# Delays seem to be the name of the game for 2021



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 15, 2021)

> I have been told that Canon had planned to make some sort of a splash ahead of CP+, which begins February 25, 2021, as a virtual show. The source claims that a new body was scheduled to be announced along with a couple of lenses. It now looks like that isn’t going to happen.
> There is always a possibility of a development announcement for a camera or lenses, as those tend not to leak ahead of time. Development announcements don’t occur very often, and probably provide some headaches from the impatient type of consumer.
> Below are three lenses that have been confirmed numerous times for the RF mount, and all of which will be significantly delayed due to manufacturing challenges. These are the only lenses that I had a confirmed time for an announcement.
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## usern4cr (Feb 15, 2021)

We've had so many great bodies and lenses introduced in the last year or so, that one can almost feel spoiled to hear of further (& long) delays still to come!
But at least we've got CP+ to look forward to for whatever (if any) announcements come of it. 

Here's hoping there's something good to hear!


----------



## Dmcavoy (Feb 15, 2021)

The RF 18-45 is an odd one. Could be an interesting lens for video shooters, especially when using the cropped 4k etc on the R/RP. 

But for a wide angle stills lens it's a total non starter. It's not quite a 17-40 replacement, nor it is an affordable UWA option. They really need to hurry up with a good cheap wide angle for RF. Something like an EFS 10-18 type of deal. £2k+ for the RF 15-35 is not an option for most!


----------



## landon (Feb 15, 2021)

The R5, R6, C70, expensive RF lens selling too well eh No need to introduce other cameras for now


----------



## Rocksthaman (Feb 15, 2021)

Still holding out hope for a RF 24-70 F4

One can only imagine how small it can get given what they did with the 70-200 F4. A man can dream. I still use my ef version, it just balances so well, very light and compact compared to the 2.8 options. Also my favorite non dedicated macro lens for macro.


----------



## lightingb (Feb 15, 2021)

Canon R5 firmware???


----------



## slclick (Feb 15, 2021)

I think we all know Canon's main focus right now should be....


The R6 in the refurb store!


----------



## tron (Feb 15, 2021)

Dmcavoy said:


> The RF 18-45 is an odd one. Could be an interesting lens for video shooters, especially when using the cropped 4k etc on the R/RP.
> 
> But for a wide angle stills lens it's a total non starter. It's not quite a 17-40 replacement, nor it is an affordable UWA option. They really need to hurry up with a good cheap wide angle for RF. Something like an EFS 10-18 type of deal. £2k+ for the RF 15-35 is not an option for most!


A RF 14-35 f/4 L is mentioned a few months ago.

I would welcome a (FF) RF18-70 or a RF 17-70 f/4L IS lens as part of the ideal excursion walkaround lens.


----------



## Dmcavoy (Feb 15, 2021)

tron said:


> A RF 14-35 f/4 L is mentioned a few months ago.
> 
> I would welcome a (FF) RF18-70 or a RF 17-70 f/4L IS lens as part of the ideal excursion walkaround lens.


 A 14-35 f/4L would be ideal as long as they can keep the price point down. I'm still using adapted EF lenses at the moment as the RF L lenses are just way to out of my companies budget.


----------



## reef58 (Feb 15, 2021)

Dmcavoy said:


> The RF 18-45 is an odd one. Could be an interesting lens for video shooters, especially when using the cropped 4k etc on the R/RP.
> 
> But for a wide angle stills lens it's a total non starter. It's not quite a 17-40 replacement, nor it is an affordable UWA option. They really need to hurry up with a good cheap wide angle for RF. Something like an EFS 10-18 type of deal. £2k+ for the RF 15-35 is not an option for most!


Depends on the weight for me. I could see myself getting this if it is fairly compact and light. When I am hiking in the woods I rarely need wider than 24mm, but prefer something longer than 35mm much of the time.


----------



## BroderLund (Feb 15, 2021)

A quality wide angle for the RF APS-C would be nice at some point. Intended for the C70. 18-45 f4-5.6 is a bit slow.


----------



## slclick (Feb 15, 2021)

BroderLund said:


> A quality wide angle for the RF APS-C would be nice at some point. Intended for the C70. 18-45 f4-5.6 is a bit slow.


I agree it would be but that's putting the cart before the horse don't you think?


----------



## unfocused (Feb 15, 2021)

landon said:


> The R5, R6, C70, expensive RF lens selling too well eh No need to introduce other cameras for now


Yes. With demand outpacing supplies even in the midst of a pandemic that severly limits travel opportunities, there is no pressure on Canon to release anything new. They are probably more concerned about ramping up production of the R5, R6 and 100-500 RF lens.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 15, 2021)

A crop 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM smells made up. Yes, its a slow & cheap equivalent of a 24-70mm, but why would Canon make it? It would get burnt for being more limited than an 18-55mm (which is cheap enough as it is), and with such slow max aperture & small image circle, is there a real reason to limit it to <3x?

It might make sense as a cheap ultra wide to normal zoom for FF.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 15, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> A crop 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM smells made up. Yes, its a slow & cheap equivalent of a 24-70mm, but why would Canon make it?


Well, you have to remember that the RP is now at XXD level prices, so, if they arent making APS-C RF cameras, they need the equivalent ideas for enthusiast level users.

Did canon need to have 18-55 variable, 17-55 f/2,8, 15-85, 17-85 lenses all available? Maybe not, but they gave people different price segments to target and let them pick their trade-offs. An 18-50ish lens matches what Panasonic has in their 20-60; offers a different choice from the 24-105, and gives them maybe even a cheaper kit lens to offer in bundles


----------



## amorse (Feb 15, 2021)

I'm not sure that I understand the niche for the 100-400 rumour unless it's either very compact, reasonably cheap, or very very sharp. I always felt (right or wrong) that the 100-500 was a spiritual successor to the EF 100-400 so duplicating the lens on RF seems like an unexpected choice. I'm definitely curious to learn more about where it fits in to the lineup.


----------



## vangelismm (Feb 15, 2021)

18-45 would be with apsc image circle or full frame?


----------



## dolina (Feb 15, 2021)

The earthquake a few days ago may impact shipments further. Not a good decade for Japan thus far


----------



## Marius Schamschula (Feb 15, 2021)

preppyak said:


> Well, you have to remember that the RP is now at XXD level prices, so, if they arent making APS-C RF cameras, they need the equivalent ideas for enthusiast level users.
> 
> Did canon need to have 18-55 variable, 17-55 f/2,8, 15-85, 17-85 lenses all available? Maybe not, but they gave people different price segments to target and let them pick their trade-offs. An 18-50ish lens matches what Panasonic has in their 20-60; offers a different choice from the 24-105, and gives them maybe even a cheaper kit lens to offer in bundles


Indeed. In the day, I bought the EF-S 17-55 IS USM as the walk around lens for my 7D. I briefly considered the 15-85, but it has inferior optics. There certainly wasn't any equivalent L glass for an APS-C sensor.


----------



## bbasiaga (Feb 15, 2021)

vangelismm said:


> 18-45 would be with apsc image circle or full frame?


My personal theory is both. It'll be like the 24-240 - where at the wide end of FF it vignettes heavily and relies on heavy software correction (which works well, to be sure). But will work very well on an APS-c body we have yet to see. In this way, they will be creating lower cost entry level FF lenses that are also bread-and-butter lenses on APS-c bodies. One mount then allows two sensor sizes. 

-Brian


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 15, 2021)

It's all moot until I get some assignments, but I'd like to update my TSE lenses. The rumored auto-focus TSR's make me anxious, though. I do't want to pay huge amounts for a feature that will be useless for architectural. So the RF 14-35 f/4 L might wok well in place of my 17mm TSE. I'll have to wait and see.

What happened to the rumored TS zoom lenses? That could be terrific! A 24-50mm TSR: no auto-focus, no IS, no bluetooth or wi-fi, doesn't have to be f/1.2.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 15, 2021)

The more I think about about the 18-45mm F4-5.6 lense the less sense this lense makes to me.

If it indeed is for an APS-C RF body:
- why would Canon go from 18-55mm down to 45mm? 55mm is barely enough to be happy with this lense... 
- why not make an RF version of the EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6? This would make much more sense imho.
- if this lense is for an APS-C RF body it practically means that it won't be an R7 because 7d shooters would never put on the 18-55 kit-lenses...

If it is a full frame lense: 
- Wouldn't this lense be money down the drain? For an wide-angel it isn't wide enough and a zoom lense there are far better options such as the 24-105mm F4-7.1. Even as a replacement for the 17-40mm ist just doesn't seem right when an 14-35mm is underway... especially considering that the EF 16-35mm F4 replaced the 17-40mm in the first place... 

It really bugs me that I can't figure it out. But knowing Canon, they will put it to good use such as the 600mm F11 and 800mm F11 which many folks didn't see any use in. 

I am just hoping for the 14-35mm F4 at the moment. So hopefully, it'll get some mentions and at least a development announcement.


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 15, 2021)

amorse said:


> I'm not sure that I understand the niche for the 100-400 rumour unless it's either very compact, reasonably cheap, or very very sharp. I always felt (right or wrong) that the 100-500 was a spiritual successor to the EF 100-400 so duplicating the lens on RF seems like an unexpected choice. I'm definitely curious to learn more about where it fits in to the lineup.


Smaller and less expensive would be great reason for such a lens, certainly worthwhile if so. That range might be a replacement for my EF 70-200 f/4. Though by that time I might have the RF one and won't need a 100-400.....


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 15, 2021)

amorse said:


> I'm not sure that I understand the niche for the 100-400 rumour unless it's either very compact, reasonably cheap, or very very sharp. I always felt (right or wrong) that the 100-500 was a spiritual successor to the EF 100-400 so duplicating the lens on RF seems like an unexpected choice. I'm definitely curious to learn more about where it fits in to the lineup.


As I understand the rumor, it will be the successor for the 70-300mm lense. Cheap and affordable (compared to other RF lenses, not EF...) And just like Canon upped the range of EF 100-400mm L to RF 100-500mm they are doing the same here.

In my opinion it's a wise move because more range for "affordable, cheap" lenses might trigger some smartphone shooters to actually buy an RP and 100-400mm lense or something similar. You can't attract new customers or smartphone shooters with an 18-45mm or 18-55mm lense anymore because SP are just too good nowadays. Therefore, this lense makes sense to me.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 15, 2021)

Dmcavoy said:


> The RF 18-45 is an odd one. Could be an interesting lens for video shooters, especially when using the cropped 4k etc on the R/RP.
> 
> But for a wide angle stills lens it's a total non starter. It's not quite a 17-40 replacement, nor it is an affordable UWA option. They really need to hurry up with a good cheap wide angle for RF. Something like an EFS 10-18 type of deal. £2k+ for the RF 15-35 is not an option for most!


I am thinking it actually is a non-L replacement for the 17-40, which arguable didn't deserve the L moniker in the first place. Actually, 18-45 is a very useful range for a FF lens. Great for walkabout and street, particularly if it is small. It actually makes very little sense for a high performance APS-C body (i.e. 7D II replacement).


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 15, 2021)

Hope they don’t announce the R7 just yet. I’ve just spent what I’d saved up on an RC car. . Yes, I’m a big kid, now leave me alone!


----------



## Rumourhasit (Feb 15, 2021)

Can’t see the point in the RF100-400. Can anyone make a case for canon releasing this


----------



## eosbob (Feb 15, 2021)

So, will they push back the release of the R1? Maybe that depends on the Olympics.


----------



## Tangent (Feb 15, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> My personal theory is both. It'll be like the 24-240 - where at the wide end of FF it vignettes heavily and relies on heavy software correction (which works well, to be sure). But will work very well on an APS-c body we have yet to see. In this way, they will be creating lower cost entry level FF lenses that are also bread-and-butter lenses on APS-c bodies. One mount then allows two sensor sizes.
> 
> -Brian


Sounds likely.

The RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM would make a lot more sense if it's, say, $250. Maybe not a bad FF WA travel or hiking option. But afaik we don't have a price yet.


----------



## dwarven (Feb 15, 2021)

Oldguyslovetech said:


> Can’t see the point in the RF100-400. Can anyone make a case for canon releasing this



A cheap/light alternative to the 100-500. Cost and weight will always be limiting factors for a lot of people.


----------



## Nigel95 (Feb 15, 2021)

Been checking this site every day hoping to find some R7 rumors. Still using a SL2, which still does the job but I want an high end APS-C upgrade man..


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 15, 2021)

Oldguyslovetech said:


> Can’t see the point in the RF100-400. Can anyone make a case for canon releasing this


Just scroll up  it is the EF 70-300mm replacement with extra range


----------



## unfocused (Feb 15, 2021)

Oldguyslovetech said:


> Can’t see the point in the RF100-400. Can anyone make a case for canon releasing this


To make money.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Feb 15, 2021)

amorse said:


> I'm not sure that I understand the niche for the 100-400 rumour unless it's either very compact, reasonably cheap, or very very sharp. I always felt (right or wrong) that the 100-500 was a spiritual successor to the EF 100-400 so duplicating the lens on RF seems like an unexpected choice. I'm definitely curious to learn more about where it fits in to the lineup.



I would rather have tacked this on someone else's post but no one mentioned it yet. *It's a non-L*.

So it will definitely be cheaper/smaller/lighter for the masses (this was mentioned by others).


----------



## slclick (Feb 15, 2021)

Why anyone would ever complain about the possibility of more choices is beyond me. 

Oh, because you personally would not buy it so your selfish worldview should be imposed on the rest of us?


----------



## Bdbtoys (Feb 15, 2021)

slclick said:


> Why anyone would ever complain about the possibility of more choices is beyond me.
> 
> Oh, because you personally would not buy it so your selfish worldview should be imposed on the rest of us?



I'm not sure if I saw what anyone said as a complaint per se. 2 specifically mentioned the 100-400 but it was worded as they don't know what people would 'see' in it. And it could have been literally that... 'they' didn't see why and asked for input on it from others point of view.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Feb 15, 2021)

Even the lack of current R bodies and RF lenses is unprecedented Wex the biggest retailer in the UK looks like it’s just got a supply of R bodies in today because I looked over the weekend and virtually all R bodies were on back order. RF Lens stocks at Wex are still exceptionally low with more than half the lenses again out of stock.

If you have this gear used for sale on eBay it’s making mad money, over the weekend a used RF 100 – 500 made full new retail price and only this evening I saw an RF 50 f/1.8 sell for £252 that’s £33 over full new retail price.

Last week I sold a spare EOS EF to R adaptor on eBay for £191 that is £92 over full new retail price apparently you just can’t get them in the retailers.

And all this when many pros like event and wedding photographers are sat at home doing nothing, we certainly are living in crazy times.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 15, 2021)

Andy Westwood said:


> Even the lack of current R bodies and RF lenses is unprecedented Wex the biggest retailer in the UK looks like it’s just got a supply of R bodies in today because I looked over the weekend and virtually all R bodies were on back order. RF Lens stocks at Wex are still exceptionally low with more than half the lenses again out of stock.
> 
> If you have this gear used for sale on eBay it’s making mad money, over the weekend a used RF 100 – 500 made full new retail price and only this evening I saw an RF 50 f/1.8 sell for £252 that’s £33 over full new retail price.
> 
> ...


This really does sound absolutely crazy. But is the shortage only related to Canons problems or also maybe to the difficulties with the Brexit? I live in Germany and RP/ R bodies seem to available at most photo stores (just checked several online). Even the R6/ R5 can be found at some places to my surprise.

The adapter still can't be bought separately, but it is available in RP/ R bundles. It's a shame it is not sold with R5´s... You only get one for free when you register your camera on CPS I think, but then the adapter is not available


----------



## Fran Decatta (Feb 15, 2021)

Why I didn't hear about that 24mm? seems to be very desirable!


----------



## amorse (Feb 15, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> I'm not sure if I saw what anyone said as a complaint per se. 2 specifically mentioned the 100-400 but it was worded as they don't know what people would 'see' in it. And it could have been literally that... 'they' didn't see why and asked for input on it from others point of view.


I am definitely curious about how it fits in to the lineup, but I hope my curiosity isn't taken as a suggestion that it won't have a place or shouldn't be made. I think the innovation in the RF 70-200s (both the 4 and 2.8) are a pretty great examples of how they can take a well-known lens and add something new and really useful. This being really similar to a lens already on the market makes me wonder what they're going to do to separate the lenses, but in an excited way and not a judgemental way.

Obviously it's great to have more choices and if you're right in having it be a non-L cost-effective solution, then this lens will have a place in plenty of camera bags.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 15, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> This really does sound absolutely crazy. But is the shortage only related to Canons problems or also maybe to the difficulties with the Brexit? I live in Germany and RP/ R bodies seem to available at most photo stores (just checked several online). Even the R6/ R5 can be found at some places to my surprise.
> 
> The adapter still can't be bought separately, but it is available in RP/ R bundles. It's a shame it is not sold with R5´s... You only get one for free when you register your camera on CPS I think, but then the adapter is not available


I got this today from a leading network equipment manufacturer to support their leadtime increases... up to double the normal leadtime for some products:

What is the current global landscape in the Semiconductor Industry?

The semiconductor industry is reporting supply constraints that are resulting in lead time extensions.
• Global uncertainty and conservative forecasting in CY2020 caused reductions in production capacity and wafer starts.

• Demand recently surged unexpectedly in several markets, including 5G infrastructure, automotive, mobile, cloud and consumer products, creating significant supply gaps.

• These factors, compounded by years of industry consolidation and a shift to fabless manufacturing, have resulted in industry-wide bottlenecks.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 15, 2021)

preppyak said:


> Well, you have to remember that the RP is now at XXD level prices, so, if they aren't making APS-C RF cameras, they need the equivalent ideas for enthusiast level users.


The EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM is sold, in white box, for $110. How cheaper do they need to make a new kit lens?



preppyak said:


> Did canon need to have 18-55 variable, 17-55 f/2,8, 15-85, 17-85 lenses all available? Maybe not, but they gave people different price segments to target and let them pick their trade-offs. An 18-50ish lens matches what Panasonic has in their 20-60; offers a different choice from the 24-105, and gives them maybe even a cheaper kit lens to offer in bundles


The last three are faster / longer and more expensive than the 18-55.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 16, 2021)

As far as I can tell Canon is busy trying to fill back orders. This is usually an "All hands on deck" situation. 
I would think that the belt tightening they and others have done have reduced the ability for many companies to respond to a surge in demand.

While some might say "They should have known..." the fact is that very few mangers are willing to stick their necks out in markets that are as unpredictable as the camera industry in pandemic.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 16, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> A crop 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM smells made up.



I can assure you that it is not made up, I can't post the proof. I just don't know for sure if it's a full-frame lens or not.


----------



## SnowMiku (Feb 16, 2021)

amorse said:


> I'm not sure that I understand the niche for the 100-400 rumour unless it's either very compact, reasonably cheap, or very very sharp. I always felt (right or wrong) that the 100-500 was a spiritual successor to the EF 100-400 so duplicating the lens on RF seems like an unexpected choice. I'm definitely curious to learn more about where it fits in to the lineup.


The RF 100-400mm is not an L lens so it will be significantly cheaper then the RF 100-500mm L and the EF 100-400mm L.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Feb 16, 2021)

No loss if those are delayed, especially yet another glacial tele photo. Canon RF, where f/7.1 is the new f/5.6.


----------



## Traveler (Feb 16, 2021)

amorse said:


> I'm not sure that I understand the niche for the 100-400 rumour unless it's either very compact, reasonably cheap, or very very sharp. I always felt (right or wrong) that the 100-500 was a spiritual successor to the EF 100-400 so duplicating the lens on RF seems like an unexpected choice. I'm definitely curious to learn more about where it fits in to the lineup.


It could be a replacement for the relatively cheap 70-300. I hope it’ll remain cheap, lightweight and compact


----------



## Traveler (Feb 16, 2021)

slclick said:


> Why anyone would ever complain about the possibility of more choices is beyond me.
> 
> Oh, because you personally would not buy it so your selfish worldview should be imposed on the rest of us?


My explanation is that people think that canon would sacrifice something that they’d like more. For me, I hope that they won’t go RF APSC because it means more focus on another lineup of cameras and lenses. I’d rather put an end to the mess of APSC vs FF


----------



## HMC11 (Feb 16, 2021)

Rocksthaman said:


> Still holding out hope for a RF 24-70 F4
> 
> One can only imagine how small it can get given what they did with the 70-200 F4. A man can dream. I still use my ef version, it just balances so well, very light and compact compared to the 2.8 options. Also my favorite non dedicated macro lens for macro.


Not quite sure what the value proposition of a RF 24-70 F4 would be, particularly when the RF 24-105 F4 already exist. Presumably it would be price and size/weight. For the latter, the saving in weight and size might not be worth sacrificing the additional 35mm of focal length. Also, the 24-105 would be a more versatile lens for walkaround if one wishes to carry only one lens.


----------



## shawn (Feb 16, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> Not quite sure what the value proposition of a RF 24-70 F4 would be, particularly when the RF 24-105 F4 already exist. Presumably it would be price and size/weight. For the latter, the saving in weight and size might not be worth sacrificing the additional 35mm of focal length. Also, the 24-105 would be a more versatile lens for walkaround if one wishes to carry only one lens.


I agree completely, if Canon is doing one thing wrong with RF it is that they are remaking too many of the EF lenses. If you look at the performance of the RF 70-200 f/4 it is so close to flawless it makes you think they could have gone for a bigger range and kept the quality within the parameters of the old lens. Maybe a 50-200 f/4 could have been possible. Or maybe Canon could realistically do a 70-300mm f/4 with immaculate performance. I feel like the old f/2.8-f/4 trinity lenses are a touch old fashioned at this point and we need to start asking for more. I do have the RF 28-70mm f/2 and it is a special lens, but based on what Canon has been putting out recently I'm thinking they could make an even better 28-70 style lens, maybe 24-80 f/2 could be doable? Even looking at the RF 50mm f/1.8 it makes me think they could do better. The lens is great and costs nothing, it could be a bit of a loss leader but honestly I think it might render a little more nicely than the 28-70 does. Anywho, just rambling honestly but the point is yeah, people need to stop asking for these dud lenses that are firmly in the "Been There; Done That" category.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 16, 2021)

amorse said:


> I'm not sure that I understand the niche for the 100-400 rumour unless it's either very compact, reasonably cheap, or very very sharp. I always felt (right or wrong) that the 100-500 was a spiritual successor to the EF 100-400 so duplicating the lens on RF seems like an unexpected choice. I'm definitely curious to learn more about where it fits in to the lineup.


As I have mentioned before. This is a replacement for the 70-300 non L. At f/7.1 it will still have a 58mm filter and they might throw in a DO element to shorten it up a bit so probably just about the same size overall. Given how good the 24-240 is, this makes sense as a consumer 70-300 would be covering too much of the same territory. At the right price, it is also a spoiler for Tamron and Sigma. Canon may be a little slow and deliberate, but stupid, not really.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 16, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I can assure you that it is not made up, I can't post the proof. I just don't know for sure if it's a full-frame lens or not.


I do wonder how Canon will handle crop sensor lenses if indeed they do offer an R7 crop frame body. Since the R system automatically crops the full frame when an EF-S lens is mounted, I could see something where the lens would crop the frame at 18mm on a full frame body, but at 45mm it could be used either cropped or uncropped.


----------



## Rocksthaman (Feb 16, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> Not quite sure what the value proposition of a RF 24-70 F4 would be, particularly when the RF 24-105 F4 already exist. Presumably it would be price and size/weight. For the latter, the saving in weight and size might not be worth sacrificing the additional 35mm of focal length. Also, the 24-105 would be a more versatile lens for walkaround if one wishes to carry only one lens.



I will say you probably would have had to use it.

First is definitely size and function. If you look at what they did with the RF 70-200 f4 you have to know it they can do something with this lens. It’s also not very intimidating and has a quick switch to go into macro mode that I don’t even have to take my eye off my viewfinder.

Second is with that size it leaves more room for the barrel to extend to use the Macro function. The 1:1.4 macro is awesome, even works well using AF in macro(pretty snappy). Usually you get a 1:2 (see the 35&85). It actually feels like you get more of a 1:1.2 if you are in manual.

Last is price. I primarily shoot primes. So having a bag with a prime (usually 85 1.4) and my 24-70 is perfect and cost effective as I get my zoom and my macro in one with “L” quality, without the guilt of buying two lenses.

In low light, I really don’t like using zooms, so I would almost never need 2.8 because I would rather be at 1.2-1.8


----------



## amorse (Feb 16, 2021)

Dragon said:


> As I have mentioned before. This is a replacement for the 70-300 non L. At f/7.1 it will still have a 58mm filter and they might throw in a DO element to shorten it up a bit so probably just about the same size overall. Given how good the 24-240 is, this makes sense as a consumer 70-300 would be covering too much of the same territory. At the right price, it is also a spoiler for Tamron and Sigma. Canon may be a little slow and deliberate, but stupid, not really.


I may need to proof read my posts more thoroughly because I really didn't mean to imply that canon was making a stupid decision at all. I was really just curious about where it would fit in or what they would do to separate it from the 100-500. A low price, or smaller footprint, or lighter weight would all make perfect sense. As a replacement for the 70-300, especially if it has the same footprint for the right price, obviously makes sense.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Feb 16, 2021)

amorse said:


> I may need to proof read my posts more thoroughly because I really didn't mean to imply that canon was making a stupid decision at all. I was really just curious about where it would fit in or what they would do to separate it from the 100-500. A low price, or smaller footprint, or lighter weight would all make perfect sense. As a replacement for the 70-300, especially if it has the same footprint for the right price, obviously makes sense.



Your wording was fine.

Although I got to admit, this thread is kind of reminding me of watching Groundhog's Day. I'm sure there will be a few more that will answer your question for you.


----------



## ncvarsity3 (Feb 16, 2021)

amorse said:


> I'm not sure that I understand the niche for the 100-400 rumour unless it's either very compact, reasonably cheap, or very very sharp. I always felt (right or wrong) that the 100-500 was a spiritual successor to the EF 100-400 so duplicating the lens on RF seems like an unexpected choice. I'm definitely curious to learn more about where it fits in to the lineup.


I think it's going to fall into the reasonably cheap category and be the rf improvement on the ef 70-300 non-L lens Canon puts out.


----------



## ncvarsity3 (Feb 16, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> Your wording was fine.
> 
> Although I got to admit, this thread is kind of reminding me of watching Groundhog's Day. I'm sure there will be a few more that will answer your question for you.


... I answered that post after scanning down a bit and not seeing a response, only to stumble on all of the other responses after posting.


----------



## quiquae (Feb 16, 2021)

Compare the rumored RF 18-45mm F4-5.6 to EF-M 11-22mm F4.5-5.6. 11mm on crop is 17.6mm full frame equivalent, or almost 18mm, so these are actually almost the same concept, except the 18-45 zooms longer.

Given how much I liked the 11-22mm on EOS M, I can see myself liking the 18-45 as well, as long as it’s also appropriately compact and sharp. The slow aperture doesn’t bother me: I typically stop down ultrawide shots for panfocal view anyway.


----------



## HMC11 (Feb 16, 2021)

shawn said:


> Or maybe Canon could realistically do a 70-300mm f/4 with immaculate performance. I feel like the old f/2.8-f/4 trinity lenses are a touch old fashioned at this point and we need to start asking for more. I do have the RF 28-70mm f/2 and it is a special lens, but based on what Canon has been putting out recently I'm thinking they could make an even better 28-70 style lens, maybe 24-80 f/2 could be doable? Even looking at the RF 50mm f/1.8 it makes me think they could do better. The lens is great and costs nothing, it could be a bit of a loss leader but honestly I think it might render a little more nicely than the 28-70 does. Anywho, just rambling honestly but the point is yeah, people need to stop asking for these dud lenses that are firmly in the "Been There; Done That" category.


Indeed! I have the EF 70-300 F4-5.6L, and absolutely love it after getting used to the weight. It is not quite super-tele for wildlife, but close enough to be useable albeit in limited ways. Pairing it with APS-C body would extend it into the lower super-tele range, which I did on a number of occasions. At the same time, bringing along a 35mm prime would be a decently light combination for travel. If there is an RF 70-300 F4L at about the same weight as the EF variable aperture version, I would be most happy. In addition, if there were an RF 18-50 F4L (or 15-50 F4L), these would be ideal for me as I mostly take outdoor photos during the day, and I prefer the ultra-wide end to be around 17-19mm.


----------



## HMC11 (Feb 16, 2021)

Rocksthaman said:


> I will say you probably would have had to use it.
> 
> First is definitely size and function. If you look at what they did with the RF 70-200 f4 you have to know it they can do something with this lens. It’s also not very intimidating and has a quick switch to go into macro mode that I don’t even have to take my eye off my viewfinder.
> 
> ...


Given your usage & preferences, it does make sense . For me, I quite like the overlap, ie. 70-105, that having the 24-105 & 70-200 offer. It would save some switching of lenses, and I would have the option of just having one paired with a prime.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Feb 16, 2021)

Damn, I’m still hanging out for a 35mm f1.2... would really suck if it was over a year away since no mention here..


----------



## peters (Feb 16, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> We've had so many great bodies and lenses introduced in the last year or so, that one can almost feel spoiled to hear of further (& long) delays still to come!
> But at least we've got CP+ to look forward to for whatever (if any) announcements come of it.
> 
> Here's hoping there's something good to hear!


Hmm "so many" is a bit much I think. Actualy only 2 R bodys where introduced (R5 and R6) and I think only the R5 is suitable for professional use. 
To get the R system realy moving I still miss a high resolution Camera R5s, a Sports Camera R1 and a video centric FF camera R5c thats not overheating. Looking at Sonys movement at the moment, I wish there where more bodies from canon. 

Offtopic: did anyone try the wifi on the R5? Is it normal that a RAW takes 10 seconds+ to be transferred to a notebook? (So not usable in a commercial shoot with a client)


----------



## MartinVLC (Feb 16, 2021)

What I don´t really understand is why canon doesn´t offer affordable zoom lenses that don´t start at 4.0 or even 5.6 and go up to 7.1. 

If the RF mount is so great how come that Tamron can offer for the "old" EF mount a 17-35mm 2.8-4.0 for 400-450 Euros/$ and a 100-400mm 4.5-6.3, for about 600 Euro/$ both very sharp lenses. 

Now we are all waiting for canon lenses for the RF mount that are quite a bit darker (especially the 18-45 compared to Tamrons 17-35) and probably more expensive. 

You can argue that the 50mm 1.8, 35 mm 1.8 and the 85mm 2.0 are good affordable prime options. But their affordable zoom lenses all are even darker than their EF siblings (eg 24-105 EF 3.5-5.6 vs. RF 4.0-7.1). If the RF mount is so great, why only make great 3000 $ lenses and NO good 500-1000 $ zoom lenses?


----------



## dolina (Feb 16, 2021)

MartinVLC said:


> What I don´t really understand is why canon doesn´t offer affordable zoom lenses that don´t start at 4.0 or even 5.6 and go up to 7.1.
> 
> If the RF mount is so great how come that Tamron can offer for the "old" EF mount a 17-35mm 2.8-4.0 for 400-450 Euros/$ and a 100-400mm 4.5-6.3, for about 600 Euro/$ both very sharp lenses.
> 
> ...


It's called market segmentation.

So far Canon is prioritizing lenses with the largest profit margins first before those with smaller profit margins. If I was building a lens collection from scratch I'd be very happy that they're pushing out mostly L lenses. These would be useful for at least 4 decades before a system change is commissioned.

They're leaving the smaller margin products to Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and other 3rd party lens brands.

Optical output is but one of the aspect of lenses. You have to consider focusing and stabilizing motor quality, build quality, water & dust resilience, durability and if it won't fail on you on a drop of a hat.

I do not expect cheap RF lenses to be that plentiful as the digital still camera market shrinks to largely professional and deep pocketed customers. This was the norm the year 2000 and we're going back there again.

This is all thanks to iPhone and Android smartphones


----------



## MartinVLC (Feb 16, 2021)

dolina said:


> It's called market segmentation.
> 
> So far Canon is prioritizing lenses with the largest profit margins first before those with smaller profit margins. If I was building a lens collection from scratch I'd be very happy that they're pushing out mostly L lenses. These would be useful for at least 4 decades before a system change is commissioned.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your reply! You´re surely right about the segmentation. But it´s a bit frustrating for hoby photographers anyway, especially since there are not many third party lenses for the RF mount yet. 

I just got the Tamron EF 35-150mm 2.8-4.0 for my EOS RP with the adapter. It´s really a great lense, it´s very sharp, the autofocus works well and it is weather sealed, but the best is the zoom range with quite bright 2.8-4.0. And all that for 700 Euros. But of course the AF is slower than the ones from the RF L lenses and the built quality of the RF L lenses shurely is a lot better, but for 3-4 times the price.


----------



## usern4cr (Feb 16, 2021)

peters said:


> Hmm "so many" is a bit much I think. Actualy only 2 R bodys where introduced (R5 and R6) and I think only the R5 is suitable for professional use.
> To get the R system realy moving I still miss a high resolution Camera R5s, a Sports Camera R1 and a video centric FF camera R5c thats not overheating. Looking at Sonys movement at the moment, I wish there where more bodies from canon.
> 
> Offtopic: did anyone try the wifi on the R5? Is it normal that a RAW takes 10 seconds+ to be transferred to a notebook? (So not usable in a commercial shoot with a client)


Well, I came from the Olympus system, where you had to wait for years for a EM1_II upgrade, only to get one with the same sensor, EVF, LCD and most everything else. So the R5 (which was desperately needed) and the R6 (which was also needed at a lower price point) within the same year is indeed "so many" IMHO. Maybe it's not as many bodies as Sony puts out, but they're better built bodies than Sony offers and I consider myself lucky to be able to enjoy a body as great as the R5.


----------



## peters (Feb 16, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Well, I came from the Olympus system, where you had to wait for years for a EM1_II upgrade, only to get one with the same sensor, EVF, LCD and most everything else. So the R5 (which was desperately needed) and the R6 (which was also needed at a lower price point) within the same year is indeed "so many" IMHO. Maybe it's not as many bodies as Sony puts out, but they're better built bodies than Sony offers and I consider myself lucky to be able to enjoy a body as great as the R5.


Ha, jeah ok, thats also true


----------



## BroderLund (Feb 16, 2021)

slclick said:


> I agree it would be but that's putting the cart before the horse don't you think?


I get your point for an EOS R APS-C body. To have a stills body before the lens, but they do already have an RF APS-C video body out in the wild. The C70. So for a C70 user, it would make sense.


----------



## jessecapps (Feb 16, 2021)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Damn, I’m still hanging out for a 35mm f1.2... would really suck if it was over a year away since no mention here..


Yeah, where is this lens? I don't understand why this wasn't one of the first to come out. And why aren't there any updates or mentions of it? The only excuse I can think of is that they are trying to something crazy with it.


----------



## dolina (Feb 16, 2021)

MartinVLC said:


> Thanks for your reply! You´re surely right about the segmentation. But it´s a bit frustrating for hoby photographers anyway, especially since there are not many third party lenses for the RF mount yet.
> 
> I just got the Tamron EF 35-150mm 2.8-4.0 for my EOS RP with the adapter. It´s really a great lense, it´s very sharp, the autofocus works well and it is weather sealed, but the best is the zoom range with quite bright 2.8-4.0. And all that for 700 Euros. But of course the AF is slower than the ones from the RF L lenses and the built quality of the RF L lenses shurely is a lot better, but for 3-4 times the price.


Once 80% of the L lenses have an RF model then you'll see more STM lenses coming out. I'm thinking by year 2025?


----------



## amorse (Feb 16, 2021)

BroderLund said:


> I get your point for an EOS R APS-C body. To have a stills body before the lens, but they do already have an RF APS-C video body out in the wild. The C70. So for a C70 user, it would make sense.


I think the C70 is super35 and not APS-C


----------



## Joules (Feb 16, 2021)

jessecapps said:


> Yeah, where is this lens? I don't understand why this wasn't one of the first to come out. And why aren't there any updates or mentions of it? The only excuse I can think of is that they are trying to something crazy with it.


The other valid excuse starts with a C and end in orona  

With the amount of lenses and bodies in the pipeline, there simply have to be priorities. So far, it looks like zooms take priority over the more niche primes. Which makes sense, as they fill out a greater range of use cases for which the RF range had no option previously.


----------



## Memdroid (Feb 16, 2021)

That 24mm 1.8 would be an instant buy for me


----------



## canonnews (Feb 16, 2021)

Dmcavoy said:


> The RF 18-45 is an odd one. Could be an interesting lens for video shooters, especially when using the cropped 4k etc on the R/RP.
> 
> But for a wide angle stills lens it's a total non starter. It's not quite a 17-40 replacement, nor it is an affordable UWA option. They really need to hurry up with a good cheap wide angle for RF. Something like an EFS 10-18 type of deal. £2k+ for the RF 15-35 is not an option for most!


it's actually not that odd. the Nikkor 18-35mm was well received. People are over thinking this. this will be Canon's cheap UWA lens. Probably smaller than the 17-40 and much cheaper.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 16, 2021)

BroderLund said:


> I get your point for an EOS R APS-C body. To have a stills body before the lens, but they do already have an RF APS-C video body out in the wild. The C70. So for a C70 user, it would make sense.


I really doubt there's a market for a $5.5K CINI camera and a slow variable zoom that most likely isn't optimized for video (can't be really with variable aperture).


----------



## peters (Feb 16, 2021)

amorse said:


> I think the C70 is super35 and not APS-C


Jeah, but thats pretty much the same size. Not exactly, but in everydayuse I would say it acts close enough. =)


----------



## BroderLund (Feb 16, 2021)

amorse said:


> I think the C70 is super35 and not APS-C


True, C70 is Super35, however, APS-C and Super35 is practically the same sensor size. So an APS-C lens will cover a Super35 sensor nicely.


----------



## shawn (Feb 16, 2021)

MartinVLC said:


> What I don´t really understand is why canon doesn´t offer affordable zoom lenses that don´t start at 4.0 or even 5.6 and go up to 7.1.
> 
> If the RF mount is so great how come that Tamron can offer for the "old" EF mount a 17-35mm 2.8-4.0 for 400-450 Euros/$ and a 100-400mm 4.5-6.3, for about 600 Euro/$ both very sharp lenses.
> 
> ...



Good question! It's the contracting market. Canon had huge sales just a few years ago, they're trying to maintain profits while selling less gear. Canon lens designers are superior to Tamron and Sigma, it costs money to have superior talent. Also think about this, Canon builds out entire camera lineups and fully fleshed out lens lineups. There's something called "low hanging fruit" that is what Tamron and Sigma are after. They don't ask "how do we build the best possible lens", they ask, "how can we copy Canon for half price?". When Canon sets the bar so high, Tamron can't compete on quality so they have to figure out how to make an ok lens for less money. People buy cheaper because they don't know better which is sad.


----------



## Joules (Feb 16, 2021)

shawn said:


> People buy cheaper because they don't know better which is sad.


Written like somebody who has no experience with modern Sigma and Tamron lenses.


----------



## Nigel95 (Feb 16, 2021)

shawn said:


> When Canon sets the bar so high, Tamron can't compete on quality so they have to figure out how to make an ok lens for less money. People buy cheaper because they don't know better which is sad.


Even If I know Canon has better offers with their lenses, it still doesn't make me buy the expensive Canon L glass as a hobbyist necessarily. I am very satisfied personally with the Sigma art lenses that I tried so far. Why is that sad?


----------



## Joules (Feb 16, 2021)

shawn said:


> Well sir, I would say the opposite is true for you, you ain't got the RF glass, you ain't got no clue about it! I however, and in point of fact, I have $15,000 worth of RF glass. Now, if I told you I had owned the Tamron 70-200 G2, and that I had owned the Sigma 85 Art, and the Sigma 12-24 Art, and the Tamron 90mm Macro, would you believe me?* If it gets more modern than that let me know.*


If you do have experience with these lenses, why act like they don't provide a value?

Why act like purchasing products based on how well they suit your needs is sad?

Why pretend the people who purchase third party are unaware of what they are buying?

Why make such strange assumptions about the business practices of third party manufacturers.

It's not just about downgrading the quality. It's just different design priorities that allow different manufacturers to target different customer types. Size, weight, optical quality, price, everybody has different priorities.

Each manufacturer operates in their own niches. Just because Sigma and Tamron typically target a lower price, doesn't mean that the quality they provide relative to this price is anything to sneeze at. Especially the most recent designs that are currently not available in RF but in L and E mount show great performance. And there are plenty of design niches that Canon hasn't ever made any efforts of directly competing in, like they Sigma 18-35 mm 1.8, 60-600mm 6.3 or 14mm 1.8.

If you want to act like a snob and feel sorry for the people who buy 'lesser' gear, go ahead. I hope there's a Leica user out there who in turn is sorry for you.


----------



## Joules (Feb 16, 2021)

shawn said:


> The only troll here is the goof trying to tell us to buy crappy Tamron and Sigma lenses that won't work on next years Canon camera. I don't know if you noticed but this is CANON RUMORS... We use and appreciate CANON GEAR here! Now, if you want to run along to TAMRON rumors or SIGMA rumors dot com (as if anybody actually gave a shit what they have coming out) then you are welcome to it. But it seems that BEING A CANON user and afficianado would be less like TROLLING ON CANON RUMORS than being a SIGMA AFFICIONADO would be.
> 
> *Hope it makes sense for ya there buddy boy!*


Not sure if your subsequent post was deleted by you yourself or a mod. Anyway, you argued that Sigma and Tamron provide negative value to customers, that they hurt the industry as a whole, are partially responsible for the doom of Nikon (they're not even ******* yet!), and suggested that them not making their own camera bodies showed that they had poor engineering. Quite a few hot takes 

So, here we go. The only way I see for a product to provide the customer negative value is if it was bought under the impression of some quality that the product didn't actually provide. In the case of lenses, there are plenty of reviews on the internet that establish the perception of value before a purchase, and if these were indeed misaligned with the actual performance of the products, you should have no problems to point out instances in which buyers called out the reviews for portraitraing an inaccurate view of the products value.

As for hurting the industry, I don't see how that would work. They are surely taking away market share from first party providers, but as I pointed out already, they mostly target niches not occupied by the first parties. So they are actually enhancing the options consumers have, making it more likely that they invest in the over all industry.

If Nikon actually goes belly up eventually, I'm sure they'll have many other factors to blame, besides third party manufacturers. Direct competitors like Canon and Sony for example.

To your last point, you are just objectively wrong there. Sigma make their own line of bodies and they are certainly interesting from an engineering point of view. Just not that appealing to the greater market. In the case of Tamron, sure, they don't make bodies. So what? Ever learned a bit about how companies work? Core competencies and such? Just because you don't excell at one thing does in no way mean you can't do so in another.

I get that it feels nice to look at your own processions and marvel at how great value they are and how well they serve the tasks you address with them. But I would urge you to develop some empathy and understanding of how different use cases and perspectives shape the values other people see and put into products and other aspects of life.

In other words, realize that there is no universal 'better'. There's only 'better given a certain set of user dependent criteria'.


----------



## amorse (Feb 16, 2021)

I don't know, I definitely still lust after the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 and it doesn't seem that any manufacturer currently has anything equivalent. Consider also that Sigma and Tamron released their 15-30 and 14-24 f/2.8s before Canon had a 15-35 f/2.8, and similarly released 150-600s with no equivalent Canon superzoom available.

Sigma and Tamron may have historically focused on lenses they could provide a great value proposition on, but they have also filled gaps in lenses that weren't filled by Canon, and I think there is definitely a place for that. Not all camera buyers have unlimited cash and Sigma and Tamron make expanding a lens collection a lot more accessible. For instance, I am very interested in the Canon 100-500, but it's not lost on me that I could buy an R mount converter with the control ring, Sigma 100-400, and a Tamron 150-600 with over $500 left over here in Canada for the price of that RF 100-500. Depending on your needs and cash available, Sigma and Tamron can be great option, and for lenses like the 14mm f/1.8 they can be the only option too.


----------



## Joules (Feb 16, 2021)

shawn said:


> You obviously ran out of things to say, and you never had proof that 3rd party was worth a damn. But if you actually compared the RF consumer line to the Sigma Art line you would be shocked, dismayed, disillusioned, and ultimately, after beating yourself up for being so foolish, you would be a Canon customer.


Respect bro, S-grade Sh!tposting you've got going on there!

Edit: @Mods, is there some way to see how many of one's posts were deleted and the reasons for it? 

I get why me feeding the troll isn't worthwhile staying on the platform. Just curious how many other of my posts got nuked in total and what rational goes into it. The rules page on this site isn't really doing much in the way of explaining.


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 16, 2021)

I firmly lean towards the 18-45mm F/4-5.6 being a cheap full frame lens. 

It could be an excellent, tiny full frame wide angle with a pretty decent long end, for those who don't need wide angle very often, plus it would make an effortless APS-C lens when that sort of camera gets released. 

I could even see myself picking it up if Canon manages to make it around the size of the Sony 28-60mm F/4-5.6 and relatively cheap. I normally use primes in my small walk-around kit, but this could be a tiny and easy way to bring a wide zoom along.


----------



## TravelerNick (Feb 17, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> The more I think about about the 18-45mm F4-5.6 lense the less sense this lense makes to me.
> 
> 
> 
> It really bugs me that I can't figure it out. But knowing Canon, they will put it to good use such as the 600mm F11 and 800mm F11 which many folks didn't see any use in.


 Nikon is selling a 24-50. If they have a low end cheap FF they need a cheap low end lens for it. Pushing 1k+ lenses for a sub 1K body will be a hard sell.


----------



## TravelerNick (Feb 17, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> This really does sound absolutely crazy. But is the shortage only related to Canons problems or also maybe to the difficulties with the Brexit? I live in Germany and RP/ R bodies seem to available at most photo stores (just checked several online). Even the R6/ R5 can be found at some places to my surprise.
> 
> The adapter still can't be bought separately, but it is available in RP/ R bundles. It's a shame it is not sold with R5´s... You only get one for free when you register your camera on CPS I think, but then the adapter is not available



Supply is very limited in Italy. One local dealer has basically two lenses. The fast 50mm and the 600mm. Okay the 24-105mm is now in stock along with the 800mm. One copy of each


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 17, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> Nikon is selling a 24-50. If they have a low end cheap FF they need a cheap low end lens for it. Pushing 1k+ lenses for a sub 1K body will be a hard sell.


Thx for pointing it out. I hadn't thought about the upcoming sub 1k body. Then again, the 24-50mm must be a really cheap lense because the RF 24-105 F4-7.1 sells for around 400 € and as kit lense it is so cheap, it is basically included. Hard to beat out that value imho.



H. Jones said:


> I firmly lean towards the 18-45mm F/4-5.6 being a cheap full frame lens.
> It could be an excellent, tiny full frame wide angle with a pretty decent long end, for those who don't need wide angle very often


The way you word it, it does make sense. I thought that the 17-40mm as a "cheap" wide angle zoom was replaced by the EF 16-35mm F4.

The 17-40mm had a price of about 800 $ and the 16-35mm F4 at 999$ at their release date. Even now, the 17-40mm sells at 730 € (new condition) and the 16-35mm is at 980 € (and sometimes included in Cashback promotions) Their prices are so close, that I ruled out the possibility of both being released as an RF lense.

So, if your idea turns out to be true, this could mean two things:
1. the 18-45mm is going to be very, very cheap in order to separate from the RF 14-35mm
2. the RF 14-35mm ist going to be very expensive in order to separate from the 18-45mm

Ohhhhhh, I hope it is option No 1 Please, please, please


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 17, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> Supply is very limited in Italy. One local dealer has basically two lenses. The fast 50mm and the 600mm. Okay the 24-105mm is now in stock along with the 800mm. One copy of each


Thx for sharing the information. It is very interesting to see the comparisons of supply in multiple countries. I guess, Germany is by far not in the roughest spot. It really helps me to become patient because I stated a while back I'd rather have the announcements/ presentation pushed back in order to have a timely delivery. I just wasn't aware of how bad the supply situation is worldwide. Therefore, I do have more reasons to become more patient and stick with my with.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 17, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> The more I think about about the 18-45mm F4-5.6 lense the less sense this lense makes to me.


it's really not that difficult - you just are over thinking it


Exploreshootshare said:


> If it is a full frame lense:
> - Wouldn't this lense be money down the drain? For an wide-angel it isn't wide enough and a zoom lense there are far better options such as the 24-105mm F4-7.1. Even as a replacement for the 17-40mm ist just doesn't seem right when


18mm is plenty wide enough for most people. it's a great gateway into the most esoteric UWA's, and it's probably going to be cheap.

also .. Nikon made an 18-35mm and no one said a bad thing about it. a lot of people liked the lens. What Nikon does, Canon pays attention to.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 17, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> The EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM is sold, in white box, for $110. How cheaper do they need to make a new kit lens?
> 
> 
> The last three are faster / longer and more expensive than the 18-55.


Im not sure if you just misread my post or are being willingly obtuse, but EF-S lenses arent a good match for an RF mount camera. And certainly EF->RF adapting is fine, but, you arent gaining the full advantage of the RF mount for size and weight. An RF 18-45 can.

RF 24-105 for $400 as their default kit on most of their models makes sense, but if they can put out an even cheaper model that doesnt make too many optical compromises, suddenly a native RF mount set could go for the same or less than a 90D.

For example, I have a 90D w/ 18-135, 55-250, and a bunch of other various lenses. But, the APS-C advantage is relatively cheap lenses with good optics relative to their <$500 prices. If an RP + 18-45 + a cheap 50-200 or 70-200 thats probably f/4-7.1 nets you say a $1500 kit price? They literally dont need APS-C at that point.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 17, 2021)

preppyak said:


> I'm not sure if you just misread my post or are being willingly obtuse, but EF-S lenses aren't a good match for an RF mount camera. And certainly EF->RF adapting is fine, but, you aren't gaining the full advantage of the RF mount for size and weight. An RF 18-45 can.



My point was: an RF*-S* [read: crop lens] 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM doesn't make sense, as...

1. Price of EF-S lenses is a good reference for price of similar RF-S lenses, hence if an EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM is priced $110 in a white box, an RF-S lens which is both slower and shorter FL range will be cheaper.

2. The other three lenses make sense because they're faster and/or have wider FL range.

So, as you seem to be willingly obtuse, I'll repeat my point: I don't see any sense in Canon making an RF-S 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. Its too limited, even for a cheapo kit lens.

I agree this might make sense as a full frame lens, though I think its a little odd.


----------



## tron (Feb 18, 2021)

Dmcavoy said:


> The RF 18-45 is an odd one. Could be an interesting lens for video shooters, especially when using the cropped 4k etc on the R/RP.
> 
> But for a wide angle stills lens it's a total non starter. It's not quite a 17-40 replacement, nor it is an affordable UWA option. They really need to hurry up with a good cheap wide angle for RF. Something like an EFS 10-18 type of deal. £2k+ for the RF 15-35 is not an option for most!


The EF-S10-18 is a cheap (with nice IQ) 16-29mm equivalent. So a FF 18-45 f/4-5.6 paired with RP for example is a cheap equivalent solution. It seems a strange range but it can be paired with 24-105 (the f/7.1 version) and/or 24-240. The overlapping helps to avoid constant lens swaps. Of course assuming it is a FF lens (and yes I agree, an odd one).


----------

