# The RF mount “Holy Trinity” should be ready to ship before the end of July 2019 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 2, 2019)

> We’ve pretty much confirmed that the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM will be officially announced and available for preorder on or around May 9, 2019.
> We’ve been asking around about an official announcement date for the “holy trinity” RF mount zoom lenses, as these three lenses will likely be quite popular. The three lenses are the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM, RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM and RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM.
> We’re told that all three “should” be officially announced and available at the same time, and likely before the end of July 2019.
> There has been nothing said about when we can expect the RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM or the RF 85mm f/1.2L DS USM to arrive.
> As always with lenses, delays in shipping are quite common, so what may be correct information today, can change tomorrow.



Continue reading...


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 2, 2019)

And yet there is no camera of the same level to put them on...


----------



## Ozarker (May 2, 2019)

I can understand calling them a "trinity". The "Holy" part of this reference is strange.  Besides, in my religion the trinity is zooms... 11-24, 24-70, 70-200
(15-28, 28-70, 70-135)


----------



## PureClassA (May 2, 2019)

MrFotoFool said:


> And yet there is no camera of the same level to put them on...


 Seriously...?


----------



## Adelino (May 2, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I can understand calling them a "trinity". The "Holy" part of this reference is strange.  Besides, in my religion the trinity is zooms... 11-24, 24-70, 70-200


Well they do have a f/2.8 hole...


----------



## PureClassA (May 2, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I can understand calling them a "trinity". The "Holy" part of this reference is strange.  Besides, in my religion the trinity is zooms... 11-24, 24-70, 70-200


Blasphemy!  You cant have an f4 in there!! Bring out the Spanish Inquisition!


----------



## Ozarker (May 2, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> Seriously...?


Now if he could just find a photographer.


----------



## Ozarker (May 2, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> Blasphemy!  You cant have an f4 in there!! Bring out the Spanish Inquisition!


I agree, but I am torn between overlap (16-35, 24-70) and aperture. It's killing me.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 2, 2019)

I will wait for macros(180mm, 100mm, 60mm and MP-E 65mm) until then adopter should do the trick.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (May 2, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I agree, but I am torn between overlap (16-35, 24-70) and aperture. It's killing me.



You could always match aperture with no overlap by using the 24-70/4 and 70-200/4.

That's more blasphemy, of course.


----------



## Maximilian (May 2, 2019)

Didn't expect them that soon this year.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 2, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> You could always match aperture with no overlap by using the 24-70/4 and 70-200/4.



Or 10-18mm, 18-55mm, and 55-250mm, for that extra blasphemy.


----------



## docsmith (May 2, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I agree, but I am torn between overlap (16-35, 24-70) and aperture. It's killing me.



Get both …it is not worth dying over.  

More seriously, I own both the EF versions. For me, they serve different purposes, so while there is overlap in focal length, there really is not overlap in when I want to use one or the other.


----------



## mpb001 (May 2, 2019)

It seems to me that since the introduction of the mid-line R mirrorless and RP that we would see f4 series L lenses first? I understand Canons approach to addressing these larger aperture L lenses first, but there is no R camera let available that will more fully make use of the resolving potential of these lenses.


----------



## ChrisPVille (May 2, 2019)

mpb001 said:


> It seems to me that since the introduction of the mid-line R mirrorless and RP that we would see f4 series L lenses first?...



It seems more like history is repeating itself. Canon introduced their first round of f/2.8L EF zooms in 1989, leading up to their professional body later that same year, presumably to ensure there was desirable glass available for pros to buy on day 1. Given how hard they're pushing the lens front, I think it's a safe bet a 1-series RF body will be showing up sooner rather than later (many months not years).


----------



## Bob Howland (May 2, 2019)

Doesn't make me want to pull out my credit card. Oh well, I'll just have to make do with my EF trinity, 5D3 and Tamron 28-300 zoom that doesn't work on the R or RP with the Canon converter.


----------



## Etienne (May 2, 2019)

mpb001 said:


> It seems to me that since the introduction of the mid-line R mirrorless and RP that we would see f4 series L lenses first? I understand Canons approach to addressing these larger aperture L lenses first, but there is no R camera let available that will more fully make use of the resolving potential of these lenses.



Canon clearly believes that Pros need to be convinced that top RF lenses are a priority, otherwise why pay attention to mirrorless. There's no doubt that a high end body is on the way.

I have the opposite problem. I am becoming convinced that Canon does not intend to serve the needs of small, one-man-band, mixed media content creators. Sony and Panasonic are leading there.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 2, 2019)

ChrisPVille said:


> It seems more like history is repeating itself. Canon introduced their first round of f/2.8L EF zooms in 1989, leading up to their professional body later that same year, presumably to ensure there was desirable glass available for pros to buy on day 1. Given how hard they're pushing the lens front, I think it's a safe bet a 1-series RF body will be showing up sooner rather than later (many months not years).


The 28-80 f/2.8-4 was introduced several months before the EOS-1 body but the 20-35 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8 were introduced simultaneously with the body. Nikon introduced their trinity simultaneously with the D3 in August 2007.

Correction: The 20-35 f/2.8 was introduced a month after the EOS-1 body. The 50 f/1.0 and 85 f/1.2 lenses were introduced simultaneously with the body.


----------



## 1Zach1 (May 2, 2019)

I can’t wait for more info on the 15-35.


----------



## BillB (May 2, 2019)

MrFotoFool said:


> And yet there is no camera of the same level to put them on...


Some people who don't know any better will put them on an R or even an RP. They might not even upgrade if and when a camera of the same level comes along, whatever that means. Either the chicken or the egg has to come first.


----------



## wockawocka (May 2, 2019)

I hate to be 'that guy' but where's my RF35 1.2L


----------



## PGSanta (May 2, 2019)

BillB said:


> Some people who don't know any better will put them on an R or even an RP. They might not even upgrade if and when a camera of the same level comes along, whatever that means. Either the chicken or the egg has to come first.



You clowns are hilarious. These lenses will be great on an R. 

Any word on pricing?


----------



## markphoto (May 2, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> I hate to be 'that guy' but where's my RF35 1.2L


You’re not alone!


----------



## epiieq1 (May 2, 2019)

BillB said:


> Some people who don't know any better will put them on an R or even an RP. They might not even upgrade if and when a camera of the same level comes along, whatever that means. Either the chicken or the egg has to come first.



Or, they could've announced them together. This isn't the late 80's, and there's a wide variety of options out there. Canon can do what they want, of course, but for those of us that are looking for pro-options for a body (honestly, I would've bought an R if it had 2 card slots), Canon is being very tight-lipped and not giving us a reason to buy into their new lens system yet.


----------



## unfocused (May 2, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> You clowns are hilarious. These lenses will be great on an R...



So true. Honestly, the R is a great camera. I wouldn't use it to shoot sports, but I don't generally use the 5DIV for sports either. Most of the comments here are from people who don't know enough to realize they are making fools of themselves.


----------



## mpb001 (May 2, 2019)

Etienne said:


> Canon clearly believes that Pros need to be convinced that top RF lenses are a priority, otherwise why pay attention to mirrorless. There's no doubt that a high end body is on the way.
> 
> I have the opposite problem. I am becoming convinced that Canon does not intend to serve the needs of small, one-man-band, mixed media content creators. Sony and Panasonic are leading there.


Well, then, you might be right. I don’t remember what Canon’s approach was regarding the two-tiered L lenses when they were just making SLRs. It may have been the same. Build the larger aperture lenses first, then the f4 series L lenses later?


----------



## Scooter (May 2, 2019)

I bought the RP to be a travel camera and barely had it for two weeks before I went on a dream vacation to the Mediterranean. I seriously don't understand why having a lower feature, lower cost, lighter full frame camera is a bad thing. It was great for carrying around Barcelona, Nice, Monaco, and Cinque Terre. I didn't need 12 fps or a billion autofocus points. Even Swiss Army Knives come in many sizes and configurations.


----------



## dwilz (May 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> So true. Honestly, the R is a great camera. I wouldn't use it to shoot sports, but I don't generally use the 5DIV for sports either. Most of the comments here are from people who don't know enough to realize they are making fools of themselves.



Some sample shots with my R last week using the latest firmware with tracking Servo AF


----------



## unfocused (May 2, 2019)

Scooter said:


> I bought the RP to be a travel camera and barely had it for two weeks before I went on a dream vacation to the Mediterranean. I seriously don't understand why having a lower feature, lower cost, lighter full frame camera is a bad thing. It was great for carrying around Barcelona, Nice, Monaco, and Cinque Terre. I didn't need 12 fps or a billion autofocus points. Even Swiss Army Knives come in many sizes and configurations.



Obviously, you didn't understand that you were using an inferior camera that prevented you from taking good pictures. If you had just listened to the experts on this forum, you would have realized that it was a waste to try to take pictures with such a pathetic instrument and you would have just stayed home.


----------



## lawny13 (May 2, 2019)

MrFotoFool said:


> And yet there is no camera of the same level to put them on...



It’s called the R.


----------



## unfocused (May 2, 2019)

dwilz said:


> Some sample shots with my R last week using the latest firmware with tracking Servo AF


Good stuff. I stand corrected.

But, understand I didn't mean you *can't* shoot sports with the R. Obviously you can and can get great shots. I was just making the point that different cameras lend themselves to different uses and if you have a choice of bodies, it can make sense to use a body optimized for the use case. I'm fortunate, in that I have a 1Dx II, which I am accustomed to. So for me, that would be my body of choice for sports. 

My sense, after just one day of using the R, is that it has a lot of strengths that can make it a good professional tool. In my limited experience the silent shutter was absolutely brilliant for taking photos in meetings where I did not want to disturb the participants. In that use case, it is far superior to the 1Dx II.

Overall point is that too many people are writing off the R because of arbitrary standards and without having used the camera.


----------



## Del Paso (May 2, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I agree, but I am torn between overlap (16-35, 24-70) and aperture. It's killing me.


A bit of overlap can be an advantage, especially in cities where constant lens swapping isn't always easy...
The 11-24 is more limited in its use, of course, this is just my very own point of view!


----------



## unfocused (May 2, 2019)

To get back on topic. I really can't wait to see what the price of the 70-200 is and what the reviews are like.


----------



## BillB (May 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> So true. Honestly, the R is a great camera. I wouldn't use it to shoot sports, but I don't generally use the 5DIV for sports either. Most of the comments here are from people who don't know enough to realize they are making fools of themselves.


Well, as has already been pointed out, there is that card slot issue.


----------



## dwilz (May 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Good stuff. I stand corrected.
> 
> But, understand I didn't mean you *can't* shoot sports with the R. Obviously you can and can get great shots. I was just making the point that different cameras lend themselves to different uses and if you have a choice of bodies, it can make sense to use a body optimized for the use case. I'm fortunate, in that I have a 1Dx II, which I am accustomed to. So for me, that would be my body of choice for sports.
> 
> ...



I have one as well and it's a beast to carry around. For a simple soccer club game it was a joy to carry around the R with an old first generation 24-105 f/4 attached. The final photo was taken with the 200 f/2.8. Looking forward to getting the new 70-200 f/2.8 when it comes out. Will be a great match for this type of shooting with the R.


----------



## BillB (May 2, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> A bit of overlap can be an advantage, especially in cities where constant lens swapping isn't always easy...
> The 11-24 is more limited in its use, of course, this is just my very own point of view!


Dealing with zoom overlap is definitely a high class problem with a lot of tradeoffs to mull over.


----------



## PureClassA (May 2, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> I hate to be 'that guy' but where's my RF35 1.2L



I think thats why they chose a non L 35 released concurrently with the L 50. The EF L 50 is/was a bit overdue for replacement meanwhile Canon just made the new 35L. It was more appealing to the sales people Im sure to offer the new 50 in the RF first as a reason to go MILC. The 35 will come, but it not an immediate priority. I put my 35 on the R with the adapter. Perfectly satisfied


----------



## PureClassA (May 2, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Now if he could just find a photographer.


I guess he needs a camera that has true full auto. Not only does it read your mind to set the look you want with perfect exposure but can also offer 20 stops of IS with self-levitation so i can compose the shot for you, hands free, while instantly posting to facebook and getting it placed at the top of google searches. Not to mention the ability to print 24x36 high definition canvas straight from the camera.... or he could just be a terrible photographer who can make a Hassleblad look like an iPhone 3


----------



## lawny13 (May 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Good stuff. I stand corrected.
> 
> But, understand I didn't mean you *can't* shoot sports with the R. Obviously you can and can get great shots. I was just making the point that different cameras lend themselves to different uses and if you have a choice of bodies, it can make sense to use a body optimized for the use case. I'm fortunate, in that I have a 1Dx II, which I am accustomed to. So for me, that would be my body of choice for sports.
> 
> ...




Exactly. I keep reading that canon has no pro body to go with the pro lenses. But unless you are shooting weddings (and need two cars slots) or shooting mainly sports the R is a pro camera. Or are those the only two pro genres now? Cause studio, portraits, fashion, landscape, baby, maternity/pregnancy etc etc, the R can do all of those without issue. 

There was a time that people were saying that the A7II and the A7RII could be used professionally... and the R is a step above both of those (except when it comes to MP compared to the R). 

35f1.8, 50f1.2, 28-70f2, 24-105f4 and now the trinity lenses, portraits 85 and now probably a 60+ MP pro grade camera maybe this year. Canon doing all of that in just a year!! Now that is something. 

Sony on the other hand didn’t release the 24-70 and 70-200 GMs till much later (2016, compared to 2014 for the A7II). Not to mention the QC issues they were plagued with in the first few years with the E-Mount.


----------



## woodman411 (May 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> To get back on topic. I really can't wait to see what the price of the 70-200 is and what the reviews are like.



My problem is, I currently have the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the drop in filter adapter, and like them a lot. I like the new RF 70-200 design, but the IQ will need to be a noticeable step up for me to give up both.

PS - any word on whether Canon will make RF drop in filters?


----------



## mpmark (May 2, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Now if he could just find a photographer.



Photographers arent in here always wanting something that will be released tomorrow, they're out shooting today.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 2, 2019)

The real holy Trinity is the 24mm, 50mm and 85mm primes. Everything else is heretical


----------



## HikeBike (May 2, 2019)

I have some other priorities to address first, but I will definitely be getting myself a RF 24-70 2.8 in the future. I can't wait! Even though I will.


----------



## PureClassA (May 2, 2019)

lawny13 said:


> Exactly. I keep reading that canon has no pro body to go with the pro lenses. But unless you are shooting weddings (and need two cars slots) or shooting mainly sports the R is a pro camera. Or are those the only two pro genres now? Cause studio, portraits, fashion, landscape, baby, maternity/pregnancy etc etc, the R can do all of those without issue.
> 
> There was a time that people were saying that the A7II and the A7RII could be used professionally... and the R is a step above both of those (except when it comes to MP compared to the R).



I dare say no serious professional is making such silly claims. The EOS R is a pro level body (unless we only consider weapons like the 1DX2 as "Pro"). The 5D bodies are THE overwhelming choice for actual, full time professionals. And the EOS R is quite evidently a MILC version of the 5D4, right down to the sensor and magnesium body, plus a newer CPU. The sole sticking point seems to be lack of a second slot. Ok. I get it.

Yes, The Alphas have traditionally been built to lesser build quality/reliability standards vs Canon. It's why they took so long to even start to catch on in actual pro circles (not that they have yet in any meaningful way). MP aren't a measure of "Pro" anyway. And the reason most Pros like full time wedding shooters don't want 40+ MP is because it creates more harm than good when you shoot a few thousands frames every weekend or twice a weekend. Meanwhile, the end products they produce these days are more digital than print. The extra resolve is costing more time and money to process and store while offering no comparable advantage to make it worth while. I hardly ever reach for my 5DSR. With files from 50-70MP per shutter actuation, it can be a PITA to deal with on big shoots. It tends to stay tucked away for critical studio or fine art projects.

The rumors of Canon making a 60-70MP EOS R PRO... ok. Good for them! I hope they sell a lot of them! But not to me.

I'll spin the broken record again here and wish aloud to see the day Canon makes a 12-15MP FF EOS R geared for video, akin to the Sony a7S, with a FF VIDEO capacity, pixel for pixel, no binning. Canon could do that much better than Sony if they opted to.

Then coming back to all this RF glass, it becomes even better, because right now I'm looking at the 15-35 RF 2.8 just to get a "normal" field of view zoom to contend with that 1.75x crop.


----------



## Aaron D (May 2, 2019)

1Zach1 said:


> I can’t wait for more info on the 15-35.


And the 70-200! How heavy? filter size? length? I'd love to stand it upright in a case...


----------



## Rivermist (May 2, 2019)

BillB said:


> Some people who don't know any better will put them on an R or even an RP. They might not even upgrade if and when a camera of the same level comes along, whatever that means. Either the chicken or the egg has to come first.



I think I know better , the R 70-200 is very compact yet 2.8 aperture and with IS. Probably less volume than my EF 70-200 L IS 4.0 with adapter, and on par with my favorite travel zoom the 70-300 DO (I know, everybody hates it, but despite being much berated it is highly portable) in terms of practicality. And I have an RP (for now) which takes gorgeous pictures today, waiting to be blown out of the water when the promised R body finally arrives in 2020.


----------



## ozturert (May 2, 2019)

MrFotoFool said:


> And yet there is no camera of the same level to put them on...


What is "same level"? Eos R is almost mirrorless 5D IV and it even has some advantages (like zero AF error).
I used several Canon L lenses with 5D, 5D II, 5D III and 5D IV. Now I use Eos R and I am more than happy. If I can use holy trinity with the first 5D, what is wrong with using them with Eos R?
You can use these lenses with any body. Even EOS RP.


----------



## Del Paso (May 2, 2019)

The ultra-compact 70-200 is just what I've been waiting for, as a basic equipment in cities: 16-35 + 70-200 in a small bag.
And maybe an additional 24mm TSE?
Oops, I just sold my EOS R to buy the 5 D IV , so, that means having to wait for the EOS R "Pro".


----------



## JoTomOz (May 2, 2019)

BillB said:


> Some people who don't know any better will put them on an R or even an RP. They might not even upgrade if and when a camera of the same level comes along, whatever that means. Either the chicken or the egg has to come first.


Just because you can afford to shell out for the best lenses AND the best camera doesn’t mean we all can.


----------



## Ale_F (May 2, 2019)

Good to have 2.8IS lenses, but I wait the more compact f4 versions, or at least the 16-35/17-40 F4. 24-105 is here and the 70-200 should be adapted to EF


----------



## unfocused (May 2, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> I dare say no serious professional is making such silly claims. The EOS R is a pro level body (unless we only consider weapons like the 1DX2 as "Pro"). The 5D bodies are THE overwhelming choice for actual, full time professionals. And the EOS R is quite evidently a MILC version of the 5D4, right down to the sensor and magnesium body, plus a newer CPU. The sole sticking point seems to be lack of a second slot. Ok. I get it...



I really would love to see a legitimate survey of actual professionals who routinely use dual card slots. I have the strong suspicion that it is a little like AFMA. Something that most pros admit they should probably do, but few ever take the time to do it.


----------



## PureClassA (May 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I really would love to see a legitimate survey of actual professionals who routinely use dual card slots. I have the strong suspicion that it is a little like AFMA. Something that most pros admit they should probably do, but few ever take the time to do it.



There is a core who do, but i suspect most don't.


----------



## slclick (May 2, 2019)

My two cents (which is like worthless cryptocurrency) is that the term holy in regards to lenses is reserved for Primes. Sure, folks adopted it for zooms much later but you could argue there is a holy trinity of filters, tripods or software suites for that matter. I really have no issue being old school, curmudgeonly or stubborn. YMMV


----------



## Ozarker (May 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I really would love to see a legitimate survey of actual professionals who routinely use dual card slots. I have the strong suspicion that it is a little like AFMA. Something that most pros admit they should probably do, but few ever take the time to do it.


Except that dual slots don't cost time.  One card just stays nearly permanent in the camera.


----------



## Aaron D (May 2, 2019)

BillB said:


> Well, as has already been pointed out, there is that card slot issue.


You know, in 10 years professional shooting (architecture) I've never once had a card failure. I have had a circuit board replaced and a T-S mechanism, but that's it. I'm using a one-card R now all the time, my 5Div gathers dust as a back-up now. Maybe I should be losing sleep. I am probably going to start using an iPad and Canon Connect, but mainly so clients can 'look over my shoulder' without bumping the tripod.


----------



## Fleetie (May 2, 2019)

I'm sure these lenses will all be stellar.

I was thinking "How much?", and my very rough guess is about £2500+ per lens.

The upcoming "Pro"-level R-series camera will probably be at least £4500.

So for that camera and the 3 lenses, we're talking around £12000.

Very nice kit, but out of my range as a non-professional.

I'm looking forward to seeing how they perform, though.


----------



## yinzer (May 3, 2019)

I'm super geeked that these lenses could be available so soon. I was preparing myself for a long summer of being "stuck" with the 24-105. I'm all in on that chubbster of a 70-200.

Also, y'all talking about "wasting" good lenses on non-pro bodies are so cringy. Go be wrong somewhere else. Maybe check out a YouTube comment section or find a forum that drools over some sensor charts or something. The real fool is someone who buys a +$2000 body and then slaps bad lenses on it.


----------



## herion (May 3, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> Blasphemy!  You cant have an f4 in there!! Bring out the Spanish Inquisition!


----------



## maves (May 3, 2019)

Aaron D said:


> You know, in 10 years professional shooting (architecture) I've never once had a card failure. I have had a circuit board replaced and a T-S mechanism, but that's it. I'm using a one-card R now all the time, my 5Div gathers dust as a back-up now. Maybe I should be losing sleep. I am probably going to start using an iPad and Canon Connect, but mainly so clients can 'look over my shoulder' without bumping the tripod.



I shoot mainly Architecture too, so I'm looking to upgrade my 5Diii to an R. Glad to hear it's working for you. Drop in filters behind TS lenses is a game changer. I've toyed with holding out for the high res version, but even A1 prints from my 5Diii have been more than acceptable for professional and public exhibition. I feel like it's only the amateurs who are like "I would be so much better if my camera had X"

Quality SD cards are actually one of the more reliable parts in the camera set up. I would have a back up body and lights before I stressed about a back up memory card. People shot for years on D700's and 5Dii's and it was never an issue. Dual cards were introduced more for overflow and not having to change cards when card capacities were a lot lower. The idea of redundancy was really only an afterthought.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (May 3, 2019)

MrFotoFool said:


> And yet there is no camera of the same level to put them on...



considering the EOS R runs circles around the IDX mk ii with the EF 85mm i.2 L mounted, I find your comment more of a comedy than fact.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (May 3, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I can understand calling them a "trinity". The "Holy" part of this reference is strange.  Besides, in my religion the trinity is zooms... 11-24, 24-70, 70-200
> (15-28, 28-70, 70-135)



That's understandable. For others, it could be the 35mm, 50mm and 85mm


----------



## Mr Majestyk (May 3, 2019)

Where the hell is the 300 f/2.8L IS III and 500 f/4L IS III, the only thing that realy matters. Will they wait 5 years and only make RF version while they make some mythical R sports camera that can shoot fast action at more than 3fps with tracking.


----------



## Ozarker (May 3, 2019)

yinzer said:


> The real fool is someone who buys a +$2000 body and then slaps bad lenses on it.


Damn straight!


----------



## Ozarker (May 3, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Where the hell is the 300 f/2.8L IS III and 500 f/4L IS III, the only thing that realy matters. Will they wait 5 years and only make RF version while they make some mythical R sports camera that can shoot fast action at more than 3fps with tracking.


Don't know about your 300mm, but Sony has declared that anything above 400mm is too beau-coup.


----------



## Aaron D (May 3, 2019)

maves said:


> I shoot mainly Architecture too, so I'm looking to upgrade my 5Diii to an R. Glad to hear it's working for you. Drop in filters behind TS lenses is a game changer. I've toyed with holding out for the high res version, but even A1 prints from my 5Diii have been more than acceptable for professional and public exhibition. I feel like it's only the amateurs who are like "I would be so much better if my camera had X"
> 
> Quality SD cards are actually one of the more reliable parts in the camera set up. I would have a back up body and lights before I stressed about a back up memory card. People shot for years on D700's and 5Dii's and it was never an issue. Dual cards were introduced more for overflow and not having to change cards when card capacities were a lot lower. The idea of redundancy was really only an afterthought.


Yeah the drop-in polarizer is really wonderful—though I'd still be tempted to scrap the 17 TS for a sharp 14 mm, if one comes available. As for memory, I just ordered a new SD card for $20 just so I've got a fresh one. I don't need blazing speed (buildings almost never move very fast) so the cards are really cheap.


----------



## Go Wild (May 3, 2019)

I don´t know if someone has made the reference yet....but these are the lenses that are already listed in a retailer in EU: 

15-35 F2.8 IS L
24-70 F2.8 IS L
24-240 F4-6.3 IS USM
70-200 F2.8 IS L
85 F1.2 L
85 F1.2 USM DS L

Prices are not yet available. 

Ohh and btw, my holy (f++ckng pricey) trinity is my 500mm!!


----------



## Michael Clark (May 3, 2019)

epiieq1 said:


> Or, they could've announced them together. This isn't the late 80's, and there's a wide variety of options out there. Canon can do what they want, of course, but for those of us that are looking for pro-options for a body (honestly, I would've bought an R if it had 2 card slots), Canon is being very tight-lipped and not giving us a reason to buy into their new lens system yet.



Introducing that many new products at the same time is a logistics nightmare. A big part of the _exact_ date a new product ships to end users has to do with assuring that adequate quantities of a new product are staged at various places on six continents (as far as I know, no authorized Canon dealer is located in Antarctica).


----------



## Michael Clark (May 3, 2019)

mpb001 said:


> Well, then, you might be right. I don’t remember what Canon’s approach was regarding the two-tiered L lenses when they were just making SLRs. It may have been the same. Build the larger aperture lenses first, then the f4 series L lenses later?



It was more of a "build the longer focal length L lenses first while building the shorter focal length mid/consumer grade lenses."

There wasn't a 24mm or 35mm "L" prime in the EF mount until December 1997 and December 1998, respectively.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 3, 2019)

Aaron D said:


> And the 70-200! How heavy? filter size? length? I'd love to stand it upright in a case...



No one (other than those on the inside at Canon) know how much it will weigh. But based on the samples (mockups?) they've put on display at recent trade shows (in a "you can look but don't touch" scenario), it's going to be a an extending zoom that is much shorter at 70mm and about the same length at 200mm as the EF versions when the difference in registration distances is taken into account.


----------



## AuroraChaserDoug (May 3, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> Blasphemy!  You cant have an f4 in there!! Bring out the Spanish Inquisition!


Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!


----------



## slclick (May 3, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Damn straight!


However, let's not get inexpensive and bad confused (Pancake 40 on 5D3 is remarkable)


----------



## David the street guy (May 3, 2019)

Aaron D said:


> buildings almost never move very fast



And when they do move very fast, you always know exactly where they're going…


----------



## Jethro (May 3, 2019)

Go Wild said:


> I don´t know if someone has made the reference yet....but these are the lenses that are already listed in a retailer in EU:
> 
> 15-35 F2.8 IS L
> 24-70 F2.8 IS L
> ...


They're listing the 24-240?! And both versions of the 85 F1.2. Maybe there will be an announcement about these at the same time as the Trinity? Or possibly just listing everything as clickbait ...


----------



## degos (May 3, 2019)

maves said:


> Dual cards were introduced more for overflow and not having to change cards when card capacities were a lot lower. The idea of redundancy was really only an afterthought.



Well that's just your conjecture. If that was the case we'd have had dual-CF or dual-SD from the outset instead of a mix of the two types.

It's not just about card failure in the camera, but also in the reader. Keep one in the camera and feed the other into the PC.


----------



## Go Wild (May 3, 2019)

Jethro said:


> They're listing the 24-240?! And both versions of the 85 F1.2. Maybe there will be an announcement about these at the same time as the Trinity? Or possibly just listing everything as clickbait ...


No way it´s clickbait, this is one of the biggest retailers in Europe, it´s very, very credible, so this lenses are coming out soon.


----------



## Del Paso (May 3, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don't know about your 300mm, but Sony has declared that anything above 400mm is too beau-coup.


Sony must have meant "400mm rain-column", an empirical testing method used by tent manufacturers to check how much rain a tent can stand.
Guess you read it in their brand-new forum "Sony Leaks" .


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 3, 2019)

BillB said:


> Well, as has already been pointed out, there is that card slot issue.


This single card slot is a complete red herring. Ive shot 79,000 shots on a Canon 6D, 42,000 on a Canon 6D MKII and around 8,000 on the EOS R. Ive shot around 50,000 on a 5DS in every card case and with multiple SD cards (I rarely use the CF card in the 5DS) Ive never had a failure but more importantly never risked taking one camera body to an important shoot. Ive had the mode dial go wrong on the 6D MKII and the remote socket on the 6D all reasons to have to swap out the body because of what I was trying to shoot. 

As to your comments about "not being a professional camera in the R line-up". Well we have 20 EOS R cameras in rental with to date 64% utilisation which allowing for turn-arounds is pretty high, equal to the 5D MKIV and above the 1D X MKII. They are mainly being used as second cameras by Pros (as are the 5D MKIV) but still have plenty of use so in my mind that makes it a "professional tool". Ive a friend with a 5D MKIV and a 6D MKII who is a wedding photographer both cameras get equal use and he doesn't fret about a single card slot on the 6D MKII. 
Not everyone who makes a living from photography is a sports photographer, or shoots wild life or fast jets. The majority of professional photography is fashion, portraits, products & food most of which doesn't need a fast frame rate. 

The EOS R is not perfect (Ive yet to find a pro that likes the Touch Bar & prefers the toggle switch), but the images are equal to those from the 5D MKIV in a much lighter package. Now if you were to mention the electronic viewfinder as opposed to optical I can think of a number of situations where optical is superior and where when Canon get to do a R version of a 5D MKIV, 5DS, 1D X MKII they will need to improve or eliminate the lag when you take a shot in the viewfinder.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2019)

woodman411 said:


> PS - any word on whether Canon will make RF drop in filters?


The word is no, at least until the laws of physics expire. The filters are dropped into the adapter required to use a 44mm flange distance EF lens on a 20mm flange distance RF mount.


----------



## Ladislav (May 3, 2019)

My small math exercise (in GBP):

Cost of R ~ 2k
Estimated cost of new trinity ~ 7k
Estimated value of old 5D IV ~1.5k
Estimated value of old trinity (Mk.III and 24-70Mk. II) ~ 4k
I don't doubt that R with new trinity will be great. But will it be £3.5k greater than existing setup? Considering that my trinity is probably worth less than 2k (16-35/f4, 70-200/2.8 Mk.II and Tamron 24-70/2.8 G1), the upgrade path will be ~ £5.5k. Will it be worth it for enthusiast? I don't think so. 

Adapter makes it more affordable because I can still use existing EF lenses but my motivation to upgrade would be lenses, not the camera.


----------



## jdavidse (May 3, 2019)

jeffa4444 said:


> This single card slot is a complete red herring. Ive shot 79,000 shots on a Canon 6D, 42,000 on a Canon 6D MKII and around 8,000 on the EOS R. Ive shot around 50,000 on a 5DS in every card case and with multiple SD cards (I rarely use the CF card in the 5DS) Ive never had a failure but more importantly never risked taking one camera body to an important shoot. Ive had the mode dial go wrong on the 6D MKII and the remote socket on the 6D all reasons to have to swap out the body because of what I was trying to shoot.
> 
> As to your comments about "not being a professional camera in the R line-up". Well we have 20 EOS R cameras in rental with to date 64% utilisation which allowing for turn-arounds is pretty high, equal to the 5D MKIV and above the 1D X MKII. They are mainly being used as second cameras by Pros (as are the 5D MKIV) but still have plenty of use so in my mind that makes it a "professional tool". Ive a friend with a 5D MKIV and a 6D MKII who is a wedding photographer both cameras get equal use and he doesn't fret about a single card slot on the 6D MKII.
> Not everyone who makes a living from photography is a sports photographer, or shoots wild life or fast jets. The majority of professional photography is fashion, portraits, products & food most of which doesn't need a fast frame rate.
> ...



Dual slots is not just about failure of the card itself in-camera, but also corruption of the card at the card reader, theft or loss etc. No professional who is shooting un-repeatable moments should be shooting on a single slot camera. This includes weddings, sports etc. You say you have a backup in case something goes wrong but this is about the moments that have already been captured on your (single) card slot that can never be repeated.

Bottom line is, if you are professional you can afford a camera with two cards. The R looks nice and all and these lenses are the future but there is no need to put your reputation on the line to jump over too early. The dual slot camera will come.


----------



## jdavidse (May 3, 2019)

Ladislav said:


> My small math exercise (in GBP):
> 
> Cost of R ~ 2k
> Estimated cost of new trinity ~ 7k
> ...



I’ve been doing this math as well. Seems the best way forward is to pick one RF lens for now and rely on the adapter for others, and slowly upgrade each lens over time. So this begs the question, which has priority? An argument for each: (just within the trinity)

EF 70-200 2.8 II + the adapter will be a monster compared to the new compact RF edition. Also you can likely carry a smaller bag with the new one if it fits vertically. If image quality is equal most will be happy, so advantage here is mostly size weighed against frequency of use.

RF 24-70 f2.8 IS: advantage here is obviously IS. If the new R body has IBIS this will be less of a factor. But for me, I think this consideration is lower on the list. Again, am assuming image quality is about equal.

RF 15-35 f2.8 IS: I think this one will be very popular for video users, but also may be the perfection of the genre of wide angle zoom. I’ve personally never owned a wide angle zoom in this range so maybe I don’t know what I’m missing, but for me this will be a tough call because the EF f/4 version will be so much cheaper in exchange for one stop, and usable for many of the applications such as landscape etc.

So personally my upgrade path will be RF 70-200, RF 24-70 and then maybe the 15-35, but then again maybe the EF f/4 for that.

That’s just of the trinity. But I think looking at all the RF lenses my upgrade path would look like this:

RF 50mm
RF 70-200 f/2.8
RF 24-70 f2.8
RF 85
RF 15-35

If there is a RF 35 1.4 or faster that would definitely go in the list as well


----------



## yinzer (May 3, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> Dual slots is not just about failure of the card itself in-camera, but also corruption of the card at the card reader, theft or loss etc. No professional who is shooting un-repeatable moments should be shooting on a single slot camera. This includes weddings, sports etc. You say you have a backup in case something goes wrong but this is about the moments that have already been captured on your (single) card slot that can never be repeated.
> 
> Bottom line is, if you are professional you can afford a camera with two cards. The R looks nice and all and these lenses are the future but there is no need to put your reputation on the line to jump over too early. The dual slot camera will come.



Exactly. Pro photographers have always relied on redundancy. Professional film cameras allowed you to insert two rolls of film for this exact reason.


----------



## slclick (May 3, 2019)

Dual cards are also about capacity, some say primarily.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 3, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> Dual slots is not just about failure of the card itself in-camera, but also corruption of the card at the card reader, theft or loss etc. No professional who is shooting un-repeatable moments should be shooting on a single slot camera. This includes weddings, sports etc. You say you have a backup in case something goes wrong but this is about the moments that have already been captured on your (single) card slot that can never be repeated.
> 
> Bottom line is, if you are professional you can afford a camera with two cards. The R looks nice and all and these lenses are the future but there is no need to put your reputation on the line to jump over too early. The dual slot camera will come.


Im not going to put something into a rental fleet if it will not rent to professionals, the fact we have 20 EOS R cameras going out consistently to customers (64% utilisation) answers my point. Another factor you missing is quite often these cameras are tethered in the studio and therefor are backed-up. Assistants back-up cards on-set / location to hard drives which is managing risk. In my experience we have far greater failures of CF / CFast cards (best CFast cards are Angel Bird) and almost zero failure of SD cards or their readers, we also fully test cards before & after use.

Clearly in any walk of life mechanical failures can happen and yes your right dual slot cameras are preferable, but many professionals use single slot cameras daily and the % failure rate is exceedingly low especially with SD cards.


----------



## Architect1776 (May 3, 2019)

MrFotoFool said:


> And yet there is no camera of the same level to put them on...



I don't understand why you say this.
My L glass works wonderfully on my 7D and was an upgrade from my older non-L glass as I could afford the upgrade.
But the 7D still takes wonderful shots, if I do my part, with L glass.
So you are not making any sense seeing as there are two superior quality RF mount cameras already, the R and RP, that can fully utilize the lenses when introduced.


----------



## bryston (May 3, 2019)

MrFotoFool said:


> And yet there is no camera of the same level to put them on...





BillB said:


> Some people who don't know any better will put them on an R or even an RP. They might not even upgrade if and when a camera of the same level comes along, whatever that means. Either the chicken or the egg has to come first.


That's a dumb statement.


----------



## lawny13 (May 3, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> Dual slots is not just about failure of the card itself in-camera, but also corruption of the card at the card reader, theft or loss etc. No professional who is shooting un-repeatable moments should be shooting on a single slot camera. This includes weddings, sports etc. You say you have a backup in case something goes wrong but this is about the moments that have already been captured on your (single) card slot that can never be repeated.
> 
> Bottom line is, if you are professional you can afford a camera with two cards. The R looks nice and all and these lenses are the future but there is no need to put your reputation on the line to jump over too early. The dual slot camera will come.



Are you a pro? That why you need two card slots? Cause I see A LOT of non-pro people complaining about it.

Highest mode to failure for SD cards is the handling. So taking it in and out, and at times file corruption at the reader. Knowing this... I simply keep the card in the body and use my MBP’s USB C cable to copy the files over. So that is a major decrease in risk. 

The theft comment... pretty sure if they steal one card or bag containing it the other will be take with it? 

As for the pro argument. I see people are t actually thinking logical/systematically about it. The 50 f1.3 and 28-70 f2 and 24-105 f4 are actually not event photography lenses. The later is a general purpose lens, and the other two more portraiture related. For that kind of “PRO” work the R is more than adequate. 

Had canon release it “pro” body people would have had an issue with the other side of the equation (the lenses). Pros for events and once in a life time moments would still be missing the lenses that 80% of them would expect... the trinity f2.8 zooms. Typically would be running around with two bodies, one with the 24-70 and the other with the 70-200, with the 16-35 for group and environmental shots. 

The 28-70, 50, and 35 and 24-105 hardly covers the need for pros that would find the need for a pro body that you are implying. If you don’t believe me talk to a sports or weddings photographer. These first lenses might be pro grade, but they are not the kind of pro level cases implied by those complaining about the body. I mean seriously, and you imagine a wedding photographers with 2 pro bodies and 2x 28-70 lenses? Why two of them you might ask, for redundancy, since a 28-70 and 50 combo won’t suffice because if something happens with the 28-70 just using a 50 isn’t good enough. 

Now if you do portraits, still life, landscape, travel, stock, studio, etc etc all of those other types of genres not critical for a second card slot and/or high FPS the R is more than capable.


----------



## jdavidse (May 3, 2019)

yinzer said:


> Exactly. Pro photographers have always relied on redundancy. Professional film cameras allowed you to insert two rolls of film for this exact reason.



This reminds me of that argument about seat belts and helmets for riding bikes. "When I was a kid we didn't wear seat belts or a bike helmet and I turned out just fine." (Ignoring all the kids that died because they weren't buckled in or didn't wear a helmet.)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 3, 2019)

mpb001 said:


> It seems to me that since the introduction of the mid-line R mirrorless and RP that we would see f4 series L lenses first? I understand Canons approach to addressing these larger aperture L lenses first, but there is no R camera let available that will more fully make use of the resolving potential of these lenses.


Canon has, in the past, upgraded lenses before sensors, they prepare for the future. The R and RP will certainly be able to make good use of them, I don't see a issue there. However, as long as I have a DSLR and a Mirrorless, I'll keep using my EF lenses.


----------



## jdavidse (May 3, 2019)

lawny13 said:


> Are you a pro? That why you need two card slots? Cause I see A LOT of non-pro people complaining about it.
> 
> Highest mode to failure for SD cards is the handling. So taking it in and out, and at times file corruption at the reader. Knowing this... I simply keep the card in the body and use my MBP’s USB C cable to copy the files over. So that is a major decrease in risk.
> 
> ...



Yes. Wedding photographer here. I use only cameras with two slots for the redundancy and safety to safeguard their _once in a lifetime_ images. Anything less is just irresponsible.

I do understand a lot of pro applications don't need that redundancy because you can have a studio with a tethered camera. But everyone jumping to the R at _this_ moment in time, because they are too impatient to wait another 7 months for a dual slot R should check if it's just GAS driving it. Even if you are not a pro shooting someones wedding, or a landscape that you won't be able to reproduce, the loss of images can be devastating.

As for theft, I keep one copy of the cards on my person on all times, and another copy in my smallest bag. That way if someone steals my big suitcase of gear at a wedding they don't get the files. If I am robbed in the parking lot, they will never find the cards in my pocket.


----------



## jdavidse (May 3, 2019)

jeffa4444 said:


> Im not going to put something into a rental fleet if it will not rent to professionals, the fact we have 20 EOS R cameras going out consistently to customers (64% utilisation) answers my point. Another factor you missing is quite often these cameras are tethered in the studio and therefor are backed-up. Assistants back-up cards on-set / location to hard drives which is managing risk. In my experience we have far greater failures of CF / CFast cards (best CFast cards are Angel Bird) and almost zero failure of SD cards or their readers, we also fully test cards before & after use.
> 
> Clearly in any walk of life mechanical failures can happen and yes your right dual slot cameras are preferable, but many professionals use single slot cameras daily and the % failure rate is exceedingly low especially with SD cards.



Ah, an assistant backing up my cards in real time. That's clearly what I'm missing in my workflow. You're right, dual slot cameras should just be scrapped in favor of single slot cameras w/included assistant+laptop that follows me around.


----------



## koenkooi (May 3, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> Ah, an assistant backing up my cards in real time. That's clearly what I'm missing in my workflow. You're right, dual slot cameras should just be scrapped in favor of single slot cameras w/included assistant+laptop that follows me around.



You can have a poor mans version of that with the R and RP, turn on auto-sync and it will send a jpg of each picture to your phone after taking it. Pack a few extra batteries and powerbanks


----------



## jdavidse (May 3, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> You can have a poor mans version of that with the R and RP, turn on auto-sync and it will send a jpg of each picture to your phone after taking it. Pack a few extra batteries and powerbanks



Sounds like fun, but no thanks. The “poor mans version” is actually a $30 memory card to go into the 2nd slot.


----------



## peters (May 3, 2019)

ChrisPVille said:


> It seems more like history is repeating itself. Canon introduced their first round of f/2.8L EF zooms in 1989, leading up to their professional body later that same year, presumably to ensure there was desirable glass available for pros to buy on day 1. Given how hard they're pushing the lens front, I think it's a safe bet a 1-series RF body will be showing up sooner rather than later (many months not years).


Hm, Olympic games in Tokyo MAY be a good opportunity for a 1-series RF Body. But on the other hand, there are no long telephoto lenses around for the RF Mount. Pros may use the adaptor, since it works quite well though.
I personaly think that mirrorless cameras are thanks to the EV simulation in the viewfinder a great system for sports photography.


----------



## FramerMCB (May 3, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Or 10-18mm, 18-55mm, and 55-250mm, for that extra blasphemy.


How about a 55-250mm f/4.0 IS Nano-USM and 18-55mm and 10-18mm in the same vein?


----------



## FramerMCB (May 3, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> You clowns are hilarious. These lenses will be great on an R.
> 
> Any word on pricing?


Well...the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L should come in around $1,799 or $1,899USD, the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS around $1,999 or even $2,199USD, and the RF 70-210mm f/2.8L IS around $2,399 or $2,299USD. I would be pleasantly surprised if my pricing is overstated by $100-$200USD but sadly don't think this will be the case. Hard to say though because they may want to come in around the current EF pricing at least of the Mk III on the big lens and the little zoom. But with the addition of IS on the 24-70mm I don't see any way on God's green earth it comes in at the same price point as the current EF version. (I should clarify - the non-sale prices for the EF versions.)


----------



## FramerMCB (May 3, 2019)

Scooter said:


> I bought the RP to be a travel camera and barely had it for two weeks before I went on a dream vacation to the Mediterranean. I seriously don't understand why having a lower feature, lower cost, lighter full frame camera is a bad thing. It was great for carrying around Barcelona, Nice, Monaco, and Cinque Terre. I didn't need 12 fps or a billion autofocus points. Even Swiss Army Knives come in many sizes and configurations.


I think Canon introducing the RP into the line-up was a brilliant, master-stroke of 'business-ship'. It is a great, great way (and gateway) to bring hobbyists/consumer crowd into the FF camp whilst maintaining a smaller form-factor (that's adjustable a-l-a the added grip). Considering that the xxD bodies when first introduced were all about that same price-point...


----------



## FramerMCB (May 3, 2019)

dwilz said:


> Some sample shots with my R last week using the latest firmware with tracking Servo AF


That can't possibly be... Why it's an R - you can't shoot sports with that thing!!! ;-)


----------



## Del Paso (May 3, 2019)

lawny13 said:


> Are you a pro? That why you need two card slots? Cause I see A LOT of non-pro people complaining about it.
> 
> Highest mode to failure for SD cards is the handling. So taking it in and out, and at times file corruption at the reader. Knowing this... I simply keep the card in the body and use my MBP’s USB C cable to copy the files over. So that is a major decrease in risk.
> 
> ...


Don't agree!
Imagine spending a month in New Zealand, Japan or Utah, to find out, once back at home, that one 64 GB card failed.
Even if you had a second camera, many pictures will be lost forever (sometimes). I experienced this once, and, believe me or not, that's why I sold my cute little R to buy the 5 D IV. The failure occurred with a Leica and Sandisk SD, but , since I'm planning a longer trip to Japan, I wanted to be on the safe side...
And, by the way, why do you think that landscape, stills, portrait have less importance than sports or marriage???


----------



## PureClassA (May 3, 2019)

This is for the “Only Primes can be a Holy Trinity” folks . Later tonight shooting the Eos R on tripod) with Atomos Ninja V plus Canon 35L 1.4 Mk2 for video. 1DX2 with monster 85L 1.4 IS for stills in hand. Two of your three Trinity members


----------



## slclick (May 3, 2019)

If the EVF and fps don't get any better (in the next year) then dual slots is the least of your worries for those yearning for a Pro R model. Then again, we come full circle to 'What makes a Pro body' argument again. Seems like over and over the 5D4 is the solution and winner for many not getting the tidbits they cry for from Canon. But alas, people have to have new toys.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 3, 2019)

Lenses first, then the camera follows (maybe). A tight Hollywood suspense script in the works.


----------



## jdavidse (May 3, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> This is for the “Only Primes can be a Holy Trinity” folks . Later tonight shooting the Eos R on tripod) with Atomos Ninja V plus Canon 35L 1.4 Mk2 for video. 1DX2 with monster 85L 1.4 IS for stills in hand. Two of your three Trinity members
> View attachment 184311


 
Those two lenses will get you 2/3 the way to heaven


----------



## PureClassA (May 3, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> Those two lenses will get you 2/3 the way to heaven



Lot of folks say the third is a 24mm while others say 50. I tend to lean more to 24mm cuz 50 is too close to 35. Or for me... its a 135 lol


----------



## Ozarker (May 3, 2019)

Aaron D said:


> You know, in 10 years professional shooting (architecture) I've never once had a card failure. I have had a circuit board replaced and a T-S mechanism, but that's it. I'm using a one-card R now all the time, my 5Div gathers dust as a back-up now. Maybe I should be losing sleep. I am probably going to start using an iPad and Canon Connect, but mainly so clients can 'look over my shoulder' without bumping the tripod.


Yeah, well, the building will still be there in an hour, tomorrow, next week, next year, and 20 years from now. One can always go back and get another shot, or better shot, should a card fail. Not so with weddings, ball games, etc. I've never had a card fail either, but I do mostly portraits and almost never for a special occasion. The times I do a lot of shooting, fashion shows and model boot camps, I am happy to have an extra card recording the shots. In cases like weddings, fashion shows, model boot camps, nuptial boudoir, etc., a card failure would be a disaster. I'd hate to hang my reputation on, "Oops. Sorry." I'm not even a pro, but I still run in some circles where that would be ruinous. If I were an architectural photographer, maybe one slot would be "okay". However, I would imagine some shots could take quite a while to perfect. Losing work because I was too cheap to spring for a $20 card just would not make sense... if I were a pro. Seems like real inexpensive insurance to me. (plus the expense difference of a 2 card camera). To be honest, I have started putting each model on a separate backup card of her own.


----------



## navastronia (May 3, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> Lot of folks say the third is a 24mm while others say 50. I tend to lean more to 24mm cuz 50 is too close to 35. Or for me... its a 135 lol



For me, I don't have any interest in the 40-70mm focal length, so a 35, 85, and some sort of tele-zoom is ideal : ) I do leave room to be persuaded into a 15-35, but only if it's optically spectacular.


----------



## cellomaster27 (May 3, 2019)

Can you guys imagine the kicker when canon releases a ML camera with two card slots... SD and CF??  

I'm no pro but I have had two instances that the dual card system saved my butt. One, a card failure. Someone did post that you can transfer via cable.. Do you know how slow that process is? and it uses your camera battery. Anyways, I lost everything on that card but thankfully I had my CF card backup that I was able to access my files from. Second, lost card. It happens and probably will happen to you at some point. In that case, I have my other card in the camera. I don't see it as professional but rather security. Whatever you shot, it may be important for memories or to put in your portfolio. It may be a paid shoot where the shots that you took will be appreciated by others for years to come - it's significantly important. 

Will card issues happen? I say absolutely. Can it be avoided? Yes. Do you absolutely need two slots? No. Will I buy a camera with a single slot to shoot with for paid events or photographic vacations? Absolutely not. 

btw, Sony's dual card system doesn't matter in my book.. because their cameras will just die from the elements. haha


----------



## Del Paso (May 3, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah, well, the building will still be there in an hour, tomorrow, next week, next year, and 20 years from now. One can always go back and get another shot, or better shot, should a card fail. Not so with weddings, ball games, etc. I've never had a card fail either, but I do mostly portraits and almost never for a special occasion. The times I do a lot of shooting, fashion shows and model boot camps, I am happy to have an extra card recording the shots. In cases like weddings, fashion shows, model boot camps, nuptial boudoir, etc., a card failure would be a disaster. I'd hate to hang my reputation on, "Oops. Sorry." I'm not even a pro, but I still run in some circles where that would be ruinous. If I were an architectural photographer, maybe one slot would be "okay". However, I would imagine some shots could take quite a while to perfect. Losing work because I was too cheap to spring for a $20 card just would not make sense... if I were a pro. Seems like real inexpensive insurance to me. (plus the expense difference of a 2 card camera). To be honest, I have started putting each model on a separate backup card of her own.


What if the building was the Notre Dame Cathedral, and you're back home in (Chicago-Beijing-Tokyo- Moscow) or even Paris and notice your card crashed?


----------



## Ozarker (May 3, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> What if the building was the Notre Dame Cathedral, and you're back home in (Chicago-Beijing-Tokyo- Moscow) or even Paris and notice your card crashed?


Exactly the point.


----------



## Photo Hack (May 3, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> Yes. Wedding photographer here. I use only cameras with two slots for the redundancy and safety to safeguard their _once in a lifetime_ images. Anything less is just irresponsible.
> 
> I do understand a lot of pro applications don't need that redundancy because you can have a studio with a tethered camera. But everyone jumping to the R at _this_ moment in time, because they are too impatient to wait another 7 months for a dual slot R should check if it's just GAS driving it. Even if you are not a pro shooting someones wedding, or a landscape that you won't be able to reproduce, the loss of images can be devastating.
> 
> As for theft, I keep one copy of the cards on my person on all times, and another copy in my smallest bag. That way if someone steals my big suitcase of gear at a wedding they don't get the files. If I am robbed in the parking lot, they will never find the cards in my pocket.


I keep a 64gb CF card in our Mark IVs at all times and swap out 16gb SD cards periodically and keep them separate from our gear in case of theft.

I once served as an expert witness in court while another photographer was being sued by the client. The photographer was a hack of the worst kind ripping off wedding clients.

I can tell you from that experience, being a pro photographer and charging market rates, the judge and plaintiff are going to wonder why you don’t have the industry standard of two slots in your camera if you have catastrophic failure.

The questions will be asked, how long have cameras offered two slots? How much are those cameras and are they typically used in your industry and by photographers in your price point?

They’ll most likely consider it an act of negligence on your part. What’s the likelihood any of this could happen to you? I don’t know, never? But all it takes us once and it will cost you way more than the cost of upgrading to a pro body with two slots.

And by the way, you probably won’t have the luxury of defining industry standard, pro, negligence, etc. It will be pretty tough for a defendant to explain why they felt a $2,300 body instead of a $3,000 body was adequate when charging over $3,000 per wedding or $150 and more per hour for an event. If the technology is there, affordable, and widely used in your industry, you can expect them to expect you to be using it.

But this is worst case scenario. Best case, you have a great contract and understanding clients and you’ve already refunded them a pro rate, half, or in full, for the loss. Which most likely would’ve gotten you better bodies with two slots as well....and kept your sanity and reputation in tact.


----------



## takesome1 (May 3, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> What if the building was the Notre Dame Cathedral, and you're back home in (Chicago-Beijing-Tokyo- Moscow) or even Paris and notice your card crashed?



Pre-Fire does it matter other than to you, there are thousands of pictures of the Notre Dame Cathedral. Yours is just one of a multitude.
During the fire though, how would you ever recreate it.


----------



## PGSanta (May 3, 2019)

FramerMCB said:


> Well...the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L should come in around $1,799 or $1,899USD, the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS around $1,999 or even $2,199USD, and the RF 70-210mm f/2.8L IS around $2,399 or $2,299USD. I would be pleasantly surprised if my pricing is overstated by $100-$200USD but sadly don't think this will be the case. Hard to say though because they may want to come in around the current EF pricing at least of the Mk III on the big lens and the little zoom. But with the addition of IS on the 24-70mm I don't see any way on God's green earth it comes in at the same price point as the current EF version. (I should clarify - the non-sale prices for the EF versions.)



I would be ecstatic if your guess held up. 

My hunch is 
15-35 @ $2299
24-70 @ $2399
70-200 @ $2499
85 @ $2299


----------



## Shutterbug (May 4, 2019)

A focal length and spec like the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS for the crop sensor mirrorless would be so nice! This chatter in the forum is making things exciting for an upcoming new body announcement.


----------



## jdavidse (May 4, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> Lot of folks say the third is a 24mm while others say 50. I tend to lean more to 24mm cuz 50 is too close to 35. Or for me... its a 135 lol



I'm more of a 35/50/85 guy. 
Not sure why but the difference between 35 and 50 seems really significant I need the opposite lens. I am always switching between the two. I bought into the Fuji X system for travel and only own 35 and 50 equivalents- the simplicity of only owning those two lenses is liberating.


----------



## Rivermist (May 4, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Obviously, you didn't understand that you were using an inferior camera that prevented you from taking good pictures. If you had just listened to the experts on this forum, you would have realized that it was a waste to try to take pictures with such a pathetic instrument and you would have just stayed home.


Second that (sarcasm included), I was on a trip to Rio a week after getting my RP, and while I had a few snafus it delivered some amazing pictures, and the "small" looks of the RP + RF 24-105 were preferable to the 5D with the EF equivalent. Once in safe tourist places the 11-24 and 100-400 adapted well and produced some great pictures. There is a learning curve to mirrorless, but these are great cameras all.


----------



## Photo Hack (May 4, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> I'm more of a 35/50/85 guy.
> Not sure why but the difference between 35 and 50 seems really significant I need the opposite lens. I am always switching between the two. I bought into the Fuji X system for travel and only own 35 and 50 equivalents- the simplicity of only owning those two lenses is liberating.


Same with the 35 & 85 w 70-200. At one point I had 35, 50, 85, 135, 200 for weddings and the lens swapping was getting ridiculous. 

I’m really waiting for a pro R body with two slots and I’m jumping ship to get the 28-70 f2 & 70-200. Sell all my primes and maybe pick up an 85, 105, or 135 RF depending on what comes out next year. Would love to get the benefits of nearly 3 primes in one lens with the f2 and just focus on shooting all day instead of swapping.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 4, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Same with the 35 & 85 w 70-200. At one point I had 35, 50, 85, 135, 200 for weddings and the lens swapping was getting ridiculous.
> 
> I’m really waiting for a pro R body with two slots and I’m jumping ship to get the 28-70 f2 & 70-200. Sell all my primes and maybe pick up an 85, 105, or 135 RF depending on what comes out next year. Would love to get the benefits of nearly 3 primes in one lens with the f2 and just focus on shooting all day instead of swapping.



+100, precisely what I am going to do with a slight correction: I am going to keep 35/1.4, 85/1.4, 100 (2.8?)MACRO in addition to wide aperture zooms

I found that I do need F1.4 at 35mm quite frequently - (dim lit dance floors, etc.) an extra stop goes long way at times.
I am going hybrid : DSLR + MILC dual Pro Canon bodies with MILC + 28-70 F2.0 - for AF critical situations, poor light, wide shots and 5D IV with longer glass on it (OVF, real time tracking, sports)...

P.S. I tried tracking with Sony and Canon R. It gives me a cracker of a headache! I am wearing glasses (astigmatism). I won't survive an hour shooting fast moving subjects with a MILC. it is a real issue for me.


----------



## Hector1970 (May 4, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah, well, the building will still be there in an hour, tomorrow, next week, next year, and 20 years from now. One can always go back and get another shot, or better shot, should a card fail. Not so with weddings, ball games, etc. I've never had a card fail either, but I do mostly portraits and almost never for a special occasion. The times I do a lot of shooting, fashion shows and model boot camps, I am happy to have an extra card recording the shots. In cases like weddings, fashion shows, model boot camps, nuptial boudoir, etc., a card failure would be a disaster. I'd hate to hang my reputation on, "Oops. Sorry." I'm not even a pro, but I still run in some circles where that would be ruinous. If I were an architectural photographer, maybe one slot would be "okay". However, I would imagine some shots could take quite a while to perfect. Losing work because I was too cheap to spring for a $20 card just would not make sense... if I were a pro. Seems like real inexpensive insurance to me. (plus the expense difference of a 2 card camera). To be honest, I have started putting each model on a separate backup card of her own.


I wouldn’t normally shoot with two cards but when it’s a critical once off shoot I use two cards. I agree it’s a very cheap insurance. I have had SD cards fall apart. They are fragile enough. Weddings , babies , events you can’t go back and shoot again. Canon must feel pro lens and no pro camera is better than a pro camera with few pro lens available. My curiosity is what will they bring out as a pro camera. If it’s a 5DIV like or 5DSR like then not much progress has been made and bar dual slots you may as well buy an RP. It will be interesting if they can make a step forward on the 5DIV. I’d like a camera that I’d say is distinctly better than a 5DIV in ISO performance,FPS and focusing


----------



## mb66energy (May 4, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The word is no, at least until the laws of physics expire. The filters are dropped into the adapter required to use a 44mm flange distance EF lens on a 20mm flange distance RF mount.


Only chance is to let the drop in filter drop into the camera itself. Just in front of the shutter - but this might include to rework the mechanics (shutter, motors, etc.) close to the sensor area to be flat enough to adapt a 45mm round filter. Round would be preferable for polarizers - for all others 25 x 37mm would be enough.

Another caveat: Transporting dust onto the camera sensor "more efficiently".


----------



## mb66energy (May 4, 2019)

degos said:


> Well that's just your conjecture. If that was the case we'd have had dual-CF or dual-SD from the outset instead of a mix of the two types.
> 
> It's not just about card failure in the camera, but also in the reader. Keep one in the camera and feed the other into the PC.



The better way IMO would be to create a data mirror via WLAN or Bluetooth to a watertight mini computer remote from the camera e.g. in your backpack. It saves you from loss of the camera, catastrophic power failures in the camera (e.g. overvoltage).

But maybe the dual card slot is the best compromise between reliability and efforts!


----------



## mb66energy (May 4, 2019)

slclick said:


> If the EVF and fps don't get any better (in the next year) then dual slots is the least of your worries for those yearning for a Pro R model. Then again, we come full circle to 'What makes a Pro body' argument again. Seems like over and over the 5D4 is the solution and winner for many not getting the tidbits they cry for from Canon. But alas, people have to have new toys.



In my view the world is a world of compromises - and depending on your application you have to choose the best of those compromises.
I ordered the M50 to try a mirrorless with EVF and it was way better than I expect. The OVF IS clearer, crisper, shure. But the DPAF in combination with EVF lets me choose AF points with a vast amount of freedom compared to SLRs which is - for me - a significant upgrade compared to SLRs. And I never got such a high hit rate with EF with any SLR I used for medium slow applications: predictable accurate AF @f/1.4 in the close focus range with EF-M 32 . While not being a Pro I see professional photographers who might profit from that behaviour with EOS R cameras.

For sports or bif or other "faster" types of photography the M50 is not well suited, just the SL2 was better there. So this might be the domain of DSLRs at least in Canon land for the next year or two years.

But I am shure Canon is working with high pressure on a "Pro level" ML body including some surprising USEFUL features - not only for Canon users. Just my feeling, don't have any information.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 4, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Lenses first, then the camera follows (maybe). A tight Hollywood suspense script in the works.


I believe that Canon are playing the long game and not the Sony "flash in the pan" approach. Sure...Sony may have the Japaneses market share of Mirror-less full frame camera bodies at the moment, but that's a very transitory market. All know a more pro orientated 5DSR Mirrorless is on the way, but I suspect that will still be the wrong camera for many (me included). What I want is a true 5D4 mirror less replacement before I consider merging RF into my camera bag. At the moment there is no credible offering from Canon for Wildlife shooting. I use a ef 400mm f2.8 LIS and my 5D series serve me far better than anything mirror less. Canon are still selling more full frame cameras and lenses than anyone else...in fact...there's a lot of Sony users who use EF glass. So I'm sure Canon will tie up their market dominance soon enough. As I said before, they are the masters of playing the long game...hence the lenses first approach.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 4, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Same with the 35 & 85 w 70-200. At one point I had 35, 50, 85, 135, 200 for weddings and the lens swapping was getting ridiculous.
> 
> I’m really waiting for a pro R body with two slots and I’m jumping ship to get the 28-70 f2 & 70-200. Sell all my primes and maybe pick up an 85, 105, or 135 RF depending on what comes out next year. Would love to get the benefits of nearly 3 primes in one lens with the f2 and just focus on shooting all day instead of swapping.


I used to run a 16-35 f2.8 on one camera, a 35 f1.4 on a 2nd camera and a 85 f1.2 on my third camera. Not much lens swapping and very accessible. When working primes...a camera per lens is the only way to go in my opinion. I'd take a 135L as my long lens of choice and pretty much my only swap out. My 2nd photographer would use her 100L IS macro...so she'd shoot all the ring shots. On sunny day weddings, I'd select my f2.8 zooms instead. Shooting f1.4 / f1.2 on a sunny day usually ends up with a smaller aperture due to bouncing off the upper shutter speed limit of the camera. So 16-35 f2.8 / 24-70 f2.8 / 70-200 f2.8 on three cameras. It's heavier and bulkier, but it's slightly quicker and slightly more versatile...although out of focus rendering and differential focusing is harder to achieve with the zooms. The older mk I 24-70 f2.8 was easier in that regard...you gain magnification as the focus draws into min focus compared to most lenses that actually lose magnification as the min focus draws in (like most 70-200's do). Most non-pros used to criticize the old reverse zoom of the 24-70 purely because it was different...but it held some major advantages over the current model (like the lens hood that actually works across the whole focal range). The new lens is optically superior...but less able to actually get the shot in the first place. But give me a bag of primes over the zooms any day ( on a dimly lit day).


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 4, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> I'm more of a 35/50/85 guy.
> Not sure why but the difference between 35 and 50 seems really significant I need the opposite lens. I am always switching between the two. I bought into the Fuji X system for travel and only own 35 and 50 equivalents- the simplicity of only owning those two lenses is liberating.


Yep, for me a 35 and and 85 pair well. I find that a 50 needs a three lens line up, with a 24 / 50 / 100 or 135.


----------



## jd7 (May 4, 2019)

Ladislav said:


> My small math exercise (in GBP):
> 
> Cost of R ~ 2k
> Estimated cost of new trinity ~ 7k
> ...


Similar to you, I think, my maths is telling me that going R would provide a great opportunity for me to spend a lot of money without significantly improving my photography 

I'd like the focus accuracy and the ability to focus almost anywhere in the frame which the R cameras offer, but on the other hand I prefer OVF and I like having long battery life.

If I had an R camera I might be tempted by the RF 24-104L, but I'm not really excited about any of the current RF lenses. I'll be interested to see how the other announced RF lenses perform when they get here, but I'm not really expecting to be excited enough about any of them either to be quick to pay the sort of prices I'm expecting Canon will want for them, given the gear I already have. Maybe I'll change my mind once the RF lenses are here, but that's how I feel at the moment. I guess the good thing about that is I'm not feeling like I "need" to spend money


----------



## Photo Hack (May 4, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I used to run a 16-35 f2.8 on one camera, a 35 f1.4 on a 2nd camera and a 85 f1.2 on my third camera. Not much lens swapping and very accessible. When working primes...a camera per lens is the only way to go in my opinion. I'd take a 135L as my long lens of choice and pretty much my only swap out. My 2nd photographer would use her 100L IS macro...so she'd shoot all the ring shots. On sunny day weddings, I'd select my f2.8 zooms instead. Shooting f1.4 / f1.2 on a sunny day usually ends up with a smaller aperture due to bouncing off the upper shutter speed limit of the camera. So 16-35 f2.8 / 24-70 f2.8 / 70-200 f2.8 on three cameras. It's heavier and bulkier, but it's slightly quicker and slightly more versatile...although out of focus rendering and differential focusing is harder to achieve with the zooms. The older mk I 24-70 f2.8 was easier in that regard...you gain magnification as the focus draws into min focus compared to most lenses that actually lose magnification as the min focus draws in (like most 70-200's do). Most non-pros used to criticize the old reverse zoom of the 24-70 purely because it was different...but it held some major advantages over the current model (like the lens hood that actually works across the whole focal range). The new lens is optically superior...but less able to actually get the shot in the first place. But give me a bag of primes over the zooms any day ( on a dimly lit day).


Yeah we’ve always ran two bodies per person and that was enough. It worked out with my wife and I shooting, she would normally be closer to subjects and use 35 & 85 and I ran 50 & 135. Then ceremony time, the telephotos really came out. Since then I’ve mostly just been using traditional 24-70 & 70-200 all day and keeping a 50mm with me. She shoots 35 & 85 and brings out 70-200 for ceremony and reception. 

Our style is heavy on compression and narrow depth of field and I can get that with the 70-200 and is my most used lens. Just a bummer it’s so big. Having two cameras on all day is cumbersome, don’t know how you guys do it with three, or two cameras plus a bag or Holdfast type setup. 

Would really love to just go with one camera and one lens for Documenting and another lens for portraits. All on a smaller body and lens design.


----------



## Del Paso (May 4, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Yep, for me a 35 and and 85 pair well. I find that a 50 needs a three lens line up, with a 24 / 50 / 100 or 135.


This was - and still is- the traditional Leica M combo.


----------



## Rivermist (May 4, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> This was - and still is- the traditional Leica M combo.


In the days of F-1 and FD lens, and before (affordable ) zooms were practical and of sufficient quality, my prime trinity (mainly for travel) was the FD 24mm f:2.0, FD 35mm 2.0 and the 100mm 2.8. I owned other lenses (17mm, 35mm TS, 50mm 1.4, 50mm macro, 85mm 1.2, 135mm 2.5, 200mm 4 and 300mm 5.6 plus a 35-70mm zoom) but if it was about compact and easy to change lenses, those were the 3.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 4, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> This was - and still is- the traditional Leica M combo.


Yes it was, not many ventured longer than 85mm on the Leica M range finder...mainly because the viewfinder image was so different from the film image. 
These days with the rise of mirror less...it's not important any more.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 4, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Yeah we’ve always ran two bodies per person and that was enough. It worked out with my wife and I shooting, she would normally be closer to subjects and use 35 & 85 and I ran 50 & 135. Then ceremony time, the telephotos really came out. Since then I’ve mostly just been using traditional 24-70 & 70-200 all day and keeping a 50mm with me. She shoots 35 & 85 and brings out 70-200 for ceremony and reception.
> 
> Our style is heavy on compression and narrow depth of field and I can get that with the 70-200 and is my most used lens. Just a bummer it’s so big. Having two cameras on all day is cumbersome, don’t know how you guys do it with three, or two cameras plus a bag or Holdfast type setup.
> 
> Would really love to just go with one camera and one lens for Documenting and another lens for portraits. All on a smaller body and lens design.


Yes I've used a 3 camera hold fast strap system for more years than I care to mention, I think I was one of their early customer. It's easier with primes lenses due to the weight and size.
I tend to favor my 135L over the 70-200. Close to min focus distance is very similar framing to the long end of the 70-200. It's smaller, less obtrusive and takes a 1.4x TC well too. I found that I rarely used the 70-200 at the wide end. But some times, I'd need the extra reach and it saves stepping closer.
It would be awesome if some one designed a 135 f2 to 200 f2.8 LIS. It's probably not that difficult technically. It might even be smaller and lighter than the 70-200.


----------



## mb66energy (May 4, 2019)

Rivermist said:


> In the days of F-1 and FD lens, and before (affordable ) zooms were practical and of sufficient quality, my prime trinity (mainly for travel) was the FD 24mm f:2.0, FD 35mm 2.0 and the 100mm 2.8. I owned other lenses (17mm, 35mm TS, 50mm 1.4, 50mm macro, 85mm 1.2, 135mm 2.5, 200mm 4 and 300mm 5.6 plus a 35-70mm zoom) but if it was about compact and easy to change lenses, those were the 3.



Fun to see someone referring to these old lenses - my setup was (in the mid 1980s) a 2nd hand Canon EF + the 2.5 135mm and later the 1.4 50 S.S.C. lens (after testing the unsatisfying New FD version). I still have these lenses + the 50mm Macro + 4.0 200 chome ring versions + a FD 4 17mm (would like to make TS lens for APS-C from that!).

Still waiting for dropping prices of EOS R bodies to reuse these lenses with adapter - EOS R is relatively expensive in germany (R: 25% more, RP: 20% more while SL3 and M50 are 10% less in germany - so it's not only taxes or currencies but some policy).


----------



## degos (May 4, 2019)

Ladislav said:


> My small math exercise (in GBP):
> 
> ...
> Estimated value of old trinity (Mk.III and 24-70Mk. II) ~ 4k



Nah, not a hope of that. New retail they don't even hit £3800 combined, and with the current cashbacks £3300.

For a trade-in you can expect about 40% to 50% of that, £1400 to £1700.

People still have this notion that Canon L lenses are an 'investment'. Not when a mint second-hand 24-70 sells for £1100... that's £600 down. And the big whites are even worse.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 5, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Yes I've used a 3 camera hold fast strap system for more years than I care to mention, I think I was one of their early customer. It's easier with primes lenses due to the weight and size.
> I tend to favor my 135L over the 70-200. Close to min focus distance is very similar framing to the long end of the 70-200. It's smaller, less obtrusive and takes a 1.4x TC well too. I found that I rarely used the 70-200 at the wide end. But some times, I'd need the extra reach and it saves stepping closer.
> It would be awesome if some one designed a 135 f2 to 200 f2.8 LIS. It's probably not that difficult technically. It might even be smaller and lighter than the 70-200.


“... 135 f2 to 200 f2.8 LIS. It's probably not that difficult technically. It might even be smaller and lighter than the 70-200...”
This also likely creates an Av nightmare for some one who tends to shoot wide open with the lens. Your exposures would be all across the shop as the aperture number will be jumping up and down all the time as you zooming. And a one full stop difference is not a small change. One may end up having two subsequent frames exposed very differently.
As you know.


----------



## bergstrom (May 5, 2019)

wow, so much new stuff to buy. And I won't be.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 5, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> “... 135 f2 to 200 f2.8 LIS. It's probably not that difficult technically. It might even be smaller and lighter than the 70-200...”
> This also likely creates an Av nightmare for some one who tends to shoot wide open with the lens. Your exposures would be all across the shop as the aperture number will be jumping up and down all the time as you zooming. And a one full stop difference is not a small change. One may end up having two subsequent frames exposed very differently.
> As you know.


Only if you have your metering in Manual...AV will adjust shutter speed or Iso according to the required exposure. Hence the term Aperture Priority or Aperture Value as Canon like to call it.


----------



## st jack photography (May 5, 2019)

OK I get it Canon you invented the best largest-diameter mount ever, but they are pointless for me now. How about a camera that even comes near the full frame competition for burst speed, shoot speed, AF, eye focus, focus peaking, customability, ergonomics/design, 4k? Maybe 2020......? MAYBE. OK, see ya in 2020 or 2021. Jeesh. I got 4 grand here on a body, plus what I get selling my clunky 5dsr, so just produce it, and then maybe I'll take a look at one of those juicy RF lenses.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 5, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Only if you have your metering in Manual...AV will adjust shutter speed or Iso according to the required exposure. Hence the term Aperture Priority or Aperture Value as Canon like to call it.


You are correct, the minimum F number wont jump a full stop in an instant as you zooming , but in 1/3 of a stop steps anyway.


----------



## ozturert (May 5, 2019)

st jack photography said:


> OK I get it Canon you invented the best largest-diameter mount ever, but they are pointless for me now. How about a camera that even comes near the full frame competition for burst speed, shoot speed, AF, eye focus, focus peaking, customability, ergonomics/design, 4k? Maybe 2020......? MAYBE. OK, see ya in 2020 or 2021. Jeesh. I got 4 grand here on a body, plus what I get selling my clunky 5dsr, so just produce it, and then maybe I'll take a look at one of those juicy RF lenses.


Large diameter? It has the same diameter as EF mount.
Shoot speed? What do you even mean?
AF? Do you mean AF-S or AF-C? AF-S with EOS R cameras is one of the best. AF-C isn't that behind although needs to be improved.
There is eye focus in EOS R, also with AF-C now. It isn't the best but I think it is very good.
Focus peaking? What? There already is focus peaking in EOS R!
Customizing? Customizing what? You need to be more specific because EOS R is highly customizable today. Can be better? Maybe but be specific about what you are asking.
Ergonomics? What? EOS R is incredibly ergonomic to hold and I can access all buttons easily. Are you sure you are not talking about Sony A7 series?
So many wrongs in one post.


----------



## dba101 (May 5, 2019)

st jack photography said:


> OK I get it Canon you invented the best largest-diameter mount ever, but they are pointless for me now. How about a camera that even comes near the full frame competition for burst speed, shoot speed, AF, eye focus, focus peaking, customability, ergonomics/design, 4k? Maybe 2020......? MAYBE. OK, see ya in 2020 or 2021. Jeesh. I got 4 grand here on a body, plus what I get selling my clunky 5dsr, so just produce it, and then maybe I'll take a look at one of those juicy RF lenses.


Don't go trashing your name before you get one. First rule of business.


----------



## masterpix (May 5, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I can understand calling them a "trinity". The "Holy" part of this reference is strange.  Besides, in my religion the trinity is zooms... 11-24, 24-70, 70-200
> (15-28, 28-70, 70-135)


mine is 11-24 24-105 100-400... but we don't fight over religions...

wish I could buy the 11-24 though


----------



## Ozarker (May 5, 2019)

dba101 said:


> Don't go trashing your name before you get one. First rule of business.


Guy who bought a "clunky" 5DSr (slow frame rate) now acting upset because a 1DX II+ mirrorless camera isn't available right now from Canon. Shooting style change much? Why not just buy a 1DX Mark II? BTW: Canon doesn't mind if you don't check back until 2095.


----------



## Ozarker (May 5, 2019)

masterpix said:


> mine is 11-24 24-105 100-400... but we don't fight over religions...
> 
> wish I could buy the 11-24 though


I wish I had it too, but I have to say I would probably never use it much. I'd be smarter to get a second body.


----------



## Del Paso (May 5, 2019)

My favorite trinity is a bit different...
EF 16-35, Zeiss 50 macro, EF 100-400. (What about a 50 macro, Canon?)
So, I'm ready for whatever may come!


----------



## Antono Refa (May 6, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> EF 16-35, Zeiss 50 macro, EF 100-400. (What about a 50 macro, Canon?)



Canon stopped making one, so apparently there's no profit in it. That, or there's more profit in making a different lens.


----------



## Del Paso (May 6, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon stopped making one, so apparently there's no profit in it. That, or there's more profit in making a different lens.


I know, 50mm or 60mm macro lenses used to be very popular in the past, but were replaced with 100mm macros.
Nikon and Zeiss are the last ones to produce them. I miss them, because my favorite lens being the EF 100-400, the 100 L IS is a bit redundant...and bulky, especially with its lens-shade.That's why I bought the additional Zeiss...which is excellent, but lacks AF.


----------



## koenkooi (May 6, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> I know, 50mm or 60mm macro lenses used to be very popular in the past, but were replaced with 100mm macros.
> Nikon and Zeiss are the last ones to produce them. I miss them, because my favorite lens being the EF 100-400, the 100 L IS is a bit redundant...and bulky, especially with its lens-shade.That's why I bought the additional Zeiss...which is excellent, but lacks AF.



I went from 7D +100mm non-L to 7D + sigma 150 to 7D + sigma 150 + 1.4x TC to get more and more reach, or M+MP-E for more and more magnification. Then I bought a book with nothing but wide angle macros and started reconsidering my approach.
The EF-M 28mm (45mm on FF) is a very nice combination for getting in close: EOS-M + EF-M 28mm + magic lantern 

I should try the 50mm f/2.5 on the RP to see how that does, provided I find decent enough ear protection for dampening the AF noise


----------



## Del Paso (May 6, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> I went from 7D +100mm non-L to 7D + sigma 150 to 7D + sigma 150 + 1.4x TC to get more and more reach, or M+MP-E for more and more magnification. Then I bought a book with nothing but wide angle macros and started reconsidering my approach.
> The EF-M 28mm (45mm on FF) is a very nice combination for getting in close: EOS-M + EF-M 28mm + magic lantern
> 
> I should try the 50mm f/2.5 on the RP to see how that does, provided I find decent enough ear protection for dampening the AF noise


I think I'll give the EF 2,8/40 a try, with a short extension ring, but I dislike (mechanically, not optically) the EF 2,5/50!
Nice bee video!


----------



## PureClassA (May 6, 2019)

navastronia said:


> For me, I don't have any interest in the 40-70mm focal length, so a 35, 85, and some sort of tele-zoom is ideal : ) I do leave room to be persuaded into a 15-35, but only if it's optically spectacular.


 I'm in on the 15-35 2.8 (very likely) to shoot video so as to compensate for the 1.75 crop


----------



## Aaron D (May 6, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ...maybe one slot would be "okay".



And that's exactly right. I'd rather have two even if one never leaves the camera, just for insurance. But until the EOS Rs comes out (that's my name for it) I'm OK with one. And the iPad...

And I'd be happy if the second 'card' were built-in, not removable. Put a 128 GB chip in the internals card warn me when it's about full. Best of both worlds!


----------



## Aaron D (May 6, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> I'm more of a 35/50/85 guy.



I hope Canon reads this stuff! My requests:

TS 17 with screw-on filters (no bulbous glass) and a tripod foot
TS 24 with tripod foot
20–85 f/4 (the 24–105 gets traded for this one!)
70–200 f/something. I might not be able to wait for an f/4
a 28 f/1.8 the ideal walking around lens. I've tried to make 35 work but it's just too close, the 24 too wide

There you have it.


----------



## masterpix (May 6, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I wish I had it too, but I have to say I would probably never use it much. I'd be smarter to get a second body.


having another body is a totally different religion...


----------



## SkynetTX (May 6, 2019)

Just to be curious: will we see any new APS-C DSLR and EF-S lens in the foreseeable future or this part of the market is completely forgotten now?  An EF-S 18-55 f/2.8 IS (ring)USM or an EF 10-24 f/2.8 IS Dii VC USD would be great. Or any other lens with an f/2.8 fixed maximum aperture for APS-C cameras.


----------



## Ozarker (May 6, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> I keep a 50gb CF card in our Mark IVs at all times and swap out 16gb SD cards periodically and keep them separate from our gear in case of theft.
> 
> I once served as an expert witness in court while another photographer was being sued by the client. The photographer was a hack of the worst kind ripping off wedding clients.
> 
> ...


Then, even with a contract with an out due to equipment failure, a Bridezilla could still file a frivolous suit that would still have to be defended. So a second card is really good insurance.


----------



## Photo Hack (May 7, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Then, even with a contract with an out due to equipment failure, a Bridezilla could still file a frivolous suit that would still have to be defended. So a second card is really good insurance.


Oh for sure. We also have indemnification/ errors and omissions coverage. We all know just the act of being sued, even if there’s no chance a plaintiff will or could win, can be financially and emotionally costly. 

Maybe I’m just paranoid. I’m too busy to deal with any of that anyways. Time away from shooting and managing a business costs much more than the investment in good gear....and that’s why I never jumped to Sony. The fan boys don’t tell you about all the fun things that go along with a flawed and technologically aggressive system.


----------



## Ozarker (May 7, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Oh for sure. We also have indemnification/ errors and omissions coverage. We all know just the act of being sued, even if there’s no chance a plaintiff will or could win, can be financially and emotionally costly.
> 
> Maybe I’m just paranoid. I’m too busy to deal with any of that anyways. Time away from shooting and managing a business costs much more than the investment in good gear....and that’s why I never jumped to Sony. The fan boys don’t tell you about all the fun things that go along with a flawed and technologically aggressive system.


Yup. But, apparently those supposed pros who think 2 card slots is paranoid haven't run into a nasty customer and card failure yet. Economic thrill seekers with a little of Murphy's law thrown in.  Then again, they probably don't use contracts or insurance either. Sooner or later, "Should have..." Not to mention all the free word of mouth advertising they'll get. Not smart business on their part.


----------



## navastronia (May 7, 2019)

SkynetTX said:


> Just to be curious: will we see any new APS-C DSLR and EF-S lens in the foreseeable future or this part of the market is completely forgotten now?  An EF-S 18-55 f/2.8 IS (ring)USM or an EF 10-24 f/2.8 IS Dii VC USD would be great. Or any other lens with an f/2.8 fixed maximum aperture for APS-C cameras.



I don't know if Canon has ever made a lens like what your describe for EF-S cameras. I'm sorry to say I think there's little chance of this ever happening based on where Canon seems to be concentrating its energies. Maybe move to Fuji? They make an 8-16 2.8 and a 16-55 2.8, both available for a modern system (X-T3). Based on what you want, it sounds like a system (perhaps the only system around) made for you.


----------



## Trey T (May 7, 2019)

RF 70-200 f2.8 is fixed length barrel!!!


----------



## Ozarker (May 7, 2019)

Trey T said:


> RF 70-200 f2.8 is fixed length barrel!!!


Really?!


----------



## Antono Refa (May 7, 2019)

Aaron D said:


> I hope Canon reads this stuff! My requests:
> 
> TS 17 with screw-on filters (no bulbous glass) and a tripod foot



Which screw on filters could you use, that the Canon EF to R adapter wouldn't allow you?



Aaron D said:


> TS 24 with tripod foot



There's at least one company making tripod feet for those lenses.


----------



## uri.raz (May 7, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I can understand calling them a "trinity". The "Holy" part of this reference is strange.



Canon sells kits of all three lenses, blessed by the pope and wrapped in a shroud sprinkled with holy water.


----------



## Del Paso (May 7, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Then, even with a contract with an out due to equipment failure, a Bridezilla could still file a frivolous suit that would still have to be defended. So a second card is really good insurance.


I love your Bridezilla!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 7, 2019)

Trey T said:


> RF 70-200 f2.8 is fixed length barrel!!!


Yeah, ‘cuz that like totally explains why there’s a zoom lock switch on the barrel.


----------



## Trey T (May 7, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, ‘cuz that like totally explains why there’s a zoom lock switch on the barrel.


Thanks


----------



## SecureGSM (May 7, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, ‘cuz that like totally explains why there’s a zoom lock switch on the barrel.


well, the zoom lock is there precisely to keep the barrel at a fixed length. therefore with zoom lock engaged, the barrel is fixed length.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 7, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Guy who bought a "clunky" 5DSr (slow frame rate) now acting upset because a 1DX II+ mirrorless camera isn't available right now from Canon. Shooting style change much? Why not just buy a 1DX Mark II? BTW: Canon doesn't mind if you don't check back until 2095.


Sure been happy with my "clunky" 5DS. I bet the 1DX MKII owner cannot crop & recompose in the way you can with 5DS files.


----------



## Kit. (May 7, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Which screw on filters could you use, that the Canon EF to R adapter wouldn't allow you?


With TS 17, it's not about filters, actually. It's about not catching sun flare _from behind_.


----------



## lawny13 (May 7, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> Don't agree!
> Imagine spending a month in New Zealand, Japan or Utah, to find out, once back at home, that one 64 GB card failed.
> Even if you had a second camera, many pictures will be lost forever (sometimes). I experienced this once, and, believe me or not, that's why I sold my cute little R to buy the 5 D IV. The failure occurred with a Leica and Sandisk SD, but , since I'm planning a longer trip to Japan, I wanted to be on the safe side...
> And, by the way, why do you think that landscape, stills, portrait have less importance than sports or marriage???



Huh? Does not compute... I would find out that my card has failed during the trip, not when I get home. When I card fails you can no longer write to it since you would get an error. Any corrupted images can't be reviewed either. AND, I don't operate as stupid as that, and I hope other's don't either. Something like water damage, theft etc will cause you to lose everything including that second card. I travel with my ipad. End of each day I will just use cascable to wirelessly transfer that day's photos to my ipad. At least up to 20GB of those images will end up in the cloud. If I have my laptop with me same thing. 

So though I am saying that I don't absolutely need a second card (just like everyone with an entry level FF camera pre sony mk3 bodies) doesn't mean that I blindly assume nothing will ever go wrong. I make an educated risk assessment and purchase my gear accordingly. I see the value and potential of the RF mount. So am buying into canon for that amoung other things. I am not going to just buy and invest deep into sony just because of 2 card slots which will definitely find its way into a canon RF body within the next year. 

If the two card slots were you prerequisit then surely you haven't owned any of the FE mount cameras pre-mk3 bodies right??? Cause if your answer is that you have, then it wasn't as important to you back then as it has suddenly become in the past year.


----------



## unfocused (May 7, 2019)

lawny13 said:


> ...though I am saying that I don't absolutely need a second card (just like everyone with an entry level FF camera pre sony mk3 bodies) doesn't mean that I blindly assume nothing will ever go wrong. I make an educated risk assessment and purchase my gear accordingly...



This. 

I would add one more thing. Virtually all high quality cards come with rescue software. Unfortunately, I have had to use the software a time or two. It worked flawlessly. In fact, it recovers not only the images on the card, but images that were previously on the card before the card was formatted for the most recent use. 

I get that some people feel strongly about having two card slots. But, that doesn't mean every camera with a single card slot is worthless or that those of us who don't feel as strongly about the issue need to be lectured by those that do feel strongly.


----------



## Aaron D (May 7, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> "...Canon EF to R adapter..."
> 
> "...tripod feet for those lenses..."



Got one. Seen that. 

I'm putting in a request for new RF lenses. Get it? Ones that don't exist yet. And I know this doesn't go straight to Canon's ear. I'm making a post on a blog page.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 7, 2019)

Aaron D said:


> Got one. Seen that.



Great.



Aaron D said:


> I'm putting in a request for new RF lenses. Get it?



Oh yes, I got it. My point is, given the aforementioned accessories, why do you request those?



Aaron D said:


> I'm making a post on a blog page.



Actually you were posting on a forum thread. Get it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 7, 2019)

unfocused said:


> This.
> 
> I would add one more thing. Virtually all high quality cards come with rescue software. Unfortunately, I have had to use the software a time or two. It worked flawlessly. In fact, it recovers not only the images on the card, but images that were previously on the card before the card was formatted for the most recent use.
> 
> I get that some people feel strongly about having two card slots. But, that doesn't mean every camera with a single card slot is worthless or that those of us who don't feel as strongly about the issue need to be lectured by those that do feel strongly.


Yeah, but if you ever had your pants sued off and your house firebombed by a bridezilla, you’d change your tune right quick.


----------



## Ozarker (May 8, 2019)

unfocused said:


> This.
> 
> I would add one more thing. Virtually all high quality cards come with rescue software. Unfortunately, I have had to use the software a time or two. It worked flawlessly. In fact, it recovers not only the images on the card, but images that were previously on the card before the card was formatted for the most recent use.
> 
> I get that some people feel strongly about having two card slots. But, that doesn't mean every camera with a single card slot is worthless or that those of us who don't feel as strongly about the issue need to be lectured by those that do feel strongly.


Actually, the lecturing was coming from the Professional Architectural Photographer knocking the idea that people need two card slots because he had never had a failure. BTW: Nobody said single card cams are worthless. Nobody. Read the thread.


----------



## unfocused (May 8, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, but if you ever had your pants sued off and your house firebombed by a bridezilla, you’d change your tune right quick.


One of many reasons why I stay as far away from weddings as possible.


----------



## unfocused (May 8, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Actually, the lecturing was coming from the Professional Architectural Photographer knocking the idea that people need two card slots because he had never had a failure.






CanonFanBoy said:


> Yup. But, apparently those supposed pros who think 2 card slots is paranoid haven't run into a nasty customer and card failure yet. Economic thrill seekers with a little of Murphy's law thrown in.  Then again, they probably don't use contracts or insurance either. Sooner or later, "Should have..." Not to mention all the free word of mouth advertising they'll get. Not smart business on their part.



Yeah that's not lecturing at all.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 8, 2019)

Kit. said:


> With TS 17, it's not about filters, actually. It's about not catching sun flare _from behind_.


You more likely to catch flares with front filter on than without. The common knowledge is to remove front filters when shooting with strong source or light in the frame. e.g. sun, light poles in night photography, etc. 
with rear positioned filter there are much much less chances to catch a FILTER INDUCED flares as reflection path is much shorter. 
That said, there is an increased risk of catching up reflection from the sensor back into the lens - an assumption only.


----------



## Ozarker (May 8, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Yeah that's not lecturing at all.


You call me, speaking with a like minded individual about the legalities involved in a botched wedding shoot (By a business and from a best practices point of view.), lecturing a guy who doesn't do weddings? Wow. Yeah. Again, read the thread.

"Are you a pro? That why you need two card slots? Cause I see A LOT of non-pro people complaining about it." (Quote from a "Pro" doing some lecturing to what he deems "non-pros".)

Now, I am no pro (I work for a charity as a volunteer), but I do actually need the redundancy of two slots. TBH: Ain't any of anybody's business what somebody else needs or doesn't need.


----------



## PGSanta (May 8, 2019)

Adorama announced the 85... 2699. I mean I knew they’d be pricey, but 2699 for the 85? Really?

The 70-200 is going to be 2999.


----------



## rgeorge33 (May 9, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Adorama announced the 85... 2699. I mean I knew they’d be pricey, but 2699 for the 85? Really?
> 
> The 70-200 is going to be 2999.



I sure hope not. I'm really looking forward to the trinity announcement. However, if they're all three approaching $3k, I'll have to hold off on buying anyway. I'll have to keep using the EF version with adapters for the foreseeable future...


----------



## lawny13 (May 9, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, but if you ever had your pants sued off and your house firebombed by a bridezilla, you’d change your tune right quick.



That is why you have choices. I would say that if I were a wedding photographer this would not be the main camera for me. I would keep a close eye on canon for when they do release a 2 slot body, and I would keep using a 5DIV. Remember, the mk3 sony bodies didn't have 2 slots till this past year. Before that they had 1 slot and were slow bodies... meh. So unless these wedding photographers you are referring to switched to sony in the past year, then they are still on canon, and their gear is just as good as they were the year before. Considering lens investments (24-70, 70-200, 85 mm, 50 mm, 35 mm, 16-35, lighting and bodifiers, triggers backup everything etc etc) most pros tend to upgrade in cycles and not on a whim. No wedding photographer would be on the R system yet, cause canon is missing the work horse lenses. NO 24-70 f2.8, no 16-35, no 70-200 yet. So why oh why would a wedding photog pick up an R system with the current lens line up?? Even if canon had a A7III like body they wouldn't necessarily do that. 

When this rumored 60+MP body comes out with 2 slots, maybe IBIS, AND the trinity zooms are out, then wedding photogs will be peaked. Till then the EOS R coupled with the 28-70, 50, and now the 85 will be for portait and studio photographers where the single card slot is way way less of an issue.


----------



## lawny13 (May 9, 2019)

lawny13 said:


> Huh? Does not compute... I would find out that my card has failed during the trip, not when I get home. When I card fails you can no longer write to it since you would get an error. Any corrupted images can't be reviewed either. AND, I don't operate as stupid as that, and I hope other's don't either. Something like water damage, theft etc will cause you to lose everything including that second card. I travel with my ipad. End of each day I will just use cascable to wirelessly transfer that day's photos to my ipad. At least up to 20GB of those images will end up in the cloud. If I have my laptop with me same thing.
> 
> So though I am saying that I don't absolutely need a second card (just like everyone with an entry level FF camera pre sony mk3 bodies) doesn't mean that I blindly assume nothing will ever go wrong. I make an educated risk assessment and purchase my gear accordingly. I see the value and potential of the RF mount. So am buying into canon for that amoung other things. I am not going to just buy and invest deep into sony just because of 2 card slots which will definitely find its way into a canon RF body within the next year.
> 
> If the two card slots were you prerequisit then surely you haven't owned any of the FE mount cameras pre-mk3 bodies right??? Cause if your answer is that you have, then it wasn't as important to you back then as it has suddenly become in the past year.












A couple of EOS R cameras that can be considered "pro" are in the pipeline [CR1]


Since the announcement of the Canon EOS R last year, there have been unrelenting questions about what a true next-generation professional mirrorless camera from



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## esglord (May 9, 2019)

rgeorge33 said:


> I sure hope not. I'm really looking forward to the trinity announcement. However, if they're all three approaching $3k, I'll have to hold off on buying anyway. I'll have to keep using the EF version with adapters for the foreseeable future...


Agreed. I am definitely interested in the 70-200, but $3k could go pretty far elsewhere. I'd have to rethink too


----------



## rosstcorbett (May 9, 2019)

Does anybody know what sort of price are we looking at for the 15-35? I have my fingers crossed it won't be more than £2000. Is this unlikely?


----------



## navastronia (May 10, 2019)

rosstcorbett said:


> Does anybody know what sort of price are we looking at for the 15-35? I have my fingers crossed it won't be more than £2000. Is this unlikely?



Since the MSRP on the 16-35/2.8L III is $2200, and this one is both wider and includes IS, I wouldn't bet south of $2700.


----------



## mjg79 (May 20, 2019)

Have there been any more updates?



navastronia said:


> Since the MSRP on the 16-35/2.8L III is $2200, and this one is both wider and includes IS, I wouldn't bet south of $2700.



To be honest the wide angle option is the only one that really excites me right now and sadly I agree with your analysis.

Looking at Sony and Nikon it seems clear that, unless Canon has discovered some huge advance, a 24-70 2.8 seems to be about the same size regardless of flange distance. Indeed with it having IS the new 24-70/2.8 L RF is possibly going to be bigger than the EF L II (the Sony 24-70GM is actually quite a bit bigger than the 24-70/2.8 L II). I adapted my 24-70 L II to the R and it works perfectly and whether I update to the upcoming RF will depend on if a future R body gets IBIS - if it does I'll probably just keep my EF for many years.

A similar story plays out with 70-200 except of course if one makes it extending which Canon is going to. Personally I prefer the current style but I can imagine for travel the RF will work well. My II has been banged about quite a bit and has never missed a beat, I am sure in part because of its rigid design.

Again using Sony and Nikon as a guide - Sony's 12-24 and 16-35GM and Nikon's 14-30S it seems that the reduced flange distance offers big advantages at wider angles, in terms of both performance and size. The RF wide angle zoom will I think be outstanding and seems to be the best compromise - going to 15mm but retaining 2.8 and a filter ring - seems to me a better route than the competition. I therefore expect strong demand and if there is Canon will price it high to start with. I am hoping that the likes of Voigtlander, Tokina, Sigma (and the one I really wish would, Zeiss) start bringing out lenses for the R mount as that will likely push Canon to be more competitive on pricing (just look at the 85/1.4 L IS and how Canon clearly realised they had to go up against the Sigma Art).


----------



## ivan11 (May 24, 2019)

Is there more information about the Holy trinity like the mm thread? more specs?


----------



## rgeorge33 (May 30, 2019)

I guess the information sources for this rumor have dried up? Seems there would be more trinity information popping up if they were really going to materialize before July.


----------



## leeroy985 (Jul 25, 2019)

Anyone have any update when these will be released. Trying to hold off on purchasing the EF version.


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 25, 2019)

leeroy985 said:


> Anyone have any update when these will be released. Trying to hold off on purchasing the EF version.



Tons of people in the same boat. I doubt these will be shipping by end of August let alone July. I'm hoping September-October.


----------



## ivan11 (Jul 25, 2019)

I'm holding too


----------



## HikeBike (Jul 25, 2019)

Based on other RF glass, I'm afraid to ask what the pricing will be. I have a feeling a good number of folks will opt for the EF equivalents after pricing is announced.


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 25, 2019)

HikeBike said:


> Based on other RF glass, I'm afraid to ask what the pricing will be. I have a feeling a good number of folks will opt for the EF equivalents after pricing is announced.



I think Canon will basically match the pricing of equivalent Sony FE lenses, possibly $100-$200 more depending on the lens. 

Pricing significantly higher would turn a lot of people off from of the new system, and push buyers toward the system offering more capable bodies AND cheaper lenses.

A lot of the current line up is very expensive, but they are unchallenged items like native 1.2 primes with af, and an f2 zoom nobody else makes.


----------



## flip314 (Jul 25, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> I think Canon will basically match the pricing of equivalent Sony FE lenses, possibly $100-$200 more depending on the lens.
> 
> Pricing significantly higher would turn a lot of people off from of the new system, and push buyers toward the system offering more capable bodies AND cheaper lenses.
> 
> A lot of the current line up is very expensive, but they are unchallenged items like native 1.2 primes with af, and an f2 zoom nobody else makes.



Why do you think Canon will be more expensive than Sony? I expect the opposite, based on history. The Canon RF 24-105 f4 is $1099, the Sony 24-105 f4 is $1398 (even on sale right now it's $1198). Nearly every Canon lens is cheaper than Sony and Nikon equivalents. So far, the really expensive RF lenses don't have equivalents from other vendors.


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 25, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Why do you think Canon will be more expensive than Sony? I expect the opposite, based on history. The Canon RF 24-105 f4 is $1099, the Sony 24-105 f4 is $1398 (even on sale right now it's $1198). Nearly every Canon lens is cheaper than Sony and Nikon equivalents. So far, the really expensive RF lenses don't have equivalents from other vendors.



I think they’ll match Sony pricing; or possibly be slightly higher initially, but offer rebates after a few months. Declining market means they’ll probably try to gain more margin with their lenses, since the perception is there is room there. 

I already stated as much about the 1.2 primes and the f2 zoom.


----------



## antiq (Jul 29, 2019)

I'm a sad panda  I have a quite prominent wedding shoot incoming in August and I really wanted the 15-35 to complement the 50mm f/1.2 and 35 macro, I guess I will have to borrow the 16-35 III EF version.

Canon still says it plans to release 5 new lenses before the end of the year, so the holy trinity should be at least officially announced sometime soon.


----------



## xanbarksdale (Jul 29, 2019)

Can’t wait to see what the pricing is for the 16-35. I’m guessing that Canon will be very proud of that one!


----------



## kawabata (Aug 6, 2019)

Update on this rumor??


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 6, 2019)

kawabata said:


> Update on this rumor??



*The RF mount “Holy Trinity” was not ready to ship before the end of July 2019*


----------



## kawabata (Aug 6, 2019)

Yeah since it’s August I kind of figured that. Is there a new estimate?


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 6, 2019)

kawabata said:


> Yeah since it’s August I kind of figured that. Is there a new estimate?



For Canon "Ready to ship" is usually 2-3 months after the proper announcement, so that October at the earliest since we haven't seen a proper announcement yet.


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 6, 2019)

From the recent rumors it looks like the 15-35 announcement will probably come in late August with an October ship time, and who knows about the rest. 

My guess is 15-35 will ship Octoberish, and the rest around Christmas.


----------



## ivan11 (Aug 6, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> For Canon "Ready to ship" is usually 2-3 months after the proper announcement, so that October at the earliest since we haven't seen a proper announcement yet.


 Rumors: they gonna release the 15-35 and the 24-70 on October and the 70-200 on December as far as i know...


----------



## kawabata (Aug 7, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> For Canon "Ready to ship" is usually 2-3 months after the proper announcement, so that October at the earliest since we haven't seen a proper announcement yet.


Maybe that’s normal in Canon’s world. But it’s messed up. Disney announces their new service is launching in November and it launches in November. Apple does the same. Most successful companies do. Why Canon has apparently strategically developed a reputation for announcing things consistently earlier than they come out suggests a very high level of incompetent leadership. The buyers of their products are, no doubt, their biggest fans. They should be embracing this fan base by providing updates on news flow and accurate estimates for releases. Whether it’s the hold trinity of 2.8 or the possibility of a 2.0, their fans want to know and plan for those releases. And it’s not like holding back that information gives their competition any advantage. Half of buying a brand is the brand, not the underlying product. They should do s better job building the reputation of their brand.


----------



## BillB (Aug 7, 2019)

kawabata said:


> Maybe that’s normal in Canon’s world. But it’s messed up. Disney announces their new service is launching in November and it launches in November. Apple does the same. Most successful companies do. Why Canon has apparently strategically developed a reputation for announcing things consistently earlier than they come out suggests a very high level of incompetent leadership. The buyers of their products are, no doubt, their biggest fans. They should be embracing this fan base by providing updates on news flow and accurate estimates for releases. Whether it’s the hold trinity of 2.8 or the possibility of a 2.0, their fans want to know and plan for those releases. And it’s not like holding back that information gives their competition any advantage. Half of buying a brand is the brand, not the underlying product. They should do s better job building the reputation of their brand.


People insist on treating rumored release dates as Canon promises. So far as I know Canon has only said that the RF trinity will be out by the end of the year. I don't think Canon has announced release dates for any new F2.0 zooms. Sort of silly to hold Canon responsible for rumors that don't pan out or unfulfilled wishes.


----------

