# Canon officially announces the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 4, 2020)

> *MELVILLE, N.Y., November 3, 2020 – *Canon U.S.A. Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, is excited to introduce the compact and lightweight RF70-200mm F4 L IS USM and the RF50mm F1.8 STM, two completely re-designed RF mount lenses with bloodlines to immensely popular EF models that feature new lens formulas and enhanced elements. Canon is also introducing the PIXMA PRO-200 printer, which is ideal for photography students and graphic designers.
> “As Canon began to further build out the company’s RF lens portfolio, the goal in mind was to create advanced lenses, for a variety of experience levels, that also featured a sense of familiarity for longtime Canon users,” said Tatsuro “Tony” Kano, executive vice president and general manager of Canon U.S.A.’s Imaging Technologies & Communications Group. “Canon prides itself on being able to uniquely offer both input and output solutions to our customers. We are equally excited to see the images captured with the new lenses, and...



Continue reading...


----------



## OTMT (Nov 4, 2020)

Already pre-ordered my 50mm copy


----------



## HMC11 (Nov 4, 2020)

A little anti-climatic after the leaks, but the claim to have better IQ then the EF version for the 50mm is most encouraging.


----------



## Joules (Nov 4, 2020)

Shockingly many stops of IBIS correction for the 50 mm 1.8. I would have expected them to slim down the image circle as a cost saving measure, but a claim of up to 7 stops isn't that far off from what we've seen them achieve with the L primes.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Nov 4, 2020)

£400 more for that RF 70-200 f/4.0 than the latest EF. Thats a wee bit steep for what has traditionally been a very affordable lens you didn't have to think about when hitting the buy button. £1,699.00 needs to drop for to the £1,299.00 to hit that easy buy.


----------



## Chaz320 (Nov 4, 2020)

Looking forward to see how well these lenses will perform. Very excited about both


----------



## Joaquim (Nov 4, 2020)

They finally have affordable primes in the three equivalent focal lengths I use the most on APS-C. 35, 50 and 85. Might just consider a used EOS R a year from now strictly for portraiture. Or a used R6. (Also, any motorheads here? Yamaha R6 and R1 hehe..)


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 4, 2020)

Quite expensive cuties outside the USA:
Calumet Germany charges respectively Euro 225 (that's OK) and Euro 1755 !!!!
I'll keep my excellent EF 70-200 IS II... and, in case I need compactness, I'm gonna buy a used EF 200 f2,8 II.
Or... wait for the price to decrease.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 4, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Quite expensive cuties outside the USA:
> Calumet Germany charges respectively Euro 225 (that's OK) and Euro 1755 !!!!
> I'll keep my excellent EF 70-200 IS II... and, in case I need compactness, I'm gonna buy a used EF 200 f2,8 II.
> Or... wait for the price to decrease.



Canon.nl wants €1830 for the RF70-200 f/4L, so that €1755 is a steal!


----------



## dichterDichter (Nov 4, 2020)

I hope for cashback wen the buy button will be activated for the 70-200. thats a bit to high. it should be cheaper looking at dollar/euro change.


----------



## lglass12189 (Nov 4, 2020)

Pre-order in for 70-200


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 4, 2020)

I have the older EF 4.0 70-200 IS mark i which will have - my expectation - less breathing (co-used for video) due to better ratio of minimum focus distance compared to max. reprod. ratio (EF: 1.2 metres @ 0.21 / RF: 0.6 metres @ 0.28). So I will keep it.
RF 2.8 70-200 has more appeal to me (except price wise).
* EDIT: O.k., 12 cm length ("collapsed") is a strong argument if size matters, just read that in the specs ... mmhhhh , very attractive!*
If I will acquire an R6 the RF 1.8 50 with the exceptional 7 stops image stabilization (and if it is 4-5 stops in real world) would be a great addition - with EOS RP I better rely on my RF 1.8 35 !
Besides: Great options from Canon for different levels of wallet thickness and photographic skills/needs!


----------



## Mahk43 (Nov 4, 2020)

Joaquim said:


> They finally have affordable primes in the three equivalent focal lengths I use the most on APS-C. 35, 50 and 85. Might just consider a used EOS R a year from now strictly for portraiture. Or a used R6. (Also, any motorheads here? Yamaha R6 and R1 hehe..)


For portraiture take the R and save money for the lenses!
About R1 yeah definitely the same kind of rocket flagship everyone's expecting


----------



## GrunRad (Nov 4, 2020)

lglass12189 said:


> Pre-order in for 70-200


Same here...


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 4, 2020)

The RF 50mm F/1.8 was the easiest pre-order decision in my life. I've spent 3x more on a pair of boots than I did the lens...

Really, really looking forward to that tiny size on the R5. The fact that the physical size is the same but the flange distance is smaller makes this a much smaller lens when in use, far more compact having this on a R5 than even a 40mm pancake on a 6D. 

The other reality is that this saves me another spot for my EF adapter, during portraits my EF adapter swaps between the 50mm and 24-70, now it'll just be on the 24-70.


----------



## juststeve (Nov 4, 2020)

Can anyone explain why Canon is making these super compact 70-200 RF lenses, and to a lesser extent the 100-500, and then putting out these humungous lens hoods for them. How about somebody making some good old tulip type hoods for these suckers.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 4, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Canon.nl wants €1830 for the RF70-200 f/4L, so that €1755 is a steal!


Crossing the border or ordering online should be easy, and, of course, fully legal !


----------



## CJudge (Nov 4, 2020)

That 50mm is basically a lens cap for the R system. Canon might as well sell them bundled with the camera, because everyone's going to buy one!


----------



## Joules (Nov 4, 2020)

CJudge said:


> That 50mm is basically a lens cap for the R system. Canon might as well sell them bundled with the camera, because everyone's going to buy one!


As the RF 35 mm 1.8 actually is a kit option for the RP, I would not be surprised if the 50 mm 1. 8 becomes one too for the RP or a future entry level model.


----------



## Billybob (Nov 4, 2020)

juststeve said:


> Can anyone explain why Canon is making these super compact 70-200 RF lenses, and to a lesser extent the 100-500, and then putting out these humungous lens hoods for them. How about somebody making some good old tulip type hoods for these suckers.



For protection against bright sun rays and acute light sources, longer is better. I've only seen "tulip type" hoods on WA and UWA lenses for which anything longer would actually appear (as vignetting) in the image. Personally, I don't find the hood length problematic. Other long telephoto zooms and primes I have sport even longer hoods. To me, the compact size matters most in transport during which length is not a problem. I just reverse the hood producing a package that is not appreciably longer than the lens without the hood. The Canon L-lens hoods are of such high quality that when reversed they lock in place and just get out of the way. 

In use, the hoods are light enough that they don't alter the balance while providing additional protection against bumps and drops. Recently I had a $3600 lens saved from an accidental drop by a long lens hood. The kit fell onto an asphalt walk and, other than a few scraps to the camera and lens hood, there was no damage and not a mark on the lens itself. Hence, I have no complaints about lens-hood length or size.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 4, 2020)

every new release/announcement is welcome


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 4, 2020)

HMC11 said:


> A little anti-climatic after the leaks, but the claim to have better IQ then the EF version for the 50mm is most encouraging.



50mm looks significantly better. MTF charts put up here. However, the 70-200 looks like it it's slightly worse on the telephoto end versus the older EF version. Not something you'd likely notice in a real picture. For my part, I'd take the form factor improvements over the older version, but it does put me on the fence when considering the price point. $1,600 is quite a lot for an f/4. I get the sense the other members here don't think so, which surprises me.


----------



## juststeve (Nov 4, 2020)

The original 70-200/2.8 L IS came with a tulip style lens hood. Worked quite well and was compact. Later 70-200/2.8L EF lenses did come with a tube lens hood, but it was much narrower and fit better, more compactly, when reversed. In use, they will offer as good protections as the monstrosities on the RF lenses.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 4, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> 50mm looks significantly better. MTF charts put up here. However, the 70-200 looks like it it's slightly worse on the telephoto end versus the older EF version. Not something you'd likely notice in a real picture. For my part, I'd take the form factor improvements over the older version, but it does put me on the fence when considering the price point. $1,600 is quite a lot for an f/4. I get the sense the other members here don't think so, which surprises me.



I'm just gonna link to https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/ef-vs-rf-50-1-8-stm-mtf-chart-comparison.39607/post-871590 and hope Canon USA gets off their asses and finally updates their old-style MTFs.






EF vs RF 50 1.8 STM MTF chart comparison


According to Canon, the RF 50 1.8 is significantly softer than the EF 50 1.8 and RF 35 1.8. EF vs RF (RF mirrored for comparison): 35 1.8 below: Admittedly the EF 50's chart seems incredibly optimistic, but if we compare it to the 35 it's basically softer across the entire frame. I will...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Viggo (Nov 4, 2020)

$2450 for the RF70-200 here, absolutely RIDICOLUS... The EF MK2 is $1500...


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 4, 2020)

Here is the preview by Peter McKinnon :


----------



## Billybob (Nov 4, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> 50mm looks significantly better. MTF charts put up here. However, the 70-200 looks like it it's slightly worse on the telephoto end versus the older EF version. Not something you'd likely notice in a real picture. For my part, I'd take the form factor improvements over the older version, but it does put me on the fence when considering the price point. $1,600 is quite a lot for an f/4. I get the sense the other members here don't think so, which surprises me.


No, I have to agree. The f/4 doesn't save you nearly as much size over the EF version as does the f/2.8 version. If the IQ isn't better, than I'd just as well save money for the already excellent EF version.


----------



## PerKr (Nov 4, 2020)

is it just me or are the canon f/1.8 lenses noticeably shorter than the sony equivalents? That 50/1.8 is about the size of my old minolta 50/1.4. I like it!


----------



## Surab (Nov 4, 2020)

PerKr said:


> is it just me or are the canon f/1.8 lenses noticeably shorter than the sony equivalents? That 50/1.8 is about the size of my old minolta 50/1.4. I like it!



They are, often also cheaper, but the Nikons appear to be better optically and are sealed. Canon is offering on the extreme ends while Nikon is targeting the middle, in terms of price. quality, and size.

But even then, the RF 1.8 are plenty good and as an amateur more than good enough for me. I am still deciding where to put my money. Time will tell.


----------



## gbc (Nov 4, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> The RF 50mm F/1.8 was the easiest pre-order decision in my life. I've spent 3x more on a pair of boots than I did the lens...
> 
> Really, really looking forward to that tiny size on the R5. The fact that the physical size is the same but the flange distance is smaller makes this a much smaller lens when in use, far more compact having this on a R5 than even a 40mm pancake on a 6D.
> 
> The other reality is that this saves me another spot for my EF adapter, during portraits my EF adapter swaps between the 50mm and 24-70, now it'll just be on the 24-70.


Yeah, if I can get a 50mm 1.8 for the price of another control ring EF-R adapter... I'll take the lens. As much as I like and still use my 50mm 1.4, that thing is almost useless for autofocus when it's dark and I need the 1.4.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 4, 2020)

The rated IBIS stabilisation for the 50mm was what I was waiting to hear - and 7 stops is excellent. It's a touch more expensive here in the UK (£219) but there's no point quibbling over £20 either way. It would be a very enticing entry point for me into the R system, if only R5/R6 bodies were actually in stock, and I could justify the outlay. I'd like to say I'll wait for prices to come down, but I don't know when that might happen here. Still, positive news!


----------



## max (Nov 4, 2020)

I think I prefer the EF design where the front element is fixed.


----------



## neilsnyd (Nov 4, 2020)

Viggo said:


> $2450 for the RF70-200 here, absolutely RIDICOLUS... The EF MK2 is $1500...


Where are you? I am trying to find a price in Canada.


----------



## Tangent (Nov 4, 2020)

No tripod mount ring for the RF 70-200 f4. Of course, considering the size. But it's easier to rotate a lens in its collar than to un- and re- clamp an L plate. Looks like the only downside. But small size for non-mounted use and easier pack fit compensate, convenience-wise. So, yeah, looks good to me. Also glad they went from 67 to widely-used 77 filter size: no problem there.


----------



## filmmakerken (Nov 4, 2020)

The RF 70-200 f/4L looks great. And the size -- almost exactly the same as my EF 17-40mm f/4L with the EF to RF adapter. 

I'm seeing a projected availability of December 11th. Merry Christmas to me.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 4, 2020)

I have made a collage of Canon's diffraction-corrected MTFs for the RF and EF versions. Wide open the RF are better.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 4, 2020)

Lenses were announced yesterday on Canon Australia's website and Digidirect has the 50mm for AUD349 and the RF70-200mm/f4 for AUD2699. The latter cheaper than the AUD3k that others had predicted. ~USD220 and USD1700 respectively ex tax.
https://www.digidirect.com.au/canon-rf-70-200mm-f-4l-is-usm-lens
https://www.digidirect.com.au/canon-rf-50mm-f-1-8-stm-lens
Canon Australia's RRP (recommended retail price) is AUD 389 and AUD3079 respectively.
Preorder with ~10% savings over RRP!


----------



## Kiton (Nov 4, 2020)

$2100.00 in Canada WTF

I like the gear, but I hate the company!


----------



## Jack Jian (Nov 4, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> £400 more for that RF 70-200 f/4.0 than the latest EF. Thats a wee bit steep for what has traditionally been a very affordable lens you didn't have to think about when hitting the buy button. £1,699.00 needs to drop for to the £1,299.00 to hit that easy buy.


Considering the newer design from scratch, stronger internals (to support extending zoom), 2 nano USM AF drivers and a bit of adjustment for inflation, I think, from a corporate business standpoint, the launch price is fair. In a few months, the price will come down as usual.


----------



## AJ (Nov 4, 2020)

It's interesting how the EF 35/2 IS is priced at $600, and the RF 35/1.8 macro is priced at $500. I had hoped we'd get a similar break on these two new workhorse lenses. Not so. The 50/1.8 went up in price by 60%, and the 70-200/4 went up in price as well, for the RF versions. This in spite of MTFs that show that these lenses perform similarly to their EF brethren. Also, the EF 70-200/4 IS has internal zoom which is a real bonus, plus it takes teleconverters. So in all I see no strong reasons to upgrade other than shaving off a few ounces.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 5, 2020)

AJ said:


> It's interesting how the EF 35/2 IS is priced at $600, and the RF 35/1.8 macro is priced at $500. I had hoped we'd get a similar break on these two new workhorse lenses. Not so. The 50/1.8 went up in price by 60%, and the 70-200/4 went up in price as well, for the RF versions. This in spite of MTFs that show that these lenses perform similarly to their EF brethren. Also, the EF 70-200/4 IS has internal zoom which is a real bonus, plus it takes teleconverters. So in all I see no strong reasons to upgrade other than shaving off a few ounces.


I agree that taking TCs is a good thing but why is internal zoom a "real bonus"? Surely storage length is an important benefit of the RF lenses.


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 5, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I agree that taking TCs is a good thing but why is internal zoom a "real bonus"? Surely storage length is an important benefit of the RF lenses.



I'd like to have some of what all the "internal zoom" people are smoking... I have never heard *one* complaint about the 24-70 extending. I've never heard one complaint about the 100-400mm extending. I dropped $2500 on the RF 70-200 the week I got the R5 and I've never regretted that for a moment. My EF 70-200 feels like an absolute dinosaur, and once you use the RF glass, you wonder why anyone ever thought having internal zoom was a good idea. I can throw my RF 70-200 attached to the R5 in a *tiny* shoulder bag that wouldn't even fit the EF lens unattached. 70-200 lenses are not "big glass," they're daily workhorses, and there's no reason they should be any bigger than the 24-70.

It's the same thing we deal with in the fire service with people opposing safety improvements like safer helmets "because that's not how we've always done it." If 70-200 lenses were external zoom from the start, not a soul would be asking for someone to make it an internal zoom lens.

While I'm on my soapbox, I'll add that I laugh every time people say that the F/4 version is worse because it doesn't have a tripod ring... Uhh...Is the 24-104 F/4L worse off because it doesn't have a tripod ring? The RF 70-200 F/4 is no bigger than the RF 24-105. It doesn't need a tripod ring


----------



## jd7 (Nov 5, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Lenses were announced yesterday on Canon Australia's website and Digidirect has the 50mm for AUD349 and the RF70-200mm/f4 for AUD2699. The latter cheaper than the AUD3k that others had predicted. ~USD220 and USD1700 respectively ex tax.
> https://www.digidirect.com.au/canon-rf-70-200mm-f-4l-is-usm-lens
> https://www.digidirect.com.au/canon-rf-50mm-f-1-8-stm-lens
> Canon Australia's RRP (recommended retail price) is AUD 389 and AUD3079 respectively.
> Preorder with ~10% savings over RRP!


Might be cheaper than some were predicting, but A$2700 still seems insane to me! I am OK with my DSLR and EF lenses for now, but if/when I go mirrorless I am not at all sure it will be with Canon, given Canon's pricing. Some of the lenses available in the Sony system seem much better value for my purposes.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 5, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> While I'm on my soapbox, I'll add that I laugh every time people say that the F/4 version is worse because it doesn't have a tripod ring... Uhh...Is the 24-104 F/4L worse off because it doesn't have a tripod ring? The RF 70-200 F/4 is no bigger than the RF 24-105. It doesn't need a tripod ring


I agree that my EF70-200 f2.8ii was heavy and enormous compared to my RF 70-200 f2.8. My wife even commented at the time that I have to get it as she constantly couldn't see why I was lugging around all this equipment... that is.. when we were travelling back in the day!
I have never used my EF24-105mm for landscape. I have used my EF70-200mm for landscape/ long exposures though and I definitely needed the tripod ring to balance the weight rather using the tripod mount on the body. Less needed now with the RF70-200 f.28 being lighter and weight is closer to the back of the lens but the ring will still be useful. 
With the size/weight of the rf70-200/4, there is even less of a need for a tripod ring IMHO.. ie just use the body tripod mount.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 5, 2020)

jd7 said:


> Might be cheaper than some were predicting, but A$2700 still seems insane to me! I am OK with my DSLR and EF lenses for now, but if/when I go mirrorless I am not at all sure it will be with Canon, given Canon's pricing. Some of the lenses available in the Sony system seem much better value for my purposes.


The Sony f2.8 variant is about 18% cheaper at the moment. 
That is the beauty of EF->RF conversion. Pick your moments to make the jump. I've seen R5 bodies second hand already plus RF lenses popping up in used markets already. If you want to stick to Canon then it will only get cheaper but that could be the same for Sony as well. First adopters will always pay a premium. I bought my RF70-200/2.8 4 months before getting my R5 because it was 15% off and the 5 year warranty wasn't too affected.

If you are moving to Sony bodies and continue to use Canon EF glass there are definite cons to that option compared to EF lenses on RF bodies. The Metabones etc adapters are getting better but you need to factor in the adapter cost and quality as well.
I think that it is clear that the R5 is the best overall hybrid at the moment. Sony/Panasonic have better bodies for long form videos. 
The next Sony body focusing on stills will be very interesting to see if they can beat the R5 overall. Its thermal performance with high density sensor/frame rate has to be better than the R5 or it will be instantly dismissed as underperforming (but still probably be great  )


----------



## jd7 (Nov 5, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> The Sony f2.8 variant is about 18% cheaper at the moment.
> That is the beauty of EF->RF conversion. Pick your moments to make the jump. I've seen R5 bodies second hand already plus RF lenses popping up in used markets already. If you want to stick to Canon then it will only get cheaper but that could be the same for Sony as well. First adopters will always pay a premium. I bought my RF70-200/2.8 4 months before getting my R5 because it was 15% off and the 5 year warranty wasn't too affected.
> 
> If you are moving to Sony bodies and continue to use Canon EF glass there are definite cons to that option compared to EF lenses on RF bodies. The Metabones etc adapters are getting better but you need to factor in the adapter cost and quality as well.
> ...


I think the Canon gear is good gear, don't get me wrong about that, and I do like the look of the R system bodies more than the a7 series bodies. However, for 15% less than Canon RF 70-200/4, in the Sony system I could get a Tamron 70-180/2.8. I could pay a fortune for an RF 85/1.2, or in the Sony system I could get the Sigma 85/1.4 DN Art, which is less than half the price of the Canon and is smaller and lighter as well. The Canon RF 85 may be technically better, and for all I know may even be better built (although I have found Sigma to be good too in that regard), but the smaller and lighter lens would be more useful to me, and the IQ certainly looks good enough for my purposes. I could go on with other examples but I will resist  I realise that some people will prefer to go for as close to optical perfection as possible regardless of size/weight/cost, of course. For my purposes though, the Sony system seems more appealing than Canon's RF system, at least if I can deal with the ergonomics of the bodies (or the next a7 series camera is more to my liking in that regard). Canon's pricing for the RF system gear really does put me off.


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 5, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I agree that my EF70-200 f2.8ii was heavy and enormous compared to my RF 70-200 f2.8. My wife even commented at the time that I have to get it as she constantly couldn't see why I was lugging around all this equipment... that is.. when we were travelling back in the day!
> I have never used my EF24-105mm for landscape. I have used my EF70-200mm for landscape/ long exposures though and I definitely needed the tripod ring to balance the weight rather using the tripod mount on the body. Less needed now with the RF70-200 f.28 being lighter and weight is closer to the back of the lens but the ring will still be useful.
> With the size/weight of the rf70-200/4, there is even less of a need for a tripod ring IMHO.. ie just use the body tripod mount.



On my RF 70-200 F/2.8, I've almost always had the tripod ring off to make the lens slightly more compact, and it's been great! The big perk to me is that, when using a tripod, it's easy to switch between a wide angle zoom and the 70-200, all while keeping the R5 connected to the tripod. In the past, I'd have to take them off the tripod, swap the lens, have a plate on both the 70-200 and camera, and then place them back on the tripod. 

Balance-wise, it doesn't feel all that different from using a 24-70 f/2.8 on a tripod. On my EF 70-200, I always kept the tripod ring on as a nice grip for the hand, since the lens was going to be huge with or without the tripod ring. 

As the RF 70-200 F/4 doesn't weight all that much more than an EOS RP, and weighs less than the EOS R5, I'm sure the balance will be even better.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 5, 2020)

jd7 said:


> I think the Canon gear is good gear, don't get me wrong about that, and I do like the look of the R system bodies more than the a7 series bodies. However, for 15% less than Canon RF 70-200/4, in the Sony system I could get a Tamron 70-180/2.8. I could pay a fortune for an RF 85/1.2, or in the Sony system I could get the Sigma 85/1.4 DN Art, which is less than half the price of the Canon and is smaller and lighter as well. The Canon RF 85 may be technically better, and for all I know may even be better built (although I have found Sigma to be good too in that regard), but the smaller and lighter lens would be more useful to me, and the IQ certainly looks good enough for my purposes. I could go on with other examples but I will resist  I realise that some people will prefer to go for as close to optical perfection as possible regardless of size/weight/cost, of course. For my purposes though, the Sony system seems more appealing than Canon's RF system, at least if I can deal with the ergonomics of the bodies (or the next a7 series camera is more to my liking in that regard). Canon's pricing for the RF system gear really does put me off.


If Wikipedia is to be believed then Sony opened up their E mount specifications in 2011 and there are 17 3rd party lens manufacturers that have signed up. 9 years is a long time for 3rd parties to build up native products and for their pricing to plateau.

There's no doubt that the lack of 3rd party lenses leaves a lot of gaps in the Canon's native RF lineup today. But if you combine the adapted EF and EF-s lenses and 3rd party EF lenses then there is a very broad range in price/focal length and quality. RF lenses L lenses are best in class (except RF24-105mm/4 which is reasonable) and have a premium associated with them.

Tamron/Sigma etc will make RF mount lenses but probably only the EF protocols so Canon natives will only make use of the 5 axis combined stabilisation.
Canon is playing a long game here any taking profits wherever possible to maintain fiscal viability. Sony really didn't have a choice back in 2011. They needed lenses quickly and couldn't do it all themselves and the only way to break into the Canon/Nikon body market was to have smaller and better specs (we all know their limitations) that meant that users could adapt existing lenses and a broad range of 3rd parties. Canon and Nikon did drop the ball by letting Sony carve out their niche. Ultimately, Nikon looks to be on the losing side at the moment. 

With a declining market, profits have to be king and yes - we are paying them


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 5, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> On my RF 70-200 F/2.8, I've almost always had the tripod ring off to make the lens slightly more compact, and it's been great! The big perk to me is that, when using a tripod, it's easy to switch between a wide angle zoom and the 70-200, all while keeping the R5 connected to the tripod. In the past, I'd have to take them off the tripod, swap the lens, have a plate on both the 70-200 and camera, and then place them back on the tripod.
> 
> Balance-wise, it doesn't feel all that different from using a 24-70 f/2.8 on a tripod. On my EF 70-200, I always kept the tripod ring on as a nice grip for the hand, since the lens was going to be huge with or without the tripod ring.
> 
> As the RF 70-200 F/4 doesn't weight all that much more than an EOS RP, and weighs less than the EOS R5, I'm sure the balance will be even better.


Definitely used my EF70-200mm's tripod ring as a handle as I don't use a strap. With the RF70-200mm I don't need it ie I can carry by holding just the lens and body in one hand. The ring stays on my RF100-500mm though


----------



## Foxdude (Nov 5, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Canon.nl wants €1830 for the RF70-200 f/4L, so that €1755 is a steal!



Well, here in Finland prices are now 1979€ & 259€ so 1830€ is a steal


----------



## jd7 (Nov 5, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> If Wikipedia is to be believed then Sony opened up their E mount specifications in 2011 and there are 17 3rd party lens manufacturers that have signed up. 9 years is a long time for 3rd parties to build up native products and for their pricing to plateau.
> 
> There's no doubt that the lack of 3rd party lenses leaves a lot of gaps in the Canon's native RF lineup today. But if you combine the adapted EF and EF-s lenses and 3rd party EF lenses then there is a very broad range in price/focal length and quality. RF lenses L lenses are best in class (except RF24-105mm/4 which is reasonable) and have a premium associated with them.
> 
> ...


I agree with a lot of what you say, but the question I have is - why are so many people willing to pay them? (OK, I don't know the sales data so I don't know what "so many people" really means. I simply mean that there are a lot of people online who are excited about the RF gear and willing to pay for it.)

I have really enjoyed my Canon gear and I am far from anti-Canon. However, I am struggling with the price of the RF gear, and that is only emphasised when I look at what is available in the Sony system (albeit often from third party manufacturers). Even if a lot of Canon's L series RF lenses have legitimate claims to be best in class, it's not like you cannot get excellent lenses in the Sony system. A few years ago I would never have dreamed I would be suggesting the Sony system offers better value than the Canon system, but as things stand now that is how it seems to me (at least if you leave aside service - which Canon seems to do very well at least in some parts of the world, and I can understand that being valuable to professional photographers).


----------



## Viggo (Nov 5, 2020)

neilsnyd said:


> Where are you? I am trying to find a price in Canada.


Norway


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 5, 2020)

Prices in Germany (incl. VAT):

225,- € for the RF 50mm f1.8 STM
1755,- € for the RF 70-200mm f4.0 L IS USM
Edit:


Del Paso said:


> Quite expensive cuties outside the USA:
> Calumet Germany charges respectively Euro 225 (that's OK) and Euro 1755 !!!!


Sorry, Del Paso, I missed your post. 
Keep in mind that German prices include taxes (VAT) while US don't.
Add that up and the difference is not that big anymore.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 5, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Prices in Germany (incl. VAT):
> 
> 225,- € for the RF 50mm f1.8 STM
> 1755,- € for the RF 70-200mm f4.0 L IS USM
> ...



And VAT in Germany has been lowered for the time being, the instructor of my last workshop was really happy with the price of the Z7 he bought in Germany during a business trip a few weeks ago. He likes the camera as well


----------



## pzyber (Nov 5, 2020)

jd7 said:


> Might be cheaper than some were predicting, but A$2700 still seems insane to me! I am OK with my DSLR and EF lenses for now, but if/when I go mirrorless I am not at all sure it will be with Canon, given Canon's pricing. Some of the lenses available in the Sony system seem much better value for my purposes.



Agreed, staying with my DSLR for now and then we will see.

R5 costs about 6000 USD here in Sweden including VAT. The RF extenders goes for almost twice the price of their EF counterparts. And so it continues.
Can buy a brand new EF 70-200 2.8L IS III for about the same price as the new RF 70-200 4L IS.


----------



## fox40phil (Nov 5, 2020)

TC compatibility? Nope.... like the RF f2.8 

Way to expensive... and only 65g less heavy then the 70-200 4.0L IS MK1.
And you said here it is less good in picture quality? What a shame again... if this is true.


----------



## snoke (Nov 5, 2020)

Lens Rentals do another "quick take apart" like Canon 600 f/11STM?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Nov 5, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> TC compatibility? Nope.... like the RF f2.8
> 
> Way to expensive... and only 65g less heavy then the 70-200 4.0L IS MK1.
> And you said here it is less good in picture quality? What a shame again... if this is true.



Only 5g less than the non IS 70-200mm f/4.0 which becomes quite a wee bit better with IBIS.


----------



## C4RBON (Nov 5, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I agree that taking TCs is a good thing but why is internal zoom a "real bonus"? Surely storage length is an important benefit of the RF lenses.





H. Jones said:


> I'd like to have some of what all the "internal zoom" people are smoking... I have never heard *one* complaint about the 24-70 extending. I've never heard one complaint about the 100-400mm extending. I dropped $2500 on the RF 70-200 the week I got the R5 and I've never regretted that for a moment. My EF 70-200 feels like an absolute dinosaur, and once you use the RF glass, you wonder why anyone ever thought having internal zoom was a good idea. I can throw my RF 70-200 attached to the R5 in a *tiny* shoulder bag that wouldn't even fit the EF lens unattached. 70-200 lenses are not "big glass," they're daily workhorses, and there's no reason they should be any bigger than the 24-70.
> 
> It's the same thing we deal with in the fire service with people opposing safety improvements like safer helmets "because that's not how we've always done it." If 70-200 lenses were external zoom from the start, not a soul would be asking for someone to make it an internal zoom lens.
> 
> While I'm on my soapbox, I'll add that I laugh every time people say that the F/4 version is worse because it doesn't have a tripod ring... Uhh...Is the 24-104 F/4L worse off because it doesn't have a tripod ring? The RF 70-200 F/4 is no bigger than the RF 24-105. It doesn't need a tripod ring



One of the arguments for internal zoom is that it doesn't suck in air every time the lens extends. That is another opportunity for dust to make it's way inside your lens where it can't be easily cleaned. I think all the L lenses have filters to keep this airborne dust out, but it is still a possibility on lenses that extend. Filters and seals will eventually wear out.

For how I use my gear, I would rather have a more compact lens. But, there are sound arguments for internal zoom lenses.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Nov 5, 2020)

jd7 said:


> I think the Canon gear is good gear, don't get me wrong about that, and I do like the look of the R system bodies more than the a7 series bodies. However, for 15% less than Canon RF 70-200/4, in the Sony system I could get a Tamron 70-180/2.8. I could pay a fortune for an RF 85/1.2, or in the Sony system I could get the Sigma 85/1.4 DN Art, which is less than half the price of the Canon and is smaller and lighter as well. The Canon RF 85 may be technically better, and for all I know may even be better built (although I have found Sigma to be good too in that regard), but the smaller and lighter lens would be more useful to me, and the IQ certainly looks good enough for my purposes. I could go on with other examples but I will resist  I realise that some people will prefer to go for as close to optical perfection as possible regardless of size/weight/cost, of course. For my purposes though, the Sony system seems more appealing than Canon's RF system, at least if I can deal with the ergonomics of the bodies (or the next a7 series camera is more to my liking in that regard). Canon's pricing for the RF system gear really does put me off.


I agree. Great equipment, but expensive and doubt I could afford to buy Canon gear. I always strongly have stuck the Canon lenses as well. There is a review of the the RF 70-200 and he compares to a Tamron 70-180. I think a lot of us are all assuming new designed RF lenses are optically perfect. His tests show they are not, not that I think is the most important thing or it matters at all. But an interesting, long, review.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 5, 2020)

jd7 said:


> I think the Canon gear is good gear, don't get me wrong about that, and I do like the look of the R system bodies more than the a7 series bodies. However, for 15% less than Canon RF 70-200/4, in the Sony system I could get a Tamron 70-180/2.8. I could pay a fortune for an RF 85/1.2, or in the Sony system I could get the Sigma 85/1.4 DN Art, which is less than half the price of the Canon and is smaller and lighter as well. The Canon RF 85 may be technically better, and for all I know may even be better built (although I have found Sigma to be good too in that regard), but the smaller and lighter lens would be more useful to me, and the IQ certainly looks good enough for my purposes. I could go on with other examples but I will resist  I realise that some people will prefer to go for as close to optical perfection as possible regardless of size/weight/cost, of course. For my purposes though, the Sony system seems more appealing than Canon's RF system, at least if I can deal with the ergonomics of the bodies (or the next a7 series camera is more to my liking in that regard). Canon's pricing for the RF system gear really does put me off.


Keep in mind that many of those 3rd party lenses are available on the EF mount, and will work on the R cameras. Also, we have yet to see much 3rd party offering for native RF lenses, but it will come, and put downward pressure on Canon prices. As someone mentioned above, we're still in the early adopter pricing phase right now. If you can be patient, the cost of the RF system will come down.

-Brian


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 5, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> On my RF 70-200 F/2.8, I've almost always had the tripod ring off to make the lens slightly more compact, and it's been great! The big perk to me is that, when using a tripod, it's easy to switch between a wide angle zoom and the 70-200, all while keeping the R5 connected to the tripod. In the past, I'd have to take them off the tripod, swap the lens, have a plate on both the 70-200 and camera, and then place them back on the tripod.
> 
> Balance-wise, it doesn't feel all that different from using a 24-70 f/2.8 on a tripod. On my EF 70-200, I always kept the tripod ring on as a nice grip for the hand, since the lens was going to be huge with or without the tripod ring.
> 
> As the RF 70-200 F/4 doesn't weight all that much more than an EOS RP, and weighs less than the EOS R5, I'm sure the balance will be even better.





David - Sydney said:


> Definitely used my EF70-200mm's tripod ring as a handle as I don't use a strap. With the RF70-200mm I don't need it ie I can carry by holding just the lens and body in one hand. The ring stays on my RF100-500mm though



I keep the tripod mount on the RF 70-200 2.8 since it not only helps with balance/grip, but it keeps me from accidentally bumping the focus ring, control ring, and switches with my left hand while shooting.


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 5, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> £400 more for that RF 70-200 f/4.0 than the latest EF. Thats a wee bit steep for what has traditionally been a very affordable lens you didn't have to think about when hitting the buy button. £1,699.00 needs to drop for to the £1,299.00 to hit that easy buy.




Maybe they should have done a non-IS option. I always had great results with the 70-200 non-IS, it's cheap, light and optically fine. And with IBIS the non-IS f/4 should perform pretty well.


----------



## reefroamer (Nov 5, 2020)

jd7 said:


> I agree with a lot of what you say, but the question I have is - why are so many people willing to pay them? (OK, I don't know the sales data so I don't know what "so many people" really means. I simply mean that there are a lot of people online who are excited about the RF gear and willing to pay for it.)
> 
> I have really enjoyed my Canon gear and I am far from anti-Canon. However, I am struggling with the price of the RF gear, and that is only emphasised when I look at what is available in the Sony system (albeit often from third party manufacturers). Even if a lot of Canon's L series RF lenses have legitimate claims to be best in class, it's not like you cannot get excellent lenses in the Sony system. A few years ago I would never have dreamed I would be suggesting the Sony system offers better value than the Canon system, but as things stand now that is how it seems to me (at least if you leave aside service - which Canon seems to do very well at least in some parts of the world, and I can understand that being valuable to professional photographers).


A couple of things I try to keep in mind: It's a lot easier to lower prices than raise them. New RF lenses will be priced up for a while after introduction, until production begins to outrun demand. Early adopters always pay up. Secondly, Canon is still building the RF system and still has a ways to go to flesh out its lens lineup options. Patience is being rewarded, as far as I can see. Right now, competitors such as Sony have more options, but over the next couple of years that advantage will erode as Canon introduces more glass and prices begin to come down a bit On “older” RF lenses. If you’re already in the Canon system, it will probably pay to be patient .... to a point.


----------



## tomri (Nov 5, 2020)

Canon always listens to their customers. Many have been asking for a more affordable f4 version of the rf70-200. Now they get it. With just one catch: the price is almost the same as the f2.8 version in EF system. Very funny Canon. Very funny..


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Nov 5, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Maybe they should have done a non-IS option. I always had great results with the 70-200 non-IS, it's cheap, light and optically fine. And with IBIS the non-IS f/4 should perform pretty well.



I think a non IS version would have made a lot of sense, but what we don't know if if they want to sell these to the cinema people or future entry level bodies with no IBIS. Personally I would rather they just put out a 200mm L f/4 or f/2.8, preferably with a switch to make it macro 1:1. I have only used a 70-200 at 200.


----------



## armd (Nov 6, 2020)

Canon's mistake was making the R5/R6 work so well with EF lenses. Given these RF lens prices, there is no compelling reason to buy other than GAS.


----------



## analoggrotto (Nov 6, 2020)

armd said:


> Canon's mistake was making the R5/R6 work so well with EF lenses. Given these RF lens prices, there is no compelling reason to buy other than GAS.


I'd hardly call that a mistake. If anything the scarcity of the RF-EF adapters is a mistake.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 6, 2020)

analoggrotto said:


> I'd hardly call that a mistake. If anything the scarcity of the RF-EF adapters is a mistake.



They were readily available earlier this year. And knowing I was getting an RF camera one way or another (I just wasn't sure which one), I bought them then.

Actually I probably would have waited and been wearing shoes that look very much like yours, but I was annoyed at the way they were giving the $100 model away for free as parts of kits but not letting you pay $100 for the $200 (with control ring) model as part of a kit. So when I saw the refurb shop selling control ring adapters for $140 back in March I believe, I bought two of them.


----------



## vrpanorama.ca (Nov 6, 2020)

Pre-order my 70-200mm. lightweight 1/2 length , up to 7.5 stops, fast focus I am not hesitating. My first 70-200v1 f4 feel antique now


----------



## navastronia (Nov 6, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I think a non IS version would have made a lot of sense, but what we don't know if if they want to sell these to the cinema people or future entry level bodies with no IBIS. Personally I would rather they just put out a 200mm L f/4 or f/2.8, preferably with a switch to make it macro 1:1. I have only used a 70-200 at 200.


I sold my EF 70-200/2.8 L IS II and got an EF 200/2.8 II. Less than half the price and far better image quality at 200. Never looked back (pair with 85/1.8 on jobs, as necessary)


----------



## jd7 (Nov 6, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> Keep in mind that many of those 3rd party lenses are available on the EF mount, and will work on the R cameras. Also, we have yet to see much 3rd party offering for native RF lenses, but it will come, and put downward pressure on Canon prices. As someone mentioned above, we're still in the early adopter pricing phase right now. If you can be patient, the cost of the RF system will come down.
> 
> -Brian


Well, except for the fact that the lenses I'm talking about don't have EF equivalents   For example, while there are EF versions of the Sigma 85 Art and 24-70/2.8, there is no equivalent to the DN versions of those lenses. Other examples include there is no EF equivalent of the Tamron 70-180/2.8 or the Sony 55/1.8.

Maybe Canon will get there one day, but I have doubts about that unless we start seeing third party RF lenses, and the question is whether that is going to happen or whether Canon has found a way to, and wants to, prevent it. (I know there are a few third party RF lenses already, but I understand they all function as if they are EF lenses with adapters rather than genuine RF lenses.)


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 6, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I sold my EF 70-200/2.8 L IS II and got an EF 200/2.8 II. Less than half the price and far better image quality at 200. Never looked back (pair with 85/1.8 on jobs, as necessary)


Another EF 200/2.8 II fan here. Even have the genuine tripod mount for it, which is one of the reasons I prefer it to the 135L; for portrait tripod mounted shooting you can just spin the camera and lens in the mount.


----------



## armd (Nov 6, 2020)

analoggrotto said:


> I'd hardly call that a mistake. If anything the scarcity of the RF-EF adapters is a mistake.


You missed the intent entirely. Canon's offerings are way overpriced, there's no competition at present, and other than GAS there is no compelling reason to switch to EF lenses. Though I guess if one were a 98 lb weakling and had $ to burn? Now, if Canon made a 200-600, non-bayoneting, zoom lens which was sharp wide open for less than $2k, maybe I would reconsider?


----------



## analoggrotto (Nov 6, 2020)

armd said:


> You missed the intent entirely. Canon's offerings are way overpriced, there's no competition at present, and other than GAS there is no compelling reason to switch to EF lenses. Though I guess if one were a 98 lb weakling and had $ to burn? Now, if Canon made a 200-600, non-bayoneting, zoom lens which was sharp wide open for less than $2k, maybe I would reconsider?



In for a penny in for a pound.

Canon is high priced as it is, we shop around for specials and CPW deals anyway right? But, anything less than a seamless EF to RF experience would be a travesty and EF glass prices would plunge. If RF glass moves slowly for now while the R5 is still on back-order for heavy demand, I don't think Canon will be too upset. Someone starting out fresh with a new Canon R body will probably buy RF lenses anyway.

I'm 132 lbs, not particularly strong, even less so due to constant restlessness, not rich either but am selling my EFs for RFs as the equivalents are available; had 2 (50L 15-35L) ready waiting for the R5 both of which are heavier than their EF counterparts. The main reason for this is I'd just like to leave my one RF-EF adapter on my 200L for good (I carry this stuff around for fun no lie). A mixed RF EF lens experience isnt going to be much fun either.


I agree about lens innovatoins, the best reason to go RF are such unique optics as the F11 twins, the 28-70 F2 high speed zoom special, and even this super compact F4 zoom.


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 6, 2020)

armd said:


> You missed the intent entirely. Canon's offerings are way overpriced, there's no competition at present, and other than GAS there is no compelling reason to switch to EF lenses. Though I guess if one were a 98 lb weakling and had $ to burn? Now, if Canon made a 200-600, non-bayoneting, zoom lens which was sharp wide open for less than $2k, maybe I would reconsider?



Are they really overpriced? The only RF L lens I currently own is the 24-105 and I'd *love* to be able to afford to buy more. But when Canon have upped their game in terms of image quality over even their impressive EF L lenses of the past, perhaps one needs to think of them as great value compared to Zeiss lenses (and with amazing autofocus) rather than comparing them to the old EF range. 

I don't think I'll upgrade my EF glass in a hurry, but I probably won't buy any more EF glass now that I have an R body.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 6, 2020)

jd7 said:


> Well, except for the fact that the lenses I'm talking about don't have EF equivalents   For example, while there are EF versions of the Sigma 85 Art and 24-70/2.8, there is no equivalent to the DN versions of those lenses. Other examples include there is no EF equivalent of the Tamron 70-180/2.8 or the Sony 55/1.8.
> 
> Maybe Canon will get there one day, but I have doubts about that unless we start seeing third party RF lenses, and the question is whether that is going to happen or whether Canon has found a way to, and wants to, prevent it. (I know there are a few third party RF lenses already, but I understand they all function as if they are EF lenses with adapters rather than genuine RF lenses.)


I'm not sure what you mean by 'no equivalent'. THe DN series is just Sigma's mirrorless series, and canon has both EF and RF options at 85 and 24-70. Same for the 70-180...though with canon its 70-200. There is no 55mm canon lens, but there are a number of 50s in both EF and RF mounts. 

I am curious to about the 3rd party RF support. I suspect it has less to do with Canon 'blocking' their development, and more to do with the fact there was no compelling reason for the 3rd parties to offer a lot of things. They 1 - needed to see people buying enough Canon mirrorless to make it worth it (which I don't think started really happening until this year) 2 - needed to see what Canon was going to offer in terms of focal lengths, price and performance so they could then form a basis on what to compete against. For instance if they built a bunch of lenses using the R or RP as a template, they may have missed the boat on IBIS compatibility. Or they may have ended up with a bunch of stuff that couldn't resolve similar detail to the other RF offerings. Or they may have set prices that were too low or too high compared to offerings canon hadn't announced yet. 

Now, I'm sure Canon is not in a hurry to help them. So they also have to reverse engineer the AF system, etc. But that is only a matter of time. With a lens roadmap out there, super popular bodies (R5/6)...i'm sure some engineer in a Sigma or Tamron lab is working on glass for this mount. 

-Brian


----------



## Joules (Nov 6, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by 'no equivalent'. THe DN series is just Sigma's mirrorless series


The point was that Sigma has lenses specially designed for mirror less, which look really nice in terms of performance compared to previous models. Those are not available at all for Canon right now.

With EF-M, some of such glass for the crop sensor ecosystems has been made available by Sigma. But if the rules that enabled that are also in place for RF, I don't know.


----------



## Dantana (Nov 6, 2020)

Joules said:


> The point was that Sigma has lenses specially designed for mirror less, which look really nice in terms of performance compared to previous models. Those are not available at all for Canon right now.
> 
> With EF-M, some of such glass for the crop sensor ecosystems has been made available by Sigma. But if the rules that enabled that are also in place for RF, I don't know.


Sure, but look how long it took Sigma to offer EF-M glass. RF has been out, what, 2 years? Sigma and Tamron RF lenses will come in time. Canon doesn't release their systems to 3rd parties. EF lenses from other manufacturers were reverse engineered, and the same will have to be done for RF, especially if they want to take advantage of the extra electronics that RF has over EF.


----------



## slclick (Nov 6, 2020)

Every different focal length or zoom range of a lens has a unique field of view. It's measured in degrees and the hood is designed to protect from bangs and drops yet more importantly flare and stray light. The shape works with the FoV degree without being overly large and causing vignetting. I think that's correct. Some folx love the look of petal style hoods and put them on lenses not designed for that. They may be risking compromising some shots. YMMV


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 6, 2020)

jd7 said:


> I agree with a lot of what you say, but the question I have is - why are so many people willing to pay them? (OK, I don't know the sales data so I don't know what "so many people" really means. I simply mean that there are a lot of people online who are excited about the RF gear and willing to pay for it.)
> 
> I have really enjoyed my Canon gear and I am far from anti-Canon. However, I am struggling with the price of the RF gear, and that is only emphasised when I look at what is available in the Sony system (albeit often from third party manufacturers). Even if a lot of Canon's L series RF lenses have legitimate claims to be best in class, it's not like you cannot get excellent lenses in the Sony system. A few years ago I would never have dreamed I would be suggesting the Sony system offers better value than the Canon system, but as things stand now that is how it seems to me (at least if you leave aside service - which Canon seems to do very well at least in some parts of the world, and I can understand that being valuable to professional photographers).


Don't forget that when you come onto a forum like this, you are getting the opinion of gear heads for the most part. So they are far more likely to get the latest and greatest, regardless of cost. What makes the Canon system far more appealling than the Sony system is you don't need to get a single RF lens. If you already have EF glass, that's all you need. If you don't have any Canon glass, you have the choice of EF and RF lenses. And the availability of high quality used EF glass is a huge bonus. I have read many comments regarding Sony lenses where photographers had to buy multiple copies until they got one that wasn't de-centered. They are larger than they should be for a mirrorless system because the Sony mount is too narrow - thus many of their lenses have the rear element farther from the mount. I think last week I read a Dustin Abbott review (I think it was Dustin, if not, I hope someone corrects me) where he mentions that he needs to clean his Sony sensor every week. (I have seen many complaints regarding Sony's dust cleaning, as well as their IBIS being below par). Sony makes great sensors. I don't really trust their ability to make a camera that isn't designed more for gear-heads rather than photographers. The A7 II I bought, for example, underexposed by 1 1/2 stops. So I really have no confidence in their ability to make a camera for photographers.


----------



## Dantana (Nov 6, 2020)

slclick said:


> Every different focal length or zoom range of a lens has a unique field of view. It's measured in degrees and the hood is designed to protect from bangs and drops yet more importantly flare and stray light. The shape works with the FoV degree without being overly large and causing vignetting. I think that's correct. Some folx love the look of petal style hoods and put them on lenses not designed for that. They may be risking compromising some shots. YMMV


Yeah, I saw a video a few years back of someone using a petal style hood on a lens that rotated while focusing (or possible zooming, it's been a while since I saw it). He thought it looked cool. I'm not sure that's the adjective I would use.


----------



## jd7 (Nov 7, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by 'no equivalent'. THe DN series is just Sigma's mirrorless series, and canon has both EF and RF options at 85 and 24-70. Same for the 70-180...though with canon its 70-200. There is no 55mm canon lens, but there are a number of 50s in both EF and RF mounts.
> 
> I am curious to about the 3rd party RF support. I suspect it has less to do with Canon 'blocking' their development, and more to do with the fact there was no compelling reason for the 3rd parties to offer a lot of things. They 1 - needed to see people buying enough Canon mirrorless to make it worth it (which I don't think started really happening until this year) 2 - needed to see what Canon was going to offer in terms of focal lengths, price and performance so they could then form a basis on what to compete against. For instance if they built a bunch of lenses using the R or RP as a template, they may have missed the boat on IBIS compatibility. Or they may have ended up with a bunch of stuff that couldn't resolve similar detail to the other RF offerings. Or they may have set prices that were too low or too high compared to offerings canon hadn't announced yet.
> 
> ...


Fair point, I wasn't clear about what I meant about "no equivalent". Perhaps "equivalent" may not even be the correct word to use. What I am referring to is the overall package of size, weight, cost, IQ, etc. Obviously, how important each factor is will depend on the photographer and the conditions under which they usually shoot (eg a smaller and lighter lens is valuable to me, but may not be so valuable to the next person).

For example, regarding the Sony 55/1.8, I am not aware of anything for the RF system which is as light and relatively small (although it is not a tiny lens) with the sort of IQ the Sony has. I guess we will see how the RF 50/1.8 performs, but I am not expecting its IQ to be at the level of the Sony (but of course the Sony is substantialy more expensive). Regarding the Sigma 85/1.4 DN Art, it is much smaller, lighter and cheaper than the Canon RF 85/1.2, but it still seems to deliver excellent IQ (even if not quite at the level of the Canon). I guess the dark horse there may be the Samyang RF 85/1.4 AF, although I understand it functions as EF lens with built in adapter rather than as a native RF lens (to the extent that may matter). The Canon RF 70-200/2.8 is more or less an equivalent of the Tamron 70-180/2.8 (OK, the Canon has a few advantages) but at least where I am the Tamron is not much more than half the price fo the Canon. The Sigma 24-70/2.8 DN gets excellent reviews, is about the same weight as the Canon EF 24-70/2.8 II, but significantly cheaper than the Canon. A lens kit of Sigma 24-70/2.8 DN, Tamron 70-180/2.8, Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Sony 55/1.8 and Sigma 85/1.4 DN on a body with IBIS would seem great to me, and would be substantially cheaper than any broadly similar kit in the Canon RF system (even allowing for the use of EF lenses on an adapter).

Anyway, I really do hope you are right about more third party lenses coming to the RF system. I have been surprised not to see any from Sigma or Tamron already, but maybe your explanation for that is correct. Fingers crossed!


----------



## jd7 (Nov 7, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Don't forget that when you come onto a forum like this, you are getting the opinion of gear heads for the most part. So they are far more likely to get the latest and greatest, regardless of cost. What makes the Canon system far more appealling than the Sony system is you don't need to get a single RF lens. If you already have EF glass, that's all you need. If you don't have any Canon glass, you have the choice of EF and RF lenses. And the availability of high quality used EF glass is a huge bonus. I have read many comments regarding Sony lenses where photographers had to buy multiple copies until they got one that wasn't de-centered. They are larger than they should be for a mirrorless system because the Sony mount is too narrow - thus many of their lenses have the rear element farther from the mount. I think last week I read a Dustin Abbott review (I think it was Dustin, if not, I hope someone corrects me) where he mentions that he needs to clean his Sony sensor every week. (I have seen many complaints regarding Sony's dust cleaning, as well as their IBIS being below par). Sony makes great sensors. I don't really trust their ability to make a camera that isn't designed more for gear-heads rather than photographers. The A7 II I bought, for example, underexposed by 1 1/2 stops. So I really have no confidence in their ability to make a camera for photographers.


I agree that the abilty to use EF glass on R system bodies is valuable, but of course the EF lenses don't take advantage of the apparent possibilities for smaller and lighter lenses. Compare, for example, an Sigma 85/1.4 Art for EF mount and the Sigma 85/1.4 DN Art for Sony E mount. (If it is true that the narrower Sony mount makes it harder to design smaller and lighter lenses, imagine what should be possible for an RF mount lens!)

Interesting comments about your experience with Sony gear. Whenever I have picked up a Sony a7 series camera, it has always felt fiddly and "gadgety" to me - not like something I'd like to have in my hand while I'm shooting for a while. I definitely prefer the feel of the Canon bodies. However, plenty of people do seem to like the Sony bodies (not everyone, of course), so I have figured I might get used to it if I owned one for a while.

I noted that in Fro's review of the R5, he rated it an excellect camera but nevertheless said he was happy to stick with the Sony system, and one of the factors he mentioned in that regard is the smaller and lighter lenses available for the Sony system.

I will keep shooting with what I have for now, and give it a while to see how things play out for the Canon RF system.


----------



## Alex784 (Nov 7, 2020)

I saw the review and some sample pictures on Canon USA YouTube channel and, I don’t know why, but I was not impressed : either because of the quality of the video, either because of the image quality produced by the lenses.
I hope that someone will share his real world impressions.


----------



## slclick (Nov 8, 2020)

Alex784 said:


> I saw the review and some sample pictures on Canon USA YouTube channel and, I don’t know why, but I was not impressed : either because of the quality of the video, either because of the image quality produced by the lenses.
> I hope that someone will share his real world impressions.


Of which lens, please clarify


----------



## analoggrotto (Nov 8, 2020)

I never used my EF 50mm F1.8 when I finally got the F1.2L model (not sure why I even got it, but it was awesome), now I'm thinking of getting it just for those times where I can stash my now smaller R body in my laptop bag, situations where I would otherwise not have a camera.


----------



## dichterDichter (Nov 8, 2020)

so, in germany the f4 gets 200€ cashback, what results in a prive about 1500€. the 2.8 gets winter special price and cashback and makes it about 2100€. thats 600€ for one stop, bigger size and more weight. worth it or get an extra prime 85 1.8/1.4?


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 8, 2020)

dichterDichter said:


> so, in germany the f4 gets 200€ cashback, what results in a prive about 1500€. the 2.8 gets winter special price and cashback and makes it about 2100€. thats 600€ for one stop, bigger size and more weight. worth it or get an extra prime 85 1.8/1.4?



Where is the cash back for the RF 70-200mm F4 listed? I couldn't find it on the canon.de homepage, neither in the winter cashback nor in the EOS plus X cash back promotion.


----------



## dichterDichter (Nov 8, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Where is the cash back for the RF 70-200mm F4 listed? I couldn't find it on the canon.de homepage, neither in the winter cashback nor in the EOS plus X cash back promotion.


when i use the canon cashback calcullator (german link) https://www.aktions-kalkulator.net/de i added the r6 and the f4.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 8, 2020)

dichterDichter said:


> when i use the canon cashback calcullator (german link) https://www.aktions-kalkulator.net/de i added the r6 and the f4.



Thx for the link. That page is more up to date then the canon.de homepage... 
Since the cash back for the 70-200mm F4 is EOS plus X only, I can't/ couldn't profit from it since I'm actually very happy with my EOS R despite those internet trolls


----------



## Cariboucoach (Nov 9, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> I think last week I read a Dustin Abbott review (I think it was Dustin, if not, I hope someone corrects me) where he mentions that he needs to clean his Sony sensor every week. (I have seen many complaints regarding Sony's dust cleaning, as well as their IBIS being below par).



I was watching a Tony and Chelsea Northrup review. One was using a Sony, the other the Canon. Both made a comment about having to clean the Sony sensor very often. Then they proceeded to show some pictures and lo and behold, there was one from Sony with a big spec of dust in the picture.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 9, 2020)

jd7 said:


> Anyway, I really do hope you are right about more third party lenses coming to the RF system. I have been surprised not to see any from Sigma or Tamron already, but maybe your explanation for that is correct. Fingers crossed!



Mine are! 

-Brian


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 23, 2020)

juststeve said:


> Can anyone explain why Canon is making these super compact 70-200 RF lenses, and to a lesser extent the 100-500, and then putting out these humungous lens hoods for them. How about somebody making some good old tulip type hoods for these suckers.



The tulip hoods on the EF 70-200mm series were just for looks. Just out of curiosity one time I put cardstock around the rim of the ET-87 that fits my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 making it as long all of the way around as the longer two fingers of the tulip. There was still no vignetting whatsoever at 70mm on a FF camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 23, 2020)

juststeve said:


> The original 70-200/2.8 L IS came with a tulip style lens hood. Worked quite well and was compact. Later 70-200/2.8L EF lenses did come with a tube lens hood, but it was much narrower and fit better, more compactly, when reversed. In use, they will offer as good protections as the monstrosities on the RF lenses.



I've never seen a 70-200/2.8 lens from Canon with an OEM flat tube hood.

All of the 70-200mm f/4 lenses from Canon have a narrower flat tube, but the lens barrels are also slimmer than the barrels of the f/2.8 lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 23, 2020)

max said:


> I think I prefer the EF design where the front element is fixed.



The front element of the EF 50mm f/1.8 II and EF 50mm f/1.8 STM both extended with focusing, but did not rotate.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 23, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> I'd like to have some of what all the "internal zoom" people are smoking... I have never heard *one* complaint about the 24-70 extending. I've never heard one complaint about the 100-400mm extending. I dropped $2500 on the RF 70-200 the week I got the R5 and I've never regretted that for a moment. My EF 70-200 feels like an absolute dinosaur, and once you use the RF glass, you wonder why anyone ever thought having internal zoom was a good idea. I can throw my RF 70-200 attached to the R5 in a *tiny* shoulder bag that wouldn't even fit the EF lens unattached. 70-200 lenses are not "big glass," they're daily workhorses, and there's no reason they should be any bigger than the 24-70.
> 
> It's the same thing we deal with in the fire service with people opposing safety improvements like safer helmets "because that's not how we've always done it." If 70-200 lenses were external zoom from the start, not a soul would be asking for someone to make it an internal zoom lens.
> 
> While I'm on my soapbox, I'll add that I laugh every time people say that the F/4 version is worse because it doesn't have a tripod ring... Uhh...Is the 24-104 F/4L worse off because it doesn't have a tripod ring? The RF 70-200 F/4 is no bigger than the RF 24-105. It doesn't need a tripod ring



Tripod rings are nice, regardless of the size/weight of the lens, if one needs to flip from landscape to portrait without changing the point of aim with the camera on a tripod. The lens' optical axis doesn't move when using a tripod ring. It often does when using an L-bracket, and we won't even talk about using a ball head at 90° to get to portrait orientation...

It would be nice to be able to do astro with a 14mm, 17mm, or 24mm and be able to rotate the camera in a tripod ring when mounted to an equatorial mount, too.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 23, 2020)

jd7 said:


> I agree with a lot of what you say, but the question I have is - why are so many people willing to pay them? (OK, I don't know the sales data so I don't know what "so many people" really means. I simply mean that there are a lot of people online who are excited about the RF gear and willing to pay for it.)
> 
> I have really enjoyed my Canon gear and I am far from anti-Canon. However, I am struggling with the price of the RF gear, and that is only emphasised when I look at what is available in the Sony system (albeit often from third party manufacturers). Even if a lot of Canon's L series RF lenses have legitimate claims to be best in class, it's not like you cannot get excellent lenses in the Sony system. A few years ago I would never have dreamed I would be suggesting the Sony system offers better value than the Canon system, but as things stand now that is how it seems to me (at least if you leave aside service - which Canon seems to do very well at least in some parts of the world, and I can understand that being valuable to professional photographers).



The thing you have to ask, though, is are those more affordable third party options for Sony E-mount really any better than using comparably priced EF lenses on Canon R cameras? As far as functionality goes, they're not really "adapted' lenses. Every EF lens works just as well on an RF camera as it does on an EF camera. Sometimes better (in terms of AF accuracy).


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 23, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I sold my EF 70-200/2.8 L IS II and got an EF 200/2.8 II. Less than half the price and far better image quality at 200. Never looked back (pair with 85/1.8 on jobs, as necessary)



I've often been tempted by the EF 200mm f/2.8 L II. But I already have an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, an EF 135mm f/2 L, and an EF 1.4X III.

I'd still like to know how much the difference in image quality is between the EF 200mm f/2.8 L II and the EF 135mm f/2 L + EF1.4X III (which is pretty dang good).

The 70-200 is just as sharp in the center at 135mm as the prime, but nowhere near as smooth in the OOF areas, and of course is also one stop slower.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 23, 2020)

armd said:


> You missed the intent entirely. Canon's offerings are way overpriced, there's no competition at present, and other than GAS there is no compelling reason to switch to EF lenses. Though I guess if one were a 98 lb weakling and had $ to burn? Now, if Canon made a 200-600, non-bayoneting, zoom lens which was sharp wide open for less than $2k, maybe I would reconsider?



What is a "non-bayoneting" lens?


----------



## Joules (Nov 23, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> What is a "non-bayoneting" lens?


Guessing they want an internal zoom. Non-telescoping.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 23, 2020)

slclick said:


> Every different focal length or zoom range of a lens has a unique field of view. It's measured in degrees and the hood is designed to protect from bangs and drops yet more importantly flare and stray light. The shape works with the FoV degree without being overly large and causing vignetting. I think that's correct. Some folx love the look of petal style hoods and put them on lenses not designed for that. They may be risking compromising some shots. YMMV



Beyond about 70mm nobody's hoods are long enough to cause vignetting.

At 70mm on a FF camera the diagonal AoV is only 34°. That's 17° from the centerline in each direction.

At 200mm on a FF camera the diagonal AoV is only 12°. That's only 6° from the center line in each direction.

You can tape cardboard over the petal cutouts for the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 series and they will show no additional vignetting (as compared to the lens with no hood attached) at 70mm and f/2.8 with a FF camera.

The tulip petal cutouts for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 lens series are just for show!

The EF 70-200mm f/4 series do not have petal cutouts on the tapered hoods, though they are 30% shorter but also 12% smaller in diameter than the 70-200/2.8 hoods.
The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS has a tapered hood with no petal cutouts that is only 15% shorter and 8% narrower than the tulip hood on the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 series.

None of Canon's FF prime lenses longer than 50mm have tulip cutouts, and only the RF 50mm f/1.2 L has those.
All of the other 50mm lenses, including the EF 50mm f/1.2, have tapered rings.
Before the RF 50mm f/1.2 L the longest prime lens Canon sold with a tulip hood was 35mm.

The non-tapered hood for the EF 300mm f/4 L was slightly shorter than the tulip hood for the 70-200/2.8 series!
The non-tapered hood for the EF 400mm f/5.6 L was marginally longer than the tapered tulip hood for the 70-200/2.8 series.
Both of the non-tapered cylindrical hoods for the 300/4 and 400/5.6 were also smaller in diameter than the hoods for the 70-200/2.8 series, even though all of them use 77mm filters!


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 23, 2020)

Joules said:


> Guessing they want an internal zoom. Non-telescoping.



I don't think that's what "bayoneting" means.

All Canon EF and RF lenses are bayonet mount type lenses.


----------



## navastronia (Nov 23, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I've often been tempted by the EF 200mm f/2.8 L II. But I already have an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, an EF 135mm f/2 L, and an EF 1.4X III.
> 
> I'd still like to know how much the difference in image quality is between the EF 200mm f/2.8 L II and the EF 135mm f/2 L + EF1.4X III (which is pretty dang good).
> 
> The 70-200 is just as sharp in the center at 135mm as the prime, but nowhere near as smooth in the OOF areas, and of course is also one stop slower.



I had a particularly poor copy of the 70-200/2.8 L IS II, I think. YMMV, but if you see your own images at 200 and wonder if there's something amiss (as I did), then the 200/2.8 L II might be a good choice for you like it was for me.

However, the fact that you're happy with the EF 135mm f/2 L + EF1.4X III tells me you probably shouldn't worry about it.


----------



## jd7 (Nov 23, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The thing you have to ask, though, is are those more affordable third party options for Sony E-mount really any better than using comparably priced EF lenses on Canon R cameras? As far as functionality goes, they're not really "adapted' lenses. Every EF lens works just as well on an RF camera as it does on an EF camera. SOmetime better (in terms of AF accuracy).


I understand your point, and I'm sure different people will see it differently. However, _for me_, yes, I believe those more affordable third party options for Sony E-mount would be better than using comparably priced EF lenses on Canon R cameras, at least so far as the lenses themselves go.

For example, the Sigma 85/1.4 DN is smaller and lighter than any comparable Canon EF options (signfiicant to me), as well as cheaper. (That said, the Canon system does have the Samyang RF 85/1.4 AF, which from the reports I've seen is actually quite a good lens, and it is a similar size and weight to the Sigma.)

The Tamron 70-180/2.8 is more than 30% cheaper than an EF 70-200/2.8L IS III, and is much smaller and lighter (again, significant to me). It is also not much more than half the price of the RF 70-100/2.8L IS.

The Sony 55/1.8 has pretty good IQ, from everything I've seen, yet is relatively small and light. I cannot think of a similar lens for the Canon system, once portability is factored in.

The Sigma 24-70/2.8 DN seems comparable to the Canon EF 24-70/2.8 II in many ways, but is comfortably more than 30% cheaper (at least where I am).

So, I could have a lens kit for Sony E-mount which is smaller, lighter and cheaper than a broadly comparable lens kit I could have for Canon R cameras even using EF lenses and an adapter. And the prices for the R5 and R6 are making the Sony bodies seem much better value thean I've ever thought before too  YMMV.

I think that right now, Sony's system is the most advanced in terms of the number of lenses taking advantage of what mirrorless can offer in relation to lens design, partly because it's the full-frame mirrorless system which has been around longest, and partly because there are third parties like Sigma and Tamron making lenses for it. Canon is taking advantage of what mirrorless can offer for lens design too, of course, but Canon's approach has been to focus on high end, but large, heavy and expensive, lenses. Yes, there are a few smaller, lighter and relatively cheaper options, but there aren't many and to be honest I'm not that impressed by them (at least for their price). Nikon's approach has been to create a set of high end f/1.8 primes which are fairly small and light and high quality, albeit they may be seen as on the expensive side given they are "only" f/1.8. I don't necessarily mind Nikon's approach, but of course some will much prefer Canon's approach. Anyway, presumably there is a good chance that the three systems will become more similar than different over time. Will be interesting to see where Canon's system is in a couple of years.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 23, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I had a particularly poor copy of the 70-200/2.8 L IS II, I think. YMMV, but if you see your own images at 200 and wonder if there's something amiss (as I did), then the 200/2.8 L II might be a good choice for you like it was for me.
> 
> However, the fact that you're happy with the EF 135mm f/2 L + EF1.4X III tells me you probably shouldn't worry about it.



My EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II has always been very sharp at 200mm. I may even have one of the rare atypical ones Roger Cicala talks about that is slightly sharper at the long end than at the wide end. Even when it took a very hard lick and had significant tilt the center was still razor sharp. The left side that focused closer was also still very good. It was on the right side that focused further which got a little blurry (at all distances) near the edge of the frame. After I sent it in for adjustment it may have came back from Canon Service even sharper than it was when new. I've just never been thrilled with the way the out of focus areas look.

The EF 135mm f/2 L, on the other hand, has the best out of focus rendering of any lens I've ever used. Wide open it's not quite as sharp, but stopped down to f/2.5 or even f/2.2 it's very sharp. The out of focus areas look good no matter what aperture is used.

I don't like the 135/2 + 1.4X III as much as I like the bare 135/2 for sure. I just wonder how much difference the EF 200mm f/2.8 II would give me over that, and would it be worth the extra $900-1,000 I'd have to spend on the EF 200mm f/2.8 L II for the limited number of times I could get away with using only the prime instead of the zoom. I do have far more occasions when I can use the 135mm f/2 instead of the zoom than I have when I could get away with using a 200mm f/2.8 prime instead of the f/2.8 zoom. 

I rarely use the 135/2 w/the 1.4X III other than the few times I've played around with it around the house and my 3 acre wooded lot. I bought the extender mainly for more reach with the 70-200 for daylight sports. I use the bare lens and crop if need be when shooting sports under lights.

But when I don't need the flexibility of the zoom the 135/2 + EF1.4 III does give me smoother out of focus areas than the 70-200/2.8 does. At 200mm my 70-200/2.8 is probably a little sharper than the 135/2 + 1.4X III, but the background can be a lot busier in certain shooting scenarios.


----------



## max (Nov 24, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The front element of the EF 50mm f/1.8 II and EF 50mm f/1.8 STM both extended with focusing, but did not rotate.


Sorry, I meant from the 70-200mm.
the size is the same zoomed out.


----------



## navastronia (Nov 25, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> My EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II has always been very sharp at 200mm. I may even have one of the rare atypical ones Roger Cicala talks about that is slightly sharper at the long end than at the wide end. Even when it took a very hard lick and had significant tilt the center was still razor sharp. The left side that focused closer was also still very good. It was on the right side that focused further which got a little blurry (at all distances) near the edge of the frame. After I sent it in for adjustment it may have came back from Canon Service even sharper than it was when new. I've just never been thrilled with the way the out of focus areas look.
> 
> The EF 135mm f/2 L, on the other hand, has the best out of focus rendering of any lens I've ever used. Wide open it's not quite as sharp, but stopped down to f/2.5 or even f/2.2 it's very sharp. The out of focus areas look good no matter what aperture is used.
> 
> ...



I thought I'd go ahead and share a wildlife photo shot with the EF 200/2.8 L II.

The first is cropped to a 400mm FOV, the second is a 1-to-1 pixel crop. Both have some sharpening added, but not enough to mask the lens' actual characteristics, IMO. Taken on an EOS RP w/ servo autofocus, 1/400, f/2.8, around 400-600 ISO.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 30, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I thought I'd go ahead and share a wildlife photo shot with the EF 200/2.8 L II.
> 
> The first is cropped to a 400mm FOV, the second is a 1-to-1 pixel crop. Both have some sharpening added, but not enough to mask the lens' actual characteristics, IMO. Taken on an EOS RP w/ servo autofocus, 1/400, f/2.8, around 400-600 ISO.
> 
> ...



The issue there looks more like slightly missed AF when using too narrow an aperture to me. The bird's left claw and the parts of the metal tube further from the camera are much sharper than most of the visible parts of the bird, most of which are closer to the camera than the in-focus parts.


----------



## navastronia (Nov 30, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The issue there looks more like slightly missed AF when using too narrow an aperture to me. The bird's left claw and the parts of the metal tube further from the camera are much sharper than most of the visible parts of the bird, most of which are closer to the camera than the in-focus parts.



. . . I was actually sharing these images to demonstrate how great I think my EF 200/2.8 L II performs, hahahaha


----------

