Year in Review: My thoughts on all things Canon in 2024.

Personally I would have loved the R1 to have a MP count somewhere between the 1 and 5m2, perhaps 36MP or so, but the R1 will do what I need it to do for what I will use it for. I will use my R5M2 for everything else and the 1 for sports.

Berowne said:

The RF-System is more expensive when you compare the equivalent products

Cameras:
Canon 6D ($2000) vs. Canon R (2500€) / R6 (2600€)
Canon 5DIV ($3500) / 5Ds ($3700) vs. Canon R5 (4400€)

Lenses Holy Trinity, current prices:
EF 16-35/2.8 vs. RF 15-35/2.8 IS: ca. 2000€ (no longer available) vs 2450€
EF 24-70/2.8 vs. 24-70/2.8 IS: 1950€ vs. 2550€
EF 70-200/2.8IS III vs. RF 70-200IS: 2100€ vs 2850€
EF 100-400L IS vs RF 100-500L IS: roughly 2000€ vs. 3000€

Primes
EF 50L vs. RF 50L: 1500€ vs. 2450€
EF 85L vs RF 85L: ca. 1800€ (not longer available) vs. 2950€
EF 135L vs 135L IS: 1000€ vs. 2500€

APS-C Lenses
EF-S 10-18 vs RF 10-18: 230€ vs 360€

The increase in price is about 50%. One would expect at least the mirrorless Cameras to be cheaper, because you need no Mirror - therefore mirrorless - (and in some cases even no shutter), but instead the prices went up. One could argue, that Canon implemented IS in the Wideangle- and Standard zooms, but also the prices for the ultra-wide slow zooms with IS went up (EF 16-35/4IS vs 14-35/4IS: 1000€ vs. 1400€). The most substancial increase was the prices for the fast primes - more than 50%. Even the price for the nifty-fifty went up (120€ vs 200€), nearly doubling!

Only the Entry level full-frame Camera, the RP was initially cheaper than the entry-level Full-frame DSLR, the 6D. (1300€ vs. ca. 2000€).

Click to expand...

I think that we can all agree that the pricing set by Canon locally varies widely. Canon UK/EU appears to be setting an unreasonable markup giving rise to grey market sellers whereas Canon Australia seems to be in line with US pricing and in some cases, we can get cheaper pricing (using USD exchange rate ex-tax) eg R5ii during the recent sales.

Another difference is in manufacturing costs in Japan are based on the Yen exchange rates (not EUR) but you are correct that no mirror box/pentaprism and AF module reduces the manufacturing cost. Eye-controlled AF is an additional component cost though.

What you haven't allowed for is the increased SW development cost. Not just the massive difference in video processing options and eye-AF but also the ongoing SW development costs for new features in firmware releases that did not occur with DLSRs.

The assumption that inflation doesn't impact release pricing seems to be missing. That said, Canon's costs are in Yen and the assumption that USA inflation rates should be applied for comparison doesn't make sense to me.

Another difference is that Canon is all-in on R mount bodies/RF lenses. They have had a massive R&D expenditure to get the mirrorless ecosystem in place over the last ~6 years. This needs to be paid for in the near term with higher unit pricing but will mean additional profits in the long term.

And lastly, EF lenses are competing against RF lenses - at least initially. For the most part, Canon needed to add something new/difference to entice EF lens owners to migrate. Higher IQ, faster AF, different focal ranges eg RF14-35/4 and RF15-35/2.8 vs EF16-35/4 and EF16-35/2.8, lighter weight in general, smaller/collapsible length, higher magnification for RF100/2.8 macro, etc. The EF11-24/4 is much more expensive than the RF10-20/4.

No one is forcing you to buy RF lenses but there are lots of new options that didn't exist in the EF ecosystem.

antonio_s said:

For sure, there are lenses that they don't offer and could add. Sigma's 14/1.8 is still the best 14mm prime compatible with the RF system. But, as you note, Canon never made an ultrawide prime that fast during the EF days, either. But when I say there are no holes, I mean that all the bases are covered for generalists and many specialists. (Of course, the EF lenses remain usable, too.) For instance, a number of the lenses you mention have no equivalent on Sony or Nikon's mirrorless system either. If Sony has a complete system, Canon has one too.

Click to expand...

The obvious complaints about RF is that 3rd party lenses have also recently been allowed and for APS-C only. The range of Sony/Sigma/Tamron etc lenses is much larger than RF even if RF covers the generalist and many specialist requirements.
I am not aware of the Sigma 14/1.8 being compatible with R mount. I thought is was only for E/L mount.
The Sigma EF20/1.4 was discontinued a long time ago with the only other wide option being the Samyang 14/2.8 (or f2.4 version) or RF15-35/2.8

antonio_s said:

The MP-E 65mm was ultra-specialist. I wouldn't hold my breath for a replacement, especially now that we live in a world where Laowa make a similar ultra-macro lens. The 8-15 fisheye still seems in stock at major retailers, and a CR2 from a while ago said it's getting an RF successor. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 180 macro or similar come along eventually, too.

Click to expand...

Perhaps but it can be considered a missing market segment today.

antonio_s said:

Of course, the RF system has also given us other new lenses with no EF equivalent, such as the 24-105/2.8 and 28-70/2. And both those lenses have been positively received! That's not even counting vastly improved lenses like the 85/1.2 and 50/1.2, which are in totally different leagues from their EF counterparts.

Click to expand...

Of course... I am not discounting any of those great new options but the question was about what holes currently remain for R mount lenses.

antonio_s said:

I don't think the RF transition resulted in a more expensive system, because it's still an extension of the EF system. It isn't that surprising that the prices went up a bit when the entire lineup was refreshed (with new optical designs, usually better). But excellent EF lenses can be had for a much lower price. For example, the modern EF 70-200/2.8 L IS II/III is now available for half the price it was just a few years ago.

The 135/2 you have is an older lens. I have the Sigma 135/1.8. I don't imagine I will upgrade to Canon's 135/1.8 (which does have IS, but I find IBIS does the trick). The Sigma 135 is right up there with the RF 85/1.2 as one of the best optical lenses I've ever used.

Click to expand...

The RF lenses are a lot more expensive then the EF versions were when they were launched. Canon jacked up the EF prices to match their newer RF counterparts. However the EF S/H lens prices are excellent value if you know what you are looking for.
I currently don't have any Rf lenses in my collection although this will change soon when I purchase a RF 135mm f1.8 LIS. And then later next year a RF 85mm f1.2 L. My current EF 85mm f1.2 II L is not as sharp as I'd like on my R6ii and my EF 135L is looking a bit battered and the AF can be hesitant.
I've had a long history and frustration with Sigma lenses. I've dropped a lot of money on them over the years and I've been dissapointed with the build, durability and AF consistency of every lens that i've bought from them. They are no match for the top tier that Canon offer. So for me, I pass on them every time, I have learned my lesson.
My copy of the EF 135mm f2.0 L is pretty bumped about and looking quite beaten up. Its one of the first L lenses that I bought when I first went professional as a wedding photographer, well over 20 years ago. I'm looking forwards to the faster and more accurate AF, the slightly closer min focus distance. The improved sharpness and 1/3 of a stop will also be welcome. As will the Image Stabiliser. however, I'm not looking forwards to the extra bulk.