# We’ve received the pricing for the new RF lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 23, 2019)

> Next week, we’re obviously going to see both the Canon EOS 90D and Canon EOS M6 Mark II announcements. Along with the two new camera bodies, we should also see 2 more RF lenses officially announced this week. The RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM, RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM coming first and the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM coming at a later date.
> We have received pricing for the 3 mentioned lenses, but the pricing came to use in Thai Baht, so we’ve done a bit of converting to get what we think the USD pricing will be.
> 
> Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM 82,600 THB – $2499 USD *$2299*
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## flip314 (Aug 23, 2019)

Ouch. So much for Canon continuing to have cheaper lenses than Sony and Nikon... I've been predicting much lower prices than this, but incorrectly it seems.

Although, the 24-70 2.8 price is only $200 more than the EF version 2 was at release, so this might just be the early adopter premium. (or the currency conversion isn't accurate)


----------



## luka73 (Aug 23, 2019)

If prices are correct, Canon is not exactly making it easy for ppl to switch to mirrorless. Isn't it like shooting your own foot ? Well, we won't have to wait long to find out.


----------



## neo302 (Aug 23, 2019)

Expensive but I’m sure they will be amazing.


----------



## BillB (Aug 23, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Ouch. So much for Canon continuing to have cheaper lenses than Sony and Nikon... I've been predicting much lower prices than this, but incorrectly it seems.
> 
> Although, the 24-70 2.8 price is only $200 more than the EF version 2 was at release, so this might just be the early adopter premium. (or the currency conversion isn't accurate)


Adjusted, for inflation, the RF prices may not be all that much higher than the introductory prices of their EF equivalents.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 23, 2019)

Exactly the cost I thought the 24-70 2.8 L IS would be. Budgeting now to get it at some point.

Hoping for a development announcement for a 100-400 L soon with a price under 2.5K.


----------



## bgoyette (Aug 23, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Ouch. So much for Canon continuing to have cheaper lenses than Sony and Nikon... I've been predicting much lower prices than this, but incorrectly it seems.
> 
> Although, the 24-70 2.8 price is only $200 more than the EF version 2 was at release, so this might just be the early adopter premium. (or the currency conversion isn't accurate)


I'm forgetting, which EF 24-70 2.8L *IS* is it that you're comparing this to?


----------



## slclick (Aug 23, 2019)

One each for every forum member!


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Aug 23, 2019)

Body should come free with the lens! My God!


----------



## glongstaff (Aug 23, 2019)

so as Canon et al dont like to use conversion rates for the UK market but seem to like 1 pound = 1 dollar. Have been thinking of switching to mirrorless from the Canon 5D MKIII to reduce weight,sizes etc but after reading various articles on the weight of some of the RF lenses and now the pricing it certainly puts me off switching to mirrorless for quite a while


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 23, 2019)

BillB said:


> Adjusted, for inflation, the RF prices may not be all that much higher than the introductory prices of their EF equivalents.


Very true. Also, the EF versions were priced high at release just like the RF line. Prices will come down. There will be sales and rebates.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 23, 2019)

I did not realize that country-to-country pricing was consistently linked. We in the USA often read on Canon Rumors about prices in Europe that seem much higher. Is that because of VAT in addition to Canon's price? Are prices really the same around the world? Or is Thailand a special case? (I've been to Thailand three times but never bought electronics.)


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 23, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Exactly the cost I thought the 24-70 2.8 L IS would be. Budgeting now to get it at some point.
> 
> Hoping for a development announcement for a 100-400 L soon with a price under 2.5K.


He's talking about the RF version.


----------



## mbike999 (Aug 23, 2019)

Longtime Nikon shooter, but I'm impressed with these lenses especially the 70-200 2.8. Canon continues to pump out some great glass. Pricing is pretty much to be expected at this stage for pro mirrorless equipment. Good time to be a photographer.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 23, 2019)

About 10-15% higher than I thought. Still not terrible. Damn i want that 15-35. I may have to sell the 16-35 f4 and be without a wide on my EF gear....


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2019)

KeithBreazeal said:


> Body should come free with the lens! My God!



I wonder if they would still make money if they threw in a Canon RP with the first purchase of one of these lenses


----------



## LensFungus (Aug 23, 2019)

Looking at these lenses and the possible price of Canon's upcoming mirrorless version of the EOS 5DSR, I'm about to sell my house, my car and my wife. Oh wait, that sounds very unsophisticated. I'm not selling the car.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 23, 2019)

luka73 said:


> If prices are correct, Canon is not exactly making it easy for ppl to switch to mirrorless. Isn't it like shooting your own foot ? Well, we won't have to wait long to find out.



It’s totally in line for L glass. But I hear you. Canon needs to get more non-L primes out for the RF mount asap. And Im sure they’re on it. But yes, going heavy on the L glass to start does make it difficult if you dont want to use and adapter


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> About 10-15% higher than I thought. Still not terrible. Damn i want that 15-35. I may have to sell the 16-35 f4 and be without a wide on my EF gear....



The only one that kills me is the 24-70 IS. I love my EF 24-70 II but I do miss IS on it at times. The 15-35 will be a stellar lens but f/2.8 isn't worth the extra $$$ for me personally.


----------



## amorse (Aug 23, 2019)

Well, it's not cheap, but it probably shouldn't be unexpected either. Frankly, if I had an R body I'd snap up one of those 15-35s immediately. I don't pre order anything as a rule, but I'd probably pre order that.


----------



## J9canon (Aug 24, 2019)

Log into Facebook


Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.




www.facebook.com





This is a Canon authorized dealer. They are selling the RP for 48,900 Thai Bahts, which is $1609.56. $1609.56 x 80.76% = $1300. So...

The 15-35 and 24-70 will both cost about $2195.71. Or in other words, $2200, not $2500. Here's hoping. Who knows? If this RP in Thailand is being discounted right now, it could be even less than $2200. I did not get the 16-35 and 24-105 so I could justify buying this 15-35 IS.


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 24, 2019)

amorse said:


> Well, it's not cheap, but it probably shouldn't be unexpected either. Frankly, if I had an R body I'd snap up one of those 15-35s immediately. I don't pre order anything as a rule, but I'd probably pre order that.



Exactly my plan. I will preorder the 15-35 the second I can, then probably wait until the other lenses I want fall a little in price to save a few hundred.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Aug 24, 2019)

I think I just figured out how Canon plans to get their finances back on track. There's going to be some great EF glass on the used market for the next few years.


----------



## flip314 (Aug 24, 2019)

bgoyette said:


> I'm forgetting, which EF 24-70 2.8L *IS* is it that you're comparing this to?



I'm well aware that none of the EF versions had IS, it's why I've been looking forward to the RF version so much (and I why will probably buy it at any price if I can't wait until the first time a rebate is offered). My point was actually that maybe getting IS for $200 wasn't that bad, even though the RF lens is still more expensive than Sony's (Nikon doesn't have a comparable Z lens since they dropped VR from it)



PureClassA said:


> It’s totally in line for L glass. But I hear you. Canon needs to get more non-L primes out for the RF mount asap. And Im sure they’re on it. But yes, going heavy on the L glass to start does make it difficult if you dont want to use and adapter



This pricing implies that the RF 70-200 2.8 will be $700 more than the EF 2.8 IS III currently is. That's a third more. What do you get for that? The size advantage when it's unzoomed? People can't even agree that's a good feature, seems that internal zoom would still be desired by some.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 24, 2019)

flip314 said:


> This pricing implies that the RF 70-200 2.8 will be $700 more than the EF 2.8 IS III currently is. That's a third more. What do you get for that? The size advantage when it's unzoomed? People can't even agree that's a good feature, seems that internal zoom would still be desired by some.



I'm not saying $2800 is a sweet deal, but we also don't know if the IS has been improved, if there's a BR element included (like there is for the 85 1.2), or if the overall image quality and resolving power have been increased by the new design. It's not unlikely that some of these things are true if for no other reason than it would be beyond embarrassing if none of them were. Every RF L lens has come out head and shoulders above the EF version in reviews. No reason yet to believe this case will be different.

EDIT: I do actually wish it was an internal zoom, for the record.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Aug 24, 2019)

My goodness that 15-35 lens...2.8...with IS...that lens alone is going to sell some Rs.


----------



## Dj 7th (Aug 24, 2019)

amorse said:


> Well, it's not cheap, but it probably shouldn't be unexpected either. Frankly, if I had an R body I'd snap up one of those 15-35s immediately. I don't pre order anything as a rule, but I'd probably pre order that.


Why did you say this? I mean why specifically the 15-35? Maybe I do need a reason to nudge me.


----------



## JoeDavid (Aug 24, 2019)

amorse said:


> Well, it's not cheap, but it probably shouldn't be unexpected either. Frankly, if I had an R body I'd snap up one of those 15-35s immediately. I don't pre order anything as a rule, but I'd probably pre order that.



That’s exactly what I plan on doing. I did a photography trip to England back in June and took an EOS R with only 3 lenses; EF 11-20/4L, RF 24-105/4L IS, and EF 100-400/4-5.6L IS II. I took the 11-24 mainly for Stonehenge since we had purchased a pass for entry before the general admission starts. The 11-24 was the weakest performer; especially as you move away from the center of an image. I rarely use wider than 16 so the 15-35/2.8L IS should be a good fit for me and an incredible performer based on the other RF lenses.


----------



## amorse (Aug 24, 2019)

Dj 7th said:


> Why did you say this? I mean why specifically the 15-35? Maybe I do need a reason to nudge me.


I've been on the hunt for a lens that's fast and wide with a filter thread, and right now that looks like the widest lens in that category! I was really close to pulling the trigger on the 16-35 f/2.8L iii, but with this announced I find myself asking myself if and when I'll move over to the R and if I'd regret the decision. I'm just very indecisive haha.


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 24, 2019)

Dj 7th said:


> Why did you say this? I mean why specifically the 15-35? Maybe I do need a reason to nudge me.



Well, for me, it's just my most used lens outside of primes, and I've got a trip in November.

That said, as the bottom of the photography market continues to fall away, I think Canon (an others) will start to introduce new products with more padding in their pricing structures. This allows for more pricing qualification to specific consumers. Those willing to pay to get items now will do so, those willing to wait a few months will likely score discounts of 10% or more on a regular basis.


----------



## Dj 7th (Aug 24, 2019)

amorse said:


> I've been on the hunt for a lens that's fast and wide with a filter thread, and right now that looks like the widest lens in that category! I was really close to pulling the trigger on the 16-35 f/2.8L iii, but with this announced I find myself asking myself if and when I'll move over to the R and if I'd regret the decision. I'm just very indecisive haha.


Thank you. I think I will pre-order too, I already switched to the R but hoping I can make some decent money out of my EF 16-35 and EF 24-70.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 24, 2019)

My 70-200 is getting a little long in the tooth. I've been watching for a refurbished sale, but also wanted to see what the RF version was going to cost. I'm a little skeptical that this pricing is accurate, but if it is, I know I will be getting more serious about 70-200 III, which I can use on both DSLRs and the R. I cannot imagine there will be any significant improvement in the RF version as the EF version is already near perfect and while the fact that it extends makes for a more compact carrying package, that alone doesn't excite me_ that _much.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 24, 2019)

LensFungus said:


> Looking at these lenses and the possible price of Canon's upcoming mirrorless version of the EOS 5DSR, I'm about to sell my house, my car and my wife. Oh wait, that sounds very unsophisticated. I'm not selling the car.


Just make sure your wife doesn't read this forum...


----------



## zogdart (Aug 24, 2019)

The RF 28-70 F2 is 3000$ I did a test drive with my CPS ands it's an amazing lens. I'm hopping that the 24-70 F2.8 will be cheaper. I can't buy both and I really need the 4mm extra for some events unfortunately. otherwise I would go for the 28-70 F2 if there is only 500$ difference.


----------



## zogdart (Aug 24, 2019)

unfocused said:


> My 70-200 is getting a little long in the tooth. I've been watching for a refurbished sale, but also wanted to see what the RF version was going to cost. I'm a little skeptical that this pricing is accurate, but if it is, I know I will be getting more serious about 70-200 III, which I can use on both DSLRs and the R. I cannot imagine there will be any significant improvement in the RF version as the EF version is already near perfect and while the fact that it extends makes for a more compact carrying package, that alone doesn't excite me_ that _much.


All the RF lens I have tested are significantly better that the EF. The one that was miles away was the RF50mm F1.2 compared to my EF 50mm F.1.2


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 24, 2019)

For me, moving to RF would be unwise.
If Canon doesn't disappoint with their high-res R, I have enough EF L glass.
If Canon does disappoint, I'll switch to Sony and use my EF lenses with an adapter.
That is, the prospective prices on RF glass won't encourage people to move to RF system. Only those who are new to RF and don't have EF glass will be interested.


----------



## deleteme (Aug 24, 2019)

The prices are in the range of what we can expect from modern premium glass from Canon. The reaction to the prices are also what I expected. 
One has to remember that almost all EF lenses are several years old with their R&D costs long ago paid for in old prices for labor. The most recent 70-200 is but a paint job and lens coating refresh of an older design that still acquits itself well. 
The new lenses represent a significant investment that seems likely to be spread out over a lower sales volume irrespective of pricing if current sales trends are any indication. 

I would expect that there will be lower prices for those willing to wait until after the initial frenzy dies down.


----------



## deletemyaccount (Aug 24, 2019)

These new lenses are likely extraordinary, but to be honest buying this glass and reselling 8 L lenses won't bring me more money. I'm glad Canon has a good working adapter for EF lenses. In a declining market, the new system will be a hard sell with glass this expensive.


----------



## jeanluc (Aug 24, 2019)

The 15-35 will be a very nice lens I bet, probably better than the 16-35L 2.8 III. The fact is though that they do not have an R body that will benefit from anything better than using either the 16-35L F 4 or the 2.8III and an adapter. Unless you consider using an adapter to be a big deal. I don’t mind at all. 

I will get the 15-35 as soon as they actually release a hi -res body that will benefit from it.


----------



## dolina (Aug 24, 2019)

I wonder how bad of an Osborne effect canon will be enduring because of this,


----------



## Quackator (Aug 24, 2019)

Really looking forward to the 15-35. Had the Tamron 2.8/15-30 VC for a week and test drove it at the opening gala of a trade fair. Ended up using nothing but the Tammy on 5D MkIV and the Sigma 1.8/135 ART on 1D-X. Had the full case of all the goodies with me, never felt the urge to use anything between those two lenses. Mused about buying the Tammy, when Canon came around with the announcement of the 15-35. Everything the Tammy does, plus some. And more compact, less weight.

Will buy the 15-35 as soon as Canon introduces a tool sized camera. The R would be fine for me, if it had the ergonomics of the 5D MkIV. So anything like the R or above - in a better body shape.

5D Level is enough - a gripped body would be too much.

Sample size of one, of course.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 24, 2019)

flip314 said:


> I'm well aware that none of the EF versions had IS, it's why I've been looking forward to the RF version so much (and I why will probably buy it at any price if I can't wait until the first time a rebate is offered). My point was actually that maybe getting IS for $200 wasn't that bad, even though the RF lens is still more expensive than Sony's (Nikon doesn't have a comparable Z lens since they dropped VR from it)
> 
> 
> 
> This pricing implies that the RF 70-200 2.8 will be $700 more than the EF 2.8 IS III currently is. That's a third more. What do you get for that? The size advantage when it's unzoomed? People can't even agree that's a good feature, seems that internal zoom would still be desired by some.



Is it not internal zooming?? I must have missed something.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 24, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> The only one that kills me is the 24-70 IS. I love my EF 24-70 II but I do miss IS on it at times. The 15-35 will be a stellar lens but f/2.8 isn't worth the extra $$$ for me personally.



If I sell my current lens, the RF will net out around $1600. Not bad. The extra stop plus native mounting to the EOS R (more compact) is a great upgrade to work with the 4k crop on the R. That mostly what Im using the R for


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Aug 24, 2019)

My opinion ... and I use one RF lens, the 50mm 1.2

These lenses will be rather expensive, but they seem better, more advanced, and more complex. Did the EF 70-200mm 2.8 have a 3rd control ring? Not. Is the RF 50mm 1.2 as nice as the Zeiss Milvus I owned? Yes. And with auto focus and a control ring. For pros and people who understand good equipment, the price is okay. Otherwise, there's great EF glass that still adapts and works near perfect. And more less expensive RF glass will come along. So I see no problems, and simply more tools and solutions. First models when I got the RF 50mm last autumn.


----------



## vjlex (Aug 24, 2019)

I'm interested in adding a 70-200-ish lens back into my arsenal, but for now, my money is earmarked for the ≥5D IV level R body. Maybe by the time the body finally appears I'll have enough saved for both (still not likely).


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 24, 2019)

Ouch! That rules out changing to the eos r system for me in the near term.


----------



## diegopisante (Aug 24, 2019)

glongstaff said:


> so as Canon et al dont like to use conversion rates for the UK market but seem to like 1 pound = 1 dollar. Have been thinking of switching to mirrorless from the Canon 5D MKIII to reduce weight,sizes etc but after reading various articles on the weight of some of the RF lenses and now the pricing it certainly puts me off switching to mirrorless for quite a while


The exchange worth, my 5DMKIV is in my bag, and I don't stop to use the EOS R with the EF lenses.


----------



## lawny13 (Aug 24, 2019)

This is about what I expected for the pricing of these lenses. They are about the same as when the EFs were released.

Bear in mind that canon uses an earlier adopter exploration method. Those who buy early pay the premium then they competitively being down the prices over a year. Not to mention sales.

Before those who want to talk about how Sony compares do and apples to apples comparison... look at Sony release prices not current ones and compare how those prices came down over time. 

GM lenses are about the same size as those EF lenses. And since EF adapts seamlessly on the RF mount if you want to save money then adapt. These RF lenses look to be smaller and lighter. And if they are parafocal than in my book they do add value.... but will just wait for the inevitable price cuts. Look at how the R came down in price by almost $300 at certain times. 

Choices... good to have them.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 24, 2019)

Yea, photography is an expensive hobby for me, but the money spent on RF glass was instantly worth it. There is no hassle or hours upon hours of testing and calibrating. For me flawless lenses is what I want, because I don’t want to fix things in post, I want to be creative and have fun. RF and the R brought the fun back for me.

An lately I’ve being editing lots of pictures shot with EF-glass, and they just don’t come close.

I wanted perhaps that 70-200, but I was pretty much right about the price so already knew I couldn’t afford it. Doesn’t mean it’s hugely expensive, it just means that I spent my money on the 1.2’s instead.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 24, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Yea, photography is an expensive hobby for me, but the money spent on RF glass was instantly worth it. There is no hassle or hours upon hours of testing and calibrating. For me flawless lenses is what I want, because I don’t want to fix things in post, I want to be creative and have fun. RF and the R brought the fun back for me.
> 
> An lately I’ve being editing lots of pictures shot with EF-glass, and they just don’t come close.
> 
> I wanted perhaps that 70-200, but I was pretty much right about the price so already knew I couldn’t afford it. Doesn’t mean it’s hugely expensive, it just means that I spent my money on the 1.2’s instead.



Thanks, you're giving me the worst GAS possible


----------



## edoorn (Aug 24, 2019)

Seems in line with intro prices of the Z 24-70 and Sony 2.8 zooms (or actually maybe cheaper?).

And although sometimes Canon might dissapoint in pure tech specs for camera’s (although in practice they are fine), you know the lenses seldom fail our expectations; these babies could set new standards for pro 2.8 zooms.

Hopefully we’ll hear more about pro R bodies soon, and I do hope we also get to see more smaller and cheaper lens alternatives for those that not need the highest quality glass. Surely other brands might see opportunity there if Canon doesn’t oblige (hopefully Tamron will bring R mount lenses)


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 24, 2019)

With negative interest rates becoming bitter reality, better spending on a lens that keeping money in the bank!


----------



## AlanF (Aug 24, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> With negative interest rates becoming bitter reality, better spending on a lens that keeping money in the bank!


With negative interest rates and deflation, consumer goods should decrease in price over time. Not that that scenario dictates my buying.


----------



## Diltiazem (Aug 24, 2019)

Adjusted for inflation the price probably is on par with EF versions. But the landscape has changed. Canon is far behind Sony in FF mirrorless market, so more than inflation should have been considered. Unless Canon comes up with some great FF mirrorless cameras with the reasonable price these lenses will appear expensive. 
I am an R user, btw.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 24, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> I wonder if they would still make money if they threw in a Canon RP with the first purchase of one of these lenses


I trust that you are onto something here... let me think.. 24-70 is that a an equivalent to a 24-70 f2.8 L II I already own? hmm.. I am getting an EF to RF adapter for that. 28-70/F2 is a different story though. pure gold. no discount expected there.


----------



## Joaquim (Aug 24, 2019)

glongstaff said:


> so as Canon et al dont like to use conversion rates for the UK market but seem to like 1 pound = 1 dollar. Have been thinking of switching to mirrorless from the Canon 5D MKIII to reduce weight,sizes etc but after reading various articles on the weight of some of the RF lenses and now the pricing it certainly puts me off switching to mirrorless for quite a while



The only way you can reduce weight is by moving to APS-C and there's only one manufacturer you can do that with currently unless you consider M4/3rds as well. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the beast.


----------



## Joaquim (Aug 24, 2019)

amorse said:


> I've been on the hunt for a lens that's fast and wide with a filter thread, and right now that looks like the widest lens in that category! I was really close to pulling the trigger on the 16-35 f/2.8L iii, but with this announced I find myself asking myself if and when I'll move over to the R and if I'd regret the decision. I'm just very indecisive haha.


More than indecisive, I think you're sane like most of us brother. It's an expensive undertaking, this moving to mirrorless business, whether within the same brand or not.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 24, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That is, the prospective prices on RF glass won't encourage people to move to RF system. Only those who are new to RF and don't have EF glass will be interested.


Not true for everyone. If you are just talking price, maybe true for some with the current RF offerings and prices. But prices will come down just like they did for EF. Switching, for me, was all about the glass. I rented the RF 28-70 f/2L for ten days and just had to buy. That's all it took to convince me + Viggo showing me the sharpness of the RF 85mm f/1.2 at f/1.2. I can survive on those two lenses alone for a very long time (I'll have to. ) I don't need a speed demon of a camera and 30mp is fine for me. The R beats my former 5D Mark III. Sold it and all my EF glass. IBIS would be nice, but I know how to get the shutter speed up. There wasn't any IS on my 24-70 or 35 or the 400 f/5.6 when I had it.


----------



## canonmike (Aug 24, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> With negative interest rates becoming bitter reality, better spending on a lens that keeping money in the bank!


You may have a valid argument here. Now, let me go check my bank account that is earning almost nothing.


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 24, 2019)

Wow, those are some great tax write offs!


----------



## AlanF (Aug 24, 2019)

I can recommend this website https://www.gas-x.com/amp/yoga-positions-for-relieving-gas-discomfort.html


----------



## mjg79 (Aug 24, 2019)

Canon has a long standing policy of charging a high price for top quality lenses on introduction and over the following years gradually reducing the price. It's a sensible policy. In the past it was more to do with recouping R&D costs. Today it is the only sensible approach to take as the camera market contracts - there are "money no object" amateurs who think that better lenses make them better photographers (said in no spirit of contempt - I used to think that way too), youtube "reviewers" etc who Canon can just ask what they want and get it. Someone like Jared Polin for example can now finally be satisfied he is using a 2.8 zoom lens and talk about how "pro" he feels using it for his snapshots etc etc. It's all a bit silly but Canon has to milk these people.

Look at Apple to see how it's properly done - new form factors tend to come one year, then new tech the next. When they introduced the iPad they didn't give it a front facing camera - they knew that early adopters would buy it regardless.

Canon would be mad to not charge full whack for these great new lenses and given how well adapting EF to R lenses works it means Canon continues to have a good flexible line up. The EF lenses are often priced very competitively, even ones released just a couple of years ago, and they can be used perfectly on the R. In general, apart from wide angles, there are no serious size benefits to going mirrorless. So now on an EOS R one can buy the 70-200/2.8 EF III for a good price (or II for a bargain price) and it's unlikely the RF 70-200 will be that much better optically but is of course smaller - does one prefer fixed or extending design? At any rate I prefer my 70-200 II on the 5D as it balances much more nicely on a deeper, heavier body. There isn't going to be a "perfect" one size fits all camera.

As the the 24-70 - again I am doubtful the RF one will be that much better optically. The EF 24-70 II is near perfect, perhaps a bit more contrast would be good when there is flare but it's still sharper than even the new Nikon Z 24-70. But it will have IS. I have the R and use my EF 24-70 adapted and won't update for a few years until the price falls.

The only one I am tempted by is the wide angle. It will almost certainly be smaller - look at Sony to see how it goes - a 24-70 or 70-200 gets no size benefit, nor do primes 35mm and longer but Sony's 16-35 GM is an outstanding design that is sharp and small and has low vignetting just sadly has the usual Sony build quality issues, on lensrentals they said one would need to go through several copies to find one that performed well at the long end, the Sony 24/1.4 GM is an excellent lens too and small - their 35 and 50 1.4s are SLR lens sized. I actually sold my 16-35 III as the vignetting compromised its use for astro. I am currently using the Tamon 15-30 and find its VC to be extraordinary. If the RF 15-35 has equally good IS and is a lot smaller than I might bite the bullet and accept the financial cost of being an early adopter with that one.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Aug 24, 2019)

Ambitious. At these prices I think Canon really need to release some more compelling bodies to go with them. The EOS R and RP are far from what competitors are doing.

That said, if they can improve their bodies they will have a great mirrorless system.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 24, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Not true for everyone.



Right, I definitely exaggerated it. Not for everyone. But there'll definitely be a tendency of keeping existing EF glass, if any, rather than replacing it.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 24, 2019)

While the prices are higher than that of the predecessors but ... inflation + surely some advantages in IQ and or usability might explain the prices. If the 70-200 has 40mm less length it would make the difference for a hiking professionals or traveling journalists. The 15-30 might have less vignetting while using the lower flange distance.

Maybe the advantages in terms of IQ are only fully exploited with a high res EOS R camera?


----------



## bergstrom (Aug 24, 2019)

Great. Lenses for rich people.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 24, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Right, I definitely exaggerated it. Not for everyone. But there'll definitely be a tendency of keeping existing EF glass, if any, rather than replacing it.


BTW: Your landscapes are really gorgeous. Wow! factor.


----------



## edoorn (Aug 24, 2019)

bergstrom said:


> Great. Lenses for rich people.



Rather, lenses for pro photographers who should adjust their rates in the years accordingly. For the 24-70 there’s also a much more affordable f4 alternative, hopefully the wide angle and telezoom will get these options too. And affordable lightweight prime lenses like the 35.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 24, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Not true for everyone. If you are just talking price, maybe true for some with the current RF offerings and prices. But prices will come down just like they did for EF. Switching, for me, was all about the glass. I rented the RF 28-70 f/2L for ten days and just had to buy. That's all it took to convince me + Viggo showing me the sharpness of the RF 85mm f/1.2 at f/1.2. I can survive on those two lenses alone for a very long time (I'll have to. ) I don't need a speed demon of a camera and 30mp is fine for me. The R beats my former 5D Mark III. Sold it and all my EF glass. IBIS would be nice, but I know how to get the shutter speed up. There wasn't any IS on my 24-70 or 35 or the 400 f/5.6 when I had it.


That’s not true for me either, I had for example the 35 L II and the 85 L IS with my 1dx2. And I actually switched because of the R, and the introduction of the RF50, but kept the 35 and 85 for a while. Not ONE second have I regretted the switch.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 24, 2019)

edoorn said:


> Rather, lenses for pro photographers who should adjust their rates in the years accordingly. For the 24-70 there’s also a much more affordable f4 alternative, hopefully the wide angle and telezoom will get these options too. And affordable lightweight prime lenses like the 35.


I could very probably be wrong, but I think the current contraction of the camera market is also hitting the professionals (I am not) for many of the same reasons. The market got saturated over the years with the advent of digital and flooded with people who would never work in a darkroom, but are willing to do so with the digital equivalents like Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. Then there are those who think smartphone photos are good enough.

There are people around here (DFW Texas) who advertise, on local social media pages, shooting wedding photos for people at $150 and promising loads of photos... digitally. Then the bride and groom can get prints wherever they want. I don't understand how they do it. I don't understand how the time can be worth it, but they do it, and apparently that is good enough for many people. People who advertise senior photos at $30-$40. Head shots at $30-$40. So I think the high end fantastic photographers are probably still finding work. The low end looks, to me, like it is being crushed right now. I have a cousin that does this in Mississippi and she stays real busy, but I just don't see a way that makes it worth the time and effort for the photographer. She only uses the pop-up flash on her Rebel and has EF-s lenses... yet she gets all kinds of work. I saw the same phenomena when I lived in Nevada.

All that just to say that raising prices, for people willing to shoot a wedding for $1,000 - $1,500 (the old low end), find it hard enough to stay in business and have a whole lot of pressure to keep their prices low. The high end photographers, who are really special people, aren't affected as much in my opinion. Their clientele have money and are willing to spend it. The low end? "We can get a washer and dryer or the latest smart phone. Hire the $150 photographer."


----------



## navastronia (Aug 24, 2019)

bergstrom said:


> Great. Lenses for rich people.



I think the majority of people would feel that both $1800 and $2800 lenses are “for rich people.”


----------



## Viggo (Aug 24, 2019)

navastronia said:


> I think the majority of people would feel that both $1800 and $2800 lenses are “for rich people.”


I’m certainly not rich, but my car is 52 years old, my iMac is 10 years old and most of my clothes are at least 12-14 years old


----------



## navastronia (Aug 24, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I’m certainly not rich, but my car is 52 years old, my iMac is 10 years old and most of my clothes are at least 12-14 years old



Nothing wrong with spending money on things you’re interested in, regardless of what it is! Just commenting on how we’re perceived by the normies hahahah


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 24, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I’m certainly not rich, but my car is 52 years old, my iMac is 10 years old and most of my clothes are at least 12-14 years old


Yup! Just about the same here, except I drive a 2016 Hyundai. I eat a lot of cheap chicken leg quarters ($6 for 10 lbs), Ramen, and wear my clothes until they are thread bare. My whole wardrobe consists of 2 pair of jeans and about 6 t-shirts+underwear and socks and shorts. My wife almost never goes shopping for clothes. When she does, she's happy with the clearance racks at Walmart.

Sacrifices allow us to live a better life in other ways.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 24, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I’m certainly not rich, but my car is 52 years old,


I wonder how old your wine is.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 24, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I wonder how old your wine is.


I wouldn’t know if it was a $1000 or $10 dollar bottle so I leave it and have myself a nice Laphroaig 25 instead


----------



## ThomasK (Aug 24, 2019)

Ooops, my budget isn't in line with the future price tags of Canon mirrorless lenses. Time to switch brand after 16 years with Canon.


----------



## felipeolveram (Aug 24, 2019)

This probably won't be a popular opinion as most people on here justifying the price of these lenses, but after releasing the R, imho if these are the prices canon is absolute mad for releasing these lenses at this price. One long time argument for staying with canon was that sony or nikon glass were too expensive and that you could get much more value for canon glass, will no longer be the case. I'm not saying that these lenses won't be spectacular, but there is now a used market for sony glass and brand new these lenses will be $300 more expensive than their counter parts for the 15-35mm and 24-70mm RF you could get a 24-70gm 16-35mm gm and a monitor or other professional equipment. This just continues the trend of canon trying to increase the barrier of entry whereas new manufacturers are lowering the barrier of entry introducing more people to the technology. With my 6d mii and 24-70mm EF it just doesn't make sense for me to upgrade to the R and a 24-70mm RF finically or professionally. Hopeful this works out for canon in the long run catering to a different market, we shall see.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 24, 2019)

First, I think it would be wise see what the actual in-country prices are, as I don't have a lot of confidence in the accuracy of these converted prices. But, even if they are accurate, the only one that really surprises me is the 70-200 f2.8. 

If my quick research is correct (Canon Price Watch), it looks like the 15-35 with IS is $300 more at introduction than the EF 16-35 without IS and the 24-70 with IS is $200 more than the introduction price of the 24-70 EF without IS. 

On the other hand, the 70-200 is $700 more than the most recent EF version at introduction.

Certainly, all of these prices will settle in over the coming years as the market wins out. But, I don't think it is too far out of line to pay a $200 premium for IS or in the case of the 15-35, a $300 premium for IS and 1mm wider (which actually does make a difference in wide angles). 

To me the head-scratcher is the 70-200. I doubt it will be much improved optically over the EF version (in part because there just isn't a lot of room for improvement and even less room for improvement that will be discernible outside of test charts.) The external zoom is appealing because of the room it saves in the camera bag, but I have to believe that external zooms are less expensive to design and build. Canon priced the two 24-105's (EF and R) the same, so I expected they would do that as well with the 70-200. I know the perceived small size (which really isn't any smaller when zoomed out to 200mm) has generated a lot of buzz. Maybe Canon is pricing it at a premium based on capitalizing on that buzz.

I'm looking forward to how this all plays out over the next few years. The only lens here that I was interested in was the 70-200 and realistically, that was just because I thought it was cute. My cooler head reminded me that I need a 70-200 that works on both EF and R lens mounts, so my hope is that this new lens will simply drive down the price of the 70-200 III, which as I said earlier, I may buy at some point because my II version is showing its age (actually more showing the hard use it has received). 

I appreciate how well the Canon adapters work with all my EF lenses and even with third party lenses, so I'm feeling no pressure to go out and buy any of these R lenses since I am not ready to go all-in of the R system. I like knowing that 10 years from now, all my EF lenses will continue to work just fine with R bodies. Maybe by that time the picture will be more clear and I will have decided whether or not to go all in with mirrorless. In the meantime, I will continue to use and buy EF lenses and I look forward to the price drops that the new R lenses will help drive in the EF world.

Looking forward to some Big White R lenses which might make it possible for me to finally afford an EF Big White.


----------



## felipeolveram (Aug 24, 2019)

Also take note, electronic IS is not the same as having a stabilizer such as a glide cam or motorized gimbal. IS is intended to reduce some slight shakiness from hand held photography from slower shutter speeds. Saving $200 for $200 more you can purchase a ronin sc or zhiyun. The best system out there with IBIS and internal lens stabilization is panasonics, and we have yet to see canon announce a camera with ibis.


----------



## Jethro (Aug 25, 2019)

ThomasK said:


> Ooops, my budget isn't in line with the future price tags of Canon mirrorless lenses. Time to switch brand after 16 years with Canon.


And during those 16 years, have L series lenses been cheaper than this at release?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 25, 2019)

Jethro said:


> And during those 16 years, have L series lenses been cheaper than this at release?


I'm too lazy to search for historical prices, but current RF prices look higher than their (rough) EF equivalents.

In the R 'ecosystem', there will be a lot more existing Canon EF users than newcomers. I'd expect Canon to encourage them to switch to RF by setting more attractive prices on RF glass, but of course it's entirely up to Canon.


----------



## LukasS (Aug 25, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> In the R 'ecosystem', there will be a lot more existing Canon EF users than newcomers. I'd expect Canon to encourage them to switch to RF by setting more attractive prices on RF glass, but of course it's entirely up to Canon.



We'll we can expect a lot but there is nothing we can do about it. I won't speculate on pricing based on rumor - when they will be actually announced and priced for my market (EU) then I will see how it presents itself.

Bought R only for video features so for me IS is desirable and will probably go for the 15-35. I have entire range those lenses cover in EF mount (some IS) but I'm keen to get new ones as some of mine are already 15 years old. So spending around 2k GBP on a lens that will last me 15+ years - don't see a problem with that (especially with Amazon's 5 months interest free payments).

Bottom line is - nobody is forcing anyone to get new RF glass when there are EF lenses with amazing performance (new or used) and they work as good on both systems.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Aug 25, 2019)

luka73 said:


> If prices are correct, Canon is not exactly making it easy for ppl to switch to mirrorless. Isn't it like shooting your own foot ? Well, we won't have to wait long to find out.


I wonder what they are capable of resolving? If the rumor of 60+++mo sensor... might be at those levels??


----------



## unfocused (Aug 25, 2019)

LukasS said:


> Bottom line is - nobody is forcing anyone to get new RF glass when there are EF lenses with amazing performance (new or used) and they work as good on both systems.



And...bottom line, nobody is forced to pay the price Canon sets. Eventually, the market always wins out. Canon can ask any price they want, but if it's too high, they won't meet their sales numbers and they will reduce the price. There are countless examples of Canon cutting prices on lenses and cameras because the market determined their asking price was too high.


----------



## deleteme (Aug 25, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> With negative interest rates becoming bitter reality, better spending on a lens that keeping money in the bank!


With negative interest rates becoming a bitter reality we might be worrying about more than the price of a luxury good.


----------



## deleteme (Aug 25, 2019)

My wife gets annoyed with me when I note that a meal at a decent restaurant rarely exceeded $10 back in the 70's. I also could fill my gas tank for less than $5.
She tells me "Do you want people to think you're an old fart 'cause you sure talk like one."
Now I just do a quick COLA calculation and shut up.


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 25, 2019)

One word: adapters.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 25, 2019)

felipeolveram said:


> This probably won't be a popular opinion as most people on here justifying the price of these lenses, but after releasing the R, imho if these are the prices canon is absolute mad for releasing these lenses at this price. One long time argument for staying with canon was that sony or nikon glass were too expensive and that you could get much more value for canon glass, will no longer be the case. I'm not saying that these lenses won't be spectacular, but there is now a used market for sony glass and brand new these lenses will be $300 more expensive than their counter parts for the 15-35mm and 24-70mm RF you could get a 24-70gm 16-35mm gm and a monitor or other professional equipment. This just continues the trend of canon trying to increase the barrier of entry whereas new manufacturers are lowering the barrier of entry introducing more people to the technology. With my 6d mii and 24-70mm EF it just doesn't make sense for me to upgrade to the R and a 24-70mm RF finically or professionally. Hopeful this works out for canon in the long run catering to a different market, we shall see.


The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II released at $2,499 nine years ago. The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II released at $2,299 seven years ago... without IS. Prices come down over time. So these release prices are in line with the past. There is absolutely no comparable lens to the RF 28-70mm f/2L from any other manufacturer. Not even in a 24-70 zoom. As far as I know, Sony does not make an 85mm f/1.2.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 25, 2019)

Three RF zoomz, that IIhave absolooly no interest in gteting. When will the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS prime arrive, and at what price?


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 25, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I'm too lazy to search for historical prices, but current RF prices look higher than their (rough) EF equivalents.
> 
> In the R 'ecosystem', there will be a lot more existing Canon EF users than newcomers. I'd expect Canon to encourage them to switch to RF by setting more attractive prices on RF glass, but of course it's entirely up to Canon.


The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II released at $2,299... without IS. The EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II released at $2,499. Both were released years ago. So, adjusting for inflation, I think the new f/2.8L lenses are right on track with past release prices. Judging from what I have seen so far, I think the RF lenses will be better. We'll have to wait and see for that.  You know as well as I that prices will come down. Early adopters pay a premium. Always have.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 25, 2019)

c.d.embrey said:


> Three RF zoomz, that IIhave absolooly no interest in gteting. When will the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS prime arrive, and at what price?


$2,699+


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Aug 25, 2019)

Crazy strategy IMO, second rate cameras and high end L glass and not a single affordable lens in sight other than a szuperzoom 24-240 that I would have zero interest in owning. I much prefer Nikon's strategy of starting with mid-tier f/1.8 primes and the workhorse 24-70 f/2.8, with more high end offering so come over the next 12 months. 24-70 f/2.8 IS should have been out well before the crazy 28-70 f/2 and the old clunker 85 f/1.8 replaced by a new RF version. Yes the lenses are good, but it's bizarre to see such a yawning chasm between lens and camera qualities. These high end offering should have been coming after their 5DsR replacment.


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 25, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Crazy strategy IMO, second rate cameras and high end L glass and not a single affordable lens in sight other than a szuperzoom 24-240 that I would have zero interest in owning. I much prefer Nikon's strategy of starting with mid-tier f/1.8 primes and the workhorse 24-70 f/2.8, with more high end offering so come over the next 12 months. 24-70 f/2.8 IS should have been out well before the crazy 28-70 f/2 and the old clunker 85 f/1.8 replaced by a new RF version. Yes the lenses are good, but it's bizarre to see such a yawning chasm between lens and camera qualities. These high end offering should have been coming after their 5DsR replacment.



The R isn’t a second rate camera. Nobody but you cares what you want; clearly the market analytics say the market disagrees with you in just about every way.


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 25, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> $2,699+



As far as I know the only difference between the two will be coating and treatment. 

My bet is $100-$200 difference.


----------



## briangus (Aug 25, 2019)

Strange the prices listed in THB as just checked the Canon TH website and only have prices for the 35, 50 and 24-105
the 28-70 is listed but no price and no sign of the RF85 F1.2
The RF50 F1.2 is listed as $2299.00 on US site which is approx ฿70350 at current rates
On Canon TH it is listed as ฿85290 which at current rate is approx $2790


----------



## Quirkz (Aug 25, 2019)

mbike999 said:


> Longtime Nikon shooter, but I'm impressed with these lenses especially the 70-200 2.8. Canon continues to pump out some great glass. Pricing is pretty much to be expected at this stage for pro mirrorless equipment. Good time to be a photographer.



You Nikon people are so nice compared to the Sony fans.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 25, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Crazy strategy IMO, second rate cameras and high end L glass and not a single affordable lens in sight other than a szuperzoom 24-240 that I would have zero interest in owning. I much prefer Nikon's strategy of starting with mid-tier f/1.8 primes and the workhorse 24-70 f/2.8, with more high end offering so come over the next 12 months. 24-70 f/2.8 IS should have been out well before the crazy 28-70 f/2 and the old clunker 85 f/1.8 replaced by a new RF version. Yes the lenses are good, but it's bizarre to see such a yawning chasm between lens and camera qualities. These high end offering should have been coming after their 5DsR replacment.


Canon should also come out with a $499 RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM and a RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM for about $1,099 at lens release time.  In the mean time, people will have to adapt EF glass they already own without a hit to IQ and no AFMA. TBH, if Canon had come out with the f/2.8's first, that is what I would have got. Then I'd be pretty upset with myself (because we never know what they will do very far in advance) when the super lenses came out. Then it would have been impossible for me to buy them. That's just my personal viewpoint. I know Canon doesn't care about me as an individual. The RF 24-240 is too dark for me, and at $899 wouldn't be worth it to me. I suspect it will be very popular. For what I do the R isn't second rate, even compared to the 5D Mark IV which costs far more. But I mainly shoot portraits and nothing that moves fast. So it works for me.


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 25, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> And the RF extends during zoom, so maybe the optical arraignment? There might be other differences, but I don't know. No reviews yet.  I guess if Canon comes out with an RF 135L before an RF 70-xxx f/2 that doesn't extend, I'll get the 135mm and be done buying lenses.


We’re talking about the 85 1.2 DS


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 25, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> We’re talking about the 85 1.2 DS


Oops. Sorry. So many different lenses being discussed in a single thread got me confused.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Aug 25, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> The R isn’t a second rate camera. Nobody but you cares what you want; clearly the market analytics say the market disagrees with you in just about every way.



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


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 25, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


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


I just wish you were on the corporate board to straighten this mess out. I've been laughing and giddy for a couple of months now. My tummy is sore.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 25, 2019)

There is a perfectly logical case to have high end RF lenses available as a prelude to releasing a high end body to encourage sales of that body. The naysayers would have a field day if Canon released a high end body without available lenses to match.


----------



## edoorn (Aug 25, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I could very probably be wrong, but I think the current contraction of the camera market is also hitting the professionals (I am not) for many of the same reasons. The market got saturated over the years with the advent of digital and flooded with people who would never work in a darkroom, but are willing to do so with the digital equivalents like Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. Then there are those who think smartphone photos are good enough.
> 
> There are people around here (DFW Texas) who advertise, on local social media pages, shooting wedding photos for people at $150 and promising loads of photos... digitally. Then the bride and groom can get prints wherever they want. I don't understand how they do it. I don't understand how the time can be worth it, but they do it, and apparently that is good enough for many people. People who advertise senior photos at $30-$40. Head shots at $30-$40. So I think the high end fantastic photographers are probably still finding work. The low end looks, to me, like it is being crushed right now. I have a cousin that does this in Mississippi and she stays real busy, but I just don't see a way that makes it worth the time and effort for the photographer. She only uses the pop-up flash on her Rebel and has EF-s lenses... yet she gets all kinds of work. I saw the same phenomena when I lived in Nevada.
> 
> All that just to say that raising prices, for people willing to shoot a wedding for $1,000 - $1,500 (the old low end), find it hard enough to stay in business and have a whole lot of pressure to keep their prices low. The high end photographers, who are really special people, aren't affected as much in my opinion. Their clientele have money and are willing to spend it. The low end? "We can get a washer and dryer or the latest smart phone. Hire the $150 photographer."



Well I’m a pro, not the ‘really special kind’ if I’m honest but I deliver good quality and service, and those low ballers don’t really affect my business that much. Weddings slightly but I’ve been focussing more on commercial work which offsets that. The job doesn’t make me rich but there’s budget next year to upgrade to two pro R bodies and a nice set of RF lenses. (thinking the 24-70, 70-200 and 85 DS to start with). 

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


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 25, 2019)

AlanF said:


> There is a perfectly logical case to have high end RF lenses available as a prelude to releasing a high end body to encourage sales of that body. The naysayers would have a field day if Canon released a high end body without available lenses to match.



That's exactly what Nikon did, with the result you mention.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 25, 2019)

briangus said:


> Strange the prices listed in THB as just checked the Canon TH website and only have prices for the 35, 50 and 24-105
> the 28-70 is listed but no price and no sign of the RF85 F1.2
> The RF50 F1.2 is listed as $2299.00 on US site which is approx ฿70350 at current rates
> On Canon TH it is listed as ฿85290 which at current rate is approx $2790


Exactly! The prices in Thai money do not accurately tell us what the asking price will be in the United States.


----------



## LesC (Aug 25, 2019)

Always good to have excellent glass irrespective of the body you use. I've had a 6D, 6D MKII & now the EOS R but have the EF24-70 F2.8L MKII & other L lenses. I don't need a 'pro' spec body but it is worth having the best lenses. FWIW, a pro friend of mine uses his R rather than his 5D MKIV 90% of the time now.


----------



## LesC (Aug 25, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Exactly! The prices in Thai money do not accurately tell us what the asking price will be in the United States.


 And you can bet whatever the prices are, they'll be even more expensive in the UK


----------



## Viggo (Aug 25, 2019)

LesC said:


> Always good to have excellent glass irrespective of the body you use. I've had a 6D, 6D MKII & now the EOS R but have the EF24-70 F2.8L MKII & other L lenses. I don't need a 'pro' spec body but it is worth having the best lenses. FWIW, a pro friend of mine uses his R rather than his 5D MKIV 90% of the time now.


Exactly! I like the current situation with the midrange R and brutally perfect lenses much better than the other way around. I think it’s a very good strategy by Canon; they have two bodies that many more people can afford than let’s say a $4000 body, and for those wanting the high end lenses they can still have a great body that for them. And the people buying the R and RP that doesn’t want, or can’t spend the money on RF-L’s can use the tons of EF lenses available for cheap both new and used. Plus, those who buy the RF-L’s and want something better than the R, already know for sure it is coming.


----------



## edoorn (Aug 25, 2019)

lenses are indeed important and they will last much longer than the bodies. I've used my 70-200 for 10 years now and it's still going strong. Will probably sell it and upgrade for the RF version next year, but that could very well last another decade as well.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Aug 25, 2019)

navastronia said:


> I think the majority of people would feel that both $1800 and $2800 lenses are “for rich people.”


I would agree to an extent. For a retired, advanced photographer, those prices would be out of my price range. Canon supertelephotos would be for rich people, but I see non-rich amateurs buying them.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 25, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Crazy strategy IMO, second rate cameras and high end L glass and not a single affordable lens in sight other than a szuperzoom 24-240 that I would have zero interest in owning. I much prefer Nikon's strategy of starting with mid-tier f/1.8 primes and the workhorse 24-70 f/2.8, with more high end offering so come over the next 12 months. 24-70 f/2.8 IS should have been out well before the crazy 28-70 f/2 and the old clunker 85 f/1.8 replaced by a new RF version. Yes the lenses are good, but it's bizarre to see such a yawning chasm between lens and camera qualities. These high end offering should have been coming after their 5DsR replacment.


Another second-rate comment!


----------



## BillB (Aug 25, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Crazy strategy IMO, second rate cameras and high end L glass and not a single affordable lens in sight other than a szuperzoom 24-240 that I would have zero interest in owning. I much prefer Nikon's strategy of starting with mid-tier f/1.8 primes and the workhorse 24-70 f/2.8, with more high end offering so come over the next 12 months. 24-70 f/2.8 IS should have been out well before the crazy 28-70 f/2 and the old clunker 85 f/1.8 replaced by a new RF version. Yes the lenses are good, but it's bizarre to see such a yawning chasm between lens and camera qualities. These high end offering should have been coming after their 5DsR replacment.


The RF 35mm and the RF 24-105 are affordable by current standards, along with a lot of EF glass.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 25, 2019)

edoorn said:


> lenses are indeed important and they will last much longer than the bodies. I've used my 70-200 for 10 years now and it's still going strong. Will probably sell it and upgrade for the RF version next year, but that could very well last another decade as well.


Thank you for reminding us of this important point.


----------



## BroncosFan (Aug 25, 2019)

LensFungus said:


> Looking at these lenses and the possible price of Canon's upcoming mirrorless version of the EOS 5DSR, I'm about to sell my house, my car and my wife. Oh wait, that sounds very unsophisticated. I'm not selling the car.



Or you could just use your phone and buy another car.


----------



## BroncosFan (Aug 25, 2019)

flip314 said:


> I'm well aware that none of the EF versions had IS, it's why I've been looking forward to the RF version so much (and I why will probably buy it at any price if I can't wait until the first time a rebate is offered). My point was actually that maybe getting IS for $200 wasn't that bad, even though the RF lens is still more expensive than Sony's (Nikon doesn't have a comparable Z lens since they dropped VR from it)
> 
> 
> 
> This pricing implies that the RF 70-200 2.8 will be $700 more than the EF 2.8 IS III currently is. That's a third more. What do you get for that? The size advantage when it's unzoomed? People can't even agree that's a good feature, seems that internal zoom would still be desired by some.



Yeah...but it’s mirrorless! What’s better than that?


----------



## BroncosFan (Aug 25, 2019)

flip314 said:


> I'm well aware that none of the EF versions had IS, it's why I've been looking forward to the RF version so much (and I why will probably buy it at any price if I can't wait until the first time a rebate is offered). My point was actually that maybe getting IS for $200 wasn't that bad, even though the RF lens is still more expensive than Sony's (Nikon doesn't have a comparable Z lens since they dropped VR from it)
> 
> 
> 
> This pricing implies that the RF 70-200 2.8 will be $700 more than the EF 2.8 IS III currently is. That's a third more. What do you get for that? The size advantage when it's unzoomed? People can't even agree that's a good feature, seems that internal zoom would still be desired by some.



Yeah...but...but...but.....it’s mirrorless!


----------



## slclick (Aug 25, 2019)

ThomasK said:


> Ooops, my budget isn't in line with the future price tags of Canon mirrorless lenses. Time to switch brand after 16 years with Canon.


Because switching saves you money. /s


----------



## joelhazel (Aug 25, 2019)

glongstaff said:


> so as Canon et al dont like to use conversion rates for the UK market but seem to like 1 pound = 1 dollar. Have been thinking of switching to mirrorless from the Canon 5D MKIII to reduce weight,sizes etc but after reading various articles on the weight of some of the RF lenses and now the pricing it certainly puts me off switching to mirrorless for quite a while



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


----------



## joelhazel (Aug 25, 2019)

slclick said:


> Because switching saves you money. /s



Tamron 17-28 - $900 vs $2400 (save $1500)
Tamron 28-75 - $900 vs $2400 (save $1500)
A7RIII -$2500 and your still $500 ahead. Like getting a free camera. 

Switching is cheaper than most people realize. Especially factoring in the worth of your current lenses.Even if you “lose” money selling gear, if your able to swap out to comparable lenses for no “additional” cost... did you lose anything? That money was spent X number of years ago either way. Only thing you did was gain yourself a new lens warranty you didn’t have on your old gear.


----------



## slclick (Aug 25, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> $2,699+


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


joelhazel said:


> Tamron 17-28 - $900 vs $2400 (save $1500)
> Tamron 28-75 - $900 vs $2400 (save $1500)
> A7RIII -$2500 and your still $500 ahead. Like getting a free camera.
> 
> Switching is cheaper than most people realize. Especially factoring in the worth of your current lenses.Even if you “lose” money selling gear, if your able to swap out to comparable lenses for no “additional” cost... did you lose anything? That money was spent X number of years ago either way. Only thing you did was gain yourself a new lens warranty you didn’t have on your old gear.


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


----------



## slclick (Aug 25, 2019)

I'll tell you how to save. 

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


----------



## canonnews (Aug 25, 2019)

joelhazel said:


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



what are you going on about?

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

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

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


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 25, 2019)

joelhazel said:


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


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


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 25, 2019)

slclick said:


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


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


----------



## joelhazel (Aug 25, 2019)

slclick said:


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



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

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


----------



## slclick (Aug 25, 2019)

canonnews said:


> what are you going on about?
> 
> Why don't you compare Sony GM lenses versus Canon and see how close you come out to. or does that kind of ruin your narrative.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 25, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


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


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


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 25, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


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


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 25, 2019)

PGSanta said:


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


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


----------



## BillB (Aug 25, 2019)

joelhazel said:


> Tamron 17-28 - $900 vs $2400 (save $1500)
> Tamron 28-75 - $900 vs $2400 (save $1500)
> A7RIII -$2500 and your still $500 ahead. Like getting a free camera.
> 
> Switching is cheaper than most people realize. Especially factoring in the worth of your current lenses.Even if you “lose” money selling gear, if your able to swap out to comparable lenses for no “additional” cost... did you lose anything? That money was spent X number of years ago either way. Only thing you did was gain yourself a new lens warranty you didn’t have on your old gear.


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


----------



## edoorn (Aug 25, 2019)

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

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


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 25, 2019)

USD Canon prices for lenses at release.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 25, 2019)

edoorn said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 25, 2019)

edoorn said:


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


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


----------



## unfocused (Aug 25, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> USD Canon prices for lenses at release.
> 
> 70-200mm fl2.8L II - $2500 in 2010 - with USA inflation, in 2019 dollars, that's $2941....



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

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

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


----------



## slclick (Aug 25, 2019)

joelhazel said:


> Valid point on the “additional gear” part. Each setup is different and what may pencil out for one doesn’t mean it will for all.
> 
> Not sure I agree with you on the “saving money” part though. Spending less is saving money, as now the difference can be used to purchase something else.


No, it's all valid.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 25, 2019)

joelhazel said:


> Valid point on the “additional gear” part. Each setup is different and what may pencil out for one doesn’t mean it will for all.
> 
> Not sure I agree with you on the “saving money” part though. Spending less is saving money, as now the difference can be used to purchase something else.


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


----------



## Kit. (Aug 25, 2019)

joelhazel said:


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


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

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


----------



## BillB (Aug 25, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


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


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


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 25, 2019)

BillB said:


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


Exactly true. Makes jumping ship a silly thing to do if the goal is to save money. Yes, even going from EF to RF. When a company starts to discount a product I think it is because they see the product losing value to the market as a whole.


----------



## rosstcorbett (Aug 25, 2019)

I'm praying the UK 15-35 comes in under £2,300. The article prices quoted and my gut says otherwise.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 25, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Let's not cherry pick. The 70-200 III was introduced in August 2018 (one year ago) at $2,099. (Source: Official Canon USA Press Release)
> 
> If you are going to compare prices, you shouldn't be going back nine years and using a previous version.


Sorry, that version III completely slipped my mind. Without doing any calculations, that's a big jump in price.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 25, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Sorry, that version III completely slipped my mind. Without doing any calculations, that's a big jump in price.


No problem. Agreed. *If* the estimates are correct. I guess we will know by the end of the week.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 25, 2019)

Just my 2c. Canon usually try and position pro lenses a little below competition price wise.
I do not see this being different for RF lenses we discuss. There is a trend and there is a winning strategy that Canon was following for many years now. So.. let’s wait and see what transpires.
Alternatively, I will continue shooting with my EF glass adapted to a future Canon R pro camera body. Seriously. I do not see myself spending that much to upgrade already excellent glass.
Ok EF 16-35 III may get upgraded if the RF equivalent offers a significantly better vignetting levels in corners which is totally expected.
24-70/2.8 being replaced with 28-70/2.0.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 26, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Exactly true. Makes jumping ship a silly thing to do if the goal is to save money. Yes, even going from EF to RF. When a company starts to discount a product I think it is because they see the product losing value to the market as a whole.


An interesting point as I see little in the way of discounts for 5Div whereas a lot of discounts for R. Competiton I guess but Canon is happy to have 35% premium for the 5Div over the R via authorised channels and 18% premium via grey market. The R price differential is ~4% for the R (authorised v grey)


----------



## flip314 (Aug 26, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Let's not cherry pick. The 70-200 III was introduced in August 2018 (one year ago) at $2,099. (Source: Official Canon USA Press Release)
> 
> If you are going to compare prices, you shouldn't be going back nine years and using a previous version.
> 
> I'm skeptical that the prices predicted are accurate and we should all wait until we get the actual pricing from Canon, but if the quoted prices are close to correct, the RF version will be significantly more expensive than the most current EF version was at introduction.



Although to play devil's advocate, I don't think the III had any changes in optical formula (just the new paint and new lens coating), so the R&D was probably significantly reduced for that lens.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 26, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> An interesting point as I see little in the way of discounts for 5Div whereas a lot of discounts for R. Competiton I guess but Canon is happy to have 35% premium for the 5Div over the R via authorised channels and 18% premium via grey market. The R price differential is ~4% for the R (authorised v grey)


The 5D Mark IV released at $3,499 in the United States. At Adorama it is now $2799. That's $700 off the introduction price, from an authorized dealer. 25%
The R released at $2,299. It is now $1,999 with the rebate in the USA, from an authorized dealer. $300 off the introduction price. 17%

28.5% difference in price from an authorized dealer in the USA.

So I don't understand what you are talking about. I don't know why grey market is part of the discussion. You are in Australia. I am in the USA. Two different markets with different import duties and the exchange rate between our dollar, your dollar, and the yen or wherever the grey market gear comes from. I am ignorant as to Australia's pricing and what is offered grey market there. I never look at grey market here, but I know some do. Glad to have your perspective though.

Some have said that mirrorless is less expensive to manufacture. I don't know. What I do know is that the two cameras are different animals, so I don't think the difference in prices of the two cameras is a fair way to compare on the playing field. They each have their own market niche.


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 26, 2019)

unfocused said:


> No problem. Agreed. *If* the estimates are correct. I guess we will know by the end of the week.


 To be accurate the III is a revision to an existing design, it’s basically nothing but a coating/polish change; the better comparison is actually the introduction of the first design since this new 70-200 is a complete redesign.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 26, 2019)

Good releases from Canon and prices are in tally with other FF ML manufacturers Nikon, Sony - still will keep my DSLR lenses until they blow and then possibly then buy ML equivalents or second hand Nikon's DSLR equivalents (latest release).

A lot of money in moving to Photography whether it is DSLR or Mirrorless, Bridge, serious compact and also moving over to FF & Mirrorless


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 26, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The 5D Mark IV released at $3,499 in the United States. At Adorama it is now $2799. That's $700 off the introduction price, from an authorized dealer.
> The R released at $2,299. It is now $1,999 with the rebate in the USA, from an authorized dealer. $300 off the introduction price.
> 
> 28.5% difference in price from an authorized dealer in the USA.
> ...


"When a company starts to discount a product I think it is because they see the product losing value to the market as a whole." 
I responded based on the price differential between 5Div and R although I admit that they are in totally different market segments but use the same sensor and hence closest to my 5Diii for an upgrade.

We don't know the comparative margins for 5Div v R but there is a lot of R&D to be amortised into the new mount and eye-af software vs mirror/prism cost. Digic 6 v 8, joystick v flippy screen, video extras etc. 5Div would be in cash cow phase of its product life for Canon. A premium of 40% using your figures is a lot in any language for weather sealing, battery life, and dual card.

Grey market in Australia (local warranty but sent for repairs in another country) has significant discounts over local authorised dealer for 5Div only. This shows that some countries (probably Hong Kong) have significantly cheaper local pricing for the 5Div. A reasonable option when 2nd hand 5Div with low shutter count are going for about the same cost with no warranty. Grey market pricing for the R is almost the same so no real advantage. The Australian authorised dealer price for 5Div is slightly cheaper than the Adorama price taking exchange rate and GST into consideration.

Ultimately, I am waiting to upgrade my 5Diii. A 5Dv for weather proofing, ergonomics (large hands) and hopefully compatibility with my underwater housing which costs as much as a body would be great. A 5Dv would be late 2020 and a bit more reasonably priced in 2021 if it is released at all. At the moment, I don't have a clear path for the next couple of years.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 26, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> "When a company starts to discount a product I think it is because they see the product losing value to the market as a whole."
> I responded based on the price differential between 5Div and R although I admit that they are in totally different market segments but use the same sensor and hence closest to my 5Diii for an upgrade.
> 
> We don't know the comparative margins for 5Div v R but there is a lot of R&D to be amortised into the new mount and eye-af software vs mirror/prism cost. Digic 6 v 8, joystick v flippy screen, video extras etc. 5Div would be in cash cow phase of its product life for Canon. A premium of 40% using your figures is a lot in any language for weather sealing, battery life, and dual card.
> ...


Yes, of course you know your area better than I do. I've seen people say here that grey market is less money. I just never check. While Canon USA has honored those warranties, they say they won't. So I would be afraid of getting cut off.

And yes, the weather sealing is better on the 5D Mark IV. It's a tougher camera in that respect at the least. I think the IV price is still high because there are a lot of people who will not purchase mirrorless yet at this point, at least not the current offerings. It was a hard decision to switch from the 5D Mark III to the R because I knew I'd want the new lenses. I only really do portraits and fashion, so the weather sealing on the R wasn't as important to me as the other features. I was also holding out for the 5D mark V.

I can't wait to see what the higher end FF mirrorless has to offer from Canon.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 26, 2019)

@David - Sydney

“.. I don't have a clear path for the next couple of years..”
I do not think that anyone have, Mate. 
The only incentive for me personally to venture into Canon R system is the 28-70/2.0 lens. Otherwise pretty happy with my 5DIVs.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ...When a company starts to discount a product I think it is because they see the product losing value to the market as a whole.



It's not that simple or clear cut. Companies may reduce prices for any number of reasons. Canon has a pattern of introducing products at the highest price they believe the market will bear (what company doesn't?). Usually, you will see a high initial price and then gradually they reduce that price, generally through instant rebates. For camera bodies, the price will often stabilize after a year or so and remain relatively constant, dropping slightly during the lifespan of the camera, until near the end of that life cycle, when you often see quite significant drops. 

Is the product "losing value?" Well, maybe. But it's just as likely that Canon wants to hit sales goals and adjusts prices based on hitting those goals. In addition, you have the retailer's own motivations. It's been awhile, but there a time in the not too distant past when retailers were circumventing the MAP price by offering additional discounts (often with a "show price in cart" system). Dealers also can bundle manufacturers special deals and get around MAP pricing by doing that. 

Dealers get special pricing on volume and on bundles and may pass along some of the savings to consumers. In short, it's too simplistic to make a blanket assumption that discounts are proof that a products is losing value.


----------



## masterpix (Aug 26, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


It looks like Canon is going for a new busyness model: "buy a lens and get the mirrorless camera for free". I can understand the intention to attract professional photographers to migrate to the R system, however, if they want to migrate the XXD or XXXD customers, they will have to come up with something in the 500-1000$ non L lenses. something like the 35-135mm, 75-300mm, those kind of lenses which price will be more reasonable. Unfortunately, they are currenly loosing the 7D customers, for the 90D is not the matching upgrade everyone was looking for.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> To be accurate the III is a revision to an existing design, it’s basically nothing but a coating/polish change; the better comparison is actually the introduction of the first design since this new 70-200 is a complete redesign.


I disagree. If you are going to compare lenses, you should compare them based on the price to the consumer of the most current comparable model. Going back nine years when you have a one-year-old release is cherry picking the data. Mt. Spokane acknowledged it was an oversight and we've moved on. 

If you are saying the R version should be more expensive because it is a different design, that may be an explanation from Canon's point of view. But, to the consumer, who will be choosing between the two current models, it's only fair to compare the prices of those models. 

Ultimately, customers will decide whether or not the new R version is worth the extra money to them. (If indeed it does cost more.) But, we weren't discussing whether or not it is worth the money (that's up to each individual). Instead, we are determining if the new lens is more expensive that the EF version and in this case, if the quoted prices are correct, it will undeniably be more expensive than the EF version at introduction.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 26, 2019)

unfocused said:


> It's not that simple or clear cut. Companies may reduce prices for any number of reasons. Canon has a pattern of introducing products at the highest price they believe the market will bear (what company doesn't?). Usually, you will see a high initial price and then gradually they reduce that price, generally through instant rebates. For camera bodies, the price will often stabilize after a year or so and remain relatively constant, dropping slightly during the lifespan of the camera, until near the end of that life cycle, when you often see quite significant drops.
> 
> Is the product "losing value?" Well, maybe. But it's just as likely that Canon wants to hit sales goals and adjusts prices based on hitting those goals. In addition, you have the retailer's own motivations. It's been awhile, but there a time in the not too distant past when retailers were circumventing the MAP price by offering additional discounts (often with a "show price in cart" system). Dealers also can bundle manufacturers special deals and get around MAP pricing by doing that.
> 
> Dealers get special pricing on volume and on bundles and may pass along some of the savings to consumers. In short, it's too simplistic to make a blanket assumption that discounts are proof that a products is losing value.


You are right. What I meant by losing value was that Canon knows at introduction there are people who will pay more. As time goes on, not so much. So the price gradually comes down to meet sales goals and other needs, as you said. I don't expect that the current RF lenses will be full price in two years or even a year.

Adorama bundles stuff with lenses and cameras, but it isn't usually high quality stuff in my opinion.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 26, 2019)

unfocused said:


> No problem. Agreed. *If* the estimates are correct. I guess we will know by the end of the week.


I'm pretty sure they are correct. The info is out there, dealers are setting up their stores getting ready for the approval to throw the switch. Someone in a position to know undoubtedly leaked the data.


----------



## Quirkz (Aug 26, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I wouldn’t know if it was a $1000 or $10 dollar bottle so I leave it and have myself a nice Laphroaig 25 instead



25year? That’s the reason you didn’t buy more R lenses.


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 26, 2019)

> I disagree. If you are going to compare lenses, you should compare them based on the price to the consumer of the most current comparable model. Going back nine years when you have a one-year-old release is cherry picking the data. Mt. Spokane acknowledged it was an oversight and we've moved on.



You can choose to compare it however you want to, but from a business analytics perspective you're comparing the tail end of a development cycle to the ramp up of a new one, which is a sin. I don't know who you, or Mt. Spokane are, or what sort of work you do, but I'm glad you've moved on... I guess?



> If you are saying the R version should be more expensive because it is a different design, that may be an explanation from Canon's point of view. But, to the consumer, who will be choosing between the two current models, it's only fair to compare the prices of those models.



Sure, it's fair if you decide it's fair, or not, if you don't...

The facts are this is a new product with one peer on the market... the Sony 70-200 GM, which is made in Thailand, is much larger, has been on the market for a while, is known to have QC issues, and runs $2599. Now, I'm not sure about you, but I'll take the Canon at $2799 all day long relative to the alternative. I still hope the pricing is wrong, but if it's not... well... I'm ok with it.



> Ultimately, customers will decide whether or not the new R version is worth the extra money to them. (If indeed it does cost more.) But, we weren't discussing whether or not it is worth the money (that's up to each individual). Instead, we are determining if the new lens is more expensive that the EF version and in this case, if the quoted prices are correct, it will undeniably be more expensive than the EF version at introduction.



What you're trying to describe is a relationship called willingness to pay and consumer surplus, and no we definitely don't want to get into a discussion about that on these boards.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 26, 2019)

rosstcorbett said:


> I'm praying the UK 15-35 comes in under £2,300. The article prices quoted and my gut says otherwise.


You still could buy it in another (less expensive) EU country....or wait for a Canon cashback offer!


----------



## rafalnobis (Aug 26, 2019)

I have RF 85 1.2 and EF 16-35 4.0 IS with my EOS R. Can't wait to replace EF 16-35 4.0 with RF 15-35 2.8.


----------



## tron (Aug 26, 2019)

rafalnobis said:


> I have RF 85 1.2 and EF 16-35 4.0 IS with my EOS R. Can't wait to replace EF 16-35 4.0 with RF 15-35 2.8.


You will replace a couple of thousand from your wallet at the same time


----------



## melgross (Aug 26, 2019)

Yes, my first thought too, was that these seem expensive.

but really, who is expected to be buying these lenses? Is it the average amateur, or weekend snap shooter? No. It’s the serious amateur and pro. So the difference in price, percentage wise, isn’t really that much. And those groups won’t care too much.

if you’re a pro, it makes no difference at all. For you, it’s a capital expenditure. Your accountant knows how to deal with that.

if you’re a serious amateur, you wait a bit longer to save up the extra cash.

i don’t see this as affecting sales in any real way. If these lenses are as good as the ones released so far, Canon won’t be able to make enough of them.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 26, 2019)

In one of the Canon interviews or maybe a financial report, Canon mentioned one of the benefits of the "R" system was that lenses were selling in larger numbers than expected, and profits were much better than for EF lenses. Right then, I expected to see prices much higher than current EF prices, but I did not expect $2800 for a 70-200.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 26, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Ouch. So much for Canon continuing to have cheaper lenses than Sony and Nikon... I've been predicting much lower prices than this, but incorrectly it seems.
> 
> Although, the 24-70 2.8 price is only $200 more than the EF version 2 was at release, so this might just be the early adopter premium. (or the currency conversion isn't accurate)



Perhaps they are planning on the gotta have it first crowd grabbing them up regardless of price for bragging rights. Especially with these particular lenses. Then they will hopefully come down in price to allow mere mortals to acquire them if so desired.
The only lens of interest to me if I get the RF mount is the 24-240 which does seem like a pretty sweet lens. But I am still waiting for IBIS. Once I go mirrorless my current excellent EF and EFs lenses will do quite nicely with the control ring adapter.


----------



## BillB (Aug 26, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> It’s totally in line for L glass. But I hear you. Canon needs to get more non-L primes out for the RF mount asap. And Im sure they’re on it. But yes, going heavy on the L glass to start does make it difficult if you dont want to use and adapter


Canon released the 35, 28 and 24mm EF primes in 2012 and the 40mm pancake a couple of years later, but there hasn't been much since then. There is already the RF 35 mm, but I am not sure there will be much more any time soon, at least from Canon. Some non L zooms seem more likely.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2019)

BillB said:


> Canon released the 35, 28 and 24mm EF primes in 2012 and the 40mm pancake a couple of years later, but there hasn't been much since then. There is already the RF 35 mm, but I am not sure there will be much more any time soon, at least from Canon. Some non L zooms seem more likely.


Yes. 

So far, of the announced or released lenses, three have been primes and six have been zooms. (If I have counted correctly) While primes are popular on this forum, they are not nearly as popular among consumers. At best, I think prime lovers might see the continued 2 to 1 ratio of releases, but honestly, I am expecting quite a few more zooms before we see a lot of prime lenses.

If Canon releases an "x" body, we should see the 100-400 either before or shortly after. A 70-300 "L" would be logical since it makes a nice travel lens and would pair nicely with a mirrorless body.


----------



## flip314 (Aug 26, 2019)

unfocused said:


> If Canon releases an "x" body, we should see the 100-400 either before or shortly after. A 70-300 "L" would be logical since it makes a nice travel lens and would pair nicely with a mirrorless body.



With the 70-200 coming out right away, if the 100-400L gets released first I would expect a 70-300 non-L before the L version. They'll sell way more copies of that one due to the lower price point, and the 70-300L has always been less popular than other L zooms, especially since the 100-400L IS II came out. The 70-300L has a weight advantage, but not much else over other lenses.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 26, 2019)

melgross said:


> Yes, my first thought too, was that these seem expensive.
> 
> but really, who is expected to be buying these lenses? Is it the average amateur, or weekend snap shooter? No. It’s the serious amateur and pro. So the difference in price, percentage wise, isn’t really that much. And those groups won’t care too much.
> 
> ...



“... if you’re a serious amateur, you wait a bit longer to save up the extra cash...”
Yeah, that would be a valid proposition in a perfect binary world where your choices are : Canon glass or nothing.... in reality though, this is not what it may look like 
Options, options, options.


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 26, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> “... if you’re a serious amateur, you wait a bit longer to save up the extra cash...”
> Yeah, that would be a valid proposition in a perfect binary world where your choices are : Canon glass or nothing.... in reality though, this is not what it may look like
> Options, options, options.



Seems like a serious opportunity for third party lens manufacturers. I’ve enjoyed having 4 different Art Prime lenses for the price of 2 L Primes these past few years. 

Fast Zooms seem to be a different story....haven’t been able to find better alternatives than Canon’s. Tamron and Sigma haven’t been good to me with their lowlight focusing performance.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2019)

flip314 said:


> With the 70-200 coming out right away, if the 100-400L gets released first I would expect a 70-300 non-L before the L version. They'll sell way more copies of that one due to the lower price point, and the 70-300L has always been less popular than other L zooms, especially since the 100-400L IS II came out. The 70-300L has a weight advantage, but not much else over other lenses.


Possibly. Except we don't know what percentage of the 70-300 non L zooms are sold to APS-C owners. I would not be surprised if 80-90% are in the hands of crop sensor owners. The release of the 24-240 RF lens pretty much fills the slot currently held by Canon's non-L 70-300 zooms. I don't see them feeling the need to offer a cheap 70-300 anytime soon, especially since the 24-240 fills that need better and is more versatile. Admittedly, they may not be in a rush to produce a 70-300 L lens that duplicates the existing EF lens. But, it not only has a weight advantage, but a significant size advantage over the 100-400 as well. 

Of course, the way Canon is going with the RF lenses, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a 70-300 constant aperture f4 lens in the RF mount.


----------



## joelhazel (Aug 27, 2019)

canonnews said:


> what are you going on about?
> 
> Why don't you compare Sony GM lenses versus Canon and see how close you come out to. or does that kind of ruin your narrative.
> 
> ...



Hmm. Well, all things are subjective I suppose but the-digital-picture.com has a great comparison of the Tammy vs GM... if you really want to compare the “cheap third party” lens vs the OEM. Perhaps your experience is different but gonna have to say your right, the GM doesn’t compare to the Tammy. Costs more for worse performance.


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 28, 2019)

joelhazel said:


> Hmm. Well, all things are subjective I suppose but the-digital-picture.com has a great comparison of the Tammy vs GM... if you really want to compare the “cheap third party” lens vs the OEM. Perhaps your experience is different but gonna have to say your right, the GM doesn’t compare to the Tammy. Costs more for worse performance.


Sigma and Tamron have been putting out some great glass so I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re right. IQ and build is definitely not “cheap” compared to OEM. For twice the cost with Sony, Nikon, Canon, you’re definitely not getting twice the quality.

I’m most familiar with the ART lenses and would say they rival Canon in IQ.... but as you would expect, the AF performance isn’t perfect. But again we’re talking minute differences but huge cost difference.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 28, 2019)

unfocused said:


> So far, of the announced or released lenses, three have been primes and six have been zooms. (If I have counted correctly) While primes are popular on this forum, they are not nearly as popular among consumers. At best, I think prime lovers might see the continued 2 to 1 ratio of releases, but honestly, I am expecting quite a few more zooms before we see a lot of prime lenses.



I think this ratio would last for a while, then drop like a stone.

First is Canon has to remake all the EF lenses in RF, and that includes the primes.

Second is the fast & wide primes give Canon an opportunity to show off what it can do with the new RF mount, which is why the f/1.2 primes came first. My bet is the 14mm and 24mm will come soon, e.g. maybe we'll see a fast 14mm prime to compete with Sigma's 14mm f/1.8 Art lens.


----------



## melgross (Aug 28, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> “... if you’re a serious amateur, you wait a bit longer to save up the extra cash...”
> Yeah, that would be a valid proposition in a perfect binary world where your choices are : Canon glass or nothing.... in reality though, this is not what it may look like
> Options, options, options.


It depends on how much we’re talking about. If it’s 10-15%, then I think people would wait to save up. If it’s 30%, they might buy something else. And we’re talking list. After some time, the selling price drops a bit. Each time Canon or Nikon came up with a newer 70-200, the price was higher. And after a bit of grumbling, people bought them. I believe the same thing will happen here.


----------



## OneSnark (Aug 29, 2019)

melgross said:


> Yes, my first thought too, was that these seem expensive.
> 
> but really, who is expected to be buying these lenses? Is it the average amateur, or weekend snap shooter? No. It’s the serious amateur and pro. So the difference in price, percentage wise, isn’t really that much. And those groups won’t care too much.
> 
> ...



Three points;

1) I read a number of posts justifying the price.

Price relative to current "L" glass.
Price relative to Yen/USD exchange rates.
Price relative to production cost.

To all this I say: MALARKY. Price is set by market. Production cost is merely the "floor". The only reason they don't cost $3000 is because sales volume will drop off too far relative to $2300 The only reason they don't cost $1500 is because there are more than enough buyers who will pay $2300.

2) The well heeled amateur.

Well. . . .. I am a serious amateur. Honestly, I have loads of discretionary income.
I have been buying an expensive piece of Canon glass or hardware every year or two for . . . .a long time.

HAVING SAID THAT - - - - - - I am now priced out of the market.
$2300 for a single lens?? Holy-schmoley that's a lot of clams. And it's not $2300 for a lens. Any real kit would be a 2 lens ante, plus a $2000 body. So we are talking $6600. Plus accessories. Tax. and you KNOW that when the 100-400 comes out. . . I will need it.

Sorry . . .that's a bit much money considering that your average *phone* is really not that bad.
And what the phone can't do, my Canon dSLR. . . .with pretty much the same sensor tech. ."L" glass. . . plus lighting equipment . . . plus tripods and whatnot. . . . pretty much can.

What does the new RF line offer? Improved ergonomics by being mirrorless? A little less weight in the bag? I am not sure anyone is claiming truly superior AF performance or sharper images, or improved dynamic range.

To be honest. . . . .I got off the train with the new generations of "L" EF glass.
All the rev 1's were in the $1000-$2000 range. Steep. . .but I thought there was a real difference jumping from prosumer glass. The Rev 2's and Rev 3's pushed to the $1500-$2500 range for only modest optical improvements.

I opted out. Off the train. I know a fad when I see one. More to be gained with superior computers and lighting equipment. I also have other expensive hobbies I can finance.

This is my opinion, and mine alone.
YOUR MILAGE MAY VARY.
Feel free to buy one of these lenses and I wish you well.

3) The Pro

"Your accountant knows how to deal with that".

I am not an accountant. But I know accountants. I work with accountants.
When I say I need to buy $10,000 of camera gear, the first question is "How much will this increase your income?"

Not sure customers are *demanding* mirrorless. I am pretty sure most would only notice if you showed up with and iPhone.
The current mirrorless bodies don't even have dual card slots - - > so it ain't improving reliability on a shoot.
Are the images any better than a good FF alternative with quality glass attached?

So - not sure why a pro would *need* this stuff. If you need some higher expenses as a writeoff. . . I would simply buy better scotch to go with my dinner.

0 0 0 0 0 0

Anywho. . . done with my ranting.

Yeah, I am not dumb. I know the future is mirrorless.
But my next camera will be a dSLR; or a new "G" series P&S. (OR BOTH - - - I have money).
The *canon* mirrorless stuff just ain't there yet, in my opinion.

I will let others merrily blaze this path with THEIR hard earned money.
Hopefully, the price eventually will drop down to prices I can tolerate on my well-above-average-income-with-few-expenses budget.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Aug 29, 2019)

OneSnark said:


> . I would simply buy better scotch to go with my dinner.


Not tax-deductible unfortunately ,...... otherwise, good idea!


----------



## Joaquim (Aug 30, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yup! Just about the same here, except I drive a 2016 Hyundai. I eat a lot of cheap chicken leg quarters ($6 for 10 lbs), Ramen, and wear my clothes until they are thread bare. My whole wardrobe consists of 2 pair of jeans and about 6 t-shirts+underwear and socks and shorts. My wife almost never goes shopping for clothes. When she does, she's happy with the clearance racks at Walmart.
> 
> Sacrifices allow us to live a better life in other ways.


100% agree and pretty much do the same. I don't drive as public transportation is incredibly good in Dubai, I'm not a full time photographer/videographer, I don't go shopping for clothes and o don't done out or go out to meet people at a pub cause drinking doesn't make logical sense to me. I also live in a highly affordable shared space (although after 5 yrs and crossing 33yrs of age my patience has worn thin for this living option). Plus I also am an established actor in my city so I make do with what I have and am able to feed my expensive hobby a fair bit.


----------



## drob (Oct 11, 2019)

Canon should offer a buy all 3 package for $7k and throw in a free RP.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 13, 2019)

LesC said:


> And you can bet whatever the prices are, they'll be even more expensive in the UK



Isn't VAT/sales tax included in the UK price? In the U.S. sales tax rates are variable based on locale and so they listed price does not include sales tax, which can be about 8-10% for most places. There are a couple of small states that have no sales tax (but very high property taxes).


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 13, 2019)

SUNDOG04 said:


> I would agree to an extent. For a retired, advanced photographer, those prices would be out of my price range. Canon supertelephotos would be for rich people, but I see non-rich amateurs buying them.



"Rich" is almost always a relative term. Practically no one considers themselves "rich." The "rich" are always those who make/have more than "we" do. Someone making $20K thinks a person making $50K is rich. Someone making $120K thinks a person has to make around $300K to be rich. Someone whose net worth is $250K thinks only those over $1M are "rich". Those with $1M think "the rich" are those with more than $100M net worth. Etc...


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 13, 2019)

Del Paso said:


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



Says the pot to the kettle...


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 13, 2019)

masterpix said:


> It looks like Canon is going for a new busyness model: "buy a lens and get the mirrorless camera for free". I can understand the intention to attract professional photographers to migrate to the R system, however, if they want to migrate the XXD or XXXD customers, they will have to come up with something in the 500-1000$ non L lenses. something like the 35-135mm, 75-300mm, those kind of lenses which price will be more reasonable. Unfortunately, they are currenly loosing the 7D customers, for the 90D is not the matching upgrade everyone was looking for.



The 75-300? Are you kidding? It's the worst lens currently in Canon's catalog. Do you mean the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II instead?

Also, to whom are they losing 7D customers? Nikon has already officially announced a D500 replacement will not be made. No one else has ever really made and APS-C high performance sports/action/wildlife camera built like a tank and with an OVF.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 13, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Isn't VAT/sales tax included in the UK price? In the U.S. sales tax rates are variable based on locale and so they listed price does not include sales tax, which can be about 8-10% for most places. There are a couple of small states that have no sales tax (but very high property taxes).


VAT in Europe is about 19%...


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 13, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You are right. What I meant by losing value was that Canon knows at introduction there are people who will pay more. As time goes on, not so much. So the price gradually comes down to meet sales goals and other needs, as you said. I don't expect that the current RF lenses will be full price in two years or even a year.
> 
> Adorama bundles stuff with lenses and cameras, but it isn't usually high quality stuff in my opinion.



In June I bought a 5D Mark IV from B & H for $2,599 plus tax. The "freebies' were a BG-E20 battery grip currently retailing for around $295 (way too much, IMHO) in the U.S. _and_ 13 months of "CarePAK" for no additional charge. That's an extra month of warranty coverage _plus_ accidental damage not covered by the warranty. It was a Canon USA promotion and the dealer was compensated for the cost of the discount on the body and giving away the grip, as were several other dealers during the same promotion. Canon USA assumes the cost of the Carepak coverage without any cost to the dealer.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 13, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> VAT in Europe is about 19%...



Yes, and it is included in the sticker price. Even assuming one Euro or one Pound equals one US Dollar, if the retail price in the USA is $1000, then the equivalent retail price in Europe would be $1190, since the dealer is only getting $1000 of that, just as the dealer in the U.S. is only getting $1,000 of the $1,080 or $1,090 that the customer is spending.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Yes.
> 
> So far, of the announced or released lenses, three have been primes and six have been zooms. (If I have counted correctly) While primes are popular on this forum, they are not nearly as popular among consumers. At best, I think prime lovers might see the continued 2 to 1 ratio of releases, but honestly, I am expecting quite a few more zooms before we see a lot of prime lenses.
> 
> If Canon releases an "x" body, we should see the 100-400 either before or shortly after. A 70-300 "L" would be logical since it makes a nice travel lens and would pair nicely with a mirrorless body.



i don't know that I've ever seen an EF 100-400mm (either version) on a 1-series camera. (I assume that's what you mean by "x" body -a mirrorless 1D X)

I've seen a LOT of EF 100-400mm lenses on xoD and 7D bodies.

I'm sure there are 1-series owners out there (and here) that use 100-400mm lenses with 1-series bodies, but I've never seen one in the wild. Almost all of the 1-series bodies I see when out shooting have f/2.8 zooms, faster non-telephoto primes, or super telephotos in the fastest available f-number on them.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 13, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I think this ratio would last for a while, then drop like a stone.
> 
> First is Canon has to remake all the EF lenses in RF, and that includes the primes.




Says who? One of the first RF lenses released was the 28-70mm f/2L. There's no equivalent EF lens to that one.

Canon will not duplicate their entire EF catalog before they give us lenses that are not available in the EF mount. They've already done so with the RF 28-70mm f/2L.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 13, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The 75-300? Are you kidding? It's the worst lens currently in Canon's catalog. Do you mean the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II instead?



Ah...worst lens they make. No wonder I have one.  

(Actually it was sold to me as part of a $150 package of extras when I bought the Rebel T3 (1100D I believe) as a kit.)


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 13, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Says who? One of the first RF lenses released was the 28-70mm f/2L. There's no equivalent EF lens to that one.



You misunderstood my intention. I meant that Canon will remake all the EF lenses in RF before discontinuing the EF mount, not before it makes RF lenses with no equivalent EF lenses.


----------



## marioslrzn (Oct 13, 2019)

joelhazel said:


> Tamron 17-28 - $900 vs $2400 (save $1500)
> Tamron 28-75 - $900 vs $2400 (save $1500)
> A7RIII -$2500 and your still $500 ahead. Like getting a free camera.
> 
> Switching is cheaper than most people realize. Especially factoring in the worth of your current lenses.Even if you “lose” money selling gear, if your able to swap out to comparable lenses for no “additional” cost... did you lose anything? That money was spent X number of years ago either way. Only thing you did was gain yourself a new lens warranty you didn’t have on your old gear.


That’s assuming that the Tamron will give you the same image quality and performance which we know the rf lenses are on another level. That’s like saying I’ll buy a mustang because it’s a sports car like a Ferrari but cheaper, not the same experience. We’re only a couple of months away from a Canon RF pro body, will be crazy to see IBIS and the 5 stops of lens stabilization working together. I for one am happy with the R, i tested the A7 series and wasn’t impressed otherwise I would of bought one. RF lenses are on another level and if you want the best glass unfortunately it cost more. I get my rf15-35 this week and I’m excited, vs the tamRon it’s 15mm-35mm f2.8 with IS vs 17-28, Sharper image quality, weather sealed, dual pixel focus works better on native lenses and reliability, things that matter a lot to me. People that say otherwise is people that haven’t try the rf lenses with the R. After I tried the RF50 1.2 I can’t ever go back to anything but an RF lens, fast, accurate and beautiful images


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 13, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> In June I bought a 5D Mark IV from B & H for $2,599 plus tax. The "freebies' were a BG-E20 battery grip currently retailing for around $295 (way too much, IMHO) in the U.S. _and_ 13 months of "CarePAK" for no additional charge. That's an extra month of warranty coverage _plus_ accidental damage not covered by the warranty. It was a Canon USA promotion and the dealer was compensated for the cost of the discount on the body and giving away the grip, as were several other dealers during the same promotion. Canon USA assumes the cost of the Carepak coverage without any cost to the dealer.


Now that is one beautiful story. I usually get a set of cheap filters, a lens brush and blower, etc. I always miss the good stuff..  Lucy keeps taking the ball away.


----------



## wockawocka (Oct 13, 2019)

luka73 said:


> If prices are correct, Canon is not exactly making it easy for ppl to switch to mirrorless. Isn't it like shooting your own foot ? Well, we won't have to wait long to find out.



It's easy to switch to mirrorless when you have a native ef - rf adapter. I think at this stage they might make more money on the older lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 13, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> You misunderstood my intention. I meant that Canon will remake all the EF lenses in RF before discontinuing the EF mount, not before it makes RF lenses with no equivalent EF lenses.



I'm not sure that's going to happen, either. If we haven't seen an update for the EF 300mm f/4L since the 1990s, I doubt we'll see one in the RF mount. Ditto for the EF 400mm f/5.6, as well as lower cost non-L lenses like the EF 50mm f/1.4 (1993) and EF 85mm f/1.8 (1992)


----------



## unfocused (Oct 14, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I'm sure there are 1-series owners out there (and here) that use 100-400mm lenses with 1-series bodies, but I've never seen one in the wild...



Perhaps I'm the only person in the world who shoots soccer, baseball, track, softball, golf and other outdoor sports with a 1Dx II and a 100-400. But, I kind of doubt it.


----------



## slclick (Oct 14, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Perhaps I'm the only person in the world who shoots soccer, baseball, track, softball, golf and other outdoor sports with a 1Dx II and a 100-400. But, I kind of doubt it.


More than most other combos on sidelines. Really, this is ridiculous. It's like saying, not many drive Fords, I've only seen one on the roads by my home.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 14, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I'm not sure that's going to happen, either. If we haven't seen an update for the EF 300mm f/4L since the 1990s, I doubt we'll see one in the RF mount. Ditto for the EF 400mm f/5.6, as well as lower cost non-L lenses like the EF 50mm f/1.4 (1993) and EF 85mm f/1.8 (1992)



Those lenses make a profit for Canon, or it would have discontinued them, same as it did with the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro and 135mm f/2.8 soft focus. I doubt Canon is going to drop profitable lenses, esp as those are the cheap alternatives, and my unprofessional impression is those would be easy to redesign for RF (make the barrel a little longer, upgrade the electronics).


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 14, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Those lenses make a profit for Canon, or it would have discontinued them, same as it did with the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro and 135mm f/2.8 soft focus. I doubt Canon is going to drop profitable lenses, esp as those are the cheap alternatives, and my unprofessional impression is those would be easy to redesign for RF (make the barrel a little longer, upgrade the electronics).



I've been thinking about that, Canon extending the barrel (with filter slot!), updating electronics and motors and adding their newest coatings.
My suspicion is that Canon hasn't shown these in public is because it would look lazy and from a spec sheet PoV nothing would have changed compared to the EF versions. Why would I stop using my EF85mm f/1.8 + filter adapter and switch to the RF version?


----------



## stevelee (Oct 14, 2019)

I have a


SteveC said:


> Ah...worst lens they make. No wonder I have one.
> 
> (Actually it was sold to me as part of a $150 package of extras when I bought the Rebel T3 (1100D I believe) as a kit.)


I have an old version of that lens. It was $100 with my first Rebel. At f/11 it made pretty decent solar eclipse shots with my T3i. After I got the 6D2 I got the 100-400mm II.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 14, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> I've been thinking about that, Canon extending the barrel (with filter slot!), updating electronics and motors and adding their newest coatings.
> My suspicion is that Canon hasn't show these in public is because it would look lazy and from a spec sheet PoV nothing would have changed compared to the EF versions. Why would I stop using my EF85mm f/1.8 + filter adapter and switch to the RF version?



The only downside I've learned about so far using EF lenses is the R's EVF only allows High-speed Display when using an RF lens. (Page 149, EOS R user manual) Frankly, even with high-speed display, I can't see the R as an action camera. Hopefully things will improve in a future body, but I wonder if Canon will change this particular EVF restriction.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 14, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> The only downside I've learned about so far using EF lenses is the R's EVF only allows High-speed Display when using an RF lens. (Page 149, EOS R user manual) Frankly, even with high-speed display, I can't see the R as an action camera. Hopefully things will improve in a future body, but I wonder if Canon will change this particular EVF restriction.



It depends on why the restriction is in place.

The cynic will claim that Canon did this to deliberately cripple the EF lenses.

But it may be that the RF lens supplies something that the EFs can't. After all, there are additional contacts in the mount.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 14, 2019)

SteveC said:


> It depends on why the restriction is in place.
> 
> The cynic will claim that Canon did this to deliberately cripple the EF lenses.
> 
> But it may be that the RF lens supplies something that the EFs can't. After all, there are additional contacts in the mount.


Could it possibly be something with readiness to shoot, or how the AF and/or exposure is being checked between shutter activations? It does seem like it would be a pretty mean ploy, and a subtle one, to get photographers to buy Rf instead of Ef lenses! I'm not jumping to the conclusion Canon did this on purpose.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 15, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Perhaps I'm the only person in the world who shoots soccer, baseball, track, softball, golf and other outdoor sports with a 1Dx II and a 100-400. But, I kind of doubt it.



How much of that soccer, baseball, track, softball, golf, and other outdoor sports is under the lights, rather than during daylight hours?


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 15, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Those lenses make a profit for Canon, or it would have discontinued them, same as it did with the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro and 135mm f/2.8 soft focus. I doubt Canon is going to drop profitable lenses, esp as those are the cheap alternatives, and my unprofessional impression is those would be easy to redesign for RF (make the barrel a little longer, upgrade the electronics).



Not necessarily. Those old lenses still in the current catalog may only be there because Canon has existing stock on hand from the last production run 15-20 years ago. The only difference between those lenses and the 50/2.5 compact macro or 135/2.8 soft focus may be that they sold all that they could of the latter lenses while still maintaining enough spare parts on hand to support them for about seven years at the time they "discontinued" them.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 15, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Not necessarily. Those old lenses still in the current catalog may only be there because Canon has existing stock on hand from the last production run 15-20 years ago. The only difference between those lenses and the 50/2.5 compact macro or 135/2.8 soft focus may be that they sold all that they could of the latter lenses while still maintaining enough spare parts on hand to support them for about seven years at the time they "discontinued" them.



It should be possible to narrow this down (at least) by finding someone who has recently purchased one and having him read some of the stampings on them. If I Recall Correctly [IIRC] the year of production is coded in the stampings.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 15, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Not necessarily. Those old lenses still in the current catalog may only be there because Canon has existing stock on hand from the last production run 15-20 years ago. The only difference between those lenses and the 50/2.5 compact macro or 135/2.8 soft focus may be that they sold all that they could of the latter lenses while still maintaining enough spare parts on hand to support them for about seven years at the time they "discontinued" them.



I doubt Canon has stopped manufacturing the 20mm f/2.8 ('92), 50mm f/1.4 ('93), 85mm f/1.8 ('92), 135mm f/2 ('96), 200mm f/2.8L mkII ('96), 300mm f/4L ("91), 400mm f/5.6L ('93), 75-300mm mkIII USM ('99), and just sells huge stocks of all those lenses. Especially so as some of them have great IQ and/or have no reasonable alternative, e.g. the 85mm & 135mm.

Canon might drop a couple of them along the way, e.g. the 75-300mm, but no more.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 16, 2019)

SteveC said:


> It should be possible to narrow this down (at least) by finding someone who has recently purchased one and having him read some of the stampings on them. If I Recall Correctly [IIRC] the year of production is coded in the stampings.



On some lenses it is. On others it is not. The EF 50mm f/1.4, for instance, does not have a date code stamped on it. It has an eight digit serial number only.

Only the ten digit serial numbers introduced with some lenses introduced beginning in 2008 include date of manufacture information in the first two digits. Even then, the two digit prefix of the ten digit codes repeat every 97 months (there are no "98", "99", and "00" date codes in the ten digit system). So a lens made in January 2008 will have the same date code as a lens made in February 2016. For lenses that have been offered longer than eight years, it's not possible to tell the difference between an eight year old or newly manufactured lens based on the date code in the ten digit SN.

Lenses with separate letter/numerical based six digit codes also repeat in a 26 year cycle, so it is impossible to tell if a lens was made in 1992 or 2018 based upon the single "year" digit. The first letter of the six digit codes tells which factory made the lens. The second letter is a "year" code. The third and fourth digits are a numerical "month" code. Sometimes the "0" for months 1-9 is omitted. The last two digits (numbers) are internal revision number codes and may be omitted or only a single digit.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 16, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I doubt Canon has stopped manufacturing the 20mm f/2.8 ('92), 50mm f/1.4 ('93), 85mm f/1.8 ('92), 135mm f/2 ('96), 200mm f/2.8L mkII ('96), 300mm f/4L ("91), 400mm f/5.6L ('93), 75-300mm mkIII USM ('99), and just sells huge stocks of all those lenses. Especially so as some of them have great IQ and/or have no reasonable alternative, e.g. the 85mm & 135mm.
> 
> Canon might drop a couple of them along the way, e.g. the 75-300mm, but no more.



I also doubt Canon has stopped manufacturing _all_ of the above listed lenses. But I would not be surprised at all that they have not had a production run of some other "current" lenses, such as the EF 28mm f/1.8, for as long as 5-10 years and might discontinue them when their stock drops below a certain point.

The EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III (non-USM), included in a lot of Rebel two lens kits, probably sells as many copies per year as the all of the others on your list combined. Therefore it probably has production runs more frequently than the others.

By the way, the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM (which uses a micro-USM, not a Ring USM AF motor) appears to be on its way to being discontinued in the near future. Most authorized dealers no longer have it in stock. Canon USA's direct store is currently selling it at a $60 discount that puts it below the price of the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III. Adorama, Beach/BuyDig, and the Canon refurb store (they _always_ have the non-USM version in stock) have none, B&H is selling it with a $55 discount, and most of the listings for third party sellers on amazon have pictures of the non-USM version.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 16, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I also doubt Canon has stopped manufacturing _all_ of the above listed lenses. But I would not be surprised at all that they have not had a production run of some other "current" lenses, such as the EF 28mm f/1.8, for as long as 5-10 years and might discontinue them when their stock drops below a certain point.



I can't argue for most of those lenses, so I'll have to leave it at "time will tell".



Michael Clark said:


> The EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III (non-USM), included in a lot of Rebel two lens kits, probably sells as many copies per year as the all of the others on your list combined. Therefore it probably has production runs more frequently than the others.



Both Canon EF 75-300mm are cheaper than the EF-S 55-250mm IS non-STM (at least at the moment @ B&H). This seems to me like dump prices (= Canon trying to get rid of existing stock), rather than the lenses being manufactured & sold at a profit. Canon not having IBIS, and the low end market shrinking, I don't see IS-less teles selling that well.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 17, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I can't argue for most of those lenses, so I'll have to leave it at "time will tell".
> 
> 
> 
> Both Canon EF 75-300mm are cheaper than the EF-S 55-250mm IS non-STM (at least at the moment @ B&H). This seems to me like dump prices (= Canon trying to get rid of existing stock), rather than the lenses being manufactured & sold at a profit. Canon not having IBIS, and the low end market shrinking, I don't see IS-less teles selling that well.



Maybe, but it seems to me that they're still moving more units of the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III (non-USM), when the units sold in kits are included in the totals, than the rest of your list combined. They've been practically giving them away for at least a decade.

I think that most folks who buy an entry level Rebel with a two lens kit have no idea what IBIS is. YMMV.


----------

