# Here’s confirmation of the RF 100-400, RF 24 Macro and RF 18-45. Sadly, they’re quite delayed



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 15, 2021)

> When we posted our original RF lens roadmap, a lot of the lenses listed were expected to launch in 2021, and as we have seen, not many have come to fruition.
> The most recent lenses to be announced have been the RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro and the RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM. The macro has begun shipping in small quantities and Canon themselves have already added that lens to its list of lenses with production delays.
> As you can see from the image below, a few lenses on our roadmap were originally scheduled to have already been in production...



Continue reading...


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 15, 2021)

That RF 24 is mine


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 15, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That RF 24 is mine


No, they're all mine!


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 15, 2021)

Less exciting but worth noting is the death sentence for several EF-S lenses


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 15, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That RF 24 is mine


Now give me an RP successor with IBIS and new sensor tech and I'm in in R system


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 15, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That RF 24 is mine


Even if it does .5x, I can see it being a good seller among herpers.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 15, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Even if it does .5x, I can see it being a good seller among herpers.


I'd love it on my RP.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 15, 2021)

I had to look up what a Herper was.


Chaitanya said:


> Even if it does .5x, I can see it being a good seller among herpers.


----------



## bseitz234 (Jul 15, 2021)

With the 14-35 and 15-35 already in existence, I'm really questioning whether that 18-45 is going to be a full-frame lens... I guess it could be a price-point wide angle, designed to pair with the 24-105 STM for an inexpensive lightweight kit? But still...


----------



## eikolyco (Jul 15, 2021)

Nice to see those new lens (Especially the RF24mm Macro) is on the map.
But I find that the EF-S 18-200, EF-S 55-250 and the EF-S 18-135 is going to stop the production within 2020...


----------



## storkchen (Jul 15, 2021)

Who needs a 24 mm macro?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 15, 2021)

storkchen said:


> Who needs a 24 mm macro?


By the responses I have gotten from readers, a lot of people would love to have one.


----------



## Eersel (Jul 15, 2021)

Why is the 100-400mm a f/5.6 to 7.1... they need to swing for the fences on bigger aperture telephoto lenses. I was hoping for 3.5 to 5.6.


----------



## Rivermist (Jul 15, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> Now give me an RP successor with IBIS and new sensor tech and I'm in in R system


I would respectfully suggest that the only reason to wait for an RP mk2 is that the original RP is 2+ years old and while stil great value for money, a replacement or similarly-priced R body may come as soon as late 2021 or early 2022. I do not miss IBIS as all the RF lenses I own are equipped with the latest IS. The non-L 24-240mm and 35mm 1.8 are great glass for their purpose, and the rather more costly 24-105L and 100-500L are superlative. A mirrorless body does not have the shake induced by the mirror, so even without IBIS you are ahead of a DSLR. The relatively light weight of the RP is achieved because (among other things) it has a lighter battery (LP 17) which may not be able to cope with the power drain of IBIS.


----------



## Rivermist (Jul 15, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> By the responses I have gotten from readers, a lot of people would love to have one.





storkchen said:


> Who needs a 24 mm macro?


I think you have to take the "macro" label with a pinch of salt. I have the 35mm 1.8 and for me the capability to focus significantly closer (MFD = 7" 17mm versus 9.5" 24mm) than the EF 35 f:2 I owned before means that I don't have to think about minimum focus point when doing e.g. close-up portrait shots.


----------



## Juangrande (Jul 15, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> By the responses I have gotten from readers, a lot of people would love to have one.


I wouldn’t want a 24mm unless it’s a f1.2 (editorial portrait work) any news of that ?


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jul 15, 2021)

What does the "C" mean in _RF 100-400 IS *C* USM_ ? My first thought was "crop" (it made my heart beat faster for a second), but then I saw the same moniker in _RF 24-240 IS _*C*_USM_ (and _EF-S 18-135 IS _*C*_USM_) ?
(For the 100-400 it looks like there's a tiny space beteen C and USM, on the other two lenses it looks like CUSM without a space. But I assume it is the same, and just bad typography in presentation)


----------



## Dragon (Jul 15, 2021)

bseitz234 said:


> With the 14-35 and 15-35 already in existence, I'm really questioning whether that 18-45 is going to be a full-frame lens... I guess it could be a price-point wide angle, designed to pair with the 24-105 STM for an inexpensive lightweight kit? But still...


Likely a follow on to the 17-40 and probably will be the "cheapie" WA zoom. The other two are definitely not cheap. Keeping the cost (and size) down would explain the short end being 18 rather than 17 or 16.


----------



## lexptr (Jul 15, 2021)

storkchen said:


> Who needs a 24 mm macro?


It is actually a very interesting option. You can show small subject(s) enlarged in the frame, while still having a wide view of its surroundings. There are no other ways to do such thing but using a wide macro lens. I would definitely like to have one. Although, I would prefer L grade lens.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Jul 15, 2021)

I think all these lenses would be fine on an R or RP as Canon continues to add IS to most of its lenses, 5 stops of IS should be good enough particularly the first two wider lenses.

This is also good news for future cheaper Canon bodies that may not have IBIS


----------



## juststeve (Jul 15, 2021)

A 24/1.8 macro lens focusing to .5x would make an interesting wildflower lens. Might also make for a very interesting bug photography lens. *The close focusing ability and compositional flexibility of the 14-35/4 L may make it the more useful choice, though. *


----------



## rontele7 (Jul 15, 2021)

F/7.1 @ 400mm - why? We already have 100-400mm f/5.6 and a 100-500 f/7.1.
Is Canon becoming allergic to fast zooms?


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 15, 2021)

Eersel said:


> Why is the 100-400mm a f/5.6 to 7.1...


It's a non-L lens. It was never ever going to be fast.


----------



## amorse (Jul 15, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> F/7.1 @ 400mm - why? We already have 100-400mm f/5.6 and a 100-500 f/7.1.
> Is Canon becoming allergic to fast zooms?


I didn't understand that lens either with the 100-500 already in play, but after discussing it here it seems to be more a spiritual successor to the 70-300 for a lower cost, larger zooming lens. Personally, I'm fine with the 7.1 apertures as long as we get that reduced weight/cost benefit.


----------



## fastprime (Jul 15, 2021)

amorse said:


> I didn't understand that lens either with the 100-500 already in play, but after discussing it here it seems to be more a spiritual successor to the 70-300 for a lower cost, larger zooming lens. Personally, I'm fine with the 7.1 apertures as long as we get that reduced weight/cost benefit.


I'm very curious on the 100-400. I'd love to have a native RF telephoto, but can't justify the cost of the 100-500.


----------



## Joules (Jul 15, 2021)

Stig Nygaard said:


> What does the "C" mean in _RF 100-400 IS *C* USM_ ? My first thought was "crop" (it made my heart beat faster for a second), but then I saw the same moniker in _RF 24-240 IS _*C*_USM_ and _EF-S 18-135 IS _*C*_USM_ ?
> (For the 100-400 it looks like there's a tiny space beteen C and USM, on the other two lenses it looks like CUSM without a space. But I assume it is the same, and just bad typography in presentation)


Seeing that the 18-135 is labeled CUSM, I suppose it just stands for Nano USM, as opposed to the full ring type USM.


----------



## slclick (Jul 15, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I had to look up what a Herper was.


It's a colloquialism for those in Herpes Anonymous


----------



## xlksii (Jul 15, 2021)

bseitz234 said:


> With the 14-35 and 15-35 already in existence, I'm really questioning whether that 18-45 is going to be a full-frame lens... I guess it could be a price-point wide angle, designed to pair with the 24-105 STM for an inexpensive lightweight kit? But still...


Maybe it's less meant as a true wide angle zoom but more of an alternative to the 24/28-70 kind of lens. For when you could take or leave the focal range above fifty-ish but often times want wider than the typical 24mm.


----------



## JPAZ (Jul 15, 2021)

Stig Nygaard said:


> What does the "C" mean in _RF 100-400 IS *C* USM_ ? .........................



Wonder if, because there is no *L* designation, that will stand for "*Consumer*" and will be less weather sealing, perhaps physically smaller and lighter and less expensive?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 15, 2021)

JPAZ said:


> Wonder if, because there is no *L* designation, that will stand for "*Consumer*" and will be less weather sealing, perhaps physically smaller and lighter and less expensive?


I imagine it will be a very small, light, and affordable lens.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 15, 2021)

I wonder what the size of the 100-400 will be. Right now, I really want a small, light telephoto…that has aperture blades…to use as a fun walk around wildlife lens when I walk my dog or go to the zoo. I fear the days are numbered for my EF 100-400 II right now. The weight really makes it a “work” only lens for me as it’s unjustifiably heavy to pack in a bag regularly.


----------



## dcm (Jul 15, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> F/7.1 @ 400mm - why? We already have 100-400mm f/5.6 and a 100-500 f/7.1.
> Is Canon becoming allergic to fast zooms?


In many cases, Canon isn’t just duplicating the EF line in the RF mount. With better sensors and AF, they don’t have the same limitations as the xD and EF line.

The RF 100–500 is a replacement for the EF 100-400. The RF 100-400 is likely a replacement for EF 70-300 with a 67mm filter, costs and weighs less than half as much as the EF 100-400, and won’t be white.

With the new generation of sensors, 7.1 appears to be the new 5.6 for low end zooms. And the RF800 has shown that f/11, f/16, and f/22 AF are also possible with DPAF.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 15, 2021)

juststeve said:


> A 24/1.8 macro lens focusing to .5x would make an interesting wildflower lens. Might also make for a very interesting bug photography lens. *The close focusing ability and compositional flexibility of the 14-35/4 L may make it the more useful choice, though. *


We'll see! Best to pick up one of each, just in case!


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 15, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I had to look up what a Herper was.


LOL!, nothing to do with herpes!

For the uninitiated, herping is to look for amphibians and reptiles. Herpetology is the study of amphibians and reptiles.


----------



## mccasi (Jul 15, 2021)

I guess this must be the consumer/prosumer- roadmap. Still waiting on my Astro lens in RF mount


----------



## slclick (Jul 15, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I imagine it will be a very small, light, and affordable lens.


Give me better IQ than the Tamron 100-400 and less money than the Canon EF version and I'm in.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 15, 2021)

Rivermist said:


> I would respectfully suggest that the only reason to wait for an RP mk2 is that the original RP is 2+ years old and while stil great value for money, a replacement or similarly-priced R body may come as soon as late 2021 or early 2022. I do not miss IBIS as all the RF lenses I own are equipped with the latest IS. The non-L 24-240mm and 35mm 1.8 are great glass for their purpose, and the rather more costly 24-105L and 100-500L are superlative. A mirrorless body does not have the shake induced by the mirror, so even without IBIS you are ahead of a DSLR. The relatively light weight of the RP is achieved because (among other things) it has a lighter battery (LP 17) which may not be able to cope with the power drain of IBIS.


You don't have a 100-500mm in your signature list. Several review sites have reported its AF is sluggish with the RP, which in any case is reputed to be rather slow for tracking birds in flight - I don't know whether any firmware upgrades have corrected this. So, for @Maximilian who likes photographing dragonflies in flight, which is even more difficult than BIF, an RP would not be of much use so he has to wait for a mk2 as his DSLR is much better.


----------



## LeBlobe (Jul 15, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Even if it does .5x, I can see it being a good seller among herpers.


I'm hoping it can do better than 0.5X or maybe it could be use with *extension tube*? the rf 35mm cannot.

edit: rf 35mm apparently works with tube.


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 15, 2021)

No RF-S lenses, matches no APS-C R camera bodies.


----------



## PhotonShark (Jul 15, 2021)

dcm said:


> The RF 100–500 is a replacement for the EF 100-400. The RF 100-400 is likely a replacement for EF 70-300 with a 67mm filter, costs and weighs less than half as much as the EF 100-400, and won’t be white.


R6 with 100-400 might make a good replacement for my 70D with 75-300.

Wonder if the 1.4 extender will offer full range with this lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2021)

dcm said:


> The RF 100–500 is a replacement for the EF 100-400. The RF 100-400 is likely a replacement for EF 70-300 with a 67mm filter, costs and weighs less than half as much as the EF 100-400, and won’t be white.


Exactly. More like a successor to the 70-300 IS non-L.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jul 15, 2021)

Eersel said:


> Why is the 100-400mm a f/5.6 to 7.1... they need to swing for the fences on bigger aperture telephoto lenses. I was hoping for 3.5 to 5.6.


Because size and weight matters most when competing with SP for customers.
F7.1 is hardly an issue for sensors nowadays and it certainly won't be an issue for the next two generations of sensors. Plus, Canon again manages to gain extra reach on this lense since it is the successor of the 70-300mm lense.


----------



## dlee13 (Jul 15, 2021)

I can’t help but feel sad the RF 16mm f/2.8 isn’t on that list


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 15, 2021)

storkchen said:


> Who needs a 24 mm macro?


It can be fun for wide-angle close ups that show the subject's environment. 

It may not be your thing, but it can be a lot of fun to try to capture photos that don't just show a small animal, but its habitat as well. I wouldn't try this with a mega predator, but it's fun with reptiles and amphibians. 

Here are a few examples of wide-angle semi close ups:

35mm:


28mm:


16mm:


Same subject at 150mm, has a very different look even if is roughly the same size in the frame:



And if herping isn't your thing, it can provide a different look for plants/flowers/insects.
24mm:


35mm


Same subject, but shot with a standard macro lens look instead of wide angle:


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jul 15, 2021)

dlee13 said:


> I can’t help but feel sad the RF 16mm f/2.8 isn’t on that list


That’s what I thought, too. Now, that I know it’s coming, I reeeeeeally want it.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 15, 2021)

PhotonShark said:


> R6 with 100-400 might make a good replacement for my 70D with 75-300.
> 
> Wonder if the 1.4 extender will offer full range with this lens.


I'd bet heavily against lenses designed for compactness for consumers will take the extenders. Like the 24-240.


dlee13 said:


> I can’t help but feel sad the RF 16mm f/2.8 isn’t on that list


That looks like a consumer list. No L lenses that I noticed.


----------



## t.linn (Jul 15, 2021)

mccasi said:


> I guess this must be the consumer/prosumer- roadmap. Still waiting on my Astro lens in RF mount


The RF 20 F1.8?


----------



## t.linn (Jul 15, 2021)

Canon has managed to cherry pick every single RF lens I was interested in purchasing and move them to the front of the line.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 15, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> LOL!, nothing to do with herpes!
> 
> For the uninitiated, herping is to look for amphibians and reptiles. Herpetology is the study of amphibians and reptiles.


So you don’t get warts and such from toads?


----------



## dlee13 (Jul 15, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> That’s what I thought, too. Now, that I know it’s coming, I reeeeeeally want it.



Tell me about it, I’ve been so eager to find out more about it and I feel like I’ll just preorder it the second it’s available!



InchMetric said:


> I'd bet heavily against lenses designed for compactness for consumers will take the extenders. Like the 24-240.
> 
> That looks like a consumer list. No L lenses that I noticed.



The RF 16mm is actually rumored to be a non L lens, along with that 70-400mm so that’s why I was disappointed it wasn’t on there lol.


----------



## Besisika (Jul 15, 2021)

storkchen said:


> Who needs a 24 mm macro?


Actually, that is the only RF lens I would be interested in, aside from the 135 F2, provided that it is not APSC like the pancake. 24mm semi-macro at 1.8 will do quite a bit for me. A 20mm would even be better. I shoot video in very tight spaces and in dim light, quite often, when visiting my family in Africa.


----------



## Kiton (Jul 16, 2021)

WTH ?? 
A 7.1 on the 100-400?
NO!!!!!

That has to be 5.6 or better.
Why on earth would anyone buy the 100-400 at 7.1 you might as well go with the 100-500.

A 100-400 5.6 or, like Nikon, a 200-500 5.6.
But a 100-400 7.1 is redundant.

Sigma are you listening?? There seems to be a big hole coming in the Canon lineup.........A 200-500 5.6 please Kazuto Yamaki!!


----------



## Go Wild (Jul 16, 2021)

bseitz234 said:


> With the 14-35 and 15-35 already in existence, I'm really questioning whether that 18-45 is going to be a full-frame lens... I guess it could be a price-point wide angle, designed to pair with the 24-105 STM for an inexpensive lightweight kit? But still...


In my opinion this 18-45 is going to be a cheaper lens with F3.5-5.6 or so...It will fit as a kit lens for the next EOS RP maybe....


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 16, 2021)

PhotonShark said:


> R6 with 100-400 might make a good replacement for my 70D with 75-300.
> 
> Wonder if the 1.4 extender will offer full range with this lens.


Canon have not been directly replacing EF lenses with RF versions without a significant advantage in some way. That said, the RF100-400mm should be comparable (reach, light, size) to the EF75-300 but hopefully a better build, sharpness and IS. 
I would be surprised if RF TCs can be used given Canon's 70-200/2.8 and f4, RF100-500mm etc not allowing them (or within limited focal length)


----------



## SteveC (Jul 16, 2021)

Kiton said:


> WTH ??
> A 7.1 on the 100-400?
> NO!!!!!
> 
> ...


You missed the part where this is a non-L consumer-grade lens. It was never the lens you're looking for.


----------



## Click (Jul 16, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Here are a few examples of wide-angle semi close ups:



Very nice pictures. Excellent quality.


----------



## Kiton (Jul 16, 2021)

SteveC said:


> You missed the part where this is a non-L consumer-grade lens. It was never the lens you're looking for.


You would be 100% correct, I did miss that, my outrage took over too quickly. But I still dream of a Nikon matching 200-500 5.6.


----------



## dominic_siu (Jul 16, 2021)

Kiton said:


> WTH ??
> A 7.1 on the 100-400?
> NO!!!!!
> 
> ...


This is a non-L lens, it won’t be faster than the 100-500 L


----------



## Countess Schlick (Jul 16, 2021)

I'm not super sure what this image is showing. Are the red arrows showing production delays? (E.g. The production of the RF 100-400mm was supposed to start at the beginning of last year but has now begun about a month ago?)

Anyway, looking at the image, the green bars seem to start a couple of months before announcements happen. The 24-240's bar starts a month or two before its announcement, same with the 24-105, and the 600 and 800 started production about 5 months before their announcement.

Going off of that, it seems like the 18-45 and 100-400 could be announced any time now. They may be waiting to announce the 18-45 with a crop-sensor mirrorless camera, so maybe just the announcement of the 100-400 soon, which would fit with the recent rumour about the 70-400 and 16mm lenses. Really wish we knew where the 16 mm lens was.


----------



## Skux (Jul 16, 2021)

Kiton said:


> WTH ??
> A 7.1 on the 100-400?
> NO!!!!!
> 
> ...


For the same reason I own the EF 70-300 Nano USM instead of the 100-400 L.

I like birds, just not enough to spend NZD $3000+ on a lens to take photos of them (or $5500 for the RF 100-500).

I really hope Canon gets the price right on these apparently 'affordable' non-L options.


----------



## fox40phil (Jul 16, 2021)

7.1 isn't 5.6 also for the bokeh etc...
You can't do everything with better image sensors!

There are so many other leneses they should already release...and now we will have two with near the same focal length.... (100-500 vs 100-400 & 15-35 vs 14-35)... where are some nice small and light tele with 4.0 or 5.6 f? or a bigger macro >=150mm... and other great small and fast primes ( 2.8 line, and <=1.4 line(<50mm))


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 16, 2021)

Kiton said:


> WTH ??
> A 7.1 on the 100-400?
> NO!!!!!
> 
> ...


Cost, weight, and size.
It's not a lens that piques my interest, but those would be legitimate reasons for a lens with this much range overlap. Now, if this were an APSC lens, the use case would be even more pronounced.


----------



## slclick (Jul 16, 2021)

Kiton said:


> WTH ??
> A 7.1 on the 100-400?
> NO!!!!!
> 
> ...


Are you aware that different lenses have different pricepoints, these differentiators play a HUGE role with various budgets. Don't give me the just save bs.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 16, 2021)

LeBlobe said:


> I'm hoping it can do better than 0.5X or maybe it could be used with *extension tube*? the rf 35mm cannot.


I never heard about incompatibility of 35mm with Extension tubes(there are some 3rd party options with electronics communication), you mean Teleconverters which aren't used on these wide angle macro lenses anyways(have seen photographers(butterfly) use 1.4x TC with 150mm/180mm/200mm Macros).


----------



## sanj (Jul 16, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> No, they're all mine!


All yours sir! I prefer the 35mm and will wait for 24mm 1.2L.


----------



## navastronia (Jul 16, 2021)

bseitz234 said:


> With the 14-35 and 15-35 already in existence, I'm really questioning whether that 18-45 is going to be a full-frame lens... I guess it could be a price-point wide angle, designed to pair with the 24-105 STM for an inexpensive lightweight kit? But still...


The range feels suspect, but then again, there is the 17-40/4 L


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 16, 2021)

They can delay the 100-400 all they like, we don't need more rubbishly slow lenses. Yeah sure there will be a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS, but when? If they released the slow and fast together I wouldn't have a problem. But still no fast supertele zooms on the radar.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 16, 2021)

I'll echo others--I think any wide angle macro, even at 0.5x, is super exciting. As time goes on using the 35mm 0.5x macro, I love the look of having more of the background in your shots while shooting macro, it really places your subject into the environment and puts the viewer into the picture. 0.5x has been pretty great for slightly larger subjects, which are normally great candidates for wider angles anyway. If the 24mm macro fits in around 500-600, I'll get one just for the heck of it. Plus, 24mm f/2.8 is a nice emergency back-up wide angle if something happens to my 24-70mm f/2.8. Can't come soon enough!

18-45mm is an interesting lens. If it's cheap enough while full frame, it could get huge sales as a full-frame consumer ultra wide-angle, as well as a APS-C RF kit lens. Even if 18mm is distorted at full frame and needs corrected like the 24-240mm, I think Canon would be very smart to make this lens work for both.

A 100-400mm has the point of view of 160-640mm on a crop sensor body, and at F/7.1 will be absolutely tiny. I'm very interested to see this lens, not really to buy for myself, but probably for a family member in a few years with a crop RF camera. I'd bet Canon can pull it off for $500 or $600.


----------



## Jstnelson (Jul 16, 2021)

LeBlobe said:


> I'm hoping it can do better than 0.5X or maybe it could be used with *extension tube*? the rf 35mm cannot.


I have used extension tubes with my RF 35mm 1.8. Is there some reason you’re not supposed to be able to?


----------



## Chig (Jul 16, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> I wonder what the size of the 100-400 will be. Right now, I really want a small, light telephoto…that has aperture blades…to use as a fun walk around wildlife lens when I walk my dog or go to the zoo. I fear the days are numbered for my EF 100-400 II right now. The weight really makes it a “work” only lens for me as it’s unjustifiably heavy to pack in a bag regularly.


Well 400mm f/7.1 means entrance pupil of only 56mm so could be very compact especially if they use fresnell DO elements like they did in the RF 800 f/11.


----------



## AJ (Jul 16, 2021)

Wasn't there an RF 70-400/5.6-7.1 about to be announced? Does the 100-400 replace it, or is this yet another lens?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 16, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> They can delay the 100-400 all they like, we don't need more rubbishly slow lenses. Yeah sure there will be a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS, but when? If they released the slow and fast together I wouldn't have a problem. But still no fast supertele zooms on the radar.


The 100-400 f/4.5-f/5.6L has been superseded by the RF 100-500mm, which is basically the shorter lens with a built in 1.25xTC. The new Canon narrower telephotos are not rubbishy but are excellent lenses that take advantage of the new AF capabilities of mirrorless. You might get a 3rd party 400mm lens but current Sigma and Tamron 400s are f/6.3.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jul 16, 2021)

AJ said:


> Wasn't there an RF 70-400/5.6-7.1 about to be announced? Does the 100-400 replace it, or is this yet another lens?



The 100-400mm has been rumoured for longest time as part of the roadmap. CR seems to think rumors of 70-400 and 100-400 refers to the same lens. But maybe it is two different lenses?
I cannot get out of my head that there are a patent for an *APS-C* 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 ! I'm still hoping for that together with an "R7" ;-)


----------



## Joules (Jul 16, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> 7.1 isn't 5.6 also for the bokeh etc...
> You can't do everything with better image sensors!
> 
> There are so many other leneses they should already release...and now we will have two with near the same focal length.... (100-500 vs 100-400 & 15-35 vs 14-35)... where are some nice small and light tele with 4.0 or 5.6 f? or a bigger macro >=150mm... and other great small and fast primes ( 2.8 line, and <=1.4 line(<50mm))


500 7.1 is 400 5.6 in terms of bokeh though. Just with a tad extra resolution once you crop them to the same field of view.

400 7.1 behaves analogous to 300 5.6.

Canon is just adding a little reach to their mainstream Tele options, without changing the diameter. This results in a smaller f number, but unless you don't need the reach, it is still a benefit for the consumer.

If the number bothers you so much, the EF versions remain available both new and used for the time being.


----------



## Joules (Jul 16, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Yeah sure there will be a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS, but when?


It's been out since 1998 and updated in 2014.

If you can't see how the RF 100-500 is a superset of that lens (and therefore replaces it fully in terms of functionality), that's fine. But would you mind keeping that frustration to yourself? We have heard it often enough, but your demand for that lens will not sway Canon I to releasing it - and even if it could, this is not the place to voice it in order to get them to hear it.


----------



## MoonMadness (Jul 16, 2021)

sanj said:


> All yours sir! I prefer the 35mm and will wait for 24mm 1.2L.


Thanks! I'll take that then!


----------



## LeBlobe (Jul 16, 2021)

Jstnelson said:


> I have used extension tubes with my RF 35mm 1.8. Is there some reason you’re not supposed to be able to?


I didnt test it but i read a few places that tubes were not working. I'm gonna buy some now after seeing 2 comments here that they work .


----------



## Kiton (Jul 16, 2021)

slclick said:


> Are you aware that different lenses have different pricepoints, these differentiators play a HUGE role with various budgets. Don't give me the just save bs.


  As I did not read right though and jumped off, so did you. Have a good weekend!


----------



## Charlie_B (Jul 16, 2021)

I cant see the point of the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM when we ( and me ) already have the RF 100-500mm . I can only assume its a lot cheaper .....


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 16, 2021)

Joules said:


> It's been out since 1998 and updated in 2014.
> 
> If you can't see how the RF 100-500 is a superset of that lens (and therefore replaces it fully in terms of functionality), that's fine. But would you mind keeping that frustration to yourself? We have heard it often enough, but your demand for that lens will not sway Canon I to releasing it - and even if it could, this is not the place to voice it in order to get them to hear it.


Are you for real. Come to Australia where one retails for $2600 and the other $4900. In what unvierse do live in that the 100-500L rip-off replace a lens nearly half the price. I suppose the 500 f/4 renders the 400 f/5.6L obsolete. I wouldn't pay $4900 for the 100-500L if it were f/5.6.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 16, 2021)

Charlie_B said:


> I cant see the point of the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM when we ( and me ) already have the RF 100-500mm . I can only assume its a lot cheaper .....


The 100-500 is an L lens, the 100-400 isn't and L lens. That alone will make it a lot cheaper. And black plastic.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 16, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Are you for real. Come to Australia where one retails for $2600 and the other $4900. In what unvierse do live in that the 100-500L rip-off replace a lens nearly half the price. I suppose the 500 f/4 renders the 400 f/5.6L obsolete. I wouldn't pay $4900 for the 100-500L if it were f/5.6.


You also shoot the Nikon 500mm PF and D500, which I also have. The RF 100-500mm is 2/3rd of a stop slower, but it is a zoom that is indistinguishably as sharp, right across the field, at 500mm, of similar weight and build quality and is 10-15% cheaper here than the Nikon. My 500PF has been gathering dust since I got the R5 and RF 100-500mm. Pricey as the RF 100-500mm is, it is a top quality product.


----------



## Ian K (Jul 16, 2021)

amorse said:


> I didn't understand that lens either with the 100-500 already in play, but after discussing it here it seems to be more a spiritual successor to the 70-300 for a lower cost, larger zooming lens. Personally, I'm fine with the 7.1 apertures as long as we get that reduced weight/cost benefit.


The 100-500 is an L lens, the 100-400 isn’t.


----------



## Ian K (Jul 16, 2021)

Joules said:


> Seeing that the 18-135 is labeled CUSM, I suppose it just stands for Nano USM, as opposed to the full ring type USM.


I think it’s a typo, the 24-240 doesn’t have a C


----------



## Ian K (Jul 16, 2021)

LeBlobe said:


> I'm hoping it can do better than 0.5X or maybe it could be used with *extension tube*? the rf 35mm cannot.


The 35mm does great with a 15mm extension tube. Producing a x0.93x magnification.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 16, 2021)

Charlie_B said:


> I cant see the point of the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM when we ( and me ) already have the RF 100-500mm . I can only assume its a lot cheaper .....


I'll be getting one for my wife who now struggles with the weight of the 100-400/5.6.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 16, 2021)

bseitz234 said:


> With the 14-35 and 15-35 already in existence, I'm really questioning whether that 18-45 is going to be a full-frame lens... I guess it could be a price-point wide angle, designed to pair with the 24-105 STM for an inexpensive lightweight kit? But still...


If the 18-45 offers the same quality but smaller and cheaper than the 14-35 I'd go for it. I don't need wider than 18mm, but small and light is a priority.


----------



## rontele7 (Jul 16, 2021)

dlee13 said:


> I can’t help but feel sad the RF 16mm f/2.8 isn’t on that list


I'd have to imagine there is 0 demand for a 16mm f/2.8! 

Canon already has a 15-35mm f/2.8, and a 16-35mm f/2.8.

Meanwhile, Sony has a 14mm f/1.8!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 16, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> Meanwhile, Sony has a 14mm f/1.8!


Sony has been at it a bit longer


----------



## Nemorino (Jul 16, 2021)

I wonder if this a fake or not.
The line of the "24mm Macro" looks really strange. No number but it is the only lens with "mm" behind the focal length. And why is it the only prime without a aperture mentioned?
And if this are all non-L-lenses why are the 85 and 50 stm missing?


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jul 16, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> I'd have to imagine there is 0 demand for a 16mm f/2.8!
> 
> Canon already has a 15-35mm f/2.8, and a 16-35mm f/2.8.


I disagree. The 15-35mm F2.8 is a brilliant, yet expensive zoom for multiple purposes. 
But there are people who need a wide-angle lense (zoom or prime) just every once in while. Therefore, they need it to be quite compact (because it is an extra carry) and comparably cheap, and the RF 15-35mm sure does not fit this description. 
Furthermore, there are R users who like to shoot cityscapes at night but don't wanna get an expensive zoom. Also, 16mm F2.8 will also be great for all kinds of group photos with bad light conditions...

Don't forget those photographers that are happy with 24mm and really only need a cheap UWA option for 16-23mm. They can use the RF 16mm and just crop a little. Job done. 

Last but not least: It will be a good option for those who do astro "every now and then".


From a pricing point of view, it should be perfectly in the line-up, since the 15-35mm and the 14-35mm are ridiculously expensive and a affordable 16mm is a viable option to a lot of people..

*But in order to be successful, it must be in the 35mm F1.8, RF 85mm F2 price range.*



> Meanwhile, Sony has a 14mm f/1.8!


Comparing apples and pears. The Sony is GM lense with 1.600 € price tag. Of course, it will be superior, it has to be due to naming and pricing. Canon is aiming at a different customer group with this lense.

I Imagine Canon releasing a true and dedicated astro L prime lense somewhere in the year 2023/ latest 2024. There are a lot of patents out (remember RF 16mm F1, RF 14mm F1.4...patents in CR article) that suggest such a lense will be coming sooner or later. My guess is that it'll be an RF 12mm F2 (or 2.8 at least) in order to distinguish this prime lense from the 15-35mm & 14-35mm UWA zooms. It would/ will be the spiritual successor of the EF 14mm F2.8.


----------



## slclick (Jul 16, 2021)

TIFMSNOSWO

'This Isn't For Me So No One Should Want One'

(All the old cats here should appreciate how it's time for a new acronym)


----------



## SteveC (Jul 16, 2021)

slclick said:


> TIFMSNOSWO
> 
> 'This Isn't For Me So No One Should Want One'
> 
> (All the old cats here should appreciate how it's time for a new acronym)


 
And the mirror image of that is TAGMTOLIWSTAFU

'They aren't giving me the one lens I want so they are f*cking up.'


----------



## mpeeps (Jul 16, 2021)

juststeve said:


> A 24/1.8 macro lens focusing to .5x would make an interesting wildflower lens. Might also make for a very interesting bug photography lens. *The close focusing ability and compositional flexibility of the 14-35/4 L may make it the more useful choice, though. *


Bold statement!!


----------



## dlee13 (Jul 16, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> I'd have to imagine there is 0 demand for a 16mm f/2.8!
> 
> Canon already has a 15-35mm f/2.8, and a 16-35mm f/2.8.
> 
> Meanwhile, Sony has a 14mm f/1.8!


I think there would be a huge demand, especially for prime shooters like me. The two Canon lenses you mentioned along with the Sony GM lens are all high end and expensive, this is a more budget orientated lens so it already has an advantage/appeal there.

I’ve owned several 16-35mm lenses and I use them at either 16mm or 35mm and rarely between, I treat them like a prime. This lens would likely be tiny so when traveling this and the RF 35mm f/1.8 would make an amazing small kit!

16mm is also a really good focal length since it’s decently wide but not as difficult as 14mm can be. You can also easily use front filters. I personally think it would sell well and I would definitely preorder it as soon as it’s announced.


----------



## SHAMwow (Jul 16, 2021)

@Canon Rumors Guy Any updates on the 35mm 1.4?


----------



## slclick (Jul 17, 2021)

SteveC said:


> And the mirror image of that is TAGMTOLIWSTAFU
> 
> 'They aren't giving me the one lens I want so they are f*cking up.'


I like how it rolls off the tongue.


----------



## Nemorino (Jul 17, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Several review sites have reported its AF is sluggish with the RP, which in any case is reputed to be rather slow for tracking birds in flight - I don't know whether any firmware upgrades have corrected this.


I guess the smaller battery causes the problems. I just had a conversation with a RP owner who has problems with the RP and focus bracketing (Sigma 105). I use the same lens with the R5 and was surprised how fast and precise it was.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 17, 2021)

Nemorino said:


> I guess the smaller battery causes the problems. I just had a conversation with a RP owner who has problems with the RP and focus bracketing (Sigma 105). I use the same lens with the R5 and was surprised how fast and precise it was.


The R is also reported to be sluggish with the 100-500mm so probably not the battery.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 17, 2021)

slclick said:


> I like how it rolls off the tongue.


It does help if you have experience with languages that have nasty (to English speakers) consonant clusters. Russian is mildly nasty that way, Georgian far more so (and I have no real experience with Georgian).


----------



## stevelee (Jul 17, 2021)

SteveC said:


> It does help if you have experience with languages that have nasty (to English speakers) consonant clusters. Russian is mildly nasty that way, Georgian far more so (and I have no real experience with Georgian).


And Italians have trouble with consonant clusters at all. Even really well educated Italians who speak excellent English will insert extra vowels to avoid colliding consonants. I don't notice that with my next-door neighbor Giorgio, however. Maybe I'm just used to talking with him. Words where English and/or French have "pl" and "fl" combinations, Italian will have "pi" and "fi" to avoid putting those sounds together.

Last year when churches were having their services on line, the Episcopal church in my neighborhood was assembling a video for the reading of the lesson from Acts 2 on Pentecost Sunday. They had different ones of us video ourselves reading parts of it in different languages. I was assigned to read the original Ancient Greek. I hadn't read any significant amount of it aloud in almost 50 years, so it was a challenge. It included tongue twisters with "ph", "th", and "s" sounds very close together. I told a friend it was like trying to say "ophthalmologist" five times fast.


----------



## deleteme (Jul 17, 2021)

storkchen said:


> Who needs a 24 mm macro?


I think the Issue of macro is a bonus on a compact 24prime.


----------



## deleteme (Jul 17, 2021)

Stig Nygaard said:


> What does the "C" mean in _RF 100-400 IS *C* USM_ ? My first thought was "crop" (it made my heart beat faster for a second), but then I saw the same moniker in _RF 24-240 IS _*C*_USM_ (and _EF-S 18-135 IS _*C*_USM_) ?
> (For the 100-400 it looks like there's a tiny space beteen C and USM, on the other two lenses it looks like CUSM without a space. But I assume it is the same, and just bad typography in presentation)


“Cheap USM”?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 17, 2021)

slclick said:


> TIFMSNOSWO
> 
> 'This Isn't For Me So No One Should Want One'
> 
> (All the old cats here should appreciate how it's time for a new acronym)


That sounds like the name of a new Olympus camera


----------



## honeyiscool (Jul 18, 2021)

I personally love doing small subject photography with wide lenses. In particular, it makes pets look incredibly cute. Perhaps it's because of South Park's influence on me, but their "Animals Close-Up With a Wide-Angle Lens" gag always struck me as genius. If you have a pet that won't pose but will rush the lens, a 24mm f/1.8 1:2 Macro would be PERFECT for capturing that animal in its natural element. I can usually do ok with most wide lenses that magnify up to 0.2x or so, but 0.5x would be even more flexible.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 18, 2021)

Does the chart show the EF-S 18–200 f/3.5–5.6 IS, EF-S 55–250mm f/4–5.6 IS II, and EF-S 18–135mm f/3.5–5.6 IS STM being discontinued?

That would be quite a statement about the future of APS-C DSLR lines.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 18, 2021)

stevelee said:


> And Italians have trouble with consonant clusters at all. Even really well educated Italians who speak excellent English will insert extra vowels to avoid colliding consonants. I don't notice that with my next-door neighbor Giorgio, however. Maybe I'm just used to talking with him. Words where English and/or French have "pl" and "fl" combinations, Italian will have "pi" and "fi" to avoid putting those sounds together.
> 
> Last year when churches were having their services on line, the Episcopal church in my neighborhood was assembling a video for the reading of the lesson from Acts 2 on Pentecost Sunday. They had different ones of us video ourselves reading parts of it in different languages. I was assigned to read the original Ancient Greek. I hadn't read any significant amount of it aloud in almost 50 years, so it was a challenge. It included tongue twisters with "ph", "th", and "s" sounds very close together. I told a friend it was like trying to say "ophthalmologist" five times fast.


 Some Italians can adapt to clusters, some cannot. I heard _advanced_ Russian students (I mean Americans taking Russian classes) have trouble with "ts" at the beginning of a word, and also the word kto (what?), even though both clusters exist in English--just not at the beginnings of words. I on the other hand had no problem with it, and don't have anything _like_ Russian in my background.

I understand that the Arab word for America is "Amrika" (or perhaps a different ending); they actually _created_ a consonant cluster there--though to be fair from what I can see the "eh" sound doesn't exist in that language.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 18, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Some Italians can adapt to clusters, some cannot. I heard _advanced_ Russian students (I mean Americans taking Russian classes) have trouble with "ts" at the beginning of a word, and also the word kto (what?), even though both clusters exist in English--just not at the beginnings of words. I on the other hand had no problem with it, and don't have anything _like_ Russian in my background.
> 
> I understand that the Arab word for America is "Amrika" (or perhaps a different ending); they actually _created_ a consonant cluster there--though to be fair from what I can see the "eh" sound doesn't exist in that language.


Maybe there are regional differences of the effect in Italy. I’m reminded of the WW II era joke about the Italian-American standing watch. “Hey, Tony, is that a U-boat?” ”No, it’sa notta my boat!”

Auf Deutsch I had trouble learning to say “nichts.” I still have to slow down to get it right.

Vowels in Semitic languages don’t have much consistency within or between languages. Muhammed’s dialect lacked vowel sounds used elsewhere, (or something like that), and so an extra mark is thrown into what became standard Arabic spelling. Anyhow, ‘amrika doesn’t have a real cluster, but different syllables. I find the loss of the ‘p’ sound in Arabic interesting. You can go to Jaffa and drink a Bebsi (or at least in theory).


----------



## AlanF (Jul 18, 2021)

Wirschtchen, a little sausage in Luxembourg, has 7 consonants in a string. I am sure that others will find longer strings.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 18, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Wirschtchen, a little sausage in Luxembourg, has 7 consonants in a string. I am sure that others will find longer strings.


Certainly! Angstschreeuw, meaning a cry out of fear in Dutch has 8. On the other end of the spectrum we have a cow’s udder, koeieuier.


----------



## tron (Jul 18, 2021)

Etienne said:


> If the 18-45 offers the same quality but smaller and cheaper than the 14-35 I'd go for it. I don't need wider than 18mm, but small and light is a priority.


I doubt it since it will be a non-L lens. But if it comes close maybe it will suit you (and many more!...)


----------



## Etienne (Jul 19, 2021)

tron said:


> I doubt it since it will be a non-L lens. But if it comes close maybe it will suit you (and many more!...)


I've been quite happy with the EF-M 11-22 4.5-5.6 IS ... at a fraction of the price of my EF16-35 f/2.8L II and much smaller and lighter. Canon has been pretty good with some of the non-L glass


----------



## stevelee (Jul 19, 2021)

Etienne said:


> I've been quite happy with the EF-M 11-22 4.5-5.6 IS ... at a fraction of the price of my EF16-35 f/2.8L II and much smaller and lighter. Canon has been pretty good with some of the non-L glass


The EF-S 10-22mm lens is quite good. I have used it for real estate photography. These days I would use my 16-35mm f/4 on my 6D2, covering almost exactly the same field of view.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 19, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Wirschtchen, a little sausage in Luxembourg, has 7 consonants in a string. I am sure that others will find longer strings.



It's spelled with 7 consonants, but it does not have seven consonant _sounds_. It looks like three or four. For some reason the German language decided it needed to spell the "sh" sound with three letters. And the _English_ ch sound as in "church," ends up as "tsch" (cumbersome but logical, because that sound is an affricate of t+sh), as in "Deutsch." Russian, incidentally has one letter for both the sh and ch sounds. (Actually they have _two distinct_ letters for sounds that are similar to sh, neither one is quite a match for the one used in English.)

I did find reference to a word in Georgian, "gvprtskvni" (nine consonants in English spelling, but "ts" is one sound represented by one letter in Georgian, so eight bona fide consonants: *გვფრცქვნ*ი) which apparently means "you peel us". We're just lucky none of those consonants are ejectives (a class of consonants English does not have at all).


----------



## stevelee (Jul 19, 2021)

SteveC said:


> It's spelled with 7 consonants, but it does not have seven consonant _sounds_. It looks like three or four.


'W' (like our 'v'), 'r', 'sch' (like our 'sh' as you say), 't', 'ch' (like the mid-tongue in 'ich", not the throaty one as in 'Bach', nor our 'ch' sound which they would spell 'tsch'), and 'n', so four consonant sounds together. It depends upon what kind of 't' sound they use how hard it is to get all the sounds in, if indeed they do in real life. It might be sort of like triple-tonguing when playing the clarinet.


----------



## Joules (Jul 29, 2021)

slclick said:


> Hmmm, not a bit of talk about Canon's longest non L or DO lens in it's history. (RF 100-400) I can't help but think this will be a sleeper like the 40 pancake or 70-300L.


Strictly speaking, the RF 800 mm f/11 lens does not have DO branding, so that is the longest one. It has DO elements in it though.


----------

