# Canon RF lens specifications



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 2, 2018)

> The specifications for the four RF lenses launching next week with the Canon EOS R have leaked.
> *Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM*
> 
> Lens composition: 13 groups 19 elements
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## 1Zach1 (Sep 2, 2018)

That 28-70 F2 (it’s 70 right, not 79?) is a monster and I want it so badly.


----------



## james75 (Sep 2, 2018)

Is it really 28-79, or is that a typo?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 2, 2018)

typo.. fixed. sorry.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 2, 2018)

Right, so the RF 35/1.8 IS a touch lighter than the EF 35/2 IS, and RF 24-105/4L IS is a bit lighter than the EF 24-105/4L IS II (although a fraction heavier than the EF 24-105/4L IS) ... and the RF 28-70/2L and RF 50 1.2L are fairly heavy lenses. Unsurprising for their specs given they are all FF lenses (and what we've seen other brands), but again it has me questioning whether FF mirrorless really has much of a weight or size advantage over DSLR ... and assuming it doesn't, what the big deal is about FF mirrorless.

I understand mirrorless may offer some other benefits over DSLR, but DSLR offers some benefits of [edit: over] mirrorless too (depending on what features you value, eg I am yet to see an EVF I like as much as an OVF although I realise others prefer EVF).

I will be interested to hear more about the EOS R and the RF lenses as information becomes available, but at this point personally I'm not feeling a likely buyer for the EOS R (at least any time soon).


----------



## SaebaTo (Sep 2, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> typo.. fixed. sorry.


The focusing distance for the macro lens should be 17 cm and not 17 MM as well.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 2, 2018)

The third ring on the lenses I didn't notice before looks to be a great feature.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 2, 2018)

So two of them are still being spec'ed as not IS? Does this point to IBIS in the EOS R? Seems hard to believe a 28-70 L would not have access to some sort of stabilisation.


----------



## rsdofny (Sep 2, 2018)

The 28-70mm must be in Canon's arsenal for a long time (and previously decided not to launch because of the size). Canon is pulling all stops for this intro.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 2, 2018)

rsdofny said:


> The 28-70mm must be in Canon's arsenal for a long time (and previously decided not to launch because of the size). Canon is pulling all stops for this intro.



It's definitely a "look what we can do" lens. Nikon is making one, too bad it's MF.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Sep 2, 2018)

Canon 28-70 F2 Weight: 1430g (3.15lbs).
Sigma 105 1.4 is 1.6kg 3.62lb.
Canon 70-200 2.8 II 1.49 3.29 lb


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 2, 2018)

It was rumored (and confirmed) that Sigma was working on a 24-70 f/2 and decided it wasn't doable.


----------



## noms78 (Sep 2, 2018)

Calling BS on the weights of the RF 50mm f/1.2 (and maybe the 28-70 f/2)

The EF 50 1.2 only weighs 580g!


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 2, 2018)

jd7 said:


> but again it has me questioning whether FF mirrorless really has much of a weight or size advantage over DSLR ... and assuming it doesn't, what the big deal is about FF mirrorless.



That's where I'm at. That's also why I was hoping Canon would go EF mount. But...I don't know if the R mount is what enabled the 28-70 f/2L.



> I understand mirrorless may offer some other benefits over DSLR, but DSLR offers some benefits of FF mirrorless too (depending on what features you value, eg I am yet to see an EVF I like as much as an OVF although I realise others prefer EVF).



EVF gives you exposure preview and always available (not camera held out 'live view') AI AF options like eye AF. DSLR gives you a superior VF in many ways and faster non-AI AF acquisition / tracking. The best MILC AF systems are now pretty quick and good, but still not as fast and sure as off-mirror PDAF. (The Nikon Z tracking test at DPR was poor by top of the line DSLR standards.)

The other differences are not inherent to mirror/no mirror. They just are because that's what engineers chose. Size/weight savings appear to be a myth for FF mirrorless (not going to nitpick a few ounces or mm's here) but real for APS-C mirrorless.

Whether or not I buy an R will depend entirely on video specs and price. It would not become my primary camera, and I kinda doubt I would buy dedicated R lenses right now (cool though the 28-70 f/2L may be).


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 2, 2018)

noms78 said:


> Calling BS on the weights of the RF 50mm f/1.2 (and maybe the 28-70 f/2)
> 
> The EF 50 1.2 only weighs 580g!



The EF 50mm f/1.2L USM also weighs 580g


----------



## Timedog (Sep 2, 2018)

noms78 said:


> Calling BS on the weights of the RF 50mm f/1.2 (and maybe the 28-70 f/2)
> 
> The EF 50 1.2 only weighs 580g!


Isn't that an old lens design with fewer elements?


----------



## Totoro (Sep 2, 2018)

So the 35mm isn’t a true 1:1 macro right? 17cm MFD seems long 

The 35mm IS has MFD of 24cm


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 2, 2018)

Timedog said:


> Isn't that an old lens design with fewer elements?



I'm wondering if this RF 50 f/1.2L will have FLE


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 2, 2018)

28-70 is 3.15 pounds?
The weight saving idea went out the window.
The lens might need to be that big to be f/2, but it kind of misses the mark for the first go round of releases. 
A compact f/2.8 might have been more appropriate.


----------



## Cinto (Sep 2, 2018)

Is it just me or do all the RF lenses except the 28-70 have what appears to be a second switch on the bottom of the lens? An IS switch? So that might mean a 50 F1.2 IS?


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 2, 2018)

3 lbs. on the 28-70 f/2 was my guess. 

- A


----------



## kalieaire (Sep 2, 2018)

man, i think I'd rather stick w/ a 24-70 f2.8L instead. Wish there was an 85mm 1.2 or 1.4 and a 35mm 1.4L tho.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 3 lbs. on the 28-70 f/2 was my guess.
> 
> - A



Wrong is wrong, you are .15 lbs off.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 2, 2018)

Totoro said:


> So the 35mm isn’t a true 1:1 macro right? 17cm MFD seems long
> 
> The 35mm IS has MFD of 24cm



Good question. Perhaps 1:2?

But the crop 28 and 35 illuminated macros are at least 1:1. Maybe they’ve pulled it off for FF as well?

- A


----------



## mclaren777 (Sep 2, 2018)

Comparing the weight of the 5D4 with a 24-70mm II against the EOS R with the new 28-70mm...


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 2, 2018)

kalieaire said:


> man, i think I'd rather stick w/ a 24-70 f2.8L instead. Wish there was an 85mm 1.2 or 1.4 and a 35mm 1.4L tho.



Maybe that is Canon's idea. Stick with the EF 24-70 on the mirrorless body.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Sep 2, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> 28-70 is 3.15 pounds?
> The weight saving idea went out the window.
> The lens might need to be that big to be f/2, but it kind of misses the mark for the first go round of releases.
> A compact f/2.8 might have been more appropriate.



Don't worry they will announce 24-70 2.8 RF

This lens is about making a statement. First to make a 28-70 F2 and we have so many capable lens makers nowaday.

Wedding photographers would love this lens especially if it's $2000-2500.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 2, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> Don't worry they will announce 24-70 2.8 RF
> 
> This lens is about making a statement. First to make a 28-70 F2 and we have so many capable lens makers nowaday.
> 
> Wedding photographers would love this lens especially if it's $2000-2500.




No doubt it will have a following and is most likely a very nice piece of glass.

I would have thought the majority of shooters that would jump on the mirrorless would be those welcoming the lighter weight.

In the end there is only one statement that really does count for Canon. They release it annually.


----------



## tmroper (Sep 2, 2018)

The 24-105 was first L lens on my first FF camera (the 5D MKII), and I really ended up using and liking that zoom range a lot. Looking back at old photos, I'm still amazed at how great it is (my copy at least), except for very wide shots. And I'm going to do this combo again with the R and the RF 24-105, be up and running, and see how things go.


----------



## tron (Sep 2, 2018)

jd7 said:


> Right, so the RF 35/1.8 IS a touch lighter than the EF 35/2 IS, and RF 24-105/4L IS is a bit lighter than the EF 24-105/4L IS II (although a fraction heavier than the EF 24-105/4L IS) ... and the RF 28-70/2L and RF 50 1.2L are fairly heavy lenses. Unsurprising for their specs given they are all FF lenses (and what we've seen other brands), but again it has me questioning whether FF mirrorless really has much of a weight or size advantage over DSLR ... and assuming it doesn't, what the big deal is about FF mirrorless.
> 
> I understand mirrorless may offer some other benefits over DSLR,* but DSLR offers some benefits of FF mirrorless too* (depending on what features you value, eg I am yet to see an EVF I like as much as an OVF although I realise others prefer EVF).
> 
> I will be interested to hear more about the EOS R and the RF lenses as information becomes available, but at this point personally I'm not feeling a likely buyer for the EOS R (at least any time soon).


Very very true. Add to the DSLR benefits that their sensors gather much less dust due to mirror presence.


----------



## tron (Sep 2, 2018)

tmroper said:


> The 24-105 was first L lens on my first FF camera (the 5D MKII), and I really ended up using and liking that zoom range a lot. Looking back at old photos, I'm still amazed at how great it is (my copy at least), except for very wide shots. And I'm going to do this combo again with the R and the RF 24-105, be up and running, and see how things go.


Keep in mind that since there is no size advantage between the R 24-105 and your 24-105 version 1 the only advantage is due to smaller camera only.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 2, 2018)

mclaren777 said:


> Comparing the weight of the 5D4 with a 24-70mm II against the EOS R with the new 28-70mm...
> 
> View attachment 180063



Maybe Canon's idea is that, since the body is lighter but has similar sized grip, you can get away with a heavier lens as the net total is only 400g heavier, rather than 800g heavier. 

Still, as a photojournalist I say bring on the EF mount version. I was considering getting the 35mm f/1.4L II next, as night breaking news can be too dark for the 24-70, but here's a lens that would let me keep my most-used parts of the range and still be a stop brighter. Needless to say, 28mm is still wider than being stuck with a 35.. Plus photojournalists and sports photogs carry supertelephotos around all day, this will ultimately be a light lens in comparison. 

But now this all just messes up my lens plans. Can't decide if my next camera will be a R series or the next installment of the 1D series, in which case my EF lenses will get another ~6 years of use out of them, unless they go all A9 on us.


----------



## timmysmalls (Sep 2, 2018)

surely those weight figures are bogus!


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 2, 2018)

DAMN!!! That 24-70 is a MONSTER. Oh I really want it now


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 2, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


28-70... 3 pounds for a lens that will go on a tiny camera with a skinny grip? How are you expected to grab the camera with one hand? The EF 24-70 -2.8 II is half the weight and it is heavy already. I have the unbalanced problem with the Sony A7r iii and the 24-70 being too heavy for the body and it's only 2 pounds!


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 2, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> 28-70 is 3.15 pounds?
> The weight saving idea went out the window.
> The lens might need to be that big to be f/2, but it kind of misses the mark for the first go round of releases.
> A compact f/2.8 might have been more appropriate.


Agreed


----------



## drob (Sep 2, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> Agreed


sounds like you 2 would complain about anything Canon would release. Just be happy that Canon is bringing something exciting to the table here.


----------



## Cinto (Sep 2, 2018)

Sorry if this has been covered before... the 50mm seems to have a switch on the bottom that seems to indicate an IS lens, no?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 2, 2018)

Cinto said:


> Sorry if this has been covered before... the 50mm seems to have a switch on the bottom that seems to indicate an IS lens, no?


It could be a switch. It could be an artifact.

If it’s a switch, it could be Lens IS on/off. I could be body IS on/off. It could affect how the rings work. It could a lot of things


----------



## goldenhusky (Sep 2, 2018)

EOS R specs are out too. Sounds nothing like typical Canon... Well at least so far. look at the AF points it is crazy....

Canon "EOS R" spec sheet released
Canon 'EOS R' spec sheet has been posted on overseas news websites.
EOS R

specification sheet
Number of effective pixels: 30.3 million pixels (Total number of pixels: 31.7 million pixels)
Image type: JPEG, RAW (14 bit), C-RAW
Dual pixel RAW support
EVF: organic EL, 0.71 times
AF point (when cross key is selected): 5,655 points
Distance measurement range: EV - 6 to 18 (23 ° C at room temperature · ISO 100 with F1.2 lens)
ISO sensitivity: 100 to 40000 (extended ISO: 50, 51200, 102400)
Shutter speed: 1/8000 to 30 seconds, valve
Continuous shooting performance: Up to 8 frames per second (at servo AF: up to 5 frames / sec)
Video: 4K30p, full HD 60p, HD 120p
Rear liquid crystal: 3.15 type 2.1 million dots touch panel
Battery: LP - E 6 N / LP - E 6 (LP - E 6 can not charge the camera USB)
Recording medium: SD / SDHC / SDXC card
Size: 135.8 x 98.3 x 84.4 mm
Weight: 660 g (including battery / memory card) · 580 g (body only)


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 2, 2018)

mclaren777 said:


> Comparing the weight of the 5D4 with a 24-70mm II against the EOS R with the new 28-70mm...
> 
> View attachment 180063



That's apples to oranges. The RF 28-70mm is a stop wider, and that must add to the weight.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Sep 2, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> 28-70 is 3.15 pounds?
> The weight saving idea went out the window.
> The lens might need to be that big to be f/2, but it kind of misses the mark for the first go round of releases.
> A compact f/2.8 might have been more appropriate.



What's nuts? This thing weights just half a pound more than the Sigma 85mm Art lens.

I think they're doing something nobody has ever done and making a statement with this lens. Unlike Nikon boasting about the benefits of their new mount and how it will allow for incredibly bright lenses....then not producing anything fast for 3 years (other than the single manual focus Noct 58mm f/.95 lens), Canon is knocking it out of the park with a lens nobody has ever seen before - if true. The weight is still less than a 70-200 f/2.8L II IS USM (3.28lbs), and I frequently wear that on my camera for an entire day. Is it ideal? No...but it's going to be really great for weddings and low light. Hopefully the adapted lenses work just as well as they do on the EOS-M mount and I can put adapt my 24-70 f/2.8 on for most shoots and then bring the 28-70 f/2 to weddings or when I want a different look. Heck...I could end up falling in love with this thing.


----------



## mppix (Sep 2, 2018)

It looks like there are 2 statement lenses: the 50mm and the f2 zoom, both heavy with a likely very high price tag. Not sure who, but some may like them..
The 35 and f4 zoom are ok but not really a leap over the EF.
Lets hope for an 35mm and 85mm f1.4 some time soon.


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Sep 2, 2018)

SaebaTo said:


> The focusing distance for the macro lens should be 17 cm and not 17 MM as well.


17 cm is hardly a macro distance,while 17mm is, american i presume?


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 2, 2018)

This is the first MILC offering with glass that fills a niche previously untouched AND that is very desirable. That 28-70 f2 is going to be very attractive to event shooters/wedding shooters, especially if the price is in the 2k range. That lens alone will push sales of the EOS R


----------



## mppix (Sep 2, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> EOS R specs are out too. Sounds nothing like typical Canon... Well at least so far. look at the AF points it is crazy....
> 
> Canon "EOS R" spec sheet released
> Canon 'EOS R' spec sheet has been posted on overseas news websites.
> ...


.. how do you select all those af points without joysick?


----------



## mclaren777 (Sep 2, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> That's apples to oranges. The RF 28-70mm is a stop wider, and that must add to the weight.


I know.

But I was hoping to buy that combo for my wife and I think she will be disappointed by the 25% gain in weight.


----------



## RGF (Sep 2, 2018)

jd7 said:


> Right, so the RF 35/1.8 IS a touch lighter than the EF 35/2 IS, and RF 24-105/4L IS is a bit lighter than the EF 24-105/4L IS II (although a fraction heavier than the EF 24-105/4L IS) ... and the RF 28-70/2L and RF 50 1.2L are fairly heavy lenses. Unsurprising for their specs given they are all FF lenses (and what we've seen other brands), but again it has me questioning whether FF mirrorless really has much of a weight or size advantage over DSLR ... and assuming it doesn't, what the big deal is about FF mirrorless.
> 
> I understand mirrorless may offer some other benefits over DSLR, but DSLR offers some benefits of [edit: over] mirrorless too (depending on what features you value, eg I am yet to see an EVF I like as much as an OVF although I realise others prefer EVF).
> 
> I will be interested to hear more about the EOS R and the RF lenses as information becomes available, but at this point personally I'm not feeling a likely buyer for the EOS R (at least any time soon).



You save weight on the body, not the lens.


----------



## goldenhusky (Sep 2, 2018)

mppix said:


> .. how do you select all those af points without joysick?



By using the touch screen as the track pad. It is very easy you just touch on the area you want to focus camera will focus on that area. You can also move the AF focus area by moving you finger on the LCD screen. BTW one cannot select an individual AF point in mirrorless like in a DSLR. That was a surprise for me when I got the EOS M3 and later I found the same is true in Sony a 6300, 6500. A9 & A7r3. you can select the area instead which will obviously have more than one AF point. That's where the Eye AF shines. You do not have to select the eye to focus just press the button camera will detect the eye and focus on it. In my experience eye AF very rarely (like .25% may be) fails on the A7r3. I have not used A9 for portraits much so I would not comment on that.


----------



## Tangent (Sep 2, 2018)

For 24-105: Size is not that much different, so... Will the new 24-105 perform better than the previous models? is the key question, tbd empirically.


EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens Construction 18 elements in 13 groups (canonusa)
EF 24–105mm f4/L IS II USM’s new optical composition includes 17 elements in 12 groups (canonusa)
Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens construction: 14 groups 18 pieces (from this rumor spec)

New optical formula, new design opportunity via RF mount = better optical performance??? Very much interested in the test results on this question, but it will be a while until we know.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 2, 2018)

RGF said:


> You save weight on the body, not the lens.


Sure, but how much? And at what point does saving weight on the body lead to ergonomic problems / lenses feeling unbalanced on the body?

I will be interested to hear what people think after they've had actually got to shoot with the EOS R and the RF 50/1.2 and the RF 28-70/2L. Maybe it will turn out to work well ... but I remain to be convinced.


----------



## MaxDiesel (Sep 2, 2018)

Seems legit, canon full spec sheet on the eos-r... no ibis 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CAZOijAyrUJcOMWNHbjFpGq2CznrIAoN/view


----------



## Mistral75 (Sep 2, 2018)

noms78 said:


> Calling BS on the weights of the RF 50mm f/1.2 (and maybe the 28-70 f/2)
> 
> The EF 50 1.2 only weighs 580g!



The recently announced HD Pentax-D FA★ 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW weighs 910g (950g for the Canon RF 50mm f/1.2) and it's a f/1.4 lens, not f/1.2.

Highly-corrected and heavy lenses with many elements is the current trend.


----------



## Mistral75 (Sep 2, 2018)

Totoro said:


> So the 35mm isn’t a true 1:1 macro right? 17cm MFD seems long
> 
> The 35mm IS has MFD of 24cm





ahsanford said:


> Good question. Perhaps 1:2?
> 
> (...)
> 
> - A



Indeed, the Canon RF 35 mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM is probably a 1:2 macro lens. The HD Pentax-DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited, which is a 1:1 macro lens, has a minimum focusing distance of 14cm (RF: 17cm).


----------



## memoriaphoto (Sep 2, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> 28-70... 3 pounds for a lens that will go on a tiny camera with a skinny grip? How are you expected to grab the camera with one hand? The EF 24-70 -2.8 II is half the weight and it is heavy already. I have the unbalanced problem with the Sony A7r iii and the 24-70 being too heavy for the body and it's only 2 pounds!



The 28-70/2 is not supposed to be on the EOS R. I am 100% sure there's more to be announced on tuesday.


----------



## Cinto (Sep 2, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> It could be a switch. It could be an artifact.
> 
> If it’s a switch, it could be Lens IS on/off. I could be body IS on/off. It could affect how the rings work. It could a lot of things


Seems strange that there's the same artefact on three lenses and not on the fourth, especially because 2 of those three are pretty sure to have IS and the fourth is pretty sure to not. :>


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 2, 2018)

MaxDiesel said:


> Seems legit, canon full spec sheet on the eos-r... no ibis
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CAZOijAyrUJcOMWNHbjFpGq2CznrIAoN/view


I'll pass.

Jack


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 2, 2018)

Eagerly waiting to find out if that 35mm has a built in led lights. Otherwise a great set of lenses to start a system.


----------



## Vaso_K (Sep 2, 2018)

can you mount these lenses on eos M50 without adapter?


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 2, 2018)

mclaren777 said:


> I know.
> 
> But I was hoping to buy that combo for my wife and I think she will be disappointed by the 25% gain in weight.



There is no gain in weight because Canon have never done a 28-70 f/2.0 lens before. It's like switching from the 70-200 f/4 to the 70-200 f/2.8 - gain in capabilities at the cost of higher weight.


----------



## LesC (Sep 2, 2018)

memoriaphoto said:


> The 28-70/2 is not supposed to be on the EOS R. I am 100% sure there's more to be announced on tuesday.



Yep, the 28-70 does seem ridiculously large/heavy for the EOS R. Wonder if it's an indication of what Canon has planned for the EF24-70 MKIII ??


----------



## tron (Sep 2, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> By using the touch screen as the track pad. It is very easy you just touch on the area you want to focus camera will focus on that area. You can also move the AF focus area by moving you finger on the LCD screen. BTW one cannot select an individual AF point in mirrorless like in a DSLR. That was a surprise for me when I got the EOS M3 and later I found the same is true in Sony a 6300, 6500. A9 & A7r3. you can select the area instead which will obviously have more than one AF point. That's where the Eye AF shines. You do not have to select the eye to focus just press the button camera will detect the eye and focus on it. In my experience eye AF very rarely (like .25% may be) fails on the A7r3. I have not used A9 for portraits much so I would not comment on that.


You can focus like that using 5DMkiv and 200D (SL2) too....


----------



## Kit. (Sep 2, 2018)

mppix said:


> .. how do you select all those af points without joysick?


It has a joystick; it just looks like a wheel.


----------



## Berowne (Sep 2, 2018)

Any MFT-charts for the new lenses spotted?


----------



## mppix (Sep 2, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> By using the touch screen as the track pad. It is very easy you just touch on the area you want to focus camera will focus on that area. You can also move the AF focus area by moving you finger on the LCD screen. BTW one cannot select an individual AF point in mirrorless like in a DSLR. That was a surprise for me when I got the EOS M3 and later I found the same is true in Sony a 6300, 6500. A9 & A7r3. you can select the area instead which will obviously have more than one AF point. That's where the Eye AF shines. You do not have to select the eye to focus just press the button camera will detect the eye and focus on it. In my experience eye AF very rarely (like .25% may be) fails on the A7r3. I have not used A9 for portraits much so I would not comment on that.


Sure, but at least on a 5DIV you need the left hand to operate the touch screen. Face and/or Eye AF is cool but I'd not rely on it for everything. I hope there is an additional/better way.


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 2, 2018)

drob said:


> sounds like you 2 would complain about anything Canon would release. Just be happy that Canon is bringing something exciting to the table here.


im not complaining. I am excited about the camera. I don't think it will have the same impact as the Sony or the Nikon Z because it has 15MP less but if the price is under $2K then it will be a winner. I think Canon can do it.
But 3 pounds for a lens that goes on a small body is bad. I don't care what brand it is. 
I hope the specs are wrong about the weight. The lenses certainly look smaller than the EF ones but an F/2 lens is pprobably needs more heavy glass inside... I don't know.


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 2, 2018)

memoriaphoto said:


> The 28-70/2 is not supposed to be on the EOS R. I am 100% sure there's more to be announced on tuesday.


Yes it is. It's an RF Lens. Read the posts. There is even a size comparison on CR.


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 2, 2018)

mppix said:


> Sure, but at least on a 5DIV you need the left hand to operate the touch screen. Face and/or Eye AF is cool but I'd not rely on it for everything. I hope there is an additional/better way.


yes, On the A7RIII you can have expansion focus on S, M and L so it is basically one AF point that you can move around easily.


----------



## goldenhusky (Sep 2, 2018)

mppix said:


> Sure, but at least on a 5DIV you need the left hand to operate the touch screen. Face and/or Eye AF is cool but I'd not rely on it for everything. I hope there is an additional/better way.



Not sure I follow you... why would you have to use the left hand to operate the touch screen unless you are a left handed user? I very rarely use my left hand when the camera is on a tripod but most of the times I hold the camera with lens on my left hand and use right hand for all other operations. I thought that's how most people use no?

Left hand users please don't take it as an offense. I understand your pain as almost all cameras are designed to be used by right hand users. It will be cool someone can com up with a design that a camera can be customized to be used by both right hand and left hand users.

Why would you not use a feature if that is pretty accurate most of the times?


----------



## Kit. (Sep 2, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> Not sure I follow you... why would you have to use the left hand to operate the touch screen unless you are a left handed user?


Or left-eyed.


----------



## mppix (Sep 2, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> Not sure I follow you... why would you have to use the left hand to operate the touch screen unless you are a left handed user? I very rarely use my left hand when the camera is on a tripod but most of the times I hold the camera with lens on my left hand and use right hand for all other operations. I thought that's how most people use no?
> 
> Left hand users please don't take it as an offense. I understand your pain as almost all cameras are designed to be used by right hand users. It will be cool someone can com up with a design that a camera can be customized to be used by both right hand and left hand users.
> 
> Why would you not use a feature if that is pretty accurate most of the times?



Agreed for tripod and liveview shooting in general. I was thinking more when the camera is up on your eye and you need to adjust AF points (or area) on the fly. Typically you have the left hand on the lens and the right hand on the cam. Reading the spec-pdf, the idea seems to be use the cross keys in this situation. I very much prefer a 5D type joystick but this is workable..

For me, an intuitive and fast operation of the AF (point/area selection, AF mode - point/area/face, and AF shot/servo switch) is a make or break. Needless to say that the 5DIV does a hell of a job..


----------



## bainsybike (Sep 2, 2018)

Don't know if this has been asked before, but does anyone know if R series lenses will be usable on M series cameras, with a suitable adaptor? Will depend on flange distance I suppose, but haven't seen this quoted anywhere.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 2, 2018)

Seeing the weight and size of the 50, I wish they had gone for a 50 f/1.4 and kept it around or under 500 g


----------



## dak723 (Sep 2, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> By using the touch screen as the track pad. It is very easy you just touch on the area you want to focus camera will focus on that area. You can also move the AF focus area by moving you finger on the LCD screen. BTW one cannot select an individual AF point in mirrorless like in a DSLR. That was a surprise for me when I got the EOS M3 and later I found the same is true in Sony a 6300, 6500. A9 & A7r3. you can select the area instead which will obviously have more than one AF point. That's where the Eye AF shines. You do not have to select the eye to focus just press the button camera will detect the eye and focus on it. In my experience eye AF very rarely (like .25% may be) fails on the A7r3. I have not used A9 for portraits much so I would not comment on that.



Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, as some (all?) the mirrorless cameras use every pixel for focusing information, but the Canon M5 and M50 and all the mirrorless cameras I have used have individual, selectable AF points. My M5 has 49 AF points, I believe the M50 has a maximum of 143 (with some lenses) and 99 on others. My guess is the 5,000 plus AF points mentioned in the specs is not the amount of single, selectable points as that would be totally unwieldy.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 2, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, as some (all?) the mirrorless cameras use every pixel for focusing information.



All? I can’t think of one. Even the DPAF ones dont have AF enabled across the whole frame.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 2, 2018)

Etienne said:


> Seeing the weight and size of the 50, I wish they had gone for a 50 f/1.4 and kept it around or under 500 g



+1! Seeing the size and weight on the 50L killed my GAS for EOS R. If I ever invest in a mirrorless FF system, I will take Nikons offering into serious consideration. 

I hope Canon release a road map for intended lens releases, as Nikon did.


----------



## goldenhusky (Sep 2, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, as some (all?) the mirrorless cameras use every pixel for focusing information, but the Canon M5 and M50 and all the mirrorless cameras I have used have individual, selectable AF points. My M5 has 49 AF points, I believe the M50 has a maximum of 143 (with some lenses) and 99 on others. My guess is the 5,000 plus AF points mentioned in the specs is not the amount of single, selectable points as that would be totally unwieldy.



If you are saying you can select the 49 focus point individually on your M5 I doubt it. I only had if for a few months and do not have it anymore to condfirm but if my memory serves me well there was an option to pick 1 point AF and then there was an option to say how big you want you AF selection area is. The 1 point AF is not really 1 point AF i.e. a single AF point is not selectable like a DSLR. The same was true on M3. I am pretty sure about this on M3 because I was looking for it when I could not fin it I called up canon support and they confirmed that the individual AF points are not select able in M3. Also I faced terrible shutter lag with M3. Those are the 2 reaons I returned the M3.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 2, 2018)

Here's a thought.

If this is the "enthusiast level" mirrorless DSLR and we'll see a future "pro level DSLR" is there any chance at all that it WON'T be RF mount? 

The 28-70 f/2 seems a might impressive lens to be limited to an enthusiast mount.

I think we can safely say there won't be any FF mirrorless cameras with native EF mount ever.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 2, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I think we can safely say there won't be any FF mirrorless cameras with native EF mount ever.


I think there will at least be C700 FF II.


----------



## moreorless (Sep 2, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> +1! Seeing the size and weight on the 50L killed my GAS for EOS R. If I ever invest in a mirrorless FF system, I will take Nikons offering into serious consideration.
> 
> I hope Canon release a road map for intended lens releases, as Nikon did.



Which is why these seem like odd choices for initial lens releases, the 35mm F/1.8 yeah that looks like exactly the kind of lens a lot of buyers would be after(moreso than Sony's under speced 35mm F/2.8) but the 28-70mm F/2 and 50mm F/1.2? hardly lenses to show off size saving are they? even the 24-105mm F/4 is notable larger and heavier than Nikon's 24-70mm F/4 kit lens.

WIth mirrorless even moreso than DSLR's I think you really have a core lineup of lenses, the desire to save weight tends to push people towards more compact UWA/normal zooms and sub F/1.4 primes. Part of the reason Canon overturned Sony at APSC was IMHO that they did the core lens lineup better/cheaper so the lack of overall choice didn't matter as much. I think Sony have the same weakness at FF, they tended to release lower quality compact lenses hoping to drive sales of larger more expensive ones but a lot of people want quality in a smaller package.

I'm guessing this can't just be repurposed potential EF designs given the smaller flange distance? maybe Canon is was working on a raft of designs but shifted forward release date to meet Nikon and just went with the ones that were ready?


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 2, 2018)

8 fps max - seriously? That's sad.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 2, 2018)

moreorless said:


> Which is why these seem like odd choices for initial lens releases, the 35mm F/1.8 yeah that looks like exactly the kind of lens a lot of buyers would be after(moreso than Sony's under speced 35mm F/2.8) but the 28-70mm F/2 and 50mm F/1.2? hardly lenses to show off size saving are they? even the 24-105mm F/4 is notable larger and heavier than Nikon's 24-70mm F/4 kit lens.
> 
> WIth mirrorless even moreso than DSLR's I think you really have a core lineup of lenses, the desire to save weight tends to push people towards more compact UWA/normal zooms and sub F/1.4 primes. Part of the reason Canon overturned Sony at APSC was IMHO that they did the core lens lineup better/cheaper so the lack of overall choice didn't matter as much. I think Sony have the same weakness at FF, they tended to release lower quality compact lenses hoping to drive sales of larger more expensive ones but a lot of people want quality in a smaller package.



Absolutely! So far I am more convinced by Nikon strategy, with smaller but yet fast enough lenses. The 50 f0.95 they are planning will be very tempting, if they can keep it under 700 grams. 

Personally, I don’t see EVF as an advantage over DSLR. The main reason why I would consider a FF mirrorless is to have weight and size savings, with both camera and lenses. Another reason to go mirrorless is to gain solid and reliable AF performance with fast aperture lenses, even off center. Shooting a 50 f1.2 with reliable performance at f1.2 is tempting.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 2, 2018)

Kit. said:


> I think there will at least be C700 FF II.



Ok, I meant still cameras rather than dedicated video cameras. But I can even see those going RF mount pretty soon.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 2, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> Absolutely! So far I am more convinced by Nikon strategy, with smaller but yet fast enough lenses. The 50 f0.95 they are planning will be very tempting, if they can keep it under 700 grams.


 
Don't think that will happen. Also, it will apparently be around $6,000 so temptation has pretty much evaporated for me.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 2, 2018)

mclaren777 said:


> Comparing the weight of the 5D4 with a 24-70mm II against the EOS R with the new 28-70mm...


!!! wow.

So much for size/weight savings...

How about 5D4/24-70 f4 vs. R/24-105 f4? I like the former for general shooting & sightseeing - was wondering if an R/24-105 combo would at least be lighter in weight (probably won't be smaller though due to the lens, I'm guessing)

ETA: You know, after pondering it over a bit - considering the extra stop you're getting, the R combo being "only" 400g heavier is actually somewhat of an achievement TBH...still though, completely negates supposed size/weight advantage of FF mirrorless.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 2, 2018)

Cinto said:


> Is it just me or do all the RF lenses except the 28-70 have what appears to be a second switch on the bottom of the lens? An IS switch? So that might mean a 50 F1.2 IS?



no. it is an optical illusion. 
We have specs now. only 24-105 and 35 have IS.


----------



## RGF (Sep 2, 2018)

jd7 said:


> Sure, but how much? And at what point does saving weight on the body lead to ergonomic problems / lenses feeling unbalanced on the body?
> 
> I will be interested to hear what people think after they've had actually got to shoot with the EOS R and the RF 50/1.2 and the RF 28-70/2L. Maybe it will turn out to work well ... but I remain to be convinced.



Nor am I. Just looked at the specs and I am disappointed


----------



## mppix (Sep 3, 2018)

fullstop said:


> no. it is an optical illusion.
> We have specs now. only 24-105 and 35 have IS.



There seems to be a switch, and no we dont have official specs, just something leaked. Its definitively possible that we dont have the full picture. I'd be very surprised if it has IS, more likely it's a focus limiter switch..


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 3, 2018)

jd7 said:


> Right, so the RF 35/1.8 IS a touch lighter than the EF 35/2 IS, and RF 24-105/4L IS is a bit lighter than the EF 24-105/4L IS II (although a fraction heavier than the EF 24-105/4L IS) ... and the RF 28-70/2L and RF 50 1.2L are fairly heavy lenses. Unsurprising for their specs given they are all FF lenses (and what we've seen other brands), but again it has me questioning whether FF mirrorless really has much of a weight or size advantage over DSLR ... and assuming it doesn't, what the big deal is about FF mirrorless.
> 
> I understand mirrorless may offer some other benefits over DSLR, but DSLR offers some benefits of [edit: over] mirrorless too (depending on what features you value, eg I am yet to see an EVF I like as much as an OVF although I realise others prefer EVF).
> 
> I will be interested to hear more about the EOS R and the RF lenses as information becomes available, but at this point personally I'm not feeling a likely buyer for the EOS R (at least any time soon).



The size/weight advantage mantra was mostly something screamed about by the mirrorless zealots (AvTvM aka:fullstop). I guess they thought M4/3 lenses were going to be what they were getting. Wait! EF-S lenses can be used with an adapter (somebody said). I guess that's it.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 3, 2018)

mppix said:


> Agreed for tripod and liveview shooting in general. I was thinking more when the camera is up on your eye and you need to adjust AF points (or area) on the fly. Typically you have the left hand on the lens and the right hand on the cam. Reading the spec-pdf, the idea seems to be use the cross keys in this situation. I very much prefer a 5D type joystick but this is workable..
> 
> For me, an intuitive and fast operation of the AF (point/area selection, AF mode - point/area/face, and AF shot/servo switch) is a make or break. Needless to say that the 5DIV does a hell of a job..



No camera touch screen adjusts anything when your face is in the screen that I am aware of. You'd probably see the focus points in viewfinder like you do with your 5D Mark IV when the thing is up in your face.


----------



## moreorless (Sep 3, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> Absolutely! So far I am more convinced by Nikon strategy, with smaller but yet fast enough lenses. The 50 f0.95 they are planning will be very tempting, if they can keep it under 700 grams.
> 
> Personally, I don’t see EVF as an advantage over DSLR. The main reason why I would consider a FF mirrorless is to have weight and size savings, with both camera and lenses. Another reason to go mirrorless is to gain solid and reliable AF performance with fast aperture lenses, even off center. Shooting a 50 f1.2 with reliable performance at f1.2 is tempting.



From the look of it I suspect the Nikon 58mm 0.95 will weigh somewhere around 1 KG but then again that isn't a launch lens, there 50mm F/1.8 though weights 415g with what looks like performance you would associate with modern F/1.4 prime does seem like a good idea to me. Its larger than simple lower performance 50mm lenses but its about the right size to balance with a 600-700g camera offering performance anyone would be happy with if the spec is satisfactory.

The Nikon 0.95 as an attention getter does actually seem better to me, the Canon 28-70mm seems like more of a utilitarian design, I suspect performance will be good but really F/2 at that range isn't anything exceptional, its more a convenience lens that isn't very convenient I suspect certain pro's will use. Shooting at 0.95 though is obviously something much more unique, especially if it delivers good performance wide open unlike other 0.95 lenses. Don't think it will be bought by large numbers of people but will probably get more attension.

Nikon's 14-30mm F/4 also looks VERY tempting indeed, relatively small size, excellent range AND a non bulb front element. I can see a large number of landscape shooters buying that and viewing it as a reason to shoot Nikon over Sony's UWA offerings.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 3, 2018)

Act444 said:


> !!! wow.
> How about 5D4/24-70 f4 vs. R/24-105 f4? I like the former for general shooting & sightseeing - was wondering if an R/24-105 combo would at least be lighter in weight (probably won't be smaller though due to the lens, I'm guessing)
> 
> ETA: You know, after pondering it over a bit - considering the extra stop you're getting, the R combo being "only" 400g heavier is actually somewhat of an achievement TBH...still though, completely negates supposed size/weight advantage of FF mirrorless.



Eh, a 24-70mm f/4 (or even f/2.8!) and a 28-70mm f/2 are completely different lenses with most likely very different price points. Such a silly comparison. The 28-70/2 is a special tool and only the *second* full-frame f/2 zoom in existence, and the first one (Sigma 24-35mm f/2 A) has a zoom range of less than 1.5x...


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 3, 2018)

I just realized that the RF 50L will have almost identical physical specs as the EF 85 f1.4 L. Maybe a lot of similar design as well, such as the similarities between the 50L f1.0 and the 85L f1.2 back in the day..?

A good thing is that I don’t find the size and weight of the 85L f1.4 to be too big and heavy. Maybe the RF 50L will be acceptable after all.


----------



## vangelismm (Sep 3, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> I just realized that the RF 50L will have almost identical physical specs as the EF 85 f1.4 L. Maybe a lot of similar design as well, such as the similarities between the 50L f1.0 and the 85L f1.2 back in the day..?
> 
> A good thing is that I don’t find the size and weight of the 85L f1.4 to be too big and heavy. Maybe the RF 50L will be acceptable after all.



I do not want to know the size of the new 85mm......


----------



## brad-man (Sep 3, 2018)

I find Canon's trend towards wide macro lenses most disturbing. What, no LEDs? _Foodies_ of the world rejoice!


----------



## Act444 (Sep 3, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> Eh, a 24-70mm f/4 (or even f/2.8!) and a 28-70mm f/2 are completely different lenses with most likely very different price points. Such a silly comparison. The 28-70/2 is a special tool and only the *second* full-frame f/2 zoom in existence, and the first one (Sigma 24-35mm f/2 A) has a zoom range of less than 1.5x...



I don't think it's that silly to be honest. Yes, engineering-wise and price-wise, the two lenses are in different classes, but at the end of the day you've got two zoom lenses covering basically the same range, with one letting in more light than the other. The intention is not to downplay the innovation of an f2 zoom, but to view from a more practical perspective.

Personally, if we're talking practicality, I would have preferred them keep it at f2.8 and add IS than go to f2, but like Nikon, it's about the bragging rights (as someone else said, it's a "look what we can do" type of lens). All that said, it's still going to be interesting to see the results out of a lens like this. I already like the great subject/background separation of the 24-70 II...sounds like this could take that a step further...too bad there is not an EF version though.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 3, 2018)

To move onto one of the other lenses - the new RF 50 1.2 - I wonder if there is going to be any optical difference between this lens and the (older) EF version.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 3, 2018)

Act444 said:


> To move onto one of the other lenses - the new RF 50 1.2 - I wonder if there is going to be any optical difference between this lens and the (older) EF version.


RF 50/1.2 vs EF 50/1.2: 15 vs 8 elements, 9 vs 6 groups.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 3, 2018)

Act444 said:


> To move onto one of the other lenses - the new RF 50 1.2 - I wonder if there is going to be any optical difference between this lens and the (older) EF version.



Yeah, as Kit said, almost certainly. The old one is a traditional double-Gauss with fairly poor performance wide open. The RF seems to be a modern "pickle jar" with a considerably more complex optical design. The weight of the latter is 950g compared to the former's 580g.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Sep 3, 2018)

An EF 28-70 f/2L please.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 3, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> Yeah, as Kit said, almost certainly. The old one is a traditional double-Gauss with fairly poor performance wide open. The RF seems to be a modern "pickle jar" with a considerably more complex optical design. The weight of the latter is 950g compared to the former's 580g.



Interesting. Thanks for the info. 

Yes, I've been somewhat underwhelmed with the 50 1.2 (EF) IQ-wise, but it has still gotten me a few unique perspectives. Hopefully this signifies an update of the EF version in the near future.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 3, 2018)

Act444 said:


> !!! wow.
> 
> So much for size/weight savings...
> 
> ...


Apples and oranges. 
The 28-70 f/2 is a miracle of engineering even at that weight and size. You'll get a completely different look to your images, especially at 70mm, with the f/2 version. This combo will do very low light and true shallow DOF portraits.
It's definitely heavier than I would like but holy crap, you get 28-70mm on FF at constant f/2. It is a one of a kind package.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 3, 2018)

Etienne said:


> It's definitely heavier than I would like but holy crap, you get 28-70mm on FF at constant f/2. It is a one of a kind package.



True - and I bet it will be priced accordingly as well.

Only mystery left is the IQ...


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 3, 2018)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> An EF 28-70 f/2L please.



I guess what makes the RF 28-70mm/2 feasible in the first place is the shorter flange distance, meaning that the lens can be a regular telephoto (focal length > flange distance over the whole zoom range), whereas a standard DSLR zoom has to be telephoto at the long end and retrofocal at the wide end, greatly complicating the design. The only other f/2 FF zoom, the Sigma 24-35mm/2 A, notably has a zoom range in its entirety wider than the 40+mm DSLR flange distance, which I guess is not a coincidence at all!


----------



## CafferyPhoto (Sep 3, 2018)

A 95mm front element on the 28-70 f/2??? That's HUGE.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 3, 2018)

fullstop said:


> no. it is an optical illusion.
> We have specs now. only 24-105 and 35 have IS.


Yes, we have the specs. Speaking of optical illusions, the RF 24-105/4L IS is essentially the same size and weight as the EF MkI version. Sure glad we're getting the huge benefit in smaller/lighter lenses for mirrorless.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 4, 2018)

we knew all allow that 105/4.0 will not allow for much of a size reduction with move to mirrorfree. consequently the RF is just a bit shorter and about 15% lighter than the EF 24-105 II. better than nothing!

RF 35/1.8 macro is also more compact and lighter than EF 35/2.0 IS, despite faster aperture and macro capability. 

looking forward to a hopefully very compact RF 24-70/4 ... some day. and to a few pancake/ultracompact primes between f/2.0 and f/2.8.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> we knew all allow that 105/4.0 will not allow for much of a size reduction with move to mirrorfree. consequently the RF is just a bit shorter and about 15% lighter than the EF 24-105 II. better than nothing!l



As I stated, the RF 24-104/4 L IS is no lighter or smaller than the EF 24-105/4L IS MkI.

But I wonder...who are the 'we all' to whom you refer, who knew that, "105/4.0 will not allow for much of a size reduction," with a short FFD and a wide throat diameter? I have certainly mentioned that the size reduction benefit applies to only a limited subset of lens designs. I guess 'we all' who knew that are pretty intelligent and knowledgable folks. But you're not a part of that group.



fullstop said:


> For very large aperture, "high end IQ" lenses size/weight savings might be rather small, but those lenses are tiny niches anyways. But all decent "bread and butter" lenses - e.g. 24/35/50/85/100mm primes and 16-35, 24-70, *24-105 f/4 *zooms could be made significantly more compact with a new "slim" mount ... with short(er) FFD and as wide-as-feasible throat width.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 4, 2018)

kalieaire said:


> man, i think I'd rather stick w/ a 24-70 f2.8L instead. Wish there was an 85mm 1.2 or 1.4 and a 35mm 1.4L tho.


Give Canon a little time on some more lens offerings. After all, they can't just go turn on their 3D printer and make one over night and the R is not even on the street yet. Also, we haven't seen pricing for the body or the lenses, yet. Plus, we already have all the lenses on your wish list, using an adapter, of course. Time will tell how viable an option this will be. Who I feel somewhat sorry for are the aftermarket lensmakers, the Sigmas', the Tamron's, etc. When they offer a new Canon lens down the road, will they just offer it in EF mount, expecting the Canon user to use his adapter? Or do they offer it in both EF and dedicated RF, not to mention Nikon's Z mount and make you specify which mount you want. Pretty expensive proposition for them, opting for the second choice. I will have to admit that the new RF mount offerings seem pretty high end for a lower end 1st gen FF mirror less camera offering. I'm actually pleasantly surprised that they are not more comparable to the M mount offerings, that is, very basic. So, hang in there, my friend. You will get your lenses, eventually.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 4, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> im not complaining. I am excited about the camera. I don't think it will have the same impact as the Sony or the Nikon Z because it has 15MP less but if the price is under $2K then it will be a winner. I think Canon can do it.
> But 3 pounds for a lens that goes on a small body is bad. I don't care what brand it is.
> I hope the specs are wrong about the weight. The lenses certainly look smaller than the EF ones but an F/2 lens is pprobably needs more heavy glass inside... I don't know.


I think we are all holding our Canon photographic breaths until Wed the 5th, or whenever the R and RF announcements come down the pipe. We have waited a long long time, endured repeated trashing and bashing for being Canon users, wondered when Canon would respond as we watch daily defections to the Sony camp and now, it looks like it will be "game on", round one. Let's hope that our Canon, for which we have put so much faith in, takes the gloves off and comes out swinging and slugging. We all want this camera to be a resounding success, even the smarter Sony Fan Boys, realizing real competition is good for us all.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 4, 2018)

canonmike said:


> I think we are all holding our Canon photographic breaths until Wed the 5th, or whenever the R and RF announcements come down the pipe. We have waited a long long time, endured repeated trashing and bashing for being Canon users, wondered when Canon would respond as we watch daily defections to the Sony camp and now, it looks like it will be "game on", round one. Let's hope that our Canon, for which we have put so much faith in, takes the gloves off and comes out swinging and slugging. We all want this camera to be a resounding success, even the smarter Sony Fan Boys, realizing real competition is good for us all.



i think you may take the camera market way too personally.


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 4, 2018)

canonmike said:


> I think we are all holding our Canon photographic breaths until Wed the 5th, or whenever the R and RF announcements come down the pipe. We have waited a long long time, endured repeated trashing and bashing for being Canon users, wondered when Canon would respond as we watch daily defections to the Sony camp and now, it looks like it will be "game on", round one. Let's hope that our Canon, for which we have put so much faith in, takes the gloves off and comes out swinging and slugging. We all want this camera to be a resounding success, even the smarter Sony Fan Boys, realizing real competition is good for us all.


Defection? I didn't realize Canon was a country... @3kramd5 is right, u are taking this too personally...


----------



## padam (Sep 4, 2018)

CafferyPhoto said:


> A 95mm front element on the 28-70 f/2??? That's HUGE.



It will be big of course, but the filter size is usually not the same as the diameter of the front element to avoid vignetting issues.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 4, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> As I stated, the RF 24-104/4 L IS is no lighter or smaller than the EF 24-105/4L IS MkI.
> But I wonder...who are the 'we all' to whom you refer, who knew that, "105/4.0 will not allow for much of a size reduction," with a short FFD and a wide throat diameter? I have certainly mentioned that the size reduction benefit applies to only a limited subset of lens designs. I guess 'we all' who knew that are pretty intelligent and knowledgable folks. But you're not a part of that group.



reported for the ad hominem attack. Just cut it out for once. 

With a focal length of more than 100mm on the long end size advantages from shorter FFD mount are "fading out". Nevertheless fact is: Canon managed to make the RF 24-105 zoom noticeably more compact and 15% lighter than the EF version. Of course we compare it to the current EF 24-105 Mk. II, not to the out-of-production LEGACY Mark I. And we also fully expect the RF version to be at least on par with the EF 24-105 Mk. II in terms of IQ, AF and IS performance, no? 
Intelligent folks prefer facts and apple-to-apple comparisons.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 4, 2018)

padam said:


> It will be big of course, but the filter size is usually not the same as the diameter of the front element to avoid vignetting issues.



Filter diameter is 95mm. 



> *Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM*
> 
> Lens composition: 13 groups 19 sheets
> Minimum focus distance: 39cm (15.35 inches)
> ...


----------



## padam (Sep 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Filter diameter is 95mm.


Re-read what I wrote please...


----------



## fullstop (Sep 4, 2018)

yes. But in the context of previous posters' remark on size of lens, filter thread is the best and most easily available parameter. Whether or not the actual front element itself has a bit less diameter is ... totally irrelevant. 

28-70/2 is a big, fat pickle-jar lens. Looking forward to seeing the price. It'll likely be so high that i spontaneously start laughing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> With a focal length of more than 100mm on the long end size advantages from shorter FFD mount are "fading out". Nevertheless fact is: Canon managed to make the RF 24-105 zoom noticeably more compact and 15% lighter than the EF version. Of course we compare it to the current EF 24-105 Mk. II, not to the out-of-production LEGACY Mark I. And we also fully expect the RF version to be at least on par with the EF 24-105 Mk. II in terms of IQ, AF and IS performance, no?
> Intelligent folks prefer facts and apple-to-apple comparisons.


Intelligent folks admit when they were wrong. The others typically justify, obfuscate and revise history.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 4, 2018)

I was spot on. Moderately fast lenses up to around 100mm FL, including a 24-105/4.0 zoom can be made significantly smaller and lighter on a short FFD, wide-throat [mirrorfree] mount. Knowing you, you will now try to nitpick, whether about 10% less lens length and about 15% less weight are "significant" or not. While doing so, just make sure you don't lose sight of the bigger picture. Mirrorfree with well-chosen mount parameters allows for significantly more compact solutions than mirrorslappers throughout the most frequently used focal length range.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I was spot on. Moderately fast lenses up to around 100mm FL, including a 24-105/4.0 zoom can be made significantly smaller and lighter on a short FFD, wide-throat [mirrorfree] mount. Knowing you, you will now try to nitpick, whether about 10% less lens length and about 15% less weight are "significant" or not. While doing so, just make sure you don't lose sight of the bigger picture. Mirrorfree with well-chosen mount parameters allows for significantly more compact solutions than mirrorslappers throughout the most frequently used focal length range.


Mirrorless allowed the 24-105/4 IS to be significantly more compact...as compact as the prior version of the EF lens for DSLRs.  As I said, justify and obfuscate, and we're right back where we started regarding the differentiation between folks with intelligence and...others.

Incidentally, I had the EF 24-105/4L IS for many years. It's not a compact lens by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## beachcolonist (Sep 4, 2018)

jd7 said:


> Right, so the RF 35/1.8 IS a touch lighter than the EF 35/2 IS, and RF 24-105/4L IS is a bit lighter than the EF 24-105/4L IS II (although a fraction heavier than the EF 24-105/4L IS) ... and the RF 28-70/2L and RF 50 1.2L are fairly heavy lenses. Unsurprising for their specs given they are all FF lenses (and what we've seen other brands), but again it has me questioning whether FF mirrorless really has much of a weight or size advantage over DSLR ... and assuming it doesn't, what the big deal is about FF mirrorless.
> 
> I understand mirrorless may offer some other benefits over DSLR, but DSLR offers some benefits of [edit: over] mirrorless too (depending on what features you value, eg I am yet to see an EVF I like as much as an OVF although I realise others prefer EVF).
> 
> I will be interested to hear more about the EOS R and the RF lenses as information becomes available, but at this point personally I'm not feeling a likely buyer for the EOS R (at least any time soon).



~~~
I, I, I, too many uses of "I."


----------



## LDS (Sep 5, 2018)

Canon stressed the new mount allows for new high-performance lens designs, not small light lenses. That's probably why there's no compatibility with the EF-M mount which is designed for small/light lenses.

IMHO some smaller and lighter lenses will come, but from a PR perspective, they would have not been the right choice for the launch - imagine the "umpf!" if Canon had announced the camera with a 50/2 and a 28-85/3.5-5.6... even if they were the lightest and smaller lenses ever designed.

Asserting the capability of the new lenses from the beginning was a smart move, even if the first R camera is certainly not the highest-end model, as usual with Canon when a new line is released.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 5, 2018)

LDS said:


> Canon stressed the new mount allows for new high-performance lens designs, not small light lenses. That's probably why there's no compatibility with the EF-M mount which is designed for small/light lenses.
> 
> IMHO some smaller and lighter lenses will come, but from a PR perspective, they would have not been the right choice for the launch - imagine the "umpf!" if Canon had announced the camera with a 50/2 and a 28-85/3.5-5.6... even if they were the lightest and smaller lenses ever designed.
> 
> Asserting the capability of the new lenses from the beginning was a smart move, even if the first R camera is certainly not the highest-end model, as usual with Canon when a new line is released.



That's my sense also.

Jack


----------

