# Canon working on another f/2 zoom lens for the RF mount [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 27, 2019)

> We have been told that Canon is hard at work on another f/2 zoom for the RF mount. This would go with the already available and incredible Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM.
> The focal length of this zoom lens is unknown at the time of writing this. However, the source did say this could end up being a “second holy trinity” of lenses for the RF mount. The current “holy trinity” is generally accepted to be the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS, RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS and RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## flip314 (Jun 27, 2019)

I'm betting on a longer zoom for the next one. We've already seen Canon patents for portrait-range zooms, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 70-135 or something, perhaps they can stretch it even longer.

I do expect that this next one will cost even more than the 28-70, since it will be either wider or longer than the "standard" types of focal ranges.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 27, 2019)

flip314 said:


> I'm betting on a longer zoom for the next one. We've already seen Canon patents for portrait-range zooms, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 70-135 or something, perhaps they can stretch it even longer.



Agreed, with the patents out there for a 70-130mm F/2 I wouldn't be surprised if that's what we're going to get. 70-150mm f/2 even would be really sweet, close enough to 200mm to not be a huge loss, and a whole stop brighter. Add image stabilization and you have me sold! I would rather them cut down on the long end and keep this handholdable than to go all the way to 200/2 and make it a great white.

Wasn't there a 14-24mm f/1.4 mentioned before? They could do something crazy on the wide end, too.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 27, 2019)

I was already surprised by the RF 28-70/2.
So now I have absolutely no clue what FL the next f/2 could bring. Not even if they'd go wide or tele.
Really exiting.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jun 27, 2019)

H. Jones said:


> Agreed, with the patents out there for a 70-130mm F/2 I wouldn't be surprised if that's what we're going to get. 70-150mm f/2 even would be really sweet, close enough to 200mm to not be a huge loss, and a whole stop brighter. Add image stabilization and you have me sold! I would rather them cut down on the long end and keep this handholdable than to go all the way to 200/2 and make it a great white.
> 
> Wasn't there a 14-24mm f/1.4 mentioned before? They could do something crazy on the wide end, too.



The wide end would be welcome at this end. 10mm would be awesome, 12mm would be OK. The big heavy superwide lenses need a tripod mount.


----------



## Akusai (Jun 27, 2019)

I would expect something like a 14-30mm f/2. But 2022 at the earliest. Really can't imagine a telephoto zoom with f/2. But... perhaps an 70-150mm f/2. Would be nice if they have all the same filter diameter like the 28-70mm. Having only a single lens needing those expensive filters is always a little bit dissatisfying.


----------



## Danglin52 (Jun 27, 2019)

Unrelated to this f2 rumor, but I wonder if the RF mount would make a f4 100-400 in the current form factor possible. I would think they could at least hold the f4.5 longer before dropping to f5.6. I have both the 100-400 II and the 200-400. It is a huge increase in size/weight to go from the f4.5-f5.6 to a constant f4 through the zoom range. I can’t remember if the RF Mount helps more on wide angle or telephoto. It would be a win even if they could knock 1/2 stop off the range.


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 27, 2019)

Danglin52 said:


> Unrelated to this f2 rumor, but I wonder if the RF mount would make a f4 100-400 in the current form factor possible. I would think they could at least hold the f4.5 longer before dropping to f5.6. I have both the 100-400 II and the 200-400. It is a huge increase in size/weight to go from the f4.5-f5.6 to a constant f4 through the zoom range. I can’t remember if the RF Mount helps more on wide angle or telephoto. It would be a win even if they could knock 1/2 stop off the range.



Helps more on wide lenses, shouldn't make any significant difference for telephoto lenses.


----------



## WilliamJ (Jun 27, 2019)

I’ve been shooting an 80D/70d combo with sigma 18-35 and 50-100 1.8 which has held me off from full frame for years, but the 28-70 f2 immediately caught my attention, and then the rf 70-200 2.8 IS was previewed as a tiny lens compared to normal 70-200, and that got me thinking - they might be planning an f2 telephoto if they can make a 70-200 that small, so a 70-150 f2 or something would be ideal. 

Add to that a pro body with dual card slots, ibis and a joystick instead of the Touch Bar, and I’ll invest in that system, even if it is at the expense of a new car


----------



## navastronia (Jun 27, 2019)

The sole point of the f/2 zooms (to me) would be to replace my need for ultra-fast primes. Without IBIS, I can’t see that happening, but with it, I could live with the loss of a stop (1.2-1.4 on the primes vs f/2 on the zooms) assuming the image quality is impeccable. On that last note, I haven’t seen evidence that the 28-70 can actually compete with primes. Perhaps a 70-150 would be a different story.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 27, 2019)

Bring on a RF 70-120 to 150 f/2L!


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 27, 2019)

navastronia said:


> The sole point of the f/2 zooms (to me) would be to replace my need for ultra-fast primes. Without IBIS, I can’t see that happening, but with it, I could live with the loss of a stop (1.2-1.4 on the primes vs f/2 on the zooms) assuming the image quality is impeccable. On that last note, I haven’t seen evidence that the 28-70 can actually compete with primes. Perhaps a 70-150 would be a different story.


What kind of evidence should we be looking for? Serious question.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Jun 27, 2019)

This RF mount looks like it is going to become a game changer, I’m no techy expert but somehow according to the patents already discovered and what has been made it is allowing Canon to make ground-breaking glass (no pun intended)

The lens I’m finding myself adapting most at present is my EF 17-40 F4 so what I’d like to see next is something along those lines keeping it F4 so it can be compact. I don’t mind adapting my bigger glass so much, such as my 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 as they are big anyway, but I’d love to be able to reduce the size and weight of my 17-40 F4 and lose the adaptor (please Canon!)

I only have the RF 35 1.8 at present an awesome lens but not always wide enough to use all the time, but it feels beautiful when attached to the EOS-R so for the rest of my glass I’m still adapting.


----------



## navastronia (Jun 27, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> What kind of evidence should we be looking for? Serious question.



To be honest, the only comparisons I’ve seen between fast RF primes and the 28-70 have been people shooting test charts. This is not a substitute for real world evaluation. In charts, the 28-70 does not compare well in terms of sharpness.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 27, 2019)

Danglin52 said:


> I wonder if the RF mount would make a f4 100-400 in the current form factor possible.


Absolutely not. The current form factor has 95mm lens barrel diameter (and 77mm filter size). With 400/4, the front element alone needs to be at least 100mm in diameter.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 27, 2019)

navastronia said:


> To be honest, the only comparisons I’ve seen between fast RF primes and the 28-70 have been people shooting test charts. This is not a substitute for real world evaluation. In charts, the 28-70 does not compare well in terms of sharpness.


I've not looked at charts. However, I have seen photos from people on flickr and center sharpness looks great to me. For portrait/fashion work, that is all that matters to me (besides color and AF.). However, at the present time I can't afford it anyway.  Vignetting doesn't bother me either.


----------



## fabao (Jun 27, 2019)

Bring it! I sold my 35 and 50 primes and got the 28-70 f/2. Love the convenience of having a zoom. The eye tracking on the RP makes it very easy to get sharp eyes.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Jun 27, 2019)

H. Jones said:


> Agreed, with the patents out there for a 70-130mm F/2 I wouldn't be surprised if that's what we're going to get. 70-150mm f/2 even would be really sweet, close enough to 200mm to not be a huge loss, and a whole stop brighter. Add image stabilization and you have me sold! I would rather them cut down on the long end and keep this handholdable than to go all the way to 200/2 and make it a great white.
> 
> Wasn't there a 14-24mm f/1.4 mentioned before? They could do something crazy on the wide end, too.



Connect to a 50 or better mp sensor and there would be a whole lot if takers.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 28, 2019)

kraats said:


> Wasn't mirrorless supposed to be the lighter system?


No, unless you are AvTvM/fullstop/mirage...


----------



## Nord0306 (Jun 28, 2019)

kraats said:


> Can anyone tell me why canon is creating heavy, bulky lenses on a smaller mirrorless body? The mirrorless rf system is heavier than a dslr ef-s system. Wasn't mirrorless supposed to be the lighter system?


Mirrorless can be lighter or not, but it doesn’t have to be. I’m shoot an 80D partly because of its compromise in size, as well as features. I’m looking forward to having a full frame body that I can put a lightweight lens on if I want or a heavy lens if I need. I’m still on the sidelines because the R and RP don’t quite offer enough incentive to upgrade.

With regards to the new lens, I expect this to be a UWA lens. They will chop one side of the range, probably the wide end like they did with the 28-70. I’d guess they can get a 16-35 f/2 to fit with the same 95mm filters. Maybe it will be 17, but that would make most of us happy. There aren’t many current full frame options below 20mm faster than f/2.8.


----------



## dominic_siu (Jun 28, 2019)

navastronia said:


> To be honest, the only comparisons I’ve seen between fast RF primes and the 28-70 have been people shooting test charts. This is not a substitute for real world evaluation. In charts, the 28-70 does not compare well in terms of sharpness.


I have been using RF2870 since it’s launch, I can say it is superb even wide open.


----------



## 6degrees (Jun 28, 2019)

Any of these would be fantastic:

16-28mm F2
135-200mm F2

70-135mm F2 is meaningless with RF 85mm F1.2 in hand.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 28, 2019)

6degrees said:


> Any of these would be fantastic:
> 
> 16-28mm F2
> 135-200mm F2



200 f/2 2.5kg $7K

135-200 f/2 3kg $10K

Yeah that will light a fire under EOS R sales


----------



## Pape (Jun 28, 2019)

mirrorless lenses are heavy cause canon prepares for next generation sensors 32mp crop 100mpixel Full frame and probably double sharper ones inside 3 year. those demand f2
sorry about this message ,i just like dream 
Canon is lens making company ,if it cant compete with computing and sensor read out speed they better move to higher mpixels where better lenses are needed and leave competitors what cant afford change to behind. Even it makes computer problems more bigger.
Heard about 64mpixel phone sensor ,sounds mad if phones pass slr cameras with basic photographing image quality.


----------



## degos (Jun 28, 2019)

WilliamJ said:


> and then the rf 70-200 2.8 IS was previewed as a tiny lens compared to normal 70-200




Err, there's nothing tiny about the RF 70-200. RF mount doesn't beat physics.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 28, 2019)

Pape said:


> mirrorless lenses are heavy cause canon prepares for next generation sensors 32mp crop 100mpixel Full frame and probably double sharper ones inside 3 year. those demand f2



1. Why would those demand f/2?

2. Canon made a 120MP APS-H sensor nearly a decade ago., which is now a commercial product. To judge by this video, lenses are already there. If there was a big market for such resolution, Canon would have put this sensor in a DSLR already.


----------



## ozturert (Jun 28, 2019)

raptor3x said:


> Helps more on wide lenses, shouldn't make any significant difference for telephoto lenses.


Then I wonder how Canon managed to make the RF 70-200mm f2.8 so tiny


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 28, 2019)

ozturert said:


> Then I wonder how Canon managed to make the RF 70-200mm f2.8 so tiny



By making the lens to extend when zooming.


----------



## Pape (Jun 28, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> 1. Why would those demand f/2?
> 
> 2. Canon made a 120MP APS-H sensor nearly a decade ago., which is now a commercial product. To judge by this video, lenses are already there. If there was a big market for such resolution, Canon would have put this sensor in a DSLR already.


1 You want buy lense what is totally usefull 10 year later too. There could be 100mp crop sensor 10 year later and smaller than f2 may be difraction afffected. but yeah i was wrong on that thing speed boosters will solve that problem.
2
if that 120mp would be suitable and affordable for slr cameras we would seen it on camera already. its too expensive or it just too slow for most peoples with nowadays computers.Or too bad DR. And it doesnt sound good idea add one more format when got rid APS-H


----------



## peters (Jun 28, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> What kind of evidence should we be looking for? Serious question.


For example this, the RF compared to the 35mm 1,4 II L prime. It shows that the RF is pretty close to the 35mm 1,4 
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 28, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> 200 f/2 2.5kg $7K
> 
> 135-200 f/2 3kg $10K
> 
> Yeah that will light a fire under EOS R sales


I can only wonder how you already know the weight and the price of a non-existing lens!


----------



## Rixy (Jun 28, 2019)

I would like 16-35mm f/2


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 28, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> I can only wonder how you already know the weight and the price of a non-existing lens!



If the 200 F2 weights 2.5kg, a zoom with the same long end will weight more than that, even if it's for mirrorless. Thats a pretty safe bet because the front element needs to be the same size and the zoom adds extra complexity, elements, etc


----------



## Architect1776 (Jun 28, 2019)

Danglin52 said:


> Unrelated to this f2 rumor, but I wonder if the RF mount would make a f4 100-400 in the current form factor possible. I would think they could at least hold the f4.5 longer before dropping to f5.6. I have both the 100-400 II and the 200-400. It is a huge increase in size/weight to go from the f4.5-f5.6 to a constant f4 through the zoom range. I can’t remember if the RF Mount helps more on wide angle or telephoto. It would be a win even if they could knock 1/2 stop off the range.



I believe the RF mount allows for more creativity in the wider angle lenses. Long lenses need length (That is why they are called long lenses?) but the wide ones with no mirror in the way have more creativity Look at the 2 old Canon 19mm FL lenses. There were 2 versions and they look totally different as one was for use with the reflex mirror and the other with the mirror locked up and a separate viewfinder. PS these lenses are still highly sought after and relatively expensive.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 28, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> I can only wonder how you already know the weight and the price of a non-existing lens!



I used my brain, and I don't believe in the tooth fairy or father Xmas. But hey delude yourself by all means.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 28, 2019)

Maybe I'm the wrong sort of customer but I don't see the great value of these F2 Zooms.
They appear as if they will be bulky and heavy.
I have a 50 1.2 II and an 85 1.2 II. 
Using these lens I've never consciously made a decision of picking F2.0 over F2.8
Yes 1.2 or 1.4 or 1.2 or 2.8.
It depends on what you use lens for. Other people probably have different uses to me.
For instance I've a 16-35mm F4. It's sharp. Its nice and light and I have no need for F2.8 as a) I use a tripod b) I'm often looking for depth of field.
I'm really glad I didn't get the 16-35mm F2.8 II or III. It feels much heavier. A 16-35mm F2 would be even heavier.
If I'm doing Astro I use a prime Sigma 14mm F1.8

For sport to keep shutters speed up yes a wider aperture is helpful but I find the 70-200 mm 2.8 II very good for my needs and towards the outside weight of comfortable handholdability. I also use a 100-400 II which is a good compromise of weight versus aperture.
I use a 300 2.8 II which I can handhold but can cause injury with extended use.

I wouldn't see the pursuit of F2 over F2.8 as important.
F1.2 over F2.8 I could understand more as it does make a visual difference (but I wouldn't want a zoom which would be massive).

So maybe Canon will do an F2 trinity but I wouldn't think it would sell well. It would be more a show what we can do set of lens.
I'm not sure why but 28mm is a focal length that irritates me. 
I have a 28mm prime and a Fuji X100S which has a wide angle adapter that makes it 28mm.
It's not wide enough and not long enough. 24mm and 35mm I've no issue with but 28mm for some reason to me is neither here nor there.
So I'll never buy a 28-70mm - even though it does get great reviews.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 28, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> Maybe I'm the wrong sort of customer but I don't see the great value of these F2 Zooms.
> They appear as if they will be bulky and heavy.
> I have a 50 1.2 II and an 85 1.2 II.
> Using these lens I've never consciously made a decision of picking F2.0 over F2.8
> ...



To an extent, I agree with you, Hector. The weight of the lenses is an issue. Personally I'd prefer f/2.8 with IS. 

However, I have no doubt Canon will be introducing IBIS, and that they have gone to f/2 zooms and the bulky RF primes with that in mind. Once an effective (about 4 stops or better) IBIS is introduced, I wouldn't mind the weight. And then I'd appreciate the extra stop of light.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 28, 2019)

A lot of event shooters ( me including) shoot at around 28mm shooting people indoors. 
24mm creates a very strong perspective distortions over people faces. Backing off into 28mm territory reduce amount of distortion greatly and affords distortion correction in post. 

I do not believe 70-200 f2.0 was feasible from Canon. This would be a large and very heavy lens. 
A shorted range would not work as 80-200 range is important : 85, 105, 135, 180, 200. Each one is all important.


----------



## Rajinder Shukla (Jun 28, 2019)

FR 12-35mm f2.8L IS USM, FR 24-240mm f4L IS USM and RF 100-400mm f4L IS USM. 
All these 3 lenses must be a single continuous aperture lenses for future EOS R Mirrorless cameras. Variable Aperture is a big NOT WELCOME. To me RF 12-35mm f2.8L Non Bulbous Lens is a highly desirable.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 28, 2019)

Rajinder Shukla said:


> FR 12-35mm f2.8L IS USM, FR 24-240mm f4L IS USM and RF 100-400mm f4L IS USM.
> All these 3 lenses must be a single continuous aperture lenses for future EOS R Mirrorless cameras. Variable Aperture is a big NOT WELCOME. To me RF 12-35mm f2.8L Non Bulbous Lens is a highly desirable.



RF 100-400mm f4L i'm not sure its realistic, judging from how big the 200-400 and the 400mm F4 are, and the prime is a DO lens.


----------



## Ladislav (Jun 28, 2019)

The only reason why I really want to see f/2 holy trinity is hope that it will somehow push down prices of f/2.8 holy trinity.


----------



## magarity (Jun 28, 2019)

kraats said:


> Can anyone tell me why canon is creating heavy, bulky lenses on a smaller mirrorless body? The mirrorless rf system is heavier than a dslr ef-s system. Wasn't mirrorless supposed to be the lighter system?


This is exactly what I was thinking. I rent a 70-200 2.8 from time to time (hurrah for lensrentals) and it's a beast to drag around all day. I can only imagine how horrible a 2.0 would be.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 28, 2019)

kraats said:


> Can anyone tell me why canon is creating heavy, bulky lenses on a smaller mirrorless body? The mirrorless rf system is heavier than a dslr ef-s system. Wasn't mirrorless supposed to be the lighter system?


Not unless one goes crop... especially Micro 4/3. Anyway, these are fast "L" lenses and for full frame. Nobody buys "L" for light weight. Bodies are lighter. Lenses, nope.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 28, 2019)

magarity said:


> This is exactly what I was thinking. I rent a 70-200 2.8 from time to time (hurrah for lensrentals) and it's a beast to drag around all day. I can only imagine how horrible a 2.0 would be.


I have to frequently haul around the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II. You're right, it is heavy. However, I would still be happy to carry around an f/2. I think it won't be 70-200mm though. Probably 70-120, 70-130, 70-150. Something shorter.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 28, 2019)

Pape said:


> 1 You want buy lense what is totally usefull 10 year later too. There could be 100mp crop sensor 10 year later and smaller than f2 may be difraction afffected. but yeah i was wrong on that thing speed boosters will solve that problem.



I didn't consider the diffraction part, but I doubt 100MP cameras will be mainstream in a decade. If there's one thing I never heard about the 5Ds is that it is a popular model.



Pape said:


> 2 if that 120mp would be suitable and affordable for slr cameras we would seen it on camera already.



I think its the other side of the equation - there aren't enough people who would buy a camera with that high a resolution.



Pape said:


> its too expensive or it just too slow for most peoples with nowadays computers.Or too bad DR. And it doesnt sound good idea add one more format when got rid APS-H



The sensor can shoot 9.4 fps, oh so very slow.

People keep saying they want high resolution for reach, e.g. birds, I don't think they'll object to smaller sensors.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 28, 2019)

WilliamJ said:


> "...and then the rf 70-200 2.8 IS was previewed as a tiny lens compared to normal 70-200..."



By whom? Shorter when retracted because it is not internally zooming. I never saw anyone from Canon saying it would be tiny compared to the EF 70-200 f/2.8L II, III.


----------



## Pape (Jun 28, 2019)

Lucky ones who are always on right place with camera and dont need better reach =better resolution 
I want that teleportation gift too!
Well i guess studio photographers wont need better resolution ,their models come as close as wanted to come 
90% peoples would buy higher resolution camera if price is near enough low resolution camera.


----------



## jonebize (Jun 28, 2019)

Even a really strong 20-35mm f/2 would be insane.


----------



## SouthpawSD (Jun 28, 2019)

50-100 f/2 on full frame would be awesome


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 28, 2019)

jonebize said:


> Even a really strong 20-35mm f/2 would be insane.


If Sigma can do 24-35 f2 on EF years ago....I think Canon could certainly do a 20-35 or similar on the RF after doing a great job on the 28-70 f2.


----------



## jonebize (Jun 28, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> If Sigma can do 24-35 f2 on EF years ago....I think Canon could certainly do a 20-35 or similar on the RF after doing a great job on the 28-70 f2.



I think so too. It would be a fantastic lens and is somewhat of a modest hope. If the IQ (bokeh) were a little nicer than the Sigma, it would take it to the next level.


----------



## Phil (Jun 28, 2019)

kraats said:


> Can anyone tell me why canon is creating heavy, bulky lenses on a smaller mirrorless body? The mirrorless rf system is heavier than a dslr ef-s system. Wasn't mirrorless supposed to be the lighter system?



It’s all about marketing I think, it makes the system seem impressive but the reality is the R body needs a vertical grip just so you can hold these big lens steady for any length of time. Making the body bigger again and in truth the R isn’t high enough in quality to match these lenses anyway. The new L lenses are sharp but are absolutely massive and expensive making them not practical for 90% of Canon users out there. The 2.8 trinity should be great and not to big and when some nice 1.4 or 1.8 primes come out like the 35 then Canon will have a nice system that’s actually practical. And the pro body needs to be release now!


----------



## Phil (Jun 28, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> I can only wonder how you already know the weight and the price of a non-existing lens!



I’m thinking a basic knowledge of science and economics.


----------



## canonnews (Jun 28, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> 200 f/2 2.5kg $7K
> 
> 135-200 f/2 3kg $10K
> 
> Yeah that will light a fire under EOS R sales



yeah that would be one big ____ lens. Canon could call it the "BFL"


----------



## canonnews (Jun 28, 2019)

H. Jones said:


> Agreed, with the patents out there for a 70-130mm F/2 I wouldn't be surprised if that's what we're going to get. 70-150mm f/2 even would be really sweet, close enough to 200mm to not be a huge loss, and a whole stop brighter. Add image stabilization and you have me sold! I would rather them cut down on the long end and keep this handholdable than to go all the way to 200/2 and make it a great white.
> 
> Wasn't there a 14-24mm f/1.4 mentioned before? They could do something crazy on the wide end, too.



that's a pretty good memory that patent application was found so long ago I had trouble finding it. it was actually one of the first full frame mirrorless patent applications we discovered.
https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-application-canon-applies-for-a-mirrorless-full-frame-20-zoom 

basically 90-130mm or 70-125mm 2.0


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 28, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> Maybe I'm the wrong sort of customer but I don't see the great value of these F2 Zooms.
> They appear as if they will be bulky and heavy.
> <snip>



I agree with most of your comments, but so much depends on what one is doing.

For example, in astrophotography, fast is of paramount importance, but when hiking anything more than a F4 (or 5.6) is a brick. Primes are way better than zooms, until you get yourself into a weight or space limited situation. Superzooms suck until you get somewhere you can’t change lenses....

Give it a few years and we will see a fuller lens lineup, fast primes, slow zooms, and lots in the middle. At the moment we should all be happy that Canon went to great lengths to make sure that the entire EF and EF-s collection can be used on the R series with no extra elements.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 28, 2019)

magarity said:


> This is exactly what I was thinking. I rent a 70-200 2.8 from time to time (hurrah for lensrentals) and it's a beast to drag around all day. I can only imagine how horrible a 2.0 would be.


24-240.....

Look for some slow (and light) lenses once the system gets more mature.....


----------



## BillB (Jun 28, 2019)

kraats said:


> Can anyone tell me why canon is creating heavy, bulky lenses on a smaller mirrorless body? The mirrorless rf system is heavier than a dslr ef-s system. Wasn't mirrorless supposed to be the lighter system?


If the heavy bulky RF lenses are going to be used as studio lenses maybe the point is that the R is a pretty good fit. In a studio setting, focus accuracy and sensor quality may be important, but things like fps and focus tracking, not so much.


----------



## masterpix (Jun 28, 2019)

I would say that todays "trinity" are 11-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm or 11-24mm, 24-105mm, 100-400mm


----------



## canonnews (Jun 29, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> RF 100-400mm f4L i'm not sure its realistic, judging from how big the 200-400 and the 400mm F4 are, and the prime is a DO lens.


that'll work if you want a $12K lens.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 29, 2019)

Phil said:


> ...and in truth the R isn’t high enough in quality to match these lenses anyway.



I have read this and re-read this. I have absolutely no idea what you think you are saying.  Hillarious.


----------



## Phil (Jun 29, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I have read this and re-read this. I have absolutely no idea what you think you are saying.  Hillarious.



Thats ok I wouldn’t expect you would.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 29, 2019)

Ladislav said:


> The only reason why I really want to see f/2 holy trinity is hope that it will somehow push down prices of f/2.8 holy trinity.


It won’t. They are a vastly different tools. How price of a sub compact cars push down prices of delivery pickup tracks? Different purpose and different audience.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jun 29, 2019)

masterpix said:


> I would say that todays "trinity" are 11-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm or 11-24mm, 24-105mm, 100-400mm



I still think the 11-24mm is a niche range. The 11-24 can't share filters with the 24-70, is a stop slower and can't cover 35mm in a pinch. I still think that the 16-35 range is still well regarded as part of the trinity. It can handle landscapes decently, but it can also cover indoor low-light event work and portraits in a pinch.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 29, 2019)

masterpix said:


> I would say that todays "trinity" are 11-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm or 11-24mm, 24-105mm, 100-400mm


11-24 is too wide for frequent use, and the front element makes it very hard to use filters - a suitable filter holder will be very bulky. 16-35 is more versatile as a part of the trinity.


----------



## TAF (Jun 29, 2019)

I'm rooting for a 24-135L f2 IS. The lens would never leave the body...


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 29, 2019)

TAF said:


> I'm rooting for a 24-135L f2 IS. The lens would never leave the body...


correction: an excellent 24-200 /f2.0 lens Would never leave a body for an event shooter. And I would sell my second body ASAP. 
And I do not mind the size or the price of the lens that will likely be $4000. It will afford me shooting with a single camera for a weight and cost relief.
But...it has to be excellent. Did I say it has to be excellent?


----------



## Ladislav (Jun 29, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> It won’t. They are a vastly different tools. How price of a sub compact cars push down prices of delivery pickup tracks? Different purpose and different audience.



Except that they are both pickup trucks. You buy them for the same purpose - to have a job done and here, the bigger truck (f/2) can carry higher load than the cheaper truck (f/2.8).


----------



## Pape (Jun 29, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> correction: an excellent 24-200 /f2.0 lens Would never leave a body for an event shooter. And I would sell my second body ASAP.
> And I do not mind the size or the price of the lens that will likely be $4000. It will afford me shooting with a single camera for a weight and cost relief.
> But...it has to be excellent. Did I say it has to be excellent?


4k price ,malaysian made non L could be possible ,but is it excellent ,could be good at least .
Or no idea maybe it isnt possible make plastic body for 10cm lenses. maybe if some kind of metal supports. no fluorite lenses no hand polished lenses.
Shouldnt they make first 24-200 f4 ,, f2 sounds ambitious


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 29, 2019)

Pape said:


> 4k price ,malaysian made non L could be possible ,but is it excellent ,could be good at least .
> *Or no idea* maybe it isnt possible make plastic body for 10cm lenses. maybe if some kind of metal supports. no fluorite lenses no hand polished lenses.
> Shouldnt they make first 24-200 f4 ,, f2 sounds ambitious


exactly.  it was a joke.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 29, 2019)

Phil said:


> Thats ok I wouldn’t expect you would.


Yes, please explain how the R is not up to snuff for the RF mount lenses. Very interested in this.


----------



## MaximPhotoStudio (Jun 30, 2019)

Bring on 16-28 f/2, 28-70 f/2, and 70-150(200) f/2. I've been bodybuilding since 1989. I am more than ready to switch to mirrorless.


----------



## Phil (Jun 30, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yes, please explain how the R is not up to snuff for the RF mount lenses. Very interested in this.



If you can’t figure it out on your own then me explaining it to you still won’t change the fact that you are not capable of understanding. But don’t freak out I’m sure your winning personality is all you need to succeed at life.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 30, 2019)

Phil said:


> If you can’t figure it out on your own then me explaining it to you still won’t change the fact that you are not capable of understanding. But don’t freak out I’m sure your winning personality is all you need to succeed at life.


Translated: "I have nothing. I just said it because I thought it would make me sound smart. Just made it up. Don't really know what I am talking about, at all... so I cannot explain myself. I've never actually seen an R or RF lens. I read reviews and watch YouTube videos. Then I just recycle what I have "learned" through vicarious living as first hand knowledge on internet forums. Somebody asked me what I meant, but even I don't know so I will now accuse the guy asking of being too stupid to understand what I say even if I could possibly explain it to him... even though I can't explain it... because I have no idea what I meant."


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 30, 2019)

ozturert said:


> Then I wonder how Canon managed to make the RF 70-200mm f2.8 so tiny



Because they went with a telescoping lens body rather than the internal zoom design they've been using for so long. I assume they are confident enough in their current wiper seal technology to go ahead with such a design on a workhorse lens like the 70-200 2.8.


----------



## ozturert (Jun 30, 2019)

raptor3x said:


> Because they went with a telescoping lens body rather than the internal zoom design they've been using for so long. I assume they are confident enough in their current wiper seal technology to go ahead with such a design on a workhorse lens like the 70-200 2.8.


They have had an excellent 70-300mm L IS lens for years, as an example.


----------



## ozturert (Jul 1, 2019)

Phil said:


> In truth the R isn’t high enough in quality to match these lenses anyway.


Interesting. People have used L lenses for 10s of years on 10s of Canon bodies which are actually inferior to Eos R. Then millions of photographers have been tricked


----------



## Phil (Jul 12, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Translated: "I have nothing. I just said it because I thought it would make me sound smart. Just made it up. Don't really know what I am talking about, at all... so I cannot explain myself. I've never actually seen an R or RF lens. I read reviews and watch YouTube videos. Then I just recycle what I have "learned" through vicarious living as first hand knowledge on internet forums. Somebody asked me what I meant, but even I don't know so I will now accuse the guy asking of being too stupid to understand what I say even if I could possibly explain it to him... even though I can't explain it... because I have no idea what I meant."



Don’t misunderstand me, I do like my EOS R, vertical grip, RF 24-105, RF 50mm 1.2 and RF 85mm 1.2, also I have used the 28-70 but found it just a tad to big so I got the 24-105 instead, sorry but by the way you were talking just just assumed you didn’t own any of those products so I didn’t think you would understand any points I might try and make about them. So sorry about that, how do you find your Eos R and RF lenses? You don’t find the body to small to comfortably hold it for any length of time with the heavy lenses? You don’t think when Canon releases a larger more sturdy pro body it will be a lot more comfortable to hold with the big glass?
Do you find the 30 megapixel sensor is getting all the quality out of the new L glass that they can produce? Do you not think a higher megapixel body might be able to show the full potential of these extremely high quality and extremely expensive new L lenses better than the EOS R? I mean if you don’t find this to be your experience with the new R system that’s fair it’s just the the people I know with the same gear all feel the same way and that is when a new higher megapixel professional body comes out then they will be able to get the full potential out of their RF Pro Glass which they and I spent so much money on.


----------



## Phil (Jul 12, 2019)

ozturert said:


> Interesting. People have used L lenses for 10s of years on 10s of Canon bodies which are actually inferior to Eos R. Then millions of photographers have been tricked



No of course they weren’t tricked they just didn’t have RF L glass which is far superior to the equivalent EF glass and much larger and heavier in some cases. Trust me if they had brought the new RF L Glass which is a huge investment for most people they would want a body that could use them to their full potential other wise why even buy these new lenses if you didn’t intend to get the most out of them as soon as that is possible? It would just be a waste of money unless you brought them just to brag that you have them.


----------



## ozturert (Jul 12, 2019)

Phil said:


> No of course they weren’t tricked they just didn’t have RF L glass which is far superior to the equivalent EF glass and much larger and heavier in some cases. Trust me if they had brought the new RF L Glass which is a huge investment for most people they would want a body that could use them to their full potential other wise why even buy these new lenses if you didn’t intend to get the most out of them as soon as that is possible? It would just be a waste of money unless you brought them just to brag that you have them.


What do you mean by "full potential"? EOS R has the best single AF in Canon history; far better than any DSLR before it. The 30MP sensor is the best sensor Canon has. Its weather sealing is as good as 5D IV. Its ergonomy is great and the body is solid.
So what is holding EOS R to be used as the camera with RF 50mm f1.2L, for example?


----------



## Phil (Jul 12, 2019)

ozturert said:


> What do you mean by "full potential"? EOS R has the best single AF in Canon history; far better than any DSLR before it. The 30MP sensor is the best sensor Canon has. Its weather sealing is as good as 5D IV. Its ergonomy is great and the body is solid.
> So what is holding EOS R to be used as the camera with RF 50mm f1.2L, for example?


Of course any RF lens can be used with the EOS R and get great results. But don’t you think that Canon is going to release a more professional body with even better autofocus and ergonomics for large heavy lenses? To be honest it’s a rhetorical question because of course they are so I’m kinda finding it hard to see the point you are trying to make?


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 12, 2019)

Phil said:


> Of course any RF lens can be used with the EOS R and get great results. But don’t you think that Canon is going to release a more professional body with even better autofocus and ergonomics for large heavy lenses? To be honest it’s a rhetorical question because of course they are so I’m kinda finding it hard to see the point you are trying to make?


The point you were originally trying to make is that an R or RP are not worthy of the RF glass (with zero evidence). Then, you concocted a way to make it sound as though you actually do own all this (your many like minded friends too). My point was that you know not that of which you speak, and you don't.

Maybe you do own it all (along with your many friends). Who cares? That has no bearing on such a ludicrous statement.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 12, 2019)

Phil said:


> Of course any RF lens can be used with the EOS R and get great results. But don’t you think that Canon is going to release a more professional body with even better autofocus and ergonomics for large heavy lenses? To be honest it’s a rhetorical question because of course they are so I’m kinda finding it hard to see the point you are trying to make?



With that attitude you can never be happy: "What if there's a better model in the future?!?!?! All my current pictures will be crap compared to those!!!!"


----------



## Phil (Jul 12, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The point you were originally trying to make is that an R or RP are not worthy of the RF glass (with zero evidence). Then, you concocted a way to make it sound as though you actually do own all this (your many like minded friends too). My point was that you know not that of which you speak, and you don't.
> 
> Maybe you do own it all (along with your many friends). Who cares? That has no bearing on such a ludicrous statement.



Dude get a grip, you gave a Unprovoked smart arse reply to one of my posts then you have been destroyed and your ignorance and arrogance has been put on display for everybody to see. I have the experience and the gear and would not comment unless I did, but I don’t like to go on about that in every post I make just to prove a point to the ignorant or to throw it in the face of photographers who can’t yet afford such gear or don’t yet have the experience because I was in the same boat for many years. Weak forum bullies like yourself need to learn when to give up especially if they are really really losing a battle it certainly doesn’t benefit your credibility on here to keep replying with you ignorant BS.


----------



## Phil (Jul 12, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> With that attitude you can never be happy: "What if there's a better model in the future?!?!?! All my current pictures will be crap compared to those!!!!"



Dude I’m gonna stop this conversation now, I really don’t care about all the insecurities you have that you are trying to project onto me and if you are someone who feels insecure or threatened by a discussion on camera gear then start ranting nonsense I just can’t be bothered continuing the conversation. Of course unless I find it amusing but to reply anymore to you would just be sad.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 12, 2019)

Phil said:


> Dude get a grip, you gave a Unprovoked smart arse reply to one of my posts then you have been destroyed and your ignorance and arrogance has been put on display for everybody to see. I have the experience and the gear and would not comment unless I did, but I don’t like to go on about that in every post I make just to prove a point to the ignorant or to throw it in the face of photographers who can’t yet afford such gear or don’t yet have the experience because I was in the same boat for many years. Weak forum bullies like yourself need to learn when to give up especially if they are really really losing a battle it certainly doesn’t benefit your credibility on here to keep replying with you ignorant BS.


My misunderstanding (and utter confusion) was about your original quote: "That the RF lenses were too good for the present cameras." (very well paraphrased) I asked you to please explain. You haven't, because you cannot. You were simply bloviating. You have nothing to back up your statement, except more bloviating. It wasn't a smart ass reply to you. It was wondering what the heck you were getting at and going on about. The answer? Nothing. Around here (Texas) we call that, "All hat and no cattle." The very definition of a "dude". Dude: The word was first used in the late 1800s as a term of mockery for young men who were overly concerned with keeping up with the latest fashions. It later came to stand for clueless city folk (who go to _dude_ ranches) before it morphed into our all-purpose laid-back label for a _guy_. You fit the older definition just fine, dude.


----------



## Phil (Jul 12, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> My misunderstanding (and utter confusion) was about your original quote: "That the RF lenses were too good for the present cameras." (very well paraphrased) I asked you to please explain. You haven't, because you cannot. You were simply bloviating. You have nothing to back up your statement, except more bloviating. It wasn't a smart ass reply to you. It was wondering what the heck you were getting at and going on about. The answer? Nothing. Around here (Texas) we call that, "All hat and no cattle." The very definition of a "dude". Dude: The word was first used in the late 1800s as a term of mockery for young men who were overly concerned with keeping up with the latest fashions. It later came to stand for clueless city folk (who go to _dude_ ranches) before it morphed into our all-purpose laid-back label for a _guy_. You fit the older definition just fine, dude.



Sorry son but with your last reply you have just made it so easy now it would be irresponsible of me to keep punching down. Also no challenge and boring.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 12, 2019)

Phil said:


> Sorry son but with your last reply you have just made it so easy now it would be irresponsible of me to keep punching down. Also no challenge and boring.


Like I said... you got nuthin'.


----------



## Phil (Jul 12, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Like I said... you got nuthin'.



I gotta admit your history lesson on the word dude and how you dress cows in hats is priceless and will make me chuckle for quite some time. But I can see you are a last word Larry so this conversation won’t end in a hurry unless I finish it and like I’ve already done with you that’s what I’m about to do.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 12, 2019)

ozturert said:


> What do you mean by "full potential"? EOS R has the best single AF in Canon history; far better than any DSLR before it. The 30MP sensor is the best sensor Canon has. *Its weather sealing is as good as 5D IV*. Its ergonomy is great and the body is solid.
> So what is holding EOS R to be used as the camera with RF 50mm f1.2L, for example?



Unfortunately, you are incorrect. 









Teardown of the Canon EOS R Mirrorless Camera


I've wanted to look inside the new Canon and Nikon mirrorless cameras since the moment they were announced, so I'm probably more excited about this than you guys are. I'm really not sure what to expect. Early on, when we took apart a Sony A7R, we were struck by how clean and straightforward...



www.lensrentals.com





Speaking of the Sony A7RIII, it’s taken a bit of internet trashing for its lack of weather sealing. Throw no stones from your glass house, oh Canon shooters. The Canon EOS-R is just about the same; well-sealed buttons and dials, not much else. That means, I think, that it will be fine in a misty rain for a while, but don’t get it saturated and don’t set it somewhere wet.
You can make an argument that tightly fitted plastic shells are good weather sealing. Then again, you can argue that weather sealing means waterproof. Lots of people do that on the way to finding out the warranty doesn’t cover water damage.
The Canon EOS-R sells currently for $2299. *It’s very close in build quality and weather sealing to the Canon 6D II* which sells for about $1600.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 12, 2019)

Phil said:


> I gotta admit your history lesson on the word dude and how you dress cows in hats is priceless and will make me chuckle for quite some time. But I can see you are a last word Larry so this conversation won’t end in a hurry unless I finish it and like I’ve already done with you that’s what I’m about to do.


All ya gotta do is explain how the R and RP are not good enough for the current RF lenses. That's the claim you made, Laurentius (Larry). As expected, you have zero data to back it up. Just bloviating an opinion with no facts. Instead, you resorted to attacks (That I couldn't possibly understand your explanation of your claim.), the usual hiding place for those who can't substantiate claims they just made up out of thin air. All the FF cameras Canon has made are fine with "L" lenses. So are many of the ASP-C cameras. Yet, somehow, you believe now that the current crop of RF "L" lenses are far too supercharged for the R and RP. Then you claim the lenses will perform far better on the next two camera releases, also with zero evidence. Since you are new here, I should warn you: Baseless claims are always challenged around here. Skin too thin for that? Tough. There are several learned members on this forum who see no advantage of close flange distance for these lenses. Do you really think a higher $ camera is going to fix that? Vignetting (which I love) is still a big issue.

So please, educate us cretins with your vast knowledge as to why the R/RP are not up to the task when mounted to the current crop of RF mount lenses. My bet is that you won't, because you can't. You'll claim that the next camera releases will do a better job with the lenses. Something that is IMPOSSIBLE for you to know.

BTW: "All hat and no cattle" has nothing to do with putting headgear on steers. Here is the definition for you: 
"Description of a person that is all talk and no substance; full of big talk but lacking action; a person who cannot back up his/her words; a fake; a pretender.
That guy is all hat, no cattle. Pay no attention to him.
#poser#fake#pretender#imposter

Yup, perfecto mundo!

You had an opinion, you represented it as fact... as though you have some special knowledge. I can respect an opinion, easily. But making up "facts" is just plain boorish. There is a vast difference between an opinion and a fact. You're welcome.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 12, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> With that attitude you can never be happy: "What if there's a better model in the future?!?!?! All my current pictures will be crap compared to those!!!!"


Yes, but with the "right camera" his skills will vastly improve. He just needs the right camera to match his lenses. Of course, he might then start screaming, "SONY!"


----------



## ozturert (Jul 13, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Unfortunately, you are incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fortunately I am correct: 








Canon EOS R Review - Weather Testing


Canon EOS R Review - EOS R Weather Testing



www.imaging-resource.com





And see:


Water Torture: Nikon D850 vs Sony A7RIII, Canon 5D Mk IV & Olympus E-M1 II


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 13, 2019)

ozturert said:


> Fortunately I am correct:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lens Rentals have the Canon R camera disassembled to bits whereis the imagine resource looked at some elements.


> We don't currently disassemble the cameras we test, so we can only comment on the weather seals that are visible when you open the various compartments and peel back the port covers.



Uncle Rog is a trustworthy source of information. He pointed out that:


> ... there’s weather sealing below each of the top dials. ... the rest of the body depends on a plastic overlap to keep stuff out, there are no gaskets..



and



> There is a nice thick weather seal under the diopter adjustment knob. For those who want to skip ahead, the knobs and dials are all weather sealed nicely, but not much else. As long as it only rains on your knobs and dials, though, you should be fine.


 
Canon R was not water torture tested in the second link you have provided. Sony A7R III weather resistance level is very basic if not poor.

My point is : Canon R weather resistance is on par with Canon 6D II, not with 5D IV. but each to his own..


----------



## Viggo (Jul 13, 2019)

ozturert said:


> Fortunately I am correct:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have a hard time to visualize the rain based on the numbers in the article. Does a video exist somewhere of the actual rain on the camera for the test? Would love to see that.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 13, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I have a hard time to visualize the rain based on the numbers in the article. Does a video exist somewhere of the actual rain on the camera for the test? Would love to see that.



I found a 15 mm per hour example on youtube. that is x1.5 heavier than 10mm / hour of course.


----------



## ozturert (Jul 13, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Lens Rentals have the Canon R camera disassembled to bits whereis the imagine resource looked at some elements.
> 
> 
> Uncle Rog is a trustworthy source of information. He pointed out that:
> ...


Imaging Resource tested EOS R under huge rain, and it passed the test with flying colours and A7R III failed (in the other test I gave). That's what matters for me.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 13, 2019)

Thanks SecureGSM! That is very heavy rain. I’ve been out with a 1-series in that kind of rain, it flowed over my feet and ankles. The camera survived just fine. So I think for all the rain I care to walk out in, the R will not fail me .


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 24, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> correction: an excellent 24-200 /f2.0 lens Would never leave a body for an event shooter. And I would sell my second body ASAP.
> And I do not mind the size or the price of the lens that will likely be $4000. It will afford me shooting with a single camera for a weight and cost relief.
> But...it has to be excellent. Did I say it has to be excellent?



You do realize any 200mm f/2 lens must have a front element at least 100mm in diameter? That the smallest 200mm f/2 lens Canon has ever released is the 5.5 pound EF 200mm f/2 L IS?


----------



## Viggo (Jul 24, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> You do realize any 200mm f/2 lens must have a front element at least 100mm in diameter? That the smallest 200mm f/2 lens Canon has ever released is the 5.5 pound EF 200mm f/2 L IS?


.. and it would more like
12000 USD


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 24, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> You do realize any 200mm f/2 lens must have a front element at least 100mm in diameter? That the smallest 200mm f/2 lens Canon has ever released is the 5.5 pound EF 200mm f/2 L IS?


It was a joke Michael, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. i replied in response to someone posted that 24-135 f2.0 lens would never leave the body for an event shooter. I suggested that 135mm is too short at the longer end. not enough of reach. hence me posting that 200mm would suffice but not physically viable for the reason you have just mentioned. ther lens would be huge, likely the size of 200-400 / F4.


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 24, 2019)

Phil said:


> If you can’t figure it out on your own then me explaining it to you still won’t change the fact that you are not capable of understanding. But don’t freak out I’m sure your winning personality is all you need to succeed at life.


Is this your way to argue?
Sad, really sad...


----------



## Phil (Jul 24, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> Is this your way to argue?
> Sad, really sad...


Oh I wasn’t arguing because when you are correct there is nothing to argue. But unfortunately It doesn’t stop the ignorant and dim witted from trying to argue with you. Speaking of ignorant and dim witted good to see you trying to participate in the forum. If you work on your photography knowledge and skills you might have something worthwhile to contribute one day.
“A” for effort!


----------



## Kit. (Jul 24, 2019)

Phil said:


> when you are correct there is nothing to argue.


That's incorrect.


----------



## flip314 (Jul 24, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> It was a joke Michael, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. i replied in response to someone posted that 24-135 f2.0 lens would never leave the body for an event shooter. I suggested that 135mm is too short at the longer end. not enough of reach. hence me posting that 200mm would suffice but not physically viable for the reason you have just mentioned. ther lens would be huge, likely the size of 200-400 / F4.



The 1200mm f5.6 is way overdue for a refresh, f2 would be nice on that lens as well.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 24, 2019)

Phil said:


> Don’t misunderstand me, I do like my EOS R, vertical grip, RF 24-105, RF 50mm 1.2 and RF 85mm 1.2, also I have used the 28-70 but found it just a tad to big so I got the 24-105 instead, sorry but by the way you were talking just just assumed you didn’t own any of those products so I didn’t think you would understand any points I might try and make about them. So sorry about that, how do you find your Eos R and RF lenses? You don’t find the body to small to comfortably hold it for any length of time with the heavy lenses? You don’t think when Canon releases a larger more sturdy pro body it will be a lot more comfortable to hold with the big glass?
> Do you find the 30 megapixel sensor is getting all the quality out of the new L glass that they can produce? Do you not think a higher megapixel body might be able to show the full potential of these extremely high quality and extremely expensive new L lenses better than the EOS R? I mean if you don’t find this to be your experience with the new R system that’s fair it’s just the the people I know with the same gear all feel the same way and that is when a new higher megapixel professional body comes out then they will be able to get the full potential out of their RF Pro Glass which they and I spent so much money on.



Actually, I find my R to be just fine. The kit 24-105mm f/4L is good too. Thanks for asking.  However, for what I do (portraits and fashion), I'd prefer something faster. The biggest glass I have is 70-200. I won't be buying the grip. I have had a 400mm. Anything larger than that in the "big" stuff category would be on a gimble for me, if I had it.

*However, you were not talking about that.* There is no "big" glass in RF yet. My response was to your statement that the R nor RP are not up snuff for RF lenses. The fact is, they are for many of us. Yes, even the f/1.2 lenses and the f/2. On the other hand, plenty of 7D Mark II (Not a big camera. Smaller than the 5D and 6D series) owners don't seem to have a problem with super-tele lenses on them. Some prefer APS-C for their birding. Putting a grip on the R isn't a problem. Using a gimble on a 600mm or 800mm L wouldn't be a problem.

So please educate me, otherwise, knock it off with the superiority complex.


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 25, 2019)

Phil said:


> Oh I wasn’t arguing because when you are correct there is nothing to argue. But unfortunately It doesn’t stop the ignorant and dim witted from trying to argue with you. Speaking of ignorant and dim witted good to see you trying to participate in the forum. If you work on your photography knowledge and skills you might have something worthwhile to contribute one day.
> “A” for effort!


I humbly apologize if I unintentionally hurt the feelings of a universally acclaimed photographer.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 25, 2019)

Some very reasonable people see the R as an overpriced 6D II. Some see the same body as a bargain 5DIV.

Can't we all just get along?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 25, 2019)

flip314 said:


> The 1200mm f5.6 is way overdue for a refresh, f2 would be nice on that lens as well.


hit the gym, man.. hit the gym...


----------



## uri.raz (Jul 25, 2019)

Pape said:


> 1 You want buy lense what is totally useful 10 year later too. There could be 100mp crop sensor 10 year later and smaller than f2 may be diffraction afffected. but yeah i was wrong on that thing speed boosters will solve that problem.



Because everybody and their sister will be buying 100MP crop sensors, *and* will want to squeeze every last pixel out of it. Yeah, sure.



Pape said:


> its too expensive or it just too slow for most peoples with nowadays computers.Or too bad DR. And it doesn't sound good idea add one more format when got rid APS-H



1. It shoots nearly 10fps, sufficient for a large enough number of photographers.

2. There are photographers shooting with a Hasselblad H6D-400c, which has higher resolution.

3. I don't see any reason Canon couldn't scale the sensor to 80MP APS-C.

4. Canon uploaded photos and video taken with this sensor, DR looks good.

So at this point it sounds like you're throwing excuses, hoping one of them would stick.


----------



## Pape (Jul 25, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Because everybody and their sister will be buying 100MP crop sensors, *and* will want to squeeze every last pixel out of it. Yeah, sure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 OK we see 120mpixel RS on spring then , they really need it . 
Canon isnt competing with sony, Canon is competing with samsung and apple.
If performance cap is big enough between phones and RS some peoples may come back as camera users.
Now most of peoples wont see difference on mobile phone pic and full frame pic. but with police serie magniifying effect 120mpix gives ,many may want real camera.


----------

