# Well, well, well… could this be Canon’s lens roadmap for 2021? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 9, 2020)

> I can finally post information that I know about Canon’s lens plans for 2021, this information comes from a great source and I would lean on most, if not all of it being accurate.
> *These lenses are likely next in the pipeline:*
> 
> Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 9, 2020)

Wow!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 9, 2020)

Autofocus tilt shifts are expected, I couldn't imagine Canon making a new mount and not thinking about how to make these possible and MF is a bit wonky for the new toys. And that line up of big whites seems to much for one year. Five big whites for the R1 in one year and not one of them being a ground breaking zoom? Though the 800/5.6 L is long overdue a new model.


----------



## tron (Oct 9, 2020)

So L means not DO lenses? They will be almost as huge as their EF counterparts!


----------



## Mark3794 (Oct 9, 2020)

I am impressed


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 9, 2020)

No matter if working through that list takes one, two or three years it shows how much Canon is willing to go into R system. 
Would have been nice if just a slice of that effort would have gone in the M system (_edit: EF-M lens system_). 
Then maybe I would be there, too for traveling light and small.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 9, 2020)

tron said:


> So L means not DO lenses? They will be almost as huge as their EF counterparts!



They could be DO but no longer with the L band instead of the snot green band.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 9, 2020)

The RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM goes wider than the f/2.8 version. Interesting!

I'm pleased about the 35/1.2.

I'm disappointed that there's no moonshot zoom, of the kind we've talked about for 2 years (14-28/2 or 70-135/2), detailed here.

I think we can guess that the 50/1.8 being "_better optically and in build quality than the EF version_ " means that it will be expensive for what it is. No EF version pricing here! I also suspect that we won't see a 50/1.4 for a long time, if ever, since it would hold an awkward middle ground between a nice-ish 1.8 and the luxury 1.2.

I'm curious about the TS-R glass, but won't consider myself intrigued until I know more


----------



## AlP (Oct 9, 2020)

Impressive, and even if only half of those lenses would be launched next year
And damn, I was hoping there would be 2-3 interesting lenses on that list, not 10+. Looks like I will have to sell all my remaining EF gear... And probably a lot of other stuff as well


Is it known if the 70-200 f/4 will work with extenders? I would guess not as the f/2.8 doesn't, and this is also a compact, external zoom design, but if it is extender compatible and it's as small as described, that would be a phenomenal hiking kit.

5 big whites in one year sounds a bit unrealistic to me tbh. But maybe Canon is just planning an impressive R1 launch


----------



## Quentin (Oct 9, 2020)

The 10-24 and 100 Macro are mine


----------



## hyt (Oct 9, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> No matter if working through that list takes one, two or three years it shows how much Canon is willing to go into R system.
> Would have been nice if just a slice of that effort would have gone in the M system. Then maybe I would be there, too for traveling light and small.


Agreed. What's the point in bringing out more M bodies if there are no improvements to the native lens lineup.


----------



## SV (Oct 9, 2020)

Where's the 300 f/2.8 ???


----------



## CC2937 (Oct 9, 2020)

Wow!


----------



## BakaBokeh (Oct 9, 2020)

And now I'm broke...


----------



## soulseeker (Oct 9, 2020)

Wow, these look impressive! Can't wait for the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.


----------



## Mike the cat (Oct 9, 2020)

I'd love to see Canon make some RF f/1.4 glass along the lines of the Sigma Art 35mm/50mm/85mm prime series at competitive prices. Would that steal the market from Sigma and help Canon sell bodies? Or would that ruin their f/1.2 sales? I know it's a pipe dream, but still; one can dream  .


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 9, 2020)

Was hoping to see a 200-600L or something along those lines but I guess we're SOL..


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 9, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Combo Deal: buy the whole batch for $100k.


----------



## Alex784 (Oct 9, 2020)

What would be valid reasons to upgrade for those who already have something similar or even better like EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, instead of using an adaptor ?


----------



## dwarven (Oct 9, 2020)

> 135mm f/1.4 USM



I suggested a couple months ago that I'd like to see this lens and that it was possible, and was told by a prominent member of this site that "no it's absolutely not possible".  Now I can't remember who it was.


----------



## marathonman (Oct 9, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> What would be valid reasons to upgrade for those who already have something similar or even better like EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM, instead of using an adaptor ?


Well for that lens specifically, the size saving vs the RF version.


----------



## Ian K (Oct 9, 2020)

I don't see the point of the "Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM". Given we already got a "Canon RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 L IS USM" which is faster at the wide end and faster at the tele end for the same focal length. The only thing I can think of is that it's smaller or lighter or significantly cheaper. If it was f/5.6 at 400mm then I could see some advantage to giving up the 100mm of reach.

The 11-24 replacement seems to have gained 1mm at wide end again, just like the 15-35mm and it's EF equivalent. I see that the f/4 version of the 15-35 gains yet another 1mm at the wide end, 14-35mm.

I would have loved to see the long primes come with a built in switchable 1.4x TC built in (like the 200-400 f/4L) that was such a great idea.


----------



## raystill (Oct 9, 2020)

Sweet Canon is going to make me bankrupt yet


----------



## Tom W (Oct 9, 2020)

There's a couple of lenses on that list that I'd be interested in - the 14-35 f/4 (or even the 10-24 f/4), and the 500/4 or 600/4. I have the 500/4 IS II now, and it is an exceptional lens, though not a good choice for a "walkabout" lens. Depending on the weight distribution of the 500 and 600, one of them could be my go-to lens, even if not a zoom.


----------



## fiendstudios (Oct 9, 2020)

Why is there a 100-400 on this list when there is already a 100-500 out there? Does not make sense.
And where is the 14-21/1.4?
Nothing in this list is of any interest for me at all )=
This does not blow me away at all..


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 9, 2020)

Wow...a 70-200 F4 L IS the size of a coke can....They'll probably ask $2k for it though. For $1400, I may consider upgrading from my EF version. I think that's still like $300 more than the current EF version, though I haven't looked in a while. 

Glad to see some more offerings in the consumer line. That 100-400 will probably replace the older 75-300 lenses, which were nice for the price. 

And autofocus TS-R/E? could those be $3500 lenses? I think so. Or, maybe they'll drive the price on the EF series down enough that I can afford one. Lol. 

Last question is - how do I use this list to convince my wife to let me spend the money on the R6 so I can use this stuff?  

-Brian


----------



## Tom W (Oct 9, 2020)

Ian K said:


> I don't see the point of the "Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM". Given we already got a "Canon RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 L IS USM" which is faster at the wide end and faster at the tele end for the same focal length. The only thing I can think of is that it's smaller or lighter or significantly cheaper. If it was f/5.6 at 400mm then I could see some advantage to giving up the 100mm of reach.



I would suspect that the 100-400 would be a non-L lens, similar in concept to maybe the 70-300 IS lens. We shall see, I reckon...


----------



## Cambridge66 (Oct 9, 2020)

Quentin said:


> The 10-24 and 100 Macro are mine


Yeah - 10mm? Wow - just picked up the EF 11-24/4L for my EOS R - wonder how much that 10mm will be? The EF 11-24 is $2900


----------



## Antonis (Oct 9, 2020)

And again the 28 1.4 is missing. That's a shame


----------



## ERHP (Oct 9, 2020)

The 100-400 is non-L. Cheaper and meets a different price point bracket.

I'm interested to see the new great whites and AF capable TS lenses.


----------



## woodman411 (Oct 9, 2020)

dwarven said:


> I suggested a couple months ago that I'd like to see this lens and that it was possible, and was told by a prominent member of this site that "no it's absolutely not possible".  Now I can't remember who it was.



This will be the new king of portrait prime lenses (RF 135 f/1.4), I thought the Sigma 135 f/1.8 was impressive...


----------



## Aaron D (Oct 9, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Autofocus tilt shifts are expected...



I don't know why autofocus would be important in TS lenses. Maybe in some fringe uses, but I'd personally rather have TS lenses that focus manually and cost less, weigh less. It'll always be on a tripod the way I use them. Only speaking for myself.

And 14mm? Geeze.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Oct 9, 2020)

I’ll definitely rent the 1200 at least once just for awesome moon pictures. 

But I’m buying that 35 1.2 and 135 1.4.


----------



## Joules (Oct 9, 2020)

fiendstudios said:


> Why is there a 100-400 on this list when there is already a 100-500 out there? Does not make sense.


It has NOTHING to do with the 100-500 L lens. The 100-400mm 4.0-7.1 is an STM lens. It is an upgrade to the current EF 70-300mm Nano USM and will cost well below 1k.


----------



## DrToast (Oct 9, 2020)

dwarven said:


> I suggested a couple months ago that I'd like to see this lens and that it was possible, and was told by a prominent member of this site that "no it's absolutely not possible".  Now I can't remember who it was.




I don't know why anyone would suggest a 135 f/1.4 is not possible. Mitakon already made one: https://petapixel.com/2015/10/19/mi...-f1-4-2999-gets-you-the-worlds-fastest-135mm/


----------



## IVS (Oct 9, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


They can all rot there 2021 years   If Canon doesn't add ALL-I to the R6 they won't see me using a mirrorless anytime soon. The 90D got crippled,.. Fool me once


----------



## Joules (Oct 9, 2020)

If they can push out that lineup in one year... Just wow. Looks like a great step forward.

But as it has not been said yet and obviously applies regardless of subject or circumstances: Canon is *******!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 9, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> I don't know why autofocus would be important in TS lenses. Maybe in some fringe uses, but I'd personally rather have TS lenses that focus manually and cost less, weigh less. It'll always be on a tripod the way I use them. Only speaking for myself.
> 
> And 14mm? Geeze.



I don't think it is important, but I do think it is expected. It is a unique selling point that they didn't have on the EF versions.


----------



## Dantana (Oct 9, 2020)

This is an amazing list. If I had the cash, there are definitely a few there that I would grab.

Yet, so many complaints of what is not there, based on so many individual "needs." I guess you can't make everyone happy.


----------



## Aaron D (Oct 9, 2020)

Pretty fantastic.

For me, I'll get these as soon as I can swing it:
Canon TS-R 14mm f/4L
Canon TS-R 24mm f/3.5L
Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM

But these, almost immediately:
Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM and
Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM

Any referrals for architectural assignments would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## Jim Corbett (Oct 9, 2020)

Omg, how am I gonna carry all that glass?!
My room is gonna look like the iron throne with all that in the background


----------



## chasingrealness (Oct 9, 2020)

The 135 f/1.4 is interesting. All the others sound great but honestly that’s the one I need


----------



## esglord (Oct 9, 2020)

I have zero interest in the 100-500mm L. I could see myself picking up a lighter 100-400mm non-L that will likely cost one third. 

Hopefully, a better quality 50 f/1.8 doesn't close the door on my hopes of 50mm f/1.4L at some point.


----------



## Aaron D (Oct 9, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I don't think it is important, but I do think it is expected. It is a unique selling point that they didn't have on the EF versions.



Could very well be. I'd really like to see a tripod foot on each, so the camera can be shifted instead of the lens. That would be killer--and easy to do.


----------



## Fletchahh (Oct 9, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Was hoping to see a 200-600L or something along those lines but I guess we're SOL..



As was I, or a more affordable long DO prime. Ah well, maybe a third party will fill that gap at some point, at least this still looks like a great list of lenses regardless.


----------



## mpeeps (Oct 9, 2020)

Will the 10-24 be a big bulbous beast like the 11-24?


----------



## Iwasaki (Oct 9, 2020)

Basically rounds out there plans lineup to match what they have is the EF side. 

this is why I switched from Nikon. I can get what I need when I need it.


----------



## MacMen (Oct 9, 2020)

Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM

I think there is no need for a lens like this next to the RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1. Only when this will be nearly half the price of them.


----------



## Philip V (Oct 9, 2020)

I was expecting at least one EF-M lens


----------



## Juangrande (Oct 9, 2020)

Quentin said:


> The 10-24 and 100 Macro are mine


Ok but I call dibs on the 35 1.2 and the 135 1.4


----------



## Wilfried Flitser (Oct 9, 2020)

And the 40-160 f/2,8 portrait lens in 2022?


----------



## Ian K (Oct 9, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> What would be valid reasons to upgrade for those who already have something similar or even better like EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, instead of using an adaptor ?


There's already an RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM available, take a look at that lens. It's a lot smaller than the EF that you have. Image quality is improved and it's lighter. It also has a 5 stop IS on it's side. It's also faster focusing.


----------



## leadin2 (Oct 9, 2020)

Wow! And I thought the last EF lens I would hold on to, is my 100L! Exciting news!

Also interested in 14-35mm. Hope the prices remain the same as EF.

Now, where is RF 24-70mm f4L IS?


----------



## sanj (Oct 9, 2020)

Ian K said:


> I don't see the point of the "Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM". Given we already got a "Canon RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 L IS USM" which is faster at the wide end and faster at the tele end for the same focal length. The only thing I can think of is that it's smaller or lighter or significantly cheaper. If it was f/5.6 at 400mm then I could see some advantage to giving up the 100mm of reach.
> 
> The 11-24 replacement seems to have gained 1mm at wide end again, just like the 15-35mm and it's EF equivalent. I see that the f/4 version of the 15-35 gains yet another 1mm at the wide end, 14-35mm.
> 
> I would have loved to see the long primes come with a built in switchable 1.4x TC built in (like the 200-400 f/4L) that was such a great idea.


Size. Cost.


----------



## EOSR FAN (Oct 9, 2020)

I was hoping for a super fast astrophotography prime or zoom thats better than 2.8. 


Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro could be interesting though 
Some amazing Lenses on offer though. It'll be interesting to see what sigma brings to the table. Id rather have canons own Lenses but if sigma can do some fast wide primes or pancake lenses id snap their hands off


----------



## Ian K (Oct 9, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Was hoping to see a 200-600L or something along those lines but I guess we're SOL..


You forgot to add a 1.4x TC built into it. Now that would be a killer lens


----------



## Stanly (Oct 9, 2020)

So if you get C70 the best native wide angle option is RF 10-24mm f/4L USM and at C70's Super35 crop it will have same FOV as RF 15-35 with a similar DOF if it being closed down to f/6 on an R5 ... =\

RF 35mm f/1.2L USM will be a great lens for full frame cameras!


----------



## Ian K (Oct 9, 2020)

sanj said:


> Size. Cost.


Which is what I said.


----------



## janhalasa (Oct 9, 2020)

I was hoping for the rumored (or appearing in patents) 18-45 non-L lens.


----------



## Hodag (Oct 9, 2020)

Does this signal the end of EF lenses for the DSLR?


----------



## Juangrande (Oct 9, 2020)

Mike the cat said:


> I'd love to see Canon make some RF f/1.4 glass along the lines of the Sigma Art 35mm/50mm/85mm prime series at competitive prices. Would that steal the market from Sigma and help Canon sell bodies? Or would that ruin their f/1.2 sales? I know it's a pipe dream, but still; one can dream  .


I don’t think so, I own the 35 L 1.4 and I’m jonesing for the 1.2 version. I do a lot of full body environmental portraits and the more separation when the subject is not filling the frame the better.


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 9, 2020)

Hodag said:


> Does this signal the end of EF lenses for the DSLR?




What's a DSLR?


----------



## Ian K (Oct 9, 2020)

Tom W said:


> I would suspect that the 100-400 would be a non-L lens, similar in concept to maybe the 70-300 IS lens. We shall see, I reckon...


Ah, not the light dawns. If it's not an L series then I can see how that works.


----------



## fiendstudios (Oct 9, 2020)

EOSR FAN said:


> I was hoping for a super fast astrophotography prime or zoom thats better than 2.8.
> 
> 
> Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro could be interesting though
> Some amazing Lenses on offer though. It'll be interesting to see what sigma brings to the table. Id rather have canons own Lenses but if sigma can do some fast wide primes or pancake lenses id snap their hands off


Yeah I was hoping for any astrolens aswell. The 14-21/1.4!


----------



## Methodical (Oct 9, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> What would be valid reasons to upgrade for those who already have something similar or even better like EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, instead of using an adaptor ?



For some, needing to have the latest and greatest. I see no compelling reasons at this time to let go of the equivalent EF glass as long as they work with the adapters I'm good. If the 600 came in at some crazy weight, like 4lbs., I'd be hard pressed not to consider it, unless it was $20k. The 135 1.4 is interesting though for some indoor sports.


----------



## spomeniks (Oct 9, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I also suspect that we won't see a 50/1.4 for a long time, if ever, since it would hold an awkward middle ground between a nice-ish 1.8 and the luxury 1.2.



I hadn't even thought about this lens in RF until you mentioned it. I'm sure people have had mixed experiences, but I absolutely hated their EF version of the 50mm 1.4. Having at least some middle ground RF version would be amazing (Sigma has had a field day with selling theirs..), but I wouldn't be surprised if your predictions are unfortunately correct.


----------



## Juangrande (Oct 9, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I don't think it is important, but I do think it is expected. It is a unique selling point that they didn't have on the EF versions.


I know Joel Grimes uses tilt shift lenses to stitch 3 frame vertical (and horizontal) panorama portraits to get incredible details in huge galkery prints. AF would be useful in portraits like that. Something as a portrait photographer I’ve been meaning to try.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Oct 9, 2020)

Too many lenses to be true.

That said, no IS on the 135mm? Why? I know there's IBIS, but it doesn't make sens especially when they put IS on UWA RF zooms. The latest EF 85mm f/1.4 got the IS treatment. Would have loved to see overall stabilisation be boosted +2 stops thanks to the combination of IBIS + IS. Great for night portrait w/o tripod.


----------



## Refraction (Oct 9, 2020)

The one that I will be buying is the 24mm f1.8 macro. Perfect for videos of the first dance and some closeups of details at prep. Currently using the 35m equivalent which is a bit tight for smaller venues.


----------



## Franklyok (Oct 9, 2020)

yoms said:


> Too many lenses to be true.
> 
> That said, no IS on the 135mm? Why? I know there's IBIS, but it doesn't make sens especially when they put IS on UWA RF zooms. The latest EF 85mm f/1.4 got the IS treatment. Would have loved to see overall stabilisation be boosted +2 stops thanks to the combination of IBIS + IS. Great for night portrait w/o tripod.



The rf 28 - 70 f2 got no IS either, and still has 8 stops of IBIS thanks to large drawing circle. This can also be the case with the new 135 f1. 4.

Lets not lose hope. May be we will miss DS feature in it.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 9, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> What's a DSLR?



It's what you had to use back in the day when people wrote by making marks on clay tablets.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Oct 9, 2020)

Really hope that the Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM will be front filterable. Almost all - if not all - super UWA zooms, whether DSLR or mirrorless, released these latest years are NOT front filterable. Sucks imho.

Would the RF mount specifications allow for a 10-24mm f/4L + front filter?


----------



## Occams_Cat (Oct 9, 2020)

I wonder how much the 500 F4 will be? Any guesses?


----------



## Chig (Oct 9, 2020)

Ian K said:


> You forgot to add a 1.4x TC built into it. Now that would be a killer lens


Also a Freznell element DO style for smaller and lighter


----------



## navastronia (Oct 9, 2020)

yoms said:


> Too many lenses to be true.
> 
> That said, no IS on the 135mm? Why? I know there's IBIS, but it doesn't make sens especially when they put IS on UWA RF zooms. The latest EF 85mm f/1.4 got the IS treatment. Would have loved to see overall stabilisation be boosted +2 stops thanks to the combination of IBIS + IS. Great for night portrait w/o tripod.



IS on fast glass, including the 85 1.4, doesn't make that much sense; when you can already achieve fast shutter speeds, it's just less necessary. Doubly so when Canon's new bodies have IBIS. Lastly, IS adds size and weight. Mitakon's manual focus 135/1.4 already weighs over 2.5 kg --- a full kilo heavier than Canon's RF 28-70/2 monster.


----------



## Marximusprime (Oct 9, 2020)

I bet that 100-400 will be tiny. Also I WANT THAT 1200. As long as it's not like, 30 pounds.


----------



## dwarven (Oct 9, 2020)

DrToast said:


> I don't know why anyone would suggest a 135 f/1.4 is not possible. Mitakon already made one: https://petapixel.com/2015/10/19/mi...-f1-4-2999-gets-you-the-worlds-fastest-135mm/



Yes I know.


----------



## MaxDiesel (Oct 9, 2020)

Mike the cat said:


> I'd love to see Canon make some RF f/1.4 glass along the lines of the Sigma Art 35mm/50mm/85mm prime series at competitive prices. Would that steal the market from Sigma and help Canon sell bodies? Or would that ruin their f/1.2 sales? I know it's a pipe dream, but still; one can dream  .


I think their betting that those who would buy a 1.4 will pony up for the 1.2’s I know thats what I did! Can’t wait for that 32 1.2

I’m actually impressed how well balanced the weight of the 1.2’s are that I’m not yearning for the 1.4’s

Tho was hoping for the 35-85 f1.4-f1.8 zoom which doesn’t seem to be on the list.


----------



## JayLT (Oct 9, 2020)

Finally, an announcement of a true RF macro lens! My EF 100mm f/2.8L IS is one of my most used lenses, I really hope the RF version comes out early


----------



## lglass12189 (Oct 9, 2020)

tron said:


> So L means not DO lenses? They will be almost as huge as their EF counterparts!


Lets hope there not DO


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 9, 2020)

Occams_Cat said:


> I wonder how much the 500 F4 will be? Any guesses?


Looking at the recent price raises EF to RF equivalent my guess would be about 12,000 $


----------



## dichterDichter (Oct 9, 2020)

im about to buy the r6 and one of the two 70-200. f2.8 or f4? what would speak for a f4?


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 9, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> I don't know why autofocus would be important in TS lenses. Maybe in some fringe uses, but I'd personally rather have TS lenses that focus manually and cost less, weigh less. It'll always be on a tripod the way I use them. Only speaking for myself.
> 
> And 14mm? Geeze.


I am with you here, TS-E lenses were the last Canons with a decent manual focus. AF shift lenses with a miserable focus by wire is the last thing you need when shooting serious architecture (that is with a tripod). I would have loved a TS zoom. That would have been a revolution, for those interior shots where the 17mm is too wide and the 24mm too narrow. Something like a 16-28mm TS would have been something, even with a modest aperture like f5.6. As for the 14mm, I am not convinced it is the most useful focal length for a shift. An improved 17mm would make more sense IMO, since w'ell end with a huge gap between 14mm and 24mm. A 35mm TS would be appreciated as well, as much as I love my PC Distagon, a modern Canon would be a nice replacement.


----------



## canonnews (Oct 9, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> I don't know why autofocus would be important in TS lenses. Maybe in some fringe uses, but I'd personally rather have TS lenses that focus manually and cost less, weigh less. It'll always be on a tripod the way I use them. Only speaking for myself.
> 
> And 14mm? Geeze.


I'm even wondering how you even do that when you tilt the focal plane.


----------



## NorskHest (Oct 9, 2020)

There is a lot of great stuff here but at the same time for those who own most of these lenses in the ef Mount and if they still work flawlessly I don’t see the point. The ef lenses work perfect when adapted. Fathoming the financial loss of just getting rid of something that works for something new just doesn’t compute. I think the innovation is great but again for those of us with thousands invested I can’t see many of us just saying ****** this 600mm viii I need the mirrorless version. Sharp glass is fun because it is sharp but I find it boring and clinical. We often get so obsessed with pixel peeping that we don’t actually enjoy a lens flare or some loss of contrast from the sun. There is beauty in the flaws and the not so clinical imagery. I’m glad for all those why buy the toys they want but I love the ef and I think canon sent to many mixed signals with in the past three years and they should have made the switch to mirrorless sooner.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 9, 2020)

JayLT said:


> Finally, an announcement of a true RF macro lens! My EF 100mm f/2.8L IS is one of my most used lenses, I really hope the RF version comes out early



My non-L is basically permanently attached to my Rebel, where it gets a _lot_ of use. I _can't_ replace that with an RF lens. (In many ways it's my most important lens, but I don't take it on the road, which means I absolutely need more than just that lens.)

But this (and a lot of other items on the list) indicate they're now going full bore at _replacing_ EF glass with RF glass, rather than filling in niches they hadn't done before.

It will probably be quite some time before I start picking up primes. For me, they're extremely specialized lenses, and I probably shouldn't have bought most of the ones I already have. Other than that 100mm (which I use as a macro lens only), my favorite is my 85mm, but it's a very occasional use. I own most of the EF-M primes (I think the 28mm is the sole exception) but have done virtually nothing with them.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 9, 2020)

NorskHest said:


> There is a lot of great stuff here but at the same time for those who own most of these lenses in the ef Mount and if they still work flawlessly I don’t see the point. The ef lenses work perfect when adapted. Fathoming the financial loss of just getting rid of something that works for something new just doesn’t compute. I think the innovation is great but again for those of us with thousands invested I can’t see many of us just saying ****** this 600mm viii I need the mirrorless version. Sharp glass is fun because it is sharp but I find it boring and clinical. We often get so obsessed with pixel peeping that we don’t actually enjoy a lens flare or some loss of contrast from the sun. There is beauty in the flaws and the not so clinical imagery. I’m glad for all those why buy the toys they want but I love the ef and I think canon sent to many mixed signals with in the past three years and they should have made the switch to mirrorless sooner.



This makes some sense to me: if you've got it in EF already, there's often no compelling reason to switch. And since I own a couple of EF-M cameras, there's often at least some reasons NOT to switch.

BUT, it's clear that people coming in in the future, with no EF legacy, can jump into RF with both feet. Although I may never buy any of these (the 135 is the most intriguing to me), I *am* glad Canon is doing this.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> Last question is - how do I use this list to convince my wife to let me spend the money on the R6 so I can use this stuff?
> 
> -Brian


Give her permission to help the pool boy when he comes around each week.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Oct 9, 2020)

135mm 1.4 L .... Take my fuc**** money, please!


----------



## Aaron D (Oct 9, 2020)

symmar22 said:


> I am with you here, TS-E lenses were the last Canons with a decent manual focus. AF shift lenses with a miserable focus by wire is the last thing you need when shooting serious architecture (that is with a tripod). I would have loved a TS zoom. That would have been a revolution, for those interior shots where the 17mm is too wide and the 24mm too narrow. Something like a 16-28mm TS would have been something, even with a modest aperture like f5.6. As for the 14mm, I am not convinced it is the most useful focal length for a shift. An improved 17mm would make more sense IMO, since w'ell end with a huge gap between 14mm and 24mm. A 35mm TS would be appreciated as well, as much as I love my PC Distagon, a modern Canon would be a nice replacement.


Yeah, zooms would make a lot more sense, and at the 'easy' focal lengths. I think a 24 to 40 or so would be wonderful, genuinely useful. And 14 in a TS really feels like too much. I agree a 16 would be about perfect, and usually more than needed.

If that 14 is a done deal, I think I'd pass it up for a 'fixed shift' 14mm and crop out what I don't need. Fixed or zoom. I'm almost at that point even with the 17 TSE.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 9, 2020)

Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM seens to be very versatile and is hopefully moderate in size and weight!
What I would have liked to see: Some 20mm f/2.8 IS STM MACRO to combine with the current 35 and 85 mm MACRO lenses.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 9, 2020)

Holy crap, now that's a line up.

I wasn't expecting to be interested in a 16-35 F/4 replacement, since my EF one works great...but 14mm may very well just sell me on it. If the lens has filter threads, I'll probably upgrade my 16-35 F/4 to that.

Then after that, too many options. 100mm macro is a lens I've wanted for a while, so will be interested by the RF one depending on price. RF 35 f/1.2 will be a hard sell because I love the RF F/1.8's size to the point that I haven't touched my EF F/1.4L II in months, but will have to see how it turns out.

The 24mm and 50mm f/1.8 will probably be lenses I pick up just to have, if they're priced decently. A small 24mm F/1.8 would be a nice companion to the 28-70 F/2 to throw in a belt pouch when you really need that 24mm.

RF 135mm F/1.4 sounds very interesting and I'll be excited to see how it turns out, but doubt the price/weight will be worth it for my uses. Same with the tilt-shifts, I'm sure they'll be groundbreaking and amazing, but we have tilt-shifts at my full time job and I never really use them.

As for the supertelephotos.. I'm surprised to see the 800mm back in the line-up alongside a new 1200mm. I thought the 800mm was redundant because of putting extenders on the high-quality 600mms, same with the 1200mm F/8, but maybe they'll have some surprises for us.

Nice that the 1200mm F/8 could take a 2x extender and get you to 2400mm F/16 with autofocus. Maybe they're planning these longer lenses knowing we can extend them even further and still get autofocus?


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 9, 2020)

symmar22 said:


> A 35mm TS would be appreciated as well.


I agree. Also, I'd love to hear Keith Cooper's take on those lenses.


----------



## AJ (Oct 9, 2020)

Looks great! There are a lot of workhorse lenses in that lineup. Less of a focus on weird stuff like ff/11 and DS lenses. I like it.


----------



## Swerky (Oct 9, 2020)

70-200 f4 L. I guess the 24-70 f4 should come later. I hope they consider a close focusing wide angle prime. A 20 or 18mm f2.8.


----------



## Mahk43 (Oct 9, 2020)

christmas!


----------



## edoorn (Oct 9, 2020)

A 400 2.8..

I’m weeping with joy with the foresight of using this and weeping of angony with the foresight of my bank account statement... and the possible lack of options to go to Africa to actually use it


----------



## Aaron D (Oct 9, 2020)

OK, just for the sake of being distracting, I wish Canon would make one of these: https://leicacamerausa.com/24-90mm-f2-8-4-asph-vario-elmarit-e82-sl.html

Best of all worlds, I think; long enough in reach, bright enough where you need brightness. And Canon's version would be lighter, smaller and less expensive too!

No way it will happen because they've about saturated the normal zoom range with great choices. Just thinking out loud.


----------



## Ahmed Hindawi (Oct 9, 2020)

The 100-400mm looks too similar to the just released 100-500mm! I somehow doubt this one. Everything else would be great if true.


----------



## Swerky (Oct 9, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> What would be valid reasons to upgrade for those who already have something similar or even better like EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, instead of using an adaptor ?


Can’t imagine of a valid reason. The EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM is a sweet sweet lens. Unless one really needs to go more compact. But one would have to lose some cash between selling and buying new. Can’t imagine to what extent the RF 70-200 f4 would be better than the EF lens.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 9, 2020)

dichterDichter said:


> im about to buy the r6 and one of the two 70-200. f2.8 or f4? what would speak for a f4?


Very small, and very light. Same reason to pick this over the 2.8 in the EF series. If you shoot mainly outdoors, and don't do a lot of portraits, its worth the price and weight savings, IMO. If you shoot indoor sports or want to use this as a protrait lens, then you need the 2.8. 

-Brian


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 9, 2020)

Not a single EF-M lens on the list. Nor any APS-C RF lenses.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 9, 2020)

Ahmed Hindawi said:


> The 100-400mm looks too similar to the just released 100-500mm! I somehow doubt this one. Everything else would be great if true.


This one is a non-L series. Its probably real. They always had a 75-300 option in a non L format and sold a lot of those. 

-Brian


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 9, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Not a single EF-M lens on the list. Nor any APS-C RF lenses.


I think the ef-m stuff, if it exists, might be on another list. I could believe this is specifically for the RF mount. 

But the lack of APS-c glass may mean that those sensors aren't coming, or if they do they'll just use the regular RF glass. 

-Brian


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 9, 2020)

Ahmed Hindawi said:


> The 100-400mm looks too similar to the just released 100-500mm! I somehow doubt this one. Everything else would be great if true.



Take a look at the Sigma 100-400mm F/5-6.3:



Now consider that the Canon version is a F/5.6-7.1 non-L, the rumored Canon version would be even smaller, more in line with a 70-300mm. Those lenses have always been popular, and the people using them really aren't expecting to use it in less than good light already.

The Sigma has a 67mm filter thread, the Canon would easily make it to a 58mm filter thread, which is absolutely tiny and the same as a 18-55mm.

Consider it more of a full-frame version of the EF-S 55-250mm f/5.6 lens, which was equivalent to 400mm in a small, cheap package. I think Canon is developing a lens line up for giving you crop-sensor reach with cheap full frame cameras.


----------



## AJ (Oct 9, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> They always had a 75-300 option in a non L format and sold a lot of those.
> 
> -Brian


Yes they did, and they probably shouldn't have. 75-300 was a lousy lens. A bit of a stain on the otherwise wonderful EF lineup.


----------



## RobbieHat (Oct 9, 2020)

Where are all of the fast UWA lenses we have been hearing rumors about? Zooms or primes, I am hoping for something at least 14mm or wider and f2.0 or faster. There isn't one good astro lens in this bunch. Love some of the suggestions for lightweight landscape lenses and hoping some of the tele primes are lighter than their EF brethren but still feel like Canon is way behind Nikon, Sony and Sigma in the UWA arena. 

Bob


----------



## tron (Oct 9, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> They could be DO but no longer with the L band instead of the snot green band.


As long as there is no 500mm 5.6 PF eee DO I mean I am not interested


----------



## degos (Oct 9, 2020)

RobbieHat said:


> There isn't one good astro lens in this bunch.



Saddens me to say it but the market for astro-optimised lenses is tiny. Third-party manufacturers are a better bet, they can target a niche market better than the OEM.

Bodies are different, an EOS Ra can be assembled on a spur production line and adds to the overall volume.


----------



## DrToast (Oct 9, 2020)

Hodag said:


> Does this signal the end of EF lenses for the DSLR?



Canon has already said they're not developing new EF lenses.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 9, 2020)

To be honest I don't see anything there that makes me think I have to move to RF.

I am a heavy TS-E user and the thought of making them auto focus seems heavy handed and redundant. Auto correction for vignetting as the lens is shifted makes a lot of sense but you can make profiles for that now anyway and you'd end up in the DPP-Tiff workflow, which sucks.

And I can't imagine the prices they are going to want for these things, I'm looking at good condition used EF gear and thinking I need a hell of a lot of stuff more than spending $10,000's moving from EF to RF.


----------



## Iain L (Oct 9, 2020)

AJ said:


> Yes they did, and they probably shouldn't have. 75-300 was a lousy lens. A bit of a stain on the otherwise wonderful EF lineup.


its not a patch on the EF-S 55-250mm, let alone more expensive and bigger products, no. But it’s also an absolute pittance.


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 9, 2020)

Ian K said:


> You forgot to add a 1.4x TC built into it. Now that would be a killer lens



NO NO NO NO. I want it to be affordable.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 9, 2020)

DrToast said:


> Canon has already said they're not developing new EF lenses.


That's not what they said, though few expect anything new in the EF line until the RF line is better filled out and consumers have a genuine choice of comparability. They said they were going to concentrate on the RF line.

But as I have said many times, what does the EF system lack?


----------



## telemaque (Oct 9, 2020)

CanonGrunt said:


> I’ll definitely rent the 1200 at least once just for awesome moon pictures.
> 
> But I’m buying that 35 1.2 and 135 1.4.








If you travel in France, I could organize a Moon shooting with a Takahashi Mewlon 210 telescope... quite exceptional picture quality too !
But without a Canon Body but an Astronomy Webcam ZWO ASI 174 and you extract best pictures of the video...

Please see picture.


----------



## dwarven (Oct 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> That's not what they said, though few expect anything new in the EF line until the RF line is better filled out and consumers have a genuine choice of comparability. They said they were going to concentrate on the RF line.



That's just marketing talk. Electronics companies do it all the time. They want to move on without giving the impression that they're completely leaving legacy users in the dust. EF lens and camera development is pretty much done, possibly with a few straggler products getting released at some point. The market has spoken.

Granted, they'll most likely keep manufacturing already released EF products for many years. Camera equipment doesn't age nearly as quickly as other electronics, of course.


----------



## peters (Oct 9, 2020)

WOW WOW WOW
10-24? Insane! I have and love thte 11-24 - but 10mm is even more insane  Architecture on a new level =)


----------



## sobrien (Oct 9, 2020)

Ian K said:


> I don't see the point of the "Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM". Given we already got a "Canon RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 L IS USM" which is faster at the wide end and faster at the tele end for the same focal length. The only thing I can think of is that it's smaller or lighter or significantly cheaper. If it was f/5.6 at 400mm then I could see some advantage to giving up the 100mm of reach.
> 
> The 11-24 replacement seems to have gained 1mm at wide end again, just like the 15-35mm and it's EF equivalent. I see that the f/4 version of the 15-35 gains yet another 1mm at the wide end, 14-35mm.
> 
> I would have loved to see the long primes come with a built in switchable 1.4x TC built in (like the 200-400 f/4L) that was such a great idea.



The 100-400 will naturally be all of those things: smaller, lighter and significantly cheaper.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 9, 2020)

AJ said:


> Yes they did, and they probably shouldn't have. 75-300 was a lousy lens. A bit of a stain on the otherwise wonderful EF lineup.



Harsh! Its a consumer grade lens that doesn't do well next to an L series, but there are probably several times the number of people out there who bought these, vs. those who bought L series, and are very happy with the images. The same will be true of the consumer RF lenses. Just as its true of the consumer DSLRs and M series vs. the higher end bodies. 

-Brian


----------



## RickD (Oct 9, 2020)

Wow, nice lineup. I'll likely grab the 100-400. Non-L will be affordable to me as a hobbyist.

Price guesstimates for the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM??


----------



## flip314 (Oct 9, 2020)

AJ said:


> Yes they did, and they probably shouldn't have. 75-300 was a lousy lens. A bit of a stain on the otherwise wonderful EF lineup.



Easily the worst EF lens, and they must have made WAY too many because they're still trying to give them away to this day... It shows up as a free throwaway in a bunch of kits.

There's also the 70-300, the latest IS II is one of my favorite lenses (a lot of that has to do with the fact that I can AFFORD it, but I've never felt limited by it at my skill level)


----------



## AccipiterQ (Oct 9, 2020)

Would the 600 improve over the already stellar EF version? I can't imagine how that lense could be improved on. 

Also 800 5.6??? JUST HOOK IT TO MY VEINS


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 9, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> Would the 600 improve over the already stellar EF version? I can't imagine how that lense could be improved on.
> 
> Also 800 5.6??? JUST HOOK IT TO MY VEINS



The new 600 could be a wee fatty you can hand hold.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Oct 9, 2020)

1200mm f8...

shit...


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Oct 9, 2020)

Would have definitely liked to see the aperture range the same as the EF 100-400 though...


----------



## Valium12 (Oct 9, 2020)

Man, I want that 1200mm. Throw a 2x tele on that and you have got some serious juice.


----------



## fiendstudios (Oct 9, 2020)

Is https://www.facebook.com/canonrumorsguy not there anymore? Deleted from FB?


----------



## sobrien (Oct 9, 2020)

Only the 16 lenses so?!


----------



## rontele7 (Oct 9, 2020)

Anybody have updates on the R5 shipping? 

Pre-ordered in July, still no updates on when they're being released!


----------



## DrToast (Oct 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> That's not what they said, though few expect anything new in the EF line until the RF line is better filled out and consumers have a genuine choice of comparability. They said they were going to concentrate on the RF line.
> 
> But as I have said many times, what does the EF system lack?



“And of course, should the market demand it, we are ready to create new EF lenses. But for now, our focus is on RF.”

That sounds like they’re done with new EF lenses. I suppose you have to interpret corporate speak a little bit, but it’s hard to imagine any new EF lenses given that statement.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 9, 2020)

peters said:


> WOW WOW WOW
> 10-24? Insane! I have and love thte 11-24 - but 10mm is even more insane  Architecture on a new level =)


Not in todays marketing style.

I got the TS-E17 when it came out because the clientele liked it. I got the EF11-24 when it came out because it gave me new perspectives for architecture and real estate and used it extensively. But the current style I see and am asked for is not hyper wide angle, my most used lens at the moment is the TS-E17 with the 1.4TC, so 24mm. I got the TS-E50 because it had more uses for me at the moment than the 11-24.


----------



## ethermine (Oct 9, 2020)

Ouch, my bank account.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 9, 2020)

DrToast said:


> “And of course, should the market demand it, we are ready to create new EF lenses. But for now, our focus is on RF.”
> 
> That sounds like they’re done with new EF lenses. I suppose you have to interpret corporate speak a little bit, but it’s hard to imagine any new EF lenses given that statement.


And it's just as hard to imagine what lenses they'd need to make for the EF system, surely that is the bigger question? What EF lens do you desire a 600mm f11?


----------



## CanonGrunt (Oct 9, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> What's a DSLR?



An ancient relic from the before times. Before the selfie sticks & smartphones. Before the masks.


----------



## peters (Oct 9, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> What would be valid reasons to upgrade for those who already have something similar or even better like EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, instead of using an adaptor ?


I guess mostly size and weight.
Also I think they are going to be better in every regard - sharpness, CA, Autofocus. But not by a landslide, since the current EF L lenses are allready graet.


----------



## reef58 (Oct 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> To be honest I don't see anything there that makes me think I have to move to RF.
> 
> I am a heavy TS-E user and the thought of making them auto focus seems heavy handed and redundant. Auto correction for vignetting as the lens is shifted makes a lot of sense but you can make profiles for that now anyway and you'd end up in the DPP-Tiff workflow, which sucks.
> 
> And I can't imagine the prices they are going to want for these things, I'm looking at good condition used EF gear and thinking I need a hell of a lot of stuff more than spending $10,000's moving from EF to RF.



Yes I will have no issue buying an EF TSE lens and adapting when I end up with an RF camera. I would actually avoid a TSE lens with autofocus. Makes no sense.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Not in todays marketing style.
> 
> I got the TS-E17 when it came out because the clientele liked it. I got the EF11-24 when it came out because it gave me new perspectives for architecture and real estate and used it extensively. But the current style I see and am asked for is not hyper wide angle, my most used lens at the moment is the TS-E17 with the 1.4TC, so 24mm. I got the TS-E50 because it had more uses for me at the moment than the 11-24.


The 11-24 is a great lens but quite unwieldy. 11mm can be great but only in limited circumstances. It's probably my most unused lens. It's big and heavy. I think the bulbous front makes me nervous. The RF adapter with the filter holder is quite useful for this lens. Trying to put a filter on the front of it turns it massive. It's an impressive lens in many ways but I find it needs the right setting to make a good photograph with. At 11mm you need something excellent in the foreground because your background is going to be far away. 16mm is wide enough for most things.
I bought the 24mm TS-E and its been generally good enough for architectural photography. Sometimes I'd wish it to be wider but its a good focal length for the job on most occasions and its easy for filters. The TS-E 17mm and adapter is a good combination. Again the bulbous front would make me nervous.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Oct 9, 2020)

telemaque said:


> View attachment 193250
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Uh. I’m in! Wow


----------



## BroderLund (Oct 9, 2020)

This is essentially a full lineup. All bases covered. RF mount has truly taken over after this.


----------



## xps (Oct 9, 2020)

Wow. This rumor is great. The 800mm lens will be mine, if... if the pricing will be affordable. 
This old lens is almost 13 years old and really heavy. Pricing went up last year - for more than 1500.
14000 and some more.
So, what will Canon do? 16.000? or more?

Also the 600mm will be - let me guess - 2000 more than the EF III version?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 9, 2020)

dwarven said:


> I suggested a couple months ago that I'd like to see this lens and that it was possible, and was told by a prominent member of this site that "no it's absolutely not possible".  Now I can't remember who it was.


Possible versus practical? Canon has a EF 200mm F/2. This would be a similar level of difficulty. If its a L lens, the price will be $3K. Canon has already found that people will pay for big dollar items so I expect they will drop a lot of them, as many as the designers can churn out.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 9, 2020)

1200mm, perfect for baseball games. That was the original purpose for that special 1200mm lens they originally released. I'm a bit surprised that a 50mm f/0.95 is not in the list. Maybe in 2 more years?


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2020)

AJ said:


> Yes they did, and they probably shouldn't have. 75-300 was a lousy lens. A bit of a stain on the otherwise wonderful EF lineup.


I literally just tossed one in the trash last night. New condition too.


----------



## RobbieHat (Oct 9, 2020)

fiendstudios said:


> Is https://www.facebook.com/canonrumorsguy not there anymore? Deleted from FB?


He dropped off FB a few weeks ago.


----------



## RobbieHat (Oct 9, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Anybody have updates on the R5 shipping?
> 
> Pre-ordered in July, still no updates on when they're being released!


I am still waiting but my order date was July 30th. My order was with B&H and was for the kit with 24-105. Apparently, the kits are hard to come by and body only orders are being fulfilled up to orders from a few weeks ago. I am hoping when they reopen on Monday that there is better news on availability. I was told end of October so we will see.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 9, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> 1200mm, perfect for baseball games. That was the original purpose for that special 1200mm lens they originally released. I'm a bit surprised that a 50mm f/0.95 is not in the list. Maybe in 2 more years?



Do you really think there will be one? Canon most recently made a splash with the RF 28-70/2 zoom - I wonder if zooms are in and ultra exotic primes are out of fashion. Canon last made a 50/.95 in the 1960s.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 9, 2020)

xps said:


> Wow. This rumor is great. The 800mm lens will be mine, if... if the pricing will be affordable.
> This old lens is almost 13 years old and really heavy. Pricing went up last year - for more than 1500.
> 14000 and some more.
> So, what will Canon do? 16.000? or more?
> ...



I'd guess all of that.

One interesting point I didn't see if anybody else commented on. 9 of the rumored lenses are IS, which makes me think more R bodies are not going to have IBIS. I wonder if the R1 will, I tend to think it won't.


----------



## samh004 (Oct 9, 2020)

About the only thing I see missing is a fisheye, and probably because it’s so niche.

Would certainly snap up a Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM at the right price, and of course a 1:1 Macro. Then I’ll have completely made the switch.


----------



## Hagar (Oct 9, 2020)

And I just retired...... Oh well.


----------



## fiendstudios (Oct 9, 2020)

RobbieHat said:


> He dropped off FB a few weeks ago.


Must have missed that. Any idea why he did it?


----------



## Dalantech (Oct 9, 2020)

Not impressed. 60mm is the sweet spot for flash based hand held macro and there's no mention of a 60mm macro lens, or a replacement for the MP-E 65mm macro.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 9, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I literally just tossed one in the trash last night. New condition too.



I guess I could sell mine (came as a kit lens with my late unlamented T3) for 50 cents.


----------



## rontele7 (Oct 9, 2020)

RobbieHat said:


> I am still waiting but my order date was July 30th. My order was with B&H and was for the kit with 24-105. Apparently, the kits are hard to come by and body only orders are being fulfilled up to orders from a few weeks ago. I am hoping when they reopen on Monday that there is better news on availability. I was told end of October so we will see.



Interesting to hear; I ordered my R5 (body only) three days after it was announced from B&H, so it seems like they have only shipped their very first batch.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 9, 2020)

I'm very much looking forward to the 70-200 f/4. It'll probably release at around $1599 so it'll be around a year and a half or more before it reaches my price. While the MF on my EF version is a bit wonky, the AF is fine and will hopefully stay that way until I pick up the RF. I like the sound of it being coke can sized. Also looking forward to reviews on the RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro. I was hoping for an L, but we'll see how this one performs. This hobby ain't gettin any cheaper...


----------



## Ian K (Oct 9, 2020)

yoms said:


> Really hope that the Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM will be front filterable. Almost all - if not all - super UWA zooms, whether DSLR or mirrorless, released these latest years are NOT front filterable. Sucks imho.
> 
> Would the RF mount specifications allow for a 10-24mm f/4L + front filter?


I can sell you a filter adapter for the EF 11-24. It takes 180mm filters.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2020)

yoms said:


> Would the RF mount specifications allow for a 10-24mm f/4L + front filter?



Not a chance. Nikon did an amazing job making their recent 14-24 f2.8 lens the first (that I know of) front filterable in a standard threaded form 14mm.

Mind you if Canon have a brain they would make the 10-24 with a drop in filter like the EF 11-24 with an adapter, that shows innovation and keeps lots of people happy.


----------



## gmon750 (Oct 10, 2020)

It's great to see the glass coming out from Canon. I'd love to see an RF8-16mm Fisheye lens. Whatever R-body I get, it will be primarily for underwater photography. A fisheye lens is a must for me.

Way to go Canon!


----------



## Ian K (Oct 10, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Interesting to hear; I ordered my R5 (body only) three days after it was announced from B&H, so it seems like they have only shipped their very first batch.


I got the R5 I ordered on the release day. I got the second one I ordered 2 days later. There's certainly been a second shipment.


----------



## tigers media (Oct 10, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> No matter if working through that list takes one, two or three years it shows how much Canon is willing to go into R system.
> Would have been nice if just a slice of that effort would have gone in the M system (_edit: EF-M lens system_).
> Then maybe I would be there, too for traveling light and small.


Looks like that previous rumour about killing the M line is true if this is to be believed too. What a shame Definitely second thoughts now on if its worth changing to new m50 if they don't care anymore what a shame looks like time to decide fuji or olympus,Sony?
Not happy Jan!


----------



## gavinz (Oct 10, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Cool looks like RF is the way to go. The super teles are very interesting for me. However I am not getting anything until I can reasonably travel around...


----------



## dwarven (Oct 10, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd guess all of that.
> 
> One interesting point I didn't see if anybody else commented on. 9 of the rumored lenses are IS, which makes me think more R bodies are not going to have IBIS. I wonder if the R1 will, I tend to think it won't.



The R1 will have IBIS for sure. IBIS is going to be a standard feature on all higher end bodies going forward thanks to Sony.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Oct 10, 2020)

The 14-35 F/4 sounds really interesting, but unless there is a big white with Diffractive optics I think I would keep my current 500 F/4 as it works perfectly with the adapter. Not a lot on the list otherwise that I would use and don't already have in EF. Ultra wide angle fast primes would be enticing and something interesting like a 24-120 F/2.8 would be pretty cool. I'm sure there is plenty on the list that others use more than I do and can get excited about.


----------



## fred (Oct 10, 2020)

A 200-600 has always been and will always be the only lens missing. Since Canon is not going to make one, I'll have to stick with dead-alive Nikon...


----------



## keithcooper (Oct 10, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> I agree. Also, I'd love to hear Keith Cooper's take on those lenses.


Thanks ;-)

There was an interesting Canon patent last year which looked at autofocus and tilt, which at first thought seems a bit of a weird idea. USPTO




However, one of the hardest aspects (I've found) of explaining/teaching the use of such lenses is using tilt - not to randomly change focus/tilt settings for the so called 'tilt-shift' effect, but actually placing the plane of focus exactly where you want it, especially at relatively short distances. The trick can be in appreciating that when a lens is tilted, those numbers on the focus ring no longer mean much.

The patent includes the ability to define two points on a surface and have the camera change the tilt/focus to place a plane of focus through them. Now, it ignores setting the tilt axis, but I can see how defining two points on a plane, the AF system could supply the necessary info in conjunction with the lens focus setting and tilt, to arrive at the correct settings - or tell you that it couldn't be done.

How much of this patent is just covering potential features and how much reflects potential design is another matter though ;-)

Back to the two suggested lenses... and what we have now.

The 14 is quite extreme, I'm not sure how much shift would be available. The TS-E17 already matches the FOV of a ~10mm lens if you shift and stitch. This starts showing the quite extreme distortion from a (correct) rectilinear projection. That said, when using a 14mm I've often thought that a few mm of shift would be nice ;-)

The TS-E24 mk2 is pretty good, but obviously could be improved, but for what? It's fine with my 5Ds (and the R5 I tried recently), so I'd want a hefty MP R5's' to go with one... I'd note though that I tried the 24mm with the S1r and pixel shift mode, where an up/down stitch gave getting on for 300MP and some nice pics... 

The current 17 is the (slightly) weaker of the two - I recently had a go with the Nikon 19mm and liked it, but I'm still happy to use the 17 for my day to day work.

My recent testing of the R5 was specifically to see how it was with T/S lenses - great, oh and the polarising filter adapter was a nice thing for occasional use too.

The EVF and level actually made hand held use of the 17 a lot easier with shift, especially for shifting (heresy I know, but i like using both hand held)

So, for the putative RF versions...

I don't mind fly-by wire focus, but please give me more focus throw (or the option for it) than I get with the new 50/90/135. I had a TS-E50 here with the R5, and had forgotten the reduced throw at medium-far distances. Electronic focusing, focus peaking and a good EVF would make my own use of the lenses easier. It could be that AF just works with shift, which might be of some use?

One thing that's been missing for me from existing lenses is EXIF data with movement/distance info, allowing for lens correction - even when using tilt. The Hasselblad HTS1.5x adpter has encoders for movements, so it can be done (at a price...)

For the two new lenses, I do wonder whether I'd prefer a manual version that just has great optics, with less complexity?
So, yes to new T/S lenses, but I do wonder about the complexity (and price)

One other thought that occurred... let's say we do get AF and motorised movements. How are they going to explain what you do with it ;-) If nothing else it could help with sales of my tilt/shift book _(coming in November I'm now told - he casually notes ;-)_


----------



## AEWest (Oct 10, 2020)

dwarven said:


> That's just marketing talk. Electronics companies do it all the time. They want to move on without giving the impression that they're completely leaving legacy users in the dust. EF lens and camera development is pretty much done, possibly with a few straggler products getting released at some point. The market has spoken.
> 
> Granted, they'll most likely keep manufacturing already released EF products for many years. Camera equipment doesn't age nearly as quickly as other electronics, of course.


My money is on no more new EF lens designs. Once they fill out the RF lens collection they will phase out of EF lens production entirely - they will need all their lens making capacity for RF production.

But this will be good news for EF users because there will be a lot of good inexpensive used EF glass on the market.


----------



## HeavyPiper (Oct 10, 2020)

I might have missed seeing this, but I would like a 24-70mm f4 L lens


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 10, 2020)

I'll be very interested to see how small they get the RF 70-200 F/4L IS down to. A coke can is about 122mm tall. The RF 24-70mm F/2.8L IS is 126mm, so I wonder if they'd manage to make the 70-200 F/4 smaller than that. 

I personally absolutely love my RF 70-200mm F/2.8L IS. It's so small and lightweight it never, ever bothers me to bring it anywhere. I can only imagine how nice the F/4 will be to throw in a bag.


----------



## abnagfab (Oct 10, 2020)

Gimme that 10-24/4!

It’s better because it goes to 10! (Instead of 11...)


----------



## dolina (Oct 10, 2020)

1200/8.0 should not be heavier than 3kg.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2020)

dwarven said:


> The R1 will have IBIS for sure. IBIS is going to be a standard feature on all higher end bodies going forward thanks to Sony.


1 series buyers are not ‘feature chasers’ and Canon have been quite happy to show they are content moving at their own pace so really don’t care what Sony are doing. Canon will not put IBIS into a 1 series R until they are very very sure it won’t cause any problems and pro buyers are demanding it. As the 1DX III proves they are not there yet.


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 10, 2020)

Would be interesting to see what new features Canon adds to 100mm Macro. Also is that 100-400mm replacement to 70-300mm lenses for slrs?


----------



## vangelismm (Oct 10, 2020)

24mm 1.8 stm? Take my money


----------



## SnowMiku (Oct 10, 2020)

Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM, I'm thinking this could be intended for a crop sensor R camera?


----------



## KenLLL (Oct 10, 2020)

135mm f1.4, that lens will be legendary. I guess i should start saving my money.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 10, 2020)

SnowMiku said:


> Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM, I'm thinking this could be intended for a crop sensor R camera?


The diabolical irony of it. Canon builds a lens for a camera that doesn't exist...


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 10, 2020)

dolina said:


> 1200/8.0 should not be heavier than 3kg.


Plastic lens elements?


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 10, 2020)

It's great to see that Canon is coming out with so many lenses in the next year or so, but most of these lenses are not what I was hoping for.

The most interesting lens to me was the RF 14-35 f4L IS USM. I assume it will be a somewhat smaller, lighter & less expensive version than the RF 15-35 f2.8L IS USM and I think it will be well received since I think f4 is plenty wide open enough at such wide angles for (probably) a majority of buyers and hopefully it won't have such strong vignetting in the corners.

Having 5 RF "big white" long teles is great for those that yearn for them, but they are all going to be really big & heavy (I assume, without DO) and probably beyond what I (a non-professional) want to carry around. I'll probably stick with the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L IS and RF 800mm f11 IS DO for a while for long teles.

Having tilt-shift lenses is great for some, but I'm happy with quick ball-stop panoramas so I'll have no need for them.

I've been hoping for a RF 135 f2L IS USM, but fear that a RF 135 f1.4L USM might be bigger & heavier than I'd want to carry around (but we'll see). I was also hoping for something like a RF 105 f1.8(or f1.4)L IS USM, but there was nothing like that.

I saw no serious macro lenses that interest me. They've started calling "macro lenses" to those that are 1:2 max magnification, which is false advertising, and I wish they'd just say "half macro" and I'm guessing they're doing the same with the new ones they called "macro" lenses. I was hoping they'd come out with something like a RF 300 f4L IS USM with half (or 1:1) macro, or RF 180 f2.8L IS 1:1 macro, or an update to the MPE 65 1to5:1 super macro for those doing flash super-macro (like Dalantech), but there was nothing like that.

I also wish they'd come out with something like a RF 17-70 f4L IS USM for those who would like a single lens for very wide(enough) to mild tele range in a reasonable size & weight lens, or something like a RF 22-200 f4(or 5.6)L IS USM for those that want to use a single sharp lens of modest size & weight. But there was nothing like that.

And no mention of the much hoped for RF 70-135 f2L USM? That would have been fun to see and hold, even if it was massive & heavy.

Anyway, 16 RF lenses is something to be happy about. I just wish they were more like the lenses I had hoped for (of course, we all are hoping for different things). But maybe they'll come out with more lenses that aren't mentioned above in the near future. Let's hope so!


----------



## Cochese (Oct 10, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> Holy crap, now that's a line up.
> 
> I wasn't expecting to be interested in a 16-35 F/4 replacement, since my EF one works great...but 14mm may very well just sell me on it. If the lens has filter threads, I'll probably upgrade my 16-35 F/4 to that.
> 
> ...



It took 5 pages of comments before somebody mentioned a new 1200mm lens. Not that I'll likely ever buy one (unless my embroidery business reeaaaallllyyyy takes off, but like, damn. I wanted the old one. Now I want the new one. 

My photographic interests are odd. I only want to photograph things that are either very far away or very very small.


----------



## vrpanorama.ca (Oct 10, 2020)

Still missing fish eye lenses in RF mode, important tool for VR guys. It looks like the king of the hill EF 8-15mm still have no competition


----------



## SnowMiku (Oct 10, 2020)

hyt said:


> Agreed. What's the point in bringing out more M bodies if there are no improvements to the native lens lineup.



A EF-M 18-200mm, EF-M 70-300mm, EF-M 100-400mm and EF-M 50mm would be nice to have. EF-M 70-300mm would be good for all day birding trips.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Oct 10, 2020)

Most of those lenses will cost a bomb. The 135 f/1.4L will be $3K and at least weigh 1.6kg, 10-24 f/4L will be $3K+, 35 f/1.2L $2.5K, other than the rubbisly slow 100-400 the only affordable lenses will be the 14-35 f/4L IS, 100 f/2.8 macro and 24 f/1.8 macro. Also no DO lenses.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Oct 10, 2020)

SV said:


> Where's the 300 f/2.8 ???



Come on the 100-400 is screaming out for your money.


----------



## SnowMiku (Oct 10, 2020)

brad-man said:


> The diabolical irony of it. Canon builds a lens for a camera that doesn't exist...


Doesn't exist at this stage, they still haven't replaced the 7D Mark II yet  You can say the R5 replaced it, but that's a bit too expensive for a lot of crop users.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 10, 2020)

Cochese said:


> It took 5 pages of comments before somebody mentioned a new 1200mm lens. Not that I'll likely ever buy one (unless my embroidery business reeaaaallllyyyy takes off, but like, damn. I wanted the old one. Now I want the new one.
> 
> My photographic interests are odd. I only want to photograph things that are either very far away or very very small.



I can't see myself ever buying one... But... As a platinum Canon Professional Services member.. the 1200 would be one of the first lenses on my list to evaluate from CPS. That will be awesome. Definitely a lens I'll "evaluate" both times Canon allows me to 

I think I'm more likely to get an RF 400mm F/2.8 some point down the road, since it's a 400 2.8, 560 f/4, and 800 f/5.6, which makes it the best value and most flexible for the money.


----------



## analoggrotto (Oct 10, 2020)

I want some pancakes even if I have to play basketball with Prince to get them.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 10, 2020)

For the 14 (!) lenses being 'announced' in 2021, is it also possible that a bunch of these could be 'development' announcements, with a shipping date a couple more years on? That looks like a medium term roadmap to me. If the current strategy is that current EF lenses are (at least) as good adapted to RF, then what would have been the old EF lens replacement roadmap is replaced by a map for RF lenses replacing their EF equivalents. And assuming the updated RF lenses are better (small, lighter, access to the RF IBIS interactions with in-lens IS) then that is another encouragement to people to shift from DSLRs to R bodies. 

Surely the only new EF lenses we ever see will be ones already developed and maybe waiting in the wings for release.


----------



## rontele7 (Oct 10, 2020)

Ian K said:


> I got the R5 I ordered on the release day. I got the second one I ordered 2 days later. There's certainly been a second shipment.



Nope, that’s still the first faulty R5 batch.

Canon clearly stopped shipping R5’s because of technical or production issues.


----------



## rontele7 (Oct 10, 2020)

These rumored lenses won’t be released until 2022 at the earliest. And more than likely not until 2023.

Canon is having MASSIVE production issues; their flagship camera hasn’t shipped new units for 3 months, so any new lenses are going to be years delayed.

Don’t get your hopes up!


----------



## GrunRad (Oct 10, 2020)

Hodag said:


> Does this signal the end of EF lenses for the DSLR?


It does.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 10, 2020)

Philip V said:


> I was expecting at least one EF-M lens


I think this was the R lens report. M lives in a different dimension. If there is an M5 II/M7, then there will likely be a few bits of glass to go along with it and I hope that is the case. I love the portability of my M5. OTOH, the R5 is an amazing piece of work and with the market being where it is, resources are bound to be limited.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 10, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> These rumored lenses won’t be released until 2022 at the earliest. And more than likely not until 2023.
> 
> Canon is having MASSIVE production issues; their flagship camera hasn’t shipped new units for 3 months, so any new lenses are going to be years delayed.
> 
> Don’t get your hopes up!


Your data is old. I got my R5 a couple of weeks ago. The order book was huge and 5 series are not made in a Taiwan megafactory.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 10, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> What would be valid reasons to upgrade for those who already have something similar or even better like EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, instead of using an adaptor ?


Hard to to much better optically, but the valid reason you seek will be about AF. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is fast, but the cheapie RF 24-240 is WAY faster when strapped on an R5. RFL glass will be even more impressive.


----------



## harleylunar (Oct 10, 2020)

is the Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM the fish eye that we keep hearing about??


----------



## Traveler (Oct 10, 2020)

Well, well, well... good news bad news. 
I’m glad canon doesn’t do a “copy paste” of their EF roadmap. Almost each of the RF lenses has new features to it. 
Bad news is that they’ll probably keep the price tags just slightly below Sony’s – no more $100 nifty fifty etc. At least we still have the option of adapting the EF versions. 
———
I’ve been waiting for a 16-35 f/4 and the 14mm wide end sounds great! But I’m pretty sure the filter thread won’t be 77mm :/
I don’t like using the EF-RF adapter but I also don’t like using more sets of filters...

The 100-400 sounds like a great replacement of my EF 70-300 as long as it doesn’t cost double the money and isn’t bigger.


----------



## Danglin52 (Oct 10, 2020)

From a wildlife shooter perspective, I am not blown away. Unless Canon has significantly reduced size, weight, and price on the 400-1000 lenses, I don't see a significant advantage of RF lenses in IQ vs purchasing or using existing EF glass (other than adaptors). I have been in GTNP/YNP for the last two weeks shooting the R5/R6 and 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS II / RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L IS. While the extra lighter weight and 100mm additional reach is great, the image RF lens is only marginally better optically than the 100-400 II. The RF + 1.4x Extender requires zoom out to 300mm before adding the extender and the 420mm - 700mm is fantastic, but loosing the lower end of the zoom range is a significant issue if the wildlife is constantly changing the distance. You wither have to have a second body with the 100-400 II (which I did) or repeatedly having to add/remove the extender is going loose shots. I am currently using the R5 + 1.4x +100-500 for a 420-700mm with the R6 + 100-400 II to cover the lower range. The real solution hear would be switchable extender per the Canon patent, but you would still have to extend the lens before you could engage the extender. 

If you already own the 100-400 II, I would consider how I use the lens and if I regularly need more than 560mm (EF lens + extender). 

I would be blown away if Canon could provide prosumer options that meet or exceed the IQ and capabilities of the PF 500, Sony 200-600, and Sigma 150-600 AT comparable aperture ranges. I do not consider the DO f11 lenses a solution within 2 hours after sunrise and 2 hours before sunset. I tried the 800mm f11 and did not like the limits imposed by the narrow aperture and the DOF. I heave heard folks say at those ranges it is a narrow DOF, but compare the bokeh to a f4 or f5.6 L lens. I would have been very happy with an RF version of the 400 f4 IS DO II, 500 f4 IS DO and 600 f5.6 IS DO if priced similar to the 400 f4 DO II with the longer lenses. 

David


----------



## Joules (Oct 10, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> I would have been very happy with an RF version of the 400 f4 IS DO II, 500 f4 IS DO and 600 f5.6 IS DO if priced similar to the 400 f4 DO II with the longer lenses.


But... There is a 500 4.0 and 600 5.6 on this list of expected lenses? Only a 400 4.0 is missing, and given the huge number of lenses on this list, not all options can be expected to be served right away.

Are you disappointed that DO isn't mentioned explicitly? I believe if it can contribute to a reduction in size or weight, they will simply incorporate it into future lenses without including DO in the name. See the 800 and 600 mm f/11 for an indication of this. Sure, the DO is mentioned heavily in the marketing material, but it is not something special enough to explicitly put it into the title. Just speculation of course.

The other option is that they can deal with the size and optical requirements better without incorporating DO and therefore just don't put it in. But I personally find the first theory more likely.


----------



## StandardLumen (Oct 10, 2020)

Wow, if all of these lenses and an R1 come out in 2021 Canon's mirrorless lineup is going to be incredibly formidable.


----------



## mclaren777 (Oct 10, 2020)

I was really hoping for either a 14-28mm f/2 or a 70-135mm f/2 so this road map is disappointing to me.

If the 135mm had been f/2 with IS, I might have gotten it. Perhaps I'll borrow this f1.4 version when it comes out.


----------



## Tamerlane (Oct 10, 2020)

so does this mean the 14-21 f1.4L is not coming?








Is the ultimate astro lens coming? Another RF 14-21mm f/1.4L USM mention [CR2]


I have been told to expect a "world's first" wide-angle zoom lens from Canon in the next few months, the official announcement date and shipping date are unk



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Joules (Oct 10, 2020)

Tamerlane said:


> so does this mean the 14-21 f1.4L is not coming?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is just the Roadmap for a single year. The extremely niche lenses like f/2.0 and f/1.4 zooms may well materialize only after the less specialized sections of the lens portfolio have been filled out.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 10, 2020)

SnowMiku said:


> Doesn't exist at this stage, they still haven't replaced the 7D Mark II yet  You can say the R5 replaced it, but that's a bit too expensive for a lot of crop users.


And 10-24 wouldn't be?

11-24 costs more and weights the same as 17-40 _plus_ 6DII. I wouldn't expect 10-24 to be much different.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 10, 2020)

TS- 14 is very cool. I see no 100 f1.4 or 70-135 f2, but the others looks pretty sweet.

anyone looking for a soul to buy? Slightly worn, but yeah..


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 10, 2020)

Viggo said:


> TS- 14 is very cool. I see no 100 f1.4 or 70-135 f2, but the others looks pretty sweet.
> 
> anyone looking for a soul to buy? Slightly worn, but yeah..


I am disappointed the RF 70-135mm f/2L isn't on that list. Maybe that means this year?  I ain't got no money anyway.


----------



## Josjan (Oct 10, 2020)

Why a Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM if there is already a Canon RF 100-500mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM


----------



## Danglin52 (Oct 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> But... There is a 500 4.0 and 600 5.6 on this list of expected lenses? Only a 400 4.0 is missing, and given the huge number of lenses on this list, not all options can be expected to be served right away.
> 
> Are you disappointed that DO isn't mentioned explicitly? I believe if it can contribute to a reduction in size or weight, they will simply incorporate it into future lenses without including DO in the name. See the 800 and 600 mm f/11 for an indication of this. Sure, the DO is mentioned heavily in the marketing material, but it is not something special enough to explicitly put it into the title. Just speculation of course.
> 
> The other option is that they can deal with the size and optical requirements better without incorporating DO and therefore just don't put it in. But I personally find the first theory more likely.


Unless I missed an update to the original post , a 600 f5.6 was not mentioned. These are the standard L big whites with the addition of a 1000mm f8, basically the EF lenses updated to RF.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Oct 10, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Not a chance. Nikon did an amazing job making their recent 14-24 f2.8 lens the first (that I know of) front filterable in a standard threaded form 14mm.
> 
> Mind you if Canon have a brain they would make the 10-24 with a drop in filter like the EF 11-24 with an adapter, that shows innovation and keeps lots of people happy.


Drop-in filter, you can't use CPOL with that or add a CPOL on top of a ND filter.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 10, 2020)

A few thoughts:

1. The super telephoto primes are probably an indication an R1 is on the way.

2. I'm surprised there are no 14mm & 20mm f/2.8 (or faster) primes on the list, as wide primes is where the shorter flange distance is supposed to help the RF mount.

The RF flange distance is 20mm, so shouldn't a small quality RF 20mm f/2.8 be about as easy to make as the EF 40mm f/2.8?

3. The 135mm f/1.4 surprises me. Its going to be big & expensive, not give Canon any bragging rights, and my impression is it wouldn't be easier to make on RF than on EF.

I would expect the 85mm f/1.2 to be followed by an improved 135mm f/2, say with IS and faster focus. Or, to follow the first point, an RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM.

4. Somehow, I'm still wondering why 50mm f/1.4 IS USM isn't on the list. The f/1.2 is expensive, and I expect STM to be slow.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 10, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Not a single EF-M lens on the list. Nor any APS-C RF lenses.


It is a roadmap of RF lenses so that is to be expected.
The only thing that points to ignoring the M mount is that those TS lenses were rumored for EF-M.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 10, 2020)

brad-man said:


> The diabolical irony of it. Canon builds a lens for a camera that doesn't exist...


C70 is just around the corner.
Though I think they would make a cinema lens for it.


----------



## xps (Oct 10, 2020)

Josjan said:


> Why a Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM if there is already a Canon RF 100-500mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM


IMO, the pricing will be less than half of the 3000€ you have to pay for the -500mm L


----------



## xps (Oct 10, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> Unless I missed an update to the original post , a 600 f5.6 was not mentioned. These are the standard L big whites with the addition of a 1000mm f8, basically the EF lenses updated to RF.


The 600mm 5.6 would crop the sales of the 600m f4. Just one step less for probably some thousands off will be accepted by many of us.


----------



## xps (Oct 10, 2020)

But honestly, I am really hoping to see an 200-600mm in the same quality as the Sony. Not an f8 or slower. An f6.5 or faster.
This is really missing. 100mm is much, if you have to crop a lot. 
My "walking combo" for longer birding-hikes is the A7RIV &200-600mm. This is frustrating, as I have an R5 at home. But compare with the 100-400II&1.4x extender it is not as good as the Sony.

Canon would make a lot of birders happy, if they could "jump over their shadow (Germanism). I know Canon is greedy for money (maybe to get in the costs of R&D) - just think of the incredibly high prices.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 10, 2020)

A 100-400mm with f/7.1 at the long end can't be right.

What, no IS on the RF 135mm???

24mm at 1.8 rather than 1.4, but 35mm goes to 1.2?

Might be a reliable source in general, but some of these specifics seem off

EDIT: Several members have, correctly, already pointed out that I did not notice some of the lenses on the list are NOT L series lenses. It DOES make sense to have cheaper, lighter standard versions. YES! I am 100% in favor of "Festivus for the rest of us!" *But I still would like IS on the 135!*


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 10, 2020)

EOS 4 Life said:


> It is a roadmap of RF lenses so that is to be expected.
> The only thing that points to ignoring the M mount is that those TS lenses were rumored for EF-M.


It says a roadmap of Canon lenses, not of RF lenses.


----------



## hyt (Oct 10, 2020)

SnowMiku said:


> A EF-M 18-200mm, EF-M 70-300mm, EF-M 100-400mm and EF-M 50mm would be nice to have. EF-M 70-300mm would be good for all day birding trips.


Definitely needs a fast telephoto, but I would argue the system also needs a fast standard zoom to replace the slow (albeit very light and compact) 15-45mm


----------



## Andy Westwood (Oct 10, 2020)

All this coming new RF glass is fantastic I’m particularly interested in the RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM and RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro, but everyone will have their own preferences

However, if you don’t mind adapting EF lenses there are some fantastic deals on used EF L glass to be found online many that should work flawlessly on R bodies.

I’m particularly interested in the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II and the EF 16-35mm f2.8 L II good clean ones can be found online and represent excellent value for money. Paired with the latest R bodies that benefit from IBIS, EF glass suddenly become viable choices.


----------



## tron (Oct 10, 2020)

SnowMiku said:


> Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM, I'm thinking this could be intended for a crop sensor R camera?


Not a crop sensor. It would be the equivalent of EF11-24 f/4L and it would be huge and expensive!


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 10, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> A 100-400mm with f/7.1 at the long end can't be right.[..]



Note the lack of an 'L' in the name, this seems to be the 'replacement' for the EF 70-300 F4.0-5.6 IS II USM.



YuengLinger said:


> [..]24mm at 1.8 rather than 1.4, but 35mm goes to 1.2?[..]



Again, note the lack of an 'L' in the name, this seems to be the 'replacement' for the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM


----------



## scyrene (Oct 10, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> A 100-400mm with f/7.1 at the long end can't be right.
> 
> What, no IS on the RF 135mm???
> 
> Might be a reliable source in general, but some of these specifics seem off



As has been pointed out numerous times above and elsewhere, the 100-400 is likely a cheap, consumer lens, so the narrower aperture should not be surprising.

The RF 85L lacks ILIS but is still rated at 8 stops with IBIS; I don't think we can assume the old rules about which lenses get/need ILIS apply any more.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 10, 2020)

A huge and impressive list of potential future lenses is released and still a good 50% of comments here are complaints  

Fwiw I'd *love* to see what that 1200mm is about. Same front element diameter as a 600 f/4? Expensive but a relative bargain compared to the last 1200.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 10, 2020)

Amazing list of lenses. I really miss a 200-600 type of lens. The 500 F4 would be probably close to $12000, i would rather buy a 500mm version II for half the price and excellent condition / refurbished.


----------



## analoggrotto (Oct 10, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Nope, that’s still the first faulty R5 batch.
> 
> Canon clearly stopped shipping R5’s because of technical or production issues.


Andrew Weed of THCHD sued canon and placed an injunction on further shipments. All R5s shiped thereafter are actually bootleg models built by blackmagic x fujifilm x sigma. 

Received mine friday of last week.


----------



## filmmakerken (Oct 10, 2020)

Having seen demonstrations of how well the 'head tracking' AF works on the C70 I understand why Canon isn't in a hurry to introduce RF mount Cinema lenses. After all, Cinema lenses are traditionally manual focus and manual iris.

However -- and I've said this before -- while the image quality of top RF lenses, like the 28-70mm f/2, rival that of the Cinema EF line there are other performance issues that do not measure up. 'Breathing' on rack focus is one of the most prominent. 

I'm not an optical engineer but it seems like it wouldn't be that difficult to make RF versions of their current Cinema EF lenses. I suppose Canon doesn't see the point since we can mount the current EF lenses with an adapter. 

Is it possible that means Canon has plans for mind blowing new Cinema RF lenses?


----------



## AEWest (Oct 10, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> 1 series buyers are not ‘feature chasers’ and Canon have been quite happy to show they are content moving at their own pace so really don’t care what Sony are doing. Canon will not put IBIS into a 1 series R until they are very very sure it won’t cause any problems and pro buyers are demanding it. As the 1DX III proves they are not there yet.


Canon has never put IBIS in a DSLR. It is whole lot more difficult due to mirror and smaller EF mount.

I am sure the R1 will have IBIS.


----------



## Tremotino (Oct 10, 2020)

Canon TS-R 24mm f/3.5L with autofocus is the holy grail in photography in my opinion. Wow!!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 10, 2020)

AEWest said:


> Canon has never put IBIS in a DSLR. It is whole lot more difficult due to mirror and smaller EF mount.
> 
> I am sure the R1 will have IBIS.



EF mount is the same size as RF.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 10, 2020)

Josjan said:


> Why a Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM if there is already a Canon RF 100-500mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM



Entirely different lenses. The 100-500 is $3000 lens, the 100-400 likely will be under $1000.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 10, 2020)

I dunno, I may be the only one with a "meh" reaction to all this - I mean, I don't see anything really inspiring or that I don't already have in the EF format. The rumored 10-24 - obviously going to cost an arm and a leg, I'll just keep the EF version. The new 50 1.8, no IS...and if the RF version of the 100 Macro ends up also being a 2.8, there must be a compelling sell over the already excellent EF version.

Personally, I'd like to see Canon do a 105 1.4 like Nikon...now that would stand out.


----------



## AEWest (Oct 10, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> EF mount is the same size as RF.


I stand corrected. Shows that i don't yet have an RF camera!


----------



## eikolyco (Oct 10, 2020)

Good to hear we will have the RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro and the RF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM.
Just hope the price will not be so high


----------



## StevenA (Oct 10, 2020)

After getting a slow start and having Sony threaten their position in the market Canon is firing all the cannons and broadsiding the competition. If all of this comes out in 2021 along with a pro series R1 body the people who jumped ship are going to cry. Nikon and Sony will be under substantial pressures also.

Really only one lens I've been waiting for to complete my RF kit and that's the 100mm macro. Just for kicks I'm eyeballing the 85 1.2. With this announcement both of these could be in my bag by the end of next year.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2020)

yoms said:


> Drop-in filter, you can't use CPOL with that or add a CPOL on top of a ND filter.


you can’t use grads either but that hasn’t stopped the EF-R adapter with filter being very popular.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2020)

AEWest said:


> Canon has never put IBIS in a DSLR. It is whole lot more difficult due to mirror and smaller EF mount.
> 
> I am sure the R1 will have IBIS.


There are strong indications they will, and there are strong indicators they won’t. I wouldn’t be surprised either way.

As for the difficulty involved in putting it in a DSLR, seriously? Canon register more patents each year than almost anybody, if they wanted to do it they could but for the EF system they chose lens stabilization as their preferred method of stabilization. The big benefit for lens based stabilization for DSLR’s is the fact that you get a stabilized view through the viewfinder, you wouldn’t if it was sensor based stabilization.


----------



## AEWest (Oct 10, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> There are strong indications they will, and there are strong indicators they won’t. I wouldn’t be surprised either way.
> 
> As for the difficulty involved in putting it in a DSLR, seriously? Canon register more patents each year than almost anybody, if they wanted to do it they could but for the EF system they chose lens stabilization as their preferred method of stabilization. The big benefit for lens based stabilization for DSLR’s is the fact that you get a stabilized view through the viewfinder, you wouldn’t if it was sensor based stabilization.


It is one thing to have a patent, quite another to put it into production. Given that Canon was phasing out of DSLRs anyway, it probably didn't make economic sense to put IBIS in such a low volume camera.

I simply cannot imagine a $7K R1 not having IBIS - Canon would absolutely get skewered for not including it.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 10, 2020)

scyrene said:


> A huge and impressive list of potential future lenses is released and still a good 50% of comments here are complaints
> 
> Fwiw I'd *love* to see what that 1200mm is about. Same front element diameter as a 600 f/4? Expensive but a relative bargain compared to the last 1200.



Much better choice than making 1200mm F5.6. This way it will be portable and relatively affordable, unlike the 5.6 which costs as much as a house. The 1200mm focal length is very niche, even for wildlife photography


----------



## Theelectronicmale (Oct 10, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Anybody have updates on the R5 shipping?
> 
> Pre-ordered in July, still no updates on when they're being released!


Ordered my R5 from B&H on Sept 15th, got it delivered this week. Just shot with it last night!


----------



## riker (Oct 10, 2020)

RIP 100-400. So sad.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 10, 2020)

riker said:


> RIP 100-400. So sad.



Why? Because of the F7.1? I think that's an opportunity actually. The 100-400 F7.1 could be a very small lens, great for travel, hiking, etc. Well under 1kg.
If you want better, you can get the 100-500, which is around F5.6 at 400mm. Today's cameras are much better at high ISO, so losing 2/3 of a stop is not such a big deal when can shave off 600-700g weight from one lens.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 10, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> A 100-400mm with f/7.1 at the long end can't be right.
> 
> What, no IS on the RF 135mm???
> 
> ...


IS on the 135mm would be very nice, but I guess I could live without it. I'd prefer with IS though.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 10, 2020)

scyrene said:


> A huge and impressive list of potential future lenses is released and still a good 50% of comments here are complaints
> 
> Fwiw I'd *love* to see what that 1200mm is about. Same front element diameter as a 600 f/4? Expensive but a relative bargain compared to the last 1200.


Could this be why 50% of marriages end in divorce?


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 10, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> IS on the 135mm would be very nice, but I guess I could live without it. I'd prefer with IS though.


I understand. But since I still have a cherished 135 f/2 in excellent condition, I will try to live with what I got!


----------



## vangelismm (Oct 10, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> A 100-400mm with f/7.1 at the long end can't be right.
> 
> What, no IS on the RF 135mm???
> 
> ...



You are missing the point with the 24mm and 35mm.
This 24mm is not a L lens.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Oct 10, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> you can’t use grads either but that hasn’t stopped the EF-R adapter with filter being very popular.



Sure, but I think the RF 15-35mm + Laowa 9 or 11mm is then a better to combo for me. The RF 15-35mm allows to shoot wide already + filter + IS on top of IBIS + f/2.8 rather than f/4. And if absolutely necessary, I can pull the Laowa to über wide. Seems a better combo than a RF 10-24 that lacks all these extra features. Just my opinion.


----------



## Eowhiskass (Oct 10, 2020)

Ts-r lenses? make a tilt shift adapter for eos r! why not?


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 10, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> I posted on another thread recently how I think their model line should break down:
> 
> 1) *Halo lenses: *things no store will stock, may not even be available for order, but officially exist. My examples were:
> 
> 35/1.0, *50/0.7, *135/1.0, 1200/5.6



A 50mm f/0.7 would write Zeiss' slogans for them, e.g. "and Canon comes 2nd, only 50 years behind!"


----------



## Eowhiskass (Oct 10, 2020)

How about 135/2.8, Canon?! I need it)


----------



## Joel C (Oct 10, 2020)

OH. MY. GERD.


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 10, 2020)

Eowhiskass said:


> Ts-r lenses? make a tilt shift adapter for eos r! why not?


Adapted to which medium format lenses?


----------



## rontele7 (Oct 10, 2020)

Theelectronicmale said:


> Ordered my R5 from B&H on Sept 15th, got it delivered this week. Just shot with it last night!



How is that possible? I preordered from B&H in early July and haven’t received mine yet.

I don’t think you are being honest; the first batch is all that has shipped. Thousands of us that pre ordered haven’t even heard an update yet!


----------



## keithcooper (Oct 10, 2020)

Eowhiskass said:


> Ts-r lenses? make a tilt shift adapter for eos r! why not?


The current TS-E lenses work fine with the plain and filter ef->rf adapter
If you want a tilt/shift adapter for EF lenses there is the slight issue that the image circle of most EF lenses is too small for much movement, that and quite a few EF lenses have baffles/stops that would additionally hinder movements.
Presumably you wanted a t/s adapter like the Hassellad HTS1.5 - this works well but for the 1.5x teleconverter which may be inconvenient








Working with the Hasselblad H6D-50C and HTS adapter


Short review of working with the Hasselblad H6D-50C 50MP Medium format camera using the XCD28mm lens and HTS adapter for tilt and shift




www.northlight-images.co.uk




Yes, one of these for RF mount would be interesting - as well as the two TS-R lenses


----------



## keithcooper (Oct 10, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Adapted to which medium format lenses?


Well, the Fotodiox TLT-ROKR already works well on R cameras with Mamiya M645 lenses - I use it with an RP and this was from my recent testing of the R5 with tilt/shift lenses (Mamiya 35mm/3.5 f/11 R5 shifted upwards)
Canon could do an RF equivalent to the HTS1.5 I mentioned earlier.


----------



## SteB1 (Oct 10, 2020)

As a nature photographer the lenses I don't see yet are a longer macro lens, the EF 180mm f3.5 L is very long in the tooth and some lighter and more affordable long lenses. Yes, there's the 100-500mm, but it is a bit expensive, not that fast, and might not appeal to every nature photographer. I am thinking along the lines of RF versions of the 300mm f4 and 400mm f5.6. There's also not any equivalent of the Sony 200-600mm and Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF, which are both the type of lens that a photographer might join or stay in a system for. There's no doubt the 100-500mm is an excellent lens, but these two other lenses have got abilities and characteristics that no Canon lens has. Canon doesn't have to copy them, but at least learn why they are very popular lenses with wildlife and bird photographers, and address that sector in the market.


----------



## zim (Oct 10, 2020)

keithcooper said:


> Well, the Fotodiox TLT-ROKR already works well on R cameras with Mamiya M645 lenses - I use it with an RP and this was from my recent testing of the R5 with tilt/shift lenses (Mamiya 35mm/3.5 f/11 R5 shifted upwards)
> Canon could do an RF equivalent to the HTS1.5 I mentioned earlier.
> View attachment 193266


Didn't work to well that building is all over the place


----------



## analoggrotto (Oct 10, 2020)

Tremotino said:


> Canon TS-R 24mm f/3.5L with autofocus is the holy grail in photography in my opinion. Wow!!


Indeed, Canon always had a knack for pushing the boundaries to deliver a tool that can help take previously less possible shots.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 10, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> Wow!


Agree and why not they are no 1, be interesting to see what Sony does now, Nikon will keep podding away which is alright.


----------



## Chig (Oct 10, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> From a wildlife shooter perspective, I am not blown away. Unless Canon has significantly reduced size, weight, and price on the 400-1000 lenses, I don't see a significant advantage of RF lenses in IQ vs purchasing or using existing EF glass (other than adaptors). I have been in GTNP/YNP for the last two weeks shooting the R5/R6 and 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS II / RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L IS. While the extra lighter weight and 100mm additional reach is great, the image RF lens is only marginally better optically than the 100-400 II. The RF + 1.4x Extender requires zoom out to 300mm before adding the extender and the 420mm - 700mm is fantastic, but loosing the lower end of the zoom range is a significant issue if the wildlife is constantly changing the distance. You wither have to have a second body with the 100-400 II (which I did) or repeatedly having to add/remove the extender is going loose shots. I am currently using the R5 + 1.4x +100-500 for a 420-700mm with the R6 + 100-400 II to cover the lower range. The real solution hear would be switchable extender per the Canon patent, but you would still have to extend the lens before you could engage the extender.
> 
> If you already own the 100-400 II, I would consider how I use the lens and if I regularly need more than 560mm (EF lens + extender).
> 
> ...


Have you tried the R5 with the EF100-400 and 2x extender , or even 1.4x and 2x stacked ?


----------



## Ian K (Oct 10, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Nope, that’s still the first faulty R5 batch.
> 
> Canon clearly stopped shipping R5’s because of technical or production issues.


There’s no fault. Their capability was announced before they even shipped. They’ve already said they won’t be changing them.


----------



## Bahrd (Oct 10, 2020)

canonnews said:


> I'm even wondering how you even do that when you tilt the focal plane.


Is it different from a "normal" focusing at a sloped object?


----------



## dilbert (Oct 10, 2020)

it will be interesting to watch the rollout of RF lenses and observe the impact it has on the prices of EF lenses in the used market. I wonder if buying an EF lens today is still considered an "investment." Sure, EF lenses can still be used on RF cameras with an adapter, but the RF lenses thus far are smaller, lighter and producing better images but they're also more expensive. Time to grab some popcorn and watch (although that bucket of popcorn might go stale over the next year as I slowly eat it bit by bit with the lenses that drop...)


----------



## Danglin52 (Oct 10, 2020)

Chig said:


> Have you tried the R5 with the EF100-400 and 2x extender , or even 1.4x and 2x stacked ?


I had the R6 + 100-400 II and the IQ was as good or better than on my 1dxII based on a quick look on the laptop. Absolutely no difference I can feel in from operation on a 1dx II although I feel the R6 AF is better.


----------



## lexptr (Oct 10, 2020)

Great list of lenses, to please various needs! For me it is the true macro lens, finally. However, it should bring some advantages, besides the native mount. Otherwise I will stay with the EF version adapted.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 10, 2020)

Ian K said:


> There’s no fault. Their capability was announced before they even shipped. They’ve already said they won’t be changing them.



You missed his sarcasm.


----------



## keithcooper (Oct 11, 2020)

Bahrd said:


> Is it different from a "normal" focusing at a sloped object?


Conceptually very different - normally you focus and the plane moves towards/away from you
With tilt, the physical placement of the plane depends on lens tilt and focus setting, along with the rotation of the whole lens for the position of the tilt axis
With a set tilt, adjusting the focus setting swings the plane around an axis set of to one side of the camera (the position of which only depends on the tilt amount and focal length)

However the difference in phase detected by DPAF pixels should be similar on either side of the focus plane. The difference is that with an untilted lens the focus info is used to move the plane back/forwards, whilst with tilt it may need changes of both focus and tilt setting (the rotational aspects of the where the tilt axis is placed is another matter)

Setting the plane of focus to match an arbitrary plane is not difficult once you have the intuitive grasp for it, but is very different from the normal method of just moving focus forwards/backwards. 

If anyone's curious I've written up a technique I find useful for this at:








Setting the tilt axis for tilt-shift lenses at angles other than vertical or horizontal


Setting the tilt axis for tilt-shift lenses to an arbitrary angle other than vertical or horizontal, so as to match the desired plane of focus for subjects.




www.northlight-images.co.uk


----------



## Rivermist (Oct 11, 2020)

Andy Westwood said:


> All this coming new RF glass is fantastic I’m particularly interested in the RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM and RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro, but everyone will have their own preferences
> 
> However, if you don’t mind adapting EF lenses there are some fantastic deals on used EF L glass to be found online many that should work flawlessly on R bodies.
> 
> I’m particularly interested in the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II and the EF 16-35mm f2.8 L II good clean ones can be found online and represent excellent value for money. Paired with the latest R bodies that benefit from IBIS, EF glass suddenly become viable choices.


You are right, I am buying the 100-500 because my old 100-400 mk 1 has needed an upgrade for some time already, but after this raid on the wallet the EF 16-35 f/4 IS and EF 10-24 may well stay on adapters for some (long) time, considering the high pricing. It would take some devilish engineering (e.g. much smaller 10-24, highly doubtful) to swap out the venerable and very satisfactory EF wide zooms. I'd rather spend the coin on the TS-R 14mm which is revolutionary. I can always sell my car to pay for it


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 11, 2020)

dilbert said:


> ....but the RF lenses thus far are smaller, lighter and producing better images but they're also more expensive.


So far very few of the direct comparison lenses have been smaller or lighter, most have been much larger and heavier. The standout RF design so far has been the RF70-200 f2.8, which is smaller and lighter than the EF version, most of the others, not so much.


----------



## rontele7 (Oct 11, 2020)

Ian K said:


> There’s no fault. Their capability was announced before they even shipped. They’ve already said they won’t be changing them.



So then how do you explain a 3+ month delivery delay after the first batch was released? 

They only thought demand would be for a couple thousand units?

We are talking NO new R5’s produced or delivered since early July 2020!

Very clearly Canon stopped production to address issues, so they wouldn’t have to do a recall.

There’s no other explanation.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Oct 11, 2020)

So, anyone else out there scooping up EF glass on the cheap? I just picked up an excellent Copy of the EF 11-24mm L for less than $1000! I’ll make due without the RF version at those savings. It’s a $3,000 lens.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 11, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> So then how do you explain a 3+ month delivery delay after the first batch was released?
> 
> They only thought demand would be for a couple thousand units?
> 
> ...


----------



## OneSnark (Oct 11, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> To be honest I don't see anything there that makes me think I have to move to RF.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> And I can't imagine the prices they are going to want for these things, I'm looking at good condition used EF gear and thinking I need a hell of a lot of stuff more than spending $10,000's moving from EF to RF.



THIS. . . .THIS post.

Count me as one of the . . . .this is all nice. . . .but does this mean the plan is to replace ALL my EF glass with RF? Yeah. . . . you know. . . .I love photography. . .. but I do have my limits. To build a decent versatile kit looks like a body and 3 zooms. . . which will be about $8-10K. Yeah. . . I can afford a grand or two every year. . . but this entry cost is simply too high.

Shame to be functionally obsolete. I probably have 10 EF lenses. . .ranging from the nifty 50 to the 100-400/L. . .along with a few bodies. The better half has another few lenses. . .and we swap regularly on trips. I hate being functionally OBSOLETE. . . but . . . WOW that's alot of coin. So - - -if I am basically starting from scratch . . . why would I pick Canon over a competitor?

From a marketing perspective: With the writing on-the-wall for dSLR's; I have already passed on both the 90D and the 100-400/L-II (as an upgrade from the I) in the last year or so. ($3K<< $10K)

- - - - - -

Now. . .I am a candidate for the EOS M. My travel kit is heinously heavy. I am impressed as heck the M6-II capability. Less impressed with the lens lineup. Canon has just pumped out a pile of RF lenses - - - not one EF-M lens. . . .and the existing EF-M lenses are mediocre at best (F6.3 on a crop body? Pass. I here the primes are nice. . .but for "smallish travel cam"; one really needs zooms). If there were some decent F4 lenses in the EF-M line. . . I probably would have gone in for a complete package. (Camera; a pair of *quality* zooms; converter for the white lenses)

- - - -

But that left some money in my pocket to buy things for the other half. . . .so may be I am really better off?


----------



## Pixel (Oct 11, 2020)

NorskHest said:


> There is a lot of great stuff here but at the same time for those who own most of these lenses in the ef Mount and if they still work flawlessly I don’t see the point. The ef lenses work perfect when adapted. Fathoming the financial loss of just getting rid of something that works for something new just doesn’t compute. I think the innovation is great but again for those of us with thousands invested I can’t see many of us just saying ****** this 600mm viii I need the mirrorless version. Sharp glass is fun because it is sharp but I find it boring and clinical. We often get so obsessed with pixel peeping that we don’t actually enjoy a lens flare or some loss of contrast from the sun. There is beauty in the flaws and the not so clinical imagery. I’m glad for all those why buy the toys they want but I love the ef and I think canon sent to many mixed signals with in the past three years and they should have made the switch to mirrorless sooner.


Not all of them.


----------



## OneSnark (Oct 11, 2020)

dwarven said:


> That's just marketing talk. Electronics companies do it all the time. They want to move on without giving the impression that they're completely leaving legacy users in the dust. EF lens and camera development is pretty much done, possibly with a few straggler products getting released at some point. The market has spoken.
> 
> Granted, they'll most likely keep manufacturing already released EF products for many years. Camera equipment doesn't age nearly as quickly as other electronics, of course.



AGREE. I view EF as functionally dead. I mean. . .I will still use it hard. . .. . .I take ok pictures. . . . but I am not buying any more kit in this format.

Not sure about the "market has spoken" part. . . . unless you mean that _marketing_ has effectively sold an entire new product line with _minimal_ compatibility to the existing line.

Was it that hard to put EF mount onto Mirrorless bodies?
Answer: NO - - -but then people wouldn't be running out to buy a pile of shiny new $2000 lenses to put on their shiny new $2000 cameras.
Yeah, yeah, I understand all about "flange distance". . . .but really. . . .are these RF mount systems REALLY that much smaller than the cameras that came before? If you care about weight and size . .that's what the EF-M line is for.

True story: I went from Canon Film to Canon digital. Why did I choose Canon digital? Because I had 2 lenses from my old rig that I could use on the new rig. Net value of those two lenses: $400. Value of dSLR: $1500. Value of new lens I bought with DSLR: $750. I spent much more over the years. Big marketing win for canon. Big functional win for me. (digital is great!)

Fast forward a few (too many) years: Now transitioning from dSLR to mirrorless. Can't port the lenses (without adapter). Replacement lenses cost 1.5x the old lenses. The canon EVF is. . .currently pathetic. Basic functional capability of the camera is the same. Why would I stay on this train?

DANG. . .I feel like an old curmudgeon writing this.


----------



## rontele7 (Oct 11, 2020)

brad-man said:


> View attachment 193268


Curb the chauvinism, boomer. It’s 2020.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 11, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I understand. But since I still have a cherished 135 f/2 in excellent condition, I will try to live with what I got!


I just re-bought the 135mm f/2 a month ago.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 11, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> So then how do you explain a 3+ month delivery delay after the first batch was released?
> 
> They only thought demand would be for a couple thousand units?
> 
> ...


1. "Couple of thousand units." You have no idea how many were in the first run.
2. You have no idea how many were produced since July.
3. People have been taking deliveries this week.
4. Pandemic vs supply chain.


----------



## abnagfab (Oct 11, 2020)

SnowMiku said:


> Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM, I'm thinking this could be intended for a crop sensor R camera?


Just the RF upgrade to the EF 11-24/4 (full frame).


----------



## rontele7 (Oct 11, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> 1. "Couple of thousand units." You have no idea how many were in the first run.
> 2. You have no idea how many were produced since July.
> 3. People have been taking deliveries this week.
> 4. Pandemic vs supply chain.



Yes, it was confirmed that only a couple thousands units were produced and distributed in the US. Maybe you are in China where things are different though?

Yes, it has been confirmed that NONE have been produced since July, which is why they aren’t being delivered, duh. 

Nobody has taken deliveries this week, that’s just made up ‍

Please go away paid Canon troll!


----------



## Bahrd (Oct 11, 2020)

keithcooper said:


> [...] However the difference in phase detected by DPAF pixels should be similar on either side of the focus plane. The difference is that with an untilted lens the focus info is used to move the plane back/forwards, whilst with tilt it may need changes of both focus and tilt setting (the rotational aspects of the where the tilt axis is placed is another matter)
> 
> Setting the plane of focus to match an arbitrary plane is not difficult once you have the intuitive grasp for it, but is very different from the normal method of just moving focus forwards/backwards. [...]


Thanks - that means my simplistic understanding of the Scheimpflug principle is quite correct. 



keithcooper said:


> If anyone's curious I've written up a technique I find useful for this at:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know it very well! 
PS
An article about (my understanding of) an on-sensor PD-AF is much less popular...


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 11, 2020)

OneSnark said:


> AGREE. I view EF as functionally dead. I mean. . .I will still use it hard. . .. . .I take ok pictures. . . . but I am not buying any more kit in this format.
> 
> Not sure about the "market has spoken" part. . . . unless you mean that _marketing_ has effectively sold an entire new product line with _minimal_ compatibility to the existing line.
> 
> ...



Don't worry, you are not alone here, I work as an architecture and interiors photographer, and I am not planning to go with the R line either (at least for the lenses). In my line of work I do not even need AF so there is nothing I cannot do with a DSLR. However, I am considering an R5 (or the next high res RS body), simply for the possibility of of putting a Pol filter behind my 17mm TS and a more modern sensor . I am still working with a 5DSR and there is nothing wrong about it, except maybe the outdated sensor, but a good post processing technique can do a lot. So far there is not one lens in Canon's R line-up that would truly change my life. I need a good manual focusing, and focus by wire is a nightmare for me, but I am afraid it is now the rule for mirrorless.

The news of AF TS-E lenses for the R series came as a bit of a shock, but in the end, I will keep buying EF mount lenses. My plan is to update my very old 45mm with the 50mm TS-E (although 45mm was a better focal length for me) and maybe the newer 90mm TS-E to replace the V1, though the old one is still very good. As for the non-TS-E lenses I sometime use, I am now looking a the Zeiss Milvus range, that has become cheap in comparison to Canon's R offering, and will do a better job for me. 

My idea is that Canon was a bit ashamed of their R and RP cameras, that compared very badly with about every other brand, and now want to show that every lens they release is better than the concurrence and who is the boss again. IMO f1.2 was not necessary over f1.4, a "pro" 70-200mm that cannot take x1.4 and x2 converters, f7.1 aperture on the long end of zooms, are some of the things that keep me away from their new lenses. As you said everything is x1,5 the price (and twice as big), but I am not convinced the user is really winning in the end. Hopefully their f1.8 range will be good enough, for most people. Otherwise, if you are enjoying your EF system like me, just keep it, it will make excellent picture for years to come.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 11, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Yes, it was confirmed that only a couple thousands units were produced and distributed in the US. Maybe you are in China where things are different though?
> 
> Yes, it has been confirmed that NONE have been produced since July, which is why they aren’t being delivered, duh.
> 
> ...


Allow me to enlighten you, silly boy. If anyone is spreading falsehood around here, it's you.  





Share R5 delivery experience


Ordered 29/9-20 and it’s being shipped at the end of the week. Exciting :cool:




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Ronny Wertelaers (Oct 11, 2020)

Mike the cat said:


> I'd love to see Canon make some RF f/1.4 glass along the lines of the Sigma Art 35mm/50mm/85mm prime series at competitive prices. Would that steal the market from Sigma and help Canon sell bodies? Or would that ruin their f/1.2 sales? I know it's a pipe dream, but still; one can dream  .


I am sure there will be a market for a good performing lighter weight RF1.4 line of prime lenses. The new lenses are really good but bigger and more heavy then the EF version.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 11, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Autofocus tilt shifts are expected, I couldn't imagine Canon making a new mount and not thinking about how to make these possible and MF is a bit wonky for the new toys. And that line up of big whites seems to much for one year. Five big whites for the R1 in one year and not one of them being a ground breaking zoom? Though the 800/5.6 L is long overdue a new model.


Isn't the TSE 14mm whispering $4500 to our ears?
Fantastic news, not only for architecture, but also for landscapes (forests, deep canyons...)
The only lens I really miss is an affordable 500mm, like Nikon's.


----------



## mpmark (Oct 11, 2020)

Ian K said:


> I don't see the point of the "Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM". Given we already got a "Canon RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 L IS USM" which is faster at the wide end and faster at the tele end for the same focal length. The only thing I can think of is that it's smaller or lighter or significantly cheaper. If it was f/5.6 at 400mm then I could see some advantage to giving up the 100mm of reach.
> 
> The 11-24 replacement seems to have gained 1mm at wide end again, just like the 15-35mm and it's EF equivalent. I see that the f/4 version of the 15-35 gains yet another 1mm at the wide end, 14-35mm.
> 
> I would have loved to see the long primes come with a built in switchable 1.4x TC built in (like the 200-400 f/4L) that was such a great idea.



really? You don’t see that one is L and one isn’t? That the price difference between the two will be substantial? That not everyone can afford the L version? Still don’t see it?


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 11, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Yes, it was confirmed that only a couple thousands units were produced and distributed in the US. Maybe you are in China where things are different though?
> 
> Yes, it has been confirmed that NONE have been produced since July, which is why they aren’t being delivered, duh.
> 
> ...


Did Canon confirm? Anonymous sources on the web cannot confirm anything. Rumors are fun, but don't confuse them with facts.

And I received an R5 last week. (Which was the "this week" CFB was talking about--today is Sunday.) What in the world are you talking about?

And, please, don't call regular members here who have expressed a wide range of opinions about Canon and many other topics "trolls." I'd suggest getting a little more sleep before posting insults, ok? Perhaps if you hadn't been so sleepy-sleepy (as I say to my four year old), you'd realize we have several threads about R5 deliveries, BUT YOU ARE POSTING YOUR ANGER IN A LENS ROADMAP THREAD!


----------



## xps (Oct 11, 2020)

Chig said:


> Have you tried the R5 with the EF100-400 and 2x extender , or even 1.4x and 2x stacked ?


My findings:
EF 100-400 II & R5 works super IQ&AF are very good
EF 100-400 II & 1.4x III & R5 works also very well. In the edges the pics are al little bit weaker & AF works slower in the edge-points. But with all other AF points really fast
With the 2x extender, mine R5 gets slower with AF-Fields out of the center, but fast enough for normal speeded BIF. IQ gets weaker outside of the center.

Limitation: I owned two extender 2x III, but one (i sold it) was definitively weaker than the one I still own. And a friend owns an extender that is much better than mine (I tried it). So - maybe - if you own better extenders, IQ will not go down like mine


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 11, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Isn't the TSE 14mm whispering $4500 to our ears?
> Fantastic news, not only for architecture, but also for landscapes (forests, deep canyons...)
> The only lens I really miss is an affordable 500mm, like Nikon's.



Things usually whisper dark secrets to my credit cards. And yes a 14mm tilt shift with AF would be a lens that can justify a R5 all on its own. Like the 500mm f/5.6 can justify its very own body.


----------



## canonmike (Oct 11, 2020)

Quentin said:


> The 10-24 and 100 Macro are mine


Have to agree. The 10-24 put a nice smile on my face. Hope they make it, as I start saving my money in anticipation of its announcement. I'm sure this list has many fellow CR members drooling.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 11, 2020)

It just crossed my mind. AF on a tilt shift makes a lot of sense if you are doing automatic stacked focus. I did this on my Nikon with the 50mm f/1.8 so I could have more than 1 inch in focus. So you get it all set up then set the how many pics you want and bang you have 100 shots at f/2.0 instead of needing something at f/22.

Edit: On a fast lens with your 20 FPS burst cameras and the possibility of 1/4000 or better, you don't usually end up with any weird stitching issues.


----------



## canonmike (Oct 11, 2020)

Philip V said:


> I was expecting at least one EF-M lens


Don't give up hope just yet. It's just that RF lenses are where the action is right now. Perhaps, we'll see something accompanyning the Gen 2 M50, when it gets announced. Meanwhile, there's always Sigma to fill in the void. Still, looking at the upcoming projected RF list of new offerings, I must admit that this list looks pretty amazing. Bring em on, Canon....


----------



## canonmike (Oct 11, 2020)

SteveC said:


> It's what you had to use back in the day when people wrote by making marks on clay tablets.


The DSLR is the perfect companion, designed to keep my dusty ole Canon EOS 3, Minolta SRT-101 and Pentax Spotmatic film bodies company, having been sitting patiently and ever so lonely now on my bookshelf for over 15 yrs. So, guys, please move over and make room for the DSLR(s).


----------



## canonnews (Oct 11, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Yes, it was confirmed that only a couple thousands units were produced and distributed in the US. Maybe you are in China where things are different though?
> 
> Yes, it has been confirmed that NONE have been produced since July, which is why they aren’t being delivered, duh.


would you care to share this "research"?


----------



## canonnews (Oct 11, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> These rumored lenses won’t be released until 2022 at the earliest. And more than likely not until 2023.
> 
> Canon is having MASSIVE production issues; their flagship camera hasn’t shipped new units for 3 months, so any new lenses are going to be years delayed.
> 
> Don’t get your hopes up!


just to comment on this particular piece of interesting fiction.

even IF Canon was having issues with the R5, Canon is, well, the largest camera manufacturer on the planet. They have multiple factories, even for just camera bodies, not to mention different factories for lenses. The R5 would have little to do with lens delivery or even lens manufacturing. Assuming most of the lenses are not completely manufactured from automation (as they are doing most now), the people that assemble lenses are specialists that only assemble lenses, they don't assemble cameras and they don't even work at the same locations.

Also Craig's source on this is like .. gold.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 11, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I just re-bought the 135mm f/2 a month ago.


I've been hoping for a RF 135mm f2L USM and RF 105 f1.4L USM (with IS if possible, but OK if not).
The fact that you re-bought an EF 135mm f2 a month ago might show Canon how much this type of lens is desired. Maybe they can bring out more primes with 70 to 75mm apertures in the 105 to 135 range and up into the long telephotos? (eg 200 f2.8, 300 f4, 400 f5.6, 600 f8). They did this with the RF 800 f11 DO and I bought it. If they could also give them a big max. magnification (.3 to .5X) then they would be spectacular.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 11, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> 1. "Couple of thousand units." You have no idea how many were in the first run.
> 2. You have no idea how many were produced since July.
> 3. People have been taking deliveries this week.
> 4. Pandemic vs supply chain.



To pile on...

1) We know that some countries were severely short shrifted on body deliveries in the first run. It appears that - as anemic as it was - the US got a disproportionate share. We saw multiple stories from Germany of major city retailers getting one or none. This means that there was likely a great, yawning chasm of demand outside the US for the next batches. 
2) Japanese manufacturers lose a great portion of their margin if they air ship product. Instead, they like to pulse batches via boat when practical. It appears a decision was made that people were going to get their cameras one way or another, and if it took an extra 6-8 weeks, that was fine with them. 
3) The R5 does pretty much exactly what it says it'll do in its manual, that was written before Youtuber video guys got their mitts on it and collectively clutched their pearls, swooning from heat limits. The notion that Canon has the humility to believe its specs were so wrong that it needed to redesign anything a few weeks into a release is a different reality than the one I've been living in since I started shooting the brand about 20 years ago. 
4) Evidence of such an alternate reality would be easily proven with the new batch cameras showing different capabilities or behavior. (And they don't.) There are 5 known issues wrong with the R5, and these haven't been addressed.


... and to bring this all home to Bryan's original post... 
5) The idea that Canon is going to announce - never mind deliver - all these lenses in a year would be to say that Canon is going to triple its cadence of lens deliveries at a time when it has major supply bottlenecks. If Canon were a company that ever (ever) published a lens roadmap, you might think that this was merely an outline of what was to come for the next few years, but - frustratingly - Canon isn't a company that publishes roadmaps. 
6) I was supremely wrong on the rumor about the R5, disbelieving that Canon was a company either capable or willing to put that much power in a mirrorless body at this point in time. I sincerely hope I'm as wrong this time with my skepticism as I was then.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 11, 2020)

If Canon does release 5 super tele primes(At least 1 of them costing more than most cars), these could almost be built to order and few would be wise to it. Unless I am very much mistaken, Canon could today say you can order a 1200mm f/8 today and the five people able to buy one will put their orders in and wait the 3-6 months for their build to order lens.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 11, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> How is that possible? I preordered from B&H in early July and haven’t received mine yet.
> 
> I don’t think you are being honest; the first batch is all that has shipped. Thousands of us that pre ordered haven’t even heard an update yet!


Well, he probably used a valid credit card.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 11, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Yes, it was confirmed that only a couple thousands units were produced and distributed in the US. Maybe you are in China where things are different though?
> 
> Yes, it has been confirmed that NONE have been produced since July, which is why they aren’t being delivered, duh.
> 
> ...


I personally know somebody who got a new R5 from a New York retailer last week. Before she got it in the mail I told her to check the shutter count and look at it very closely for fingerprints and evidence of it being a return.

She said there wasn't a finger mark on it, all the bits were in their own plastic bags and none of those bags had been stressed where the clear tape was. Sutter count was set to continuous and when she put a clean card in it it had not been used. So pretty conclusively not a return.


----------



## degos (Oct 11, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> It just crossed my mind. AF on a tilt shift makes a lot of sense if you are doing automatic stacked focus



If you're doing focus-stacking on a tilt-shift then you've probably missed the point of tilting the focal plane...


----------



## fox40phil (Oct 11, 2020)

No DO lenses?!
A new 1200mm ?! Really?

dayum!
It will cost maybe 20k€?!

135 1.8 would be enough otherwise it is to heavy...
But in the meantime they could build a new 200 1.8 ^^... and where are the 5.6 Tele ...


----------



## Chig (Oct 11, 2020)

mpmark said:


> really? You don’t see that one is L and one isn’t? That the price difference between the two will be substantial? That not everyone can afford the L version? Still don’t see it?


 I do wonder how the RF100-400 will compare with the EF100-400 ii in terms of price and performance


----------



## Ian K (Oct 11, 2020)

Josjan said:


> Why a Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM if there is already a Canon RF 100-500mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM


I missed it but the 100-500 is an L lens and the 100-400 is not. It will be much cheaper and likely not weather sealed etc.


----------



## Ian K (Oct 11, 2020)

harleylunar said:


> is the Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM the fish eye that we keep hearing about??


I very much doubt it. It’s very likely the RF version of the 11-24l


----------



## CanonGrunt (Oct 11, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> If Canon does release 5 super tele primes(At least 1 of them costing more than most cars), these could almost be built to order and few would be wise to it. Unless I am very much mistaken, Canon could today say you can order a 1200mm f/8 today and the five people able to buy one will put their orders in and wait the 3-6 months for their build to order lens.



That’s what happened with the last 1200mm lens. Though it was an f/5.6 L, only around 20 are known to have existed, and only 3 have been sold on the used market in the last 30 years, each for well over $100,000. The last going for $180,000. CNN owns 1, NatGeo has at least 2 & ESPN 1 (giving Disney 3), discovery has 2. I think only 4 of them are in private hands. Canon kept 2 for themselves. The FBI is rumored to have one.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 11, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> No DO lenses?!
> A new 1200mm ?! Really?
> 
> dayum!
> ...


Remember, according to the recent interview posted here they are no longer planning to differentiate DO lenses with the green ring. They intend to incorporate DO optics in to the regular series. So you don't know which are DO and which aren't at this point. We'll have to actually see the designs when they get announced. 

-Brian


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 11, 2020)

CanonGrunt said:


> That’s what happened with the last 1200mm lens. Though it was an f/5.6 L, only around 20 are known to have existed, and only 3 have been sold on the used market in the last 30 years, each for well over $100,000. The last going for $180,000. CNN owns 1, NatGeo has at least 2 & ESPN 1 (giving Disney 3), discovery has 2. I think only 4 of them are in private hands. Canon kept 2 for themselves. The FBI is rumored to have one.



Aye, but unless I am mistaken the 1200 f/8 is going to be huge? Like maybe 600/III sized if they can get DO involved.


----------



## fabao (Oct 11, 2020)

Would love to see a FAST fixed focal length fish-eye lens that is perfect for events. The current f/4 zoom is big and... f/4. Don't really care about the 360 field of view.


----------



## lexptr (Oct 11, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Still I think it was the very sharpest black lens Canon ever made ... I don't see how a replacement could be radically sharper


Unfortunately the 180mm f/3.5 is not the sharpest "black" lens. Not even close. TDP is good source of comparison chart-shoots for many lenses. Here is the comparison of 180mm f/3.5 and 100mm f/2.8L. The 100 is much sharper even at 2.8. Bunch of other lenses are significantly sharper too. E.g. look at this comparison with 200mm f/2.8L II (at 2.8) - it is night and day! Most (if not all) contemporary L-line zooms are sharper or much sharper. So it is very old and soft lens by todays standards. There is almost no difference on low-MP FF sensors, but high-MP sensors show the age of 180mm f/3.5 and, I believe, it can be improved a lot. I hope they will release a new version eventually and it will be better, than 100mm f/2.8L. I will, most likely, replace mine with it.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 11, 2020)

dwarven said:


> I suggested a couple months ago that I'd like to see this lens and that it was possible, and was told by a prominent member of this site that "no it's absolutely not possible".  Now I can't remember who it was.


135/1.4 is of course possible... it would be very expensive with a ~100mm entrance pupil. It would be large, impressive and bought in a niche volume. 
It could be the replacement for the EF200/2 though.
Would be similar in price to the 300/2.8.... which isn't in the replacement list!


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 11, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> What would be valid reasons to upgrade for those who already have something similar or even better like EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, instead of using an adaptor ?


The RF70-200mm was my first lens to update. The size and weight advantage is too good to ignore - even when comparing without an adapter on the EF version.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 11, 2020)

Cambridge66 said:


> Yeah - 10mm? Wow - just picked up the EF 11-24/4L for my EOS R - wonder how much that 10mm will be? The EF 11-24 is $2900


The extra 1mm is impressive but clearly won't allow for rear filters except for gels - unless there is a special system that is equivalent to the R mount filter adapter


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 11, 2020)

EOSR FAN said:


> I was hoping for a super fast astrophotography prime or zoom thats better than 2.8.
> 
> 
> Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro could be interesting though
> Some amazing Lenses on offer though. It'll be interesting to see what sigma brings to the table. Id rather have canons own Lenses but if sigma can do some fast wide primes or pancake lenses id snap their hands off


I concur... a wide zoom (or prime) for astro does seem to be a neglected area. The EF14mm isn't great and the Samyang 14mm f2.8 is hard to beat overall (price/size/coma etc)


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 11, 2020)

Juangrande said:


> I know Joel Grimes uses tilt shift lenses to stitch 3 frame vertical (and horizontal) panorama portraits to get incredible details in huge galkery prints. AF would be useful in portraits like that. Something as a portrait photographer I’ve been meaning to try.


If you are stitching then you need to keep the focus (and everything else) fixed and probably at the hyperfocal distance. Not sure how AF will help with that use case.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 11, 2020)

yoms said:


> Really hope that the Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM will be front filterable. Almost all - if not all - super UWA zooms, whether DSLR or mirrorless, released these latest years are NOT front filterable. Sucks imho.
> 
> Would the RF mount specifications allow for a 10-24mm f/4L + front filter?


Highly unlikely for front filter and front filters would need to be huge and CPLs not very useful with sky in them. The adapted EF does provide these features although missing 1mm. Will be big!


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 11, 2020)

JayLT said:


> Finally, an announcement of a true RF macro lens! My EF 100mm f/2.8L IS is one of my most used lenses, I really hope the RF version comes out early


I use my EF100mm macro a lot too (macro and portrait). Besides the adapter (which I can weld on), I don't see the advantage of a RF version. If it was f2 or 2x macro then it would have a benefit over the EF version.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 11, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> Holy crap, now that's a line up.
> I wasn't expecting to be interested in a 16-35 F/4 replacement, since my EF one works great...but 14mm may very well just sell me on it. If the lens has filter threads, I'll probably upgrade my 16-35 F/4 to that.


The RF version will be expensive compared to the EF16-35/f4. The extra 1mm could be nice sometimes but I can't see myself replacing my EF unless it I break it somehow.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 11, 2020)

samh004 said:


> About the only thing I see missing is a fisheye, and probably because it’s so niche.


The EF8-15mm/4 is good for what it is. Could be some quality updates but hard to see it being part of a 2021 release schedule. Until the recent Nikon version, it was unique in any system.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 11, 2020)

gmon750 said:


> It's great to see the glass coming out from Canon. I'd love to see an RF8-16mm Fisheye lens. Whatever R-body I get, it will be primarily for underwater photography. A fisheye lens is a must for me.
> Way to go Canon!


Definitely very useful underwater but I wouldn't see a big difference in quality needed over the EF version.
My Ikelite housing with the R5 is working very well for me


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 11, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I saw no serious macro lenses that interest me. They've started calling "macro lenses" to those that are 1:2 max magnification, which is false advertising, and I wish they'd just say "half macro" and I'm guessing they're doing the same with the new ones they called "macro" lenses. I was hoping they'd come out with something like a RF 300 f4L IS USM with half (or 1:1) macro, or RF 180 f2.8L IS 1:1 macro, or an update to the MPE 65 1to5:1 super macro for those doing flash super-macro (like Dalantech), but there was nothing like that.


Hard to see a benefit to the current EF100mmL macro unless the RF100mm macro is 2x


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 11, 2020)

vrpanorama.ca said:


> Still missing fish eye lenses in RF mode, important tool for VR guys. It looks like the king of the hill EF 8-15mm still have no competition


I hadn't thought of VR usage for the EF8-5mm.
Doesn't Nikon have a 8-15mm fisheye as well now?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 11, 2020)

CanonGrunt said:


> That’s what happened with the last 1200mm lens. Though it was an f/5.6 L, only around 20 are known to have existed, and only 3 have been sold on the used market in the last 30 years, each for well over $100,000. The last going for $180,000. CNN owns 1, NatGeo has at least 2 & ESPN 1 (giving Disney 3), discovery has 2. I think only 4 of them are in private hands. Canon kept 2 for themselves. The FBI is rumored to have one.



The 1200 F5.6 is a totally different animal from the F8 version. The F8 should not be much bigger than a 600 F4 or 800 5.6 and priced under $20 000 i believe.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 11, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Nope, that’s still the first faulty R5 batch.
> 
> Canon clearly stopped shipping R5’s because of technical or production issues.


My R5 works flawlessly and to specification since July. Unless Canon comes out with a R5 II with better heat management then I don't see how the first batch is fauty


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 11, 2020)

Pixel said:


> Not all of them.


Which ones? IS stops for AF are better on EF lens on R bodies than on EF bodies? Using the R mount adapters provides even more functionality for EF lenses.


----------



## David the street guy (Oct 11, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I use my EF100mm macro a lot too (macro and portrait). Besides the adapter (which I can weld on), I don't see the advantage of a RF version. If it was f2 or 2x macro then it would have a benefit over the EF version.



Same here. I've always been amazed by the quality of that relatively cheap lens I use mostly for portrait, but also jazz concerts (well… I won't be doing that for a while, I guess.). It has the ability to reach through the band or even the drum set and grab the artist and his/her emotion. And at f/2,8, it's wide enough for me.

It would take something strong from Canon to give me a reason to change it for an RF version.


----------



## David the street guy (Oct 11, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> My R5 works flawlessly and to specification since July. Unless Canon comes out with a R5 II with better heat management then I don't see how the first batch is fauty



It's kinda funny: the R5 seems to be faulty only for those who don't use it!

I wish Canon would come out with an R5II so I could grab the original R5 at a discount.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 12, 2020)

David the street guy said:


> It's kinda funny: the R5 seems to be faulty only for those who don't use it!
> 
> I wish Canon would come out with an R5II so I could grab the original R5 at a discount.


The biggest experts are always the ones who don't own (or never owned) what they are talking about.


----------



## rjthestarboy (Oct 12, 2020)

wish canon would AT LEAST address the ef-m line... I wanted to invest in more ef-m lenses but I'm scared that they're gonna kill it off soon


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 12, 2020)

The only lens that should be relatively simple but not in the list is a 40mm/2.8 pancake. It should truly be small, light and preferably cheap.... perfect for street photography.
Adding an adapter to the EF version doubles the size and cost of it.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 12, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> The only lens that should be relatively simple but not in the list is a 40mm/2.8 pancake. It should truly be small, light and preferably cheap.... perfect for street photography.
> Adding an adapter to the EF version doubles the size and cost of it.



Putting in my vote for a 40/2.8 pancake. That lens on an RP would be tremendous for street photography.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 12, 2020)

David the street guy said:


> I wish Canon would come out with an R5II so I could grab the original R5 at a discount.


Along the same line, I'm looking forward to Canon speeding up distribution of the RS 100-700L so everyone can sell their EF 100-400L lls and I can upgrade my version 1. I'm not a very early adopter...


----------



## brad-man (Oct 12, 2020)

rjthestarboy said:


> wish canon would AT LEAST address the ef-m line... I wanted to invest in more ef-m lenses but I'm scared that they're gonna kill it off soon


They can't kill it off. The worst they could do is not add to it. You will have what you have. I find it ironic that I'm waiting for a fast wide prime in the RF as well as the EF-M line. I do a lot of waiting...


----------



## dolina (Oct 12, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Plastic lens elements?


You wish. Canon was able to manage 3.09kg 600/4.0L III

I would not be surprised if they can do a 1200/8.0L at less than 3kg.

I think the #1 selling point for moving from EF to RF is the weight reduction.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 12, 2020)

dolina said:


> You wish. Canon was able to manage 3.09kg 600/4.0L III
> 
> I would not be surprised if they can do a 1200/8.0L at less than 3kg.
> 
> I think the #1 selling point for moving from EF to RF is the weight reduction.


I wonder what the weight/cost ratio would be? $2k/kg?


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 12, 2020)

dolina said:


> You wish. Canon was able to manage 3.09kg 600/4.0L III
> 
> I would not be surprised if they can do a 1200/8.0L at less than 3kg.
> 
> I think the #1 selling point for moving from EF to RF is the weight reduction.


I keep wondering where people are seeing all this weight reduction. In a couple of lenses, yes.... otherwise, no way.


----------



## Bahrd (Oct 12, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Autofocus tilt shifts are expected, I couldn't imagine Canon making a new mount and not thinking about how to make these possible and MF is a bit wonky for the new toys. [...]


They would've been designated as the TS-RF lenses, I suppose?


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Oct 12, 2020)

Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM
I fully see the point of a cheaper and lighter non-L fullframe 100-400mm lens as alternative to the the current and rather expensive 100-500mm L lens.
BUT interestingly there's actually an *APS-C patent* for a lens like this:








Patent: Canon 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1


Canon News has uncovered a patent for an APS-C 100-400mm F5.6-7.1 optical formula. (Richard also messed it up by not noticing it was APS-C at first) Does t



www.canonrumors.com





Disclaimer: I haven't read through all previous comments. Sorry if this is a repeat post.


----------



## CanonOregon (Oct 12, 2020)

Anyone know how to pick the winning lottery numbers?


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 12, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The biggest experts are always the ones who don't own (or never owned) what they are talking about.


Not true!
I already know that the planned 1200mm f8 won't be a sharp lens, and have lots of AF issues.
This is called second sight, which I share with rontele7 !


----------



## Methodical (Oct 12, 2020)

David the street guy said:


> ...It would take something strong from Canon to give me a reason to change it for an RF version.



I feel this way about my EF lenses, too. So, they better be on their A game.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 12, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Not true!
> I already know that the planned 1200mm f8 won't be a sharp lens, and have lots of AF issues.
> This is called second sight, which I share with rontele7 !


I see dead people.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 12, 2020)

CanonGrunt said:


> That’s what happened with the last 1200mm lens. Though it was an f/5.6 L, only around 20 are known to have existed, and only 3 have been sold on the used market in the last 30 years, each for well over $100,000. The last going for $180,000. CNN owns 1, NatGeo has at least 2 & ESPN 1 (giving Disney 3), discovery has 2. I think only 4 of them are in private hands. Canon kept 2 for themselves. The FBI is rumored to have one.



A Dutch paparazzo had one, he even left a review where he bought it, something along the lines of "With stacked extenders celebs have nowhere to hide!". He passed away a few years ago, so I guess his estate will likely have sold it.


----------



## Methodical (Oct 12, 2020)

Pixel said:


> Not all of them.



Which lens don't play well with the adapter?


----------



## Methodical (Oct 12, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> How is that possible? I preordered from B&H in early July and haven’t received mine yet.
> 
> I don’t think you are being honest; the first batch is all that has shipped. Thousands of us that pre ordered haven’t even heard an update yet!



There are folks who started receiving R5s the past couple weeks (FM and POTN). I got one on September 30th. I got real lucky though. I got on a smaller company wait list and less than 2 weeks later, I got a call that they had an R5. I would assume that is at least the 2nd batch.


----------



## dolina (Oct 12, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I keep wondering where people are seeing all this weight reduction. In a couple of lenses, yes.... otherwise, no way.


I look at the spec sheet of each succeeding generation of lenses. If the lens is like 1kg or so they dont really bother cutting weight. Anything heavier than 2kg and there is an incentive to make it lighter.

Like, if I knew the 500/4L IS version 1 would have the same weight as as the 600/4L IS version 2 I would have delayed purchase by 14 months.

Only tangible reason an owner of a current gen lens to upgrade ot the newest version would be performance improvements or in this case weight reduction improvement using better material science.

If you havent had a hand in the supply chain or materials R&D then I get the skepticism.


----------



## dolina (Oct 12, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I wonder what the weight/cost ratio would be? $2k/kg?



I don't know the cost ratio but the total unit price would be more than $13,000


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 12, 2020)

Lens war has just been declared.
Hard times ahead for Nikon, Sony and co.!


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 12, 2020)

dolina said:


> I look at the spec sheet of each succeeding generation of lenses. If the lens is like 1kg or so they dont really bother cutting weight. Anything heavier than 2kg and there is an incentive to make it lighter.
> 
> Like, if I knew the 500/4L IS version 1 would have the same weight as as the 600/4L IS version 2 I would have delayed purchase by 14 months.
> 
> ...


But you are referring (at this moment) to super-tele in the EF line, and not the non-existent RF line. As far as RF super-tele, you have absolutely no idea yet what they will weigh.

Then I kindly turn you towards a look at the other RF lenses that are already here. What is lighter than an EF 85mm f/1.2L, EF 50mm f/1.2L, EF 28-70mm f/2.8L? Any of the RF's? No. Sure, the RF 70-200 is lighter than the EF version. Isn't that just about it? The Canon EF 24-70 is 95gr lighter than the RF version. So where is this advantage of RF over EF? I don't see it when it comes to weight, which for some reason, people keep trying to claim.



dolina said:


> I think the #1 selling point for moving from EF to RF is the weight reduction.



You claim there is a weight advantage to RF. I don't see it.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 12, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I use my EF100mm macro a lot too (macro and portrait). Besides the adapter (which I can weld on), I don't see the advantage of a RF version. If it was f2 or 2x macro then it would have a benefit over the EF version.



The 100L is a great lens but newer ones from Sony, Sigma and even Laowa are visibly sharper. The IS could also made better, as the AF. Of course, the RF version will likely be significantly more expensive as usual.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 12, 2020)

I don't expect all these lenses to be released in 2021. I think we will see some released but many will be just development announcements.


----------



## vxcalais (Oct 12, 2020)

Yikes...not even 1 EOS-M mount lens.......I really did stuff up coming over form Sony last year.


----------



## lglass12189 (Oct 12, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The 100L is a great lens but newer ones from Sony, Sigma and even Laowa are visibly sharper. The IS could also made better, as the AF. Of course, the RF version will likely be significantly more expensive as usual.




Sony has a 100 Macro for the E mount?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 12, 2020)

lglass12189 said:


> Sony has a 100 Macro for the E mount?



90mm. Pretty much the same.


----------



## leadin2 (Oct 12, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> The RF70-200mm was my first lens to update. The size and weight advantage is too good to ignore - even when comparing without an adapter on the EF version.


Agree! RF50mm f/1.2 was my first choice but I decided to wait for f/1.4. The 70-200mm range is always a lens I rent when in need but never owned. Now the RF version is my walk-about lens on R6. lol
The weight/size is somehow more manageable for me now.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 12, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The 100L is a great lens but newer ones from Sony, Sigma and even Laowa are visibly sharper. The IS could also made better, as the AF. Of course, the RF version will likely be significantly more expensive as usual.



I was going to say, presumably the IS will be better due to the faster lens-body communication. If the RF85L can have 8 stops, I don't see why the 100mm can't have at least 7 at infinity focus.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 12, 2020)

scyrene said:


> I was going to say, presumably the IS will be better due to the faster lens-body communication. If the RF85L can have 8 stops, I don't see why the 100mm can't have at least 7 at infinity focus.



The IBIS stops seem to correlate with the size of the image circle (even with the steep vignetting RF lenses tend to have), so a redesign with smaller baffles would be a relatively easy way to accomplish that. 
Also, the RF mount has more available space inside with the electronic connections being less obtrusive. So it keeps the same diameter as EF, but uses it more efficiently.


----------



## SteB1 (Oct 12, 2020)

Chig said:


> Have you tried the R5 with the EF100-400 and 2x extender , or even 1.4x and 2x stacked ?


I'm still with the Canon 7D mkII and 5Ds, so I only use the 100-400mm II with the 1.4x extender as there's no AF with the 2x. I'm only looking to RF system in the future.


----------



## canonnews (Oct 12, 2020)

vxcalais said:


> Yikes...not even 1 EOS-M mount lens.......I really did stuff up coming over form Sony last year.


If this is the same source / proof as Craig got last year, then M lenses wouldn't show up on the list.


----------



## RunAndGun (Oct 12, 2020)

dwarven said:


> I suggested a couple months ago that I'd like to see this lens and that it was possible, and was told by a prominent member of this site that "no it's absolutely not possible".  Now I can't remember who it was.



135/f1.4has my eye, as well.

I’m not sure why someone would say it’s not possible. 135 T1.5 already exists in the cine world. Tokina introduced probably the most affordable one, so far, at ~$8,500. Just guessing, but Canon could probably do a stills version for ~$3K-$4K ballpark*.

*spitballing based on cine versions of still lenses being roughly 2x-4x the cost of the still lens.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 12, 2020)

canonnews said:


> If this is the same source / proof as Craig got last year, then M lenses wouldn't show up on the list.



Perhaps the letters RF should have been in the title of the post.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 12, 2020)

degos said:


> If you're doing focus-stacking on a tilt-shift then you've probably missed the point of tilting the focal plane...



Good point! But aren't there some scenarios?


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 12, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Good point! But aren't there some scenarios?
> 
> View attachment 193291



Yes, like macro. I did some focus stacking with the TS-E 90mm, it is very useful for when the tilted plane isn't deep enough for what you want. And at macro distances you need a *lot* of tilt to move the plane where you want.


----------



## FitzwaterPhoto (Oct 12, 2020)

I was really hoping for a pancake lens - somewhere in the 24-50mm range. I would gladly sacrifice some optical quality and stops to make my R5 super portable for hobby stuff(bike-packing etc). I still carry my 6D with the 40mm f/2.8 when space is an issue.


----------



## Rivermist (Oct 12, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> But you are referring (at this moment) to super-tele in the EF line, and not the non-existent RF line. As far as RF super-tele, you have absolutely no idea yet what they will weigh.
> 
> Then I kindly turn you towards a look at the other RF lenses that are already here. What is lighter than an EF 85mm f/1.2L, EF 50mm f/1.2L, EF 28-70mm f/2.8L? Any of the RF's? No. Sure, the RF 70-200 is lighter than the EF version. Isn't that just about it? The Canon EF 24-70 is 95gr lighter than the RF version. So where is this advantage of RF over EF? I don't see it when it comes to weight, which for some reason, people keep trying to claim.
> 
> ...


I would argue that the 100-500 is another case in point, albeit not quite a stark as the 70-200 and not quite apple-to-apple:
EF 100-400 Mk 1 (push pull) 92 x 189 mm 1,365 g
EF 100-400 Mk2 94 x 193 mm 1,570 g
RF 100-500 94 x 207 mm 1,365 g

Adapter Ring add 24mm 130 g

If you are using RF, the EF mk2 lens with adapter weighs 1,700 g and is 217mm long, versus 1,365g and 207mm. Not a huge difference in size but you get 100mm extra focal length (and yes you lose ⅔ of an aperture). The 350g difference is far from trivial. For my usage having a maximum reach of 500mm makes the 1.4x extender superfluous, I need more than 400mm but 500 is OK versus 560mm for the 400mm + 1.4, so one item less in the camera bag.


----------



## FramerMCB (Oct 12, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> What would be valid reasons to upgrade for those who already have something similar or even better like EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, instead of using an adaptor ?


Because the RF version of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is a lot lighter and more compact.


----------



## FramerMCB (Oct 12, 2020)

Ian K said:


> I don't see the point of the "Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM". Given we already got a "Canon RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 L IS USM" which is faster at the wide end and faster at the tele end for the same focal length. The only thing I can think of is that it's smaller or lighter or significantly cheaper. If it was f/5.6 at 400mm then I could see some advantage to giving up the 100mm of reach.
> 
> The 11-24 replacement seems to have gained 1mm at wide end again, just like the 15-35mm and it's EF equivalent. I see that the f/4 version of the 15-35 gains yet another 1mm at the wide end, 14-35mm.
> 
> I would have loved to see the long primes come with a built in switchable 1.4x TC built in (like the 200-400 f/4L) that was such a great idea.



The RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM is not an L lens. So it won't be priced at $2,XXX+ USD. It will come in at between $899 and $1199USD - my best SWAG.


----------



## FramerMCB (Oct 12, 2020)

My guess is the TS RF lenses will come in between $2,599 - $2,899. Certainly no more.





bbasiaga said:


> Wow...a 70-200 F4 L IS the size of a coke can....They'll probably ask $2k for it though. For $1400, I may consider upgrading from my EF version. I think that's still like $300 more than the current EF version, though I haven't looked in a while.
> 
> Glad to see some more offerings in the consumer line. That 100-400 will probably replace the older 75-300 lenses, which were nice for the price.
> 
> ...


----------



## FramerMCB (Oct 12, 2020)

A new 1200mm. Just wow! What a line-up! And commitment by Canon. Must be being driven by Pros in the Sports world not wanting to have to use a Pro R version with EF lenses and adapters. Although from what I've read the BIG WHITES work fantastically on the R-system with the EF-RF adapter...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 12, 2020)

FramerMCB said:


> A new 1200mm. Just wow! What a line-up! And commitment by Canon. Must be being driven by Pros in the Sports world not wanting to have to use a Pro R version with EF lenses and adapters. Although from what I've read the BIG WHITES work fantastically on the R-system with the EF-RF adapter...



Might be more for marketing than anything else. Nikon don't have any mirrorless super tele lenses yet and Sony only have two that compete with the EF lenses but couldn't compete with DO 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 12, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Might be more for marketing than anything else. Nikon don't have any mirrorless super tele lenses yet and Sony only have two that compete with the EF lenses but couldn't compete with DO 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses.


I think i read somewhere that there may only be 8-12 of the original EF version of the 1200 ever made. So yeah, not a cash cow, more of a statement/specialty/made-to-order kind of thing. 

-Brian


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 12, 2020)

FitzwaterPhoto said:


> I was really hoping for a pancake lens - somewhere in the 24-50mm range. I would gladly sacrifice some optical quality and stops to make my R5 super portable for hobby stuff(bike-packing etc). I still carry my 6D with the 40mm f/2.8 when space is an issue.


Portability? Ok, this is going out on a limb--but a very good smartphone camera offers superb portability; however, putting a pancake on a FF body, _in my opinion_, kind of turns one of the best cameras in the world into...a smartphone without the portability. I'm sorry to upset pancake fans, but once I commit to carrying my FF for a specific purpose, be it a session, an event, or just walking/traveling with family, that's it, I know portability is not the priority. I don't have the R5 _yet_, but of all cameras, putting a pancake on it seems a huge mismatch.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 12, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Yes, like macro. I did some focus stacking with the TS-E 90mm, it is very useful for when the tilted plane isn't deep enough for what you want. And at macro distances you need a *lot* of tilt to move the plane where you want.


That is one area where RF TS lenses have a distinct advantage over EF TS lenses, in that they could have a lot more tilt because they aren't going to get mirror box shadowing. A range of +/- 8.5° for the TS-E 50 and +/- 10° for the TS-E 90 is pretty pathetic when compared to view cameras with >30° tilt, and as the focal length gets longer and the subject distance (j point really) gets closer you need ever more tilt.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 12, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Portability? Ok, this is going out on a limb--but a very good smartphone camera offers superb portability; however, putting a pancake on a FF body, _in my opinion_, kind of turns one of the best cameras in the world into...a smartphone without the portability. I'm sorry to upset pancake fans, but once I commit to carrying my FF for a specific purpose, be it a session, an event, or just walking/traveling with family, that's it, I know portability is not the priority. I don't have the R5 _yet_, but of all cameras, putting a pancake on it seems a huge mismatch.



To each their own, I guess, but a fullframe camera with a pancake isn't synonymous to cellphone photography - not when pocketable 35mm film cameras with f/1.7 or faster glass have existed for well over 70 years. That said, the R5 doesn't look so pocketable, but you could certainly slip the RP inside your jacket when you aren't shooting.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Oct 12, 2020)

I still want a 20mm f/1.4 L. That lens would make me very happy.


----------



## Juangrande (Oct 12, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> If you are stitching then you need to keep the focus (and everything else) fixed and probably at the hyperfocal distance. Not sure how AF will help with that use case.


He has them leaning against a backdrop and shallow depth of field. They don’t move while he takes 3 images quickly moving the tilt lens vertically down. Any slight movement can be fixed in stitching


----------



## rontele7 (Oct 12, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Allow me to enlighten you, silly boy. If anyone is spreading falsehood around here, it's you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just confirmed with B&H that orders placed after July 13th have not shipped yet!

So yes, as I said, Canon has only shipped 1 batch of the R5, indicating a problem with the camera or with production.

Please stop spreading misinformation. This a MASSIVE screw up on Canon’s behalf, tantamount to the 1DXiii debacle which chased away a lot of users to Nikon.

Anyone ordering an R5 now won’t see it until well after Jan 2021.

And any new lenses won’t hit the market until 2022-2023. Sorry!


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 12, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Just confirmed with B&H that orders placed after July 13th have not shipped yet!
> 
> So yes, as I said, Canon has only shipped 1 batch of the R5, indicating a problem with the camera or with production.
> 
> ...


I normally keep out of silly shouting matches,
but I call BULLSHIT on you, rontele7!
To say any new lenses won't hit the market until 2022-2023 is utter BULLSHIT.
To claim you know when all stores in the whole world will have & ship R5 orders is BULLSHIT, too!
Please do us all a favor and go away!


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 12, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I normally keep out of silly shouting matches,
> but I call BULLSHIT on you, rontele7!
> To say any new lenses won't hit the market until 2022-2023 is utter BULLSHIT.
> To claim you know when all stores in the whole world will have & ship R5 orders is BULLSHIT, too!
> Please do us all a favor and go away!


And as I posted after him, I know personally of an R5 delivery about 12 days ago now.


----------



## mpeeps (Oct 12, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Portability? Ok, this is going out on a limb--but a very good smartphone camera offers superb portability; however, putting a pancake on a FF body, _in my opinion_, kind of turns one of the best cameras in the world into...a smartphone without the portability. I'm sorry to upset pancake fans, but once I commit to carrying my FF for a specific purpose, be it a session, an event, or just walking/traveling with family, that's it, I know portability is not the priority. I don't have the R5 _yet_, but of all cameras, putting a pancake on it seems a huge mismatch.


I can barely put on the RF35.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 12, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Just confirmed with B&H that orders placed after July 13th have not shipped yet!
> 
> So yes, as I said, Canon has only shipped 1 batch of the R5, indicating a problem with the camera or with production.
> 
> ...


Okay, Skippy.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 12, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Just confirmed with B&H that orders placed after July 13th have not shipped yet!
> 
> So yes, as I said, Canon has only shipped 1 batch of the R5, indicating a problem with the camera or with production.
> 
> ...


I'm not a VIP customer of B&H, yet I ordered an R5 September 4th and received it October 4th. Yes it seemed like forever, but now we know you are just making stuff up, honey.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 12, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm not a VIP customer of B&H, yet I ordered an R5 September 4th and received it October 4th. Yes it seemed like forever, but now we know you are just making stuff up, honey.


He's probably related to Harry...


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 12, 2020)

mpeeps said:


> I can barely put on the RF35.


I do have an ef-s 24mm pancake that was ok, kind of fun on my 80D. But then I got the ef-s 35mm f/2.8 IS Macro. The pancake just felt too limiting. Sharp enough, nice contrast, but just not the flexibility I like in a dSLR. The 35mm macro, on the other hand, lets me get in very close, do some decent cityscapes, people photography, and even some nice impromptu portraits of the kids. It isn't much bigger than the pancake, but a lot more bang for carrying around, imo.

With just that 35mm and the ef 70-200mm f/4L IS, I feel pretty well covered for walk-around fun. But that's on an 80D, a camera I still really appreciate.

Ok, I didn't mean to be ANTI pancake (antipa?). Just saying that for cameras with as much potential as the R5/R6, a pancake, in my view, somewhat defeats the purpose. Yes, I do see it as an occasional, fun option, but if I'm holding a body that size, I'd rather have something with more quality and flexibility.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 12, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Ok, I didn't mean to be ANTI pancake (antipa?).



_EXACTLY _what an antipa sympathizer would say!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 13, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I think i read somewhere that there may only be 8-12 of the original EF version of the 1200 ever made. So yeah, not a cash cow, more of a statement/specialty/made-to-order kind of thing.
> 
> -Brian



Yes, but the original was 5.6, this one would be F8. That means it will be a much smaller and actually affordable lens compared to the EF.


----------



## LocationImaging (Oct 13, 2020)

SV said:


> Where's the 300 f/2.8 ???


Shocked there is no 300 f/2.8L


----------



## AJ (Oct 13, 2020)

For those looking for a pancake lens - there will be the RF 50/1.8. Perhaps not a true pancake lens but close enough IMO.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 13, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Yes, but the original was 5.6, this one would be F8. That means it will be a much smaller and actually affordable lens compared to the EF.


Size and affordability are relative of course but a 1200mm f8 has exactly the same sized front element as a 600mm f4. The EF 600mm f4 III is currently $12,999, I’d expect the RF 600 to be a couple of thousand more and an RF 1200mm several thousand on top, so maybe $18,999 or $19,999.

so yes, much smaller and cheaper than the EF 1200mm but not small or cheap by practically any other measure.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Size and affordability are relative of course but a 1200mm f8 has exactly the same sized front element as a 600mm f4. The EF 600mm f4 III is currently $12,999, I’d expect the RF 600 to be a couple of thousand more and an RF 1200mm several thousand on top, so maybe $18,999 or $19,999.
> 
> so yes, much smaller and cheaper than the EF 1200mm but not small or cheap by practically any other measure.



Yes, that's what i meant exactly. For 20K some photographers or companies will be able to buy it, compared to the 120K and very limited EF version.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 13, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Yes, that's what i meant exactly. For 20K some photographers or companies will be able to buy it, compared to the 120K and very limited EF version.


I'm wondering how much the EF version cost new, all those years ago. Surely not $120,000k back then. Collector's item now.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 13, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> If you are using RF, the EF mk2 lens with adapter weighs 1,700 g and is 217mm long, versus 1,365g and 207mm. Not a huge difference in size but you get 100mm extra focal length *(and yes you lose ⅔ of an aperture). *The 350g difference is far from trivial. For my usage having a maximum reach of 500mm makes the 1.4x extender superfluous, I need more than 400mm but 500 is OK versus 560mm for the 400mm + 1.4, so one item less in the camera bag.



[Emphasis mine], no, you don't lose 2/3 of an aperture because at 400mm both lenses (as far as I know) have the same max f ratio. It drops below that number going up to 500mm but that's all added capability over the 100-400mm and even with that...it's a lighter lens that can do more.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 13, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'm wondering how much the EF version cost new, all those years ago. Surely not $120,000k back then. Collector's item now.



I seem to recall reading $80K somewhere, possibly on the B&H article about it.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 13, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I seem to recall reading $80K somewhere, possibly on the B&H article about it.


B&H Article


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 13, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'm wondering how much the EF version cost new, all those years ago. Surely not $120,000k back then. Collector's item now.



The original price was $90 000. You could order it with $10 000 deposit and took 18 months to manufacture it.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 13, 2020)

brad-man said:


> B&H Article



That's the article I was thinking of, but it wasn't there. I then thought to check Wikipedia.

According to Wikipedia the MSRP was $89,750 (so I got the first digit right but for all that couldn't have been much more wrong) and it has been sold used for $180L


----------



## CanonGrunt (Oct 13, 2020)

SteveC said:


> That's the article I was thinking of, but it wasn't there. I then thought to check Wikipedia.
> 
> According to Wikipedia the MSRP was $89,750 (so I got the first digit right but for all that couldn't have been much more wrong) and it has been sold used for $180L




Yup. More than a house in many areas. It was also originally an FD mount, then they were all sent back to Canon to be converted. Though rumor has it that one never got sent back and still exists somewhere as an FD mount...


----------



## samh004 (Oct 13, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> The EF8-15mm/4 is good for what it is. Could be some quality updates but hard to see it being part of a 2021 release schedule. Until the recent Nikon version, it was unique in any system.


Exactly, can’t see a reason to update, I’m just keen to go all RF-mount. That said, I do see the value in using an EF-EOS R adapter to add a filter.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 13, 2020)

CanonGrunt said:


> Yup. More than a house in many areas. It was also originally an FD mount, then they were all sent back to Canon to be converted. Though rumor has it that one never got sent back and still exists somewhere as an FD mount...


No it doesn't. Canon never sold the FD mount versions, they were all owned by Canon Japan and lent out to suitable organizations. The FD versions had a built in TC too which was dropped for the EF versions.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Oct 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> No it doesn't. Canon never sold the FD mount versions, they were all owned by Canon Japan and lent out to suitable organizations. The FD versions had a built in TC too which was dropped for the EF versions.




The TC’s weren’t built in actually, more of mounted on semi permanently. 

“All of the FD 1200mm f/5.6L lenses were eventually shipped back to Canon in Japan. Later in the 1980s, these lenses were converted to the EF mount.“

Maybe it was Canon that left one as an FD. I remember seeing something about it several years back that one wasn’t converted back.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 13, 2020)

CanonGrunt said:


> The TC’s weren’t built in actually, more of mounted on semi permanently.
> 
> “All of the FD 1200mm f/5.6L lenses were eventually shipped back to Canon in Japan. Later in the 1980s, these lenses were converted to the EF mount.“
> 
> Maybe it was Canon that left one as an FD. I remember seeing something about it several years back that one wasn’t converted back.


I'm not sure I follow the semantic difference between built in and semi permanently mounted. But as these pictures clearly illustrate it was built in, very similar to the modern EF 200-400.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 13, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The original price was $90 000. You could order it with $10 000 deposit and took 18 months to manufacture it.


Ouch! So, just guestimating, about $200,000k in today's $. Of course, the FD's were MF right? https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## dolina (Oct 13, 2020)

You're not the target customer for the super teles so you do not understand the design history of the long white primes.

As such further discussion is moot.



CanonFanBoy said:


> But you are referring (at this moment) to super-tele in the EF line, and not the non-existent RF line. As far as RF super-tele, you have absolutely no idea yet what they will weigh.
> 
> Then I kindly turn you towards a look at the other RF lenses that are already here. What is lighter than an EF 85mm f/1.2L, EF 50mm f/1.2L, EF 28-70mm f/2.8L? Any of the RF's? No. Sure, the RF 70-200 is lighter than the EF version. Isn't that just about it? The Canon EF 24-70 is 95gr lighter than the RF version. So where is this advantage of RF over EF? I don't see it when it comes to weight, which for some reason, people keep trying to claim.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 13, 2020)

dolina said:


> You're not the target customer for the super teles so you do not understand the design history of the long white primes.
> 
> As such further discussion is moot.


I don't understand the design history of long white primes? Sure I do. You claim that the reason to switch to RF long white primes is for weight savings... with absolutely zero evidence. Zero. That's what makes the discussion moot. Has absolutely zero to do with me being the target market or not. You have absolutely no idea whether or not an RF 600mm f/4L will be lighter in weight than the current EF 600mm f/4L. No idea. Then, lets say it saves 4oz. That's worth the upgrade for a lens mostly mounted on a gimbal? Ok.


----------



## zim (Oct 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I'm not sure I follow the semantic difference between built in and semi permanently mounted. But as these pictures clearly illustrate it was built in, very similar to the modern EF 200-400.
> 
> View attachment 193295
> 
> ...


And then they all put them on the same non pro body? What a bunch of amateurs!


----------



## Traveler (Oct 13, 2020)

rjthestarboy said:


> wish canon would AT LEAST address the ef-m line... I wanted to invest in more ef-m lenses but I'm scared that they're gonna kill it off soon


They’re gonna produce new cameras as long as people buy them. And they still sell quite a lot of them. The lens lineup has been very small though.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 13, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Just confirmed with B&H that orders placed after July 13th have not shipped yet!
> 
> So yes, as I said, Canon has only shipped 1 batch of the R5, indicating a problem with the camera or with production.
> 
> ...


Don't we have enough conspiracy-theories yet?
Did you read this BS in the Qanon Weekly?


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 13, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Don't we have enough conspiracy-theories yet?
> Did you read this BS in the Qanon Weekly?


Go easy. Trolls tend to be a little "touched". Have some sympathy.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Oct 13, 2020)

I wonder if we will get an RF 200mm 1.8 L or similar?

On that note, someone was looking for one of the EF mount ones, I forget who, but it’s over at KEH if you’re in the market. 










Canon 200mm f/1.8 L USM EF-Mount Lens {Gel} Late


The world's fastest 200mm telephoto lens at the time. Three UD-glass elements eliminate secondary spectrum for sharp images at all apertures. The optics have been designed to give excellent background blur. Try it with the maximum aperture's sh




www.keh.com


----------



## FitzwaterPhoto (Oct 13, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Portability? Ok, this is going out on a limb--but a very good smartphone camera offers superb portability; however, putting a pancake on a FF body, _in my opinion_, kind of turns one of the best cameras in the world into...a smartphone without the portability. I'm sorry to upset pancake fans, but once I commit to carrying my FF for a specific purpose, be it a session, an event, or just walking/traveling with family, that's it, I know portability is not the priority. I don't have the R5 _yet_, but of all cameras, putting a pancake on it seems a huge mismatch.



To compare a pancake lens on a 45 MP FF body to a cellphone is pretty ridiculous. I have photos taken on my 6D with my pancake lens that I've printed large and are beautiful. One of the selling points of mirrorless has been the compact size. Thats cool you commit to carrying a heavy load - when I'm riding my bike I'm not going to lug a f/1.4 and I wouldn't want to bounce around my L glass anyways.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 13, 2020)

FitzwaterPhoto said:


> To compare a pancake lens on a 45 MP FF body to a cellphone is pretty ridiculous. I have photos taken on my 6D with my pancake lens that I've printed large and are beautiful. One of the selling points of mirrorless has been the compact size. Thats cool you commit to carrying a heavy load - when I'm riding my bike I'm not going to lug a f/1.4 and I wouldn't want to bounce around my L glass anyways.


There is a reason that smartphones have put point and shoot cameras on the endangered species list. The newest and best phones have astounding built-in cameras! Of course the sensor in a FF is going to allow for larger prints at the highest quality, but if my goal heading out the door is to produce great photos that somebody would want to keep on their wall, a pancake would not be my first choice. If going out for relaxation, for the fun of photography, I'd rather have a smaller, more flexible body and lens combo, but that's my personal choice.

(Ok, I'll admit, for the fun of photography, I'd still rather have a FF and a good zoom or fast prime or a macro that can work for portraits too. I understand, working in post with FF images makes it hard to downsize. But if really space-limited, or for keeping something in the car for whatever might come up, the 80D isn't too bad!)

Here are some suggested print sizes for smartphones, grouped by sensor size:









Smartphone Print Sizes


So you have this really nice smartphone, but you’re not sure how big you can make a print from its camera? The chart below offers some very general guide-lines for print sizes from some of t…




www.reedphoto.com





Also, I wonder why you think it's ok to "bounce around" a $3800 camera body, but not, say, a $1000 or less 24-105mm. Could you share a little more?

PS When I say putting a pancake on an R5 makes the camera an expensive smartphone without the phone, I'm using an exaggeration to express my gut reaction to the idea. A little ridiculous? Maybe once I finally get my hands on an R5, and it is less an object of abstract reverence, I would feel comfortable enough to see it as my "fun" camera. Right now, it's still somewhere near the level of the obelisk in _2001: A Space Odyssey._


----------



## vxcalais (Oct 13, 2020)

canonnews said:


> If this is the same source / proof as Craig got last year, then M lenses wouldn't show up on the list.


Its a bit disappointing but maybe not as dissapointed as those waiting for the m50 mark ii may feel. Seems Canon were keeping true with flagship being M6ii. 

Anyway, I have been tempted to get an RP but I am at a time in my life I just cant afford those lenses. I would need to sell one of my kids . The imagery from R is just amazing. These lenses should be fantastic.


----------



## canonnews (Oct 13, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Just confirmed with B&H that orders placed after July 13th have not shipped yet!
> 
> So yes, as I said, Canon has only shipped 1 batch of the R5, indicating a problem with the camera or with production.
> 
> ...



Again. That's just B&H .. and they could be saying anything to you, and you also don't know the reasons why. For instance, there could have been such a demand from professional services, that they preempted retail stores. You can bet if high profiles clients that deal directly with Canon USA wanted R5's.. They'd probably get them before retail outlets.

also again, in what world do you live in where camera manufacturing would impact lens manufacturing?


----------



## dolina (Oct 14, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I don't understand the design history of long white primes? Sure I do. You claim that the reason to switch to RF long white primes is for weight savings... with absolutely zero evidence. Zero. That's what makes the discussion moot. Has absolutely zero to do with me being the target market or not. You have absolutely no idea whether or not an RF 600mm f/4L will be lighter in weight than the current EF 600mm f/4L. No idea. Then, lets say it saves 4oz. That's worth the upgrade for a lens mostly mounted on a gimbal? Ok.


Take a breather. You won the internet.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 14, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> PS When I say putting a pancake on an R5 makes the camera an expensive smartphone without the phone, I'm using an exaggeration to express my gut reaction to the idea. A little ridiculous? Maybe once I finally get my hands on an R5, and it is less an object of abstract reverence, I would feel comfortable enough to see it as my "fun" camera. Right now, it's still somewhere near the level of the obelisk in _2001: A Space Odyssey._



I use my R5 with an RF 35mm f/1.8 as my everyday carry everywhere I go, normally just slung on a shoulder strap over one shoulder. I don't even really care about the image quality of a smartphone, I just detest the shutter delay/ergonomics/poor exposure controls/normally awful shutter speed/etc. I was leaning towards getting a Fuji X100F for a while for that reason, but my R5 with the 35 is basically a slightly bigger X100 with perfect Canon controls that also serves as my primary body for all my professional work.

I'm a breaking news photographer, and I would hate myself if I ever was in a situation where I came upon a structure fire or shooting while only carrying my smartphone. With my R5 as my everyday carry, I always know I'll have an incredible 45 megapixel 20 FPS camera at the ready, even if it only had a pancake or 35mm on it. My situation may be a little out of the ordinary, but realistically most street photography or photography involving people is about the decisive moment, and it is far easier to catch that moment with an R5 than a smartphone.

I would be very excited to pick up a 40mm pancake for the R5 to replace the 35 1.8 as an everyday carry when I'm just going to the grocery store/etc, though the 35 would definitely remain as my main travel/vacation lens for the wider aperture and macro features.


----------



## Pixel (Oct 14, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Which ones? IS stops for AF are better on EF lens on R bodies than on EF bodies? Using the R mount adapters provides even more functionality for EF lenses.


Well, that list of “officially supported lenses” in the back of the manual should give you an idea. The older the lens, the slower the mechanical shutter is going to be. 
Although I haven’t timed it, with my 600 f4IS the camera probably only lets me shoot at 6-8 fps.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 14, 2020)

Pixel said:


> Well, that list of “officially supported lenses” in the back of the manual should give you an idea. The older the lens, the slower the mechanical shutter is going to be.
> Although I haven’t timed it, with my 600 f4IS the camera probably only lets me shoot at 6-8 fps.


What would be causing that? AF control with the faster RF mount communication protocols would impact older lenses. I guess that you would get higher fps from a 1D but that has a higher battery voltage to power the AF. Can you get a higher fps from your 600/4 from any other Canon body?


----------



## Pixel (Oct 15, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> What would be causing that? AF control with the faster RF mount communication protocols would impact older lenses. I guess that you would get higher fps from a 1D but that has a higher battery voltage to power the AF. Can you get a higher fps from your 600/4 from any other Canon body?


Of course on my 1Dx II’s it’s fine. 
Canon has been clear, to get the maximum fps, you have to use an RF lens or an EF lens off of that list which is naturally comprised of only the newest EF releases.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 15, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> What would be causing that? AF control with the faster RF mount communication protocols would impact older lenses. I guess that you would get higher fps from a 1D but that has a higher battery voltage to power the AF. Can you get a higher fps from your 600/4 from any other Canon body?



Rudy Winston hinted at, but didn't say outright, that the speed of the aperture motor plays a role. I don't think that's the whole story, since that wouldn't impact shooting wide open, but I did notice that on a (rented) 1dx3 the fps dropped significantly when stopping down my 180L. My EF85 f/1.8 gives a white blinky 'H' even wide open on the R5, so no full speed.

On the R5/R6, make sure wifi is off, the manual says that will limit fps as well, regardless of lens.


----------



## FramerMCB (Oct 15, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I think i read somewhere that there may only be 8-12 of the original EF version of the 1200 ever made. So yeah, not a cash cow, more of a statement/specialty/made-to-order kind of thing.
> 
> -Brian


The Original EF 1200mm f/5.6L weighed about 25 lbs and sold for $100,000 USD they were a serious specialty lens, and a special order item I believe. And to my knowledge were only ordered and sold to news agencies. BH Photo had a used one for sale in 2009 for $120,000 USD, I believe a Saudi Prince bought it (or some Prince in the Middle East). In any case, they fellow who purchased it is into photography and not just collecting. See embedded screen snip from Wikipedia... For interesting 'recent' sales info see bottom area of snip...


----------



## lexptr (Oct 16, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Hmmm! To be clear I was reporting Canon's own MTFs as a source. While they seem to be problematic in some ways, I assumed that whatever problems their methodology had would cancel out between lenses. (For instance they don't take film/sensor into account. In fact I don't think they take production into account and instead are theoretical calculations.)
> 
> Also, the impression the Canon MTFs gave backs up my own findings with owning 2xEF 14mm/2.8, 2xTS 24/3.5, EF 24/1.4, EF 35/1.4, 50/1.0 1.2 1.4 1.8 MkI, 85/1.2 MkI, old non-USM 100Mac, 135/2 and 600/4, plus about six zooms. And a bag of Leica lenses, whole Contax G2, Mamiya 7+3 lens, couple other MFs. The experience I've had is that 1) Mamiya 7 probably beat everything, but then the 135 and 180 are so much sharper than everything there's no point in even comparing numbers. 600 could well be too but I use it at distances atmospheric haze and heatwaves always hurt the results.
> 
> ...


God knows, how Conon cooks MTF. Never treated them seriously. I believe more those TDP real-picture charts. Sure, they may have a bad copy. It is, by the way, another problem of old lenses. Nowadays they much more stable in terms of copy variation. But there is another source of comparisons - DxOMark. I don't like their super-simplified, number-only results, but there are no many places with comparisons of various lenses on various bodies. Here are comparisons of 180L with 100L and 24-70L II: on 5Dmk2, on 5Dmk3, on 5Dmk4 and on 5DSR. On sharpness score newer lenses are better already from the lowest-mp 5Dmk2. All get better with sensor resolution grow, but 180L stops at (or before) the 30mp of 5Dmk4. Other two get better and much better at 50mp of 5DSR. They don't have 85 1.4L to compare, but at TDP it looks sharper wide open. Another source, which has no many tests, but here are few with MTF charts for 180L, 100L and 200L. Those tests were on old 8mp APS-C camera, but still show the same: 100L and 200L resolve better. By the way, while 100L is newer, 200L is from the same '96. So, IDK, maybe they all had a bad copy, or you are right, and it should be sharper at macro distance, or it seems better, because it is, probably, used on tripod, with remote and mirror look-up. Anyway, for me it is an old and odd lens, which I avoid, until Canon make a new one. And, I return to the beginning of our discussion, I believe it can be improved a lot. Meanwhile 100L serves well and double as decent portrait lens.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 16, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Rudy Winston hinted at, but didn't say outright, that the speed of the aperture motor plays a role. I don't think that's the whole story, since that wouldn't impact shooting wide open, but I did notice that on a (rented) 1dx3 the fps dropped significantly when stopping down my 180L. My EF85 f/1.8 gives a white blinky 'H' even wide open on the R5, so no full speed.
> 
> On the R5/R6, make sure wifi is off, the manual says that will limit fps as well, regardless of lens.


Couldn't the fps also be related to the focusing- speed of lenses, knowing that the 180 L macro is particularly slow-focusing?


----------



## riker (Oct 16, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Why? Because of the F7.1? I think that's an opportunity actually. The 100-400 F7.1 could be a very small lens, great for travel, hiking, etc. Well under 1kg.
> If you want better, you can get the 100-500, which is around F5.6 at 400mm. Today's cameras are much better at high ISO, so losing 2/3 of a stop is not such a big deal when can shave off 600-700g weight from one lens.



We are aiming at the same goal but having different views on the situation. I'm using the 100-400 for travelling (actually very important for me) and was hoping for a new smaller/lighter RF version but no loss of aperture. RF design makes that possible, that's the great about it. Making a lens lighter with loss of aperture, is not a game changer, not much innovation needed for that. And it's not even the same lens anymore. I would even be OK with a lens design change like in the case of the 70-200 loosing internal zoom.
For hiking we will have a very portable 70-200/4 which everybody will love I guess. I would definitely buy it hadn't I tried the 100-400 on my last backpacking trip. Kills my back and makes me sweat but I just can't live without 300-400mm anymore.
I don't need the extra 100mm in the 100-500 tho and a weight/size reduction on the 100-400 without loosing aperture would have been my wish.
I guess a 70-200/2.8 style 100-300/4 with external zoom optimized for size and weight would be my dream travel lens. Accepting teleconverters of course.

Please note that justifying lens aperture loss with higher ISO is not valid imho. Aperture changes DoF which make it a different image. You can't give a painter lower quality paints and tell him he has better brushes to compensate.


----------



## Joules (Oct 16, 2020)

riker said:


> You can't give a painter lower quality paints and tell him he has better brushes to compensate.


Right. But you can give a photographer more focal length while maintaining the same pyhsical aperture (or in other words, decrease the f-number), and in all situations where that photographer was limited by reach previously improve their quality.

And that's what Canon is doing here. The 100-500 mm 4.5-7.1 L IS USM has a comparable f-number to the EF predecessor at 400 mm and offers greater reach. The 100-400 mm you are talking about here is an entirely different lens. I am certain it is an RF upgrade to the EF 70-300 mm 4.0-5.6 IS USM (a well regarded 525 € lens, NOT to be confused with the abysmal 75-300 mm 4.0-5.6 line of lenses). It is not an L lens, and I expect it to be very compact. Maybe it is more of an amalgamation of the EF lens I just mentioned and the lovely EF-S 55-250 mm IS STM (Also not to be confused with the mediocre predecessors).

In the context of tele lenses, you have too keep your reach and magnification in mind. Only saying that you are losing aperture doesn't show the full picture. If you shoot with a faster, wider lens and crop, you are likely getting worse results than shooting a longer and slower lens without cropping as much. As long as the pyhsical aperture is the same and the class of the lens is comparable. I would not compare this RF 100-400 mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM to the EF 100-400 4.5-5.6 L IS.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 16, 2020)

riker said:


> We are aiming at the same goal but having different views on the situation. I'm using the 100-400 for travelling (actually very important for me) and was hoping for a new smaller/lighter RF version but no loss of aperture. RF design makes that possible, that's the great about it. Making a lens lighter with loss of aperture, is not a game changer, not much innovation needed for that. And it's not even the same lens anymore. I would even be OK with a lens design change like in the case of the 70-200 loosing internal zoom.
> For hiking we will have a very portable 70-200/4 which everybody will love I guess. I would definitely buy it hadn't I tried the 100-400 on my last backpacking trip. Kills my back and makes me sweat but I just can't live without 300-400mm anymore.
> I don't need the extra 100mm in the 100-500 tho and a weight/size reduction on the 100-400 without loosing aperture would have been my wish.
> I guess a 70-200/2.8 style 100-300/4 with external zoom optimized for size and weight would be my dream travel lens. Accepting teleconverters of course.
> ...



I don't think an L 100-400 with the same parameters as the EF would be significantly lighter. I rather have the 100-500 which is actually lighter than the EF 100-400 but gaining extra 100mm than an RF 100-400 which is 1300g instead of 1400g. Just shame for the huge price increase.


----------



## AEWest (Oct 16, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I don't think an L 100-400 with the same parameters as the EF would be significantly lighter. I rather have the 100-500 which is actually lighter than the EF 100-400 but gaining extra 100mm than an RF 100-400 which is 1300g instead of 1400g. Just shame for the huge price increase.


Look at the bright side...if you get the RF your wallet will be a lot lighter when hiking!


----------



## Nelu (Oct 16, 2020)

AEWest said:


> Look at the bright side...if you get the RF your wallet will be a lot lighter when hiking!


Or...you won't have any money left for food so you'll become even lighter!


----------



## SteveC (Oct 16, 2020)

Nelu said:


> Or...you won't have any money left for food so you'll become even lighter!



Pro tip: Eating Ramen to save/recoup money can lead to weight gain.


----------



## rightslot (Oct 16, 2020)

RF 85mm 1.2 ??

Can we help each other out?

Wondering if anyone here has ever dealt with PROCAM as a retailer? 

I am looking at a new RF 85mm 1.2 at the normal price. They say they have it in stock (18 in fact).

But my concern is that NOBODY else seems to have it in stock. I'm not interested in some scheme that takes my money and then keeps with delays in getting the shipment to me. 

Any transactions?


----------



## Johnw (Oct 17, 2020)

Great lineup. I’m looking forward to these.

Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM
Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM
Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM


----------



## brad-man (Oct 17, 2020)

rightslot said:


> RF 85mm 1.2 ??
> 
> Can we help each other out?
> 
> ...


I've never heard of them, but they appear to be Canon authorized retailers. If you order and they don't have it in stock, you can always cancel. There seem to be plenty non-USA lenses available. How bad do you want it?


Johnw said:


> Great lineup. I’m looking forward to these.
> 
> Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM
> Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM
> Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM



Looks like $7500 well spent...


----------



## rightslot (Oct 17, 2020)

brad-man—-

Good point. I do want it. I guess this is where American Express comes in. Thanks


----------



## riker (Oct 18, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I don't think an L 100-400 with the same parameters as the EF would be significantly lighter. I rather have the 100-500 which is actually lighter than the EF 100-400 but gaining extra 100mm than an RF 100-400 which is 1300g instead of 1400g. Just shame for the huge price increase.



I don't get the logic. If the 24-105 can be 795g -> 700g, the 70-200 can be *1440g -> 1070g* and the 100-500 can be 205g lighter than the shorter 100-400, just why do you think the 100-400 can't be something like 1570g -> 1150-1250g? With the same optical formula but obviously with the new extending lens design. It's not that it is not easily possible, but since they opted for the 100-500, no reason to make it anymore. A weaker 100-400 fits better under the 100-500.
Sidenote, I'm furious for the 70-200 not accepting teleconverters. It would make life so much easier but I guess it's not that good for the business.


----------



## riker (Oct 18, 2020)

Joules said:


> Right. But you can give a photographer more focal length while maintaining the same pyhsical aperture (or in other words, decrease the f-number), and in all situations where that photographer was limited by reach previously improve their quality.
> 
> And that's what Canon is doing here. The 100-500 mm 4.5-7.1 L IS USM has a comparable f-number to the EF predecessor at 400 mm and offers greater reach. The 100-400 mm you are talking about here is an entirely different lens. I am certain it is an RF upgrade to the EF 70-300 mm 4.0-5.6 IS USM (a well regarded 525 € lens, NOT to be confused with the abysmal 75-300 mm 4.0-5.6 line of lenses). It is not an L lens, and I expect it to be very compact. Maybe it is more of an amalgamation of the EF lens I just mentioned and the lovely EF-S 55-250 mm IS STM (Also not to be confused with the mediocre predecessors).
> 
> In the context of tele lenses, you have too keep your reach and magnification in mind. Only saying that you are losing aperture doesn't show the full picture. If you shoot with a faster, wider lens and crop, you are likely getting worse results than shooting a longer and slower lens without cropping as much. As long as the pyhsical aperture is the same and the class of the lens is comparable. I would not compare this RF 100-400 mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM to the EF 100-400 4.5-5.6 L IS.



I mainly agree, good point. I was only saying I wished the successor was a lighter/smaller 100-400 with the same optical formula. I chose more weight reduction instead of the extra 100mm which I don't need. It's a great lens just not exactly what I was hoping for.
My dream lens is probably a 100-300/4 with builtin 1.4X at the weight of the 100-500. That would be really versatile. And I'm even fine with 120-280 if that helps (probably doesn't).
IMHO if the RF 70-200 accepted 2X, that would be it, 80% of the 100-400 and 100-500 market gone and I would have never posted my comment 
I was not that much into using 70-200 with 2X (thus having 100-400) but now with the new light RF version, omg, would be a killer. The same lens for work and 
travel. If I could only have one wish...


----------



## Joules (Oct 18, 2020)

riker said:


> IMHO if the RF 70-200 accepted 2X, that would be it, 80% of the 100-400 and 100-500 market gone and I would have never posted my comment


I guess your best hope is that the high MP R (R5 S or R3, whatever it will be called, 80+ MP) will be in your budget. That's effectively a 1.67 teleconverter for all your lenses if they simply upscale the 32.5 MP APS-C sensor to FF. Might be even more, if they decide to go higher with the resolution. I think Canon is intentionally not making the RF TCs compatible with the most lenses possible, because their new sensor readout speed and modern storage solutions allow them to rekindle the megapixel war.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 18, 2020)

riker said:


> I don't get the logic. If the 24-105 can be 795g -> 700g, the 70-200 can be *1440g -> 1070g* and the 100-500 can be 205g lighter than the shorter 100-400, just why do you think the 100-400 can't be something like 1570g -> 1150-1250g? With the same optical formula but obviously with the new extending lens design. It's not that it is not easily possible, but since they opted for the 100-500, no reason to make it anymore. A weaker 100-400 fits better under the 100-500.
> Sidenote, I'm furious for the 70-200 not accepting teleconverters. It would make life so much easier but I guess it's not that good for the business.



First of all because the 100-500 is around F6.3 or F6 at 400mm vs 5.6 for the 100-400. The extra 100mm won't add that much weight. Probably a few other barrel changes were made also. For example the 100-500 cannot be used with teleconverter at the short end.

"With the same optical formula but obviously with the new extending lens design"

The 100-400 is already an extending design, so no weight saving left to be done there. I just don't see how they could reduce the weight in any significant way without reducing the quality or features.

The 70-200 was changed from internal zoom to extending design, that's where the weight and size difference comes from. Also not compatible with extenders, a big negative.


----------



## AJ (Oct 21, 2020)

riker said:


> Sidenote, I'm furious for the 70-200 not accepting teleconverters. It would make life so much easier but I guess it's not that good for the business.


No kidding, eh. In the past there used to be a lot of discussion whether an EF 70-200/2.8 with 1.4x and 2x TCs would hold up against an EF 100-400. They were close. I guess we won't be having this discussion any more... 

FWIW I see the RF 100-500 as the new EF 100-400, and the rumored RF 100-400 as the new EF 70-300L.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 21, 2020)

AJ said:


> No kidding, eh. In the past there used to be a lot of discussion whether an EF 70-200/2.8 with 1.4x and 2x TCs would hold up against an EF 100-400. They were close. I guess we won't be having this discussion any more...
> 
> FWIW I see the RF 100-500 as the new EF 100-400, and the rumored RF 100-400 as the new EF 70-300L.


In all fairness to Canon, the whole benefit of the new R... camera bodies and lenses is that there is a short 20mm flange-to-sensor distance, and an even shorter possible back-focus distance from the furthest lens surface (which may stick out past the flange towards the sensor). This much-reduced distance allows them to design lenses with much better optical performance. 

The RF 70-200mm f2.8L IS lens takes advantage of this new option in lens design to give a better performance for all of us that buy it. But that better performance comes at the cost of not having a big enough back-focus distance with which to design a new RF TC to fit it, since there is not enough room for the lenses it would need.

I, for one, am very glad that Canon made such a design decision for their RF 70-200 f2.8L lens to get the best optical performance in a more compact and lightweight form as possible. Since it can not accept the RF TC, I have chosen to also buy the RF 100-500 lens. And since that lens can only accept the RF 1.4X TC if the lens is set to 300mm or beyond, I have chosen to not use the TC on it and instead also buy the RF 800mm f11 lens. I'm very happy to have new lenses with their optimal performance, even if it means that I can't use a TC in the ways that other users have previously enjoyed.

If you would rather Canon provided less optimal RF lenses just for the sake of allowing the normal use of a TC, then I would suggest that you try to be happy that their EF lenses and EF-to-RF TC's can do just that, and in fact they perform better on the R... bodies than they used to on the EF bodies.


----------



## AEWest (Oct 21, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> In all fairness to Canon, the whole benefit of the new R... camera bodies and lenses is that there is a short 20mm flange-to-sensor distance, and an even shorter possible back-focus distance from the furthest lens surface (which may stick out past the flange towards the sensor). This much-reduced distance allows them to design lenses with much better optical performance.
> 
> The RF 70-200mm f2.8L IS lens takes advantage of this new option in lens design to give a better performance for all of us that buy it. But that better performance comes at the cost of not having a big enough back-focus distance with which to design a new RF TC to fit it, since there is not enough room for the lenses it would need.
> 
> ...


How much better optically is RF 70-200 vs EF 70-200 2.8 III? I saw a comparison and it didn't seem noticeably better.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Oct 21, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I, for one, am very glad that Canon made such a design decision for their RF 70-200 f2.8L lens to get the best optical performance in a more compact and lightweight form as possible. Since it can not accept the RF TC, I have chosen to also buy the RF 100-500 lens. And since that lens can only accept the RF 1.4X TC if the lens is set to 300mm or beyond, I have chosen to not use the TC on it and instead also buy the RF 800mm f11 lens. I'm very happy to have new lenses with their optimal performance, even if it means that I can't use a TC in the ways that other users have previously enjoyed.



I went with the 100-500 + TC's and not the 800. Thinking being the tc is lighter than another lens and it does allow some zoom (420-700 or 600-1000)... even though the cost is walking around with an almost fully extended lens. However I got to say, your method has its advantages in other aspects.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 22, 2020)

AJ said:


> [..]
> FWIW I see the RF 100-500 as the new EF 100-400, and the rumored RF 100-400 as the new EF 70-300L.



The RF100-400 is not an L, so it's more like the new EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS II USM. You get 100mm more, but the nano-USM goes away


----------



## AJ (Oct 23, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> The 100-500 is also in part the new 70-200//2.8, because instead of f/2.8 trinity from 17-200, you've now got (or will have soon) an f/4 *-7.1) trinity from 10-500. For "most shots" you don't need the extra stops, thx to 1) IBIS and IS , 2) far sharper and less ISO-sensitive sensors and 3) AF that doesn't require f/2.8 to work.
> 
> Even in cases you NEED bokeh, the 24-105/4 at 105/4 has the same amount of bokeh the 24-70/2.8 did at 70/2.8, and at 500/7.1 you have the same 71mm aperture the 200/2.8 does wide open. So for doing "portraits without a dedicated portrait lens" you're about as well set-up.


Many togs work in confines spaces. e.g. weddings, events, studios. In a studio there is often no way to back up in order to use 105 mm instead of 70 mm. At events you are stuck in the press box with no way to back up. Weddings are similar. Most togs choose their focal length first and then their aperture. For events and weddings a 100-500 is not a substitute for the 70-200/2.8
That said, I have often in the past relied on fast lenses for a brighter viewfinder and better focus (whether AF or MF). With mirrorless/EVF and DPAF, large aperture isn't as big of a deal for these two aspects. Also I feel more comfortable these days cranking up the iso a bit to get faster shutterspeeds.


----------



## gmon750 (Nov 6, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Definitely very useful underwater but I wouldn't see a big difference in quality needed over the EF version.
> My Ikelite housing with the R5 is working very well for me



True, but I plan on getting either an Aquatica or Nauticam housing for the R5 and EF fisheye may not fit as well in the housing than a native RF lens. I prefer the smaller footprints of Aquatica and Nauticam for big camera housings. The Ikelite's bulk doesn't do it for me.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 8, 2020)

gmon750 said:


> True, but I plan on getting either an Aquatica or Nauticam housing for the R5 and EF fisheye may not fit as well in the housing than a native RF lens. I prefer the smaller footprints of Aquatica and Nauticam for big camera housings. The Ikelite's bulk doesn't do it for me.


Your budget is a little higher than mine  
Nice gear but I can’t justify it for the amount of diving I do. Ikelite is definitely bulky... I use a trim weight when I use my 8” dome but not needed for my macro setup.
Based on the ikelite port chart for rf mount and the only difference is the port length based on the overall lens length. The only direct ef/rf lens is the 16-35mm f2.8iii vs rf version. 92mm vs 78mm. The width is not an issue ie that is the overall port system for ikelite’s dl system and fits all lens... even the 11-24mm


----------



## AlanF (Nov 8, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> In all fairness to Canon, the whole benefit of the new R... camera bodies and lenses is that there is a short 20mm flange-to-sensor distance, and an even shorter possible back-focus distance from the furthest lens surface (which may stick out past the flange towards the sensor). This much-reduced distance allows them to design lenses with much better optical performance.
> 
> The RF 70-200mm f2.8L IS lens takes advantage of this new option in lens design to give a better performance for all of us that buy it. But that better performance comes at the cost of not having a big enough back-focus distance with which to design a new RF TC to fit it, since there is not enough room for the lenses it would need.
> 
> ...


I've been thinking a lot about the 100-500mm vs the 100-400mm II on the R5 and will make up my mind when I can get the RF and test them directly against each other. Unlike you, I have decided not to go with the 800/11 as an accompaniment to a zoom because I couldn't go on a hike carrying both the 100-500mm and 800mm - you may well be younger and fitter than me and use cameras in a different way. So far, I am very, very happy with the 100-400mm II + TCs on the R5 and get up to 800mm. But, if the 100-500mm is better then I'll upgrade.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 8, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I've been thinking a lot about the 100-500mm vs the 100-400mm II on the R5 and will make up my mind when I can get the RF and test them directly against each other. Unlike you, I have decided not to go with the 800/11 as an accompaniment to a zoom because I couldn't go on a hike carrying both the 100-500mm and 800mm - you may well be younger and fitter than me and use cameras in a different way. So far, I am very, very happy with the 100-400mm II + TCs on the R5 and get up to 800mm. But, if the 100-500mm is better then I'll upgrade.


Well, I may be fit for my age, but my age is in the Grandpa territory. If I go on a hike, there is no way I'll take the 100-500 and 800. If the 100-500 supported the whole zoom range with a TC then I probably would buy one to use, just as you do, but to change a 100-500 into a 420-700 or 600-1000 and lose the 100-whatever range isn't worth it to me, as I can use cropping in post to get a good enough further reach (with the 45MP R5) while retaining the 100-whatever range. If I took a 2nd lens it would probably be the RF 15-35 f2.8L IS which I'm *really* happy with (but would prefer a RF 17-70 f4(or so)L IS if they ever made one).

Since you already have the EF 100-400 which can use a 1.4 or 2x TC adapter then I think you're better off using that combo as you currently do, and save your money for other lenses, bodies, or other stuff in the future. I'm new to the Canon line, so I don't have any EF lenses and so I would rather buy whatever RF lenses make sense for me as they come out.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 9, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Since you already have the EF 100-400 which can use a 1.4 or 2x TC adapter then I think you're better off using that combo as you currently do, and save your money for other lenses, bodies, or other stuff in the future. I'm new to the Canon line, so I don't have any EF lenses and so I would rather buy whatever RF lenses make sense for me as they come out.



One other consideration that probably doesn't apply to you (but it does for me and some others here) is that the 100-400mm is usable on EF-M cameras (with adapter) and the 100-500mm never will be. So I was glad to have just bought one even when the 100-500 came out. On the other end of the spectrum, I was perfectly happy to buy the RF 15-35 (though I am still paying for it), but that is because I have tolerably good lenses in that range that work on the EF-M and I wouldn't normally use my M6-II for that sort of work anyway.


----------



## Jamesy (Jan 22, 2021)

dwarven said:


> I suggested a couple months ago that I'd like to see this lens and that it was possible, and was told by a prominent member of this site that "no it's absolutely not possible".  Now I can't remember who it was.


Given the size of the sigma 105 1.4, I am sure this would be a monster.


----------



## vjlex (Mar 18, 2022)

Really looking forward to an RF 35mm 1.x L lens announcement. Any updates on whether this would be a 1.4 or 1.2?


----------

