# A bit of a refresher on what’s next from Canon



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 25, 2020)

> The pandemic has certainly changed the cycle of product announcements and getting the gear to market. I see some positive things with stock on the EOS R5 and EOS R6 and hopefully, there are plenty of the Canon Cinema EOS C70 cameras to go around in November. The preorders for the latter have been really positive.
> A lot of you continue to ask what’s up next from Canon. I do these posts from time-to-time as a reminder and hopefully bring some clarity to things.
> Near Future Cameras:
> *Canon Cinema EOS C50
> *This was apparently supposed to be announced alongside the Canon Cinema EOS C70 but has been delayed, likely due to manufacturing challenges. For the moment, I do expect to see this camera until the first quarter of...



Continue reading...


----------



## BakaBokeh (Sep 25, 2020)

Canon busy. No wonder they had to buy a supercomputer.


----------



## David the street guy (Sep 25, 2020)

I wonder if the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM will replace the Nifty Fifty that you can buy for around 125 $.
I don't really expect it to be as cheap as it's EF counterpart, but if Canon is able to keep the EF 50mm on the market, why not it's RF sister?


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 25, 2020)

David the street guy said:


> I wonder if the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM will replace the Nifty Fifty that you can buy for around 125 $.
> I don't really expect it to be as cheap as it's EF counterpart, but if Canon is able to keep the EF 50mm on the market, why not it's RF sister?


I hope so too. 

I also wonder if that 24mm 2.8 will be a pancake?

-Brian


----------



## TMHKR (Sep 25, 2020)

David the street guy said:


> I wonder if the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM will replace the Nifty Fifty that you can buy for around 125 $.
> I don't really expect it to be as cheap as it's EF counterpart, but if Canon is able to keep the EF 50mm on the market, why not it's RF sister?


It will certainly be on the "cheaper end", as it is not an L lens. But it will not "replace" the EF version, it will just complement it - the EF version will still be available (for obvious reasons).


----------



## marathonman (Sep 25, 2020)

How many new adapters will they be able to develop with the *Fujitsu FX1000 supercomputer.....?*


----------



## xanbarksdale (Sep 25, 2020)

I’m interested to see what the C50 will do. The C70 sounds awesome, but I could probably get away with less features. I’m going to hold off on ordering the C70 until more specs and details are announced about the C50.


----------



## usern4cr (Sep 25, 2020)

Thanks for the update. I was hoping to hear more about the 70-135 f2L development, but it's good to hear you mention it so we know it's something you're looking out for. I was hoping we might get something like a 105 f1.8L for portraits, but I guess that's not in the works.

I suppose the best news we could get is if they're getting their R5, batteries, and 100-500L f4.5-7.1 out in enough volume to meet demand, but I guess that's not going to happen soon - sigh.

Oh well, thanks for the update anyway!


----------



## Swerky (Sep 25, 2020)

Those slower aperture zoom lenses being released that go from ultra wide angle to normal are kinda uninspiring. 18mm at 3.5 is fine when the lens is compact but 45mm f6.3 is just useless to me. I'd rather have a prime 18 or 20mm f2.8 and another normal prime f2.8 like the 40mm pancake.


----------



## eikolyco (Sep 25, 2020)

I hope to see a pancake on RF but... it seems to be no info at this moment...
I will put my interest to the RF70-135 F2 to see how big and heavy it is

And a very cheap Nifty Fifty also very welcome


----------



## Twinix (Sep 25, 2020)

Very excited to get more concrete on the C50.


----------



## Stanly (Sep 25, 2020)

RF really needs a fast wide for those Super35 C70 and upcoming C50 – wonder when 14-28 f/1.4 is coming out.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 25, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I hope so too.
> 
> I also wonder if that 24mm 2.8 will be a pancake?
> 
> -Brian


The chance for this 24mm to be a pancake is close to zero - it has IS and Macro functionality which increase the lens dimensions. A 24mm pancake would have another disadvantage: The incident angle of light is large so more reflected light = vast vignetting.
But I appreciate the idea of having lots of image stabilized Macro lenses - I really like my RF 35mm as a general purpose lens!


----------



## zim (Sep 25, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I hope so too.
> 
> I also wonder if that 24mm 2.8 will be a pancake?
> 
> -Brian


Doubtful if it's a macro


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 25, 2020)

David the street guy said:


> I wonder if the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM will replace the Nifty Fifty that you can buy for around 125 $.
> I don't really expect it to be as cheap as it's EF counterpart, but if Canon is able to keep the EF 50mm on the market, why not it's RF sister?


I think this RF 50mm will be the nifty fifty in RF-land - maybe they have been able to reduce the number of lens sheets or do some other tricks to keep the price low but increasing the IQ or doing some magic in terms of small size. They omitted IS and Macro so good chance to be very compact.


----------



## Anthny (Sep 25, 2020)

No news of the high resolution R5 (R5s)??


----------



## vxcalais (Sep 25, 2020)

Disappointing to see Eos M shoe boxed into 1 body or 1 lens release a year. May not be anything for 2020.....


----------



## padam (Sep 25, 2020)

Twinix said:


> Very excited to get more concrete on the C50.


I think there are a few more months to go to maybe at some point they will announce the development and add in a single picture of what it looks from the front.

It probably has the same relation to the C200 as the C70 has to the C300 III
So it will have the same sensor, same 8-bit 4:2:0 codecs with 4k60p and 1080p120p without RAW to SD cards. I would expect it to be a shrink-down C70 body as it will have the same internal ND.
Maybe it will look a bit like an R6 built together with the vertical grip to accomodate the two LP-E6NH batteries.

Hopefully it will cost half as much as the C200 (that would be 2750$) but the price is already discounted on that, so it may not go under 3000$, maybe around 3500$ as previously rumoured. It would be nice for the lowest new entry to be as cheap as possible to invite more people into the Cinema EOS System.


----------



## RickD (Sep 25, 2020)

> I also wonder if that 24mm 2.8 will be a pancake?
> 
> -Brian



My thoughts exactly when I read that. I just traded in my ef-s 24mm Pancake to upgrade to my R6


----------



## Billybob (Sep 25, 2020)

RickD said:


> My thoughts exactly when I read that. I just traded in my ef-s 24mm Pancake to upgrade to my R6



Having IS, I seriously doubt that it will a pancake. Plus, as you mention, the 24mm pancake was for crop-sensor cameras. I don't think I've seen a modern full-frame pancake lens that was less than 28mm. Of course, the past need have no bearing on the future.
EDIT: Someone already addressed this question.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Sep 25, 2020)

I had a phone call today my R6 is now in store and ready to collect so I'm pleased about that.

So many announcments and rumoured kit is one thing, but getting it, well thats another story, in the the UK at least!


----------



## SV (Sep 25, 2020)

Hard to believe (and disappointing) that the 100-400 will be a 7.1 rather than 5.6.


----------



## Billybob (Sep 25, 2020)

Swerky said:


> Those slower aperture zoom lenses being released that go from ultra wide angle to normal are kinda uninspiring. 18mm at 3.5 is fine when the lens is compact but 45mm f6.3 is just useless to me. I'd rather have a prime 18 or 20mm f2.8 and another normal prime f2.8 like the 40mm pancake.



It appears that these lenses are not for you. Rather, they are far budget buyers and newbies who are just getting started with interchangeable lens cameras. One of the things that makes Canon should a dominant company in photography is that it produces products for all market segments. Canon has a pretty close to complete offering on the high end (it's hard to imagine what zoom is missing, and the 1.2 primes are a good start for the high-end prime market), but they have very few RF offerings for the budget and mid-tier user. These lenses are for them.


----------



## Mr.Burberry (Sep 25, 2020)

I wonder when they will announce RF 15-35 f/4 IS. Not everyone needs 2.8 for such a wide-angle lens.


----------



## brad-man (Sep 25, 2020)

I guess I get to keep my money. The only lens that interests me in that lineup is the RF 70-200 f/4L IS. I also am in need of a 24mm, but it has to be a lot faster than 2.8...


----------



## Mistral75 (Sep 25, 2020)

Three lenses have been registered by the Russian authorities and should be announced sooner or later:

4318C005 = RF 70-200mm f/4L IS STM
4514C005 = ?
4515C005 = RF 50mm f/1.8 STM


----------



## bgoyette (Sep 25, 2020)

uh...this. Is this what I hope it is? I thought such a thing wasn't possible, so maybe not. Can you explain, Mr. Canonrumors Guy?

*User interchangeable RF mount for Cinema EOS cameras*


----------



## Fotofriend (Sep 25, 2020)

Hey Craig thanks for the update. I was pretty sure to have read a while ago somewhere here that the RF 50 f1.8 STM lens will have IS. Am I wrong? Are you sure now it won't have a stabilizer? I was hoping it would be the first 50mm with IS ...


----------



## Fotofriend (Sep 25, 2020)

SV said:


> Hard to believe (and disappointing) that the 100-400 will be a 7.1 rather than 5.6.


I agree, that f7.1 at the long end seems to become a trend in some RF glass unfortunately


----------



## brad-man (Sep 25, 2020)

SV said:


> Hard to believe (and disappointing) that the 100-400 will be a 7.1 rather than 5.6.


It's not an L lens


----------



## samh004 (Sep 25, 2020)

SV said:


> Hard to believe (and disappointing) that the 100-400 will be a 7.1 rather than 5.6.


I was going to post about how similar it would be to the RF 100-500 so what’s the point – but noticed that it’ll have both an STM motor and no L-designation – so it makes sense that it’s not 5.6.



Mr.Burberry said:


> I wonder when they will announce RF 15-35 f/4 IS. Not everyone needs 2.8 for such a wide-angle lens.


I was actually leaning the other way, sort of. I currently have an EF 16-35 f/4L and I’m wondering if they’re going to release something wider than 15mm, like an RF 11-24 (to replace the EF version) and whether that’s worth waiting for.


----------



## dwarven (Sep 26, 2020)

I really hope the 70-135 is real. It's probably going to cost $3k-$3.5k if it is though 



brad-man said:


> It's not an L lens



It will have to beat Sigma's pretty good EF 100-400 in some way though. Either by being lighter, cheaper, or faster focusing.


----------



## StandardLumen (Sep 26, 2020)

I can't help but notice the 10-24mm F4 and 14-28 F2 didn't make this list. I was really hoping one or both of those might come out this year. Now I'm wondering again if I should I just go ahead and buy the 15-35mm?


----------



## amfoto1 (Sep 26, 2020)

Unless the RF 100-400mm comes in at a low price and a super compact size, I don't see much point of it alongside the RF 100-500mm. The latter is more expensive than the EF 100-400 II, when that lens was introduced... But not a great deal more. Plus the RF 100-500 appears to be about the same size and weight as the EF 100-400 II.... but with 20% more reach.

I'm also interested in an RF 15-35mm f/4L. That wou!ld be a great addition and is probably close to the widest possible that wouldn't need a convex front element and be able to use standard filters.

The 70-135mm f/2, if it's L quality and as good as some other RF lenses, might serve well in place of a number of portrait primes. f/2 is close enough to f1.8 that it might take the place of an 85mm f/1.8, while the zoom also covers for the 100mm f/2 and 135mm f/2.

Canon might make an R5 owner of me yet!


----------



## Jethro (Sep 26, 2020)

amfoto1 said:


> Unless the RF 100-400mm comes in at a low price and a super compact size, I don't see much point of it alongside the RF 100-500mm. The latter is more expensive than the EF 100-400 II, when that lens was introduced... But not a great deal more. Plus the RF 100-500 appears to be about the same size and weight as the EF 100-400 II.... but with 20% more reach.


Both the EF 100-400 ii and the RF 100-500 are faster L lenses - I think there is definitely a place for a non-L RF 100-400, especially as the f7.1 will allow it to be much smaller than the comparable zooms. At the right price I think there would be a big demand for it. Canon's strategy with RF lenses seems to be fill gaps in the overall range where possible, based on their assumption that people already owning EF lenses will generally adapt them to RF.


----------



## KirkD (Sep 26, 2020)

Should that not be 100 -500 in the lens list? It says 100 -400 but the f stops don't match.


----------



## MaxDiesel (Sep 26, 2020)

Twinix said:


> Very excited to get more concrete on the C50.


Hoping to get a sneak peek at the NAB 2020 NYC Oct 19-29th


----------



## Dantana (Sep 26, 2020)

David the street guy said:


> I wonder if the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM will replace the Nifty Fifty that you can buy for around 125 $.
> I don't really expect it to be as cheap as it's EF counterpart, but if Canon is able to keep the EF 50mm on the market, why not it's RF sister?


I'm hoping it's closer in build quality to the RF 35 1.8. I'd be happy to pay a similar price if it was.


----------



## Mr.Burberry (Sep 26, 2020)

samh004 said:


> I was actually leaning the other way, sort of. I currently have an EF 16-35 f/4L and I’m wondering if they’re going to release something wider than 15mm, like an RF 11-24 (to replace the EF version) and whether that’s worth waiting for.


Quite possible, given the capabilities of RF mount. Canon certainly likes to surprise its users.


----------



## HMC11 (Sep 26, 2020)

Mr.Burberry said:


> I wonder when they will announce RF 15-35 f/4 IS. Not everyone needs 2.8 for such a wide-angle lens.


I am hoping that this would come out soon. There was some patents for this lens and its equivalent some time back, but no news since. Will also be interested in a 100mm f2.8 macro, but doesn't look like it has entered the collective consciousness yet.


----------



## Joules (Sep 26, 2020)

KirkD said:


> Should that not be 100 -500 in the lens list? It says 100 -400 but the f stops don't match.


This is a completely different lens than the RF 100-500 4.5-7.1 L IS.



dwarven said:


> It will have to beat Sigma's pretty good EF 100-400 in some way though. Either by being lighter, cheaper, or faster focusing.


It doesn't. Being first party, and equal or better optically is enough for Canon to offer it. See the RF 600 mm f/11, that costs more than a Sigma 150-600 5.0-6.3. Those two are harder to compare (zoom, aperture), but I think Canon is perfectly fine positioning this lens relative to its own lineup.

Also, I don't think the 100-400mm from Sigma is all that great, is it? I remember AlanF being disappointed in multiple copies.



amfoto1 said:


> Unless the RF 100-400mm comes in at a low price and a super compact size, I don't see much point of it alongside the RF 100-500mm.


I am sure it will be very affordable. Cropped to 600 mm it is an f/11 equivalent. Being a zoom, it offers more flexibility than the RF 600mm f/11, so I could see them charging a bit more than for the RF 600 mm f/11. Maybe 999 €. Or The could go slightly below its price, if the optical quality is lesser due to being a zoom.

Unless Canon introduces entry level crop bodies as well (I still don't think they will), releasing slow aperture zooms isn't an unfortunate thing. It is Canon providing equivalents or upgrades for its crop lenses. The RF 24-105 4.0-7.1 is the equivalent of a 15-65 mm 2.5-4.5 on APS-C, so a replacement for a 15-85 3.5-5.6 type lens. This zoom is a 60-250 mm 2.5-4.5 equivalent, something that you can upgrade to when you want a little more quality than the excellent EF-2 55-250 mm IS STM provides, without paying too much or going Sigma.



SV said:


> Hard to believe (and disappointing) that the 100-400 will be a 7.1 rather than 5.6.





Fotofriend said:


> I agree, that f7.1 at the long end seems to become a trend in some RF glass unfortunately




The L glass is still coming. Catering to the entry level isn't taking Away from anything. It makes the RF system more future proof by ensuring there will be people apart from the current EF owners migrating or entering the system. Don't be so negative about affordable RF glass. Not every body has the enthusiasm or option to spent so much in gear, especially for niche lenses like a Tele. I am happy that Canon seems willing to lower the price of tele options.


----------



## analoggrotto (Sep 26, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I hope so too.
> 
> I also wonder if that 24mm 2.8 will be a pancake?
> 
> -Brian


Only if Prince challenges you to a game of basketball.


----------



## jessecapps (Sep 26, 2020)

Is the 35 1.2 L dead?


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 26, 2020)

I'd like to know more about "the positive things with stock on the EOS R5 and EOS R6..."

Amazon, for one, doesn't even have its own EOS R6 product page, just a renewed item and a bundle from a third party merchant.


----------



## Twinix (Sep 26, 2020)

padam said:


> I think there are a few more months to go to maybe at some point they will announce the development and add in a single picture of what it looks from the front.
> 
> It probably has the same relation to the C200 as the C70 has to the C300 III
> So it will have the same sensor, same 8-bit 4:2:0 codecs with 4k60p and 1080p120p without RAW to SD cards. I would expect it to be a shrink-down C70 body as it will have the same internal ND.
> ...


Yea, this is the along the lines of what we already know. I just want to have them posted again, but more confirmed on whats happening and maybe some more details.
Hopefully it will (and the R5+R6) get 4K 50p 10bit Clog2/3. Personally I hope it wont get a smaller body, but if thats the case I hope it still can have BPA batteries, as I really want to use the Swit ones with Dtap. The rumors says something else tho..
For me, having reliable, easy to use cameras is important, meaning the risk of an R6 overheating or that a small part of my rig becomes loose or breaks is not worth it. Therefor I now have a Xa50, and that has everything I need except 4K 50P and the “cinematic” of cinema cameras.


----------



## psychilles (Sep 26, 2020)

Twinix said:


> Yea, this is the along the lines of what we already know. I just want to have them posted again, but more confirmed on whats happening and maybe some more details.
> Hopefully it will (and the R5+R6) get 4K 50p 10bit Clog2/3. Personally I hope it wont get a smaller body, but if thats the case I hope it still can have BPA batteries, as I really want to use the Swit ones with Dtap. The rumors says something else tho..
> For me, having reliable, easy to use cameras is important, meaning the risk of an R6 overheating or that a small part of my rig becomes loose or breaks is not worth it. Therefor I now have a Xa50, and that has everything I need except 4K 50P and the “cinematic” of cinema cameras.


I really hope it gets 4:2:2 10bit


----------



## Tangent (Sep 26, 2020)

1) If the non-L 100-400 is lightweight, it might be very handy for hiking.
2) I think a 30mm (or 28) f 2.8 pancake would be great!
3) I didn't have the spare change lying around to pay to skip ads, OK, but please dial it back a notch ... or two... Ads inline in posts, rotating ads on the bottom of the page, pages jumping around because of ads. Too much of anything, even greed, is not a good thing. Zheesh.
4) Enhanced Tracking Protection is now on. I'm good. If they're not obnoxious, I'm OK with letting ads run. Whatever.


----------



## padam (Sep 26, 2020)

psychilles said:


> I really hope it gets 4:2:2 10bit


I highly doubt it, there is not enough reasons to move up to the C70 in that case and it would really kill the C200 as well.
I may not even do it via externally either (if it did, it would be a reasobly good compromise) hopefully they will keep the full-size HDMI connector.


----------



## mustafa (Sep 26, 2020)

I’m not in the RF market, but an M5 replacement with M6 mkII features would definitely be in my cart. Any chance of reviving that rumour (M7)?


----------



## degos (Sep 26, 2020)

Fotofriend said:


> I agree, that f7.1 at the long end seems to become a trend in some RF glass unfortunately



And had it had been Tamron there would be mockery of "crappy third-party pinhole lenses". Funny that...


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Sep 26, 2020)

Oh no more slow crap now in a 100-400 f/7.1, hell why not f/11. Doing their utmost to keep people away. But hey a 75-135 f/2L priced at probably $3K will do the trick.


----------



## padam (Sep 26, 2020)

bgoyette said:


> uh...this. Is this what I hope it is? I thought such a thing wasn't possible, so maybe not. Can you explain, Mr. Canonrumors Guy?
> 
> *User interchangeable RF mount for Cinema EOS cameras*


Makes sense, they didn't say outright that that the C500 II or C300 III would never get RF-mount.
It was already out when they came out with these cameras and it will keep them going for quite a bit longer.

They are going to sell a lot of 0.71x focal reducers for the C300 III or C70.
With this adapter, the extra cost and lack of 4k120p on the C500 II is a hard pill to swallow.

About the C200 or C700 they are older so they may not be compatible, we'll see.


----------



## Joules (Sep 26, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Oh no more slow crap now in a 100-400 f/7.1, hell why not f/11. Doing their utmost to keep people away. But hey a 75-135 f/2L priced at probably $3K will do the trick.


Oh boy. This notion of equating consumer glass to crap is really annoying me. Are rebelsl cameras crap too? Is the M-Series crap? At what price point do cars or homes become crap for you? Could you image being in a situation where you buy crap in one aspect, to afford not having to so in an area that matters more to you? 

If you are offended by the notion of affordable products, do yourself a favor and move to Leica and co. Canon has always been great at capturing the entry level market. It isn't that hard to imagine the high end benefitting from a healthy base of low end customers of the same system, right?


----------



## dwarven (Sep 26, 2020)

Joules said:


> *It doesn't. Being first party, and equal or better optically* is enough for Canon to offer it. See the RF 600 mm f/11, that costs more than a Sigma 150-600 5.0-6.3. Those two are harder to compare (zoom, aperture), but I think Canon is perfectly fine positioning this lens relative to its own lineup.



That remains to be seen. The mere fact that a lens is first party doesn't necessarily make it better. Also, the Sigma version is pretty good for how much it costs. I don't care if a lens is made by Canon or not, and you shouldn't either. I only care if it provides good value.


----------



## Joules (Sep 26, 2020)

dwarven said:


> That remains to be seen. The mere fact that a lens is first party doesn't necessarily make it better. Also, the Sigma version is pretty good for how much it costs. I don't care if a lens is made by Canon or not. I only care if it provides good value.


I don't care either. I use a Sigma 150-600 mm C and Sigma 35 mm 1.4 Art because paying more for the Canon variants does not really make sense for my hobby, especially since these two are really good. But Canon does not care about us. They care about the market. And for the market, there is a value in not having to think about compatibility or adapters. We currently don't even know when or if Sigma and Tamron will make native lenses for RF. So long as they don't, a native Canon that is guaranteed to work with the fancy AF and cooperative IBIS in the current and upcoming bodies has some value in itself. And they will probably charge for that value, as long as a sufficiently large portion of the market agrees with the pricing.


----------



## Swerky (Sep 26, 2020)

Billybob said:


> It appears that these lenses are not for you. Rather, they are far budget buyers and newbies who are just getting started with interchangeable lens cameras. One of the things that makes Canon should a dominant company in photography is that it produces products for all market segments. Canon has a pretty close to complete offering on the high end (it's hard to imagine what zoom is missing, and the 1.2 primes are a good start for the high-end prime market), but they have very few RF offerings for the budget and mid-tier user. These lenses are for them.


I can understand that. But I also hope they would release a wide angle prime, 18 or 20mm at f2.8 for the RF mount. They have an old EF one. Sony and Tamron have such offerings. And a 40mm f2.8 won't be that expensive. Nor would a 20mm f2.8 be. 45mm at f6.3 is limiting.


----------



## Fotofriend (Sep 26, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


There was also a rumor about a RF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM coming, is this another lens potentially coming in the future, or can we only expect a RF 50 f1.8 STM without IS now?


----------



## lexptr (Sep 26, 2020)

Sadly no good macro yet. It is currently the biggest omission in R system for me. Otherwise, the system is already very good for my needs and I'm in for switching as soon, as R5 will be available. Adapter will help with macro for a while.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 26, 2020)

Joules said:


> Oh boy. This notion of equating consumer glass to crap is really annoying me. Are rebelsl cameras crap too? Is the M-Series crap? At what price point do cars or homes become crap for you? Could you image being in a situation where you buy crap in one aspect, to afford not having to so in an area that matters more to you?
> 
> If you are offended by the notion of affordable products, do yourself a favor and move to Leica and co. Canon has always been great at capturing the entry level market. It isn't that hard to imagine the high end benefitting from a healthy base of low end customers of the same system, right?


And what annoys me is Canon selling us on the idea there anything faster then f/8 should cost an arm and a leg.
We don't have to get upset when others give their opinions about desirable lenses. Not everything is a class struggle.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 26, 2020)

Swerky said:


> Those slower aperture zoom lenses being released that go from ultra wide angle to normal are kinda uninspiring. 18mm at 3.5 is fine when the lens is compact but 45mm f6.3 is just useless to me. I'd rather have a prime 18 or 20mm f2.8 and another normal prime f2.8 like the 40mm pancake.



It's great for travel or hiking tho. One compact lens going from ultra wide to normal, save you carrying more lenses or swapping them all the time.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 26, 2020)

lexptr said:


> Sadly no good macro yet. It is currently the biggest omission in R system for me. Otherwise, the system is already very good for my needs and I'm in for switching as soon, as R5 will be available. Adapter will help with macro for a while.



Macro and wide angle lenses are probably the least of their priority ATM. Plenty of options available in EF mount, mostly used in manual mode and you even get extra functionality with the drop-in filter adapter.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 26, 2020)

But, again with wide apertures, doesn't anybody remember the NON L faster lenses Canon is loved for? ef 85mm 1.8, ef 100mm 2.8 Macro, ef 50mm f/1.4 (and 1.8), EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6. And there are the affordable L's--the ef 135mm f/2L, ef 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, and the venerable 400mm f/5.6...And then there are, of course, the smaller ef-s lenses.

This push to tighter apertures in the name of "budget" and "portability" is frustrating. I thought the Rf mount would lead to innovation, not just stopping down.

I would have been glad to carry an extra half pound and a little more bulk for a 100-500mm f/5.6L. But, in fact, I don't know if they could have brought it in at the same price as the 7.1 version and still be profitable.


----------



## Joules (Sep 26, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> And what annoys me is Canon selling us on the idea there anything faster then f/8 should cost an arm and a leg.
> We don't have to get upset when others give their opinions about desirable lenses. Not everything is a class struggle.


Class struggle or not, this is about business. Being mad about Canon for following good business practices is a poor excuse for using strong language in my eyes. And it is good business to flesh out the low end of what I suppose will be their main ILC platform in the future. 

I can see a 100-400mm 7.1 FF lens priced below 1k being desirable for me. That is an opinion. And it is fine to have a different one, but there is nothing worth arguing with this opinion, as it is exclusively about my perception.

Saying something is crap is of course also just shorthand for expressing one's perception. But if an opinion is worded poorly or based on some questionable with, I feel justified in questioning it.

I don't get the impression that Canon is selling the notion that anything faster than f/8 should cost and arm and a leg. As I said, I see this as a step up from the 55-250 3.5-5.6 IS STM. If you want to compare it to an FF lens, this is applying the a similar approach as what they did with the 100-400 mm - > 100-500 mm to the EF 70-300mm IS Nano USM: keep the absolute aperture the same and increase the focal length. Presumably also involving updated mechanics and electronics, which in combination with the decrease in expected sales due to the market shrinking warrants an increase in price in Canon's eyes. If the market disagrees with that, I am open to be critized in turn for calling this good business.

With Tele lenses, I think we're paying more for absolute aperture than f number. f/1.8 cost ~100 if you want cheap. The costs do indeed explode to an frustrating level once you go beyond 100 mm aperture with Canon.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 26, 2020)

I'm all for Canon producing a wide price range of lens offerings! But when they start pushing f/7.1 for L series zooms, I get frustrated. Mad? No.


----------



## Joules (Sep 26, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm all for Canon producing a wide price range of lens offerings! But when they start pushing f/7.1 for L series zooms, I get frustrated. Mad? No.


Genuine curiosity here:

Would you prefer it if they released an RF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 instead of increasing the reach? If so, what is this preference based on?

I am under the impression that their optimized they midrange L Tele workhorse for the most common use case: shooting things that are far away. Am I mistaken?

What innovation beyond improving its key use would have been preferable to you?

As I said, I am open for being critized if I am missing something. And I am genuinely curious how you arrived at your view. I am not dismissing it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 26, 2020)

Joules said:


> Genuine curiosity here:
> 
> Would you prefer it if they released an RF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 instead of increasing the reach? If so, what is this preference based on?
> 
> ...


I don't know how much extra it would have cost us if Canon could have made a slightly larger 100-500mm f/5.6, but that would have been more exciting to me. On the other hand, I see the appeal of more reach and less weight. Still, I'd have gone with a heavier but faster lens if offered.

When it comes to standard zooms, my thinking goes the other way. I see the rf 24-70mm f/2.8L IS as a just right, Goldilocks type of lens, while the rf 28-70mm f/2L seems more of a showcase, attention getter for the new Rf mount, and not something I would choose--and certainly not pay more for.


----------



## Aregal (Sep 26, 2020)

mb66energy said:


> The chance for this 24mm to be a pancake is close to zero - it has IS and Macro functionality which increase the lens dimensions. A 24mm pancake would have another disadvantage: The incident angle of light is large so more reflected light = vast vignetting.
> But I appreciate the idea of having lots of image stabilized Macro lenses - I really like my RF 35mm as a general purpose lens!


Yeah. I didn’t expect to like my RF 35/1.8 As much a I do.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 26, 2020)

Stanly said:


> RF really needs a fast wide for those Super35 C70 and upcoming C50 – wonder when 14-28 f/1.4 is coming out.


Canon also has no RF mount cinema lenses on the horizon.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 26, 2020)

Joules said:


> Oh boy. This notion of equating consumer glass to crap is really annoying me. Are rebelsl cameras crap too? Is the M-Series crap? At what price point do cars or homes become crap for you? Could you image being in a situation where you buy crap in one aspect, to afford not having to so in an area that matters more to you?
> 
> If you are offended by the notion of affordable products, do yourself a favor and move to Leica and co. Canon has always been great at capturing the entry level market. It isn't that hard to imagine the high end benefitting from a healthy base of low end customers of the same system, right?


I will not pretend to have any experience marketing lenses, but Canon concentrating on expensive RF photography lenses seems to make sense.
Third parties tend to make cheaper lenses. (It is the other way around with cinema lenses.)
Canon only makes cheap lenses for the M line and even though a ton of M cameras are sold there no third parties seem to want to make M mount lenses.
It seems like third parties do not think they can make cheaper or better M mount lenses than Canon.


----------



## Mr.Burberry (Sep 26, 2020)

HMC11 said:


> I am hoping that this would come out soon. There was some patents for this lens and its equivalent some time back, but no news since. Will also be interested in a 100mm f2.8 macro, but doesn't look like it has entered the collective consciousness yet.


Ain't current 100mm macro good enough? It is sharp and quite fast. I don't see how much else they can improve upon unless they decide to change f-number. 
I'm sure, it will be eventually replaced but most likely this is not a top priority for them right now.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 26, 2020)

Mr.Burberry said:


> Ain't current 100mm macro good enough? It is sharp and quite fast. I don't see how much else they can improve upon unless they decide to change f-number.
> I'm sure, it will be eventually replaced but most likely this is not a top priority for them right now.


Yes! I think the ef 100mm macro works great on the R. Nicely balanced and very quick with AF. And the IS still helps with portraits, even though it might be first gen (?).

And as for Canon concentrating on higher end, well, yes that's a business decision. They can't compete too cheaply because, I believe, the market volume for cheap interchangeable FF bodies and lenses is not what it was a decade ago.


----------



## Mr.Burberry (Sep 26, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Yes! I think the ef 100mm macro works great on the R. Nicely balanced and very quick with AF. And the IS still helps with portraits, even though it might be first gen (?).
> 
> And as for Canon concentrating on higher end, well, yes that's a business decision. They can't compete too cheaply because, I believe, the market volume for cheap interchangeable FF bodies and lenses is not what it was a decade ago.


Absolutely agree. The cheap market is being killed by smarphones. 
As far as 100mm goes, L version is quite the same as non-L, the only difference is IS system. At least this is what everybody says.


----------



## Joel C (Sep 26, 2020)

If the C70 looks this awesome and has come in at the 5,500$ I am really excited to see the functionality of the *Canon Cinema EOS C50* and the price point. That will likely be where I can actually pull the trigger on ordering, so I am patiently waiting for that model to come to fruition.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 26, 2020)

Mr.Burberry said:


> Absolutely agree. The cheap market is being killed by smarphones.
> As far as 100mm goes, L version is quite the same as non-L, the only difference is IS system. At least this is what everybody says.



The AF is a bit smoother as well, but very little difference overall. I got a good price for my 13 year old non-L and a financial windfall to replace it with the L version. Without that windfall I'd still be happily using the non-L


----------



## Joel C (Sep 26, 2020)

lexptr said:


> Sadly no good macro yet. It is currently the biggest omission in R system for me. Otherwise, the system is already very good for my needs and I'm in for switching as soon, as R5 will be available. Adapter will help with macro for a while.


They already released the 85mm f/2 macro. I am waiting on delivery to see how it shapes up against the 100mm ef... I have seen some really compelling images so far from the 85, hopefully it fills in nicely.


----------



## Ronny Wertelaers (Sep 26, 2020)

I am still waiting for the RF 35mm Pro prime lens...


----------



## Billybob (Sep 26, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I don't know how much extra it would have cost us if Canon could have made a slightly larger 100-500mm f/5.6, but that would have been more exciting to me. On the other hand, I see the appeal of more reach and less weight. Still, I'd have gone with a heavier but faster lens if offered.
> 
> When it comes to standard zooms, my thinking goes the other way. I see the rf 24-70mm f/2.8L IS as a just right, Goldilocks type of lens, while the rf 28-70mm f/2L seems more of a showcase, attention getter for the new Rf mount, and not something I would choose--and certainly not pay more for.



The problem is it would not be slightly larger, but much larger. It would be comparable to the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 if not bigger (most likely bigger), which is 2lbs heavier, requires 95mm filters versus 77mm, and is 60mm longer. Thus, what you're asking for is not the compact, workhorse, take-anywhere long tele that epitomizes the Canon 100-400L series but rather a lens in a very different lens category. I might be interested in such a beast, but I welcome the opportunity to go small and not have to carry around a lens that requires stopping down to f/7.1 or f/8 anyway for best results.

Full disclosure, I sold my 100-400 and replaced in with the 100-500. I didn't expect better IQ (fortunately it's at least as good). What I expected was getting out to 500mm while keeping essentially the same small size. I got what I hoped for, albeit, I still wince when I think about the cost.


----------



## Joules (Sep 26, 2020)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I will not pretend to have any experience marketing lenses, but Canon concentrating on expensive RF photography lenses seems to make sense.
> Third parties tend to make cheaper lenses. (It is the other way around with cinema lenses.)
> Canon only makes cheap lenses for the M line and even though a ton of M cameras are sold there no third parties seem to want to make M mount lenses.
> It seems like third parties do not think they can make cheaper or better M mount lenses than Canon.


There are plenty of third party EF-M lenses. Tamron and Sigma come to mind, but I'm almost certain Samyang and co. Have something too.


----------



## TinTin (Sep 26, 2020)

Joules said:


> As I said, I am open for being critized if I am missing something.


IC what you're missing!


----------



## Darecinema (Sep 26, 2020)

With the C70 release, I'm now preparing a large acquisition of RF lenses with all their RF L Zooms (16-35, 24-70, 70-200 and 100-500) plus the 50 1.2, 85 1.2. I'm actually most curious about when to expect their Tilt-Shift line to migrate over to RF. I have been getting more and more architectural work requiring TS and I'm tired of renting and am considering just buying up the existing EF TS ones. I'm curious what everyone thinks about the Tilt shift line coming to RF: are we years away? Obviously the advantage of EF with adapters is ND but since the c70 has built in NDs, not a major selling point although for the R5 would be super convenient. Thoughts?


----------



## JTPhotography (Sep 26, 2020)

18-45 is a landscape/travel photographers dream, assuming the images are sharp and clean.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 26, 2020)

jessecapps said:


> Is the 35 1.2 L dead?



almost certainly not


----------



## Traveler (Sep 26, 2020)

15-35 f/4 please


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 27, 2020)

Darecinema said:


> With the C70 release, I'm now preparing a large acquisition of RF lenses with all their RF L Zooms (16-35, 24-70, 70-200 and 100-500) plus the 50 1.2, 85 1.2. I'm actually most curious about when to expect their Tilt-Shift line to migrate over to RF. I have been getting more and more architectural work requiring TS and I'm tired of renting and am considering just buying up the existing EF TS ones. I'm curious what everyone thinks about the Tilt shift line coming to RF: are we years away? Obviously the advantage of EF with adapters is ND but since the c70 has built in NDs, not a major selling point although for the R5 would be super convenient. Thoughts?


My guess is that tilt-shift lenses may be among the last lenses to appear in the the RF line, at least five years and more likely ten. The rear of the lenses are recessed a lot. (The rear element of my 24 L II is recessed 16mm from the rear of the lens.) It has to be to allow tilt and shift movements.


----------



## Kiton (Sep 27, 2020)

*RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM*
This should be announced sometime in 2020.


*RF 50mm f/1.8 STM*
This should also be announced sometime in 2020.


these two I will buy right away,

the EF 50 STM is better than the 1.4, please tell me they cant screw up the RF version...........


----------



## lexptr (Sep 27, 2020)

Mr.Burberry said:


> Ain't current 100mm macro good enough? It is sharp and quite fast. I don't see how much else they can improve upon unless they decide to change f-number.
> I'm sure, it will be eventually replaced but most likely this is not a top priority for them right now.


Yes, it is good. But not as good, as current RF lenses. I'm still not in the R system, so I judge about those by TDP charts. What I can compare is 100L and 100-400L II. And the latter has better IQ (being a zoom lens) than the former (prime macro). Also the IS (not so important for macro, but still) is jerky sometimes, while on 100-400 it works like a charm. Nothing is actually bad and it is more about pixel peeping, but truth is that 100L has some room for improvement. Also wider aperture may be a good addition. But you are right, it is, probably, not a high priority segment. Will wait and see.


Joel C said:


> They already released the 85mm f/2 macro. I am waiting on delivery to see how it shapes up against the 100mm ef... I have seen some really compelling images so far from the 85, hopefully it fills in nicely.


Yes, but it is not 1:1. For me macro starts from 1:1. I also like higher focal length as it gives more distance and better background. Weather sealing is important too. I had failed equipment in past due to moisture. So will wait for 100L replacement and hope for something in 150-180mm range too.


----------



## snapshot (Sep 27, 2020)

For macro, I like the EF 100mm L IS, but the IS isnt worth much. I wonder if IBIS is any help for hand held macro. Maybe something to try out on the R5.
Although IS on the macro used to be useful for portraits, I am now pretty sold on EF 85mm F/1.4 L IS, it produces lots of great stuff on the 5D4.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Sep 27, 2020)

Joules said:


> Oh boy. This notion of equating consumer glass to crap is really annoying me. Are rebelsl cameras crap too? Is the M-Series crap? At what price point do cars or homes become crap for you? Could you image being in a situation where you buy crap in one aspect, to afford not having to so in an area that matters more to you?
> 
> If you are offended by the notion of affordable products, do yourself a favor and move to Leica and co. Canon has always been great at capturing the entry level market. It isn't that hard to imagine the high end benefitting from a healthy base of low end customers of the same system, right?



Typical fanboy response. Keep your head in the sand buddy. If you think a R5 should be paired with budget crap telephoto lenses you are delusional, not that Canon wouldn't still want $2K for the 100-400. We just got the ridiculously over-priced 100-500 that is slow as a wet week. Oh but maybe you think someone that needs a 100-400 presumably for things that move quickly like birds, or animals etc would also endure the rubbish RP or R as their action cameras too.

No what we've got is the most unbalanced lens line-up in mirrorless. Either ridiculously expensive or stupidly slow. We've been waiting for a decent camera for a decade and now they delived the R5/R6 they are delivering ultra-slow crap in the telephoto range. If you want to buy 600 f/11 and other slow lenses fine, but where are the real lenses that were the hallmark of the EF system. Where's the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, where's the 300/400 f/2.8, 500/600 f/4, 200-600 f/5-6.3, 400 f/4, 300 f/4, where's the 16-35 f/4, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/4. 

This slow crap might make sense if they also had a budget camera that could focus worth a damn, but for a camera like the R5 and R6 it's a total waste of money.


----------



## drama (Sep 27, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Typical fanboy response. Keep your head in the sand buddy.
> 
> Some more jive talk



I never understood how or why people got so worked up about cameras, enough to turn up on a product they don't like's forum and yell at people. Is your life _that_ empty?

ANYWAY

Nice to see Canon stocking the pond so quickly with glass offerings. And between RP up to R5, a ton of good gear to put them on. By the middle of next year, it looks like there will be a combination for nearly everyone, which is the point, I guess.


----------



## Darecinema (Sep 27, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Typical fanboy response. Keep your head in the sand buddy. If you think a R5 should be paired with budget crap telephoto lenses you are delusional, not that Canon wouldn't still want $2K for the 100-400. We just got the ridiculously over-priced 100-500 that is slow as a wet week. Oh but maybe you think someone that needs a 100-400 presumably for things that move quickly like birds, or animals etc would also endure the rubbish RP or R as their action cameras too.
> 
> No what we've got is the most unbalanced lens line-up in mirrorless. Either ridiculously expensive or stupidly slow. We've been waiting for a decent camera for a decade and now they delived the R5/R6 they are delivering ultra-slow crap in the telephoto range. If you want to buy 600 f/11 and other slow lenses fine, but where are the real lenses that were the hallmark of the EF system. Where's the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, where's the 300/400 f/2.8, 500/600 f/4, 200-600 f/5-6.3, 400 f/4, 300 f/4, where's the 16-35 f/4, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/4.
> 
> This slow crap might make sense if they also had a budget camera that could focus worth a damn, but for a camera like the R5 and R6 it's a total waste of money.


Maybe I’m missing something here but my current EF zooms work flawlessly with the RF mount. I want tilt-shifts in RF mount eventually but until they are released I’ll use the EF ones which are great. Also in my opinion the 5DIV isn’t a decent camera, it’s a spectacular camera. But that’s just based on my usage scenario but I’ve put that thing through hundreds of shoots of all sorts in different environments and it’s always rendered awesome images and 4k video and never failed.


----------



## landon (Sep 27, 2020)

C50 and C70 have internal NDs. Will be so useful recording wedding events. Bright morning sun to dim indoor.
C50 supposed to be super small, lighter, cheaper. If you can live with 8 bit, then it's a great beginner Cinema camera. One you would take to a fun shoot, but still have Cinema functions.


----------



## Joules (Sep 27, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> If you want to buy 600 f/11 and other slow lenses fine, but where are the real lenses that were the hallmark of the EF system. Where's the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, where's the 300/400 f/2.8, 500/600 f/4, 200-600 f/5-6.3, 400 f/4, 300 f/4, where's the 16-35 f/4, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/4.
> 
> This slow crap might make sense if they also had a budget camera that could focus worth a damn, but for a camera like the R5 and R6 it's a total waste of money.


I don't necessarily want to buy these lenses. I am just against calling budget offerings crap. You don't have to like or buy something yourself in order to appreciate the value it may provide to others. Photography is a hobby for many. It is about fun. You can have fun with the lenses you call crap. They are fine for what they are. If you don't see it as offensive calling the things people enjoy crap just because they aren't high end well, so be it. I find it annoying.

As to your other points, I'm not sure if you know how aperture works. If you shoot with at 400 mm 5.6 and crop the image to match a 500 mm FoV, you now have the same amount of light in your shot as you would have if you had just shot it at 500 mm 7.1. Only, since you had to crop, you loose a little bit of resolution.

By extending the focal length of the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS II and 70-300 4.0-5.6 IS Nano USM by 100 mm each, they can keep the lens diameter roughly the same, as the physical aperture stays the same. I think it is very reasonable to assume increasing physical aperture adds more weight and cost to a design than focal length, since aperture is related to the lens diameter and so it influences things quadratic ally, as opposed to the linear influence of focal length. So what Canon is doing here is giving their FF mainstream EF lenses (The L lens being ~ 2000 € and the other ~ 500€) a bit more reach.

I think somehow you imagine the 100-400mm 4.5-7.1 IS STM will cost around 2000 €? It won't. It will cost below 1k. Note that it is a STM lens.

Some of the lenses you list are already available. The RF 100-500 4.5-7.1 L IS is the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS II. The RF 85 mm 2.0 macro is the EF 85 mm 1.8 counterpart. The RF 70-200 4.0 L IS is expected to be announced soon.

The fast tele primes are indeed not right around the corner it seems. If the R1 is released next year, I expect this to change right after that.

The 50 mm 1.4 is the only lens you list that we can't reasonably expect to become a reality. It really depends on what the 50 mm 1.8 will be.

Also, your last point makes zero sense to me. We are talking about an unreleased lens here. One that is clearly extremely budget oriented, being an STM lens. We are talking about the 100-400 mm 4.5-7.1 IS STM, right? And you complain that this is a lens not well suited for the R6 and R5? Did you miss that the RP is already a push towards lowering the cost to FF on the body side and that we'll likely get an even cheaper R early next year? I am not talking about using this lens on high end bodies (and yes, the R6 is high end compared to the the context of this lens).

This is an unreleased lens, being designed for yet unreleased bodies that will work together nicely and provide a decent upgrade and path into FF for folks shooting with a 850D and EF-S 55-250 mm IS STM or similar setup today. To me at least that seems pretty obvious. Unless Canon do change direction and introduce low end crop bodies to the RF system. My interpretation is based on the premise that they won't do that, and that these slow zooms are their way of providing FF lenses that are match or exceed the experience of shooting with an equivalent crop setup.


----------



## brad-man (Sep 27, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Typical fanboy response. Keep your head in the sand buddy. If you think a R5 should be paired with budget crap telephoto lenses you are delusional, not that Canon wouldn't still want $2K for the 100-400. We just got the ridiculously over-priced 100-500 that is slow as a wet week. Oh but maybe you think someone that needs a 100-400 presumably for things that move quickly like birds, or animals etc would also endure the rubbish RP or R as their action cameras too.
> 
> No what we've got is the most unbalanced lens line-up in mirrorless. Either ridiculously expensive or stupidly slow. We've been waiting for a decent camera for a decade and now they delived the R5/R6 they are delivering ultra-slow crap in the telephoto range. If you want to buy 600 f/11 and other slow lenses fine, but where are the real lenses that were the hallmark of the EF system. Where's the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, where's the 300/400 f/2.8, 500/600 f/4, 200-600 f/5-6.3, 400 f/4, 300 f/4, where's the 16-35 f/4, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/4.
> 
> This slow crap might make sense if they also had a budget camera that could focus worth a damn, but for a camera like the R5 and R6 it's a total waste of money.


Don't be such a whiner. You are like a 9 year old. You want it and you want it _now_. In less than 3 years, Canon has put out a nice variety of RF lenses. It took them over 3 decades to round out the EF catalog. I'm frustrated that they haven't released a fast wide prime, but I gather their market research guides them more than my desires. If you don't like the RF lens lineup, then don't buy any. Being petulant won't produce any positive results.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 27, 2020)

Joules said:


> I don't necessarily want to buy these lenses. I am just against calling budget offerings crap. You don't have to like or buy something yourself in order to appreciate the value it may provide to others. Photography is a hobby for many. It is about fun. You can have fun with the lenses you call crap. They are fine for what they are. If you don't see it as offensive calling the things people enjoy crap just because they aren't high end well, so be it. I find it annoying.
> 
> As to your other points, I'm not sure if you know how aperture works. If you shoot with at 400 mm 5.6 and crop the image to match a 500 mm FoV, you now have the same amount of light in your shot as you would have if you had just shot it at 500 mm 7.1. Only, since you had to crop, you loose a little bit of resolution.
> 
> ...


I would guess that many owners of big white teles in the 300:to 800mm range will be slow to switch to new RF replacements as they will not see much incentive from a performance stand point over using their EF glass with an adapter. I hope I am wrong and all that “old” glass gets dumped on the used market so that used prices drop to where I can afford one. The trend has been for new big white releases to get lighter in weight, but that is where the majority of improvement has been. That trend will likely continue.


----------



## Joules (Sep 27, 2020)

brad-man said:


> In less than 3 years, Canon has put out a nice variety of RF lenses.


Just to support your point, it actually has been less than 2 years since the RF system launched in October 2018. And we're already up to 15 RF lenses, 3 adapters and 2 TCs. Potentially a speedbooster, if you want to count the cinema one.


----------



## Joules (Sep 27, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> I would guess that many owners of big white teles in the 300:to 800mm range will be slow to switch to new RF replacements as they will not see much incentive from a performance stand point over using their EF glass with an adapter. I hope I am wrong and all that “old” glass gets dumped on the used market so that used prices drop to where I can afford one. The trend has been for new big white releases to get lighter in weight, but that is where the majority of improvement has been. That trend will likely continue.


I guess it depends on what Canon has in store. I think eventually they will have to directly compete with Sigma and Sony and the 150-600 mm 5.0-6.3, 60-600 mm 4.5-6.3 and Sony 200-600 5.6-6.3 in terms of absolute aperture. Such a lens may be quite appealing.

And if they are indeed pursuing the option of releasing the insanely fast tele primes 250 2.0 and 500 2.8 from the recent CR1 rumor, maybe they intent to continue adding capabilities to staple EF lenses instead of just duplicating them. Still, you are likely correct for a majority of people, as the EF line up is still great and doesn't suffer from being adapted. All the more reason for Canon to produce lenses that we don't see in EF.


----------



## zim (Sep 27, 2020)

Joules said:


> I don't necessarily want to buy these lenses. I am just against calling budget offerings crap. You don't have to like or buy something yourself in order to appreciate the value it may provide to others. Photography is a hobby for many. It is about fun. You can have fun with the lenses you call crap. They are fine for what they are. If you don't see it as offensive calling the things people enjoy crap just because they aren't high end well, so be it. I find it annoying.
> 
> As to your other points, I'm not sure if you know how aperture works. If you shoot with at 400 mm 5.6 and crop the image to match a 500 mm FoV, you now have the same amount of light in your shot as you would have if you had just shot it at 500 mm 7.1. Only, since you had to crop, you loose a little bit of resolution.
> 
> ...


Excellent summary of what's going on


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 27, 2020)

Regarding the EF 100L Macro, it’s a nice lens but not a standout and for a macro could certainly be sharper especially stopped down. However the combination of focal length, robustness, weather sealing, IS, image quality and price make it a very nice lens.

For a budget minded portrait shooter it would be my first recommendation, closely followed by the EF 100 f2 and the EF 85 f1.8, but neither of them have the build quality, IS, close focusing ability, nor weatherproofing of the L macro.

But I’d caution against this ever increasing mindset that sharpness equals image quality, some of the greatest lenses are not particularly sharp (EF 50 f1.0) others are (EF 200 f2.0). If we keep using sharpness as the be all and end all of image quality then we will end up missing out on other good lens designs because manufacturers will sacrifice any kind of different characteristics for the sake of sharpness.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 27, 2020)

landon said:


> C50 and C70 have internal NDs. Will be so useful recording wedding events. Bright morning sun to dim indoor.
> C50 supposed to be super small, lighter, cheaper. If you can live with 8 bit, then it's a great beginner Cinema camera. One you would take to a fun shoot, but still have Cinema functions.


The C70 has been announced, the C50 hasn't. Isn't it a bit premature to state the C50 attributes with such certainty?


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 27, 2020)

I too have never understood the "hype " about the 100 L IS macro.
Maybe I've bought THE mediocre one out of a series of excellent ones? Anyway, mine lacks sharpness at infinity setting on the sides and corners, the 70-200 f4 II and the superb 100-400 L IS II are MUCH sharper at the 100mm focal length. For macro work, the 100 is pretty good, but definitely not for landscapes. I've replaced it with the Leica R 100mm Macro Elmarit: best lens I ever had.


----------



## definedphotography (Sep 27, 2020)

As an XF100 user, I'm hoping the XF500/5 is a return to form. I'd be interested in upgrading.

From the looks of it the XF400 was widely panned due to lack of physical controls and other changes from the 100 & 200 series.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Sep 27, 2020)

snapshot said:


> For macro, I like the EF 100mm L IS, but the IS isnt worth much. I wonder if IBIS is any help for hand held macro. Maybe something to try out on the R5.
> Although IS on the macro used to be useful for portraits, I am now pretty sold on EF 85mm F/1.4 L IS, it produces lots of great stuff on the 5D4.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Sep 27, 2020)

The IS works very well on the 100 macro when used as a regular lens. But for macro work, I too find the IS not helping a lot. Too many blurred shots when expecting the IS to be better.


----------



## padam (Sep 27, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> The C70 has been announced, the C50 hasn't. Isn't it a bit premature to state the C50 attributes with such certainty?


No, because everything that was leaked much before about the C70 was correct, apart from the naming and pricing, which they knew about not being final.

But they knew that they are going to be smaller derivatives of the C300 Mark III and C200
So they were just calling them Cinema EOS R300 and Cinema EOS R200

So there is a very high probability that this is what the C50 will offer.

*Canon Cinema EOS R200* (Name not confirmed)

Super 35mm 4K sensor (same as the Cinema EOS C200)
No IBIS
RF Mount
Internal ND (10 Stops)
CLog 2 & CLog 3
4:2:0 8bit internally onto SD cards up to 4K60 & 1080/120
No RAW
Dual LP-E6NH battery slot
Price: $3,499 USD
The rest we can guess from how the C70 looks in detail, maybe they will equip it with a smaller screen, less inputs, etc. etc..
Looking at the C200, there is no indication of a 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 external output (only for 1080p)
So this is likely to be an 4K 8-bit only camera, which some people will not be happy about.
One can always dream about Canon changing their minds on that and the external is not limited, who knows.

It is the most entry-level Cinema camera they can do, and it still offfers a handful of things despite that, probably no need to buy new batteries or the quickest, most expensive SD cards either.
All in all, another interesting product.


----------



## APP (Sep 27, 2020)

Add me to the list waiting for a 15-35 F/4 L. I don't care if it has IS or not, it will be riding on an R5 (and I'm really looking forward to the IBIS there). 

I do want equal sharpness to the RF F/2.8 version at equal apertures, slightly smaller, lighter, cheaper, and with well controlled coma and better vignetting performance than the F/2.8. 

I strongly considered the 2.8 (sharpness and 15mm looks great), but I have the EF 16-35 F/4 L, and shooting both wide open my 16-35 has brighter corners at f/4 than the RF does at 2.8, in absolute terms. In other words, the 2.8 does not get me an exposure advantage vs my F/4 for wide angle astro landscapes when corrected for vignetting. Really hoping for a low coma, low vignetting, sharp F4 for landscape use.


----------



## Joel C (Sep 27, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> The C70 has been announced, the C50 hasn't. Isn't it a bit premature to state the C50 attributes with such certainty?


The specs were leaked in previous rumors. It was supposedly going to come out at the same time as the c70... Canon was saying the pandemic is to blame, I think they are going to announce it when the fx6 gets announced. (Announcing the c70 the same day the 7siii delivered)


----------



## samh004 (Sep 28, 2020)

lexptr said:


> Sadly no good macro yet. It is currently the biggest omission in R system for me. Otherwise, the system is already very good for my needs and I'm in for switching as soon, as R5 will be available. Adapter will help with macro for a while.





Mr.Burberry said:


> Ain't current 100mm macro good enough? It is sharp and quite fast. I don't see how much else they can improve upon unless they decide to change f-number.
> I'm sure, it will be eventually replaced but most likely this is not a top priority for them right now.





Joel C said:


> They already released the 85mm f/2 macro. I am waiting on delivery to see how it shapes up against the 100mm ef... I have seen some really compelling images so far from the 85, hopefully it fills in nicely.


Like others, my view is that Macro really begins at 1:1 and while the 85mm f/2 sounds interesting, the lack of at least 1:1 and proper weather sealing disappoint me.

While I appreciate there is nothing wrong with the EF version, I’d rather have an adapter-free collection of lenses than have to occasionally add an adapter between the camera and lens. I appreciate that it will take time to build out the whole range and some lenses may take longer than others to make the switch to RF, if they do at all. For instance, I’m not expecting an updated fisheye from canon, or an RF version of the MP-E as these lenses seem to have such a niche market as it is. But my preference would be to only carry RF lenses and bodies.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 28, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I don't know how much extra it would have cost us if Canon could have made a slightly larger 100-500mm f/5.6, but that would have been more exciting to me. On the other hand, I see the appeal of more reach and less weight. Still, I'd have gone with a heavier but faster lens if offered.
> 
> When it comes to standard zooms, my thinking goes the other way. I see the rf 24-70mm f/2.8L IS as a just right, Goldilocks type of lens, while the rf 28-70mm f/2L seems more of a showcase, attention getter for the new Rf mount, and not something I would choose--and certainly not pay more for.


I used my RF100-500mm on the R5 at a Canon Collective event at Sydney Zoo last weekend - last one in Sydney :-(
We had access to 400 f2.8 II and 600 f4 II at the same time. The zoom was so much more useful although the 400/600 lenses were great with stationery subjects and where the distance to background was closer. The eye AF speed and sharpness of the 100-500mm was excellent. There was only a couple of times where the big lenses would have been significantly better in my opinion.
I was sold when it was advertised at 15% off even though it is more expensive than I liked, it is nothing compared to the big whites and much smaller/lighter to move around. The extra 100mm reach to 500mm was very useful and being lighter than the EF100-400mm it seems a no-brainer.
It should have a lock switch rather than tightening ring though. Almost an essential purchase as my RF70-200mm doesn't accept teleconvertors like my EF70-200mm did.
Big thumbs up from me


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 28, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> But, again with wide apertures, doesn't anybody remember the NON L faster lenses Canon is loved for? ef 85mm 1.8, ef 100mm 2.8 Macro, ef 50mm f/1.4 (and 1.8), EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6. And there are the affordable L's--the ef 135mm f/2L, ef 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, and the venerable 400mm f/5.6...And then there are, of course, the smaller ef-s lenses.
> 
> This push to tighter apertures in the name of "budget" and "portability" is frustrating. I thought the Rf mount would lead to innovation, not just stopping down.
> 
> I would have been glad to carry an extra half pound and a little more bulk for a 100-500mm f/5.6L. But, in fact, I don't know if they could have brought it in at the same price as the 7.1 version and still be profitable.



I don't know anyone who ever loved the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 in any of its variations (original, II, or III with either USM or not). They've all been pretty crappy. 

Perhaps you are thinking of the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS? (Or maybe the 1995 EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS that was the direct predecessor to the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS - which was a totally different design from all of the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 series that did not have IS.)


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 28, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> If we keep using sharpness as the be all and end all of image quality then we will end up missing out on other good lens designs because manufacturers will sacrifice any kind of different characteristics for the sake of sharpness.



They're already doing that. Manufacturers are already releasing "portrait" lenses that are so highly corrected for flat field performance that the bokeh is a mess compared to "inferior" lenses like the 85/1.2, 50/1.2, 135/2, 200/2.8, etc. The new lenses are great for shooting flat test charts, which seems to be all that anyone buying lenses these days seems to care about.

That's one reason I've never been a fan of using a 100mm Macro for portraits unless one is shooting in a studio at f/8 in front of a backdrop that is already printed out of focus.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 28, 2020)

samh004 said:


> I was actually leaning the other way, sort of. I currently have an EF 16-35 f/4L and I’m wondering if they’re going to release something wider than 15mm, like an RF 11-24 (to replace the EF version) and whether that’s worth waiting for.


I also have a EF16-35 f4L which works perfectly with an adaptor. Moving from 5Div to R5 is a big project for me and I started with the RF70-200m and kept my EF glass to use with the adaptor. When pricing is good then I will move when it makes sense. 
Generally, Canon has been improving optics and size/weight with all their new lenses.... maybe not all 3 in each RF lens but significant changes to justify the high entry cost.
The exception is that the RF24-105mm is optically the same as the EF version although it has a zoom switch which would be nice to have. 
The EF16-35mm and EF100mm f2.8L macro are already excellent so it only makes sense to replace when they have something significantly better especially as the EF versions are at a great price now (and even better second hand). Very few people have suggested that they really need an upgrade.
I believe that they won't do a RF11-24mm equivalent because the R mount filter adaptor is so useful. A 10-XXmm maybe but it would need to be very special and in the distant future.
Niche lenses like 8-15mm will probably never be replaced as additional sharpness has never been a priority over the flexibility before (IMO)
The EF TS-E lenses were recently refreshed so no RF versions especially as the rear elements need space to tilt/shift.
The big whites will be released with the R1 after going on diets.
The EF14/15mm primes aren't great so one area that Canon doesn't have a good lens is for astro - wide and fast would be a good seller.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 28, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> The EF TS-E lenses were recently refreshed so no RF versions especially as the rear elements need space to tilt/shift.



*Some* of the EF TS-E lenses were recently refreshed.

The TS-E 50mm f/2.8L, TS-E 90mm f/2.8L, and TS-E 135mm f/4L are the only ones introduced in 2017.

The TS-E 17mm f/4L and TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II have been around since *2009*.

The older non-L TS-E 90mm f/2.8 and TS-E 45mm f/2.8, both from *1991*, are also still in the catalog.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 28, 2020)

lexptr said:


> Sadly no good macro yet. It is currently the biggest omission in R system for me. Otherwise, the system is already very good for my needs and I'm in for switching as soon, as R5 will be available. Adapter will help with macro for a while.


Besides the other replies, a RF replacement would need to be special. Weight is not an issue. Quality/sharpness is already great and the price is very reasomable (especially second hand).
Perhaps significant sharpness at narrow apertures or maybe f2.0 but it would need to have something to differentiate from the EF100mm F2.8L.
Weld an adaptor to the EF lens for $100 and call it a RF lens


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 28, 2020)

To clarify, only the 50/90/135mm TS-E lenses were refreshed
The wide RF mount helps with wide angle designs so the TS-E 17/24mm could easily be on the RF path.


----------



## NeatnTidy (Sep 28, 2020)

> *User interchangeable RF mount for Cinema EOS cameras*
> This was also supposed to announced at the same time as the Cinema EOS C70, bit it has apparently been delayed to mid 2021 at the earliest.



This is the first I've ever heard of this. Is this actually a thing that is going to happen? I thought the ND filters on the c300 and c500 kept such a mount from being used since the RF lenses are so close to the sensor? I have a c300 Mark III and I'd LOVE any info about this.


----------



## padam (Sep 28, 2020)

NeatnTidy said:


> This is the first I've ever heard of this. Is this actually a thing that is going to happen? I thought the ND filters on the c300 and c500 kept such a mount from being used since the RF lenses are so close to the sensor? I have a c300 Mark III and I'd LOVE any info about this.


It would not be surprising to see the C300 Mark III or the C500 Mark II already using the same internal ND filter system as the C70
They came out after the introduction of the RF-mount, so they were probably taking this into account.
And they waited until they have enough RF-mount lenses to offer to do the swap.
So their new/renewed 2021 RF-mount Cinema lineup can look like C50 C70 C300 Mark III C500 Mark II and a new 8K Cinema camera. Of course the C200 is also going to remain as an option.

That's my theory on it, we'll see.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 28, 2020)

Joel C said:


> The specs were leaked in previous rumors. It was supposedly going to come out at the same time as the c70... Canon was saying the pandemic is to blame, I think they are going to announce it when the fx6 gets announced. (Announcing the c70 the same day the 7siii delivered)


I knew about the previous leaks. I guess I'm just more skeptical about rumors than some other people here.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 28, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> *Some* of the EF TS-E lenses were recently refreshed.
> 
> The TS-E 50mm f/2.8L, TS-E 90mm f/2.8L, and TS-E 135mm f/4L are the only ones introduced in 2017.
> 
> ...


The new 50, 90 and 135mm lenses are all macro lenses, since they tend to be used for table top product photography, not architectural photography. More importantly, the recent lenses allow the tilt and shift to be set parallel to each other or crossed or any angle in between. In short, important features were added. I'm not sure what important features would be added by moving to the RF mount. The sales volume of these lenses probably makes sales of the big whites look mass market in comparison.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 28, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> The new 50, 90 and 135mm lenses are all macro lenses, since they tend to be used for table top product photography, not architectural photography. More importantly, the recent lenses allow the tilt and shift to be set parallel to each other or crossed or any angle in between. In short, important features were added. I'm not sure what important features would be added by moving to the RF mount. The sales volume of these lenses probably makes sales of the big whites look mass market in comparison.



The 2009 lenses also allow tilt and shift to be set at any angle to one another. It was called "TS Rotation".


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 28, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> The new 50, 90 and 135mm lenses are all macro lenses, since they tend to be used for table top product photography, not architectural photography. More importantly, the recent lenses allow the tilt and shift to be set parallel to each other or crossed or any angle in between. In short, important features were added. I'm not sure what important features would be added by moving to the RF mount. The sales volume of these lenses probably makes sales of the big whites look mass market in comparison.



Not really RF-mount related, but the could add sensors for the tilt/shift and record it in the EXIF. The MP-E65mm does it for the magnification and @keithcooper mentioned that other systems (Hasselblad?) offer it already.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 28, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> They're already doing that. Manufacturers are already releasing "portrait" lenses that are so highly corrected for flat field performance that the bokeh is a mess compared to "inferior" lenses like the 85/1.2, 50/1.2, 135/2, 200/2.8, etc. The new lenses are great for shooting flat test charts, which seems to be all that anyone buying lenses these days seems to care about.
> 
> That's one reason I've never been a fan of using a 100mm Macro for portraits unless one is shooting in a studio at f/8 in front of a backdrop that is already printed out of focus.


Of course, and I don't think we are better for it. It first became apparent to me when they brought out the EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, sharpener than it's predecessor for sure but it seriously messed with the bokeh of what had been a superb portrait lens. It is the reason I stayed with my MkI version of the lens.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 28, 2020)

Joules said:


> Oh boy. This notion of equating consumer glass to crap is really annoying me. Are rebelsl cameras crap too? Is the M-Series crap? At what price point do cars or homes become crap for you? Could you image being in a situation where you buy crap in one aspect, to afford not having to so in an area that matters more to you?
> 
> If you are offended by the notion of affordable products, do yourself a favor and move to Leica and co. Canon has always been great at capturing the entry level market. It isn't that hard to imagine the high end benefitting from a healthy base of low end customers of the same system, right?



Consider the source. All Mr. Majestyk does around here is come in and crap on the M series. I guess at least he's diversifying now.


----------



## JaimeAndresPhoto1 (Sep 28, 2020)

This was definitely the year of Canon for many. I've been a Sony shooter for the past 8 years since the first a7, I was a Canon shooter before that and have been looking at coming back to Canon, last year I bought the EOS R, fell in love with it, and began to invest in RF glass. I was shooting both, Sony a7iii and the EOS R for the past 9 months, and after the R5 was announced I decided to go all-in with Canon, sold all my Sony gear and I now only shoot Canon. There have been some drawbacks to that decision, but I love having only one lens mount system and not have to worry about which camera to bring for a shoot. There's definitely some things that Canon could (and should) learn from Sony, but I'm not looking back. At least for the next 8 years LOL


----------



## Aregal (Sep 28, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Of course, and I don't think we are better for it. It first became apparent to me when they brought out the EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, sharpener than it's predecessor for sure but it seriously messed with the bokeh of what had been a superb portrait lens. It is the reason I stayed with my MkI version of the lens.


That’s very interesting about the 70-200/2.8Lis. The zero points of CPS support bothers me less now. Haha.


----------



## Iain L (Sep 28, 2020)

The thing that strikes me on the lens front is that a *lot* of the people buying the R5 are already in the EOS ecosystem. So they’ve probably got a fair few EF lenses, and some expensive ones at that. The new RF glass includes some great stuff, but the priority being on things that don’t have a perfectly good EF equivalent seems the right call to me.


----------



## degos (Sep 28, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> To clarify, only the 50/90/135mm TS-E lenses were refreshed
> The wide RF mount helps with wide angle designs so the TS-E 17/24mm could easily be on the RF path.



The 'wide' RF mount is exactly the same width as the EF...


----------



## SteveC (Sep 28, 2020)

Iain L said:


> The thing that strikes me on the lens front is that a *lot* of the people buying the R5 are already in the EOS ecosystem. So they’ve probably got a fair few EF lenses, and some expensive ones at that. The new RF glass includes some great stuff, but the priority being on things that don’t have a perfectly good EF equivalent seems the right call to me.



Not everyone has an irrational hatred of adapters.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 28, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Not everyone has an irrational hatred of adapters.


A _suspicion_ about using adapters is quite rational - but the almost universal experience with EF - RF is that the old lenses work fine (in some cases anecdotally better) on the R series. Mine have all been fine. My issue has been a reluctance to buy _new_ EF lenses, although the issue hasn't arisen yet with any of the old EFs I frequently use.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 28, 2020)

Jethro said:


> A _suspicion_ about using adapters is quite rational - but the almost universal experience with EF - RF is that the old lenses work fine (in some cases anecdotally better) on the R series. Mine have all been fine. My issue has been a reluctance to buy _new_ EF lenses, although the issue hasn't arisen yet with any of the old EFs I frequently use.


Not all anecdotally... Canon has stated that some non-IS EF lens now have xx stops of stabilisation due to the combination of IBIS and gyro sensors in the non-IS lens.
Can be lots of reasons to still get a EF lens with RF bodies:
- Compatability across RF and EF-M systems,
- Cost where there are equivalents between EF/RF eg 70-200mm), 
- EF lens which are unlikely to have a RF equivalent (8-15mm, some TS-E lens, 400/600mm which were recently updated), 
- EF lens that are unlikely to have a replacement in the short term eg EF100mm macro but you need it now,
- EF lenses which will only be used occasionally so a second hand version is acceptable for the cost/benefit


----------



## SteveC (Sep 29, 2020)

Jethro said:


> A _suspicion_ about using adapters is quite rational - but the almost universal experience with EF - RF is that the old lenses work fine (in some cases anecdotally better) on the R series. Mine have all been fine. My issue has been a reluctance to buy _new_ EF lenses, although the issue hasn't arisen yet with any of the old EFs I frequently use.



My comment was aimed at people who proclaim that they will never use an adapter, or that they are always bad, some even claim that the adapter has glass in it that degrades performance. That's prejudging it as an adapter, without regard to the specific case in question. Of course, some adapters are bad and all adapters should be vetted because of this.

As for buying new EF lenses, sometimes it can make sense particularly if I want to use the lenses on cameras that aren't RF mount (e.g., my EF-M cameras). But that consideration certainly won't apply to everyone. If you're in a position where you own nothing other than RF mount cameras, then the _only _ reason I can see to buy a new EF lens is if you judge it to be nearly as good as the RF one, but significantly cheaper. In my case, this didn't apply in the case of the 15-35 f/2.8 nor the 24-105 f/4, and in both of those cases I already had other EF-S or even EF-M lenses I can use on my M series cameras, that I cannot use on the R5. So I felt justified in simply buying RF in the first place. My EF 100-400 II I bought recently, knowing I'd use it on the R5, but also knowing I'd use it on my M6 mk II, so it's a pretty good example of buying an EF lens for an R series camera (I didn't own any full frame cameras at all before getting the R5).


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 29, 2020)

degos said:


> The 'wide' RF mount is exactly the same width as the EF...


You are correct that the mount diameter is the same as EF mount but in combination with the shorter flange distance allows for the larger lens elements to be near the rear of the lens and closer to the camera mount and the image sensor. Allowed the RF70-200m to be very compact but means that extenders couldn't be used with it...meaning I had to buy the RF100-500mm for >200mm.
Canon and Canon News provided more insight on the benefits of the RF vs EF mount.
https://www.canonrumors.com/the-benefits-of-the-large-diameter-of-the-eos-rs-rf-mount-explained/


----------



## CanonOregon (Sep 29, 2020)

marathonman said:


> How many new adapters will they be able to develop with the *Fujitsu FX1000 supercomputer.....?*


Yea but that's a heap of 'teras' flopping there! The new supercomputer will achieve an expected theoretical computational performance of 648.8 teraflops.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 29, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Not everyone has an irrational hatred of adapters.



We really need another word for _adapter_ when we're talking about the same communication protocol between camera and lens. The RF protocol is an expanded version built upon the basic EF protocol.

_Adapter_ implies some less than perfect reverse engineering of communication protocols is going on.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 29, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> You are correct that the mount diameter is the same as EF mount but in combination with the shorter flange distance allows for the larger lens elements to be near the rear of the lens and closer to the camera mount and the image sensor. Allowed the RF70-200m to be very compact but means that extenders couldn't be used with it...meaning I had to buy the RF100-500mm for >200mm.
> Canon and Canon News provided more insight on the benefits of the RF vs EF mount.
> https://www.canonrumors.com/the-benefits-of-the-large-diameter-of-the-eos-rs-rf-mount-explained/



That headline should probably have read:

"The benefits of the shorter registration distance of the EOS R's RF mount explained"

That's what the post actually said.


----------



## Christoph Müller (Sep 29, 2020)

Where is the RF equivalent of the EF 100mm F2.8 IS Macro?

I can not believe that Canon sees it as such a low priority.
This is the only lens I miss in the current lineup.


----------



## fox40phil (Sep 29, 2020)

100-400 ?!
Okay by the price of the 100-500 it makes sense.... but I would really prefer a decent tele-zoom insteat of a 100-400 parallel to the 100-500.... maybe 200-600 5.6 or just 300-600 5.6... or something else.

24 2.8 macro? sounds sweet. but we already have the 35mm macro! A 14mm AF 2.8 macro would be nice! (1:1?!) with light in the lens! And a new 180 or 150mm macro please!


----------



## Lance vdv (Sep 29, 2020)

A super small, light, weather sealed 70-200 would be great 
But what would be even better would be a 1kg 500mm f5.6


----------



## Arod820 (Sep 29, 2020)

Stanly said:


> RF really needs a fast wide for those Super35 C70 and upcoming C50 – wonder when 14-28 f/1.4 is coming out.


I’m going to use my sigma ART 18-35 f1.8 and an Ef - rf adapter.


----------



## fox40phil (Sep 29, 2020)

brad-man said:


> It's not an L lens


Oh wait... and the 100-500L is F7.1


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 29, 2020)

Arod820 said:


> I’m going to use my sigma ART 18-35 f1.8 and an Ef - rf adapter.


Will that work? The C70 uses a Super 35 sensor, which is (slightly) larger than the APS-C size that lens was designed for.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 29, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Will that work? The C70 uses a Super 35 sensor, which is (slightly) larger than the APS-C size that lens was designed for.


it most certainly will work well. The Sigma ART 18-35 f1.8 covers even FF sensor at 35mm end. at the wide end it does vignette quite a bit on a FF sensor but on a Super 35 it should not be an issue.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 30, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> - EF lens that are unlikely to have a replacement in the short term eg EF100mm macro but you need it now,


Agreed - I bit the bullet on a Laowa RF 100mm 2x macro (and haven't regretted it after getting used to the _very_ manual operation).


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> My comment was aimed at people who proclaim that they will never use an adapter, or that they are always bad, some even claim that the adapter has glass in it that degrades performance. That's prejudging it as an adapter, without regard to the specific case in question. Of course, some adapters are bad and all adapters should be vetted because of this.
> 
> As for buying new EF lenses, sometimes it can make sense particularly if I want to use the lenses on cameras that aren't RF mount (e.g., my EF-M cameras). But that consideration certainly won't apply to everyone. If you're in a position where you own nothing other than RF mount cameras, then the _only _ reason I can see to buy a new EF lens is if you judge it to be nearly as good as the RF one, but significantly cheaper....



Well, I own nothing but an RF mount Canon, and bought a new EF 70-300 non-L since there is no comparable RF lens. And I would certainly consider buying other new EF lenses where there is no RF equivalent. So, price is not the only reason to buy new EF lenses. But, in all honesty, the great advantage to buying EF lenses for your RF mount camera is the vast amount of high quality "L" used lenses that are available for well under $1,000.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 30, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Well, I own nothing but an RF mount Canon, and bought a new EF 70-300 non-L since there is no comparable RF lens. And I would certainly consider buying other new EF lenses where there is no RF equivalent. So, price is not the only reason to buy new EF lenses. But, in all honesty, the great advantage to buying EF lenses for your RF mount camera is the vast amount of high quality "L" used lenses that are available for well under $1,000.



How did I forget about the fact that the R version often doesn't exist yet? SMH. I was evidently assuming it DID, and then proceeding from there, but I should have said so. Good catch.

And of course you amplified my point at the end.


----------



## Arod820 (Oct 2, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Will that work? The C70 uses a Super 35 sensor, which is (slightly) larger than the APS-C size that lens was designed for.


I’m gonna find out. It works great on my C100. I have the 50-100 too.


----------



## Kjsheldo (Oct 6, 2020)

I am verrrrrry interested in this: 
*User interchangeable RF mount for Cinema EOS cameras*

Any more information on this? Is that saying you could put an RF-Mount on something like the C300 III or C500 II - it definitely seems like you could, and that would be HUGE, because then you could use the speedbooster on those cameras and, especially for the C300 III, get a full-frame look or use the new, amazing RF glass.


----------

