# The RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS is coming soon



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 21, 2019)

> It looks like the next RF lens to hit the market will be the RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS, a lens that will be highly desirable to Canon EOS R shooters.
> The RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS will come kitted with the Canon EOS RP body as well, which is a likely pair for a lot of shooters.
> Pricing for the lens and EOS RP kit have yet to leak.
> Along with the lens and kit, lens hood EW-78F is also coming.



Continue reading...


----------



## Woody (Jun 21, 2019)

Any leaks about the size and weight of the 24-240 lens? If it's lightweight, I will seriously reconsider delving back to the world of FF.


----------



## Stuart (Jun 21, 2019)

Wow, a 10x zoom from canon - what's the world coming to? Will this be a killer travel lens.


----------



## VORON (Jun 21, 2019)

Such a lens can be a deal breaker for those who are still reluctant about switching from EF to RF. I made a switch from EF to FE with FE 24-240 in mind. If it was today, I'd have a serious consideration about staying with Canon.


----------



## fabao (Jun 21, 2019)

The current and upcoming lenses are all great news. But where is the improved body? It does not have to be a 1DX equivalent, but at least offer what we already take from granted from the competition: IBIS, Increased FPS, and decent video. C'mon Canon!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 21, 2019)

This is great but will Canon have anything affordable for long lens shooters or just the 100-400? At least in EF mount one could use an APS-C body but now we only have FF with low pixel density.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 21, 2019)

Stuart said:


> Wow, a 10x zoom from canon - what's the world coming to? Will this be a killer travel lens.



Canon already made two 10x zoom lenses - the EF 35–350mm f/3.5–5.6L USM, and the EF 28–300mm f/3.5–5.6L IS USM.


----------



## criscokkat (Jun 21, 2019)

Interested to see what the image quality is on this. If it's at least a full frame comparable equivalent to their 'nifty 250' I think a lot of RP kits will be sold this Christmas, especially if they can get the MSRP for the kit at something around 1499 or so and the RP itself to 1099.

This is the kit combo that would make it into every Target, Best Buy and Costco.


----------



## amorse (Jun 21, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> This is great but will Canon have anything affordable for long lens shooters or just the 100-400? At least in EF mount one could use an APS-C body but now we only have FF with low pixel density.


Short answer, I'm betting nothing will come on EF but maybe RF. Long answer to follow:

Canon doesn't seem to want to stray from f/5.6 at the most narrow on EF as it would impact focusing success on some lower end bodies. In fact, I think the long offerings from Sigma and Tamron actually trick the autofocus system into believing that their most narrow aperture is 5.6 and not the actual 6.3 that it is, but that can impact focus success in lower light. Since the focus system on most Canon cameras has a lot of f/5.6 autofocus points, but few or no f/8 autofocus points, I suspect that any f/6.3 Canon-manufactured lenses are out of the question for EF. A long zoom with f/5.6 at its most narrow gets really big really fast, and there's a lot of competition out there from third party manufacturers so it may not be worth it for Canon to bother trying to compete. If Canon released a direct competitor to the Sigma/Tamron, it would be huge to get the f/5.6 they'd want and it would likely need to be a fair bit more expensive. I'd point to the Nikon 200-500 - it hits the f/5.6 threshold, but it's still 100mm shy of the offerings from Sigma/Tamron and weighs half a pound more. I think Canon has bet that there aren't enough people who would choose their expensive offering over the Sigma/Tamron reasonably priced offerings, especially if they had to settle for 500mm instead of 600mm.

With that said, the EOS R can focus at f/11, so those f/6.3s shouldn't be as limiting on RF as on EF. On the M system Canon has moved away from that f/5.6 threshold (i.e. the EF-M 15-45 f/3.5-6.3), so it stands to reason that they could do the same on RF. Further, I'm not sure the third party manufacturers have been able to reverse engineer the RF mount protocol, so I don't think they can make an RF mount super zoom with autofocus yet (other than having users just use the adapter), so Canon may arguably have less competition on super zooms for RF which may make building such a lens more attractive to them. It's possible, but if they do it I'll bet that the quality wouldn't meet the 100-400, and it will be expensive as hell because there's no competition.

Probably not the answer people want to hear, but that's my thinking for the little that it's worth!


----------



## Kit. (Jun 21, 2019)

amorse said:


> It's possible, but if they do it I'll bet that the quality wouldn't meet the 100-400, and it will be expensive as hell because there's no competition.


It won't be expensive as hell if they want to sell RP kits through Costco.


----------



## Stuart (Jun 21, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon already made two 10x zoom lenses - the EF 35–350mm f/3.5–5.6L USM, and the EF 28–300mm f/3.5–5.6L IS USM.


True but the EF 28–300mm f/3.5–5.6L IS USM is 15 years old, and the EF 35–350mm f/3.5–5.6L USM is discontinued - its 25 years old.
This new one must be a significant improvement with recent lens developments.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 21, 2019)

amorse said:


> Short answer, I'm betting nothing will come on EF but maybe RF. Long answer to follow:
> 
> Canon doesn't seem to want to stray from f/5.6 at the most narrow on EF as it would impact focusing success on some lower end bodies. In fact, I think the long offerings from Sigma and Tamron actually trick the autofocus system into believing that their most narrow aperture is 5.6 and not the actual 6.3 that it is, but that can impact focus success in lower light. Since the focus system on most Canon cameras has a lot of f/5.6 autofocus points, but few or no f/8 autofocus points, I suspect that any f/6.3 Canon-manufactured lenses are out of the question for EF. A long zoom with f/5.6 at its most narrow gets really big really fast, and there's a lot of competition out there from third party manufacturers so it may not be worth it for Canon to bother trying to compete. If Canon released a direct competitor to the Sigma/Tamron, it would be huge to get the f/5.6 they'd want and it would likely need to be a fair bit more expensive. I'd point to the Nikon 200-500 - it hits the f/5.6 threshold, but it's still 100mm shy of the offerings from Sigma/Tamron and weighs half a pound more. I think Canon has bet that there aren't enough people who would choose their expensive offering over the Sigma/Tamron reasonably priced offerings, especially if they had to settle for 500mm instead of 600mm.
> 
> ...



I really want to stay with Canon but at the moment Sony seems incredibly attractive with the 200-600 paired with A7R3 and a tiny A6300/6400 for backup.


----------



## amorse (Jun 21, 2019)

Kit. said:


> It won't be expensive as hell if they want to sell RP kits through Costco.


Oh no, I wasn't suggesting the RP kitted with the 24-240 would be expensive has hell, I was suggesting that an RF 150-600 - or something else comparable to the Tamron/Sigma offerings would be expensive as hell. The comment I was responding to was asking whether or not Canon would ever release something akin to the Sigma/Tamron (or I guess now Sony too) offerings. I agree, the RP with the 24-240 will be very reasonably priced, and may come down if Nikon does release a sub-$1000 full frame body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2019)

Traveling now with the R, RF 24-104, and the adapter with the 70-300L. I’d have preferred the RF 24-240. Next trip...


----------



## amorse (Jun 21, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I really want to stay with Canon but at the moment Sony seems incredibly attractive with the 200-600 paired with A7R3 and a tiny A6300/6400 for backup.


Hey, ya gotta go with what suits your need. If you have to switch, you have to switch.

Canon is anything but fast when it comes to releasing products and if you wait for Canon to release a product that they haven't announced, you could be setting yourself up for disappointment. I think about all the people who've waited for a 7D III hearing the suggestion that it is never coming - what a frustration that could be for them if they were holding off replacing a damaged camera. 

I think the bottom line is if your kit isn't giving you what you need right now, then choosing the kit that meets your needs now makes sense. If your current kit is "good enough" and you're just interesting upgrading because the current system is getting a bit worn out or you'd like some new features but don't plan on depending on them, then patience is a virtue. If you're not out taking pictures because the current camera can't do it, then forget waiting - get a new system right away: loyalty is for chumps.

I've stuck with Canon for some time now not because I love Canon and want to see the company succeed - I stick around because my system delivers everything I need and more, I'm really comfortable with my kit and have a ton of trust in it, and the results it generates satisfy my expectations. The day my needs change is the day I move to whatever camera best suits those needs.


----------



## BrightTiger (Jun 21, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon already made two 10x zoom lenses - the EF 35–350mm f/3.5–5.6L USM, and the EF 28–300mm f/3.5–5.6L IS USM.


This is an RF, not EF lens. Also, the 24mm end provides a view bordering on ultra wide angle (by definition), while the 35mm is standard view at best. For an everyday or travel lens, this is a huge benefit.


----------



## criscokkat (Jun 21, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> This is an RF, not EF lens. Also, the 24mm end provides a view bordering on ultra wide angle (by definition), while the 35mm is standard view at best. For an everyday or travel lens, this is a huge benefit.


It also pretty more or less matches the ef 18-135 on a crop camera, which is pretty nice kit lens. On an 80d the 18-135 is equivalent to a 28-216, so the 24-240 is just a bit wider and just a bit longer. With the extra light gathered with a full fame lens the real world use case between the low end and high end is negligible.


----------



## ozturert (Jun 21, 2019)

When is an affordable 24-105mm coming? Or 24-85mm? 1600mm with RP, and that kit will sell like crazy.


----------



## Adelino (Jun 21, 2019)

Sounds like it will be a nice lens.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 21, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon already made two 10x zoom lenses - the EF 35–350mm f/3.5–5.6L USM, and the EF 28–300mm f/3.5–5.6L IS USM.


And the 18-200


----------



## cayenne (Jun 21, 2019)

Please pardon what I"m guessing is likely a stupid question....
But really, what is the use for such a SLOW lens in general? Is this for only if you are planning to shoot on nice sunny days, or planning on using flash/strobe only?

Thanks in advance,

c


----------



## BillB (Jun 21, 2019)

ozturert said:


> When is an affordable 24-105mm coming? Or 24-85mm? 1600mm with RP, and that kit will sell like crazy.


Amazon is selling the EF 24-105 f3.5-5.6 for $383, which you can adapt to the R mount. Other than that, you may have to wait a while. Some places have been bundling the EF 24-105 F3.5-5.6 with the RP.


----------



## David Hull (Jun 21, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


It doesn't look like the assignable control ring is there (assuming the picture is real).


----------



## BillB (Jun 21, 2019)

cayenne said:


> Please pardon what I"m guessing is likely a stupid question....
> But really, what is the use for such a SLOW lens in general? Is this for only if you are planning to shoot on nice sunny days, or planning on using flash/strobe only?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> ...


Well, it is st


cayenne said:


> Please pardon what I"m guessing is likely a stupid question....
> But really, what is the use for such a SLOW lens in general? Is this for only if you are planning to shoot on nice sunny days, or planning on using flash/strobe only?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> ...



It is stabilized, which helps. Also, on vacation who wants to take pictures on cloudy days anyway?


----------



## mpb001 (Jun 21, 2019)

This sounds like a lens to have mounted on an RP more or less all of the time. Although, not the primary reason for this, but it would also help preventing dust from getting on the sensor, since the RP does not have that great sensor cover that slides down when a lens in removed.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 21, 2019)

David Hull said:


> It doesn't look like the assignable control ring is there (assuming the picture is real).



Canon said in an interview that you can switch the focus ring to be a control ring in software.


----------



## mpb001 (Jun 21, 2019)

David Hull said:


> It doesn't look like the assignable control ring is there (assuming the picture is real).


The control ring is there. It is the same ring that is used for focusing. I saw a switch on the photo that says control/focus.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 21, 2019)

cayenne said:


> Please pardon what I"m guessing is likely a stupid question....
> But really, what is the use for such a SLOW lens in general? Is this for only if you are planning to shoot on nice sunny days, or planning on using flash/strobe only?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> ...



In most of the situations outdoors you can shoot easily at F5.6, F8, even in overcast/cloudy days, without using high ISO. It's the perfect travel lens combined with a 35mm prime for indoors and low light situations.


----------



## LesC (Jun 21, 2019)

I'm not sure I really get the point of a 24-240 for the EOS R or RP... Surely the point of going Full-Frame is to get the best possible quality? If you want to travel light, surely an M50 EOS 200/250D would do the job?


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 21, 2019)

Stuart said:


> True but the EF 28–300mm f/3.5–5.6L IS USM is 15 years old, and the EF 35–350mm f/3.5–5.6L USM is discontinued - its 25 years old.



Indeed, but "Wow, a 10x zoom from canon - what's the world coming to?" sounds like Canon never made 10x zooms before. If you're limiting yourself to RF mount, there's a lot more Canon hasn't done yet then it has.


----------



## PGSanta (Jun 21, 2019)

Ughhhhhhhh, 15-35 Canon!!!!!!!


----------



## danfaz (Jun 21, 2019)

ozturert said:


> When is an affordable 24-105mm coming?



The RF 24-105 L is 899. Quite a bargain compared to the other L lenses. Do you mean a non-L lens?


----------



## luiskp (Jun 21, 2019)

cayenne said:


> Please pardon what I"m guessing is likely a stupid question....
> But really, what is the use for such a SLOW lens in general? Is this for only if you are planning to shoot on nice sunny days, or planning on using flash/strobe only?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> ...


f/4 in full frame is not that slow. It would gather the same amount of light as a f/1.56 EF-S


----------



## Kit. (Jun 21, 2019)

cayenne said:


> Please pardon what I"m guessing is likely a stupid question....
> But really, what is the use for such a SLOW lens in general? Is this for only if you are planning to shoot on nice sunny days, or planning on using flash/strobe only?


It's still faster than 100-400 with a teleconverter.

Being able to get acceptable images at ISO 3200-6400 helps.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 21, 2019)

cayenne said:


> Please pardon what I"m guessing is likely a stupid question....
> But really, what is the use for such a SLOW lens in general? Is this for only if you are planning to shoot on nice sunny days, or planning on using flash/strobe only?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> ...


It isn't always true. I shot the below photo with a Canon XSi and 55-250 many years ago. 18 second exposure @250mm f/5.6 ISO 100 and 4 miles across the bay. So when we are gear limited, we can find a way to use the slow lenses if we have to. Some people can't afford fast lenses. This lens is for them.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 21, 2019)

cayenne said:


> Please pardon what I"m guessing is likely a stupid question....
> But really, what is the use for such a SLOW lens in general? Is this for only if you are planning to shoot on nice sunny days, or planning on using flash/strobe only?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> ...


As a backpacker, I am willing to trade speed for smaller size.

As a kayaker, I hate the idea of changing lenses in the boat.

I think that there are going to be a lot of RP’s sold with this lens in the kit.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 21, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> As a backpacker, I am willing to trade speed for smaller size.
> 
> As a kayaker, I hate the idea of changing lenses in the boat.
> 
> I think that there are going to be a lot of RP’s sold with this lens in the kit.


Don, have you ever taken a several days trip and camped on the bank? Just wondering. I've thought about canoeing the length of the Mississippi river in a big expedition type canoe.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 22, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don, have you ever taken a several days trip and camped on the bank? Just wondering. I've thought about canoeing the length of the Mississippi river in a big expedition type canoe.


Canoeing the Mississippi is no small challenge. The Mississippi is the National interstate highway for river traffic. You must go through locks and share the river with massive barges.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Canoeing the Mississippi is no small challenge. The Mississippi is the National interstate highway for river traffic. You must go through locks and share the river with massive barges.


True, but it has been done. doingmiles.com I might try when I get a little older. I'm sure there are many dangers too.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 22, 2019)

luiskp said:


> f/4 in full frame is not that slow. It would gather the same amount of light as a f/1.56 EF-S



I had to read your comment literary three time to even understand your point. 
You are grossly incorrect. Full frame or not, exposure Values will be identical for a FF or crop sensor camera body. 
Angle of view will be different, high iso performance will be different but that is due to crop sensor inferior high iso abilities, not lens. 
F4 in full frame is a full stop slower than F2.8. And even shooting withF2.8 zooms, I frequently reaching for a fast prime to keep iso levels within my comfort zone on 5D IV (6400)


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jun 22, 2019)

I've yet to buy in to the R system; I'm sure that, at some point, I will.

My family and I are all-in on Canon's M system--and I've found Canon's EF-M 18-150mm to be a very useful travel tool, when paired with the M6.

...would be nice if it were a bit wider, though. The R 24-240mm would accomplish that.

Size-and-weight-and-volume, though, seem to matter to many posting here--Sony's FE 24-240 is certainly not tiny.

I look forward to seeing Canon's effort here...


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 22, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don, have you ever taken a several days trip and camped on the bank? Just wondering. I've thought about canoeing the length of the Mississippi river in a big expedition type canoe.


 There is a book called “Paddle to the Amazon” which has a good section on the Mississippi. I met the author, quite the nutcase, but makes for a great story.....

I have done up to 4 week trips, but the Mississippi will be a lot longer. Rather than a big expedition canoe, what about a touring kayak? Lots of room for gear and easier to paddle. Personally, with company I prefer canoes, but when solo prefer a kayak, unless the purpose of the paddle is photography, in which case I prefer a canoe and carry a big pelican case for the gear


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> There is a book called “Paddle to the Amazon” which has a good section on the Mississippi. I met the author, quite the nutcase, but makes for a great story.....
> 
> I have done up to 4 week trips, but the Mississippi will be a lot longer. Rather than a big expedition canoe, what about a touring kayak? Lots of room for gear and easier to paddle. Personally, with company I prefer canoes, but when solo prefer a kayak, unless the purpose of the paddle is photography, in which case I prefer a canoe and carry a big pelican case for the gear


I fear I am far too top heavy for a kayak.  Have you written about your trips? +10 on the Pelican case.


----------



## hamish (Jun 22, 2019)

LesC said:


> I'm not sure I really get the point of a 24-240 for the EOS R or RP... Surely the point of going Full-Frame is to get the best possible quality? If you want to travel light, surely an M50 EOS 200/250D would do the job?



I have the 200D and the EF-S Canon 18-135mm IS STM. When I travelled overseas for 3 months last year, I only took this lens. It was a great travel kit. Since then, I've added the 55-250mm IS STM & 24mm STM. I'm considering the 10-18 as well. It takes great photos but I find the 9 point OVF AF points quite limiting. The central one (cross-type, and there's only one of them) is the only one which reliably works for me.

I'd be _very_ interested in an RP and 24-240. The 24-240 is pretty much the same as the crop 18-135 which I use most often, FF, a better AF system, uses the same batteries as the 200D, and my existing EF-S lenses can be adapted, at least in the short-term until I could afford to fill out the range with other (faster) RF lenses.  Very tempting package, especially if the price comes down a bit more.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 22, 2019)

hamish said:


> I have the 200D and the EF-S Canon 18-135mm IS STM. When I travelled overseas for 3 months last year, I only took this lens. It was a great travel kit. Since then, I've added the 55-250mm IS STM & 24mm STM. I'm considering the 10-18 as well. It takes great photos but I find the 9 point OVF AF points quite limiting. The central one (cross-type, and there's only one of them) is the only one which reliably works for me.
> 
> I'd be _very_ interested in an RP and 24-240. The 24-240 is pretty much the same as the crop 18-135 which I use most often, FF, a better AF system, uses the same batteries as the 200D, and my existing EF-S lenses can be adapted, at least in the short-term until I could afford to fill out the range with other (faster) RF lenses.  Very tempting package, especially if the price comes down a bit more.


Your existing EF-S lenses were not designed to cover full frame sensor image circle. I am sorry to give you a bad news. Unless you are happy to live with a very heavy vignetting your EF-S lenses introduce when shooting on a full frame cameras.
Not sure if one can fit an EF-S lens to the EF to RF adaptor at this stage.

Canon EOS 5D Mark II + Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM at f/6.3 1/100 ISO400 @ 18mm. Smaller coverage than the full frame sensor.


----------



## max_sr (Jun 22, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> As a backpacker, I am willing to trade speed for smaller size.
> 
> As a kayaker, I hate the idea of changing lenses in the boat.
> 
> I think that there are going to be a lot of RP’s sold with this lens in the kit.



Wouldn't you rather use a weather-sealed lens for kayaking?


----------



## hamish (Jun 22, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> our existing EF-S lenses were not designed to cover full frame sensor image circle. I am sorry to give you a bad news. Unless you are happy to live with a very heavy vignetting your EF-S lenses introduce when shooting on a full frame cameras.
> Not sure if one can fit an EF-S lens to the EF to RF adaptor at this stage.











Mount Adapter EF-EOS R


Attach the Mount Adapter EF-EOS R to your EOS R body to access Canon's complete range of EF and EF-S lenses.




www.canon.com.au





"Canon’s EF-EOS R mount adapter gives you the flexibility to shoot with any EF *or EF-S* lens on an EOS R mirrorless camera."

"All lens functions of EF a*nd EF-S* lenses are supported when shooting with the adapter so there is no loss of AF speed or Image Stabilization ability"

"Stepping up from a Canon EOS APS-C crop sensor camera? The EF-EOS R Mount adapter will allow you to use your *EF-S lenses* on an EOS R mirrorless camera."

There's no vignetting as when the R/RP senses an EF-S lens it effectively turns the sensor into APS-C. We can debate the merits of using EF-S on FF, but at the moment I _may_ be able to afford an RP + adapter, but not an RP and a suite of new EF/RF glass. That will come later.


----------



## ozturert (Jun 22, 2019)

BillB said:


> Amazon is selling the EF 24-105 f3.5-5.6 for $383, which you can adapt to the R mount. Other than that, you may have to wait a while. Some places have been bundling the EF 24-105 F3.5-5.6 with the RP.


No such bundle in Europe and adapter is still another interface between lens and camera. A native lens will be infinitely better.


----------



## ozturert (Jun 22, 2019)

danfaz said:


> The RF 24-105 L is 899. Quite a bargain compared to the other L lenses. Do you mean a non-L lens?


Yes non-L. I already have the RF 24-105 and it is phenomenal. Canon still needs a 400-500 USD kit lens for RP.


----------



## LordVader (Jun 22, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> It also pretty more or less matches the ef 18-135 on a crop camera, which is pretty nice kit lens. On an 80d the 18-135 is equivalent to a 28-216, so the 24-240 is just a bit wider and just a bit longer. With the extra light gathered with a full fame lens the real world use case between the low end and high end is negligible.


Just a bit ist right if you look a the pure numbers. But the difference between 15mm and 18mm @APS-C is huge. I had the 15-85 on a 7D and it was great for City-Trips, with the 18-135 I have to take the 10-18 (or 10-22) with me all the Time.

If it is reasonably priced the RP/24-240 Bundle could be a huge Boost in RP Sales. For me it could be the starter... 
(And combined with the 50/1,8, 100L, and 70-300 a reasonable priced allroundpackage.


----------



## David Hull (Jun 22, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Canon said in an interview that you can switch the focus ring to be a control ring in software.


Hmmmm...., that's interesting. I assume that it will be smooth without the detents then. May pass on this one.


----------



## AJ (Jun 22, 2019)

A 240-240, eh? I wonder what the barrel distortion will be at 24 mm


----------



## ThomasK (Jun 22, 2019)

Good choice. Will get the 24-240 from Sony for my upcoming A7r II body. But always praying for a decent Canon mirrorless body with a reasonable price tag before going to bed!


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 22, 2019)

AJ said:


> A 240-240, eh? I wonder what the barrel distortion will be at 24 mm


"240-240"??? Is that intentional? I will definitely be looking at this lens on an RP. I only hope that Canon has decided to show the world just how good a moderately priced superzoom can be.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2019)

ozturert said:


> No such bundle in Europe and adapter is still another interface between lens and camera. A native lens will be infinitely better.


Not true. All the adapter does is replace the "space" between the lens and sensor that is lost switching to R/RP from EF. There is no glass element to interfere. There is no loss of image quality. So infinitely better? Not at all. It is the same.


----------



## ozturert (Jun 22, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Not true. All the adapter does is replace the "space" between the lens and sensor that is lost switching to R/RP from EF. There is no glass element to interfere. There is no loss of image quality. So infinitely better? Not at all. It is the same.


Ok, not infinitely better. The adapter not having optics isn't solution to ither issues such as:

Additional interface which may break, may have imperfections, may bend, and have 2 more sets of pins which increase probability of failure.
Increased length. This is bothersome to me because I cannot put adapter + 70-200mm f4 L IS vertically into my favourite bag. Plus, with long glass I am scared to put camera+lens in and pull out of the bag.
Although AF accuracy is excellent, the adapter doesn't work well with some of my lenses (like 100mm f2.8 Macro and 85mm f1.8 USM). Some lenses also focus slower with adapter (compared to my 7D).
I am using many of my EF lenses on Eos R with the adapter and it is usually OK. Here, Canon's target should be, to sell RP + RF kit lens to newbies or inexperienced APS-C users or EF users (or anyone) who want a simple solution. An additional device is almost always negative for these people.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 22, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> And the 18-200


The 18-200 is a crop lens. Looking at crop lenses, there is the 50-1000 with a built in 1.5X extender. Its super 35 and is available with a EF mount. Thats 30X. It costs no more than some new cars. ($70,000)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 22, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Not true. All the adapter does is replace the "space" between the lens and sensor that is lost switching to R/RP from EF. There is no glass element to interfere. There is no loss of image quality. So infinitely better? Not at all. It is the same.


I use my EF lenses with adapter, but native RF lenses are able to have a larger rear element which decreases the angle at which light rays strike the sensor. That is better, less light fall off at the edges and less distortion.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 23, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I use my EF lenses with adapter, but native RF lenses are able to have a larger rear element which decreases the angle at which light rays strike the sensor. That is better, less light fall off at the edges and less distortion.



Have you actually measured the largest rear element possible for both RF and EF lenses? I measured the rear elements of three of my EF lenses and they were all 37 to 38mm in diameter. The limiting factor seems to be the location of the communications/power pins on the back of the lens, relative to the lens' optical center.


----------



## Adelino (Jun 23, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Your existing EF-S lenses were not designed to cover full frame sensor image circle. I am sorry to give you a bad news. Unless you are happy to live with a very heavy vignetting your EF-S lenses introduce when shooting on a full frame cameras.
> Not sure if one can fit an EF-S lens to the EF to RF adaptor at this stage.


No problem using EF-S on RF with the adapter (other than the crop) I have not seen any signs of vignetting.


----------



## ozturert (Jun 23, 2019)

Adelino said:


> No problem using EF-S on RF with the adapter (other than the crop) I have not seen any signs of vignetting.


Yes EF-S lenses can be used with crop. The cameras automatically switches to APS-C mode with EF-S lenses. This us actually good in 4K video because RF cameras apply 1.8x crop in 4K video. With EF-S lenses I can compensate for this crop.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 23, 2019)

Adelino said:


> No problem using EF-S on RF with the adapter (other than the crop) I have not seen any signs of vignetting.



yes, as it was explain to me by the OP (above), the \canon EF - RF adaptor command the R body that an EF-S lens is attached and body set itself into a "crop mode". essentially your image is the x1.6 crop of a centre area of your FF sensor, hence no vignetting.
I wonder if this is exactly what Canon called "an elegant solution". definitely a good one.
Shooting video with Sigma EF 18-35 / 1.8 on an R platform seems to be an excellent option. the lens is nearly parfocal and offers a very nice zoom range. hm..


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 23, 2019)

Just my honest opinion, Canon should have waited to release the RP until this lens was ready for the market. It seems that everyone has been bitching and complaining about the prices of the lenses for the RF mount versus the price the RP. This lens should have been offered as the exclusive kit lens option with that camera and not the 24-105L and the EF 24-105 non L that nobody has ever purchased because it's the same price new is the L series is as a kit.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 23, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I use my EF lenses with adapter, but native RF lenses are able to have a larger rear element which decreases the angle at which light rays strike the sensor. That is better, less light fall off at the edges and less distortion.


It would seem to me intuitively that the wider the rear element and the closer it is to the sensor, the worse the vignetting because the sharper the angle of a ray from the outer part of the lens hitting the opposite edge of the sensor (say a ray from the extreme left hitting the sensor on the extreme right). Has Canon written somewhere that the RF lenses should be better at vignetting?
The two RF lenses tested by Optical limits on the R do have worse vignetting than their EF equivalents on a DSLR:
RF 1.2 f/1.2 Vignetting 3.24ev
EF 1.2 f/1.2 Vignetting 2.74ev

RF 24-105mm, f/4 Vignetting 24mm 2.6ev; 105mm 2.1ev
EF 24-105mm II, f/4 Vignetting 24mm 1.9ev; 105mm 1.45ev


----------



## syder (Jun 24, 2019)

ozturert said:


> ...A native lens will be infinitely better.



No. Someone needs to learn what the word infinite means.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 24, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It would seem to me intuitively that the wider the rear element and the closer it is to the sensor, the worse the vignetting because the sharper the angle of a ray from the outer part of the lens hitting the opposite edge of the sensor (say a ray from the extreme left hitting the sensor on the extreme right). Has Canon written somewhere that the RF lenses should be better at vignetting?
> The two RF lenses tested by Optical limits on the R do have worse vignetting than their EF equivalents on a DSLR:
> RF 1.2 f/1.2 Vignetting 3.24ev
> EF 1.2 f/1.2 Vignetting 2.74ev
> ...



Yup, good catch. Expected. The shorter the flange distance the stronger the light falloff centre to extreme corners. I do not recall any vignetting related comments by Canon to date.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 24, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Yup, good catch. Expected. The shorter the flange distance the stronger the light falloff centre to extreme corners. I do not recall any vignetting related comments by Canon to date.



Didn't Canon say they tweaked the micro lenses on the sensor to help with vignetting?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 24, 2019)

Well they can tweak that all they want but variability of distances between lense to Centre of the sensor and lense to corners suggest a stronger light falloff for RF system.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 24, 2019)

Woody said:


> Any leaks about the size and weight of the 24-240 lens? If it's lightweight, I will seriously reconsider delving back to the world of FF.



From the photos I would guess ~85mm diameter and 135mm length (smallest setting). Weight is a very rough guess: I think it will be in the region of 900 grams. This one with a hypothetical RF 1.8 50 or 85 Macro (in the RF 35mm style) would make a serious, compact and flexible "photographic solution" for those who want go light and do not want to lug around a lot of weight: 24-240 for brighter days, 50/85 1.8 for darker environments or more close focus or more DOF-reduction.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 24, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Yup, good catch. Expected. *The shorter the flange distance the stronger the light falloff centre to extreme corners.* I do not recall any vignetting related comments by Canon to date.



This is TRUE if you make a pan cake lens where you exploit the short flange distance for compactness: The lens group is placed close to the sensor but you have flat angles (measured against sensor surface) which show a stronger reflection (less light onto the sensor photodiodes).
This is NOT true if you have a lens element placed close to the sensor that bends the light from flat angles (measured against sensor surface) into a "more perpendicular" direction.

Basically a short flange distance creates more "freedom of lens design" - the compromise between aberrations and size/weight etc.


----------



## ozturert (Jun 24, 2019)

syder said:


> No. Someone needs to learn what the word infinite means.


Yes, infinitely was exaggeration. A native lens will be a lot better for new Canon users and for photographers who don't want to deal with an additional interface (both physical and electronic).


----------



## BurningPlatform (Jun 24, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> I had to read your comment literary three time to even understand your point.
> You are grossly incorrect. Full frame or not, exposure Values will be identical for a FF or crop sensor camera body.
> Angle of view will be different, high iso performance will be different but that is due to crop sensor inferior high iso abilities, not lens.
> F4 in full frame is a full stop slower than F2.8. And even shooting withF2.8 zooms, I frequently reaching for a fast prime to keep iso levels within my comfort zone on 5D IV (6400)



Well, actually, the total light (number of photons) captured by a full frame sensor with the same aperture is 1,6² times more than the total light captured on the final image of a Canon APS-C sensor. You have to (basically) multiply the exposure with the area of the sensor to get the total light. That is the ground reason why the same generation of sensors with the same number of pixels on APS-C have worse high ISO performance (at image and pixel level) than the FF sensors.There are less photons to form the image both for each pixel and the total image on APS-C in this case.

Thus, the total amount of light hitting the FF sensor from an f4.0 lens is the same as the total light of an f2.5 (4/1.6) lens on Canon APS-C, as the aperture is calculated linearly against a single image dimension,( not f1.56, as previously claimed).

Of course, if you crop the FF image to APS-C in post, you get a more or less identical image with he same lens, but that is not the point here.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 24, 2019)

BurningPlatform said:


> Well, actually, the total light (number of photons) captured by a full frame sensor with the same aperture is 1,6² times more than the total light captured on the final image of a Canon APS-C sensor. You have to (basically) multiply the exposure with the area of the sensor to get the total light. That is the ground reason why the same generation of sensors with the same number of pixels on APS-C have worse high ISO performance (at image and pixel level) than the FF sensors.There are less photons to form the image both for each pixel and the total image on APS-C in this case.
> 
> Thus, the total amount of light hitting the FF sensor from an f4.0 lens is the same as the total light of an f2.5 (4/1.6) lens on Canon APS-C, as the aperture is calculated linearly against a single image dimension,( not f1.56, as previously claimed).
> 
> Of course, if you crop the FF image to APS-C in post, you get a more or less identical image with he same lens, but that is not the point here.



Break out a light meter and take exposure of the scene for a FF camera with a FF lens attached and then for a aps-c camera with an aps-c lens attached. Are they any different? 
So....


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 24, 2019)

BurningPlatform said:


> Well, actually, the total light (number of photons) captured by a full frame sensor with the same aperture is 1,6² times more than the total light captured on the final image of a Canon APS-C sensor. You have to (basically) multiply the exposure with the area of the sensor to get the total light. That is the ground reason why the same generation of sensors with the same number of pixels on APS-C have worse high ISO performance (at image and pixel level) than the FF sensors.There are less photons to form the image both for each pixel and the total image on APS-C in this case.
> 
> Thus, the total amount of light hitting the FF sensor from an f4.0 lens is the same as the total light of an f2.5 (4/1.6) lens on Canon APS-C, as the aperture is calculated linearly against a single image dimension,( not f1.56, as previously claimed).
> 
> Of course, if you crop the FF image to APS-C in post, you get a more or less identical image with he same lens, but that is not the point here.


The density of light with an F4.0 lens on a FF sensor is the same as the density of light with a crop F4.0 lens on a crop lens.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 24, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Break out a light meter and take exposure of the scene for a FF camera with a FF lens attached and then for a aps-c camera with an aps-c lens attached. Are they any different?
> So....


Sensor's _illuminance_ for the same relative aperture is the same, but the _luminous flux_ through the FF sensor is 1.6² times higher.

With the same _absolute_ aperture (and angle of view), the luminous flux through the both sensors would be the same, but the APS sensor would need to have higher capacitance per unit area to keep the photoelectrons from overflowing it.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Jun 24, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Break out a light meter and take exposure of the scene for a FF camera with a FF lens attached and then for a aps-c camera with an aps-c lens attached. Are they any different?
> So....


Of course. That was not the point at all. So...


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 24, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Sensor's _illuminance_ for the same relative aperture is the same, but the _luminous flux_ through the FF sensor is 1.6² times higher.
> 
> With the same _absolute_ aperture (and angle of view), the luminous flux through the both sensors would be the same, but the APS sensor would need to have higher capacitance per unit area to keep the photoelectrons from overflowing it.


Now, read what was the original statement I had a reply to.then read what you just wrote. Find a relevance. It had nothing to do with sensor. Hint. It was about a lens.
And how aps-c lens light gathering capacity , f-stop is different from a full frame lens f-stop.



> f/4 in full frame is not that slow. It would gather the same amount of light as a f/1.56 EF-S


----------



## Kit. (Jun 24, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Now, read what was the original statement I had a reply to.then read what you just wrote. Find a relevance. It had nothing to do with sensor. Hint. It was about a lens.
> And how aps-c lens light gathering capacity , f-stop is different from a full frame lens f-stop.


An APS-C lens normally has a smaller image circle than a FF lens. So, whatever I said about illuminance and liuminous flux for sensors, is also relevant for lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Kit. said:


> An APS-C lens normally has a smaller image circle than a FF lens. So, whatever I said about illuminance and liuminous flux for sensors, is also relevant for lenses.


True. Plus the fact that discussing the light gathered by a lens in the absence of a sensor to capture it is rather irrelevant.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 24, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It would seem to me intuitively that the wider the rear element and the closer it is to the sensor, the worse the vignetting because the sharper the angle of a ray from the outer part of the lens hitting the opposite edge of the sensor (say a ray from the extreme left hitting the sensor on the extreme right). Has Canon written somewhere that the RF lenses should be better at vignetting?
> The two RF lenses tested by Optical limits on the R do have worse vignetting than their EF equivalents on a DSLR:
> RF 1.2 f/1.2 Vignetting 3.24ev
> EF 1.2 f/1.2 Vignetting 2.74ev
> ...


I'll agree with you regarding the distance from rear element to sensor but not regarding diameter of rear element. The rear element is not going to be designed to direct a light ray from one side of the rear element to the opposite side of the sensor. Rather it will be designed to direct the ray outward onto the same side of the sensor. A larger diameter rear element will reduce the amount of light bending occurring in the rear element.

To change the subject and to repeat myself, I want to know if there is a difference in rear element diameter in EF and RF lenses. Some people seem to be assuming that the RF rear elements are larger than EF rear elements. This is far from obvious to me and I would like people to actually measure the diameter of RF lens rear elements, especially the 50 f/1.2 and 28-70 f/2. The three EF lens rear elements I measured all were 37-38mm in diameter.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> True. Plus the fact that discussing the light gathered by a lens in the absence of a sensor to capture it is rather irrelevant.


And don’t forget how the optical properties of a lens change, depending on what body you mount it on


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 25, 2019)

Kit. said:


> An APS-C lens normally has a smaller image circle than a FF lens. So, whatever I said about illuminance and liuminous flux for sensors, is also relevant for lenses.



Yes, aps-c lens (typically) has a smaller image circle. By definition. And some aps-c lenses cover FF image circle pretty well. 
e.g. Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art at 35mm end only. 

Solved


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 25, 2019)

BillB said:


> Well, it is st
> 
> 
> It is stabilized, which helps. Also, on vacation who wants to take pictures on cloudy days anyway?



Those who don't want their skys to be the same boring thing in every.single.shot?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Those who don't want their skys to be the same boring thing in every.single.shot?


+1

Blue skies are pretty boring and rarely make for nice landscapes. I’d take some interesting clouds, and maybe a CPL to make them pop a bit, over a featureless daytime blue sky any day. OTOH, clear blue skies make nice blue hour shots.


----------



## BillB (Jun 25, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Those who don't want their skys to be the same boring thing in every.single.shot?



True. The 24-240 is definitely not the right lens for everyone or the right lens for all occasions, but it will likely find a market, especially at its price point.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 25, 2019)

max_sr said:


> Wouldn't you rather use a weather-sealed lens for kayaking?



"Weather resistant", which is the term Canon uses, does not men waterproof. As Uncle Roger has so often pointed out, "weather resistant" only means they won't cover water damage under warranty. For kayaking/canoeing one needs "waterproof." No Canon EF or RF lens is waterproof.



ozturert said:


> No such bundle in Europe and adapter is still another interface between lens and camera. A native lens will be infinitely better.



EF and RF protocols are fully backwards compatible both ways. It's nothing like an adapter that must translate "Canon EF" to "Sony E" based in reverse engineering one or both of those protocols. It's even less disruptive than using an extender, which adds additional optics.



ozturert said:


> Ok, not infinitely better. The adapter not having optics isn't solution to ither issues such as:
> 
> Additional interface which may break, may have imperfections, may bend, and have 2 more sets of pins which increase probability of failure.
> Increased length. This is bothersome to me because I cannot put adapter + 70-200mm f4 L IS vertically into my favourite bag. Plus, with long glass I am scared to put camera+lens in and pull out of the bag.
> ...



As far as length goes, it's six of one, a half dozen of the other. The front element will be the same distance from the sensor either way. EF lens on EF body with 44mm from flange to sensor or EF lens + 24mm adapter + RF camera with only 20mm from flange to sensor.

A lot of your EF lenses also focus slower on other Canon DSLRs compared to your 7D. Mainly because they have smaller batteries and it seems Canon regulates the speed at which those cameras with smaller batteries can move AF elements in lenses with heavy AF elements.




Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The 18-200 is a crop lens. Looking at crop lenses, there is the 50-1000 with a built in 1.5X extender. Its super 35 and is available with a EF mount. Thats 30X. It costs no more than some new cars. ($70,000)



At that point, why not go for the DigiSuper 100AF that projects an image circle large enough for a 2/3" broadcast camera with a 9.3-930mm focal length? It gives an equivalent field of view on such a cameras as that of a 36-3656mm lens on a FF camera. It only weighs 60 pounds and costs a bit more than $200,000. It is made for a 9.59x5.39mm video sensor with a 3.9X crop factor.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 25, 2019)

amorse said:


> Short answer, I'm betting nothing will come on EF but maybe RF. Long answer to follow:
> 
> Canon doesn't seem to want to stray from f/5.6 at the most narrow on EF as it would impact focusing success on some lower end bodies. In fact, I think the long offerings from Sigma and Tamron actually trick the autofocus system into believing that their most narrow aperture is 5.6 and not the actual 6.3 that it is, but that can impact focus success in lower light. Since the focus system on most Canon cameras has a lot of f/5.6 autofocus points, but few or no f/8 autofocus points, I suspect that any f/6.3 Canon-manufactured lenses are out of the question for EF. A long zoom with f/5.6 at its most narrow gets really big really fast, and there's a lot of competition out there from third party manufacturers so it may not be worth it for Canon to bother trying to compete. If Canon released a direct competitor to the Sigma/Tamron, it would be huge to get the f/5.6 they'd want and it would likely need to be a fair bit more expensive. I'd point to the Nikon 200-500 - it hits the f/5.6 threshold, but it's still 100mm shy of the offerings from Sigma/Tamron and weighs half a pound more. I think Canon has bet that there aren't enough people who would choose their expensive offering over the Sigma/Tamron reasonably priced offerings, especially if they had to settle for 500mm instead of 600mm.
> 
> ...


I regularly use my R with a EF-S 18-135 and the 50-250 - makes a good travel set


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 25, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I really want to stay with Canon but at the moment Sony seems incredibly attractive with the 200-600 paired with A7R3 and a tiny A6300/6400 for backup.


How about the 150-600 s that are around?


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 25, 2019)

max_sr said:


> Wouldn't you rather use a weather-sealed lens for kayaking?


Yes, I would. The problem is that an Olympus TG-5 (got one) is about as good as you can get with a waterproof camera, and that any DSLR or MILC in production will outperform it. Nobody makes a waterproof high end camera, and nobody makes a waterproof zoom.

The compromise is to use a dry bag or a pelican case to protect a better camera. The problem arises when you try to change lenses. One hand on the camera, one hand on the lens coming off, one hand on the dry bag, one hand on the lens going on, and one hand on the paddle. I am not handy enough (pun intended) to do this without risking something expensive falling into the water. This is most definitely a case where an all-in-one lens is the best choice.


----------



## luiskp (Jun 26, 2019)

BurningPlatform said:


> Well, actually, the total light (number of photons) captured by a full frame sensor with the same aperture is 1,6² times more than the total light captured on the final image of a Canon APS-C sensor. You have to (basically) multiply the exposure with the area of the sensor to get the total light. That is the ground reason why the same generation of sensors with the same number of pixels on APS-C have worse high ISO performance (at image and pixel level) than the FF sensors.There are less photons to form the image both for each pixel and the total image on APS-C in this case.
> 
> Thus, the total amount of light hitting the FF sensor from an f4.0 lens is the same as the total light of an f2.5 (4/1.6) lens on Canon APS-C, as the aperture is calculated linearly against a single image dimension,( not f1.56, as previously claimed).
> 
> Of course, if you crop the FF image to APS-C in post, you get a more or less identical image with he same lens, but that is not the point here.


I


Bob Howland said:


> I'll agree with you regarding the distance from rear element to sensor but not regarding diameter of rear element. The rear element is not going to be designed to direct a light ray from one side of the rear element to the opposite side of the sensor. Rather it will be designed to direct the ray outward onto the same side of the sensor. A larger diameter rear element will reduce the amount of light bending occurring in the rear element.
> 
> To change the subject and to repeat myself, I want to know if there is a difference in rear element diameter in EF and RF lenses. Some people seem to be assuming that the RF rear elements are larger than EF rear elements. This is far from obvious to me and I would like people to actually measure the diameter of RF lens rear elements, especially the 50 f/1.2 and 28-70 f/2. The three EF lens rear elements I measured all were 37-38mm in diameter.



I didn’t took into account the sensor area size , only the total amount of light, like calculating radiation doses. My bad


BurningPlatform said:


> Well, actually, the total light (number of photons) captured by a full frame sensor with the same aperture is 1,6² times more than the total light captured on the final image of a Canon APS-C sensor. You have to (basically) multiply the exposure with the area of the sensor to get the total light. That is the ground reason why the same generation of sensors with the same number of pixels on APS-C have worse high ISO performance (at image and pixel level) than the FF sensors.There are less photons to form the image both for each pixel and the total image on APS-C in this case.
> 
> Thus, the total amount of light hitting the FF sensor from an f4.0 lens is the same as the total light of an f2.5 (4/1.6) lens on Canon APS-C, as the aperture is calculated linearly against a single image dimension,( not f1.56, as previously claimed).
> 
> Of course, if you crop the FF image to APS-C in post, you get a more or less identical image with he same lens, but that is not the point here.


I didn’t took into account the sensor area size , only the total amount of light, like calculating radiation doses. My bad


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 26, 2019)

BillB said:


> True. The 24-240 is definitely not the right lens for everyone or the right lens for all occasions, but it will likely find a market, especially at its price point.


And what is its price point? I don't think anybody knows.


----------



## BillB (Jun 26, 2019)

Bob Howland said:


> And what is its price point? I don't think anybody knows.





Bob Howland said:


> And what is its price point? I don't think anybody knows.


We know it is not an L


----------

