Going back

John Crowe said:

Just because you have an RF body does not mean you have to buy RF glass. The EF to RF adapter works seamlessly. EF glass is just as good on RF or DSLR bodies.

Click to expand...

I don't know, I had issues with random soft focus on my EF 85mm and the IS motors constantly running on my 70-200mm F4L IS. Not to mention just the terrible balance a lot of EF lenses have with the adapter pushing their weight forward.

John Crowe said:

Native Sony glass is just as expensive as Canon RF.

Click to expand...

That's not really true. Canon is often about 10-20% more expensive.

John Crowe said:

With Sony you are pretty much relegated to third party glass because they still don't have a full system that can compete with Canon EF.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? Looks pretty dang complete to me:

Sony E Lenses - A Complete List Of Every Sony Lens | Alik Griffin

Maybe you are missing like a 200 or 300mm prime, but those are pretty niche. There's a few things they have that Canon EF does not, and vice versa, but I wouldn't call it lacking at all.

The third party lenses are often nice alternatives giving you many more options, not something you are forced to use.

John Crowe said:

The majority of those third party lenses can be bought for RF or EF too.

Click to expand...

Not in nice compact mirrorless form. And the new exciting lenses like 35-150mm f2-2.8 cannot.

John Crowe said:

It is going to take several years for Canon to equal the EF lineup in RF glass.

Click to expand...

And the RF equivalents seem to be priced at 25-50% more than their EF versions, so if price is your complaint, I don't think that helps. If you are just waiting for completion, that will happen for sure.

John Crowe said:

If you really want to save money there is an endless supply of used EF glass out there. I would not buy new EF glass now, since it will depreciate more than usual over the next ten years.

Click to expand...

Agreed. You could build up a kit of 10 year old L lenses for like 1/2 or even 1/3 the cost of the new RF versions. And they are all still as superb as they were when we raved about them in 2012.

Just as one example, 16-35mm f2.8 II is $750 in good condition at MPB. Canon 15-35mm f2.8 is $2400 new. Bet you nobody can tell the difference in your prints unless you put them side by side and tell people to look closely for them.

Or EF 70-200mm F4L IS is $500 used. RF version is $1800. I actually made this upgrade (luckily before price hike) for the size and IS noise, but I can tell you the pictures are the same. Sometimes I think I was dumb for doing it, but fortunately I had the money to spare.

John Crowe said:

I am still wary of Sony colour, after my first experience.

Click to expand...

If you shoot RAW, it probably doesn't matter much, and it has improved on gen III and IV Sony cams. Personally I'm not a big fan of the camera handling, but you can probably get used to it.

At least in the states, sony seems to be even more expensive than canon rf. Nikon is definitely the 'value' player here, and I've heard nothing but great things about the z mount lenses across the board...including the cheap kit lens..

Reservoir_Dog said:

JustUs7 said:

Not that I care one way or the other what people use, but threads like this always ignite my curiosity. How many lenses are you going through that a complete brand switch is going to make a meaningful difference in your budget? Did you do a break even analysis?

Sunk costs? How much can you recover when selling existing equipment? Replacement costs? What lenses am I actually going to buy and how much do I save on the alternative? (As opposed to this lens I’ll never buy is $3,000 vs this lens I’ll never buy at $2,500)?

Just curious what that analysis looks like.

”Going back” implies you’ve done this whole brand switch thing before. Did you sell your old equipment? How much did you lose, if anything?

Click to expand...

You are right. If I do such analysis I am loosing a lot of money. Better stay with what I have. I did the switch before and yes it’s not worth it.
Btw I really love canon. Going to buy one lens at a time to spread the cost.
So admin, close this thread

Click to expand...

I completely agree that the majority of RF-L lenses are seriously over-priced for what you get. I have an R and the RF24-105L which came as a kit, and unless there is a serious price reduction when this supply situation is over, it may be the only L lens I buy.

The good news is that I bought the RF35, RF16 and RF100-400 and they are excellent lenses, particularly the 35 and the zoom. Most of my EF lenses are Ls, most of my RF lenses likely won't be.

Stakeouttoo said:

I said it from the beginning when the R6 and R5 with their ridiculous prices came on the scene...

Canon tossed us DSLR users to the wolves.. then the mirrorless marketing hype began..

Click to expand...

i have replied to you at least once before when you have posted a similar post so you are willfully spreading miss information

the R5 when inflation is taken into account is cheaper than the 5D4..in 2016 a 5D4 was $3500 adjusted for inflation which is $4,137.40

the R5 was launched at $3900

The R6 about match or betters all the specks of the $6K 1Dxmkiii DSLR which makes the $2500 R6 a bargain in my eyes

Stakeouttoo said:

now it is taking its toll with RF lens prices ... I'll stay with my DSLR's until all this shakes out

Click to expand...

whats going to shake out?

Stakeouttoo said:

after having a bad experience a few months ago with an R6 that wouldn't autofocus after only having it about 2 weeks --I sent it back for a refund.. and never looked back.. Canon is not playing nice is all I can say

Click to expand...

richard cohen said:

At least in the states, sony seems to be even more expensive than canon rf. Nikon is definitely the 'value' player here, and I've heard nothing but great things about the z mount lenses across the board...including the cheap kit lens..

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Prices at B&H

24-70 f2.8 Canon $2400, Sony $2000 (Or Sigma $1100 or $800 (28-70) or Samyang AF $999 or Tamron 28-75 for $900)

50mm f1.2 Canon $2300 Sony $2000

85mm f1.2 Canon $2800 vs Sony 85mm f1.4 $1800 (not perfect comparison)

16-35mm f2.8 $2200 vs Canon 15-35mm f2.8 at $2400 (or tamron 17-28 for $900

100-500 Canon = $2800, Sony 200-600 is $2000

I'll stop there, but I can't really find anywhere that Canon RF is cheaper. Sometimes it has some advantages like the compact 70-200s, but it's not cheap.

JustUs7 said:

Not that I care one way or the other what people use, but threads like this always ignite my curiosity. How many lenses are you going through that a complete brand switch is going to make a meaningful difference in your budget? Did you do a break even analysis?

Sunk costs? How much can you recover when selling existing equipment? Replacement costs? What lenses am I actually going to buy and how much do I save on the alternative? (As opposed to this lens I’ll never buy is $3,000 vs this lens I’ll never buy at $2,500)?

Click to expand...

Honestly with Sony mount it can be "this lens I'll never buy at $2500 vs the Tamron/Sigma alternative at $900 that I can actually buy" I got a taste of that by getting the RF Samyang 85mm f1.4 AF at $600 instead of the 85L at $2800. But even those seem to have been pulled from Canon RF and no signs of third party ever coming.

Some of that new Tamron/Sigma stuff is like shoot L lenses at less than half the price. That can definitely improve your cost-benefit analysis. If it just swapping from Canon L to SOny G then the 10-20% saved on Sony glass will be more than lost by selling and insurance fees. So I do agree it is important to think about what you are selling and what you will be buying.

JustUs7 said:

Just curious what that analysis looks like.

”Going back” implies you’ve done this whole brand switch thing before. Did you sell your old equipment? How much did you lose, if anything?

Click to expand...

I swapped from Canon DSLR to m4/3 to Canon RF. It's not cheap, but it depends how you look at it. I maybe lost 25% each time I swapped systems, but I also used them for years between swaps. So I just consider it a dirt cheap 3 year rental fee. It helps if you always buy used/refurb, because then you didn't pay full retail and the depreciation is much less. It also helps that Canon just raised prices on half their lenses and stock is limited, so resale value is high. For example, 24-105L was $1000 and is now $1200 and hard to find. If you paid $1000 for yours a year ago, you can probably sell it for close to what you paid.

For me personally, I often consider switching just so I could run Tamron zooms. But I do really like my kit, and since I run an RP, I'd be spending a lot more trading that for an A7 III or something, because I don't want an old A7 II

davev8 said:

Stakeouttoo said:

I said it from the beginning when the R6 and R5 with their ridiculous prices came on the scene...

Canon tossed us DSLR users to the wolves.. then the mirrorless marketing hype began..

Click to expand...

i have replied to you at least once before when you have posted a similar post so you are willfully spreading miss information

the R5 when inflation is taken into account is cheaper than the 5D4..in 2016 a 5D4 was $3500 adjusted for inflation which is $4,137.40

Click to expand...

The original EOS R actually matched the 5D 4 spec wise (even same sensor), and that launched at $2300, so basically 1/3 less money for same specs. It's only $1800 new right now, too. So if you want $3500 DSLR performance you can get it for basically half.

davev8 said:

the R5 was launched at $3900

Click to expand...

R5 has a 5 in the number, but it's definitely a massive leap from what the 5D series ever was. Not even really comparable to the 5D4.

davev8 said:

The R6 about match or betters all the specks of the $6K 1Dxmkiii DSLR which makes the $2500 R6 a bargain in my eyes

Click to expand...

And don't forget Rp which is basically a mirrorless 6D II with much better AF for $1200 vs 6DII at $2000.

I don't see how anyone can really complain about RF body prices. I get complaining about lenses, but not the cameras.

davev8 said:

davev8 said:

now it is taking its toll with RF lens prices ... I'll stay with my DSLR's until all this shakes out

Click to expand...

whats going to shake out?

Click to expand...

Since it's really just lens prices that are the problem, I think the only thing that could fix it would be Tamron or Sigma getting into RF mount. Canon has no incentive to lower prices and I think they are getting hooked on making lower supply and pricing it high because they are hard to find. Same profits with less inventory and labor.

davev8 said:

davev8 said:

after having a bad experience a few months ago with an R6 that wouldn't autofocus after only having it about 2 weeks --I sent it back for a refund.. and never looked back.. Canon is not playing nice is all I can say

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

davev8 said:

Question

did it not occur to you to check the prices of R mount glass before you buy an R5????

Click to expand...

IN my case, I ignorantly assumed that the RF versions would be coming at similar prices to EF versions, and that Tamron and Sigma would support RF since they were so big in EF and Samyang had already cracked the mount with 2 AF primes. Now 2 years later, it's looking like that was a bad gamble, and Canon has raised prices even further.

Still sticking with my kit, and I like what I have, just not sure I'll ever expand it if things don't change.

With Canon's pricing structure, there are no lower priced (authorized) dealers:-(

davev8 said:

Reservoir_Dog said:

davev8 said:

Question

did it not occur to you to check the prices of R mount glass before you buy an R5????

Click to expand...

I did but they raised those prices

Click to expand...

in the UK the RF50 f1.2 is gone up 150 pounds,,, that's less than the fuel i put in my cars this week

Click to expand...

???? Are you going to drive your lens to work???

John Photo said:

davev8 said:

Reservoir_Dog said:

davev8 said:

Question

did it not occur to you to check the prices of R mount glass before you buy an R5????

Click to expand...

I did but they raised those prices

Click to expand...

in the UK the RF50 f1.2 is gone up 150 pounds,,, that's less than the fuel i put in my cars this week

Click to expand...

???? Are you going to drive your lens to work???

Click to expand...

No but in the big scheme of things 150 quid on something that cost 2.5K that will last 10 or 20 years is nothing

Reservoir_Dog said:

Hi

Start rant

I have a eos R5, but i think i go back to sony. Reason; lens line up and lens mount open sourcing, and RF lens prices.....

With sony you also have very good third party support, and while i like the canon "color science", the sony colors are very good also now.

The canon RF prices are outrageous: the 50mm 1.2 cost here (in belgium) 2750 EURO. Other lenses are also getting higher prices due to a price update. Thats when i decided "enough is enough"

If those prices where more reasonable, i definitly stayed with canon.

Rant over

Click to expand...

To get the functionality of the R5 you’re going to have to spend $2500 more to get the A1… Meanwhile the Canon still has better image stabilization, seems to have better focusing etc.

Switching brand is usually much more expensive than maybe 1 or 2 lenses costing 20% more than competition.

Reservoir_Dog said:

Hi

Start rant

I have a eos R5, but i think i go back to sony. Reason; lens line up and lens mount open sourcing, and RF lens prices.....

With sony you also have very good third party support, and while i like the canon "color science", the sony colors are very good also now.

The canon RF prices are outrageous: the 50mm 1.2 cost here (in belgium) 2750 EURO. Other lenses are also getting higher prices due to a price update. Thats when i decided "enough is enough"

If those prices where more reasonable, i definitly stayed with canon.

Rant over

Click to expand...

Buh bye

tkbslc said:

richard cohen said:

At least in the states, sony seems to be even more expensive than canon rf. Nikon is definitely the 'value' player here, and I've heard nothing but great things about the z mount lenses across the board...including the cheap kit lens..

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Prices at B&H

24-70 f2.8 Canon $2400, Sony $2000 (Or Sigma $1100 or $800 (28-70) or Samyang AF $999 or Tamron 28-75 for $900)

50mm f1.2 Canon $2300 Sony $2000

85mm f1.2 Canon $2800 vs Sony 85mm f1.4 $1800 (not perfect comparison)

16-35mm f2.8 $2200 vs Canon 15-35mm f2.8 at $2400 (or tamron 17-28 for $900

100-500 Canon = $2800, Sony 200-600 is $2000

I'll stop there, but I can't really find anywhere that Canon RF is cheaper. Sometimes it has some advantages like the compact 70-200s, but it's not cheap.

Click to expand...

Maybe you are somewhat right, but to some are apples to oranges comparison. The sony 24-70 is now an old design and quite frankly isn't that good. The rf 24-70 is brand new and a better performer. Rf and e 70-200 are the same price. As for the 200-600 vs rf 100-500, I would agree that the rf is too espensive but it does have an advantage of being much smaller and lighter as well. The lack of third party options is a clear advantage for sony, I'll give you that.

Reservoir_Dog said:

Klaus dk said:

Each time you change system, even with available adapters, you lose money. In the long run I think one is better off with incremental updates rather than with changing the whole system. YMMV.

Click to expand...

So maybe its better to wait for a while and setting cash aside to buy a RF lens then to go back you mean? Maybe i can do that yes, but it doesnt change the fact that those RF lenses are ridiculous priced, i mean, why would canon do that? Thats not a good way to atract people to their system from other systems....

Click to expand...

Sad that you think the RF 50 f1.8 STM is insanely expensive. The RF line up, combined with the EF adapted line up, gives RF owners lenses to fit any budget. They even have super telephoto lenses that are relatively cheap.

Champagne dreams on a beer budget? Did the bleeding edge lenses such as the RF 28-70 f2 attract you to the system even though they aren't meant for hobbyists. Canon going all out on a RF 50mm f1.2 lens build for pros that need it (and have companies to pay for it) cause feeling in those on hobbyist budgets?

richard cohen said:

tkbslc said:

richard cohen said:

At least in the states, sony seems to be even more expensive than canon rf. Nikon is definitely the 'value' player here, and I've heard nothing but great things about the z mount lenses across the board...including the cheap kit lens..

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Prices at B&H

24-70 f2.8 Canon $2400, Sony $2000 (Or Sigma $1100 or $800 (28-70) or Samyang AF $999 or Tamron 28-75 for $900)

50mm f1.2 Canon $2300 Sony $2000

85mm f1.2 Canon $2800 vs Sony 85mm f1.4 $1800 (not perfect comparison)

16-35mm f2.8 $2200 vs Canon 15-35mm f2.8 at $2400 (or tamron 17-28 for $900

100-500 Canon = $2800, Sony 200-600 is $2000

I'll stop there, but I can't really find anywhere that Canon RF is cheaper. Sometimes it has some advantages like the compact 70-200s, but it's not cheap.

Click to expand...

Maybe you are somewhat right, but to some are apples to oranges comparison. The sony 24-70 is now an old design and quite frankly isn't that good. The rf 24-70 is brand new and a better performer. Rf and e 70-200 are the same price. As for the 200-600 vs rf 100-500, I would agree that the rf is too espensive but it does have an advantage of being much smaller and lighter as well. The lack of third party options is a clear advantage for sony, I'll give you that.

Click to expand...

I don’t think comparing two current pro level 24-70 is apples and oranges. Maybe gala vs red delicious.



as is said there are often advantages to the canon ones, but you pay for it. I was only refuting your price argument.

Klaus dk said:

Reservoir_Dog said:

Klaus dk said:

Each time you change system, even with available adapters, you lose money. In the long run I think one is better off with incremental updates rather than with changing the whole system. YMMV.

Click to expand...

So maybe its better to wait for a while and setting cash aside to buy a RF lens then to go back you mean? Maybe i can do that yes, but it doesnt change the fact that those RF lenses are ridiculous priced, i mean, why would canon do that? Thats not a good way to atract people to their system from other systems....

Click to expand...

Perhaps that is not what they want to do?

Now this is pure speculation on my part, but perhaps Canon has a different agenda, like moving up market where the best profits are?

Click to expand...

Doesn't Canon cover the lower end of the market with FF bodies such as the RP and FF lenses such as the RF 50 f1.8 or the RF 35 f1.8. They even made the RF 800mm telephoto (birding?) that is definitely not up market.

FF bodies in the upper Rebel price range amaze me as an ex 5Ti owner.

tkbslc said:

tkbslc said:

If you really want to save money there is an endless supply of used EF glass out there. I would not buy new EF glass now, since it will depreciate more than usual over the next ten years.

Click to expand...

Agreed. You could build up a kit of 10 year old L lenses for like 1/2 or even 1/3 the cost of the new RF versions. And they are all still as superb as they were when we raved about them in 2012.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I find humor in the idea that great lenses are no longer great lenses because there are RF versions out now.

I can't wait for the year when the R3 with the RF 28-70 f2 is a horrible camera taking horrible pictures. A horrible camera versus the new Canon Ri3mkV with the RF 16-70 f1.4 pancake.

Reservoir_Dog said:

Hi

Start rant

I have a eos R5, but i think i go back to sony. Reason; lens line up and lens mount open sourcing, and RF lens prices.....

With sony you also have very good third party support, and while i like the canon "color science", the sony colors are very good also now.

The canon RF prices are outrageous: the 50mm 1.2 cost here (in belgium) 2750 EURO. Other lenses are also getting higher prices due to a price update. Thats when i decided "enough is enough"

If those prices where more reasonable, i definitly stayed with canon.

Rant over

Click to expand...

No.







--
"Very funny, Scotty! Now beam me down my clothes."
"He's dead, Jim! You grab his tri-corder. I'll get his wallet."