85 g lighter and 57 mm shorter than the EF counterpart,

Which counterpart. f/4 IS (1) or f/4 IS II ? (760g or 780g)
Or maybe even the f/4 one without IS: 705g ?


85 difference seems low...


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 3, 2020)

davidcl0nel said:


> >The RF 70-200 f/4 is 85 g lighter and 57 mm shorter than the EF counterpart,
> 
> Which counterpart. f/4 IS (1) or f/4 IS II ? (760g or 780g)
> Or maybe even the f/4 one without IS: 705g ?
> ...



The extending mechanism probably adds extra weight. The length saving is impressive tho, almost 6cm shorter.


----------



## chasingrealness (Nov 3, 2020)

That is a good price point for the 70-200! Now I just have to wait until Black Friday next year to grab one for $1k lol.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 3, 2020)

Here in the UK, pricing is a little different. We are regularly forced to pay £ per $ price for new Canon equipment. The £ is far higher in value compared to the $ and our bills and housing prices are way steeper vs the salaries here. So this lens is $1299 in the US...this will equate to £1299 ( or $1688 accounting for the real worls exchange rate). I can currently buy a new ef 70-200 f4 LIS for £699 UKP. So this new lens is nearly twice as much as the comparable EF lens. Not so much of a bargain here in Blighty.


----------



## David (Nov 3, 2020)

Now we have a 2300$ 50L and a 190$ cheap 50mm. The Nikon Z 50mm f1.8S for 500$ seems to be the better compromise than no compromise with Canon. Those who'd buy a cheap 50mm can't afford an R-body and those who want small lenses with superior quality are forced to go with Nikon. It would make sense if the cheap RF 50mm would equal the IQ of Nikons Z 50mm, but I have my doubts.


----------



## Maru (Nov 3, 2020)

i wonder what will be the picture quality difference between RF 70-200 F4 and EF 70-200 F4/F2.8... will it perform better! because we can assume that we are saving $200 on adapter


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 3, 2020)

Maru said:


> i wonder what will be the picture quality difference between RF 70-200 F4 and EF 70-200 F4/F2.8... will it perform better! because we can assume that we are saving $200 on adapter



Probably nothing noticeable, considering how good is the EF. But the EF with the adapter is almost twice the length and considerable heavier.


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 3, 2020)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Here in the UK, pricing is a little different. We are regularly forced to pay £ per $ price for new Canon equipment. The £ is far higher in value compared to the $ and our bills and housing prices are way steeper vs the salaries here. So this lens is $1299 in the US...this will equate to £1299 ( or $1688 accounting for the real worls exchange rate).



As usual, included VAT makes the biggest difference in US vs European prices. The rest is mostly higher employee costs due to higher income taxes and better protections.


----------



## slclick (Nov 3, 2020)

Traveler said:


> I’ve been saying that it’s hard to recommend Sony due to their overpriced lenses, even their f/4 ones.
> Now Canon is getting even crazier. The 50 f/1.8 for 199 is alright but the 70-200 for 1599 is a joke.


You seem to be in the minority here about that price furthermore you might want to brush up on your Canon 70-200 f/4L pricing history and value. Bemoaning the f/4L line has never been an issue for most anyone.


----------



## AlP (Nov 3, 2020)

davidcl0nel said:


> >The RF 70-200 f/4 is 85 g lighter and 57 mm shorter than the EF counterpart,
> 
> Which counterpart. f/4 IS (1) or f/4 IS II ? (760g or 780g)
> Or maybe even the f/4 one without IS: 705g ?
> ...



The IS II (780 g). The RF lens is apparently 695 g, so still a bit lighter than the "original" EF f/4 without IS


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 3, 2020)

OK, at $1299 i would have been all over this. $1599 dampens my enthusiasm, but I thought it was going to be $2k so at least its not that. If this lens picks up a $100 or $200 rebate sometime in the future, that will be the time to strike. Honestly once reviews come out and we actually see how compact it is on the camera, that may drive me to change my mind and get in sooner. We'll see. I could see an RF camera bag with the 24-105F4L, 70-200F4 L, and a prime of choice (35/50/85) being a complete travel kit. 

-Brian


----------



## danfaz (Nov 3, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I could see an RF camera bag with the 24-105F4L, 70-200F4 L, and a prime of choice (35/50/85) being a complete travel kit.
> -Brian


This is what I was thinking, too, a great small kit (assuming not the 85 1.2)!


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 3, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> OK, at $1299 i would have been all over this. $1599 dampens my enthusiasm, but I thought it was going to be $2k so at least its not that. If this lens picks up a $100 or $200 rebate sometime in the future, that will be the time to strike. Honestly once reviews come out and we actually see how compact it is on the camera, that may drive me to change my mind and get in sooner. We'll see. I could see an RF camera bag with the 24-105F4L, 70-200F4 L, and a prime of choice (35/50/85) being a complete travel kit.



I'm having trouble coming up with a zoom to accompany my RF100-500. The 24-105 f/4L and 24-240 STM are at similar price points and both have good reviews for the things I want to do with it.

I have the EF24-105L and EF70-200 f/4L non-IS, but both were kinda "meh" on the RP and the R5 makes them look even worse when cropping


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 3, 2020)

Well, I was quite off with my guess of $349 for the 50mm f1.8. Wow - $199! - that'll shake up the R mount entry level!

But I was pretty close with my guess of $1499 for the 70-200 f4L. I think that's going to be a GREAT lens for a lot of people! I'm looking forward to seeing resolution/contrast tests for it vs. the f2.8L version.


----------



## tron (Nov 3, 2020)

I used recently my 16-35 4L IS with my 5DMkIV. It's small size and very good IQ was the decision factor. It produced excellent results.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 3, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I'm having trouble coming up with a zoom to accompany my RF100-500. The 24-105 f/4L and 24-240 STM are at similar price points and both have good reviews for the things I want to do with it.
> 
> I have the EF24-105L and EF70-200 f/4L non-IS, but both were kinda "meh" on the RP and the R5 makes them look even worse when cropping



My understanding is the RF 24-105L is a big improvement over the EF version, so the EF's lackluster performance on the RP shouldn't be a factor in your decision making.

The 24-240 by contrast has to do a lot of in-camera distortion correction at the wide end. That to me marks it off as lower quality than the 24-105 but by no means a terrible lens given the correction in camera, and the correction is done well. That's the tradeoff you're looking at, a bit more genuine optical quality versus extra range and only you can answer whether you're more interested in that extra range or whether you are a purist and want optics that need less correction.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 3, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I could see an RF camera bag with the 24-105F4L, 70-200F4 L, and a prime of choice (35/50/85) being a complete travel kit.



That makes a whole lot of sense. My RF bag right now has the 15-35, 24-105 and the old EF 100-400 II L (and yes it's heavy). No prime, as of yet (or I can bring over one of my non-L ones from EF-land, most likely the 85mm f/1.8--that's a SECOND bag with EF lenses in it--the bags live in the trunk/boot of my car), those L primes are expensive and so far I've not zeroed in on a "category" of photography where one would be $2000+ worth of useful.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 3, 2020)

SteveC said:


> My understanding is the RF 24-105L is a big improvement over the EF version, so the EF's lackluster performance on the RP shouldn't be a factor in your decision making.
> 
> The 24-240 by contrast has to do a lot of in-camera distortion correction at the wide end. That to me marks it off as lower quality than the 24-105 but by no means a terrible lens given the correction in camera, and the correction is done well. That's the tradeoff you're looking at, a bit more genuine optical quality versus extra range and only you can answer whether you're more interested in that extra range or whether you are a purist and want optics that need less correction.


I’ve rented the RF24-105L a few times and was very happy with the results, even if it does make my EF gen 1 look like it has jelly on the front element.

I don’t mind corrections, that’s that DPP4+DLO is for 

Ideally the combo would be 24-105, 70-200, 100-500, but that’s mostly GAS talking 
The coming months won’t have a lot of opportunities to use them, due to weather and other restrictions.

So I predict I will get the new RF50 and with a portion of the money saved rent the RF28-70 for the next family vacation in May. And put a picture of the RF70-200 f/4 on my nightstand


----------



## SteveC (Nov 3, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I’ve rented the RF24-105L a few times and was very happy with the results, even if it does make my EF gen 1 look like it has jelly on the front element.
> 
> I don’t mind corrections, that’s that DPP4+DLO is for
> 
> ...



Yeah, now the RF 28-70 is TOTALLY redundant, its range is entirely within that of the 24-105.  The GAS you were talking about would give you lenses with overlap (and one that is entirely overlapped by other lenses) but at least no one lens in that lineup covers everything one of the other lenses does.


----------



## Kiton (Nov 3, 2020)

danfaz said:


> Goodness, give the guy a break. Ya'll realize 2 is right below 5 on a 10 key? Probably just a typo.



Big time! 

We ain't saving lives here!


----------



## Nord0306 (Nov 4, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I'm having trouble coming up with a zoom to accompany my RF100-500. The 24-105 f/4L and 24-240 STM are at similar price points and both have good reviews for the things I want to do with it.
> 
> I have the EF24-105L and EF70-200 f/4L non-IS, but both were kinda "meh" on the RP and the R5 makes them look even worse when cropping



I have an EF24-105 gen 1 and a 24-240, I haven't compared them directly, but have no complaints about the 24-240. I also have the 100-400mm II and use it a lot on my RP. Most of the time I have the 24-240 or 100-400 mounted. I would echo the other comment about what you are looking for, but I am happy with the 24-240.

As to the OP topic, I have the EF50 1.8 and the control ring adapter. I'm not yet sure the size alone is worth the $100 difference, I was hoping for IS (which I'm sure would have pushed it over $300). Also, since I have the 24-240, I would just use that over the 70-200 f/4 and I sometimes think I need/want 2.8, so I may still get that 2.8.


----------



## degos (Nov 4, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Terrific price on the 50/1.8



Yongnuo can sell a 50mm 1.4 for $170. What's terrific about $200 for 1.8?


----------



## mpphoto (Nov 4, 2020)

degos said:


> Yongnuo can sell a 50mm 1.4 for $170. What's terrific about $200 for 1.8?


I'm not sure comparing a Yongnuo lens to a Canon lens is an apples-to-apples comparison, but I agree with your sentiment. $200 for a likely average 50mm f/1.8 is kind of expensive in my opinion. I pre-ordered the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM because at $130 or whatever it was at the time, I figured there wouldn't be much of a decrease in price over time because the price was so low. Not much of an early adopter tax. However, for my budget, $200 is more of a price I have to think about. It's not a no-brainer. At $150, I would've been in. Instead, I'll be waiting for the refurb to become available (probably around $160). I doubt we will see the lens below $180 anytime soon.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 4, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> As usual, included VAT makes the biggest difference in US vs European prices. The rest is mostly higher employee costs due to higher income taxes and better protections.


I actually confronted Canon in a letter to thier UK head offices asking them to justify the vast relative price difference between the US and UK prices of the (then new to market) 1DmkII. It took them about 3 months to reply...they sent me a really nice photography book and a letter from their UK CEO. It basically said...there is no relation to real world costs, there is a perception of value in each economy that allows them to sell for that price...ie...they do becuase they can. It's as simple as that. The British buyers buy lots at the over inflated price so taht sets the price point. If no one bought them...then the price would be keener at launch. The letter was 2 pages long and really well thought out and nicely written.


----------



## navastronia (Nov 4, 2020)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I actually confronted Canon in a letter to thier UK head offices asking them to justify the vast relative price difference between the US and UK prices of the (then new to market) 1DmkII. It took them about 3 months to reply...they sent me a really nice photography book and a letter from their UK CEO. It basically said...there is no relation to real world costs, there is a perception of value in each economy that allows them to sell for that price...ie...they do becuase they can. It's as simple as that. The British buyers buy lots at the over inflated price so taht sets the price point. If no one bought them...then the price would be keener at launch. The letter was 2 pages long and really well thought out and nicely written.



That's refreshingly honest of them. Kudos to whoever wrote that.


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 5, 2020)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I actually confronted Canon in a letter to thier UK head offices asking them to justify the vast relative price difference between the US and UK prices of the (then new to market) 1DmkII. It took them about 3 months to reply...they sent me a really nice photography book and a letter from their UK CEO. It basically said...there is no relation to real world costs, there is a perception of value in each economy that allows them to sell for that price...ie...they do becuase they can. It's as simple as that. The British buyers buy lots at the over inflated price so taht sets the price point. If no one bought them...then the price would be keener at launch. The letter was 2 pages long and really well thought out and nicely written.



Yeah, sure, that's how supply and demand works. But my point still stands. The "over inflated price" looks much much closer to the US price once you subtract the included VAT, which obviously is not going to Canon. US prices never have sales taxes included because they vary too much from place to place. (They're also typically much lower than UK/EU VAT but that's another story.)


----------

