# Is the EF purge beginning? The EF 200mm f/2L IS USM is now listed as discontinued



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 19, 2021)

> It was inevitable, but it looks like Canon is starting the discontinuation of EF lenses. I was told by Alex at FStoppers that the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM is now unlisted or listed as discontinued at various retailers.
> While it is still listed at Canon USA, the lens is no longer listed at Adorama and shown as “discontinued” at B&H Photo.
> I will be watching these things closely over the next few months. I suspect a lot of the older and older higher priced lenses such as the EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM are on their last legs.
> *Update:* Canon USA has confirmed that the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM will have service support from Canon until at least December 31, 2027. If parts remain after that date, service will likely continue until that inventory is depleted.



Continue reading...


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 19, 2021)

Don't let nostalgia cloud your mind or make you cranky!


----------



## John Wilde (Mar 20, 2021)

Canon is concentrating production of RF lenses, so it could be a temporary stock-out. Retailers aren't very precise about these things.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 20, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> Canon is concentrating production of RF lenses, so it could be a temporary stock-out. Retailers aren't very precise about these things.


It's discontinued, confirmed by Canon USA.


----------



## vladk (Mar 20, 2021)

Very expensive lens that most likely had very poor sales.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 20, 2021)

vladk said:


> Very expensive lens that most likely had very poor sales.


It's a very popular lens with portrait photographers. There will be an RF version sooner than later.


----------



## Tom W (Mar 20, 2021)

Well, you have to ask yourself - how many more exotic EF lenses like this will they sell? They could make the same exact lens in RF mount and it will sell into the future, but I don't think that anybody, maybe a handful, would buy this EF lens at this point in time. The R5 pretty much put the 5D4 to bed, and the 1-series is next. 

We won't see a 500/4 Mk III either because the next rendition of that lens will be in RF mount.


----------



## Bonich (Mar 20, 2021)

Who is purchasing this lens these days?
Did Canon sell more than ten around the world in 2020?

All are waiting for white RF glass!


----------



## Viggo (Mar 20, 2021)

This is a sad day... what a lens it is! There is one listed for sale here now, and I’m not going to lie, it’s tempting although I’ve owned and sold two of them because of the massive weight... an RF version is going to be way above budget, but I can’t wait to check it out 
Other than the mount, what on earth are they going to improve over the EF version?


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 20, 2021)

Viggo said:


> This is a sad day... what a lens it is! There is one listed for sale here now, and I’m not going to lie, it’s tempting although I’ve owned and sold two of them because of the massive weight... an RF version is going to be way above budget, but I can’t wait to check it out
> Other than the mount, what on earth are they going to improve over the EF version?


The paint will be a much better shade of beige!


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 20, 2021)

I got it: RF is the future.
But what about all these affordable EF L lenses like 135 f2, 100 f2,8 macro, 70-200 f4 non IS? How expensive will the 135 f1,4 be?
I know most new RF lenses are better than the EF equivalent ones, but often 50% more expensive.
Sorry, but the bright RF future will be too expensive for many of us, and this in a shrinking market...


----------



## MarcF (Mar 20, 2021)

The point is that this is another indicator of the end of an era, just like the price reduction on the 5DS. Ends are sad, especially for us that have grown up on EF. 

On the other hand my EF lenses are still awesome as are my 5DMIV and 7DMII bodies. They still fit my purposes enough not to have such a strong desire to change systems.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 20, 2021)

Canon probably considered how much it would cost to make a batch of this lens, projected how long it would take to sell the whole batch, and decided its not worth investing in the materials, manual labor, etc required to make it.

As others have noted, its a low volume lens, but not one Canon can drop altogether. Sooner or later Canon will introduce an RF 200mm f/2L


----------



## Jack Jian (Mar 20, 2021)

It's a lens which is more than a decade old. Also, how many buyers are there compared to the Zooms and other primes. So it makes sense for this lens to be in the first batch to discontinue and fully transitioned to RF for the niche buyers.


----------



## RunAndGun (Mar 20, 2021)

vladk said:


> Very expensive lens that most likely had very poor sales.



Expensive? Yes. Poor sales? It seems like I’ve seen this lens(or the 1.8) owned/carried by almost every professional (Canon)still photographer(especially sports) I’ve shot next to in the last ~2.5 decades.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 20, 2021)

RunAndGun said:


> Expensive? Yes. Poor sales? It seems like I’ve seen this lens(or the 1.8) owned/carried by almost every professional (Canon)still photographer(especially sports) I’ve shot next to in the last ~2.5 decades.


It’s a niche lens. Depending on your niche you will either need it or not, I have pretty much never seen a tennis pro without one for instance. If you want to see ten of them in a row just look at any Grand Slam Event photographer pool. For most others it is an option, some sports pros like the focal length and the difference between it and the 400 f2.8 so might carry both. For most wedding pros it is too big and heavy and in that isolated shallow dof full body portrait application with it’s ‘unique’ look, it is actually easily replicated with more modest lenses using the Brenizer method.


----------



## danski0224 (Mar 20, 2021)

Looked at one of these on and off pretty frequently. 

Glad I didn't buy one.

Maybe the price will come down in a little while.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 20, 2021)

danski0224 said:


> Looked at one of these on and off pretty frequently.
> 
> Glad I didn't buy one.
> 
> Maybe the price will come down in a little while.



Well if it doesn't come down, then Canon made a mistake.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 20, 2021)

danski0224 said:


> Looked at one of these on and off pretty frequently.
> 
> Glad I didn't buy one.
> 
> Maybe the price will come down in a little while.


I’d expect the price to up a good bit in the short term, supply and demand and all that. In a couple of years when there are RF options then the price will gently start to drop.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 20, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Well if it doesn't come down, then Canon made a mistake.


Not really. Canon don’t want to be left holding any stock and will take fewer sales then possible to prevent that cost of money being tied up in stock that is a slow seller. As word gets out it is in short supply the price will go up, then as demand drops the price will come down.

Canon will expect that and it is the optimal way of them realizing the maximum they can from the lens. Don’t forget these big whites are made in the same place on the same production line in batches. It takes time and money to switch out the tooling so if they make another batch of 200 f2’s they have to not make something else, and I’m sure they feel capacity is best used making something else.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 20, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Not really. Canon don’t want to be left holding any stock and will take fewer sales then possible to prevent that cost of money being tied up in stock that is a slow seller. As word gets out it is in short supply the price will go up, then as demand drops the price will come down.
> 
> Canon will expect that and it is the optimal way of them realizing the maximum they can from the lens. Don’t forget these big whites are made in the same place on the same production line in batches. It takes time and money to switch out the tooling so if they make another batch of 200 f2’s they have to not make something else, and I’m sure they feel capacity is best used making something else.



Yeah, actually that makes more sense. I wonder how much it would have to go up for them to think, "Looks like we unintentionally created a fad, maybe we can make some easy _and quick_ money running off another 50 of these?" Though I wouldn't expect such a thing to happen in the market (much less have Canon decide to exploit it).


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Mar 20, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon probably considered how much it would cost to make a batch of this lens, projected how long it would take to sell the whole batch, and decided its not worth investing in the materials, manual labor, etc required to make it.


Exactly this in my opinion. 

And, as PBD says, everything you are producing now means there is something else you're not making right now, so....

Will be a great shame. I do think that for anyone wedded to the EF/OVF system, if you want to own that 'special' lens from new, whatever that might be for you, then now is the time to be buying (if you haven't already).


----------



## dirtyvu (Mar 20, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> I got it: RF is the future.
> But what about all these affordable EF L lenses like 135 f2, 100 f2,8 macro, 70-200 f4 non IS? How expensive will the 135 f1,4 be?
> I know most new RF lenses are better than the EF equivalent ones, but often 50% more expensive.
> Sorry, but the bright RF future will be too expensive for many of us, and this in a shrinking market...



They're following the Tesla business model. Release some top end models that are highly profitable to grow and fund development of lower end models. Tesla had to do it because they were cash strapped for so long. Even now, they have only had a handful of profitable quarters that wouldn't have been profitable without the sale of regulatory credits.


----------



## dwarven (Mar 20, 2021)

Damn, I really wanted to get my hands on one of these. I’m sure the RF version will be even more expensive whenever it comes out


----------



## stevelee (Mar 20, 2021)

It would seem to me that practically everyone who would want or need this lens would have had plenty of time to buy it already.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 20, 2021)

I can understand that Canon is clearing up its EF portfolio and discontinues less requested lenses.
But I hope they keep developing bestsellers as long as a R6 or equivalent costs more than a 5D4 or a 6D2. 
And a R5 would be my goal as I see a R6 as a step backwards.
Right now the R/RF prices keep me away from "the new world".


----------



## geffy (Mar 20, 2021)

To be fair the RF version will be much better in every respect tor the same price


----------



## VivaLasVegas (Mar 21, 2021)

geffy said:


> To be fair the RF version will be much better in every respect tor the same price


I don’t know how much more or little they can improve it from the EF version, it’ll be a difficult task that’s for sure. The EF version is near perfection, IMO.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 21, 2021)

VivaLasVegas said:


> I don’t know how much more or little they can improve it from the EF version, it’ll be a difficult task that’s for sure. The EF version is near perfection, IMO.



You can make it shorter because of the RF mount. The lens could also be better balanced.. It would also get the latest AF algorithms. Canon also has new materials to reduce weight.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Mar 21, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> It's a very popular lens with portrait photographers. There will be an RF version sooner than later.


Canon does not usually discontinue anything popular until after there is a replacement.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 21, 2021)

Viggo said:


> Other than the mount, what on earth are they going to improve over the EF version?


New style clip-on lens hood would be a massive upgrade.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 21, 2021)

danski0224 said:


> Looked at one of these on and off pretty frequently.
> 
> Glad I didn't buy one.
> 
> Maybe the price will come down in a little while.


I'd be careful buying an EF version myself. No one knows how long spare parts will be available. Canon stopped accepting repairs of the former 200mm f/1.8 L around 24 months after it was discontinued. Of course one can hope that it will last a long time. But its still an expensive lens and the resale value will drop a lot once it cannot be repaired any longer.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 21, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> You can make it shorter because of the RF mount. The lens could also be better balanced.. It would also get the latest AF algorithms. Canon also has new materials to reduce weight.


Patent shows it a little longer if I recall correctly.


----------



## Joules (Mar 21, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Patent shows it a little longer if I recall correctly.


Which is a comment made under every patent, because the length given in a patent is 20 mm longer than the actual length, and people compare against the EF version, which need to have 24 mm added to their length to make the comparison apples to apples. Perhaps you or the comment you're recalling already took that into account. But I doubt the lens will be longer.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 21, 2021)

Joules said:


> Which is a comment made under every patent, because the length given in a patent is 20 mm longer than the actual length, and people compare against the EF version, which need to have 24 mm added to their length to make the comparison apples to apples. Perhaps you or the comment you're recalling already took that into account. But I doubt the lens will be longer.


That's likely correct! We can hope so.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 21, 2021)

Fischer said:


> New style clip-on lens hood would be a massive upgrade.


Oh god yes, that would be something! Cumbersome is being kind


----------



## danski0224 (Mar 21, 2021)

Joules said:


> Which is a comment made under every patent, because the length given in a patent is 20 mm longer than the actual length, and people compare against the EF version, which need to have 24 mm added to their length to make the comparison apples to apples. Perhaps you or the comment you're recalling already took that into account. But I doubt the lens will be longer.


And that extra 24mm is a deal breaker. It makes the lens so huge and unwieldy.


----------



## Joules (Mar 21, 2021)

danski0224 said:


> And that extra 24mm is a deal breaker. It makes the lens so huge and unwieldy.


I guess this is sarcasm. In which case, you might want to read the post I was replying to.

It was stated that according to a patent, the RF replacement for the lens in the title would be longer than the EF one. And I pointed out that when the relevant factors are taken into account, this is probably not the case.

So I wasn't saying those aspects make the difference between huge or not. Just the difference between being larger or smaller than the EF equivalent.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 21, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> I can understand that Canon is clearing up its EF portfolio and discontinues less requested lenses.
> But I hope they keep developing bestsellers as long as a R6 or equivalent costs more than a 5D4 or a 6D2.
> And a R5 would be my goal as I see a R6 as a step backwards.
> Right now the R/RF prices keep me away from "the new world".


A few years ago, I could "easily" afford an EOS 5 DIV + 100-400 for about Euro 4200.
The R5 + 100-500 is Euro 7200...that's 5 DIV, + 100-400 + 24 TSE + 135 f2.
PS: I'm using the EOS R, like it pretty much, but the only RF lens I bought (with heavy discount) is the 24-105 L.
The new price structure has, till now, dissuaded me from, as you said, fully entering the new world.
I know there are good non-L RF lenses (35 and 85 macro), but, since I often spend my vacations in "wet" countries like Western France ,Wales, Scotland, Norway etc..., I need splashproof L lenses.
PS: To be honest, the EOS 5 DIV cost approximately Euro 4200 when it was introduced...so, I remain confident as to the future acquisition of an EOS R5.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 21, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> I can understand that Canon is clearing up its EF portfolio and discontinues less requested lenses.
> But I hope they keep developing bestsellers as long as a R6 or equivalent costs more than a 5D4 or a 6D2.
> And a R5 would be my goal as I see a R6 as a step backwards.
> Right now the R/RF prices keep me away from "the new world".


Apart from less MPIX its a big step up from the 5DIV if you shoot action or use fast primes wide open. AF is in another league and I love the new control options. 

I also want more MPIX - however, due to the special memory card and the need for a new card reader you pay a lot on top for the R5. As I am waiting for the high MPIX "R", the R6 is a great option.

With the R6' fabulous DX sensor I can use Gigapixel AI, when I need more MPIX. Works for me. YMMV.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 21, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Apart from less MPIX its a big step up from the 5DIV if you shoot action or use fast primes wide open. AF is in another league and I love the new control options.
> 
> I also want more MPIX - however, due to the special memory card and the need for a new card reader you pay a lot on top for the R5. As I am waiting for the high MPIX "R", the R6 is a great option.
> 
> With the R6' fabulous DX sensor I can use Gigapixel AI, when I need more MPIX. Works for me. YMMV.


Thanks for your impressions. 
TBH I was never MP hungry and thought that 20 would be enough. But shooting more and more dragonflies and birds I need some more than the R6 can offer. Not neccessarily the 45 the R5 has, but something around 30, at least. 
But most frustrating is the overall high R/RF pricing - lens - bodies at all. 
Maybe within a few years... And my guess is that my first R will be an RP successor: small FF travel cam - but with better sensor and hopefully with IBIS.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Mar 21, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> A few years ago, I could "easily" afford an EOS 5 DIV + 100-400 for about Euro 4200.
> The R5 + 100-500 is Euro 7200...that's 5 DIV, + 100-400 + 24 TSE + 135 f2.


When putting those lense/camera combo prices in direct comparison, the RF prices are really scary...


Del Paso said:


> PS: I'm using the EOS R, like it pretty much, but the only RF lens I bought (with heavy discount) is the 24-105 L.
> The new price structure has, till now, dissuaded me from, as you said, fully entering the new world.


Same here. EOS R/ RF 24-105mm & RF 35mm so far, all other lenses are too expensiv. I’m hoping for cash back promotion in 2022 (when a few more lenses are out) in addition to the EOS plus X (cashback for up to three RF lenses within 12 months). And maybe one of the photo retailers will have “canon lense sell-out” rebate. Without these option, I can’t imagine buying more than one RF lense in the near future... 

thx to lense sell-out rebate and summer cashback I got my EF 100-400mm for 1.500 € (new Conditio) instead of 2.099 €. 
That’s impressive value for money compared to 3.099 € for the RF 100-500mm


----------



## Viggo (Mar 21, 2021)

I paid the same exact amount for the 1dx2 new as I paid for the R5. To me that is insane..


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 21, 2021)

Viggo said:


> I paid the same exact amount for the 1dx2 new as I paid for the R5. To me that is insane..


But you paid it


----------



## Fischer (Mar 21, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> Thanks for your impressions.
> TBH I was never MP hungry and thought that 20 would be enough. But shooting more and more dragonflies and birds I need some more than the R6 can offer. Not neccessarily the 45 the R5 has, but something around 30, at least.
> But most frustrating is the overall high R/RF pricing - lens - bodies at all.
> Maybe within a few years... And my guess is that my first R will be an RP successor: small FF travel cam - but with better sensor and hopefully with IBIS.


Birds eat MPIX for lunch!


----------



## Fischer (Mar 21, 2021)

Fischer said:


> I'd be careful buying an EF version myself. No one knows how long spare parts will be available. Canon stopped accepting repairs of the former 200mm f/1.8 L around 24 months after it was discontinued. Of course one can hope that it will last a long time. But its still an expensive lens and the resale value will drop a lot once it cannot be repaired any longer.


Can see Canon has said they will service it “at least” until 2027. Not bad.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 21, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> It's discontinued, confirmed by Canon USA.


Heck, the EF 400mm f/5.6L has been gone for months and months. Just happy I was able to snag a EF 135mm f/2L before they too are gone.


----------



## rbr (Mar 21, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Can see Canon has said they will service it “at least” until 2027. Not bad.


It would be nice if Canon serviced their L lenses indefinitely. They can be very expensive to replace if you don't need to. I bought some Zeiss binoculars made in West Germany in the 1980's that have long been out of production. They came with a lifetime warranty. I send them to Zeiss USA every few years and they still service them free of charge and replace parts as needed.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 21, 2021)

rbr said:


> It would be nice if Canon serviced their L lenses indefinitely. They can be very expensive to replace if you don't need to. I bought some Zeiss binoculars made in West Germany in the 1980's that have long been out of production. They came with a lifetime warranty. I send them to Zeiss USA every few years and they still service them free of charge and replace parts as needed.


To be fair about eight years ago Canon were able to repair my 20-35L which must have gone out of production in the early ‘90s. I guess with these statements they are covering themselves against lack of parts and they state when they can guarantee repair.
I believe they guarantee to may be able to repair the EOS 1v up to 2030. 2025


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 21, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> To be fair about eight years ago Canon were able to repair my 20-35L which must have gone out of production in the early ‘90s. I guess with these statements they are covering themselves against lack of parts and they state when they can guarantee repair.
> I believe they guarantee to be able to repair the EOS 1v up to 2030.


Canon USA won’t even look at my 1VHS with 36 rolls of film through it, it needs a shutter. I can’t find a shutter anywhere and even if I did finding somebody who can do the necessary calibration after fitting it, it needs old unsupported software to initiate it, is unlikely.

But if anybody knows any different, or wants a 36 roll 1VHS that shutter doesn’t work, let me know! Please!


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 21, 2021)

My nephew thought fixing up a '65 Mustang, and updating safety features, would take three weeks. 

And no AC!


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 21, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Heck, the EF 400mm f/5.6L has been gone for months and months. Just happy I was able to snag a EF 135mm f/2L before they too are gone.


I bought it too (135 f2), and love it !
Didn't want to spend 3000 + on the 135 f1,4...


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 22, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> I bought it too (135 f2), and love it !
> Didn't want to spend 3000 + on the 135 f1,4...


I sold my first 135mm f/2L when I bought into RF just to help buy RF glass. Then the Pandemic hit and I had to sell all my RF glass. Sucks! So, I ended up getting another EF 135mm and a Tamron 45mm. If things ever get better, I'll be back into RF glass... but going to hang on to my 135mm from now on.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 22, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> When putting those lense/camera combo prices in direct comparison, the RF prices are really scary...
> 
> Same here. EOS R/ RF 24-105mm & RF 35mm so far, all other lenses are too expensiv. I’m hoping for cash back promotion in 2022 (when a few more lenses are out) in addition to the EOS plus X (cashback for up to three RF lenses within 12 months). And maybe one of the photo retailers will have “canon lense sell-out” rebate. Without these option, I can’t imagine buying more than one RF lense in the near future...
> 
> ...


There's one RF lens I MUST have, it's the 14mm TSE, not only for architecture, but also for landscapes (deep canyons, forests etc...).
But otherwise, even hoping for future price-adjustments, I'll keep using -or- buying, those excellent new or used EF lenses.
PS: I realised I overestimated what I paid for my EF items, and underestimated what I would pay for RF gear, so, the comparison is even less in favour of the RF system...


----------



## Fischer (Mar 22, 2021)

rbr said:


> It would be nice if Canon serviced their L lenses indefinitely. They can be very expensive to replace if you don't need to. I bought some Zeiss binoculars made in West Germany in the 1980's that have long been out of production. They came with a lifetime warranty. I send them to Zeiss USA every few years and they still service them free of charge and replace parts as needed.


Official Canon policy is to repair redundant lenses "as long as parts exist".


----------



## jam05 (Mar 22, 2021)

Lenses have been discontinued for decades. Nothing new. They come and they go. Not as if there's no lens equivalent to it. Same as most any other product that is manufactured.


----------



## jam05 (Mar 22, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> There's one RF lens I MUST have, it's the 14mm TSE, not only for architecture, but also for landscapes (deep canyons, forests etc...).
> But otherwise, even hoping for future price-adjustments, I'll keep using -or- buying, those excellent new or used EF lenses.
> PS: I realised I overestimated what I paid for my EF items, and underestimated what I would pay for RF gear, so, the comparison is even less in favour of the RF system...


Photography is a niche. One should expect prices for photographic equipment to be priced according to value and not demand. Value Marketing.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 22, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> PS: I realised I overestimated what I paid for my EF items, and underestimated what I would pay for RF gear, so, the comparison is even less in favour of the RF system...


Its expensive, but being able to keep your EF lenses and getting 90% of the RF advantage with one of the new bodies seems a lot better than the situation when we got the EOS mount. I switched 100% over already. But it is not cheap and I consider myself fortunate to be able to carry the cost for getting the last 10% performance - and some added connivance on top.


----------



## vladk (Mar 22, 2021)

All lenses are made in batches, and Canon like nobody knows how many of their lenses are sold. I guess they just see that demand does not justify another batch. And considering that the most expensive and time consuming part (with a lot of highly qualified hand work involved) of any lens is glass elements, they better allocate their (limited) resources to lenses that sell well.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 22, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Can see Canon has said they will service it “at least” until 2027. Not bad.


My guess the difference is due to two reasons. The first is consumer laws now require manufacturers to offer service for longer periods of time. The second is manufacturing of some of the lens' elements had waste containing lead. Canon wanted to turn green, so it probably made the least number of those elements it legally could at the time, and hence a short service period.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 22, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Photography is a niche. One should expect prices for photographic equipment to be priced according to value and not demand. Value Marketing.


Value or simply features???
I just can't imagine the R5 and 100-500 being so much more expensive to produce than 5 DIV and 100-400...


----------



## vladk (Mar 22, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Value or simply features???
> I just can't imagine the R5 and 100-500 being so much more expensive to produce than 5 DIV and 100-400...



You forget about R&D. Canon spent a fortune on development of new MILC technologies recently, and the most expensive model carries most of R&D price tag.
5d line have not offered anything really new since probably 5d2 introduced video. It more like inherited and implemented techologies already proven by Canon to work. And it was announced 6 years ago at $3300. The price difference is not as extreme as it looks today.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 22, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Value or simply features???
> I just can't imagine the R5 and 100-500 being so much more expensive to produce than 5 DIV and 100-400...


Are you taking inflation into account? Plus the better performance of and higher resolution of the R5 over the 5DIV? Please, please, please remember how the EU, and to a much larger extent the USA, have been printing money and dumping it into investment markets at historically low interest rates. So, whatever inflation gauge you might have used in the past cannot apply now.

Try to go back and look at what prices for everyday goods looked like 20, 10, and 5 years ago. We might be told "real" inflation is only a little higher, but just look at actual price increases.

Then factor in the loss of bread-and-butter point-and-shoot units. To remain profitable, camera companies have to make more per unit on high-end gear. There has been a shift.

It isn't good news for long-time customers, but either we have a few companies that make great, reliable gear, or we have very mediocre, commodity type low-end knockoffs.

Just my observations and 20 cents worth. (Right, 2 cents was from the time of our great-grandparents. Now opinions are worth ten times more!)


----------



## SteveC (Mar 22, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> Just my observations and 20 cents worth. (Right, 2 cents was from the time of our great-grandparents. Now opinions are worth ten times more!)



If only.

By some measures a dollar today is worth somewhere between 1 and 2 cents in 1913.


----------



## vladk (Mar 22, 2021)

It is wrong to put 5D4 and R5 on the same scale. Even R6 offers a lot more than 5D4 IMHO, and cost the same at the moment. The only advantages of 5D4 are probably more megapixels, built-in GPS, and more bulletproof body.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 22, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> Are you taking inflation into account? Plus the better performance of and higher resolution of the R5 over the 5DIV? Please, please, please remember how the EU, and to a much larger extent the USA, have been printing money and dumping it into investment markets at historically low interest rates. So, whatever inflation gauge you might have used in the past cannot apply now.
> 
> Try to go back and look at what prices for everyday goods looked like 20, 10, and 5 years ago. We might be told "real" inflation is only a little higher, but just look at actual price increases.
> 
> ...


What I had in mind was what happened in the last 4 years, inflation cannot justify everything. New computers are faster, better, and, based on my limited experience, cost far less than 4 years ago. No so cameras (mirrorless are more or less computers).
As to development costs: the R&D salaries haven't changed much, tooling costs, testing cost can be considered partly a reason for the raise.
On the other hand, automation of lens and camera production has been raised to an extremely high level, certainly resulting in lower manufactoring costs. I'm quite sure that sales prices are dictated by what customers are ready to pay. Just look at the Swiss watch industry, sales prices are pure fantasy (Rolex watch production is almost 100% automated, and retail prices have nevertheless exploded).
I didn't intend to criticize Canon, I just believe that, in my opinion, the readiness of a shrinking market to swallow such high prices isn't that evident. Time will tell...
My fear is that we could assist to a "Leicalike" development, cameras unfortunately made more and more for status seekers or collectors, and less for average income photographers.
Anyway, I want that 14 mm TSE, and have started saving!


----------



## dominic_siu (Mar 23, 2021)

EF lenses will eventually be killed in some years time


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 23, 2021)

dominic_siu said:


> EF lenses will eventually be killed in some years time


That's a certainty, like FD lenses were replaced with EFs.
The only difference is the excellent adaptability of EFs to the RF system! So, EF obsolescence is not part of the move!


----------



## jd7 (Mar 23, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> What I had in mind was what happened in the last 4 years, inflation cannot justify everything. New computers are faster, better, and, based on my limited experience, cost far less than 4 years ago. No so cameras (mirrorless are more or less computers).
> As to development costs: the R&D salaries haven't changed much, tooling costs, testing cost can be considered partly a reason for the raise.
> On the other hand, automation of lens and camera production has been raised to an extremely high level, certainly resulting in lower manufactoring costs. I'm quite sure that sales prices are dictated by what customers are ready to pay. Just look at the Swiss watch industry, sales prices are pure fantasy (Rolex watch production is almost 100% automated, and retail prices have nevertheless exploded).
> I didn't intend to criticize Canon, I just believe that, in my opinion, the readiness of a shrinking market to swallow such high prices isn't that evident. Time will tell...
> ...


I completely agree about Canon's pricing of the RF system. Simply saying that current model cameras offer improvements over older models doesn't seem much of a justification for higher prices. As you've said, technology advances and things get better without necessarily getting more expensive - and potentially while actually getting cheaper. In fact, I think I remember one of the early claims about mirrorless was that it was going to allow cameras to be cheaper(!).

Another issue is how valuable some of the improvements in cameras like the R5 and R6 are. For example, if a camera can shoot at say 8 or 10 FPS, that is enought for me. The fact the R5 and R6 can shoot faster really isn't a draw card for me. YMMV of course.

There is also the issue of economy of scale. If the camera market is shrinking already, increasing prices might just cause it to shrink further, putting more pressure on prices to go up if manufacturers are to remain profitable. Obviously that potentially becomes a vicious circle. If cameras cannot be profitably sold at a price enough people are willing and able to pay, manufacturer's are in trouble.

Also, there is the issue of what the competition is doing. Until about a year ago, when anyone asked me for a recommendation about which camera system they should buy into, I would usually have recommended Canon (unlesss the person had some specific need which I thought would be better met by another system). Canon has completely lost me with the RF system though. Most of the RF gear may be excellent, but I just don't see the value in most of it. A friend of mine recently bought her first "serious" camera and she looked hard at the RF system (and also at Fuji), but she is now the happy owner of a Sony A7 III. She did prefer the R6 body but she got the A7 III plus Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DN lens for less than the price of an R6 body alone. And Canon EF 24-70 2.8L II still costs close to A$1,000 more than the Sigma, let alone looking at the RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS. And she now has access to a good range of native lenses including Sony's G Master lenses if she wants something like an L series lens, and a range of really good - and often small and light, and good value - Sony and third party lenses (eg Sony 55 f/1.8, Tamron 70-180 f/2.8, Sigma DN Art lenses, Samyany "tiny series" lenses, Samyang 85 f/1.4, etc). Well, they're certainly good value compared with anything Canon is offering in the RF system. Back in the old EF days (yes, I know EF isn't completely gone yet!), I felt like the value was there with Canon, but I just don't anymore. I have to say I struggle to understand Canon's thinking ... although I assume the answer is they have access to market data which tells them that enough customers will pay and they are, in fact, doing exactly the right thing to maximise their profits.

I know I'm not really supposed to say this sort of thing on a Canon forum, but as an enthusiast rather than a pro, I just feel disappointed with where Canon has gone so far with the RF system. On the plus side, since I have lost interest in buying any new gear for now (until either prices change for RF gear or I make the move to Sony), maybe I'll spend more time using the gear I have now


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Mar 23, 2021)

jd7 said:


> I know I'm not really supposed to say this sort of thing on a Canon forum, but as an enthusiast rather than a pro, I just feel disappointed with where Canon has gone so far with the RF system.


Same here. I fell in love with the R System at the photokina 2018. Before and after a looked at the prices of EF/ RF, Sony, Fuji and Nikon before I decided to stay with Canon (which I actually wanted to anyway). But the price comparisons at the time was:

RF 24-105mm F4 at 1.199 € minus cash back (899 € as a kit and CB) compared to
EF 24-105mm F4 IS ii USM at 1.059 €
--> basically same price

RF 35mm F1.8 at 549 € minus cash back compared to
EF 35mm F2 at 489 € (up to 539 € some places)

The price mark-up seemed to be negligible at the time. The price of the RF 50mm F1.2 should have been a warning, but it seemed to be most outstanding, not before reached performance... 

So far, seemingly all lenses that followed had at least a 35% mark-up compared to the EF equivalents...therefore, I still just own two native RF lenses, the two mentioned above. I will certainly "overpay" for a maximum of one lense


jd7 said:


> On the plus side, since I have lost interest in buying any new gear for now (until either prices change for RF gear or I make the move to Sony), maybe I'll spend more time using the gear I have now


Same here! I get a lot of use out of my three lenses


----------



## stevelee (Mar 23, 2021)

dominic_siu said:


> EF lenses will eventually be killed in some years time


“In the long run, we are all dead.” — Keynes


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Mar 23, 2021)

SteveC said:


> If only.
> 
> By some measures a dollar today is worth somewhere between 1 and 2 cents in 1913.


Inflation depends on what is being measured.
1DC was $15K US in 2013.
It is $2K today and a new full-frame digital camera with similar specs would cost less than that.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 23, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Inflation depends on what is being measured.
> 1DC was $15K US in 2013.
> It is $2K today and a new full-frame digital camera with similar specs would cost less than that.



You may have missed that I was talking about nineteen thirteen.

And indeed by one crude measure an ounce of gold cost USD 20.67 that year...it was_ by definition_ $20.67 in fact, and today gold is $1730 or so, which would imply that dollar today is between 1 or 2 cents.

Now gold is a commodity subject to momentary fluctuations, but the long term trend is there. You can compare other things that are _not_ electronics and you'll probably get similar answers. Electronics is different because we're literally learning how to be more productive with them at an exponential pace (Moore's law).


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 23, 2021)

After reflection, having taken a look at the  pricing of the Sony Alpha 1, I must humbly confess that the R5 seems a real bargain...


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 24, 2021)

RunAndGun said:


> Expensive? Yes. Poor sales? It seems like I’ve seen this lens(or the 1.8) owned/carried by almost every professional (Canon)still photographer(especially sports) I’ve shot next to in the last ~2.5 decades.


Meaning they've already purchased one. How many new sales is Canon seeing each year? Canon has to weigh that against the cost of producing another batch versus dedicating those manufacturing resources to an RF version. Canon super teles are not simple lenses to manufacture.


----------



## ctk (Mar 25, 2021)

If people don't understand business they can't really complain about business focused decisions

Frankly if you have been looking at this lens for 13 years (or the 200/1.8L for 33!) but haven't pulled the trigger.... realistically you're prob *never* gonna buy it. Canon can't tie up resources to placate the peanut gallery... their focus is on paying customers


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 25, 2021)

Make sense to gradually cut EF lenses that aren't selling in sales ££/ volume and switching these to RF mount (Same with Nikon).

It is a superb lens from Canon and one that Canon will do in RF mount


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Mar 26, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> Make sense to gradually cut EF lenses that aren't selling in sales ££/ volume and switching these to RF mount (Same with Nikon).
> 
> It is a superb lens from Canon and one that Canon will do in RF mount


Canon will discontinue RF lenses that do not sell also.
I do not see how this is any sign of a trend.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Mar 27, 2021)

An RF version of this lens can't be a replacement, as it will not fit on an EF mount. I still have a big problem with mirrorless cameras, as they only give me a fake copy of the world in the viewfinder instead of the real world. We used to say "looking THROUGH a viewfinder", but we might have to find a new word, because the light does no longer go through the viewfinder, but is produced in the viewfinder. Even if mirrorless cameras have many advantages, they detach the photographer from reality. 

This decision makes it even clearer, that Canon wants to end the production of DSLRs. That is very sad. Like the end of the production of TVs with a screen 4:3 screen ratio.


----------



## afolickman (Mar 28, 2021)

Boy, they just really want to get rid of everything "EF". It never occurred to them to support and continue both lines? Just say the hell with all you people who like your EF products.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 28, 2021)

afolickman said:


> Boy, they just really want to get rid of everything "EF". It never occurred to them to support and continue both lines? Just say the hell with all you people who like your EF products.


What?


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 28, 2021)

afolickman said:


> Boy, they just really want to get rid of everything "EF". It never occurred to them to support and continue both lines? Just say the hell with all you people who like your EF products.


Change is a basic fact of life.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 28, 2021)

afolickman said:


> Boy, they just really want to get rid of everything "EF". It never occurred to them to support and continue both lines? Just say the hell with all you people who like your EF products.



ONE lens which was high-end enough it probably didn't sell very many units, and that's "everything"?


----------



## ctk (Mar 29, 2021)

SteveC said:


> ONE lens which was high-end enough it probably didn't sell very many units, and that's "everything"?


It is when you're being dramatic and hyperbolic.

Canon will continue to support EF _as long as it makes sense to._ Here is an example where they feel it doesn't. Again if you didn't buy one by now you were never going to anyway so there's no need to pretend.


----------



## tron (Dec 22, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The paint will be a much better shade of beige!


And, in combination with IBIS it will have 0.5 stop better IS than its EF equivalent


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 22, 2021)

It is quite funny that on European websites (Calumet for instance), one can still find many immediately available "discontinued" lenses.
So, whoever regrets their disappearance, shouldn't complain but buy!
And, besides, there is still a huge choice of mint used lenses to get from reputable dealers or private owners. There won't be a lack of EF lenses for the next decades...
The stupidity for Canon, a non-welfare company, would be to invest into developing in parallel two lens lines, this would be suicidal regarding the current camera market. That's why, instead of complaining (I did it too!), we should be happy to see Canon investing into their future!
The future is RF. Period!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 22, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> The stupidity for Canon, a non-welfare company, would be to invest into developing in parallel two lens lines, this would be suicidal regarding the current camera market.


Canon sells a lot of EF lenses for non-Canon cameras.
RED is the only other camera company to adopt RF.
Canon also sells lenses for other mounts like PL and B4.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 22, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> It is quite funny that on European websites (Calumet for instance), one can still find many immediately available "discontinued" lenses.
> So, whoever regrets their disappearance, shouldn't complain but buy!
> And, besides, there is still a huge choice of mint used lenses to get from reputable dealers or private owners. There won't be a lack of EF lenses for the next decades...[..]


I've been eying the the EF135L for some years now, but I newer could find a good enough excuse to spend the toy budget on that. I think I have a few more years to decide


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 22, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I've been eying the the EF135L for some years now, but I newer could find a good enough excuse to spend the toy budget on that. I think I have a few more years to decide


There is absolutely no excuse for not buying the EF 135 f2, it's no toy, but an absolute necessity !
PS: it took me about 6-7 years to decide buying one...


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 22, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon sells a lot of EF lenses for non-Canon cameras.
> RED is the only other camera company to adopt RF.
> Canon also sells lenses for other mounts like PL and B4.


This is right, but do these sales justify further EF lens production? Keeping two separate production lines is ruinous, unfortunately...
I guess that sooner or later RF will become the standard mount EF still is for many non-Canon customers.
By the way: 14 out of 15 Canon lenses I own are EF, and I plan to keep them.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 22, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> This is right, but do these sales justify further EF lens production?


I assume those lenses are sold at a profit.
The sales not replaced by RF lenses would only be lost revenue.
Canon is in business not only to sell cameras but also to sell lenses.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 22, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I assume those lenses are sold at a profit.
> The sales not replaced by RF lenses would only be lost revenue.
> Canon is in business not only to sell cameras but also to sell lenses.


My post could easily be misinterpreted, my fault...
Sure, these cinema lenses are sold at a high profit. But what I meant is: are these volumes high enough to keep on producing and developing EF lenses, or shouldn't Canon rather make a clean cut?


----------



## unfocused (Dec 23, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> ...Keeping two separate production lines is ruinous, unfortunately...


Is it? We can't know that. We can only speculate. 

It may be that Canon produces a pre-determined number of lenses based on projected demand and then switches a line over to another lens. With certain less popular lenses, a single production line might be used for quite a few different lenses, switching it up as demand changes. 

I suspect, but don't know, that the bigger challenge may be parts rather than production lines. What parts are unique to individual lenses and what parts are not? With composite lens bodies, switching up different lenses may be fairly easy, as they might simply change the molds being used to match the particular lenses. I don't think we can speculate with any accuracy about the necessary minimum number of any particular lens that is required to turn a profit.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 23, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Is it? We can't know that. We can only speculate.
> 
> It may be that Canon produces a pre-determined number of lenses based on projected demand and then switches a line over to another lens. With certain less popular lenses, a single production line might be used for quite a few different lenses, switching it up as demand changes.
> 
> I suspect, but don't know, that the bigger challenge may be parts rather than production lines. What parts are unique to individual lenses and what parts are not? With composite lens bodies, switching up different lenses may be fairly easy, as they might simply change the molds being used to match the particular lenses. I don't think we can speculate with any accuracy about the necessary minimum number of any particular lens that is required to turn a profit.


Sigma manages to stay in business making lenses for multiple lines.
If only they had luck making cameras.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 23, 2021)

If I remember well, Leica in 2006 made one telephoto lens (Apotelyt f 5,6/1600mm) for sheikh Mohammed Al Thani.
It's been said they charged 2 million dollars.
And they certainly did make a profit...
But what makes sense for a smaller company, mobilizing an entire staff on such a project, wouldn't work that easily for Canon.
Unless: prestige were at stake (NASA, ESA etc...)
Or for a Justin Bieber concert?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 23, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> If I remember well, Leica in 2006 made one telephoto lens (Apotelyt f 5,6/1600mm) for sheikh Mohammed Al Thani.
> It's been said they charged 2 million dollars.
> And they certainly did make a profit...
> But what makes sense for a smaller company, mobilizing an entire staff on such a project, wouldn't work that easily for Canon.
> ...


How about two f/2 1800 mm for 2 billion dollars?


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 23, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> How about two f/2 1800 mm for 2 billion dollars?


With a 900mm front lens diameter...
Oh, I forgot. The 1600mm Leica lens weighed 60kg or 120 pounds. The proud owner had a Mercedes G wagon customized specifically for his unique lens.
And poor me has started saving for a ridiculous little R5...


----------

