# Two more RF mount lenses could be coming in 2019 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 17, 2019)

> We’re told that Canon may announce two more RF mount lenses in 2019, but it’s possible they will get pushed into early 2020.
> Apparently, the original plan was to announce the development of 8 lenses with the EOS RP, but for whatever reason, that plan was scrapped. Lens launches have always been a moving target.
> 
> We weren’t told what the other two lenses might be, and we don’t want to guess at this point in time. One patent in particular maybe give us some clues about what’s next for RF mount lenses. The patent shows optical formulas for an RF 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM and a likely Non-L RF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## josephandrews222 (Feb 17, 2019)

Now I'm _really _intrigued (and interested!)...the 100-400 II is most-often found on my 5DMkIII--it is a wonderful, wonderful lens.

...talk of an RF version of the 100-400? Oh my.

Exciting times for Canon; fun and enjoyment for me.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 17, 2019)

I hope one of those two is a macro lens either 100mm or shorter 50mm(similar to EF-S 35mm).


----------



## HaroldC3 (Feb 17, 2019)

I really think they need a compact 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS kit lens. That with a non-l 70-300 would appease a lot of budget conscious users. But canon could be relying on the EF adapter for such lenses.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 17, 2019)

They definitely need a 100mm macro. My bet is on that and the 100-400.


----------



## Tom W (Feb 17, 2019)

Very interesting, and I don't doubt that these things are coming.

Personally, I think they need a small "regular" zoom, like an inexpensive 24-105 or 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 or something of that nature. Remember the old 28-105 f/3.5-4.5? Small, inexpensive, light, useful range, perfect for the RP (though 24 on the wide end would be very useful).


----------



## Quackator (Feb 17, 2019)

35 mil pancake.


----------



## LensFungus (Feb 17, 2019)

Canon: "We don't care about EF-M lenses, let's drown the people in new Canon EF-M cameras \o/"

Canon: "We don't care about R cameras, let's drown the people in new Canon RF lenses \o/"


----------



## Marius Schamschula (Feb 17, 2019)

As I regularly use my EF 100-400 L on the 7D, I could stand to see a lens with a bit more reach, say a 150-600, or at least an RF 1.4x teleconverter.


----------



## Tom W (Feb 17, 2019)

How about an RF-EF 1.4X teleconverter. That would be ideal for people with some big EF glass already in hand. I mean, if you're going to fill that space, it might as well be with a teleconverter for use with long glass.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 17, 2019)

I’m wondering when we will see some non-L kit lenses. Now that the RP is out, Canon could use a few low cost zooms to help people move over to FF.


----------



## riker (Feb 17, 2019)

Yep, definitely 100-400, I want it!!!
They also need 
- 70-200/4 which is also very popular (the current is a fresh design, shouldn't need much work)
- lightweight 50/1.8 and/or 50/1.4
- macro in the 90-120mm range (easiest is probably just to port the current very good 100mm)
- 1.4x and 2x teleconverters
- some pencake stuff
- I don't care about the 70-300 but it's a pretty safe bet they'll make it


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 17, 2019)

100-400mm would be important for the new system.
They'd then be covering 15mm to 400mm.
100mm macro you'd think would be the next natural lens to come for the R system.
Both of these will be expensive lens for EOS RP buyers.
It would seem to need a number of cheaper F4 lens for those RP buyers


----------



## Viggo (Feb 17, 2019)

100 f1.4 L 1:2?


----------



## MEAllred (Feb 17, 2019)

Why is Canon so secretive about when they plan to release the next R body? Publishing the type and timeframe shouldn't be a state secret...


----------



## razorzec (Feb 17, 2019)

Looking at the new RF 70-200F2.8L, I do think an 100-400 F4L constant is possible. now the question is, would they make one?


----------



## Quackator (Feb 17, 2019)

MEAllred said:


> Why is Canon so secretive about when they plan to release the next R body? Publishing the type and timeframe shouldn't be a state secret...



The same reason the car industry keeps their new ones secret: 
The minute you publish a roadmap, the previous model can only
be sold with heaviest rebates, if at all.

They published these 6 lens development announcements as a
statement of where they are going, a full fledged kingpin system.

Now that they drew their line in the sand, they will monitor sales 
and feedback before deciding what to introduce next.

One thing became obvious for sure: They have the capacity to
churn out around 10 new lenses per year. This will go on for
some time. 

The emphasis is on the workhorses for professionals and enthusiast 
amateurs first, because the have the highest profit margin and
benefit the most from the new mount, just look at the 70-200.

Next are consumer mass production lenses. Just two or three.

After that they will check inventory and replace specialties 
where stock is nearing end in EF.

All of this might see an override following the highest demand 
in user feedback.

In the near future, Canon will stop publishing roadmaps again.
They have made their point, and will return to protecting sales 
of old stock.


----------



## timmy_650 (Feb 17, 2019)

I wish they would make a cheap wide angle, something that will pair well with the RP camera. Like the EF-s 10-18 but for full frame.


----------



## edoorn (Feb 17, 2019)

The 100-400 ii is already very good on the R with adapter; I would love a dedicated R version!

That said I would also like to see more compact 1.8 primes


----------



## Viggo (Feb 17, 2019)

timmy_650 said:


> I wish they would make a cheap wide angle, something that will pair well with the RP camera. Like the EF-s 10-18 but for full frame.


A used 17-40.


----------



## Daan Stam (Feb 17, 2019)

maybe they can do a 500mm f2.8 with this mount


----------



## scyrene (Feb 17, 2019)

daaningrid said:


> maybe they can do a 500mm f2.8 with this mount



LOL


----------



## timmy_650 (Feb 17, 2019)

Viggo said:


> A used 17-40.



Then I have no reason to buy a RF mount. I can just keep using my old 6D.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 17, 2019)

Tom W said:


> How about an RF-EF 1.4X teleconverter. That would be ideal for people with some big EF glass already in hand. I mean, if you're going to fill that space, it might as well be with a teleconverter for use with long glass.


Can't you just use the already available EF teleconverters? The cameras come with an EF-RF adapter.


----------



## dolina (Feb 17, 2019)

This is yet another indicator that Canon will not develop the EF system any further. 100% of all R&D DSC resources will be for the RF system.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 17, 2019)

timmy_650 said:


> Then I have no reason to buy a RF mount. I can just keep using my old 6D.


Not exactly true, but yeah, the RF lenses will rule them all


----------



## AJ (Feb 17, 2019)

Does the mount have advantages over EF for longer focal lengths? Would a 100-400 have a different optical formula? 
I thought the main advantage is for short focal lengths, less than 50 mm normal. For example the 15-35/2.8 IS with a non-bulbous front element. Or standard zooms extending into the short focal lengths.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 17, 2019)

AJ said:


> Does the mount have advantages over EF for longer focal lengths? Would a 100-400 have a different optical formula?
> I thought the main advantage is for short focal lengths, less than 50 mm normal. For example the 15-35/2.8 IS with a non-bulbous front element. Or standard zooms extending into the short focal lengths.


The 70-200 looks like it...


----------



## ERHP (Feb 17, 2019)

Tom W said:


> How about an RF-EF 1.4X teleconverter. That would be ideal for people with some big EF glass already in hand. I mean, if you're going to fill that space, it might as well be with a teleconverter for use with long glass.



Just after the R was released I did ask that very question to some Canon types. Notes were taken but I believe then there was talk about volume vs engineering effort. Not being an engineer of lenses, I have no idea how difficult it would be to remove the 1.4X III guts and migrate them into an EF/RF adapter, but as they like to say on the Grant Tour, 'How hard can it be?'


----------



## Tom W (Feb 17, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Can't you just use the already available EF teleconverters? The cameras come with an EF-RF adapter.


Of course, but why add length to an already lengthy package. I mean it's not a big deal, but why add a half inch or so of additional length to the lens with the adapter, and then another inch and a quarter for the 1.4X.


----------



## AJ (Feb 17, 2019)

Viggo said:


> The 70-200 looks like it...



Yes, that stubby-looking lens. I was wondering if that thing has DO elements, rather than rear elements closer to the sensor. 70-200 traditionally takes teleconverters, and for this to happen the rear element is recessed.


----------



## bf (Feb 18, 2019)

100-400 & a pancake lens for sure!
I also like a light wide angle zoom, FF alternative of the ef-m 11-22


----------



## fox40phil (Feb 18, 2019)

200-500 5.6f (or 5.0?!) please!


----------



## bokehmon22 (Feb 18, 2019)

70-130 F2 or 105 1.4


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Feb 18, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I’m wondering when we will see some non-L kit lenses. Now that the RP is out, Canon could use a few low cost zooms to help people move over to FF.



The gap may be filled for now. The EF to EOS S adapter is dirt cheap, and there are scores of EF glass that would work better on the EOS R adapted than on a DSLR until some future season.


----------



## timmy_650 (Feb 18, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Not exactly true, but yeah, the RF lenses will rule them all



That is true, but I don't know if I can afford that trip to Mordor.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Feb 18, 2019)

AJ said:


> Does the mount have advantages over EF for longer focal lengths? Would a 100-400 have a different optical formula?
> I thought the main advantage is for short focal lengths, less than 50 mm normal. For example the 15-35/2.8 IS with a non-bulbous front element. Or standard zooms extending into the short focal lengths.



Looking at the RF 35mm and the 15-35mm f/2,8 IS. 
The new mount with short back flange distance would lift some of the physical / optical constraints of the EF mount especially for the wide and ultra wide end of the focal length below 35mm.

and more leeway for new formula like the new RF 70-200mm f/2,8 and the RF 27-70mm f/2.
Would there be a "RF 85-135mm f/1,4L IS DS"


----------



## Pape (Feb 18, 2019)

gnah i am allergic for smell of lens rubber .all canon lenses got rubber wheels for zoom and focus?


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 18, 2019)

Tom W said:


> Of course, but why add length to an already lengthy package. I mean it's not a big deal, but why add a half inch or so of additional length to the lens with the adapter, and then another inch and a quarter for the 1.4X.


You think an EF to RF teleconverter would not add that length? I'm no optics engineer, but there would still be the flange distance to deal with. That isn't going away. Who knows? Maybe it is possible. I don't think so though.


----------



## dominic_siu (Feb 18, 2019)

timmy_650 said:


> Then I have no reason to buy a RF mount. I can just keep using my old 6D.


IF you need a decent ultra wide angle lens, L lens for sure, cheap lens won’t give you great result.


----------



## Talys (Feb 18, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You think an EF to RF teleconverter would not add that length? I'm no optics engineer, but there would still be the flange distance to deal with. That isn't going away. Who knows? Maybe it is possible. I don't think so though.



No, you got it. The optical formula for every lens has a focal point, where the light converges and that's where the sensor has to be. In order to make an EF lens work on an RF body, whether you have a teleconverter or not, you need to add a spacer to increase the distance between the sensor and the lens (since RF has a shorter focal flange distance). There's no way out of it without a different optical formula. The only time you can shorten the lens without any other changes is if there was a bunch of space between the first glass element and the lens mount anyways.

If Canon made an EF to RF adapter with a built in teleconverter, it would be exactly the size of an EF to RF adapter attached to a teleconverter.


----------



## Woody (Feb 18, 2019)

As pointed out by Thom Hogan, there is a disparity in the thinking behind the releases of the RP camera and RF lenses:

"The Canon RP is clearly an entry camera positioned to be affordable. It's a lowest-common denominator product set up to be sold to folk who can't stretch very far on price above the crop sensor products. The RP is truly a consumer product.

Meanwhile, look at the RF lenses we know about so far:

15-35mm f/2.8L
24-70mm f/2.8L
24-105mm f/4L
24-240mm f/4-6.3
28-70mm f/2L
35mm f/1.8
50mm f/1.2L
70-200mm f/2.8L
85mm f/1.2L

Remember, L is Canon's high-end designation. Which means we have exactly two lenses designed and priced for the RP crowd: 24-240mm f/4-6.3 and the 35mm f/1.8.

... there's a clear cognitive dissonance in Canon's early body/lens lineup, and it has to have some people scratching their heads. L lenses and non-L bodies doesn't seem right."
- https://www.sansmirror.com/newsview...18-mirrorless/the-strange-canon-mismatch.html

Where are the more relevant lenses (relatively low weight and cheap) for the RP crowd: 24-70mm f/4, 50mm f/1.8 or even 28-105mm f/4-5.6?


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 18, 2019)

For now, you use the included mount adapter so you can use any cheap EF lens you want.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2019)

Woody said:


> As pointed out by Thom Hogan, there is a disparity in the thinking behind the releases of the RP camera and RF lenses:
> 
> "The Canon RP is clearly an entry camera positioned to be affordable. It's a lowest-common denominator product set up to be sold to folk who can't stretch very far on price above the crop sensor products. The RP is truly a consumer product.
> 
> ...



It is often said that the overwhelming number of customers for the Rebels buy only the 18-55mm and sometimes as well the 55-250mm as part of a kit and no other lenses. If true, then the RF 24-105mm may well be sufficient for the RP as a consumer body for the majority of buyers.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 18, 2019)

razorzec said:


> Looking at the new RF 70-200F2.8L, I do think an 100-400 F4L constant is possible. now the question is, would they make one?


Sure, if you like a zoom with a 100mm-diameter (at least) front element...


----------



## Foxdude (Feb 18, 2019)

Viggo said:


> 100 f1.4 L 1:2?



I'm with you! That would make me to switch from gorgeous EF 100L macro


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 18, 2019)

Woody said:


> As pointed out by Thom Hogan, there is a disparity in the thinking behind the releases of the RP camera and RF lenses:
> 
> "The Canon RP is clearly an entry camera positioned to be affordable. It's a lowest-common denominator product set up to be sold to folk who can't stretch very far on price above the crop sensor products. The RP is truly a consumer product.
> 
> ...



There is no dissonance here. Canon know that the fullframe R/DSLR market is declining at a predicted 50% over the next 2 years. Canon are pushing out the L rf lenses while they still have budget. Once the decline kicks in...no more Rf lenses. It's the R&D budget that's the issue here. Canon are investing for an income famine....concentrating on high profit / low volume lenses. Meanwhile...making a Pro camera requires a lot of R&D and time...which are both in short supply. So they have outted a mid and low end camera bodies that will sell due to their price point. 
If you want an Rf lens and on a budget...there are lots of ef lenses available that work great with the bundled adapter. 
The market has shown that many serous and pros will put up with a mediocre camera body (the original 5D comes to mind) in order to access great full frame lenses. Canon know their market better than most gear junkies give them credit for.


----------



## degos (Feb 18, 2019)

Talys said:


> If Canon made an EF to RF adapter with a built in teleconverter, it would be exactly the size of an EF to RF adapter attached to a teleconverter.



Only if they copied the optics of the EF extender exactly. Why would they? Even EF teleconverters from different manufacturers are different lengths!

At the backplane of the EF lens the optics are making a 44mm image circle. An EF TC takes the central 32 or 22mm portion of that and bends it out again to 44mm in a telephoto manner. An EF-RF-TC insert would actually have an easier job because the optics could be 'weaker' in that it has a longer distance in which to do that. Less bending, more quality.


----------



## razorzec (Feb 18, 2019)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Sure, if you like a zoom with a 100mm-diameter (at least) front element...



Not sure what exactly your point is but if my assumption's correct, then I don't see any problem with a 100mm front element if the inherent design of the RF mount allows placement of most of the elements closer to the sensor for better weight distribution, not to mention that it is certainly going to have a drop in filter like their super telephoto zooms.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 18, 2019)

It would be huge, heavy, expensive. Look at the 200/2L IS... That's a prime with a 100mm front element.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 18, 2019)

Wild guess: tiny 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 and 70-300 f/4-5.6. The 100-400 can wait until Canon introduces a pro or enthusiast level body, especially if the current EF 100-400 works well with the adapter. Personally, I badly want the 24-240, although I first want to try my Tamron EF 28-300 with the adapter.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 18, 2019)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> For now, you use the included mount adapter so you can use any cheap EF lens you want.


And that is exactly where most APSC owners are probably sitting. If they are to move to FF, but are not likely to have the $$$ to stretch very far all at once, their non-L lenses are exactly what they'll use to start. That's why the free adapter. I have a cousin who, just a few weeks ago, switched to Sony FF from Sony APSC. Although he has money, he is loath to spend more on his lenses than he spent on the body. He'll eventually come around. But I think Canon is right with their strategy. Besides, Canon will issue less expensive lenses in the future. It just seems many in the crowd around here are always in a perpetual rush.


----------



## max_sr (Feb 18, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It is often said that the overwhelming number of customers for the Rebels buy only the 18-55mm and sometimes as well the 55-250mm as part of a kit and no other lenses. If true, then the RF 24-105mm may well be sufficient for the RP as a consumer body for the majority of buyers.




But the 18-55mm and the 55-250mm together don't cost half as much as the RF 24-105mm, which would push you back to the EF 24-105 STM and if that's the only lens you need, why not go with a 6DII or just buy a better lens for your APSC camera.
The RF lenses are interesting, but the positioning of the RF bodies is just weird. They don't really give you a great upgrade, if you come from APSC and they don't offer many upgrades, if you already have a fullframe DSLR, without taking away other things.


----------



## bf (Feb 18, 2019)

Woody said:


> As pointed out by Thom Hogan, there is a disparity in the thinking behind the releases of the RP camera and RF lenses:
> 
> "The Canon RP is clearly an entry camera positioned to be affordable. It's a lowest-common denominator product set up to be sold to folk who can't stretch very far on price above the crop sensor products. The RP is truly a consumer product.
> 
> ...


I agree with his comment and had personally made similar comments earlier.
On the positive note: argubly, Canon's best strength is making the glass. They are putting their best options on the table. Even for EOSM, they started relatively strong but felt short quickly (22mm & 11-22). For R, they've shown much more commitment. I think even if R doesn't succeed in photo, it will become a movie maker's mount although the bodies suggest the opposite!


----------



## max_sr (Feb 18, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> There is no dissonance here. Canon know that the fullframe R/DSLR market is declining at a predicted 50% over the next 2 years. Canon are pushing out the L rf lenses while they still have budget. Once the decline kicks in...no more Rf lenses. It's the R&D budget that's the issue here. Canon are investing for an income famine....concentrating on high profit / low volume lenses. Meanwhile...making a Pro camera requires a lot of R&D and time...which are both in short supply. So they have outted a mid and low end camera bodies that will sell due to their price point.
> If you want an Rf lens and on a budget...there are lots of ef lenses available that work great with the bundled adapter.
> The market has shown that many serous and pros will put up with a mediocre camera body (the original 5D comes to mind) in order to access great full frame lenses. Canon know their market better than most gear junkies give them credit for.



I would guess, that coming up with new optical formulas costs much less R&D money, than creating a new sensor manufacturing line, as the underlying technology of lenses hasn't changed all that much and you can simulate almost everything about it before making the first prototype. That's why they put out lenses quite quickly, but use the same old sensors.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2019)

max_sr said:


> But the 18-55mm and the 55-250mm together don't cost half as much as the RF 24-105mm, which would push you back to the EF 24-105 STM and if that's the only lens you need, why not go with a 6DII or just buy a better lens for your APSC camera.
> The RF lenses are interesting, but the positioning of the RF bodies is just weird. They don't really give you a great upgrade, if you come from APSC and they don't offer many upgrades, if you already have a fullframe DSLR, without taking away other things.



The major retailers in the UK are bundling the RP + adaptor with the 24-105mm STM for only £199 extra for the lens - if you don't want to pay the price of the RF lens, there are loads of cheap EF lenses on sale. The RP + 24-105 STM is really very good value. The local camera store is very enthusiastic about possible sales of the bodies alone. Canon has a winner here.


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 18, 2019)

dolina said:


> This is yet another indicator that Canon will not develop the EF system any further. 100% of all R&D DSC resources will be for the RF system.



Why develop the EF anymore?
The just introduced some powerhouses in it that will carry for several years.
Once EF cameras are stopped, sooner than later is a guess then why bother with new lenses for the EF?
The market is flooded with them and even used ones will be available for decades.
I would only ask that they somehow extend the life of servicing these older lenses to be perhaps 30 years.
This way most EF users will have moved on by death or got the new R mount camera.


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 18, 2019)

dominic_siu said:


> IF you need a decent ultra wide angle lens, L lens for sure, cheap lens won’t give you great result.



You haven't tried the 10-18mm. Cheap but rivals the L's for image quality.


----------



## dbyolton (Feb 18, 2019)

I'm a birder with a 1DX Mark II with a 600mm II lens. If Canon announced an RF lens like the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens and an RF Mount 2X teleconverter I'd buy into the R system.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 18, 2019)

dbyolton said:


> I'm a birder with a 1DX Mark II with a 600mm II lens. If Canon announced an RF lens like the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens and an RF Mount 2X teleconverter I'd buy into the R system.


That's assuming the Eos R can focus and track anywhere nearly as fast or accurately as a 1DxII....I think you'll find that the Ros R camera is nice but no where near the confidence inspiring AF lock on ability of a 1DxII. Canon have pretty much stated as much in their recent releases. 
With my experiences with the Eos R (and i'm no expert with this camera) is that there is an inconsistent amount of time for the processor to read the focus data off the sensor. Sometimes it seems quite sprightly....other times it seems very pedestrian. It seems to have a period of time where the processor has to think a bit for the initial lock and that's the bit that feels very alien to me.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 18, 2019)

edoorn said:


> The 100-400 ii is already very good on the R with adapter; I would love a dedicated R version!



What advantage would a native R lens in that range have over the current model with the adaptor?


----------



## Ladislav (Feb 18, 2019)

dolina said:


> This is yet another indicator that Canon will not develop the EF system any further. 100% of all R&D DSC resources will be for the RF system.



And that IMO sucks ...

When people wrote under EOS R announcement that EF is dead, everyone was like: "No it is not yet. Canon will not jump to RF immediately." But now we know that it was a proper assessment of the situation. Even expected 300/2.8 and 500/4 updates for this year are no longer mentioned. There may be one more 1D body for Olympics in 2020 but it is just because Canon may not be able to deliver RF body with the specs expected by professional sport photographers in time. That is pretty much all I expect from EF because I don't see why would Canon then go back and started again releasing L lenses for EF - unless RF bodies are failure which I strongly doubt.

Maybe good for me. I didn't spend a penny on lenses or camera last year. This year I may need to buy 24-70 or 24-105 but that will be because I have to replace current one not because I have a superb options I would run for. I'm tempted with 85/1.4 L - especially now when it may become even cheaper but I will hold on. It is fine not to spend thousands of pounds for gear per year as I did till 2018 and as I would definitely do if Canon did stop investing into EF - I was ready to buy second 5D4 but I'm no longer sure it is a good long term strategy.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> That's assuming the Eos R can focus and track anywhere nearly as fast or accurately as a 1DxII....I think you'll find that the Ros R camera is nice but no where near the confidence inspiring AF lock on ability of a 1DxII. Canon have pretty much stated as much in their recent releases.
> With my experiences with the Eos R (and i'm no expert with this camera) is that there is an inconsistent amount of time for the processor to read the focus data off the sensor. Sometimes it seems quite sprightly....other times it seems very pedestrian. It seems to have a period of time where the processor has to think a bit for the initial lock and that's the bit that feels very alien to me.


The 1DX2 delivers a higher voltage to the 600F4, and it really does focus faster! I strongly suspect that when a high end Rmodel comes out, it will be close to the 1DX2 in size and take the same battery


----------



## edoorn (Feb 18, 2019)

stevelee said:


> What advantage would a native R lens in that range have over the current model with the adaptor?



Who knows, maybe faster AF due to new communication protocol (and perhaps a bit more accurate in tracking/low light?). And possibly, they could improve on the optical formula too. Not sure if a lighter option would be available.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 18, 2019)

Ladislav said:


> And that IMO sucks ...
> 
> When people wrote under EOS R announcement that EF is dead, everyone was like: "No it is not yet. Canon will not jump to RF immediately." But now we know that it was a proper assessment of the situation. Even expected 300/2.8 and 500/4 updates for this year are no longer mentioned. There may be one more 1D body for Olympics in 2020 but it is just because Canon may not be able to deliver RF body with the specs expected by professional sport photographers in time. That is pretty much all I expect from EF because I don't see why would Canon then go back and started again releasing L lenses for EF - unless RF bodies are failure which I strongly doubt.
> 
> Maybe good for me. I didn't spend a penny on lenses or camera last year. This year I may need to buy 24-70 or 24-105 but that will be because I have to replace current one not because I have a superb options I would run for. I'm tempted with 85/1.4 L - especially now when it may become even cheaper but I will hold on. It is fine not to spend thousands of pounds for gear per year as I did till 2018 and as I would definitely do if Canon did stop investing into EF - I was ready to buy second 5D4 but I'm no longer sure it is a good long term strategy.



Will Canon just abandon all wildlife shooters by not updating the 7D or just drop the whole Rebel line?
I don't think so. I think they will release one more version of 7D/80D and by the time of the next update in 4-5 years, mirrorless will be good enough in performance to make everything mirrorless.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2019)

dbyolton said:


> I'm a birder with a 1DX Mark II with a 600mm II lens. If Canon announced an RF lens like the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens and an RF Mount 2X teleconverter I'd buy into the R system.



You would be shooting a t f/11 with a 2xTC. Even on a 24 mpx sensor you would lose considerable resolution - https://www.lenstip.com/540.4-Lens_..._500_mm_f_5.6E_PF_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html - and you would be upping the iso and increasing the noise to lower IQ even further.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2019)

edoorn said:


> Who knows, maybe faster AF due to new communication protocol (and perhaps a bit more accurate in tracking/low light?). And possibly, they could improve on the optical formula too. Not sure if a lighter option would be available.


I believe that Canon stated just that!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 18, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> The 1DX2 delivers a higher voltage to the 600F4, and it really does focus faster! I strongly suspect that when a high end Rmodel comes out, it will be close to the 1DX2 in size and take the same battery



It's not just the voltage to the lens, even the 5DIII has snappier AF than the Eos R. The problem with the Eos R's AF system is that the Digic 8 processor has to do a lot of thinking before it can start to focus a lens and that takes time.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Will Canon just abandon all wildlife shooters by not updating the 7D or just drop the whole Rebel line?
> I don't think so. I think they will release one more version of 7D/80D and by the time of the next update in 4-5 years, mirrorless will be good enough in performance to make everything mirrorless.


It’s interesting to look at Olympus. Their latest beast has a 60FPS mode on the bursts, and then there is the “ pro capture” mode which buffers a number of shots before the shutter is pressed so that if you miss the action, you can go back! I really could have used that yesterday when photographing chickadees. Then we have AI tracking! 

I’m not upgrading my 7D2 until I can do something similar, so at least for me, that means no more mirrored cameras.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It's not just the voltage to the lens, even the 5DIII has snappier AF than the Eos R. The problem with the Eos R's AF system is that the Digic 8 processor has to do a lot of thinking before it can start to focus a lens and that takes time.


Agreed! Having a processor dedicated to AF really helps!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 18, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> It’s interesting to look at Olympus. Their latest beast has a 60FPS mode on the bursts, and then there is the “ pro capture” mode which buffers a number of shots before the shutter is pressed so that if you miss the action, you can go back! I really could have used that yesterday when photographing chickadees. Then we have AI tracking!
> 
> I’m not upgrading my 7D2 until I can do something similar, so at least for me, that means no more mirrored cameras.



I know but looks like Canon can barely do 5 FPS in AF-C at the moment. I believe they still need a new sensor design with much faster readout and maybe dual processors to achieve 10+ FPS.


----------



## dolina (Feb 18, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Why develop the EF anymore?
> The just introduced some powerhouses in it that will carry for several years.
> Once EF cameras are stopped, sooner than later is a guess then why bother with new lenses for the EF?
> The market is flooded with them and even used ones will be available for decades.
> ...


Product development is different from product production.

Whatever EF system product that is availble today would be manufactured for the next 10 years depending on demand.

Just don't expect a 1DX3, 5D5, 5DsR2, 6D3 or 7D3.


----------



## Tom W (Feb 18, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You think an EF to RF teleconverter would not add that length? I'm no optics engineer, but there would still be the flange distance to deal with. That isn't going away. Who knows? Maybe it is possible. I don't think so though.



Of course it would add length. But it would only add the length of one device rather than 2. As it stands now, you have the length of the adapter plus the length of the teleconverter. You could save maybe half an inch or so by combining the 2 functions, with a teleconverter that is designed for the shorter flange-sensor distance in the first place.

Again, not a really big deal, but not impossible either.


----------



## AJ (Feb 18, 2019)

Tom W said:


> Of course it would add length. But it would only add the length of one device rather than 2. As it stands now, you have the length of the adapter plus the length of the teleconverter. You could save maybe half an inch or so by combining the 2 functions, with a teleconverter that is designed for the shorter flange-sensor distance in the first place.
> 
> Again, not a really big deal, but not impossible either.


Having an RF-mount teleconverter that fits EF glass would probably be longer. But the extra length may have advantages for optical design.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2019)

dolina said:


> Product development is different from product production.
> 
> Whatever EF system product that is availble today would be manufactured for the next 10 years depending on demand.
> 
> Just don't expect a 1DX3, 5D5, 5DsR2, 6D3 or 7D4.



So, we can expect a 7D3? In that case, good.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I know but looks like Canon can barely do 5 FPS in AF-C at the moment. I believe they still need a new sensor design with much faster readout and maybe dual processors to achieve 10+ FPS.



Yes, but the 7D2 can already do 10FPS with dual digic6... Surely dual Digic8 could do better. Plus, when shooting video the sensor is read 60 times per second.

I suspect that a large part of the speed problem is A/D settling time. When you are shooting stills you are generating 14 bit RAW files, and that means using a 14 bit (or higher) A/D chip. When you shoot video you do not need the same colour depth so you can clock it higher because you are not using the lower precision bits anyway.

(I am going to make up the following numbers to demonstrate the concept)
Lets say you have a 14 Bit A/D chip that is designed to run at 1Mhz. If you run that chip at 2Mhz, you will still get a digital output, but (lets say) the last two bits are now random noise.... but you don't really care because all you really want for video is 8 bits, so the 12 accurate bits are good enough. You might be able to push that same chip to 3 or 4 MHZ and still get your 8 bits of data for the video. 

And yes, the mechanical mirror will be part of the reason for the slower frame rate, but just getting rid of it is not enough. If Canon rerally wants a high framerate monster it will take lots of computing power and massively parallel A/D on the sensor itself. I think that it is coming, but I will not hold my breath while
I wait.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2019)

AlanF said:


> So, we can expect a 7D3? In that case, good.


The 7D2 is the oldest camera in the Canon lineup and is 5 years into a 5 year refresh cycle. The 80D is three years into a 3 year refresh cycle. Normally, both should be updated soon. If they are not, it will be an interesting time for speculation as to why.....


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 18, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Will Canon just abandon all wildlife shooters by not updating the 7D or just drop the whole Rebel line?


Canon will not abandon "all" wildlife shooters. Not "all" wildlife shooters are using a 7D series camera.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 18, 2019)

Tom W said:


> Of course it would add length. But it would only add the length of one device rather than 2. As it stands now, you have the length of the adapter plus the length of the teleconverter. You could save maybe half an inch or so by combining the 2 functions, with a teleconverter that is designed for the shorter flange-sensor distance in the first place.
> 
> Again, not a really big deal, but not impossible either.



I'm just curious as to where you are pulling that 1/2 inch from? There is still the flange distance problem, but how do you know your idea would save 1/2 inch? How do you know what is and isn't possible? Fact is that you don't know. You want it to be true, and it would be nice, but you don't know. Speculation and want does not = the reality of physics.

And if it isn't a big deal (as you say yourself), then why should Canon spend the resources (assuming you are correct about the 1/2 inch)? If I had an 800mm L I don't believe 1/2 inch would make the slightest difference to me.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Canon will not abandon "all" wildlife shooters. Not "all" wildlife shooters are using a 7D series camera.


I was carrying a 6D2 and a 7D2 today..... I only feel half abandoned


----------



## unfocused (Feb 18, 2019)

It amazes me how so many people on this forum have such incredible inside knowledge about the future of DSLRs and the EF mount. They really should send their resumes to Canon because I am sure Canon would love to know what the future holds for cameras. It could save Canon a lot of time and money if they could predict the future with the same certainty as these forum geniuses.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 18, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Canon will not abandon "all" wildlife shooters. Not "all" wildlife shooters are using a 7D series camera.



Not all but plenty, especially bird photographers. What should they buy? A 5D4 or 1DX with 600mm F4?


----------



## unfocused (Feb 18, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> The 7D2 is the oldest camera in the Canon lineup and is 5 years into a 5 year refresh cycle. The 80D is three years into a 3 year refresh cycle. Normally, both should be updated soon. If they are not, it will be an interesting time for speculation as to why.....



Nikon followed a seven-year refresh cycle with the D500. We can speculate about the refresh cycles followed by both companies, but it is just that: speculation.

Digital is a much more mature product today than it was five years ago and that means a slower pace of development. The only thing that has changed significantly since the introduction of the 7DII that affects image quality is on-chip ADC, and with current technology that seems to mainly impact base ISO, which is not that beneficial for a sports and wildlife camera. The 7DII could benefit from a touch screen, built-in wifi and all f8 focus points, but not so much as to justify a new model. Autofocus could be improved, but it isn't all that different from the autofocus of the 1DxII or the 5DIV, so it needs to leapfrog those bodies in my opinion.

My speculation, and I readily admit it is only speculation, that the decision facing Canon and Nikon both is whether or not the pace of development in mirrorless will be sufficiently advanced to make a mirrorless body that is not simply as good as, but much better than what they can accomplish with a DSLR. I suspect we are at least one generation away from that.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 18, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Yes, but the 7D2 can already do 10FPS with dual digic6... Surely dual Digic8 could do better. Plus, when shooting video the sensor is read 60 times per second.
> 
> I suspect that a large part of the speed problem is A/D settling time. When you are shooting stills you are generating 14 bit RAW files, and that means using a 14 bit (or higher) A/D chip. When you shoot video you do not need the same colour depth so you can clock it higher because you are not using the lower precision bits anyway.
> 
> ...



Let's not forget the Dual Pixel AF. In a DSLR the AF sensor is separate and i believe the CPU has a much easier job to calculate correct focus distance. In mirrorless there is much more AF data to process. Even the EOS R can do 8 FPS but only 5 or 3 with AF.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 18, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Not all but plenty, especially bird photographers. What should they buy? A 5D4 or 1DX with 600mm F4?



I'm a big fan of the 7D, but I have to admit that the 5DIV is not a bad substitute for birds in flight. It has essentially the same autofocus. Has better high ISO performance. The 30 mp sensor is very forgiving of severe crops. The frame rate is less, but not painfully slow (the biggest problem I find is with the buffer, not the FPS). I actually own all three (7d, 1D and 5D) and find this to be my use case: Sports -- 1Dx II with 5DIV as second body; Birding: 7D II in bright light, 5DIV in early morning and fading afternoon light.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Let's not forget the Dual Pixel AF. In a DSLR the AF sensor is separate and i believe the CPU has a much easier job to calculate correct focus distance. In mirrorless there is much more AF data to process. Even the EOS R can do 8 FPS but only 5 or 3 with AF.



Yes, anything fast is going to need lots of computing power. The latest Oly has dual quad core chips. It would not surprise me in the least if the 7D or 5D equivalents in the R line had dual 2 core (or 4 core) digic chips, and the iDX equivalent with three of them.


----------



## dolina (Feb 18, 2019)

AlanF said:


> So, we can expect a 7D3? In that case, good.


No 7D3.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 18, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Not all but plenty, especially bird photographers. What should they buy? A 5D4 or 1DX with 600mm F4?


They buy whatever they want or need. There is no obligation to keep giving a person what they personally want. Saying "all" is silly. Reminds me of my young teen years, "Everybody else was doing it!" The man has a 7D II. Fine camera. However, that doesn't entitle him to a 7D III. Feeling entitled seems to be the fashion these days. Canon has to do whatever Canon has to do to survive "the great contraction".


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 18, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I was carrying a 6D2 and a 7D2 today..... I only feel half abandoned


Obviously, you are less insecure than the average bear cat.  I'm surprised you can even take photos with those dinosaurs.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 18, 2019)

dolina said:


> No 7D3.


You seem very sure of yourself. How about putting some skin in the game? Say, you agree to buy AlanF a 7DIII if Canon releases one.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 18, 2019)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> It would be huge, heavy, expensive. Look at the 200/2L IS... That's a prime with a 100mm front element.


And a magic lens


----------



## scyrene (Feb 18, 2019)

Viggo said:


> The 70-200 looks like it...



Well the length savings in the RF version seem to be down to making it extend when zooming. The EF 70-200s are the size they are partly because they do not extend - it's a matter of personal preference which you consider better, whether you value saving space in your bag versus better sealing - but it seems to have little to do with the mount.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 18, 2019)

AlanF said:


> You would be shooting a t f/11 with a 2xTC. Even on a 24 mpx sensor you would lose considerable resolution - https://www.lenstip.com/540.4-Lens_..._500_mm_f_5.6E_PF_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html - and you would be upping the iso and increasing the noise to lower IQ even further.



Not quite as bad, but I shoot with the 500 f/4 + 2x extender and stop down to f/10 and it works fine in most situations. Not as good as the 1.4 or bare lens, but worthwhile imo.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 18, 2019)

dolina said:


> Just don't expect a 1DX3, 5D5, 5DsR2, 6D3 or 7D4.



I'm not usually one for making predictions, but there will absolutely be a 1dx mark III.


----------



## dolina (Feb 18, 2019)

scyrene said:


> I'm not usually one for making predictions, but there will absolutely be a 1dx mark III.


I hope you are correct.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2019)

scyrene said:


> Not quite as bad, but I shoot with the 500 f/4 + 2x extender and stop down to f/10 and it works fine in most situations. Not as good as the 1.4 or bare lens, but worthwhile imo.



The 500 f/4 is a spectacular lens. The Nikon 560/5.6 PF is quite good but not in the same league IQ wise.


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 18, 2019)

scyrene said:


> Well the length savings in the RF version seem to be down to making it extend when zooming. The EF 70-200s are the size they are partly because they do not extend - it's a matter of personal preference which you consider better, whether you value saving space in your bag versus better sealing - but it seems to have little to do with the mount.



The thing that has changed my mind on the extending 70-200 is that the 24-70 is also extending. I put my 24-70 through the same amount of grief that the 70-200 gets, and there's never been an issue, ever. Obviously the 24-70 extends to save room as well, so I don't see why the 70-200 shouldn't. Went from despising the design to wondering why this wasn't how the thing was always made in the first place.

I also wonder if the extending design would protect the lens more from shock--my 70-200 has taken a lot of blows to the lenshood--and that's done a number on the front of the lens barrel, but if it extended, the extended part would just slide back in the zoom as if you pushed-pulled on it.


----------



## Trey T (Feb 19, 2019)

MEAllred said:


> Why is Canon so secretive about when they plan to release the next R body? Publishing the type and timeframe shouldn't be a state secret...


It’s just a normal process of a big organization or corporation. If it’s in not in the production phase (eg conceptual or test), it’s not a good idea to release something that’s not good, viable, or sustainable product. The last thing they want is for us or competitors to laugh at their poor execution


----------



## dolina (Feb 19, 2019)

The focal length and speed of the lenses Canon chooses to release first could be used as an indicator of what lenses will sell the most out of the gate. Any delays on the zooms could be technical or manufacturing process in nature.

If Canon were to maintain a release clip of 8 RF L lenses every 12 months would allow them to replicate the EF lineup in about 4 years.

Will all zooms Canon develops have IS in their future lineup? This of course excludes the 28-70/2.0. With the RF mount having more flexibility to add IS it is entirely possible to put IS into the 8-15 Fisheye and 11-24. Not releasing the non-IS zooms would allow Canon improved economies of scale to just maintain two zoom lens lines rather than the current four.

How small the pancake lens of the RF mount will be. Will it be 23mm in max length like the 40mm STM or will it be 37mm in max length like the Sony 35mm f/2.8

I would not be surprised if the RF equivalent of the TS-E lenses were released after the fast long white primes.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 19, 2019)

H. Jones said:


> The thing that has changed my mind on the extending 70-200 is that the 24-70 is also extending. I put my 24-70 through the same amount of grief that the 70-200 gets, and there's never been an issue, ever. Obviously the 24-70 extends to save room as well, so I don't see why the 70-200 shouldn't. Went from despising the design to wondering why this wasn't how the thing was always made in the first place.
> 
> I also wonder if the extending design would protect the lens more from shock--my 70-200 has taken a lot of blows to the lenshood--and that's done a number on the front of the lens barrel, but if it extended, the extended part would just slide back in the zoom as if you pushed-pulled on it.



Interesting points!


----------



## saveyourmoment (Feb 19, 2019)

Why Canon is announcing the "pro" RF Lenses an d not the "pro body"? yes perhaps the pro eosr is not ready yet, but what they do now is a quiet genius step: Announcing these lenses: every body(mostly Canon pro users) are going "wow, what great lenses, so with that i can't wait to buy the "pro eos r", so much gerat lenses.
And probably the Canon shooters want to wait for the pro body and buy these great new lenses with it.

If they would have announced the pro body first, then everybody would only focus on this pro body and would say: "yeah, is like the sony xzy, so they catched up, but where are the lenses for that body? I don't want to use the adapter. with my ef lenses..."

To announce the lenses first is a quite good marketingstrategy


----------



## transpo1 (Feb 19, 2019)

Gosh, sure would be nice to use these lenses on a camera without a 1.6x or 1.8x crop in 4K. Let me know, Canon.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 19, 2019)

saveyourmoment said:


> Why Canon is announcing the "pro" RF Lenses an d not the "pro body"? yes perhaps the pro eosr is not ready yet, but what they do now is a quiet genius step: Announcing these lenses: every body(mostly Canon pro users) are going "wow, what great lenses, so with that i can't wait to buy the "pro eos r", so much gerat lenses.
> And probably the Canon shooters want to wait for the pro body and buy these great new lenses with it.
> 
> If they would have announced the pro body first, then everybody would only focus on this pro body and would say: "yeah, is like the sony xzy, so they catched up, but where are the lenses for that body? I don't want to use the adapter. with my ef lenses..."
> ...



Why spend $4,000 on a pro body when you have no lenses worthy of it? 
Working on the maxim that 'it is the lenses that matter' if you create a superb lens and put it on a lesser body you will get better results than a decent lens on a brilliant body. Also, I think bodies are pretty much flattening out regards features and quality and there are loads of compromises (do you want Canon's weather sealing or Sony's sensor? Canon's colour science or Sony's video etc etc etc) but lenses can be the real differentiation.
I remember using the EOS-R at a launch meeting and the jaw dropper for me was not the body but the 50mm f1.2. If you look at many early reviews they say pretty much the same thing.

Sony and Nikon went the other way and did bodies first. No right or wrong, just different strategies


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 19, 2019)

In September 1989, when Canon introduced their EOS-1 professional film camera, they introduced their holy trinity of lenses simultaneously. They had introduced other high end lenses previously but that was often because those lenses also being introduced for the FD lens mount simultaneously or already existed in that mount.. (The 85 f/1.2 was introduced for FD in 1981.) 

In August 2007, when Nikon introduced the D3 and began their push in FF professional cameras, they simultaneously introduced their FF holy trinity, including the 14-24.

Introducing the EF 24-105 STM as a kit lens for the RP strikes me as absolutely desperate move.


----------



## dolina (Feb 19, 2019)

Bob Howland said:


> In September 1989, when Canon introduced their EOS-1 professional film camera, they introduced their holy trinity of lenses simultaneously. They had introduced other high end lenses previously but that was often because those lenses also being introduced for the FD lens mount simultaneously or already existed in that mount.. (The 85 f/1.2 was introduced for FD in 1981.)
> 
> In August 2007, when Nikon introduced the D3 and began their push in FF professional cameras, they simultaneously introduced their FF holy trinity, including the 14-24.
> 
> Introducing the EF 24-105 STM as a kit lens for the RP strikes me as absolutely desperate move.


Seeming these are Japanese companies that offer lifetime employment it would not be surprising to know that the decision makers in the 80s & are the same as those of today.

If the whole digital still camera market were growing at 10% year over year for the past 2 decades then I'd agree that the EF system will still be developed.

But it has been in decline for nearly 1 decade. Canon even forecasted the whole digital still camera shrinking to 10 million point & shoot, dslr and mirrorless cameras by year end of 2020.


----------



## FramerMCB (Feb 19, 2019)

I predict Canon will not introduce Mk III versions of the 300mm f2.8L IS or the 500mm f4.0L IS in the EF mount, but rather introduce these as RF mount lenses (and probably not until they have at the very least announced the next EOS R body. The may even redo the 200mm f2.0L IS in the RF mount - Canon's sharpest lens ever (per various reviews - I have no first-hand use/knowledge of this). 

I also predict a 28-135 f3.0 (or 2.8) - 4.0 USM as a kit (or possibly a 24-120mm) in the RF mount...
Exciting times.


----------



## Drainpipe (Feb 19, 2019)

I’m sincerely hoping that the MP-E 65mm gets an RF update. Slim chance it’s going to be one of these first lenses, but I can always dream.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 19, 2019)

Tom W said:


> How about an RF-EF 1.4X teleconverter. That would be ideal for people with some big EF glass already in hand. I mean, if you're going to fill that space, it might as well be with a teleconverter for use with long glass.



It's not that simple. One reason the Canon _extenders_ give such high quality images compared to the teleconverter designs from other lensmakers is that the front of them _extends_ into the rear of the main lens. The optical elements for an extender with such high optical quality would still need to be located in front of the extra 24mm spacing taken up by an EF to RF adapter. So your EF to RF adapter with built-in 1.4X TC would be about the same size, length, and weight as a regular EF to RF adapter coupled with an EF1.4X III.



timmy_650 said:


> I wish they would make a cheap wide angle, something that will pair well with the RP camera. Like the EF-s 10-18 but for full frame.



A FF 10-18 is 16-28.8. There is already the EF 16-35mm f/4. We'll probably see something similar in RF eventually. As the size of the image circle grows, "cheap" gets harder and harder for wide angle lenses with an expectation of high image quality.



Tom W said:


> Of course, but why add length to an already lengthy package. I mean it's not a big deal, but why add a half inch or so of additional length to the lens with the adapter, and then another inch and a quarter for the 1.4X.



See above. The resulting EF to RF adapter with 1.4X would be the same length as an EF to RF adapter + EF1.4X to give the same performance.



Pape said:


> gnah i am allergic for smell of lens rubber .all canon lenses got rubber wheels for zoom and focus?



They are fairly easy to remove.



AlanF said:


> It is often said that the overwhelming number of customers for the Rebels buy only the 18-55mm and sometimes as well the 55-250mm as part of a kit and no other lenses. If true, then the RF 24-105mm may well be sufficient for the RP as a consumer body for the majority of buyers.



If they do buy more, the first one is almost always a 50mm f/1.8. It's interesting that they went with the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM before releasing a consumer 50mm f/1.8.




Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Sure, if you like a zoom with a 100mm-diameter (at least) front element...



Why not go whole hog and make it f/2.8 with a front element at least 142mm across?




degos said:


> Only if they copied the optics of the EF extender exactly. Why would they? Even EF teleconverters from different manufacturers are different lengths!
> 
> At the backplane of the EF lens the optics are making a 44mm image circle. An EF TC takes the central 32 or 22mm portion of that and bends it out again to 44mm in a telephoto manner. An EF-RF-TC insert would actually have an easier job because the optics could be 'weaker' in that it has a longer distance in which to do that. Less bending, more quality.



That's not exactly how it works. Just because the IC at the sensor is 44mm does not mean the image circle cone is that large when it passes through the flange. Many wide aperture lenses have baffles behind the rear element that are smaller than the 54mm throat (or the 44mm diagonal of the sensor). They do this to reduce flare caused by light outside the part of the image circle that will actually fall on the sensor reflecting off the walls of the mirror box. Remember, with zoom lenses the IC is often much larger at longer focal lengths than the minimum IC needed for a particular sensor size. The IC is usually the smallest at the shortest FL and expands more or less in proportion to the zoom ratio as it is zoomed.



Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> It would be huge, heavy, expensive. Look at the 200/2L IS... That's a prime with a 100mm front element.



Or look at the EF 200-400mm f/4 1.4X. Also look at the price. Now you want a 100-400 f/4?



bf said:


> I agree with his comment and had personally made similar comments earlier.
> On the positive note: argubly, Canon's best strength is making the glass. They are putting their best options on the table. Even for EOSM, they started relatively strong but felt short quickly (22mm & 11-22). For R, they've shown much more commitment. I think even if R doesn't succeed in photo, it will become a movie maker's mount although the bodies suggest the opposite!



They probably intended to do more for EOS-M before shifting over to RF, but market forces forced them to shift gears to FF RF earlier than they had planned?



blackcoffee17 said:


> Will Canon just abandon all wildlife shooters by not updating the 7D or just drop the whole Rebel line?
> I don't think so. I think they will release one more version of 7D/80D and by the time of the next update in 4-5 years, mirrorless will be good enough in performance to make everything mirrorless.



I hope you are right about one more high end APS-C "sports/wildlife" body. Call it a 7D Mark III or a 90D.





Don Haines said:


> It’s interesting to look at Olympus. Their latest beast has a 60FPS mode on the bursts, and then there is the “ pro capture” mode which buffers a number of shots before the shutter is pressed so that if you miss the action, you can go back! I really could have used that yesterday when photographing chickadees. Then we have AI tracking!
> 
> I’m not upgrading my 7D2 until I can do something similar, so at least for me, that means no more mirrored cameras.



That 60fps does not have the ability to do AF tracking of a moving subject. It slows down to about 1/3 that speed if you want to refocus between each frame.




Tom W said:


> Of course it would add length. But it would only add the length of one device rather than 2. As it stands now, you have the length of the adapter plus the length of the teleconverter. You could save maybe half an inch or so by combining the 2 functions, with a teleconverter that is designed for the shorter flange-sensor distance in the first place.
> 
> Again, not a really big deal, but not impossible either.



You'd also get the lower IQ current TCs with elements that don't extend into the back of lenses with a 44mm registration give. The reason Canon calls their magnifiers "extenders" is because they "extend" into the rear of the lens.



blackcoffee17 said:


> Not all but plenty, especially bird photographers. What should they buy? A 5D4 or 1DX with 600mm F4?



I'm sure Canon would be more than happy if even 2/3 of the 7DII/100-40mm users did that!




Viggo said:


> And a magic lens



For $5.7K, it had better be magic!




dolina said:


> The focal length and speed of the lenses Canon chooses to release first could be used as an indicator of what lenses will sell the most out of the gate. Any delays on the zooms could be technical or manufacturing process in nature.
> 
> If Canon were to maintain a release clip of 8 RF L lenses every 12 months would allow them to replicate the EF lineup in about 4 years.
> 
> I would not be surprised if the RF equivalent of the TS-E lenses were released after the fast long white primes.



I would not be surprised if it is a very, very, very long time before we see fast, long white primes in RF mount. The disappearance of the pro sports shooter that can actually afford such lenses and still make a living is going to make such lenses very low volume. And there is little advantage to the shorter registration distance for such long focal lengths.


----------



## dolina (Feb 20, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I would not be surprised if it is a very, very, very long time before we see fast, long white primes in RF mount. The disappearance of the pro sports shooter that can actually afford such lenses and still make a living is going to make such lenses very low volume. And there is little advantage to the shorter registration distance for such long focal lengths.


Photo news agencies are major customer. They buy these lenses by the dozen. They tend to buy them every Olympics. The next long lens could happen a year before the 2024 or 2028 Summer Olympics. By then EF production would be sunsetting.

Another major customer are wildlife photographers, govt and named independent sport photographers

Here is the release date of every EF 400mm f/2.8 lens and in which Summer Olympics it was developed for.

December 2018 - 400mm f/2.8L IS III USM for the 2020 Summer Olympics
August 2011 - 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM for the 2012 Summer Olympics
September 1999 - 400mm f/2.8L IS USM for the 2000 Summer Olympics
March 1996 - 400mm f/2.8L II USM for the 1996 Summer Olympics
April 1991 - 400mm f/2.8L USM for the 1992 Summer Olympics
Sales of these sort of lenses tend to be least impacted by smartphones unlike other DSCs.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 20, 2019)

Drainpipe said:


> I’m sincerely hoping that the MP-E 65mm gets an RF update. Slim chance it’s going to be one of these first lenses, but I can always dream.



If they do, I hope Canon will consider moving it to a 0.8 - 4x range to be able to get bigger things in frame.
Has anyone tried an MP-E on an R yet to see if the focus guides work?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 20, 2019)

What's the point in putting a ef 400 LIS III on an Eos R? It's AF can't track that fast....it's Servo mode is pedestrian and hesitant at best. Certainly not in the 5D4 / 1DxII league. The big whites won't come to Rf until Canon have cracked the speed and tracking accuracy of their software based dual pixel AF....until then....ef is the way to go for big lens photography.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2019)

dolina said:


> Photo news agencies are major customer. They buy these lenses by the dozen. They tend to buy them every Olympics. The next long lens could happen a year before the 2024 or 2028 Summer Olympics. By then EF production would be sunsetting.
> 
> Another major customer are wildlife photographers, govt and named independent sport photographers
> 
> ...



Photo news agencies rarely have staff photographers to whom they issue company owned gear anymore, at least not in the United States. It's all freelancers being paid pennies on the dollar now. Sports freelancers that used to be paid $250 per half page image by major publications (many of whom are now out of print) are now getting $2.50 per use from Getty for the same image.

That's not exactly a sustainable business model that allows buying new big whites every time they are released. One of the few surviving full-time staffers I know (he's the only one left of a newspaper staff that had four photogs just 3 years ago - if his newspaper didn't get most of their subscriptions because they cover a major college's athletic teams, including the football team which has won 5 championships in the last decade, he might be gone by now, too) is still shooting with the EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS released in 1999.

As for independent sports photographers, it's far worse now than it was in 2015 when this article was published:

What Killed Editorial Sports Photography?: You’ve Got To Hustle As A Sports Shooter These Days


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> If they do, I hope Canon will consider moving it to a 0.8 - 4x range to be able to get bigger things in frame.
> Has anyone tried an MP-E on an R yet to see if the focus guides work?



What focus guides? There is only one focus distance for any particular magnification. You set the magnification, then you move the entire camera/len towards or away from the subject until it is in focus.


----------



## dolina (Feb 20, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> What's the point in putting a ef 400 LIS III on an Eos R? It's AF can't track that fast....it's Servo mode is pedestrian and hesitant at best. Certainly not in the 5D4 / 1DxII league. The big whites won't come to Rf until Canon have cracked the speed and tracking accuracy of their software based dual pixel AF....until then....ef is the way to go for big lens photography.


Canon has 17 months to release a mirrorless 1DX2 and 5D4 successor. If it isn’t to your liking I’m sure they will still sell DSLRs next year.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 20, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> What focus guides? There is only one focus distance for any particular magnification. You set the magnification, then you move the entire camera/len towards or away from the subject until it is in focus.



The guides shown at item number 8 here: https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/article/en/8-eos-r-focusing-features-we-cant-wait-to-try

I currently use 10x zoom while moving the camera back and forth, which sometimes messes up the composition due to tilt or rotation. I've seen reports that focus guides work with old manual lenses that have been chipped, if that's true it should work with the MP-E as well.


----------



## bf (Feb 20, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> They probably intended to do more for EOS-M before shifting over to RF, but market forces forced them to shift gears to FF RF earlier than they had planned?



This was back to 2012-2013! M did not meet the expectations and Canon put everything on clearance and left several markets including the USA for a few years! They skipped M2 in these regions and officially returned with EOS M3 in 2015. Lenses with a plastic mount (some say to save weight) and bodies with PowerShot firmware happened during this period. EF-M 32f1.4 was finally offered as a finer glass after 7 years of waiting.


----------



## Drainpipe (Feb 21, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> If they do, I hope Canon will consider moving it to a 0.8 - 4x range to be able to get bigger things in frame.
> Has anyone tried an MP-E on an R yet to see if the focus guides work?


 
Are you me? I keep saying this, only I would extend those ranges to go from .5x - 4x. Half life size is great for some of the larger beetles. Really the only thing I don't like about the MP-E is that it starts at 1x. I have tried to replicate the MP-E experience with a 100L, but it's just not the same. The MP-E is really in a class of its own.




koenkooi said:


> The guides shown at item number 8 here: https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/article/en/8-eos-r-focusing-features-we-cant-wait-to-try
> 
> I currently use 10x zoom while moving the camera back and forth, which sometimes messes up the composition due to tilt or rotation. I've seen reports that focus guides work with old manual lenses that have been chipped, if that's true it should work with the MP-E as well.




Welp, if this works it's selling me more and more on the R series. I'm waiting for the 5RSR or whatever they're going to call the big megapixel mirrorless monster. Being able to zoom at 10x AND have a focusing guide? Would be awesome with the MP-E.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 21, 2019)

Drainpipe said:


> Are you me? I keep saying this, only I would extend those ranges to go from .5x - 4x. Half life size is great for some of the larger beetles. Really the only thing I don't like about the MP-E is that it starts at 1x. I have tried to replicate the MP-E
> experience with a 100L, but it's just not the same. The MP-E is really in a class of its own.[..]



I have exactly the same issues, but a bit worse due to using 1.6x crop sensors 

What I did the past 2 summers was using both M + MP-E and 100D + EF-S 60mm for close up work. Start with the EF-S 60mm to sneak up on solitary bees building their nests and use the MP-E to camp out.

And you can go from this:



to the next picture without too much trouble:


----------



## Viggo (Feb 21, 2019)

Michael Clark:

Yes, the new retail price of the 200 f2.0 L is crazy, but here in Scandinavia I’ve bought two of them at 1/3 of the retail price, one was quite a few hundred dollars less than a new 70-200 mk2. People don’t get how much better it is, or are not willing to carry the weight. So they are very rarely on sale here, and they are a very tough sell. But for me I can buy and sell it and make money on them when I want something else. I’m 100% sure I’m gonna buy a third copy sometime .. then someone in this thread mentioned a RF 200 f2.0 L and I didnt hear anything after that thought set in my head


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 21, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> I have exactly the same issues, but a bit worse due to using 1.6x crop sensors
> 
> What I did the past 2 summers was using both M + MP-E and 100D + EF-S 60mm for close up work. Start with the EF-S 60mm to sneak up on solitary bees building their nests and use the MP-E to camp out.
> 
> ...


Gaaaasp!
Fantastic close-ups!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 21, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Michael Clark:
> 
> Yes, the new retail price of the 200 f2.0 L is crazy, but here in Scandinavia I’ve bought two of them at 1/3 of the retail price, one was quite a few hundred dollars less than a new 70-200 mk2. People don’t get how much better it is, or are not willing to carry the weight. So they are very rarely on sale here, and they are a very tough sell. But for me I can buy and sell it and make money on them when I want something else. I’m 100% sure I’m gonna buy a third copy sometime .. then someone in this thread mentioned a RF 200 f2.0 L and I didnt hear anything after that thought set in my head


Ooo...I'd love to be able to find a 200mm f2.0 LIS S/H for a good rate...here in the UK they are all silly prices. Do you have a specific shop you go to that has good S/H prices?


----------



## Viggo (Feb 21, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Ooo...I'd love to be able to find a 200mm f2.0 LIS S/H for a good rate...here in the UK they are all silly prices. Do you have a specific shop you go to that has good S/H prices?


Used is the only option below retail. I feel real sorry for those who actually bought them new


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 21, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Used is the only option below retail. I feel real sorry for those who actually bought them new


Yep, here in the UK those lenses still go for a pretty penny on the used market. Not far off new RRP.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 22, 2019)

H. Jones said:


> The thing that has changed my mind on the extending 70-200 is that the 24-70 is also extending. I put my 24-70 through the same amount of grief that the 70-200 gets, and there's never been an issue, ever. Obviously the 24-70 extends to save room as well, so I don't see why the 70-200 shouldn't. Went from despising the design to wondering why this wasn't how the thing was always made in the first place.
> 
> I also wonder if the extending design would protect the lens more from shock--my 70-200 has taken a lot of blows to the lenshood--and that's done a number on the front of the lens barrel, but if it extended, the extended part would just slide back in the zoom as if you pushed-pulled on it.


And here I am wishing their could be a Canon 24-70 that does not extend...


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 23, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> The guides shown at item number 8 here: https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/article/en/8-eos-r-focusing-features-we-cant-wait-to-try
> 
> I currently use 10x zoom while moving the camera back and forth, which sometimes messes up the composition due to tilt or rotation. I've seen reports that focus guides work with old manual lenses that have been chipped, if that's true it should work with the MP-E as well.



Ahh. I thought you were referring to some mechanical part of the lens.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 23, 2019)

bf said:


> This was back to 2012-2013! M did not meet the expectations and Canon put everything on clearance and left several markets including the USA for a few years! They skipped M2 in these regions and officially returned with EOS M3 in 2015. Lenses with a plastic mount (some say to save weight) and bodies with PowerShot firmware happened during this period. EF-M 32f1.4 was finally offered as a finer glass after 7 years of waiting.



In the U.S. it did not meet sales expectations. In Japan it is the best selling mirrorless system and has been for quite some time.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 23, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Michael Clark:
> 
> Yes, the new retail price of the 200 f2.0 L is crazy, but here in Scandinavia I’ve bought two of them at 1/3 of the retail price, one was quite a few hundred dollars less than a new 70-200 mk2. People don’t get how much better it is, or are not willing to carry the weight. So they are very rarely on sale here, and they are a very tough sell. But for me I can buy and sell it and make money on them when I want something else. I’m 100% sure I’m gonna buy a third copy sometime .. then someone in this thread mentioned a RF 200 f2.0 L and I didnt hear anything after that thought set in my head



So where, exactly, is the comment I might have made to which you are responding? I have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 23, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> So where, exactly, is the comment I might have made to which you are responding? I have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## bf (Feb 24, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> In the U.S. it did not meet sales expectations. In Japan it is the best selling mirrorless system and has been for quite some time.


I've seen the reports but so what?!


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 25, 2019)

bf said:


> I've seen the reports but so what?!



Ultimately, Canon cares about how many yen their products generate. Period. It matters not to them if those yen come from Japanese customers or from U.S. Dollars that came from their U.S. customers that are converted to yen, or from Euros from their EUropean customers that are converted to yen.


----------



## bf (Feb 25, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Ultimately, Canon cares about how many yen their products generate. Period. It matters not to them if those yen come from Japanese customers or from U.S. Dollars that came from their U.S. customers that are converted to yen, or from Euros from their EUropean customers that are converted to yen.


I think Canon has found its market for M products and now its seeking the positioning of the R product.


----------

