Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
RF 15-35mm f2.8, RF 24-70mm f2.8, RF 70-200mm f2.8 prices
#1
If you think the Sony 24-70mm f2.8 ($2200) or Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 ($2300) are expensive:

Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM  $2499
Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM  $2499
Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM  $2799
#2
Honestly, I'm slightly surprised.
I thought that Canon would try to beat Sony via lower lens pricing - which they could easily do I reckon.
After all, they are still far more profitable than all the others.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#3
I reckon they give to profitability higher priority than to market share. Which is anyhow basic rule for declining market.
#4
And possibly their pricing is reasonable when looking at type and count of elements, soon we can check that.
#5
(08-25-2019, 10:55 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: And possibly their pricing is reasonable when looking at type and count of elements, soon we can check that.

It's not very far off what Nikon is calling for their Made in China glass (and which will become very expensive in Trump-land soon - Matt Granger already said the 85/1.4 Sony GM went up for 300$, overnight and without announcement). I'm wondering why you are wondering Klaus: The 70-200/2.8 is a design I wasn't expecting to remain below 3k.

Anyway. I think Canon shooters which didn't go to the Sony side of things so far, will remain, will pay these prices and will enjoy the gorgeous glass once Canon brings out bodies with newer sensor designs.
#6
Well, I suppose that Canon wants to regain some of the marketshare in this market. Of course, they can/will do it via sheer performance. They could achieve that faster by undercutting Sony's pricing a bit at least. They did so with the RF 35mm and RF 24-105mm - which is why I expected them to continue on that route.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#7
Do note that the 15-35 F/2.8 and the 24-70 F/2.8 now are IS lenses as well, which they were not before. I reckon this easily adds $300 to the price. Also, the intro price of the 24-70 is the same as that of the EF version on its intro, so I do not see a problem here. These lenses are likely also goign to be best in class, considering the way they designed and built the RF50L and RF85L (and still a lot cheaper, than say, Zeiss Otus variants, or Leica glass for that matter, which don’ t even have AF).

There are likely going to be some discounts / cashbacks as well, just as with the current RF lenses (350 euro on the RF 85L, which is about 11%).

As to Sony, they are basically undercutting everybody deliberately I recently heard from an insider, in order to gain market share. They are very aggressive in this regard, and they can afford it, as they are an industry giant in many respects, a lot less limited than Canon is, and even less than Nikon is.

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 1 zoom, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, extension tubes, an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II and Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ...
#8
Conversely, Canon hasn't managed to come up with in-body IS yet (albeit eventually, they should be able to do it really).

Sony's classic strategy has been to offer affordable cameras but expensive lenses - knowing that you have to lock in first and then you can rip off.
I'd say that they departed from this a couple of years ago though. Their APS-C cameras are actually insanely expensive given the minor evolution since 2011.
The other day I was wondering whether to replace the NEX7 - but then what for? A bit of AF speed?

Sony has one major advantage over CaNikon - third-party manufacturers can license the mount/protocol. Sigma/Tamron/Tokina - they are all offering E-mount lenses without compatibility issues. Whereas CaNikon are playing their silly, old it's-us-or-nobody game.

In the grand scheme of things, I'm really wondering why Fuji isn't more successful with their X-series. They got quite awesome cameras there, a huge lens lineup and that's all combined with human-friendly pricing.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#9
(08-26-2019, 10:44 PM)Klaus Wrote: In the grand scheme of things, I'm really wondering why Fuji isn't more successful with their X-series. They got quite awesome cameras there, a huge lens lineup and that's all combined with human-friendly pricing.

Well, there is visibility (they are simply not present enough in stores), brand-recognition (you know Canon, Nikon and Sony, but those of us which have never shot film will not know Fuji) and the fact that their lenses and bodies are simply not as affordable as Sony's or Canon's.

For APS-C cameras, the question to answer is "How cheap is it?". That's why they still sell tons of A6000 and EOS M6 and M100.
#10
Canon always has, and rightfully so, taken the position that lens IS is a better solution, and Canon ALSO has communicated from the start of the EOS R introduction that they are working on also offering in-body IS, which you must be aware of.

Once they have a professional durable 1-series implementation it will appear, to work in conjunction with lens IS.

The NEX-7 has those problematic corners, so replacing it with no matter which model will be a good idea, if you want to test any E mount APS-C lenses that is.

On the grand scheme of Fuji X, I see (on the interweb) many who tried them once or for years change back to for instance Canon or Nikon for many reasons (among them problematic artifacts with RAW conversions due to the chosen CFA, colours, firmware/bugs/performance, UI, desire for FF).
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)