# Canon officially announces the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM, RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM and new firmware for the EOS R and EOS RP



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 28, 2019)

> RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM and RF24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM Lenses Further Cement the Company’s Commitment to the EOS R Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera System
> *MELVILLE, N.Y., August 28, 2019 –* The time has come and the wave of momentous advancements in the world of the EOS R full-frame mirrorless camera system continues as Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today announced the introduction of the RF15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM and RF24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM lenses. With their large, bright F2.8 aperture, a zoom range that covers a wide range of shooting scenes and image stabilization (IS), as well as Nano USM – these lenses are sure to become workhorse lenses for professional and advanced amateur photographers.
> *Preorder the Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM & Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Adelino (Aug 28, 2019)

Now they just need a "pro" or high resolution camera for 3200 or a complete pro kit all in one box for the discounted rate of 9999.99 USD.


----------



## Berowne (Aug 28, 2019)

Any vignetting in the 15-35?


----------



## Jethro (Aug 28, 2019)

The firmware updates are very welcome, and long anticipated. I'll look forward to more details about them.


----------



## Jethro (Aug 28, 2019)

I take it the RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM will ship in the second half of _FY_19 - ie first half of 2020.


----------



## Chines (Aug 28, 2019)

Jethro said:


> The firmware updates are very welcome, and long anticipated. I'll look forward to more details about them.



It's only canon marketing material, but eye detect looks really improved in here (look at 4:30)


----------



## gzroxas (Aug 28, 2019)

In very happy about the lenses and I’m really glad they are improving some of the things that the software currently lacks! I really really wish they would add the interval o meter in the R too!


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 28, 2019)

gzroxas said:


> In very happy about the lenses and I’m really glad they are improving some of the things that the software currently lacks! I really really wish they would add the interval o meter in the R too!



I need me some focus bracketing in the R already!!


----------



## Cryhavoc (Aug 28, 2019)

Chines said:


> It's only canon marketing material, but eye detect looks really improved in here (look at 4:30)



That Eye AF looks fantastic. Can't wait to apply this and give it a go.


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 28, 2019)

Jethro said:


> I take it the RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM will ship in the second half of _FY_19 - ie first half of 2020.


 I bet it gets announced in October, ships late December/early January.


----------



## gzroxas (Aug 28, 2019)

Question for R users since I’m curious: is there a way to set up a custom button that engages/disengages Eye AF (à la Sony)?
Thanks!


----------



## uri.raz (Aug 28, 2019)

Berowne said:


> Any vignetting in the 15-35?



AFAIK, vignetting is inevitable, even in super teles, which have very little of it (a fraction of a stop), but do have it.

Question is how much vignetting would the RF 15-35mm have. Under two stops @15mm f/2.8 would make me very happy.

[For reference, @16mm f/2.8, the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 mk II has 2.8 stops, and the mk III has 4.6. The difference was discussed on this forums in the past, IIRC it was claimed Canon preferred sharpness over vignetting, and apparently a bit of barrel distortion.]


----------



## N-VB (Aug 28, 2019)

The AF improvement in the future firmware looks insane


----------



## edoorn (Aug 28, 2019)

looks good. they surely can further improve on this for a pro R, and also make the readout much better, and then basically you have AF that can do all you ever need.


----------



## Timedog (Aug 28, 2019)

I know it'll never happen but I REALLY wish they'd make touch AF have a "sensitivity" setting in relative mode. The cursors moves too slow. If I could adjust sensitivity I'd like touch AF better than a joystick but I hate having to swipe my finger tons of times to get the cursor across the screen.


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 28, 2019)

gzroxas said:


> Question for R users since I’m curious: is there a way to set up a custom button that engages/disengages Eye AF (à la Sony)?
> Thanks!



Not that I've found. I'd love a simple 'in/out' option like I can set with One Shot - Servo mode.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 28, 2019)

It's interesting that both lenses are no smaller than their EF variants...but have IS...which doesn't have any size impacts. So from a technical point of view...there was no technical reason that IS couldn't be added to a future EF lens....only marketing reasons.


----------



## gzroxas (Aug 28, 2019)

I see, I hope they’ll add that possibility because I think it works great. How are you liking the R so far?


wockawocka said:


> Not that I've found. I'd love a simple 'in/out' option like I can set with One Shot - Servo mode.


----------



## zogdart (Aug 28, 2019)

Jethro said:


> The firmware updates are very welcome, and long anticipated. I'll look forward to more details about them.


Exactly what I was waiting for the Eye detection so I can stay in this mode if it performed well! Since I don't do to much action it should be fine!!! I can't wait! I spoke with the canon Rep yesterday I should be on the list in Canada to get my hands on the first batch of the 24-70 I hope I can get it before a big calendar I will do in the south with 12 gorgeous models! I will be able to test everything over there!!!


----------



## zogdart (Aug 28, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> Not that I've found. I'd love a simple 'in/out' option like I can set with One Shot - Servo mode.


you can costomize pretty much everything, I have set mine with a button so it switch only to 3 different focus mode. so I don't have to cycle trough all of them. The eye detect, the small single box, and the larger one after that.


----------



## yeahright (Aug 28, 2019)

Timedog said:


> I know it'll never happen but I REALLY wish they'd make touch AF have a "sensitivity" setting in relative mode. The cursors moves too slow. If I could adjust sensitivity I'd like touch AF better than a joystick but I hate having to swipe my finger tons of times to get the cursor across the screen.


I don't own an EOS R but may in the future, and the relative touch and drag AF method sounds very interesting to me. I did a bit of research on this sensitivity issue and there seems to be quite a divide whether people find it useful and fast or too slow. So I'd like to ask a question:

The way I would assume that it *should* work in relative mode (but maybe doesn't, maybe you could clarify), is: Say, the bottom right part of the screen is selected as touch and drag AF area, and it's set to relative mode. Let the current focus point be on the top left corner of the image, and I'd like to move it to the bottom right, which is the furthest possible distance that could ever be needed. I would then want to touch the AF focus area at the very top left corner, i.e. the center of the screen (having selected only the bottom right part of the screen for touch and drag AF), and quickly swipe to the lower right corner of the screen (= the lower right corner of the touch and drag AF area). And this should be enough to move the focus point accordingly to the lower right corner of the image. This is what I would expect and this would be (as far as I think without having actually used the R) enough sensitivity to quickly change focus point to any desired point without the need for doing multiple swipes. So my question is:

a) Does it indeed require more than one full swipe across the entire active touch and drag area on the screen to actually move the focus point over the entire image? (This would indeed be a bad implementation.)

or

b) would you simply prefer not to actually utilize the entire active touch and drag area but rather move your thumb by only a few Millimeters (just like you would with a joystick) in every swipe for not having to move your thumb around so much?
(This wouldn't bother me so much as the swiping distance covered on a current smartphone much exceeds the dimensions of a quarter screen on the EOS R)

Many thanks for clarification!


----------



## Timedog (Aug 28, 2019)

yeahright said:


> I don't own an EOS R but may in the future, and the relative touch and drag AF method sounds very interesting to me. I did a bit of research on this sensitivity issue and there seems to be quite a divide whether people find it useful and fast or too slow. So I'd like to ask a question:
> 
> The way I would assume that it *should* work in relative mode (but maybe doesn't, maybe you could clarify), is: Say, the bottom right part of the screen is selected as touch and drag AF area, and it's set to relative mode. Let the current focus point be on the top left corner of the image, and I'd like to move it to the bottom right, which is the furthest possible distance that could ever be needed. I would then want to touch the AF focus area at the very top left corner, i.e. the center of the screen (having selected only the bottom right part of the screen for touch and drag AF), and quickly swipe to the lower right corner of the screen (= the lower right corner of the touch and drag AF area). And this should be enough to move the focus point accordingly to the lower right corner of the image. This is what I would expect and this would be (as far as I think without having actually used the R) enough sensitivity to quickly change focus point to any desired point without the need for doing multiple swipes. So my question is:
> 
> ...


What you're describing is absolute mode --where the top left of the touch AF area on the screen represents the top left of the image, swiping it to the bottom right causes the focus point to move to the bottom right. Touching the middle of the touch AF area immediately moves the AF point to the middle. Basically where your finger is located at in the touch AF area is where the AF point will be on you image. This would work well for me if my thumb could reach all the way to all edges of the AF area, but it cannot without partially releasing the grip and taking my finger off the shutter button because my hands aren't large enough (I'm 6'5", I do not have small hands).

In relative mode you can touch the screen and move the focus point from its current position, in the direction of your swipe. Let's say the AF point is at the top left of the image. If I touch the middle of the AF area it does nothing until I swipe in a direction. If I swipe down it'll move from its current position in the top left and start going downwards. It's basically like a mouse, it doesn't matter where on the mousepad your mouse is placed, the cursor will move from its current location to whatever direction the mouse starts moving.

Relative mode only has one default speed. It takes several swipes to move the AF point from one side of the image to the other. It is way too slow for me. If I could change the speed so that it would take 1 or 1.5 swipes to traverse the entire AF area it would touch AF would go from barely usable to the perfect AF system for me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2019)

Jethro said:


> I take it the RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM will ship in the second half of _FY_19 - ie first half of 2020.


You take it wrong. I'm sure they mean the calendar year, but it's irrelevant because Canon's fiscal year corresponds to the calendar year, so the second half of 2019 means before December 2019 whether you are talking about the fiscal year or the calendar year.


----------



## 6degrees (Aug 28, 2019)

Who will buy these at the prices?


----------



## jvillain (Aug 28, 2019)

gzroxas said:


> Question for R users since I’m curious: is there a way to set up a custom button that engages/disengages Eye AF (à la Sony)?
> Thanks!





wockawocka said:


> Not that I've found. I'd love a simple 'in/out' option like I can set with One Shot - Servo mode.



Tab 4 of the brown section is where customize buttons is. Pick the button you want to remap in there and then pretty well every selection in the camera is possible to assign including the IAF on/off feature. Customization is possibly the best feature of the R. I do love the ergonomics of the R.



N-VB said:


> The AF improvement in the future firmware looks insane


I don't know about insane. It looks like it will take it to the same level as the Nikon,Fujis and not far behind the Sonys. I definitely look forward to trying it. If it works as well as it appears to in the video it will be a real nice improvement. Who ever they hired to massage that code has been earning their keep as they allready did servo IAF as a firmware upgrade.


----------



## jvillain (Aug 28, 2019)

6degrees said:


> Who will buy these at the prices?


The price on the 24/70 is about $500 above the existing Canon 24/70 and adds IS. Expect a price drop in about 6 months. The pros especially wedding shooters that need Canon Profesional Servrices will be looking at it really hard.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Aug 28, 2019)

6degrees said:


> Who will buy these at the prices?


Guess that is me. 

Pre-ordered the 15-35 ($3359 Canadian after taxes) and will pre-order the 70-200 when I can. I offset the cost by selling my EF glass as I am all in with Mirrorless owning both the R and the RP.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Aug 28, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> You take it wrong. I'm sure they mean the calendar year, but it's irrelevant because Canon's fiscal year corresponds to the calendar year, so the second half of 2019 means before December 2019 whether you are talking about the fiscal year or the calendar year.



And even if they did have an off-kilter FY, say starting July 1st, that would mean Canon is in FY 2020 already, not FY 2019.


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 28, 2019)

6degrees said:


> Who will buy these at the prices?


 I preordered the 15-35. I’ll wait for some deals on the 70-200, and the 85 (I have the 35, and 50), and then I’m done with lenses for a little while.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 28, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It's interesting that both lenses are no smaller than their EF variants...but have IS...which doesn't have any size impacts. So from a technical point of view...there was no technical reason that IS couldn't be added to a future EF lens....only marketing reasons.


I’m not so sure, it may not be a size issue, I don’t know, but it could be a cost issue. And these new lenses may either be better in IQ and that maybe because with the RF it’s easier to make them great so they can include IS without adding cost or weight?


----------



## yeahright (Aug 28, 2019)

Timedog said:


> What you're describing is absolute mode --where the top left of the touch AF area on the screen represents the top left of the image, swiping it to the bottom right causes the focus point to move to the bottom right. Touching the middle of the touch AF area immediately moves the AF point to the middle. Basically where your finger is located at in the touch AF area is where the AF point will be on you image. This would work well for me if my thumb could reach all the way to all edges of the AF area, but it cannot without partially releasing the grip and taking my finger off the shutter button because my hands aren't large enough (I'm 6'5", I do not have small hands).
> 
> In relative mode you can touch the screen and move the focus point from its current position, in the direction of your swipe. Let's say the AF point is at the top left of the image. If I touch the middle of the AF area it does nothing until I swipe in a direction. If I swipe down it'll move from its current position in the top left and start going downwards. It's basically like a mouse, it doesn't matter where on the mousepad your mouse is placed, the cursor will move from its current location to whatever direction the mouse starts moving.
> 
> Relative mode only has one default speed. It takes several swipes to move the AF point from one side of the image to the other. It is way too slow for me. If I could change the speed so that it would take 1 or 1.5 swipes to traverse the entire AF area it would touch AF would go from barely usable to the perfect AF system for me.


I understand that in absolute mode there is no need to do any swiping. You just touch the AF area where you want your focus to be. I was indeed talking about relative mode, and in my question I was trying to ask whether the worst possible case (having to move the focus from top left to bottom right of the image) could be covered in relative mode with a single swipe if one was ready to utilize the maximum possible swiping distance, which coincidentally is also from top left to bottom right of the AF area. What I did not take into account was the fact that you mentioned in your reply: other than I thought, it is not easily possible to reach the full AF area with your thumb without (partly) relieving the firm grip you usually have with your other fingers around camera grip and shutter button. I just tried on my 5D4 (which is slightly larger but still comparable) - before I had actually tried, I thought that it must be easily possible to reach the FULL LCD display with my thumb without moving my other fingers, which is not even remotely true. I apparently completely overestimated the length of my thumb relative to the camera. In reality I can barely reach the right edge of the LCD without removing my other fingers from the grip. And when thinking about using relative mode vs. absolute mode it appeared to me that there wouldn't be any point in using relative mode if the full AF area could be reached easily, because then, absolute mode would always be preferrable - no need to swipe, just touch.
So as far as I understand it now what you'd need in relative mode would be an even smaller AF area than 1/4 of the screen, and easily reachable at the right edge/bottom right corner of the LCD in relative mode (which would be essentially equal to increasing the sensitivity), because now you don't even use most of the smallest AF area anyway, as you'd have your other fingers leave the grip.


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 28, 2019)

Anyone else notice the *very* interesting wording of the press release? 

"...we are excited to expand the lens offerings and *acquiesce* the needs of EOS R users."

_*acquiesce* | ˌakwēˈes | verb [no object] accept something reluctantly but without protest: Sara acquiesced in his decision._

It's as if the CEO was reluctant to offer any mirrorless offerings, LOL. I suppose we could give him the benefit of the doubt that it was a translation issue, but my guess is also that they choose their words pretty carefully and have some very good translators. The subtext seems to be: the market was going mirrorless and we gave up and decided to offer this range of new lenses and cameras.


----------



## lbeck (Aug 28, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It's interesting that both lenses are no smaller than their EF variants...but have IS...which doesn't have any size impacts. So from a technical point of view...there was no technical reason that IS couldn't be added to a future EF lens....only marketing reasons.



No, this is incorrect. To start they are not the same sizes, the new RF lens are slightly larger and slightly heavier. They are close in size, so much that most won’t notice a difference in hand. But the RFs are larger and heavier somewhat. Check the EF sizes on the-digital-picture.com ... 

Second, it is a totally different mount, RF vs EF, that changes how the lens can be designed.


----------



## Jethro (Aug 28, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> You take it wrong. I'm sure they mean the calendar year, but it's irrelevant because Canon's fiscal year corresponds to the calendar year, so the second half of 2019 means before December 2019 whether you are talking about the fiscal year or the calendar year.


You may well be right - but it's a strange way of expressing it in a press release?! I mean. We're well into the 2nd half of calendar 2019 already, and release would presumably be after the other lenses drop in late September. I guess we wait and see ...


----------



## Jethro (Aug 29, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> Anyone else notice the *very* interesting wording of the press release?
> 
> "...we are excited to expand the lens offerings and *acquiesce* the needs of EOS R users."
> 
> ...


I think it is a translating issue - almost certainly was meant to mean 'address' or 'satisfy' or 'respond to' the needs of EOS R users.


----------



## N-VB (Aug 29, 2019)

Mtf from Canon japan page:
RF 15-35: https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf15-35-f28l/image/spec/spec-mtf.png
VS EF 16-35 f4 IS https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/wide-zoom/ef16-35-f4l-is-usm/image/spec/mtf.png

RF24-70 IS https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf24-70-f28l/image/spec/spec-mtf.png
VS EF 24-70 II https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard-zoom/ef24-70-f28l-ii/image/spec/mtf.png



https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/shared/image/mod/media-fig.png


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2019)

Jethro said:


> You may well be right - but it's a strange way of expressing it in a press release?! I mean. We're well into the 2nd half of calendar 2019 already, and release would presumably be after the other lenses drop in late September. I guess we wait and see ...


Could be they’re trying to get it out in September, but giving themselves flexibility to push that to sometime in 4Q.


----------



## LukasS (Aug 29, 2019)

6degrees said:


> Who will buy these at the prices?


I guess me too, 15-35 and 70-200 (my old EF has no IS and it's over 15 years old). Probably by the end of the year as I'm not in a hurry.


----------



## flip314 (Aug 29, 2019)

6degrees said:


> Who will buy these at the prices?



The 15-35 is only $100 more than the MSRP of the EF 16-35 2.8 III and goes even wider. The 24-70 2.8 will sell at almost any price, and with people dying for an IS version for years they'll be flying off the shelves for the $400 premium.

I'm still waiting to see the 70-200 price because the price implied by recent rumors ($300 more than the other 2 lenses) seems excessive to me, but again it's a lens that many people want to own.

None of this is to mention that anyone that can wait another year will probably see rebates before then and a chance to buy them for a couple/few hundreds less.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 29, 2019)

N-VB said:


> Mtf from Canon japan page:
> RF 15-35: https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf15-35-f28l/image/spec/spec-mtf.png
> VS EF 16-35 f4 IS https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/wide-zoom/ef16-35-f4l-is-usm/image/spec/mtf.png
> 
> ...



Hard for me to read these well on my phone. Thoughts?


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 29, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Hard for me to read these well on my phone. Thoughts?



15-35 MTF seems same to worse, 24-70 MTF is a lot better at 24mm in the corners. But I'll wait for lensrentals to test RF lenses before looking at more MTF charts


----------



## rafalnobis (Aug 29, 2019)

It's sad cause we can easily find differences on MTF charts between RF 85 1.2 vs EF 85 1.2 II, RF 50 1.2 vs EF 50 1.2, RF 24-70 vs EF 24-70 II, but with RF 15-35 vs EF 16-35 4.0 IS it's not so sweet.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 29, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It's interesting that both lenses are no smaller than their EF variants...but have IS...which doesn't have any size impacts. So from a technical point of view...there was no technical reason that IS couldn't be added to a future EF lens....only marketing reasons.



How do you know that the new lenses would be possible with IS in EF mount and current sizes?
We still don't know the image quality but if they are better and have IS, that can be possible because of the new mount. The 15-35 is also wider than the EF.


----------



## tron (Aug 29, 2019)

rafalnobis said:


> It's sad cause we can easily find differences on MTF charts between RF 85 1.2 vs EF 85 1.2 II, RF 50 1.2 vs EF 50 1.2, RF 24-70 vs EF 24-70 II, but with RF 15-35 vs EF 16-35 4.0 IS it's not so sweet.


I haven't seen anything but if that is so then EF16-35 2.8L III which is better than EF 16-34 4L IS will be better than the RF 15-35. But I will wait for Lens Rentals and TDP to test and compare. But both 16-35 III and 16-35 4l IS are very good lenses so an RF lens equally good shouldn't be an issue...


----------



## Tmjc.wolf (Aug 29, 2019)

rafalnobis said:


> It's sad cause we can easily find differences on MTF charts between RF 85 1.2 vs EF 85 1.2 II, RF 50 1.2 vs EF 50 1.2, RF 24-70 vs EF 24-70 II, but with RF 15-35 vs EF 16-35 4.0 IS it's not so sweet.


The EF 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 we're pretty soft however and there was a lot of room to improve. Arguably the 16-35 f4 is already quite a sharp lens and doesn't need improvement quite as much.
That said more sharpness would still be nice, especially with the rumored 80mp Sensor.


----------



## 6degrees (Aug 29, 2019)

flip314 said:


> The 15-35 is only $100 more than the MSRP of the EF 16-35 2.8 III and goes even wider. The 24-70 2.8 will sell at almost any price, and with people dying for an IS version for years they'll be flying off the shelves for the $400 premium.
> 
> I'm still waiting to see the 70-200 price because the price implied by recent rumors ($300 more than the other 2 lenses) seems excessive to me, but again it's a lens that many people want to own.
> 
> None of this is to mention that anyone that can wait another year will probably see rebates before then and a chance to buy them for a couple/few hundreds less.



If Canon releases EOS R pro body with IBIS, will the extra expense on IS still valuable?

I just do not feel mirrorless lenses high prices are justified. Sony 24mm F1.4 GM price makes more sense, and also indicates those lens providers are ripping customers off.


----------



## AlP (Aug 29, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Hard for me to read these well on my phone. Thoughts?



Here's a comparison of the calculated MTF charts for the 16(5)-35 and 24-70 zooms (based on the charts from Canon's website):


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2019)

rafalnobis said:


> It's sad cause we can easily find differences on MTF charts between RF 85 1.2 vs EF 85 1.2 II, RF 50 1.2 vs EF 50 1.2, RF 24-70 vs EF 24-70 II, but with RF 15-35 vs EF 16-35 4.0 IS it's not so sweet.


Just be careful which MTF charts you’re comparing, by which I mean where you find those charts. In 2018, Canon changed the way they calculate the curves resulting in a more stringent assessment. So, if you compare the same lens with the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ MTF method, the performance looks substantially worse on the ‘new’ MTF curves. For all lenses pre-2018 currently in the lineup (which includes all the EF lenses you listed above), Canon revised their MTF charts to the new method, and for a valid comparison you need to compare the RF lenses (which all use the new method) to those revised MTFs. BUT...while Canon Japan shows the updated MTF plots, other regions e.g. Canon USA did not replace the old charts with the new ones.

Kudos to @AlP above for using all new-format MTFs. For others doing their own comparisons, the easy way to tell is the old charts have 8 lines, the new ones have only 4 lines. Only compare new-to-new or old-to-old.


----------



## AlP (Aug 29, 2019)

lbeck said:


> No, this is incorrect. To start they are not the same sizes, the new RF lens are slightly larger and slightly heavier. They are close in size, so much that most won’t notice a difference in hand. But the RFs are larger and heavier somewhat. Check the EF sizes on the-digital-picture.com ...
> 
> Second, it is a totally different mount, RF vs EF, that changes how the lens can be designed.



Particularly the 24-70 which has a more complex optical formula than the EF version (the images a adjusted quite roughly in size, so this is not a precise comparison):




And here for the 15-35. Note that in this case there's something odd with the outline, as matching the diameter of the lens and of the mount with the EF version makes it look like the RF lens would be longer. According to Canon's data it should be shorter (126.8 mm vs. 127.5 mm):


----------



## padam (Aug 29, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> 15-35 MTF seems same to worse, 24-70 MTF is a lot better at 24mm in the corners. But I'll wait for lensrentals to test RF lenses before looking at more MTF charts


I mean, a 15-35 (with 2.8 and IS) is still different to a 16-35, right?  May not cause quite a stir like the 11-24 did, but it is still a good step forward.


----------



## Act444 (Aug 29, 2019)

I’d be interested in an IQ comparison between the new 24-70 IS and the existing 28-70 when both are set to 2.8.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Aug 29, 2019)

Another tease of that lovely wee fat 70-200mm. Really looking forward to that and the 24-70(which comes after the 70-200 and super tele). Really looking forward new R camera too, frankly the only thing stopping me on the current R is that it used SD cards instead of CF cards.


----------



## padam (Aug 30, 2019)

Codebunny said:


> Another tease of that lovely wee fat 70-200mm. Really looking forward to that and the 24-70(which comes after the 70-200 and super tele). Really looking forward new R camera too, frankly the only thing stopping me on the current R is that it used SD cards instead of CF cards.


Looking at the C500 Mark II indicates that they are dropping CF in favour of CFExpress and they probably keep SD as the secondary card slot.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Aug 30, 2019)

padam said:


> Looking at the C500 Mark II indicates that they are dropping CF in favour of CFExpress and they probably keep SD as the secondary card slot.



CFExpress suites me fine, I have other things I can plug that into but no other uses for SD cards.


----------



## padam (Aug 30, 2019)

Codebunny said:


> CFExpress suites me fine, I have other things I can plug that into but no other uses for SD cards.


It is probably the best recipe to keep all potential buyers happy, UHS-II is plenty fast already anyway for 4k60p or high framerate burst with less megapixels.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 30, 2019)

Tmjc.wolf said:


> The EF 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 we're pretty soft however and there was a lot of room to improve. Arguably the 16-35 f4 is already quite a sharp lens and doesn't need improvement quite as much.
> That said more sharpness would still be nice, especially with the rumored 80mp Sensor.


Erm...no...the ef 50mm f1.2L for sure but not the ef 85mm f1.2L...it's seriously sharp wide open. I've owned 3 copies of the '50L and processed the output from a few more (2nd photogs) and they were all slightly soft. But every copy of the ef 85 f1.2 II L has been razor sharp.


----------



## Joules (Aug 30, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Erm...no...the ef 50mm f1.2L for sure but not the ef 85mm f1.2L...it's seriously sharp wide open. I've owned 3 copies of the '50L and processed the output from a few more (2nd photogs) and they were all slightly soft. But every copy of the ef 85 f1.2 II L has been razor sharp.


Looking at the comparison between the Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art and the Canon EF 85mm 1.2 II, both at 1.4 aperture... Saying that the 85mm II had a good amount of room for improvement seems like a fair statement to me. And Sigma doesn't have the advantage of the new Mount that Canon had with the RF 85mm 1.2. Unfortunately we don't have a 50 MP R yet, so there's no fair comparison there.









Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 30, 2019)

Joules said:


> Looking at the comparison between the Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art and the Canon EF 85mm 1.2 II, both at 1.4 aperture... Saying that the 85mm II had a good amount of room for improvement seems like a fair statement to me. And Sigma doesn't have the advantage of the new Mount that Canon had with the RF 85mm 1.2. Unfortunately we don't have a 50 MP R yet, so there's no fair comparison there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your argument is unfortunately is misinformed and naive. The Sigma lens has the massive disadvantage of Sigma's notorious AF inconsistency issues. A Sigma is NOT a comparative replacement to Canon's L range...regardless of the focal length and Aperture claim. The Canon is 1/3 stop brighter....that's a lot of real world light. The Canon has a focus by wire design that is slow but way more accurate than the appalling AF system implemented in the Sigma Art 35/50/85mm lenses. Then there's the Canon build quality...plus the resale value...Sigma is still some way behind Canon's finest. After all these years (the basic design of the 85IIL heralds from when the ESO system was first implemented...very pre-digital) and yet Sigma or Nikon haven't caught up...go figure. They copy and fall a bit short.


----------



## N-VB (Aug 30, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Your argument is unfortunately is misinformed and naive. The Sigma lens has the massive disadvantage of Sigma's notorious AF inconsistency issues.


It used to be the case on DSLR, new Art lenses like 105 f1.4 are extremelly accurate.
On eos R, all compatible Art lenses are as accurate as Canon lenses, they focus dead on the spot


----------



## Joules (Aug 30, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Your argument is unfortunately is misinformed and naive.


I'm not making any argument about any Sigma lens being better or worse than a similar one from Canon. That depends entirely on the lens and use case, as well as subjective preferences. For me, for example, the 35mm 1.4 Art beats the Canon 35mm 1.4 II... Because one is affordable enough for me to buy it and take pictures with - and the other is not. And I rarely use AF, since I use that lens primarily for landscape and astro photography. But that was not the point at all.

Somebody said that the EF 85mm 1.2 II was relatively soft, so there was a lot of potential for improvement in IQ for Canon to tap into with the RF equivalent. You replied to that, saying the EF 85mm 1.2 were "seriously sharp wide open". Which may be true in terms of pure resolution in the image center. I just wanted to demonstrate that it still left room for improvement, because the Sigma version is clearly way sharper wide open across the frame compared to the EF one stopped down slightly. And the RF version is likely even better, but we don't have an appropriate body to test that yet. There might be some measured MTF curves out there that would support that claim, but I won't look for them. It doesn't matter for the point I wanted to support: the old 1.2 primes might have been great, but they did still have some optical flaws that can be corrected in the newer lenses to give greater IQ. 

I'm sorry if I offended you in any way.


----------



## HikeBike (Sep 6, 2019)

I bet these will be fantastic lenses...but I'm gonna have to go with the value buy to complete my trinity. EF 16-35 f/4L IS is in my future.


----------

