# Are these the 7 RF lenses Canon will be announcing in 2020? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 21, 2020)

> I have been sent a roadmap of coming Canon RF lenses in 2020. I have been unable to confirm this list of lenses, but I hope to hear more soon
> *Rumoured & Confirmed Canon RF lenses coming in 2020:*
> 
> Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM (Announced)
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## slclick (Feb 21, 2020)

No pancake.


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 21, 2020)

Welp, this year is starting to look expensive if the actual roadmap is anything like this.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 21, 2020)

Dear God... the Trinity of f2 zooms may actually be coming true...


----------



## gzroxas (Feb 21, 2020)

I’d really love to have a small but excellent quality 85 1.8 IS!


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 21, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> Dear God... the Trinity of f2 zooms may actually be coming true...



Along with the f/1.2L primes.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 21, 2020)

If this list proves to be (mostly) accurate, it's an absolute coup for Canon.

35 f/1.2?

70-135 f/2?!

That would be unreal. Throw in the 50 and 85 1.8 lenses with IS . . . although, on that note, it's a slightly curious decision to give them IS, since IBIS is in the R5 -- perhaps future Rs or RPs will lack IBIS, just like the first iterations?


----------



## bsbeamer (Feb 21, 2020)

That 70-135 could be really interesting, especially if it would work with an extender. Have a Tamron 35-150mm F/2.8-4 that is a great "all around" lens without sacrificing much. Pairs really well with 17-35mm F/2.8-4 when the bigger lenses just can't make it in the bag. (Wish the 15-30mm F/2.8 would make it in the backpack more often!)


----------



## Kit. (Feb 21, 2020)

slclick said:


> No pancake.


Who cares about that f/7.1 pancake if there is 10-24/4.


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 21, 2020)

navastronia said:


> If this list proves to be (mostly) accurate, it's an absolute coup for Canon.
> 
> 35 f/1.2?
> 
> ...




Supposedly combining 5-stop IBIS and optical stabilization results in a wild 7 or 8 stops of stabilization. I'd think that on its own gives a pretty good incentive to add IS to lenses


----------



## joestopper (Feb 21, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Missing:
- 24 f/1.2
- 14-28 f/2


----------



## navastronia (Feb 21, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> Supposedly combining 5-stop IBIS and optical stabilization results in a wild 7 or 8 stops of stabilization. I'd think that on its own gives a pretty good incentive to add IS to lenses



Indeed, but my concern is more that there's nothing on this list that will be cheap enough for some people, including those on this forum, who would like to move into the R ecosystem without spending a lot of money. IS drives up the cost, as I'm sure we all know, and I don't know how valuable it is in a 50mm 1.8 design that should, but is not guaranteed to, come in under $150.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 21, 2020)

RF 70-135mm f/2L So I wasn't dreaming. It will be real.


----------



## slclick (Feb 21, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Who cares about that f/7.1 pancake if there is 10-24/4.


Well, I do not want a 7.1 pancake but I'll take a 28mm 2.something.Personally I won't be interested in the 10-24 with my 16-35. Not doubling up.


----------



## mariosk1gr (Feb 21, 2020)

50 and 85 with is and stm motors on a budget would be top selling!!! I imagine 200-400$ each. I hope it comes true! Canon is rocking atm...!!! 35mm is already a macro lens and 50mm is also a macro lens. What else to ask really? Holy $hit...


----------



## Act444 (Feb 21, 2020)

“Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 MACRO IS STM”

This NEEDS to happen! Especially if it is equivalent or better optically than the already good 35mm version. 

An 85mm version may potentially be of interest to me as well. 

“ Canon RF 70-135mm f/2L USM ”

I wonder how large this would be if it were to materialize. Still, it would be nice to see Canon continue to offer ultra fast lens options in addition to the f7.1s popping up as of late.


----------



## mariosk1gr (Feb 21, 2020)

A 2nd holy trinity f2 is no question on the roadmap. We don't know when but Canon is going to do it! Period. Very expensive though and I imagine not in 1st priority also..


----------



## bks54 (Feb 21, 2020)

This is an amazing list. But why release the converters without well-suited primes to use them with?


----------



## Daan Stam (Feb 21, 2020)

It wouldn't surprise me if a couple of big whites get announced apart from the normal lineup, with the tokyo olympics around the corner. it would be a nice gesture to have the new big sports camera out with a new big shiny white. especially if it is like a 500/600 mm ultra light and small f4 DO. or maybe even something with a crazier f stop


----------



## rontele7 (Feb 21, 2020)

Seems a little boring, given that Canon promised new and inventive lenses along with the R system.

The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.

Why no 17-55mm f/2.8? Why no telephoto lenses faster than f/7.1? Why no L primes smaller than their EF counterparts? 

Did we really need a junky 24-105?


----------



## Kit. (Feb 21, 2020)

slclick said:


> Personally I won't be interested in the 10-24 with my 16-35. Not doubling up.


Personally, I'm not interested in a "wide-angle" lens longer than 24 mm. 10-14, on the other hand, would be a nice addition to TS-E 17.


----------



## slclick (Feb 21, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Seems a little boring, given that Canon promised new and inventive lenses along with the R system.
> 
> The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.
> 
> ...


 Your 'We' and Canon's 'We' are two very different things.

ONCE AGAIN,
there are a few more of us out there than those who frequent the forum and spent thousands on gear. (pssst, it's called the majority)


----------



## Fran Decatta (Feb 21, 2020)

That 50 and 85 1.8 looks good! but the 70-135... this will be a huge (and desirable) chunk of glass.

Also... I wonder the angle of view of that 10mm, I dont need it, but love to see Canon making unique lenses. Those one are jewels.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 21, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Along with the f/1.2L primes.


I'm gonna have some seriously difficult buying choices in the next year... I'm trying to hold out to see if/what we get from Canon as a true video centric RF body, but as it stands now, the R6 ain't lookin too shabby depending on how the final specs pan out.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 21, 2020)

Fran Decatta said:


> That 50 and 85 1.8 looks good! but the 70-135... this will be a huge (and desirable) chunk of glass.
> 
> Also... I wonder the angle of view of that 10mm, I dont need it, but love to see Canon making unique lenses. Those one are jewels.


That will be another $3000 machine or more like the 28-70 f2. If you can swing it though, it would be worth every penny


----------



## wockawocka (Feb 21, 2020)

Those STM lenses can f**k right off


----------



## MadScotsman (Feb 21, 2020)

joestopper said:


> Missing:
> - 24 f/1.2
> - 14-28 f/2



I dunno. 

I read “ultra-wide prime L” and got rather happy about it. 

But, none of these seem to be an ultra-wide prime by my reconning.

Guess some will make the case for the 35, but to me it would be a 24 or less, preferably.

I was thinking that an ultra-wide prime might drive the sale of a few Ra’s.

And all that.


----------



## mppix (Feb 21, 2020)

slclick said:


> Well, I do not want a 7.1 pancake but I'll take a 28mm 2.something.Personally I won't be interested in the 10-24 with my 16-35. Not doubling up.


You are kidding right?
Difference of 10mm vs 16mm is massive. Clearly, 10 is a rather specialized focal length.


----------



## martin_p_a (Feb 21, 2020)

I’d be interested in the 10-24 f/4L for landscapes. Right now the only RF lens i have is the 24-105 f/4L. I’d also like to see an ultra-wide and fast prime to try my hand at astrophotography (not deep-space obviously).

And then the 85 and 50 would be interesting too if the IQ is there to cover some more situations.

currently have the RP, but the R5 is so tempting, I might sell a few non-vital organs this year...


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 21, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.


The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 is a whole stop. That's great. It might be fringe, but I want one. RF 28-70mm f/2L, RF 70-135mm f/2L, RF 85mm f/1.2L and I will be a very happy guy for a very long time.


----------



## mppix (Feb 21, 2020)

R5 and now this. I can see a lot of the 5D crowd getting interested in RF... at least the ones i know


----------



## per.farny (Feb 21, 2020)

No word on the previously rumored 70-400L? :/


----------



## dwarven (Feb 21, 2020)

That 70-135 sounds tasty.


----------



## tron (Feb 21, 2020)

Come on Canon give me a big small DO    

Big in mm
Small in size weight and money!

Ok OK I will wake up!


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Feb 21, 2020)

dwarven said:


> That 70-135 sounds tasty.


Agreed !!
CRAIG - please chase down this particular lens rumour until you get confirmation. Do not rest until then!  
Cheers
Stoical


----------



## fox40phil (Feb 21, 2020)

To sad no real birder lens.... like a 200-500 5.f or 600 6.3f or also 5.6f <3.... 

really strange setup!


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Feb 21, 2020)

This hits a chunk of of my wish-list; the 10-24 f/4, and f/1.8 primes are something I'm looking for. I hope the 50 1.8 takes more after the EF 1.4 than it does the plastic fantastic. Mid-range, moderate weight primes are what I'd like to see. But missing a real macro lens still . I guess I'll just continue to fantasize about a 180mm RF macro (but even my fantasies can't summon an RF MPE-65).

(I actually like the EF 50 f/1.8; it's really cool that a fairly fast prime is so light and so cheap, even if the IQ is fairly bad. But I'd like to upgrade. But I also understand that Canon might not want three different primes at the same length right off the bat.)


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 21, 2020)

Act444 said:


> “Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 MACRO IS STM”
> 
> This NEEDS to happen! Especially if it is equivalent or better optically than the already good 35mm version.
> 
> ...


I've been waiting so long for a Canon 50-60 macro...that, in despair, I bought the Zeiss (very very good), and the EOS R in order to use my 60 and 100 Leica R macros (absolutely superb) .
But if Canon brings the 50 macro, I'm gonna buy it for its AF, and as a standard lens.
Hope it's gonna get true!


----------



## Skux (Feb 21, 2020)

Finally some f1.8 glass. I hope it's at the same quality and price level of the RF 35.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 21, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.


19 mm difference in bokeh ball sizes is quite massive, I'd say.


----------



## max (Feb 21, 2020)

I want a 135mm f/2L prime...
If the 70-135mm f/2 is gonna be as heavy as the 28-70 f/2 I am not interested.


----------



## joestopper (Feb 21, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Seems a little boring, given that Canon promised new and inventive lenses along with the R system.
> 
> The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.
> 
> ...



What???

The diff between f/2.8 and f/2 is ONE STOP.
What is ONE STOP? -> 100% more light (2 X) !


----------



## dwarven (Feb 21, 2020)

max said:


> I want a 135mm f/2L prime...
> If the 70-135mm f/2 is gonna be as heavy as the 28-70 f/2 I am not interested.



Time to hit the gym and pump those guns up.


----------



## slclick (Feb 21, 2020)

mppix said:


> You are kidding right?
> Difference of 10mm vs 16mm is massive. Clearly, 10 is a rather specialized focal length.


Not if that type of shooting isn't your gig. I don't have the need to own every mm of focal length, just what I like and utilize. No I'm not kidding. It will be wonderful for others no doubt.


----------



## Jstnelson (Feb 21, 2020)

Ugh, Canon is making way too many lenses I want. I've been desperately hoping that a 35mm f1.2L was coming this year to compliment my new RF 85mm 1.2L so I hope it's true! I have my fingers crossed for a 135mm f1.4L in 2021 and maybe an ultrawide f1.2 prime as well


----------



## Adelino (Feb 21, 2020)

The Canon RF 70-135mm f/2L USM sounds intriguing!


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Feb 21, 2020)

No IS for the Canon RF 70-135mm f/2L USM? Seems strange...


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Feb 21, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Seems a little boring, given that Canon promised new and inventive lenses along with the R system.
> 
> The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.
> 
> ...



LOL, I hope you were joking when you wrote 17-55mm...


----------



## jansberg (Feb 21, 2020)

Keeping fingers crossed for cheapish 50mm and 85mm - and hoping for a 100mm f/2..
My ideal prime combo is a 50mm and a 100mm


----------



## unfocused (Feb 21, 2020)

daaningrid said:


> ...it would be a nice gesture to have the new big sports camera out with a new big shiny white...


What new big sports camera are you referring to? A 1 series R is not likely to appear before 2021.


----------



## joestopper (Feb 21, 2020)

yoms said:


> No IS for the Canon RF 70-135mm f/2L USM? Seems strange...



Not strange at all: This lens is already MASSIVE without IS. With IS, this would be practically infeasible ...


----------



## Rule556 (Feb 21, 2020)

slclick said:


> No pancake.



I'm into the 10-24mm f/4 though. I love playing with wide angles.


----------



## BillB (Feb 21, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Indeed, but my concern is more that there's nothing on this list that will be cheap enough for some people, including those on this forum, who would like to move into the R ecosystem without spending a lot of money. IS drives up the cost, as I'm sure we all know, and I don't know how valuable it is in a 50mm 1.8 design that should, but is not guaranteed to, come in under $150.


My guess is that the 50 f1.8 and the 85mm f1.8 will be priced about the same as the 35 f1.8. The least expensive lens in the bunch will likely be the 24-105 f4-f7.1


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 21, 2020)

joestopper said:


> Not strange at all: This lens is already MASSIVE without IS. With IS, this would be practically infeasible ...


With the new bodies coming out with IBIS... IS missing isn't a big deal anyway.


----------



## TMHKR (Feb 21, 2020)

I know that the R5 is hot stuff right now, but where's the dirt-cheap lens collection for the RP? It would make masses finally move to full frame mirrorless. And yes, I speak about RF lenses, not EF + adapter.


----------



## rontele7 (Feb 21, 2020)

yoms said:


> LOL, I hope you were joking when you wrote 17-55mm...



Why? EF 24-105 with Speedbooster = 18-80 f/2.8 with IS. You're telling me Canon can't do a 17-55 because....?


----------



## rontele7 (Feb 21, 2020)

Kit. said:


> 19 mm difference in bokeh ball sizes is quite massive, I'd say.



Literally 0 people on earth can even imagine what "19mm in bokeh ball sizes" even means. That's the most pixel peeping comment I've ever read on the internet.


----------



## rontele7 (Feb 21, 2020)

joestopper said:


> What???
> 
> The diff between f/2.8 and f/2 is ONE STOP.
> What is ONE STOP? -> 100% more light (2 X) !



What percentage of the time is a 70-200mm f/2.8 too dark? 1%? Maybe 3% on a really bad shoot?


----------



## timmy_650 (Feb 21, 2020)

I hope they sneak a wide angle cheap zoom in there. Something to make the RP more appealing to the masses. A 16-35 f2.8-4 for $400-$500 or something close to those numbers.


----------



## docsmith (Feb 21, 2020)

…._wiping drool off keyboard....._


----------



## Aaron Lozano (Feb 21, 2020)

ok, so... 

R5 Body at some 4K 
*Canon RF 15-35MM F2.8L IS USM or Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM 
Canon RF 28-70mm F2L USM or  Canon RF 24-70MM F2.8L IS USM*
Canon RF 70-135mm f/2L USM + 1.4 extender or * Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM*

2020 and 2021 are going to be expensive


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 21, 2020)

Aaron Lozano said:


> 2020 and 2021 are going to be expensive


Thank god so expensive that I cannot afford it and won't have to buy a thing.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 21, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> What percentage of the time is a 70-200mm f/2.8 too dark? 1%? Maybe 3% on a really bad shoot?


For your uses, maybe. Don't forget that others have their own uses.

f/2 vs f/2.8:
In the same light it means twice the shutter speed. Example: 1/100 sec vs 1/50 sec
In the same light it means half the ISO. Example: ISO 600 vs ISO 1200

For people who shoot in low light venues without flash, this is all a big deal. I used to run the f/2.8 zooms (EF 24-70 f/2.8L II, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II) and there were many times I could have really used the extra stop to get better quality. If you are happy with f/2.8 then I am happy for you. I'll take f/2 over that any day of the week, especially in a zoom... not to mention smoother bokeh. I shoot fashion shows for a charity. The lighting is usually not very good. I'll take all the light gathering ability I can get for faster shutter speeds and lower ISO.


----------



## mclaren777 (Feb 21, 2020)

70-135mm f/2 would be great, but I also want a 14-28mm f/2 to go with it.


----------



## BillB (Feb 21, 2020)

TMHKR said:


> I know that the R5 is hot stuff right now, but where's the dirt-cheap lens collection for the RP? It would make masses finally move to full frame mirrorless. And yes, I speak about RF lenses, not EF + adapter.


The RF 24-105 f4-f7.1 seems likely to be one of the least expensive RF lenses that Canon puts out. Maybe there will be an RF pancake along the lines of the EF40. There might be an inexpensive RF telezoom, and possibly an inexpensive wide angle zoom, but I doubt there will be many other lenses that cost less than the $500 RF 35mm.


----------



## slclick (Feb 21, 2020)

yoms said:


> LOL, I hope you were joking when you wrote 17-55mm...


exactly...because he also wrote original (not to mention crop)


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 21, 2020)

mclaren777 said:


> 70-135mm f/2 would be great, but I also want a 14-28mm f/2 to go with it.


We might just get our wish.


----------



## slclick (Feb 21, 2020)

Rule556 said:


> I'm into the 10-24mm f/4 though. I love playing with wide angles.


I'm good at 14 to 16. Anything else wider is fun but just that. Playful.


----------



## Bert63 (Feb 21, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> To sad no real birder lens.... like a 200-500 5.f or 600 6.3f or also 5.6f <3....
> 
> really strange setup!



No love for us... sniff...


----------



## IcyBergs (Feb 21, 2020)

slclick said:


> No pancake.


I know right....I was hoping to pour some syrup on a fresh flapjack this year


----------



## Bert63 (Feb 21, 2020)

Every single time I read the specs on the 100-500 I die a little inside.

It could have been amazing. Considering the 500mm F4 I want is $10K, I'd have paid a pretty penny for a nice 100-500.

This thing is a doorstop.


----------



## Bert63 (Feb 21, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> I know right....I was hoping to pour some syrup on a fresh flapjack this year



LOL.


----------



## Tom W (Feb 21, 2020)

Interesting - that 10-24 would appeal to me. Actually, the 70-135 would too, but I wouldn't be wanting to spend that kind of money on a lens that I probably would get very little use from. 

As mentioned by someone else, no super telephotos seem to be on the list. Perhaps they'll be coming in 2021, though the teleconverter announcement suggests that something big and long is on its way.

Maybe I should rephrase that...


----------



## joestopper (Feb 21, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> What percentage of the time is a 70-200mm f/2.8 too dark? 1%? Maybe 3% on a really bad shoot?



In-door sports: Shutter at 1/320 or 1/500 at f/2.8: Where is your ISO?


----------



## Kit. (Feb 21, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Literally 0 people on earth can even imagine what "19mm in bokeh ball sizes" even means. That's the most pixel peeping comment I've ever read on the internet.


If you don't understand what it means, you could have asked.

But anyway, why are you trying to compare portrait lenses if you don't understand what it means?


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Feb 21, 2020)

As a terrible photographer, I demand more terrible lenses.


----------



## rontele7 (Feb 21, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Every single time I read the specs on the 100-500 I die a little inside.
> 
> It could have been amazing. Considering the 500mm F4 I want is $10K, I'd have paid a pretty penny for a nice 100-500.
> 
> This thing is a doorstop.



Yeah I'm with you there. But I also think that if this 100-500 is small and lightweight, it will be quite valuable. Not many folks want to hike with a 500mm f/4, so perhaps this is the compromise. The 100-400 also fits in there as a middle ground too. 

That said, Sony's 200-600 f/6.3 is the only Sony lens I have ever drooled over!


----------



## Bert63 (Feb 21, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Yeah I'm with you there. But I also think that if this 100-500 is small and lightweight, it will be quite valuable. Not many folks want to hike with a 500mm f/4, so perhaps this is the compromise. The 100-400 also fits in there as a middle ground too.
> 
> That said, Sony's 200-600 f/6.3 is the only Sony lens I have ever drooled over!



I was hoping for something I could put a 1.4 on. Up here on Washington's coast shooting my 100-400 II + 1.4III at F8 is a challenge - and I'm always looking for more reach.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Feb 21, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Seems a little boring, given that Canon promised new and inventive lenses along with the R system.
> 
> The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.
> 
> ...



It just fries my mind that we live in a world where f/2.0 zooms in a multitude of prospective sizes doesn't count as an example of new and inventive. What did you want? Sparklers shooting out of it? In all honesty, why does an array of f/2.0 zooms NOT count as new and inventive, but a copy of an already available (granted crop-sensor) lens DOES? 

And to answer your question about the "junky" 24-105, yeah, we did need it. Because like it or not, consumer-level sales are going to drive the development of this product line, not the other way around. If this plus an entry-level body drives adoption of the R series into the mainstream, I'm all for it. I doubt I'll buy one, but I'm more than happy to let the sales of them pay for the engineering and development of products I likely will buy in the future.


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Feb 21, 2020)

Of all these, I'm most interested in the 85mm 1.8


----------



## mppix (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> What percentage of the time is a 70-200mm f/2.8 too dark? 1%? Maybe 3% on a really bad shoot?


Dark?
This would make an amazing portrait lens if the bokeh is good.
If it is as fast as some other RF lenses, this would also make an amazing lens for indoor sports, especially at a non-pro level in arenas with less-than-stellar lighting.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 22, 2020)

50mm Macro is quite short also will it come with Internal focus?


----------



## Ale_F (Feb 22, 2020)

Missing:
70-300 4-5.6 STM (not interesting for me)
17-35 4.5-5.6 STM or something similar


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Feb 22, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> 50mm Macro is quite short also will it come with Internal focus?


Camera manufacturers will slap "macro" on anything these days. It's not going to be 1:1, and, as you point out, 50mm isn't useful for macro anyway. They should call it "close focus" or something. The fact that it is close-focus is a really useful feature, and I might get the lens. But not for macro.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 22, 2020)

mppix said:


> Dark?
> This would make an amazing portrait lens if the bokeh is good.
> If it is as fast as some other RF lenses, this would also make an amazing lens for indoor sports, especially at a non-pro level in arenas with less-than-stellar lighting.


You are right! Awesome portrait lens. The EF 135mm f/2L was my favorite. f/2 in a zoom? Priceless to me. The bokeh difference between f/2 and f/2.8 is very noticeable even at 70mm. This will be a must have for me.


----------



## sanj (Feb 22, 2020)

Canon is gradually making it difficult to justify DSLR. Ok, wait. Let me add "To me". 
(Btw I just placed a pre-order for 1dx3 at B&H yesterday. )


----------



## flip314 (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Why? EF 24-105 with Speedbooster = 18-80 f/2.8 with IS. You're telling me Canon can't do a 17-55 because....?



17-55 2.8 is a crop sensor lens, speedboosters require crop sensor cameras because physics

If you're expecting 17-55 2.8 for full frame, that's a mile away from your examples.


----------



## rontele7 (Feb 22, 2020)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> It just fries my mind that we live in a world where f/2.0 zooms in a multitude of prospective sizes doesn't count as an example of new and inventive. What did you want? Sparklers shooting out of it? In all honesty, why does an array of f/2.0 zooms NOT count as new and inventive, but a copy of an already available (granted crop-sensor) lens DOES?
> 
> And to answer your question about the "junky" 24-105, yeah, we did need it. Because like it or not, consumer-level sales are going to drive the development of this product line, not the other way around. If this plus an entry-level body drives adoption of the R series into the mainstream, I'm all for it. I doubt I'll buy one, but I'm more than happy to let the sales of them pay for the engineering and development of products I likely will buy in the future.



Usability. 

28-70mm is such a bizarre focal length. Are people really eager to shoot at 70mm f/2, enough to justify MASSIVE weight, cost and size penalties? For what? Sigma nailed it with an 18-35 and 50-100 f/1.8 lenses. Extremely useful focal lengths for a wide variety of applications.

The 17-55 f/2.8 is supremely useful in a massive range of situations. Same goes for an 18-80mm f/2.8. Those are show stopping focal lengths. Given the improvements in ISO, f/2 isn't really all that it used to be.

Given that the 18-80 f/2.8 already exists w/speed boosters, what's mind boggling is that Canon didn't just take that internally and produce a knockout lens.

Instead we are getting slow f/7.1 zooms and enormous expensive f/2's. Both have limited usability. That doesn't look like innovation to me.


----------



## 6degrees (Feb 22, 2020)

Canon RF 14-21mm f/1.4L USM

Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM


----------



## FramerMCB (Feb 22, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> Supposedly combining 5-stop IBIS and optical stabilization results in a wild 7 or 8 stops of stabilization. I'd think that on its own gives a pretty good incentive to add IS to lenses


Competing with the stabilization industry leader - Olympus... It's a WIN!


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> 28-70mm is such a bizarre focal length. Are people really eager to shoot at 70mm f/2, enough to justify MASSIVE weight, cost and size penalties? For what?



Yes. For this. 70mm @f/2


----------



## Rixy (Feb 22, 2020)

anxious for 35mm


----------



## Dantana (Feb 22, 2020)

slclick said:


> Well, I do not want a 7.1 pancake but I'll take a 28mm 2.something.Personally I won't be interested in the 10-24 with my 16-35. Not doubling up.


Yeah, as fun as it might be to have a 10 once in a while, I have a feeling this is going to be pricey and larger than the f4 wide zoom I'd be looking for. I wouldn't use the widest end enough and it would be more than I'd want to spend (and probably bulbous). A very cool lens for some though and maybe something I'd rent for special use case.

I'd love a 15 or 16-35 or 40 at f4, but I can wait on it. My adapted lenses work just fine for now.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 22, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> Camera manufacturers will slap "macro" on anything these days. It's not going to be 1:1, and, as you point out, 50mm isn't useful for macro anyway. They should call it "close focus" or something. The fact that it is close-focus is a really useful feature, and I might get the lens. But not for macro.


Its possible this is similar to current RF 35mm f1.8 Macro. 50mm macro is useful for quite few scenarios(product and flowers photography) while its not that useful for insects, butterflies and snakes or for things where even 100mm Macro is too short. I am just curious if it is indeed a 1:1 macro with IF which I might be useful for anything other than closeups of snakes and lizards.


----------



## reef58 (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Usability.
> 
> 28-70mm is such a bizarre focal length. Are people really eager to shoot at 70mm f/2, enough to justify MASSIVE weight, cost and size penalties? For what? Sigma nailed it with an 18-35 and 50-100 f/1.8 lenses. Extremely useful focal lengths for a wide variety of applications.
> 
> ...



I am sure Canon knows nothing about which lenses are useful, popular and good sellers.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Seems a little boring, given that Canon promised new and inventive lenses along with the R system.
> 
> The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.
> 
> ...



35mm 1.2
70-135mm F2.0
10-24mm F4.0

are boring to you?

were you waiting for the 10-1000 F1.0 lens by any chance?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 22, 2020)

FramerMCB said:


> Competing with the stabilization industry leader - Olympus... It's a WIN!


I highly doubt Canon competes with Olympus. They're in different leagues. The latter doesn't even have a full frame camera so it can't be a leader in the FF stabilisation.

Nikon and Sony are the Canon's competitors.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> 28-70mm is such a bizarre focal length.


it is? that was the standard F2.8 lens zoom focal for nikon and canon for a few decades


----------



## Bangrossi (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> What percentage of the time is a 70-200mm f/2.8 too dark? 1%? Maybe 3% on a really bad shoot?



After having EF 200mm f2 in my arsenal, I rarely using my 70-200mm and finally decided to sell it. Going from f2.8 to f/2 doesn't sound a lot, but it let me shoot at ISO1600 rather ISO3200 inside the church. The image quality and rendering also improved. Geting extra 1 stop is like upgrading from aps-c to FF. 

But everyone have diffrent need, maybe 1 stop does't matter to you, but for other people 1 extra stop is huge. Other might prefer 70-200 f4 for it's size and don't care losing extra 1 stop from f2.8 zoom.

Luckyly, canon provide many possible lens option for us to choose based on our case scnario.


----------



## BadHorse (Feb 22, 2020)

I'm curious why the 50 would be labelled macro. Does perhaps the shorter flange distance in the RF mount allow shorter MFD so it's easier to give RF lenses that label?


----------



## Jethro (Feb 22, 2020)

Bangrossi said:


> Luckyly, canon provide many possible lens option for us to choose based on our case scnario.


And that's a big part of the reason that most of use Canon. And the lens options for the EOS R series include the full range of EF lenses adapted seamlessly. So the new range of RF lenses (apart from the holy trinities) seem to me to be _in addition to_ the EF range at this stage. Some to show off the possibilities of the new mount, others filling gaps. I'd personally love them to produce an RF version of the 100mm 2.8 macro (o similar), but they won't because they have two perfectly good EF versions which they expect me to adapt. And eventually, in their own good time, when they update those lenses the update will likely be in RF. And similar for a whole bunch of lenses that people want.


----------



## Jethro (Feb 22, 2020)

BadHorse said:


> I'm curious why the 50 would be labelled macro. Does perhaps the shorter flange distance in the RF mount allow shorter MFD so it's easier to give RF lenses that label?


It's likely to be more of a 'close focusing' function rather than a true macro, like the recent 24 - 105mm. With max (say) .4 to .5 magnification in focus. Not sure that the flange difference in the RF makes much difference from a macro point of view (others may have more detailed knowledge).


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Feb 22, 2020)

I don't think the shorter flange distance would help, because if you want to macroify a lens, you'd add extension tubes to move the lens _away_ from the sensor.


----------



## Cbenedict (Feb 22, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> Dear God... the Trinity of f2 zooms may actually be coming true...


And it would only be the size of a watermelon and weigh 5lbs (2.26kg)


----------



## canonnews (Feb 22, 2020)

BadHorse said:


> I'm curious why the 50 would be labelled macro. Does perhaps the shorter flange distance in the RF mount allow shorter MFD so it's easier to give RF lenses that label?


it would probably be a .5x macro like the 35mm .. and have a similar optical design. it's just the optical design, flange distance doesn't play a factor.

here's the potential patent application discussing the 35 and possibly a new 28 and 50mm 1.8 macro.








Canon Patent Application: Canon RF 50mm F1.8, RF 28mm 1.8


Buried in the RF 35mm 1.8 patent application is two more lenses that have a very high degree of chance of being made This patent application also contains the 50mm 1.8 and the 28mm 1.8 lenses. Both of these lenses are for the RF mount as the back focus (BF) is around 20mm or under. The 28mm...



www.canonnews.com


----------



## BadHorse (Feb 22, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> I don't think the shorter flange distance would help, because if you want to macroify a lens, you'd add extension tubes to move the lens _away_ from the sensor.


Good point.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 22, 2020)

70-135 f2? Where do I sell my kidney?


----------



## reefroamer (Feb 22, 2020)

TMHKR said:


> I know that the R5 is hot stuff right now, but where's the dirt-cheap lens collection for the RP? It would make masses finally move to full frame mirrorless. And yes, I speak about RF lenses, not EF + adapter.


It looks like there soon will be a pretty affordable two-zoom lens RF combo to cover 24-500mm. And that could be stretched from 10-500mm with a reasonable price on 10-24mm zoom. Not a bad way to get started in the RF system, IMHO. Affordable 35, 50 and 85mm primes expand the options. If ”dirt cheap” is your thing, you might want to consider alternatives to the RF system.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 22, 2020)

TMHKR said:


> I know that the R5 is hot stuff right now, but where's the dirt-cheap lens collection for the RP?


24-105 F4-7.1
35mm1.8
50mm F1.8
85mm F1.8
24-240mm

seems like a good start to me. just really missing a UWA and a 70-200 option really. you have a trinity of f1.8's and a normal zoom and a 10x zoom.


----------



## reefroamer (Feb 22, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yes. For this. 70mm @f/2
> View attachment 188870


Awesome. Love it! Too big and heavy (the lens, not the model!) for my style, but it has its place, for sure, as you’ve demonstrated here. Nice work.


----------



## Dexter75 (Feb 22, 2020)

Finally! Hope this is true and we finally get some inexpensive primes aside from the bone they threw us with the RF 35. I would be all over that 70-135 though, assuming it wasnt something ridiculous like $2200


----------



## sanj (Feb 22, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> Finally! Hope this is true and we finally get some inexpensive primes aside from the bone they threw us with the RF 35. I would be all over that 70-135 though, assuming it wasnt something ridiculous like $2200


$2600


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Why? EF 24-105 with Speedbooster = 18-80 f/2.8 with IS. You're telling me Canon can't do a 17-55 because....?


17-55 is for APS-C sensor, not for FF sensor.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Feb 22, 2020)

joestopper said:


> Not strange at all: This lens is already MASSIVE without IS. With IS, this would be practically infeasible ...


I’m not sure of that at all given the designs the R mount allows. Also, these focal lengths are begging for IS.


----------



## martin_p_a (Feb 22, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> Finally! Hope this is true and we finally get some inexpensive primes aside from the bone they threw us with the RF 35. I would be all over that 70-135 though, assuming it wasnt something ridiculous like $2200



I don’t know... if we are to consider it like the equivalent of the 70-200 but within a new f/2 trinity, I can’t see it being this affordable. Of course there’s a significant loss of zoom power, but my money would be something closer to 3200$


----------



## martin_p_a (Feb 22, 2020)

yoms said:


> I’m not sure of that at all given the designs the R mount allows. Also, these focal lengths are begging for IS.



with IBIS — if they do a good job implementing it — it’d be as if it had it... just not in the lens, so not as cumbersome. And lenses *with* IS would just have better stabilization at the price of size and weight


----------



## usern4cr (Feb 22, 2020)

The RF 70-135 f2 is what interests me most. I know the size will be really big, so I would have to compare it to their RF 70-200 f2.8 to decide which one I'd be willing to lug around.

The extra 2x of light from f2.8 to f2 is nice, but only a secondary advantage IMHO. The main advantage is that the area of the f2 bokeh blur will be 2x that of the 2.8 which will make for truly stunning portrait images. That is the whole point of the 70-135 range.

The RF 70-200 f2.8 ability to go to 200mm will have the advantage of more zoom range and the bokeh at 200mm will have the advantage that the background size is expanded and thus make the bokeh appear even smoother.

If I was a professional, I'd get the 70-135 f2 to make money on portraits. But I'm just a prosumer, so I'm guessing I would be better suited with the 70-200 f2.8 for the smaller & lighter lens with more long telephoto use & backgroung magnification, plus adding optical IS will result in better stabilization than just IBIS alone.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Usability.
> 
> 28-70mm is such a bizarre focal length. Are people really eager to shoot at 70mm f/2, enough to justify MASSIVE weight, cost and size penalties? For what? Sigma nailed it with an 18-35 and 50-100 f/1.8 lenses. Extremely useful focal lengths for a wide variety of applications.
> 
> ...


Hope by now that you understood that your answers/comments are “wrong” because you mix sensor sizes and crop factors. The 17-55 you want is actually the “boring” 28-70 as you say.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Feb 22, 2020)

Hope the 70-135 f2 is black and not white!!!!!!


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Feb 22, 2020)

Would the R mount allow for a 10-24mm f/4L USM *with* front filter thread? One can dream.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Feb 22, 2020)

canonnews said:


> were you waiting for the 10-1000 F1.0 lens by any chance?



If it doesn’t have IS and dual card slots, count me out.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 22, 2020)

sanj said:


> $2600


I'll say $3k like the 28-70.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Usability.
> 
> Given that the 18-80 f/2.8 already exists w/speed boosters, what's mind boggling is that Canon didn't just take that internally and produce a knockout lens.
> 
> Instead we are getting slow f/7.1 zooms and enormous expensive f/2's. Both have limited usability. That doesn't look like innovation to me.



A speedbooster doesn’t magically make a lens faster, it just optically diffracts the image behind the aperture to make it seem faster. And wider. The f/2.0 lens released so far, and its prospective trinity accompaniments, represent actual innovation and engineering. They’re big because that’s what it takes to gather that kind of light. I’ll take actual optics over parlor tricks any day.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Usability.
> Sigma nailed it with an 18-35 and 50-100 f/1.8 lenses. Extremely useful focal lengths for a wide variety of applications.


these are APS-C lenses, not full frame lenses.


----------



## PiezoSwitch (Feb 22, 2020)

gzroxas said:


> I’d really love to have a small but excellent quality 85 1.8 IS!


Truly. Although I'd prefer something just a bit longer like my cherished 100/2 EF USM. Adding 4 stops of IS is a dream come true.


----------



## PiezoSwitch (Feb 22, 2020)

mariosk1gr said:


> 50 and 85 with is and stm motors on a budget would be top selling!!! I imagine 200-400$ each. I hope it comes true! Canon is rocking atm...!!! 35mm is already a macro lens and 50mm is also a macro lens. What else to ask really? Holy $hit...


That would truly be delightful. The 35mm is a stellar performer at a great price plus having IS makes it such a useful lens for my shooting.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 22, 2020)

Since the 35mm IS STM is around 500 and the optical forumula for the 50mm IS STM is very similar I'd expect it around the same price.

These lenses aren't going to be as cheap as their EF counterparts, given the fact that they are new optical designs.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Seems a little boring, given that Canon promised new and inventive lenses along with the R system.
> 
> The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.
> 
> ...


----------



## deleteme (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Seems a little boring, given that Canon promised new and inventive lenses along with the R system.
> 
> The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.
> 
> ...


Scarcely seems boring as the 70-135 f2 is not in anyone else’s line up. As for f2 not being much different then you would not be impressed by the 28-70f2 which in my experience was dramatically better than the 24-70 f2.8.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 22, 2020)

I completely skipped over the 10-24. As an EF 11-24 owner I would snap that up in a minute. With the promise of the lenses listed here there is scant reason not to dump all my EF lenses and bodies and move entirely to RF. 
With the R5 promising substantial improvements over the R I will be selling that also and getting 2 R5 bodies to complete the transition to the new mirrorless paradigm.


----------



## Rule556 (Feb 22, 2020)

slclick said:


> I'm good at 14 to 16. Anything else wider is fun but just that. Playful.


That‘s all I do.


----------



## ved112dei (Feb 22, 2020)

RF 50 f1.8 & 85 f1.8 at the same level as RF 35 1.8, well I'm sold for EOS R or new R6
In a nutshell companies lens offering make things easier to decide in terms of choosing ecosystem, Fuji XT4 looks promising but their lens options are limited and old.


----------



## i_SH (Feb 22, 2020)

Canon, again, everything for maniacs? 
When will you release a pair of 16-40 / 4 and 50-200 / 4 lenses for fans?


----------



## Bennymiata (Feb 22, 2020)

I was lusting over the RF16-35, but now the 10-24 looks like it will be the one to get me to retire my ef16-35 2.8LII.


----------



## Rule556 (Feb 22, 2020)

Ale_F said:


> Missing:
> 70-300 4-5.6 STM (not interesting for me)
> 17-35 4.5-5.6 STM or something similar



I’m a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM owner, and I love it. It’s a fantastic budget travel lens, and it compliments the current 24-105mm f/4L really well in a travel kit. I am upgrading to the RF 24-105 f/4L, and would love an RF version of the 70-300. Depending on the cost and size though, the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM sounds really intriguing for my needs. If it’s still around f/5.6 at 300mm, and it’s $1,000 or less, I’ll be REALLY intrigued.


----------



## joestopper (Feb 22, 2020)

yoms said:


> I’m not sure of that at all given the designs the R mount allows. Also, these focal lengths are begging for IS.



Same reason why the RF 28-70 has no IS.


----------



## joestopper (Feb 22, 2020)

Rule556 said:


> I’m a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM owner, and I love it. It’s a fantastic budget travel lens, and it compliments the current 24-105mm f/4L really well in a travel kit. I am upgrading to the RF 24-105 f/4L, and would love an RF version of the 70-300. Depending on the cost and size though, the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM sounds really intriguing for my needs. If it’s still around f/5.6 at 300mm, and it’s $1,000 or less, I’ll be REALLY intrigued.



Why would it be any cheaper than the EF 100-400 II ? No way ...


----------



## motofotog (Feb 22, 2020)

If they are planing for more f7.1 RF lens I hope they don’t launch it.


----------



## Rule556 (Feb 22, 2020)

joestopper said:


> Why would it be any cheaper than the EF 100-400 II ? No way ...


Well... We’re all dreaming here. 

Really though, an RF 70-300 f4-5.6 is a lens I’ll buy.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 22, 2020)

gzroxas said:


> I’d really love to have a small but excellent quality 85 1.8 IS!


Hopefully the missing MACRO designation is some typo - that would be the hammer lens for me combined with the RF 35 MACRO - or we have to wait another year for a RF f/2.0 100 IS Macro ?


----------



## padam (Feb 22, 2020)

yoms said:


> Would the R mount allow for a 10-24mm f/4L USM *with* front filter thread? One can dream.


With that extreme field-of-view, that's a clear no. Maybe a rear filter slot, but that would also compromise the optical design a bit.
It will need a special filter kit, but it does not need to be quite as enormous as it was with the 11-24mm.
One advantage the old 11-24mm has over the RF lens is the EF adapters with built-in filters.

Of course there have been DIY attempts at putting a filter on the Sony 12-24mm lens, but it will only work for 14mm onwards.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 22, 2020)

mariosk1gr said:


> 50 and 85 with is and stm motors on a budget would be top selling!!! I imagine 200-400$ each. I hope it comes true! Canon is rocking atm...!!! 35mm is already a macro lens and 50mm is also a macro lens. What else to ask really? Holy $hit...


Sorry to finish your dreams but I think prices will be slightly above the 500-550 $ / EUR for the RF35 because large focal lengths at the same aperture need larger (diameter) and thicker lenses and AF motors / IS have to move more weight. And I am shure they will use advanced lens designs like RF 35 (and not that of the current nifty fifty).

But my RF35 is worth every buck: good wide open, excellent above @f/2.8 and very very flexible due to its image stabilization and MACRO FUNCTION !!!


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 22, 2020)

Kit. said:


> 19 mm difference in bokeh ball sizes is quite massive, I'd say.


agree and... that's a full stop of a difference.. double in price and size / weight... at least...


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 22, 2020)

mb66energy said:


> Hopefully the missing MACRO designation is some typo - that would be the hammer lens for me combined with the RF 35 MACRO - or we have to wait another year for a RF f/2.0 100 IS Macro ?



I hope not, I would really like the RF85 f/1.8 to be internally focussing, not massively extend like the RF35 f/1.8.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Seems a little boring, given that Canon promised new and inventive lenses along with the R system.
> 
> The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.
> 
> ...



"We" are not representative. Maybe Canon sees its only chance to reinstall FF cameras in "normal" households because this is the only chance to differentiate from smart phones.
In that case, if a 600$ mirrorless full frame body will enter the market, this lens is the only chance to stay within 1000$ / EUR for advanced "normal" users.
While "we" are able to buy a 3 000 $/EUR camera / lens / whatever every year or every two years this is not possible for maybe 80% of the population of industrialized countries.
Or think about a beginning reporter in a non-industrialized country, where a high yearly income is close to 3000 $/EUR!

I am more or less a prime shooter but I used my M50 with the EF-M 18-55 for a week because I had to reduce my luggage and it worked very well photographically. IQ and low light capabilities are on the lower side and I am really spoiled with EF-M 32 but for 90% of photograph taking people it's more than enough!


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 22, 2020)

yoms said:


> No IS for the Canon RF 70-135mm f/2L USM? Seems strange...


there is no IS in 28-70/f2.0 but there is an IBIS in R5.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 22, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I hope not, I would really like the RF85 f/1.8 to be internally focussing, not massively extend like the RF35 f/1.8.


That's a real disadvantage of the RF35, but it's necessary to keep it that compact. An internally focusing system might add 30mm ore more to the RF35. Maybe I have to wait for an f/2.0 100 IS MACRO lens (1:2) or live with what I have: EF 100 2.0 and EF 100 2.8 M ...


----------



## Framehungry (Feb 22, 2020)

NGL the 10-24 is gonna sell like hotcakes for vloggers/youtubers


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 22, 2020)

So Canon has an expensive RF 50mm f/1.2 on one side, and a cheap RF 50mm f/1.8 on the other side, but no RF 50mm f/1.4 in the middle? Sigh.


----------



## mariosk1gr (Feb 22, 2020)

mb66energy said:


> Sorry to finish your dreams but I think prices will be slightly above the 500-550 $ / EUR for the RF35 because large focal lengths at the same aperture need larger (diameter) and thicker lenses and AF motors / IS have to move more weight. And I am shure they will use advanced lens designs like RF 35 (and not that of the current nifty fifty).
> 
> But my RF35 is worth every buck: good wide open, excellent above @f/2.8 and very very flexible due to its image stabilization and MACRO FUNCTION !!!


Ok 1 grand doesn't sound bad for 2 new RF lenses with these features against the RF L prices.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Feb 22, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> So Canon has an expensive RF 50mm f/1.2 on one side, and a cheap RF 50mm f/1.8 on the other side, but no RF 50mm f/1.4 in the middle? Sigh.



And I think it will probably never happen. f1.2 is the new f1.4 on the R mount


----------



## Joules (Feb 22, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.


Yeah, honestly, who needs an extra stop?

The guys using a 2.8 zoom today should pick up a 4.0 ASAP . Saves them cost and weight. And the current 4.0 users should get Canon to make a couple sweet 5.6 zooms, that's just a barely noticeable stop slower after all - Or, hold up! 7.1 is even less than a stop slower than 5.6, so really that's the sweet spot!

Now, that's what I would call innovation, and the internet would rejoice


----------



## Joules (Feb 22, 2020)

yoms said:


> And I think it will probably never happen. f1.2 is the new f1.4 on the R mount


If you compare based in the prices of a 50mm I would rather say 1.8 is the new 1.4. The EF 50mm 1.4 is not really comparable to the RF 50mm 1.2.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 22, 2020)

Normalnorm said:


> 70-135 f2? Where do I sell my kidney?


let's understand what corners Canon had to cut in order to arrive there first.. vignetting levels, distortions, bokeh quality. it is rather tempting...


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 22, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'll say $3k like the 28-70.


actually, I hate to tell ya...it would have been up to 10% more expensive and just a tad under $3,300.00.... sounds right to me...


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 22, 2020)

Framehungry said:


> NGL the 10-24 is gonna sell like hotcakes for vloggers/youtubers


at around $3000 a pop.. you are correct. oh, wait.


----------



## degos (Feb 22, 2020)

canonnews said:


> it is? that was the standard F2.8 lens zoom focal for nikon and canon for a few decades



Only in recent history, due to manufacturing considerations of pushing to 2.8. The classic standard zoom was the much more useful 28-85.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Feb 22, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> That will be another $3000 machine or more like the 28-70 f2. If you can swing it though, it would be worth every penny



I know! Already own the 28-70 F2. Months ago, I sold almost all my EF mount primes to purchase that monster.... and I will never regret about that change  but I work as a wedding photographer. For the moment, the combination of 17-40 f4 + 28-70 f2 is more than enough for my work. But never knows, the future will tell


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Usability.
> 
> 28-70mm is such a bizarre focal length. Are people really eager to shoot at 70mm f/2, enough to justify MASSIVE weight, cost and size penalties? For what? Sigma nailed it with an 18-35 and 50-100 f/1.8 lenses. Extremely useful focal lengths for a wide variety of applications.
> 
> ...



What exactly are you smoking? You’re talking about APS-C lenses in the context of FF lenses. Specifically, speedboosters are not magic. They take a FF image circle and shrink it to fit a crop sensor.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Feb 22, 2020)

Personally, I feel Canon should have kept the new 24-105 to a max focal range of around 70mm at about f5.6 or even f6.3 but keeping IS and the compact size in a lightweight package. Why another 24-105 so early in the RF line-up.

I like the sound of the new f1.8 primes and I’m pleased Canon is looking after us original R users by keeping IS in those lenses even though I can’t wait to see the final confirmed spec on the R5 and particularly the lower mega pixel R6


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Feb 22, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM



That is an insane long zoom-range for such a super-wide fullframe zoom. Is that even technically possible?
I know, Canon likes to demonstrate new possibilities using the R-mount, but I'm pretty skeptical about this rumor.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 22, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> That is an insane long zoom-range for such a super-wide fullframe zoom. Is that even technically possible?
> I know, Canon likes to demonstrate new possibilities using the R-mount, but I'm pretty skeptical about this rumor.



It’s just a one-mm extension to the range of the existing EF 11–24mm f/4L which, admittedly, is a bit crazy lens especially for EF. With the much shorter backfocus distance of the RF mount, a 10–24mm lens isn’t *that* surprising.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 22, 2020)

yoms said:


> Would the R mount allow for a 10-24mm f/4L USM *with* front filter thread? One can dream.


If 8+ stops of vignetting are OK to you...


----------



## degos (Feb 22, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> That is an insane long zoom-range for such a super-wide fullframe zoom. Is that even technically possible?
> I know, Canon likes to demonstrate new possibilities using the R-mount, but I'm pretty skeptical about this rumor.



Why wouldn't it be possible? We already have an EF 11-24mm f/4. The advantages of the shorter RF register distance would seem to open that up to 10mm without drama


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Feb 22, 2020)

Joules said:


> If you compare based in the prices of a 50mm I would rather say 1.8 is the new 1.4. The EF 50mm 1.4 is not really comparable to the RF 50mm 1.2.


No, not comparing the prices at all. On the R mount, the standard for a fast primes is 1.2 now. 1.4 is out of the game imho.


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 22, 2020)

yoms said:


> No, not comparing the prices at all. On the R mount, the standard for a fast primes is 1.2 now. 1.4 is out of the game imho.


But there never was a 50mm/1.4L for EF mount.


----------



## Lukas Haupt (Feb 22, 2020)

I already own 28-70/2, which is the best lens I ve ever used, but I dont see a point to buy 70-135/2 instead of 70-200. I m mostly shooting wedding and for portaits I have 85/1.2, which is also fantastic. Next lens I need has more reach, as far as I was using my previous 135/2 mostly for moments and emotions. For that purpose is (IMO) 70-200 better, because of reach and definitelly weight. I m affraid, that 70-135 will be really heavy. But we will see  Maybe I will change my mind, If it will be stellar as 28-70.


----------



## arbitrage (Feb 22, 2020)

The list seems fine. But I find it strange that if that list is correct, why are they releasing the TCs at this point? The 70-200/2.8 isn't compatible. To use on a f/7.1 lens? I could see attempting to use the 1.4 on the 100-500 but the 2x would be really pushing things for the slow f-stop.
Now maybe if this list is correct, the 70-135/2 will be compatible for a 98-189 f/2.8 and a 140-270 f/4.

But because of the release of the TCs (especially the 2x), I think the list is bogus and there has to be at least one 300mm+ prime coming f/4 or faster.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Feb 22, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> It’s just a one-mm extension to the range of the existing EF 11–24mm f/4L



Ahh, yes. I forgot about that one


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 22, 2020)

canonnews said:


> these are APS-C lenses, not full frame lenses.



Sigma’s full frame equivalent (borrowed from 18-35 design) was the excellent f/2 24-35, which was panned for shortness of zoom range, but which was also sharper than the 24 or 35 Art primes. Incredible, under-appreciated lens.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 22, 2020)

Proscribo said:


> But there never was a 50mm/1.4L for EF mount.


There was and there is.








Canon 50mm F/1.4


EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Standard AutoFocus Lens Kit, USA - Bundle with 58mm Filter Kit (UV/CPL/ND2), Lens Cap Leash, Lens Pouch, Lens Wrap (15x15")




www.adorama.com


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 22, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> There was and there is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You missed the 'L' in Proscribo's statement.


----------



## Photo Hack (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Usability.
> 
> 28-70mm is such a bizarre focal length. Are people really eager to shoot at 70mm f/2, enough to justify MASSIVE weight, cost and size penalties? For what? Sigma nailed it with an 18-35 and 50-100 f/1.8 lenses. Extremely useful focal lengths for a wide variety of applications.
> 
> ...


Can someone link the rumored Aps-c R bodies for him? I think he’s wandered into the full frame body discussion on accident. 

You may wanna slow your roll on the innovation comments about these lenses, as Canon hasn’t innovated a body yet for the lenses you’re looking for.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 22, 2020)

Until it finally launches, it isn't clear if the 10-24 is FF or APS-C......

Just saying.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 22, 2020)

Quackator said:


> Until it finally launches, it isn't clear if the 10-24 is FF or APS-C......
> 
> Just saying.


I'd say it's less likely that it launches as non-FF than that it never launches at all.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 22, 2020)

yoms said:


> And I think it will probably never happen. f1.2 is the new f1.4 on the R mount



Yes, the EF 24mm f/1.4L, 35mm f/1.4L, and 85mm f/1.4L were premium lenses with a price tag to match, and its reasonable to claim those are replaced by premium RF f/1.2L lenses.

But the 50mm f/1.4 was not L, premium, or expensive. I could settle on cheap f/1.8 primes in the RF mount, when I switch. I will definitely not fork four figure sums on L primes. I hope Canon would have a trio of 50mm primes in RF, same as it did on the EF mount.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> What percentage of the time is a 70-200mm f/2.8 too dark? 1%? Maybe 3% on a really bad shoot?



Dimly lit (read: poorly lit) ice skating shows, typically at night with faint colored show lighting. ISO 12,800 needed to stop action at f2.8.

Although, I will say that on the 5D4, the difference between 6400 and 12,800 ISO isn't, IMO, dramatic enough to justify the extra weight/expense/restriction of an f2 lens vs a 2.8. (Note: this may NOT be the case for other cameras!) However, I would have considered anything slower than f2.8 to have been unusable in that situation.

To me, when we're talking about the difference between ISO 1600 and 3200, for instance, now f2 begins to sound more appealing because IQ begins to really drop off on most cameras above 1600...


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 22, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> You missed the 'L' in Proscribo's statement.


I sure did! Thanks.


----------



## RobbieHat (Feb 22, 2020)

mariosk1gr said:


> A 2nd holy trinity f2 is no question on the roadmap. We don't know when but Canon is going to do it! Period. Very expensive though and I imagine not in 1st priority also..


I would think this trinity with the new R5 would be a godsend for wedding, event and portrait photography. I am not in that market but release all four ( camera and three lenses) and they will be selling tons of 12-15k kits.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 22, 2020)

Act444 said:


> Dimly lit (read: poorly lit) ice skating shows, typically at night with faint colored show lighting. ISO 12,800 needed to stop action at f2.8.
> 
> Although, I will say that on the 5D4, the difference between 6400 and 12,800 ISO isn't, IMO, dramatic enough to justify the extra weight/expense/restriction of an f2 lens vs a 2.8. (Note: this may NOT be the case for other cameras!) However, I would have considered anything slower than f2.8 to have been unusable in that situation.
> 
> To me, when we're talking about the difference between ISO 1600 and 3200, for instance, now f2 begins to sound more appealing because IQ begins to really drop off on most cameras above 1600...


quite opposite. on 5DIV difference between ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 isn't even noticeable, however ISO12800 becoming noisy.. much different to ISO6400


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Feb 22, 2020)

Proscribo said:


> But there never was a 50mm/1.4L for EF mount.


Alas I'd say...


----------



## Act444 (Feb 22, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> quite opposite. on 5DIV difference between ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 isn't even noticeable, however ISO12800 becoming noisy.. much different to ISO6400



If one values detail and crispness, however - and I do - that middle ISO range is where detail retention really begins to drop off (even if noise levels remain within the acceptable range). By 6400 the image is already close to mush. Thankfully color noise is kept under enough control that 12,800 isn't too much worse. 

I'm hoping this new R5 lacks an AA filter...


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 22, 2020)

RobbieHat said:


> I would think this trinity with the new R5 would be a godsend for wedding, event and portrait photography. I am not in that market but release all four ( camera and three lenses) and they will be selling tons of 12-15k kits.


I believe you are right! Just the 28-70 and 70-135 could do it all for me as a portrait shooter. The 28-70 is so darned good it will go down as the second greatest zoom ever produced. The 70-135 will hold the #1 crown. Of course, I am talking on personal terms. I won't give up my RF 85 f/1.2L though.


----------



## Trey T (Feb 22, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Seems a little boring, given that Canon promised new and inventive lenses along with the R system.
> 
> The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.
> 
> ...


The EF 135 f/2.8 maybe tack sharp at f/4.0; but perhaps the RF 135 f/2 will be sharp across all aperture size. 

Fast lenses are big and expensive to Produce and sell. Since the RP is built similar to a rebel line, the slower lenses wide range zoom can attractive for that segment of users


----------



## deleteme (Feb 22, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> let's understand what corners Canon had to cut in order to arrive there first.. vignetting levels, distortions, bokeh quality. it is rather tempting...


I doubt any of that will be visible through my tears of joy.


----------



## jonebize (Feb 22, 2020)

I'm here from the Nikon side. Canon is making all of the right decisions right now. The lenses are ambitious yet practical (35mm f/1.2, 70-135mm f/2.0) . I am planning to move over to Canon when I have the money to move to mirrorless.


----------



## RobbieHat (Feb 22, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> To sad no real birder lens.... like a 200-500 5.f or 600 6.3f or also 5.6f <3....
> 
> really strange setup!



I am hoping for those as well but they are more specialty lenses in my mind. Lots more wedding and event photogs then us birders. I am sure they will get to us eventually. The delay will allow me to see how the new R5 stands up as a wildlife rig or if an ASPC rig comes along. Not holding my breath and will adapt EF big whites as needed in the interim.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 22, 2020)

Kit. said:


> If 8+ stops of vignetting are OK to you...


I notice you are very focused on vignetting. While it may be an issue for you, for the vast bulk of images made it is a non-issue. 
I use the EF 11-24 on a daily basis in high end architectural applications along with my 17TS-E and vignetting is not a problem. 
Actual use of most lenses is not wide open but stopped down where vignetting becomes invisible. 
Real world use is where I evaluate lenses and my experience informs me that lenses like the 28-70 f2 used wide open are brilliant, the EF 11-24 is superb and the 17TS-E is a classic high performer. 
Canon is the leader in the optical world at the moment. Not Zeiss, not Leica, not Sigma, not Nikon. Each of those manufacturers has a few gems but not the number and momentum that Canon has.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 22, 2020)

Normalnorm said:


> I notice you are very focused on vignetting. While it may be an issue for you, for the vast bulk of images made it is a non-issue.
> I use the EF 11-24 on a daily basis in high end architectural applications along with my 17TS-E and vignetting is not a problem.
> Actual use of most lenses is not wide open but stopped down where vignetting becomes invisible.


Hmm.

So, I went and checked it.
Then checked again.
Then again.
With the same result.
So, I still don't understand:

Can you please tell me where I can find this _front filter thread_ on my TS-E 17?
Because so far, I haven't managed to see it there.

Have I got a counterfeit lens?
Is it not genuine Canon?


----------



## canonmike (Feb 22, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Indeed, but my concern is more that there's nothing on this list that will be cheap enough for some people, including those on this forum, who would like to move into the R ecosystem without spending a lot of money. IS drives up the cost, as I'm sure we all know, and I don't know how valuable it is in a 50mm 1.8 design that should, but is not guaranteed to, come in under $150.


Very much concur with your take on cost. It's sometimes difficult to sit on the side lines, waiting for that excitingly breathtaking new $3000.00 lens to come down to a more reasonable, affordable price point. Even with a price reduction of same to, let's say $2000.00, all many of us can then say is, "Boy that sure is cheap. Now, if I could just find a way to come up with that $2k. And yet, bring it on Canon because many have been waiting for the tech we know you are capable of. Looks like this just might be the year the sleeping Giant awakens and once again, shows everyone they know how to produce exciting photographic gear. Judging by the CR blog posts and YT videos, Canon is going to bring us some great camera bodies to go along with all those exciting new RF lenses. If true, one can only hope that Canon produces enough product to satisfy the anticipated demand. A personal thank you to all those early adopters, who, either with deep pockets or cc's with high limits, make it possible to happen. Without you, we would have no new gear.


----------



## Etienne (Feb 22, 2020)

What does Canon have against making a 50 f/1.4 ? Even the existing EF version is pre-historic.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 22, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Hmm.
> 
> So, I went and checked it.
> Then checked again.
> ...


Hmmm, let me count the number of 17mm TS lenses are on the market. Oh! Precisely one. Canon’s. Nikon only managed 19mm and it did not become the must have lens for architectural photography. 
As for a filter there are solutions if you are not too cheap to buy the systems available.
When someone beats Canon’s solution to UWA TS lenses we can then talk. But the canard of a filter ring on a unique lens is the weakest of possible arguments to be made against it.


----------



## Gloads (Feb 22, 2020)

mb66energy said:


> Hopefully the missing MACRO designation is some typo - that would be the hammer lens for me combined with the RF 35 MACRO - or we have to wait another year for a RF f/2.0 100 IS Macro ?


I was hoping for the rumored unique RF macro lens in this list. 100 f/2 1:1 would be fine with me, but I want tack sharp edges for copy work. IS would be a bonus even with IBIS for handheld macro work, especially IIF (insects in flight).


----------



## Daan Stam (Feb 22, 2020)

unfocused said:


> What new big sports camera are you referring to? A 1 series R is not likely to appear before 2021.


the R5 with 12/ 20fps 45MP should be enough to sway some of the sports photographers. epecially at some of the less static sports so they can crop.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 22, 2020)

Normalnorm said:


> Hmmm, let me count the number of 17mm TS lenses are on the market. Oh! Precisely one. Canon’s. Nikon only managed 19mm and it did not become the must have lens for architectural photography.
> As for a filter there are solutions if you are not too cheap to buy the systems available.
> When someone beats Canon’s solution to UWA TS lenses we can then talk. But the canard of a filter ring on a unique lens is the weakest of possible arguments to be made against it.


Wait, are you _seriously_ fantasizing about a 10mm rectilinear FF lens without a bulbous front element?


----------



## Tangent (Feb 22, 2020)

To a casual observer that 50mm 1.8 might look like a pancake lens. Likely it will be a rather small lens.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 22, 2020)

canonmike said:


> Very much concur with your take on cost. It's sometimes difficult to sit on the side lines, waiting for that excitingly breathtaking new $3000.00 lens to come down to a more reasonable, affordable price point. Even with a price reduction of same to, let's say $2000.00, all many of us can then say is, "Boy that sure is cheap. Now, if I could just find a way to come up with that $2k. And yet, bring it on Canon because many have been waiting for the tech we know you are capable of. Looks like this just might be the year the sleeping Giant awakens and once again, shows everyone they know how to produce exciting photographic gear. Judging by the CR blog posts and YT videos, Canon is going to bring us some great camera bodies to go along with all those exciting new RF lenses. If true, one can only hope that Canon produces enough product to satisfy the anticipated demand. A personal thank you to all those early adopters, who, either with deep pockets or cc's with high limits, make it possible to happen. Without you, we would have no new gear.



Absolutely. And reading this forum, I sometimes lose sight of that one of the appealing things about the EF system, 30+ years in, is that Average Joe photographers, amateurs, and enthusiasts can go and pick up a decent body and a couple of modern zoom lenses and cover the entire focal range from 24 to 400mm (effective). That's how I started 7 years ago. Yes, I know it was on the EF-S APS-C system, and that now we have the M cameras.

I don't read tea leaves and I'm not going to pretend I understand "The Market" the way some people claim to. But, I think there's plenty of room for Canon to make _truly_ affordable glass for the RF ecosystem and have that be the gateway drug to the good stuff. That's what happened to me, after all. I went from knowing nothing, with a t4i and a single kit lens, to planning to drop 20K in the next 5 years to fill out a complete, pro-level R kit. A big part of that was being able to purchase lenses (like the 50 1.8 STM) that worked on both EF-S and EF systems, which let me experiment with the two. This is not possible between M systems and RF systems today.

Long story short: I think it behooves Canon to make some ultra cheap glass to lure new customers into the RF system. It certainly worked on me


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Feb 22, 2020)

Quackator said:


> Until it finally launches, it isn't clear if the 10-24 is FF or APS-C......
> 
> Just saying.



Rumor clearly calls it an RF 10-24 f/4.0L. Since the present number of L series APS-C lenses over the entirety of Canon's lineup is hovering right smack-dab on zero, and the current number of R-series APS-C bodies is also at zero, I'd say that it's pretty outlandish at this point to assume that it wold be anything other than a full-frame lens if the rumor holds true.


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 22, 2020)

If I‘d go into R system I‘d be really fine with all those f/1.8 STM primes for a start 

Good move, Canon


----------



## davidespinosa (Feb 22, 2020)

Here's some discussion of the current EF 11-24 -- kind of amazing:
https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/11-24mm.htm


Etienne said:


> What does Canon have against making a 50 f/1.4 ? Even the existing EF version is pre-historic.


f1.2 is the new-and-improved f1.4.
f1.8 is the new-and-improved f2.0.
That is, I prefer to keep track relative to the usual full-stop series.


----------



## Nelu (Feb 22, 2020)

daaningrid said:


> the R5 with 12/ 20fps 45MP should be enough to sway some of the sports photographers. epecially at some of the less static sports so they can crop.


Sure, right! 12/20 fps @45MP looks good, now let's see the fine print and figure it out when and how it actually works...


----------



## Inspired (Feb 22, 2020)

I don't know about you guys but I would really love a 35-120mm f2.0


----------



## unfocused (Feb 22, 2020)

daaningrid said:


> the R5 with 12/ 20fps 45MP should be enough to sway some of the sports photographers. epecially at some of the less static sports so they can crop.


Except we know nothing about its autofocus speed and accuracy. 12 fps means nothing if the R5 has shutter lag and slow autofocus.


----------



## Ruiloba (Feb 22, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Except we know nothing about its autofocus speed and accuracy. 12 fps means nothing if the R5 has shutter lag and slow autofocus.


Like the R sadly has


----------



## unfocused (Feb 22, 2020)

Ruiloba said:


> Like the R sadly has


Yeah, it is not terrible, but it certainly is not ideal for sports or action.


----------



## canonmike (Feb 22, 2020)

Normalnorm said:


> Hmmm, let me count the number of 17mm TS lenses are on the market. Oh! Precisely one. Canon’s. Nikon only managed 19mm and it did not become the must have lens for architectural photography.
> As for a filter there are solutions if you are not too cheap to buy the systems available.
> When someone beats Canon’s solution to UWA TS lenses we can then talk. But the canard of a filter ring on a unique lens is the weakest of possible arguments to be made against it.


Great point. Years ago, I was fortunate enough to attend one of Pro Photographer John Shaw's classes on modern DSLR photographic techniques. He was a Nikon user(perhaps still is) but while sitting in one of his 3 days of classes, he pointed out that he loved Canon's T/S lenses so much, that he found a photographic gear technician that could modify one of them by removing the Canon mount and somehow installing a Nikon mount, thus enabling him the use of same on his Nikon bodies, albeit with total manual control and no electronic feedback, of course. I wonder if he still employs that modified lens.


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 22, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Except we know nothing about its autofocus speed and accuracy. 12 fps means nothing if the R5 has shutter lag and slow autofocus.



Why would Canon do that? If the AF cannot keep up with the FPS then it is silly to make the camera.
I do not see Canon doing this, more likely a Sony or Nikon failure but not Canon.
Who knows but it would be silly.


----------



## Dantana (Feb 23, 2020)

arbitrage said:


> The list seems fine. But I find it strange that if that list is correct, why are they releasing the TCs at this point? The 70-200/2.8 isn't compatible. To use on a f/7.1 lens? I could see attempting to use the 1.4 on the 100-500 but the 2x would be really pushing things for the slow f-stop.
> Now maybe if this list is correct, the 70-135/2 will be compatible for a 98-189 f/2.8 and a 140-270 f/4.
> 
> But because of the release of the TCs (especially the 2x), I think the list is bogus and there has to be at least one 300mm+ prime coming f/4 or faster.


Is is posted somewhere that the RF 70-200 won’t work with the new extenders? The EF 2.8 works with EF extenders. Why would this be any different?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 23, 2020)

Ruiloba said:


> Like the R sadly has


What is the shutter lag?


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 23, 2020)

Dantana said:


> Is is posted somewhere that the RF 70-200 won’t work with the new extenders? The EF 2.8 works with EF extenders. Why would this be any different?


There is no room for the extender, RF70-200 has its rear element very close to the mount, unlike the other 70-200s.


----------



## Nelu (Feb 23, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> What is the shutter lag?


I don’t know where you got that but this is not about the shutter lag, but the EVF lag, especially obvious for fast action photos.
The EOS-R is pretty bad in this regard but I didn’t notice any shutter lag.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 23, 2020)

Nelu said:


> I don’t know where you got that but this is not about the shutter lag, but the EVF lag, especially obvious for fast action photos.
> The EOS-R is pretty bad in this regard but I didn’t notice any shutter lag.



The shutter lag was mentioned here


----------



## unfocused (Feb 23, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> The shutter lag was mentioned here


My mistake. I meant the lag time between when the action occurs, when you see the image in the viewfinder and when the picture gets taken. I called it shutter lag but I suppose EVF lag might be more accurate. Most people understand but some are pedantic. You’ll have to excuse me as English is my first language.


----------



## Nelu (Feb 23, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> The shutter lag was mentioned here


I see that now,thanks.
Well, as I see it the EOS-R doesn’t have either of them: the AF is very fast and accurate and there is no shutter lag.Of course, I guess you have to use and learn the camera before blaming the OOF photos on it.
My only grip with the EOS-R is the lag in the EVF when shooting fast action. Nothing else...


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 23, 2020)

Thanks for clarification. I only asked what shutter lag was and I didn't imply questions about anyone's first language etc.



unfocused said:


> My mistake. I meant the lag time between when the action occurs, when you see the image in the viewfinder and when the picture gets taken. I called it shutter lag but I suppose EVF lag might be more accurate. Most people understand but some are pedantic. You’ll have to excuse me as English is my first language.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 23, 2020)

Act444 said:


> If one values detail and crispness, however - and I do - that middle ISO range is where detail retention really begins to drop off (even if noise levels remain within the acceptable range). By 6400 the image is already close to mush. Thankfully color noise is kept under enough control that 12,800 isn't too much worse.
> 
> I'm hoping this new R5 lacks an AA filter...


i shoot at ISO 6400 with 5DIV quite a lot. it is not as bad as you define. certainly not a mushy image. i guess, it depends on a workflow one is following.,

DXO Photolab3 certainly takes good care of ISO6400 RAW files of 5DIV.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Feb 23, 2020)

No 300 f/2.8, no 500 f/4 no interest at all and why even release extenders without native superteles. 70-135L f/2L is interesting but it'll come down to price, size and weight.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 23, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> ...and I didn't imply questions about anyone's first language etc.


It’s just that old thing about England and the U.S. being two nations seperated by a common language.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 23, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> No 300 f/2.8, no 500 f/4 no interest at all and why even release extenders without native superteles. 70-135L f/2L is interesting but it'll come down to price, size and weight.


size: XL
Weight: XL
Price: XL


----------



## Pape (Feb 23, 2020)

Etienne said:


> What does Canon have against making a 50 f/1.4 ? Even the existing EF version is pre-historic.


It eats 50 f1,2 sales? Would they never made 1,4 if there would been 1,2 already?


----------



## flåppy (Feb 23, 2020)

Am I the only one who was hoping for a 24mm, 1.2?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 23, 2020)

flåppy said:


> Am I the only one who was hoping for a 24mm, 1.2?


A prime lens less than 24mm and below f2 would be great for astro/milky way. 24mm is a little bit limiting for that but works ok for me (I've shot stars at 24mm f2.8 with my 24-70).
Depending on the price, I'd be very interested in a wide-angle wide-aperture prime. f1.2 would allow shooting at ISO ~400-800 instead of 1600-3200 which would be great.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 23, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> i shoot at ISO 6400 with 5DIV quite a lot. it is not as bad as you define. certainly not a mushy image. i guess, it depends on a workflow one is following.,
> 
> DXO Photolab3 certainly takes good care of ISO6400 RAW files of 5DIV.



I found that with my RP, any amount of noise reduction whatsoever killed the quality of my in-camera jpgs, but with no noise reduction at all, even 12800 is usable for me (grainy, but attractive).


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 23, 2020)

Gloads said:


> I was hoping for the rumored unique RF macro lens in this list. 100 f/2 1:1 would be fine with me, but I want tack sharp edges for copy work. IS would be a bonus even with IBIS for handheld macro work, especially IIF (insects in flight).



Such a f/2 macro might be an L lens hopefully with IS and I think it will be around 1200 bucks but that would be o.k. for me because ... it would combine two lenses together, a real macro lens AND a low light beast (because of IS).


----------



## davidespinosa (Feb 23, 2020)

flåppy said:


> Am I the only one who was hoping for a 24mm, 1.2?



I'm hoping for a 20mm !


----------



## Ruiloba (Feb 23, 2020)

Nelu said:


> I see that now,thanks.
> Well, as I see it the EOS-R doesn’t have either of them: the AF is very fast and accurate and there is no shutter lag.Of course, I guess you have to use and learn the camera before blaming the OOF photos on it.
> My only grip with the EOS-R is the lag in the EVF when shooting fast action. Nothing else...


Then my camera must have something wrong, because i do only wildlife (from years ago) and im having always front or backfocusing problems. The camera confirms focus in servo or one-shot and its clearly off... For BirdsInFlight, stationary subjects like in my bird-hide... And im not talking about the speed wich is slower compared to my dslr's.. Im talking about a thing that a mirrorless camera is supposed to have not.. In fact i do microadjustments in my dslr cameras to nail the focus always, but in this sistem you can't. I've tried everything : configuration of all the af scenarios(locked speed etc) , isos, shutter speeds, apertures, focusing areas/metods and always the same isue.. Im waiting to test it with the Rf100-500 and give it the oportunity of being an ef-to-rf thing but probably it would be a waste of time and money... 

Ps: im waiting for a pure wildlife canon mirrorless like the Sony A9, and some Rf 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 F4.... But probably it is better to sell everything of my Rf sistem and wait patiently with my old dslr


----------



## Kit. (Feb 23, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Thanks for clarification. I only asked what shutter lag was and I didn't imply questions about anyone's first language etc.


Actually, the shutter lag ("time from fully pressing shutter button to image capture") is relatively long in R in mechanical shutter mode, because the shutter needs to close first, and only then to start opening again. The shutter lag in the electronic first curtain mode is slightly shorter than the shutter lag of 5D4.


----------



## Billybob (Feb 23, 2020)

davidespinosa said:


> I'm hoping for a 20mm !


And I'm hoping for a 600mm DO!

Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 23, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Actually, the shutter lag ("time from fully pressing shutter button to image capture") is relatively long in R in mechanical shutter mode, because the shutter needs to close first, and only then to start opening again. The shutter lag in the electronic first curtain mode is slightly shorter than the shutter lag of 5D4.


Very interesting thanks, I've never thought about these shutter challenges on mirrorless. 
In terms of the EVF lag, I'm wondering why it becomes an issue. If EVF does 30fps, it's 33ms delay max which is 2 times lower than the shutter lag, and 3 times lower than human's reaction. 

However, I haven't seen the R's EVF, but LV on DSLRs feels much more laggy than 33ms, I can tell by simply waiving my hand in front of the camera. I'd say there's maybe 100-200ms delay. The signal processing before the frame is rendered on the back screen clearly takes much longer.


----------



## tron (Feb 23, 2020)

Give us a 17-70 FF Canon. Come on. You have the patent already. Make it an L.


----------



## tron (Feb 23, 2020)

No DO big lens (500 or 600 5.6)? Never mind. My money can go to Nikon then 

Although the funny thing would be to make it f/7.1


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 23, 2020)

Fran Decatta said:


> I know! Already own the 28-70 F2. Months ago, I sold almost all my EF mount primes to purchase that monster.... and I will never regret about that change  but I work as a wedding photographer. For the moment, the combination of 17-40 f4 + 28-70 f2 is more than enough for my work. But never knows, the future will tell


If I had the means to do both zooms and primes I would. But I'm not giving up my 1.4L primes. The zooms look incredible and it's VERY tempting (especially now that we will have IBIS moving forward) but I love my 1.4 too much. I'm far more tempted to get a 24-70 f2.8 IS. I need a quality all-arounder but I'm not gonna spend $3000 for one. For someone who is building a kit (no lens library yet) the f2 zooms make a LOT of sense. Buying a '35 and 50 is more than the f2 zoom (provided you are willing to sacrifice 1 stop on EF and 1.5 on RF)


----------



## Kit. (Feb 23, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> In terms of the EVF lag, I'm wondering why it becomes an issue. If EVF does 30fps, it's 33ms delay max which is 2 times lower than the shutter lag, and 3 times lower than human's reaction.


It's a delay not from the time when the event happened, but from the time the photoelectrons that recorded the event have got scanned from the sensor, the whole scanned image has been processed and converted for packing into JPEG.

Also, the main problem this delay causes seems (to me) to be in the ability to do panning (of tightly framed scenes in particular). For dynamic scenes, human brain actually sees not what is shown on the EVF, but what would be expected to see on the EVF given the preceding frames, the innate delay of human vision (about 100 ms or so) and the brain's ability to predict what has been happening during that time. This ability was built upon training to follow the projection of a moving real world object without an EVF delay, both as:
1. the natural selection for human brains that can hunt better and
2. the particular training the photographers have already got with their OVFs.
How much it's the latter and not the former will determine how successful the photographers can be in retraining themselves to pan tightly framed scenes with EVFs.


----------



## Etienne (Feb 23, 2020)

Pape said:


> It eats 50 f1,2 sales? Would they never made 1,4 if there would been 1,2 already?



That's a beautiful lens, but its huge, heavy, expensive, and overkill for most people. A modest 50 f/1.4 IS would be amazing, and overdue I think.


----------



## Adam Shutter Bug (Feb 23, 2020)

35mm f/1.2 is very interesting for portraits.


----------



## riker (Feb 23, 2020)

I'm furious.

STILL no new 28/1.8 USM, 50/1.4 USM, 85/1.8 USM.
Were they too good?
F*king STM.


----------



## Joules (Feb 23, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Very interesting thanks, I've never thought about these shutter challenges on mirrorless.
> In terms of the EVF lag, I'm wondering why it becomes an issue. If EVF does 30fps, it's 33ms delay max which is 2 times lower than the shutter lag, and 3 times lower than human's reaction.


30 FPS would render an EVF unusable. Even LiveView is 60 FPS on the current DSLRs.

In another thread I described some of the issues that arise when using an EVF for fast subjects:





__





What’s next from Canon in 2020?


Now that we've seen the big first-quarter announcements from Canon in the EOS-1D X Mark III and the development of the EOS R5, RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM, extenders as well as the vertical video shooting EOS Rebel T8i. We always want to know what's coming next. I'll break down what we...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Joules (Feb 23, 2020)

riker said:


> F*king STM.


What's your problem with STM? The RF lenses are all focus by wire anyway, is there really much of a difference between STM and other implementations if it is electronically coupled anyway?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 23, 2020)

Kit. said:


> It's a delay not from the time when the event happened, but from the time the photoelectrons that recorded the event have got scanned from the sensor, the whole scanned image has been processed and converted for packing into JPEG.



Yep. The thing is, all these operations should be taking less than one frame duration (on average), otherwise you don't get the desired FPS number for EVF or LiveView. If they're taking more than one frame persistently, you'll need to skip rendering persistently and the FPS drops. The calculations get more tricky if some parallel processing happens, still the processing time shouldn't be drastically different from the time period between the frames.



Kit. said:


> How much it's the latter and not the former will determine how successful the photographers can be in retraining themselves to pan tightly framed scenes with EVFs.


I haven't shot action with EVF yet but what you say may be very true. But if they bring the EVF lag down to 1/30 - 1/60s, it'll be much less than other factors.


----------



## riker (Feb 23, 2020)

gzroxas said:


> I’d really love to have a small but excellent quality 85 1.8 IS!


You forgot you want it with USM.


----------



## riker (Feb 23, 2020)

Joules said:


> What's your problem with STM? The RF lenses are all focus by wire anyway, is there really much of a difference between STM and other implementations if it is electronically coupled anyway?


STM is slow and noisy compared to USM. There's a reason why cheap lenses get STM while proper lenses get USM. Or why do you think both exist (even in RF lenses) if they are the same?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 23, 2020)

Joules said:


> 30 FPS would render an EVF unusable. Even LiveView is 60 FPS on the current DSLRs.



It may be 60, but it doesn't add up with my observations as I can see a longer delay in my 5DIV's LiveView. As in my message above, any internal processing including exposure can't be taking longer than a frame duration. If it takes longer, you either lower the FPS number or execute some processing in parallel CPU threads, but there isn't many threads in DIGIC 6+. Having two threads means you can process data for a 60-fps EVF not in 1/60s but in 1/30s (best ideal case). Three threads give you 3/60s = 1/20s processing time at 60fps etc.


----------



## cullen171 (Feb 23, 2020)

70-135 mm been waiting for a lens like this. But it prob will be heavy af at f/2


----------



## Joules (Feb 23, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It may be 60, but it doesn't add up with my observations as I can see a longer delay in my 5DIV's LiveView.


I checked again, and it turns out I was wrong. In the German specification site they state 30 FPS for LiveView on the 80D and 5D IV at least.

I had read 60 on a third party site a while back, but apparently they might have gotten some information wrong.

On the R, it is 60 Hz in LiveView, unless energy saving mode is used. But I can't find anything official about the EVF itself, which I find weird.

In any case you are right in that there is a significant lag in the LiveView that seems to go beyond just the frame rate refresh.


----------



## MadScotsman (Feb 23, 2020)

flåppy said:


> Am I the only one who was hoping for a 24mm, 1.2?



Definitely not the only one.

In fact, I had hoped that "ultra-wide prime L" meant 14mm. But. I'll wait. May just grab one of the cheapo Samyangs to bridge me. 

I've resolved to not but any new glass today isn't RF, so... I might be waiting a while.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 23, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Yep. The thing is, all these operations should be taking less than one frame duration (on average), otherwise you don't get the desired FPS number for EVF or LiveView.


Unless they use different parts of the hardware for different stages of the pipeline. Then they may have several frames "in flight" with no ability to accelerate processing by dropping some frames.

Also, there are cases (such as AWB) when full information about the frame is needed for per-pixel processing. When it's not such a case, it might be possible to process the image by, say, 32-line strips, but the logistics of doing it properly in both software and hardware can be a nightmare.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 23, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Unless they use different parts of the hardware for different stages of the pipeline. Then they may have several frames "in flight" with no ability to accelerate processing by dropping some frames.



If you think about this pipeline as a black box, it should be spitting out 30 frames per second for EVF (or whatever required FPS). Now if there's just one pipe/thread inside this black box, it must be able to process the whole frame in 1/30s, no matter what hardware it uses internally and how many frames there are in the pipeline queue. Only second thread allows to delay the delivery and still render 30 frames a second. Ideal case (which won't be ideal in practice) - thread 1 processes even frames, 1/15s each, and thread 2 processes odd frames. So we have the lag of 1/15s and 30fps. But in this case, why wouldn't we just have both threads to process each frame 2x faster, so that each frame processing takes 1/30s, instead of laggy 1/15s?

There *must* be something I'm missing, but it may be a thing I don't know I don't know...


----------



## Kit. (Feb 23, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> If you think about this pipeline as a black box, it should be spitting out 30 frames per second for EVF (or whatever required FPS). Now if there's just one pipe/thread inside this black box,


Imagine you have two black boxes running at 30fps. One can only do debayering, another (due to different hardware) can only do DLO. If you need to use both boxes, the FPS is still 30, but the lag is 1/15.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Feb 23, 2020)

riker said:


> STM is slow and noisy compared to USM.



(Partially) wrong. USM is a bit faster, but STM is more silent and smoother in movement. For video you will probably prefer STM. For photography STM is almost as good as USM.


----------



## Bangrossi (Feb 23, 2020)

Etienne said:


> That's a beautiful lens, but its huge, heavy, expensive, and overkill for most people. A modest 50 f/1.4 IS would be amazing, and overdue I think.



50 f/1.4 IS with image quality similar to sigma 50 f/1.4 art will not be small and affordable. It will cost as much as other L primes. There are two option for canon to make 50mm affordable and small. Use old optical formula (double gauss) but it will sacrifice image quality or make it f/1.8 that compete directly to nikon z 50mm f1.8


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 23, 2020)

10-24 sounds like overkill, especially if it's going to be bulbous scratch bait. I'd be happier with a 12-24 with screw-in filters. But I'm only speculating...


----------



## Fran Decatta (Feb 23, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> If I had the means to do both zooms and primes I would. But I'm not giving up my 1.4L primes. The zooms look incredible and it's VERY tempting (especially now that we will have IBIS moving forward) but I love my 1.4 too much. I'm far more tempted to get a 24-70 f2.8 IS. I need a quality all-arounder but I'm not gonna spend $3000 for one. For someone who is building a kit (no lens library yet) the f2 zooms make a LOT of sense. Buying a '35 and 50 is more than the f2 zoom (provided you are willing to sacrifice 1 stop on EF and 1.5 on RF)



Well, I already had 24, 35 and 50 1.4 + 85 1.8, I sold them all, after work with them for a few years. Was a hard decision, but lately I was stopping down to 1.8 - 2.2 and only using the 1.4 when the light was really low. Also, working as a wedding photographer, I noticed so much difference in my last works, This plus to change focal lengs so fast having a great aperture, was a step ahead on the work without losing quality, and just a little bit of bokeh / light. In a balance, it deserves the change. Of course, this is only my personal experience and everyone must look for his needs


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 23, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Imagine you have two black boxes running at 30fps. One can only do debayering, another (due to different hardware) can only do DLO. If you need to use both boxes, the FPS is still 30, but the lag is 1/15.



I've already given the example with multithreading where you can have 30fps but the lag of 1/15s.

Your black boxes are the same as multithreading as they require DLO and debayering to run in parallel. Say they'll run DLO for frame 777 and debayering for frame 778, then 778 and 779 respectively etc.

But as far as I understand the Canon's architecture, DIGIC _is_ the one who executes all of those DLO, debayering etc. steps. As a side note, is DLO even applied to EVF/LV?


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 23, 2020)

Weird to have 1.4/2x TC without lenses to use them on ie only the 100-500mm would be available and @1000mm f/14 (2x) would have few use cases.

Can we confirm that the RF TCs are RF to RF? If they are RF to EF TCs then it would make some sense ie to avoid RF-EF adapter + EF 1.4/2x TC and use the existing big whites (and EF 70-200mm  )


----------



## Kit. (Feb 23, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But as far as I understand the Canon's architecture, DIGIC _is_ the one who executes all of those DLO, debayering etc. steps.


But DIGIC is not (just) a general purpose CPU. It contains DSP modules optimized for particular kinds of work.



Quarkcharmed said:


> As a side note, is DLO even applied to EVF/LV?


RF 24-240.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Feb 23, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> size: XL
> Weight: XL
> Price: XL


 Well smaller than a traditional 70-200 f/2.8 which I don't regard as XL, price will be high but will it be dearer than a 70-200 f/2.8 and size will be much shorter than a 70-200 f/2.8 and with smaller front element. I'm not sure it'll be heavier than 28-70 f/2 which would be a more complex design.


----------



## AEWest (Feb 23, 2020)

TMHKR said:


> I know that the R5 is hot stuff right now, but where's the dirt-cheap lens collection for the RP? It would make masses finally move to full frame mirrorless. And yes, I speak about RF lenses, not EF + adapter.


Yes, we need regular f/4 non "£" lenses . Because they are not sharing the mount info with sigma and tamron, we likely won't get 100% compatibility if they decide to build RF mount lenses (ie slower af, and perhaps issues with IBIS).


----------



## dsut4392 (Feb 23, 2020)

Bangrossi said:


> 50 f/1.4 IS with image quality similar to sigma 50 f/1.4 art will not be small and affordable. It will cost as much as other L primes. There are two option for canon to make 50mm affordable and small. Use old optical formula (double gauss) but it will sacrifice image quality or make it f/1.8 that compete directly to nikon z 50mm f1.8



While ‘affordable’ would always be nice, nobody asking for a 50/1.4 has mentioned affordability as the main reason they want one.
I would rather a 50/1.4 with the look of the Sigma 50/1.4 EX (or the old Zuiko 55/1.2) than the 50 Art. It doesn’t need to have ultimate corner resolution or be free of all aberrations, or have a flat plane of focus, or have minimal vignetting wide open, and it doesn’t need to be cheap. Just make it SMALL, nice and sharp in the centre, smooth bokeh without nauseating swirls, and give it modern AF.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 23, 2020)

Kit. said:


> But DIGIC is not (just) a general purpose CPU. It contains DSP modules optimized for particular kinds of work.


I believe DIGIC is just ARM with extended instruction set and any DSP modules are in its firmware; but wherever the DSP modules are, the execution should be parallelised/threaded if the the EVF lag is longer than 1 frame.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 24, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I believe DIGIC is just ARM with extended instruction set and any DSP modules are in its firmware; but wherever the DSP modules are, the execution should be parallelised/threaded if the the EVF lag is longer than 1 frame.


DIGIC is most definately a SoC - system on chip more than just an ARM processor.


----------



## Ruiloba (Feb 24, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Weird to have 1.4/2x TC without lenses to use them on ie only the 100-500mm would be available and @1000mm f/14 (2x) would have few use cases.
> 
> Can we confirm that the RF TCs are RF to RF? If they are RF to EF TCs then it would make some sense ie to avoid RF-EF adapter + EF 1.4/2x TC and use the existing big whites (and EF 70-200mm  )
> View attachment 188885
> View attachment 188886


 
This is an interesting and probably successful comparison. It matches perfectly


----------



## Dantana (Feb 24, 2020)

Proscribo said:


> There is no room for the extender, RF70-200 has its rear element very close to the mount, unlike the other 70-200s.


Interesting. I hadn't seen a photo of the extenders and thought maybe it was a design that didn't protrude so much. That is curious. There must be an RF Big White coming.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 24, 2020)

canonnews said:


> DIGIC is most definately a SoC - system on chip more than just an ARM processor.



Yes it may have additional instructions/specialised processing modules, but it doesn't change anything in what I said in a couple of previous messages, it doesn't help to explain why the EVF/LiveView lag can be longer that one frame duration. Multithreading does but with caveats. I'd be interested to see the actual design of the sensor-to-EVF pipeline.


----------



## tron (Feb 24, 2020)

Dantana said:


> Interesting. I hadn't seen a photo of the extenders and thought maybe it was a design that didn't protrude so much. That is curious. There must be an RF Big White coming.


The issue is what and when? Unless it is a DO design it will not be of much interest to me.
However, I would say there is a chance that they will not start from this (unfortunately) but from something maybe more … basic like a 300 2.8. I hope it is a high mm DO though...


----------



## canonnews (Feb 24, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Yes it may have additional instructions/specialised processing modules, but it doesn't change anything in what I said in a couple of previous messages, it doesn't help to explain why the EVF/LiveView lag can be longer that one frame duration. Multithreading does but with caveats. I'd be interested to see the actual design of the sensor-to-EVF pipeline.


the entire system could be lagged. frame to frame may only be part of the problem.

ie:

consider three frames.


```
F1 ----------F2---------F3

At the EVF it arrives at:

                           F1 ----------F2---------F3
```
something like that. still 1/30th of a second in between frames there's a systematic time offset from the moment of invocation.

The EVF video is not a steady stream. It can't be. you have to take a picture using the same sensor. so there's going to be some starts and stops along the way on the EVF/LCD feed.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 24, 2020)

My point was, if you only have one thread, that diagram doesn't explain the question. With one thread, the average processing time must be less than 1/30s, or the lag will grow indefinitely. But if it's less than 1/30s and the system lags like on your diagram (because of a temp spike 4ex), we can just skip a few frames and catch up to the shortest possible delay. 



canonnews said:


> the entire system could be lagged. frame to frame may only be part of the problem.
> 
> ie:
> 
> ...


----------



## joestopper (Feb 24, 2020)

flåppy said:


> Am I the only one who was hoping for a 24mm, 1.2?



No. I have asked for this a few pages earlier. Plus; 14-28 f/2


----------



## canonnews (Feb 24, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> My point was, if you only have one thread, that diagram doesn't explain the question. With one thread, the average processing time must be less than 1/30s, or the lag will grow indefinitely. But if it's less than 1/30s and the system lags like on your diagram (because of a temp spike 4ex), we can just skip a few frames and catch up to the shortest possible delay.


there's frames skipped no matter what, but the lag is the delta T from real life to the first frame being seen in the viewfinder. again the video feed is not continous. that is impossible. it's "virtually" seamless.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 24, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> [..]
> But as far as I understand the Canon's architecture, DIGIC _is_ the one who executes all of those DLO, debayering etc. steps. As a side note, is DLO even applied to EVF/LV?


No, Canon specifically separates vignetting correction, distortion correction and DLO in the menu and manuals. On digic 8 cams you only get DLO in the jpegs, not in the film clips or evf.
This might change with digic X, the 1dx3 manual might have some wording on it for liveview and movie mode.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 24, 2020)

Ruiloba said:


> This is an interesting and probably successful comparison. It matches perfectly


Double check the bajonet lugs, especially the one in the top left corner of the pictures. On the EF mounts it stops there, the RF one doesn’t.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 24, 2020)

canonnews said:


> there's frames skipped no matter what, but the lag is the delta T from real life to the first frame being seen in the viewfinder. again the video feed is not continous. that is impossible. it's "virtually" seamless.



But I never claimed it was continuous.  T time is measured from the beginning of the exposure till the image is rendered in the EVF. It obviously includes the exposure itself, readout, internal processing and data transfer, render of HUD interface and copying the rendered frame to the EVF buffer. Or maybe it renders right in the buffer.

What I'm saying is _if _the processing is single-threaded and sequential (and it's mostly sequential), the T time must not be longer than 1/30s or you inevitably get the lag growing indefinitely. It simply means there's not enough processing power to render at 30fps. There are ways to optimise it such as doing rendering during exposure, but that's not the point here as we're trying to explain how T can be more than 1/30s, with EVF still rendering at 30fps.


----------



## Joules (Feb 24, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But that's not the point here as we're trying to explain how T can be more than 1/30s, with EVF still rendering at 30fps.


I bet the answer could be found if one is willing to dig through enough posts on the Magic Lantern forum. Those guys had LiveView figured out, at least for the models that still use older Digics.

Without this insight there's just speculation left. What really matters is how the situation looks on the R5.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 24, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Well smaller than a traditional 70-200 f/2.8 which I don't regard as XL, price will be high but will it be dearer than a 70-200 f/2.8 and size will be much shorter than a 70-200 f/2.8 and with smaller front element. I'm not sure it'll be heavier than 28-70 f/2 which would be a more complex design.


Front element: estimated 77-82mm Likely 82 (A.M.). Size and weight. around EF 70-200/2.8 Give or take. so... it is a trade off again: shorter focal range for an extra stop of light. 
In majority of my use cases: I would certainly benefit of extra stop of light in 28-70 range, but I need 70-200 covered. 135 is way to short for events. I am forced to shoot from a distance and need that 200mm end. So.. Looks like I will end up with a pair of R5 with 28-70/2.0 + 70-200/2.8 attached hanging around my heaps. 
Let’s look at the bright side: this is going to be a much better balanced combo as lenses will be of similar size and weight. Oh, dear )


----------



## lawny13 (Feb 24, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Indeed, but my concern is more that there's nothing on this list that will be cheap enough for some people, including those on this forum, who would like to move into the R ecosystem without spending a lot of money. IS drives up the cost, as I'm sure we all know, and I don't know how valuable it is in a 50mm 1.8 design that should, but is not guaranteed to, come in under $150.



But there is where I have to say you are wrong. 

Most RF bodies come with an adapter included. Anyone who wants a cheap way to get in should just get the EF 50 stm. You can have it for around $80. I have been saying for a while... I am not interested in an RF 50 f1.8 that is just the same as the EF version. And suggesting that people buying into the RF system should have the option of a cheap (performance wise as well) $100 f1.8 and a $2.5k f1.2 50 mm lens is just silly. 

We buy into the RF camera because it is supposed to be new. It is canon's future vision of their next camera system right? We expect good sharpness wide open even for their f1.8 lenses. They don't have to be at the same price level as the nikon S lenses, but they shouldn't be like any ol' EF lens you can simply adapt to the EOS R system. 

Let me put it this way. If I as an entry user had to choose between a native mount lens that does exactly the same as the EF version, then I would be better served buying the EF lens from the second hand market at a greatly reduced price. Take the EF 70-200f2.8 III as an example. Current new prices place it at around $1800 (though its MSRP was about what the current RF version is). If it weren't for the smaller size of the RF version, and the fact that I would like to have HSD setting, I would simply get the EF and adapt and save myself $600. Where I go to 2nd hand it would likely be close to $800 if not more savings. 

Therefore going full budget considering what the other options are doesn't exactly make sense. Looks like the RF 50 f1.8 macro will essentially be like the 35 f1.8 macro. But since 50s tend to be easier to make, I won't be surprised if it comes out at around $250 (maybe 300-350), which in my opinion is definitely doable. And the way canon tends to price things over time it would probably come down to $200 or so... again quite doable in my opinion. Better the 35 f1.8 performance in terms of sharpness and IQ for $250, than the performance of the EF 50 f1.8 which needs to be stopped down anyways, since it is noticeably soft wide open. Canon seems to add the macro for an extra which I think does make quite a different in versatility. Entry users wouldn't necessarily have to ever get a macro lens to dabble in close up shots.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 24, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I believe DIGIC is just ARM with extended instruction set and any DSP modules are in its firmware;


DSP is specialized hardware. AI module is another specialized hardware.



Quarkcharmed said:


> but wherever the DSP modules are, the execution should be parallelised/threaded if the the EVF lag is longer than 1 frame.


It doesn't help. If the time needed to process one frame given the existing hardware is 1/15 s, you can do nothing about the lag. But you still may be able to increase the fps if your hardware is heterogenous and parts of it can be used only at specific stages.

Or do you mean "let's use two DIGICs instead of one"? Then, yes, processing can be made faster, if power dissipation and battery capacity is not a problem. But that alone won't make the EVF lag one-frame. You will also need to decrease the lag of sensor and EVF interfaces.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 24, 2020)

Joules said:


> I bet the answer could be found if one is willing to dig through enough posts on the Magic Lantern forum. Those guys had LiveView figured out, at least for the models that still use older Digics.
> 
> Without this insight there's just speculation left. What really matters is how the situation looks on the R5.



Good point. I've skimmed through magic lantern forum and tried to search for 'live view' etc. but couldn't find anything useful. Maybe there is, but I'm not that deep into this matter. 
On the practical side, I haven't seen the R's EVF, and too lazy to go to the shop and pretend I want to buy it in order to check it out. Will wait for R5 to come out. I'm more into landscapes and the EVF lag isn't a huge concern for me.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 24, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Every single time I read the specs on the 100-500 I die a little inside.
> 
> It could have been amazing. Considering the 500mm F4 I want is $10K, I'd have paid a pretty penny for a nice 100-500.
> 
> This thing is a doorstop.



Actually, I think the 500 f/4 is more suited to holding doors open, being bigger and heavier


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 24, 2020)

Kit. said:


> DSP is specialized hardware. AI module is another specialized hardware.


I'm not familiar with the Canon's architecture (especially architecture of an unreleased camera), but specialised or not, it doesn't really matter. What matters is whether it runs in parallel. 



Kit. said:


> It doesn't help. If the time needed to process one frame given the existing hardware is 1/15 s, you can do nothing about the lag. But you still may be able to increase the fps if your hardware is heterogenous and parts of it can be used only at specific stages.



Nope, the point is, you cannot increase the FPS number if processing is sequential and takes longer than 1/30s on average. But if some modules run in parallel (any sort of multithreading), you can improve on FPS while having the lag > 1/30s.


----------



## Joules (Feb 24, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Nope, the point is, you cannot increase the FPS number if processing is sequential and takes longer than 1/30s on average. But if some modules run in parallel (any sort of multithreading), you can improve on FPS while having the lag > 1/30s.


Could the wording around sequential and parallel be the issue here? I don't think I'm disagreeing with you. 

But one way a big lag can be constructed is by having n small processing steps that each run on a specific unit, each requiring t/n time to finish their task. An image has to go through all n steps before it is displayed, meaning each image takes time t to go from the first to the last step. And the steps are applied to the image in a fixed sequence, one after the previous one. 

But the first processing unit doesn't have to wait for the last step to finish, before it can start work on the next image. Each processing unit is only present once, but they are all active at the same time. So they can be seen as parallel, as you say. It is just not the kind of parallel one may talk about with more general processing.

So what you get is a finished image each t/n seconds, but each image has a delay of t seconds.

If they use a similar technique, it may not necessarily all be processing for the sake of display, things like metering and object recognition for tracking could also be incorporated into this pipeline.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 24, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I'm not familiar with the Canon's architecture (especially architecture of an unreleased camera), but specialised or not, it doesn't really matter. What matters is whether it runs in parallel.


There is nothing Canon-specific. Any pipeline is both parallel and sequential at the same time. For example, the sensor acquiring a new image in parallel to the EVF displaying an older one.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 24, 2020)

Joules said:


> But the first processing unit doesn't have to wait for the last step to finish, before it can start work on the next image.


Yep, that's exactly my point. If your system can process target render frame N and N+1 at the same time (in different processing units as you say), yes in theory you can have 30 fps and a lag of > 1/30s.



Joules said:


> Each processing unit is only present once, but they are all active at the same time. So they can be seen as parallel, as you say. It is just not the kind of parallel one may talk about with more general processing.



It is parallel processing. I simply don't know how it's done in DIGIC, but in principle it doesn't matter. There may be multicore CPU that runs software off RAM, or off ROM, or it can be hardwired, it doesn't matter.

There are also other interesting considerations, such as memory buffers for 'processing units'. In order to show 30fps, you need to do exposures 30 times a second. Then if you do parallel processing, you need to double your buffers after readouts.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 24, 2020)

Kit. said:


> There is nothing Canon-specific. Any pipeline is both parallel and sequential at the same time. For example, the sensor acquiring a new image in parallel to the EVF displaying an older one.


That I covered in this message. This kind of parallelisation helps reduce the lag, and we're trying to explain how we can have a long lag. 

My point was, with sequential processing it's not physically possible to have 30fps and the lag > 1/30s.
Parallel processing of two frames simultaneously may help explain that, but analysis would require a deeper knowledge of Canon's architecture. But we should keep in mind some operations cannot be parallelised: exposure and readout take a big part and there's no way to run them in parallel, and we need to expose 30 times a second no matter what, or we don't get 30fps.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 24, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Yep, that's exactly my point. If your system can process target render frame N and N+1 at the same time (in different processing units as you say), yes in theory you can have 30 fps and a lag of > 1/30s.
> [..]



If latency is important, you can work slice based, e.g. take 128 lines, push to memory, grab next 128 lines, etc.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 24, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That I covered in this message. This kind of parallelisation helps reduce the lag,


It doesn't. I'd say it "increases" the lag by introducing interface delays (related to both data transfer and synchronization).


----------



## m4ndr4ke (Feb 24, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> My point was, with sequential processing it's not physically possible to have 30fps and the lag > 1/30s.


Doesn't the EOS R's EVF work at 60p, rather than 30p? I think it changes to 30p when one enables the power saving mode.
60p makes it easier to drop a few frames without being noticeable to the human eye.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 24, 2020)

m4ndr4ke said:


> Doesn't the EOS R's EVF work at 60p, rather than 30p? I think it changes to 30p when one enables the power saving mode.
> 60p makes it easier to drop a few frames without being noticeable to the human eye.



It may be 60, earlier someone in this thread said it was 30, but that doesn't matter too much, the question was theoretical, can you have 30 fps and a lag > 1/30s.
In other words, if an EVF does 30fps, does it guarantee the lag is no longer than 1/30s? The lag being the time between the exposure and the image displayed in the EVF.
If it's 60fps, the same question, can the lag be > 1/60s.

The answer is unclear, but in my opinion, while it's technically feasible, it's unlikely to be happening in camera. If you have 60fps in the EVF, your lag is no more than 1/60s.


----------



## Joules (Feb 24, 2020)

m4ndr4ke said:


> Doesn't the EOS R's EVF work at 60p, rather than 30p? I think it changes to 30p when one enables the power saving mode.
> 60p makes it easier to drop a few frames without being noticeable to the human eye.


Do you have any source for the EVF refresh rate? In the past I could not find it. For LiveView, you are correct, as Canon states it's 60 unless you want to save energy. But for the viewfinder, you'll even find many people who used it claim it is 120 Hz. Which would make sense, as that's the refresh rate stated for the external EVF for the M line.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 24, 2020)

Kit. said:


> It doesn't. I'd say it "increases" the lag by introducing interface delays (related to both data transfer and synchronization).



Actually I've just realised it depends on the definition of lag. If the lag is defined as the time between the beginning of exposure and EVF display, it'll be very close to 1/30s if the EVF does 30fps.

But if we define the lag as time passed between an arbitrary event and the moment it's shown in the EVF, it'll be anything between 1/30s and 1/15s, 1/20s on average, because the event can happen right after the exposure.

Whether or not any processing is done during the exposure probably doesn't matter as long as the system does the required 30fps.


----------



## m4ndr4ke (Feb 24, 2020)

Joules said:


> Do you have any source for the EVF refresh rate? In the past I could not find it. For LiveView, you are correct, as Canon states it's 60 unless you want to save energy. But for the viewfinder, you'll even find many people who used it claim it is 120 Hz. Which would make sense, as that's the refresh rate stated for the external EVF for the M line.


Tbh I don't remember if I ever read that, but I tried the R in the past and it definitely seemed like 60p on the EVF (and not 120, btw).


----------



## Etienne (Feb 24, 2020)

Bangrossi said:


> 50 f/1.4 IS with image quality similar to sigma 50 f/1.4 art will not be small and affordable. It will cost as much as other L primes. There are two option for canon to make 50mm affordable and small. Use old optical formula (double gauss) but it will sacrifice image quality or make it f/1.8 that compete directly to nikon z 50mm f1.8


It doesn't have to be "equivalent to the 50 f/1.4 art," which is why I suggest "modest"


----------



## Joules (Feb 24, 2020)

m4ndr4ke said:


> Tbh I don't remember if I ever read that, but I tried the R in the past and it definitely seemed like 60p on the EVF (and not 120, btw).


There is a difference in Viewfinder smoothness if you use an RF lens instead of an adapted EF one. Do you remember which one you were using?

It would be weird if they used only 60 if 120 seems to be the standard for the better M model. Quote from the official M5 material:

"Frame your shot with confidence and see pin sharp detail right to the edge of the frame, thanks to precision optics in the large, high resolution (approx. 2.36 million dots) OLED electronic viewfinder. An ultrafast refresh rate (*120* fps) and minimal lag ensure maximum responsiveness and usability when following fast action."

But I just can't find anything official about the R or RP EVF. Trying it in a store, I mostly remember how much better I found the R viewfinder compared to the RP. But


----------



## Kit. (Feb 24, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Actually I've just realised it depends on the definition of lag.


The lag is of course defined as the delay introduced by image capturing, digitizing, digital processing and optical output (as compared to a simple optical viewfinder).



Quarkcharmed said:


> If the lag is defined as the time between the beginning of exposure and EVF display, it'll be very close to 1/30s if the EVF does 30fps.


I don't see why. How come that the exposure time and the sensor readout speed play no role in your estimation?


----------



## canonnews (Feb 24, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But I never claimed it was continuous.  T time is measured from the beginning of the exposure till the image is rendered in the EVF. It obviously includes the exposure itself, readout, internal processing and data transfer, render of HUD interface and copying the rendered frame to the EVF buffer. Or maybe it renders right in the buffer.
> 
> What I'm saying is _if _the processing is single-threaded and sequential (and it's mostly sequential), the T time must not be longer than 1/30s or you inevitably get the lag growing indefinitely. It simply means there's not enough processing power to render at 30fps. There are ways to optimise it such as doing rendering during exposure, but that's not the point here as we're trying to explain how T can be more than 1/30s, with EVF still rendering at 30fps.


you're assuming the lag cause it the same per each frame. what I'm saying is that it may not be.


```
F1 ----------F2---------F3

At the EVF it arrives at:

          (lag cause) F1 ---------F2---------F3
```

if the lag cause just happens pre video streaming then the entire video stream is offset from your actual viewing.

so optical viewing would see something but EVF viewing would be slightly delayed by delta T. thus lagged by an offset. but the video stream is still happily processing along at 1/30th of a second intervals or 1/60th .. or on the M5 and others up to 1/120th.

so it could have nothing to do with intra frame processing.

There could also be hiccups that inject into the frames randomly, ie: a long AF operation. that cause more delta T.. but I would imagine that Canon has a way to monitor delta T and "get it back to 0" somehow, or it would simply build over time.


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 24, 2020)

bks54 said:


> This is an amazing list. But why release the converters without well-suited primes to use them with?



Because it looks like there are very well suited zooms.
Especially if they are as hyper sharp as the TC's are with the current 100-400mm MII.


----------



## Bert63 (Feb 24, 2020)

scyrene said:


> Actually, I think the 500 f/4 is more suited to holding doors open, being bigger and heavier




I was also thinking RV wheel chock for when I'm camping.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 24, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Every single time I read the specs on the 100-500 I die a little inside.
> 
> It could have been amazing. Considering the 500mm F4 I want is $10K, I'd have paid a pretty penny for a nice 100-500.
> 
> This thing is a doorstop.



Let’s hope for a 500 5.6 DO, that could be a nice middle ground.


----------



## tron (Feb 24, 2020)

Act444 said:


> Let’s hope for a 500 5.6 DO, that could be a nice middle ground.


Yes sometimes like tomorrow, or even yesterday  Assuming it weighs as much as Nikon though!


----------



## unfocused (Feb 24, 2020)

@canonnews, @Quarkcharmed @Joules etc.

I have no clue what you guys are saying, but my takeaway is that getting an electronic viewfinder to be as responsive as an optical viewfinder is a lot harder than some people think. Am I close?


----------



## Ph0t0 (Feb 24, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> Because it looks like there are very well suited zooms.
> Especially if they are as hyper sharp as the TC's are with the current 100-400mm MII.



Which RF zooms (except possibly 100-500) are very well suited for TCs?
Looking at photos of 1.4x and 2x and their protruding elements I'm not even sure if they would fit on the RF 70-200mm.

Previous rumor mentioned that there is a possibility of two DO prime super-telephoto lenses being announced for RF. 
I think those would be the prefect candidates to be coupled with RF 1.4x an 2x extenders. 
Since the rumor also mentioned that we should expect slower lenses, maybe some light lenses like 300mm f4 IS, 400mm f4 or f5.6 IS or 500mm f5.6 IS?


----------



## m4ndr4ke (Feb 24, 2020)

Joules said:


> There is a difference in Viewfinder smoothness if you use an RF lens instead of an adapted EF one. Do you remember which one you were using?


Yeah, it was a RF 35mm f/1.8 STM.

But of course, I could be wrong.


----------



## chasingrealness (Feb 24, 2020)

The real question is whether to go all-in on f/1.2 primes or to get into this f/2 zoon life. I'm really torn, but I do think the wider aperture f/1.2 primes are where I'm leaning. I have f/1.8 primes now and I sometimes feel like a little more light would make a nice difference.


----------



## davidespinosa (Feb 24, 2020)

I'm thinking f/1.2 primes, but I'm waiting for a 20mm or 24mm.


----------



## chasingrealness (Feb 24, 2020)

davidespinosa said:


> I'm thinking f/1.2 primes, but I'm waiting for a 20mm or 24mm.


Yeah, probably same. I would want to go for 24, 35, 50, 85, and then cap off with a 135 f/1.4 if they end up releasing that one per the patent spec posted not too long ago on CR.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 24, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> The real question is whether to go all-in on f/1.2 primes or to get into this f/2 zoon life. I'm really torn, but I do think the wider aperture f/1.2 primes are where I'm leaning. I have f/1.8 primes now and I sometimes feel like a little more light would make a nice difference.



For me, it’s not f1.2 so much as better IQ at f2 and wider. The EF 50 and 85mm lenses just aren’t that great* once you go wider than 2.8...which lessens the incentive to shoot ultra-wide (unless the lack of light requires it, of course).

*on high-res cameras, that is


----------



## chasingrealness (Feb 24, 2020)

Act444 said:


> For me, it’s not f1.2 so much as better IQ at f2 and wider. The EF 50 and 85mm lenses just aren’t that great once you go wider than 2.8...which lessens the incentive to shoot ultra-wide (unless the lack of light requires it, of course).


Seems like the new 50/85 are supremely sharp corner to corner wide open without the chromatic aberrations that were problematic in the EF 1.2s, but if you've seen differently then definitely share your experience. I don't want to spend $6-10k on lenses that are not as close to absolutely perfect as possible while still having autofocus.


----------



## trulandphoto (Feb 24, 2020)

Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 MACRO IS STM
Canon RF 85mm f/1.8 IS STM
I'll take one of each.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 24, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> Seems like the new 50/85 are supremely sharp corner to corner wide open without the chromatic aberrations that were problematic in the EF 1.2s, but if you've seen differently then definitely share your experience. I don't want to spend $6-10k on lenses that are not as close to absolutely perfect as possible while still having autofocus.



No experience to speak of...as the only RF lens currently in my possession is the 35mm 1.8 “Macro” - all my other lenses are EF. However, online tests do indicate tangible improvement. I’d love to see their true potential on a non-filtered, high-res R-mount camera. 

On that note, got a chuckle out of your title. Requires funding indeed.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Feb 24, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> The real question is whether to go all-in on f/1.2 primes or to get into this f/2 zoon life. I'm really torn, but I do think the wider aperture f/1.2 primes are where I'm leaning. I have f/1.8 primes now and I sometimes feel like a little more light would make a nice difference.


Well, of course f/1.2 are going to be much brighter - and allow faster shutter speeds/lower ISO, BUT...you'll have to shoot at more open then f/2 to get that advantage - and while that suits certain shots or approaches, you might want to consider how often do you really want to shoot with that narrow a DoF in real life (as opposed to when trying it out)? 

I have most EF f/1.2 primes, or nearest to depending on focal length, but in reality most of my shots are at f/2 and above, due to DoF needs - even most portraits.

Just something to consider...


----------



## chasingrealness (Feb 24, 2020)

Act444 said:


> No experience to speak of...as the only RF lens currently in my possession is the 35mm 1.8 “Macro” - all my other lenses are EF. However, online tests do indicate tangible improvement. I’d love to see their true potential on a non-filtered, high-res R-mount camera.
> 
> On that note, got a chuckle out of your title. Requires funding indeed.


 I have two good kidneys, and I'd like to keep them, but at this rate I may have to start mapping out my priorities!!


----------



## chasingrealness (Feb 24, 2020)

StoicalEtcher said:


> Well, of course f/1.2 are going to be much brighter - and allow faster shutter speeds/lower ISO, BUT...you'll have to shoot at more open then f/2 to get that advantage - and while that suits certain shots or approaches, you might want to consider how often do you really want to shoot with that narrow a DoF in real life (as opposed to when trying it out)?
> 
> I have most EF f/1.2 primes, or nearest to depending on focal length, but in reality most of my shots are at f/2 and above, due to DoF needs - even most portraits.
> 
> Just something to consider...


Hmmmmmmm......I agree with this. Maybe going all in at f/1.2 isn't the right approach. Ok so hypothetical: You're being held at gunpoint by an aperture fiend and you're told that you only get to keep one of your f/1.2 lenses because this is a really considerate thief, all things considered. You try to lighten the mood by making a joke about being into shooting yourself, but the thief isn't having it. Which focal length would you want to have that wide aperture for? 50mm? 85mm? 600mm?


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Feb 24, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> I have two good kidneys, and I'd like to keep them, but at this rate I may have to start mapping out my priorities!!



From someone with only one kidney... I'd suggest a different source of income.


----------



## chasingrealness (Feb 24, 2020)

TMACIOSZEK said:


> From someone with only one kidney... I'd suggest a different source of income.


Yeah, probably good advice!


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Feb 24, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> Hmmmmmmm......I agree with this. Maybe going all in at f/1.2 isn't the right approach. Ok so hypothetical: You're being held at gunpoint by an aperture fiend and you're told that you only get to keep one of your f/1.2 lenses because this is a really considerate thief, all things considered. You try to lighten the mood by making a joke about being into shooting yourself, but the thief isn't having it. Which focal length would you want to have that wide aperture for? 50mm? 85mm? 600mm?


Ooh, good question - not so good an answer (from me) I suspect, but I'll give it a go:

Purely personally, I really like my 50/1.2 - just always have, despite the hard stick it gets from a large number of posters. I know it is not the "perfect" lens, but I love the results, and have always simply liked using it.

However, I'm also very partial to my 135/2, and from a professional point of view, I couldn't be without the 500/4 for some of what I do (and like to do).

So, not really conclusive. Guess I'll just have to hope I'm never held at gunpoint !


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 24, 2020)

Kit. said:


> How come that the exposure time and the sensor readout speed play no role in your estimation?


It's totally the opposite, I said the time passed since the beginning of exposure. Obviously it includes exposure itself, readout etc. 

But what I said in the previous message was, should we calculate the lag not from the beginning of exposure, but earlier, when some physical event of interest happened. In which case, as you can see below, if the event happens right after the exposure, there's no way to see it until the next exposure is fully processed.


```
Event                                             Event is shown
            |                                                      |
-<Exposure>-+-<Processing>-<EVF>---------<Exposure>-<Processing>-<EVF>---------------> time
```


----------



## AEWest (Feb 24, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> But there is where I have to say you are wrong.
> 
> Most RF bodies come with an adapter included. Anyone who wants a cheap way to get in should just get the EF 50 stm. You can have it for around $80. I have been saying for a while... I am not interested in an RF 50 f1.8 that is just the same as the EF version. And suggesting that people buying into the RF system should have the option of a cheap (performance wise as well) $100 f1.8 and a $2.5k f1.2 50 mm lens is just silly.
> 
> ...



I disagree. There should be a few budget conscious primes available in native RF mount for users of the RP and its successor. Canon is clearly phasing out of the EF mount so it would be natural to offer some basic lenses for the entry level user. Not everyone can afford the R5 and 1.2L lenses.

If Canon doesn't offer these, and Sigma/Tamron decide not to make RF lenses, the budget conscious purchaser may decide that Sony is a better option just for the glass.


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Feb 24, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> Hmmmmmmm......I agree with this. Maybe going all in at f/1.2 isn't the right approach. Ok so hypothetical: You're being held at gunpoint by an aperture fiend and you're told that you only get to keep one of your f/1.2 lenses because this is a really considerate thief, all things considered. You try to lighten the mood by making a joke about being into shooting yourself, but the thief isn't having it. Which focal length would you want to have that wide aperture for? 50mm? 85mm? 600mm?


I'd keep the 600mm 1.2, then after the thief is gone, I'll sell it and buy every other 1.2 prime.

If that's cheating, I'll keep the 50mm. 85mm is too long to use indoors at Christmas gatherings, and I have some relatives that desperately need to be prettied up with a 1.2.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 24, 2020)

canonnews said:


> you're assuming the lag cause it the same per each frame. what I'm saying is that it may not be.


We're mostly concerned about the spikes in processing time, but we assume they're rare and we're just skipping frames in such cases. 



canonnews said:


> if the lag cause just happens pre video streaming then the entire video stream is offset from your actual viewing.


On your timeline diagram, the 'lag cause' happens while we're capturing and rendering frames. The processing lag doesn't happen somewhere in the air, it happens in our CPU. So our processing pipeline is either busy with processing the lag cause, or the current frame. We need to capture/read sensor 30 times per second in order to render 30 frames per second in the EVF. If the lag cause is one-off, it's a spike and we simply skip the frames. If the cause is permanent and happens every frame, we simply don't have enough processing power to do 30 frames per second.



canonnews said:


> so optical viewing would see something but EVF viewing would be slightly delayed by delta T. thus lagged by an offset. but the video stream is still happily processing along at 1/30th of a second intervals or 1/60th .. or on the M5 and others up to 1/120th.



The point is, there's no abstract black-boxed 'offset'. Any offset means we spend time in processing and our CPU is running instructions and spends time in the 'offset'. As above, if the offset as added to processing time regularly, that means we can't do the required number of frames per second.



canonnews said:


> There could also be hiccups that inject into the frames randomly, ie: a long AF operation. that cause more delta T.. but I would imagine that Canon has a way to monitor delta T and "get it back to 0" somehow, or it would simply build over time.



AF operations should probably be processed in a different CPU thread. I don't think hiccups cause permanent lag. As above, if it's a temp spike in the CPU load, we simply skip frames.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 25, 2020)

trulandphoto said:


> Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 MACRO IS STM
> Canon RF 85mm f/1.8 IS STM
> I'll take one of each.


me too!
I get the desire for F1.2's but to be honest. I would rather not be one of those people. if I was to get an F1.2 it would be the 85mm over the 50mm (looking back at the posts above here)


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 25, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> Seems like the new 50/85 are supremely sharp corner to corner wide open without the chromatic aberrations that were problematic in the EF 1.2s, but if you've seen differently then definitely share your experience. I don't want to spend $6-10k on lenses that are not as close to absolutely perfect as possible while still having autofocus.


The RF 50mm f/1.2L and RF 85mm f/1.2L are true wonders. I would say that the 85mm is the better of the two for portraits. Both are insanely sharp at f/1.2. I have sold my RF 50mm f/1.2L only because my 28-70 covers 50mm just fine for me (also a truly fantastic lens). I just do not have much use for a 50mm prime for my portrait work. Really looking forward to the RF 70-135mm f/2, though an RF 135mm f/1.4L would also be extremely tempting. The autofocus on all three are as near perfect as one can get. With the R's eye-AF my keeper rate (tack sharp focus on the iris) is at least 95%. That is far and away more than what I got with EF lenses on the 5D Mark III. Hope this helps with your decision. I have seen zero CA with the 50 or the 85 in my work.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 25, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> Hmmmmmmm......I agree with this. Maybe going all in at f/1.2 isn't the right approach. Ok so hypothetical: You're being held at gunpoint by an aperture fiend and you're told that you only get to keep one of your f/1.2 lenses because this is a really considerate thief, all things considered. You try to lighten the mood by making a joke about being into shooting yourself, but the thief isn't having it. Which focal length would you want to have that wide aperture for? 50mm? 85mm? 600mm?


The 85mm


----------



## chasingrealness (Feb 25, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> I'd keep the 600mm 1.2, then after the thief is gone, I'll sell it and buy every other 1.2 prime.
> 
> If that's cheating, I'll keep the 50mm. 85mm is too long to use indoors at Christmas gatherings, and I have some relatives that desperately need to be prettied up with a 1.2.


Haha good choice! Imagine the depth of field on a lens with these specs...


----------



## chasingrealness (Feb 25, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The RF 50mm f/1.2L and RF 85mm f/1.2L are true wonders. I would say that the 85mm is the better of the two for portraits. Both are insanely sharp at f/1.2. I have sold my RF 50mm f/1.2L only because my 28-70 covers 50mm just fine for me (also a truly fantastic lens). I just do not have much use for a 50mm prime for my portrait work. Really looking forward to the RF 70-135mm f/2, though an RF 135mm f/1.4L would also be extremely tempting. The autofocus on all three are as near perfect as one can get. With the R's eye-AF my keeper rate (tack sharp focus on the iris) is at least 95%. That is far and away more than what I got with EF lenses on the 5D Mark III. Hope this helps with your decision. I have seen zero CA with the 50 or the 85 in my work.


Thank you for the response. This is my feeling as well. I really love the 85 focal length and think it’s worth the few extra bucks over the 50. And the 28-70 would be better than the 50 since I could get both 35 and 50 in one package with only a slight sacrifice in light gathering capability.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 25, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> Thank you for the response. This is my feeling as well. I really love the 85 focal length and think it’s worth the few extra bucks over the 50. And the 28-70 would be better than the 50 since I could get both 35 and 50 in one package with only a slight sacrifice in light gathering capability.


In my opinion, you would not be disappointed in the 28-70mm or the 85mm. They are both worth every penny. Honestly, as good as the EF 135mm f/2L was for me in the bokeh dept., an f/2 zoom from 70-135 would probably do it for me. I could be really really happy with just those three lenses. I was never satisfied with the bokeh of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II though it was a great lens otherwise.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 25, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> Yeah, probably same. I would want to go for 24, 35, 50, 85, and then cap off with a 135 f/1.4 if they end up releasing that one per the patent spec posted not too long ago on CR.



I'm thinkin' 35 and 85, and then a 14mm f2-2.8 (?? depending on what Canon offers), plus this just-announced 100-500. That would keep me happy for a long time!


----------



## davidespinosa (Feb 25, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> And the 28-70 would be better than the 50 since I could get both 35 and 50 in one package with only a slight sacrifice in light gathering capability.



It's not a slight sacrifice -- it's more than a full stop.
The zoom is f/2, the primes are f/1.2.


----------



## derpderp (Feb 25, 2020)

give me a 24mm f1.2 that out performs Sony GM equivalent and i'd ditch my sony kit in a heartbeat


----------



## Kit. (Feb 25, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It's totally the opposite, I said the time passed since the beginning of exposure. Obviously it includes exposure itself, readout etc.


But your estimation does not include any _number_ related to exposure itself etc.

Why?



Quarkcharmed said:


> But what I said in the previous message was, should we calculate the lag not from the beginning of exposure, but earlier, when some physical event of interest happened. In which case, as you can see below, if the event happens right after the exposure, there's no way to see it until the next exposure is fully processed.
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


Why can't you start the new exposure right after the data from the previous one is read out from the sensor? It's not like the _sensor_ is busy with something at that moment. "Processing" and "EVF" is not what the sensor does.


----------



## telemaque (Feb 25, 2020)

bks54 said:


> This is an amazing list. But why release the converters without well-suited primes to use them with?



I would think a 70-135mm f2 plus an extender is quite interesting.
If x2 extender this gives a 140-270mm f4, quite interesting in my personal opinion.

Obviously depends on the price of the 70-135mm f2...


----------



## telemaque (Feb 25, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> What percentage of the time is a 70-200mm f/2.8 too dark? 1%? Maybe 3% on a really bad shoot?



Your comment is correct for photography. For videography, the situation is a bit different.
You are stuck with a shutter speed of 1/50 s at best, so f2.8 can be quite dark in a church during a wedding...

In those moments, 1 stop, so as said 100% more light, can be a big difference.
Reason why I bought from Rokinon their cinelens with T1.5, this changes your life in those moments!

However, this is a pure videography point of view...


----------



## telemaque (Feb 25, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> No love for us... sniff...



I would bet when the R1 type of body will be launched a bunch of big white lenses should follow.
Than you will feel the love of Canon !
and your bank account feel very bad all of a sudden...


----------



## telemaque (Feb 25, 2020)

mb66energy said:


> Sorry to finish your dreams but I think prices will be slightly above the 500-550 $ / EUR for the RF35 because large focal lengths at the same aperture need larger (diameter) and thicker lenses and AF motors / IS have to move more weight. And I am shure they will use advanced lens designs like RF 35 (and not that of the current nifty fifty).
> 
> But my RF35 is worth every buck: good wide open, excellent above @f/2.8 and very very flexible due to its image stabilization and MACRO FUNCTION !!!



Interesting comment from you

Have you also used in the past the EF 35mm f2 IS?

If yes, how do you compare the image quality between the two lenses?

I am asking as I own the EF 35mm and I am very happy with it, _almost_ an "L" quality in my opinion...


----------



## telemaque (Feb 25, 2020)

Normalnorm said:


> I notice you are very focused on vignetting. While it may be an issue for you, for the vast bulk of images made it is a non-issue.
> I use the EF 11-24 on a daily basis in high end architectural applications along with my 17TS-E and vignetting is not a problem.
> Actual use of most lenses is not wide open but stopped down where vignetting becomes invisible.
> Real world use is where I evaluate lenses and my experience informs me that lenses like the 28-70 f2 used wide open are brilliant, the EF 11-24 is superb and the 17TS-E is a classic high performer.
> Canon is the leader in the optical world at the moment. Not Zeiss, not Leica, not Sigma, not Nikon. Each of those manufacturers has a few gems but not the number and momentum that Canon has.



If I may, I think Zeiss and Leica are not targetting the same type of customers.
What they produce is pleasing their customers A LOT.

If you look at comments from Leica and Zeiss owners, they speak about their lenses and cameras as if God had produced them.

I love Canon quality but I see Leica and Zeiss as high end producers and would not rank them below Canon.

Maybe being a European influences my point of view...


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 25, 2020)

Kit. said:


> But your estimation does not include any _number_ related to exposure itself etc.
> 
> Why?


Why would I need to include the number? Remember we were simply trying to answer the question whether the lag can be longer than frame duration. As in my previous diagram, depending on how you define the lag, it can be up to two times longer. But that's not because of some tricky parallel processing etc.

In terms of the numbers, obviously the exposure itself must be shorter than one frame. It must also leave a room for readout and processing/render. I believe the readout goes at 10 or 12 bits to speed it up, but I suspect the exposure + readout take most of the time as all the processing happens in memory and should be fairly quick.



Kit. said:


> Why can't you start the new exposure right after the data from the previous one is read out from the sensor? It's not like the _sensor_ is busy with something at that moment. "Processing" and "EVF" is not what the sensor does.



I think you can do some processing (from the previous frame for example) during the exposure. The readout - I'm not so sure, maybe it takes both in-sensor processing and CPU who controls the reading ow by row. 

Anyway, you can't start a new exposure right away. In order to get smooth video on the screen, you have to take exposures in regular intervals (and render them using the same intervals). Say your frame is 1/30s and the exposure is 1/60s. It makes no sense to take two exposures one after another. The beginning of each exposure should be aligned with 1/30s intervals.

Also, if you take the second exposure right after the readout, where do you read the data to? It should be using some fast memory, do they have enough memory? I don't know.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 25, 2020)

telemaque said:


> I would think a 70-135mm f2 plus an extender is quite interesting.
> If x2 extender this gives a 140-270mm f4, quite interesting in my personal opinion.
> 
> Obviously depends on the price of the 70-135mm f2...


... and the performance, both AF and optical, with the x2 attached. And more fundamentally, if the 2x will physically fit which I would guess is unlikely.

The best route to that combination of focal length and aperture would be the 70-200/2.8 with a 1.4x, giving you a 98-280 f/4. Slightly more range and only a 1.4x so very likely better performance. Also has the advantage of not being a rumour! Again the problem might be compatibility - Bryan Carnathan notes here: "the RF 70-200's rear lens element is quite shallow when the lens is retracted, leaving little space for an extender to be inserted into the back of the lens." He wrote this before the RF Extenders were announced, and we now know they have quite significant projections into the lens. Surely, you might say, Canon wouldn't take away the Extender compatibility we had with the EF 70-200s? Let's hope not, but I wouldn't bank on it :-(.


----------



## riker (Feb 25, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> (Partially) wrong. USM is a bit faster, but STM is more silent and smoother in movement. For video you will probably prefer STM. For photography STM is almost as good as USM.


Well, that is simply not what I experience, having STM lens, old USM lens and new USM lens. I'm afraid your statement is more from marketing materials and official articles than actual real life use.


----------



## Daner (Feb 25, 2020)

bsbeamer said:


> That 70-135 could be really interesting, especially if it would work with an extender. Have a Tamron 35-150mm F/2.8-4 that is a great "all around" lens without sacrificing much. Pairs really well with 17-35mm F/2.8-4 when the bigger lenses just can't make it in the bag. (Wish the 15-30mm F/2.8 would make it in the backpack more often!)



One of the benefits of the RF mount is that it enables the positioning of the rearmost glass element to be closer to the sensor than with the EF designs. If I understand things correctly, every RF lens that has been released so far makes use of this, and is thus unsuitable for use with extenders. The upcoming 100-500 is the exception among announced lenses.

Making the most of this optically has made it so the RF 70-200 F/2.8 does not work with extenders. For this reason, I am pretty sure that the 70-135 F/2 will not either.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 25, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Why would I need to include the number? Remember we were simply trying to answer the question whether the lag can be longer than frame duration.


Why do you equate this "frame duration" (whatever that means) to the EVF refresh rate and not include the values for other important delays into it? That's what I am asking.

It seems that your "frame duration" is actually _the_ lag (a tautology) and you falsely assume that the EVF refresh rate somehow equates to it.



Quarkcharmed said:


> Anyway, you can't start a new exposure right away. In order to get smooth video on the screen,


That's not our goal. Our goal is to get decent tracking in live view, not "smooth video on the screen". With full electronic shutter, we may as well start next exposure for the current line right after we read it (if the scene is dark enough), not waiting to finish reading the whole sensor.



Quarkcharmed said:


> Also, if you take the second exposure right after the readout, where do you read the data to? It should be using some fast memory, do they have enough memory? I don't know.


The sensor. It has a lot of unused analog memory after the readout. Where do you think all those photoelectrons are stored during exposure?


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 25, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> ... and the performance, both AF and optical, with the x2 attached. And more fundamentally, if the 2x will physically fit which I would guess is unlikely.
> 
> The best route to that combination of focal length and aperture would be the 70-200/2.8 with a 1.4x, giving you a 98-280 f/4. Slightly more range and only a 1.4x so very likely better performance. Also has the advantage of not being a rumour! Again the problem might be compatibility - Bryan Carnathan notes here: "the RF 70-200's rear lens element is quite shallow when the lens is retracted, leaving little space for an extender to be inserted into the back of the lens." He wrote this before the RF Extenders were announced, and we now know they have quite significant projections into the lens. Surely, you might say, Canon wouldn't take away the Extender compatibility we had with the EF 70-200s? Let's hope not, but I wouldn't bank on it :-(.



Have a look at https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/rf-70-200mm-f2-8l-is-usm-lens/specifications/ and scroll down to "*Extender Compatibility".*


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 25, 2020)

riker said:


> Well, that is simply not what I experience, having STM lens, old USM lens and new USM lens. I'm afraid your statement is more from marketing materials and official articles than actual real life use.


There are two types of STM mechanism. The 'lead screw' type, as used on the zooms, is pretty quiet, but there isn't room for this in physically shorter lenses, which in practice means the primes. They have a gear train similar to the old micromotor which is inclined to be noisier.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 25, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Why do you equate this "frame duration" (whatever that means)


It's the time period between two distinct sequential images rendered in the EVF/LiveView.



Kit. said:


> to the EVF refresh rate



I tried to avoid this term. EVF rate can be different than actual frames-per-second. Say an EVF can run at 120Hz but camera only feeds it with 30 frames per second. It's similar to any LCD monitor. It shouldn't matter for our discussion though because most likely the system will feed EVF with new frames just before refreshing. How it works exactly I don't know as it's very specific technical documentation we don't have.



Kit. said:


> and not include the values for other important delays into it? That's what I am asking.



Which values? It's all inside <processing> in this diagram.
If you claim your camera does 30fps, you should capture frames 30 times a second. The delta time between the beginnings of exposures must be 1/30s. Your system should be able to process the raw data and feed the rendered frame to the EVF before the next capture. Rendering should also be at 30fps exactly in regular intervals. Irregularities cause so called stuttering and you normally want to avoid them at all costs especially in the EVFs. Stuttering may cause headaches quite literally. Also it's better to have 60fps, not 30, but we use 30 just as an example.



Kit. said:


> The sensor. It has a lot of unused analog memory after the readout. Where do you think all those photoelectrons are stored during exposure?



Ok. So you suggest to do the exposure but hold it in the sensor because there's previous capture in memory. So we can keep two exposures taken one right after another. Right. And why would we need to do the exposures in pairs?


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 25, 2020)

riker said:


> Well, that is simply not what I experience, having STM lens, old USM lens and new USM lens. I'm afraid your statement is more from marketing materials and official articles than actual real life use.



Just like there are multiple USM types (regular, ring, nano), there are multiple STM types, have a look at https://www.eos-magazine.com/articles/EOS_feature/canon-stm-stepping-motor-lens.html .

So non-ring USM compared to lead-screw STM would likely favour STM for speed and noise. Canon is quite blatant in their press materials, after a while you start to notice that on select lenses they will say "But this one uses the _awesome _version of <focus tech>", while the other lenses just get the generic blurb.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 25, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Have a look at https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/rf-70-200mm-f2-8l-is-usm-lens/specifications/ and scroll down to "*Extender Compatibility".*


Well there you go - there are going to be some unhappy people. 

What are the odds of Kenko or Sigma coming up with a TC design which does physically fit? And if so, has Canon done anything in the RF mount protocol to prevent electronic compatibility?


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 25, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Well there you go - there are going to be some unhappy people.
> 
> What are the odds of Kenko or Sigma coming up with a TC design which does physically fit? And if so, has Canon done anything in the RF mount protocol to prevent electronic compatibility?



I'm already unhappy with the colour scheme, on the RF mount both sides have a satin polish metal ring, but the RF extenders seem white. So you get:
Black body - metal colour RF ring - white extender - metal colour RF ring - black/white lens

First world problems


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 25, 2020)

Hmmmm... are minutiae and menudo the same things? I mean, aren't they both, sometimes, simply just tripe?


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 25, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I'm already unhappy with the colour scheme, on the RF mount both sides have a satin polish metal ring, but the RF extenders seem white. So you get:
> Black body - metal colour RF ring - white extender - metal colour RF ring - black/white lens


I'm the same with my 600/4L IS III - they've changed the white again so it doesn't match the Mark III Extender. For that sort of money you'd think they'd give a matching Extender for free!


----------



## telemaque (Feb 25, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> ... and the performance, both AF and optical, with the x2 attached. And more fundamentally, if the 2x will physically fit which I would guess is unlikely.
> 
> The best route to that combination of focal length and aperture would be the 70-200/2.8 with a 1.4x, giving you a 98-280 f/4. Slightly more range and only a 1.4x so very likely better performance. Also has the advantage of not being a rumour! Again the problem might be compatibility - Bryan Carnathan notes here: "the RF 70-200's rear lens element is quite shallow when the lens is retracted, leaving little space for an extender to be inserted into the back of the lens." He wrote this before the RF Extenders were announced, and we now know they have quite significant projections into the lens. Surely, you might say, Canon wouldn't take away the Extender compatibility we had with the EF 70-200s? Let's hope not, but I wouldn't bank on it :-(.



I take your point. 
I agree with your comment on the better option using 70-200 f2.8 and 1.4X.

I suppose we will know for sure the real quality in the field once all this is available and people have reported the quality or the lack of quality.

Looking forward to those reports.


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 25, 2020)

Ph0t0 said:


> Which RF zooms (except possibly 100-500) are very well suited for TCs?
> Looking at photos of 1.4x and 2x and their protruding elements I'm not even sure if they would fit on the RF 70-200mm.
> 
> Previous rumor mentioned that there is a possibility of two DO prime super-telephoto lenses being announced for RF.
> ...



You misunderstand then.
I referenced that the EF TCs work wonderfully especially with the 100-400mm L MII.
Well Canon has a couple of incredible zooms already that will likely work as well or better than on the 100-400mm MII with TCs.
The 100-400mm MII actually works better than many primes with the MIII TCs in the EF series.


----------



## chasingrealness (Feb 25, 2020)

davidespinosa said:


> It's not a slight sacrifice -- it's more than a full stop.
> The zoom is f/2, the primes are f/1.2.


Fair point, I'm just trying to talk myself into it


----------



## HikeBike (Feb 25, 2020)

RF 50mm and 85mm f/1.8 IS STM. Yes, please.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Feb 25, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> You misunderstand then.
> I referenced that the EF TCs work wonderfully especially with the 100-400mm L MII.
> Well Canon has a couple of incredible zooms already that will likely work as well or better than on the 100-400mm MII with TCs.
> The 100-400mm MII actually works better than many primes with the MIII TCs in the EF series.



Yeah I kind of understood that bks54 was referring to RF extenders and RF lenses when he wrote:



bks54 said:


> This is an amazing list. But why release the converters without well-suited primes to use them with?



And I concluded(obviously wrongly) that you were talking about RF zooms well suited to be used with newly released RF TCs.


----------



## Dexter75 (Feb 25, 2020)

martin_p_a said:


> I don’t know... if we are to consider it like the equivalent of the 70-200 but within a new f/2 trinity, I can’t see it being this affordable. Of course there’s a significant loss of zoom power, but my money would be something closer to 3200$



$3200? Well that would just be more overpricing from Canon on their RF lenses. You can get an 85 1.4, a Sigma 105 1.4 and a Canon 135 f/2 used for half that and have faster lenses.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 25, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> $3200? Well that would just be more overpricing from Canon on their RF lenses. You can get an 85 1.4, a Sigma 105 1.4 and a Canon 135 f/2 used for half that and have faster lenses.


Dexter, Dexter, Dexter... comparing a very old Canon prime and third party primes to a fast zoom and calling it over pricing? tsk tsk tsk. Then throwing in used? wow. Why not add up the price of the three primes brand new, at those various focal lengths, and see what the total is? Sigma 105 = $1,599, Canon 85mm f/1.4L = $1,499, Canon EF 135mm f/2L = $999... Total = $4,097 vs $3,000 for the zoom and you'd have to use an adapter while carrying around 3 lenses. Now, everybody has to decide for themselves what is best for them, but the idea that the three primes are less $ just doesn't hold water. Two of the lenses are faster, yes.


----------



## Bert63 (Feb 25, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> $3200? Well that would just be more overpricing from Canon on their RF lenses. You can get an 85 1.4, a Sigma 105 1.4 and a Canon 135 f/2 used for half that and have faster lenses.




I'd ahve to shop the used side forever to find something I like (I'm picky) and wouldn't likely get them from the same source (never happen) and would still overpay compared to the price on the zoomer that would do it all, be new, and cost less.

Hmm..

I'd press the easy button. I am not to the point where money doesn't matter but I am to the point where I don't pinch the pennies nearly as hard as I used to.

You can't take it with you.


----------



## BillB (Feb 25, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> $3200? Well that would just be more overpricing from Canon on their RF lenses. You can get an 85 1.4, a Sigma 105 1.4 and a Canon 135 f/2 used for half that and have faster lenses.


What are other companies selling their full frame f2 zooms for these days?


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 25, 2020)

BillB said:


> What are other companies selling their full frame f2 zooms for these days?


Canon is at the low end. All other f/2 zooms from other manufacturers are priceless.


----------



## dslrdummy (Feb 25, 2020)

telemaque said:


> If I may, I think Zeiss and Leica are not targetting the same type of customers.
> What they produce is pleasing their customers A LOT.
> 
> If you look at comments from Leica and Zeiss owners, they speak about their lenses and cameras as if God had produced them.
> ...


Not just Europeans, Aussies too  (and Voigtlander isn't far behind).


----------



## Dexter75 (Feb 26, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Dexter, Dexter, Dexter... comparing a very old Canon prime and third party primes to a fast zoom and calling it over pricing? tsk tsk tsk. Then throwing in used? wow. Why not add up the price of the three primes brand new, at those various focal lengths, and see what the total is? Sigma 105 = $1,599, Canon 85mm f/1.4L = $1,499, Canon EF 135mm f/2L = $999... Total = $4,097 vs $3,000 for the zoom and you'd have to use an adapter while carrying around 3 lenses. Now, everybody has to decide for themselves what is best for them, but the idea that the three primes are less $ just doesn't hold water. Two of the lenses are faster, yes.



Sorry, but as a portrait shooter, I will take a fast prime over a slower zoom all day everyday.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 26, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> Sorry, but as a portrait shooter, I will take a fast prime over a slower zoom all day everyday.


No doubt a fast prime has it's place for sure. As a portrait/fashion/model boot camp shooter I also know the value of a fast zoom in high pressure production situations. f/2 is no slouch when it comes to portrait work. Of course, you will pick what you know you need. *For me *f/2 that covers a wider focal range in a single lens than a prime is invaluable and much more convenient than swapping around three different lenses when I need a different perspective. Especially when I can't keep an eye on a bag full of gear. In my situation, f/2 is kind of a sweet spot. $3k would be very worth it to me.


----------



## Phil (Feb 26, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> Dear God... the Trinity of f2 zooms may actually be coming true...


I just wish it was 70-150 F2 but I guess 70-135 is still pretty amazing F2 Zoom rage and would probably be all you would ever need for portrait work.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 26, 2020)

telemaque said:


> If I may, I think Zeiss and Leica are not targetting the same type of customers.
> What they produce is pleasing their customers A LOT.
> 
> If you look at comments from Leica and Zeiss owners, they speak about their lenses and cameras as if God had produced them.
> ...


I was a long time Leica and Hasselblad owner and while their lenses are excellent, my point is that neither has the breadth of line up that Canon has and neither are introducing lenses at the same pace as Canon.
As to the customers, yes they are happy but few. In addition, one will ignore issues that may arise when one has paid a lot for the product. The fact that Zeiss sells few AF lenses for third party bodies is scarcely a victory of quality but more an acknowledgement that they want to avoid more direct comparison.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 26, 2020)

telemaque said:


> Interesting comment from you
> 
> Have you also used in the past the EF 35mm f2 IS?
> 
> ...



Hi, I have NOT used the EF 35 2.0 IS but I had the chance to get the RP WITH the RF 35 "for free" during a very good offer. I had no stabilized wide angle lens, and I have seen a need for vloggin so that offer just came in time.

I am shure both lenses perform similar which can be seen on









Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 35mm f/2 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





while that comparison is a little bit tricky because both lenses are testet on different cameras. I try to "average" EF lens images between 5Ds and 1Ds mark iii for a better comparability - just looking at both sensors output.

Optically the EF version seems to be a little bit crisper in the corners and if you do not need the 1:2 macro mode and do not need minimum size it might be good to stay with the EF version which works on M cameras too. The first RF lens brings more incompatibilitys in the bag!


----------



## Kit. (Feb 26, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It's the time period between two distinct sequential images rendered in the EVF/LiveView.


Then the question sounds like "why not slow down the frame rate from one the camera is naturally capable of - to one that would better represent the total capturing, processing and displaying lag?"

And the answer would be: "Eh? What for?".



Quarkcharmed said:


> If you claim your camera does 30fps, you should capture frames 30 times a second.
> 
> The delta time between the beginnings of exposures must be 1/30s.
> 
> Your system should be able to process the raw data and feed the rendered frame to the EVF before the next capture.


Yes. Yes. No (that would be wishful thinking).



Quarkcharmed said:


> Ok. So you suggest to do the exposure but hold it in the sensor because there's previous capture in memory.


No. I suggest to start the exposure right in time to finish it at the moment we can read it again.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 26, 2020)

Phil said:


> I just wish it was 70-150 F2 but I guess 70-135 is still pretty amazing F2 Zoom rage and would probably be all you would ever need for portrait work.



speaking of which... I would be absolutely delighted with 90 -180/F2.0... R5 + 28-70/F2.0 - on the left and R5 + 90-180/ F2.0 - on the right.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 26, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Then the question sounds like "why not slow down the frame rate from one the camera is naturally capable of - to one that would better represent the total capturing, processing and displaying lag?"



What is this 'natural capability'?
Camera capability of frame rate depends on the exposure time, readout, processing raw data and feeding the EVF. If you suggest that processing can be done during the exposure - it could be, if camera architecture allows that. It may depend on the available memory buffers and the way the sensor gets reset before the capture. I mentioned it myself earlier. But it doesn't matter too much for this discourse. If processing can overlap with exposure, the overlap reduces the processing time, still there will be a part of processing that doesn't overlap (where processing = conversion of raw data to RGB, applying filters and gamut, HUD, and preparing the frame for the EVF).
Again, if you want to do 30fps, you have to do 30 exposures per second and display 30 frames in the EVF, *and *digitally process 30 frames. If you can't process 30 frames, you can't do 30fps, it's pretty obvious isn't it? That means, each frame, including processing, should be taking less than 1/30s.

If you optimise it so that it takes less than 1/60s, fine, you can increase the frame rate now. But you'll be switching between the fixed frame rates. As in my previous message, most likely you don't want to have a variable frame rate as it hurts eyes.



Kit. said:


> Yes. Yes. No (that would be wishful thinking).


"No" to the ability to feed the EVF? I thought it was quite obvious, but apparently not for everyone. It's not a wishful thinking, it's a technical requirement. If you don't feed the EVF, you have the previous frame displayed again which means stuttering. If it happens too often, your EVF is screwed and Sony users are laughing.



Kit. said:


> No. I suggest to start the exposure right in time to finish it at the moment we can read it again.


Errm what's the purpose of that? You don't adjust the beginning of exposure to some arbitrary moment. On the contrary. You want to capture frames in regular intervals and display them in regular intervals at the same rate. So you're trying to fit processing in between the regular frame captures, not vise versa.


----------



## yeahright (Feb 26, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Again, if you want to do 30fps, you have to do 30 exposures per second and display 30 frames in the EVF, *and *digitally process 30 frames. If you can't process 30 frames, you can't do 30fps, it's pretty obvious isn't it? That means, each frame, including processing, should be taking less than 1/30s.


Why would the frame rate have anything to do with the processing time and hence the lag between capture and display?
Frame capture and frame display can both be held at a constant 30 frames per second, even if the processing in between takes an arbitrary amount of time. There could be a 1 second delay between capture and display, and still both could operate at a constant frame rate of 30 frames per second without dropping any frames.
In this case the processor would have to simply hold 30 consecutive frames in memory simultaneously, each of which is at a different stage of processing, where every stage of processing is running in parallel, (i.e., e.g. in its own thread). After one stage has finished it hands the frame on to the next stage. Each of these stages, of course, would have to take less than 1/30 of a second (provided that each stage always operates on a full frame), to be ready for the next frame in time. I would assume that neither holding frames in memory, nor splitting up the processing into small chunks with a duration of less than 1/30 of a second could be a problem. Maybe some stages don't even have to operate on the whole frame at once but only on a smaller region, in which case more than one processing stages could operate on one image in memory simultaneously.
Of course a 1 second delay would be not very useful in practical use - that was just to illustrate the point. But I don't see the absolute requirement that processing a frame takes less than 1/30 s when capture and display operate at 30 frames per second. When you let water run through a pipe at a certain flow rate (of course with an identical rate going in and coming out), you can always add more pipes to it and make the time longer that a single water molecule spends in the pipe, while keeping the flow rate the same.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 26, 2020)

yeahright said:


> There could be a 1 second delay between capture and display, and still both could operate at a constant frame rate of 30 frames per second without dropping any frames.


While it's feasible in theory, as I showed it myself earlier in this thread here and also here, it's unlikely to be happening in the actual in-camera implementation.



yeahright said:


> In this case the processor would have to simply hold 30 consecutive frames in memory simultaneously, each of which is at a different stage of processing, where every stage of processing is running in parallel, (i.e., e.g. in its own thread).



Yep, if you read a couple of pages back, I was writing the same thing. In theory it's possible if we have multithreading *and* we parallelise multiple different frames. If all processing is done in one thread, it's not possible at all.

But I think it's not the case in real world cameras. I don't think they run parallel processing of different frames at the same time for the EVF/LiveView. All I could find was this knowledge base https://chdk.fandom.com/wiki/Digic_6_Porting, also a short description of LiveView buffers https://chdk.fandom.com/wiki/Frame_buffers#Viewport
They certainly don't have 30 threads for processing of 30 consecutive frames at the same time. Max 2 frames/threads, but I doubt even 2 frames.

The thing is, LiveView works with autofocus and videorecording which will be taking all possible cores. They'd rather parallelise video recording, not LiveView. Processing for the LiveView should be fairly straightforward, there's no compression needed, just simple downsampling. It should be taking less than exposure time.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Feb 26, 2020)

TMACIOSZEK said:


> From someone with only one kidney... I'd suggest a different source of income.



Sure. But just out of curiosity, you’re not looking to buy another one, are you?


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Feb 26, 2020)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> Sure. But just out of curiosity, you’re not looking to buy another one, are you?



HA! Not at this time, but I'll keep you posted otherwise.


----------



## Rivermist (Feb 26, 2020)

MadScotsman said:


> I dunno.
> 
> I read “ultra-wide prime L” and got rather happy about it.
> 
> ...


Out of curiosity, are you interested in it being a prime for optical reasons for astrophysics or star-pictures? Is it that there are fewer glass elements, delivering a sharper picture or something? For a time in the EF system I tried traveling with the 24-105, a telephoto zoom and the 14mm f:2.8 L as that ultra wide prime. Truth is it was not compact or light, and in many situations 14mm was not the right focal length. I have since had the 16-35 IS and more recently the 11-24 (OK, very heavy and very bulky), but in the realm of super-wide angle focal lengths I find that a zoom really helps explore the framing of a picture without swapping lenses.


----------



## yeahright (Feb 26, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> Out of curiosity, are you interested in it being a prime for optical reasons for astrophysics or star-pictures? Is it that there are fewer glass elements, delivering a sharper picture or something? For a time in the EF system I tried traveling with the 24-105, a telephoto zoom and the 14mm f:2.8 L as that ultra wide prime. Truth is it was not compact or light, and in many situations 14mm was not the right focal length. I have since had the 16-35 IS and more recently the 11-24 (OK, very heavy and very bulky), but in the realm of super-wide angle focal lengths I find that a zoom really helps explore the framing of a picture without swapping lenses.


I would guess it's about maximum aperture that will usually be larger in a prime as compared to a zoom.


----------



## Rivermist (Feb 26, 2020)

yeahright said:


> I would guess it's about maximum aperture that will usually be larger in a prime as compared to a zoom.


Understood. The 14mm 2.8 was not brighter than the 16-35 2.8 (albeit 2mm wider), but then with RF they may be able to come up with miracles.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 26, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> Understood. The 14mm 2.8 was not brighter than the 16-35 2.8 (albeit 2mm wider), but then with RF they may be able to come up with miracles.



I'm hoping for an f/2 L series prime somewhere between 14mm and 20mm.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 26, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> What is this 'natural capability'?


The highest possible FPS rate of a pipeline is the highest possible FPS rate of its slowest stage.



Quarkcharmed said:


> Again, if you want to do 30fps, you have to do 30 exposures per second and display 30 frames in the EVF, *and *digitally process 30 frames. If you can't process 30 frames, you can't do 30fps, it's pretty obvious isn't it?


It is pretty obvious that each stage of the pipeline must be able to do _its_ part of work for 30 frames per second.



Quarkcharmed said:


> That means, each frame, including processing, should be taking less than 1/30s.


That "should" is wishful thinking. There is no requirement for that, and in practice, it takes longer.



Quarkcharmed said:


> "No" to the ability to feed the EVF?


"No" to the ability to have 1/30s of maximum total delay in a multi-stage pipeline whose slowest stage is only 30fps.



Quarkcharmed said:


> I thought it was quite obvious, but apparently not for everyone.


It's quite obvious that the Earth is flat, but apparently not for everyone.



Quarkcharmed said:


> Errm what's the purpose of that?


To increase the FPS, to reduce the lag, and to have less shot noise in the EVF.



Quarkcharmed said:


> You don't adjust the beginning of exposure to some arbitrary moment.


What makes you think that the moment is "arbitrary"?



Quarkcharmed said:


> On the contrary. You want to capture frames in regular intervals and display them in regular intervals at the same rate. So you're trying to fit processing in between the regular frame captures, not vise versa.


You obviously don't understand how a pipeline works.

You are not "trying to fit processing in between", you are trying to do the processing _in parallel_.

And please don't start telling me that instead of the sensor doing exposure, the DIGIC doing processing and the EVF doing displaying for each frame, you would make each of them doing a third of exposure, a third of processing and a third of displaying for the same frame.


----------



## Phil (Feb 26, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> speaking of which... I would be absolutely delighted with 90 -180/F2.0... R5 + 28-70/F2.0 - on the left and R5 + 90-180/ F2.0 - on the right.


Yeah I’m actually debating whether to keep my 1.2 primes or sell them to buy the F2 zooms. I use to have 2.8 zooms and do miss their versatility, really tough decision. Initially I thought the 28-70 F2 was to big and heavy but after having the 85 1.2 I don’t thing the extra size and weight will make much difference and unfortunately I can’t afford the primes and zooms so have to pick one or the other. Lol first world problems to the Max.


----------



## Phil (Feb 27, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> No doubt a fast prime has it's place for sure. As a portrait/fashion/model boot camp shooter I also know the value of a fast zoom in high pressure production situations. f/2 is no slouch when it comes to portrait work. Of course, you will pick what you know you need. *For me *f/2 that covers a wider focal range in a single lens than a prime is invaluable and much more convenient than swapping around three different lenses when I need a different perspective. Especially when I can't keep an eye on a bag full of gear. In my situation, f/2 is kind of a sweet spot. $3k would be very worth it to me.


I think you have confirmed what I’ve been thinking and I’m going to sell my primes and get the F2 zoom. It’s the first time I’ve had mostly primes and I’m really missing the flexibility of zooms.
Question what are your thoughts on the coming 70-135 F2 vs RF 70-200 2.8 for portrait work?


----------



## MadScotsman (Feb 27, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> Out of curiosity, are you interested in it being a prime for optical reasons for astrophysics or star-pictures? Is it that there are fewer glass elements, delivering a sharper picture or something? For a time in the EF system I tried traveling with the 24-105, a telephoto zoom and the 14mm f:2.8 L as that ultra wide prime. Truth is it was not compact or light, and in many situations 14mm was not the right focal length. I have since had the 16-35 IS and more recently the 11-24 (OK, very heavy and very bulky), but in the realm of super-wide angle focal lengths I find that a zoom really helps explore the framing of a picture without swapping lenses.



Absolutely astro photography. Common wisdom holds that primes are superior to zooms for the sharpness coveted by the Milky Way and star photo guys, and the wider the better, and the faster the better.

The current EF version is ~$2,100. 

I'd rather put that money toward an RF version if the wait was going to be short. Samyangs cheapee gets mixed reviews and some of them are pretty harsh.

Unfortunately, I suffer from a genetic abnormality common among men of Scottish descent. 

I have deep pockets, but extraordinarily short arms.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 27, 2020)

Phil said:


> I think you have confirmed what I’ve been thinking and I’m going to sell my primes and get the F2 zoom. It’s the first time I’ve had mostly primes and I’m really missing the flexibility of zooms.
> Question what are your thoughts on the coming 70-135 F2 vs RF 70-200 2.8 for portrait work?


Hi Phil,
For me, the 70-135 f/2. I have never used the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L so I cannot speak to how the bokeh is. On the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II the bokeh was busy or nervous looking at times. That doesn't mean I didn't like the lens, I really did. It was a fantastic lens. I really don't see a need for me to go beyond 135mm for a portrait and f/2 is just much nicer. Both lenses I am sure would be great, but I will go for the 70-135. Primes are nice, but for the stuff I do a fast f/2 zoom is a better fit.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 27, 2020)

Kit. said:


> What makes you think that the moment is "arbitrary"?


By your definition. 
Anyway, for the smooth video stream to be shown in the EVF, you must start the captures in regular intervals and you must provide the rendered buffer to the EVF in regular intervals, namely 1/30s if your goal is 30fps.

Here Cn is the beginning of frame captures (exposures), On is readout and output to the raw buffer, Pn is the *end* of processing and Rn... are moments we refresh the rendered buffer for the EVF. Normally it's done via two alternating buffers, and you just switch the buffer, so R's are instantaneous.


```
Fig.1
C1-O1------C2-O2------C3-O3------C4-O4------C5-O5------C6-O6
------P1---------P2---------P3---------P4---------P5--------
--------R1---------R2---------R3---------R4---------R5------
```

It's obvious that no matter what parallel processing you use, there will be some gap between any Cn and Rn, determined by the time between Cn and On plus Pn.
Now you can offset the timeline with Rn but the distance between any Rn and Rn+1 will be *fixed*. If processing takes too long *and *the h/w architecture allows that, you can have an overlap of processing with captures:


```
Fig.2
C1-O1------C2-O2------C3-O3------C4-O4------C5-O5------C6-O6
P0---------P1---------P2---------P3---------P4---------P5---
--R0---------R1---------R2---------R3---------R4---------R5-
```

Still each Rn must finish before On+1.
Also, you can't have more than 1/30s between any Pn and Pn+1 (if that happens, you skip the frame). Bear in mind Pn in these diagrams is the end of processing, not the whole thing. The beginning of n-th processing is right after On.

So in this simple case the processing time (Pn - On) is also < 1/30s. 

Now we've already discussed the possibility for (Pn - On) to be > 1/30s, in case there's some parallel processing.


```
Fig.3
C1-O1------C2-O2------C3-O3------C4-O4------C5-O5------C6-O6
-----------------P1--------------------P3-------------------
------P0--------------------P2--------------------P4--------
--------R0---------R1---------R2---------R3---------R4------
```

But as I explained in a couple of previous messages, I don't think it's happening. But I don't know for sure.



Kit. said:


> You obviously don't understand how a pipeline works.



My primary work is data processing, multithreading, rendering etc., I think I do understand how _a_ pipeline may work on a high level. 
But no, I don't know how _the_ Canon pipeline in cameras work exactly. I guess you don't know it either unless you work at Canon.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 27, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> By your definition.


No.



Quarkcharmed said:


> Anyway, for the smooth video stream to be shown in the EVF, you must start the captures in regular intervals and you must provide the rendered buffer to the EVF in regular intervals, namely 1/30s if your goal is 30fps.


Yes.



Quarkcharmed said:


> Here Cn is the beginning of frame captures (exposures), On is readout and output to the raw buffer, Pn is the *end* of processing and Rn... are moments we refresh the rendered buffer for the EVF. Normally it's done via two alternating buffers, and you just switch the buffer, so R's are instantaneous.


Lol, you must be a game developer. No.

The EVF is connected to the processing unit (LCD controller) with a serial interface similar to the sensor's one. The processing unit does not make processing in the EVF's own memory.



Quarkcharmed said:


> ```
> Fig.1
> C1-O1------C2-O2------C3-O3------C4-O4------C5-O5------C6-O6
> ------P1---------P2---------P3---------P4---------P5--------
> ...



Actually, it looks more like this (for example):

```
C 11111111--------22222222--------33333333--------44444444--------
O --------11111111--------22222222--------33333333--------44444444
P --------11111111--------22222222--------33333333--------44444444
Q ----------------11111111--------22222222--------33333333--------
R ------------------------11111111--------22222222--------33333333
```
C is the first curtain of the electronic shutter running across the sensor.
O is the second curtain of the electronic shutter running across sensor, digitizing and sending out the exposure.
P is processing unit doing processing that is possible to do incrementally (debayering, for example).
Q is processing unit doing processing that requires the whole picture (AWB, for example).
R is processing unit (LCD controller) sending the data to the LCD.

Timings may vary. For example, here, a 180 degree shutter was shown. Technically, if we need more light, a shutter can be more than 180 degrees, then the first curtain starts its next run when the second curtain hasn't yet finished its previous one. The same if we need fastest FPS and shortest lag (in milliseconds, not in frames), then we go for a 360 degree shutter and it will look like this (for example):


```
C 1111111122222222333333334444444455555555666666667777777788888888
O --------11111111222222223333333344444444555555556666666677777777
P --------11111111222222223333333344444444555555556666666677777777
Q ----------------111111112222222233333333444444445555555566666666
R ------------------------1111111122222222333333334444444455555555
```

And there could be more than one stage of Q (if different specialized hardware modules are used at different stages), and the EVF may have its own (synchronization) delays.



Quarkcharmed said:


> My primary work is data processing, multithreading, rendering etc., I think I do understand how _a_ pipeline may work on a high level.


Looks like that's not enough. What kind of _hardware_ are you working with?



Quarkcharmed said:


> But no, I don't know how _the_ Canon pipeline in cameras work exactly. I guess you don't know it either unless you work at Canon.


I don't think they are reinventing the wheel there.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 27, 2020)

Kit. said:


> The EVF is connected to the processing unit (LCD controller) with a serial interface similar to the sensor's one. The processing unit does not make processing in the EVF's own memory.


In Canon it looks like it does. I've already quoted this https://chdk.fandom.com/wiki/Frame_buffers#Viewport
Unfortunately those pages are all from hacky reverse-engineering and not very reliable.
However you can also find what processors they have under DIGIC umbrella https://chdk.fandom.com/wiki/Digic_6_Porting

In your description there's many hardware processing units that all work in parallel but it doesn't look like the case with the architecture from the links above. There's just three CPUs inside a DIGIC, in DIGIC7 one of CPUs has two cores. It doesn't look like a very low-level specialised FPGA-like hardware but resembles a small general-purpose computer with some specific interfaces and external devices and a specialised GPU.



Kit. said:


> Actually, it looks more like this (for example):


That's essentially the same as my diagram #2, only you're suggesting a greater overlap.
I'm not sure about simultaneous reading from sensor and processing data on the same physical memory. Reading from sensor is actually writing to memory, and processing is both reading and writing (to somewhere else perhaps). If the main CPU does the readout and GPU does processing at the same time, then, depending on how fast the memory is, it may be faster to do these operations consecutively.

Also I'm not sure if such extensive multithreading in EVF pipeline is possible at all - when you start focusing, you'll also need to process dual-pixel data and run AI somewhere to recognise motion/eyes/faces.



Kit. said:


> Looks like that's not enough. What kind of _hardware_ are you working with?



Sorry. NDA. But i's different operating systems on PC, mobile and in the past some unusual input devices. In the remote past - microcontollers, but it was too long ago. But it looks like you're much closer to the low-level hardware, I'm more on the software side.


----------



## telemaque (Mar 1, 2020)

mb66energy said:


> Hi, I have NOT used the EF 35 2.0 IS but I had the chance to get the RP WITH the RF 35 "for free" during a very good offer. I had no stabilized wide angle lens, and I have seen a need for vloggin so that offer just came in time.
> 
> I am shure both lenses perform similar which can be seen on
> 
> ...



Thanks for your feedback.


----------



## joestopper (Mar 1, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> speaking of which... I would be absolutely delighted with 90 -180/F2.0... R5 + 28-70/F2.0 - on the left and R5 + 90-180/ F2.0 - on the right.



180mm at 2.0 would mean a very large diameter. I think, non practical.


----------



## Phil (Mar 1, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Hi Phil,
> For me, the 70-135 f/2. I have never used the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L so I cannot speak to how the bokeh is. On the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II the bokeh was busy or nervous looking at times. That doesn't mean I didn't like the lens, I really did. It was a fantastic lens. I really don't see a need for me to go beyond 135mm for a portrait and f/2 is just much nicer. Both lenses I am sure would be great, but I will go for the 70-135. Primes are nice, but for the stuff I do a fast f/2 zoom is a better fit.


Yeah I think the 70-135 F2 will be the way to go. The reason I went the 1.2 primes when I changed over to the RF system was because I thought the bigger point of difference with aperture and sharpness over your average Joe or smart phone will probably be better in the future. But I actually prefer the 135 compression combined with F2 as I use to have the EF 135 but I just found it a bit long sometimes. The more I think about it the more I think 70-135mm will be the perfect portrait lens for me. I am looking forward to the R5 mostly for the ibis as I’m getting shaky in my 40’s, but that’s probably a next year purchase. With a vertical grip I have grown to really like the R. Thanks for your input.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 1, 2020)

joestopper said:


> 180mm at 2.0 would mean a very large diameter. I think, non practical.


I beg to differ  what is the filter diameter of RF 28-70/2.0? Was it 95mm? Right! So.. sure, both lenses will be 95mm front filter. Pickle jars indeed. However if 90-180/2.0 lens can be made lighter than 4.5-5 lbs.. , then count me in.

Failing that there is a Plan B then: 80-180/2.2 (82mm). That’s 2/3 of a stop faster than F2.8. Which is substantial for events. 
I am so easy to please.


----------



## lawny13 (Mar 2, 2020)

AEWest said:


> I disagree. There should be a few budget conscious primes available in native RF mount for users of the RP and its successor. Canon is clearly phasing out of the EF mount so it would be natural to offer some basic lenses for the entry level user. Not everyone can afford the R5 and 1.2L lenses.
> 
> If Canon doesn't offer these, and Sigma/Tamron decide not to make RF lenses, the budget conscious purchaser may decide that Sony is a better option just for the glass.



They will phase out EF, that is true. But that will essentially take years. Affordable primes will come, that is a given... it makes no sense when people claim that canon won't. They literally stated that their game plan is for RP people (early adopters) will have the whole of the EF line as an affordable option. Keep in mind that most people buying the RP are entry level people, and they typically do not even ever buy primes... Statistically those who buy entry level cameras have a kit lens on there along with perhaps the nifty fifty. No reason why one can't simply adopt the 50 stm at least for now. 

Look. I wish there was already at least an RF 50 f1.8, and some of those f4 zooms, but so far I have been pretty spot on with how canon would approach this because it makes sense on their end, though it isn't what works for me.

1. The camera market is shrinking. That is a fact, so the pool of potential buyers will shrink. Who will be the people that will still be buying cameras and camera gear in 5 years? In 10 years? Those are the people that canon is focusing on right out the gate. 

2. With (1) in mind, how to go about securing those people? Show them that canon is unique, and at the top of its game. They did this with lenses first, since their bodies were lagging. I had suspected it was a data processing bottleneck. Their latest processor kinda shows this was indeed the case. 

3. Seems like 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8 are on the road map for this year. So apparently canon hasn't forgotten. In hindsight looking at the rumors and annoucement for the R5, canon planned on annoucing it in late 2019 and it turns out it was delayed to this year. If this is true, then obviously they had their plate full. They got a lot of flak about the EOS R and RP compared to the competition. So looking at this pragmatically I would agree with their approach to prioritize getting the R5 finished rather than affordable glass. 

4. Summary... canon has to absolutely secure their position in the market. They can't afford not to. And showing tech and innovation is generally the best way to secure that. It is just like a startup company's approach where making money is not the top priority, but proof of concept and ensuring investors that there will be a future, that is what I expected canon's approach to be. Their EF lines are already options. It is still the cheapest way into photography. People buying MILC an FF are not the norm (the bread and butter), pros and those already invested in the system will still use EF glass, and likely EF bodies and adopt to the RF mount. I really don't believe that the RP's intended target was really people completely new to photography, as most don't do 1k for a body. And when it comes to people like us who already know what we are doing... you do your research, you manage your expectations and you take a calculated risk knowing full well that manufacturers will follow their business strategies that may not fit our need, but has a logic to it base don their business model. 

End of the day... looking at canon's history, i have very little doubt that they meticulously analyze and plan what they need to do.


Cheers, and sorry for the rant. 

I for one am looking forward to more affordable glass. Besides cost my issues with RF lenses is in fact size and weight. I love what I see coming out of the 50 f1.2 for example. But I sure don't like the idea of a 50 the size and weight of the RF 24-105.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 2, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> [..] I had suspected it was a data processing bottleneck. Their latest processor kinda shows this was indeed the case.
> [..]



It is more likely to be a sensor readout speed issue, just look at how much data the M6II and 90D can process using the 'old' digic 8. That can do 32mpix, 14fps with AF and AE, which is like 3x the performance of the R, which has the same digic 8.


----------



## shawn (Mar 2, 2020)

I wish they would do 70-180mm f/2. I know it is asking a lot, and would be pretty big, but 135mm just doesn't cut it even for a portrait lens. I would still take the 70-200 f/2.8 over a 70-135 f/2 anyday. With the working distance that the RF 70-200 has you can get close at 200mm and get tons of pop off the background. And it doubles as an excellent event lens. 70-135 is too short for weddings, and 135 @ f/2 vs 200 @ f/2.8 is a wash in terms of bokeh. A lot of people would take the extra compression from 200mm over 135mm. I think a 70-180mm f/2 on the other hand is close enough to 200mm to be clearly more flexible and useful than the 70-200 f/2.8. If they just let the lens vignette a little more and correct it with built in camera/lightroom profiles then they'd have something I actually would be interested in using for professional event photography.


----------



## joestopper (Mar 2, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> They will phase out EF, that is true. But that will essentially take years. Affordable primes will come, that is a given... it makes no sense when people claim that canon won't. They literally stated that their game plan is for RP people (early adopters) will have the whole of the EF line as an affordable option. Keep in mind that most people buying the RP are entry level people, and they typically do not even ever buy primes... Statistically those who buy entry level cameras have a kit lens on there along with perhaps the nifty fifty. No reason why one can't simply adopt the 50 stm at least for now.
> 
> Look. I wish there was already at least an RF 50 f1.8, and some of those f4 zooms, but so far I have been pretty spot on with how canon would approach this because it makes sense on their end, though it isn't what works for me.
> 
> ...




All good points.

Canon's future: Hopefully they are aware that more bulit-in software (computational photography) is needed. They have great harware, but the softwate is not keeping up. All the smart phones make great photos with inferior sensors because of all the computational photography that is build in (noise reduction is done by stacking exposures without the user even being aware of it etc).
Olympus has great knowledge in that department (unfortunstely their sensor size is wrong).


----------



## shawn (Mar 2, 2020)

joestopper said:


> All good points.
> 
> Canon's future: Hopefully they are aware that more bulit-in software (computational photography) is needed. They have great harware, but the softwate is not keeping up. All the smart phones make great photos with inferior sensors because of all the computational photography that is build in (noise reduction is done by stacking exposures without the user even being aware of it etc).
> Olympus has great knowledge in that department (unfortunstely their sensor size is wrong).



To counter your point, cell phones don't need to make exposures in 1/1000th of a second. No sensor available to the general public can stack frames fast enough to stop fast action. So it actually is a hardware problem. The software technology for frame stacking exists in many cameras and it exists in Photoshop. It's totally doable to burst mode on a subject in low light then align and stack the images in Photoshop to remove noise. And actually you can do it in camera on Canon cameras like the 6D II. But like I said, doing a stacked exposure in 1/1000th of a second is currently impossible.


----------



## erader (Mar 3, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Indeed, but my concern is more that there's nothing on this list that will be cheap enough for some people, including those on this forum, who would like to move into the R ecosystem without spending a lot of money. IS drives up the cost, as I'm sure we all know, and I don't know how valuable it is in a 50mm 1.8 design that should, but is not guaranteed to, come in under $150.



use EF lenses


----------



## navastronia (Mar 3, 2020)

erader said:


> use EF lenses



wow, why didn't I think of that


----------



## erader (Mar 3, 2020)

rontele7 said:


> Seems a little boring, given that Canon promised new and inventive lenses along with the R system.
> 
> The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.
> 
> ...


troll


----------



## erader (Mar 3, 2020)

navastronia said:


> wow, why didn't I think of that


too busy whining


----------



## navastronia (Mar 3, 2020)

erader said:


> too busy whining



Every one of your 10 posts is negative, mocking vitriol. Crawl back under the bridge you came from.


----------



## erader (Mar 3, 2020)

must have hit a nerve if you ran a background check on me


----------



## davidespinosa (Mar 30, 2020)

If the 10-24 mm becomes reality, then with three RF lenses, you can go from 10mm to 500mm:
10-24 mm f/4L
24-105 mm f/4L
100-500 mm f/4.5-7.1L

Add a 2x extender, and you can go from 10mm to 1000mm.
That's a 100x zoom range !

Not sure why you'd want to, but it's still impressive...


----------



## puffo25 (Apr 5, 2020)

Hi all, for the R camera body (R5 expected for this Summer) I am looking for a wide angle lens (not necessary a fish eye but close to it). 
I currently own an RF 15-35mm f2,8 and I need something quite wider. Ideally, the current EF 8-15 f/4 will be ok. However it is NOT an RF lens and the F/4 aperture is not too bright.
Just wondering if you think that realistically speaking, that is the best and maybe only option available now and probably for the next 6-12 months (or even more?).


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 5, 2020)

puffo25 said:


> Hi all, for the R camera body (R5 expected for this Summer) I am looking for a wide angle lens (not necessary a fish eye but close to it).
> I currently own an RF 15-35mm f2,8 and I need something quite wider. Ideally, the current EF 8-15 f/4 will be ok. However it is NOT an RF lens and the F/4 aperture is not too bright.
> Just wondering if you think that realistically speaking, that is the best and maybe only option available now and probably for the next 6-12 months (or even more?).


I would have guessed that 15mm was already so wide that there would be no need for anything wider. I've never used such wide lenses, so I'm curious what kind of photos you are taking. I have gotten into taking panoramas, including 360 degree ones, either hand-held or on a lightweight tripod & dual rotator setup. Have you ever considered this?


----------



## puffo25 (Apr 5, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I would have guessed that 15mm was already so wide that there would be no need for anything wider. I've never used such wide lenses, so I'm curious what kind of photos you are taking. I have gotten into taking panoramas, including 360 degree ones, either hand-held or on a lightweight tripod & dual rotator setup. Have you ever considered this?



Hi, thanks for the reply. If you think about stiching images, not really. I have a Samyang 7,5mm f3,5 that I use for my Olympus Pen-F 4/3 and I get on a seldom basis, great shoots. It is normal focus of course but quite good sharpness less and very cheap

Too much wider lenses to me are not too interested because the distortion. True. But stiching images can be also a bit a pain. Honestly, a 10mm lens for my R lens was probably going to be a great addition, of course to be use only on few occasions...


----------



## usern4cr (Apr 5, 2020)

puffo25 said:


> Hi, thanks for the reply. If you think about stiching images, not really. I have a Samyang 7,5mm f3,5 that I use for my Olympus Pen-F 4/3 and I get on a seldom basis, great shoots. It is normal focus of course but quite good sharpness less and very cheap
> 
> Too much wider lenses to me are not too interested because the distortion. True. But stiching images can be also a bit a pain. Honestly, a 10mm lens for my R lens was probably going to be a great addition, of course to be use only on few occasions...


I see Canon has an EF lens: 14mm f/2.8L II for "only" $2,100 US. This may be too much, not wide enough, or not acceptable as a non-R lens. But others may know of non-Canon lenses to mention to you, since I'm not knowledgeable there.

I have found a great joy in stitching pictures with PTGui and my "little" EM1mark2. Sometimes I combine as few as 3 handheld pictures, sometimes close to 200 via rotators & tripod. I know it's not for you, but I just wanted to mention it. I hope you find the right lens for you.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 5, 2020)

puffo25 said:


> Hi all, for the R camera body (R5 expected for this Summer) I am looking for a wide angle lens (not necessary a fish eye but close to it).
> I currently own an RF 15-35mm f2,8 and I need something quite wider. Ideally, the current EF 8-15 f/4 will be ok. However it is NOT an RF lens and the F/4 aperture is not too bright.
> Just wondering if you think that realistically speaking, that is the best and maybe only option available now and probably for the next 6-12 months (or even more?).


In R mount the 15-35 is probably all you will have for a while, if you are going to use EF glass I'd highly recommend the older 15mm f2.8 fisheye and a program called Fisheye Hemi. The results I get from that combination are a quarter the price and the IQ is better than the EF14, and it is less than half the price and one stop faster than the EF8-15.

https://imadio.com/products/prodpage_hemi.aspx They actually have version 2 out now and there is an excellent review of it here http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/imadio-fisheye-hemi-v2-review/


----------



## derpderp (Apr 8, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> *People buying MILC an FF are not the norm (the bread and butter)*, pros and those already invested in the system will still use EF glass, and likely EF bodies and adopt to the RF mount. I really *don't believe that the RP's intended target was really people completely new to photography, as most don't do 1k for a body.*



Sorry for being late to the party, but I'm afraid I will have to disagree with what you said (in bold). There aren't that many ppl who are 'new' to photography nowadays, due to the proliferation of excellent cameras in smartphones (most mid to high-end smartphones). So for ppl who actually are looking to invest in a camera now (excluding professionals and enthusiasts from DSLR days), full frame and mirrorless is where they'd be looking, since that's where most of the development/investment is going to now. $1k for a body really isn't that much, seeing that most high-end *SMARTPHONES* cost more than that.

I bought my RP because its (1) cheaper than any other full-frame mirrorless camera out there and (2) it uses the RF mount. I never once considered any of the other (frankly dated) offerings from Canon.


----------



## lawny13 (Apr 10, 2020)

derpderp said:


> Sorry for being late to the party, but I'm afraid I will have to disagree with what you said (in bold). There aren't that many ppl who are 'new' to photography nowadays, due to the proliferation of excellent cameras in smartphones (most mid to high-end smartphones). So for ppl who actually are looking to invest in a camera now (excluding professionals and enthusiasts from DSLR days), full frame and mirrorless is where they'd be looking, since that's where most of the development/investment is going to now. $1k for a body really isn't that much, seeing that most high-end *SMARTPHONES* cost more than that.
> 
> I bought my RP because its (1) cheaper than any other full-frame mirrorless camera out there and (2) it uses the RF mount. I never once considered any of the other (frankly dated) offerings from Canon.



hahaha... sorry but it sound like you are saying that most people would pay 1k for a phone. I disagree with you on that. Sure those who can afford a 1k phone might look at the RP, but the fact is that most people do not buy 1k phones. And if you were to insist that is the case then there is no point talking to you on the matter, 

Additionally people can’t justify that phone purchase because it does a lot more than just take pictures. It is multifunctional device. Where as a camera only does 1-2 things, many people balk at the thought of spending 1.3k on a camera let along the expensive FF glass that goes with it. People who talk about this on here and on DPR is not the common joe/jane, and if they use themselves as anecdotal evidence I can’t take them seriously.

We buying gear and justifying it is us to the regular joes as someone buying leica gear is to us,


----------



## derpderp (Apr 11, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> hahaha... sorry but it sound like you are saying that most people would pay 1k for a phone. I disagree with you on that. Sure those who can afford a 1k phone might look at the RP, but the fact is that most people do not buy 1k phones. And if you were to insist that is the case then there is no point talking to you on the matter,
> 
> Additionally people can’t justify that phone purchase because it does a lot more than just take pictures. It is multifunctional device. Where as a camera only does 1-2 things, many people balk at the thought of spending 1.3k on a camera let along the expensive FF glass that goes with it. People who talk about this on here and on DPR is not the common joe/jane, and if they use themselves as anecdotal evidence I can’t take them seriously.
> 
> We buying gear and justifying it is us to the regular joes as someone buying leica gear is to us,



Idk which part of my post that you don't understand, but nowhere in my post did I suggest that most people would pay 1k for a phone. What I did suggest, however, is that ppl who are looking to invest in a camera now (beyond the already excellent cameras they have in their phones) will in most likelihood be looking at a mirrorless camera.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 11, 2020)

derpderp said:


> Idk which part of my post that you don't understand, but nowhere in my post did I suggest that most people would pay 1k for a phone. What I did suggest, however, is that ppl who are looking to invest in a camera now (beyond the already excellent cameras they have in their phones) will in most likelihood be looking at a mirrorless camera.



As I recall you said that high end phones cost over $1000...not that tons of people had them. So yeah, there's a comprehension issue here.

...

With the demise of really cheap-ass point and shoots, we are seeing a situation where the break point--the time one says, "I want an actual, stand-alone camera" goes higher and higher, as the cell phone ones get better. Which makes that jump more and more expensive. And yes, IF they actually learn what the difference between a DSLR and a mirrorless is, and they came from phones, they're likely to wonder who the heck needs that silly mirror flapping around for anyway when you have perfectly good live view.

Now remember, I'm talking about NEW people, who may never have used a viewfinder before; but even there, they'll think an EVF is perfectly fine so why bother with that neandertal flapping mirror. To a lot of people who expect a computer to fix everything, that mirror is a kludge they'd find pointless.

I know that's their attitude because that was MY attitude way back when; I almost got into Sony 4/3s when I decided I wanted better controls than a cheapie point and shoot, as the wave of the future, before I remembered how much I hate their other products.

So a mirrorless will seem "modern" and it will be more like what they're used to.


----------



## derpderp (Apr 11, 2020)

SteveC said:


> As I recall you said that high end phones cost over $1000...not that tons of people had them. So yeah, there's a comprehension issue here.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Very well put Steve. That's exactly what I was trying to convey. Thanks!


----------



## lawny13 (Apr 11, 2020)

derpderp said:


> Idk which part of my post that you don't understand, but nowhere in my post did I suggest that most people would pay 1k for a phone. What I did suggest, however, is that ppl who are looking to invest in a camera now (beyond the already excellent cameras they have in their phones) will in most likelihood be looking at a mirrorless camera.






I agree with your mirrorless part 100%. But you should read your post. You didn’t just say mirrorless, but FF.

And then you brought up the RP as the cheapest entry to FF. And then you said that 1k isn’t that much since people are willing to spend that on a phone. It all sounded like a generalization..

So I went on that. Phone cameras are in fact that that great when it comes to non-ideal lighting, moving subject etc. The whole M line would in fact make more sense for entry people.

You are honestly also making a mistake with the mirrorless comment. But you if you go out and ask a bunch of random people on the street about dslr and mirrorless that most wont even know what you are talking about.

If any regular person asks me advice on camera gear 90% of the time I push them towards something like a rebel. It is the best bang for your buck option in terms of IQ, and good but budget glass. They can start for 450 dollars no problem. If they really get into photography then they can upgrade and spend more.

Stats show that people on average own 1.5 lenses. And most of those lenses are kit lenses. What does that tell you? Most people don’t upgrade or invest further than the kit.


----------



## Ronny Wertelaers (Apr 21, 2020)

As a wedding photographer can't wait to pair a canon R5 with the 35mm F1.2 R. 








Huwelijksfotograaf Hasselt - Ronny Wertelaers Photography


Huwelijksfotograaf Hasselt. Spontane ongedwongen huwelijksfotografie met de focus op connecties en echte emoties.



www.ronnywertelaers.com


----------



## lawny13 (Apr 25, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> It is more likely to be a sensor readout speed issue, just look at how much data the M6II and 90D can process using the 'old' digic 8. That can do 32mpix, 14fps with AF and AE, which is like 3x the performance of the R, which has the same digic 8.


Well... now that we know what the R5 will be able to do.... seems like canon had resolved sensor and processor issues.


----------



## Khatgs (Apr 27, 2020)

Hi,

Do you think Canon could announce a 500 5.6 like Nikon ?


----------

