# Patent: Canon RF 70-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM and more



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 20, 2019)

> Canon News has uncovered a patent which details the optical formulas for a couple of super telephoto zooms, including an RF 70-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, a lens we’re told will appear sometime in the first half of 2020.
> In the same patent, Canon also mentions an RF 70-300mm f/4-5.6, a lens we could see appear as a non-L telephoto zoom.
> *Canon RF 70-300mm f/4-5.6:*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## proutprout (Sep 20, 2019)

Amazing, so we will have a ton of good lenses and no body. That looks like a amazing sales strategy (helping Sony of course)...


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 20, 2019)

If they make that 70-400mm lens along with a Aps-c R it would be seriously good combo.


----------



## BillB (Sep 20, 2019)

proutprout said:


> Amazing, so we will have a ton of good lenses and no body. That looks like a amazing sales strategy (helping Sony of course)...


Funny. There are also people that think that there aren't any RF lenses that they are interested in because Canon is producing expensive overweight high end lenses. Well, there is already, the R, the RP, the 35mm, the 24-105, and the 24-240. Some people already have the R or the RP and with the new firmware there will be more. A 70-400 or a 70-300 would be aimed at people who don't want expensive RF glass but want something more than the 24-240.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 20, 2019)

The 70-400 or 100-400 is 100% will come sooner or later. It's an essential lens, almost like a 70-200.
What they need is a cheaper kit lens for RP and lower cost bodies. And a competition for Sony 200-600.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 20, 2019)

BillB said:


> Funny. There are also people that think that there aren't any RF lenses that they are interested in because Canon is producing expensive overweight high end lenses. Well, there is already, the R, the RP, the 35mm, the 24-105, and the 24-240. Some people already have the R or the RP and with the new firmware there will be more. A 70-400 or a 70-300 would be aimed at people who don't want expensive RF glass but want something more than the 24-240.



I think the 70-400 is more like a high-end 100-400 L type of lens.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Sep 20, 2019)

All well and good, but still no 150/200-500/600, leaving Canon as the only maker including third party without a long supertele zoom.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 20, 2019)

Could be nice if it winds up in the same form factor as the RF 70-200...


----------



## BillB (Sep 20, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> All well and good, but still no 150/200-500/600, leaving Canon as the only maker including third party without a long supertele zoom.


 But how many people would be willing to buy a long supertele zoom to put it on an R camera that aren't willing to adapt a cheaper third party zoom? That might be a pretty small niche.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2019)

Act444 said:


> Could be nice if it winds up in the same form factor as the RF 70-200...


Looks to be ~1-2 cm shorter than the 100-400L II at both extended and retracted lengths.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 20, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> All well and good, but still no 150/200-500/600, leaving Canon as the only maker including third party without a long supertele zoom.


NIkon and Panasonic don't have anything either.


----------



## Daner (Sep 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Looks to be ~1-2 cm shorter than the 100-400L II at both extended and retracted lengths.



Don't forget to add the length of the adapter to that.

On the other hand, the EF 100-400L II is compatible with the 1.4x and 2x extenders, both individually and in combination. The RF 70-400 has the potential to be smaller and lighter, and will likely have at least slightly improved IQ and IS, but with a considerably higher price and reduced initial versatility (at least until we get RF extenders.)

Of course what I really want is the 200-400 with the built-in 1.4, but it is not currently a realistic option for me when it comes to budget, size, and baggage allowance.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Looks to be ~1-2 cm shorter than the 100-400L II at both extended and retracted lengths.


Yep...I don't think a little size difference is ever going to be high on the EF Rf debate's critical options list. i'm sure this new lens will sell and sell proportional to how well the Rf mount cameras sell. For migrators from ef to rf or dual system users...there's little in it and hardly worth the side grade costs if one already had an ef 100-400IIL. But new users...sure the new lens will be a wise investment.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 20, 2019)

RF variant may end up being a faster focusing and a better tracking lens due to RF Mount data throughput advantage over the EF Mount.
It could be a substantial factor after all. For some at least.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 20, 2019)

BillB said:


> But how many people would be willing to buy a long supertele zoom to put it on an R camera that aren't willing to adapt a cheaper third party zoom? That might be a pretty small niche.



Small niche? I don't think so. Adapting a third party lens is still not the same as native, especially when AF is crucial. And also does not bring any money to Canon.
Sony exec said in an interview that their new 200-600 is very popular. Not hard to see why. 
Having 320-900mm (on APS-C) internal zoom lens for $1700 is a great deal.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 20, 2019)

Would be really nice to have some additional 30mm on the short end with the RF 70-400mm f/4-5.6L IS USM.
But only as long as the IQ stays the same (or is even better) as the EF100-400 II.

*@Canon Rumors Guy:*
Craig, it looks like there is a typo in the thread title as the patent states an f number of 4.07. 



Canon Rumors Guy said:


> *Canon RF 70-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM:*
> 
> Focal length: 72.62mm 168.49mm 389.89mm
> F number: 4.07 5.10 5.85


----------



## criscokkat (Sep 20, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> If they make that 70-400mm lens along with a Aps-c R it would be seriously good combo.


I think that's still a possibility next year.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 20, 2019)

canonnews said:


> NIkon and Panasonic don't have anything either.



Nikon has the 200-500 which is not a third party. Canon does not have anything if one wants longer than 400mm and cannot spend tons of money on a 500mm prime


----------



## Viggo (Sep 20, 2019)

proutprout said:


> Amazing, so we will have a ton of good lenses and no body. That looks like a amazing sales strategy (helping Sony of course)...


Why do you even bother with this whiny complaining? I’m serious.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 20, 2019)

proutprout said:


> Amazing, so we will have a ton of good lenses and no body. That looks like a amazing sales strategy (helping Sony of course)...


This goofy complaint is way past its expiration point. Time to toss it out and find something new to whine about.


----------



## Stuart (Sep 20, 2019)

A * 70-300mm f/4-5.6* is typically an 'affordable' amount from £100- 400 depending. What will an RF version do to price?


----------



## canonnews (Sep 20, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Nikon has the 200-500 which is not a third party. Canon does not have anything if one wants longer than 400mm and cannot spend tons of money on a 500mm prime


I get the point.
however, none of these vendors have native lenses for mirrorless which is what this patent is about IMO.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 20, 2019)

Stuart said:


> A * 70-300mm f/4-5.6* is typically an 'affordable' amount from £100- 400 depending. What will an RF version do to price?


Don't forget the 70-300 L. It is "affordable" in comparison to many other L lenses, but it is above $1,000. While the lower cost 300 mm zooms no doubt sell more, most are sold as kit lenses with rebels. Canon may feel that an L quality R version is a better match, especially since they have the consumer grade 24-240 zoom.


----------



## mpb001 (Sep 20, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Why do you even bother with this whiny complaining? I’m serious.


Canon has already said the high MP R series body is coming in early 2020. That is just around the corner. Then when it does arrive the same “whiners” will complain that its too expensive.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 20, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Small niche? I don't think so. Adapting a third party lens is still not the same as native, especially when AF is crucial. And also does not bring any money to Canon.
> Sony exec said in an interview that their new 200-600 is very popular. Not hard to see why.
> Having 320-900mm (on APS-C) internal zoom lens for $1700 is a great deal.


It’s not a 320-900, it’s a Sony 200-600mm on all bodies. I am not splitting hairs. The new A7RIV has a 24 Mpx crop mode, and the lens does not magically increase its focal length on switching to it from FF. Similarly, a 100-400mm II has the same resolution on a 5DS as it does on a 7DII.


----------



## motofotog (Sep 20, 2019)

Surprised! 
Canon still dose not think of producing zoom lens beyond 400mm


----------



## criscokkat (Sep 20, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It’s not a 320-900, it’s a Sony 200-600mm on all bodies. I am not splitting hairs. The new A7RIV has a 24 Mpx crop mode, and the lens does not magically increase its focal length on switching to it from FF. Similarly, a 100-400mm II has the same resolution on a 5DS as it does on a 7DII.


It's true that it's always a 100-400, but on a canon aps c thats _effectively_ 160-640. Now if the high resolution R mount camera has the same resolution as the current top of the line aps-c sensor when cropped, then yes, it's the same as a aps-c camera. In the past that has not been the case. The canon (7d-2's, 80d etc) and equivalent Sony aps-c sensors had more pixels packed in to the sensor than what the full frame cropped did, and that makes a world of difference in things like action sports and birding.

If the new high MP R hits 14 fps when cropped, has great tracking, faster viewfinder and a joystick or something close to it -- then we might have found a (much more expensive) 7dIII replacement. Birders are always spending ridiculous amounts for the ultra long glass, so why let them cheap out on pro features with an aps-c camera when they can obviously afford something twice as much, with the bonus of letting them get wider less action filled shots full frame.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 20, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> It's true that it's always a 100-400, but on a canon aps c thats _effectively_ 160-640. Now if the high resolution R mount camera has the same resolution as the current top of the line aps-c sensor when cropped, then yes, it's the same as a aps-c camera. In the past that has not been the case. The canon (7d-2's, 80d etc) and equivalent Sony aps-c sensors had more pixels packed in to the sensor than what the full frame cropped did, and that makes a world of difference in things like action sports and birding.
> 
> If the new high MP R hits 14 fps when cropped, has great tracking, faster viewfinder and a joystick or something close to it -- then we might have found a (much more expensive) 7dIII replacement. Birders are always spending ridiculous amounts for the ultra long glass, so why let them cheap out on pro features with an aps-c camera when they can obviously afford something twice as much, with the bonus of letting them get wider less action filled shots full frame.


So, are you saying that a 100-400mm II on a 7DII has an effective reach of 160-640mm but on the FF 5DS only 100-400mm because it is full frame? The lens has effectively the same reach on both. The crucial factor in the reach of a lens on a body is the size of the pixels on the sensor and not whether it is FF, APS-C or M4/3. It’s important to understand this. The 90D, for example, has smaller pixels than an Olympus OMD-M1 Mk II and so outresolves the Olympus despite its 2x crop factor and Olympus claiming its 300mm lens is equivalent to a 600mm.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 20, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It’s not a 320-900, it’s a Sony 200-600mm on all bodies. I am not splitting hairs. The new A7RIV has a 24 Mpx crop mode, and the lens does not magically increase its focal length on switching to it from FF. Similarly, a 100-400mm II has the same resolution on a 5DS as it does on a 7DII.



Yes, you splitting hairs. The field of view is equivalent to a 320-900mm on a relatively cheap A6XXX body. 
Could have mentioned the A74 but that's a $3000+ body.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 21, 2019)

Tasty Canon


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Yes, you splitting hairs. The field of view is equivalent to a 320-900mm on a relatively cheap A6XXX body.
> Could have mentioned the A74 but that's a $3000+ body.


I am not splitting hairs, just exploding the myth about the extra reach of APS-C and M4/3 when you don’t take into account pixel density. You have now changed tack by talking about field of view, which is not what you meant in your previous posts. The narrower field of view is in fact a disadvantage, not an advantage, when you are doing bird and nature still photography - it’s more difficult to find your subject and when it gets closer it can overfill the frame. Video is a different matter of course. Canon changed the game when it brought in the 5DS several years ago and there is now the new world of high density FF sensors. And Nikon did it’s bit earlier with the 800+ series and now Sony.


----------



## Danglin52 (Sep 21, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The 70-400 or 100-400 is 100% will come sooner or later. It's an essential lens, almost like a 70-200.
> What they need is a cheaper kit lens for RP and lower cost bodies. And a competition for Sony 200-600.


For a wildlife photographer, the 70-400 combines with the mid rang zoom to deliver two lenses that covers our 28-400 needs. Is the 70-300 an alternative that hints a 300-500 or 600 is on the roadmap? Canon has been delivering some slightly different ranges in RF mount. Just day dreaming.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 21, 2019)

unfocused said:


> This goofy complaint is way past its expiration point. Time to toss it out and find something new to whine about.


Impossible for him. Some comedians think changing their “nick” will keep their “shtick “ relevant. This is one who’s done so a dozen times and still has not figured out his routine falls flat no matter what he calls himself (proutprout, mirage, AvTvM, etc).


----------



## BillB (Sep 21, 2019)

motofotog said:


> Surprised!
> Canon still dose not think of producing zoom lens beyond 400mm


Canon seems to like the idea of using a 100-400 (or maybe a 70-400) with a converter, so if a 70-400 is on the way, will there be RF converters too?


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 21, 2019)

motofotog said:


> Surprised!
> Canon still dose not think of producing zoom lens beyond 400mm


Canon probably doesn’t see enough incentive. That’s all.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 21, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Impossible for him. Some comedians think changing their “nick” will keep their “shtick “ relevant. This is one who’s done so a dozen times and still has not figured out his routine falls flat no matter what he calls himself (proutprout, mirage, AvTvM, etc).


I think proutprout is a separate entity. AvTvM clones appear to be smarter.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 21, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I think proutprout is a separate entity. AvTvM clones appear to be smarter.


Never underestimate the sneakiness, sir.


----------



## criscokkat (Sep 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> So, are you saying that a 100-400mm II on a 7DII has an effective reach of 160-640mm but on the FF 5DS only 100-400mm because it is full frame? The lens has effectively the same reach on both. The crucial factor in the reach of a lens on a body is the size of the pixels on the sensor and not whether it is FF, APS-C or M4/3. It’s important to understand this. The 90D, for example, has smaller pixels than an Olympus OMD-M1 Mk II and so outresolves the Olympus despite its 2x crop factor and Olympus claiming its 300mm lens is equivalent to a 600mm.


Did you even read what you quoted???

I said: _Now if the high resolution R mount camera has the same resolution as the current top of the line aps-c sensor when cropped, then yes, it's the same as a aps-c camera. _

If the new camera has a cropped sport mode with faster tracking, faster fps and is weather sealed to at least the 7dmii standards then as i said yes, here's the aps-c 7dmii replacement in a now 2000 dollar more MSRP body (speculating it will be somewhere around 3800). Those who use that camera who are not professionals and who are not birders find that price increase to be a little steep.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> Did you even read what you quoted???
> 
> I said: _Now if the high resolution R mount camera has the same resolution as the current top of the line aps-c sensor when cropped, then yes, it's the same as a aps-c camera. _
> 
> If the new camera has a cropped sport mode with faster tracking, faster fps and is weather sealed to at least the 7dmii standards then as i said yes, here's the aps-c 7dmii replacement in a now 2000 dollar more MSRP body (speculating it will be somewhere around 3800). Those who use that camera who are not professionals and who are not birders find that price increase to be a little steep.


Of course I did. Your very first line in what I quoted was a clearcut blanket statement:


criscokkat said:


> It's true that it's always a 100-400, but on a canon aps c thats _effectively_ 160-640. .


and that is what I am categorically disputing.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 21, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> Did you even read what you quoted???
> 
> I said: _Now if the high resolution R mount camera has the same resolution as the current top of the line aps-c sensor when cropped, then yes, it's the same as a aps-c camera. _
> 
> If the new camera has a cropped sport mode with faster tracking, faster fps and is weather sealed to at least the 7dmii standards then as i said yes, here's the aps-c 7dmii replacement in a now 2000 dollar more MSRP body (speculating it will be somewhere around 3800). Those who use that camera who are not professionals and who are not birders find that price increase to be a little steep.



consider though, if you put a 100-400mm lens on an 83mp full frame you have an effective zoom from 100mm to 750mm (24MP crop) with everything below 465mm greater than 24mp

you can't do that on an 32.5mp aps-c camera (160-750mm equiv zoom) but limited to 32.5mp. I get most of the times you are reach starved, but there's lots of instances, where the zoom and additional over sampling could be handy as well.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 22, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I am not splitting hairs, just exploding the myth about the extra reach of APS-C and M4/3 when you don’t take into account pixel density. You have now changed tack by talking about field of view, which is not what you meant in your previous posts. The narrower field of view is in fact a disadvantage, not an advantage, when you are doing bird and nature still photography - it’s more difficult to find your subject and when it gets closer it can overfill the frame. Video is a different matter of course. Canon changed the game when it brought in the 5DS several years ago and there is now the new world of high density FF sensors. And Nikon did it’s bit earlier with the 800+ series and now Sony.



Yes, i know about pixel density, im not a beginner.
How many FF cameras are out there with the same pixel density or a 20 MP apsc? One?
And how many can have the same speed of a 7D dor example? Zero? I am talking about Canon land.

Let's not talk about price. 
The Sony A74 is better option than apsc because of wider focal length BUT that price is very different. Thats why i mentioned 6xxx series in the first post. I you don't have 4000 dollars for a body then apsc still offers better reach.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Yes, i know about pixel density, im not a beginner.
> How many FF cameras are out there with the same pixel density or a 20 MP apsc? One?
> And how many can have the same speed of a 7D dor example? Zero? I am talking about Canon land.
> 
> ...


Lot's of beginners do use forums like ours for advice, and we owe it to them to explode myths and not let them be at the mercy of salesmen etc who try to sell them M4/3 etc etc on the pretence of greater reach. The facts are that all three major makers now provide the same or similar resolution FF as APS-C. The speed and price are irrelevant to the basic fact that a 200-600mm is not simply equivalent to a 320-840mm in terms of reach because pixel density has to be taken into account and price and speed are different considerations that do not affect the argument about reach.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 22, 2019)

What Alan just said. not the same. Same angle of view but lens compression and bokeh would be distinctively different.









What is Lens Compression and How to Use It In Your Photos






photographylife.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> What Alan just said. not the same. Same angle of view but lens compression and bokeh would be distinctively different.


What you just said, except there’s no such thing as ‘lens compression’. Differences in perspective are entirely due to the camera-to-subject distance (which is explained and demonstrated in the article you link, after the author’s false start of saying it’s a function of distance _and_ focal length).


----------



## SteveC (Sep 22, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> What you just said, except there’s no such thing as ‘lens compression’. Differences in perspective are entirely due to the camera-to-subject distance (which is explained and demonstrated in the article you link, after the author’s false start of saying it’s a function of distance _and_ focal length).



Ah, someone finally brings up perspective.

No matter how much you shrink the sensor, you're not getting the effect of standing at a greater distance and zooming in more (which would actually cause the subject to obscure less of the background, among other things). You're just cropping the picture before you take it. Now it may have differences in quality because the sensor has different-sized pixels, but if you account for that, all crop factor gives you is--crop.

Or to put it another way, if all you had to do to make a lens "longer" was to make the sensor smaller...why not just put a micro-dot of a sensor in that is three pixels wide by two tall? Your long lens magically becomes a lens that's on the order of 1,000,000 mm or about a kilometer. But--let's face it--a 6P picture wouldn't do much for anyone (though it might end up hanging in a modern art gallery). This is why I really don't like it when retailers give the crop-factor "corrected" focal length as if it were more meaningful than the true one.


----------



## riker (Sep 22, 2019)

This is clearly a next generation 100-400 with the extra 30mm thanks to the RF mount. If they even make it smaller/lighter than the current 100-400, it might be enough reason for me to switch to RF.
Although I would love to see an RF 100-300/4 with less weight/size than the current 100-400.
The thing is I LOVE what the 100-400 is capable of but I HATE to carry it while travelling. It's killing me. I need something in the 200-400 range which is at least 300-500g less.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 22, 2019)

riker said:


> This is clearly a next generation 100-400 with the extra 30mm thanks to the RF mount. If they even make it smaller/lighter than the current 100-400, it might be enough reason for me to switch to RF.
> Although I would love to see an RF 100-300/4 with less weight/size than the current 100-400.
> The thing is I LOVE what the 100-400 is capable of but I HATE to carry it while travelling. It's killing me. I need something in the 200-400 range which is at least 300-500g less.



I have imagined myself a couple of years down the road with some sort of RF-mount body but also getting that 100-400 EF (which I don't have yet) and using an adapter. This might make the second half of that vision silly--unless I want to use that 100-400 EF on an M body as well.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2019)

riker said:


> This is clearly a next generation 100-400 with the extra 30mm thanks to the RF mount. If they even make it smaller/lighter than the current 100-400, it might be enough reason for me to switch to RF.
> Although I would love to see an RF 100-300/4 with less weight/size than the current 100-400.
> The thing is I LOVE what the 100-400 is capable of but I HATE to carry it while travelling. It's killing me. I need something in the 200-400 range which is at least 300-500g less.


You would probably have to have an f/6.3 if you want it that much lighter. The Tamron 100-400mm nearly got there but for me wasn't fast focussing enough, had poorer IS and was weaker at the edges compared with Canon, but otherwise not bad. I could live with an f/6.3 if it had Canon AF, IS and optics.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 22, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> What you just said, except there’s no such thing as ‘lens compression’. Differences in perspective are entirely due to the camera-to-subject distance (which is explained and demonstrated in the article you link, after the author’s false start of saying it’s a function of distance _and_ focal length).


Well, here is an example that demonstrates how various focal lengths affect perspective compression “fenomena” 






Telephoto Lens Perspective Compression and the Angle of View ‹ LearnMyShot – Photography Tutorials, Tips & How To Videos







learnmyshot.com


----------



## SteveC (Sep 22, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Well, here is an example that demonstrates how various focal lengths affect perspective compression “fenomena”
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And I'll bet good money that whoever took those pictures was changing his distance from the milk and cookies. Which is what both the article and neuranatomist were saying.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Well, here is an example that demonstrates how various focal lengths affect perspective compression “fenomena”
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, it demonstrates that changing the distance affects perspective. The fact that focal length is also being changed is irrelevant, but it appears the author doesn’t fully understand that fact.

Here’s the proper demonstration, with details in the quoted text below (essentially, left side varies only focal length, right side varies distance and focal length, it’s obvious which one determines perspective):









neuroanatomist said:


> Here's an example from the wiki page on perspective distortion, an example that illustrates some of this confusion:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jhpeterson (Sep 23, 2019)

Daner said:


> Of course what I really want is the 200-400 with the built-in 1.4, but it is not currently a realistic option for me when it comes to budget, size, and baggage allowance.


What I really want is a 70-280 and f:2.8 across the full range with a 1.4x built in. It would likely be 2-4 cm shorter than the 200-400, although as large around. Since it should take up less length, I'd expect it to be slightly lighter and as for price, I can only hope it comes in less. On the other hand, I'm sure it would be more than the 70-200 and 100-400 added together.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Sep 24, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


The RF 70-200 F/2.8 is about to come.
The RF 70-400 will arrive in 2020.
My question is: when will w see a RF 1.4X (and a RF 2.0X) extender?


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


>


I don’t understand why the beer is unopened?


----------



## SteveC (Sep 24, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I don’t understand why the beer is unopened?



Because the prior six bottles they used were opened.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I don’t understand why the beer is unopened?


That problem was rectified immediately upon conclusion of the test.

Until then, I didn’t want my ‘perspective’ to be under the influence. Cue rimshot.


----------



## Daner (Jan 12, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Why are you thinking the price will be higher? I agree it could be but not necessarily a given from my perspective. I grant some of the early lineup (e.g., 50/1.2) were hugely more expensive but they're clearly a quantuum leap in IQ. The 24-105/4IS seems to be 126,000 yen for the EF vs. 152,000 for the RF... hmm, 20% more expensive for comperable IQ but substantially smaller size. So when you say "considerably higher" you're thinking that they'll just be charging 20% more for RF? If so do you see that as marketing strategy, or development/manufacture costs? It might just be that they're charging more because it's relatively new, and also because sales are probably far lower than EF still so they have to amortize the R&D across a smaller number of units.



Those in the market for an EF 100-400 mk II can also find used models in good condition at a substantial discount. It will take several years for that to be the case for most of the RF lenses (besides the 24-105.)


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 16, 2020)

Daner said:


> Those in the market for an EF 100-400 mk II can also find used models in good condition at a substantial discount. It will take several years for that to be the case for most of the RF lenses (besides the 24-105.)



Why is the 24-105 f4 so discounted? Was it oversold as a kit lens? I’m tempted and will do a compare with the 2.8 via CPS.


----------



## Daner (Jan 16, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Why is the 24-105 f4 so discounted? Was it oversold as a kit lens? I’m tempted and will do a compare with the 2.8 via CPS.



The RF 24-105 has been included with what is probably the majority of all EOS R and EOS RP cameras sold so far. I suspect that as people upgrade to the RF 24-70 2.8 or switch to the RF 24-240, they will likely try to unload their used 24-105s. They certainly seem to me to be the most widely available used RF lenses on the market. That wide availability both as new and used should help keep the price of that lens reasonable for the foreseeable future.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 17, 2020)

Daner said:


> The RF 24-105 has been included with what is probably the majority of all EOS R and EOS RP cameras sold so far. I suspect that as people upgrade to the RF 24-70 2.8 or switch to the RF 24-240, they will likely try to unload their used 24-105s. They certainly seem to me to be the most widely available used RF lenses on the market. That wide availability both as new and used should help keep the price of that lens reasonable for the foreseeable future.




If I recall correctly there's 24-105 L RF lens and a non-L one too.

Given how much actual distortion the 24-240 has, if I had a 24-105 L I'd be inclined to keep it.


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 17, 2020)

I got a 24-240 with my RP that I never use and might well trade for a 24-105 f4. I’m doubtful there is a non L RF version of the 24-105. And with the 200g weight difference will first test the f2.8 and may end up like everyone else and preferring it.


----------



## Daner (Jan 17, 2020)

SteveC said:


> If I recall correctly there's 24-105 L RF lens and a non-L one too.
> 
> Given how much actual distortion the 24-240 has, if I had a 24-105 L I'd be inclined to keep it.



There is no non-L version of the RF 24-105 (yet).

I have an EOS R with the 24-105L. The IQ issues prevent the 24-240 from being interesting for me. Both my EF 200mm f/2.8L II and my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II provided good IQ, but I felt that the 100-400 had some focusing issues when using a 1.4 III extender. In any case, I have sold them both and I will be purchasing the RF 70-200 2.8 soon. If this RF 70-400 becomes available it is very likely to be added to my wish list.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 18, 2020)

Daner said:


> There is no non-L version of the RF 24-105 (yet).
> 
> I have an EOS R with the 24-105L. The IQ issues prevent the 24-240 from being interesting for me. Both my EF 200mm f/2.8L II and my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II provided good IQ, but I felt that the 100-400 had some focusing issues when using a 1.4 III extender. In any case, I have sold them both and I will be purchasing the RF 70-200 2.8 soon. If this RF 70-400 becomes available it is very likely to be added to my wish list.



Come to think of it, the non L lens I was thinking bout was an EF lens. I've seen it offered as part of a kit with the R and RP, so now I see what looks like a killer price, I have to check carefully that it's the RF 24-105L I am looking at.


----------

