Canon EOS R Series Cameras

nandbytes said:
RF 100-500 is £2900, wth!! :eek:
Click to expand...

My thought exactly. I bought an RP a few months ago. I wanted a lightweight second body for use when I go for hikes. I have my 1DXII for everything else. I knew the R5, R6 and 100-500 were coming but I also suspected that the R5/R6 would be more than I wanted to pay and I was right.

I was intrigued by the 100-500. I thought that with the RP it would be great for taking out and about when I didn't want to lug the 1D and 500 f4 up a hill or for taking on holidays when photography wasn't the primary purpose of the trip.

At £2,900 though forget it. I can get the EF 100-400 for about £1,000 less than that so why would I pay £1,000 for an extra 100mm? Yes I get there are other advantages but not £1,000 worth for me.
 
Last edited:
da_nige said:
My thought exactly. I bought an RP a few months ago. I wanted a lightweight second body for use when I go for hikes. I have my 1DXII for everything else. I knew the R5, R6 and 100-500 were coming but I also suspected that the R5/R6 would be more than I wanted to pay and I was right.

I was intrigued by the 100-500. I thought that with the RP would be great for taking out and about when I didn't want to lug the !d and 500 f4 up a hill or for taking on holidays when photography wasn't the primary reason.

At £2,900 though forget it. I can get the EF 100-400 for about £1,000 less than that so why would I pay £1,000 for an extra 100mm? Yes I get there are other advantages but not £1,000 worth for me.
Click to expand...

Not to mention this is slower than 100-400mm.

Well none of the other lenses in similar class from Nikon, canon EF or Sony costs that much. The most expensive one before was the Sony's 100-400 which I though was already overpriced. But this is taking it to the next level.
Well it's out of my price range anyway.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Get used to seeing these RF L-Glass at £3k I think.
Click to expand...
Not all of them are overpriced. The 24-105mm is cheaper. The 15-35mm costs same as competition.

The F1.2 primes seem pretty expensive and I'd love to own the RF85mm/1.2
 
nandbytes said:
Not all of them are overpriced. The 24-105mm is cheaper. The 15-35mm costs same as competition.

The F1.2 primes seem pretty expensive and I'd love to own the RF85mm/1.2
Click to expand...

Off topic, I have never put the 24-105 in the L-Glass class in my head, it is always inferior to the 24-70 to me.

I'd love an 85/1.2 again though, I hope Sigma makes one for the Sony.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Off topic, I have never put the 24-105 in the L-Glass class in my head, it is always inferior to the 24-70 to me.

I'd love an 85/1.2 again though, I hope Sigma makes one for the Sony.
Click to expand...

Too slow for you? :p

Sigma would certainly be more affordable.
I am hoping 3rd parties will start making RF glass soon especially tamron and sigma. Samyang has already started and they have the 85mm f1.4 already for it so I can get a affordable fast 85mm.
 
addicknchips said:
wowzers
Click to expand...

I think this is unfortunately going to become common for high end luxury items being manufactured in the current climate. The Sony RRP is £2500, that lens has been out ages and its still very expensive. Had it been a newly developed and newly tooled item it would be more expensive. Like I said, look at the Sony 12-24, hardly a bargain at £2900.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
I think this is unfortunately going to become common for high end luxury items being manufactured in the current climate. The Sony RRP is £2500, that lens has been out ages and its still very expensive. Had it been a newly developed and newly tooled item it would be more expensive. Like I said, look at the Sony 12-24, hardly a bargain at £2900.
Click to expand...

its a major turn off for me. i'd personally rather hook up the 100-400 mkii plus tc
 
addicknchips said:
its a major turn off for me. i'd personally rather hook up the 100-400 mkii plus tc
Click to expand...

EF is why I bought into the RP, except maybe for the little 35 RF prime. There are just so many attractive lenses and they are cheap and perform incredibly well adapted.
 
twist said:
I think this is unfortunately going to become common for high end luxury items being manufactured in the current climate. The Sony RRP is £2500, that lens has been out ages and its still very expensive. Had it been a newly developed and newly tooled item it would be more expensive. Like I said, look at the Sony 12-24, hardly a bargain at £2900.
Click to expand...

the 12-24mm is more of a speciality lens than the 100-500mm which is variable aperture and slow (f7.1) telezoom. Also they are different class of lenses you can't compare for price.

for example the canon EF 11-24mm f4 was actually released at a higher price than both sony 12-24mm f4 and f2.8 versions.

Sony 100-400 is/was overpriced IMO. The Canon EF 100-400mm, Nikon 200-500mm and sony 200-600mm was less so. This RF 100-500mm is also overpriced IMO.
 
nandbytes said:
the 12-24mm is more of a speciality lens than the 100-500mm which is variable aperture and slow (f7.1) telezoom. Also they are different class of lenses you can't compare for price.

for example the canon EF 11-24mm f4 was actually released at a higher price than both sony 12-24mm f4 and f2.8 versions.

Sony 100-400 is/was overpriced IMO. The Canon EF 100-400mm, Nikon 200-500mm and sony 200-600mm was less so. This RF 100-500mm is also overpriced IMO.
Click to expand...


Im not disagreeing its expensive, its a crap load of money for one lens, just that year on year the price of stuff is getting more expensive and Im fairly confident that in this market the 100-400 wouldve launched at the same money, its a shrinking market and with whats going on at the moment the cost of R&D / production is pushing prices up even further.
 
I think that the newer lenses are often going to be better too and every little incremental improvement is probably going to add to the costs.

Maybe I'm wrong and it's just the lenses that have caught my interests but I don't see many ho hum lenses coming through, they all seem to be aiming to be the best or at least amongst the best of their type in one way or another and are lenses that would have caught everyones attention just a few years ago. If they even could have been made a few years ago. Even kit lenses are getting better.
 
Last edited:
i think cheap kit lenses are slowly going out of fashion just like the the lower end bodies.
Most people who buy these cameras will soon be people who care about shooting with good lenses and if not they'll probably just stick with the smartphone.
 
I think there's a lot of snobbery around standard range variable aperture zooms, maybe not with you but with some... maybe?

Much of the time with FF I'd be at apertures a variable aperture zoom can achieve with the only exceptions being when very thin depth is what I want or when light is an issue but other than those scenarios a relatively compact and relatively cheap kit lens can be a viable option if our gas gene can get over it not being a f2.8. Maybe :D

I do think that in recent years they've got better or more precisely the ones I've had in my post DSLR days have been better than I could have expected them to be.

I don't know if smartphones can kill off the kit lens. Personally I hate the whole smartphone experience. Everything. Everything from holding a slippery oblong box at half arms length in front of my face through to finger jabbing a screen I can hardly see in daylight and on to the crappy image quality when I look at the results on my pc. Faced with this hateful experience I'd take a camera and a kit lens over a smart phone every single time, but that's just me.

PS.
It's very interesting to learn that that Canon lens cost more than the Sony 12-24mm at least upon release. We'll see what the Sony lens settles down to but at least knowing that Sony aren't alone in knocking out a wide at this price level puts some of the internet gnashing and wailing into perspective.
 
Last edited:
The new RF lenses are typically a lot more expensive the older EF counterparts. They have been improved optically, include a new control ring and are usually lighter than the equivalent EF examples. e.g. the new RF 100-500 is about 400 grams lighter than 100-400.

Back when I was starting out in photography (around 2004 to 06) a fast prime like the 85m F1.2 was about £1.2k at launch - now they are around, or more than, double that.
 
Last edited:
SDK^ said:
The new RF lenses are typically a lot more expensive the older EF counterparts. They have been improved optically, include a new control ring and are usually lighter than the equivalent EF examples. e.g. the new RF 100-500 is about 400 grams lighter than 100-400.

Back when I was starting out in photography (around 2004 to 06) a fast prime like the 85m F1.2 was about £1.2k at launch - now they are around, or more than, double that.
Click to expand...

the mark ii is still not cheap https://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-1...eywords=canon+85mm+f1.2&qid=1594983764&sr=8-1
 
nandbytes said:
Not to mention this is slower than 100-400mm.
Click to expand...

Apparently at 400mm it's f/5.6. (if you use half stops)

Personally I'm quite interested in it, like all Canon lenses it will drop in price quite quickly I think and the grey market prices should be cheaper anyway. I am in the market for a R5 after deciding against the A7RIV and 200-600mm but it wont be until the first round of price drops unless someone like Hdew are a lot cheaper to begin with.
 
SDK^ said:
Yeah that’s probably the inflation increase.
The DS version of the RF 85 F1.2 is £3.2k :eek:


Time to follow your own sig advice :confused:
Click to expand...

i like DS style lenses but actually prefer the regular rf 85 1.2 from comparisons of seen of both.
 
addicknchips said:
View: https://youtu.be/8AXpz50sc18
Click to expand...

The more I see of the R6 & R5, the more I like. I know I was originally hooked on getting a M system, but considering that none of the M lenses are powerful enough to cope with the 32mp in the M6 MKII, along with the extra cost of the EVF, it just isn’t worth almost £900 (Grey), so am definitely going to save for at least a R6, then with the money saved compared to the R5, I could get something like the 600mm / 800mm prime for birding.
 
addicknchips said:
i like DS style lenses but actually prefer the regular rf 85 1.2 from comparisons of seen of both.
Click to expand...

apparently there isn't a huge lot of difference between the two in terms of the rendering. at least not enough to be always perceptible in real life.
 
nandbytes said:
apparently there isn't a huge lot of difference between the two in terms of the rendering. at least not enough to be always perceptible in real life.
Click to expand...

Depends on the background. fortunately i wasn't blown away by the DS from what id seen.
 
trevorbray said:
Bloody hell !

In a good way..
Click to expand...

It's not perfect, there are times you can see it can see it lose track when it ought to be able to but overall the hit-rate it high. I'm impressed by some of the low light successes.
 
The W said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx8Divtkhe4


The R5 in the hands of someone who isn't a Canon ambassador using the camera in real world situation.
Click to expand...

yeah not perfect but pretty good none the less. Colour me impressed.

I couldn't tell what lens he was using and if it was a native or adapted lens (did seem like he was using an adapter), if adapted then I am even more impressed (and happy because I afford EF glass). Could one of canon folk help out here?
 
There's definitely an adaptor (you can read the text on it as 0:04). The lens has a drop-in filter folder (see at 0:14) so it's not the 100-400. It lacks the hump the 200-400 has. At one point it shows f2/.8 so I was going to guess the EF400 f/2.8.

He's just written in the comments: " In addition to the 100-400mm MKII I used the 400mm F2.8 MKII paired with 1.4X and 2X converters whilst in the field on this occassion."
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
I couldn't tell what lens he was using and if it was a native or adapted lens (did seem like he was using an adapter), if adapted then I am even more impressed (and happy because I afford EF glass). Could one of canon folk help out here?
Click to expand...
Look like he's using a Canon Prime telephoto lens with a Canon Teleconvertor for longer reach.
 
Last edited:
The W said:
There's definitely an adaptor (you can read the text on it as 0:04). The lens has a drop-in filter folder (see at 0:14) so it's not the 100-400. It lacks the hump the 200-400 has. At one point it shows f2/.8 so I was going to guess the EF400 f/2.8.

He's just written in the comments: " In addition to the 100-400mm MKII I used the 400mm F2.8 MKII paired with 1.4X and 2X converters whilst in the field on this occassion. "
Click to expand...
SDK^ said:
Look like he's using a Canon Prime telephoto lens with a Canon Teleconvertor for longer reach.
Click to expand...

thanks I should have first looked on youtube. Looks good!
 
Its definitely one of the older primes too because it has the metal plate with the lens details on it. I don't think the Mark II glass has this.
 
Jase said:
That is pretty impressive, can't believe how quick Canon have caught up and now appearing to beat Sony in the AF game. I Wish Nikon would do the same as I'd love to switch back to them,
Click to expand...

well specs for Z5 has been leaked. Can't say it very encouraging.
TBH i am more concerned about glass options on Nikon.
While things limited on canon for me at least there is enough to get me started.
 
nandbytes said:
well specs for Z5 has been leaked. Can't say it very encouraging.
TBH i am more concerned about glass options on Nikon.
While things limited on canon for me at least there is enough to get me started.
Click to expand...

With their "extra ordinary losses" in recent years their R&D might be on a much tighter budget than others, that won't help. Also Nikon is a smaller company than both Canon & Sony. Sony's PR department is probably larger than Nikon entirely!
 
nandbytes said:
well specs for Z5 has been leaked. Can't say it very encouraging.
TBH i am more concerned about glass options on Nikon.
While things limited on canon for me at least there is enough to get me started.
Click to expand...

The reason I didn't get a Z7 really was single card slot and they didn't have the range of native lenses I needed at the time. I would have loved a Mirrorless D850 :(

Raymond Lin said:
With their "extra ordinary losses" in recent years their R&D might be on a much tighter budget than others, that won't help. Also Nikon is a smaller company than both Canon & Sony. Sony's PR department is probably larger than Nikon entirely!
Click to expand...

That is a good point and Nikon may just weather the storm for a bit which is a shame, as for Sony PR they do an excellent job which is probably also a small reason why I don't like them lol

smr said:
Canon's RF Road Map is very exciting, They've got quite a few RF lenses yet to be released this year.
Click to expand...

The Canon glass looks amazing, I just want to see how the sensor in the R5 compares now and if the dynamic range etc is better,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top