# What lenses are coming next for the Canon RF mount?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 6, 2018)

> As we all know, Canon officially announced the EOS R system yesterday and along with it, a new lens mount dubbed RF. Canon showcased some of their lens design muscle with these lenses and plans to quickly populate the lens lineup.
> During yesterday’s launch, Canon mentioned that they’re already working on “a series of fast f/2.8 lenses and more”. The obviously didn’t give an exact roadmap, but we think there are some obvious choices coming ahead for the RF mount. We expect to see plenty of new lenses coming in 2019 for the system.
> These are the lenses that we think make the most sense.
> *RF 14-24mm f/2.8L USM*
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## ethanz (Sep 6, 2018)

Your guesses seem reasonable.

How about an RF 11-400mm f/4L USM IS


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 6, 2018)

ethanz said:


> Your guesses seem reasonable.
> 
> How about an RF 11-400mm f/4L USM IS


Wouldn't make any sense, unless it's a f/1,4 for about 350$, 400$ max.


----------



## overniven (Sep 6, 2018)

Seems odd that the body seems closer in price to a 6D II than the 5D Mark IV, and that there are isn’t more affordable glass options. I know they aren’t the sexy options, but more non-L would be welcome.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Sep 6, 2018)

If Canon stated they're working on a series of fast 2.8's, then I'd imagine we'd see a 70-200mm before a 24-70mm; probably just to protect the sales of the 28-70mm f/2. And if that were the case, I'd expect a 16-35mm f/2.8 to provide a bit of overlap for the 28-70. I would also anticipate seeing an 85mm F/1.4L (or 85/1.8 USM), a 100mm F/2.8 Macro, and maybe a 24mm F/1.4L at some point in the near future. The big great white super telephotos will probably be the last of the EF lenses to get RF conversions, even though I'd love to see an RF 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L


----------



## justawriter (Sep 6, 2018)

About the only other lens I would think might be in the works would be a 70-300. That might be one of the first lens in the series priced *for the rest of us* (TM).


----------



## pj1974 (Sep 6, 2018)

Thanks for sharing your ideas CR .... In many parts I agree with you. Having a number of 'standard trinity' f/2.8 zooms makes sense. (Particularly as Canon has shown their cards, with the 28-70mm f/2 USM lens... it appears Canon is going 'definitely serious', lens wise).

I *also *expect there will be a number of f/4 IS lenses, in the near future too. Probably most of these will come with the Nano USM (v2) AF (as the RF 24-105mm f/4 has). For example, I could see the following possibilities:

RF 16-35mm (or up to 40mm) f/4 IS Nano USM
RF 24-70 f/4 (or perhaps it might have a wider focal range, e.g. RF 20-85mm f/4 and
RF 70-200mm f/4 (or again, maybe with extended focal range, say somewhere between 50mm and 300mm)
I assume the last lens listed in the original post, is a typo - and the "EF" - should be "RF"? i.e. RF 50mm f/1.8 STM IS??
I would love that lens, or even better still, a RF 50mm f/1.4 Nano USM v2 - if it has good IQ wide open, and with decent AF! 

Cheers,

PJ


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Sep 6, 2018)

Craig, typo:


> *EF 50mm f/1.8 IS STM*


 Should be *RF*.

Classic f/2.8 L zoom trio.

Classic fast prime trio, 35, 50, 85L. f/1.2 or f/1.4

A native L 1:1 Macro like an RF 100 f/2.8L Hybrid IS USM

A few f/4 L zooms in the popular ranges. A few non-L fast primes.


----------



## traveller (Sep 6, 2018)

Will we see RF mount telephoto lenses released at this early stage? Canon seem to be implying in their press briefings and publicity that RF will live alongside EF for the foreseeable future. 

The shorter flange focal distance of RF mount offers advantages when it comes to wide angle lens designs that don’t necessarily carry over to longer focal length lenses (we’ve seen this already with Sony’s FE glass). What would be the reason to release a series of new RF mount telephoto lenses? 

Releasing a new RF 70-200 zoom, when they’ve just done a paint job update on the EF mount version would go totally counter to the idea that Canon value their EF lens line just as much as the new RF mount lens line. I am already wondering whether it’s worth buying more EF mount glass, or whether it’s now obsolescent: new RF telephotos wouldn’t fill me with confidence.


----------



## meywd (Sep 6, 2018)

I think the priority is in lenses not existing in the current EF lineup, or need an update, a 12-24 2.8 makes sense, as well a cheaper 50, but the trio zooms are still fresh with the latest updates


----------



## RiceCanon (Sep 6, 2018)

Canon needs to fill out the RF lens lineup sooner rather than later. I've shelved my plans to buy future EF glass now and will make do with my current EF lenses. I also hope Canon will announce a more robust mirrorless body sometime soon. I'll wait for that body before making the switch to mirrorless.


----------



## padam (Sep 6, 2018)

Yes, with tele lenses, there isn't really much of an advantage with RF (in theory) as opposed to a wide-angle zoom or wider primes. So no need to rush those if the EF lenses work perfectly well (as illustrated in the product videos with the 100-400 II for instance)


----------



## meywd (Sep 6, 2018)

a cheap 85, an update to the wide tilt-shift lenses, a better 14mm with good coma...


----------



## fullstop (Sep 6, 2018)

RF 58/0.9 L has highest priority, just to one-up Nikon.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 6, 2018)

I think that most of us are still waiting to see real world, hands on use, accenting consistent AF speed and accuracy for both stills and video, not just a handful of R cams given to a select few to play with. We await those results. It is very pleasing to see that Canon has made an obvious commitment to FF mirrorless as we watch their offerings unfold in the coming months. Bring them on.


----------



## colorblinded (Sep 6, 2018)

Sounds good to me. At some point in 2-3 years I may look to upgrade my 5D Mark IV if Canon gets it right. I'd like to see IBIS, among other improvements to their sensors. I'd like to see a 14-24 or even 14-30 4L though. The only zoom I generally really have a strong need for 2.8 in is my 70-200. A 70-135 2L would be really interesting for portraiture though, but something tells me the price would scare me away when the 70-200 2.8L plus a couple even faster primes do me fine for now.

IBIS would be nice since like many of my lenses, my 18 year old 70-200 2.8L doesn't have it. At the same time if they come out with an RF 70-200 2.8 IS I'd probably still eventually upgrade to it, as I have been considering a 70-200 2.8L IS II for a bit now.

Either way, I want to see Canon get on the IBIS train, and allow it to work in concert with traditional IS even.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 6, 2018)

hard to guess what Canon will bring. A roadmap would be extremely helpful.


----------



## TMHKR (Sep 6, 2018)

fullstop said:


> RF 58/0.9 L has highest priority, just to one-up Nikon.


What's the deal with these weird focal lengths, 58mm and such?


----------



## MayaTlab (Sep 6, 2018)

fullstop said:


> hard to guess what Canon will bring. A roadmap would be extremely helpful.



It would help me make a decision. But maybe Canon's right not to do it, as it could make me take the decision to go see elsewhere . 

As far as I'm concerned I have no interest whatsoever in f1.2 primes or f2 zooms. I'd welcome a truckload of primes in the vein of the 35mm f1.8 IS STM, not necessarily with a f1.8 aperture, just with one that strikes a nice balance between size, price, and optical performance (for example : 50 and 85mm f1.8, 130mm f2.8, etc.). And a new macro. Arguably the later isn't quite as important right off the bat, the EF one remains a pretty neat lens.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 6, 2018)

To me, the zooms make sense to get out there quickly. I could be perfectly happy with just my two Canon zooms. Canon did a wonderful job with them. I know others need the very fast primes, but I just don't use them as much for what I do. Canon's zooms are a good route to take for quality glass with lots of versatility. The fact that the RF 28-70 is an f/2 makes it even better. Still, for most people, the L line is out of reach from a practical point of view. It will be years and years before I could think of buying into this RF system. Sacrificed a lot for what I have.


----------



## PerKr (Sep 6, 2018)

24-70/2,8 and 70-200/2,8 seem given if they say they're developing fast 2,8's.
edit: those would come in handy for the emperors abdication event, wouldn't they?
Would expect them to have a 400/2.8 for the olympics. Also, isn't it about time they released a new 300/4?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 6, 2018)

I expect a wide zoom like 16-35, and a moderate telephoto like a 70-300. I see little sense in putting out lenses more expensive than $3K for a entry level FF body. When a advanced body comes out, then I expect the big ticket items.

That may happen sometime next Spring if the "R" sells well.


----------



## mrproxy (Sep 6, 2018)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Craig, typo: Should be *RF*.
> 
> Classic fast prime trio, 35, 50, 85L. f/1.2 or f/1.4


135 f/2 !!!


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Sep 6, 2018)

PerKr said:


> 24-70/2,8 and 70-200/2,8 seem given if they say they're developing fast 2,8's.
> edit: those would come in handy for the emperors abdication event, wouldn't they?
> Would expect them to have a 400/2.8 for the olympics. Also, isn't it about time they released a new 300/4?



I would love to see some super telephotos for the RF mount, and the upcoming Olympic games is about as good of an excuse as any to make it happen. But I think it's also dependent on Canon's R system models. The base R is somewhat wanting for sports/action capabilities. I think Canon needs to give us a 1D X II equivalent in an EOS R by 2019 to get a good indication as to whether or not we'll be seeing any RF super telephotos in time for the 2020 games. But even if they can't develop an RF super-teles in time, we still have the new EF 400mm f/2.8 & 600/4 coming out this year that will practically behave natively on the R with an adapter.


----------



## hmatthes (Sep 6, 2018)

overniven said:


> Seems odd that the body seems closer in price to a 6D II than the 5D Mark IV, and that there are isn’t more affordable glass options. I know they aren’t the sexy options, but more non-L would be welcome.


Yes, I agree -- BUT -- I plan to use all my EF lenses with the control ring EF-R adapter. No rush to replace EF (L or non-L) at this time. I will order the RF 24-105 to shoot when my EF 24-70 f/2.8 isn't long enough.


----------



## ethanz (Sep 6, 2018)

overniven said:


> Seems odd that the body seems closer in price to a 6D II than the 5D Mark IV, and that there are isn’t more affordable glass options. I know they aren’t the sexy options, but more non-L would be welcome.



That is what you have the EOS-M for.


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 6, 2018)

TMHKR said:


> What's the deal with these weird focal lengths, 58mm and such?


Some of their Engineers previously worked for Pentax/Ricoh... ;-)


----------



## NorskHest (Sep 6, 2018)

Why would Canon create a 70-200 with an RF mount? Especially since they just released a refresh, they are not in the market for canibalizing. I could see a new 24-70 ef to assure the ef users too their commitment and it may even get a I.S. the 16-35 is still new and canon would probably love to sell adapters and get rid of their stock in the current line up before coming up with a new lens line up of 2.8 apertures. There is not much logic in them eating up profits on stuff they need to rid themselves of. I love the idea of the variable ND in the new lens adapter. I think the eos r is currently junk but using ef with their new adapters is a great marketing idea and they gave people enough of an incentive to buy new lenses that won't be ef and new adaptors to put ef on new mounts. It's quite brilliant.


----------



## Spam (Sep 6, 2018)

Seems like a reasonable selection to start with, but if Canon want to make a model for sports/action then some longer lenses are necessary.


----------



## razorzec (Sep 6, 2018)

It would be a good idea to have an 85mm 1.2 as well as a 35mm F1.2

these lenses are either outdated or nonexistent in the EF line, so having them available on the RF mount would further boost its unique selling point.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Sep 6, 2018)

*RF 70-135mm f/2L USM* paired with 28-70. My dream combo


----------



## N-VB (Sep 6, 2018)

As long as they keep insane prices, any new lenses are welcome.
(I'd love to see a 135mm f1.4 IS)


----------



## bokehmon22 (Sep 6, 2018)

N-VB said:


> As long as they keep insane prices, any new lenses are welcome.
> (I'd love to see a 135mm f1.4 IS)



135 1.8 IS is already asking alot from them.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 6, 2018)

What I want to know is how they will exploit the new mount.

Most on the list would be expected for the masses.


----------



## Respinder (Sep 6, 2018)

fullstop said:


> RF 58/0.9 L has highest priority, just to one-up Nikon.


Agreed - and with AF this time


----------



## bks54 (Sep 6, 2018)

I think they will use the RF mount to showcase lenses they don't have already or are due for update:

1. 180 or 200 mm macro; possibly f2.8 with IS.
2. 100 mm f1.4
3. 135 f1.8 or 2 IS
4. 20 mm f1.8 IS
5. 400 mm f5.6 IS


----------



## vangelismm (Sep 6, 2018)

20, 24, 28, 50, 85, 100, 135 1.8 STM serie lens
and pancake 40mm 2.0.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 6, 2018)

Good/reasonable suggestions in the article.

I’m not sure what to make of the new RF system - I like what I see so far, but I’d also like to see some smaller, lighter alternatives to go with the smaller body. In addition to the big stuff, how about

RF 24-70mm f4L IS (compact alternative)
RF 85mm f1.8 IS
RF 50mm f1.4 IS (1.8 may work as well)
RF 24mm f1.4 or f1.8
RF 100mm f2.8L IS Macro (this could have SO much potential with a high-res body)
RF 135mm f2L IS

Also, I know Canon is about the glass - and that’s good, HQ lenses are critical to any system - but I’d also like to see in-body features to encourage adoption of the new system. As cool as the R is, once the “ooh, shiny” factor wears off and reality sets in, I’m left wondering where they want to go with this. Is it worth investing in EF lenses any more? Should I see the writing on the wall and begin off-loading less frequently used EFs (while they still hold some value) in anticipation of RF taking over in the future?


----------



## melgross (Sep 6, 2018)

I don’t see longer tele’s as being a priority. Considering their weight and size, there will just be a shortening of 24mm. How much lighter will a several pound lens get from that? I think the adapters will serve the purpose just fine for a long time to come.


----------



## psolberg (Sep 6, 2018)

TMHKR said:


> What's the deal with these weird focal lengths, 58mm and such?


the NOCT was 58mm. This is the new NOCT hence why it is 58mm. As to why the original NOCT was 58mm, I've read it was because at the time it was the best FL to achieve the design goals: point light source reproduction and minimal sagittal comma flare wide open, mainly geared at nighttime photography. Keep in mind this was decades ago. The Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G is similar in that it is mainly geared at sagittal comma flare control and it was outed as an "homage" to the NOCT, but never quite received the NOCT label although it does do what it says it is for: point light source flare control wide open. This being a new true NOCT, and given they are skipping on IS/AF and putting it all into optics (plus none of that damn focus by wire nonsense) probably means it will easily beat the "homage" pseudo NOCT


----------



## jpcanon (Sep 6, 2018)

O great; glad to see Canon already EOL'd my what recently acquired EF 70-200 F4L IS II 
This would be enough to get me to sell the whole damn lot at this point. Nikon Z doesn't look too bad.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Sep 6, 2018)

If the 28-70 F2 is $3000, how much would the 70-130 F2 cost? Any guess?


----------



## Act444 (Sep 6, 2018)

melgross said:


> I don’t see longer tele’s as being a priority. Considering their weight and size, there will just be a shortening of 24mm. How much lighter will a several pound lens get from that? I think the adapters will serve the purpose just fine for a long time to come.



I mostly agree. I think that the super tele lenses will remain EF for at least the next 5 years until the next update cycle, then at that time, if MILC is finally ready for “prime time”, they may be replaced with RF versions.

Ultimately, I think it will depend on how fast MILC gains traction. If it’s anything like the transition from film to digital, now that all the big players are in the game, this could happen faster than many of us realize...perhaps as quickly as the next 2-3 years!


----------



## psolberg (Sep 6, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I agree. Now that people got over the sticker shock of a 2200 dollar 50mm lens and a 3000 dollar 28-70, time to address the less sexy but ever so important "boring" segment. Sub 1K USD primes that don't aim to take some f/stop crown and cost upwards of two grand for a common focal length are a good foundation. Ditto the wedding/portrait bread and butter 2.8 zoom trinity. And various f/4 zooms, and a few wide options for landscapes...in other words not that different from this:



sprinkle a specialty lens as well as your obligatory variable aperture "budget" 70-300 zoom or whatever here and there.

Canon should release a roadmap like above. Some worry it "gives away" their plan. What plan? Nikon leaves the slot blank when it doesn't want to tell you as can be seen by those blank empty slots in 2020-21. And when they do tell you, it is a 100% predictable necessary lens: 2.8, f/4 zooms, and 1.8 primes precisely like CR Admin's list. Any competitor that cannot anticipate these lenses isn't much of a competitor. And even a 2 minute search for patents in NR reveals some of those "secret" lenses
52mm f/0.9 and 36mm f/1.2 (will probably be labeled as 50 and 35 for marketing purposes)
https://nikonrumors.com/2017/09/07/...-36mm-f1-2-full-frame-mirrorless-lenses.aspx/


----------



## ethanz (Sep 6, 2018)

jpcanon said:


> O great; glad to see Canon already EOL'd my what recently acquired EF 70-200 F4L IS II
> This would be enough to get me to sell the whole damn lot at this point. Nikon Z doesn't look too bad.



 EF is sticking around for a while. Your lens is still as good as it was two days ago. And it has the same life expectancy and service life as before.


----------



## fentiger (Sep 6, 2018)

Unless Canon can produce a 1DX2 type R camera, by that i mean 15+ fps and AF and exposure, i don't see the point of any super telephotos in the R format.
In liveveiw the 1DX2 can not do that. even with digic 8 can only af at 5fps, so digic 9 or 10 might be getting there.


----------



## padam (Sep 6, 2018)

Yes, they simply don't need RF super telephotos.
They can even make EF-mount mirrorless (or an even fancier variant, a DSLR with a hybrid viewfinder) for that kind of shooting.


----------



## fentiger (Sep 6, 2018)

Canon have nailed their colours to the post with the 28-70f2 so may be 16-35f2. but No way 70-200f2.
The 200 f2 prime is £5500 as it is.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Sep 6, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> If the 28-70 F2 is $3000, how much would the 70-130 F2 cost? Any guess?



I would think considerably less than the 28-70. Probably comparable to the EF 70-200mm F/2.8L IS USM III. The aperture diaphragm would be smaller than the 70-200/2.8, so the elements could be smaller. Also, I think there are fewer optical engineering hurdles involved in going from short telephoto-to-mid telephoto versus short telephoto-to-long telephoto. I wouldn't see any reason a 70-130mm f/2 would cost substantially more than the EF 70-200/2.8 unless it had a crazy new optical design that utterly neutralized every optical aberration in existence.


----------



## miketcool (Sep 6, 2018)

24mm F/1.2 and 35mm F/1.2 Primes.

Canon will be wise to find ways to differentiate between EF and RF glass. They also are taking advantage of the new flange distance and mount diameter.


----------



## padam (Sep 6, 2018)

Josh Leavitt said:


> I would think considerably less than the 28-70. Probably comparable to the EF 70-200mm F/2.8L IS USM III. The aperture diaphragm would be smaller than the 70-200/2.8, so the elements could be smaller. Also, I think there are fewer optical engineering hurdles involved in going from short telephoto-to-mid telephoto versus short telephoto-to-long telephoto. I wouldn't see any reason a 70-130mm f/2 would cost substantially more than the EF 70-200/2.8 unless it had a crazy new optical design that utterly neutralized every optical aberration in existence.



No, this is just a hypothetical thing, they might not even consider one. When you increase the f-stop to f/2 on a zoom with a decent range, the optical problems magnify by a mile (why they haven't done it in the first place earlier in EF mount?) many more corrective elements needed, huge price and weight etc. so if there ever was a lens like this, it would cost at least as much as the 28-70/2
Look at the Sigma 50-100/1.8 only slightly faster and it's not even a FF lens, so it needs to be bigger.


----------



## mclaren777 (Sep 6, 2018)

A 70-135mm f/2 would go well with my 28-70mm f/2.

I really hope that happens.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Sep 6, 2018)

padam said:


> No, this is just a hypothetical thing, they might not even consider one. When you increase the f-stop to f/2 on a zoom with a decent range, the optical problems magnify by a mile (why they haven't done it in the first place earlier in EF mount?) many more corrective elements needed, huge price and weight etc. so if there ever was a lens like this, it would cost at least as much as the 28-70/2
> Look at the Sigma 50-100/1.8 only slightly faster and it's not even a FF lens, so it needs to be bigger.



Yeah, I think I heard somewhere that the number of optical aberrations increases by a factor of 9 for every stop of light you add (maybe more for zooms). But even if it was heavier and just as expensive as the 28-70/2, it could still be a viable lens for portrait photographers. I would imagine one 70-130mm f/2 would weigh less than an 85mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2, and 135mm f/2 combined - which would likely be the lens trio it would be competing with.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 6, 2018)

Canon are going to concentrate on lenses that don't overlap with their recent EF releases. So I don't think a 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4 is imminent. I think they've been holding back on certain things just to make sure they can push demand for the new format.

So I expect to see:

RF ultrawide f/2.8 with IS
RF 24-70 f/2.8 IS
RF 85mm f/1.2 
RF 135mm f/2 IS

A long RF lens using DO


----------



## padam (Sep 6, 2018)

Josh Leavitt said:


> Yeah, I think I heard somewhere that the number of optical aberrations increases by a factor of 9 for every stop of light you add (maybe more for zooms). But even if it was heavier and just as expensive as the 28-70/2, it could still be a viable lens for portrait photographers. I would imagine one 70-130mm f/2 would weigh less than an 85mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2, and 135mm f/2 combined - which would likely be the lens trio it would be competing with.


Yes if they can make it within reasonable terms, it is already on their design desk and, they might actually do it in the coming years.
But I think that an extreme standard zoom with a fairly close range to the 24-70mm may also sell better, while that hypothetical 70-130mm more of a speciality, being quite a bit narrower compared to the 70-200mm lenses, which are always in fairly high demand and also heavy enough as-is. But, at least the new tele lenses are a sign that at least a redesign combined with the partial help of electronics (fly-by-wire focusing, I thought only Sony will do that on the 400/2.8 and Canon did the same thing as well), there is certainly further room to reduce the weight for at least some of them. Can't wait to see actual examples from the 28-70mm f/2, it is certainly going to look different to any other standard zoom out there. Exciting times.


----------



## melgross (Sep 6, 2018)

jpcanon said:


> O great; glad to see Canon already EOL'd my what recently acquired EF 70-200 F4L IS II
> This would be enough to get me to sell the whole damn lot at this point. Nikon Z doesn't look too bad.


??? You’re saying that no other company does that, just Canon? Your lens isn’t good anymore? You have to throw it out?


----------



## melgross (Sep 6, 2018)

Act444 said:


> I mostly agree. I think that the super tele lenses will remain EF for at least the next 5 years until the next update cycle, then at that time, if MILC is finally ready for “prime time”, they may be replaced with RF versions.
> 
> Ultimately, I think it will depend on how fast MILC gains traction. If it’s anything like the transition from film to digital, now that all the big players are in the game, this could happen faster than many of us realize...perhaps as quickly as the next 2-3 years!



Yes. Just think about it. From the 400 to the 800, particularly for the faster lenses, the camera is just a needed accessory. It doesn’t matter how big or heavy they are, the lens is much bigger and heavier. Even for the faster 300s. And an inch difference in length, well, who is going to notice?


----------



## amorse (Sep 6, 2018)

I would bet on something nice and wide - the 14-24 f/2.8 sounds great to me. With that said though, I might actually prefer the sigma EF 14-24 f/2.8 just so I could use the drop in ND filter/polarizer on the adapter - not having a filter thread is the only thing keeping from buying that lens as it is! Now, if only I could drop in an ND grad.


----------



## melgross (Sep 6, 2018)

psolberg said:


> I agree. Now that people got over the sticker shock of a 2200 dollar 50mm lens and a 3000 dollar 28-70, time to address the less sexy but ever so important "boring" segment. Sub 1K USD primes that don't aim to take some f/stop crown and cost upwards of two grand for a common focal length are a good foundation. Ditto the wedding/portrait bread and butter 2.8 zoom trinity. And various f/4 zooms, and a few wide options for landscapes...in other words not that different from this:
> 
> View attachment 180205
> 
> ...


I agree. It would be more comforting to have a real idea, rather than the guesswork we have in this article, and from us. We may think we know what Canon should do, but they have the numbers, and we don’t. They know what sells, and what most earlier buyers will want, even if we disagree.

Look at the M series. Everyone is saying what Canon should do, and why the line doesn’t match up to Sony, blah blah. But it’s selling very well, growing fasrer than any other line, and so Canon doesn’t need us to tell it what to do.

But, it would be great if they did reveal the next year or two of new lenses. Then we could all argue about why those are the wrong lenses, and why they are too big, too small, too fast or too slow. About why there aren’t enough zooms and why there are too many.

We’ll have a ball about being unhappy with whatever they do.

Meanwhile, real people will be buying their new products in increasing numbers and fulfilling Canon’s forward looking statement made last year about how they were going to increase sales and marketshare.


----------



## jeanluc (Sep 6, 2018)

I hope they start with the basics....16-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8,( with or without IS... the current ones don’t have it and they’re just fine ). Then a 70-200 f 2.8 IS, a 70-300 variable aperture IS, and a 100 f 2.8 IS macro. Then a R body that’s really a 5dsr mark 2 and I’m done!


----------



## KenRockwell (Sep 6, 2018)

RF 20mm f/1.8 IS Pancake

RF 15-45mm f/2L IS


----------



## ken (Sep 6, 2018)

If wishes were horses, I'd be riding these by the end of 2019: 

RF 16-35mm f/2.8L
RF 24-70mm f/2.8L (preferably IS)
RF 100mm f/2.8L IS 

But it depends on the next camera body too. 

P.S. RF is Canon's future. Don't care what anyone else is selling on that topic.


----------



## padam (Sep 6, 2018)

Anything that's Not bigger than the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS


----------



## Jaysheldon (Sep 6, 2018)

The interesting thing about the R series is pricing. If Canon (and Nikon) really want people to jump into this system pricing would be aggressive. That, of course, would anger people who recently bought new EF FF equipment. Still, think about it: B&H has the EF 50mm f1.2 at list price: US$1,449.00. The list price of the R 50mm F1.2 is $2,229. If Canon really wanted people to run to this system, price is one way to do it. Perhaps, as a new system, Canon doesn't want initially to be overwhelmed. Or, as I say, it doesn't want to anger EF owners. Still, it's interesting.
On the other hand, note that the list price of the new R camera is US$2,229. That's only $300 more than the list price of the 6D2. For that $300 you get more megapixels in the sensor and a huge number more AF points. On the other hand, it seems from the official brochure (https://store.canon.com.au/media/attachments/EOS_R_Camera_Brochure.pdf) you only get 3 frames per second in continuous servo mode. For me that's a big negative, and one I'll bet will be a deal-breaker for many.

UPDATE: I just checked with DPReview, which says the camera gets 5fps with AF tracking (which compares to 6.5 FPS on the 6D2) or _3 fps_ in the higher-precision 'tracking priority' mode.


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 6, 2018)

meywd said:


> a cheap 85, an update to the wide tilt-shift lenses, a better 14mm with good coma...



Yeah, I second the 14mm and new TSE lenses, and would like to request that they all be none-bulbous-fronted. Canon has demonstrated they're not afraid of big filters!


----------



## Liverpool FC (Sep 6, 2018)

85 f1.4 RF. 200mm f2 RF


----------



## fullstop (Sep 6, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> Yeah, I second the 14mm and new TSE lenses, and would like to request that they all be none-bulbous-fronted. Canon has demonstrated they're not afraid of big filters!



bulbous front no problem any longer. Just use EF lens and RF adapter with filter.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 6, 2018)

fullstop said:


> bulbous front no problem any longer. Just use EF lens and RF adapter with filter.


Bulbous front is a problem for 17 TS-E because it tends to catch sun lens flare sometimes even from behind.

I don't think that RF mount could help a lot with that, though. The lens still needs to be retrofocal with medium format image circle.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 6, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Bulbous front is a problem for 17 TS-E because it tends to catch sun lens flare sometimes even from behind.
> 
> I don't think that RF mount could help a lot with that, though. The lens still needs to be retrofocal with medium format image circle.


Not sure if it’s true or not, but I would think the lack of mirror box clipping would aid IQ especially with a tilted or shifted WA lens like a 17mm.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Sep 6, 2018)

If they are going for 70-130 F2, and have the 28-70 F2. I think they are gunning for 14-24 F2 as well.


----------



## fredtuck (Sep 6, 2018)

As a nature photographer I would like to see new teleconverters before new big whites. Make them with an RF mount on the camera end and an EF mount on the lens end. That way you don't need both a converter and an adapter. Should be a simple mechanical addition to the exsisting converter designs.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 6, 2018)

mclaren777 said:


> A 70-135mm f/2 would go well with my 28-70mm f/2.
> 
> I really hope that happens.


You are going to need an assistant to carry all of your glass.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 6, 2018)

I would think zooms and/or primes less than 35mm and apertures larger than f/2.8 to show off the new mount.


----------



## GadgetDave (Sep 6, 2018)

Jaysheldon said:


> The interesting thing about the R series is pricing. If Canon (and Nikon) really want people to jump into this system pricing would be aggressive. That, of course, would anger people who recently bought new EF FF equipment. Still, think about it: B&H has the EF 50mm f1.2 at list price: US$1,449.00. The list price of the R 50mm F1.2 is $2,229. If Canon really wanted people to run to this system, price is one way to do it. Perhaps, as a new system, Canon doesn't want initially to be overwhelmed. Or, as I say, it doesn't want to anger EF owners. Still, it's interesting.
> On the other hand, note that the list price of the new R camera is US$2,229. That's only $300 more than the list price of the 6D2. For that $300 you get more megapixels in the sensor and a huge number more AF points. On the other hand, it seems from the official brochure (https://store.canon.com.au/media/attachments/EOS_R_Camera_Brochure.pdf) you only get 3 frames per second in continuous servo mode. For me that's a big negative, and one I'll bet will be a deal-breaker for many.
> 
> UPDATE: I just checked with DPReview, which says the camera gets 5fps with AF tracking (which compares to 6.5 FPS on the 6D2) or _3 fps_ in the higher-precision 'tracking priority' mode.



Agreed that a number of lower cost lenses would go a long way. They'll do a few more "L" lenses to make sure they get the pros/semipros who want this, but adoption from the masses will take lower-priced glass, for sure. 

In your comparison above, not sure it's fair to compare that EF 50mm 1.2 with the RF. I think the EF is approaching 12 years old, and as Canon has shown with other lens releases in the past few years, it might be optically superior to even that great lens. Waiting for some real hands-on tests on that.


----------



## 6degrees (Sep 6, 2018)

These are the three most important primes:

85mm F1.4
35mm F1.4
20mm F1.4


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 6, 2018)

Predictions: (1) the TS-E lenses are not going to be revised for at least 5 years, probably more like 10, and they will remain EF mount lenses. (2) the 70-135 f/2 is never going to happen. (3) 11-24 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 lenses, emphasizing slight reductions in size and weight, will be introduced within a year. Those wanting f/2.8 versions will make do with EF mount lenses for at least another 3 years.

Wish list: I want something like the Olympus 12-100 f/4 Pro lens for the M4/3 system. I'd settle for a 24-180 f/4 L.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 7, 2018)

Strangely, I don't want any new lenses for my kit. 
But 16-200 f/2L IS USM would be a nice all-arounder replacing most of my glass. It would have, of course, more than a 100mm diameter, but you wouldn't need to change lenses in most cases.


----------



## Canedo (Sep 7, 2018)

wow, Canon just announced some lenses and you already started speculating to keep people in hope for the next 5 years until release or discharge their ange if hasn't.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 7, 2018)

I think they need a lot of non-L lenses. If most or all the RF lenses were expensive L versions, that’d block off the normal way new photographers gradually get invested into a new system (low priced entry level lenses). And if you expect them to buy the adaptor, plus the lenses, 1.) it adds size that, coupled with the bigger EF lenses, negates the “advantage” of a smaller camera, and 2.) it adds an extra expense for the adaptor, and an extra hassle when changing lenses.


----------



## sfeinsmith (Sep 7, 2018)

ethanz said:


> Your guesses seem reasonable.
> 
> How about an RF 11-400mm f/4L USM IS



If this existence then the cost would be 4000 dollars a piece. The pictures will not be sharp enough due to so many elements and groups inside. Also, you may need a child wagon to carry this lens due to the weight problem.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Sep 7, 2018)

We’ll probably see RF versions of the 35 f/2 IS & 24 f/2.8 IS lenses once they push out a few more L series lenses. Those two little lenses, along with the 28 f/2.8 IS are a lot of fun. Video people bought a ton of the 35. I thought they were going to expand on that series, but they may have stoped with the development of the series with the dawn of the RF mount, and continuation of the EF-M for now. I’d like to see a 50 & 85 in that series. 

On the L side a good & fast 14, 20, 85, and 100 would be lovely, with preference on the 20 for me.


----------



## tron (Sep 7, 2018)

ethanz said:


> Your guesses seem reasonable.
> 
> How about an RF 11-400mm f/4L USM IS


If you are gonna do it, do it right! Do it 11-800 f/2.8L IS 
11 and 800 are the lower and upper ends of Canon EF series (excluding fish eye and the manual focus 1200mm)
OK maybe f/5.6 to make it a tiny more plausible


----------



## ken (Sep 7, 2018)

fredtuck said:


> As a nature photographer I would like to see new teleconverters before new big whites. Make them with an RF mount on the camera end and an EF mount on the lens end. That way you don't need both a converter and an adapter. Should be a simple mechanical addition to the exsisting converter designs.



But then I would need another teleconverter for RF lenses. I guess if they never plan to create RF versions of the really big whites that would make sense, but I think they're going "all in" on RF in the long run.


----------



## tron (Sep 7, 2018)

ken said:


> But then I would need another teleconverter for RF lenses. I guess if they never plan to create RF versions of the really big whites that would make sense, but I think they're going "all in" on RF in the long run.


I hope not! That would be a disaster for all of us who have invested in EF lenses!


----------



## hgryan (Sep 7, 2018)

16-35 could be my ticket to EOS R !


----------



## melgross (Sep 7, 2018)

Jaysheldon said:


> The interesting thing about the R series is pricing. If Canon (and Nikon) really want people to jump into this system pricing would be aggressive. That, of course, would anger people who recently bought new EF FF equipment. Still, think about it: B&H has the EF 50mm f1.2 at list price: US$1,449.00. The list price of the R 50mm F1.2 is $2,229. If Canon really wanted people to run to this system, price is one way to do it. Perhaps, as a new system, Canon doesn't want initially to be overwhelmed. Or, as I say, it doesn't want to anger EF owners. Still, it's interesting.
> On the other hand, note that the list price of the new R camera is US$2,229. That's only $300 more than the list price of the 6D2. For that $300 you get more megapixels in the sensor and a huge number more AF points. On the other hand, it seems from the official brochure (https://store.canon.com.au/media/attachments/EOS_R_Camera_Brochure.pdf) you only get 3 frames per second in continuous servo mode. For me that's a big negative, and one I'll bet will be a deal-breaker for many.
> 
> UPDATE: I just checked with DPReview, which says the camera gets 5fps with AF tracking (which compares to 6.5 FPS on the 6D2) or _3 fps_ in the higher-precision 'tracking priority' mode.



As we’ve been seeing from other companies, it’s all about IQ these days. Canon, Nikon, Sigma and others are losing their fear of making premium lenses. It’s now a race for the highest quality. If you’re a pro, the numbers shouldn’t scare you off if that lens will make a monetary improvement to your business. And your accountant can write this off, so that in the long run, it costs less.

If you’re not making money with it, then sorry if it’s too much, but what will that 58mm f0.95 clunk of glass cost? The Leica 50 1.2 is over $11,000, for what is a not very reliable lens. I dare say that Canon’s new lenses will uphold the extremely high mechanical quality Lens Rental’s tear downs show. I can’t wait to see what these will show.

About the FPS, from what I read, Canon will be having a firmware update shortly that will up the frame rate in continuous servo, to, I think, 5fps.


----------



## melgross (Sep 7, 2018)

sfeinsmith said:


> If this existence then the cost would be 4000 dollars a piece. The pictures will not be sharp enough due to so many elements and groups inside. Also, you may need a child wagon to carry this lens due to the weight problem.



I think you left a “0” off that number.


----------



## melgross (Sep 7, 2018)

tron said:


> I hope not! That would be a disaster for all of us who have invested in EF lenses!


Long run could mean 10 years, or more.

I remember that when Canon came out with the EOS mount, people predicted it would be a disaster. It wasn’t, obviously. It was a great thing for them. Even though I had 9 breech mount Canon’s, and was ticked at the time that I couldn practically use them with the new cameras, it passed, and this will too.

I think the anger is actually amusing, with the guys who claim to have a large kit of lenses saying they’re going to leave because Canon doesn’t have this one lens or the other, or that their new EF lens is obsolete, or some such nonsense.


----------



## RGF (Sep 7, 2018)

The 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 all F2.8 look great. Now if they had a macro and put a 50MP chip in a RF body ...


----------



## eat-sleep-code (Sep 7, 2018)

I would like to see:

85mm f1.2L USM
24-70mm f2.8L IS USM
70-200mm f2.8L IS USM
100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM
24mm f1.4L USM
... plus a more pro level camera that has:

Non-cropped 4k60, 1080p120
Easy selection of AF point while looking through the viewfinder
10+ fps while using AF
Two card slots
Full weather sealing


----------



## MaximPhotoStudio (Sep 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> RF 58/0.9 L has highest priority, just to one-up Nikon.


with AF ofcourse.


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 7, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Bulbous front is a problem for 17 TS-E because it tends to catch sun lens flare sometimes even from behind.
> 
> I don't think that RF mount could help a lot with that, though. The lens still needs to be retrofocal with medium format image circle.



Yeah, but if you read their RF 'white paper', it makes me hope they'd be able to push the giant front element back and enlarge the inner-most—more like the old symmetrical design lenses for 4x5. Like a Rodenstock 90mm...


----------



## NorskHest (Sep 7, 2018)

eat-sleep-code said:


> I would like to see:
> 
> 85mm f1.2L USM
> 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM
> ...


A 1dxmkii is your camera then and all the existing ef glass. It's a 1.35 crop. So it's close enough. Crop is not that big of a problem, if you you haven't played with cinema cameras I suggest you do, canon loves their perfect pixel pitch and I applaud them for that. Crop is a pretty easy work around.


----------



## NorskHest (Sep 7, 2018)

MaximPhotoStudio said:


> with AF ofcourse.


Nikon is courting video people and this is 58 .9 is going to be epic. I hope it has minimal breathing and a long throw. Manual focus with an evf is amazing. Have you never used zeiss or a 35mm film slr?


----------



## Nomanic (Sep 7, 2018)

I would like to see a *RF 20-200mm f3.5-5.6 L IS*, all-around lens, light and affordable, since i see this camera as a very good holiday/travel camera. I still relay on my 5D IV or future DSLR and fast lenses for my pro work.
Oh, yes....if 20-200 is not feasible, then a *very* small and* very* light 2x zoom lens *RF 28-56mm f/2.8 (L)* for my street photography 
I could live only with that 28-56mm on my camera for 1000g the combo.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 7, 2018)

I have a 5Dmk3 & 11-24mm f/4L, which I chose over a Sigma 12-24mm f/2.8.

I would find a quality 10mm prime a bigger attraction than a 12-24mm f/2.8 zoom.


----------



## Bambel (Sep 7, 2018)

ethanz said:


> Your guesses seem reasonable.
> 
> How about an RF 11-400mm f/4L USM IS



Sort of:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/10/about-that-35-300mm-f2-8-you-wanted/

B.


----------



## padam (Sep 7, 2018)

NorskHest said:


> A 1dxmkii is your camera then and all the existing ef glass. It's a 1.35 crop. So it's close enough. Crop is not that big of a problem, if you you haven't played with cinema cameras I suggest you do, canon loves their perfect pixel pitch and I applaud them for that. Crop is a pretty easy work around.



If you have a video camera then it is less of a problem, since you already know exactly what you can use it for, you have a constant crop factor and you can choose lenses accordingly.

But when you want to shoot photo and video at the same time or you simply want to shoot in 1080p and 4k depending on the situation, then it starts to become more annoying. It is nice to be able to mount the Sigma 18-35/1.8, but if you want to switch to stills, you need to change lenses where you loose the wide-end again, etc. so it is fiddly, and you end up purchasing more lenses that you might have without that.
Yes the 1DXII is way better on paper, but no C-Log and it is just too cumbersome to use for many. But it's totally up to them, if they might put that sensor in this body, and price it much higher.


If you already have a Cinema camera as an A-cam, then it is a perfectly fine B-cam + occasional photo solution.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 7, 2018)

PerKr said:


> Would expect them to have a 400/2.8 for the olympics. Also, isn't it about time they released a new 300/4?



IMHO, the camera having a single slot means Canon doesn't position it as a pro tool one would use to photo at the olympics. My bet it would be released only after a two slots EOS-R camera. As an RF 400mm f/2.8 would probably be similar enough to an EF version, I can see Canon making it by the 2020 games.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 7, 2018)

bks54 said:


> I think they will use the RF mount to showcase lenses they don't have already or are due for update:
> <snip>
> 5. 400 mm f5.6 IS



Why? I don't see any advantage to refreshing it for EOS-R over EOS.


----------



## padam (Sep 7, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Why? I don't see any advantage to refreshing it for EOS-R over EOS.


We've already seen that there is some room to reduce the weight further. A small lens like this with electronic fly-by-wire focus, etc. could potentially be made in this mount (although it would be much more appealing in EF mount) and IS inclusion would be a big improvement. But all that is just shooting in pitch darkness.

But a 400/2.8 is totally illogical, the new one will be perfectly good for at least the next 7 years in EF-mount only with new EF bodies behind it.


----------



## gn100 (Sep 7, 2018)

My picks for those not already mentioned

8-2000mm f0.9 pancake
16-35mm f4 
next a 70-200 f4 or 70-300 f4-5.6
next 85mm f2

…. all IS, unless IBIS is coming on later model

…. a key advantage of mirrorless is small size, so need to ensure some smaller lenses, not all big ones …..


----------



## fullstop (Sep 7, 2018)

fredtuck said:


> As a nature photographer I would like to see new teleconverters before new big whites. Make them with an RF mount on the camera end and an EF mount on the lens end. That way you don't need both a converter and an adapter. Should be a simple mechanical addition to the exsisting converter designs.



excellent thought! 

Would be very surprised had Canon not also looked at that. Hopefully they'll make them. Ideally with 4 functions: mount adapter, rear-filter slot, control-ring and TC.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> excellent thought!
> 
> Would be very surprised had Canon not also looked at that. Hopefully they'll make them. Ideally with 4 functions: mount adapter, rear-filter slot, control-ring and TC.



The R cameras can AF at f11 - so why not a 3x converter


----------



## miketcool (Sep 7, 2018)

6degrees said:


> These are the three most important primes:
> 
> 85mm F1.4
> 35mm F1.4
> 20mm F1.4



All of them in F/1.2


----------



## PerKr (Sep 7, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> IMHO, the camera having a single slot means Canon doesn't position it as a pro tool one would use to photo at the olympics. My bet it would be released only after a two slots EOS-R camera. As an RF 400mm f/2.8 would probably be similar enough to an EF version, I can see Canon making it by the 2020 games.



Well, I am expecting them to release something better for the abdication next year and a 1D-level body for the olympics. A 400/2.8 could be introduced together with a pro body to be used during the olympics.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 7, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> The R cameras can AF at f11 - so why not a 3x converter



well, at f/11 you have to crank up ISO quite high to get exposure times short enough to avoid motion blur on moving subjects. Often in situations with limited light already ... eg wildlife.

Plus, there is "no free lunch". 3x converters might well have more detrimental effects on IQ compared to just cropping in post.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 7, 2018)

miketcool said:


> All of them in F/1.2



20 / 35 / 85 ... all of them in small-form factor and very affordable f/1.8 non-L for me, please!


----------



## Stuart (Sep 7, 2018)

I'd think a medium priced 16-35, and a longer macro around 100mm. But also a Pancake between 20-40mm for smallish camera street work.


----------



## Deleted member 380306 (Sep 7, 2018)

No IBIS on this new camera and no IS on these lenses,

Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L £3049
Canon RF 50mm f1.2L £2349

that's a lot of money considering the non RF EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II can be had for £1520 and EF 50mm f/1.2 for £1340.

Some more budget lenses with 'IS' would be a good idea


----------



## tron (Sep 7, 2018)

melgross said:


> Long run could mean 10 years, or more.
> 
> I remember that when Canon came out with the EOS mount, people predicted it would be a disaster. It wasn’t, obviously. It was a great thing for them. Even though I had 9 breech mount Canon’s, and was ticked at the time that I couldn practically use them with the new cameras, it passed, and this will too.
> 
> I think the anger is actually amusing, with the guys who claim to have a large kit of lenses saying they’re going to leave because Canon doesn’t have this one lens or the other, or that their new EF lens is obsolete, or some such nonsense.


Amuzing to have tens of thousands in EF lenses? That if obsoleted mountwise almost nobody would be intersted in? Especially in decent prices? And you think the world is only US where selling/upgrading is relatively easy? By the way for now I am not interested in EOS R I like my 5D4 amd 5DsR much more!


----------



## jjesp (Sep 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 20 / 35 / 85 ... all of them in small-form factor and very affordable f/1.8 non-L for me, please!



Yes I would love that too! Its fine with the big L lenses and zooms. But would be so nice to have an alternative for street and documentary photography where you need a good quality light/small setup. Please Canon. Then I promise to end my affair with the Fuji woman  I miss your full frame body....


----------



## nitram (Sep 7, 2018)

PerKr said:


> 24-70/2,8 and 70-200/2,8 seem given if they say they're developing fast 2,8's.
> edit: those would come in handy for the emperors abdication event, wouldn't they?
> Would expect them to have a 400/2.8 for the olympics. Also, isn't it about time they released a new 300/4?



If I remember correctly, the 300/2.8 and 500/4 are scheduled for EF release soon. Not sure about the 300/4. I guess it’s in the same bucket as the 400/5.6


----------



## BurningPlatform (Sep 7, 2018)

Long primes are very unlikely to pop up in RF mount any time soon. Looking at the current 400mm L and 600mm L internal designs, there is already quite much air behind the rear element, adding more air with a fixed RF mount does not make much sense, as you can do it yourself; just add the RF-EF adapter and you are done. Flange distance does not seem to be a limiting factor with these focal lengths.


----------



## tron (Sep 7, 2018)

It's interesting they update their series II teles. Maybe they care after EF series after all. Weight reduction is mostly welcome. But to tell the truth I do not see how the 300 can be improved in anything. And a weight reduction cannot be impressive there. It weighs 2.4Kg and it is handholdable just fine. How much weight can be redacted? The result will not be impressive as with the 400 2.8 II. Regarding the 500 I am curious but I like the way I can focus manually my 500. FBW is an issue.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Sep 7, 2018)

What I would like to have, as more of a video than photo person, would be a wide angle converter / speed booster. That would only be useful with 4k video, because of the severe crop. But that would make your 24-70 mm f2,8 lens a 17 - 50 mm f2.0 lens, with more than adequate image circle for the EOS R 4k.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 7, 2018)

EF lenses aren't dead until Canon stops selling them and officially drops support. And that's not going to happen any time soon.


----------



## MartinF. (Sep 7, 2018)

Sure it is smart with filter drop-in in one of the EF-RF adaptor models.
But will there be such a dropin for native RF lenses? (if will probably compromise weather sealing).


----------



## symmar22 (Sep 7, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> Yeah, but if you read their RF 'white paper', it makes me hope they'd be able to push the giant front element back and enlarge the inner-most—more like the old symmetrical design lenses for 4x5. Like a Rodenstock 90mm...



Fun that you mention Rodenstock, The 90mm f4.5 is my favorite WA on my Technikardan. However don't forget that 90mm on a 4x5 is roughly equivalent to a 25-26mm. The equivalent for a 17mm would be the Rodenstock 55mm or Schneider 58mm; both lenses are smaller but their image circle doesn't allow any practical shift possibilities. The only very wide that allows a good amount of shift is the 72mm XL Schneider (+/- 21mm equivalent) at the cost of a 95mm thread and is unusable without a center filter. So I am not sure if a 17mm TS-E can be done without a bulbous lens. RF mount could allow better corrections though. 

As a heavy user of TS-E lenses, I don't see Canon replacing them soon; the recent 50, 90 and 135 are IMHO here to stay (it took them 26 years to replace the 45 and 90). Even the 24mm is still top notch (despite it's sometimes bad looking blue/yellow fringing), the only one that could be improved is the 17 TS-E since it flares like hell in almost any situation. The addition I would like to see is an EF 35mm f2.8 TS-E, since Canon has the most comprehensive TS line, but 24 to 50 is quite a gap.

As TS-E work is a slow process and includes most of the time the use of a tripod, an adapter is not really a problem, but making an RF only TS-E replacement would be a major problem for a lot of pro users (including myself) who work with DSLRs (basically the majority of pros in sport/architecture/fashion/studio/commercial photography).

Canon know very well what THEIR users want, we'll see a double line of L USM lenses (24 f1.4, 35 f1.4, 85 f1.2 135 f1.8-f2 IS (and maybe a 100 f1.4 to compete with Nikon/Sigma)) and a "consumer/video" range of STM IS lenses (24 f2-ish IS, 28mm f2-ish, 85 f1.8 IS). Add a few f2.8 and f4 WA and standard zooms and a couple of macro lenses and you are set. The big whites will stay EF for the next 5-7 years (the fly by wire implementation on the V3 400 and 600 is a sign in that direction).

Not to forget the EF to RF transition will be much less brutal than the FD to EF since the adapters will work seamlessly for all EF lenses, so there is less of an absolute need to rush every lens now. Nikon is in a different position since their lenses though adaptable, will have a different level of features depending on their generation.

Look at what Sony did; in abandoning the A mount, they made their A mount users mad. They had to make that choice since A to E is not at all seamless, contrary to to EF to RF. Canon is not in the same position, since every single EF lens made since 1987 will works on RF cameras like a native one, at the slight penalty of an adapter. But the adapters are actually adding features to EF lenses, contrary to Sony A to E or Metabones EF to Sony E adaptors that just cripple your system.

IMO what is more important is to release another camera relatively soon with a more "pro" feeling in the 3500$ range, to show what they really can do with FF MILCs.


----------



## tron (Sep 7, 2018)

Maybe their users want even better cameras with the accomplished EF system. The Canon EF lenses are second to none. And most of them don't need an improvement. I am talking about: the white ones, the 24-70 2.8L II, the 16-35 2.8 III the 16-35 4L IS, the 85mm 1.4L IS, the 35 1.4L II just to name a few...


----------



## padam (Sep 7, 2018)

TMHKR said:


> What's the deal with these weird focal lengths, 58mm and such?



It is linked with tradition, these were always around in the film era, there are at least ten different one - including Canon FL -
But of course there was a Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 and this is sort of a modern successor.
And they also have a 58/1.4G in F-mount as well, which was like "an initial greeting of the old legend, before the true successor arrives".
It is the longest focal length with the f0.95 aperture so far.
So in a way it is a statement, a new standard. Just like what Canon did with the F 28-70/2 (coincidentally)
Even more special (and expensive) and also manual focus, so not nearly as useful.
But there is a manual focus Leica 50/0.95 and people are still buying them, so...

But, 58mm is yesterday's news anyway, a 65mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Macro is even better in terms of weirdness 

All relative anyway, just because 50mm is the standard, it can be considered 'weird' in some people's eyes.


----------



## NorskHest (Sep 7, 2018)

padam said:


> If you have a video camera then it is less of a problem, since you already know exactly what you can use it for, you have a constant crop factor and you can choose lenses accordingly.
> 
> But when you want to shoot photo and video at the same time or you simply want to shoot in 1080p and 4k depending on the situation, then it starts to become more annoying. It is nice to be able to mount the Sigma 18-35/1.8, but if you want to switch to stills, you need to change lenses where you loose the wide-end again, etc. so it is fiddly, and you end up purchasing more lenses that you might have without that.
> Yes the 1DXII is way better on paper, but no C-Log and it is just too cumbersome to use for many. But it's totally up to them, if they might put that sensor in this body, and price it much higher.
> ...


I am not sure why everyone wants to use log gammas, color grading sucks and next to no one actually will care or notice. I have 2 documentaries that I have done; one on netflix and the other soon to be on Netflix. We used a Sony f55 and my 1dc and 5 d3, nothing was shot in log, we used standard profiles and then used a canon based profile in the Sony. Turned out great and no one at A&E cared about our shadows. We often get sooooooo hung up on the tech and not the story's. Tech will never trump a story. If you feel like seeing my doc I created on Netflix it's called "A Gray State" I did it with erik Nelson and Werner Herzog of grizzly man. Yes the switching of stills to video is annoying with that big crop but if your doing stills are you then hand holding your video? Is the video then even going to be usable?


----------



## Uglen (Sep 7, 2018)

The lenses looks soooooo cool!! But I am more interested in what the next cameras will be like...


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 7, 2018)

NorskHest said:


> I am not sure why everyone wants to use log gammas, color grading sucks and next to no one actually will care or notice. I have 2 documentaries that I have done; one on netflix and the other soon to be on Netflix. We used a Sony f55 and my 1dc and 5 d3, nothing was shot in log, we used standard profiles and then used a canon based profile in the Sony. Turned out great and no one at A&E cared about our shadows. We often get sooooooo hung up on the tech and not the story's. Tech will never trump a story. If you feel like seeing my doc I created on Netflix it's called "A Gray State" I did it with erik Nelson and Werner Herzog of grizzly man. Yes the switching of stills to video is annoying with that big crop but if your doing stills are you then hand holding your video? Is the video then even going to be usable?


Log gives you more dynamic range or at least nice flatter profile than the user created ones especially in scenes with a lot of contrasting lighting. LOG on my 5d mark iv made it a better hybrid camera to use when I am booked to do video and photos otherwise I would use a c100 with my 5d. which is heavy but doable .


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 7, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> Log gives you more dynamic range or at least nice flatter profile than the user created ones especially in scenes with a lot of contrasting lighting. LOG on my 5d mark iv made it a better hybrid camera to use when I am booked to do video and photos otherwise I would use a c100 with my 5d. which is heavy but doable .


I think I see where NorskHest is coming from - shooting with Log will give you very nice results that will sell. If you Log and non-Log side by side you will probably be able to get some difference but in isolation I doubt it.
I wonder if anyone would look at an interesting documentary with good content and think 'if only they had used Log'. And if it was poor content Log would not have saved it anyway.


----------



## padam (Sep 7, 2018)

NorskHest said:


> I am not sure why everyone wants to use log gammas, color grading sucks and next to no one actually will care or notice. I have 2 documentaries that I have done; one on netflix and the other soon to be on Netflix. We used a Sony f55 and my 1dc and 5 d3, nothing was shot in log, we used standard profiles and then used a canon based profile in the Sony. Turned out great and no one at A&E cared about our shadows. We often get sooooooo hung up on the tech and not the story's. Tech will never trump a story. If you feel like seeing my doc I created on Netflix it's called "A Gray State" I did it with erik Nelson and Werner Herzog of grizzly man. Yes the switching of stills to video is annoying with that big crop but if your doing stills are you then hand holding your video? Is the video then even going to be usable?


That last one is a pretty good argument, thank you for your response. It is also kind of self-ironic about hand holding, because I reckon this camera could prove itself to be very popular with vloggers, not sure where they fit in.
Yes it is always about the story, but in that case, all arguments about any types of gear are pointless. (Maybe they are)

I also agree about shooting in log (but I wouldn't say it sucks, or it doesn't add production value, I think it very much does but to something that's good in the first place), but I would say that at least in the stills cameras the built-in profiles in the Sony don't impress me at all.
The Canon stills cameras have good profiles, but sometimes the highlights just blow out and it is just not nice, but I guess it means, that it is better to just underexpose and bring up the mids and crash the deep shadows and call it a day?

I would like to hear a bit more about that Canon-Sony profile and I will take a look at the documentary, maybe that might change my viewpoint further.


----------



## tron (Sep 7, 2018)

BurningPlatform said:


> What I would like to have, as more of a video than photo person, would be a wide angle converter / speed booster. That would only be useful with 4k video, because of the severe crop. But that would make your 24-70 mm f2,8 lens a 17 - 50 mm f2.0 lens, with more than adequate image circle for the EOS R 4k.


The Canon's 4K implementation (1.7 crop) gives me a hint to try to use it for birding since this is a case where we usually are Focal Length limited


----------



## lightthief (Sep 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 20 / 35 / 85 ... all of them in small-form factor and very affordable f/1.8 non-L for me, please!


... yes, and STM, for video!


----------



## fullstop (Sep 7, 2018)

lightthief said:


> ... yes, and STM, for video!



STM fine with me. For stills.


----------



## jalbfb (Sep 7, 2018)

Why not work on IBIS for the version II and release more lighter weighted non-IS RF lenses?


----------



## lightthief (Sep 7, 2018)

It seems, the R-Mount can make lenses possible, that can't be done with EF.
I think, many peaple want a lens like a coma free 14 2.0.
Focussing stars with my bad eyes (-12 dpt) through the EVF is a frustrating iterative process. Does DPAF help here?


----------



## bks54 (Sep 7, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Why? I don't see any advantage to refreshing it for EOS-R over EOS.



An EF update with IS would be fine too. But eventually Canon may release a long lens or two in RF mount to gradually encourage movement towards the new system. Since the current 400 5.6 is a fine lens, it could stay in the catalog after an RF IS version is released.


----------



## tron (Sep 7, 2018)

You can focus manually via Live View (at 10x) even with 5DMkIV just fine. In fact I used to do that since my 5DII.
It's a set it and forget it situation unless you move the focus ring by mistake.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 7, 2018)

Enough about log.
Video is wasted on most users. It’s a bit like Photography. What would really improve video would be content .
Back to lens. For this camera to be a success they need light sharp and reasonably cheap non L lens.
If you can barely afford the camera you won’t buy the lenses.
Olympus do expensive pro lens but have lovely light primes. The Canon ones would be heavier of course but if they could be like the 40mm 2.8 they would be great


----------



## padam (Sep 7, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> The Canon ones would be heavier of course but if they could be like the 40mm 2.8 they would be great


But you realise, that you _can adapt that one_ in the meantime. As even with RF mount, it may not actually be smaller or lighter in the new mount and the that one is already very sharp already.
I think the RF 35mm f/1.8 (with IS) is the one that they will have around that range for the time being.
As stated, the f/2.8 IS standard zoom and a superzooooom are most likely to come out next and a wide-angle prime or zoom would be most useful after that.
Because there is a bigger difference in design compared to an adapted EF 70-200mm, whichever version they've just come up with.


----------



## lightthief (Sep 7, 2018)

tron said:


> You can focus manually via Live View (at 10x) even with 5DMkIV just fine. In fact I used to do that since my 5DII.
> It's a set it and forget it situation unless you move the focus ring by mistake.


I should try that again - if i remember right, LV was only a black screen with noise. The EVF doesn't work for me so I take 10 to 20 shots 15 sec long to get the sharpnes... 

Thank you!


----------



## tron (Sep 7, 2018)

lightthief said:


> I should try that again - if i remember right, LV was only a black screen with noise. The EVF doesn't work for me so I take 10 to 20 shots 15 sec long to get the sharpnes...
> 
> Thank you!


No, no need to do that! Just make sure you have exposure simulation (I think it must be the default since I do not remember setting it on my 5D4 but I may be wrong). You can find either a bright star and target it and then press the 10x magnification. The smallest sharp possible is when there is perfect focus. Alternatively since I combine this with landscape astrophotography I take advantage of a distant light and focus (with the same way) on it since if its distant enough (or even not so much for UWA lenses) it is practically the same for focusing at a star (inifinity).


----------



## NorskHest (Sep 7, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> Enough about log.
> Video is wasted on most users. It’s a bit like Photography. What would really improve video would be content .
> Back to lens. For this camera to be a success they need light sharp and reasonably cheap non L lens.
> If you can barely afford the camera you won’t buy the lenses.
> Olympus do expensive pro lens but have lovely light primes. The Canon ones would be heavier of course but if they could be like the 40mm 2.8 they would be great


But we love talking about log color science ;-)


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 7, 2018)

symmar22 said:


> As a heavy user of TS-E lenses, I don't see Canon replacing them soon; the recent 50, 90 and 135 are IMHO here to stay (it took them 26 years to replace the 45 and 90). Even the 24mm is still top notch (despite it's sometimes bad looking blue/yellow fringing), the only one that could be improved is the 17 TS-E since it flares like hell in almost any situation. The addition I would like to see is an EF 35mm f2.8 TS-E, since Canon has the most comprehensive TS line, but 24 to 50 is quite a gap.
> 
> As TS-E work is a slow process and includes most of the time the use of a tripod, an adapter is not really a problem, but making an RF only TS-E replacement would be a major problem for a lot of pro users (including myself) who work with DSLRs (basically the majority of pros in sport/architecture/fashion/studio/commercial photography).



Wouldn't a shorter flange distance allow Canon to make better TS-E lenses?

E.g. shorter flange distance could allow greater shift & tilt, and free a TS-E 24mm from being retrofocal.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 7, 2018)

PerKr said:


> Well, I am expecting them to release something better for the abdication next year and a 1D-level body for the olympics. A 400/2.8 could be introduced together with a pro body to be used during the olympics.



They just released a new 400 2.8! Why would they confuse the situation by introducing another one so soon? Even if they launch a 'pro' mirrorless for the Olympics (and I'm not convinced they will - a 1Dx3 is much more likely), it would take the new EF 400 2.8 perfectly fine!


----------



## scyrene (Sep 7, 2018)

TonyPicture said:


> No IBIS on this new camera and no IS on these lenses,
> 
> Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L £3049
> 
> ...



I agree it makes sense to add some cheaper lenses to the range (especially zooms), but you can't really compare the price of lenses with a stop difference in aperture. For instance, the 200 f/2 is several times the price of the 200 2.8 - for a reason!


----------



## Deleted member 380306 (Sep 7, 2018)

scyrene said:


> I agree it makes sense to add some cheaper lenses to the range (especially zooms), but you can't really compare the price of lenses with a stop difference in aperture. For instance, the 200 f/2 is several times the price of the 200 2.8 - for a reason!



Double the cost and no IS is a hefty price to pay for 'one stop' lets hope it's a worth it for better, blur, autofocus, sharpness and all round goodness and at least the system gives the user the choice and you're not force to use the f2 over the cheaper f2.8 we can thank canon for that. Be good to see a comparison with these lenses...


----------



## RGF (Sep 7, 2018)

Lens look promising - wonder what Canon has planned for new R bodies?


----------



## Proscribo (Sep 7, 2018)

TonyPicture said:


> *Double the cost* and no IS is a hefty price to pay for *'one stop'*


Well it is double the light so kinda makes sense, no?


----------



## padam (Sep 7, 2018)

Fun facts: the new contacts with the 40x faster communication between the camera and RF lenses will enable things that weren't possible before.

The lens stabilization system is working with a sensor detecting how the camera moves to make it more effective, but only with the current two RF lenses with IS.


----------



## BillB (Sep 7, 2018)

padam said:


> But you realise, that you _can adapt that one_ in the meantime. As even with RF mount, it may not actually be smaller or lighter in the new mount and the that one is already very sharp already.
> I think the RF 35mm f/1.8 (with IS) is the one that they will have around that range for the time being.
> As stated, the f/2.8 IS standard zoom and a superzooooom are most likely to come out next and a wide-angle prime or zoom would be most useful after that.
> Because there is a bigger difference in design compared to an adapted EF 70-200mm, whichever version they've just come up with.


Small light RF primes are only a piece of the light weight lower cost puzzle. A real question is how the RS 24-105 fits into the equation. How important is it for Canon to have a lighter weight lower cost RS 24-70, or suchlike?


----------



## herion (Sep 7, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> If the 28-70 F2 is $3000, how much would the 70-130 F2 cost? Any guess?


----------



## scyrene (Sep 7, 2018)

TonyPicture said:


> Double the cost and no IS is a hefty price to pay for 'one stop' lets hope it's a worth it for better, blur, autofocus, sharpness and all round goodness and at least the system gives the user the choice and you're not force to use the f2 over the cheaper f2.8 we can thank canon for that. Be good to see a comparison with these lenses...



Comparisons will be interesting. As I say, prices don't scale in a linear fashion - there are plenty of examples where adding one stop increases the price by more than double. IS (or lack of it) does make a difference to the price but not as much as you might expect, and nothing like as much as aperture differences. And the wider the aperture, the less you need IS - or at least, this has always been the received wisdom, as you can use faster shutter speeds thanks to the extra light gathering ability - though only when shooting wide open. I expect the other aspects of image quality will be excellent, and probably better than the current lenses.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 7, 2018)

BillB said:


> A real question is how the RS 24-105 fits into the equation.


I think it's just an outlier. It was only made because some kit lens was needed.

If Canon continues with the lenses it could not produce for EF, we may see motorized tilt-shifts (such as dual-eye-detect portrait 105/1.4).


----------



## padam (Sep 7, 2018)

BillB said:


> Small light RF primes are only a piece of the light weight lower cost puzzle. A real question is how the RS 24-105 fits into the equation. How important is it for Canon to have a lighter weight lower cost RS 24-70, or suchlike?



Probably not at this point, it is either this or that like with the Nikon cameras.
Making it lightweight is not their priority against technical advancements (like with IS) or optical performance. There may be a few cheap lenses here and there, but the system is not based around them.

The EF 24-105mm f/4 is still by far the most widely used lens used for photo and video, so it is no surprise to be the new kit lens as well.
And, unsurprisingly, the other popular option was the 24-70mm f/2.8, it will be very useful with image stabilisation .
Don't expect it to be under 2000$ though, if it turns out to be even sharper than before, maybe costing somewhere around 2300$ which was the original retail price on the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II lens, at least I don't expect it to be any closer to the RF 28-70mm f/2.

So yes, there may not be an RF 24-70mm f/4 IS for a few years, because they will already have three different standard zooms in their RF lens lineup.


----------



## Cthulhu (Sep 7, 2018)

padam said:


> Probably not at this point, it is either this or that like with the Nikon cameras.
> 
> The EF 24-105mm f/4 is still by far the most widely used lens used for photo and video, so it is no surprise to be the new kit lens as well.



yes but only because it's cheap to make and offered as a kit for a couple hundred more. You'd be hard pressed to find it in working pros kits.

The lens selection, when including ef lenses, is phenomenal. I'm not surprised to see novelty lenses introduced first, specially considering they don't have a top quality body to take full advantage of traditional working pros lens selection.


----------



## padam (Sep 7, 2018)

Cthulhu said:


> yes but only because it's cheap to make and offered as a kit for a couple hundred more. You'd be hard pressed to find it in working pros kits.
> 
> The lens selection, when including ef lenses, is phenomenal. I'm not surprised to see novelty lenses introduced first, specially considering they don't have a top quality body to take full advantage of traditional working pros lens selection.


I suggest you to check some recent press images, where you can see photographers on them. Many of them use the EF 24-105mm f/4 (Mark 1) lens on a 5D or 1DX besides a wide-angle or a telephoto.
So yes, they are being used in professional environments right now taking professional images, because what they are as you say "working pros" instead of complaining at forums. A lot of them use the EF 17-40mm f/4 lens, which is considered to be way out of date by 'forumists'.
And it is safe to say that this new lens is an improvement (for video the IS will definitely work better) and will be plenty good enough for many of them, if it is what they need, and they intent to use a system like this (but they are probably fine with maximising the abilities of their current kit).


----------



## renlok (Sep 7, 2018)

Im excited to see whats coming. I think i'm going to stick with my current EF lenses for now until i see a road map or more lenses gets release.


----------



## Cthulhu (Sep 7, 2018)

padam said:


> I suggest you to check some recent press images, where you can see photographers on them. Many of them use the EF 24-105mm f/4 (Mark 1) lens on a 5D or 1DX besides a wide-angle or a telephoto.
> So yes, they are being used in professional environments right now taking professional images, because what they are as you say "working pros" instead of complaining at forums. A lot of them use the EF 17-40mm f/4 lens, which is considered to be way out of date by 'forumists'.
> And it is safe to say that this new lens is an improvement (for video the IS will definitely work better) and will be plenty good enough for many of them, if it is what they need, and they intent to use a system like this (but they are probably fine with maximising the abilities of their current kit).



I'm not so worried about press corps, you'll see a 17-40, 1dmk2 and all kinds of old stuff because a lot of the times they're just using what the employer provides and it's hard to kill Canon gear.


----------



## symmar22 (Sep 7, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Wouldn't a shorter flange distance allow Canon to make better TS-E lenses?
> 
> E.g. shorter flange distance could allow greater shift & tilt, and free a TS-E 24mm from being retrofocal.



Yes I guess you could improve slightly the optical formula, we could have a slightly bigger image circle, but for now Canon just released one Mirorless FF, that is not a pro camera, and the slight improvements we could get from an RF TS-E would not compensate the fact that many pro still work with DSLRs and could simply not use it. When Canon is advanced enough that they have a full range of R cameras and the basic lens range has been develloped, then we can talk about RF TS-Es. In between I can tell you that most pros who need a TS lens for interior / architecture don't need a 5% better lens that is not compatible with their working camera.


----------



## padam (Sep 7, 2018)

Cthulhu said:


> I'm not so worried about press corps, you'll see a 17-40, 1dmk2 and all kinds of old stuff because a lot of the times they're just using what the employer provides and it's hard to kill Canon gear.


That's quite wrong, because I've checked that picture that I saw from a case being part of a heated debate. The lens was mounted on a 5D IV.
The 17-40mm f/4 and 16-35mm f/2.8 II (also out of date) are extensively being used in Syria on 1DX Mark II bodies

And the images are perfectly fine at full-resolution, sharp were they need to be (slightly less sharp in the corners but not that visible on 20 megapixels).
You can also use the old 24-105mm f/4 in a studio at f/11, f/16 with perfectly fine "professional" results.

So please stop embarrassing yourself further.

But looking at some new test images from the new RF 24-105mm f/4, while it won't be perfectly sharp in the corners at 24mm it looks to be even sharper than the previous EF iterations with less aberrations, so very sharp for what it is.


----------



## Bangrossi (Sep 8, 2018)

N-VB said:


> As long as they keep insane prices, any new lenses are welcome.
> (I'd love to see a 135mm f1.4 IS)



If canon make this one, the price will be similar to 200mm f2 IS or even more expensive


----------



## melgross (Sep 8, 2018)

tron said:


> Amuzing to have tens of thousands in EF lenses? That if obsoleted mountwise almost nobody would be intersted in? Especially in decent prices? And you think the world is only US where selling/upgrading is relatively easy? By the way for now I am not interested in EOS R I like my 5D4 amd 5DsR much more!



You missed my point.

Back then, the prices for lenses, considering inflation, weren’t too much cheaper than lenses today. My 9 cost a bit, and as I said, I was ticked at the time. So my thoughts were pretty much the same as some now. But at least EF lenses will work on the new cameras, so people now don't have the same reason to be ticked as we were then, when we couldn’t use any of our lenses. It’s hard to feel sorry for people who are mad because they bought a new EF lens, since it will work without a problem with a pretty cheap adapter, and even gain features with the control wheel adapter, or the filter adapter.

And as I also said, it will likely be 10 years before the EF mount will be gone, and even then, those lenses will still work on your new R mount camera. What I find amusing is the people who claim that because there is one lens that they say Canon must make but hasn't, they will sell off their entire Canon system and move to another maker. So selling off thousands of $ worth of lenses and spending thousands of $ in totally new equipment because of one lens, or because they think their new EF lens is now suddenly obsolete. Yes, I find that amusing. And when they move to that new system, and find that they lens they want isn’t exactly what they thought, are they going to move somewhere else?


----------



## melgross (Sep 8, 2018)

jalbfb said:


> Why not work on IBIS for the version II and release more lighter weighted non-IS RF lenses?



I used to have a strong distaste for IBIS. It had a jerky sort of look. It couldn’t deal as smoothly with body motion as lens based IS. But it’s gotten a lot better over the years.

Heck, Apple uses both methods together for the iPhone, and testing shows that it’s more effective than either by itself. I would have liked Canon to have included it, and have it work in conjunction with their built-in IS lenses.


Antono Refa said:


> Wouldn't a shorter flange distance allow Canon to make better TS-E lenses?
> 
> E.g. shorter flange distance could allow greater shift & tilt, and free a TS-E 24mm from being retrofocal.



Sure, but this camera just came out, and likely we’ll have a higher end version next year. But there has to be a lot of these in the field before Canon spends all that money replacing excellent lenses like those, particularly the shorter ones. There has to be a market for it before they come out with a product.


----------



## tron (Sep 8, 2018)

IBIS is not an ideal solution although it may help in some cases.


melgross said:


> You missed my point.
> 
> Back then, the prices for lenses, considering inflation, weren’t too much cheaper than lenses today. My 9 cost a bit, and as I said, I was ticked at the time. So my thoughts were pretty much the same as some now. But at least EF lenses will work on the new cameras, so people now don't have the same reason to be ticked as we were then, when we couldn’t use any of our lenses. It’s hard to feel sorry for people who are mad because they bought a new EF lens, since it will work without a problem with a pretty cheap adapter, and even gain features with the control wheel adapter, or the filter adapter.
> 
> And as I also said, it will likely be 10 years before the EF mount will be gone, and even then, those lenses will still work on your new R mount camera. What I find amusing is the people who claim that because there is one lens that they say Canon must make but hasn't, they will sell off their entire Canon system and move to another maker. So selling off thousands of $ worth of lenses and spending thousands of $ in totally new equipment because of one lens, or because they think their new EF lens is now suddenly obsolete. Yes, I find that amusing. And when they move to that new system, and find that they lens they want isn’t exactly what they thought, are they going to move somewhere else?


Maybe! I think we are talking about different things. Also I do not find anything missing from EF line or anything interesting in R line.


----------



## Talys (Sep 8, 2018)

TonyPicture said:


> Double the cost and no IS is a hefty price to pay for 'one stop' lets hope it's a worth it for better, blur, autofocus, sharpness and all round goodness and at least the system gives the user the choice and you're not force to use the f2 over the cheaper f2.8 we can thank canon for that. Be good to see a comparison with these lenses...


It's kind of line 24-70/4 IS vs 24-70/2.8. The 2.8 is twice the price, you lose IS, and it's way heavier. I get what you're saying though, for sure. What it comes down to is diminishing returns -- when you keep doubling the price, weight and other factors, is the really big aperture worth it? I'm probably the wrong person to ask for "standard zooms" -- because I own the 24-70/2.8 (Mk1) and when I upgraded, I decided to get the 24-70/4IS, and not really, or at least not just, because of the price tag.

On the other hand, for 70-200, I'm more than happy to pay for the 2.8, and who knows, I'd probably bear the weight and pay for a f/2 even if it lost IS.

I am very confident than Canon will build pretty good f/4 RF lenses, though (and I'm sure I'll buy them...). These are bread and butter lenses for camera stores. I wonder if Canon will make lenses that are even cheaper than that for RF (ie cheaper than f/4L's). There are a lot of FL's in both zooms and primes that I use rarely that I'd probably be happy to buy an RF version of, if a non-L priced one were available.


----------



## padam (Sep 8, 2018)

Talys said:


> On the other hand, for 70-200, I'm more than happy to pay for the 2.8, and who knows, I'd probably bear the weight and pay for a f/2 even if it lost IS.
> 
> I am very confident than Canon will build pretty good f/4 RF lenses, though (and I'm sure I'll buy them...). These are bread and butter lenses for camera stores. I wonder if Canon will make lenses that are even cheaper than that for RF (ie cheaper than f/4L's). There are a lot of FL's in both zooms and primes that I use rarely that I'd probably be happy to buy an RF version of, if a non-L priced one were available.


It is safe to say that if this was actually technically possible, no matter the advancements in technology, a 70-200 f/2 would be much more complex, considerably heavier and also more expensive than a 200mm f/2 prime lens. Just think about this.
With that in mind, a 28-70mm f/2 is actually not that big or heavy (but a 70mm f/2 mirrorless prime would still be very small in comparison). But just generally speaking, it is still a huge, chubby glass, and may not be a pleasure at all to handle all day. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8 IS may just about hit the balance.

A few cheaper RF lenses will come of course, but they won't be as cheap as EF lenses with the increased development costs and more sophisticated electronics, the fully supported EF is still the kind of the backwards-compatible 'budget platform' with some filter goodies.


Back on track with the topic, one lens that was patented much earlier than the 24-70mm f/2.8 IS is a 16-27mm f/2.8 wide-angle zoom, and I think it will be released in a few months(maybe as a 16-28mm), I think the rear glass will protrude from the mount just like the RF 35mm prime lens so it may remain reasonably sized.


----------



## Talys (Sep 8, 2018)

padam said:


> Probably not at this point, it is either this or that like with the Nikon cameras.
> Making it lightweight is not their priority against technical advancements (like with IS) or optical performance. There may be a few cheap lenses here and there, but the system is not based around them.
> 
> The EF 24-105mm f/4 is still by far the most widely used lens used for photo and video, so it is no surprise to be the new kit lens as well.
> ...


Unfortunately, "light weight" almost always means plastic too


----------



## padam (Sep 8, 2018)

Talys said:


> Unfortunately, "light weight" almost always means plastic too



On the outside yes they do feel a bit weird, but on the inside they are built superbly well (just look at the EF 35/1.4L II for instance, or the EF 11-24/4L, etc.)
For the price and weight I don't think they will be built much differently (at least they shouldn't be)
And very cheap lenses are more expandable, too.


----------



## Talys (Sep 8, 2018)

padam said:


> It is safe to say that if this was actually technically possible, no matter the advancements in technology, a 70-200 f/2 would be much more complex, considerably heavier and also more expensive than a 200mm f/2 prime lens. Just think about this.
> With that in mind, a 28-70mm f/2 is actually not that big or heavy (but a 70mm f/2 mirrorless prime would still be very small in comparison). But just generally speaking, it is still a huge, chubby glass, and may not be a pleasure at all to handle all day. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8 IS may just about hit the balance.
> 
> A few cheaper RF lenses will come of course, but they won't be as cheap as EF lenses with the increased development costs and more sophisticated electronics, the fully supported EF is still the kind of the backwards-compatible 'budget platform' with some filter goodies.
> ...



It would need some real advantages over the 16-35/2.8, which is a pretty great lens. The 200/2 is a lens that I have lusted for ever since it was released


----------



## padam (Sep 8, 2018)

Talys said:


> It would need some real advantages over the 16-35/2.8, which is a pretty great lens. The 200/2 is a lens that I have lusted for ever since it was released


It means probably made with a good price/performance/size ratio in mind (like the Sigma 24-35mm f/2 lens) and should be reasonably priced, but people will complain anyway, and as usual there is nothing holding back from adapting any of the 16-35mm lenses until they come up with newer, more advanced, but more expensive stuff (and yes the current 16-35mm EF lenses are crazy sharp anyway so probably not really much to gain there).


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 8, 2018)

melgross said:


> Sure, but this camera just came out, and likely we’ll have a higher end version next year. But there has to be a lot of these in the field before Canon spends all that money replacing excellent lenses like those, particularly the shorter ones. There has to be a market for it before they come out with a product.



I don't think a TS-E for EOS-R is around the corner, if for no other reason then there are other lenses that would bring higher profit, and position EOS-R better.

My non-expert understanding of the subject is EOS-R offers an opportunity to make better ultra wide TS-Es, so I expect a TS-E 17mm for EOS-R closer to 5 years than 15.


----------



## padam (Sep 8, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> I don't think a TS-E for EOS-R is around the corner, if for no other reason then there are other lenses that would bring higher profit, and position EOS-R better.
> 
> My non-expert understanding of the subject is EOS-R offers an opportunity to make better ultra wide TS-Es, so I expect a TS-E 17mm for EOS-R closer to 5 years than 15.


Also, they have just expanded and now have a very big EF line-up of TS-E lenses.
With physical manual focusing and the new communication offering no real benefits, I am not sure they are going to switch to the new platform any time soon rather then sticking to making a version II in EF-mount and keeping existing TS-E users happy.
They did however include live in-camera corrections for adapted TS-E lenses in the new EOS R body, thanks to the new processor, we'll see that in other cameras as well later on.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 8, 2018)

padam said:


> Also, they have just expanded and now have a very big EF line-up of TS-E lenses.
> With physical manual focusing and the new communication offering no real benefits, I am not sure they are going to switch to the new platform any time soon rather then sticking to making a version II in EF-mount and keeping existing TS-E users happy.
> They did however include live in-camera corrections for adapted TS-E lenses in the new EOS R body, thanks to the new processor, we'll see that in other cameras as well later on.



I'm not saying it's clear cut, but... people have complained the TS-E 17mm isn't as sharp as the other TS-E lenses, so why would Canon pass an opportunity to improve on it?


----------



## padam (Sep 8, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> I'm not saying it's clear cut, but... people have complained the TS-E 17mm isn't as sharp as the other TS-E lenses, so why would Canon pass an opportunity to improve on it?


That's exactly what I said, an EF version II is still going to be an improvement, without putting it completely aside from the rest of the family, some of them still being very new (for professional use it is safe to say you will have more than one TS-E lens)


----------



## symmar22 (Sep 8, 2018)

padam said:


> Also, they have just expanded and now have a very big EF line-up of TS-E lenses.
> With physical manual focusing and the new communication offering no real benefits, I am not sure they are going to switch to the new platform any time soon rather then sticking to making a version II in EF-mount and keeping existing TS-E users happy.
> They did however include live in-camera corrections for adapted TS-E lenses in the new EOS R body, thanks to the new processor, we'll see that in other cameras as well later on.



+1. 

Don't forget Canon is a conservative brand, for lots of reasons, but one of them is that they serve as well a lot of working pros. Contrary to a popular belief, a lot of pros don't upgrade all the time with the latest and the best gimmicks all the time. They use what they have as far as it does the job, for money reasons, but also for ergonomics (muscle memory), habits and the fact that most of us need to know their equipment very well to make the best out of it and know its limits. 

I just saw a 6 month old reportage where a fashion photographer was shooting a whole collection of swimsuits for a very fancy brand in St Barth, with a.... 5D3 and 24-70 f2.8 v1; that's the reality of pro equipment for a lot of people.

Lots of pros don't upgrade because they don't need to when their tools are good enough. So the TS-E line being part of the tools Canon designed for pros, I think it's unlikely they'll want to make them RF only any time soon, when EF TS-Es work exactly the same on both mounts. Yes we could see some optical improvements with short RF TS lenses (I guess we could call them TS-R), but what I am saying is that in real life for most pros, it will be more of a problem than a solution until the whole market has switched to mirroless.

The simple fact that I can finally use a convenient pol filter through the RS-EF adapter is a much bigger improvement than a slightly upgraded optical formula. Will my client notice a 10% increase in sharpness ? Absolutely not; but he will prefer 10 times that wood floor without glare and with better colors due to the pol filter.
I think Canon is very well aware of that, and I don't see a new TS-R lens range until the R mount has become the main standard. That is when RF mount cameras outsells EF mount cameras. It will happen, not just tomorrow. As there is no penalty in using an EF TS-E on an RF mount there is no real need. 

Once again, I think the real strength of the RF system is it's seamless compatibility with the "old" EF system. With Canon everything works like native plus added features (extra ring control or rear filter). With Sony or Nikon (Nikon has a better compatibility though) you lose features when using old glass; with Canon your old glass works better than the same, it actually gains features.

IMO that is the very strength of the EOS system. Yes Canon is behind in sensors, but that lens compatibility is enough to guarantee success to the R system.

As a side note I wonder if Canon will ever go for IBIS anytime soon, since they might conservatively see it as a mechanical weakness, the same way they considered tilt/flip screens for a while.


----------



## padam (Sep 8, 2018)

symmar22 said:


> +1.
> 
> Don't forget Canon is a conservative brand, for lots of reasons, but one of them is that they serve as well a lot of working pros. Contrary to a popular belief, a lot of pros don't upgrade all the time with the latest and the best gimmicks all the time. They use what they have as far as it does the job, for money reasons, but also for ergonomics (muscle memory), habits and the fact that most of us need to know their equipment very well to make the best out of it and know its limits.
> 
> ...



Yep, even people who are otherwise complaining can see that, since this is the least disliked part of all the product videos.







Yes, I already disputed that "old, less sharp lens -> no pro" question in the previous page as well...

I am sure they will have in-body IS at some point for the non-stabilised RF lenses like the 28-70mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.2 and also to further enhance the ones with IS, they've already stated it discreetly, that "this new mount enables further improvements to the camera bodies as well as lenses" and for the native RF mount there is a system recognising the motion, just not sending that to its own stabilisation system, only to the lens IS, if it has that.

But again, we will see the line-up boosted with three more separate models just like with the FF DSLR family 6DII 5DIV 5Ds/5DsR 1DX II (a cheaper, most basic one, one for resolution, and one for faster operation and better video) but it is the "standard" R model, that has a bit of everything, just like the 5D IV.
That's all first generation, other, bigger steps like this are coming later on, like Mark II models in 3-4 years' time.


----------



## symmar22 (Sep 8, 2018)

padam said:


> Yep, even people who are otherwise complaining can see that, since this is the least disliked part of all the product videos.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes I guess they will at some point join the IBIS community, but I wonder if it will on the higher end models, since they might consider it a non mature feature in terms of reliability (both in the mechanical sense and for heat transfer off the sensor). The rule until now has been that for pro equipment reliability is a must. I could see a whole 1st gen of cameras without IBIS, except maybe at entry level, then IBIS will be added in the future to higher tier cameras, when Canon thinks it's reliable enough for pros. As for the cycles, I would bet on a shortened 2-ish years for the R line rather than the 3-4 years we had until now with FF DSLRs.


----------



## padam (Sep 8, 2018)

symmar22 said:


> Yes I guess they will at some point join the IBIS community, but I wonder if it will on the higher end models, since they might consider it a non mature feature in terms of reliability (both in the mechanical sense and for heat transfer off the sensor). The rule until now has been that for pro equipment reliability is a must. I could see a whole 1st gen of cameras without IBIS, except maybe at entry level, then IBIS will be added in the future to higher tier cameras, when Canon thinks it's reliable enough for pros. As for the cycles, I would bet on a shortened 2-ish years for the R line rather than the 3-4 years we had until now with FF DSLRs.


It's all to do with technology, the space is fully there and sensors are getting more heat efficient. Really, almost no trouble at all reported with the now already three-year-old A7RII used in all kinds of places (wow, time just flies, isn't it) and it is also being kept on all of their new models as well, same with the Nikon Z.
But yes, for a camera that might be dropped onto concrete a fair few times (hopefully by accident), it is safer not to have it.

We'll see what happens, but these three additional models alone that I predicted might take up to two years to come out. They did the big system announcement with their "bit of everything" model, but now they can lean back and relax, releasing a new model or one additional RF lens here and there.


----------



## BillB (Sep 8, 2018)

padam said:


> It means probably made with a good price/performance/size ratio in mind (like the Sigma 24-35mm f/2 lens) and should be reasonably priced, but people will complain anyway, and as usual there is nothing holding back from adapting any of the 16-35mm lenses until they come up with newer, more advanced, but more expensive stuff (and yes the current 16-35mm EF lenses are crazy sharp anyway so probably not really much to gain there).


I doubt that at this point even Canon has a clear idea ofhow much of a performance edge a new RF lens has to have to get a lot of people to replace a high quality EF lens.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 8, 2018)

Solid state sensors (gyros & accels) are available and are very reliable, but are as sensitive as other electronics. Good software algorithms that integrate data from IS, IBIS, and the image sensor in an effective way (for all existing lens) may be the hang-up. Also, this is processor intensive, so has to be prioritized.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 8, 2018)

Implementing IBIS in a manner that only turns it on when non-IS lenses are attached would greatly simplify the design. That would work for me, but I can already hear the chorus of grousers if Canon did this.


----------



## padam (Sep 8, 2018)

BillB said:


> I doubt that at this point even Canon has a clear idea ofhow much of a performance edge a new RF lens has to have to get a lot of people to replace a high quality EF lens.


FIrst and foremost they say it is called the EOS R because you don't need to replace any of your lenses, they are not pushing anybody to do that.

And secondly, sure they have done their testing. Lots of it.
They did their internal research and testing several years before the actual mount was finalised(same with Nikon). And just looking at full-size samples, it is clear that these new lenses do present a new level of optical performance, although you can't gain much on an already excellent lens and there are always compromises.
Being able to do a 28-70mm f/2 a sign of progress itself, clear as day just with its name, even before any in-depth look.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 8, 2018)

padam said:


> That's exactly what I said, an EF version II is still going to be an improvement, without putting it completely aside from the rest of the family, some of them still being very new (for professional use it is safe to say you will have more than one TS-E lens)



The TS-E 17mm is 10 years old. I doubt Canon would make a mark II for classic-EOS in the next ten years.

I do think Canon would make a new one for EOS-R sooner.


----------



## padam (Sep 8, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> The TS-E 17mm is 10 years old. I doubt Canon would make a mark II for classic-EOS in the next ten years.
> 
> I do think Canon would make a new one for EOS-R sooner.


The EF lens development is fully up and running. Please take a look at their whole TS-E lineup, with release dates.
If they announce an RF TS-E lens, they need to announce at least two, maybe three and also promise to make a whole new lineup as well. Splitting up the family of speciality lenses makes zero sense, it is good for nobody, especially if we are talking about these, which have a much longer product cycle anyway. And they have way more important things to do. But doing one new version is not that big of a deal for them, if it is feasible to do. Or maybe just simply add a whole new TS-E 20mm lens close to like what Nikon has, making this family even a big bigger, all in EF mount.

Nikon has a 2015 patent for a 19mm f/4 mirrorless tilt shift lens. And they thought, ok we just stay in F-mount, because it is the sensible thing to do. And they did start to sell that in 2016, it is an SLR lens, but it is super tack-sharp in every way.

Will their existing customers using these buy their new cameras for that to replace all their TS-E lenses when their current 5DsR is producing results? No.
Is it nice to have an easy option to move a whole family of lenses to a smaller camera? Yes.

A lot of this has to do with thinking with simple, common sense, it seems a constant problem with "requesting" or predicting future lenses - or maybe some of it is just trolling.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Sep 8, 2018)

they had the system on display at the Canon Ginza gallery today. Went in, and you can have 5 minutes with the camera system. (EOS R) There was about a 20 minute wait and i had to run so no hand to camera time. One thing I noted is the lenses seem pretty big, the 50mm is bigger than my sigma 50 Art.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 8, 2018)

padam said:


> The EF lens development is fully up and running. Please take a look at their whole TS-E lineup, with release dates.
> If they announce an RF TS-E lens, they need to announce at least two, maybe three and also promise to make a whole new lineup as well.



Because... EOS-R owners can't mount the rest of the line with an adapter?



padam said:


> Splitting up the family of speciality lenses makes zero sense, it is good for nobody, especially if we are talking about these, which have a much longer product cycle anyway.



It does, if only one or two lenses, say the 17mm & 24mm, can be improved on EOS-R, and the rest can be mounted with an adapter.



padam said:


> And they have way more important things to do.



Which is why I think, and noted before, it would take a few years to get there.



padam said:


> A lot of this has to do with thinking with simple, common sense, it seems a constant problem with "requesting" or predicting future lenses - or maybe some of it is just trolling.



Insults was always a great way to convince people prove you're an s-hole.


----------



## Kiton (Sep 8, 2018)

vangelismm said:


> 20, 24, 28, 50, 85, 100, 135 1.8 STM serie lens
> and pancake 40mm 2.0.



That is a nice list.
But I think most of the camera makers have forgotten their roots and are chasing what is "sexy". Sad really.

28mm f2
85mm f2

and optionally, a 70-200 2.8 is all a street shooter really needs most often.

Some may wish for one very wide, but still small, prime.

The current 50 1.8 stm and the 40mm are decent glass. I have a permanent (but rotating the images every month) display of 12x18 prints in one of the city's most popular cafes and the little 50 and 40 have held up beside my 135 f2 or my 3 L zooms. I won't say they are as sharp as the 100mm macro, but when displayed on the wall at 12x18 inches, I doubt anyone would notice the difference from 2 or 3 feet away.


----------



## Talys (Sep 8, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Because... EOS-R owners can't mount the rest of the line with an adapter?
> /QUOTE]
> If I end up really liking the Canon EOS R, to the point where I prefer it to DSLR enough that I'll always grab it instead -- keeping in mind that mostly what I want a more expensive camera for is birding, and mirrorless has not been an ideal birding tool for me to date -- then I think that within a few years, I'd "upgrade" all of my EF lenses to RF. I really don't like an adapter, as cool ask geitting a control ring may be. Even if we're talking the Canon/Sony price difference, where I would have to sell me $1200 EF lens for $900, and then buy a $2500 RF equivalent that offers almost don't nothing different, I'd end up doing it. That man's how much I dislike adapters
> 
> There is, however, another possibility: if EOS R is better at some things and worse at others, as compared to a 5D4 for example, then there's a great chance that I simply keep both mirrorless AND DSLR, and maintain both RF and EF lenses. My favorite lenses in RF I'd buy to have native mount, but a lot of my infrequently used lenses (everything wide-ish, zoom or prime), I'd just use an adapted lens, mostly because I want fewer total lenses.


----------



## melgross (Sep 8, 2018)

I’ve got the 5Dmk IV. So I’m not in a hurry to buy an R mount model. But when (if?) they come out with a higher end model, and it’s better, in the ways that are meangful to me, I will consider it. Not very soon, but likely by the end of 2019 to mid 2020. That should give the lens side a chance to grow out a bit, and hopefully will have Canon tell us something about their further lens plans.

If this happens, I wouldn’t replace the lenses I currently have with new equivalent ones - unless the new ones are unquestionably better, and that for my use, that would actually show up in prints. But I would buy ones that match what I want, but don’t have. So, for me, it would be a slow rollout of new lens purchases to fill spots that are empty.

I honestly can’t say how I would feel about my 5D at that point. I might prefer it, or I might prefer the new R. There’s really no way to tell now. But as I get older, lighter seems better, to a point.


----------



## melgross (Sep 8, 2018)

I’d like to make a point about sensor quality. While I’d like to see better with every new model, and dispute what some have said, I can see a good stop improvement in a new sensor, if Canon wants it, there is a myth about this. For almost 30 years, I was with a commercial photo lab in NYC, as one involved in running it for almost 20 of them.

We did a lot of publishing work in addition to still and film.

We see a lot of talk about differences in noise and density range. While on a good, properly calibrated graphics monitor, even small differences of 0.5 stop are easily apparent. But a strange thing happens when going to a high quality inkjet print. And, many inkjets today, if properly calibrated with good paper, can give a high quality print without being a pro level machine. That strange thing is that much of the differences in noise and density go away. The printer can’t deliver these extended ranges. Now, go to 4 color, and guess what? The differences disappear completely! Yes, I know how to do this.

But, paper and ink simply can’t handle the range. An interesting, simple, experiment that can be done, which I’m sure many people have, is to take the best print of a difficult subject, and hold it up to a light from the back of the print, and see all of the detail in the darker areas you can’t see otherwise.

No matter what you do, detail in darker areas, usually the bottom two stops, and even three with 4 color, is compressed to the point of visual impossibility. With 4 color, it’s worse, because the ink simply can’t hold those levels.

This is why Pros don’t worry about this as much as Pixel peepers using monitors do.


----------



## NorskHest (Sep 8, 2018)

tron said:


> IBIS is not an ideal solution although it may help in some cases.
> 
> Maybe! I think we are talking about different things. Also I do not find anything missing from EF line or anything interesting in R line.


There really is nothing interesting in the R line. Sure an f2 might sound cool but it really isn't. When you are at 20-30 mm on a zoom lens you most likely wish you were wider when you are at 60-70 you wish you were tighter. That f2 28-70 is a pretty lame lens in my opinioin but a 24-70 2.8 with IS on a c200 out capturing documentary style footage, now that is interesting. I got to play with the new Eos r since I happened to stop at my local camera store and talked with the rep and I know it is the first iteration but man it was a let down. It has no where to go but up. The focusing was slower than the 5d4 when we swapped lenses back and forth, the selecting autofucos points was awkward and the click on that ring was rigid and loud, canon might offer a service to declick them. Anyway, it's a new direction that currently is boring but let's hope there are better things to come.


----------



## Talys (Sep 8, 2018)

melgross said:


> I’d like to make a point about sensor quality. While I’d like to see better with every new model, and dispute what some have said, I can see a good stop improvement in a new sensor, if Canon wants it, there is a myth about this. For almost 30 years, I was with a commercial photo lab in NYC, as one involved in running it for almost 20 of them.
> 
> We did a lot of publishing work in addition to still and film.
> 
> ...


I certainly won't argue that a lot of printers can't keep up with sensor capabilities.

However, I would argue that we're moving to a world where less and less is actually printed. A lot of photography ends being consumed is on screens, and everything from smartphones to tablets to laptops and desktops all have increasing resolutions, pixel densities, and more vibrant color display capabilities.

When it comes to product photography, I'm not worried about printed photos at all. Even 6 megapixel photos are just fine for very large prints. What I'm worried about is two things: first, the magnifier tool that end users want to see the product in great detail, which is essentially pixel peeping.

And second, I'm worried about the colors looking good -- not so much the colors being _accurate_, because it's going to look different between a BenQ monitor and an iPad, but customers want the colors to pop on the latest AMOLED displays and presentation screens, while making people perceive that they are seeing the correct color. For example, an accurate navy in a color-calibrated monitor is very dark (and actually, a proper navy fabric _is_ very dark); but if you present it that way on a screen, the end user may perceive it as a black, so this is undesirable.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 8, 2018)

RE: Anyone complaining their newly acquired or well loved EF "L" glass is now obsolete... please do flood the pre owned "L" market with your glass. Please? Your participation will be greatly appreciated by those looking for lenses at discount prices due to the flood cause by the ignorant. Not understanding that a simple adapter that only replaces the flange distance lost (Is it 12mm?) from DSLR to mirrorless is just plain silly. This is not at all the same as adapting Canon to Sony. Please. Canon is doing right by Canon's customers. I would not hesitate for a second to buy more EF glass. Headed to Ebay now.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 8, 2018)

Anyone need their lawn mowed, car washed and waxed, or dog walked? Need to make some extra cash. I want the new 28-70 even if I don't get the first R, or an R at all.  Is it okay if I add a "+" to my screen name?


----------



## padam (Sep 8, 2018)

NorskHest said:


> I got to play with the new Eos r since I happened to stop at my local camera store and talked with the rep and I know it is the first iteration but man it was a let down. It has no where to go but up. The focusing was slower than the 5d4 when we swapped lenses back and forth, the selecting autofocus points was awkward and the click on that ring was rigid and loud, canon might offer a service to declick them. Anyway, it's a new direction that currently is boring but let's hope there are better things to come.


Thanks for your impressions. Would you choose a 5D IV over this (with EF lenses) just for using live view and video?


----------



## AJ (Sep 8, 2018)

The new mount will be most beneficial for ultrawides. Canon launched the R series with a prosumer zoom (24-105/4) and a pro zoom (28-70/2). I expect to see a consumer ultrawide (14-35/4 IS) and a pro ultrawide (12-24/2.8). I think the shorter mount will allow for zooms with somewhat larger zoom ranges.


----------



## NorskHest (Sep 8, 2018)

padam said:


> Thanks for your impressions. Would you choose a 5D IV over this (with EF lenses) just for using live view and video?


I do a lot of video; from small commercials to documentaries and what not, the thing that I like personally about dslrs is battery life. I've used the 5d4 and I don't think it's a life changing camera but it is a great camera. It's pretty great in low light and I don't mind the 1.7 crop especially with the 16-35. I own a 1dc, 1dxmkii and a c200 and I would totally add a cheap used 5d4 to my collection for back packing over a eos r. Obviously the new system will get better but not for 4 to 5 years. If your looking for a camera the 1dx2 is incredible and I will probably never part ways with it. I like the codec even tho most don't. Fcpx natively edits mjpeg. With that said if you can't afford a 1dx2 get that 5d4 and send it. That crop comes in handy when you are doing video of wild life and you want to keep more distance between you and your subject.


----------



## melgross (Sep 8, 2018)

Talys said:


> I certainly won't argue that a lot of printers can't keep up with sensor capabilities.
> 
> However, I would argue that we're moving to a world where less and less is actually printed. A lot of photography ends being consumed is on screens, and everything from smartphones to tablets to laptops and desktops all have increasing resolutions, pixel densities, and more vibrant color display capabilities.
> 
> ...



Adjustments are always made for specific uses. That’s why we never did a final sharpen when a print is flattened, but save that for the specific purpose, so that we can change the final Rez and sharpening for whatever it’s being purposed for. We also would correct for the lighting that the image would be viewed under, if at all possible. But even now, print is the major destination for professional work, in one way or the other.

At some point, that will tilt towards digital viewing. But until then, sensors are well above the requirements of print. It’s also why Canon and Nikon can deal with around 20MP for their top line cameras where speed is more important. After all, years ago, when Canon came out with their 16.7MP 1D, it was because that resolution gave a double page spread at 300dpi for magazine repro.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 8, 2018)

After having read the Canon whitepaper, I think it provides some real insights into their strategy for producing RF versus EF lenses. In essence, they see the RF mount has having some specific advantages, and they will exploit those for those lenses that can be designed to take advantage. They do a few pages on each of the lenses released, and it becomes quite clear the specific advantages gained by using the RF features (primarily flange distance). And, interestingly, the lenses that don't benefit from those things were released on the same day in EF mount (the 400mm and the 600mm).

What this indicates to me is that they will continue to produce EF lenses where there is no advantage to be gained because both audiences can use them about as well as one another. Thus more sales. Once they come out with 1d and 5d replacements in RF mount, then you might think about a point in time where they will concentrate on RF lenses. But even after initially coming out with pro body models in RF, they're going to sell more lenses by putting them in the mount that is used by both types of cameras.

I feel pretty confident that you'll see EF lenses coming out for another three years or so. The only disadvantage to keeping just EF bodies will be the inability to take advantage of some of the new designs they'll be releasing that can only be done in RF. It'll push everyone in that direction through temptation (Provided they can actually provide an FPS rate during focus-priority servo AF that is higher than 3).


----------



## Cthulhu (Sep 9, 2018)

padam said:


> That's quite wrong, because I've checked that picture that I saw from a case being part of a heated debate. The lens was mounted on a 5D IV.
> The 17-40mm f/4 and 16-35mm f/2.8 II (also out of date) are extensively being used in Syria on 1DX Mark II bodies
> 
> And the images are perfectly fine at full-resolution, sharp were they need to be (slightly less sharp in the corners but not that visible on 20 megapixels).
> ...




I have no idea what photo you're talking about. I'm speaking from personal experience.


----------



## BillB (Sep 9, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> After having read the Canon whitepaper, I think it provides some real insights into their strategy for producing RF versus EF lenses. In essence, they see the RF mount has having some specific advantages, and they will exploit those for those lenses that can be designed to take advantage. They do a few pages on each of the lenses released, and it becomes quite clear the specific advantages gained by using the RF features (primarily flange distance). And, interestingly, the lenses that don't benefit from those things were released on the same day in EF mount (the 400mm and the 600mm).
> 
> What this indicates to me is that they will continue to produce EF lenses where there is no advantage to be gained because both audiences can use them about as well as one another. Thus more sales. Once they come out with 1d and 5d replacements in RF mount, then you might think about a point in time where they will concentrate on RF lenses. But even after initially coming out with pro body models in RF, they're going to sell more lenses by putting them in the mount that is used by both types of cameras.
> 
> I feel pretty confident that you'll see EF lenses coming out for another three years or so. The only disadvantage to keeping just EF bodies will be the inability to take advantage of some of the new designs they'll be releasing that can only be done in RF. It'll push everyone in that direction through temptation (Provided they can actually provide an FPS rate during focus-priority servo AF that is higher than 3).


Another market advantage of EF lenses if that they can be adapted to pretty much any full frame camera made by anybody, while RF lenses can only be used on R cameras.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 9, 2018)

Talys said:


> I certainly won't argue that a lot of printers can't keep up with sensor capabilities.
> 
> However, I would argue that we're moving to a world where less and less is actually printed. A lot of photography ends being consumed is on screens, and everything from smartphones to tablets to laptops and desktops all have increasing resolutions, pixel densities, and more vibrant color display capabilities.



Physical prints won't go anywhere in the foreseeable future. However, even with the digital media, my 2560x1440 monitor only requires 3.6Mpix. Full 4K monitors and TVs are 4096x2160 = 8.8Mpix. Consider it's best to downsample, even 16Mpix would be enough. Having more than 24Mpix in camera is basically redundant for digital media, although it's good to have more room for postprocessing.
Dynamic range and low light performance, however, are still hugely important for certain types of photography.


----------



## Talys (Sep 9, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Physical prints won't go anywhere in the foreseeable future. However, even with the digital media, my 2560x1440 monitor only requires 3.6Mpix. Full 4K monitors and TVs are 4096x2160 = 8.8Mpix. Consider it's best to downsample, even 16Mpix would be enough. Having more than 24Mpix in camera is basically redundant for digital media, although it's good to have more room for postprocessing.
> Dynamic range and low light performance, however, are still hugely important for certain types of photography.



The issue is that people can want to be able to zoom in -- so even on a smartphone, the customer ask on product photography is to be able, for example, to see fabric textures and fibers. If someone is paying for those photos, they want it to be ultracrisp, not just when the whole item is displayed, but also when it is magnified to much greater detail.

I was referring specifically to product photography. In nearly all cases of professional product photography, nobody cares about low light performance, because light isn't a constraint; to the contrary, you usually control it absolutely and can have as much light as you want, in a perfectly reproducible fashion. I have a hard time imagining products where dynamic beyond what any prosumer DSLR is capable of today would matter at all.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 9, 2018)

Talys said:


> The issue is that people can want to be able to zoom in -- so even on a smartphone, the customer ask on product photography is to be able, for example, to see fabric textures and fibers. If someone is paying for those photos, they want it to be ultracrisp, not just when the whole item is displayed, but also when it is magnified to much greater detail.
> 
> I was referring specifically to product photography. In nearly all cases of professional product photography, nobody cares about low light performance, because light isn't a constraint; to the contrary, you usually control it absolutely and can have as much light as you want, in a perfectly reproducible fashion. I have a hard time imagining products where dynamic beyond what any prosumer DSLR is capable of today would matter at all.



I'm not really into product photography. I'd have guessed you'd do a separate macro/close-up shot to show off the fabric/texture. Anyway, big resolutions are good for landscape photography too, if your target is an A3+ or an A2 print. Also it's good to have some room for cropping and downsampling. But if your camera has at least 24Mp+, you'll be more concerned about DR and high ISOs (in case of night/astrophotography). I do pixel-peeping on my landscape shots, but I'm very well aware I'm most likely the first and last person who views my shots magnified to 1:1. Everyone else sees them printed, or on a relatively small screen, far below 30Mpix of my 5DIV.

With the full frame format, I think 50Mp cameras are already scratching the limits of what can possibly be needed without losing quality. Higher resolutions are better fit for medium format sensors, IMO. I'd be interested to see something like 40-45Mp EOS 5R from Canon, but say 60Mp would be an overkill, even the Canon's glass wouldn't cope.


----------



## Talys (Sep 9, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> After having read the Canon whitepaper, I think it provides some real insights into their strategy for producing RF versus EF lenses. In essence, they see the RF mount has having some specific advantages, and they will exploit those for those lenses that can be designed to take advantage. They do a few pages on each of the lenses released, and it becomes quite clear the specific advantages gained by using the RF features (primarily flange distance). And, interestingly, the lenses that don't benefit from those things were released on the same day in EF mount (the 400mm and the 600mm).
> 
> What this indicates to me is that they will continue to produce EF lenses where there is no advantage to be gained because both audiences can use them about as well as one another. Thus more sales. Once they come out with 1d and 5d replacements in RF mount, then you might think about a point in time where they will concentrate on RF lenses. But even after initially coming out with pro body models in RF, they're going to sell more lenses by putting them in the mount that is used by both types of cameras.
> 
> I feel pretty confident that you'll see EF lenses coming out for another three years or so. The only disadvantage to keeping just EF bodies will be the inability to take advantage of some of the new designs they'll be releasing that can only be done in RF. It'll push everyone in that direction through temptation (Provided they can actually provide an FPS rate during focus-priority servo AF that is higher than 3).



I'm pretty confident that you'll see new EF lenses released for much longer than three years. 

On one hand, there's the simple economics of DSLRs remaining cheaper probably for the foreseeable future. As long as there are $300 Rebel camera kits moving off the shelves, there will be new EF and even EFS lenses. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I just don't see big whites going RF until there is a really convincing 1DX2 alternative on the professional end for sports photographers.


----------



## Talys (Sep 9, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I'm not really into product photography. I'd have guessed you'd do a separate macro/close-up shot to show off the fabric/texture. Anyway, big resolutions are good for landscape photography too, if your target is an A3+ or an A2 print. Also it's good to have some room for cropping and downsampling. But if your camera has at least 24Mp+, you'll be more concerned about DR and high ISOs (in case of night/astrophotography). I do pixel-peeping on my landscape shots, but I'm very well aware I'm most likely the first and last person who views my shots magnified to 1:1. Everyone else sees them printed, or on a relatively small screen, far below 30Mpix of my 5DIV.
> 
> With the full frame format, I think 50Mp cameras are already scratching the limits of what can possibly be needed without losing quality. Higher resolutions are better fit for medium format sensors, IMO. I'd be interested to see something like 40-45Mp EOS 5R from Canon, but say 60Mp would be an overkill, even the Canon's glass wouldn't cope.



My point is that from my perspective, the greatest practical utility of very high resolution sensors is for interactive screen presentation, where the intended use is one where the user benefits in a meaningful way from being able to zoom into the picture. As screen resolutions increase, people want to zoom in past the display resolutions, like 2k/4k. In other words, 4x magnification on a 32" 4k screen takes a lot more data to look great than 4x magnification on a 28", 1080p screen.

Only a few years ago, content was often created for the lowest common denominator; for example, creating for the lowest common likely hardware that people would use (eg 1920, 1366, or even fewer pixels horizontally). Increasingly though, you see content transmitted in much higher resolutions that is then resized to fit by the client software.


----------



## barryreid (Sep 9, 2018)

All I want from Canon is a 35mm TS-E, regardless of mount. I have the Contax but it has ceiling flare issues and generally flares too easily. Actually, I’d consider switching brand for that lens.


----------



## melgross (Sep 9, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I'm not really into product photography. I'd have guessed you'd do a separate macro/close-up shot to show off the fabric/texture. Anyway, big resolutions are good for landscape photography too, if your target is an A3+ or an A2 print. Also it's good to have some room for cropping and downsampling. But if your camera has at least 24Mp+, you'll be more concerned about DR and high ISOs (in case of night/astrophotography). I do pixel-peeping on my landscape shots, but I'm very well aware I'm most likely the first and last person who views my shots magnified to 1:1. Everyone else sees them printed, or on a relatively small screen, far below 30Mpix of my 5DIV.
> 
> With the full frame format, I think 50Mp cameras are already scratching the limits of what can possibly be needed without losing quality. Higher resolutions are better fit for medium format sensors, IMO. I'd be interested to see something like 40-45Mp EOS 5R from Canon, but say 60Mp would be an overkill, even the Canon's glass wouldn't cope.



A lot of this has to do with the combination of image viewing size and viewing distance. When you look at a billboard while driving down the highway, it’s huge, but you see from so far away, that the Rez is actually low, and the halftone dots are the size of golf balls, or even a hardball. Here in NYC, in the subway, the Ad posters on the walls have halftone dots that are a good 1/16”.

The truth is that for much work, resolutions isn’t as important as Pixel peepers think it is. A friend of mine was a fashion photographer, and together, we were some of the very first in that field to go digital. Resolutions for Hasselblad backs were 4MP. It worked. Gradually they became higher, and customers began demanding the highest resolutions, just because...

But even when dealing with the 33MP backs back then, the retouchers would drop the resolution to half that as soon as the image files arrived. The customers didn’t know, nobody told, and they didn’t notice.

Since my friend, several years ago, retired from fashion, he’s been living in the Midwest, where he travels around in a mobile home, and does landscape photography, which he prints on a 48” Canon inkjet, sometimes printed in a larger size by a lab when needed. He sells these to companies that put them in lobbies. They are very sharp, and he still just uses 33MP backs, which are more than enough, because these large images are viewed from several feet away, at the closest, as are large prints in general, except sometimes when viewed in a gallery.


----------



## symmar22 (Sep 9, 2018)

barryreid said:


> All I want from Canon is a 35mm TS-E, regardless of mount. I have the Contax but it has ceiling flare issues and generally flares too easily. Actually, I’d consider switching brand for that lens.



I'm fully with you here, I'm dreaming about a 35mm TS-E as well. I use the 24mm TS-E L II + Extender 1.4x III as an intermediate solution, but the quality loss is obvious. I was almost ready to buy the Distagon 35mm, since everyone claims it's the best 35mm PC on the market, but your experience doesn't seem to be so good with it. I have similar experience with flare with my other Contax lenses, including the excellent 100mm f2 Planar.

It is sad the last 35mm PCs date from the 80's, it seems everyone thinks it's not a proper focal for architecture, when on the contrary, it's one of the best lenses for a reasonable perspective.


----------



## barryreid (Sep 9, 2018)

symmar22 said:


> I'm fully with you here, I'm dreaming about a 35mm TS-E as well. I use the 24mm TS-E L II + Extender 1.4x III as an intermediate solution, but the quality loss is obvious. I was almost ready to buy the Distagon 35mm, since everyone claims it's the best 35mm PC on the market, but your experience doesn't seem to be so good with it. I have similar experience with flare with my other Contax lenses, including the excellent 100mm f2 Planar.
> 
> It is sad the last 35mm PCs date from the 80's, it seems everyone thinks it's not a proper focal for architecture, when on the contrary, it's one of the best lenses for a reasonable perspective.



Totally agree! 35mm is great for exterior shots with a natural perspective. It drives me a bit nuts being told by people who have probably done very little serious Architectural shooting that 35mm useless for architecture and I should be using the 24mm or 17mm (which I already own).

PS Don’t get me wrong on the PC-D when it’s good it’s very good indeed. If sunlight or window light are controlled/avoided mine can be slightly better and more contrasty than the 24 + Extender combo. Neither matches up to what a modern 35L TS-E Could be...


----------



## Kit. (Sep 9, 2018)

melgross said:


> The truth is that for much work, resolutions isn’t as important as Pixel peepers think it is.


And I'm sure, in 3-5 years, Photoshop CC will be able to generate pretty _realistically looking_ textures while upsampling.


----------



## Talys (Sep 9, 2018)

Kit. said:


> And I'm sure, in 3-5 years, Photoshop CC will be able to generate pretty _realistically looking_ textures while upsampling.


But if the interpolated data (whether textures or other types of details) is totally artificial, you have a render rather than a photo. I mean, even today, you don't even need a camera to have a great photo, if you don't care that it's real.  There was a demo of a couple of pieces of software that could render the remainder of a photo with chunks taken out (for example, if someone is partially obscured). It was very impressive to me, but I mean, the resulting image isn't really a photograph anymore.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 9, 2018)

Talys said:


> But if the interpolated data (whether textures or other types of details) is totally artificial, you have a render rather than a photo.


It is already happening to some extent with debayering and denoising.


----------



## admiralburns (Sep 9, 2018)

PANCAKE PLEASE! I want an "actually quite compact" option with this camera. I love the 40mm 2.8 on my 6D...that combo is actually shorter "front to back" than the EOS R with the 35mm 1.8. Just look at a Sony A7 series with the Sony 35mm 2.8 or Samyang equivalent (or the Samyang 24 2.8 for that matter)...fantastically portable!


----------



## The Supplanter (Sep 10, 2018)

Would love to see:

1. 14-30mm f/4 IS (Nikon's future UWA seems intriguing)
2. 40mm f/2 IS (just make it small - doesn't have to be a pancake)
3. 135mm f/2 IS


----------



## eat-sleep-code (Sep 10, 2018)

padam said:


> If you have a video camera then it is less of a problem, since you already know exactly what you can use it for, you have a constant crop factor and you can choose lenses accordingly.
> 
> But when you want to shoot photo and video at the same time or you simply want to shoot in 1080p and 4k depending on the situation, then it starts to become more annoying. It is nice to be able to mount the Sigma 18-35/1.8, but if you want to switch to stills, you need to change lenses where you loose the wide-end again, etc. so it is fiddly, and you end up purchasing more lenses that you might have without that.
> Yes the 1DXII is way better on paper, but no C-Log and it is just too cumbersome to use for many. But it's totally up to them, if they might put that sensor in this body, and price it much higher.
> ...





NorskHest said:


> A 1dxmkii is your camera then and all the existing ef glass. It's a 1.35 crop. So it's close enough. Crop is not that big of a problem, if you you haven't played with cinema cameras I suggest you do, canon loves their perfect pixel pitch and I applaud them for that. Crop is a pretty easy work around.



The 1DXII isn't mirrorless -- if I am sticking with an SLR, then I will just stick with my 5D3. Existing glass doesn't have the control ring, which I could see being super handy for controlling the aperture in conjunction with the EVF. 

I don't have a cinema cam -- and can't justify buying a separate camera for it. 

I want to be able to shoot super high quality stills, 4K video, slow motion video in one unit. Right now, I have a 5D3 and a GoPro 6. I never end up shooting on the GoPro 6 because it's hard to juggle between the two different cameras.


----------



## pj1974 (Sep 10, 2018)

I think the lenses suggested by The Supplanter (a few posts above) - are realistic and achievable RF lenses for the relatively near future; i.e. 

14-30mm f/4 IS 
40mm f/2 IS 
135mm f/2 IS 
I would also suggest that a wide (but not ultrawide) prime, something like 24mm- 28mm f/f1.4 - f/2 would be likely at some stage... probably without IS, but who knows.

Personally, I would love to see a RF 50mm f/1.4 - f/2 ideally with fast, accurate AF - and IS too... which is significantly smaller & lighter than the RF 50mm f/1.2... it doesn't need to have the amazing wow' impact of the f/1.2 '... but still decent IQ wide open and very good from f/2.2-f/2.5 onwards.

PJ


----------



## RGF (Sep 10, 2018)

How about a macro? Tilt - Shift?
If Canon can the FPS up, then some long glass would make sense.


----------



## melgross (Sep 10, 2018)

RGF said:


> How about a macro? Tilt - Shift?
> If Canon can the FPS up, then some long glass would make sense.


They have their first 35mm macro for this. But long lenses don’t have to be reworked, as they won’t gain much benefit, just use the $99 adapter. How many tilt/shift lenses does Canon sell a year? Not many, I’d bet. That won’t be a priority either. Again, the adapter. Use the filter version with them, a great combo.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 10, 2018)

melgross said:


> They have their first 35mm macro for this.[..]



The 35mm is cheating with the 'macro' name, since it's only 1:2, not life size.


----------



## melgross (Sep 10, 2018)

koenkooi said:


> The 35mm is cheating with the 'macro' name, since it's only 1:2, not life size.


Macro always used to mean1:2. You got to 1:1 with the (usually) included adapter tube. Some lenses go to 1:1 by themselves. But macro means that the lens is optically designed for that purpose. That’s the main thing.


----------



## The Supplanter (Sep 11, 2018)

pj1974 said:


> I think the lenses suggested by The Supplanter (a few posts above) - are realistic and achievable RF lenses for the relatively near future; i.e.
> 
> 14-30mm f/4 IS
> 40mm f/2 IS
> ...



Yes! I'm looking forward to more primes with this new system. Can only imagine they will be spectacular.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 11, 2018)

admiralburns said:


> PANCAKE PLEASE! I want an "actually quite compact" option with this camera. I love the 40mm 2.8 on my 6D...that combo is actually shorter "front to back" than the EOS R with the 35mm 1.8. Just look at a Sony A7 series with the Sony 35mm 2.8 or Samyang equivalent (or the Samyang 24 2.8 for that matter)...fantastically portable!



I like the idea of an RF version of the 40 2.8. At the same time, though, if they are putting control rings on all RF lenses, they'll have to make space for that somehow (there was barely enough space on the EF version to squeeze in a focus ring)

If we're talking exotic lenses - how about a RF 105mm 1.4 (or f2 IS)...or a 35mm 1.2...or 135mm 1.8...


----------



## admiralburns (Sep 11, 2018)

Act444 said:


> I like the idea of an RF version of the 40 2.8. At the same time, though, if they are putting control rings on all RF lenses, they'll have to make space for that somehow (there was barely enough space on the EF version to squeeze in a focus ring)
> 
> If we're talking exotic lenses - how about a RF 105mm 1.4 (or f2 IS)...or a 35mm 1.2...or 135mm 1.8...



Indeed, I can live without the ring. If they can go to F2 with the 40mm pancake, even better!


----------



## canonmike (Sep 16, 2018)

bks54 said:


> I think they will use the RF mount to showcase lenses they don't have already or are due for update:
> 
> 1. 180 or 200 mm macro; possibly f2.8 with IS.
> 2. 100 mm f1.4
> ...


Would love to see your number 4 and 5 choices come to fruition, for sure. Bring them on.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 16, 2018)

jpcanon said:


> O great; glad to see Canon already EOL'd my what recently acquired EF 70-200 F4L IS II
> This would be enough to get me to sell the whole damn lot at this point. Nikon Z doesn't look too bad.


Ok, but if you have been a Canon user for awhile, remember that, in switching to Nikon, you will have to get used to Nikon's counterintuitive, bassacwards lens mounting system, the primary reason I have never shot Nikon, a company that makes great products. I have never understood why they did this and just as surprised that there are not more complaints about it.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 16, 2018)

Jaysheldon said:


> The interesting thing about the R series is pricing. If Canon (and Nikon) really want people to jump into this system pricing would be aggressive. That, of course, would anger people who recently bought new EF FF equipment. Still, think about it: B&H has the EF 50mm f1.2 at list price: US$1,449.00. The list price of the R 50mm F1.2 is $2,229. If Canon really wanted people to run to this system, price is one way to do it. Perhaps, as a new system, Canon doesn't want initially to be overwhelmed. Or, as I say, it doesn't want to anger EF owners. Still, it's interesting.
> On the other hand, note that the list price of the new R camera is US$2,229. That's only $300 more than the list price of the 6D2. For that $300 you get more megapixels in the sensor and a huge number more AF points. On the other hand, it seems from the official brochure (https://store.canon.com.au/media/attachments/EOS_R_Camera_Brochure.pdf) you only get 3 frames per second in continuous servo mode. For me that's a big negative, and one I'll bet will be a deal-breaker for many.
> 
> UPDATE: I just checked with DPReview, which says the camera gets 5fps with AF tracking (which compares to 6.5 FPS on the 6D2) or _3 fps_ in the higher-precision 'tracking priority' mode.


I do hope this camera sells well. Echoing your frame rate or lack thereof, however, I don't see this gen one body appealing to any sports photographers. Hope that higher end model sees a much needed improvement in this area. Additionally, if Canon doesn't want to include IBIS, they better be thinking about including IS on every lens in RF mount to offset all the complaints. $3000.00 is a lot of money for a lens, no matter how fast, but without IS.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 16, 2018)

fullstop said:


> excellent thought!
> 
> Would be very surprised had Canon not also looked at that. Hopefully they'll make them. Ideally with 4 functions: mount adapter, rear-filter slot, control-ring and TC.


Great idea which I hope Canon develops.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 16, 2018)

bks54 said:


> An EF update with IS would be fine too. But eventually Canon may release a long lens or two in RF mount to gradually encourage movement towards the new system. Since the current 400 5.6 is a fine lens, it could stay in the catalog after an RF IS version is released.


Have to agree and believe an RF version of this lens, especially with IS, would sell well.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 16, 2018)

RGF said:


> Lens look promising - wonder what Canon has planned for new R bodies?


Don't we all. Bring them on, Canon.........


----------



## canonmike (Sep 16, 2018)

symmar22 said:


> +1.
> 
> Don't forget Canon is a conservative brand, for lots of reasons, but one of them is that they serve as well a lot of working pros. Contrary to a popular belief, a lot of pros don't upgrade all the time with the latest and the best gimmicks all the time. They use what they have as far as it does the job, for money reasons, but also for ergonomics (muscle memory), habits and the fact that most of us need to know their equipment very well to make the best out of it and know its limits.
> 
> ...


Interesting observations about the TS lenses.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 16, 2018)

bks54 said:


> I think they will use the RF mount to showcase lenses they don't have already or are due for update:
> 
> 1. 180 or 200 mm macro; possibly f2.8 with IS.



If so.

Looks like I will be buying a new R.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Sep 18, 2018)

TMHKR said:


> What's the deal with these weird focal lengths, 58mm and such?


in the old days I think the slightly longer than 50mm allowed a non-retrofocus (non reverse telephoto) design. some of the weird lengths stuck.


----------



## steepjay (Sep 21, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> If they are going for 70-130 F2, and have the 28-70 F2. I think they are gunning for 14-24 F2 as well.



I was thinking 14-28 f/2 to match it all up...


----------



## RGF (Oct 6, 2018)

steepjay said:


> I was thinking 14-28 f/2 to match it all up...



monster lens. Don't think Canon will make or it would sell


----------



## RGF (Oct 6, 2018)

Will new RF lens have IS or will Canon rely exclusively on IBIS?


----------



## RGF (Oct 11, 2018)

pj1974 said:


> Thanks for sharing your ideas CR .... In many parts I agree with you. Having a number of 'standard trinity' f/2.8 zooms makes sense. (Particularly as Canon has shown their cards, with the 28-70mm f/2 USM lens... it appears Canon is going 'definitely serious', lens wise).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> PJ



I think that the F/2 is to show that with the new mount faster glass is possible. IMO this is more about bragging rights than a commercial product. I don't think we will see a lot of demand for F/2 zooms, especially at the $4000 price pt. Of course, I could be wrong ...


----------



## pj1974 (Oct 11, 2018)

RGF said:


> I think that the F/2 is to show that with the new mount faster glass is possible. IMO this is more about bragging rights than a commercial product. I don't think we will see a lot of demand for F/2 zooms, especially at the $4000 price pt. Of course, I could be wrong ...



For sure, the new RF mount provides greater flexibility for faster glass than EF, though Canon has had some seriously fast EF glass too. The RF mount just translates to less optical (physical) constraints than EF. Canon would not produce a RF f/2 lens just for bragging rights. Businesses primarily exist to make money. They would not produce a lens to make a loss, unless their is evidence a loss in such a lens will produce enough interest for people to buy into the EOS R / RF Mount system, without actually buying that lens.

However I highly doubt that. The RF 28-70mm f/2 is definitely a commercial product. This is also evidenced by the face they have made it insanely sharp (from all initial accounts). Otherwise they would just make a mediocre, or a 'prototype' lens, and market the theory of it, with everything they can. (But Canon is not doing that... they have market data). There is demand for such a lens among certain photographic genres.

While the RF 28-70mm f/2 will be more of a niche product than say the new RF 24-105mm f/4, or a possible future RF 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses, there are people who will buy it. The RRP price is $2999 USD. The EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II's RRP is $1899. There will be many people who will justify that sort of $1100 price difference if the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 would be similar to the EF's price.

In the rest of my initial post (which you did not quote in your message above) - I indicated that the RF f/2.8 and also RF f/4 zoom lenses will very likely prove much more popular (i.e. generate more sales) than any RF f/2 zoom lenses. I believe it is a wise and strategic business decision of Canon's to come out with some quality fast glass this early into the EOS R / RF mount story! People could get tempted into a new system just for the potential of fast glass. (Additionally, other photographers may get hooked into renting certain lenses that may be out of their regular needs, but can justify an infrequent rental, especially for event / specific occasion photography).

PJ


----------



## Act444 (Oct 12, 2018)

I think there will (soon) be a RF 24-70 2.8 option for the “mainstream” event shooters out there. It will likely be priced lower and may even be stabilized...this 28-70 is a specialty tool, much like the 11-24 is vs. the 16-35 - “it’s an f2 zoom” is the new “it goes to 11mm”...


----------



## Viggo (Oct 14, 2018)

My all time favorite focal length along the 35mm is 100mm. There is no option for that with Canon, the macro is no good for what I want, and it’s slow. 

And now that both Nikon and Zeiss are doing 100 f1.4’s I would certainly hope Canon will do a RF 100 f1.4 L (IS) also. It would create a nicer difference between the 50 and 100 instead of 50 and 85.

I would be very happy with the EF 35 L, RF 50 L and RF 100 f1.4 L


----------



## tmroper (Oct 29, 2018)

Top performing lenses are great, but also very big. It would be nice to have some smaller lenses too, like that 50mm 1.8, to have the option to take full advantage of the R's smaller size and weight. That is one of the whole points of mirrorless (although I realize not the only one). Sometimes I go with just a 35mm and a 50mm, and the adapter makes them too big for my liking. As it is, I might just stick with my Panasonic for when I need smaller and lighter than a 5D.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 3, 2018)

barryreid said:


> All I want from Canon is a 35mm TS-E, regardless of mount. I have the Contax but it has ceiling flare issues and generally flares too easily. Actually, I’d consider switching brand for that lens.


I' d suggest that you give the 24 TSE + 1,4X Extender combo a try.
I'm using it quite often, with excellent results!


----------



## Act444 (Nov 5, 2018)

tmroper said:


> Top performing lenses are great, but also very big. It would be nice to have some smaller lenses too, like that 50mm 1.8, to have the option to take full advantage of the R's smaller size and weight. That is one of the whole points of mirrorless (although I realize not the only one).



Agreed - that 35 1.8 Macro looks like a perfect match for the R. The system also needs a 50mm and 85mm equivalent - a 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 would be awesome.


----------



## Rajinder Shukla (Dec 16, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> I have a 5Dmk3 & 11-24mm f/4L, which I chose over a Sigma 12-24mm f/2.8.
> 
> I would find a quality 10mm prime a bigger attraction than a 12-24mm f/2.8 zoom.



A very sensible decision


----------



## wockawocka (Dec 17, 2018)

35 and 85 1.2L But really 1.4 will do imho.


----------



## deleteme (Dec 18, 2018)

symmar22 said:


> +1.
> 
> Don't forget Canon is a conservative brand, for lots of reasons, but one of them is that they serve as well a lot of working pros. Contrary to a popular belief, a lot of pros don't upgrade all the time with the latest and the best gimmicks all the time. They use what they have as far as it does the job, for money reasons, but also for ergonomics (muscle memory), habits and the fact that most of us need to know their equipment very well to make the best out of it and know its limits.
> 
> ...



Truth!
This is precisely why I am still using the 70-200 L IS v1 and the non L 100 macro. The business will not realize a bump in revenue because my long zoom is now v2 or that the 100 macro now has IS. 
I DID buy the R because of its very real AF advantage for portraiture and event work. Tripod mounted architectural work will look the same on my DSLRs though I do love the tilt screen.

So despite the murmur of disapproval for the R I have found real and compelling business decisions to acquire use and profit from it. I am looking forward to the more ambitious models in the future but in reality the R really does not leave me in the lurch in any meaningful way.


----------



## Rajinder Shukla (Feb 23, 2019)

meywd said:


> I think the priority is in lenses not existing in the current EF lineup, or need an update, a 12-24 2.8 makes sense, as well a cheaper 50, but the trio zooms are still fresh with the latest updates


I am very curious to see and certainly will buy a RF 12-35 f2.8L IS USM lens which was lately mentioned in Canon Rumers as in preparation. EF 11-24 f4 lens is a great lens in EF range though quite heavy. RF 12-35 f2.8L IS USM is the best alternative for RF series.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 23, 2019)

Rajinder Shukla said:


> I am very curious to see and certainly will buy a RF 12-35 f2.8L IS USM lens which was lately mentioned in Canon Rumers as in preparation. EF 11-24 f4 lens is a great lens in EF range though quite heavy. RF 12-35 f2.8L IS USM is the best alternative for RF series.


No 12-35, it’s a 15-35, it looks killer though.


----------



## tron (Feb 23, 2019)

16-35 2.8L III is excellent already. So the only difference is the IS. Not enough reason to switch to mirrorless but if someone starts from scratch that is a totally diffferent matter.


----------

