Cost of Canon lenses

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
gertcher New Member • Posts: 19
Cost of Canon lenses
1

I have just bought a new Canon EOS R5, it on is way. I also bought an adaptor to use my EF lenses.

My last camera purchase was a Canon EOS 1000, so you can see I have made a huge upgrade, and I am totally out of touch with current trends and prices.

I have been looking at Canon RF lenses and astonished at the cost. I understand there are a couple more contacts, I cannot see the justification for a 3x price hike compared to my EF lenses.

Are the RF lenses a great leap forward in lens design? Are all lenses of this quality, no mater what make, now so expensive?

Canon EOS R5
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
lehill
lehill Veteran Member • Posts: 6,015
Re: Cost of Canon lenses

gertcher wrote:

I have just bought a new Canon EOS R5, it on is way. I also bought an adaptor to use my EF lenses.

My last camera purchase was a Canon EOS 1000, so you can see I have made a huge upgrade, and I am totally out of touch with current trends and prices.

I have been looking at Canon RF lenses and astonished at the cost. I understand there are a couple more contacts, I cannot see the justification for a 3x price hike compared to my EF lenses.

Are the RF lenses a great leap forward in lens design? Are all lenses of this quality, no mater what make, now so expensive?

Yeah, way back then (~2008) you bought an entry-level camera with a smaller APS-C sensor. The lenses for it are smaller to match the size of the sensor and were designed and priced for consumers.

Now, you just purchased a professional-level camera with a large full-frame sensor. The lenses are larger and of high quality for professional use.

In addition, the entire camera market has shrunk to about 1/8 the size it was when you bought the 1000D. (something around 120 million cameras/year down to 15 million cameras/year). Cellphone cameras are now good enough for most people.

This is an industry-wide trend, not just a Canon trend. If you really need to back out of this, look at Canon's APS-C M-mount cameras for mirrorless (M50, M6, M200, etc) or Canon's APS-C DSLRs (850D, 90D etc). Canon's full-frame DSLRs (5D, 6D) could also be appropriate depending on what lenses you own.

-- hide signature --

Lance H

 lehill's gear list:lehill's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a99 II Sony a7R IV Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM +26 more
ken_in_nh Senior Member • Posts: 1,279
Re: Cost of Canon lenses

How many of your EF lenses were L lenses?  Those are what you should compare.

Not sure why you jumped up to a pro level full frame camera?  An M6ii would have been a very worthy upgrade, and matched with much cheaper lenses.  True, it's not quite the same as the latest R bodies, but it's still a huge upgrade from what you had, and much lighter to boot.

Chris R-UK Forum Pro • Posts: 21,140
Re: Cost of Canon lenses
1

What EF and EF-S lenses do you have?

-- hide signature --

Chris R

 Chris R-UK's gear list:Chris R-UK's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +4 more
OP gertcher New Member • Posts: 19
Re: Cost of Canon lenses

lehill wrote:

Yeah, way back then (~2008) you bought an entry-level camera with a smaller APS-C sensor. The lenses for it are smaller to match the size of the sensor and were designed and priced for consumers.

Now, you just purchased a professional-level camera with a large full-frame sensor. The lenses are larger and of high quality for professional use.

In addition, the entire camera market has shrunk to about 1/8 the size it was when you bought the 1000D. (something around 120 million cameras/year down to 15 million cameras/year). Cellphone cameras are now good enough for most people.

This is an industry-wide trend, not just a Canon trend. If you really need to back out of this, look at Canon's APS-C M-mount cameras for mirrorless (M50, M6, M200, etc) or Canon's APS-C DSLRs (850D, 90D etc). Canon's full-frame DSLRs (5D, 6D) could also be appropriate depending on what lenses you own.

I should add, my 3 lenses have all come from EOS film cameras so they are full frame suitable. They will have to do for now. Replacing them with modern equivalents will be the best part of £3,000. I want to see how these lenses perform, they could be good enough

OP gertcher New Member • Posts: 19
Re: Cost of Canon lenses

Chris R-UK wrote:

What EF and EF-S lenses do you have?

EF Ultrasonic 35 - 80 1:4 - 5.6

EF Ultrasonic 80 - 2001:4.5 - 5.6

EFS 18 - 55 1:3.5 - 5.6

QuietOC
QuietOC Veteran Member • Posts: 4,608
Re: Cost of Canon lenses
1

gertcher wrote:

Chris R-UK wrote:

What EF and EF-S lenses do you have?

EF Ultrasonic 35 - 80 1:4 - 5.6

EF Ultrasonic 80 - 2001:4.5 - 5.6

EFS 18 - 55 1:3.5 - 5.6

You might consider spending less on a camera body and budget some money for better lenses. But you can certainly use those lenses on an R5 with the adapter(s). Those are smaller lenses at least.

I have several Minolta AF 35-80 F4-5.6 zooms one of which is very sharp, and it is kinda fun to use on my Sony mirrorless camera. But the Sony FE 28-70 OSS kit zoom is much better and only added $100 to the body cost.

I am happy using several Canon EF lenses on my Sony bodies.

There are quite a few affordable lens options for Sony FE that don't exist in the other mirrorless mounts yet.

 QuietOC's gear list:QuietOC's gear list
Pentax Q7 NEX-5T Sony a7R II Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM +97 more
Astrotripper Veteran Member • Posts: 8,420
Re: Cost of Canon lenses

lehill wrote:

Now, you just purchased a professional-level camera with a large full-frame sensor. The lenses are larger and of high quality for professional use.

But it applies to prices of pro-grade lenses as well. Just look at the new 70-200. f/4 for RF costs the same as f/2.8 for EF (at least here in Europe). That's just 2 years time difference.

In addition, the entire camera market has shrunk to about 1/8 the size it was when you bought the 1000D. [...]

This is an industry-wide trend, not just a Canon trend.

Yep, this.

You can still expect affordable bodies, but with an extremely limited set of consumer grade kit lenses and then everything else is 20-50% more expensive than it was for a DSLR just 2-3 years ago. Although I guess this price gap will now widen due to the value of DSLR lenses plummeting as DSLR systems have now been abandoned.

But it's also because new lenses are somewhat differently positioned. Since the bulk of the customers now are enthusiasts (especially for FF cameras), the market for cheap but not really good lenses is no longer there. The smartphone had mostly eaten the lowest end of the market.

-- hide signature --
 Astrotripper's gear list:Astrotripper's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Olympus PEN E-PL1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 +14 more
Ad12 Senior Member • Posts: 1,018
Re: Cost of Canon lenses

The good news is the R5 should be enough to camera to meet all possible requirements for many many many years, and the R mount is going to develop.

In the meantime, why not get the lenses you want used on EF mount and just use the adaptor? Get R lenses later.

 Ad12's gear list:Ad12's gear list
Canon EOS Rebel T7i Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm X-T30 Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +4 more
OP gertcher New Member • Posts: 19
Re: Cost of Canon lenses
1

QuietOC wrote:

gertcher wrote:

Chris R-UK wrote:

What EF and EF-S lenses do you have?

EF Ultrasonic 35 - 80 1:4 - 5.6

EF Ultrasonic 80 - 2001:4.5 - 5.6

EFS 18 - 55 1:3.5 - 5.6

You might consider spending less on a camera body and budget some money for better lenses. But you can certainly use those lenses on an R5 with the adapter(s). Those are smaller lenses at least.

I have several Minolta AF 35-80 F4-5.6 zooms one of which is very sharp, and it is kinda fun to use on my Sony mirrorless camera. But the Sony FE 28-70 OSS kit zoom is much better and only added $100 to the body cost.

I am happy using several Canon EF lenses on my Sony bodies.

There are quite a few affordable lens options for Sony FE that don't exist in the other mirrorless mounts yet.

I have had good results with my lenses on the EOS1000 body. The results look good on a 1K 26 in TV. I recently bought a new i9 computer with 32Gb RAM and a 4k 28 inch monitor, in preparation to edit the huge RAW data files from the R5.

I've never been in a position to splash out on camera gear in the past. Enjoying it now, I have the time to devote to a hobby I like, and have enough spare cash to spend on better gear. Even so I'm still not going to spend unnecessarily. You may think the R5 is an unnecessary expenditure and I could have settled for a lesser model. And many will think I got it back to front and should have spent more on lenses and less on the body, you might be right. I wanted to spoil myself for once. I wanted a Canon because I have always had Canon since my first SLR AE1 back in the mid 70's. Wanted a flip out screen, high shutter rate, dust sealed, and full frame.

I wanted full frame so I can use it with my Bownes Ilumitran 3S negative copier.

OP gertcher New Member • Posts: 19
Re: Cost of Canon lenses

Ad12 wrote:

The good news is the R5 should be enough to camera to meet all possible requirements for many many many years, and the R mount is going to develop.

In the meantime, why not get the lenses you want used on EF mount and just use the adaptor? Get R lenses later.

I probably will. Might stick with what I've got for a couple of years and buy used  RF later.

This is likely to be a lifetime camera, I'm 73 now, cannot see me buying a better one in 10 or 15 years unless something exceptional happens to increase quality and reduce prices substantially.

Astrotripper Veteran Member • Posts: 8,420
Re: Cost of Canon lenses
1

gertcher wrote:

QuietOC wrote:

gertcher wrote:

Chris R-UK wrote:

What EF and EF-S lenses do you have?

EF Ultrasonic 35 - 80 1:4 - 5.6

EF Ultrasonic 80 - 2001:4.5 - 5.6

EFS 18 - 55 1:3.5 - 5.6

You might consider spending less on a camera body and budget some money for better lenses. But you can certainly use those lenses on an R5 with the adapter(s). Those are smaller lenses at least.

I have had good results with my lenses on the EOS1000 body.

Alas, a 45 megapixel sensor will show in great detail all the flaws of those lenses. Which you hod not seen in full as you only ever saw the center portion of the image they produce, and with a fairly low density sensor at that.

I've never been in a position to splash out on camera gear in the past. Enjoying it now, I have the time to devote to a hobby I like, and have enough spare cash to spend on better gear.

It's all good. Make sure to enjoy using it. Have fun with it.

And buy an RF lens as soon as possible.

Even the cheapest, most pedestrian RF zoom will demolish those old lenses in terms of image and build quality. Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 is $400. And Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM, which is $700 would easily replace all of your old lenses and still provide better quality, on top of more zoom range at both ends.

 Astrotripper's gear list:Astrotripper's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Olympus PEN E-PL1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 +14 more
OP gertcher New Member • Posts: 19
Re: Cost of Canon lenses

It's all good. Make sure to enjoy using it. Have fun with it.

And buy an RF lens as soon as possible.

Even the cheapest, most pedestrian RF zoom will demolish those old lenses in terms of image and build quality. Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 is $400. And Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM, which is $700 would easily replace all of your old lenses and still provide better quality, on top of more zoom range at both ends.

I dislike using my EOS 100 because I have to use the eye view finder not convenient wearing glasses, yes I can get an image on the screen but its not what it is designed for. Most of my photography in recent years is with an Canon G1X because of its view screen and wide to very moderate zoom.

A lot of my pictures are candid, the G1X lends itself  to this very well especially with a remote switch. That will influence my choice of RF lens/s. I will have to research my needs, your suggestion of 24 - 240 sounds tempting but it looks a bit slow. On the other hand with all the built in stabilisation and my ability to hand hold very successfully for about a second it could work.

I rarely use flash, in fact I cannot remember the last time I did. I would rather up the ISO than use flash. I'm old school from using the AEI film camera, where every shot had the be right first time. Could not afford to make several shots of the same thing. Must get out of that habit, soon I will have the ability to reframe, crop, adjust till the cows come home without loosing any definition.

JustUs7 Senior Member • Posts: 1,749
Re: Cost of Canon lenses

If you want just one RF lens to start, get the $200 RF 50mm. It’d be a fun way to learn the control ring and compatibility with your new body and wouldn’t break the bank. Should be released soon.

Other more economical lenses include:

RF 35mm f/1.8 IS macro 0.5 ($400 - current sale)

RF 85mm f/2 IS macro 0.5 ($600)

RF 24-105 IS f/4.5-7.1 ($400? I think?)

RF 24-240 IS f/4-6.3 ($700 - current sale)

All will get you into RF glass for less than $700.00 each.  None are ‘L’ glass.  Kind of defeats your goal of weather sealed though (on account of that big hole where the lens goes).

Cheapest deal in ‘L’ is the 24-105 f/4 for $1,100 or so?

 JustUs7's gear list:JustUs7's gear list
Canon EOS 1000D Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS RP Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III +7 more
ericbowles
ericbowles Senior Member • Posts: 1,321
Re: Cost of Canon lenses

Do yourself a favor.  You bought a great camera.  Buy one RF lens to complete the experience.  Don't hobble your experience by trying to save a little by using older lenses.  The older lenses can fill gaps, but the R5 is such a good camera that it's a shame to have it without a native lens.

Take a look at the RF 24-105 f/4 lens to complete the kit.  It's a good lens covering an all purpose focal length range.

If budget does not permit that lens or something similar, consider exchanging your R5 for the R6.  You need a camera and lens you can use now - not a system you can buy into over time.

-- hide signature --
 ericbowles's gear list:ericbowles's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D800E Nikon D850 Nikon Z6 Nikon Z50 +27 more
Huntin4photos Contributing Member • Posts: 509
Re: Cost of Canon lenses

gertcher wrote:

I have just bought a new Canon EOS R5, it on is way. I also bought an adaptor to use my EF lenses.

My last camera purchase was a Canon EOS 1000, so you can see I have made a huge upgrade, and I am totally out of touch with current trends and prices.

I have been looking at Canon RF lenses and astonished at the cost. I understand there are a couple more contacts, I cannot see the justification for a 3x price hike compared to my EF lenses.

Are the RF lenses a great leap forward in lens design? Are all lenses of this quality, no mater what make, now so expensive?

TOP SECRET HINT: You already bought the adaptor [standard or ring control?] and use any and all ef lens you can find, buy, beg or steal. Esp. the 24-70mm 2,8 . The ef used lens are getting cheaper and cheaper and image quality is better than ever with an r5 or r6. Use my handle to find more posts and threads.
Some are a great step forward and some are not. What is a great step forward is eye focus and the advantage of no mirror on ability to exactly focus without the need for microadjust the focus. I cannot say the Rp and R models are that great with Ef lens but the R5 and R6 ARE GREAT.

Huntin4photos Contributing Member • Posts: 509
Re: Cost of Canon lenses

ericbowles wrote:

Do yourself a favor. You bought a great camera. Buy one RF lens to complete the experience. Don't hobble your experience by trying to save a little by using older lenses. The older lenses can fill gaps, but the R5 is such a good camera that it's a shame to have it without a native lens.

Take a look at the RF 24-105 f/4 lens to complete the kit. It's a good lens covering an all purpose focal length range.

If budget does not permit that lens or something similar, consider exchanging your R5 for the R6. You need a camera and lens you can use now - not a system you can buy into over time.

Wrong. see my posts about my experience elsewhere posted with my 15 year old 24-70mm 2.8. (not even the later version ii but the original) where i returned the Rf 24-70mm bach to Best Buy and paid the $325 (15%percent restocking fee). Talk about throwing your money away but I still had 1700 left towards another lens that might be a unique lens worth paying for..

poipoipoi_2016 Contributing Member • Posts: 888
Re: Cost of Canon lenses

gertcher wrote:

I have just bought a new Canon EOS R5, it on is way. I also bought an adaptor to use my EF lenses.

My last camera purchase was a Canon EOS 1000, so you can see I have made a huge upgrade, and I am totally out of touch with current trends and prices.

I have been looking at Canon RF lenses and astonished at the cost. I understand there are a couple more contacts, I cannot see the justification for a 3x price hike compared to my EF lenses.

Are the RF lenses a great leap forward in lens design? Are all lenses of this quality, no mater what make, now so expensive?

Seconding the bits about the pro market and the APS-C to FF jump.

Very broadly speaking, the zooms are a couple hundred bucks more than my E-mount zooms, and so absolutely drool-worthy that they're definitely "worth" it.

And then the primes are just stupid in f-stops, size, and price.  And they're the reason I haven't switched to Canon yet.

 poipoipoi_2016's gear list:poipoipoi_2016's gear list
Sony RX100 V Sony a7R III Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 Sony FE 24-105mm F4 Sony FE 24mm F1.4 GM +3 more
Huntin4photos Contributing Member • Posts: 509
Re: Cost of Canon lenses

JustUs7 wrote:

If you want just one RF lens to start, get the $200 RF 50mm. It’d be a fun way to learn the control ring and compatibility with your new body and wouldn’t break the bank. Should be released soon.

Other more economical lenses include:

RF 35mm f/1.8 IS macro 0.5 ($400 - current sale)

RF 85mm f/2 IS macro 0.5 ($600)

RF 24-105 IS f/4.5-7.1 ($400? I think?)

RF 24-240 IS f/4-6.3 ($700 - current sale)

All will get you into RF glass for less than $700.00 each. None are ‘L’ glass. Kind of defeats your goal of weather sealed though (on account of that big hole where the lens goes).

Cheapest deal in ‘L’ is the 24-105 f/4 for $1,100 or so?

Or get the $200 ring adapter
(best bang for buck in mirrorless to add to an R5 or R6) and learn with the Ef lens.

Huntin4photos Contributing Member • Posts: 509
Re: Cost of Canon lenses

Astrotripper wrote:

gertcher wrote:

QuietOC wrote:

gertcher wrote:

Chris R-UK wrote:

What EF and EF-S lenses do you have?

EF Ultrasonic 35 - 80 1:4 - 5.6

EF Ultrasonic 80 - 2001:4.5 - 5.6

EFS 18 - 55 1:3.5 - 5.6

You might consider spending less on a camera body and budget some money for better lenses. But you can certainly use those lenses on an R5 with the adapter(s). Those are smaller lenses at least.

I have had good results with my lenses on the EOS1000 body.

Alas, a 45 megapixel sensor will show in great detail all the flaws of those lenses. Which you hod not seen in full as you only ever saw the center portion of the image they produce, and with a fairly low density sensor at that.

I've never been in a position to splash out on camera gear in the past. Enjoying it now, I have the time to devote to a hobby I like, and have enough spare cash to spend on better gear.

It's all good. Make sure to enjoy using it. Have fun with it.

And buy an RF lens as soon as possible.

Even the cheapest, most pedestrian RF zoom will demolish those old lenses in terms of image and build quality. Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 is $400. And Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM, which is $700 would easily replace all of your old lenses and still provide better quality, on top of more zoom range at both ends.

Demolish??? Nope I found that the difference is not worth 2k between ef and rf for top quality Ef lens. So sorry to be popping dream bubbles or sales and profits.
Try a $400 (ebay) 80-200mm f2.8 from 1989 and prepared to say wow! or spend 3k for an rf 70-200mm. GEAR HEADS will not agree but that is now more incredible lens than ever when used correctly than anything in the same range of 70-200mm.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads