# There are 4 wide-angle L prime lenses coming in the next 12 months [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 8, 2022)

> As we look at the holes in the RF lens lineup, it’s easy to come to the conclusion that the wide angle prime lens offerings are lacking. We currently only have the Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro and Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro lenses to fill the void.
> We have been told that Canon will be releasing the following 4 wide angle L prime lenses in the next 12 months.
> 
> Canon RF 12mm f/1.8L USM
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 8, 2022)

Aw shucks! No f/1.2 24mm or 28mm.

Will the RF 135mm f/1.8 be STM? Kidding.


----------



## entoman (Sep 8, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Same old story, ridiculously wide maximum aperture exotica at what will be equally ridiculous prices

... or super-cheap lenses with slow-focus STM motors.

***SCREAM for INBETWEEN***


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 8, 2022)

A 12mm f1.8? That seems......odd. I would think milky way/aurora photographers would prefer a 16mm 1.8. who would the 12mm be for? Architecture perhaps?


----------



## 2 cents (Sep 8, 2022)

There is pattern and I'm not liking it.

Canon were king of the heap for 30 years before RF. Now they seem to only be interested in extremes - extreme fast lenses (f1.2 f1.4 etc) at stupid high prices, or extreme slow, f-****-elevens. To make sure they irritate as much people as possible, they won't let third-party lenses compete.


----------



## 2 cents (Sep 8, 2022)

Aussie shooter said:


> A 12mm f1.8? That seems......odd. I would think milky way/aurora photographers would prefer a 16mm 1.8. who would the 12mm be for? Architecture perhaps?


they seem to be releasing lenses without much logic, they make them just because they can. I am struggling to get the lenses that I really want to use.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 8, 2022)

I am glad to see that Canon is finally releasing wide-angle L lenses for the RF mount. At first I was most interested in the 35 mm f1.2, but the 28 mm f1.4 also has my attention.


----------



## HMC11 (Sep 8, 2022)

As I use wide-angle lens primarily for landscape, a good quality prime at 20mm F1.8 USM would be great. There is no need for 1.4 lenses for me. A focal length at 18, or 19mm would also be fine. Otherwise, I am quite happy with the RF 14-35L f4.


----------



## dolina (Sep 8, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


1st 4 years of RF lens

- fast inventory turnover
- better profit margin

Next 4 years of RF lens

- slower inventory turnover
- worse profit margin


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 8, 2022)

2 cents said:


> they seem to be releasing lenses without much logic, they make them just because they can. I am struggling to get the lenses that I really want to use.


Sony has a 14mm f1.8 GM which is very popular with astro landscape shooters. Perhaps this 12mm f1.8 is Canon’s response to that lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Same old story, ridiculously wide maximum aperture exotica at what will be equally ridiculous prices
> 
> ... or super-cheap lenses with slow-focus STM motors.
> 
> ***SCREAM for INBETWEEN***


Consider that you get almost the full range of these (rumored, at this point) fast L primes with an f/4 aperture, L-series build and fast focusing for probably less than what just one of them will cost, by buying the RF 14-35/4L IS.

The L-series, in Canon's philosophy, is about extremes. The goalposts have moved as technology improves, and what was once difficult becomes easier to achieve. But I believe that L-series lenses will always try to push the optical envelope (and the wallet). Slow L-series primes in the wide to short tele range (where there are already multiple L zoom lenses with slow apertures) aren't at all likely.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Sony has a 14mm f1.8 GM which is very popular with astro landscape shooters. Perhaps this 12mm f1.8 is Canon’s response to that lens.


Yes, and if Canon ever decides to optimize a wide, fast lens to have low coma and astigmatism then maybe this 12/1.8 will actually serve that purpose. Canon seems to aggressively ignore those aberrations in their lens designs, but there's always hope that will change.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Same old story, ridiculously wide maximum aperture exotica at what will be equally ridiculous prices
> 
> ... or super-cheap lenses with slow-focus STM motors.
> 
> ***SCREAM for INBETWEEN***


I think that Canon is doing the right thing by catering to the extremes.
People who want the middle can adapt EF.


----------



## Punio (Sep 8, 2022)

That 24mm should be a remortgage requiring delight.


----------



## entoman (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Consider that you get almost the full range of these (rumored, at this point) fast L primes with an f/4 aperture, L-series build and fast focusing for probably less than what just one of them will cost, by buying the RF 14-35/4L IS.
> 
> The L-series, in Canon's philosophy, is about extremes. The goalposts have moved as technology improves, and what was once difficult becomes easier to achieve. But I believe that L-series lenses will always try to push the optical envelope (and the wallet). Slow L-series primes in the wide to short tele range (where there are already multiple L zoom lenses with slow apertures) aren't at all likely.


I agree with all of that neuro, but it still frustrates me that there are very few mid-range, mid-price L-quality lenses with modest apertures that would result in smaller, lighter lenses.

It's difficult to gauge how much demand there is for such optics, but I honestly believe they would sell in high enough numbers to make it worthwhile to Canon, and I also believe that the "policy of extremes" is alienating a lot of existing customers, and discouraging new customers.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 8, 2022)

dolina said:


> 1st 4 years of RF lens
> 
> - fast inventory turnover
> - better profit margin
> ...



If there was not a supply shortage in the middle then I would tend to agree with you.
It is really hard to predict anything right now.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 8, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Sony has a 14mm f1.8 GM which is very popular with astro landscape shooters. Perhaps this 12mm f1.8 is Canon’s response to that lens.


That Sony lens was a response to the popularity of the Sigma 14 f/1.8.
Canon tends to push things a little further.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Slow L-series primes in the wide to short tele range (where there are already multiple L zoom lenses with slow apertures) aren't at all likely.


You may be right, but I think they will show up eventually.
There is too big of a gap between L and non L lenses.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Sep 8, 2022)

I need more signatures for the RF 50 1.4 'asanford' petition


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 8, 2022)

I am just wondering why they are using slow STM motors in consumer lenses when they have the super-fast, quiet and tiny nano-USM.
They even used that motor in some cheaper lenses (EF 70-300) then decided to go with the worse STM. What is that if not market segmentation?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> You may be right, but I think they will show up eventually.
> There is too big of a gap between L and non L lenses.


If Canon fills that 'gap in the middle', I doubt it will be with L-series lenses. But they may not ever fill it, at least not completely. A lot of the lenses that fit that description in the EF lineup (50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2.8 SF) were allowed to age into relative obsolescence. But others, like the 28/2.8 and 35/2, were updated with IS and USM motors.


----------



## dolina (Sep 8, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> If there was not a supply shortage in the middle then I would tend to agree with you.
> It is really hard to predict anything right now.


Supply chain disruption would impact stock availability but that has no stopped Canon from making announcements 1-2 year before actual shipments.


----------



## dolina (Sep 8, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I am just wondering why they are using slow STM motors in consumer lenses when they have the super-fast, quiet and tiny nano-USM.
> They even used that motor in some cheaper lenses (EF 70-300) then decided to go with the worse STM. What is that if not market segmentation?


Some do it to induce users to upgrade to the next best thing

There are Android smartphone selling under $429 with AMOLED displays. Apple still sells that price point iPhone with an LCD.


----------



## fiendstudios (Sep 8, 2022)

I would love the 12/1.8 since I shoot a lot of Aurora and sometimes 14mm is not enough. I would still want to have a faster than 1.8 lens which is wider than the 24mm.
I use Sigma 20/1.4 and Sigma 14/1.8 right now. Would be nice to have a 20/1.2 and a 14/1.4..


----------



## davidcl0nel (Sep 8, 2022)

Canon also try to reduce the cost to reuse similar case for two different lenses. The 50 1.8 and the 16 2.8. The 35 1.8 and 24 1.8 seems to be also similar (I don't see it next to eachother to confirm).

Do you think Canon would do that for L lenses too, if they bring up a whole set of wide angles?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I am just wondering why they are using slow STM motors in consumer lenses when they have the super-fast, quiet and tiny nano-USM.
> They even used that motor in some cheaper lenses (EF 70-300) then decided to go with the worse STM. What is that if not market segmentation?


Certainly seems to be market segmentation. Assuming STM motors are cheaper to produce (I don’t know that that’s the case but it seems likely), using them also reduces production costs which increases profit.

At the risk of flogging a deceased equine, Canon is a business, and those actions are logical business decisions.


----------



## MartinVLC (Sep 8, 2022)

I agree...


entoman said:


> Same old story, ridiculously wide maximum aperture exotica at what will be equally ridiculous prices
> 
> ... or super-cheap lenses with slow-focus STM motors.
> 
> ***SCREAM for INBETWEEN***



Although I understand that some Pros are desperately waiting for a better and faster alternative to the 35mm 1.8 STM.

If I were willing to spend way beyond 2000 $/€ for a 35mm - well I´d still prefer the Sigma Art or the Tamron 35mm 1.4 and spend the rest on a good bottle of wine ;-). But wait - no 3rd party on RF mount :-( (don´t bother explainig that I could adapt the EF-lenses).

What´s really missing IMO is a fast affordable standard zoom. On the E-mount you get about 5 different 24/28-70/75mm f/2.8 for less than 1200 $/€. The fastest zoom in this price range on the RF-mount is f 6.3 at the long end. :-(


----------



## Otara (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Certainly seems to be market segmentation. Assuming STM motors are cheaper to produce (I don’t know that that’s the case but it seems likely), using them also reduces production costs which increases profit.
> 
> At the risk of flogging a deceased equine, Canon is a business, and those actions are logical business decisions.


Could it also be about video as a higher priority nowadays as well?


----------



## swkitt (Sep 8, 2022)

I'm afraid the extra 2mm is a trick to sell it double the price of the Sony one...


----------



## entoman (Sep 8, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> You may be right, but I think they will show up eventually.
> There is too big of a gap between L and non L lenses.


One lens that is "missing" from the middle-range, is a replacement for the EF 70-300mm L.

Sure, we have the RF 100-500mm (which I own) but that's quite a lump to carry around and heavy on the arms when held for more than a couple of minutes in the shooting position. Then there is the RF 100-400mm which is basically a fixed F8 lens due to the need to stop down one stop for sharpness, and the fact that at F11 or beyond it becomes quite soft due to diffraction. It also lacks the build quality associated with L glass, and in common with the RF 100-500mm, it doesn't go wide enough at the short end, for a lot of scenarios.

Canon could improve dramatically on the EF 70-300mm L, by making an RF version with a fixed F4 aperture, close-focusing down to 1:3 or even better 1:2, and nano-USM AF motors.


----------



## roby17269 (Sep 8, 2022)

Oh I can't wait for the 35 and 135 fast primes! Not sure where I will be able to hide them from the swmbo  but I will indeed get them as soon as available.

As for the others... I would really love to see Canon's RF TS roadmap, if there's one (I mean a confidential one, I know there isn't a public one), to decide. I do want at least one ultra wide prime, but I've grown accustomed to the excellent 24 and 17 TS-E and I do not see me keeping 2 24s... That 12 sounds fun tho


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 8, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I think that Canon is doing the right thing by catering to the extremes.
> People who want the middle can adapt EF.


Always a great option to adapt older, heavier and optically weaker lenses in a dead mount rather than offer modern first or third party options in the current mount!


----------



## UlfricStormcloak (Sep 8, 2022)

35 f1.2.... I hope it will be small. Please, let it be small. Why else do you need to have that giant hole in center of a camera?


----------



## BBarn (Sep 8, 2022)

There doesn't appear to be anything of interest in this rumor for me, but it's good to see Canon apparently preparing to release more RF lenses.


----------



## m4ndr4ke (Sep 8, 2022)

I would love to see that 28mm. Unfortunately it will be too expensive for me, but since that focal length never got much love from Canon, I’d say this means progress.
I bet its pricetag will be around €2000, and that’s over twice the salary of the average Joe in my country. I guess I’ll have to stick to my Sigma Art that I, in fact, just recently bought.


----------



## jdavidse (Sep 8, 2022)

> john1970 said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad to see that Canon is finally releasing wide-angle L lenses for the RF mount. At first I was most interested in the 35 mm f1.2, but the 28 mm f1.4 also has my attention.


I am glad to see it. I love the 35 focal length but if its going to be a $2500 1.2 monster, then I would take a reasonably sized $2000 1.4 28mm.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 8, 2022)

RF 12mm f1,8: I feel like a hungry labrador looking at a huge steak (or, since it's a labrador, at just anything edible).


----------



## fred (Sep 8, 2022)

Canon RF 28mm f/1.4L USM
Could be very interesting if it's not too long and heavy. Probably $1500+ though. Quality 28mm mirrorless lenses are extremely rare unfortunately (except Fujifilm: XF 18mm F1.4). Sigma might release a 28mm F1.4 DG DN Art or 28mm F2 DG DN Contemporary I series at some point (not for Canon RF however)...


----------



## scyrene (Sep 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> I agree with all of that neuro, but it still frustrates me that there are very few mid-range, mid-price L-quality lenses with modest apertures that would result in smaller, lighter lenses.
> 
> It's difficult to gauge how much demand there is for such optics, but I honestly believe they would sell in high enough numbers to make it worthwhile to Canon, and I also believe that the "policy of extremes" is alienating a lot of existing customers, and discouraging new customers.


Presumably they intend to release lenses in the order they feel is most likely to maximise sales/revenue/positive copy? I'm sure other factors are at play of course.

Given how high the prices of the non-L lenses are, I wouldn't be able to afford an intermediate level anyhow.


----------



## entoman (Sep 8, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Presumably they intend to release lenses in the order they feel is most likely to maximise sales/revenue/positive copy? I'm sure other factors are at play of course.
> 
> Given how high the prices of the non-L lenses are, I wouldn't be able to afford an intermediate level anyhow.


Yes, I'd assume that's correct, so I'm surprised they haven't already launched a RF 70-300mm, which I would have thought was a popular in-demand zoom.

I've already spent WAY too much on lenses and other stuff this year, so I won't be buying anything else myself for a while either, but if a compact RF 70-300mm L had been available, it would have been one of the first I'd buy. I remain hopeful that Canon will launch such a lens in 2023, although that's probably just wishful thinking!


----------



## neurorx (Sep 8, 2022)

I was hoping to learn about the availability of the 135mm 1.8L.....wasn't it supposed to be announced in Q4?


----------



## unfocused (Sep 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> ...if a compact RF 70-300mm L had been available, it would have been one of the first I'd buy. I remain hopeful that Canon will launch such a lens in 2023, although that's probably just wishful thinking!


I owned the 70-300 L and really liked it, but honestly, I hardly ever used it after I got the 100-400 L and it just sat on the shelf for years. I suspect the same would be the case now, since I have the 100-500 L. If I am at all typical that may be one reason why the once popular 70-300 zooms have not been a priority for Canon's RF lineup. With the APS-C R bodies now being released, we may see a non-L 70-300 before we see an L version.


----------



## Curahee (Sep 8, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


L lenses are amazing but eye watering expensive. If Canon is going to not allow 3rd party lenses then they need good quality middle lenses. Their FD series of lenses were very well made but not exotic nor high priced. RF lenses with third party prices and built to those standards of optics at very competitive prices. this includes speed of AF as well. Skip the build them like a tank as L lenses are, use plastics where possible and a bit of weather sealing should keep things down. Then definitely make some entry level lenses. Still do NOT lower optical quality and at consumer prices matching the R10 level.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes, I'd assume that's correct, so I'm surprised they haven't already launched a RF 70-300mm, which I would have thought was a popular in-demand zoom.
> 
> I've already spent WAY too much on lenses and other stuff this year, so I won't be buying anything else myself for a while either, but if a compact RF 70-300mm L had been available, it would have been one of the first I'd buy. I remain hopeful that Canon will launch such a lens in 2023, although that's probably just wishful thinking!


I got the impression the 100-400 was much more popular, but that's just a feeling. I need to use the lenses I've got before buying any more (I say this the day after getting another one ). A tele zoom is tempting but I never used previous ones all that much. The RF 100-500 looks dreamy but is unfeasibly expensive for me, so it would likely be the RF 100-400 (or an adapted secondhand EF of some sort).


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 8, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I am just wondering why they are using slow STM motors in consumer lenses when they have the super-fast, quiet and tiny nano-USM.
> They even used that motor in some cheaper lenses (EF 70-300) then decided to go with the worse STM. What is that if not market segmentation?


The RF 100-400mm has a nano motor and it’s super quick to focus, it also has a control ring. Ive a mix of RF L glass and non RF L glass and I’ve been very surprised at the results from the RF 100-400mm given its price point. The RF 24-240mm is much more expensive but not as good optically.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes, I'd assume that's correct, so I'm surprised they haven't already launched a RF 70-300mm, which I would have thought was a popular in-demand zoom.


Possibly they decided people wanted longer not wider, and the RF 100-400 is the 'replacement' for the EF 70-300 non-L.


----------



## EOS (Sep 8, 2022)

Be still my beating heart.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> One lens that is "missing" from the middle-range, is a replacement for the EF 70-300mm L.
> 
> Sure, we have the RF 100-500mm (which I own) but that's quite a lump to carry around and heavy on the arms when held for more than a couple of minutes in the shooting position. Then there is the RF 100-400mm which is basically a fixed F8 lens due to the need to stop down one stop for sharpness, and the fact that at F11 or beyond it becomes quite soft due to diffraction. It also lacks the build quality associated with L glass, and in common with the RF 100-500mm, it doesn't go wide enough at the short end, for a lot of scenarios.
> 
> Canon could improve dramatically on the EF 70-300mm L, by making an RF version with a fixed F4 aperture, close-focusing down to 1:3 or even better 1:2, and nano-USM AF motors.


Do you actually own the RF 100-400 or are you quoting others? I have this lens along with the RF 100-500 and my copy at least is sharp wide open no need to stop down and whilst it’s slower it still has a Nano motor and a control ring and it’s about 1/4 of the price of the RF 100-500mm and 1/3rd of the weight and I can get it easily into a back-pack with two other lenses & body without breaking my back.


----------



## Rocksthaman (Sep 8, 2022)

It’s bad that anything that isn’t STM in the mirrorless world is going to cost you $1800 + on canon. 

Crazy cuts off Third parties but then also won’t make anything comparable.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 8, 2022)

Sigh.....

I bet that 24mm will be good for astro at f/2. But probably $2500-3000 on price. A 12mm? Could that get to $3k+? I fear so. 

I'm not in a hurry, but I've wanted a 20mm ish really good astro lens for Canon. The new Sigma that just hit looks like the perfect lens for that. Sadly, won't be able to get one. If they make it for Nikon mount, I could see adding a Nikon body and that lens to my kit. Or I suppose Sony. But i really don't want two ecosystems, and I'm not going to spend the money to wholesale switch. Maybe in 2024 the embaro will lift and Sigma will join the fray. 

-Brian


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 8, 2022)

Aussie shooter said:


> A 12mm f1.8? That seems......odd. I would think milky way/aurora photographers would prefer a 16mm 1.8. who would the 12mm be for? Architecture perhaps?



My 14mm f/1.8 Sigma is one of my favorites. It's not just for buildings and skies. I use it to show the context around a subject, or to massively emphasize the subject versus a distorted background. These crappy-light pics below are just snaps, but they give you the sense of additional options. The other lens that does this for me is the Laowa 15mm f/4 macro, which is the reason I've been using the Sigma less in the past couple of years, when I don't need the gaping aperture.


----------



## entoman (Sep 8, 2022)

jeffa4444 said:


> Do you actually own the RF 100-400 or are you quoting others? I have this lens along with the RF 100-500 and my copy at least is sharp wide open no need to stop down and whilst it’s slower it still has a Nano motor and a control ring and it’s about 1/4 of the price of the RF 100-500mm and 1/3rd of the weight and I can get it easily into a back-pack with two other lenses & body without breaking my back.


I'm basing my comments on reviews where images taken with the RF100-400mm have been posted, which show softness at maximum aperture, and more significant softness at F11 and beyond. I'll try to find links and post them later, if I have time. When I saw the review images, it was enough to convince me that my comment about it being effectively a fixed F8 lens was warranted. Prior to seeing the reviews, I'd actually strongly considered getting the RF100-400mm, but have since changed my mind.

I'm very critical of sharpness. However, I recommended the lens (based on what AlanF has said about it) to a friend who is willing to accept that level of sharpness in exchange for the light weight and lowish cost. In a few days time I'll have the opportunity to briefly try his lens out on my R5, and may be able to comment further.


----------



## gruhl28 (Sep 8, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy, I think you left out the 16mm f/2.8 from the list of existing prime wide angle RF lenses, so there are three, not just two.


----------



## entoman (Sep 8, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I got the impression the 100-400 was much more popular, but that's just a feeling. I need to use the lenses I've got before buying any more (I say this the day after getting another one ). A tele zoom is tempting but I never used previous ones all that much. The RF 100-500 looks dreamy but is unfeasibly expensive for me, so it would likely be the RF 100-400 (or an adapted secondhand EF of some sort).


Yes the RF 100-500mm is a great lens, although not such a leap forward from the EF 100-400mm Mkii as I expected. The weight saving e.g. is not even noticeable to me, and the difference in sharpness is welcome but not exactly mind-blowing. I think you'd be happy with the EF 100-400mm Mkii in conjunction with the 1.4x iii, unless you really need something lighter and more compact.

The RF "L" lenses are extremely expensive, and Canon looks to be trying to move even further upmarket regarding prices, specifications and performance, which is why a lot of folk are finding it so concerning that the middle-ground is being left behind, especially in the absence of third party alternatives.

To be clear, I don't blame Canon in any way for this, they are in business to make money, but it's mighty concerning for those on a limited budget and who don't want or need wide maximum apertures, but who do need sharp lenses with high build quality. I think Tony Northrup summed the situation up pretty well.


----------



## gruhl28 (Sep 8, 2022)

MartinVLC said:


> I agree...
> 
> 
> Although I understand that some Pros are desperately waiting for a better and faster alternative to the 35mm 1.8 STM.
> ...


I think you're forgetting the 24 - 105 f/4 L IS. It's not f/2.8, but it's much faster than f/6.3. It's only slightly over $1200, and you can get a refurb for much less.


----------



## Tom W (Sep 8, 2022)

Very interesting - I expect that none will be inexpensive, but all will be excellent.

I do wonder, though, if they are working on any mid-range products at all. Although the 85/2 'might' be considered a mid-range product, as could the 35/1.8 and the new 24/1.8. The 15-30, 16/2.8, and 50/1.8 are all inexpensive entry-level lenses, as is (IMHO) the 24-240 superzoom. All pretty good at what they do though.


----------



## Avenger 2.0 (Sep 8, 2022)

gruhl28 said:


> I think you're forgetting the 24 - 105 f/4 L IS. It's not f/2.8, but it's much faster than f/6.3. It's only slightly over $1200, and you can get a refurb for much less.


That lens is optically not much better then a good copy EF 24-105mm f4 L you could find for around $300.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 8, 2022)

Aussie shooter said:


> A 12mm f1.8? That seems......odd. I would think milky way/aurora photographers would prefer a 16mm 1.8. who would the 12mm be for? Architecture perhaps?


12mm is used by quite a lot astrophotographers. The Laowa 12mm F2.8 attracts shooters as well as the Sony 12-24mm F2.8

If you like 16mm just shoot and crop or get one of the other UWA options.


----------



## Berowne (Sep 8, 2022)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> That lens is optically not much better then a good copy EF 24-105mm f4 L you could find for around $300.


I sold the EF 3.5-5.6/24-105 IS STM. It is super sharp at 24mm in the center. But the rest was not so nice - so it had to go.


----------



## sanj (Sep 8, 2022)

EOS said:


> Be still my beating heart.


No no. It must beat.


----------



## sanj (Sep 8, 2022)

24mm 1.4 is the one for me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I owned the 70-300 L and really liked it, but honestly, I hardly ever used it after I got the 100-400 L and it just sat on the shelf for years. I suspect the same would be the case now, since I have the 100-500 L. If I am at all typical that may be one reason why the once popular 70-300 zooms have not been a priority for Canon's RF lineup. With the APS-C R bodies now being released, we may see a non-L 70-300 before we see an L version.


I owned both the 100-400L and the 70-300L. After getting the 600/4L II, I sold the 100-400 but kept the 70-300L as a more portable option when needed. I did not use it very much, though, so I eventually sold it. I don't think I'd buy a replacement in RF mount unless it comes in at the size weight of the 24-105/4 somehow. I do have the 100-500L, which is a _stellar_ lens both optically and when used for that purpose.

"_Ajax Peak Stars_" (Telluride, CO)



EOS R3, RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM @ 151mm, 3.2 s, f/8, ISO 12800


----------



## Berowne (Sep 8, 2022)

sanj said:


> No no. It must beat.


Guess this is a quotation from a Shakespeare-Play. King Lear?


----------



## sanj (Sep 8, 2022)

Berowne said:


> Guess this is a quotation from a Shakespeare-Play. King Lear?


No no. It must beat or the OP will die.


----------



## Berowne (Sep 8, 2022)

Sting - Be Still My Beating Heart


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)




----------



## Berowne (Sep 8, 2022)

Nice to be here with you guys and not in the "third-party"-thread.


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 8, 2022)

A 28 f/1.4!!! I hate to get too excited, but that's a perfect lens for what I want to do...


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 8, 2022)

Curahee said:


> Their FD series of lenses were very well made but not exotic nor high priced.


I believe the FD 50 f/0.95 was both exotic and high-priced for its time.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> I think Tony Northrup summed the situation up pretty well.


That almost never happens.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 8, 2022)

sanj said:


> 24mm 1.4 is the one for me.


I was hoping for f/1.2


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> I'm basing my comments on reviews where images taken with the RF100-400mm have been posted, which show softness at maximum aperture, and more significant softness at F11 and beyond. I'll try to find links and post them later, if I have time. When I saw the review images, it was enough to convince me that my comment about it being effectively a fixed F8 lens was warranted. Prior to seeing the reviews, I'd actually strongly considered getting the RF100-400mm, but have since changed my mind.
> 
> I'm very critical of sharpness. However, I recommended the lens (based on what AlanF has said about it) to a friend who is willing to accept that level of sharpness in exchange for the light weight and lowish cost. In a few days time I'll have the opportunity to briefly try his lens out on my R5, and may be able to comment further.


If you don't have any experience with the lens you really shouldn't make definitive statements. Is it the sharpest lens in the lineup - no of course no. Do you need to shoot at f/8 - no, of course not, at least not in my experience.

It's funny how people dwell on sharpness when a lot of the final result of your image's sharpness depends on what you have as the sharpness setting in your camera, and then how you post-process. With a good post-processing program the lens's sharpness is almost immaterial, in my opinion.


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes the RF 100-500mm is a great lens, although not such a leap forward from the EF 100-400mm Mkii as I expected. The weight saving e.g. is not even noticeable to me, and the difference in sharpness is welcome but not exactly mind-blowing. I think you'd be happy with the EF 100-400mm Mkii in conjunction with the 1.4x iii, unless you really need something lighter and more compact.
> 
> The RF "L" lenses are extremely expensive, and Canon looks to be trying to move even further upmarket regarding prices, specifications and performance, which is why a lot of folk are finding it so concerning that the middle-ground is being left behind, especially in the absence of third party alternatives.
> 
> To be clear, I don't blame Canon in any way for this, they are in business to make money, but it's mighty concerning for those on a limited budget and who don't want or need wide maximum apertures, but who do need sharp lenses with high build quality. I think Tony Northrup summed the situation up pretty well.


Probably has already been mentioned, but the middle ground is EF "L" lenses. You might even say buying them used is bordering on inexpensive for some of the EF L lenses. So for those who want sharp lenses with high build quality, you have an enormous amount of lenses available.


----------



## mxwphoto (Sep 8, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> Always a great option to adapt older, heavier and optically weaker lenses in a dead mount rather than offer modern first or third party options in the current mount!


Adapting IS a good option. Specifically to EF adapter, it retains 100% of the lens' original performance, adds a few extra tricks on top all without you having to break the bank, and the slight difference in weight and bulk is negligible. I don't see that being the case on Nikon nor Sony adapters.

Canon will flesh out the entire RF line-up in due time.

Besides, a lot of the best films and photos today are shot with those adapted older, heavier, and optically weaker lenses in a 'dead mount'. Go look at the Canon FD aspherical lenses that sell for the price of a modern day big white as prime examples.


----------



## entoman (Sep 8, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> If you don't have any experience with the lens you really shouldn't make definitive statements. Is it the sharpest lens in the lineup - no of course no. Do you need to shoot at f/8 - no, of course not, at least not in my experience.
> 
> It's funny how people dwell on sharpness when a lot of the final result of your image's sharpness depends on what you have as the sharpness setting in your camera, and then how you post-process. With a good post-processing program the lens's sharpness is almost immaterial, in my opinion.


I'd have to disagree there.

If your starting point is a perfectly focused, movement-free image, taken with an "average" lens, and then you carefully process the RAW with Topaz DeNoise AI (as I do) you can certainly get a very sharp and detailed end result.

But, if your starting point is an image taken with a high-end L optic (or similar from Nikon, Sony, Sigma) it will look even better, and won't suffer from the slightly "digital, plasticky" look that comes from sharpening an image that is softer to start with. For example, I can certainly tell the difference between sharpened images taken with my RF 800mm F11, and those taken with my RF 100-500mm L.


----------



## entoman (Sep 8, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Probably has already been mentioned, but the middle ground is EF "L" lenses.  You might even say buying them used is bordering on inexpensive for some of the EF L lenses. So for those who want sharp lenses with high build quality, you have an enormous amount of lenses available.


Yes, and I've recommended exactly that approach to others here in past threads. But, I think most people would prefer a native RF lens rather than have to use an adaptor, and it's also worth getting RF versions because they are almost invariably sharper, and have significantly better stabilisation.


----------



## entoman (Sep 8, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I am just wondering why they are using slow STM motors in consumer lenses when they have the super-fast, quiet and tiny nano-USM.
> They even used that motor in some cheaper lenses (EF 70-300) then decided to go with the worse STM. What is that if not market segmentation?


Possibly they may just have a large supply of STM motors to use up, or may be tied into a long contract with whoever manufactures those motors. Another possibility is that some lens (mostly older) designs may just work better with STM, due to weight/momentum of lens elements, distance of focus-throw, torque requirements, or some mechanical restrictions that we don't know about. I'd imagine that Canon have very good reasons, either technical or business-related, for choosing STM in certain circumstances.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 8, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I believe the FD 50 f/0.95 was both exotic and high-priced for its time.


Are you talking about this lens? It wasn't an FD.






CANON 50mm f/0.95 - Canon Camera Museum


Here, you can find out about Canon's S Lenses > 50-85mm > CANON 50mm f/0.95.



global.canon


----------



## unfocused (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I owned both the 100-400L and the 70-300L. After getting the 600/4L II, I sold the 100-400 but kept the 70-300L as a more portable option when needed. I did not use it very much, though, so I eventually sold it. I don't think I'd buy a replacement in RF mount unless it comes in at the size weight of the 24-105/4 somehow. I do have the 100-500L, which is a _stellar_ lens both optically and when used for that purpose.
> 
> "_Ajax Peak Stars_" (Telluride, CO)
> 
> ...


Darn it. That got me thinking. If they made a 70-300 f4 L (Replacing both the 300 F4 prime and the 70-300 L) I might find such a lens hard to resist.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 8, 2022)

EOS said:


> Be still my beating heart.


Said the same thing when I saw 28mm f/1.4!


----------



## MythPlayer (Sep 8, 2022)

Aaron D said:


> A 28 f/1.4!!! I hate to get too excited, but that's a perfect lens for what I want to do...


Did canon made 28mm autofocus L lens before?


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 8, 2022)

MythPlayer said:


> Did canon made 28mm autofocus L lens before?


No, just the f/1.8.


----------



## jam05 (Sep 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Same old story, ridiculously wide maximum aperture exotica at what will be equally ridiculous prices
> 
> ... or super-cheap lenses with slow-focus STM motors.
> 
> ***SCREAM for INBETWEEN***


You mean light gathering for those that get out in the golden hour and beyond? Now that that they're releasing all the daylight and flash photography lenses, they can get on with releasing the basic primes for the rest of us. Not purchasing all these f4 lenses. I will use EF with the mount adapter and gain a stop of light.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Darn it. That got me thinking. If they made a 70-300 f4 L (Replacing both the 300 F4 prime and the 70-300 L) I might find such a lens hard to resist.


I had the 70-300 DO for a while. As I have done with several lenses I had some doubts if I really wanted or not, I bought it used. It was very convenient with a size almost identical to the 24-105/4 (although it was f/4.5-5.6). Perhaps with the current state of DO lenses (which Canon seems to no longer be labeling as such, e.g. 600/11 and 800/11), I wonder if they could make a 70-300/4L with a DO group that is quite compact. Seems possible. That, I'd be sorely tempted to buy.

The 70-300 DO wasn't a bad lens, but it did have it's optical quirks as far as bokeh goes. I ended up selling it, for the same price I paid – a free, long-term rental is a great way to evaluate a lens! My track record with that approach has been good. Of the 5 lenses I bought used, I sold 4 of them and ended up net in the black after selling them (others were the 300/4L, 28-300L, and 24-105/4L although that last one I just replaced with a new one bought in a kit with a 5DII). The only one I kept after buying used was the MP-E 65 – a great lens, lots of fun, and I only paid $500 for it. 

Here's a shot with the 70-300 DO, in the hopes that Canon brings out an f/4 L version in RF.

"_Ribbit_"



EOS 7D, EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM @ 300mm, 1/500, f/6.3, ISO 640


----------



## jam05 (Sep 8, 2022)

Bout time they get on with the lowlight wide aperture primes. Not buying or traveling with any of these f4 lenses. Will use EF with the speed booster. LOL Huge difference between f1.2 and f4 on location or traveling.


----------



## entoman (Sep 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I had the 70-300 DO for a while. As I have done with several lenses I had some doubts if I really wanted or not, I bought it used. It was very convenient with a size almost identical to the 24-105/4 (although it was f/4.5-5.6). Perhaps with the current state of DO lenses (which Canon seems to no longer be labeling as such, e.g. 600/11 and 800/11), I wonder if they could make a 70-300/4L with a DO group that is quite compact. Seems possible. That, I'd be sorely tempted to buy.
> 
> The 70-300 DO wasn't a bad lens, but it did have it's optical quirks as far as bokeh goes. I ended up selling it, for the same price I paid – a free, long-term rental is a great way to evaluate a lens! My track record with that approach has been good. Of the 5 lenses I bought used, I sold 4 of them and ended up net in the black after selling them (others were the 300/4L, 28-300L, and 24-105/4L although that last one I just replaced with a new one bought in a kit with a 5DII). The only one I kept after buying used was the MP-E 65 – a great lens, lots of fun, and I only paid $500 for it.
> 
> ...


Ribbit, ribbit! One of the great things about going to the tropics is listening to the myriads of frogs, each species with its own distinctive voice, chirping away through the night. Thanks for bringing those memories back!


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 8, 2022)

I predicted/ hoped for a 12mm lense quite a while and based my conclusion on every UWA zoom getting wider and therefore canon needs to release wider prime than the EF 14mm L F2.8. It looks like I’m right but I’d guessed it might an F1.8 aperture. I assigned my F2 guess was wishful thinking at best…


12mm F1.8 will attract a lot of people but it will be expensive as hell… I like to burrow it once or twice but I’m unlikely to pay 3 k for it because in Germany chances for astrophotographers are really slim pickings… but, if there was an extensive trip to Iceland or somewhere with A LOT of dark and clear sky, I might get tempted…

12mm F1,8 and 14-35mm F4 L would make a killer combo but it’ll cost somewhere around 5k… so I’ll stick to the 15-35mm which I got at a „modest“ price.


----------



## danfaz (Sep 8, 2022)

I'm kinda excited for the 24 f/1.4, although I have the 15-35 f/2.8. That'd be a fun prime combo with the 50 f/1.2.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 8, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I predicted/ hoped for a 12mm lense quite a while and based my conclusion on every UWA zoom getting wider and therefore canon needs to release wider prime than the EF 14mm L F2.8. It looks like I’m right but I’d guessed it might an F1.8 aperture. I assigned my F2 guess was wishful thinking at best…
> 
> 
> 12mm F1.8 will attract a lot of people but it will be expensive as hell… I like to burrow it once or twice but I’m unlikely to pay 3 k for it because in Germany chances for astrophotographers are really slim pickings… but, if there was an extensive trip to Iceland or somewhere with A LOT of dark and clear sky, I might get tempted…
> ...



I'm still hoping for some halo lenses like an:

RF 14-28 f/2
RF 70-135 f/2


----------



## Curahee (Sep 8, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I believe the FD 50 f/0.95 was both exotic and high-priced for its time.


There was no FD f0.95.
There was one for the rangefinders before Canon made any SLR's


----------



## MartinVLC (Sep 8, 2022)

gruhl28 said:


> I think you're forgetting the 24 - 105 f/4 L IS. It's not f/2.8, but it's much faster than f/6.3. It's only slightly over $1200, and you can get a refurb for much less.


I didn´t forget about it. Although it´s not a lot over 1200 $, it is above that price and in Europe it´s between 1400-1500 Euro, Compared to around 900 $/Euro that you pay for an exelent Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 G2 for the E-mmount, that´s still way more money for less light. 

And I personally wouldn´t consider a f/4 lens a "fast" lens. Not saying that it´s bad, it´s certainly a very good lens. But being focused in portrait and event photography f/4 for me isn´t really an option.


----------



## Andrew_kuttor (Sep 9, 2022)

Aussie shooter said:


> A 12mm f1.8? That seems......odd. I would think milky way/aurora photographers would prefer a 16mm 1.8. who would the 12mm be for? Architecture perhaps?


I actually am stoked for a 12mm f1.8.

I was going to buy an A1 along with my current R3 because they have that 14mm f1.8.


----------



## bergstrom (Sep 9, 2022)

still no RF 85 1.4


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 9, 2022)

A big gap between 12mm and 24mm when it comes to wide angle but CR did forget the RF16/2.8 already available.
I would have thought that 14mm should be mandatory before 12mm though. For me, 14mm is the sweet spot for astrolandscape for milky way shots and Canon have discontinued their EF14mm.

4 new RF primes just for wide angle seems to be a lot given that I assume Canon will release other RF lenses during the next year as well. Whilst I agree that these L primes will not be cheap, Canon is providing a "wider" RF catalogue of options that perhaps will answer some of the critics of their "closed" RF system.

Every mm wider makes a much bigger difference! The wider the focal length, the more esoteric the genre. 5.2mm VR, 8mm fisheye, EF11-24/4 etc are less used than other focal lengths


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 9, 2022)

Aussie shooter said:


> A 12mm f1.8? That seems......odd. I would think milky way/aurora photographers would prefer a 16mm 1.8. who would the 12mm be for? Architecture perhaps?


16mm/1.8 would be great but we do have the 16/2.8 already.
I would prefer a 14mm over a 12mm as I assume that the price will be very high for the 12/1.8


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 9, 2022)

entoman said:


> I agree with all of that neuro, but it still frustrates me that there are very few mid-range, mid-price L-quality lenses with modest apertures that would result in smaller, lighter lenses.
> 
> It's difficult to gauge how much demand there is for such optics, but I honestly believe they would sell in high enough numbers to make it worthwhile to Canon, and I also believe that the "policy of extremes" is alienating a lot of existing customers, and discouraging new customers.


Canon has brought in smaller/lighter lenses but has pricing reflecting that R&D. 
There are lots of complaints about Canon releasing "darker" lenses at a cheap price eg 600/800 f11.

Has Canon ever released L quality lenses at mid-price levels besides the RF24-105/4L kit lens?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Has Canon ever released L quality lenses at mid-price levels besides the RF24-105/4L kit lens?


Not for a long time. Lenses like the EF 17-40/4L and 200/2.8L would probably fit the bill of mid-price (<$1K) L-series lenses. No weather sealing, though.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 9, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> If you like 16mm just shoot and crop or get one of the other UWA options.


The field of view difference at these UAW focal lengths is extreme though so cropping wouldn't be equivalent.
Hard to beat the RF16/2.8 for price/size etc but corner coma is a different story.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not for a long time. Lenses like the EF 17-40/4L and 200/2.8L would probably fit the bill of mid-price (<$1K) L-series lenses. No weather sealing, though.


The EF17-40/4L wasn't a great lens though and I wonder whether it met our expectations of what a L series lens would be. 
Still available now @USD800 if @entoman wants to adapt it


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 9, 2022)

Andrew_kuttor said:


> I actually am stoked for a 12mm f1.8.
> 
> I was going to buy an A1 along with my current R3 because they have that 14mm f1.8.


Goodness, someone avoiding going to Sony because of a rumoured RF lens?!?  

What use case do you have to consider the investment of an A1 because of their 14/1.8?


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 9, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> 12mm F1.8 will attract a lot of people but it will be expensive as hell… I like to burrow it once or twice but I’m unlikely to pay 3 k for it because in Germany chances for astrophotographers are really slim pickings… but, if there was an extensive trip to Iceland or somewhere with A LOT of dark and clear sky, I might get tempted…
> 
> 12mm F1,8 and 14-35mm F4 L would make a killer combo but it’ll cost somewhere around 5k… so I’ll stick to the 15-35mm which I got at a „modest“ price.


Iceland outside of summer though (for aurora etc)  
The option to rent it for trips like that though would be very tempting for me.


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 9, 2022)

MythPlayer said:


> Did canon made 28mm autofocus L lens before?


Not that I know of—they did a /2.8 and a /1.8......


----------



## sanj (Sep 9, 2022)

entoman said:


> I'd have to disagree there.
> 
> If your starting point is a perfectly focused, movement-free image, taken with an "average" lens, and then you carefully process the RAW with Topaz DeNoise AI (as I do) you can certainly get a very sharp and detailed end result.
> 
> But, if your starting point is an image taken with a high-end L optic (or similar from Nikon, Sony, Sigma) it will look even better, and won't suffer from the slightly "digital, plasticky" look that comes from sharpening an image that is softer to start with. For example, I can certainly tell the difference between sharpened images taken with my RF 800mm F11, and those taken with my RF 100-500mm L.


No point writing: 'I agree', because what you say is the absolute truth.


----------



## sanj (Sep 9, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I was hoping for f/1.2


That would have been fantastic. But what to do..


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 9, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> My 14mm f/1.8 Sigma is one of my favorites. It's not just for buildings and skies. I use it to show the context around a subject, or to massively emphasize the subject versus a distorted background. These crappy-light pics below are just snaps, but they give you the sense of additional options. The other lens that does this for me is the Laowa 15mm f/4 macro, which is the reason I've been using the Sigma less in the past couple of years, when I don't need the gaping aperture.
> View attachment 205508
> View attachment 205509
> View attachment 205510
> ...


Nice shots. They certainly work a treat. But in most cases you wouldn't need a 1.8 for those. Although you did specifically mention blowing out a background.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 9, 2022)

Andrew_kuttor said:


> I actually am stoked for a 12mm f1.8.
> 
> I was going to buy an A1 along with my current R3 because they have that 14mm f1.8.


What for specifically if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 9, 2022)

fiendstudios said:


> I would love the 12/1.8 since I shoot a lot of Aurora and sometimes 14mm is not enough. I would still want to have a faster than 1.8 lens which is wider than the 24mm.
> I use Sigma 20/1.4 and Sigma 14/1.8 right now. Would be nice to have a 20/1.2 and a 14/1.4..


Interesting. I shoot auroras as well and I generally found 16mm to be perfect. Every now and again there is a cracker that requires stitching but that is rare for me. Having said that, I am shooting the southern light in Australia and we do not get to shoot up for our auroras. We shoot towards the horizon. I am guessing that when you are closer to the action then the wider angle lens would be a big help. For me though a 12 would just be too wide most of the time


----------



## Berowne (Sep 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not for a long time. Lenses like the EF 17-40/4L and 200/2.8L would probably fit the bill of mid-price (<$1K) L-series lenses. No weather sealing, though.


The small and cheap 200/2.8L is a beautiful Lens, I would never sell it! 6D, EF 200mm/2.8L II USM, ISO 100, f4.0, 1/500sec, LR, ooC, only Export.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 9, 2022)

Aussie shooter said:


> A 12mm f1.8? That seems......odd. I would think milky way/aurora photographers would prefer a 16mm 1.8. who would the 12mm be for? Architecture perhaps?


Most likely a near-fisheye lens with something like 40% rectilinear distortion, that's missing a heap of corrective lens elements to save money, and corrected in software, sharp in the centre with smeared corners and edges, featuring extending focus elements and STM motors! More of the same...


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 9, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> If you don't have any experience with the lens you really shouldn't make definitive statements. Is it the sharpest lens in the lineup - no of course no. Do you need to shoot at f/8 - no, of course not, at least not in my experience.
> 
> It's funny how people dwell on sharpness when a lot of the final result of your image's sharpness depends on what you have as the sharpness setting in your camera, and then how you post-process. With a good post-processing program the lens's sharpness is almost immaterial, in my opinion.


Entoman was relaying what he read in reviews, which is consistent with the majority of reviews I've read, he stated that, and he's allowed to do that. Copy variation between lenses results in a bell graph normal distribution of performance.

You can't add detail in post that a lens isn't able to resolve and capture in the first place. I wish you could!

If you look at AlanF's tests, the sharpness most people are concerned about is what level of details a lens will resolve with a particular sensor. Depending on the intended use of a lens, it may or may not be sharp enough. In absolute terms, test results such as Imatest which measures actual image resolution as LW/PH will provide values that describe a lens' detail resolving capacity which can broadly be classified as excellent, good, average or poor. Most of the tests I've seen for the RF 100-400mm describe the sharpness as 'good'. The sample images show that the lens doesn't retain fine details such as feather detail in birds at 100% compared to the EF 100-400 II, which is an apples to oranges comparison as that's a different class of lens.

Looking at the TDP comparison test, the RF 100-400mm at its longest focal length and wide open which is arguably its sharpest aperture (400mm f/8) is not as sharp as my RF 24-105mm f/4 L at its longest focal length and wide open (105mm f/4), which is not its sharpest aperture. The 24-105L is a reasonably sharp lens, but by no means one of the sharper L lenses, and for me, that's the minimum level of sharpness I prefer to work with. YMMV.









Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 9, 2022)

I have a hard time believing this lineup. They didn't bother with a 28/1.4 even when SLR sales were ILC what they are today, so now they're suddenly going to make one? In fact it took them like 9 years to make the EF 35/1.4 MkI and and 12 or something for the EF 24/1.4 from memory, so it's surprising that they'd suddenly so many fast wide lenses all at once.

That said I'd wholly applaud: I got the Sigma 28/1.4 at the Adorama clearance sale price and love it. I'd pay double for a Canon though, in part because I'm convinced mirrorless design allows better wide-angle lens designs and the Sigma while very very good is still an SLR-style design.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I have a hard time believing this lineup. They didn't bother with a 28/1.4 even when SLR sales were ILC what they are today, so now they're suddenly going to make one? In fact it took them like 9 years to make the EF 35/1.4 MkI and and 12 or something for the EF 24/1.4 from memory, so it's surprising that they'd suddenly so many fast wide lenses all at once.


I tend to agree. I wonder if some ‘source’ is basing this on a lens patent. For example, there was a patent with four f/2.8 primes (10, 14, 16, and 20mm) that published in June. CRguy erroneously called them APS-C lenses, but the 16/2.8 in that patent was the one that was already a product by then. Similarly, a few weeks ago a patent published on three wide f/1.8 primes (21, 24 and 28mm), CRguy again mistakenly called them APS-C lenses but one of them was the RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro that was announced the month before.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 9, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Entoman was relaying what he read in reviews, which is consistent with the majority of reviews I've read, he stated that, and he's allowed to do that. Copy variation between lenses results in a bell graph normal distribution of performance.
> 
> You can't add in post detail that a lens isn't able to resolve and capture in the first place. I wish you could!
> 
> ...


At which focus distance were those measured? @AlanF tends use it near MFD, not near infinity. My EF100L macro lens was very sharp for close focus, but merely 'OK' when you went beyond a few meters.


----------



## entoman (Sep 9, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The EF17-40/4L wasn't a great lens though and I wonder whether it met our expectations of what a L series lens would be.
> Still available now @USD800 if @entoman wants to adapt it


I once owned the EF 17-40mm F4L but the corner sharpness was disappointing, so I sold it and got the EF 16-35mm F4L instead, which was a superb lens. Unfortunately an asshole broke into my car and stole it. Currently my wide-angle needs are covered by the RF 24-105mm F4L and my adapted T/S-E 24mm.

I'm not intending to add any more Canon lenses (currently also have RF 100mm macro, RF 100-500mm, RF 800mm F11) until middle of 2023, when I may add the RF 14-35mm F4L, although if a RF 180mm macro L or RF 70-300mm F4L were to appear, they'd have priority over the wide zoom.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 9, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> At which focus distance were those measured? @AlanF tends use it near MFD, not near infinity. My EF100L macro lens was very sharp for close focus, but merely 'OK' when you went beyond a few meters.


While other lenses I've seen tests for are the exact opposite of the EF 100L macro, sharp at longer distances but degrade in image quality at close distances when wide open, and only achieve acceptable sharpness when stopped down. 

I'm guessing that's because the lens formula for macro lenses is optimised for close-up performance, while other lenses are optimised to deliver their best performance further from the subject at distances where they are more commonly used. I'm not the person to ask, as I don't do lens tests, perhaps it's best to play to a lens's strengths when testing to determine the maximum performance it's capable of, and under what circumstances (focal length, distance, aperture). Many of the more detailed reviews will explore that, by testing zooms across their range, and all lenses through various apertures, and some will do close-ups and regular distances too.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 9, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Most likely a near-fisheye lens with something like 40% rectilinear distortion, that's missing a heap of corrective lens elements to save money, and corrected in software, sharp in the centre with smeared corners and edges, featuring extending focus elements and STM motors! More of the same...


Fine, you already know everything negative about a lens which has just been announced....
You must be an optical genius!


----------



## AlanF (Sep 9, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> At which focus distance were those measured? @AlanF tends use it near MFD, not near infinity. My EF100L macro lens was very sharp for close focus, but merely 'OK' when you went beyond a few meters.


My standard distance for resolution tests using charts is 20m. I also do 12m. For close ups close to MFD, I use a £10 note. Then, I do field tests on birds and dragonflies etc usually.


----------



## RobbieHat (Sep 9, 2022)

Been hoping for this announcement for awhile. Now I will see what amounts of the 12 mm f1.8 lens specifically. I adapt the Sigma 14 mm f 1.8 for Milky Way and Aurora with great results. I also have a 24mm f 1.4 Sigma that I use for tighter Milky Way shots and it works quite nice stopped down a bit. The corners in the 24 mm aren’t that great. 

I will be an early buyer of the 12 mm if is performs well in the corners. Don’t care about weight and assume cost will be stupid. I like how my EF 16-35 vIII performs in the corners even at f2.8 and am hoping for similar performance or better from a prime. We shall see! 

Bob


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 9, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Fine, you already know everything negative about a lens which has just been announced....
> You must be an optical genius!


You didn't like my prospective lens review? 

What do you mean by negative? Who mentioned anything about negatives? Certainly not me about the wonderful 12mm f/1.8 lens! 

Those are not negatives, they actually all 'features' that this modern lens is designed to have. It's 'designed to use software lens correction', which makes it smaller, lighter, and that's a sign technological progress! Why would you think otherwise? What do you have against extending lens elements on focus, and STM motors? Are you a Canon hater? 

Nobody needs edge or corner sharpness except people who can afford very expensive L series lenses. Every new photographer and person on a budget should only do hiking and travel photography, and possibly only vlogging video, and therefore only need these convenient light and compact lenses. It doesn't matter that these lenses use less lens elements and cheaper plastic aspherical lens elements (but cost more than a properly optically corrected lens), because that's a superior design, being part of Canon's new strategy for lens offerings on the RF platform, and we should be eternally grateful for that. 

How can I be so sure? Easy! I read all the pro-Canon posts defending the RF 16mm f/2.8 lens, and I memorised the reasons why it was good and had no limitations or shortcomings, so I know I'm right! 

Negatives, no way! To think anything else is sheer blasphemy, and should be actively discouraged, because saying negative things about a camera or lens (no matter how factual) makes people who bought these lenses feel bad. Only an internet troll or Sony fanboy would do such a heinous thing to a loyal Canon buyer. We need to reward brand loyalty by affirming and validating people's buying choices at every opportunity. When they buy something new, because they believed Canon's marketing hype, and experienced buyer's remorse afterwards when the product failed to live up to real-world expectations, we need to lift their spirits and assure them that they have the best gear, so they stay loyal to the brand. We need to maintain faith in all the company's actions, no matter how confusing or questionable they may seem. In fact, it's best not to ask question, just trust, and Canon will deliver. It's not willful ignorance as some people claim, things just work better that way. 

The lens is almost perfect. The only disappointment is that the aperture is too bright/wide, shame it isn't f/6.3 or darker like some of the other consumer RF lenses we've grown to love.  Who needs fast apertures anyway? Canon says we don't! It just makes the lens unnecessarily heavy. The high ISO performance of modern sensors means that we can use this lens at f/22 and ISO 102,400 and the images would still look awesome, and the fact that we've only got 2.47EV of dynamic range doesn't matter because of the superior image quality coming from the advanced sensors in the new RF camera bodies. 

Besides, we have plenty of choices anyway. For anyone who doesn't like the US $900 12mm f/1,8 STM, which will sell for £1,100 in UK and $2,000 in Australia they can wait 6 years when Canon will release the L-series version for US $2,600. Any decent client should be happy to wait at least half a decade until a photographer can get the right lenses, otherwise they're being unreasonable. People can also buy the EF 11-24mm f/4L for US $2,999 and use that with an adapter, then just crop to 12mm, and blur the background a bit more in Photoshop. I can't believe why people complain so much! 

<end sarcasm>


----------



## entoman (Sep 9, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> At which focus distance were those measured? @AlanF tends use it near MFD, not near infinity. My EF100L macro lens was very sharp for close focus, but merely 'OK' when you went beyond a few meters.


At least one of the reviews I looked at had a full set of images from the RF100-400mm, taken at several different apertures, and at several different distances.

The text of the reviews stated that the lens needed to be stopped down a full stop in order to get decent sharpness, and also stated that diffraction caused softness at F11 or smaller apertures, and these statements were backed up by the published images. Diffraction softness at F11 was quite pronounced - enough to make the images unusable for me.

There are probably sharper copies out there, but unfortunately most of us don't have the opportunity or time, to test and return multiple copies, in order to find a good copy.


----------



## entoman (Sep 9, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> To think anything else is sheer blasphemy, and should be actively discouraged, because saying negative things about a camera or lens (no matter how factual) makes people who bought these lenses feel bad.


How very true.

It doesn't always occur to everyone, that those of us who criticise a Canon product have actually spent tens of thousands of pounds/dollars on Canon gear over a period of years, and thus feel fully entitled to criticise on those occasions where we feel Canon has made a misjudgement or produced a sub-par product.

I personally provide direct feedback to Canon, negative and positive, as do many others, in addition to comments made here or on other forums. It's actually to the benefit of everyone that negatives as well as positives are publicly reported too, as it keeps manufacturers on their toes and ultimately results in product improvements.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 9, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> You didn't like my prospective lens review?
> 
> What do you mean by negative? Who mentioned anything about negatives? Certainly not me about the wonderful 12mm f/1.8 lens!
> 
> ...


Still fine...
The lens doesn't exist yet.
Nobody has seen it.
Nobody has reviewed it.
Nobody knows its characteristics.
Apart from you, it seems...
Sorry, but I find it silly to debate the quality of a non-extant lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2022)

entoman said:


> It doesn't always occur to everyone, that those of us who criticise a Canon product have actually spent tens of thousands of pounds/dollars on Canon gear over a period of years, and thus feel fully entitled to criticise on those occasions where we feel Canon has made a misjudgement or produced a sub-par product.


Even those who have not spent tens of thousands of dollars/pounds on Canon gear are entitled to criticize. But if you believe that people are also entitled to draw broad conclusions about the corporate impact of the issues they find distressing, we're going to disagree.

"My R5 overheats, Canon screwed up and needs to fix this!" – fine

"I have read a bunch of reports on the R5 overheating, I'm not going to buy an R5." – fine

"The R5 overheating is a huge problem, I'm going to buy a Sony instead because they don't overheat." – fine (although 'they don't overheat _anymore_' would be more accurate)

"The R5 overheating issue is a debacle, R5 sales will plummet, everyone will switch to Sony, and Canon will suffer." – asinine (yet an accurate paraphrase of many comments on Internet forums)


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 9, 2022)

entoman said:


> How very true.
> 
> It doesn't always occur to everyone, that those of us who criticise a Canon product have actually spent tens of thousands of pounds/dollars on Canon gear over a period of years, and thus feel fully entitled to criticise on those occasions where we feel Canon has made a misjudgement or produced a sub-par product.
> 
> I personally provide direct feedback to Canon, negative and positive, as do many others, in addition to comments made here or on other forums. It's actually to the benefit of everyone that negatives as well as positives are publicly reported too, as it keeps manufacturers on their toes and ultimately results in product improvements.


Agree, I like to have a realistic perspective about the limitations of my gear, so I can get the most out of it. If someone says that my cheapest RF lens, the RF 50mm f/1.8 is crap, and has bad bokeh, I don't take it personally. Yes, it has its limitations for a budget lens. I know that stopped down it's incredibly sharp, and is quite good at f/2.0, with excellent sharpness from f/2.8 through to f/5.6, with best edge sharpness from f/4 to f/5.6. I'm mindful not to select busy backgrounds for best out of focus backgrounds/bokeh, and while it's no Canon L lens or Sigma Art lens it does the job. I wouldn't know any of that, and I would have to spend lots of time work all that out for myself _after buying the lens first_, if people didn't do tests and make objective and factual criticisms of the lens performance. Reading the criticisms, I was happy with the compromises, so I bought it. Reading the same for the RF 16mm f/2.8, I wasn't happy with what I read so I didn't buy it. Highlighting both the strengths and shortcomings of a product, without bias, helps others make informed buying decisions.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Even those who have not spent tens of thousands of dollars/pounds on Canon gear are entitled to criticize. But if you believe that people are also entitled to draw broad conclusions about the corporate impact of the issues they find distressing, we're going to disagree.
> 
> "My R5 overheats, Canon screwed up and needs to fix this!" – fine
> 
> ...


All sounds totally reasonable! 
The last point though, is slightly inaccurate, it falls short of what we actually see, and should read "...and Canon will be d00med!"


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 9, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Still fine...
> The lens doesn't exist yet.
> Nobody has seen it.
> Nobody has reviewed it.
> ...


Oh, Del Paso, I hope you realise that the first post was mocking Canon's new strategy for consumer lenses, and the second, longer post was mocking some of the things that happen on this forum!  

Seriously, this lens could be great or not so great, and nobody will know until it's released and independently tested. It's curious how much conversation a lens that may not yet exist can generate on a photography rumours forum!

In the line of budget primes, I'm hoping this is more like the RF 35mm f/1.8 macro in IQ, and less like the RF 16mm f/2.8, but then again, I have no use for a 12mm focal length.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> For example, there was a patent with four f/2.8 primes (10, 14, 16, and 20mm) that published in June. CRguy erroneously called them APS-C lenses, but the 16/2.8 in that patent was the one that was already a product by then. Similarly, a few weeks ago a patent published on three wide f/1.8 primes (21, 24 and 28mm), CRguy again mistakenly called them APS-C lenses but one of them was the RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro that was announced the month before.


Maybe if you could read Japanese you wouldn't look like such a gibbering idiot.

I haven't yet read a Canon patent on a specific lens. All the ones I see are on lens _formulae_ and the specific lenses described in the patent are merely examples of the formulae being put into practice. The patent will cover for instance: a lens of at least 8 groups whereby the first group has a positive diopter, the second group etc. etc. It's a generalized recipe. They then show you different things you can make with that recipe.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Sep 9, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Maybe if you could read Japanese you wouldn't look like such a gibbering idiot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Maybe if you could read Japanese you wouldn't look like such a gibbering idiot.
> 
> I haven't yet read a Canon patent on a specific lens. All the ones I see are on lens _formulae_ and the specific lenses described in the patent are merely examples of the formulae being put into practice. The patent will cover for instance: a lens of at least 8 groups whereby the first group has a positive diopter, the second group etc. etc. It's a generalized recipe. They then show you different things you can make with that recipe.


Grow up.

As for the patents, perhaps you've missed the fact that they also contain specific embodiments (examples) of lens designs. In the case of the patent for the three f/1.8 prime lens designs, here is the figure from the patent for Example 3, with focal length 24.72mm and f-number 1.85, and below it is the block diagram of the recently-launched RF 24mm f/1.8 lens. Do you notice any similarity between the exemplar diagram representing an embodiment of an optical formula, and the optics in the corresponding production lens?




The patent on f/2.8 wide primes included the design for the RF 16/2.8, which is obvious from a comparison of patent example diagram to production lens block diagram like the one above. Also, that patent was filed with the USPTO, and published in English.  The design for the RF 16/2.8 is Embodiment 3.

Obviously, not every embodiment in every patent becomes a product. In many cases none of them do, and many patents are filed not to protect specific designs intended to become products but to block competitors from using those designs.

Incidentally, I can't count the number of times I've posted on this forum that patents are optical designs for lenses, not actual lenses. Usually it comes up in the context of people looking at the lens length in the patent, and not realizing that length is the optical length from the front-most lens surface to the sensor, not the physical length of the lens that could be produced from that design.

Now, was there a point to your post beyond you showing yourself to be puerile, argumentative, and unable to engage in civil discussion?


----------



## entoman (Sep 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Even those who have not spent tens of thousands of dollars/pounds on Canon gear are entitled to criticize. But if you believe that people are also entitled to draw broad conclusions about the corporate impact of the issues they find distressing, we're going to disagree.
> 
> "My R5 overheats, Canon screwed up and needs to fix this!" – fine
> 
> ...


We're not going to disagree on that point


----------



## scyrene (Sep 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not for a long time. Lenses like the EF 17-40/4L and 200/2.8L would probably fit the bill of mid-price (<$1K) L-series lenses. No weather sealing, though.


I tend to think of the 300 f/4L and 400 f/5.6L as mid range, too - certainly they sat on a tier well below the price of the bigger white lenses.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 9, 2022)

entoman said:


> At least one of the reviews I looked at had a full set of images from the RF100-400mm, taken at several different apertures, and at several different distances.
> 
> The text of the reviews stated that the lens needed to be stopped down a full stop in order to get decent sharpness, and also stated that diffraction caused softness at F11 or smaller apertures, and these statements were backed up by the published images. Diffraction softness at F11 was quite pronounced - enough to make the images unusable for me.
> 
> There are probably sharper copies out there, but unfortunately most of us don't have the opportunity or time, to test and return multiple copies, in order to find a good copy.


A question regarding diffraction - would it not be the same with the 800 f/11 as any other lens stopped down to that aperture?


----------



## entoman (Sep 9, 2022)

scyrene said:


> A question regarding diffraction - would it not be the same with the 800 f/11 as any other lens stopped down to that aperture?


That's a question for someone more expert on the subject than myself. I think it's dependent on several factors including pixel density and the angle at which the light rays hit the sensor, the latter being determined by the distance between the nodal point of the lens from the sensor plane, and the physical size of the aperture. So it will be affected by the lens design, as well as focal length and aperture.


----------



## Skux (Sep 9, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I think that Canon is doing the right thing by catering to the extremes.
> People who want the middle can adapt EF.


But me buying a used EF 50mm f1.4 because I don't want the RF f1.8 or f1.2 doesn't make Canon any money.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 9, 2022)

entoman said:


> That's a question for someone more expert on the subject than myself. I think it's dependent on several factors including pixel density and the angle at which the light rays hit the sensor, the latter being determined by the distance between the nodal point of the lens from the sensor plane, and the physical size of the aperture. So it will be affected by the lens design, as well as focal length and aperture.


Diffraction is independent of the sensor, its pixel density, the angles of which the light rays hit the sensor etc, but depends only on the size and shape of the aperture of the lens. For a perfectly circular aperture - see:





__





Diffraction, Airy Disks and implications


Two points of light are clearly resolved when they are separated by distances that are much larger than the radius of the disk. As the separation decreases, the disks start overlapping and the resolution decreases. When the separation is the same as the radius, the disks have coalesced. Closer...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 9, 2022)

Skux said:


> But me buying a used EF 50mm f1.4 because I don't want the RF f1.8 or f1.2 doesn't make Canon any money.


Neither does you buying a 50 f/1.4 Sigma Art.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 9, 2022)

Andrew_kuttor said:


> I actually am stoked for a 12mm f1.8.
> 
> I was going to buy an A1 along with my current R3 because they have that 14mm f1.8.


Sigma has a 14 f/1.8 for Canon EF that you can adapt.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 9, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> still no RF 85 1.4


The EF 85 f/1.4 IS is a spectacular lens and it is pretty new.
I highly recommend going with that one.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 9, 2022)

entoman said:


> I personally provide direct feedback to Canon, negative and positive, as do many others, in addition to comments made here or on other forums. It's actually to the benefit of everyone that negatives as well as positives are publicly reported too, as it keeps manufacturers on their toes and ultimately results in product improvements.


Quite a lot of the negative feedback that Canon gets is nonsensical.
They seem to do a pretty good job add addressing reasonable concerns.
They do not address them fast enough for everyone's patience level though.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm going to buy a Sony instead because they don't overheat


Sony cameras still overheat.
The biggest problems with the R5 and R6 were the recovery times.
That has mostly been addressed in firmware.
Canon added a high temp shutoff mode to the R5 which is exactly what Sony does.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The EF 85 f/1.4 IS is a spectacular lens and it is pretty new.
> I highly recommend going with that one.


Agreed. I see no need to ‘upgrade’ to the RF 85/1.2 (either of them). The EF 85/1.4 is sharp, has great bokeh, and focuses fast. Personally, I don’t see the need for the RF’s extra half-stop of aperture, and I speak from the experience of having had it with the EF 85/1.2L II.


----------



## entoman (Sep 9, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Quite a lot of the negative feedback that Canon gets is nonsensical.
> They seem to do a pretty good job add addressing reasonable concerns.
> They do not address them fast enough for everyone's patience level though.


I think you'd have to make specific references before saying that quite a lot of the negative feedback is nonsensical. Please give examples.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Sep 9, 2022)

Seems like a lot of folx forget Canon was pretty nice to all of us to allow adapting of the EF lenses and quite a few of them are superior on R bodies. Not sure what so much gnashing and wailing is all about. Furthermore there is little patience these days. EF took many many many years to reach its full catalog, we're not even at the comparitive 1/2 way mark with RF. People just like whining, thanks Internet.


----------



## Bonich (Sep 9, 2022)

jeffa4444 said:


> Do you actually own the RF 100-400 or are you quoting others? I have this lens along with the RF 100-500 and my copy at least is sharp wide open no need to stop down and whilst it’s slower it still has a Nano motor and a control ring and it’s about 1/4 of the price of the RF 100-500mm and 1/3rd of the weight and I can get it easily into a back-pack with two other lenses & body without breaking my back.


... and whenever it comes to closeup in nature like dragonflies, butterfies the 100-400 outperformed the 100-500.
The 100-400 is s sharp as ever needed shot "wide open", it is ultra light & compact & agile to be used (please hold a 100-500 5 minute in knees' height at a pond's edge, btw with adapted 1.4x converter to get the same closeup reach with the 100-500)
Those complaining about the 100-400 a) never used this lens and b) don't understand the talents of this lens.

(possibly my best purchase in 2022)


----------



## Bonich (Sep 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I owned both the 100-400L and the 70-300L. After getting the 600/4L II, I sold the 100-400 but kept the 70-300L as a more portable option when needed. I did not use it very much, though, so I eventually sold it. I don't think I'd buy a replacement in RF mount unless it comes in at the size weight of the 24-105/4 somehow. I do have the 100-500L, which is a _stellar_ lens both optically and when used for that purpose.
> 
> "_Ajax Peak Stars_" (Telluride, CO)
> 
> ...


Yes, the 100-500 is superb in landscape & things.


----------



## Bonich (Sep 9, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I had the 70-300 DO for a while. As I have done with several lenses I had some doubts if I really wanted or not, I bought it used. It was very convenient with a size almost identical to the 24-105/4 (although it was f/4.5-5.6). Perhaps with the current state of DO lenses (which Canon seems to no longer be labeling as such, e.g. 600/11 and 800/11), I wonder if they could make a 70-300/4L with a DO group that is quite compact. Seems possible. That, I'd be sorely tempted to buy.
> 
> The 70-300 DO wasn't a bad lens, but it did have it's optical quirks as far as bokeh goes. I ended up selling it, for the same price I paid – a free, long-term rental is a great way to evaluate a lens! My track record with that approach has been good. Of the 5 lenses I bought used, I sold 4 of them and ended up net in the black after selling them (others were the 300/4L, 28-300L, and 24-105/4L although that last one I just replaced with a new one bought in a kit with a 5DII). The only one I kept after buying used was the MP-E 65 – a great lens, lots of fun, and I only paid $500 for it.
> 
> ...


The EF 70-300 DO was the worst ever purchase in my EF- "career".
At least my copy was never consistent - and nobody is interested in taking it as used.


----------



## jam05 (Sep 9, 2022)

Aussie shooter said:


> A 12mm f1.8? That seems......odd. I would think milky way/aurora photographers would prefer a 16mm 1.8. who would the 12mm be for? Architecture perhaps?





EOS 4 Life said:


> That Sony lens was a response to the popularity of the Sigma 14 f/1.8.
> Canon tends to push things a little further.


However Sony only had a handfull of native Sony lenses for about 5 or 6 years. Sony pushed adapters and 3rd party lenses. We havent forgot about the constant chest thumping over all the adapters and how it didnt matter that Sony had no real lenses. Until they went out and recruited Nikon's famed patent holder and lens designer to get their lens program together and design the G Master lenses. We havent forgot Sony mirrorless growing pains.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 9, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Seems like a lot of folx forget Canon was pretty nice to all of us to allow adapting of the EF lenses and quite a few of them are superior on R bodies. Not sure what so much gnashing and wailing is all about. Furthermore there is little patience these days. EF took many many many years to reach its full catalog, we're not even at the comparitive 1/2 way mark with RF. People just like whining, thanks Internet.


I wouldn't say Canon was nice, any more than I would say they are evil, mean, selfish, anti-competitive, etc. etc. etc. They are just a company in the business of staying in business and earning a return on investment. I'm sure they designed the R system to allow adapters because it made good business sense. 

Still, I also don't understand all the whining. I've gone all-in on RF. But, thanks to the adapters, the switchover was much easier to budget and I've still got two EF lenses that I may never replace (8-15 fisheye and 100 L macro).


----------



## AlanF (Sep 9, 2022)

Bonich said:


> ... and whenever it comes to closeup in nature like dragonflies, butterfies the 100-400 outperformed the 100-500.
> The 100-400 is s sharp as ever needed shot "wide open", it is ultra light & compact & agile to be used (please hold a 100-500 5 minute in knees' height at a pond's edge, btw with adapted 1.4x converter to get the same closeup reach with the 100-500)
> Those complaining about the 100-400 a) never used this lens and b) don't understand the talents of this lens.
> 
> (possibly my best purchase in 2022)


I agree with you and @jeffa4444 100% on all those points. I too find the RF 100-400mm outperforms the 100-500mm for close-up shots of dragonflies. My two copies (yes, one for my wife and one for me when I don't want to take the RF 100-500mm) are sharp wide open. Of course, for long distances the extra 100mm of the RF 100-500mm wins, and it is one of the sharpest tele photo zooms. But, the RF 100-400mm doesn't lag much behind its big EF 100-400 brother for long distances. There are several CR members on CR posting sharp images from it.


----------



## Bonich (Sep 9, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Agree, I like to have a realistic perspective about the limitations of my gear, so I can get the most out of it. If someone says that my cheapest RF lens, the RF 50mm f/1.8 is crap, and has bad bokeh, I don't take it personally. Yes, it has its limitations for a budget lens. I know that stopped down it's incredibly sharp, and is quite good at f/2.0, with excellent sharpness from f/2.8 through to f/5.6, with best edge sharpness from f/4 to f/5.6. I'm mindful not to select busy backgrounds for best out of focus backgrounds/bokeh, and while it's no Canon L lens or Sigma Art lens it does the job. I wouldn't know any of that, and I would have to spend lots of time work all that out for myself _after buying the lens first_, if people didn't do tests and make objective and factual criticisms of the lens performance. Reading the criticisms, I was happy with the compromises, so I bought it. Reading the same for the RF 16mm f/2.8, I wasn't happy with what I read so I didn't buy it. Highlighting both the strengths and shortcomings of a product, without bias, helps others make informed buying decisions.


How right you are!
Use the equipment in the core of its strengths and talents and do not search and blame the weaknesses!
I use the RF 50mm 1.8 by far more than the RF 50 1.2, very satisfied with this lens.
I use the 16 2.8 with great joy and lots of keepers - thinking about landscape I take the 15-35 first.
The RF 35 is very different in use cases to the EF35 1.4 II, both are great in their fields of strengths.
The RF 100-500 and the RF 100-400 are very disjunct in their strengths. The 100-400 is my best ever lens used when it comes to insects in nature like dragonflies, butterflies, ... . F8? you need f8 anyway for those shots - and the background is cream and butter.

You can find the informations needed when you study several tests & reviews and you "read between the lines".


----------



## AlanF (Sep 9, 2022)

Bonich said:


> How right you are!
> Use the equipment in the core of its strengths and talents and do not search and blame the weaknesses!
> I use the RF 50mm 1.8 by far more than the RF 50 1.2, very satisfied with this lens.
> I use the 16 2.8 with great joy and lots of keepers - thinking about landscape I take the 15-35 first.
> ...


Here's a Common Darter in Flight taken with the RF 100-400mm on the much-maligned R7 with mechanical shutter to avoid rolling shutter. It's a 100% crop (1 px = 1 px of original). I had a whole series of them and posted a couple of similar in the Dragonfly thread. The R7 or R5 + RF 100-400mm is one of the best combos for this genre.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 10, 2022)

I would be interested in an RF 12 f/1.8.

There is a decent chance I may purchase the Sigma 14/1.8 in the next 12 months. An RF version with less weight, hopefully still acceptable optical correction, and even wider would definitely interest me over the Sigma, provided it wasn’t 3x the price (which would be $4800).

The 24 may interest me at a later time as well (going to order the 24/1.8 for now).


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 10, 2022)

Skux said:


> But me buying a used EF 50mm f1.4 because I don't want the RF f1.8 or f1.2 doesn't make Canon any money.


I'm not sure that buying a new or a second EF50/1.4 was a good idea anyway!


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 10, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Seems like a lot of folx* forget Canon was pretty nice to all of us to allow adapting of the EF lenses* and quite a few of them are superior on R bodies. Not sure what so much gnashing and wailing is all about. Furthermore there is little patience these days. EF took many many many years to reach its full catalog, we're not even at the comparitive 1/2 way mark with RF. People just like whining, thanks Internet.


I don't think that Canon had a choice but to allow adapting EF lenses. It would have been a major miscalculation if only RF lenses worked on it. 
Many EF users would have needed to make a hard decision whether to keep 2 systems or adapt canon lenses to Sony or jump ship completely to Sony/Nikon/Oly/Fuji etc.

As it is, the migration is as gentle as you and your wallet would like to move. Just changing body is a major upgrade (except for battery life and some use cases of OVF/EVF and some lockups and hotshoe weaknesses).


----------



## Nemorino (Sep 10, 2022)

Bonich said:


> ... and whenever it comes to closeup in nature like dragonflies, butterfies the 100-400 outperformed the 100-500.
> The 100-400 is s sharp as ever needed shot "wide open", it is ultra light & compact & agile to be used (please hold a 100-500 5 minute in knees' height at a pond's edge, btw with adapted 1.4x converter to get the same closeup reach with the 100-500)
> Those complaining about the 100-400 a) never used this lens and b) don't understand the talents of this lens.
> 
> (possibly my best purchase in 2022)


100% agree!  I had to move a lot to get this hummingbird moth and swing the lens in every direction. The low weight of the RF 100-400 was a big plus.





Posted in the Canon rumors butterfly thread:





Butterflies, Moths and Assorted Insects...


I really like the composition on the first picture. Nice series.




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 10, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I don't think that Canon had a choice but to allow adapting EF lenses. It would have been a major miscalculation if only RF lenses worked on it.
> Many EF users would have needed to make a hard decision whether to keep 2 systems or adapt canon lenses to Sony or jump ship completely to Sony/Nikon/Oly/Fuji etc.
> 
> As it is, the migration is as gentle as you and your wallet would like to move. Just changing body is a major upgrade (except for battery life and some use cases of OVF/EVF and some lockups and hotshoe weaknesses).


When Canon made the transition from FD to EF in 1987, there was no ability to use FD lenses on EF bodies while still having focus to infinity. I imagine that the lessons learned in that transition are very much a part of Canon's corporate culture. In addition, Canon never introduced an FD body with a positive focusing indicator in the viewfinder without the ability to control the lens. I, for one, very much wanted an FD body with that type of indicator.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 10, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Here's a Common Darter in Flight taken with the RF 100-400mm on the much-maligned R7 with mechanical shutter to avoid rolling shutter. It's a 100% crop (1 px = 1 px of original). I had a whole series of them and posted a couple of similar in the Dragonfly thread. The R7 or R5 + RF 100-400mm is one of the best combos for this genre.
> View attachment 205532


Lovely shot and goes to show that one can obtain phenomenal photos with an affordable kit.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 10, 2022)

jam05 said:


> However Sony only had a handfull of native Sony lenses for about 5 or 6 years. Sony pushed adapters and 3rd party lenses. We havent forgot about the constant chest thumping over all the adapters and how it didnt matter that Sony had no real lenses. Until they went out and recruited Nikon's famed patent holder and lens designer to get their lens program together and design the G Master lenses. We havent forgot Sony mirrorless growing pains.


Yes, I find it so amazing how now that Sony has the most native mirrorless lenses, it has become such a crime to adapt lenses.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 10, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I don't think that Canon had a choice but to allow adapting EF lenses


True, but EF lenses adapt a lot better than other mirrorless systems.
Canon did the same thing for EF-M so it was to be expected.
Adapting FD lenses to EF was much more difficult.


----------



## SHAMwow (Sep 10, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Seems like a lot of folx forget Canon was pretty nice to all of us to allow adapting of the EF lenses and quite a few of them are superior on R bodies. Not sure what so much gnashing and wailing is all about. Furthermore there is little patience these days. EF took many many many years to reach its full catalog, we're not even at the comparitive 1/2 way mark with RF. People just like whining, thanks Internet.


Right! This is often overlooked, but in this era it really was quite amazing how well they supported the adapting of the lenses. I'm sure they weighed the pros and cons and possible backlash if they didn't, but man when you look at how a lot of tech companies support older equipment, this is really quite remarkable. Especially when you hear that Nikon's adapter isn't as smooth.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> True, but EF lenses adapt a lot better than other mirrorless systems.
> Canon did the same thing for EF-M so it was to be expected.
> Adapting FD lenses to EF was much more difficult.


Yes, and they even adopt to Sony. Nikon's don't have a consistent design and so are more difficult to adapt, even to Nikon.


----------



## SHAMwow (Sep 10, 2022)

I kind of agree with both sides of this coin. I do think the new RF L's are too extreme, even as someone that buys them. And I also agree the STM RF's swing way too far to the cheap/crappy side. I was blown away how bad the RF 50mm 1.8 was on my R5. I put it back in the box immediately. I would assume they'll fill out the middle range much much later in the system's lifespan and I kind of understand that because all those gold ring EF, middle tier lenses I moved away from as well. Because while they were getter than base lenses, they also had enough of an increase in price where it wasn't a smart investment because they lacked the quality and the durability, but you'd invested more money. Only lenses I still use that are old are my L lenses. They simply just work, over long periods of time.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2022)

SHAMwow said:


> Right! This is often overlooked, but in this era it really was quite amazing how well they supported the adapting of the lenses. I'm sure they weighed the pros and cons and possible backlash if they didn't, but man when you look at how a lot of tech companies support older equipment, this is really quite remarkable. Especially when you hear that Nikon's adapter isn't as smooth.


My reply to EOS 4 Life, which was posted before your post came to my computer, applies. Nikon was in a mess because unlike Canon it has a variety of focussing systems for its DSLRs and its adapter is a compromise to accommodate all. I think it is going too far to assume that Canon's EF-ER seamless adapter was purely altruistic. They had such a limited range of RF lenses available when they introduced the R that not many would have taken it up without a good adapter.


----------



## another_mikey (Sep 10, 2022)

Canon RF 12 or 14mm f1.8 or faster - even if expensive, if full frame and good in the corners for stars, especially since my wait for the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 to come to RF could be futile.


----------



## gbasilemc (Sep 10, 2022)

i have the Sigma EF 14mm f1.8 that I use for Milky Way and northern lights and was waiting for something RF to replace, potentially lighter but I don't really mind weight. Instead of 12mm f1.8 or 24mm f1.4 I would have preferred a 14mm f1.4 (or lower f value) personally ; will wait to see what that 12mm is worth for.


----------



## entoman (Sep 10, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Yes, I find it so amazing how now that Sony has the most native mirrorless lenses, it has become such a crime to adapt lenses.


ah, the "S-word"...

Haha, yeah, in the early days S were completely dependent on adapted glass, and all the S fanatics made such a huge point of telling the rest of us that the most wonderful thing about S was that they could accept Canon L glass. But now all of a sudden they tell us it's disgraceful that Canon only has a limited range of native RF glass.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 10, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Sigma has a 14 f/1.8 for Canon EF that you can adapt.



The 14mm f1.8 GM and 14mm f1.8 Art have been compared and the consensus is that the GM noticeably beats the Sigma optically while being much smaller, much lighter but their prices are equal. Sigma’s new 20mm and 24mm f1.4 Art DG DNs however compare very very favourably to the Sony equivalents.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 10, 2022)

If it’s a CR2 rating, shouldn’t it go in the roadmap? I think it would make sense and maybe CR guy could update it to 2023-2024. 

I really like the roadmap list and think it’s very accurate for rumors site, despite canon having some surprises up their sleeves.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 11, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> I need more signatures for the RF 50 1.4 'asanford' petition


Even now, I'm surprised the STM RF 50mm passed QC


----------



## Ph0t0 (Sep 11, 2022)

entoman said:


> I agree with all of that neuro, but it still frustrates me that there are very few mid-range, mid-price L-quality lenses with modest apertures that would result in smaller, lighter lenses.
> 
> It's difficult to gauge how much demand there is for such optics, but I honestly believe they would sell in high enough numbers to make it worthwhile to Canon, and I also believe that the "policy of extremes" is alienating a lot of existing customers, and discouraging new customers.


Out of curiosity: which mid-range, mid-price lenses do you think are missing from the lineup of wide-angle lenses?


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 11, 2022)

entoman said:


> I agree with all of that neuro, but it still frustrates me that there are very few mid-range, mid-price L-quality lenses with modest apertures that would result in smaller, lighter lenses.
> 
> It's difficult to gauge how much demand there is for such optics, but I honestly believe they would sell in high enough numbers to make it worthwhile to Canon, and I also believe that the "policy of extremes" is alienating a lot of existing customers, and discouraging new customers.


Agree, lots of shooters simply want good quality lenses at reasonable prices. Canon currently have the RF mount all to themselves so they could come out with mid range line of lenses that sits just below the L series, something like;

18mm f1.8 USM
35mm f1.4 USM
50mm f1.4 USM
85mm f1.4 USM

16-28mm f2.8 USM
28-70mm f2.8 USM
75-180mm f2.8 USM
20-40mm f2.8 USM


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 11, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Agree, lots of shooters simply want good quality lenses at reasonable prices. Canon currently have the RF mount all to themselves so they could come out with mid range line of lenses that sits just below the L series, something like;
> 
> 18mm f1.8 USM
> 35mm f1.4 USM
> ...


Do you really think they could be non-L lenses, with these apertures and focal ranges?


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 11, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Do you really think they could be non-L lenses, with these apertures and focal ranges?


Canon don’t have to make them L lenses, even if they did they would be cheaper, smaller and lighter than the current options RF or EF equivalents.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 11, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Canon don’t have to make them L lenses, even if they did they would be cheaper, smaller and lighter than the current options RF or EF equivalents.


Wishful thinking!
And where should Canon get the lower price from, partly plastic lenses, plasticky mount or lower quality optics?
Even if possible, which I strongly doubt, these lenses would get negative reports when compared to their EF "equivalents".


----------



## entoman (Sep 11, 2022)

Ph0t0 said:


> Out of curiosity: which mid-range, mid-price lenses do you think are missing from the lineup of wide-angle lenses?


Wide-zoom L glass is already very well covered.

My wish-list includes:

Wide primes - I'd like to see a 21mm F4 L.

Tele-zooms - the most obvious "missing" one, which I would definitely buy, would be a close-focusing 70-300mm F4 L.

Macro - I'd like to see a compact, lightweight 1:2 macro of about 180-200mm, F5.6 L.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 11, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Wishful thinking!
> And where should Canon get the lower price from, partly plastic lenses, plasticky mount or lower quality optics?
> Even if possible, which I strongly doubt, these lenses would get negative reports when compared to their EF "equivalents".


I suspect there is also the issue of economies of scale. None of these proposed lenses would likely be big sellers and would siphon off the relatively few sales of the existing lenses in the same or similar focal lengths. 

I think people on this forum way overestimate the demand for their dream lenses.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Sep 11, 2022)

entoman said:


> Wide-zoom L glass is already very well covered.
> 
> My wish-list includes:
> 
> ...


I'm asking because I think there are more gaps in the lineup when one looks at longer focal ranges that you mentioned or specialist lenses like macro and tilt-shift. 

I just kind of doubt that they would sell a lot of 21mm f4 lenses.
And I belive that there are plenty of uses for such a lens as a 21mm f4. I'm just wondering if there really is a demand for such a lens on the market.

Seems kind of expensive to spend money on a lens that is so limited in focal range and has a relatively high f-stop when there are some preety good zooms that cover that range and more. 
If I was trying to save money I would probably rather get an RF 15-30mm f4 or RF 24-105mm f4 or adapt a EF 16-35mm or ef 24-70mm lens instead of buying a 21mm f4. Maybe even RF 24mm 1.8 if I needed something smaller and with a lower f-stop number.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 11, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I suspect there is also the issue of economies of scale. None of these proposed lenses would likely be big sellers and would siphon off the relatively few sales of the existing lenses in the same or similar focal lengths.
> 
> I think people on this forum way overestimate the demand for their dream lenses.


That's why they are called "dream" lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2022)

Ph0t0 said:


> I just kind of doubt that they would sell a lot of 21mm f4 lenses.
> And I belive that there are plenty of uses for such a lens as a 21mm f4. I'm just wondering if there really is a demand for such a lens on the market.


I agree. The lens @entoman wishes for us a 21mm f/4 L, and that desire/need is met by the existing 14-35/4L. I’m sure the hope is a prime would be cheaper, but if the demand is weak the cost will need to be higher, and demand would then be even lower. A 21/4L is basically a non-starter. Maybe as a TS lens…but that wouldn’t work for @entoman because it won’t be weather sealed, would cost more than the zoom, and would likely be MF.


----------



## HMC11 (Sep 11, 2022)

I have been wondering if the complaints about 'extreme' pricing is valid when inflation is taken into account. I have compared lenses where a clear EF predecessor exists for the RF lens concerned. Below is a table showing prices at Launch ($ at L), Launch price adjusted for inflation at year of EF version launch (L yr Adj), what the EF price would be in 2021 when adjusted for inflation (2021 adj), EF price adjusted for 2022 (2022 adj), current B&H prices (Current). I have also computed the percentage increase from EF price (adj & current etc). So 'L-Adj)' compares inflation-adjusted EF price at launch of RF counterpart etc, 'C-21adj' - current RF price compared to 2021 adjusted price, 'L-adj21' - RF launch price compared to EF adjusted price in 2021, C-C - simple comparison of current EF & RF prices.

The inflation data is from an inflation calculator (https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/in...quivalent,cumulative price increase of 72.05%.), which obviously is as best a reasonable estimate. I have used both the 2021 & 2022 inflation values simply because 2022's inflation is an outlier - as such, using only 2022 seems somewhat distorted.

If I were to use within 5% as a reasonable increase, between 5-10% as just about accepted, and beyond 10% as being 'unreasonable', then the following observations can be made (without validation, of course) using L-Adj and C-C columns
(a) Lenses that are reasonably priced: 15-35 f2.8, 24-105L, 35 f1.8 & 85 f1.8
(b) acceptably (subjective) priced: 100 f2.8 macro
(c) 70-200 f4 hovers around ok pricing, especially if a good discount is offered
(d) 100-500 is not bad if one can still get the launch price
(e) The rest need serious discounts

Overall, the L series lenses are a mix bag when it comes to price increases from EF counterparts. While there are good reasons to scream at the high pricing for some, a good discount (perhaps when a mark II lens is released, or that the lenses are in the market long enough for prices to drop) would bring the pricing to a reasonable level. The current non-L in this list are broadly 'cheap' (with the exception of the RF 50 1.8, but the base price of that is low enough to treat it as reasonably priced).


----------



## HMC11 (Sep 11, 2022)

I have to post the table separately as the 10,000 characters limited was breached. Here it is:



LensesLaunch Yr​$ at L​L yr Adj /$​2021 adj /$​2022 adj /$​Current /$L-Adj /%C-21adj /%C-22adj /%L-adj21 /%L-adj22 /%C-C /%EF 16-35 f2.8L III2016​2199​2342​2483​2714​2199​RF 15-35 f2.8L2019​2299​2299​-1.9​-7.4​-15.3​-7.4​-15.3​4.5​EF 16-35 f4L2014​1199​1372​1372​1500​1299​RF 14-35 f4L2021​1699​1599​23.8​16.5​6.6​23.8​13.2​23.1​EF 70-200 f2.8L III2018​2099​2136​2264​2475​2099​RF 70-200 f2.8L2019​2699​2799​26.4​23.6​13.1​19.2​9.0​33.3​EF 70-200 f4L II2018​1299​1401​1401​1532​1499​RF 70-200 f4L2021​1599​1699​14.1​21.3​10.9​14.1​4.4​13.3​EF 24-70 f2.8L II2012​2299​2560​2713​2967​1899​RF 24-70 f2.8L2019​2299​2399​-10.2​-11.6​-19.1​-15.3​-22.5​26.3​EF 24-105L2005​999​1285​1386​1516​1299​RF 24-105L2018​1299​1299​1.1​-6.3​-14.3​-6.3​-14.3​0.0​EF 100 f2.8L Macro2009​1049​1325​1325​1449​1299​RF 100 f2.8L Macro2021​1399​1199​5.6​-9.5​-17.2​5.6​-3.4​-7.7​EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6L II2014​2199​2404​2517​2752​2399​RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L2020​2699​2899​12.3​15.2​5.3​7.2​-1.9​20.8​EF 50 f1.8 STM2015​130​142​149​163​125​RF 50 f1.8 STM2020​199​159​40.2​7.0​-2.2​33.9​22.5​27.2​EF 85 f1.8 STM1992​430​784​831​908​499​RF 85 f2 STM2019​599​499​-23.6​-39.9​-45.0​-27.9​-34.0​0.0​EF 35 f2 II STM2012​849​929​1002​1096​599​RF 35 f1.8 STM2018​499​499​-46.3​-50.2​-54.5​-50.2​-54.5​-16.7​


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 11, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Wishful thinking!
> And where should Canon get the lower price from, partly plastic lenses, plasticky mount or lower quality optics?
> Even if possible, which I strongly doubt, these lenses would get negative reports when compared to their EF "equivalents".


Lower prices than L series doesn’t mean low price full stop. The RF 35mm f1.8 goes for £529 here in the UK and the EF 35mm f1.4 L II goes for £2099
There’s room in between those for a new RF prime at f1.4


----------



## entoman (Sep 11, 2022)

Ph0t0 said:


> I'm asking because I think there are more gaps in the lineup when one looks at longer focal ranges that you mentioned or specialist lenses like macro and tilt-shift.
> 
> I just kind of doubt that they would sell a lot of 21mm f4 lenses.
> And I belive that there are plenty of uses for such a lens as a 21mm f4. I'm just wondering if there really is a demand for such a lens on the market.
> ...





neuroanatomist said:


> I agree. The lens @entoman wishes for us a 21mm f/4 L, and that desire/need is met by the existing 14-35/4L. I’m sure the hope is a prime would be cheaper, but if the demand is weak the cost will need to be higher, and demand would then be even lower. A 21/4L is basically a non-starter. Maybe as a TS lens…but that wouldn’t work for @entoman because it won’t be weather sealed, would cost more than the zoom, and would likely be MF.



Yeah I've got a couple of zooms myself - the RF 24-105mm F4 L is a reasonable enough walkabout lens, and the RF 100-500mm is my go-to lens for safari photography. But most of the time I prefer primes for a variety of reasons - e.g. they are less prone to flare when the sun is in, or just outside the frame, they are generally lighter and more compact, and I just find that the discipline of working with a fixed focal length results in better photos. I prefer to walk about and explore multiple viewpoints, rather than stand in one spot and zoom (I know this is an exaggeration of how people work, but zooms do tend to make me lazy).

I have no idea how popular a 21mm F4 would be, obviously not as popular as a wide zoom, the question really is whether it would sell in enough numbers for Canon to justify making it. They are after all in the business to make money for the employees and shareholders, not to please photographers.

I've already got an EF 24mm tilt-shift which I use quite a lot for landscapes and botanical subjects. A 21mm T/S would be even nicer, and worth paying for, despite the lack of weather-sealing. Tilt-shifts are huge fun to use, but I do wish Canon would make a message appear in the viewfinder saying "don't forget to focus, you IDIOT", as I'm so used to having AF on all my other lenses, that I often forget that my T/S-E is manual focus!

I agree that there are more gaps in the RF range at longer focal lengths. The lenses I mentioned were my own wish-list, undoubtedly others will have their own preferences.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 11, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Lower prices than L series doesn’t mean low price full stop. The RF 35mm f1.8 goes for £529 here in the UK and the EF 35mm f1.4 L II goes for £2099
> There’s room in between those for a new RF prime at f1.4


Trouble is, among other things, that customers no longer accept an F 1,4 lens to be soft in the corners as in the eighties.
Expensive and large glass is what costs, along with a high quality mount. There's a reason why the EF 1,4 35mm costs 2100 pounds in the UK (not meaning taxes etc...).
Besides, the RF 1,8/35 is very good, right from F 1,8. I'm afraid there wouldn't be a huge demand for a much more expensive (and quality-compromised) F 1,4. Half a diaphragm certainly matters less for cost-regarding amateurs. And pros will get the F 1,2...
I understand there is a need for more affordable RF lenses, but give Canon a bit more time, they'll come.


----------



## dolina (Sep 11, 2022)

HMC11 said:


> I have to post the table separately as the 10,000 characters limited was breached. Here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> LensesLaunch Yr​$ at L​L yr Adj /$​2021 adj /$​2022 adj /$​Current /$L-Adj /%C-21adj /%C-22adj /%L-adj21 /%L-adj22 /%C-C /%EF 16-35 f2.8L III2016​2199​2342​2483​2714​2199​RF 15-35 f2.8L2019​2299​2299​-1.9​-7.4​-15.3​-7.4​-15.3​4.5​EF 16-35 f4L2014​1199​1372​1372​1500​1299​RF 14-35 f4L2021​1699​1599​23.8​16.5​6.6​23.8​13.2​23.1​EF 70-200 f2.8L III2018​2099​2136​2264​2475​2099​RF 70-200 f2.8L2019​2699​2799​26.4​23.6​13.1​19.2​9.0​33.3​EF 70-200 f4L II2018​1299​1401​1401​1532​1499​RF 70-200 f4L2021​1599​1699​14.1​21.3​10.9​14.1​4.4​13.3​EF 24-70 f2.8L II2012​2299​2560​2713​2967​1899​RF 24-70 f2.8L2019​2299​2399​-10.2​-11.6​-19.1​-15.3​-22.5​26.3​EF 24-105L2005​999​1285​1386​1516​1299​RF 24-105L2018​1299​1299​1.1​-6.3​-14.3​-6.3​-14.3​0.0​EF 100 f2.8L Macro2009​1049​1325​1325​1449​1299​RF 100 f2.8L Macro2021​1399​1199​5.6​-9.5​-17.2​5.6​-3.4​-7.7​EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6L II2014​2199​2404​2517​2752​2399​RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L2020​2699​2899​12.3​15.2​5.3​7.2​-1.9​20.8​EF 50 f1.8 STM2015​130​142​149​163​125​RF 50 f1.8 STM2020​199​159​40.2​7.0​-2.2​33.9​22.5​27.2​EF 85 f1.8 STM1992​430​784​831​908​499​RF 85 f2 STM2019​599​499​-23.6​-39.9​-45.0​-27.9​-34.0​0.0​EF 35 f2 II STM2012​849​929​1002​1096​599​RF 35 f1.8 STM2018​499​499​-46.3​-50.2​-54.5​-50.2​-54.5​-16.7​


Could you link to the table/spreadsheet of your source? It appears that CR's table is basic.


----------



## entoman (Sep 11, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I think people on this forum way overestimate the demand for their dream lenses.


I agree, but part of the reason why we post our wish-lists here, is to try to gauge whether other people have similar feelings (much the same as when we list desirable camera specifications). It's also beneficial to hear the views of those who don't want these things, or who think for various reasons that they are unrealistic. It's all about sharing ideas and opinions.


----------



## dolina (Sep 11, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I suspect there is also the issue of economies of scale. None of these proposed lenses would likely be big sellers and would siphon off the relatively few sales of the existing lenses in the same or similar focal lengths.
> 
> I think people on this forum way overestimate the demand for their dream lenses.


We're are at the back 4 years of this ~8 year EF to RF lens transition.

So all the lens being released today-onward are

- low volume
- thin margin


----------



## HMC11 (Sep 11, 2022)

dolina said:


> Could you link to the table/spreadsheet of your source? It appears that CR's table is basic.


It is from an excel sheet that I created based on data from various sources including wiki, B&H, dp-review, various lens reviewers etc. It sits in my computer and not on cloud - sorry.


----------



## dolina (Sep 11, 2022)

HMC11 said:


> It is from an excel sheet that I created based on data from various sources including wiki, B&H, dp-review, various lens reviewers etc. It sits in my computer and not on cloud - sorry.


Ah... we appreciate the effort


----------



## AJ (Sep 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I agree. The lens @entoman wishes for us a 21mm f/4 L, and that desire/need is met by the existing 14-35/4L. I’m sure the hope is a prime would be cheaper, but if the demand is weak the cost will need to be higher, and demand would then be even lower. A 21/4L is basically a non-starter. Maybe as a TS lens…but that wouldn’t work for @entoman because it won’t be weather sealed, would cost more than the zoom, and would likely be MF.


Yeah, I too agree that a 21/4 L wouln't go anywhere. Especially given Sigma's new 20 mm f/1.4 for Sony E mount. That lens has optics that makes me drool and gives me GAS. A 21/4L wouldn't compete with this. One can only hope Sigma releases this lens in EF mount. But I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2022)

AJ said:


> That lens has optics that makes me drool and gives me GAS.


Sounds messy and uncomfortable. You might want to have a doctor check on that.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 11, 2022)

AJ said:


> Yeah, I too agree that a 21/4 L wouln't go anywhere. Especially given Sigma's new 20 mm f/1.4 for Sony E mount. That lens has optics that makes me drool and gives me GAS. A 21/4L wouldn't compete with this. One can only hope Sigma releases this lens in EF mount. But I'm not holding my breath.



I'm sure it was designed for a mirrorless system and the flange distance would prohibit an EF release. Right?


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 11, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Trouble is, among other things, that customers no longer accept an F 1,4 lens to be soft in the corners as in the eighties.
> Expensive and large glass is what costs, along with a high quality mount. There's a reason why the EF 1,4 35mm costs 2100 pounds in the UK (not meaning taxes etc...).
> Besides, the RF 1,8/35 is very good, right from F 1,8. I'm afraid there wouldn't be a huge demand for a much more expensive (and quality-compromised) F 1,4. Half a diaphragm certainly matters less for cost-regarding amateurs. And pros will get the F 1,2...
> I understand there is a need for more affordable RF lenses, but give Canon a bit more time, they'll come.


Specifically on the EF 35mm f1.4 L II costing £2100 that is an absolutely ridiculous price. That would be steep even for an RF 35mm f1.2 L, £1800 would be reasonable if/when it arrives but I reckon it will break the £2000 barrier.

Plus premium f1.4 glass doesn’t need to large and heavy anymore as has been shown by Sony and Sigma.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 12, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> If it’s a CR2 rating, shouldn’t it go in the roadmap? I think it would make sense and maybe CR guy could update it to 2023-2024.
> 
> I really like the roadmap list and think it’s very accurate for rumors site, despite canon having some surprises up their sleeves.


The list doesn't have all the available RF lenses so it has always been a bit dodgy from my perspective. If I recall correctly, CR added some in the roamap after a CR3 a tiny bit before announcement for instance.


----------



## lucuias (Sep 12, 2022)

Give us light weight 35mm F/1.4 please


----------



## Johnw (Sep 12, 2022)

Johnw said:


> going to order the 24/1.8 for now



Actually, I have to scratch that. I just noticed that the RF 24 f/1.8 has the same shit optical correction as the RF 16.

In that case, I think I would rather have the Sigma 28mm f/1.4 as my next wide angle prime. It's faster, has basically no distortion, and still great sharpness. Also, since I can use it with the RF TCs that option will allow me to fill out even more slots in my current lens options since I can also use it as a 39mm f/2.0 or a 56mm f/2.8.

Damn, this locked in walled garden Canon system really chafes, I can never seem to select a third party option when I don't like what Canon is giving us.
oh wait....


----------



## unfocused (Sep 12, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Actually, I have to scratch that. I just noticed that the RF 24 f/1.8 has the same shit optical correction as the RF 16...


To each his own. I have no problem with the 16mm, with the lens profile off or on. So, I could find the 24mm f1.8 tempting at some point.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 12, 2022)

Hopefully they will go all inn on these. No computational correction and no 6 stops of vignetting… if they can match the RF 50 with vignetting and the sharpness of the RF 85 on the 24 and 35 at least they have my interest…


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 12, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Specifically on the EF 35mm f1.4 L II costing £2100 that is an absolutely ridiculous price. That would be steep even for an RF 35mm f1.2 L, £1800 would be reasonable if/when it arrives but I reckon it will break the £2000 barrier.
> 
> Plus premium f1.4 glass doesn’t need to large and heavy anymore as has been shown by Sony and Sigma.


In France the EF 1,4/35 costs about 1518 GBP...still a ridiculous price?
Anyway, you seem to be so dissatified with Canon (3rd. party lenses, pricing, weight of lenses etc...).
So, instead of constantly whining about Canon not meeting your desires and wishes, just jump ship and board the M.S. Sony.


----------



## dolina (Sep 12, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> In France the EF 1,4/35 costs about 1518 GBP...


HK's grey market is cheaper



https://www.price.com.hk/product.php?p=208653


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 12, 2022)

dolina said:


> HK's grey market is cheaper
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.price.com.hk/product.php?p=208653


Trouble is, if something goes wrong, Canon Europe won't help.
PS: with 15 lenses and 3 bodies, I never had one single warranty issue. So, if I ever go to Hong Kong, I might be tempted...


----------



## dolina (Sep 12, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Trouble is, if something goes wrong, Canon Europe won't help.
> PS: with 15 lenses and 3 bodies, I never had one single warranty issue. So, if I ever go to Hong Kong, I might be tempted...


I agree with your point

The link I provided used to be a static website for HK prices 15 years ago.

It has evolved into a dynamic pricelist for multiple official and grey market dealers.

I have a long time dealer I trust back in 2009. So I use the pricelist as a baseline for negotiations for domestic & international dealers.

Last night I did a price study for a possible future purchase

FUJIFILM GFX 50S II + 35-70mm Lens Kit

- $3,527.64 = HK$27,690: HK grey market price + ₱3,600 shipping no VAT, GST or sales tax
- $3,811.78 = ₱216,585.40: FujiFilm PH 12% VAT inc
- $4,499: BH Photo + sales tax

The price difference was $220. 

For that sum the service center's 24km from me with a official warranty rather than having it shipped via air both ways at my expense.

Sadly the FujiFilm PH price appears to be a Lazada promo. To think for less than the US price of a EOS R5 body I get a newer 50+ megapixel medium format body + a 27-55mm full frame equivalent zoom lens.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 12, 2022)

dolina said:


> I agree with your point
> 
> The link I provided used to be a static website for HK prices 15 years ago.
> 
> ...


The Fuji is indeed a great value!


----------



## schaudi (Sep 12, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Has Canon ever released L quality lenses at mid-price levels besides the RF24-105/4L kit lens?


U mean in the EF LineUp? Of course - a lot. If u consider the RF24-105/4L with a price tag of about 1.5k "mid", then there is a really huge list of EF L Zoom and Prime lenses below this price point. Even some f/2.8 ones.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 12, 2022)

schaudi said:


> U mean in the EF LineUp? Of course - a lot. If u consider the RF24-105/4L with a price tag of about 1.5k "mid", then there is a really huge list of EF L Zoom and Prime lenses below this price point. Even some f/2.8 ones.


The pricing of the 24-105mm F4L was mid-level when it came out. In Germany, retail Price was 1.199 € and as a kit lens 999 €. Furthermore, you were able to get cashback on it. I got my copy in march 2019 for 800 € (kit lens - 10% from the retailer - cashback). 

I think a lot of early adopters therefore have the 24-105mm as mid level pricing in mind. 

After covid struck, the price for this lens reached insane levels. I saw it for 1.649 € in one store and people advertising it as “on sale for only 1.499 €”. 

I’m sooo glad I got in 2019. It used to be my “most used lens” and until I got the 15-35mm. This lens noticeably outresolves the 24-105mm imho @24mm, @28mm and 35mm


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 12, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> The pricing of the 24-105mm F4L was mid-level when it came out. In Germany, retail Price was 1.199 € and as a kit lens 999 €. Furthermore, you were able to get cashback on it. I got my copy in march 2019 for 800 € (kit lens - 10% from the retailer - cashback).
> 
> I think a lot of early adopters therefore have the 24-105mm as mid level pricing in mind.
> 
> ...


I got mine for Euro 760 in Italy (after cashback), and was quite shocked seeing it now for 1499...
Who said only Leica lenses gain in value?


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 12, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> The pricing of the 24-105mm F4L was mid-level when it came out. In Germany, retail Price was 1.199 € and as a kit lens 999 €. Furthermore, you were able to get cashback on it. I got my copy in march 2019 for 800 € (kit lens - 10% from the retailer - cashback).
> 
> I think a lot of early adopters therefore have the 24-105mm as mid level pricing in mind.
> 
> ...


I was shopping around for a standard zoom recently and noticed that I had the price alert on the RF24-105 F4L set to €999, which won't get triggered with the current prices.

This is from the Dutch website tweakers.net that can plot pricing info over time. It's from the webshops that pay to get listed, so it won't show everything, but it shows enough to confirm both our experiences:


----------



## dolina (Sep 12, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> The Fuji is indeed a great value!


Or Canon knows who they are & know what they are and priced appropriately because of very strong demand.

If I was married with kids and never shot birds or sports this would be the system I'd get as it has these characteristics

- R5 & R3 equivalent pricing
- RF L lens equivalent pricing
- 0.79x crop medium format

It would not be a surprise that Hassleblad, PhaseOne, Leica and even Pentax will collectively be less than 50% of the future medium format market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2022)

dolina said:


> Or Canon knows who they are & know what they are and priced appropriately because of very strong demand.
> 
> If I was married with kids and never shot birds or sports this would be the system I'd get as it has these characteristics
> 
> ...


I wonder about the actual size of that market, though. A few years ago in an interview, a Leica exec stated that the entire global medium format (not just Leica's share) comprised about 7,000 cameras per year. That struck me as low, but if true it's a teeny tiny market.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder about the actual size of that market, though. A few years ago in an interview, a Leica exec stated that the entire global medium format (not just Leica's share) comprised about 7,000 cameras per year. That struck me as low, but if true it's a teeny tiny market.


And - my guess - 30 to 100 a year for the Leica S. According ,even to Leica dealers, very hard to sell...
With the aggressive pricing of the Fuji, MF sales could attain higher levels.


----------



## schaudi (Sep 12, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> The pricing of the 24-105mm F4L was mid-level when it came out. In Germany, retail Price was 1.199 € and as a kit lens 999 €. Furthermore, you were able to get cashback on it. I got my copy in march 2019 for 800 € (kit lens - 10% from the retailer - cashback).
> 
> I think a lot of early adopters therefore have the 24-105mm as mid level pricing in mind.
> 
> ...


Oh ok didn't knew that. But if I u don't consider cash back and other advertising prices (because they can apply to other lenses aswell) - there would also be some other L lenses still. The 17-40 f/4 (ok - maybe not as excellent as others but I still ok)and the 70-200 f/4 non IS are currently at 600€ here in Germany. the EF 24-70 f/4 L currently is at 1200€ but I am pretty sure this was a lot cheaper too in the past and is, for what it is, an excellent lens. The EF 100 L Macro is also around 1k. If u look in the past ull find even more.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 12, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Lower prices than L series doesn’t mean low price full stop. The RF 35mm f1.8 goes for £529 here in the UK and the EF 35mm f1.4 L II goes for £2099
> There’s room in between those for a new RF prime at f1.4


There's a big gap in the pricing, but that doesn't mean it's economic for them to fill it. There was always a gulf between the cheaper big whites (300 f/4L and 400 f/5.6L) and the big ones, and that was never addressed during the EF era.


----------



## dolina (Sep 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder about the actual size of that market, though. A few years ago in an interview, a Leica exec stated that the entire global medium format (not just Leica's share) comprised about 7,000 cameras per year. That struck me as low, but if true it's a teeny tiny market.


Leica's market research may be rooted at their price points.

Leica S system started in 2008.

- $20k for the single 2020 Leica S3 body
- $5k-12.5k price range for 16 lenses with the last lens, Leica Summicron-S 100 mm f/2 ASPH being released in 2014

FujiFILM G system started in 2017 & has these price points

- $3.5-10k for 3 body SKUs with the last body, Fujifilm GFX 50S II being released 53 weeks ago
- $1k-3.3k price range for 15 lenses with the last two lenses, being released later this year

As previously mentioned FujiFILM G system is delivering

- medium format hardware
- in a dSLR form factor
- at a dSLR physical dimension & weight
- R3 & R5 price points
- RF L lens price range

This is more damaging to current Canon, Sony & Nikon customers than those of Leica, Hassleblad or any other medium format brand.

APS-C & smaller image sensors are losing ground to smartphones so brands are moving to full frame.

Pentax failed in their executions probably due to resource reasons as they did not go further beyond the 2014 Pentax 645Z & 2015 HD Pentax-D FA645 35mm F3.5 AL [IF]. I've read an article that they had problems fulfilling demand for the $8.5k body that now retails at $5k. I remember feeling surprised by it being the cheapest medium format body at the time.

New lowest price is $3.5k 2021 FujiFILM GFX 50S II body-only during the summer promo price.

Yesterday's Lazada PH promo price was $3,811.78 12% VAT inc for the body + kit lens. That's the price of a US $3.9k 2020 EOS R5 body-only without sales tax. Bought separately the kit lens is $1k. This brings down the body price down to $2,811.78 12% VAT inc. VAT ex price would have been $2,510.52 that is 2020 EOS R6 body-only US pricing without sales tax.

The $10k 2019 Fujifilm GFX 100 is the oldest SKU with its successor, the 2021 Fujifilm GFX 100S costing $6k. It has the same 100+ megapixel 0.79x crop image sensor.

Many are complaining about Canon defending its RF system from 3rd party reverse engineering 4 years into their transition.

If I was making that transition to MILC then FujiFILM looks very interesting from a value proposition.

Its weakness for my use case would be its lack of autofocus designed for birds, wildlife or sports.

In 2015 the cheapest way to get native 50+ megapixel was the $3.9k EOS 5Ds R. That was a big deal to many professionals whose clients contractually require 50+ megapixel files.


----------



## dolina (Sep 12, 2022)

I have yet to see anyone mentioned about the introductory price of those EF lenses during its first 6-9 months after their release.

They tend to drop to street price after then.

This is my observation for the past 2 decades.

Due to supply chain constraints this practice has yet to be fully implemented.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 12, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> still no RF 85 1.4


I love and continue to use my EF 85mm f/1.4 IS with my R5. At the rate things are going, that's going to be my last EF lens, and then I can just leave the control ring on it permanently.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 12, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> 16mm/1.8 would be great but we do have the 16/2.8 already.
> I would prefer a 14mm over a 12mm as I assume that the price will be very high for the 12/1.8


Maybe it's going to be super-distorted like the 16mm, so you're going to want to throw out the corners at 12mm anyway?


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I tend to agree. I wonder if some ‘source’ is basing this on a lens patent. For example, there was a patent with four f/2.8 primes (10, 14, 16, and 20mm) that published in June. CRguy erroneously called them APS-C lenses, but the 16/2.8 in that patent was the one that was already a product by then. Similarly, a few weeks ago a patent published on three wide f/1.8 primes (21, 24 and 28mm), CRguy again mistakenly called them APS-C lenses but one of them was the RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro that was announced the month before.


A lot of us have been clamoring for one since the beginning of the R system. Maybe Canon harvests EXIF data from the internet and maybe there's a decent number of shots/interest in Sigma's 28mm f/1.4 and that is driving it. At least, that would be my hope.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 12, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Actually, I have to scratch that. I just noticed that the RF 24 f/1.8 has the same shit optical correction as the RF 16.
> 
> In that case, I think I would rather have the Sigma 28mm f/1.4 as my next wide angle prime. It's faster, has basically no distortion, and still great sharpness. Also, since I can use it with the RF TCs that option will allow me to fill out even more slots in my current lens options since I can also use it as a 39mm f/2.0 or a 56mm f/2.8.
> 
> ...


 This is something I was wondering...is it possible to go RF extender > RF Adapter > EF lens, and get full AF/etc.? I haven't tried it yet...


----------



## entoman (Sep 12, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Trouble is, if something goes wrong, Canon Europe won't help.
> PS: with 15 lenses and 3 bodies, I never had one single warranty issue. So, if I ever go to Hong Kong, I might be tempted...


The HK based "grey" exporter that I've used for the last 10 years, sells at about 25% cheaper on average, compared to buying from a Canon Europe approved dealer. Over the years, it has saved me literally thousands of pounds.

It's very rare for a camera to develop a fault during normal usage - usually if there is a problem with a camera it becomes apparent the instant you start using it, in which case it's classified as dead-on-arrival and you get an instant refund or replacement.

Canon Europe provides a 12 month warranty if you buy from them, but my HK seller provides a full *3 year* worldwide parts & labour warranty, with repairs carried out locally by highly reputable Canon approved repairers.

.... and there is no need to go to HK to get the gear, which is delivered free of charge. I've never had to wait longer than 4 working days for delivery. Everything they advertise is genuinely in stock. On the single occasion when I was asked to pay import tax, the seller refunded it within 2 days. That's what I call service.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2022)

twoheadedboy said:


> A lot of us have been clamoring for one since the beginning of the R system. Maybe Canon harvests EXIF data from the internet and maybe there's a decent number of shots/interest in Sigma's 28mm f/1.4 and that is driving it. At least, that would be my hope.


"A lot of us," when 'us' refers to a small handful of people, is irrelevant. 

On Flickr, searching "Sigma 28mm f/1.4" pulls up 362 images. For comparison, the Canon 24mm f/1.4 pulls up >13,500 images. So at least based on Flickr, the Sigma 28/1.4 is not going to move the needle even a little.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2022)

twoheadedboy said:


> This is something I was wondering...is it possible to go RF extender > RF Adapter > EF lens, and get full AF/etc.? I haven't tried it yet...


Yes, if you mechanically alter the RF adapter so the extender fits into the back of it. I did that to a Commlite adapter (needed to take the opening down to the circuitry for the opening to be large enough), AF and IS work.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 12, 2022)

twoheadedboy said:


> This is something I was wondering...is it possible to go RF extender > RF Adapter > EF lens, and get full AF/etc.? I haven't tried it yet...



Yes, it requires a non-trivial mod to the Commlite adapter described in this thread: 

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/rf-and-ef-extenders-on-the-ef-600-4l-is-ii.41215/ 

But yes as stated, it retains full features with the EF lens (AF etc).


----------



## entoman (Sep 12, 2022)

twoheadedboy said:


> This is something I was wondering...is it possible to go RF extender > RF Adapter > EF lens, and get full AF/etc.? I haven't tried it yet...


Prior to buying my RF 100-500mm, I used my EF 100-400mm plus Canon 1.4x iii extender plus Canon EF-RF adaptor, on my R5. There are no autofocus penalties, everything works and all AF zones and modes work perfectly with this setup. I'm not sure if the same applies when using a 2x extender though, or with third party adaptors.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 12, 2022)

entoman said:


> I have no idea how popular a 21mm F4 would be, obviously not as popular as a wide zoom, the question really is whether it would sell in enough numbers for Canon to justify making it. They are after all in the business to make money for the employees and shareholders, not to please photographers.
> 
> .


Can we not infer something of its popularity from the lack of any similar lens in any lineup?


----------



## dolina (Sep 12, 2022)

entoman said:


> The HK based "grey" exporter that I've used for the last 10 years, sells at about 25% cheaper on average, compared to buying from a Canon Europe approved dealer. Over the years, it has saved me literally thousands of pounds.
> 
> It's very rare for a camera to develop a fault during normal usage - usually if there is a problem with a camera it becomes apparent the instant you start using it, in which case it's classified as dead-on-arrival and you get an instant refund or replacement.
> 
> ...


Mind you our positive experiences may vary from HK-based grey dealer to dealer, their supply chain to your doorstep & the importing country's Customs laws, policies and actual practices at the time of purchase.

So do a bit of test buys before going full throttle.


----------



## dolina (Sep 12, 2022)

entoman said:


> Prior to buying my RF 100-500mm, I used my EF 100-400mm plus Canon 1.4x iii extender plus Canon EF-RF adaptor, on my R5. There are no autofocus penalties, everything works and all AF zones and modes work perfectly with this setup. I'm not sure if the same applies when using a 2x extender though, or with third party adaptors.


The Canon RF 600mm f/11 IS STM & Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM can autofocus on all RF bodies. 

In your test with the 1.4x extender does the Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II USM you tested it on have all AF points available on your R5?

Last bodies I have are single center AF point when the lens is f/8.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2022)

dolina said:


> In your test with the 1.4x extender does the Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II USM you tested it on have all AF points available on your R5?
> 
> Last bodies I have are single center AF point when the lens is f/8.


Mirrorless and DSLR AF systems are quite different. In fact, @dolina have you tried using an f/8 lens on your bodies in Live View? You get the full AF area. Same with an f/11 lens (e.g. I could AF an EF 100-400L + 2xIII on my 1D X in Live View. AF was sssssllllloooowwwww, but accurate.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 12, 2022)

schaudi said:


> Oh ok didn't knew that. But if I u don't consider cash back and other advertising prices (because they can apply to other lenses aswell) - there would also be some other L lenses still. The 17-40 f/4 (ok - maybe not as excellent as others but I still ok)and the 70-200 f/4 non IS are currently at 600€ here in Germany. the EF 24-70 f/4 L currently is at 1200€ but I am pretty sure this was a lot cheaper too in the past and is, for what it is, an excellent lens. The EF 100 L Macro is also around 1k. If u look in the past ull find even more.


The RF16 f/2.8 STM is much, much sharper in the corner than the 17-40L, even after distortion correction. It's also much sharper in the center at f/2.8 than the 17-40L is stopped down to f/5.6. And it may very well be that cropping the RF16 to 40mm field-of-view might give similar image quality to the 17-40L at 40mm.

The RF15-30 STM is also much sharper everywhere, but isn't f/4.

The 17-40L also need a filter to be weather sealed, so all in all, it's not what you'd expect from an L lens. But it's black with a red ring, so it looks great on a camera


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 12, 2022)

entoman said:


> The HK based "grey" exporter that I've used for the last 10 years, sells at about 25% cheaper on average, compared to buying from a Canon Europe approved dealer. Over the years, it has saved me literally thousands of pounds.
> 
> It's very rare for a camera to develop a fault during normal usage - usually if there is a problem with a camera it becomes apparent the instant you start using it, in which case it's classified as dead-on-arrival and you get an instant refund or replacement.
> 
> ...


Interesting, but what about the custom duties + VAT (mainland Europe), I suppose you must add them to the HK price.
France has 20% VAT + 16-18% custom duties if I'm not mistaken. So, Euro 5000 quickly become 6800... and the HK price becomes prohibitive.
And our Douane loves to check parcels from China. I once ordered a full matte focusing screen for my 5 D III (Euro 80!), and lost nearly 2 hours waiting for them to calculate the tax.
Why? "Lots of contraband comes from China"(sic).
Maybe HK has different tax agreements with the UK.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 12, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Interesting, but what about the custom duties + VAT (mainland Europe), I suppose you must add them to the HK price.
> France has 20% VAT + 16-18% custom duties if I'm not mistaken. So, Euro 5000 quickly become 6800... and the HK price becomes prohibitive.


Pre-Brexit you could have the HK importer have a warehouse in the UK, where it used the "special relationship" between the UK and HK, and then ship it to the mainland using the UK-EU trade agreements.

As I understood it, that provided a basically duty-free path from HK to your mailbox.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 12, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Pre-Brexit you could have the HK importer have a warehouse in the UK, where it used the "special relationship" between the UK and HK, and then ship it to the mainland using the UK-EU trade agreements.
> 
> As I understood it, that provided a basically duty-free path from HK to your mailbox.



Thanks for confirming!


----------



## roby17269 (Sep 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder about the actual size of that market, though. A few years ago in an interview, a Leica exec stated that the entire global medium format (not just Leica's share) comprised about 7,000 cameras per year. That struck me as low, but if true it's a teeny tiny market.


It is undoubtedly tiny. I have no hard numbers, but I do meet a lot of fashion photographers, even ones published on the major magazines, and the rare times they shoot MF now, it's either a rental or a promotional loaner. 
I know this photographer who shoots for Vogue and Bazaar and she has "downgraded" from Hasselblad MF to Canon FF. When I show up with my MF rig I am always the only one and everyone wants to see the "beast"


----------



## entoman (Sep 12, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Pre-Brexit you could have the HK importer have a warehouse in the UK, where it used the "special relationship" between the UK and HK, and then ship it to the mainland using the UK-EU trade agreements.
> 
> As I understood it, that provided a basically duty-free path from HK to your mailbox.


I've bought several thousands of pounds worth of gear from HK since Brexit, without being charged import duty or VAT. Most of the HK exporters who advertise on eBay etc have warehouses in the UK or in Europe. The exporter I use posts direct from HK and doesn't use an intermediary. I've noticed that recently there have been intermediaries based in Ireland and Switzerland, that sell at prices competitive with my direct HK purchases, but I've been using the same HK company for at least 10 years, and their service has been so exceptionally good that I haven't been tempted to buy via intermediary warehouses.


----------



## entoman (Sep 12, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The RF16 f/2.8 STM is much, much sharper in the corner than the 17-40L, even after distortion correction. It's also much sharper in the center at f/2.8 than the 17-40L is stopped down to f/5.6. And it may very well be that cropping the RF16 to 40mm field-of-view might give similar image quality to the 17-40L at 40mm.
> 
> The RF15-30 STM is also much sharper everywhere, but isn't f/4.
> 
> The 17-40L also need a filter to be weather sealed, so all in all, it's not what you'd expect from an L lens. But it's black with a red ring, so it looks great on a camera


My EF 17-40mm L was noticeably soft in the corners, making it useless for landscapes. I got rid of it and replaced it with the EF 16-35mm F4L, which is excellent and rapidly became my favourite optic. Until an asshole broke into my car and stole it...


----------



## who.peter (Sep 12, 2022)

The canon 35mm 1.8 is not good at all. It has the worse chromatic aberration i've seen with a lens using the R5.
The autofocus is veeeeery very noisy.


----------



## entoman (Sep 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> "A lot of us," when 'us' refers to a small handful of people, is irrelevant.
> 
> On Flickr, searching "Sigma 28mm f/1.4" pulls up 362 images. For comparison, the Canon 24mm f/1.4 pulls up >13,500 images. So at least based on Flickr, the Sigma 28/1.4 is not going to move the needle even a little.


"a lot of us" = "me and perhaps one or two others on this forum".

Unfortunately, wishful-thinking won't result in Canon making decisions that it doesn't consider economically worthwhile.

Which is a pity, as there are several lenses desirable to me, but absent from Canon's range, and likely to remain so.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2022)

entoman said:


> "a lot of us" = "me and perhaps one or two others on this forum".


Yeah, reminds me of the unofficial translations of statements in research publications.

“It is believed that…” = I think.

“It is widely believed that…” = Me and a couple of my colleagues think.

“It has been demonstrated that…” = I read a paper that said so (and it might have been published in _The Journal of Irreproducible Results_, I can’t recall).

“It has been conclusively demonstrated that…” = I did that experiment as a grad student.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, reminds me of the unofficial translations of statements in research publications.
> 
> “It is believed that…” = I think.
> 
> ...


And they're all in the passive voice.


----------



## entoman (Sep 12, 2022)

dolina said:


> The Canon RF 600mm f/11 IS STM & Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM can autofocus on all RF bodies.
> 
> In your test with the 1.4x extender does the Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II USM you tested it on have all AF points available on your R5?
> 
> Last bodies I have are single center AF point when the lens is f/8.


R5 with EF 100-400mm L, 1.4x extender & EF-RF adaptor - all AF points available including animal-eye AF.

R5 with RF 800mm F11 - only large square zone AF available, but animal-eye AF works within this zone.

5DMkiv with EF 100-400mm L, 1.4x extender - all AF points available.

5DS with EF 100-400mm L, 1.4x extender - centre spot AF only.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 12, 2022)

who.peter said:


> The canon 35mm 1.8 is not good at all. It has the worse chromatic aberration i've seen with a lens using the R5.
> The autofocus is veeeeery very noisy.


Well I got this lens recently and haven't noticed much chromatic aberration nor any particular focusing sound...


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 12, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Well I got this lens recently and haven't noticed much chromatic aberration nor any particular focusing sound...


Confirmed by Opticallimits, by the way...


----------



## scyrene (Sep 12, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Confirmed by Opticallimits, by the way...


What has been confirmed?


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 12, 2022)

scyrene said:


> There's a big gap in the pricing, but that doesn't mean it's economic for them to fill it. There was always a gulf between the cheaper big whites (300 f/4L and 400 f/5.6L) and the big ones, and that was never addressed during the EF era.


Super telephoto primes sell in far far fewer numbers than a 35mm f1.4, if there are to be no 3rd party options on RF then Canon would do well to fill the gaps themselves. 

Sigma offer; 35mm f2, 35mm f1.4 and a 35mm f1.2 on both E and L mount. Canon are a larger company that charge higher prices. I’m sure they can manage a 35mm f1.4 and a 35mm f1.2 for RF.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 13, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Yes, it requires a non-trivial mod to the Commlite adapter described in this thread:
> 
> https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/rf-and-ef-extenders-on-the-ef-600-4l-is-ii.41215/
> 
> But yes as stated, it retains full features with the EF lens (AF etc).


Another adapter question.... 
Can a EF-S lens be adapted to RF via the R mount adapter? Normally EF-S lenses can't be used on EF mount but I am not sure if the R mount adapter allows them (and automatically shifts to crop mode).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> ...if the R mount adapter allows them (and automatically shifts to crop mode).


Yes and yes.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes and yes.


so the move to R mount has actually increased the number of lenses available to RF/EF + EF-S


----------



## dolina (Sep 13, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> And - my guess - 30 to 100 a year for the Leica S. According ,even to Leica dealers, very hard to sell...
> With the aggressive pricing of the Fuji, MF sales could attain higher levels.


Fuji will attract upgraders from 35mm full frame & smaller buyers than current medium format customers of more established brands.

If I was shooting Hassleblad, PhaseOne, etc I wouldn't bother with Fuji unless I had no choice.


----------



## dolina (Sep 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mirrorless and DSLR AF systems are quite different. In fact, @dolina have you tried using an f/8 lens on your bodies in Live View? You get the full AF area. Same with an f/11 lens (e.g. I could AF an EF 100-400L + 2xIII on my 1D X in Live View. AF was sssssllllloooowwwww, but accurate.


Done it before. Only use it for stationary subjects as the ergonomics for it as convenient as a smartphone focusing.


----------



## mxwphoto (Sep 13, 2022)

dolina said:


> HK's grey market is cheaper
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.price.com.hk/product.php?p=208653


Or get a like new used. Mine cost $1200 USD with box and everything. If not for the fact someone sold it used, I would not have known.


----------



## dolina (Sep 13, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> Or get a like new used. Mine cost $1200 USD with box and everything. If not for the fact someone sold it used, I would not have known.


Viable option when there's available "new used" you have access to.


----------



## dolina (Sep 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder about the actual size of that market, though. A few years ago in an interview, a Leica exec stated that the entire global medium format (not just Leica's share) comprised about 7,000 cameras per year. That struck me as low, but if true it's a teeny tiny market.


I found the May 8, 2013 Forbes article for which your reply may be based on.

Will copy paste the relevant parts below. @Del Paso tagging you as you may be of interested to read this.

=====

*MEB:* An established market, plus established competitors, plus a new target audience for Leica… it all adds up to a tall order. How is is the S-System selling?


*StS:* There are no industry-wide figures, but we think the core medium format market is roughly 6000 units per year – worldwide, for all brands. We are not yet the market leader (I estimate Phase One to have 40-45% market share), but we already have 20% share – and this is only after 3 years after introduction.


Now consider that we had very limited production capacity all this time. Since launch, we’ve had more orders than we could produce, so the camera always on back-order. With our new factory in Wetzlar, Germany, going on-line next year, we will be able to increase capacity, which of course will help us make further inroads in terms of market share. We have historically succeeded not by copying a market but by reinventing it. We did it back in the day with the M, and we’re doing it now with the S-System.

=====

At the price points Phase One, Hassleblad & Leica charges I am not surprised that roughly 6000 units per year – worldwide, for all brands.

FujiFILM with its Canon full frame & RF L price points will expand the medium format market to more than that.

Although famous photogs like Annie Leibovitz has been spotted using FujiFILM GFX 100s for

- 2022 Rihanna's Vogue pregnancy shoot
- 2022 Star Wars Vanity Fair Cover Shoot


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 13, 2022)

scyrene said:


> What has been confirmed?


That CAs are, as you noticed , no issue for this great little lens!
Quote from Opticallimits: "CAs usually negigible".


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 13, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Still fine...
> The lens doesn't exist yet.
> Nobody has seen it.
> Nobody has reviewed it.
> ...


Why then why do you spend your time on a rumors website?


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 13, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> Why then why do you spend your time on a rumors website?


There's a difference between a rumor and a criticism of an item which doesn't exist yet.


----------



## chasingrealness (Sep 13, 2022)

If they’re not going to let third-party makers come to the party the least they could do is make an astro-centric 20mm f/1.4. I’ll be very interested in that 24mm, though.


----------



## chasingrealness (Sep 13, 2022)

2 cents said:


> they seem to be releasing lenses without much logic, they make them just because they can. I am struggling to get the lenses that I really want to use.


THAT is the problem I’ve had with the Canon lineup so far. I needed a macro anyway so I got the RF 100mm (and it’s phenomenal btw) but otherwise I’m just adapting third-party EF glass. That and my Samyang RF 85. Sad they can’t keep making that lens. It’s a banger for the price.


----------



## pixel8foto (Sep 14, 2022)

Someone might think that the prospect of wide Canon primes would console those disappointed that native RF options from 3rd parties like Sigma and Tamron, (whose wide EF primes are massively popular and competitive) are being blocked by Canon. 
I've found Sigma's 24 1.4 Art to be better than Canon's EF 24 1.4 on EF, more so on RF, where the gap in auto-focus performance is closed. Neither appears to resolve above 30mpix IMO, so switching from a 5D4 to an r5, for instance, only weakens the argument in favour of Canon's current 24 1.4 over the cheaper 3rd party option.
I wouldn't say no to native RF mount that was lighter and/or resolved significantly better and more consistently across the aperture range, but the new RF model would need to be clearly superior and remain competitive before I'd upgrade from an adapted Sigma 24.
New users may care less.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2022)

2 cents said:


> they seem to be releasing lenses without much logic, they make them just because they can. I am struggling to get the lenses that I really want to use.


So, because the lenses you want Canon to make aren’t available, Canon is illogical. Hubris.

There are three zoom trinities, a non-L set, an f/4 L set, and an f/2.8 L set. Logically, that covers a majority of photographers’ needs and budgets. There are macro lenses and fast portrait primes. Arguably a 35/1.2-1.4 is missing, as is a 135/1.8-2, and I have no doubt those will come in due course.

The most likely logic is that Canon is releasing lenses in an order intended to maximize their profit.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 14, 2022)

pixel8foto said:


> the new RF model would need to be clearly superior and remain competitive before I'd upgrade from an adapted Sigma



That’s definitely how I also feel about several of the Sigmas.


----------



## snapshot (Sep 14, 2022)

entoman said:


> My EF 17-40mm L was noticeably soft in the corners, making it useless for landscapes. I got rid of it and replaced it with the EF 16-35mm F4L, which is excellent and rapidly became my favourite optic. Until an asshole broke into my car and stole it...


My experience with EF 17-40 L is that it has lots of chromatic aberration out of the center. I haven't really been happy with it's images even after lens distortion correction. I guess I chose poorly.


----------



## stillviking (Sep 14, 2022)

I am the only one missing a good RF 50 mm 1.4 USM? The old version is just ooooooooooooold.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 14, 2022)

stillviking said:


> I am the only one missing a good RF 50 mm 1.4 USM? The old version is just ooooooooooooold.


No!


----------



## dolina (Sep 14, 2022)

stillviking said:


> I am the only one missing a good RF 50 mm 1.4 USM? The old version is just ooooooooooooold.


Within the next 4 years.


----------



## entoman (Sep 14, 2022)

snapshot said:


> My experience with EF 17-40 L is that it has lots of chromatic aberration out of the center. I haven't really been happy with it's images even after lens distortion correction. I guess I chose poorly.


The EF 17-40mm F4L was one of Canon's more affordable L lenses at the time. We all make mistakes. The EF16-35mm F4L is a far superior lens.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 14, 2022)

entoman said:


> The EF 17-40mm F4L was one of Canon's more affordable L lenses at the time. We all make mistakes. The EF16-35mm F4L is a far superior lens.


The EF 17-40 is a very old lens, introduced in 2003. I think it was intended partly as a high end standard lens for APC-C cameras. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 was introduced three years later.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 14, 2022)

entoman said:


> Prior to buying my RF 100-500mm, I used my EF 100-400mm plus Canon 1.4x iii extender plus Canon EF-RF adaptor, on my R5. There are no autofocus penalties, everything works and all AF zones and modes work perfectly with this setup. I'm not sure if the same applies when using a 2x extender though, or with third party adaptors.


Sorry, it's well known that EF extenders on EF lenses work with the mount adaptor, you can even stack a 2.0 and a 1.4 if they l're the MKII versions. I'm talking RF extenders prior to the mount adaptor with an EF lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2022)

twoheadedboy said:


> I'm talking RF extenders prior to the mount adaptor with an EF lens.


I think I answered already but yes it's possible if you physically modify the mount adapter.


----------



## chasingrealness (Sep 14, 2022)

That 12mm could double as an R7 vlogger lens, no? All the YouTubers will love it.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 14, 2022)

entoman said:


> The EF 17-40mm F4L was one of Canon's more affordable L lenses at the time. We all make mistakes. The EF16-35mm F4L is a far superior lens.


I agree the 16-35 is better . I replaced it myself years ago . But I’d have to say the 17-40mm was a decent lens, I took many excellent shots with it. Probably good value second hand.


----------



## snapshot (Sep 14, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> I agree the 16-35 is better . I replaced it myself years ago . But I’d have to say the 17-40mm was a decent lens, I took many excellent shots with it. Probably good value second hand.


Maybe I can find a 16-35 f/4 IS to try out. Have tried the 17-40 for landscape and group photography. For landscape it seems like I prefer stitching shots from my 24-70. For groups, I was not happy at all with the rendering of the folks at the periphery. I tend to use 70-700 from a distance and have been much happier.


----------



## snapshot (Sep 14, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think I answered already but yes it's possible if you physically modify the mount adapter.


I wonder how long it will take commlite to fix their design to work with the rf extenders?
Also which EF lenses would we extend this way? I might try stacking extenders onto a 100-400. 
I watched a video of somebody extending the 300 f/2.8


----------



## entoman (Sep 14, 2022)

twoheadedboy said:


> Sorry, it's well known that EF extenders on EF lenses work with the mount adaptor, you can even stack a 2.0 and a 1.4 if they l're the MKII versions. I'm talking RF extenders prior to the mount adaptor with an EF lens.


My fault, I misunderstood your question.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 14, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Entoman was relaying what he read in reviews, which is consistent with the majority of reviews I've read, he stated that, and he's allowed to do that. Copy variation between lenses results in a bell graph normal distribution of performance.
> 
> You can't add detail in post that a lens isn't able to resolve and capture in the first place. I wish you could!
> 
> ...


I must be extremely lucky then because the RF 100-400mm I have is very sharp at 400mm wide open. Is it as good as the RF 100-500mm or the EF 100-400 MKII? No but then again it’s 1/4 of the price and 1/3 of the weight. When I go hiking I almost never take the RF 100-500 but the 100-400 is small and light enough to take and gets the job done. Moreover I did a test with the RF 24-105mm f4L, the RF 70-200mm f4L and the RF 100-400 all at 100mm all at f5.6 with fine detail in the subject and at 100% you really had to struggle to see a difference with corner detail being slightly softer and with more chromatic aberration. I didnt read articles I conducted tests and before anyone asks I worked for Panavision for 35years and know how to test lenses on a MTF bench, projector and test charts. In real world use those differences are minimal and I would be more concerned with defraction at beyond f11.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 14, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agreed. I see no need to ‘upgrade’ to the RF 85/1.2 (either of them). The EF 85/1.4 is sharp, has great bokeh, and focuses fast. Personally, I don’t see the need for the RF’s extra half-stop of aperture, and I speak from the experience of having had it with the EF 85/1.2L II.


The EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM is my favourite lens including the RF lenses I actually own. I’m lucky enough to have access to other RF lenses and no question the RF 85mm f1.2L is a really sharp lens with better bokeh than the f1.4L lens but it comes at a hefty weight premium and that bokeh difference is minimal.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 15, 2022)

jeffa4444 said:


> The EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM is my favourite lens including the RF lenses I actually own. I’m lucky enough to have access to other RF lenses and no question the RF 85mm f1.2L is a really sharp lens with better bokeh than the f1.4L lens but it comes at a hefty weight premium and that bokeh difference is minimal.



I'll agree partially. It's my favorite _prime_ for anything other than macro work. (I get a fair amount of use out of my EF 100-400mm II L and my Tamron 18-200 for the EF-M mount, though the latter is more of a casual use thing.) It does seem like the RF 1.2s are notably better...but are they worth all of the extra cost? That, of course, depends on the individual.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 16, 2022)

snapshot said:


> I wonder how long it will take commlite to fix their design to work with the rf extenders?



What makes you think that was their intention to ever support that? Even though it works the amount of modification necessary suggests they were not trying to enable that use case really.



snapshot said:


> Also which EF lenses would we extend this way? I might try stacking extenders onto a 100-400.



It works with any EF lens. I've tried stacking EF + RF 2x with the Sigma 150-600 to create a 600-2400, it is surprisingly usable though obviously a bit soft at f/25. When composing shots at 2400 I also have to use a 10 sec timer to null the vibration in the image after pressing the shutter even on a tripod.


----------



## snapshot (Sep 16, 2022)

Johnw said:


> What makes you think that was their intention to ever support that? Even though it works the amount of modification necessary suggests they were not trying to enable that use case really.
> 
> 
> 
> It works with any EF lens. I've tried stacking EF + RF 2x with the Sigma 150-600 to create a 600-2400, it is surprisingly usable though obviously a bit soft at f/25. When composing shots at 2400 I also have to use a 10 sec timer to null the vibration in the image after pressing the shutter even on a tripod.


I don't think it was their intention. But now that these modifications are getting some attention, surely they know it. If I were them and the design change is easy, maybe marketing a "Commlite Stackable Adapter" would do well. I might buy one but I am not sure if I want to dremell one out...
I like your 2400 idea. Were you targeting terrestrial or night sky objects?


----------



## Johnw (Sep 16, 2022)

snapshot said:


> I don't think it was their intention. But now that these modifications are getting some attention, surely they know it. If I were them and the design change is easy, maybe marketing a "Commlite Stackable Adapter" would do well. I might buy one but I am not sure if I want to dremell one out...



Right, surely there is a market for that now that this is known, if not by them then someone else will probably come out with such an adapter eventually. Also, for the mod you actually don't need any power tools. I used a manual file and it only took about 30 min, I just adjusted the angle a few times to try and prevent too much ablated material from fouling up the contacts lol.



snapshot said:


> I like your 2400 idea. Were you targeting terrestrial or night sky objects?



I just started so far with indoor test shots like filling the frame with a label on a bag of cookies from a distance of 50 feet. I'm going to try some moon shots the next clear night though as I think that could be one of the best use cases.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 16, 2022)

Johnw said:


> [..]When composing shots at 2400 I also have to use a 10 sec timer to null the vibration in the image after pressing the shutter even on a tripod.


The phone app works wonders for that, the dedicated bluetooth remote also works, but is a bit more annoying to set up. The terrace on my roof is made from thick concrete pavers on insulation + rubber, which flexes enough to make it seem like a waterbed with a telephoto lens on a tripod. With the phone app I can stay inside while having live view and shutter control.


----------



## Drazen (Sep 16, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


It will be 24 and 35 for me, when and if they finally show up. Don't see much sense in 28 - if it was 1.2, then maybe it'd be worth considering.

The 12mm seems interesting, but it's too exotic to make a decision now. I'm worried it might be incredibly bulky, considering that prime RF L lenses are huge as it is. Can't imagine how large a 12mm will be.

Still not a single RF-TS lens available. Guess it will be a long wait for those... I recently completed the whole TS-E set, grabbing the last TS 17mm that BHphoto had in store.


----------



## schaudi (Sep 16, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The RF16 f/2.8 STM is much, much sharper in the corner than the 17-40L, even after distortion correction. It's also much sharper in the center at f/2.8 than the 17-40L is stopped down to f/5.6. And it may very well be that cropping the RF16 to 40mm field-of-view might give similar image quality to the 17-40L at 40mm.
> 
> The RF15-30 STM is also much sharper everywhere, but isn't f/4.
> 
> The 17-40L also need a filter to be weather sealed, so all in all, it's not what you'd expect from an L lens. But it's black with a red ring, so it looks great on a camera


I am aware of this - I did switched from 17-40 to the 16mm. Yes the 16 is lot better. But there are 20 Years of R&D in-between.
What u or some "expect" from a L Lense seams to be based an modern EF and RF Ls. In the past there where a lot of pretty bad Ls around, even worse than the 17-40. The 17-40 just got a bit famous for that, since it still keeps being in production for decades now. 

And it is also not the only lens I mentioned. Its was just about the point, that there are in fact a decent amount of L Lenses in a Mid Price Range. Of course some are not as good as others. but the 100L Macro and the 24-70 f/4 L are definitely not bad at all while still pretty cheap (EF Versions).


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 16, 2022)

chasingrealness said:


> That 12mm could double as an R7 vlogger lens, no? All the YouTubers will love it.


I highly doubt that. You don't get a light and affordable APS-C camera and than pair it with what appears to be an expensive, extremely heavy (though we don't know yet) and exotic statement L lens. I'm expecting this lens to hit 3k $ and weigh somewhere between 800g-1.200 g.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 16, 2022)

This is all great but where's the 10, 11 or 12-24 mm F4L????


----------



## danfaz (Sep 17, 2022)

canonmike said:


> This is all great but where's the 10, 11 or 12-24 mm F4L????


Patience.


----------



## codym90 (Sep 17, 2022)

That 12mm is super interesting. I'm sure it'll be popular for anyone who does video.
Lynchburg Wedding Photographer


----------



## M1k4 (Sep 17, 2022)

canonmike said:


> This is all great but where's the 10, 11 or 12-24 mm F4L????


10-24mm f4 L would be great indeed. Even better if 10-28 since my "main" zoom is 28-70mm f 2 L.

I am also curious if they bring 200mm f 1.8 or 2 L someday that fits TCs.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 18, 2022)

schaudi said:


> Oh ok didn't knew that. But if I u don't consider cash back and other advertising prices (because they can apply to other lenses aswell) - there would also be some other L lenses still. The 17-40 f/4 (ok - maybe not as excellent as others but I still ok)and the 70-200 f/4 non IS are currently at 600€ here in Germany. the EF 24-70 f/4 L currently is at 1200€ but I am pretty sure this was a lot cheaper too in the past and is, for what it is, an excellent lens. The EF 100 L Macro is also around 1k. If u look in the past ull find even more.


Yes, the 24-70 f4 was cheaper....
Got mine for Euro 550. And yes, it's a very good lens which you can find used for little money. But pay attention to the "wobbing tendency" of some front lens-tubes.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 18, 2022)

jeffa4444 said:


> I must be extremely lucky then because the RF 100-400mm I have is very sharp at 400mm wide open. Is it as good as the RF 100-500mm or the EF 100-400 MKII? No but then again it’s 1/4 of the price and 1/3 of the weight. When I go hiking I almost never take the RF 100-500 but the 100-400 is small and light enough to take and gets the job done. Moreover I did a test with the RF 24-105mm f4L, the RF 70-200mm f4L and the RF 100-400 all at 100mm all at f5.6 with fine detail in the subject and at 100% you really had to struggle to see a difference with corner detail being slightly softer and with more chromatic aberration. I didnt read articles I conducted tests and before anyone asks I worked for Panavision for 35years and know how to test lenses on a MTF bench, projector and test charts. In real world use those differences are minimal and I would be more concerned with defraction at beyond f11.


But why test these lenses all at 100mm? It may be their common focal length, but that's not where they're all likely to be used in real world application. Testing a long tele lens at its shortest focal length is playing to its strengths, when these lenses typically spend most time at their extreme long end in birding and wildlife uses (and yes there are exceptions for the hair-splitters out there). 

As you said "it gets the job done" _for you_, which is subjective but it may not do so for everyone, depending on their requirements. You sound like a person with considerable experience, so I'll pose this question in a more objectively. I understand that the RF 100-500mm or the EF 100-400 MKII are a completely different tier of lens, and a comparison to them is hardly fair considering the price difference. In your opinion, in terms of the actual detail that this lens can render and image contrast, do you believe the RF 100-400mm, at the long end, is capable of taking images for professional use, such as commercial publication like it's more expensive counterparts mentioned, or is it a lightweight, great value for money, 'good enough' lens for every other non-critical application? 

Just so I'm clear, the objective here is not a 'measurement competition' or a subjective emotional debate about whether people hate or love a lens, that is often seen in many forums. It's a kind request for an honest objective assessment to give potential buyers a clearer understanding of the image quality this lens can be expected to deliver, so they can determine if it suits their needs or not. Thanks!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 18, 2022)

danfaz said:


> Patience.


The problem is that most of the people on this forum are on the upper end of the age spectrum. Time vs money, younger people usually have more of the former and less of the latter, while for older people who have worked a very long time, it's the other way around. If you've ever told an elderly person that they might need to wait to wait a few years for something, you'd be familiar with the reaction you usually get. I don't make that mistake anymore...


----------



## BBarn (Sep 18, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> The problem is that most of the people on this forum are on the upper end of the age spectrum. Time vs money, younger people usually have more of the former and less of the latter, while for older people who have worked a very long time, it's the other way around. If you've ever told an elderly person that they might need to wait to wait a few years for something, you'd be familiar with the reaction you usually get. I don't make that mistake anymore...


As one becomes elderly, the value of a lifetime warranty fades as well.


----------



## who.peter (Sep 18, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Well I got this lens recently and haven't noticed much chromatic aberration nor any particular focusing sound...


Not only noisy. Because of it being "macro" it makes the focus hunt a lot. Don't know how you use it, but that lens is just not a good lens. Does the job, but it's not good at all.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 18, 2022)

who.peter said:


> Not only noisy. Because of it being "macro" it makes the focus hunt a lot. Don't know how you use it, but that lens is just not a good lens. Does the job, but it's not good at all.


Well I've not had chance to use it a lot yet, but I wanted it for its wide aperture, good stabilisation (I think Canon claims up to 7 stops with IBIS), and medium focal length; I was thinking food and drink, occasional contextual portraiture, and environmental macro, eg flowers/fungi with a bit of background. I'm not a particular lover of 35mm though, so I'll see - I had the EF 35mm f/2 and this is surely similar (I did sell it however, as I didn't use it enough). I think "not good at all" is exaggerated, it clearly has a lot better IQ than basic kit lenses (though the price is a little high imo).


----------



## entoman (Sep 18, 2022)

I've posted previously about how, according to reviews, this RF 100-400mm suffers from poor minimum aperture, diffraction softness at apertures smaller than F11, slow and noisy AF, and other non-L traits such as potentially inadequate weather-sealing and build quality, lack of lens hood, lack of rotating tripod collar etc.

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to try the lens for a few moments myself. I found it to be very light and compact, although slightly front-heavy at 400mm. Stabilisation is very effective, possibly better than my RF 100-500mm in that regard. I only had a couple of minutes with the lens, but that was enough to convince me that the AF is at least as fast as the RF 100-500mm. I didn't find the AF to be noisy. The close-focusing ability was impressive, and I could switch rapidly back and forth between distant and close subjects without any hunting (test carried out in overcast/shady conditions outdoors). The zoom ring was quite stiff.

As for sharpness and detail rendering, judging purely from the magnified image on the screen, I'd say the lens was fine for medium-long distance subjects, although it won't render fur or feathers as sharply as the RF 100-500mm. For highly detailed near-macro subjects the lens isn't as sharp as the RF 100-500mm, and it certainly isn't as sharp as either the EF 100m macro or RF 100mm macro, both of which will render every scale on a butterfly's wing with incredible detail and sharpness.

For those on a limited budget, the RF 100-400mm offers very good value, light weight and ease of use. My initial impression is that the level of sharpness and detail for close-up work would be inadequate for my own personal usage. Equally I don't think I'd be happy with it for highly detailed landscape photography. But, if you shoot mainly sports, portraits, mammals etc at medium distances and in reasonably good light, you probably won't be disappointed.


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 18, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> There's a difference between a rumor and a criticism of an item which doesn't exist yet.


I find lots of criticism of rumored items on rumor sites.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 19, 2022)

codym90 said:


> That 12mm is super interesting. I'm sure it'll be popular for anyone who does video.


Also, as already noted in the thread, it may be interesting for astro, but it'd depend on the amount of distortions and aberrations. Some of the latest Canon RF lenses, including the L ones, require quite a bit of software corrections, which makes them much less usable for astrophotography.


----------



## Drazen (Sep 19, 2022)

My two cents on the 100-500 debate... 

This lens has instantly become my favorite RF lens. The RF 70-200 2.8L now barely gets used, I'm almost regretting buying it. Having such huge tele range in a single and (by my standards at least) compact and light package is a game changer.

The images coming out of the camera have exceeded my expectations in terms of sharpness even wide open. 

It's a pricey thing, but if you can afford it it's worth every penny. Pair it with the kit RF 24-105 and you have a walkable setup covering an insane range, with excellent results. 

I've shot nature, landscape, people, street, sports and wildlife with this thing and it's amazing.


----------



## dolina (Sep 19, 2022)

I


Drazen said:


> My two cents on the 100-500 debate...
> 
> This lens has instantly become my favorite RF lens. The RF 70-200 2.8L now barely gets used, I'm almost regretting buying it. Having such huge tele range in a single and (by my standards at least) compact and light package is a game changer.
> 
> ...



Sunset v-ball game's got my pick


----------



## scyrene (Sep 19, 2022)

Drazen said:


> My two cents on the 100-500 debate...
> 
> This lens has instantly become my favorite RF lens. The RF 70-200 2.8L now barely gets used, I'm almost regretting buying it. Having such huge tele range in a single and (by my standards at least) compact and light package is a game changer.
> 
> ...


Stop making me want it more!


----------



## Drazen (Sep 19, 2022)

dolina said:


> I
> 
> 
> Sunset v-ball game's got my pick


Thanks, mine too I've put the other 2 just as a show of sharpness, but the volleyball shot was made with autofocus tracking, shot straight into massive backlight and the lens still performed perfectly.


----------



## dolina (Sep 19, 2022)

Drazen said:


> Thanks, mine too I've put the other 2 just as a show of sharpness, but the volleyball shot was made with autofocus tracking, shot straight into massive backlight and the lens still performed perfectly.


What was your lens/body combination?


----------



## Drazen (Sep 19, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Stop making me want it more!


Sorry I actually owned the mk1 version of EF100-400 many years ago, but never really enjoyed that lens and I sold it. 

Back then the sensor ISO performance wasn't even close to what we have today, so it really limited the use scenarios for me. 

Nowdays I'm totally comfortable cranking up the ISO when needed, the lens IS paired with IBIS means way lower shutter speeds are required and as a result, the overal experience is that much better. 

I would say that 100-500 has been the most impressive RF lens for me to date. Just for context, of the RF system I own:
RF15-35 f2.8
RF 28-70 f2
RF 24-105
RF70-200 f2.8
RF100-500
RF50 1.2
RF85 1.2
RF100 macro
The rest are the adapted EF lenses.


----------



## Drazen (Sep 19, 2022)

dolina said:


> What was your lens/body combination?


Forgot to mention it, all were shot on R5.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2022)

entoman said:


> For those on a limited budget, the RF 100-400mm offers very good value, light weight and ease of use. … if you shoot mainly sports, portraits, mammals etc at medium distances and in *reasonably good light*, you probably won't be disappointed.


I think many setups do well in reasonably good light. Afternoon soccer matches can be effectively shot with an APS-C body and a 55-250mm lens, or the RF 100-400. Realistically, the difference between an R7 with the RF 100-400 and the R3 with the RF 100-500L would be tough to spot in a shot taken in daylight.

It’s in not-so-good light that higher-spec gear brings an advantage. Here's an example from a last week:



EOS R3, RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, 1/1600 s, f/2.8, ISO 10000

This was during the 1st quarter, there was still some light from the sky and even at f/2.8 I needed a ISO 10K for a fast enough shutter speed. I had the 100-500L with me as well, and used that for some closeups of the marching band at halftime, the slower shutter speeds needed let me keep the ISO at ≤16K even with the narrower aperture. 



Drazen said:


> This lens has instantly become my favorite RF lens. The RF 70-200 2.8L now barely gets used, I'm almost regretting buying it. Having such huge tele range in a single and (by my standards at least) compact and light package is a game changer. ... Pair it with the kit RF 24-105 and you have a walkable setup covering an insane range...


Great shots! For daytime outdoor shooting, the 100-500L is stellar. It's also great for travel, for which my usual kit is the RF 14-35/4, 24-105/4 and 100-500, all of which take 77mm filters as a bonus. 

For portraits and indoor events, the f/2.8 zoom is much more useful for me, as well as for nighttime sports (at least with typical high school lighting) as above. I'm hoping Canon brings out an RF 300/2.8L soon for the same reason.


----------



## entoman (Sep 19, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think many setups do well in reasonably good light. Afternoon soccer matches can be effectively shot with an APS-C body and a 55-250mm lens, or the RF 100-400. Realistically, the difference between an R7 with the RF 100-400 and the R3 with the RF 100-500L would be tough to spot in a shot taken in daylight.
> 
> It’s in not-so-good light that higher-spec gear brings an advantage. Here's an example from a last week:


Higher spec gear is definitely an advantage in low light - I'd be using F2.8 glass all the time for wildlife photography if I could afford it and if I could tolerate the weight. The budget lenses really come into play when it's important to save weight - such as when hiking with 2 or 3 lenses in a rucksack, or when travelling in small aircraft.

The need to use quite high ISO is reduced somewhat due to the excellent stabilisation, and is counteracted by the amazing abilities of modern editing software to reduce noise without affecting sharpness. Topaz DeNoise AI is superb, and I can't wait to try the new Topaz Photo AI which promises to be even better, combining the masking abilities of Lightroom with the noise-reduction and sharpening of DeNoise.

Most of my work involves subjects with high levels of detail - in landscapes I want to see every detail in foliage, tree bark, grass and sand. With insects I want to see every scale on a butterfly's wings, and with birds and animals I want to see the fine detail of fur and feathers, even in images that are heavily cropped. Hence my preference for the highest quality quality L glass.

But for less critical subjects such as sport, where fine detail rendition isn't as important, I see no reason not to recommend the RF 100-400mm.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 19, 2022)

Most important of all, I can get the 100-400 for ~1/5 the price of the 100-500. For many, that is the clincher. Indeed I can have the 100-400, 800, and 1.4x extender all for less than the price of the L lens. I do covet the latter, but unless I see one very much reduced in price, I don't expect to own one any time soon.


----------



## Drazen (Sep 19, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think many setups do well in reasonably good light. Afternoon soccer matches can be effectively shot with an APS-C body and a 55-250mm lens, or the RF 100-400. Realistically, the difference between an R7 with the RF 100-400 and the R3 with the RF 100-500L would be tough to spot in a shot taken in daylight.
> 
> It’s in not-so-good light that higher-spec gear brings an advantage. Here's an example from a last week:
> 
> ...


Absolutely agree - evening / indoor event situations will certainly call for a faster zoom, which 100-500 obviously isn't.

I think a lot depends on what a photographer shoots and at what time of day. For me, this is a perfect lens. If I was a wedding photographer, the 70-200 f2.8 would make much more sense.

Funny you mention the 300 f2.8, since the EF version was probably my favorite EF tele lens, even more than the 600 f4 - which I enjoy a lot, but the size and weight of that thing is so limiting. I have no doubt a RF 300 is coming, I'm just hoping they won't simply stack on an adapter and call it quits, like they did with the current RF super teles.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2022)

Drazen said:


> Funny you mention the 300 f2.8, since the EF version was probably my favorite EF tele lens, even more than the 600 f4 - which I enjoy a lot, but the size and weight of that thing is so limiting. I have no doubt a RF 300 is coming, I'm just hoping they won't simply stack on an adapter and call it quits, like they did with the current RF super teles.


I have the EF 600/4 II, and while I regularly use it handheld, it’s far from light. The MkIII shaves some more weight off, but not enough to matter to me without a boost in IQ (which is excellent already, so that’s a tall order). However, the MkIII Versions of the 400 and 600 are relatively recent (2018, IIRC) where is the 300/2.8 II is the prior generation – hopefully that means a significant redesign for the RF version.


----------



## Drazen (Sep 19, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Most important of all, I can get the 100-400 for ~1/5 the price of the 100-500. For many, that is the clincher. Indeed I can have the 100-400, 800, and 1.4x extender all for less than the price of the L lens. I do covet the latter, but unless I see one very much reduced in price, I don't expect to own one any time soon.


Good point. The price is steep, there's no denying it... It may not be within reach for hobby photographers, but for professionals that need long range and high mobility in a compact size, it's a no brainer.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 20, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> My 14mm f/1.8 Sigma is one of my favorites. It's not just for buildings and skies. I use it to show the context around a subject, or to massively emphasize the subject versus a distorted background. These crappy-light pics below are just snaps, but they give you the sense of additional options. The other lens that does this for me is the Laowa 15mm f/4 macro, which is the reason I've been using the Sigma less in the past couple of years, when I don't need the gaping aperture.
> View attachment 205508
> View attachment 205509
> View attachment 205510
> ...


I too really like that Laowa 15mm lens...a LOT of good shooting in a nice package and a VERY nice price!!

It actually surprised me how much I like it....

C


----------



## cayenne (Sep 20, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I believe the FD 50 f/0.95 was both exotic and high-priced for its time.


Hell...it STILL kinda is, on the used market these days...haha.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 20, 2022)

cayenne said:


> Hell...it STILL kinda is, on the used market these days...haha.


If you like museum pieces.






7 - Canon Camera Museum


Here, you can find out about Canon's Film Cameras > Rangefinder > 7.



global.canon


----------



## chasingrealness (Sep 21, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I highly doubt that. You don't get a light and affordable APS-C camera and than pair it with what appears to be an expensive, extremely heavy (though we don't know yet) and exotic statement L lens. I'm expecting this lens to hit 3k $ and weigh somewhere between 800g-1.200 g.


I was assuming the 12mm will follow the small and light scheme that canon has been rolling out across the 1.8 lineup. It it’s as you say? Perhaps not.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 21, 2022)

chasingrealness said:


> I was assuming the 12mm will follow the small and light scheme that canon has been rolling out across the 1.8 lineup. It it’s as you say? Perhaps not.


It is non L lenses that are small and light for the most part


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 21, 2022)

chasingrealness said:


> I was assuming the 12mm will follow the small and light scheme that canon has been rolling out across the 1.8 lineup. It it’s as you say? Perhaps not.


I would assume the 12mm f1.8 will be larger than the STMs with a bulbous front element. That’s going by the size Sony’s 14mm f1.8 GM which is fairly compact for what it is.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 21, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> I would assume the 12mm f1.8 will be larger than the STMs with a bulbous front element. That’s going by the size Sony’s 14mm f1.8 GM which is fairly compact for what it is.


I have the old rectilinear 11-24mm Canon EF L lens...that things a hoss, but wow...takes some really cool images!!

C


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 21, 2022)

Canon just need to put out a lens roadmap. It is really fantastic that I can look at the Nikon one and see for sure a 35 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.8 are in the works and plan accordingly. Canon leaving me guessing with everything from those hobby/fun lenses to the big whites has been quite off putting. You can still surprise us, but having a general idea of what is coming helps us plan.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 21, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> Canon just need to put out a lens roadmap. It is really fantastic that I can look at the Nikon one and see for sure a 35 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.8 are in the works and plan accordingly. Canon leaving me guessing with everything from those hobby/fun lenses to the big whites has been quite off putting. You can still surprise us, but having a general idea of what is coming helps us plan.


A public lens roadmap may be fantastic for the buyers, but how does it help the seller?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 21, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> A public lens roadmap may be fantastic for the buyers, but how does it help the seller?


It doesn't seem to negatively affect the seller, if anything it helps them as their customers know if they stick with your their needs will be served.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> It doesn't seem to negatively affect the seller, if anything it helps them as their customers know if they stick with your their needs will be served.


What is your evidence that putting out a lens roadmap doesn’t negatively impact the manufacturer? The fact that Nikon does it? The fact that Sony does it? Which ILC manufacturer sells more lenses? Which ILC manufacturer makes more profit on lenses?

Do you suppose it’s possible for strategies that are beneficial to a company with a much smaller share of the market to be detrimental to the company that dominates the market?


----------



## reefroamer (Sep 22, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> Canon just need to put out a lens roadmap. It is really fantastic that I can look at the Nikon one and see for sure a 35 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.8 are in the works and plan accordingly. Canon leaving me guessing with everything from those hobby/fun lenses to the big whites has been quite off putting. You can still surprise us, but having a general idea of what is coming helps us plan.


The Nikon lens roadmap I saw on CR said it was leaked. Generally not a good idea in business to telegraph your competitors of your true intentions. It may seem like a good idea for buyers, but these roadmaps are subject to all kinds of changes, delays and deletions/additions. So use a roadmap like this at your risk. The future is mostly unpredictable.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 22, 2022)

reefroamer said:


> The Nikon lens roadmap I saw on CR said it was leaked. Generally not a good idea in business to telegraph your competitors of your true intentions. It may seem like a good idea for buyers, but these roadmaps are subject to all kinds of changes, delays and deletions/additions. So use a roadmap like this at your risk. The future is mostly unpredictable.


It is not leaked.
It comes directly from Nikon.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Sep 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> What is your evidence that putting out a lens roadmap doesn’t negatively impact the manufacturer? The fact that Nikon does it? The fact that Sony does it? Which ILC manufacturer sells more lenses? Which ILC manufacturer makes more profit on lenses?
> 
> Do you suppose it’s possible for strategies that are beneficial to a company with a much smaller share of the market to be detrimental to the company that dominates the market?


Sony don’t have a public lens roadmap either, as far as I know they never have. When something is ready from them usually the “leaks” start appearing.

For a large scale project such as designing a new lens things are very likely to change and in the current chip shortage that’s just bern exacerbated.

It also depends on an organisation’s operational strategy whether they believe more or less up front information given to customers is worthwhile or not.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 22, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> It is not leaked.
> It comes directly from Nikon.
> View attachment 205715


The roadmap I posted here is also officially from Nikon and not leaked.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> What is your evidence that putting out a lens roadmap doesn’t negatively impact the manufacturer? The fact that Nikon does it? The fact that Sony does it? Which ILC manufacturer sells more lenses? Which ILC manufacturer makes more profit on lenses?
> 
> Do you suppose it’s possible for strategies that are beneficial to a company with a much smaller share of the market to be detrimental to the company that dominates the market?


Well now that I am on trial for saying it doesn't 'seem' (note that is non committal, if something doesn't seem to be, it means it appears to be this way but you don't have hard evidence ether way) to negatively affect the manufacturer I better pull some documentation out my arse. I would suggest looking at the Nikon financials for the last few quarters where they have had to revise their revenue and profits upwards. 

As for strategies affection a larger vs smaller company differently, I have no evidence of that. Though I will say that when the Canon R and Nikon Z6 came out, the public roadmap from Nikon was a compelling reason to switch brands for wildlife shooting. And when the Canon R5 came out I had a roadmap for Nikon lenses with compelling lenses to keep me with them instead of switching back. So Canon lost the sale of a 2.8 trinity, 100-400/500, 400 f/2.8, and 800mm big boi. That however is just me, I am not representative of every buyer. But if the R5 had came out with a lens roadmap showing us they had say a 200-400 f/4.0 planned for next year, I would have a R5 right now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> Well now that I am on trial for saying it doesn't 'seem' (note that is non committal, if something doesn't seem to be, it means it appears to be this way but you don't have hard evidence ether way) to negatively affect the manufacturer I better pull some documentation out my arse. I would suggest looking at the Nikon financials for the last few quarters where they have had to revise their revenue and profits upwards.


Your original statement was that Canon need to put out a lens roadmap. @Bob Howland asked how that would benefit Canon. Your answer boils down to ‘I wanted it’ and ‘Nikon does it’. Does having your answers questioned make you feel like you’re ‘on trial’? Should everyone just accept what you say because you’re you?

You are correct that I have no data either way. You might consider that Canon has revised their profit estimates upward in recent financial presentations as well, citing in part increased revenues from RF lens sales. Without the public roadmap you say they need to provide. 



Photo Bunny said:


> As for strategies affection a larger vs smaller company differently, I have no evidence of that.


I suspect it’s similar to the arguments over opening up the lens mount. Sony did that, back in 2012 when they were #3 and struggling for market share. Nikon did that recently, and they are #3 and struggling for market share. Canon continues to dominate the market, with nearly 50% of ILC sales every year (meaning a user base of likely >80% of the market). They probably don’t see a need to woo new users by facilitating cheap 3rd party lens availability or telegraph their intentions for lens releases. The vast majority of ILC users are already shooting Canon, and every year that majority increases because Canon continues to sell more cameras than Sony and Nikon combined.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your original statement was that Canon need to put out a lens roadmap. @Bob Howland asked how that would benefit Canon. Your answer boils down to ‘I wanted it’ and ‘Nikon does it’. Does having your answers questioned make you feel like you’re ‘on trial’? Should everyone just accept what you say because you’re you?


My answer boils down to there was no evidence to suggest it would negatively affect Canon. Canon's improved profits and Nikon's improved profits don't say ether way.

My original statement was "Canon just need to put out a lens roadmap. It is really fantastic that I can look at the Nikon one and see for sure a 35 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.8 are in the works and plan accordingly." That can only be interpreted as something I want from them and believe other customers would benefit from. If it benefits Canon or not is irrelevant but you are right I did try to answer the OP in how it might benefit Canon, even though that part was irrelevant.

As for who is dominating the market or not, I don't see that as having any relevance. Do you really want to be guessing what lenses are coming next and with no timeframes? What if they have no plans to release your bread and butter lens at all but another manufacture does? I don't know about you, but I don't buy in-between steps while I wait. If I need a 135 I am not going to make do with a 85 in the hopes that the 135 will eventually come. I would buy my other lenses in the meantime though if I know my lenses are coming.

And when we are talking about my answers here, since it is something I want to see and not a "Canon will die if they don't do this", then yes, you indeed should accept my answers as I would accept yours. This isn't something that needs a well reasoned and data baked argument, I want Canon to provide a lens roadmap.

Edit for clarity:

"You need to get off your backside" you will get up and move.
"You just need to get off your backside" wouldn't it be great if you got up, look at the benefits it'll have on your health.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> My answer boils down to there was no evidence to suggest it would negatively affect Canon. Canon's improved profits and Nikon's improved profits don't say ether way.
> 
> My original statement was "Canon just need to put out a lens roadmap. It is really fantastic that I can look at the Nikon one and see for sure a 35 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.8 are in the works and plan accordingly." That can only be interpreted as something I want from them and believe other customers would benefit from. If it benefits Canon or not is irrelevant but you are right I did try to answer the OP in how it might benefit Canon, even though that part was irrelevant.
> 
> ...


Makes sense.

To answer your question, certainly I'd prefer to know what lenses Canon plans to release, and when. Especially regarding an RF 300/2.8. However, I don't fall into the trap of thinking that what I want has any bearing on what Canon should or should not do (and to be clear, I'm not suggesting you're saying that, either...but many people on this forum certainly seem to believe that).


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Makes sense.
> 
> To answer your question, certainly I'd prefer to know what lenses Canon plans to release, and when. Especially regarding an RF 300/2.8. However, I don't fall into the trap of thinking that what I want has any bearing on what Canon should or should not do (and to be clear, I'm not suggesting you're saying that, either...but many people on this forum certainly seem to believe that).


I too would love to see a RF 300 f/2.8 from Canon, mostly just to see them put out their first mirrorless super-tele prime lens. But also because I didn't own a Canon 300 f/2.8 L USM for 20 odd years for fun, I have always thought of it as one of the best wildlife lenses even if it is a little too wide at times. Though now I question if I loved it or if I loved f/2.8 on a super-tele as whenever I have the 400 f/2.8 TC on loan all my other lenses, including my 800 f/6.3, are just left behind and it fixes thing I felt for twenty years "I wish this was just a little tighter." Regardless, I wish you success in the RF 300 f/2.8 coming soon. I hope it is a prime, but there is a trend now to make those into 120-300 f/2.8's which push the price up a lot.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 22, 2022)

chasingrealness said:


> I was assuming the 12mm will follow the small and light scheme that canon has been rolling out across the 1.8 lineup. It it’s as you say? Perhaps not.


Maybe you're right, but given Canons history I'd guess differently. It's a L lens, therefore no lens for a crop APS-c camera and no RF-S lens. 12mm for full frame will be rather big and given the aperture of F1.8. at this focal length "small and light scheme" is simply not possible. So, the odds are pretty much that the 12mm F1.8L will be the spiritual successor of the 14mm F2.8.
So far, every wide-angel option has become wider, the 14mm will too. As with a lot of lenses, e.g. EF 50/ 85mm F1.2 and RF 50/85mm the RF version is more expensive. Given some extra features (in this case two extra feature) the price will be extremely high.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 7, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That almost never happens.



Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 7, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> If you don't have any experience with the lens you really shouldn't make definitive statements. Is it the sharpest lens in the lineup - no of course no. Do you need to shoot at f/8 - no, of course not, at least not in my experience.
> 
> It's funny how people dwell on sharpness when a lot of the final result of your image's sharpness depends on what you have as the sharpness setting in your camera, and then how you post-process. With a good post-processing program the lens's sharpness is almost immaterial, in my opinion.



Even with IBIS and IS, good camera stabilization techniques (whether handheld or when using tripods with various levels of quality) usually make a bigger difference than the minor differences in flat test chart performance between one lens and another. Not to mention skill controlling AF or even MF when warranted.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 7, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Probably has already been mentioned, but the middle ground is EF "L" lenses. You might even say buying them used is bordering on inexpensive for some of the EF L lenses. So for those who want sharp lenses with high build quality, you have an enormous amount of lenses available.



That really depends upon the EF L lens in question. 

For example, the EF 24-105mm f/4 l IS was not the most stellar in terms of optical performance, but it got the job done and could take pounding abuse day in and day out and still deliver as well as it did on day one. On the other hand, the original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L was much better optically when in proper alignment, but couldn't take much of any kind of bump when the barrel was extended without getting knocked out of optical alignment. Thank goodness the hood was attached to the main barrel instead of the extending barrel! Both were priced similarly for much of their time in the Canon catalog.

Lower priced L zooms, such as the EF 17-40mm f/4 L, weren't all that great optically. They were made for photojournalists and others who needed durability more than they needed absolute optical image quality. On the other hand, a few of the lower priced L primes, like the EF 135mm f/2, could produce stunning results that beat more expensive zooms, such as the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II when used at 135mm, rendering out of focus areas in three-dimensional scenes.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 7, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Canon has brought in smaller/lighter lenses but has pricing reflecting that R&D.
> There are lots of complaints about Canon releasing "darker" lenses at a cheap price eg 600/800 f11.
> 
> Has Canon ever released L quality lenses at mid-price levels besides the RF24-105/4L kit lens?





neuroanatomist said:


> Not for a long time. Lenses like the EF 17-40/4L and 200/2.8L would probably fit the bill of mid-price (<$1K) L-series lenses. No weather sealing, though.



For much of the time when both were in the active catalog, the original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L was only $100-200 more than the original EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS. The EF 135mm f/2 L and EF 200mm f/2.8 L were about the same or $100-200 less. The EF 17-40mm f/4 L was another $100 less. It wasn't until shortly before the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS II was announced that the price of the first generation 24-105/4 dropped from around $1,100 USD to about $800 USD, then even lower after the II came out. Of course, one could get a 5D II kit with the 24-105/4 for about $600-800 more than the body only, and one could get a "white box" 24-105/4 lens taken from those kits by retailers and sold individually for around $200-300 less than the official dealer price for a new 24-105/4 in a retail box.

"Weather sealing" is not binary. They all have varying degrees of sealing. No EF or RF lenses are fully sealed enough to be submerged in water. Only an open truss Newtonian reflector telescope type of lens could be truly said to have "no" weather sealing. Canon said the 17-40/4, for instance, was considered "weather sealed" when a UV or other spin-on filter was attached to the front of the lens. It does have a rubber gasket around the flange ring.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 7, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The EF17-40/4L wasn't a great lens though and I wonder whether it met our expectations of what a L series lens would be.
> Still available now @USD800 if @entoman wants to adapt it



It was one of those L lenses that fell into the "good enough for newsprint" category optically while being nearly indestructible to fit the requirements of photojournalists.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 7, 2022)

Bonich said:


> The EF 70-300 DO was the worst ever purchase in my EF- "career".
> At least my copy was never consistent - and nobody is interested in taking it as used.



It's only advantage was ticket holders could take it into stadiums/events that limited lens lengths to six inches or less.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 7, 2022)

HMC11 said:


> I have to post the table separately as the 10,000 characters limited was breached. Here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> LensesLaunch Yr​$ at L​L yr Adj /$​2021 adj /$​2022 adj /$​Current /$L-Adj /%C-21adj /%C-22adj /%L-adj21 /%L-adj22 /%C-C /%EF 16-35 f2.8L III2016​2199​2342​2483​2714​2199​RF 15-35 f2.8L2019​2299​2299​-1.9​-7.4​-15.3​-7.4​-15.3​4.5​EF 16-35 f4L2014​1199​1372​1372​1500​1299​RF 14-35 f4L2021​1699​1599​23.8​16.5​6.6​23.8​13.2​23.1​EF 70-200 f2.8L III2018​2099​2136​2264​2475​2099​RF 70-200 f2.8L2019​2699​2799​26.4​23.6​13.1​19.2​9.0​33.3​EF 70-200 f4L II2018​1299​1401​1401​1532​1499​RF 70-200 f4L2021​1599​1699​14.1​21.3​10.9​14.1​4.4​13.3​EF 24-70 f2.8L II2012​2299​2560​2713​2967​1899​RF 24-70 f2.8L2019​2299​2399​-10.2​-11.6​-19.1​-15.3​-22.5​26.3​EF 24-105L2005​999​1285​1386​1516​1299​RF 24-105L2018​1299​1299​1.1​-6.3​-14.3​-6.3​-14.3​0.0​EF 100 f2.8L Macro2009​1049​1325​1325​1449​1299​RF 100 f2.8L Macro2021​1399​1199​5.6​-9.5​-17.2​5.6​-3.4​-7.7​EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6L II2014​2199​2404​2517​2752​2399​RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L2020​2699​2899​12.3​15.2​5.3​7.2​-1.9​20.8​EF 50 f1.8 STM2015​130​142​149​163​125​RF 50 f1.8 STM2020​199​159​40.2​7.0​-2.2​33.9​22.5​27.2​EF 85 f1.8 STM1992​430​784​831​908​499​RF 85 f2 STM2019​599​499​-23.6​-39.9​-45.0​-27.9​-34.0​0.0​EF 35 f2 II STM2012​849​929​1002​1096​599​RF 35 f1.8 STM2018​499​499​-46.3​-50.2​-54.5​-50.2​-54.5​-16.7​



Wondering why you compare the RF 70-200/2.8 IS to the EF 70-200/2.8 IS III (2018) instead of the II (2010) or original version (2001), but then turn around and compare the RF 24-105/4 to the original 2005 EF 24-105/4 IS (which was officially $1,099 USD for many years) instead of the EF 24-105/4 IS II (2016)?

Also, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II (2012) was almost twice the price of the original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L (2002). Ditto for the EF 70-200/2.8 L IS ($1,299) and the II/III versions ($2,399/$2,099) as well as the EF 100-400 IS and IS II. Also the EF 16-35/2.8 L II (2007) and III (2016).


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 7, 2022)

HMC11 said:


> I have to post the table separately as the 10,000 characters limited was breached. Here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> LensesLaunch Yr​$ at L​L yr Adj /$​2021 adj /$​2022 adj /$​Current /$L-Adj /%C-21adj /%C-22adj /%L-adj21 /%L-adj22 /%C-C /%EF 16-35 f2.8L III2016​2199​2342​2483​2714​2199​RF 15-35 f2.8L2019​2299​2299​-1.9​-7.4​-15.3​-7.4​-15.3​4.5​EF 16-35 f4L2014​1199​1372​1372​1500​1299​RF 14-35 f4L2021​1699​1599​23.8​16.5​6.6​23.8​13.2​23.1​EF 70-200 f2.8L III2018​2099​2136​2264​2475​2099​RF 70-200 f2.8L2019​2699​2799​26.4​23.6​13.1​19.2​9.0​33.3​EF 70-200 f4L II2018​1299​1401​1401​1532​1499​RF 70-200 f4L2021​1599​1699​14.1​21.3​10.9​14.1​4.4​13.3​EF 24-70 f2.8L II2012​2299​2560​2713​2967​1899​RF 24-70 f2.8L2019​2299​2399​-10.2​-11.6​-19.1​-15.3​-22.5​26.3​EF 24-105L2005​999​1285​1386​1516​1299​RF 24-105L2018​1299​1299​1.1​-6.3​-14.3​-6.3​-14.3​0.0​EF 100 f2.8L Macro2009​1049​1325​1325​1449​1299​RF 100 f2.8L Macro2021​1399​1199​5.6​-9.5​-17.2​5.6​-3.4​-7.7​EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6L II2014​2199​2404​2517​2752​2399​RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L2020​2699​2899​12.3​15.2​5.3​7.2​-1.9​20.8​EF 50 f1.8 STM2015​130​142​149​163​125​RF 50 f1.8 STM2020​199​159​40.2​7.0​-2.2​33.9​22.5​27.2​EF 85 f1.8 STM1992​430​784​831​908​499​RF 85 f2 STM2019​599​499​-23.6​-39.9​-45.0​-27.9​-34.0​0.0​EF 35 f2 II STM2012​849​929​1002​1096​599​RF 35 f1.8 STM2018​499​499​-46.3​-50.2​-54.5​-50.2​-54.5​-16.7​



The EF 85/1.8 and EF 35/2 IS were USM, not STM.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 7, 2022)

HMC11 said:


> I have been wondering if the complaints about 'extreme' pricing is valid when inflation is taken into account. I have compared lenses where a clear EF predecessor exists for the RF lens concerned. Below is a table showing prices at Launch ($ at L), Launch price adjusted for inflation at year of EF version launch (L yr Adj), what the EF price would be in 2021 when adjusted for inflation (2021 adj), EF price adjusted for 2022 (2022 adj), current B&H prices (Current). I have also computed the percentage increase from EF price (adj & current etc). So 'L-Adj)' compares inflation-adjusted EF price at launch of RF counterpart etc, 'C-21adj' - current RF price compared to 2021 adjusted price, 'L-adj21' - RF launch price compared to EF adjusted price in 2021, C-C - simple comparison of current EF & RF prices.
> 
> The inflation data is from an inflation calculator (https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2000#:~:text=$100 in 2000 is equivalent,cumulative price increase of 72.05%.), which obviously is as best a reasonable estimate. I have used both the 2021 & 2022 inflation values simply because 2022's inflation is an outlier - as such, using only 2022 seems somewhat distorted.
> 
> ...



*Somewhere around 2009-2010 or so Canon decided the market would bear significantly higher prices for f/2.8 zooms and top tier primes.* 
In 2010 the 70-200 IS went from $1,299 to $2,399 for the II. 
In 2012 the 24-70 went from $1,199 to $2,299 for the II. 
In 2015 the 16-35 went from around $1,399 for the II to $2,199 for the III. 

In most cases the optical quality of those lenses also noticeably improved over the ones they replaced. 
Pricewise, after the $1,200-1,300 f/2.8 zooms were replaced with $2,100-2,400 f/2.8 zooms, new f/4 zoom lenses that were only slightly cheaper than the old f/2.8 lenses appeared in the catalog.

The same trend can be seen in the pricing of Great White Tele primes beginning with the updates introduced in 2011-12. The $4,000-6,000 IS tele primes became $7,000-11,000 IS II tele primes. Nothing new filled the price gap below the large aperture superteles above 200mm. The old 300/4 and 400/5.6 stayed in the catalog, but they had no IS and optical designs from the early 1990s. 

Even the mid-grade WA primes saw a real price increase about the same time. Compare 24/28/35 f/2.8 (35/2) prices in 2011 to the prices of the 24/28/35 IS primes that replaced them in 2012. They almost doubled.

*The price bump for top prime lenses seemed to happen at the EF to RF transition partly because not many top tier non-GW primes were released between 2008 and 2018.* 

The two TS-E L primes rolled out in 2009 certainly had much higher prices than the previous TS-E 24/45/90 non-L lenses! 

The EF 35mm f/1.4 II in 2015 also bumped the price up quite a bit higher than the 1998 original. In 1998 the street price (those are not really much of a thing any more, as online commerce and supply chain issues have raised the percentages of new lenses that are sold at "official" prices) of the 35/1.4 L was $1,200. The II was introduced at $1,799. 

In 2017 the EF 85/1.4 L IS was introduced at $1,599, only about $100 less than the street price of the larger aperture EF 85mm f/1.2 L II. 

The TS-E 50/90/135 L lenses introduced in 2017 were also priced much higher than the non-L TS-E 45/90 lenses they supplanted. 

The EF 600/4 III IS from 2018 and the RF 600/4 from 2021 are the same price. Ditto for the EF III 400/2.8 III IS and RF 400/2.8.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 7, 2022)

scyrene said:


> There's a big gap in the pricing, but that doesn't mean it's economic for them to fill it. There was always a gulf between the cheaper big whites (300 f/4L and 400 f/5.6L) and the big ones, and that was never addressed during the EF era.



The gap was not near as large until the 2012 introduction of the 2nd generation of IS Big Whites and prices jumped by about 50-70% or more. The EF 300/2.8 IS was around $4.5K. The EF 300/2.8 IS II was over $6K. Go back to the last generation of non-IS Big Whites, considering the 300/4 and 400/5.6 are non-IS, and the gap was even smaller. The original EF 300/2.8 was only $3,500.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 7, 2022)

dolina said:


> I found the May 8, 2013 Forbes article for which your reply may be based on.
> 
> Will copy paste the relevant parts below. @Del Paso tagging you as you may be of interested to read this.
> 
> ...



The thing a lot of folks miss when looking at MF digital is that Leica S (3:2), Fuji GFX (4:3), Hasselblad 50c (4:3), and Pentax 645D (4:3) are only crop factor 0.8X compared to 135 format (3:2).

Phase One (4:3) and Hasselblad 60c (4:3) are crop factor 0.64, which is almost 645 (3:4) film format (0.614).

Leica S (3:2) is only 56% more area than 135.
GFX/50c/645D (4:3) are only 68% more area than 135
P-1/60c (4:3) are 150% more area than 135.

P-1/60c (4:3) are 49% more area than GFX and 50c.

*Phase One and Hasselblad 60c are almost as much larger compared to GFX/50c/645D as GFX/50c/645D are compared to full frame.*


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 7, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> The EF 17-40 is a very old lens, introduced in 2003. I think it was intended partly as a high end standard lens for APC-C cameras. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 was introduced three years later.



2003 was a time when a lot of rank & file newspapers were finally beginning to move from film to digital. 

The EOS 1D was a 1.3X APS-H *4 MP* camera on which the 17-40mm translates to a 22-52mm AoV in 135 format. The EF 17-40mm f/4 L IQ was "good enough" for newsprint and the 4 MP resolution of the 1D. Its construction was rugged enough to stand up to the rigors of daily abuse by working PJs. With a spin-on filter it was considered "weather sealed" by Canon. 

Most newspapers chose to go with the 4 MP APS-H 1D rather than FF 1Ds bodies. They did this mostly due to the cost difference, not only of the camera bodies themselves but also the higher storage and "wire" transmission cost of those "huge" 11 MP images output by the 1Ds! Nikon didn't even offer a FF digital body until the D3 in 2007. 

The EF 17-40mm f/4 L gave PJs with a 1.3X crop 1D a usable WA lens at reasonable cost. For normal and longer focal lengths, their existing inventory of EF lenses they were already using on their EOS film cameras could be used easily with the 1.3X crop factor. They even got more "reach" out of the telephoto lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 8, 2022)

Johnw said:


> What makes you think that was their intention to ever support that? Even though it works the amount of modification necessary suggests they were not trying to enable that use case really.
> 
> 
> 
> It works with any EF lens. I've tried stacking EF + RF 2x with the Sigma 150-600 to create a 600-2400, it is surprisingly usable though obviously a bit soft at f/25. When composing shots at 2400 I also have to use a 10 sec timer to null the vibration in the image after pressing the shutter even on a tripod.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 8, 2022)

Drazen said:


> It will be 24 and 35 for me, when and if they finally show up. Don't see much sense in 28 - if it was 1.2, then maybe it'd be worth considering.
> 
> The 12mm seems interesting, but it's too exotic to make a decision now. I'm worried it might be incredibly bulky, considering that prime RF L lenses are huge as it is. Can't imagine how large a 12mm will be.
> 
> Still not a single RF-TS lens available. Guess it will be a long wait for those... I recently completed the whole TS-E set, grabbing the last TS 17mm that BHphoto had in store.



I'm guessing the nomenclature will be something like TS-R 24mm f/3.5 L USM. Maybe TS-RF 24mm f/3.5 L USM. Then again, if they're AF capable, they may just be named RF 24mm f/3.5 L USM Tilt-Shift (similar to the way Macro lenses are named). And, yes, rumors say they will be AF capable.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Higher spec gear is definitely an advantage in low light - I'd be using F2.8 glass all the time for wildlife photography if I could afford it and if I could tolerate the weight. The budget lenses really come into play when it's important to save weight - such as when hiking with 2 or 3 lenses in a rucksack, or when travelling in small aircraft.
> 
> The need to use quite high ISO is reduced somewhat due to the excellent stabilisation, and is counteracted by the amazing abilities of modern editing software to reduce noise without affecting sharpness. Topaz DeNoise AI is superb, and I can't wait to try the new Topaz Photo AI which promises to be even better, combining the masking abilities of Lightroom with the noise-reduction and sharpening of DeNoise.
> 
> ...



Shooting sports doesn't allow one to trade IS/IBIS for slow Tv. The subject motion is the same, with or without stabilization. 

Stabilization is helpful to reduce the effect of small camera movements, but does nothing for subject motion. Due to the weight of lenses and the duration of the sporting events, most of us are using monopods anyway. We're doing so as much to reduce back and shoulder pain/fatigue as because we need the stabilization for a single handheld shot. It's the fact that we need to keep shooting almost non-stop for a couple of hours or more. But the Tv still needs to be somewhere around 1/1000 or shorter if at all possible. 1/2000 is even better, but a pipe dream in many youth/high school/small college settings.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 8, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> View attachment 206241


For shots like that I have started preferring to use my phone + Camera Connect app as bluetooth remote. As a bonus, it allows me to step inside during those super/blood/blue/harvest moon shots during windy nights. But it is a lot more work to setup and just plugging in a remote. I wish all R bodies would've kept working with the IR remotes!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> But it is a lot more work to setup and just plugging in a remote. I wish all R bodies would've kept working with the IR remotes!


----------



## entoman (Nov 8, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Shooting sports doesn't allow one to trade IS/IBIS for slow Tv. The subject motion is the same, with or without stabilization.
> 
> Stabilization is helpful to reduce the effect of small camera movements, but does nothing for subject motion. Due to the weight of lenses and the duration of the sporting events, most of us are using monopods anyway. We're doing so as much to reduce back and shoulder pain/fatigue as because we need the stabilization for a single handheld shot. It's the fact that we need to keep shooting almost non-stop for a couple of hours or more. But the Tv still needs to be somewhere around 1/1000 or shorter if at all possible. 1/2000 is even better, but a pipe dream in many youth/high school/small college settings.


Of course, in many cases freezing subject movement requires a shutter speed that negates the need for stabilised gear. But even in those instances, stabilisation keeps the view in the EVF more stable, which is easier on the eyes and allows me to concentrate better on framing and composition. And there are many examples (in wildlife photography) where the subject is relatively static, and stabilisation is then advantageous.

I photograph a lot of wildlife from a safari jeep or from a birding hide. In these cases (often in poor light) I use my RF100-500mm. But I find it tiresome to hand hold or carry around for long periods, and my arms quickly get tired when using it for BIF. I have 3 monopods and 2 tripods, but while they are fine for static subjects, I find them cumbersome for wildlife action.

Recently, I had the opportunity to borrow (followed swiftly by a purchase) a RF100-400mm and was amazed how light and easy it is to use. The AF is at least as fast as with the RF100-500mm, the stabilisation is possibly even better, it focuses closer for "semi-macro" shots, and is very nearly as sharp (at F8-11) as the RF100-500mm.

So in bright conditions, or when I need to keep weight down for flights in light aircraft, I take the RF100-400mm, but when I need wide apertures and I'm photographing from vehicles or hides, I take the RF100-500mm.

For sports photography the RF100-500mm is a better choice due to the wider max aperture, but for my work I like the flexibility of having both options available.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Of course, in many cases freezing subject movement requires a shutter speed that negates the need for stabilised gear. But even in those instances, stabilisation keeps the view in the EVF more stable, which is easier on the eyes and allows me to concentrate better on framing and composition. And there are many examples (in wildlife photography) where the subject is relatively static, and stabilisation is then advantageous.
> 
> I photograph a lot of wildlife from a safari jeep or from a birding hide. In these cases (often in poor light) I use my RF100-500mm. But I find it tiresome to hand hold or carry around for long periods, and my arms quickly get tired when using it for BIF. I have 3 monopods and 2 tripods, but while they are fine for static subjects, I find them cumbersome for wildlife action.
> 
> ...


As I once wrote here: everyone with an R should have an RF 100-400mm, it's the biggest bargain of a lens - very cheap, light, sharp, fast AF, and I have two of them. I must admit that although the 100-400mm is a joy to carry on a long walk or inconspicuous around town, I don't get tired carrying the RF 100-500mm for BIF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> But the Tv still needs to be somewhere around 1/1000 or shorter if at all possible. 1/2000 is even better, but a pipe dream in many youth/high school/small college settings.


Not sure it's a pipe dream, with current cameras shooting RAW and using good NR software (e.g. DxO PL), ISO settings can be used today that were a pipe dream a few years ago. I posted a 1/1600 s, ISO 10,000 shot of high school football earlier in this thread (but I needed an f/2.8 lens to get it).


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 12, 2022)

entoman said:


> Of course, in many cases freezing subject movement requires a shutter speed that negates the need for stabilised gear. But even in those instances, stabilisation keeps the view in the EVF more stable, which is easier on the eyes and allows me to concentrate better on framing and composition. And there are many examples (in wildlife photography) where the subject is relatively static, and stabilisation is then advantageous.
> 
> I photograph a lot of wildlife from a safari jeep or from a birding hide. In these cases (often in poor light) I use my RF100-500mm. But I find it tiresome to hand hold or carry around for long periods, and my arms quickly get tired when using it for BIF. I have 3 monopods and 2 tripods, but while they are fine for static subjects, I find them cumbersome for wildlife action.
> 
> ...



Neither one is much use for sports photography under artificial lighting. Even the 100-500 at 500mm is f/7.1. That's just under three stops slower than f/2.8 and only 1/3 stop faster than the 100-400 at f/8.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not sure it's a pipe dream, with current cameras shooting RAW and using good NR software (e.g. DxO PL), ISO settings can be used today that were a pipe dream a few years ago. I posted a 1/1600 s, ISO 10,000 shot of high school football earlier in this thread (but I needed an f/2.8 lens to get it).



There's also the consideration of turnaround time and how that affects the ability to even shoot raw, much less have time to use DxO, Capture One, etc. before a hard deadline. Didn't you also shoot that one before the sky was completely dark? It also looks like you were shooting from the stands, which is always a handicap, though not in terms of ISO vs. Tv.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 12, 2022)

entoman said:


> Possibly they may just have a large supply of STM motors to use up, or may be tied into a long contract with whoever manufactures those motors. Another possibility is that some lens (mostly older) designs may just work better with STM, due to weight/momentum of lens elements, distance of focus-throw, torque requirements, or some mechanical restrictions that we don't know about. I'd imagine that Canon have very good reasons, either technical or business-related, for choosing STM in certain circumstances.



Canon wouldn't just happen to "have a large supply of STM motors to use up." Not all of Canon's STM motors are the same part number. The STM motor in one lens model is not usually interchangeable with an STM motor in another lens model any more than the alternator for one vehicle would fit every other vehicle from the same manufacturer.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 12, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Diffraction is independent of the sensor, its pixel density, the angles of which the light rays hit the sensor etc, but depends only on the size and shape of the aperture of the lens. For a perfectly circular aperture - see:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_Detectable_ diffraction is dependent upon the resolution of the sensor and the resolution limits of the parts of the lens between the aperture and the sensor. If the amount of blur caused by diffraction is less than the resolution limit of the sensor, it's not detectable using that sensor. Only when the size of blur caused by diffraction is larger than the resolution limit of the sensor will the additional blur be noticeable, compared to removing or enlarging the aperture's size.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 12, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes, and I've recommended exactly that approach to others here in past threads. But, I think most people would prefer a native RF lens rather than have to use an adaptor, and it's also worth getting RF versions because they are almost invariably sharper, and have significantly better stabilisation.



It's only "worth" it if you have use for the higher resolution or better stabilization.


----------



## entoman (Nov 12, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> It's only "worth" it if you have use for the higher resolution or better stabilization.


I'm pretty sure that most people, other than perhaps sports photographers, find better stabilisation invaluable.

But you're probably correct about the higher resolution, which will only be noticed/needed by a small percentage of users.

RF lenses do also seem to AF a little faster, and are generally better specified than nearest EF equivalents.

The question potential purchasers need to ask, is whether or not the advantages will make a significant difference to their own particular genres of photography, and whether RF lenses are worth the expense compared to adapted EF glass.


----------



## entoman (Nov 12, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> There's also the consideration of turnaround time and how that affects the ability to even shoot raw, much less have time to use DxO, Capture One, etc. before a hard deadline.


That really depends on whether one is shooting professionally or as an enthusiast/hobbyist. The latter generally will have more time to spend on attempting to perfect an image to their tastes. Also it's possible to batch process with some noise reduction software, saving a lot of time.

I use Topaz DeNoise AI on all my images these days (I'm a retired industrial photographer, now photographing wildlife as a hobby), but I prefer to fine-tune the DeNoise settings for each image, which is of course far too time consuming for pros (with the exception of fine art photographers).


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 12, 2022)

entoman said:


> The question potential purchasers need to ask, is whether or not the advantages will make a significant difference to their own particular genres of photography, and whether RF lenses are worth the expense compared to adapted EF glass.



For most of us here. the question is whether RF lenses are worth the expense compared to adapting EF glass _we already own_.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 12, 2022)

entoman said:


> That really depends on whether one is shooting professionally or as an enthusiast/hobbyist. The latter generally will have more time to spend on attempting to perfect an image to their tastes. Also it's possible to batch process with some noise reduction software, saving a lot of time.
> 
> I use Topaz DeNoise AI on all my images these days (I'm a retired industrial photographer, now photographing wildlife as a hobby), but I prefer to fine-tune the DeNoise settings for each image, which is of course far too time consuming for pros (with the exception of fine art photographers).



Even batch processing can be a bit too much when you're going from camera to tablet/phone and transmitting during every time the game pauses for a TV break. That's not me, but it is for most of the full time pros I know shooting college sports.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 12, 2022)

entoman said:


> That really depends on whether one is shooting professionally or as an enthusiast/hobbyist. The latter generally will have more time to spend on attempting to perfect an image to their tastes. Also it's possible to batch process with some noise reduction software, saving a lot of time.
> 
> I use Topaz DeNoise AI on all my images these days (I'm a retired industrial photographer, now photographing wildlife as a hobby), but I prefer to fine-tune the DeNoise settings for each image, which is of course far too time consuming for pros (with the exception of fine art photographers).


DxO DeepPrime takes about a minute per R5 CR3 on my 2020 Macbook Pro (Intel CPU). I haven't tried Topaz lately, but it has always been slower than DxO for me. That's a lot of processing time, even for hobbyists with time to spare like me. 

The good news is that it only takes 6 seconds per R5 CR3 on my Mac Studio 

Related to all this, Canon has said they have reworked the 'connection' menu on the R6II and they did release an update to the phone companion app. I hope future Canon bodies will make connecting and transferring a lot easier and faster, it is very frustrating currently. Having a few seconds between each time you have to push the "OK" button is bad, but having the timeout be only a few seconds more is worse. 
The original M50 had a dedicated button on the side, you'd push that and it would connect to your wifi. It took a minute or two, but no need to press buttons.

It's hard to beat the speed of taking out the CFe and using your laptop, but big improvements can be made in this area. I'm not asking for native S3 support for uploading straight to the Amazon cloud, but something like that would be useful.


----------

