# Three new RF prime lenses coming in early 2020 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 21, 2019)

> We were told that three new fast L primes will be announced for the RF mount in early 2020. They include an RF 24mm f/1.4L USM and an RF 135mm f/1.8L along with an undisclosed dedicated macro lens which will be a “first of its kind macro lens”, though no details of what that means was given. I wouldn’t read too much into the latter.
> The three new lenses are scheduled to be announced before CP+ in 2020, but as always, take lens scheduling with a grain of salt.
> A lot more lenses are planned for 2020, we could see as many as 8 new RF lenses in 2020.



Continue reading...


----------



## jdavidse (May 21, 2019)

wow this is getting expensive.

24
50
85
135

That’s what about 10k right there?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 21, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> wow this is getting expensive.
> 
> 24
> 50
> ...



There's also a fast 14mm in development and there's got to be an RF 35 f/1.4L in the works too.


----------



## koenkooi (May 21, 2019)

I wonder how to take "first of its kind" macro lens. I mean, doing a 95mm plain macro lens would fulfill that statement.
Since my EF macro lenses work really well on my RP, I'm hoping for something like an update MP-E that instead of 1x to 5x does 0.5x to 2.5x, has some next level IS and built in lights. Or a 200mm version with subject hypnotizer to keep all the animals still during capture.


----------



## Architect1776 (May 21, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



First of it's kind macro seems intriguing. 
High magnification and still deep DOF if desired? Wouldn't that be sweet.


----------



## slclick (May 21, 2019)

A 1-3x macro would be fantastic, the MP-E is a bit much...great when you can utilize it's potential but it does have to be under the right lighting and circumstances. 1-3x would be so much more versatile. Perhaps still at 100mm but anything 65-150 would be nice.


----------



## koenkooi (May 21, 2019)

slclick said:


> A 1-3x macro would be fantastic, the MP-E is a bit much...great when you can utilize it's potential but it does have to be under the right lighting and circumstances.



That's why Canon sells the MT-2*-EX flashes 



slclick said:


> 1-3x would be so much more versatile. Perhaps still at 100mm but anything 65-150 would be nice.



I went full frame to fit larger insects like hornets into the frame with the MP-E, on 1.6x crop a hornet would _almost_ fit lengthwise. So I would prefer that the lens starts at 0.5x or even 0.3x.


----------



## slclick (May 21, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> That's why Canon sells the MT-2*-EX flashes
> 
> 
> 
> I went full frame to fit larger insects like hornets into the frame with the MP-E, on 1.6x crop a hornet would _almost_ fit lengthwise. So I would prefer that the lens starts at 0.5x or even 0.3x.


More and more I shoot with natural light for macro on my 100L and leave the strobes in the bag. It all depends on your subject and lighting locale. I do not expect them to make a macro lens just for me fwiw. I just put out those ranges since it would be good for MANY.


----------



## melgross (May 21, 2019)

I wonder if the hi Rez body will be out before, or after these lenses. I’m itching for that. For me, the 15-35, the 28-70 and the 70–200 would cover most everything, and the macro would fill me up.


----------



## Tom W (May 21, 2019)

Interesting - It looks like Canon's going full speed ahead on high-end lenses for the RF mount. I have to believe that there's a parallel development program going on for consumer-oriented glass and mid-range glass like the 35/1.8.

The possibilities for the macro are interesting - perhaps a Macro with built-in 1.4X teleconverter, or a tilt/shift macro lens (with auto-focus). Who knows - it will be interesting to say the least.


----------



## zonoskar (May 21, 2019)

A macro without f-stop change at close focus would be a first I think.


----------



## FramerMCB (May 21, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> First of it's kind macro seems intriguing.
> High magnification and still deep DOF if desired? Wouldn't that be sweet.


And mated to the RP with its focus-stacking ability...yowza!


----------



## Michael Clark (May 21, 2019)

Tom W said:


> Interesting - It looks like Canon's going full speed ahead on high-end lenses for the RF mount. I have to believe that there's a parallel development program going on for consumer-oriented glass and mid-range glass like the 35/1.8.
> 
> The possibilities for the macro are interesting - perhaps a Macro with built-in 1.4X teleconverter, or a tilt/shift macro lens (with auto-focus). Who knows - it will be interesting to say the least.



Consumer oriented glass from Canon (or Nikon) in their new mirrorless mounts is dead on arrival. Just like consumer oriented compact cameras, there's no real market demand for them any more.


----------



## Kit. (May 21, 2019)

TS-E 24-100mm f/4 Macro (with EF mount) would be nice.

I wonder how short the RF 24/1.4 will be. Definitely not a pancake, but still... is it a good match to RP?


----------



## Michael Clark (May 21, 2019)

zonoskar said:


> A macro without f-stop change at close focus would be a first I think.



You'd need to change the laws of physics to do that.



Architect1776 said:


> First of it's kind macro seems intriguing.
> High magnification and still deep DOF if desired? Wouldn't that be sweet.


You'd need to change the laws of physics to do that, too.


----------



## Kit. (May 21, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> You'd need to change the laws of physics to do that, too.


Or Photoshop (whatever is cheaper at the moment).


----------



## navastronia (May 21, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> There's also a fast 14mm in development and there's got to be an RF 35 f/1.4L in the works too.



Do you think the 35/1.4 will be a new design, given the EF 35/1.4 L II debuted only 4 years ago?


----------



## jonebize (May 21, 2019)

What do you guys imagine the RF 24/1.4 would be like relative to the EF version? (I don't use the 24/1.4 right now so I'm not aware of its weaknesses.)


----------



## robotfist (May 21, 2019)

With how much they're throwing into new lenses, surely they must be releasing new sensors and bodies soon. I mean, I love all this glass, but I'm not changing lens mounts and camera systems until they offer a significant improvement in the cameras themselves.


----------



## BrightTiger (May 21, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Consumer oriented glass from Canon (or Nikon) in their new mirrorless mounts is dead on arrival. Just like consumer oriented compact cameras, there's no real market demand for them any more.


Agreed. Maybe not dead but pretty much low priority. The whole MILC/FF movement by the big boys is to sell a bit fewer but far more profitable higher end equipment that smartphones cannot immediately threaten. Canon somewhat went rogue with the low-cost RP body but I don't expect much give on the lenses and so far it's showing.


----------



## fabao (May 21, 2019)

I got the RP just to get the 28-70. Incredible lens. But I will hold off on buying any other RP lens until a real camera comes to match those lenses. And please Canon, don't skimp on video features and IBIS!


----------



## Chaitanya (May 21, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


As far as macro is concerned Canon themselves have some uniques macros- MP-E 65, Ef-M 28mm. Apart from these there are 2 Venus Laowa lenses 60mm and 100mm macros. few Tilt shift Macros from Schnieder and hartblei along with Canon's own Tilt shift macros. So there nothing new Canon can do that they or others havent dont before.


----------



## koenkooi (May 21, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> As far as macro is concerned Canon themselves have some uniques macros- MP-E 65, Ef-M 28mm. Apart from these there are 2 Venus Laowa lenses 60mm and 100mm macros. few Tilt shift Macros from Schnieder and hartblei along with Canon's own Tilt shift macros. So there nothing new Canon can do that they or others havent dont before.



For Venus Optics I'd mention the 24mm probe or the 15mm UWA before the 60mm.Anyway, what I think you're getting at is:

5x magnification: already done
IS: already done
Tilt/Shift: Already done
Builtin lights: already done
1:1 in 15mm-180mm: already done
Probe: already done
I can't think of many things left that aren't technicalities, from the top of my head:

Autofocus for >1.2x magnification
Drop-in filters
Something light-field like
front element not being parallel to sensor (think prism, not tilt)
Apodization


----------



## shawn (May 21, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> wow this is getting expensive.
> 
> 24
> 50
> ...



12k with taxes.


----------



## Maximilian (May 21, 2019)

To me the RF lens lineup is too much L and too much upmarket.
The lenses are all great, lovely and desireable - if you've got the money.
But when Canon wants to gain market share they should also introduce more lenses like the RF 35 or even smaller and less expensive - now and not in 2, 3 years.


----------



## shawn (May 21, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> You'd need to change the laws of physics to do that.
> 
> 
> You'd need to change the laws of physics to do that, too.





koenkooi said:


> For Venus Optics I'd mention the 24mm probe or the 15mm UWA before the 60mm.Anyway, what I think you're getting at is:
> 
> 5x magnification: already done
> IS: already done
> ...


Something light-field like, maybe a macro with an automatic focus-stacking mode? Plus automatic align and merge in camera?


----------



## HikeBike (May 21, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Agreed. Maybe not dead but pretty much low priority. The whole MILC/FF movement by the big boys is to sell a bit fewer but far more profitable higher end equipment that smartphones cannot immediately threaten. Canon somewhat went rogue with the low-cost RP body but I don't expect much give on the lenses and so far it's showing.


I agree that it's a lower priority, but I'll argue against dead as well. To me, the existence of the RP shows that Canon is still interested in providing products for its enthusiast customers. Once they have the major L glass gaps covered, I'd be shocked if they didn't start rolling out the non-L glass lineup.


----------



## shawn (May 21, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> To me the RF lens lineup is too much L and too much upmarket.
> The lenses are all great, lovely and desireable - if you've got the money.
> But when Canon wants to gain market share they should also introduce more lenses like the RF 35 or even smaller and less expensive.



The prices will probably come down to similar levels when Sigma, Tamron, etc. jump on board. To be fair though, the 24-105 is good and well priced.

Now that all the majors are on mirrorless maybe Sony/Zeiss will go crazy and offer lenses for Nikon/Canon?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 21, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> For Venus Optics I'd mention the 24mm probe or the 15mm UWA before the 60mm.Anyway, what I think you're getting at is:
> 
> 5x magnification: already done
> IS: already done
> ...



A zoom 1:1 macro hasn't been done by Canon so far. 
Or a TSe zoom macro...


----------



## Maximilian (May 21, 2019)

shawn said:


> The prices will probably come down to similar levels when Sigma, Tamron, etc. jump on board. To be fair though, the 24-105 is good and well priced.


Sure. And if I was going to buy an EOS R or RP body that 24-105 would come with it.
But I also want to see a 50 or 85 f/1.8 as the f/1.2 models are too big and too expensive for what I want to do - travel light.


----------



## [email protected] (May 21, 2019)

Kit. said:


> TS-E 24-100mm f/4 Macro (with EF mount) would be nice.
> 
> I wonder how short the RF 24/1.4 will be. Definitely not a pancake, but still... is it a good match to RP?




Yes, I was thinking same. The innovation I want in macro is tilt. Not too concerned with shift, but tilt would be a big deal for macro. I would imagine this would be difficult with a long focal length, which would require a very wide image circle relative to the degrees of tilt, but I also imagine the shorter flange distance now makes that easier, allowing the placement of the last optical element very close to the sensor. Couldn't before. Maybe now?


----------



## jolyonralph (May 21, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> High magnification and still deep DOF if desired? Wouldn't that be sweet.



Why not add time travel if the laws of physics aren't a big concern?


----------



## jolyonralph (May 21, 2019)

So, a "first of a kind" macro lens might be something that does automated stack shifting. The way it could do this is if the lens had a built-in tripod mount and this mount MOVES relative to the camera & lens on command from the camera. 

This is how systems like Stackshot Pro work, and it has some advantages (particularly with fine control) over the easier focus stacking where you adjust the focus slightly within the lens for each shot but the camera stays still.


----------



## mb66energy (May 21, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> To me the RF lens lineup is too much L and too much upmarket.
> The lenses are all great, lovely and desireable - if you've got the money.
> But when Canon wants to gain market share they should also introduce more lenses like the RF 35 or even smaller and less expensive - now and not in 2, 3 years.



Same here - while the money is there I cannot justify these expenses for the minimum advantage for my photography. And I would prefer unsuspicousness over the least quantum of quality only visible close up in 100x150cm prints.

I think the 1.8 85 companion to the RF 35 and similar lenses (e.g. 2.8 200 IS and 2.8 20mm) might be released in the next year ... hopefully. But I am confident to use my existing EF lenses on an EOS R body because the size advantage isn't that dramatic and the IQ difference maybe only small.


----------



## padam (May 21, 2019)

It is more realistic to think that it will be the first macro lens with BR optics or it will have some tricky focus system to minimise focus breathing for easier focus stacking etc..


----------



## Cochese (May 21, 2019)

I'm calling it. A new MP-E, but with a 1x-10x set up at with a built in light and an aperture of f/66.


----------



## deleteme (May 21, 2019)

The 135 f1.8 sounds tempting but I still have to save for retirement.

OTOH, I could live in a box at the park and make taco money with portraits from this lens.


----------



## shaunotter (May 21, 2019)

I hope an RF 100-400 4-5.6L is coming early in 2020, hopefully even made smaller like the RF 70-200 2.8L IS, which is a great update, size-wise.

Hmmm ... Maybe the new Macro is a 100mm 2.0L IS (usable for portraits or macro), or a even better, a 180 2.8L with IS ...and later I hope there's a more affordable 85 1.8 Macro with IS and STM, which would be great compliment for the wonderful RF 35 1.8 IS Macro STM.

Two higher-end EOS R family bodies are supposedly coming in 2020 ... One hi-res and able to exploit the priciest/sharpest RF lenses, and one lower-res (24-30mp??), very fast and hopefully capable of competing with all but the pro DSLRs for sports/wildlife/action ... or at least with a Sony A7III


----------



## David - Sydney (May 21, 2019)

If Canon releases a hi-res body (60+mp) then it needs a set of lens that resolve to that level. No use releasing the body when the resolution can't be used. 

What I don't understand is why there needs to be a new set of non-L lens for the R mount. There already exists a wide range of cheap EF-S and EF glass that can be adapted to the R or RP body. The emphasis from the reviewing community that cheap glass must be native is very strange to me... just weld on an adaptor and get even more with control ring or drop-in filter features. It is not like adapting 3rd party glass like Sony/Metabones/Canon for instance.


----------



## Ozarker (May 22, 2019)

Okay. Time to start a conversation about income inequality. (Just kidding!)


----------



## Ozarker (May 22, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> If Canon releases a hi-res body (60+mp) then it needs a set of lens that resolve to that level. No use releasing the body when the resolution can't be used.
> 
> What I don't understand is why there needs to be a new set of non-L lens for the R mount. There already exists a wide range of cheap EF-S and EF glass that can be adapted to the R or RP body. The emphasis from the reviewing community that cheap glass must be native is very strange to me... just weld on an adaptor and get even more with control ring or drop-in filter features. It is not like adapting 3rd party glass like Sony/Metabones/Canon for instance.


Isn't the control ring on RF lenses only? I could be wrong, but there isn't a control ring on the adapters. There does need, I think, to be some native non-L lenses precisely to take advantage of that feature ability and to make the RP/R series cameras more attractive to some. Those could churn into future customers for the high end lenses. Personally, I'd have never bought an "L" lens (or FF camera) had Canon not got me interested through the EF-S and non-L EF lines. My track was XSi, T5i, 70D, then 5D Mark III. Had 1 L with the T5i (EF 400mm f/5.6L), Then expanded that when I got the 70D (EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II) before I got the 5D Mark III. To me, a non-L line of RF lenses makes sense. There are still features one can only get through the native mount (control ring and improved AF capabilities, if I am not mistaken.). In that sense, adapting EF to RF is exactly like adapting 3rd party glass if it does not have the control ring or take full advantage of R/RF AF capabilities. Canon might think differently. We'll see. I suspect the majority of owners do not participate in forums.


----------



## dominic_siu (May 22, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Isn't the control ring on RF lenses only? I could be wrong, but there isn't a control ring on the adapters. There does need, I think, to be some native non-L lenses precisely to take advantage of that feature ability and to make the RP/R series cameras more attractive to some. Those could churn into future customers for the high end lenses. Personally, I'd have never bought an "L" lens (or FF camera) had Canon not got me interested through the EF-S and non-L EF lines. My track was XSi, T5i, 70D, then 5D Mark III. Had 1 L with the T5i (EF 400mm f/5.6L), Then expanded that when I got the 70D (EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II) before I got the 5D Mark III. To me, a non-L line of RF lenses makes sense. There are still features one can only get through the native mount (control ring and AF capabilities, if I am not mistaken.). In that sense, adapting EF to RF is exactly like adapting 3rd party glass if it does not have the control ring or take full advantage of R/RF AF capabilities. Canon might think differently. We'll see.


There is a EF-EOS-R Control Ring Adapter which I’m currently using with my EF lenses.


----------



## Ozarker (May 22, 2019)

dominic_siu said:


> There is a EF-EOS-R Control Ring Adapter which I’m currently using with my EF lenses.


Ahhh... I was unaware. What does the control ring let you do with EF lenses? _edit_ Just checked Adorama, the same thing the new RF lenses get... but there are still advantages to native RF, right? As far as AF goes? Or information from lens to camera that EF does not provide? Besides the fact that native RF lenses would be updated and probably have better IQ (newer design) than older EF lenses.


----------



## dominic_siu (May 22, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Ahhh... I was unaware. What does the control ring let you do with EF lenses?


I set it to change aperture which is much faster than turning the little sub-dial on the mode switch


----------



## privatebydesign (May 22, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> If Canon releases a hi-res body (60+mp) then it needs a set of lens that resolve to that level. No use releasing the body when the resolution can't be used.



Said nobody ever who actually understands the concept of system resolution.

Reposted yet again/again:-

System resolution can be broadly shorthanded down to this equation, it isn't perfect but pretty close.

tsr = 1/sqrt((1/lsr) ² + (1/ssr) ² )

Where tsr is total system resolution, lsr is lens spatial resolution, and ssr is sensor spatial resolution.

So if, for example, we have a sensor that can resolve 100 lppmm, and a lens that can resolve 100 lppmm we get this

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/100) ² ) = tsr of 71 lppmm

Leave the same lens on, good or bad, and double the sensor resolution to 200 lppmm

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/200) ² ) = tsr of 89 lppmm


You will notice that the system resolution, even in this simplified form, can never resolve 100% of the lowest performing portion of that system, so if a 24MP sensor is returning 80% of the potential of a lens then a 50MP sensor might return 90%, how useful that is in real life is a moot point, but it does illustrate that even the most modest lens will show increased resolution when put in front of a higher resolving sensor.






Canon EOS R body with more than 75mp on the horizon [CR2]


Ultimatly, there are only so many photons. Lets use a pair of imaginary sensors to show the point with easy math. Both sensors are perfect, and both have a perfect A/D circuit to read them. Both sensors cover the same area, one is 10X10 pixels, the other one is 40X40 pixels. Both sensors are...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Chaitanya (May 22, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> A zoom 1:1 macro hasn't been done by Canon so far.
> Or a TSe zoom macro...


Nikon used to make 70-180mm f4-5.6 zoom macro. Yeah a TS-E zoom hasnt been done and Canon seems to have filed patent for those. Tilt-shift zooms would be really expensive and out of reach of most photograpers. 


koenkooi said:


> For Venus Optics I'd mention the 24mm probe or the 15mm UWA before the 60mm.Anyway, what I think you're getting at is:
> 
> 5x magnification: already done
> IS: already done
> ...


Completely forgot about the probe and UWA from Laowa. Probe lens is quite unique in terms of its underwater capabilities as well.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (May 22, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> wow this is getting expensive.
> 
> 24
> 50
> ...


$10K and 10kg


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (May 22, 2019)

Would prefer a 135mm f/2 *IS*


----------



## Jethro (May 22, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Agreed. Maybe not dead but pretty much low priority. The whole MILC/FF movement by the big boys is to sell a bit fewer but far more profitable higher end equipment that smartphones cannot immediately threaten. Canon somewhat went rogue with the low-cost RP body but I don't expect much give on the lenses and so far it's showing.


I think their attitude has been that the non-L glass is simply EF lenses with the adaptor. The RF L lenses so far have mostly been something 'different' (in varying degrees) from the EF equivalents. The focus on interchangeability with EF lenses seems to me part of the program to get (especially) existing Canon users to make the EOS R/RP their next upgrade, while potentially keeping their existing EF lenses, or retaining access to the cheaper non-L EF lenses. But with the likely higher-specced R series cameras coming (early next year?) they need to make sure there are plenty of native RF mount lenses available.

The macro rumour is very intriguing! I'm eyeing off the new Laowa 100mm (obviously at a different price point), so the decision to buy or wait comes up ...


----------



## Etienne (May 22, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> wow this is getting expensive.
> 
> 24
> 50
> ...



Yeah, an affordable lightweight kit seems a long way off


----------



## dsut4392 (May 22, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Consumer oriented glass from Canon (or Nikon) in their new mirrorless mounts is dead on arrival. Just like consumer oriented compact cameras, there's no real market demand for them any more.




I strongly disagree. There are a bunch of people who use their camera for travel & outdoors, who simply won't buy into RF unless/until some more compact lenses become available, including consumer oriented glass like the 24-240. None of the people I know who have left EOS full-frame did so for spec-sheet one-upmanship or because they preferred not having a mirror, they all left for smaller systems and lower weight. Those that went to Sony all complemented their 'consumer grade' lenses with G-master and Zeiss lenses for those times they are shooting around town, but it was the compact glass that sold them in the first place, and they used their L-series glass on adapters until Sony got up to speed with native lenses.


----------



## jtf (May 22, 2019)

Thanks to the instant rebate I recently added the R with the RF 24-105. The R joins my 6D/7D combo and M5 walk around. That's 4 bodies and 3 different mounts. The one constant thanks to adapters is using my EF lenses. I have several L zooms and 3 Sigma Arts (50, 85, 135). I really like the versatility of being able to use these lenses on any of the Canon bodies. I've held on to some of the lighter weight EF non L lenses like the 2 pancakes and the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 just for the M5.

Unless there's a lens that I will only use on the current R or a future R version, the RF mounts are less versatile than what I have. The rumored RF lens that appeals to me the most is the "fast" 14mm. I'm recently retired and have been doing a lot of night shooting now that I don't have to get up in the AM. I've been looking at the Art 14mm and/or 20mm. Those are focal lengths that would only go on the R so I might be tempted to wait and see what Canon brings out. Unless Sigma has a sale or rebate first.


----------



## Drainpipe (May 22, 2019)

I’m guessing it’s going to be an autofocus macro lens that can go beyond 1:1. There are a couple of manual focus lenses that go to 2:1 (Venus Optics 60mm and 100mm), but no autofocus. The newest 100mm from them has auto aperture (for Canon only), which is brand new for any manufacturer for a lens over 1:1.

IMO, Canon needs to have a macro lens that can go from infinity to at least 2:1 that has autofocus. That would be the first of its kind, and I would think pretty easy for Canon to accomplish. If they wanted to hit it out of the park 3:1 in a fixed length at >100mm would please a lot of macro shooters. Having that kind of magnification with a 100mm’s reach would be preferable to what is currently offered on the market.

On that note, autofocus isn’t necessarily needed, the MP-E proves that, but it would be a nice feature for a sharp portrait lens that doubled as a crazy macro lens. Wishful thinking on my part here, I’ll be the first to admit.

While I love my 100L and the MP-E, I have preordered the Laowa 100mm 2:1 because I think it can bridge the gap between the two. I’m excited to get it in to compare between the two.


----------



## degos (May 22, 2019)

shaunotter said:


> I hope an RF 100-400 4-5.6L is coming early in 2020, hopefully even made smaller like the RF 70-200 2.8L IS, which is a great update, size-wise.



A 100-400 won't be smaller, just like the 70-200 isn't any smaller. Shorter flange distance isn't any help with telephotos. And it certainly won't be any smaller if you're expecting it to open up to f/4.



David - Sydney said:


> What I don't understand is why there needs to be a new set of non-L lens for the R mount. There already exists a wide range of cheap EF-S and EF glass that can be adapted to the R or RP body. The emphasis from the reviewing community that cheap glass must be native is very strange to me... just weld on an adaptor and get even more with control ring or drop-in filter features.



You could extend that logic to ask why bother making any RF L lenses in that case, other than the 50mm 1.2 that desperately needed an update? Just stick your EF L on the adapter...

Certainly the RF mount hasn't yet delivered on the smaller / lighter / faster possibilities. The RF 24-105 is marginally better than the EF to the degree that it's not worth changing, and everything else is monstrously big and expensive.


----------



## JoFT (May 22, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Consumer oriented glass from Canon (or Nikon) in their new mirrorless mounts is dead on arrival. Just like consumer oriented compact cameras, there's no real market demand for them any more.


I guess you are wrong: the RF35mm f1.8 IS shows that there is space for lightweight compact glass, I expect an RF85mm f1.8 IS as well as a RF 50mm f1.8, both hopefully with IS...


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (May 22, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> To me the RF lens lineup is too much L and too much upmarket.
> The lenses are all great, lovely and desireable - if you've got the money.
> But when Canon wants to gain market share they should also introduce more lenses like the RF 35 or even smaller and less expensive - now and not in 2, 3 years.


Same is valid for me. If I was in the market for a DSLM now, I would look else where. Nikon seems to make much more affordable lenses right from the beginning. As I surely would dislike the solution of adapting my exisiting EF lenses to R cameras a change to DSLM will be a complete switch anyway. So there is no need for me to stick with Canon. Time will tell whether Canon will bring more less expensive lenses when I'm ready to switch.


----------



## Maximilian (May 22, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ... What does the control ring let you do with EF lenses? ... the same thing the new RF lenses get... but there are still advantages to native RF, right? ...


If somebody really has a big advantage of the functions of that control ring, then I cannot imagine big use of that adapter control ring together with a big tele lens as it would totally destabilize holding my kit. 
When I saw this adapter, my initial thought was "nice but useless".


----------



## Maximilian (May 22, 2019)

Photorex said:


> ... Nikon seems to make much more affordable lenses right from the beginning ...


Honestly... looking at the Nikkor Z lens lineup available this would directly drive me into Canon RF.
I wouldn't have any need of any of those Z except fot the 35.
And here I have the better option with the RF, IMO.
When I want a f/4 zoom lens, then please give me the RF 24-105. But I want small primes here.

My current travel setup is the 200D/SL2 with the two pancakes and the 85/1.8. All together with spare battery in a small toploader bag.
The RP is just slightly bigger than the 200D but offers FF and a much better AF system. For better glass I'd be willing to add some space for better lenses.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 22, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> Nikon used to make 70-180mm f4-5.6 zoom macro. Yeah a TS-E zoom hasnt been done and Canon seems to have filed patent for those. Tilt-shift zooms would be really expensive and out of reach of most photograpers.
> 
> Completely forgot about the probe and UWA from Laowa. Probe lens is quite unique in terms of its underwater capabilities as well.


Most of Canon's recent target audience have been the wealthy and their Rf lenses are truly out of reach for 99.9% photographers....including professionals.


----------



## M_S (May 22, 2019)

I don't understand the big hype for RF lenses neither. Granted, they are very good, and the announced lenses sound very promising. But: EF glas can be adapted to lots of different camera types (Panasonic, Sony, soon Nikon), which gives a lot of freedom in choosing camera bodys. Adapting RF glas to other mirrorless bodies is difficult or plain impossible. If, god forbid (  ), the future pro body of canon is not what I expect it to be, I can still use the lenses I have on other bodies, making EF more future proof imo.


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (May 22, 2019)

would not be surprised a bit if Canon's gameplan was to release all these new lenses just to disappoint us with their camera bodies.


----------



## ThomsA (May 22, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> Why not add time travel if the laws of physics aren't a big concern?



I would add the possibility to get a higher resolution of black hole photos. Would like to see what's beyond event horizon.


----------



## dominic_siu (May 22, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Ahhh... I was unaware. What does the control ring let you do with EF lenses? _edit_ Just checked Adorama, the same thing the new RF lenses get... but there are still advantages to native RF, right? As far as AF goes? Or information from lens to camera that EF does not provide? Besides the fact that native RF lenses would be updated and probably have better IQ (newer design) than older EF lenses.


There are two protocols for EF and RF, when you use adapter to mount EF lenses on R/RP, it switch to EF protocol. AF speed is same as using on EF body, but the RF lenses have DLO information store in the lenses which EF lenses don’t.


----------



## Equinox (May 22, 2019)

An RF 24mm f1.4 L that is good for astro / landscape (low level of coma, CA, lens warp) would probably make me jump ship from my trusty 5D4.....if and only if there's is a Canon EOS 5R MK1 (hopefully 60+ MP with no AA filter) released that has better IQ than the 5D4.


----------



## Stuart (May 22, 2019)

A true Zoom macro lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 22, 2019)

Drainpipe said:


> The newest 100mm from them has auto aperture (for Canon only), which is brand new for any manufacturer for a lens over 1:1.


Your MP-E 65 goes to 5X and has auto aperture.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 22, 2019)

shaunotter said:


> I hope an RF 100-400 4-5.6L is coming early in 2020, hopefully even made smaller like the RF 70-200 2.8L IS, which is a great update, size-wise.


The RF 70-200 is an extending design, it’s shorter than the EF version when retracted, but longer when extended. The EF 100-400 is already an extending design, it won’t be any smaller for RF (in fact, like the 70-200 it may be slightly longer when extended to make up for the shorter flange distance).


----------



## Larsskv (May 22, 2019)

dominic_siu said:


> There are two protocols for EF and RF, when you use adapter to mount EF lenses on R/RP, it switch to EF protocol. AF speed is same as using on EF body, but the RF lenses have DLO information store in the lenses which EF lenses don’t.


The RF lenses has more precise Servo AF than the EF lenses. The RF mount has more electrical connections and transfers much more data between camera and lens than the EF mount does. Canon has reported that the EOS R is able to transfer 40 times more data with an RF lens, than the 5D IV is capable of with an EF lens.


----------



## BillB (May 22, 2019)

Etienne said:


> Yeah, an affordable lightweight kit seems a long way off


The affordable lightweight kit that exists now mostly has EF mounts. In addition to being compatible with Canon DSLR's, it is fully adaptable to both R and M cameras. So the issue seems to be as much about willingness to use adaptors as it is about availability.


----------



## Maximilian (May 22, 2019)

BillB said:


> The affordable lightweight kit that exists now mostly has EF mounts. In addition to being compatible with Canon DSLR's, it is fully adaptable to both R and M cameras. So the issue seems to be as much about willingness to use adaptors as it is about availability.


Please compare the RF 35/1.8 to the EF 35/2.0+RF adapter.
Which one is lighter and smaller?

If I don't have an EF 50 mm lens yet should I buy that "plastic fantastic" 50 STM or that absolutely outdated 50/1.4 with touchy AF to combine it with the adapter?
Or could Canon offer me a native RF 50/1.8 (maybe with IS)?

The issue is about Canons willingness to also release small affordable RF lenses and not only those high end dreams.


----------



## BillB (May 22, 2019)

JoFT said:


> I guess you are wrong: the RF35mm f1.8 IS shows that there is space for lightweight compact glass, I expect an RF85mm f1.8 IS as well as a RF 50mm f1.8, both hopefully with IS...





degos said:


> A 100-400 won't be smaller, just like the 70-200 isn't any smaller. Shorter flange distance isn't any help with telephotos. And it certainly won't be any smaller if you're expecting it to open up to f/4.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





JoFT said:


> I guess you are wrong: the RF35mm f1.8 IS shows that there is space for lightweight compact glass, I expect an RF85mm f1.8 IS as well as a RF 50mm f1.8, both hopefully with IS...


The first 4 RF lens included a $500 35mm prime and a $1000 24-105 zoom. Apparently Canon thinks that these lenses will make some money for them, but I am not sure that it tells us much about what other (relatively) lightweight and low cost primes and zooms will follow. There are rumors of a variable aperture 17-35 that might be next, but Canon may take a while to figure out how it wants to handle this part of the market.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 22, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Consumer oriented glass from Canon (or Nikon) in their new mirrorless mounts is dead on arrival. Just like consumer oriented compact cameras, there's no real market demand for them any more.


On every level this statement is wrong. We already have the RF 35mm f1.8, Canon have announced the RF 24-240mm. Canon know only too well you need entry points into a system that's why they produced the RP camera and that's why in time they will expand the non-L RF lens line-up. Canon have already stated future cameras will have IBIS higher up the food chain so they are concentrating on the higher end RF lenses to entice pros & prosumers into the top end. Once this line-up has a decent catalogue of lenses they will turn to the entry level again because if they dont they know they will not get the younger, newer customers. Its no different to BMW with the 1 series to the 7 series.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 22, 2019)

When I first bought the EOS R with the RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM I struggled to get used to the camera and its layout. I still dont use the Touch Bar which I find annoying and have disabled. Ive finally got used to using the EOS R but the true revelation has been the RF 24-105mm zoom. Contrary to those that say its not much different to the EF version it certainly is much better optically, mechanically and operationally as well as being lighter. I would never of dreamed of using the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM as a portrait lens, the RF version gives better sharpness right into the corners and better bokeh and is regularly used on portraits. The control ring again once you remember to use it is great I use it to adjust brightness and its just natural now. 

The R / RF system is still in its early days, Canon will learn from the early adopters and will hone the products as time goes on. They cannot afford for the system to be solely aimed at high end users, yes this is where they make the higher margins but its also the lower volumes so becomes more dangerous if you get something wrong. By aiming for the widest possible user base they mitigate risk and foster up-selling during the life-time of the customer. Resources and capital limit what can be done in a given time, not where they want to go.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 22, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your MP-E 65 goes to 5X and has auto aperture.


Mp-E doesnt shoot to infinity while both Laowa lenses(60mm for crop with manual aperture and 100mm for FF with electronic aperture) are infinity to 2x Mag ratio.


----------



## Architect1776 (May 22, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> Please compare the RF 35/1.8 to the EF 35/2.0+RF adapter.
> Which one is lighter and smaller?
> 
> If I don't have an EF 50 mm lens yet should I buy that "plastic fantastic" 50 STM or that absolutely outdated 50/1.4 with touchy AF to combine it with the adapter?
> ...



We have no idea what the strategy is for marketing the RF system is and will only know after it is done. The shrinking market in general and a lot of buyers being wealthy hobbyists or those who spend all their disposable income on cameras seems to be what is driving things. It would be nice to see glass for the RF system a bit more reasonably priced and some entry level lenses. But we don't know what is coming so for me as of now I am happy with my 7D as so far nothing in EF or RF is a quantum leap as was when I went from 10D to 7D. (I am not into video at all, that is what the cell phone is for.)


----------



## snoke (May 22, 2019)

Tom W said:


> Interesting - It looks like Canon's going full speed ahead on high-end lenses for the RF mount. I have to believe that there's a parallel development program going on for consumer-oriented glass and mid-range glass like the 35/1.8.



Pro get RF.
Consumer get M.


----------



## Maximilian (May 22, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> ... we don't know what is coming so for me as of now I am happy with my 7D ...


I'm glad, too, that I don't have to decide where to get in. 

But I'd be happy to see a roadmap that would potentually tear me into this system as it surely will be Canon's future. 
Right now I can stay happy with what I've got.


----------



## eosuser1234 (May 22, 2019)

First full frame macro with built in LED lighting?


----------



## koenkooi (May 22, 2019)

eosuser1234 said:


> First full frame macro with built in LED lighting?



The Laowa 24mm probe does all that already.


----------



## degos (May 22, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> I would never of dreamed of using the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM as a portrait lens, the RF version gives better sharpness right into the corners and
> ...



Well indeed the EF Mark I was pretty lousy. I mean there are years of Internet history calling it a 'faux L'.

The new RF 24-105 is slightly better than the EF Mark II, with more vignetting, and about the same optically as the Sigma Art. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the New Wonder Mount. If the short flange is so capable at the wide end, why wasn't it a 16-105? Now _that_ would have been a game-changer.


----------



## slclick (May 22, 2019)

degos said:


> Well indeed the EF Mark I was pretty lousy. I mean there are years of Internet history calling it a 'faux L'.
> 
> The new RF 24-105 is slightly better than the EF Mark II, with more vignetting, and about the same optically as the Sigma Art. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the New Wonder Mount. If the short flange is so capable at the wide end, why wasn't it a 16-105? Now _that_ would have been a game-changer.


I owned two copies of the EF and one of the Art, the Art was superior to both my EF and not just slightly like TDP and oithers remarked. I also group the 17-40L in the same class as the Mark 1 24-105 , if it didn't have a red ring you would never think it deserved one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 22, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> Mp-E doesnt shoot to infinity while both Laowa lenses(60mm for crop with manual aperture and 100mm for FF with electronic aperture) are infinity to 2x Mag ratio.


Sure sure. But my statement was a response to the claim that no manufacturer previously had auto aperture in a lens >1x, when that's the point of the -E in MP-E, and that lens was released 20 years ago.


----------



## 6degrees (May 22, 2019)

Trying for 24mm F1.4 is not a good strategy at all. It is so lame.

These are much better choices:

RF 20mm F1.4 L
RF 16-21mm F1.4 L as rumored


----------



## Dantana (May 22, 2019)

slclick said:


> I owned two copies of the EF and one of the Art, the Art was superior to both my EF and not just slightly like TDP and oithers remarked. I also group the 17-40L in the same class as the Mark 1 24-105 , if it didn't have a red ring you would never think it deserved one.


I guess a lot of that is left to expectations, copy variance, and opinion.

I've been quite happy with the images that I get out of my kit 24-105 v1, and a second hand 17-40 I picked up before a trip a few years ago. Those 2 lenses are on my camera the majority of the time.

I'd say their build quality, image quality, and constant aperture put them on a level above Canon's non-L glass.


----------



## Hector1970 (May 22, 2019)

Canon are really raising my expectations on the camera to go with these lens. 
These are going to be really expensive lens. 
I wasn't into photography when Canon started with the EF lens. Maybe its a similar path of progress.
I'm just surprised the rate at which Canon is churning out these lens. All the ones produced so far seem stellar.

I am hoping for a clear 5D IV replacement. 30-40 MP would do me, better ISO performance and some sort of effective eye focusing capability.
After the 5DSR I'm not keen on the prospect of over stretched high MP sensor
Hopefully both the high and medium MP choices will come out at the same time.

The IDX III will be interesting too. It would be great if they made that a hybrid of mirrored with mirrorless functionality. EVF with mirror up.
Better start saving.


----------



## Adelino (May 22, 2019)

slclick said:


> I owned two copies of the EF and one of the Art, the Art was superior to both my EF and not just slightly like TDP and oithers remarked. I also group the 17-40L in the same class as the Mark 1 24-105 , if it didn't have a red ring you would never think it deserved one.


Thanks for reminding me I need to try out my 17-40 on my RP!


----------



## Drainpipe (May 22, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your MP-E 65 goes to 5X and has auto aperture.



Totally right, I meant for third party manufacturers (and didn’t type that).


----------



## slclick (May 22, 2019)

Adelino said:


> Thanks for reminding me I need to try out my 17-40 on my RP!


That's great, some might even love the 35 f/2 micromotor on it! I'm totally in the 'Whateverworks' camp.


----------



## padam (May 23, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> I am hoping for a clear 5D IV replacement. 30-40 MP would do me, better ISO performance and some sort of effective eye focusing capability.
> After the 5DSR I'm not keen on the prospect of over stretched high MP sensor
> Hopefully both the high and medium MP choices will come out at the same time.


There is no 'separate' 5D replacement (if people are struggling to accept the EOS R as the equivalent mirrorless model)
The models are stacked between their DSLR counterparts (RP under 6D II, R under 5D IV).
There are two models high and low MP coming in between a 5D and a 1D so probably in a considerably higher price class than a 5D. And the FF mirrorless lineup will be complete for now with four different models.

With the new separate mirrorless line they can keep it conservative as they used to, no need for a hybrid viewfinder, DSLRs will keep the EF mount and the optical viewfinder.

Of course the EOS R Mark II might get the currently missing features like dual card slots and IBIS that will probably come with the top-end models (usually as time goes by the lower end model inherits features from a class above), but it is probably three years away (possibly after a 5D Mark V)

The 5DSR II has been axed but the 1DX III is coming for sure as well as the 5D V, not sure about a 6D III it's been fairly popular but the R and RP (II) might take over that segment if they start addig in cheaper RF lenses.


----------



## slclick (May 23, 2019)

padam said:


> There is no 'separate' 5D replacement (if people are struggling to accept the EOS R as the equivalent mirrorless model)
> The models are stacked between their DSLR counterparts (RP under 6D II, R under 5D IV).
> There are two models high and low MP coming in between a 5D and a 1D so probably in a considerably higher price class than a 5D. And the FF mirrorless lineup will be complete for now with four different models.
> 
> ...


 It is this info/conjecture (which I pretty much agree to that assures me that my next body to replace and use alongside my 5D3) will be either a 5D4 at a great price once the Mk5 launches or a 5D5 itself.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 23, 2019)

Drainpipe said:


> Totally right, I meant for third party manufacturers (and didn’t type that).


Even for 3rd party maker there have been a lot of lenses with Electromagnetic diaphragm. Zeiss ZE, Irix, etc all made EF mount Manual focus lenses with electronic control for aperture.


----------



## Drainpipe (May 23, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> Even for 3rd party maker there have been a lot of lenses with Electromagnetic diaphragm. Zeiss ZE, Irix, etc all made EF mount Manual focus lenses with electronic control for aperture.



Yup, not disputing that. I’m saying for a lens that goes past 1:1 magnification.

This portion of my original post should have read (bold and underlined are additions):

“I’m guessing it’s going to be an autofocus macro lens that can go beyond 1:1. There are a couple of manual focus lenses that go to 2:1 (Venus Optics 60mm and 100mm), but no autofocus. The newest 100mm from them has auto aperture (for Canon only), which is brand new for any *third party *manufacturer for a lens over 1:1.”


----------



## lawny13 (May 23, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Consumer oriented glass from Canon (or Nikon) in their new mirrorless mounts is dead on arrival. Just like consumer oriented compact cameras, there's no real market demand for them any more.



Now now.... we don’t all want to be spending 2-3k per lens we buy now do we? Though a nifty fifty may be nice for many, it doesn’t mean that a lot of us do not appretiate quality glass at a more affordable price. For example, I would be willing to pay 700-1000 for a quality 50 f1.8 or f1.4 lens. 2.5k for the 50 f1.2... not so much. 

And I don’t even think canon agrees with you... cuase then why should they have bothered with the RP at all?


----------



## David (May 23, 2019)

Why not to introduce a RF 35mm f1.4L first? The 35mm FOV is standard and most common, therefore should be introduced first. I will start investing into Canon R only the moment Canon releases a 35mm L.


----------



## Maximilian (May 23, 2019)

David said:


> Why not to introduce a RF 35mm f1.4L first? The 35mm FOV is standard and most common, therefore should be introduced first. ...


I Think that was the reason Canon startet the RF line with the 35/1.8 (non L):
as the most common standard (WA) lens - for a common price. 



> I will start investing into Canon R only the moment Canon releases a 35mm L.


That one surely will come by time. Question is about the priorities set by Canon market researches. 
You want a 35L, I want a 85 and a 50, both f/1.8 and non L, somebody else wants a 20 mm. 
But we all do not know, what in Canon's opinion will gain the highest profit and market share.
That's the nice and thrilling thing about introducing such a new system.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 23, 2019)

6degrees said:


> Trying for 24mm F1.4 is not a good strategy at all. It is so lame.
> 
> These are much better choices:
> 
> ...



Actually a fast 24mm is a very good idea, it's just that it's not as revolutionary as when Canon first launched one. It sits in a bag of primes well, so it's a tactical choice of focal length that sits with the 50mm. Ie a 24L / 50L and then a 100L. In the same way a 35L and 85L sit well together.
But from a marketing point of view...the world has had 24mm f1.4's for quite a while. Even Sigma and Nikon makes one now. So what's Canon going to do make it more impressive apart from adding size / weight / cost and an extra R ring?
I thin Canon needed to expand their f1.2 range and have all their fast primes in that category. 24/35/50/85 all in f1.2 to give it the extra cache of exclusivity over the existing and rather good EF versions.
There's just not a lot of "WOW" left in lens design. This is apparent with the 28-70 f2. It's remarkable but huge. The Rf 50mm f1.2 would have been more remarkable if it was f1.0....but even that's not new in the Canon world.


----------



## BillB (May 23, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> I Think that was the reason Canon startet the RF line with the 35/1.8 (non L):
> as the most common standard (WA) lens - for a common price.
> 
> 
> ...





lawny13 said:


> Now now.... we don’t all want to be spending 2-3k per lens we buy now do we? Though a nifty fifty may be nice for many, it doesn’t mean that a lot of us do not appretiate quality glass at a more affordable price. For example, I would be willing to pay 700-1000 for a quality 50 f1.8 or f1.4 lens. 2.5k for the 50 f1.2... not so much.
> 
> And I don’t even think canon agrees with you... cuase then why should they have bothered with the RP at all?


Another piece of the puzzle is the demand for reasonably priced primes in comparison to reasonably priced zooms. A lot of buyers are going to start with zooms not primes. And then there are people who will be using lenses they already have on adapter. It is not clear to me how robust the market is going to be for low to moderate priced RF primes. The RF 35 is a no brainer. Slap one of those on an RP and you have something sort of like a Leica Q.


----------



## uri.raz (May 23, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Actually a fast 24mm is a very good idea, it's just that it's not as revolutionary as when Canon first launched one.



A system needs the familiar, non-revolutionary, work horse lenses as well.



GMCPhotographics said:


> But from a marketing point of view...the world has had 24mm f1.4's for quite a while. Even Sigma and Nikon makes one now. So what's Canon going to do make it more impressive apart from adding size / weight / cost and an extra R ring?



As far as I understand, 24mm on EF is retrofocal, but not on EOS-R. I (naively?) expect Canon can make an RF 24mm f/1.4 which is smaller, lighter, better, and maybe even cheaper than the EF 24mm f/1.4, e.g. has much less than 3.3 stops of vignetting.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 23, 2019)

Canon will no doubt have a 24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 and aim to have a 100mm f 1.4 series of L lenses. These then will provide the basis for T 1.5 cine lenses with a shorter back-focus in the future where consistent T stops matter.


----------



## koenkooi (May 23, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> As far as I understand, 24mm on EF is retrofocal, but not on EOS-R. I (naively?) expect Canon can make an RF 24mm f/1.4 which is smaller, lighter, better, and maybe even cheaper than the EF 24mm f/1.4, e.g. has much less than 3.3 stops of vignetting.



Speaking of flange distance, how would you feel about an f2 or f2.8 20mm pancake?


----------



## MayaTlab (May 23, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> But from a marketing point of view...the world has had 24mm f1.4's for quite a while. Even Sigma and Nikon makes one now. So what's Canon going to do make it more impressive apart from adding size / weight / cost and an extra R ring?



Perhaps marketing should try to find a way to market things that are actually useful to improving one's photography instead of chasing pointless spec numbers. 
f1.2 might be useful at some focal lengths... provided vignetting is under control, otherwise it's pointless for actual photography (vignetting doesn't just affect brightness but DOF as well, as it results in effect in a reduction of the aperture off centre).


----------



## slclick (May 23, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Speaking of flange distance, how would you feel about an f2 or f2.8 20mm pancake?


I'd love it personally and it would make me rethink buying into the R system. (Which at this point I'm not yet interested, with the 5D4/5 being the next logical step to replace my Mk3)

Yes, more pancakes, please!


----------



## Equinox (May 23, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Speaking of flange distance, how would you feel about an f2 or f2.8 20mm pancake?


I personally would really appreciate f2 or f2.8 20mm pancake! Love the EF 40mm f2.8 pancake.....I'm sure someone much more educated than myself will say its not possible...


----------



## Kit. (May 23, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Speaking of flange distance, how would you feel about an f2 or f2.8 20mm pancake?


I would settle for RF 22 f/2 pancake.


----------



## mb66energy (May 23, 2019)

Equinox said:


> I personally would really appreciate f2 or f2.8 20mm pancake! Love the EF 40mm f2.8 pancake.....I'm sure someone much more educated than myself will say its not possible...



I would like to say that it is possible but the light will enter the sensor from a flat angle (relative to the sensor surface) where the reflection of the light is supported ... by physics. Microlenses help a little bit but such a pancake if it's the size of the existing 40mm will show a lot of vignetting at all f-stops.
But: If size matters you have to make compromises and better to have a good compromise than nothing!

Maybe a 40mm "thick" pancake might be a very compact compromise with less vignetting - I would prefer that solution.


----------



## st jack photography (May 23, 2019)

Consider this: the EF 50 f2.5 MACRO is/was a masterpiece, BUT it is one of their oldest EF lenses, still in use after a 1987 design (I think it was 1987). I would look for an updated RF 50 f2.5 MACRO, with a rear element that moves, not the front barrel, and I believe this may be a first on a technicality (the internal focus on a 50 macro). If you really want to see something original, though, as Canon does innovate at times, then they may make a RF 50 w/true MACRO 1:1 magnification, which I think would definitely be a first, as the Laowa is 60mm, and the SIGMA is 70, I believe. Still, think about how loooonnnng a 50mm IF 1:1 macro would be. Isn't it essentially a 50 macro with a built-in extension tube? That would make a Sigma art lens look like a pancake lens. Maybe they'll do it though.


----------



## bdbender4 (May 24, 2019)

BillB said:


> Another piece of the puzzle is the demand for reasonably priced primes in comparison to reasonably priced zooms. A lot of buyers are going to start with zooms not primes. And then there are people who will be using lenses they already have on adapter. It is not clear to me how robust the market is going to be for low to moderate priced RF primes. The RF 35 is a no brainer. Slap one of those on an RP and you have something sort of like a Leica Q.


Slap a 32 f/1.4 EF-M on an M5 and you have something even more like a Leica Q, at half the price of the RP+35. 

But these days I'm feeling - sadly and unhappily - justified at having given up on EOS M last Fall, after 7 years of patient hoping that Canon would fill it in with a real system. RF doesn't take M's place for me personally, either, seeming sort of incoherent in approach. And filling up with humongous, heavy, expensive lenses.


----------



## slclick (May 24, 2019)

bdbender4 said:


> Slap a 32 f/1.4 EF-M on an M5 and you have something even more like a Leica Q, at half the price of the RP+35.
> 
> But these days I'm feeling - sadly and unhappily - justified at having given up on EOS M last Fall, after 7 years of patient hoping that Canon would fill it in with a real system. RF doesn't take M's place for me personally, either, seeming sort of incoherent in approach. And filling up with humongous, heavy, expensive lenses.


I know exactly what you mean. I sold my M5 system because it didn't turn out to accentuate my 5D3 and EF system in the way I had hoped and so far nothing in the R Universe (within my budget) sings to me yet. So I wait for the rumored two other R bodies and the 5DV in order to make a decision. My 5D3 keeps on ticking, even after almost 7 years.


----------



## Ozarker (May 24, 2019)

MayaTlab said:


> Perhaps marketing should try to find a way to market things that are actually useful to improving one's photography instead of chasing pointless spec numbers.
> f1.2 might be useful at some focal lengths... provided vignetting is under control, otherwise it's pointless for actual photography (vignetting doesn't just affect brightness but DOF as well, as it results in effect in a reduction of the aperture off centre).


I actually add vignette to a lot of my shots. I like it. Different strokes for different folks (working in many different genres), I guess. I've never had a subject complain about vignette, and sometimes it is very heavy. Then again, I work for free.  I don't think I'll ever be good enough to get paid on a regular basis.

I'm wondering what product marketing could market to improve a person's photography though. It seems, in most cases, that would be up to the photographer to work out and is what separates the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## deleteme (May 24, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> Tilt-shift zooms would be really expensive and out of reach of most photograpers.


I saw an article detailing how to use a TS adapter on APS-C to use a FF zoom. We get pre-occupied with the idea that a TS lens has to be frantically expensive because of its eye watering acutance. In reality the bulk of the pricing decision comes form the very small volumes of production.
The actual challenge here is the lack of interest.


----------



## pj1974 (May 24, 2019)

bdbender4 said:


> Slap a 32 f/1.4 EF-M on an M5 and you have something even more like a Leica Q, at half the price of the RP+35.
> 
> But these days I'm feeling - sadly and unhappily - justified at having given up on EOS M last Fall, after 7 years of patient hoping that Canon would fill it in with a real system. RF doesn't take M's place for me personally, either, seeming sort of incoherent in approach. And filling up with humongous, heavy, expensive lenses.





slclick said:


> I know exactly what you mean. I sold my M5 system because it didn't turn out to accentuate my 5D3 and EF system in the way I had hoped and so far nothing in the R Universe (within my budget) sings to me yet. So I wait for the rumored two other R bodies and the 5DV in order to make a decision. My 5D3 keeps on ticking, even after almost 7 years.



I can appreciate what both of you are saying, with regard to the EOS M and where it sits as a photography system / package.

Having used a range of Canon DSLRs since 2005, I bit the bullet and bought a 2nd hand M5 at a bargain price, just after the M50 came out. With the 'entry level' M50 incorporating a number of good features, this indicated to me that Canon committed well for future EOS M bodies and lenses. I have the Canon EF-M 18-150, 15-45mm, 22mm f/2 and the Samyang / Rokinon 12mm f/2. All have their place. I like the size and reasonably good ergonomics of the EOS M system.

I expect the M5mk2 will be a decent upgrade, and it has IBIS or another feature that I'll really like e.g. advanced AF (qual-pixel auto-focus anyone?) then I will probably upgrade to that. I am considering trying out the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 in store sometime, and deciding if that's a lens I'll like. I have found my 50mm f/1.8 STM with adapter does really well on the M5. 

Having written that (and back to topic) - I am keeping a very close eye on the RF lenses. They are some spectacular pieces of glass (& engineering) - both the zooms and the primes. I currently use my 80D as my main 'go to' body - with the arsenal of lenses (including some quality L glass). The RF lenses are expensive, but look like superb investments. Hopefully as the RF lens line-up fills out, I will find lenses AND a R-mount body that convince me to get into that system. The R and RP haven't done it for me (yet). Whether it will replace my existing EF-S / DSLR and/or EOS-M systems or complement it/them, remains to be seen. 

PJ


----------



## MayaTlab (May 24, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I actually add vignette to a lot of my shots. I like it. Different strokes for different folks (working in many different genres), I guess. I've never had a subject complain about vignette, and sometimes it is very heavy. Then again, I work for free.  I don't think I'll ever be good enough to get paid on a regular basis.
> 
> I'm wondering what product marketing could market to improve a person's photography though. It seems, in most cases, that would be up to the photographer to work out and is what separates the wheat from the chaff.



It's unfortunate that vignetting has been associated with peripheral brightness to the point that it's not known that it actually affects depth of field.
So to be very clear : you can't "add" vignetting in post, and neither can you remove it. You can add or remove peripheral brightness - which is very much a question of taste .

I wasn't suggesting that marketing helps improve people's photography, but manages to push forwards the aspects that truly make a difference in most people's shots. The 50mm RF's f1.2 aperture is mostly a marketing move as it's got too much vignetting to make it noticeable for 80% of the frame at common shooting distances. On the other and, the way it deals with out of focus areas off centre vs. the EF version isn't just marketing and can easily be perceived even in very small prints.


----------



## Equinox (May 24, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> I would like to say that it is possible but the light will enter the sensor from a flat angle (relative to the sensor surface) where the reflection of the light is supported ... by physics. Microlenses help a little bit but such a pancake if it's the size of the existing 40mm will show a lot of vignetting at all f-stops.
> But: If size matters you have to make compromises and better to have a good compromise than nothing!
> 
> Maybe a 40mm "thick" pancake might be a very compact compromise with less vignetting - I would prefer that solution.



Thanks for the clarification, appreciated. I would happily have a thicker pancake as long as it retained its portability and IQ. Personally if Canon produced such a lens IMHO i think they would sell tons of them....would be a killa landscape travel lens. C'mon Canon make this lens!


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 24, 2019)

Canon is probably just making expensive lenses because the cheap ones will threaten the high end ones. Technology is at the point where a cheaper RF lens is going to be good and comparable to the expensive ones at the fraction of the price. You want cheap adapt or wait. until they sell enough high end lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 24, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> As far as macro is concerned Canon themselves have some uniques macros- MP-E 65, Ef-M 28mm. Apart from these there are 2 Venus Laowa lenses 60mm and 100mm macros. few Tilt shift Macros from Schnieder and hartblei along with Canon's own Tilt shift macros. So there nothing new Canon can do that they or others havent dont before.



Well.....

Canon did just file a patent for a TS lens with IS.




HikeBike said:


> I agree that it's a lower priority, but I'll argue against dead as well. To me, the existence of the RP shows that Canon is still interested in providing products for its enthusiast customers. Once they have the major L glass gaps covered, I'd be shocked if they didn't start rolling out the non-L glass lineup.



I won't be shocked by non-L glass in the RF mount. I will be pleasantly surprised if any of those lenses are remotely as cheap as their EF counterparts. I doubt we will ever see any RF glass such as a sub-$500 85/1.8, 100/2, or 24/2.8. We may see a 50/1.8 or 35/2 below $500, but they'll be priced closer to $500 than to the $150 EF50mm f/1.8 STM.





GMCPhotographics said:


> A zoom 1:1 macro hasn't been done by Canon so far.
> Or a TSe zoom macro...



For all practical purposes, the MP-E 65mm 1-5X Macro is a zoom lens. Since it can not focus collimated light anywhere behind the lens' rear element, there's no real way to express it's "actual" focal length, which is measured by how far behind the rear nodal point collimated light (light coming from a distance of infinity) is brought to focus.

At 1X it gives the same angle of view (AoV) as a theoretical 65mm single element thin lens lens focused at unity (1:1 magnification) which is equivalent to the AoV provided by a 130mm lens focused at infinity.

At 5X it gives the same AoV as a theoretical 325mm single element thin lens focused at unity, which is equivalent to the AoV provided by a 650mm lens focused at infinity.




mb66energy said:


> Same here - while the money is there I cannot justify these expenses for the minimum advantage for my photography. And I would prefer unsuspicousness over the least quantum of quality only visible close up in 100x150cm prints.
> 
> I think the 1.8 85 companion to the RF 35 and similar lenses (e.g. 2.8 200 IS and 2.8 20mm) might be released in the next year ... hopefully. But I am confident to use my existing EF lenses on an EOS R body because the size advantage isn't that dramatic and the IQ difference maybe only small.



Which is exactly why I made the suggestion above that consumer glass in the RF mount is DOA. Adapted EF lenses are "good enough" for those who desire "price/performance" or "size/performance" instead of "absolute image quality" no matter what the price.




JoFT said:


> I guess you are wrong: the RF35mm f1.8 IS shows that there is space for lightweight compact glass, I expect an RF85mm f1.8 IS as well as a RF 50mm f1.8, both hopefully with IS...



The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS is the "nifty fifty" of the shorter RF registration distance. 35mm is the design "sweet spot" for a FF sensor with a 43mm diagonal and a 20mm registration distance the same way 50mm is for 135 film with a 44mm BFD. $450 for the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS is a lot more than $150, which is what the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is currently selling for.

If you think the RF 85/1.8 will be anywhere near as cheap as the EF 85/1.8, you're going to be disappointed. I'd love to be wrong, by the way.




dominic_siu said:


> There are two protocols for EF and RF, when you use adapter to mount EF lenses on R/RP, it switch to EF protocol. AF speed is same as using on EF body, but the RF lenses have DLO information store in the lenses which EF lenses don’t.



AF speed is also dependent upon available electrical current. That's why many of the same EF lenses will focus a lot faster on, say, a 1D X than on a Rebel SL1. With the smaller batteries in the R bodies, at least at this point, AF with EF lenses that have heavy focusing elements on R bodies will be slower than with EF cameras that use more powerful batteries.



jeffa4444 said:


> On every level this statement is wrong. We already have the RF 35mm f1.8, Canon have announced the RF 24-240mm. Canon know only too well you need entry points into a system that's why they produced the RP camera and that's why in time they will expand the non-L RF lens line-up. Canon have already stated future cameras will have IBIS higher up the food chain so they are concentrating on the higher end RF lenses to entice pros & prosumers into the top end. Once this line-up has a decent catalogue of lenses they will turn to the entry level again because if they dont they know they will not get the younger, newer customers. Its no different to BMW with the 1 series to the 7 series.



The RF 35mm f/1.8 _is_ the "nifty fifty" for the RF mount with its 20mm registration distance (instead of 44mm for the EF mount). And $450 is 3X what the EF 50mm f/1.8 is selling for these days. Will the RF system have non-L lenses? Certainly. Will they have a wide range of sub $500 primes like EF does: 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 100/2? Not a chance. Those interested in sub $500 lenses already have the EF versions and are mostly happy to keep them to use on both RF and EF-M mount bodies. 

I'd love to be wrong, by the way.




snoke said:


> Pro get RF.
> Consumer get M.



Or consumer use existing EF glass on both M and RP.





degos said:


> Well indeed the EF Mark I was pretty lousy. I mean there are years of Internet history calling it a 'faux L'.
> 
> The new RF 24-105 is slightly better than the EF Mark II, with more vignetting, and about the same optically as the Sigma Art. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the New Wonder Mount. If the short flange is so capable at the wide end, why wasn't it a 16-105? Now _that_ would have been a game-changer.



You seem to be judging the differences between the EF 24-105mm and the RF 24-105mm based strictly on "spec sheet" and measurement of performance when imaging flat test charts at relatively short distances. Have you actually gotten out and shot with the RF 24-105mm in real world scenarios?



slclick said:


> It is this info/conjecture (which I pretty much agree to that assures me that my next body to replace and use alongside my 5D3) will be either a 5D4 at a great price once the Mk5 launches or a 5D5 itself.



Yeah, I'd really like to see the 5D Mark V as soon as possible. Not because I'd buy one, but I'd like to get a 5D mark IV after the price drops.




lawny13 said:


> Now now.... we don’t all want to be spending 2-3k per lens we buy now do we? Though a nifty fifty may be nice for many, it doesn’t mean that a lot of us do not appretiate quality glass at a more affordable price. For example, I would be willing to pay 700-1000 for a quality 50 f1.8 or f1.4 lens. 2.5k for the 50 f1.2... not so much.
> 
> And I don’t even think canon agrees with you... cuase then why should they have bothered with the RP at all?



I don't consider $700-1000 "consumer level." That's the lower half of "mid-grade" ($700-1500) in my mind. To me "consumer level" is sub $600 ala the 85/1.8, 100/2, 35/2, non-L 100/2.8 Macro, etc.


----------



## st jack photography (May 24, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> I saw an article detailing how to use a TS adapter on APS-C to use a FF zoom. We get pre-occupied with the idea that a TS lens has to be frantically expensive because of its eye watering acutance. In reality the bulk of the pricing decision comes form the very small volumes of production.
> The actual challenge here is the lack of interest.


I would have to agree. I remember I took on a bunch of extra work just to buy the tse-135, and while that was a super sharp lens, I used it for my pro work once in 6 months, and then just did an even trade for a sony rx1rm2 once the Canon R came out and I saw Canon going in the opposite direction of what I wanted. I haven't bought a single piece of Canon gear since the R came out. I am just waiting for the 5dsr m2 replacement. Really, most of my pro work I was able to do with a 50 and a 100 macro, and that is it. I never use my tse45 or tse90 enough to justify the price, ever.


----------



## neonlight (May 24, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> For Venus Optics I'd mention the 24mm probe or the 15mm UWA before the 60mm.Anyway, what I think you're getting at is:
> 
> 5x magnification: already done
> IS: already done
> ...


Built in coaxial illumination


----------



## Ozarker (May 24, 2019)

MayaTlab said:


> It's unfortunate that vignetting has been associated with peripheral brightness to the point that it's not known that it actually affects depth of field.
> So to be very clear : you can't "add" vignetting in post, and neither can you remove it. You can add or remove peripheral brightness - which is very much a question of taste .
> 
> I wasn't suggesting that marketing helps improve people's photography, but manages to push forwards the aspects that truly make a difference in most people's shots. The 50mm RF's f1.2 aperture is mostly a marketing move as it's got too much vignetting to make it noticeable for 80% of the frame at common shooting distances. On the other and, the way it deals with out of focus areas off centre vs. the EF version isn't just marketing and can easily be perceived even in very small prints.


I must completely misunderstand the two terms then. My understanding is that vignette and peripheral brightness go hand in hand and are the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignetting

As far as it affecting depth of field... oh well.  Either way, vignetting/peripheral brightness are well corrected in post through Adobe's profiles, if desired. I think it is a mistake to think vignette is only caused by a lens and cannot be introduced into a photo in post or that it cannot be corrected in post. It absolutely can be. So we have a difference of opinion when it comes to definitions. I agree to disagree.


----------



## slclick (May 24, 2019)

I for one am not going to stop calling it vignetting, lol. Colloquialisms, jargon, slang...people KNOW what you mean. Scientific terms, not so much.


----------



## Kit. (May 24, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> As far as it affecting depth of field... oh well.  Either way, vignetting/peripheral brightness are well corrected in post through Adobe's profiles, if desired.


I don't think you can correct rugby bokeh (which is a result of mechanical vignetting) through Adobe's profiles.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I don't think you can correct rugby bokeh (which is a result of mechanical vignetting) through Adobe's profiles.


Nor do those profiles correct the differences in depth of field that result from optical vignetting. Having said that, I agree with @slclick that I’ll keep using the word vignetting. In the context of photography, it is clearly synonymous with peripheral shading.


----------



## Kit. (May 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nor do those profiles correct the differences in depth of field that result from optical vignetting. Having said that, I agree with @slclick that I’ll keep using the word vignetting. In the context of photography, it is clearly synonymous with peripheral shading.


Yeah, but if we talk about practical limits of fast lens designs, it's not only peripheral shading that matters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Yeah, but if we talk about practical limits of fast lens designs, it's not only peripheral shading that matters.


Yeah, but outside of a tech-headed gear-obsessed forum (like this one), I doubt many people are even aware that vignetting affects peripheral DoF...or care.


----------



## Ozarker (May 25, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, but outside of a tech-headed gear-obsessed forum (like this one), I doubt many people are even aware that vignetting affects peripheral DoF...or care.


True. And my ignorance in these matters makes me obviously intellectually out matched.  Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.


----------



## slclick (May 25, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> True. And my ignorance in these matters makes me obviously intellectually out matched.  Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.


That's the last thing we need, one more tech head here! We love you the way you are CFB.


----------



## uri.raz (May 26, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Speaking of flange distance, how would you feel about an f2 or f2.8 20mm pancake?



I would be interested in a 20mm f/2 pancake, IS would be welcome.

As I have the holy trinity of zooms, which I carry in spite of the weight, an f/2.8 wouldn't really interest me.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 26, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I must completely misunderstand the two terms then. My understanding is that vignette and peripheral brightness go hand in hand and are the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignetting
> 
> As far as it affecting depth of field... oh well.  Either way, vignetting/peripheral brightness are well corrected in post through Adobe's profiles, if desired. I think it is a mistake to think vignette is only caused by a lens and cannot be introduced into a photo in post or that it cannot be corrected in post. It absolutely can be. So we have a difference of opinion when it comes to definitions. I agree to disagree.



From Uncle Roger:



> *You CAN Correct It In Post, but . . .*
> 
> *. . . . there is no free lunch.*



In addition to the resolution loss from geometric distortion correction, which is what Roger Cicala is mainly concerned about, there's also the extra noise that comes with pushing exposure in the corners, which is what vignetting correction does.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 26, 2019)

st jack photography said:


> Consider this: the EF 50 f2.5 MACRO is/was a masterpiece, BUT it is one of their oldest EF lenses, still in use after a 1987 design (I think it was 1987). I would look for an updated RF 50 f2.5 MACRO, with a rear element that moves, not the front barrel, and I believe this may be a first on a technicality (the internal focus on a 50 macro). If you really want to see something original, though, as Canon does innovate at times, then they may make a RF 50 w/true MACRO 1:1 magnification, which I think would definitely be a first, as the Laowa is 60mm, and the SIGMA is 70, I believe. Still, think about how loooonnnng a 50mm IF 1:1 macro would be. Isn't it essentially a 50 macro with a built-in extension tube? That would make a Sigma art lens look like a pancake lens. Maybe they'll do it though.



The EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro was officially discontinued in 2016, even though there was no direct replacement for it. 

The demand for it was affected by the release of the EF-S 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro (which is the equivalent of a 50mm 1:2 macro lens on FF for an APS-C camera), and the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS STM for EOS M cameras. In full frame territory the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS goes to 0.70X MM (1:1.4), which is greater than the 50/2.5 Macro at 1:2 or 0.50X. It also has IS and "L" build quality.

I would be surprised if support for the EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro lasts much longer.


----------



## lawny13 (May 26, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Actually a fast 24mm is a very good idea, it's just that it's not as revolutionary as when Canon first launched one. It sits in a bag of primes well, so it's a tactical choice of focal length that sits with the 50mm. Ie a 24L / 50L and then a 100L. In the same way a 35L and 85L sit well together.
> But from a marketing point of view...the world has had 24mm f1.4's for quite a while. Even Sigma and Nikon makes one now. So what's Canon going to do make it more impressive apart from adding size / weight / cost and an extra R ring?
> I thin Canon needed to expand their f1.2 range and have all their fast primes in that category. 24/35/50/85 all in f1.2 to give it the extra cache of exclusivity over the existing and rather good EF versions.
> There's just not a lot of "WOW" left in lens design. This is apparent with the 28-70 f2. It's remarkable but huge. The Rf 50mm f1.2 would have been more remarkable if it was f1.0....but even that's not new in the Canon world.



Well well... what you are describing is everyone being spoiled rotten .

This reasoning of yours can pretty much be applied to every single piece of tech we have. Cars, computers, phones, planes etc etc. we may invent new things every once in a while, but then we iterated and optimize it to death. One of the major issues with us humans if is the fact batt we have developed into a society obsessed with money, and entertainment. As such the only justification to making something is for the making of money, and it takes away a little of that daring, that out of the box thinking that we used to do. Look at how we generate electrinicty for example. Turn turbines... steam, water, wind, fossil fuels (steam generation), nuclear (also stream). 

Point is that once we push passed a certain point we simple enter the realm of deminishing returns, and the fact that money is a major consideration when taking risks or not taking them, or advancing at all, we end up where we are. Look at sensor tech for example, we know that silicon is at its limits in what it can give us in terms of DR, yet we are still stuck using it. Optical designs are even more limiting, since we are very much limited to the one example it is all based on (the human eye), and the one thing that it is consumed by (the eye), and of course physics,


----------



## deleteme (May 27, 2019)

st jack photography said:


> I would have to agree. I remember I took on a bunch of extra work just to buy the tse-135, and while that was a super sharp lens, I used it for my pro work once in 6 months, and then just did an even trade for a sony rx1rm2 once the Canon R came out and I saw Canon going in the opposite direction of what I wanted. I haven't bought a single piece of Canon gear since the R came out. I am just waiting for the 5dsr m2 replacement. Really, most of my pro work I was able to do with a 50 and a 100 macro, and that is it. I never use my tse45 or tse90 enough to justify the price, ever.


I recently had a tabletop shoot for a Bourbon distillery. I shot it with my 100 macro but longed for the 135 TS-E. In truth it would not have made a nickel's worth of difference.


----------



## navastronia (May 28, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> From Uncle Roger:
> 
> In addition to the resolution loss from geometric distortion correction, which is what Roger Cicala is mainly concerned about, there's also the extra noise that comes with pushing exposure in the corners, which is what vignetting correction does.



IME, the extra noise from pushing exposure in the corners is about as minimal an issue as they come, since the focal point will so rarely be in the corner. No one would possibly notice but the pixel-peeping photographer who took the photo (_cough_ me _cough_).


----------



## Ozarker (May 29, 2019)

Dantana said:


> I guess a lot of that is left to expectations, copy variance, and opinion.
> 
> I've been quite happy with the images that I get out of my kit 24-105 v1, and a second hand 17-40 I picked up before a trip a few years ago. Those 2 lenses are on my camera the majority of the time.
> 
> I'd say their build quality, image quality, and constant aperture put them on a level above Canon's non-L glass.


I stayed away from the 24-105 because of all the hate it gets from so many, but there's a pro on this board who couldn't understand the flak the 24-105 gets so he posted some absolutely beautiful car photos he took with it. I still don't have the lens, but his photos sold me on it and I'll probably end up with one sooner or later. Thanks to him I learned to take with a grain of salt what I read about a lens or camera body on forums. It is apparent to me that people pass around what they've read somewhere as though they have actually used what it is they are bashing. That includes lenses, cameras, etc.  Or they don't know how to use their equipment and blame the equipment rather than their incompetence. This guy is really good at what he does and my hat is off to him. I can't remember his screen name. LSX something, I think. When people who can't take photos start pixel peeping and then drawing conclusions on what they can only see at 200%... I turn the page. I wish I knew where to look for what he posted. Absolutely awesome work from the unfairly maligned (In my opinion) 24-105. Ever notice that the photos at many review sites suck no matter what the camera/lens combo?  I just check flickr anymore. Damn the review sites and bash threads.


----------



## eosuser1234 (May 29, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> The Laowa 24mm probe does all that already.


Does Canon know about this Laowa company? Maybe not.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 29, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Well.....
> 
> Canon did just file a patent for a TS lens with IS.
> 
> ...



The RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM may look marginally better than the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM II on test charts but the reality is this lens is superior in every way to its cousin. More flat field, less vignetting, sharper and better bokeh. Mechanically it is better made and now adds the custom ring. 
I would never use the EF version for portraits but the RF version is a great portrait lens.


----------



## caffetin (May 30, 2019)

Just curious.Maybe are good rf lenses but don't You think are way expensive.I mean I can buy R model but lenses can not follow the tempo.


----------



## Pape (Jul 13, 2019)

RF 300mm f4 1:2 macro would be cool!
And would be good excuse update old ef 300


----------



## mikekx102 (Sep 3, 2019)

I've been waiting for an EF14mm F2L since it was rumoured April 9, 2018.

Whats the deal with this? Since then the R mount has been released and does this mean that any release of an awesome Astro lens wouldn't be compatible with my 1DX II anyway?


----------



## unfocused (Sep 3, 2019)

What the heck is Rugby Bokeh?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 3, 2019)

unfocused said:


> What the heck is Rugby Bokeh?


This. It happens when the mirror box/lens throat cuts into the light angle and makes what should be round out of focus highlights have a rugby ball/clipped shape to them.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 3, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> This. It happens when the mirror box/lens throat cuts into the light angle and makes what should be round out of focus highlights have a rugby ball/clipped shape to them.



Also known as cat’s eye bokeh.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 4, 2019)

jeffa4444 said:


> The RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM may look marginally better than the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM II on test charts but the reality is this lens is superior in every way to its cousin. More flat field, less vignetting, sharper and better bokeh. Mechanically it is better made and now adds the custom ring.
> I would never use the EF version for portraits but the RF version is a great portrait lens.


That's an interesting comment! The RF 24-105 is the only one of the released RF lenses I might actually buy (if I bought an EOS R). The size, weight and cost puts me off most of the others, especially since I'm happy with lenses such as my existing Sigma Arts. And I'm not overly impressed by what I've seen of the RF 35. We'll see about the recently announced RF lenses once they are available. Anyway, if the RF 24-105 makes a decent portrait lens, that would certainly help convince me it's worth getting. Do you have any portraits with the RF 24-105 you can share, by any chance? I've seen a few on Flickr but not sure how much you can tell about the lens from them.


----------

