# This is the Canon RF lens roadmap



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 9, 2020)

> This is the Canon RF lens roadmap for the next couple of years. I will be updating this list as new information comes in.
> Canon RF-S Lenses
> 
> Canon RF-S 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM (Announced May 24, 2022)
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## IcyBergs (Nov 9, 2020)

Most anticipated of this list for me would be the 14-35 f4 IS.

Biggest question in my mind is price and color of the 100-400 with the 7.1 at the long end, I think it's reasonable to debate whether or not that'll be a "L" lens. Either way though I'd hope to see a modest price tag.


----------



## xanbarksdale (Nov 9, 2020)

It's a little disappointing to me that they aren't planning on releasing a 24 1.4 any time soon...this would be the perfect lens in RF mount!


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 9, 2020)

Canon RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM would be ideal for socially distanced photoshoots


----------



## docsmith (Nov 9, 2020)

I still wonder if the 600/4, 800/5.6 and 1200/8 are somehow the same lens but with built in TCs.


----------



## Jstnelson (Nov 9, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> It's a little disappointing to me that they aren't planning on releasing a 24 1.4 any time soon...this would be the perfect lens in RF mount!


Same here. I’m hoping there are a couple lenses on the list that just haven’t leaked yet. I think canon will release something like a 20mm 1.8 or 24mm 1.4 soon.


----------



## thmts (Nov 9, 2020)

Dissapointed that they don't plan an 85mm 1.4. 85mm f2 doesn't seem as sharp and 1.2 is too expensive, loud and large :/


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 9, 2020)

Eagerly waiting for both Macro lenses along with 100-400mm(which hopefully will replace the EF 70-300mm lens).


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 9, 2020)

thmts said:


> Dissapointed that they don't plan an 85mm 1.4. 85mm f2 doesn't seem as sharp and 1.2 is too expensive, loud and large :/



The EF version is relatively new and probably not a priority while there are so many other lenses to release first.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 9, 2020)

Still holding out hope for a 24-70F4 L IS! 

-Brian


----------



## VICYASA (Nov 9, 2020)

Can someone explain to the 

Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
What would this lens be best used for and what types of shot will this lens be effective for? Portraits up close? Landscape? Macro of flowers and bugs? Please help. want to learn about lenses and uses and how this in future could be paired with r5 camera.Thanks


----------



## kaihp (Nov 9, 2020)

In that long list of Big White's, a 300mm f/2.8 is surprisingly missing. Not that there is any thing wrong with my EF 328 Mk II


----------



## edoorn (Nov 9, 2020)

thmts said:


> Dissapointed that they don't plan an 85mm 1.4. 85mm f2 doesn't seem as sharp and 1.2 is too expensive, loud and large :/


I don't know where you have that information from, but the 85 F/2 is very sharp wide open (in fact, about as sharp as the 85 EF 1.4 at f/2; I did a test since I have both of these lenses). 

There's always room for an RF 1.4 version of course but I can imagine that for now they spend their resources and address other focal lengths.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Nov 9, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> Still holding out hope for a 24-70F4 L IS!
> 
> -Brian


Me too. I prefer landscape and outdoors photography. An f2.8 is too expensive, and I don’t need the weight. Had I been in the mirrorless market right now, I would be getting a Z6 II as that with the Nikkor S f4 is just $100 more than just the R6 body. Of course many other considerations.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 9, 2020)

The 1200mm f8 is interesting, I wonder what, if anything, it will offer over the 600 f4 and tc? I’d expect it to be a very hard sell given its price which I would estimate to be close to breaking the $20,000 barrier.


----------



## Marximusprime (Nov 9, 2020)

I like the idea of the 24 1.8. I'll probably buy that and sell the 35, because in crop mode on the R5 that'll give me about 38mm.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 9, 2020)

SUNDOG04 said:


> Me too. I prefer landscape and outdoors photography. An f2.8 is too expensive, and I don’t need the weight. Had I been in the mirrorless market right now, I would be getting a Z6 II as that with the Nikkor S f4 is just $100 more than just the R6 body. Of course many other considerations.


The EF 24-70f4L IS is still pretty compact and affordable even with the adapter. So there is always that to fall back on if they wait a while to put out an RF version. Although the 24-104 F4 L RF lens is pretty small and well reviewed. So we have options, which is good.

-Brian


----------



## mccasi (Nov 9, 2020)

I'll say it again, we need some wide astro love! R5 is sooo good for low light... Canon teased with 14-21 F1.4 and 14-28 F2...
I don't like the Sigma 14mm F1.8, for bad coma and too narrow use case... Canon to the rescue!!!


----------



## Proscribo (Nov 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The 1200mm f8 is interesting, I wonder what, if anything, it will offer over the 600 f4 and tc? I’d expect it to be a very hard sell given its price which I would estimate to be close to breaking the $20,000 barrier.


It can take 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 9, 2020)

Proscribo said:


> It can take 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter.


The biggest issue I have had with extreme telephotos has been atmospheric interference. It isn’t that difficult to get crazy magnification, you can stack EF TC’s if not RF TC’s, but getting clear enough air between you and the subject can be impossibly difficult.


----------



## Gazwas (Nov 9, 2020)

Updates of the EF 16 and 24 TS-E’s are the most interesting for me but don’t understand the relevance of AF in a tilt and shift lens? Less distortion and sharper edges (in the 16mm) would be very welcome however.


----------



## fiendstudios (Nov 9, 2020)

mccasi said:


> I'll say it again, we need some wide astro love! R5 is sooo good for low light... Canon teased with 14-21 F1.4 and 14-28 F2...
> I don't like the Sigma 14mm F1.8, for bad coma and too narrow use case... Canon to the rescue!!!



I use the 14/1.8 and I like it. Not much coma on my example but it is very limited yes, since its only 14mm.
I would love a 14-21/1.4 for Astro and for other landscapes.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Nov 9, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> The EF 24-70f4L IS is still pretty compact and affordable even with the adapter. So there is always that to fall back on if they wait a while to put out an RF version. Although the 24-104 F4 L RF lens is pretty small and well reviewed. So we have options, which is good.
> 
> -Brian


The RF 24-105, I really should consider. It is a great lens, and when wanting to carry just one lens, this would be extremely desirable.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 9, 2020)

Gazwas said:


> Updates of the EF 16 and 24 TS-E’s are the most interesting for me but don’t understand the relevance of AF in a tilt and shift lens? Less distortion and sharper edges (in the 16mm) would be very welcome however.


AF can probably be turned off for those who don't want it. I'd love to see a 50mm and a 90mm with AF. Portrait subjects just don't have the patience for MF anymore, though there'd still be a little fiddling to get the desired plane of focus...


----------



## tron (Nov 9, 2020)

I still wish for a 17-70 rumored a long time ago. If it was a f4L (OK even f/3.5-5.6L) it would be the perfect travel companion to a long tele lens (even better if it would have close up capabilities). Sometimes 24-105 is not wide enough and I do not want to carry RF15-35 2.8 since it is too big. So I revert to my trusty 5DIV with the EF16-35 f/4L IS and get a G7X MkII for the intermediate range...


----------



## Fran Decatta (Nov 9, 2020)

Bets for that 135 1.4.... I bet for 3500$, and would be amazing (and cheap in some sense, with a 1,4x would be almost a 189mm f2)


----------



## Franklyok (Nov 9, 2020)

Fran Decatta said:


> Bets for that 135 1.4.... I bet for 3500$, and would be amazing (and cheap in some sense, with a 1,4x would be almost a 189mm f2)



That's compelling bokeh lens. Head turner. Only DS designation missing


----------



## SV (Nov 9, 2020)

Conspicuous in their absence from the list: 300mm f/2.8 or any DO lenses...


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The 1200mm f8 is interesting, I wonder what, if anything, it will offer over the 600 f4 and tc? I’d expect it to be a very hard sell given its price which I would estimate to be close to breaking the $20,000 barrier.



I guess that's going to be a "because we can" lens, just a bit more affordable than the nigh-mythical EF 1200mm f/5.6L.


----------



## Swerky (Nov 9, 2020)

RF 18-45? Is it something like Panasonic's 20-60 for L mount? I find those slower zooms to be attractive on the wide end but only useful in good light on the longer end.


----------



## fox40phil (Nov 9, 2020)

The 1200mm is really interesting! But would be way to expensive to me^^... and you can only use it on "cold" conditions^^.

135 f1.4... oh no :'( .... this will be BIG and expensive!! I thought about a lens like the GM 135 1.8!

Lenses that I m missing here...:
f5.6 Tele Primes! Like Nikons 500 5.6!
f5.6 Zooms! Like Nikons 200-500 5.6

>100mm Macro! Like Sigma 150mm & 180mm 2.8.

Maybe a ultimate DO zoom with f8.0 and 300-800?! with 3-4KG why not?


----------



## chasingrealness (Nov 9, 2020)

That 135 1.4 is my 2021 spirit animal.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 9, 2020)

I'd love to know the $ of the RF 135mm f/1.4L. Where's the RF 70-135mm f/2L and the RF 14-28mm f/2L? This is starting to piss me off!!!


----------



## rom (Nov 9, 2020)

Give us some primes 24, 28, 35, 50mm f1.4 medium sized with USM and IS and some degree of weather sealing.
No more STM and not the huge 1.2 L.
Ok with high price.


----------



## vangelismm (Nov 9, 2020)

24mm 1.8 IS STM, is this easy/cheap to make than 35mm and 85mm in RF mount?

Because canon EF prime usually get darker wider than 35mm.
Just look the EF 24mm and 28mm IS primes.


----------



## Refraction (Nov 9, 2020)

I will be purchasing the 24mm macro and the 10-24mm once announced. Having 10mm to 200mm on my trinity of lenses along with the 24mm for nice (fairly) wide gimbal shots will complete my RF line up, adding to the 35mm macro, 28-70 f2, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-700 f2.8.


----------



## Khatgs (Nov 9, 2020)

Do you think telephoto lens (400 2.8, 500 f4,...) will be shorter in term of size than EF versions?


----------



## Rocksthaman (Nov 9, 2020)

I wish they would open up the information pathway to third parties to work native or even make their own smaller non-is lenses. 

I’m finally selling my Sony gear and am really going to miss the smaller lenses. 

I am looking for something like the Tamron 28-75 2.8 or the sigma 85 1.4 in RF 

The body has ibis, it just feels weird not taking advantage of not needing IS in every lens.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 9, 2020)

RF 14-35mm F4 sounds very tempting. If it has a 77mm filter thread and is filterable (no bulby lens likes sigmas 14-24mm please) I'll preorder this one the minute they announce it  

Since a 14-21mm F1.4 is probably in the 3.500 $ (or above) plus price range, I'm hoping Canon actually releases one of their earlier rumored fast primes like the 16mm F1.4 with a not so hefty price tag. (yes, I know, this would be in the four digits price area as well)


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 9, 2020)

Gazwas said:


> Updates of the EF 16 and 24 TS-E’s are the most interesting for me but don’t understand the relevance of AF in a tilt and shift lens? Less distortion and sharper edges (in the 16mm) would be very welcome however.


I presume you meant the TS-E17. The advantage of AF with tilt lenses is in dynamic situations, I’d love my TS-E50 to have AF for portraits, set the tilt first, then select an AF point then get that point on the eye you want and boom.

For what I use my TS-E’s for 90% of the time AF would offer no additional value, but that is a function of the fact that they didn’t have AF, once they do that will change.


----------



## Rivermist (Nov 9, 2020)

Fran Decatta said:


> Bets for that 135 1.4.... I bet for 3500$, and would be amazing (and cheap in some sense, with a 1,4x would be almost a 189mm f2)


I find it puzzling at times to see that for a new range of mirrorless cameras that are inherently lighter and in many cases smaller than their DSLR equivalents, the first lenses put on the market are the biggest, heaviest (and most expensive) for a particular focal length or zoom range. A high-quality relatively compact RF 135mm f:2.5 IS Macro under $1,000 would sell like hot cakes. Affordable good quality glass would help cushion the initial investment in new camera bodies.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 9, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> I find it puzzling at times to see that for a new range of mirrorless cameras that are inherently lighter and in many cases smaller than their DSLR equivalents, the first lenses put on the market are the biggest, heaviest (and most expensive) for a particular focal length or zoom range. A high-quality relatively compact RF 135mm f:2.5 IS Macro under $1,000 would sell like hot cakes. Affordable good quality glass would help cushion the initial investment in new camera bodies.


But as has been explained many times in the past, losing a mirror and pentaprism does’t make the lenses optical formulae different, and the ever increasing demand for lenses to have “higher IQ” (resolution and across the frame sharpness) means those optical formulae are not going to get smalleR but larger.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 9, 2020)

SV said:


> Conspicuous in their absence from the list: 300mm f/2.8 or any DO lenses...


I believe canon is no longer distinguishing DO lenses. There was an article here a while back that implied DO optics will be used in many lens designs going forward, some L and some not, but none with the green ring. So some of these longer ones may be DO. Size and weight will be the clues, once we know them. 

-Brian


----------



## padam (Nov 9, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> I find it puzzling at times to see that for a new range of mirrorless cameras that are inherently lighter and in many cases smaller than their DSLR equivalents, the first lenses put on the market are the biggest, heaviest (and most expensive) for a particular focal length or zoom range. A high-quality relatively compact RF 135mm f:2.5 IS Macro under $1,000 would sell like hot cakes. Affordable good quality glass would help cushion the initial investment in new camera bodies.


The market for 135mm prime lenses is actually pretty small, especially considering that the common focal length range for macro lenses is 90mm-100mm range and they will continue to offer that option. So it makes most sense to have a lens, which is the most expensive but also the most unique. Can be used for portraits or shooting indoor sports as well.

A 135 2.5 IS Macro is neither compact (it has to extend a lot more, slower focus as well) nor cheap.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 9, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> ... Canon’s lens roadmap for the remainder of 2020 and likely into 2022 ...


Honestly I believe this to be a roadmap likely into 202*4*. But if they're faster it'll be welcome.

I'm still missing a midrange 50 mm prime, e.g. 50/1.8 IS STM macro. It seems Canon sees no market in that as they didn't see with the EF equvalent for aeons.

But this
RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
looks really fascinating...


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 9, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Honestly I believe this to be a roadmap likely into 202*4*. But if they're faster it'll be welcome.



I quite honestly agree. Given Canon has released about 17 RF lenses (and two converters) so far (forgive me if I forgot one) this looks a lot like a three year road map. And although I believe these lenses will appear over a three year period, I do believe Canon will additionally release about five - eight lenses , which are not listed/ rumored at the moment.


----------



## Besisika (Nov 9, 2020)

VICYASA said:


> Can someone explain to the
> 
> Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
> What would this lens be best used for and what types of shot will this lens be effective for? Portraits up close? Landscape? Macro of flowers and bugs? Please help. want to learn about lenses and uses and how this in future could be paired with r5 camera.Thanks


Actually, this is my most anticipated lens, next to the 135mm. This will be the king of video lens in my eyes. Small, bright and wide enough for* in crowd* videojournalistic shots such as weddings, street manifestations, tight spaces as in a metro and buses, dancing during a party. It is light enough for any table-top product videography, handheld and you don't have to extend your hand too much; over-the-table food sliding, punch-in and orbit of any product videography. The R5 will be very happy with it: using different crops and IBIS you can get, without changing a lens, 24mm, 35mm and 40mm and you can handheld it for a long time. It is the macro property that gets me exited. This means that I can punch in, then transition to something else, while still in focus. I would choose from where to defocus in post. Finally, it is my most used focal length for gimbal work. I favor the R5 over any video camera for that reason.
Photography-wise, I am not seeing much need. I prefer a 35mm, even when shooting in tight room such as hotel bedroom, or bathroom. Yet, I have seen people using it for portrait. I have used wider lenses on cosplay photography, but that is not for everybody. It allows you to put the lens right at the tip of a weapon, using it as a leading line to the face of the cosplayer.
Hope that gives you more idea on how I intend to use it.
The 135mm is my preferred focal length for portraiture and fashion. The current EF lens is to prone for lens flare. Some people adore flares, not me.


----------



## Rivermist (Nov 9, 2020)

padam said:


> The market for 135mm prime lenses is actually pretty small, especially considering that the common focal length range for macro lenses is 90mm-100mm range and they will continue to offer that option. So it makes most sense to have a lens, which is the most expensive but also the most unique. Can be used for portraits or shooting indoor sports as well.
> 
> A 135 2.5 IS Macro is neither compact (it has to extend a lot more, slower focus as well) nor cheap.


Points taken, I had put macro more in the sense of the current RF 35 and 85 IS non-L primes, where macro seems to indicate more a "better than average minimum focusing distance" rather than purpose-driven lenses such as EF 100 or 180mm which do indeed drive up bulk and weight. New lenses are not automatically heavier / bulkier in RF, I sold my EF 35mm f:2 IS and bought the RF 35mm f: 1.8 IS which is lighter notably thanks to a much smaller front element.


----------



## Bert63 (Nov 9, 2020)

I’ll do you guys a favor.

I’ll go ahead and drop $3000 on a 100-500L and the 1.4X.

Guaranteed that twenty seconds after my “return by” date expires Canon will announce a 200-600L f4 - 5.6 for $4000.

Ain’t that always the way?


----------



## leadin2 (Nov 9, 2020)

Okay, there are too many lens to take in. I need a breather. If the 100mm macro is not much better, I will keep the EF plus the bunch of EF f/1.4.
Now, the ultra wide angle lens look tempting....


----------



## Mahk43 (Nov 9, 2020)

VICYASA said:


> Can someone explain to the
> 
> Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
> What would this lens be best used for and what types of shot will this lens be effective for? Portraits up close? Landscape? Macro of flowers and bugs? Please help. want to learn about lenses and uses and how this in future could be paired with r5 camera.Thanks



Yeah these things, and even more! 
Those 1.8 lenses are cheap, with not the best but quite good quality, compacts, and very short focus distance to make proxy photography if you want, but you can also shoot anything.
I think this one will be very compact, maybe a pancake? Could be awsome


----------



## Juangrande (Nov 9, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Canon RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM would be ideal for socially distanced photoshoots



Would’ve been useful for pollsters during the ballot counting.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 9, 2020)

Im still not happy about the telephoto selection. We ether have cheap and slow like the 100-400 7.1 or expensive like the 100-500. Or super expensive like the 400+ primes.
Still not affordable quality lens to go above 600mm. Not counting the super slow DO primes.


----------



## ctk (Nov 9, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> It's a little disappointing to me that they aren't planning on releasing a 24 1.4 any time soon...this would be the perfect lens in RF mount!


If they make a 24L it will probably be a 1.2.

After the disappointment of the 50 1.8 I am holding out hope for Samyang and Sigma to port some existing primes over. I loved the Samyang 45 1.8.


----------



## Daner (Nov 9, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> Still holding out hope for a 24-70F4 L IS!
> 
> -Brian



My feeling is that the 24-105 f/4L IS is sharp enough that the minor reduction in volume and weight along with the need for a lower price point would not make sales volumes and profit margins high enough to make it a priority. The other lenses on this list fill gaps. A 24-70 f/4L IS would not.


----------



## vangelismm (Nov 9, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
> looks really fascinating...



I still have doubts about the aperture, brighter than the 35mm? Too good to be true.
Change to 2.8 and will look like the Canon we know


----------



## SteveC (Nov 9, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I’ll do you guys a favor.
> 
> I’ll go ahead and drop $3000 on a 100-500L and the 1.4X.
> 
> ...



That didn't work when I tried to get them to release the M5 mark II by purchasing an M6 mark II.


----------



## Canfan (Nov 9, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Don't see the RF 200-600mm F5.6 on there, I believe this one is be a best seller. and would be the answer to sony's 200-600mm and nikon 200-500 f5.6.
I know canon is trying to get some small light beginner lenses out there but don't forget about the enthusiast level and pros who would jump at a lens like this. 
For pro this zoom would sit nicely on a second body with their big telephoto prime for that occasion the subject gets too close to the lens to get the shot.
Funny reading some blogs of photographers taking out their iPhone to get pics because their subject got closer than they anticipated.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 9, 2020)

Canfan said:


> Funny reading some blogs of photographers taking out their iPhone to get pics because their subject got closer than they anticipated.



This is why, if Canon doesn't release a 1-1000mm f/1.0 (that is pocketable), they are *******!


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 9, 2020)

Canfan said:


> Don't see the RF 200-600mm F5.6 on there, I believe this one is be a best seller. and would be the answer to sony's 200-600mm and nikon 200-500 f5.6.



I actually liked the way handled the situation. 100-500mm is a loooot more versatile and more useable in so many situations. It also is lighter and shorter. The 200-600mm is quite long...
Since there are several telephotos and Converters available I'm quite sure Canon sees the need for another zoom lense. If they do, I'd actually hope the go for a "real telezoom wildlife lense". I think on canon news there once was a patent for like 250-700mm or even 800mm. That'd fit quite nice in the portfolio.


----------



## Gazwas (Nov 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I presume you meant the TS-E17. The advantage of AF with tilt lenses is in dynamic situations, I’d love my TS-E50 to have AF for portraits, set the tilt first, then select an AF point then get that point on the eye you want and boom.
> 
> For what I use my TS-E’s for 90% of the time AF would offer no additional value, but that is a function of the fact that they didn’t have AF, once they do that will change.


Ooops, yes I meant the 17mm TS-E.

I agree the AF function could be of some help but for the few times of use it would mean giving up the silky smooth MF feel of the current lenses for terrible focus by wire.

Additionally we are talking about a 14mm and a 24mm lens here, both of which don't generally get used for portraits, close up or still life photography. Can't say I've ever wished for AF on the current 17mm or 24mm TS-E's.


----------



## lexptr (Nov 9, 2020)

Well, the 100mm L macro will complete my regular lens lineup, which I will switch to in R system. However, I would be happy to see other options, which I would prefer. Like longer true macro or longer and brighter tele-zoom. But those may not occur at all. So I will likely shut up and switch to what they deliver (will they deliver? didn't see R5 or 100-500 in stock yet). 

Regarding 1200mm f8L. I see everyone expect a high price, like 20k. But why it should be that much? If I understand right, the double aperture, relatively to 600mm f4L means its front element should be the same diameter. So, it's going to be like stretched 600mm. Of course, some additional barrel material and such, but I wouldn't be surprised if it will be only a bit more expensive than 800mm, which will be a bit more expensive than 600mm. Just look at prices of 600/800mm EF versions. What they can charge for is a low volume of production. I believe the 1200mm going to see much shallower niche of users than any other supertele.


----------



## navastronia (Nov 9, 2020)

Every time Craig posts this thread, I come in, I drool on the 35/1.2L, and I leave.


----------



## NKD (Nov 9, 2020)

I will be getting the most out of the current 17 & 24mm TS lens!
This still hold up extremely well on the 5dsR / 50mp cameras

The new RF glass must be designed for 100 - 150mp sensors.
This would be a dream to potentially handheld architecture shots with 1 exposure with IBIS. 

Hoping a zoom TS with autofocus comes on the market next 35 - 80mm.
This will make me jump to the R system and RF glass


----------



## navastronia (Nov 9, 2020)

I'm still holding out for a 14-28/2, though!


----------



## dolina (Nov 9, 2020)

Below would be my lens wishlist target weights and physical dimension

Canon RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM at *2kg or lighter*
Canon RF 500mm f/4L IS USM at *2kg or lighter*
Canon RF 600mm f/4L IS USM at *3kg or lighter*
Canon RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM at *3kg or lighter*
Canon RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM at *4.5kg or lighter and 44.8cm or shorter.*
That's the major selling point of newer gear... weight reduction and better portability.

If I were still actively photographing wildlife and a 800mm or 1200mm became available at half their weight I'd be induced to upgrade.

Sadly for people who steal photos/videos of Philippine wildlife I will not be making that expenditure on their behalf. 

They are welcome to buy the equipment and pay for the trips if they can actually afford it without donations.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 9, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> RF 14-35mm F4 sounds very tempting. If it has a 77mm filter thread and is filterable (no bulby lens likes sigmas 14-24mm please) I'll preorder this one the minute they announce it


I can't imagine that a zoom going to 14mm will only have a 77mm filter thread.... Maybe 82mm but more likely greater. Even with a filter thread this big, you will need 150mm filters to avoid significant vignetting. Those are expensive setups :-(


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I presume you meant the TS-E17. The advantage of AF with tilt lenses is in dynamic situations, I’d love my TS-E50 to have AF for portraits, set the tilt first, then select an AF point then get that point on the eye you want and boom.
> 
> For what I use my TS-E’s for 90% of the time AF would offer no additional value, but that is a function of the fact that they didn’t have AF, once they do that will change.


but what would the use case be for such a wide angle (14 or 24mm) with autofocus... besides "because we can"? The size will be substantially larger with IS as well. The 14mm will be great for landscape/waterfalls/architecture I imagine but would probably always be on a tripod so manual focus isn't an issue. A 5-8 stop IS would be be useful for handheld or high speed.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The 1200mm f8 is interesting, I wonder what, if anything, it will offer over the 600 f4 and tc? I’d expect it to be a very hard sell given its price which I would estimate to be close to breaking the $20,000 barrier.


"Because we can"? It would be a halo lens made-to-order and prohibitively expensive. You are right about atmospheric haze but that hasn't stopped people playing with RF800mm +TCs. Moon shots would be sharp as  
Maybe deep astro but contributors with more experience could chime in on that use case


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 9, 2020)

I think the 1200mm F/8L lens will be a lens that gets made and doesn't change for a very long time. For Canon it's probably important to have it in their RF lens line-up, but I don't think it will rocket off the shelves when you can throw a 2x on a 600mm and get the same result, alongside having the shorter, brighter option of 600 F/4. But for Canon they only need to make that lens design on the RF mount once in 10-15 years, like the 800mm F/5.6 which didn't get updated nearly as much as the 600mm F/4L IS. I could very well imagine a RF 600mm F/4L IS mark III before a 1200mm F/8L IS II. Basically, I think Canon wants to make their baseline line-up so that people have all these options 15 years from now. 

As for autofocus tilt-shift, I think those lenses will be huge for the people who need them, or the people who don't realize yet that they need them. I always felt limited using the tilt-shifts at my job, as manual focus isn't particularly easy in fast pace environments when you're an event/news photographer. These could be sweet for the wedding photogs I know as well that use tilt-shifts almost every wedding, though I think the longer end would be more applicable to them. Landscape/architecture photographers probably won't feel pressed to get them, though high-end architecture photographers probably have the budget to justify it, considering how expensive the manual-focus ones were already.

Someone brought up the age-old "why are they making such big lenses for mirrorless" and I think one thing that has been apparent is that Canon considers the standard of acceptable weight/size to be DSLR size and weight. The RF 50mm F/1.2 is about the size of a EF 50 F/1.2 + RF-EF adapter, the RF 28-70 is about the length of the EF 24-70 F/2.8 + EF-RF adapter, and so forth. I think the way Canon sees all of this as is, if a professional was already willing to fill their bag with the big size of DSLRS and their glass, they can push the limits of lens design to make way more impressive lenses that still fit in the same general weight/size of their DSLR counterparts. They're not wrong, either, I doubt I would have considered the RF 28-70 F/2 if it was on EF, but I don't mind the extra size/weight when the combination of it and the R5 is lighter/smaller than the 1DX2 + EF 24-70. For those who want compact size, they've definitely made lenses for you like the RF 70-200, 35, 50 F/1.8, etc.

The most interesting lenses to me in my uses are the RF 14-35 F/4, 24mm F/1.8, and 400mm F/2.8. I really have come close to getting a 300mm F/2.8L IS II several times this year, but I'd rather get an RF mount option, and I feel like 300mm f/2.8 is too short for my uses, I can easily crop 200mm f/2.8 from the R5 to 300mm and be mostly fine with the results. I think if I get a supertelephoto, it's going to be the RF 400mm f/2.8 at some point, though probably not on release. 

The RF 14-35mm F/4 sounds like a perfect replacement for my 16-35mm F/4L IS, but I'll just be hoping it takes 82mm filters so I can use it on my Lee filter system still, we'll see what happens in the lead-up to more specs being announced, I've already come close to getting the RF 15-35 F/2.8L IS a few times.

And then finally the RF 24mm F/1.8 STM sounds like an instant pre-order. That would be the perfect wide lens to throw in my belt-kit, and would make the perfect partner to the RF 28-70 F/2 to ensure I always still have the 24mm option if I need it.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 9, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I’ll do you guys a favor.
> 
> I’ll go ahead and drop $3000 on a 100-500L and the 1.4X.
> 
> ...



Unlikely if it's "L". 200-400 with 1.4x is 11,000.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 9, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> I find it puzzling at times to see that for a new range of mirrorless cameras that are inherently lighter and in many cases smaller than their DSLR equivalents, the first lenses put on the market are the biggest, heaviest (and most expensive) for a particular focal length or zoom range. A high-quality relatively compact RF 135mm f:2.5 IS Macro under $1,000 would sell like hot cakes. Affordable good quality glass would help cushion the initial investment in new camera bodies.


"biggest, heaviest (and most expensive) for a particular focal length or zoom range." 
The RF28-70/2 is bigger/heavier than the 24-70/2.8 but that is too be expected. The RF70-200/2.8 is shorter and lighter (plastic v metal) than the EF version.
Expensive I will grant you but Canon engineering (bar the RF24-105mm/4) is bleeding edge at the moment providing significant advantages over their EF counterparts. Whether significantly better IS stabilisation, focus speed, weight, bokeh, size, focal length etc or a combination. The 50mm/80mm/1.2 primes are definitely bigger. Remember to consider the size/weight of the R mount adapter as well for EF lenses.
One of the advantages of the R mount is moving lens elements closer to the sensor which helps balance on a smaller body.
Lastly, the RF100-500mm is a 5x zoom that is sharp and small and light!


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 9, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I’ll do you guys a favor.
> 
> I’ll go ahead and drop $3000 on a 100-500L and the 1.4X.
> 
> ...


Not sure that you would be disappointed with the size/weight/sharpness of the RF100-500mm though. Higher ISO seems to be the only downsize.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 9, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Im still not happy about the telephoto selection. We ether have cheap and slow like the 100-400 7.1 or expensive like the 100-500. Or super expensive like the 400+ primes.
> Still not affordable quality lens to go above 600mm. Not counting the super slow DO primes.


Not sure I follow you. 
You want affordable 600+mm lenses but don't like the current small/light/affordable/sharpish RF600/800mm primes.
Assuming that the RF100-400 will not be a "L" lens then it will be cheap and cheerful
The price for the RF100-500mm will drop. I got mine on a 15% off sale. Still expensive but getting closer to a current EF100-400Lii + 1.4 TC + R mount adapter. It is amazing for a 5x zoom.
It seems that you want cheap, fast, long focal length and I can't see that happening anytime soon. Don't forget that you can adapt all the EF lenses from Canon, Sigma and Tamron etc.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 9, 2020)

The 2 lenses that I think are missing or should be there are a RF300/2.8 and an astro lens. 
The EF400/600mm were updated leaving the EF300/500m without an update. RF500mm gets love but not the 300mm 
An astro lens would be a niche area but Samyang (14mm/2.8, 14mm/2.4) and Sigma 14mm/1.8 have had the space for some time now. 
Canon's EF14mm is still selling (not many!) at the same price as the RF50/1.2 and not great for astro.


----------



## Bert63 (Nov 9, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> Unlikely if it's "L". 200-400 with 1.4x is 11,000.



I know man. It was a joke. I was kidding around.


----------



## LeBlobe (Nov 9, 2020)

How much would a 400mm/4L without DO be ? or would a 500mm/5.6 L be around nikons price?

the price jump for upgrading my 300mm/4 is alot without losing much speed . I could live without IS too.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 9, 2020)

I wonder if the RF 135 f1.4L will have a DO front lens? You'd think that they'd put DO in the title if so, but many have said that they're not going to mention it. If it has a DO lens with L build then it'd be light enough to interest me. Otherwise it's probably too big & heavy for me to get.


----------



## noms78 (Nov 9, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> Still holding out hope for a 24-70F4 L IS!
> -Brian


Likewise. I am looking at the F/4 trinity: 14-35mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200.
Not interested in the 24-105mm. Don't want the extra distortion at the wide end or the extra weight. A 24-70 would balance nicely on the R5.
If more people like these posts maybe Canon will notice


----------



## Bdbtoys (Nov 10, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Every time Craig posts this thread, I come in, I drool on the 35/1.2L, and I leave.



lol... me too.


----------



## fred (Nov 10, 2020)

Maybe RF14-35 F4L IS is the answer to Nikon’s Z14-30 F4S. As usual, it will probably be better though and with IS. And that’s coming from a Nikon user.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Nov 10, 2020)

Apart from the superteles and 14-35 f/4L IS and 100 f/2.8 macro, disappointing lineup, especially yet another slow telephoto zoom. No doubt the 100-400 won't even accept TC's or will be another farce like the 100-500.


----------



## max (Nov 10, 2020)

If the 135f/1.4 is like the size of the EF 200mm f/2... I have been waiting for nothing.
Give me a new RF135 f/2.... with IBIS it is all I need.


----------



## navastronia (Nov 10, 2020)

. . . No one is saying this, but I would gladly take a 14-28/2.8, too. I would just so much like to have a good wide-angle zoom that starts around 10-14 and goes all the way to 28 --- without hitting 35.


----------



## danfaz (Nov 10, 2020)

Daner said:


> My feeling is that the 24-105 f/4L IS is sharp enough that the minor reduction in volume and weight along with the need for a lower price point would not make sales volumes and profit margins high enough to make it a priority. The other lenses on this list fill gaps. A 24-70 f/4L IS would not.


Agreed, there is really no need for an f/4 24-70 now. The EF version was a bit sharper than the 105, and had the pseudo-macro feature, but doubt they'd do that for RF.


----------



## danfaz (Nov 10, 2020)

noms78 said:


> Not interested in the 24-105mm. Don't want the extra distortion at the wide end or the extra weight.


The RF 24-105's distortion is not like the EF's, and it's smaller and lighter (actually only 100g heavier than the EF 24-70).
Doubtful a 24-70 would be *significantly* better in either category.


----------



## danfaz (Nov 10, 2020)

Fran Decatta said:


> Bets for that 135 1.4.... I bet for 3500$, and would be amazing (and cheap in some sense, with a 1,4x would be almost a 189mm f2)


That's pretty steep, a $2500 jump from the EF version?


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 10, 2020)

noms78 said:


> Likewise. I am looking at the F/4 trinity: 14-35mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200.
> Not interested in the 24-105mm. Don't want the extra distortion at the wide end or the extra weight. A 24-70 would balance nicely on the R5.
> If more people like these posts maybe Canon will notice



The 14-35mm f/4 L is the most interesting of yet-to-be-announced-and-released lenses from this roadmap for me.
I love UWA for landscape mainly, and so prefer each mm of (ultra) wide angle goodness over an extra stop of speed. 95% of the time at ~14mm/15mm I'm at f/8 - f/16 anyway. I also use UWA for some architecture, and occasionally creative photography (e.g. artistic subjects appearing disproportionately large in the foreground).

I understand that some people prefer the slightly smaller and lighter weight of a 24-70mm f/4 over a 24-105mm f/4, however there's not much in it, and the reviews of the RF 24-105mm f/4 are very positive.
(The 24-70 f/4 are around 600g on average, with the 24-105 f/4 @ ~700g).
Distortion is not that much different (2.4% vs 3.3% on average) - which can be (batch-auto)corrected in post.
The f/2.8 24-70mm lenses often have around 3% distortion anyway.

Each person's style of, and needs within photography is unique. I really miss the 71mm-105mm range when limited to a 70mm for a walk around.

My plan is have the 14-35mm f/4 L, 24-105mm f/4 L, and 100-500m f/4.5-7.1 as my 'trinity'.
I have a bunch of EF (and even some EF-S) glass that also goes well on the R5, e.g. 100mm f/2.8 macro L, EF 50mm, etc.

It's a great time to be a photographer, we have so much choice (just maybe not so much in our bank account to be everything straight away!)  

Regards

PJ


----------



## SnowMiku (Nov 10, 2020)

VICYASA said:


> Can someone explain to the
> 
> Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
> What would this lens be best used for and what types of shot will this lens be effective for? Portraits up close? Landscape? Macro of flowers and bugs? Please help. want to learn about lenses and uses and how this in future could be paired with r5 camera.Thanks



It would be good for astro and night photography because of f/1.8. The Macro can be used for 1:1 of your subject like a flower or bug with a wide field of view and deep depth of field but I'm thinking you would get distortion with 1:1 at 24mm but I could be wrong.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 10, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Apart from the superteles and 14-35 f/4L IS and 100 f/2.8 macro, disappointing lineup, especially yet another slow telephoto zoom. No doubt the 100-400 won't even accept TC's or will be another farce like the 100-500.


Farce? 
Wider focal range, similar aperture to EF100-400 + 1.4TC, same length (with R adapter) and lighter? I agree that people would like the full 5x range with the TC but 300-500mm (420-700mm or 600-1000mm) is still not insubstantial. With R bodies able to focus at narrow apertures and great ISO performance with R5/6..... where is the farce?

The other option is to buy the EF100-400mm and EF TCs if it meets all your needs. Great to have multiple options!


----------



## bitcars (Nov 10, 2020)

1993 : Canon EF 1200mm *f/5.6L* USM 
2021 : Canon RF 1200mm *f/8L* IS USM

Maybe loosing 1-stop aperture also means less digits in price.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 10, 2020)

bitcars said:


> 1993 : Canon EF 1200mm *f/5.6L* USM
> 2021 : Canon RF 1200mm *f/8L* IS USM
> 
> Maybe loosing 1-stop aperture also means less digits in price.


Yes, indeed it will $10,000's less...


----------



## Pixel (Nov 10, 2020)

I don't understand why the 300 f2.8L is being ignored? The current EF300 f2.8L IS II will be ten years old next year!


----------



## hobbodanno (Nov 10, 2020)

That 14-35 f4 will be my next lens. I'm excited for that! That, and a fast, wide prime will be all I need.


----------



## MartinVLC (Nov 10, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> The 2 lenses that I think are missing or should be there are a RF300/2.8 and an astro lens.
> The EF400/600mm were updated leaving the EF300/500m without an update. RF500mm gets love but not the 300mm
> An astro lens would be a niche area but Samyang (14mm/2.8, 14mm/2.4) and Sigma 14mm/1.8 have had the space for some time now.
> Canon's EF14mm is still selling (not many!) at the same price as the RF50/1.2 and not great for astro.



I´m missing an affordable wide lens for the RF mount for astro and architecture. Seems like there is only the Samyang so far and all wide options from canon seem to be way to expensive or starting at f/4. Are you happy with your Samyang 14mm 2.8? I heard that it´s not the sharpest, that´s why I´m not sure if it´s the right choice for me. I´m even thinking about getting the Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4.0 instead and use it with the RF-EF adapter.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 10, 2020)

MartinVLC said:


> I´m missing an affordable wide lens for the RF mount for astro and architecture. Seems like there is only the Samyang so far and all wide options from canon seem to be way to expensive or starting at f/4. Are you happy with your Samyang 14mm 2.8? I heard that it´s not the sharpest, that´s why I´m not sure if it´s the right choice for me. I´m even thinking about getting the Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4.0 instead and use it with the RF-EF adapter.


I believe that the 14/2.4 is better than the 14/2.8 but at double the price. I am content with the images from my f2.8. You can see images using it on my Flickr stream. I'm not sure that I would pay a lot of money for f2.4 vs 2.8 though.
There were early stories about copy consistency but check online if there are recent concerns.


----------



## Franklyok (Nov 10, 2020)

max said:


> If the 135f/1.4 is like the size of the EF 200mm f/2... I have been waiting for nothing.
> Give me a new RF135 f/2.... with IBIS it is all I need.



135/f2 is allready available ... RF 85 / f1.2 ( with DS ? ) + 1.4 extender gets you close to 120 mm with F1.8. 

R5 or R6 with IBIS and there you go. 

I think, It's going to be 2022+ smthing when 135 is released. By then we will have R1 available allready.


----------



## benpisati (Nov 10, 2020)

Do we realize that the last 20mm canon did it 30 years ago? A 50 1.4 maybe weather sealed is really hard to think? Innstead we will find ourselves with three wide-angle zooms. Great.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 10, 2020)

Franklyok said:


> 135/f2 is allready available ... RF 85 / f1.2 ( with DS ? ) + 1.4 extender gets you close to 120 mm with F1.8[..]



Do the extenders fit into the 85mm? ISTR the rearmost element is quite close to the sensor.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 10, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Not sure I follow you.
> You want affordable 600+mm lenses but don't like the current small/light/affordable/sharpish RF600/800mm primes.
> Assuming that the RF100-400 will not be a "L" lens then it will be cheap and cheerful
> The price for the RF100-500mm will drop. I got mine on a 15% off sale. Still expensive but getting closer to a current EF100-400Lii + 1.4 TC + R mount adapter. It is amazing for a 5x zoom.
> It seems that you want cheap, fast, long focal length and I can't see that happening anytime soon. Don't forget that you can adapt all the EF lenses from Canon, Sigma and Tamron etc.



What i want is something middle range. Like Sony or Nikons upcoming 200-600. High quality, weather sealed lenses but still on the affordable side and not super dark like the Canon cheap primes.


----------



## Khatgs (Nov 10, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> What i want is something middle range. Like Sony or Nikons upcoming 200-600. High quality, weather sealed lenses but still on the affordable side and not super dark like the Canon cheap primes.


Same here..

how can you be satisfied with an aperture of 7.1 for the 100-500..


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Nov 10, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> Biggest question in my mind is price and color of the 100-400 with the 7.1 at the long end, I think it's reasonable to debate whether or not that'll be a "L" lens. Either way though I'd hope to see a modest price tag.



Agrees, that one is a "mystery". There's a patent for that specs looking like an APS-C lens. However APS-C camera rumor says there wont be any APS-C lenses. Rumor says there will be some fullframe lenses also targeting APS-C use. And that frightends me a bit. I hope it *wont *be a fullframe lens with optical sacrifices like the cheap/light 24-105, to make it compact like it was an APS-C lens.

I would love to see it as a true APS-C lens, but most importantly enthusiast optical quality. Rather a "real" fullframe than a "tweaked for fullframe use too" lens with optical compromises that needs to be corrected in post.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 10, 2020)

Khatgs said:


> Same here..
> 
> how can you be satisfied with an aperture of 7.1 for the 100-500..



The 100-500 is fine with that aperture because of the size, its a small lens. But very expensive, basically another £1000 over the EF 100-400.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 10, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Agrees, that one is a "mystery". There's a patent for that specs looking like an APS-C lens. However APS-C camera rumor says there wont be any APS-C lenses. Rumor says there will be some fullframe lenses also targeting APS-C use. And that frightends me a bit. I hope it *wont *be a fullframe lens with optical sacrifices like the cheap/light 24-105, to make it compact like it was an APS-C lens.
> 
> I would love to see it as a true APS-C lens, but most importantly enthusiast optical quality. Rather a "real" fullframe than a "tweaked for fullframe use too" lens with optical compromises that needs to be corrected in post.




I think the 100-400 in the roadmap will be a cheap lens without weather sealing and focused on small size. Should be much smaller than the 100-500.


----------



## Khatgs (Nov 10, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The 100-500 is fine with that aperture because of the size, its a small lens. But very expensive, basically another £1000 over the EF 100-400.



Yes it is so expensive.

compared to the 100-400 ii, 100mm more but increased to 7.1 instead of 5.6 for a much higher price .. i don't understand... that’s bad for use at dawn and dusk.


----------



## gzroxas (Nov 10, 2020)

Really interested in the 14-35! I love wide angles but I believe they need to be a little flexible sometimes, so a zoom lens is best.
Of course, if money wasn’t a problem, the 2.8 would be amazing (low light shooting and such), but I guess it’s going to be at least 1000-1200$ more expensive than the f4, and since it’s a landscape lens I usually use it above 5.6 anyway 

A Great lens selection is coming!


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 10, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Do the extenders fit into the 85mm? ISTR the rearmost element is quite close to the sensor.


No, they don't fit. He knows not of what he speaks. At the moment the extenders work on the RF 600, RF 800, and RF 100-500 natively.


----------



## tmac25 (Nov 10, 2020)

I just want to be able to buy the mirrorless gear that they’ve already “released” tbh


----------



## dilbert (Nov 10, 2020)

Missing 70-300 zoom.


----------



## Franklyok (Nov 10, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Do the extenders fit into the 85mm? ISTR the rearmost element is quite close to the sensor.


Sorry I googled, and it is dissaponting to say about the new rf extenders compatiblity. Not compatible. Canon really skillfully chases profit. Lets wait a few years. 

At the same time I'd say to crop 135 mm image out of 85 mm from R5 45 mpx, ibis sensor would be good enough for me. Sharpness is still there, and really good for small prints / web usage.


----------



## ozturert (Nov 10, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> What i want is something middle range. Like Sony or Nikons upcoming 200-600. High quality, weather sealed lenses but still on the affordable side and not super dark like the Canon cheap primes.





Khatgs said:


> Same here..
> 
> how can you be satisfied with an aperture of 7.1 for the 100-500..



Sony is f6.3 at 600mm. Canon 600mm f11 is 1.7 stops darker but it is much smaller, much lighter, much less expensive.
Canon 100-500mm is about 700 USD more than Sony but it can be found cheaper if you hunt for it (10-15%). It is 10cm (!!!!!) shorter and 800 grams lighter.
Looking at above data, I think Canon 100-500mm is a huge value compared to that Sony lens. It is a real L lens. If Canon can come up with a cheaper 100-500mm lens for less than 1400 USD, than that will be better of course but Sony 200-600mm isn't better today.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Nov 10, 2020)

Would definitely have preferred a RF 135mm f/1.8 L *IS* rather than f/1.4 to add yet some extra stabilisation to the system. More useful than half a stop extra that can easily be compensated with ISO or a slightly longer exposure if subject is static. As for bokeh, the EF version at f/2.0 is already as creamy as it gets. No need for f/1.4 of f/1.8 for that.


----------



## Khatgs (Nov 10, 2020)

ozturert said:


> Sony is f6.3 at 600mm. Canon 600mm f11 is 1.7 stops darker but it is much smaller, much lighter, much less expensive.
> Canon 100-500mm is about 700 USD more than Sony but it can be found cheaper if you hunt for it (10-15%). It is 10cm (!!!!!) shorter and 800 grams lighter.
> Looking at above data, I think Canon 100-500mm is a huge value compared to that Sony lens. It is a real L lens. If Canon can come up with a cheaper 100-500mm lens for less than 1400 USD, than that will be better of course but Sony 200-600mm isn't better today.



200-500 F5.6 will be much better for me! F11 and f7.1 is only good during the day or in countries with an appropriate climate


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 10, 2020)

Franklyok said:


> Sorry I googled, and it is dissaponting to say about the new rf extenders compatiblity. Not compatible. Canon really skillfully chases profit. Lets wait a few years.
> 
> At the same time I'd say to crop 135 mm image out of 85 mm from R5 45 mpx, ibis sensor would be good enough for me. Sharpness is still there, and really good for small prints / web usage.


The extenders didn't fit the EF 85mm or EF 50mm lenses either. That design has nothing to do with wanting to force you to buy other lenses, it has to do with what is and is not possible under the design parameters.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Nov 10, 2020)

danfaz said:


> That's pretty steep, a $2500 jump from the EF version?



Of course, the 135 f2 was launched in 1996, there 1000$ was probably really expensive. Now, with better IQ + one stop more and, again, making an unique lens, I dont doubt that will cost +3000$. 200mm f2 costs arround 5k-6k$. This lens with teleconverter have almost the same properties. Then, 3500$ would be even "cheap" as a lens itself. Unless it dont let you use the teleconverter to protect this 200mm f2....


----------



## Alam (Nov 10, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> Most anticipated of this list for me would be the 14-35 f4 IS.
> 
> Biggest question in my mind is price and color of the 100-400 with the 7.1 at the long end, I think it's reasonable to debate whether or not that'll be a "L" lens. Either way though I'd hope to see a modest price tag.



As far as i remember there's no L letter included on the name so most probably it is have modest price, my buying list along with apsc rf body


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 10, 2020)

Alam said:


> As far as i remember there's no L letter included on the name so most probably it is have modest price, my buying list along with apsc rf body



Where 'modest' is 'RF modest', not 'EF modest'


----------



## fox40phil (Nov 10, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Im still not happy about the telephoto selection. We ether have cheap and slow like the 100-400 7.1 or expensive like the 100-500. Or super expensive like the 400+ primes.
> Still not affordable quality lens to go above 600mm. Not counting the super slow DO primes.


This!
What I m always saying...
Nothing like the ~1300€ Nikon 200-500 or ~1750€ Sony 200-600...

everything in this area is more expensive in Canon RF, less „mm“ and more darker...


----------



## amorse (Nov 10, 2020)

Khatgs said:


> 200-500 F5.6 will be much better for me! F11 and f7.1 is only good during the day or in countries with an appropriate climate


I think it really depends on what you're shooting with it. I am really excited about the 100-500, but I plan on using it for landscapes so the 7.1 aperture is a non-issue for me. The 100-500 is a lot more attractive to me than the other options because with it I can make a 3-lens kit that goes from 15mm to 500mm with no gaps and still fits comfortably in a regular sized backpack, and without compromising image quality. 

For my use case, the size and weight savings are much more important than having a faster aperture, but obviously your milage may vary depending on what you're shooting.


----------



## Daner (Nov 10, 2020)

pj1974 said:


> The 14-35mm f/4 L is the most interesting of yet-to-be-announced-and-released lenses from this roadmap for me.
> I love UWA for landscape mainly, and so prefer each mm of (ultra) wide angle goodness over an extra stop of speed. 95% of the time at ~14mm/15mm I'm at f/8 - f/16 anyway. I also use UWA for some architecture, and occasionally creative photography (e.g. artistic subjects appearing disproportionately large in the foreground).
> 
> I understand that some people prefer the slightly smaller and lighter weight of a 24-70mm f/4 over a 24-105mm f/4, however there's not much in it, and the reviews of the RF 24-105mm f/4 are very positive.
> ...



Yes to all of this!

The RF 24-105 is much better than either of the EF versions. So much so that after a summer of schlepping my 5D4 + EF 24-70 f/2.8 around taking primarily landscape shots in France and California I was happy to switch to an EOS R + RF 24-105 f/4. Less weight for one-bag carry-on travel (not that I am doing much of that lately), and much better face and eye tracking for shooting people. For me the 70-105mm range is much more frequently useful than the additional aperture. If I need more light and/or less depth of field I have primes, and now with the RF 85mm f/2 IS half-macro I don't have to hit up my brother-in-law to borrow my old EF 100mm macro quite as often.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 10, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I can't imagine that a zoom going to 14mm will only have a 77mm filter thread.... Maybe 82mm but more likely greater. Even with a filter thread this big, you will need 150mm filters to avoid significant vignetting. Those are expensive setups :-(



82mm would be ok as well although I'd prefer 77mm because I do still have a few screw-on filters with the 77mm size. Filters are never cheap, but I figured once I have the UWA lense I want, I´ll get a few select 150mm filters.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Nov 10, 2020)

You don't have a reliable light-meter using the TS-E lenses (i use the 17) when shifted using the mirror/prisma path. The light must be very wrong to make huge errors of 2 or 3 stops. So it wasn't possible to use a autofocus with this light.
Now we are using the "liveview" way with contrast focus of the sensor which will have no problems at all even shifted. So it is a small step to add a little STM or whatever drive.
On wide angle this isn't needed very much of course, but it is a start. And I think they will add the other (like TS-E 135) later, which might be very easy to handle then....
But I am not very convinced about 14mm instead of 17mm. The 17mm is already wide, and because you can shift it reaches quite high even if you stand in front of a high church (or whatever), you got it. I think the image circle is about 12mm equivalent, or maybe even the same like the EF 11-24, but you can select the part you want.
Now with 14mm it is much more (maybe 8 equivalent) and it will be hard to master... If you shift too much (horizon on 1/10) it looks awful if it is correctly shifted, because the upper parts appear much to expanded...


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 10, 2020)

davidcl0nel said:


> You don't have a reliable light-meter using the TS-E lenses (i use the 17) when shifted using the mirror/prisma path.


I set my exposure via the histogram before movements and it is always fine. But I understand your point, now with metering off the actual sensor the impacts of tilt and more importantly shift are accounted for in the auto modes.


----------



## Ryan2020 (Nov 10, 2020)

What a fantastic and exciting lineup. Love the 100 macro, the f4s, and the 1200 f8. Brilliant stuff.


----------



## noms78 (Nov 10, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I'm still holding out for a 14-28/2, though!



I think that lens would be even bigger, heavier and more expensive than the 28-70 f/2


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 10, 2020)

Khatgs said:


> Same here..
> how can you be satisfied with an aperture of 7.1 for the 100-500..


It seems that many people were quite happy with the EF100-400mm + 1.4TC which is approximately the same aperture and sharper and faster focusing @ 500mm. Where is your dissatisfaction coming from?


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 10, 2020)

Khatgs said:


> Yes it is so expensive.
> compared to the 100-400 ii, 100mm more but increased to 7.1 instead of 5.6 for a much higher price .. i don't understand... that’s bad for use at dawn and dusk.


I'm trying to understand where the disconnect is coming from....

The EF100-400mm is f5.6 @ 400mm. If you add the 1.4TC it becomes 560mm @ f7.1. Reports have the RF100-500mm at f5.6 @400mm (depends if 1/3 stop or 1/2 stops are setup in camera) and 500mm @ f7.1 - so 60mm focal length different @ f7.1

"Bad' is basically a choice of ISO assuming constant shutter speed. Less light = higher ISO needed. R5/R6 have great high ISO performance so this is less of a concern. You could also say that the 500/4 is the only solution for your problem (EF400mm/2.8 + 1.4x TC) but that is at a big price differential again

From a price perspective, the EF100-400mm version 1 was USD1699 at release in 1994 and EF100-400mm ii @ USD2199 in 2014. The RF 100-500mm @ USD2699 so USD500 more after 6 years inflation and basically including a 1.4x TC (valued at USD500) in a package giving a 5x zoom. The EF100-400ii and EF1.4x TC are now cheaper than release price so the pricing seems to be more expensive but you would need to include the R mount adapter as well. 

Digidirect in Australia have again got a 15% off sale including the RF100-500mm so equivalent to USD2294 to USD100 difference for a package lighter, smaller (with adapter), 5x zoom, sharper and faster to focus @ 500mm.

People seem to want a 200-600mm/5.6 but the Sony is f6.3 @ 600mm. The Nikon is maybe on their roadmap for next year but the aperture isn't known.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 10, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> What i want is something middle range. Like Sony or Nikons upcoming 200-600. High quality, weather sealed lenses but still on the affordable side and not super dark like the Canon cheap primes.


Sony is the only 200-600mm that has been released and is f5.3 @200mm - f6.3 @600mm. We don't know what aperture Nikon's version will be, if the rumoured roadmap is to be believed and the price or quality.
Canon's 600/800mm primes are unique in size/weight/price. The only difference is ISO at constant shutter speed. I don't have them but have you tried them? Rent one and see what is possible. You may be surprised as others have been.


----------



## 6degrees (Nov 10, 2020)

RF 35mm f/1.2L USM


----------



## VivaLasVegas (Nov 10, 2020)

I have a feeling Canon skipped the RF 300 f2.8 because they’re working on an “attention grabber” lens in RF 120-300 f2.8 with a built-in 1.4x TC. Sigma made it years ago(120-300 f2.8), Nikon did it last year for the f mount. If I remember correctly, Nikon came out with the 200-400 f4 first, then Canon drop the same lens with a built-in 1.4X TC, which made some Nikon shooters jump ship. As a result, Nikon was forced to release an updated 180-200 f4 w/h a built-in 1.4X TC. The RF 120-300 f2.8 w/h a built-in 1.4X TC will be a game changer for Canon, just like what they did to the EF 200-400 f4.


----------



## Canfan (Nov 11, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I actually liked the way handled the situation. 100-500mm is a loooot more versatile and more useable in so many situations. It also is lighter and shorter. The 200-600mm is quite long...
> Since there are several telephotos and Converters available I'm quite sure Canon sees the need for another zoom lense. If they do, I'd actually hope the go for a "real telezoom wildlife lense". I think on canon news there once was a patent for like 250-700mm or even 800mm. That'd fit quite nice in the portfolio.



Agree these are really nice focal lengths to have, especially the 250-700mm or even the 800mm. All the lens on the list are fantastic additions to the RF line up.
My concern is that most of the lens that come out have variable aperture to save on weight, like the 800 f11, really light lens.
However when you do any sort of forest photography or in low light situations, despite the improved ISO capability of the R5, sometimes it just isn't enough, particularly if you end up cropping that image. My little M6MKII shines with the 100-400mm MKII with it 32MP sensor for abit extra reach, which leaves me wanting a bit more when I put on the R5 which should give cleaner images.


----------



## Canfan (Nov 11, 2020)

SteveC said:


> This is why, if Canon doesn't release a 1-1000mm f/1.0 (that is pocketable), they are *******!


You have a nice kit, my bodies are the R5, M6 MKII-seriously underrated little camera. thought about selling my 100-400mm MKII and getting the 100-500mm for the extra reach , lighter and fast autofocus. Then I realized I won't be able to adapt the 100-400 on my M6 ii (640mm @32MP comes in handy especially for small birds)


----------



## Canfan (Nov 11, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Im still not happy about the telephoto selection. We ether have cheap and slow like the 100-400 7.1 or expensive like the 100-500. Or super expensive like the 400+ primes.
> Still not affordable quality lens to go above 600mm. Not counting the super slow DO primes.



A lot of pros started off on lenses like these before they move on to BIG F4 primes. There is a learning curves to these. A nice 5.6 would be a nice middle ground.
If we took a poll in this forum, I sure one the the more popular telephoto lens would be 100-400mm or similar.


----------



## Dantana (Nov 11, 2020)

Khatgs said:


> 200-500 F5.6 will be much better for me! F11 and f7.1 is only good during the day or in countries with an appropriate climate


So, you want it to be a lot bigger and heavier then? And more expensive?


----------



## Dantana (Nov 11, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Im still not happy about the telephoto selection. We ether have cheap and slow like the 100-400 7.1 or expensive like the 100-500. Or super expensive like the 400+ primes.
> Still not affordable quality lens to go above 600mm. Not counting the super slow DO primes.


But Canon has never made affordable, fast, super-telephoto lenses. Why would you expect that now?


----------



## Canfan (Nov 11, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> But as has been explained many times in the past, losing a mirror and pentaprism does’t make the lenses optical formulae different, and the ever increasing demand for lenses to have “higher IQ” (resolution and across the frame sharpness) means those optical formulae are not going to get smalleR but larger.


These will come. Canon was making a statement with their big primes, that we are some of the best at make glass. the 50mm 1.2, the 85mm 1.2 and 28-70mm f2 were bold statements that had many guys who sold their canon gear and jump ship to really question that decision. Remember as well that competition is quite stiff now, not just with other camera manufacturers but smartphones. 
I have a friend who wouldn't hesitate to do an impromptu portraits/passport pics with his iPhone if he left his camera at home at the time.
I believe they have an Ace up thier sleeve and will release smaller and more affordable lens in the future so stay tuned.


----------



## Canfan (Nov 11, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Agrees, that one is a "mystery". There's a patent for that specs looking like an APS-C lens. However APS-C camera rumor says there wont be any APS-C lenses. Rumor says there will be some fullframe lenses also targeting APS-C use. And that frightends me a bit. I hope it *wont *be a fullframe lens with optical sacrifices like the cheap/light 24-105, to make it compact like it was an APS-C lens.
> 
> I would love to see it as a true APS-C lens, but most importantly enthusiast optical quality. Rather a "real" fullframe than a "tweaked for fullframe use too" lens with optical compromises that needs to be corrected in post.


The R5 has a 1.6x crop mode, but that takes you from 45MP to 17MP


----------



## Skux (Nov 11, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Im still not happy about the telephoto selection. We ether have cheap and slow like the 100-400 7.1 or expensive like the 100-500. Or super expensive like the 400+ primes.
> Still not affordable quality lens to go above 600mm. Not counting the super slow DO primes.



More like "cheap and slow" or "expensive and slow".


----------



## ozturert (Nov 11, 2020)

Khatgs said:


> 200-500 F5.6 will be much better for me! F11 and f7.1 is only good during the day or in countries with an appropriate climate


Sure, I want as big aperture as they can give me but it'll be as big as and heavier than Sony version. Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 is heavier than even Sony. I'd take 5-6.3 to shave 300-500 grams and maybe some length as well.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 11, 2020)

Canfan said:


> You have a nice kit, my bodies are the R5, M6 MKII-seriously underrated little camera. thought about selling my 100-400mm MKII and getting the 100-500mm for the extra reach , lighter and fast autofocus. Then I realized I won't be able to adapt the 100-400 on my M6 ii (640mm @32MP comes in handy especially for small birds)



This is precisely why I wouldn't *trade* my 100-400 for the RF 100-500 (except that I could flip the 100-500, pocket the difference, and buy another 100-400. The 100-400 works on every Canon camera I own. And I have both of the teleconverters.


----------



## Khatgs (Nov 11, 2020)

Dantana said:


> So, you want it to be a lot bigger and heavier then? And more expensive?



Yes but not 4kg,
I actually have a 400 DO II and would like something longer but not in terme of size 

A 500 5.6 like Nikon or a 200-500/600 5.6 for versatility would be great..


----------



## Canfan (Nov 11, 2020)

Khatgs said:


> Yes but not 4kg,
> I actually have a 400 DO II and would like something longer but not in terme of size
> 
> A 500 5.6 like Nikon or a 200-500/600 5.6 for versatility would be great..


A bunch of 5.6 primes like 500 5.6 and 600 5.6 would be nice on the RF system and would make a lot of the wildlife and enthusiast sports guys happy.
The EF 500 f4 and 600 f4 are excellent and they're guys still trying to get they hands on the Mark I versions of these lens because of the price at which they are going used right now. Its hard even for a pro to upgrade to the every new version at 10, 000+ dollars. They are happy to use the adaptor for now as it works great. Later on they can do some RF f4 to satisfy them.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 11, 2020)

Probably a very good telephoto options for the RF are the older big whites, like the 500 F4 IS or version II. The 500 IS first version is under $3000 used and in good condition. Has anyone tried them on the R5 or R6?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 11, 2020)

Canfan said:


> A lot of pros started off on lenses like these before they move on to BIG F4 primes. There is a learning curves to these. A nice 5.6 would be a nice middle ground.
> If we took a poll in this forum, I sure one the the more popular telephoto lens would be 100-400mm or similar.



I like the 100-500 but not the price. Something around $2000 would have been much nicer.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 11, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I like the 100-500 but not the price. Something around $2000 would have been much nicer.




Well, the EF 100-400mm from November* 2014* sells for 2.399 $ at Adorama at the moment. And you'd like Canon to price a newly developed, 5x times zoom (instead of 4-times) faster focussing, better minimum focus distance lense to sell for less? 
I have a hard time accepting a 33% mark-up (in Germany) in comparison of these two lenses, but actually wanting them to price it cheaper than a six year old lense is just absolutely unrealistic and child-like wishing/ thinking. I can't even take this complaint seriously to be honest, and I'm saying that as a consumer who views RF pricing very critically.


----------



## goldenhusky (Nov 11, 2020)

200-600 is not even in the road map  Hope Canon makes one in the near future (by 2023 at least)


----------



## Methodical (Nov 11, 2020)

Can anyone predict the estimated price for the 135 f1.4 lens?


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 11, 2020)

Methodical said:


> Can anyone predict the estimated price for the 135 f1.4 lens?



My guess: $200 more than the RF85 f/1.2


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 11, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Well, the EF 100-400mm from November* 2014* sells for 2.399 $ at Adorama at the moment. And you'd like Canon to price a newly developed, 5x times zoom (instead of 4-times) faster focussing, better minimum focus distance lense to sell for less?
> I have a hard time accepting a 33% mark-up (in Germany) in comparison of these two lenses, but actually wanting them to price it cheaper than a six year old lense is just absolutely unrealistic and child-like wishing/ thinking. I can't even take this complaint seriously to be honest, and I'm saying that as a consumer who views RF pricing very critically.



From authorized resellers here in UK the 100-400 is £2200 vs £2800 for the 100-500. But when i got mine in 2016 it was below £2000. Don't remember, maybe it was promotion. But checking grey market prices, the 100-400 can be had for £1500 vs £2500 for the 100-500. 
I understand it's a new lens but i doubt it's any better than the 100-400, except for the extra 100mm and native RF mount.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 11, 2020)

FWIW, the 100-500mm is $100 off at B&H. I think PHOTOCON works as the discount code, but it definitely works if linked from an ad showing the discount.


----------



## Dantana (Nov 11, 2020)

Khatgs said:


> Yes but not 4kg,
> I actually have a 400 DO II and would like something longer but not in terme of size
> 
> A 500 5.6 like Nikon or a 200-500/600 5.6 for versatility would be great..


So, I understand the 500 5.6 because it's kind of like putting a 1.4 on the 400 DO, but a 600 5.6 would have to be bigger, with a bigger more expensive front element. a 200-500 5.6 would be much larger than the 100-500 that exists now, and a 200-600 would be even bigger. At 5.6, those lenses are more akin to the EF 200-400 f4. They would be way more expensive than the 100-500 and much larger.

But yes, I would love a 500 5.6 DO.


----------



## Methodical (Nov 11, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> My guess: $200 more than the RF85 f/1.2



Thanks


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 11, 2020)

A reminder of what the Mitakon 135mm F/1.4 looked like.  $3,000, I'm sure Canon would have its eye on a similar cost.

I'd be interested to know if the Canon RF 135mm F/1.4 would accept extenders. 189mm f/2 and 270mm f/2.8 would almost allow the lens to serve double duty as a 200mm F/2 and 300mm f/2.8, which would make a high pricetag a little easier to swallow.


----------



## fentiger (Nov 11, 2020)

Methodical said:


> Can anyone predict the estimated price for the 135 f1.4 lens?


about the same price as 200 f2


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 11, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> From authorized resellers here in UK the 100-400 is £2200 vs £2800 for the 100-500. But when i got mine in 2016 it was below £2000. Don't remember, maybe it was promotion. But checking grey market prices, the 100-400 can be had for £1500 vs £2500 for the 100-500.
> I understand it's a new lens but i doubt it's any better than the 100-400, except for the extra 100mm and native RF mount.


The RF communication protocols should be faster focus speed especially @ 500mm on RF100-500mm compared to EF100-400mm + 1.4x TC. It is also lighter and shorter (including the adapter) ie better all round.
There is nothing wrong with the EF100-400mm and that is reflected in the second hand market where few are available and still keeping their price. Good to have choices!


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 11, 2020)

An impressive list of lens. An autofocus tilt shift would be interesting.
I'm sure if you are new to Canon all these RF lens must be very tempting.
With a huge EF collection I will be slow to by RF lens when I eventually go mirrorless.
I think I will be keeping my DSLR's for many years to come. They are still excellent cameras and robust and will last for a few years yet.
EF has the advantage of being compatible with EF and R


----------



## max (Nov 12, 2020)

Franklyok said:


> 135/f2 is allready available ... RF 85 / f1.2 ( with DS ? ) + 1.4 extender gets you close to 120 mm with F1.8.
> 
> R5 or R6 with IBIS and there you go.
> 
> I think, It's going to be 2022+ smthing when 135 is released. By then we will have R1 available allready.


Yeah but, I don't really like adapters...


----------



## deleteme (Nov 12, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The biggest issue I have had with extreme telephotos has been atmospheric interference. It isn’t that difficult to get crazy magnification, you can stack EF TC’s if not RF TC’s, but getting clear enough air between you and the subject can be impossibly difficult.


The biggest problem I have with the extreme telephotos is that they interfere with my wallet. Makes it nearly unusable.


----------



## deleteme (Nov 12, 2020)

Gazwas said:


> Updates of the EF 16 and 24 TS-E’s are the most interesting for me but don’t understand the relevance of AF in a tilt and shift lens? Less distortion and sharper edges (in the 16mm) would be very welcome however.


AF in a TS lens is not critical but would be nice as the touch screen focus really helps. I suspect the real reason is to get more hobbyists to write checks.


----------



## danfaz (Nov 12, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> View attachment 193950
> View attachment 193951
> 
> 
> ...


Dang! That's a beast.


----------



## willwest (Nov 12, 2020)

i wonder if the 135L 1.4 will have a lens collar, that thing will be beastly


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 12, 2020)

Normalnorm said:


> AF in a TS lens is not critical but would be nice as the touch screen focus really helps. I suspect the real reason is to get more hobbyists to write checks.



I'd love it if it could work with AF when tilted and shifted, and if zebras would work with it. It'd make it much easier to tilt (and make it easier to do handheld) especially for portraits. Hold down AF with servo on the the critical spot and tilt until the zebras are in front/behind the subject equally.


----------



## RBSfphoto (Nov 12, 2020)

tron said:


> I still wish for a 17-70 rumored a long time ago. If it was a f4L (OK even f/3.5-5.6L) it would be the perfect travel companion to a long tele lens (even better if it would have close up capabilities). Sometimes 24-105 is not wide enough and I do not want to carry RF15-35 2.8 since it is too big. So I revert to my trusty 5DIV with the EF16-35 f/4L IS and get a G7X MkII for the intermediate range...


Why not use the EF lens with a converter? Rather than the old mkIV? My EF lenses work just fine on my R5 and R bodies?


----------



## tron (Nov 12, 2020)

RBSfphoto said:


> Why not use the EF lens with a converter? Rather than the old mkIV? My EF lenses work just fine on my R5 and R bodies?


Since there is no FF EF17-70 lens I assume you are referring to 16-35.
With the adaptor it gets bigger and there is no advantage compared to 5DIV with 16-35, an excelent combo.
And I have 5DIV too!


----------



## tmroper (Nov 12, 2020)

Why no 28mm prime (of any speed)? I find it hard to believe that hardly anyone likes that focal length anymore. But I guess maybe it's too close to what cameras do?


----------



## navastronia (Nov 13, 2020)

tmroper said:


> Why no 28mm prime (of any speed)? I find it hard to believe that hardly anyone likes that focal length anymore. But I guess maybe it's too close to what cameras do?



Pretty sure we have to buy Leicas to get a 28 these days


----------



## leadin2 (Nov 13, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Pretty sure we have to buy Leicas to get a 28 these days


Or the Ricoh GR3, love that camera. That is why I’m not looking for a 28mm for my canon system.


----------



## Marximusprime (Nov 13, 2020)

You could adapt Canon's 28mm 2.8.


----------



## home_slice (Nov 13, 2020)

VICYASA said:


> Can someone explain to the
> 
> Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
> What would this lens be best used for..
> ...


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 13, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> It's a little disappointing to me that they aren't planning on releasing a 24 1.4 any time soon...this would be the perfect lens in RF mount!



RF 24 f/1.2 was rumored quite a while back. As others have said, Canon may just skip the 1.4 line for 1.2.



kaihp said:


> In that long list of Big White's, a 300mm f/2.8 is surprisingly missing. Not that there is any thing wrong with my EF 328 Mk II



Probably will be announced THIS YEAR per earlier rumors. Fingers crossed 



privatebydesign said:


> The 1200mm f8 is interesting, I wonder what, if anything, it will offer over the 600 f4 and tc? I’d expect it to be a very hard sell given its price which I would estimate to be close to breaking the $20,000 barrier.



That 1200 f8 will be perfect for wedding group shots.

From a helicopter.



navastronia said:


> Every time Craig posts this thread, I come in, I drool on the 35/1.2L, and I leave.



Same. Literally the only lens I'm living for right now.


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 14, 2020)

VICYASA said:


> Can someone explain to the
> 
> Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
> What would this lens be best used for and what types of shot will this lens be effective for? Portraits up close? Landscape? Macro of flowers and bugs? Please help. want to learn about lenses and uses and how this in future could be paired with r5 camera.Thanks


Its similar to Venus Laowa 15mm macro on Aps - c camera. You can google sample images of that lens by Kurt Orion Mystery to get an idea of application of that unique lens.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 14, 2020)

Too big a gap between their regular primes and their monster brick primes. 
What is so wrong about making a simple 50 f/1.4 IS USM? Or 24 f/2, or 85 f/1.4 IS? How about a nice light 200mm f/2.8 IS that can take teleconverters.
The L lenses are great, but pricey and more importantly, they are heavy. 
And the only step down is to f/1.8 STM lenses, made larger than necessary by half-implementation of a pseudo macro.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 14, 2020)

Etienne said:


> Too big a gap between their regular primes and their monster brick primes.
> What is so wrong about making a simple 50 f/1.4 IS USM? Or 24 f/2, or 85 f/1.4 IS? How about a nice light 200mm f/2.8 IS that can take teleconverters.
> The L lenses are great, but pricey and more importantly, they are heavy.
> And the only step down is to f/1.8 STM lenses, made larger than necessary by half-implementation of a pseudo macro.


I agree completely! My only concern is with a 200 f2.8 that can take TCs. If they make it that way they will have less optical design options in the lens itself, which is a downside. But I wonder how much of a difference in IQ there would be between a RF L version fully optimized (can't take TCs) vs a RF L version as optimized as possible while being compatible with their TCs? 

The same question could apply to other long teles, such as 300 f4L, 400 f5.6L, 600 f8L etc.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 14, 2020)

Etienne said:


> Too big a gap between their regular primes and their monster brick primes.
> What is so wrong about making a simple 50 f/1.4 IS USM?



I agree, a 50mm F1.4 would be nice for example. But I also think Canon is being quite clever about their primes sales. While in the process of fleshing out an entire lense portfolio throughout the years (I'd think until the end 2024, maybe 2025) they only offer the "pro level" and an "affordable level". So while working on a roadmap they have appealing offers to a lot of people. Until 2024 those who wish F1.4 can use adapted EF 1.4. lenses. During that time Canon can and will evaluate whether it makes sense offering a third line of primes. If customers settle for the two offered, fine, it saves a lot of costs developing the primes. If the demand is still high, they can be sure the developing costs of an extra set of primes will amortize itself. This strategy offers a lot of advantages for Canon, but it demands a lot patience from some customers.

One last thought: Maybe they'll eventually leave the F1.4 for third-party lense manufacturers such as Sigma and their amazing (but heavy) Art primes.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 14, 2020)

Etienne said:


> Too big a gap between their regular primes and their monster brick primes.
> What is so wrong about making a simple 50 f/1.4 IS USM? Or 24 f/2, or 85 f/1.4 IS? How about a nice light 200mm f/2.8 IS that can take teleconverters.
> The L lenses are great, but pricey and more importantly, they are heavy.
> And the only step down is to f/1.8 STM lenses, made larger than necessary by half-implementation of a pseudo macro.



I agree too.

But, when faced with a list of tasks, they must be done in some sort of order, and it's logical for them to do the high end first, then the low end second (because it is most distinct from the high end) and the middle last. (Or they could have done the low first, then the high end second--but they wanted to entice the super-serious photographers into the R by showing them what they could do with it, so I think they did it in the right order.)

Don't give up hope.


----------



## woodman411 (Nov 14, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I agree too.
> 
> But, when faced with a list of tasks, they must be done in some sort of order, and it's logical for them to do the high end first, then the low end second (because it is most distinct from the high end) and the middle last. (Or they could have done the low first, then the high end second--but they wanted to entice the super-serious photographers into the R by showing them what they could do with it, so I think they did it in the right order.)
> 
> Don't give up hope.



Agreed, they prioritize by ROI, and this roadmap tells us their priorities. The high end doesn't need to sell in volume, they get the bulk of their profits here and a halo effect. The low end gets the volume. The middle tier is sort of the worst of both worlds - less profits and less volume, so it makes sense it is the lower priority.


----------



## JoseB (Nov 15, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> That 1200 f8 will be perfect for wedding group shots.
> 
> 
> 
> Same. Literally the only lens I'm living for right now.


I think it suits better on divorces.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Nov 15, 2020)

ozturert said:


> Sony is f6.3 at 600mm. Canon 600mm f11 is 1.7 stops darker but it is much smaller, much lighter, much less expensive.
> Canon 100-500mm is about 700 USD more than Sony but it can be found cheaper if you hunt for it (10-15%). It is 10cm (!!!!!) shorter and 800 grams lighter.
> Looking at above data, I think Canon 100-500mm is a huge value compared to that Sony lens. It is a real L lens. If Canon can come up with a cheaper 100-500mm lens for less than 1400 USD, than that will be better of course but Sony 200-600mm isn't better today.



What a load of rubbish. There is not a better value or quality telephoto lens on the market than the Sony 200-600. The build quality is excellent, the AF speed is excellent, the IQ is excellent even with the 1.4x TC. The price makes a mockery of the 100-500L and the Sony can also easily be found discounted. 20% more reach at 1/3 stop faster aperture increases the effective speed advantage to 2/3rds stop. This is the lens Canon should have released, but based on the ludicrous 100-500L pricing would cost well over $3K. Sony knocked it out the park with this one just as Nikon did with the even more amazing 500 f/5.6 PF.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 15, 2020)

Comparing pears and apples...
RF 100-500mm is a five times zoom, Sonys 200-600mm is a three times zoom. The RF is much versatile and compared to the Sony very compact. Both lenses aim at different customers, so a comparison makes absolutely no sense...

I hope/ wish that Canon will release another telephoto lense in the range of Sonys... in order to distinguish from the RF 100-500 I guess it should be about 200-600/ 700 or even 800mm. Since neither of the 70-200 take any converters I'd guess there is a need for a truly dedicated telephoto. A 250-750mm three times zoom would be nice imho.


----------



## Billybob (Nov 15, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Comparing pears and apples...
> RF 100-500mm is a five times zoom, Sonys 200-600mm is a three times zoom. The RF is much versatile and compared to the Sony very compact. Both lenses aim at different customers, so a comparison makes absolutely no sense...
> 
> I hope/ wish that Canon will release another telephoto lense in the range of Sonys... in order to distinguish from the RF 100-500 I guess it should be about 200-600/ 700 or even 800mm. Since neither of the 70-200 take any converters I'd guess there is a need for a truly dedicated telephoto. A 250-750mm three times zoom would be nice imho.



I definitely agree. As an owner of all three lenses, they address different markets. Yes, they overlap, but the 100-500 is versatile, take everywhere lens, while the Sony due to its bulk is a more intentional outdoors/wildlife lens. The Nikon being a prime has--not surprisingly--the best IQ in the 500-600mm range but is less versatile being a prime. All three are excellent optics, nonetheless, there is room for a lower-priced Canon zoom to compete with the Sony. Having the 100-500 I would not be a buyer unless it went to 750 or 800mm and was truly excellent at its long end. Anything shorter would just duplicate what I already have.


----------



## ozturert (Nov 15, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> What a load of rubbish.


You don't know how to discuss nicely, do you? No, you don't.


----------



## entoman (Nov 15, 2020)

VICYASA said:


> Can someone explain to the
> 
> Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
> What would this lens be best used for and what types of shot will this lens be effective for? Portraits up close? Landscape? Macro of flowers and bugs? Please help. want to learn about lenses and uses and how this in future could be paired with r5 camera.Thanks



You've almost answered your own question. I'd use it to photograph alpine flowers, with a defocused mountain in the background for context.

Another use (,similar scenario, but for videographers) would be to focus on a foreground macro subject or detail, and then to transition to focus on the landscape beyond.

I'm sure others could provide more user cases.


----------



## chong67 (Nov 16, 2020)

I waited for a long time for the 14-28mm F4 that never came.

In the end I got the Rokinon 14mm F2.8 for the RP and I love it! Its 1/3 the price and weight 2/3 less too!


----------



## rightslot (Nov 16, 2020)

This forum seems more and more like a WISHLIST. 
So here is my wishlist too. 

justa small one.
i really would like a if Canon made the new 70-200 f4 in black. Really. 
I’ve ordered both the new 50mm 1.8 as well as the 70-200, and NO DOUBT I’ll be astounded at the image quality. But I’ll not relish the attention the white tube will bring. But I’m not a lens manufacturer.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 16, 2020)

I understand the appeal of the 135 1.4 but do we really need a 2kg lens for $3500?
I would be more happy with a new version of the F2 with IS and new optics but still relatively compact size.


----------



## Finn M (Nov 17, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> It's a little disappointing to me that they aren't planning on releasing a 24 1.4 any time soon...this would be the perfect lens in RF mount!


Agree. Sony has the very sharp 20mm f:1,8. A beautiful lens! Sony also have the 24mm f:1,4. In January/February they will announce a 16mm f:1,8. And Canon? Nothing! They don't even have any plans for 2021. Dissappointing.... Maybe I have to switch to Sony?


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 17, 2020)

Finn M said:


> Agree. Sony has the very sharp 20mm f:1,8. A beautiful lens! Sony also have the 24mm f:1,4. In January/February they will announce a 16mm f:1,8. And Canon? Nothing! They don't even have any plans for 2021. Dissappointing.... Maybe I have to switch to Sony?


You're always free to switch to Sony if you want to. Canon does not as many RF lenses as Sony because of their later start, but they do have many more EF lenses which are compatible for R mount use if you want to use them. I do expect Canon to come out with many more RF lenses and eventually they will have a much more complete line of RF lenses which you would probably be quite happy with.

I am happy to use only what RF lenses they have now, and am happy to wait for the future RF lenses they will fill out their system with. I do hope that Canon will take notice of the good lenses in Sonys (and others) lineup so that they can come out with enough lenses to make most everyone happy.


----------



## Eowhiskass (Nov 18, 2020)

thmts said:


> Dissapointed that they don't plan an 85mm 1.4. 85mm f2 doesn't seem as sharp and 1.2 is too expensive, loud and large :/


85 f2 sharp as 135 f2


----------



## Dragon (Nov 20, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> Most anticipated of this list for me would be the 14-35 f4 IS.
> 
> Biggest question in my mind is price and color of the 100-400 with the 7.1 at the long end, I think it's reasonable to debate whether or not that'll be a "L" lens. Either way though I'd hope to see a modest price tag.


Absolutely agree on the 14-35 (I want one). If it is as good as the EF 16-35 f/4L, it will be a huge seller. The 100-400 may well be the replacement for the EF 70-300 (non L). Kind of the same trick they did with the 100-500L. 400 at f/7.1 should still work with a 58mm filter.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 20, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The EF version is relatively new and probably not a priority while there are so many other lenses to release first.


The EF 85 f/1.4 is also VERY good, so I would agree that and RF version would be down the priority list. Let's see, how many years did the EF line NOT have an 85 f/1.4? .


----------



## Dragon (Nov 20, 2020)

L


thmts said:


> Dissapointed that they don't plan an 85mm 1.4. 85mm f2 doesn't seem as sharp and 1.2 is too expensive, loud and large :/


Let's see----. It took 30 years to get an 85 f/1.4 in the EF line. It is new and VERY good, so maybe not too much of a rush (at least not until Sigma gets in the game). OTOH, they could just port it to RF and be done.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 21, 2020)

Finn M said:


> Agree. Sony has the very sharp 20mm f:1,8. A beautiful lens! Sony also have the 24mm f:1,4. In January/February they will announce a 16mm f:1,8. And Canon? Nothing! They don't even have any plans for 2021. Dissappointing.... Maybe I have to switch to Sony?


As a Canon shooter with a camera that has an RF mount, I really do not care at all what Sony is doing at 16, 20, or 24mm. I think you should switch.


----------



## rwvaughn (Nov 28, 2020)

Swerky said:


> RF 18-45? Is it something like Panasonic's 20-60 for L mount? I find those slower zooms to be attractive on the wide end but only useful in good light on the longer end.



My thoughts are.... R7 kit lens


----------



## Buzzer2000 (Nov 28, 2020)

There has been no rumor about Cine Lenses yet. Apart from the very good RF lineup so far, i'm missing something like a 21-100mm t2.9 RF Cine Lens for documentaries!


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Nov 28, 2020)

I think Canon can do a better job with the maximum aperature of their 100-400mm. thier EF Mount one was better!


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Nov 28, 2020)

fiendstudios said:


> I use the 14/1.8 and I like it. Not much coma on my example but it is very limited yes, since its only 14mm.
> I would love a 14-21/1.4 for Astro and for other landscapes.


If you can pay for that hefty price tag


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Nov 28, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


 Alot of people were probably waiting for the 50mm 1.8 as is is the most affordable of them all


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Nov 28, 2020)

Etienne said:


> Too big a gap between their regular primes and their monster brick primes.
> What is so wrong about making a simple 50 f/1.4 IS USM? Or 24 f/2, or 85 f/1.4 IS? How about a nice light 200mm f/2.8 IS that can take teleconverters.
> The L lenses are great, but pricey and more importantly, they are heavy.
> And the only step down is to f/1.8 STM lenses, made larger than necessary by half-implementation of a pseudo macro.



I think the reason they released the 50mm 1.8 before th 1.4 is because they are trying to appeal to the budget minded people who dont have $1000 to spend on a 1.4


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Nov 28, 2020)

...We'll have to use the adapter for a while.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 29, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> I think Canon can do a better job with the maximum aperature of their 100-400mm. thier EF Mount one was better!



Canon doesn't have a non-L 100-400 in EF mount.


----------



## geo07 (Dec 1, 2020)

a little disappointed with this list, large telephoto lenses will be totally unaffordable, large fixed angles are absent, a 24 macro, it's weird! I was expecting optics of not too large size, type 1.8 / 28, 1.4 / 50, 2 or 2.8 / 20, a nice 300 f4 etc ... with a sharpness superior to the old range and measured prices. In zoom, I bought the 70-200 f2.8 which is excellent but still too expensive. In short, the range, the prices are, for me, badly located.


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 3, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Canon doesn't have a non-L 100-400 in EF mount.


 im confused


----------



## SteveC (Dec 3, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> im confused



I think he's trying to say that this RF lens won't be an L-grade lens, so it's aimed at a more "budget" audience and it doesn't compare to the EF L lens (which is a fantastic lens, my first L lens ever).


----------



## Dragon (Dec 3, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I think he's trying to say that this RF lens won't be an L-grade lens, so it's aimed at a more "budget" audience and it doesn't compare to the EF L lens (which is a fantastic lens, my first L lens ever).


My bet is that this lens is the mirrorless replacement for the EF 70-300 f/4-f/5.6 IS. Canon extended the reach on 100-400L with the 100-500L RF, so why not on the consumer version of the 70-300 (which is a decent lens, BTW).


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 3, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I think he's trying to say that this RF lens won't be an L-grade lens, so it's aimed at a more "budget" audience and it doesn't compare to the EF L lens (which is a fantastic lens, my first L lens ever).


 Thanks


----------



## LeBlobe (Dec 4, 2020)

after buying the rf 35mm f/1.8 macro i want same thing with weather proof(maybe in 1.4?)! btw why dont they add small macro like this 0.5X in most lenses , does it add much cost/weight? are there downsides?


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 4, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I think he's trying to say that this RF lens won't be an L-grade lens, so it's aimed at a more "budget" audience and it doesn't compare to the EF L lens (which is a fantastic lens, my first L lens ever).


what do you think the price of that will be?


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 4, 2020)

and also i can just add a 2x extender to my 70-200mm and make it a 140-400mm f3.5


----------



## pj1974 (Dec 4, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> and also i can just add a 2x extender to my 70-200mm and make it a 140-400mm f3.5



Except, a 2x extender on a 70-200mm _*f/2.8 *_lens becomes a 140-400mm *f/5.6 *lens (not f/3.5!) 

i.e. 2 stops, or another way of saying/writing it is, a reduction of -2EV


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 4, 2020)

pj1974 said:


> Except, a 2x extender on a 70-200mm _*f/2.8 *_lens becomes a 140-400mm *f/5.6 *lens (not f/3.5!)
> 
> i.e. 2 stops, or another way of saying/writing it is, a reduction of -2EV


 oh geez


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 5, 2020)

thmts said:


> Dissapointed that they don't plan an 85mm 1.4. 85mm f2 doesn't seem as sharp and 1.2 is too expensive, loud and large :/


check this out








Samyang Optics


A New Perspective Samyang Optics. Provides detailed information and support for Samyang Optics lenses. You can also view magazine content and sample photos.




www.samyanglens.com





its the same price as the 85mm f2 so why not


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 5, 2020)

Refraction said:


> I will be purchasing the 24mm macro and the 10-24mm once announced. Having 10mm to 200mm on my trinity of lenses along with the 24mm for nice (fairly) wide gimbal shots will complete my RF line up, adding to the 35mm macro, 28-70 f2, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-700 f2.8.



70-700 f2.8.?


----------



## rightslot (Dec 5, 2020)

Hello out there. 

Anybody have thoughts on the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM. {Listed on the latest unofficial roadmap.}

Do we think it'll be smaller because f4 and not 2.8? Hope So. 

And what about the price? 

My questions because I a trying my best to hold out and NOT get the Tamron and then the adapter. I thin that combo would most likely be pretty good, but there is a reason the native RF lenses--so far--image so well.

Thoughts?


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 5, 2020)

rightslot said:


> Hello out there.
> 
> Anybody have thoughts on the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM. {Listed on the latest unofficial roadmap.}
> 
> ...


My guess is that it will be either a 14-35 or 15-35 f4, and even if they call it a "14"-35 it might be 14.8 or so in reality rounded down to "14". But since it will be f4 instead of f2.8, then I think that it will be reasonably lighter, thinner and shorter. It will also be "L" quality and native RF so that's really great. I think you would be well advised to wait to get it, but that will (of course) be up to you and how long you are willing to wait for it.


----------



## rightslot (Dec 5, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> My guess is that it will be either a 14-35 or 15-35 f4, and even if they call it a "14"-35 it might be 14.8 or so in reality rounded down to "14". But since it will be f4 instead of f2.8, then I think that it will be reasonably lighter and thinner and a little bit shorter. It will also be "L" quality and native RF so that's really great. I think you would be well advised to wait to get it, but that will (of course) be up to you and how long you are willing to wait for it.



Thanks. That's what I needed. I have right now ONLY the 24-70 2.8. And it is FAB. I expect a email note from B&H soon on the shipping of the 50 1.8 and the 70-200 f4. I don't really like going the adapter route. Yes, I can, but don't want to. Sold ALL my @%^&%!! to switch and start on the Canon RF. Just something about how it felt in my hand. Had the Nikon Z7 and it was VERY NICE. But somehow the Canon intrigued me more. I am happy. Sold my Fuji too. (Nice but gotta have full frame.)

THANKS.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 5, 2020)

rightslot said:


> Thanks. That's what I needed. I have right now ONLY the 24-70 2.8. And it is FAB. I expect a email note from B&H soon on the shipping of the 50 1.8 and the 70-200 f4. I don't really like going the adapter route. Yes, I can, but don't want to. Sold ALL my @%^&%!! to switch and start on the Canon RF. Just something about how it felt in my hand. Had the Nikon Z7 and it was VERY NICE. But somehow the Canon intrigued me more. I am happy. Sold my Fuji too. (Nice but gotta have full frame.)
> 
> THANKS.


I'm glad to be of help. I have the RF 15-35 f2.8L and it's really a beautiful lens. But if they had the 14(15)-35 f4L available at the same time I probably would have bought the f4 instead for a smaller & lighter lens, as (to me) the f2.8 isn't as crucial at such wide angles. 

I see the RF 70-200 f4 is expected around mid December (wow!). I have the RF 70-200 f2.8L and that's the one lens I would have chosen the f2.8 version over the f4 as I think the wider aperture is often very useful for portrait shots, as I like it for that as well as landscape shots. If I wanted it mainly (or only) for landscapes or travel where I was fine with the f4 blur then I would definitely get the f4.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 5, 2020)

rightslot said:


> Hello out there.
> 
> Anybody have thoughts on the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM. {Listed on the latest unofficial roadmap.}
> 
> ...



My Tamron (I have the A012) is currenty on its way back from Tamron after a firmware update to make it compatible with the R5. I like the Tamron, but it is big an bulbous. The EF 16-35 f/4 is a very good lens and if the RF is better and not too bulky, I will be very interested in acquiring it.


----------



## rightslot (Dec 5, 2020)

Dragon said:


> My Tamron (I have the A012) is currenty on its way back from Tamron after a firmware update to make it compatible with the R5. I like the Tamron, but it is big an bulbous. The EF 16-35 f/4 is a very good lens and if the RF is better and not too bulky, I will be very interested in acquiring it.


This is a interesting response. A different perspective. I am wondering? What is Tamron going to do to make the lens RF ready? That’s pretty interesting. Thanks, MJ


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 5, 2020)

Just a question

why would you buy a 24-70mm f4 over a 24-105mm f4?


----------



## rightslot (Dec 5, 2020)

Not directed at me--I know. But most likely because the f4 version should be smaller, lighter. And the 2.8 vs the f4 is not the end of end all. 

Notice that with the notable exception of the world below HIS belt, bigger is not always better.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 6, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> Just a question
> 
> why would you buy a 24-70mm f4 over a 24-105mm f4?



A good question. One other reply suggested it was an issue of compactness but the 24-105 isn't a huge lens. (Yes there are smaller lenses out there, but this one doesn't seem THAT grotesquely huge.) So now that you ask, I'm curious about this myself.


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 6, 2020)

SteveC said:


> A good question. One other reply suggested it was an issue of compactness but the 24-105 isn't a huge lens. (Yes there are smaller lenses out there, but this one doesn't seem THAT grotesquely huge.) So now that you ask, I'm curious about this myself.


budget maybe, but I don't know how much cheaper you can get with an L series lens


----------



## rightslot (Dec 6, 2020)

Some of us are still stuck on the thought/belief/expectation/somewhat pie-in-the-sky, that the whole mirrorless evolution included reduction in size & weight while delivering even better imaging. 

We seem to forget the "engineering degrees" given out on various internet forums conveniently obscure apparent laws of physics. We wonder out-loud, Why Can't it be smaller/lighter? We can go to the moon. Right?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 6, 2020)

rightslot said:


> Some of us are still stuck on the thought/belief/expectation/somewhat pie-in-the-sky, that the whole mirrorless evolution included reduction in size & weight while delivering even better imaging.
> 
> We seem to forget the "engineering degrees" given out on various internet forums conveniently obscure apparent laws of physics. We wonder out-loud, Why Can't it be smaller/lighter? We can go to the moon. Right?


I don’t really understand this kind of comment, Canon have very clearly decided that for them at this time APS-C is best represented in small light cameras with small slower lenses, whereas FF cameras are not.

One of the biggest criticisms of Sony FF ILC’s is they are too small. Further, high quality fast FF lenses are not and cannot be smaller than they are so hanging a tiny body off the back of them makes little sense. You only have to compare an R5 with an RF 50 f1.2 and a 5D IV with an EF 50 f1.2 to see this.


----------



## rightslot (Dec 7, 2020)

"Further, high quality fast FF lenses are not and cannot be smaller than they are..."

My Point. Thank You. But that doesn't stop dreaming/wanting. 

In other news...Please tell me my new RF lenses 50 1.8 and 70-200 f4 have been shipped and I'll receive before Christmas!!

Ordered and waiting-----


----------



## LeBlobe (Dec 7, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> Just a question
> 
> why would you buy a 24-70mm f4 over a 24-105mm f4?


i just saw the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS has 0.7X magnification ratio. If they can do something similar with RF would be great.The 24-105 is 0.23X


----------



## Dragon (Dec 7, 2020)

rightslot said:


> This is a interesting response. A different perspective. I am wondering? What is Tamron going to do to make the lens RF ready? That’s pretty interesting. Thanks, MJ


With current firmware, the Tamron lens is "RF ready" (with an adapter, of course). It could easily be converted to an RF mount, but that would still only use the EF compatibility mode of the RF camera. in my limited experience with actual Canon RF lenses they have much more responsive AF than their EF counterparts. Oh, and then there is that bit about cooperative IS between the lens and the camera IBIS. Tamron and other 3rd party manufacturers may be some while figuring out the secret sauce that Canon has brewed before they can produces true RF lenses with dynamics similar to the OEM lenses. To make it just a bit more challenging, Canon is cranking out some really pristine optical formulas that will be hard to best or even match. Autofocus has always been hit and miss on both Tamron and Sigma lenses, no matter how good the optical quality (and the Sigma Arts are really good optically). Canon made autofocus the centerpiece of the R5 and that puts them in a good position to sell RF glass that fully supports the cameras capability. Seems like a smart competitive strategy to me.


----------



## rightslot (Dec 9, 2020)

Dragon said:


> With current firmware, the Tamron lens is "RF ready" (with an adapter, of course). It could easily be converted to an RF mount, but that would still only use the EF compatibility mode of the RF camera. in my limited experience with actual Canon RF lenses they have much more responsive AF than their EF counterparts. Oh, and then there is that bit about cooperative IS between the lens and the camera IBIS. Tamron and other 3rd party manufacturers may be some while figuring out the secret sauce that Canon has brewed before they can produces true RF lenses with dynamics similar to the OEM lenses. To make it just a bit more challenging, Canon is cranking out some really pristine optical formulas that will be hard to best or even match. Autofocus has always been hit and miss on both Tamron and Sigma lenses, no matter how good the optical quality (and the Sigma Arts are really good optically). Canon made autofocus the centerpiece of the R5 and that puts them in a good position to sell RF glass that fully supports the cameras capability. Seems like a smart competitive strategy to me.




Thanks DRAGON, you made my thoughts even more clear. Like I mentioned prior, I have the RF version of the 24-70 and IT IS GREAT. The focus is quick (maybe no quicker than the Nikon Z or a Sony version), but the feeling is so locked on! I mean you feel like you just have FOCUS. And the proof is in the files. 

Having said that I must talk about the Sigma 135 1.8 I had prior to my switch from Nikon Z7. This 135 was WOW every time I shot with it. Made me go grab my wife with each shot..."you gotta see this, this is what I've been talking about for years!" Yea, she tired of all of that.  

We'll see. B&H says I'll have the new RF50mm 1.8 by weeks end. Should be pretty good. We'll see.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 11, 2020)

rightslot said:


> Thanks DRAGON, you made my thoughts even more clear. Like I mentioned prior, I have the RF version of the 24-70 and IT IS GREAT. The focus is quick (maybe no quicker than the Nikon Z or a Sony version), but the feeling is so locked on! I mean you feel like you just have FOCUS. And the proof is in the files.
> 
> Having said that I must talk about the Sigma 135 1.8 I had prior to my switch from Nikon Z7. This 135 was WOW every time I shot with it. Made me go grab my wife with each shot..."you gotta see this, this is what I've been talking about for years!" Yea, she tired of all of that.
> 
> We'll see. B&H says I'll have the new RF50mm 1.8 by weeks end. Should be pretty good. We'll see.


Just for FYI I got the Tamron 15-30 (A012) and the 150-600 (A011) back from Tamron yesterday after firmware updates. They now both work with the R5. The 15-30 seems to focus pretty fast and in limited testing it looks accurate. The 150-300 now works correctly. Focus is fairly slow, but it seems to be accurate and very consistent and that is an improvement over its past behavior on SLR bodies. Haven't tried either one on the 5DSr or the 90D yet, but no reason to believe that they won't work correctly.


----------



## Refraction (Dec 12, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> 70-700 f2.8.?


70-200 of course. Not 700. But who knows, maybe someday.


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 12, 2020)

Refraction said:


> 70-200 of course. Not 700. But who knows, maybe someday.


 that would be such a massive lens, like the sigma 1600mm f5.6


----------



## dolina (Jan 2, 2021)

These are the long fast white primes I think that will be out within 2021-2022 or later

Canon RF 500mm f/4L IS USM @ less than 2.5kg from 3.2kg
Canon RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM @ less than 2.9kg from 4.5kg
Canon RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM @ less than 2.9kg from 3.05kg
These are the long fast white primes I think that will be out by 2023 or later for the 2024 Summer Olympics or later

Canon RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM @ less than 2.8kg from 2.84kg
Canon RF 600mm f/4L IS USM @ less than 2.8kg from from 3.05kg
The latest EF version of the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 came out in 2019.

Would be awesome to have a lighter

Canon RF 200mm f/2L IS USM @ less than 2kg from 2.52kg
Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM @ less than 2kg from 2.35kg
All with a shorter MFD, more stops of IS, faster & more accurate USM AF

Weight reduction is based on the Pareto Principle and the weight of the newest lens with the same lens front element diameter.

The weight reduction alone will induce purchases even if the replacement SKU is nearly double the price of the previous SKU.


----------



## Ronny Wertelaers (Jan 2, 2021)

xanbarksdale said:


> It's a little disappointing to me that they aren't planning on releasing a 24 1.4 any time soon...this would be the perfect lens in RF mount!


Together with a 35 mm prime a very important one


----------



## dolina (Jan 3, 2021)

Ronny Wertelaers said:


> Together with a 35 mm prime a very important one


What I want to see is more pancake lenses


----------



## jd7 (Jan 3, 2021)

rightslot said:


> Some of us are still stuck on the thought/belief/expectation/somewhat pie-in-the-sky, that the whole mirrorless evolution included reduction in size & weight while delivering even better imaging.
> 
> We seem to forget the "engineering degrees" given out on various internet forums conveniently obscure apparent laws of physics. We wonder out-loud, Why Can't it be smaller/lighter? We can go to the moon. Right?





privatebydesign said:


> I don’t really understand this kind of comment, Canon have very clearly decided that for them at this time APS-C is best represented in small light cameras with small slower lenses, whereas FF cameras are not.
> 
> One of the biggest criticisms of Sony FF ILC’s is they are too small. Further, high quality fast FF lenses are not and cannot be smaller than they are so hanging a tiny body off the back of them makes little sense. You only have to compare an R5 with an RF 50 f1.2 and a 5D IV with an EF 50 f1.2 to see this.


While I generally agree with what you say about how Canon is approaching things, there are a number of lenses over on the Sony E mount which come pretty close to delivering on the promise of small and light yet good IQ. Look at the samyang 18mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8, 75mm f/1.8, Sigma 35 f/2 and 65 f/2, Sony 35mm f/1.8, 55mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8, and even the samyang 85mm f/1.4 and sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN. They may not be optically as good as an RF 85 f/1.2L but I'd argue they still offer very good IQ at a fraction of the size and weight. It's just that, sadly (in my opinion) we aren't seeing them for the Canon system, except for the Samyang 85mm f/1.8, at least so far. From what I've seen, the RF 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/2 IS and even the 35mm f/1.8 IS aren't in the same league (although perhaps the 35 f/1.8 IS may be not so far off).


----------



## SteveC (Jan 3, 2021)

dolina said:


> What I want to see is more pancake lenses



This 50mm 1.8 isn't even truly a pancake lens, so I'd like to see a pancake lens, period.


----------



## dlee13 (Jan 5, 2021)

Dragon said:


> My bet is that this lens is the mirrorless replacement for the EF 70-300 f/4-f/5.6 IS. Canon extended the reach on 100-400L with the 100-500L RF, so why not on the consumer version of the 70-300 (which is a decent lens, BTW).



This would be great but I’d be worried about the price and not sure if it would be sub 1k AUD like the 70-300 II here.


----------



## rightslot (Jan 12, 2021)

Just giving kudos where they are deserved. Today was my 2nd day using the RF100-500mm. And while it is still limited experience, some things are now obvious. 
1. The contrast from any focal length is OUTSTANDING. This was the most surprising "feature" I have found so far. The ability of the lens to produce such great contrast with the R5 even with jpegs makes the $$$$ *almost* justifiable. You'll see when you get one, rent one, use one.

2. Surprising how well the stabilizing works. Even at 500mm you can hand hold at pretty slow shutter speeds. 

3. The weight is OK. I say this because I had read previous reviews stating how light the lens was and I agree---relative to a BRICK. No, it is solid and the weight is commensurate with a lens on this level. So don't expect a light lens unless you've been carrying very heavy gear. 

4. It does pack nice and easy in my THINK TANK bag. 

This is a nice lens. Probably the highest level I have ever owned. 

SUPER HAPPY


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 13, 2021)

thmts said:


> Dissapointed that they don't plan an 85mm 1.4. 85mm f2 doesn't seem as sharp and 1.2 is too expensive, loud and large :/


I’m sure they do plan a RF 85mm F/1.4, you just have to be patient. In the EF system in took exactly 30 years to get one


----------



## dolina (Jan 13, 2021)

Based on the past 10 years product releases I expect 4-9 RF lenses to be announced annually.

Excluding the five tilt shift lenses, there are 25 L lenses that need a RF equivalent. It would take 3-7 years to finish the transition all 25.

I have doubts that all these EF L lenses will be transitioned to RF mount. This may be done to reduce SKUs and improve inventory of redundant focal lengths.

Tilt shifts will be the last optics to be transitioned to RF mounts. Timeline is probably after 2024. For context tilt shift macro lenses were announced in Nov 2017. All tilt shift lenses will be last as these lenses are manual focus and sells for very little volume relative to L zoom lenses or even L primes

Transition could be prioritize based on FIFO, top sellers or a combination of both

These are the EF L lenses that have yet to have an RF L lens equivalent


YearPrimeYearZoom1996135mm f/2.0L USM199570-200mm f/2.8L USM1996180mm f/3.5L Macro USM199970-200mm f/4.0L USM1996200mm f/2.8L II USM200317-40mm f/4.0L USM1997300mm f/4.0L IS USM200428-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM200714mm f/2.8L II USM20108-15mm f/4L USM fisheye200824mm f/1.4L II USM201070-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM2008200mm f/2.0L IS USM2013200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x Extender2008800mm f/5.6L IS USM201416-35mm f/4L IS USM2009100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM201511-24mm f/4L USM2010300mm f/2.8L IS II USMTilt Shift2011500mm f/4.0L IS II USM200924mm f/3.5L II Tilt-Shift201535mm f/1.4L II USM200917mm f/4.0L Tilt-Shift201785mm f/1.4L IS USM201790mm f/2.8L MACRO Tilt-Shift2018400mm f/2.8L IS III USM201750mm f/2.8L MACRO Tilt-Shift2018600mm f/4.0L IS III USM2017135mm f/4L MACRO Tilt-Shift

I'm neutral with the 1200mm f/8.0 lens rumor.

It would weigh around 3kg and a godsend for any photographer recording subjects as small as an inch even at f/8 but it would sell for north of $13,000. Like say between $16,300-25,000.

The list below is filtered from today's top 30 selling EF L lenses on BH that have not been updated to to RF mount. These would be my candidates for 2021 RF L lens release. Lens in LARGE FONT lines up with original poster's RF L lens list.  These lenses were announced from 1996-2015.


YearLensLens Age2009100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM121996135mm f/2.0L USM25201535mm f/1.4L II USM620108-15mm f/4L USM fisheye11201416-35mm f/4L IS USM7200824mm f/1.4L II USM13201070-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM111996200mm f/2.8L II USM25201511-24mm f/4L USM6

Today's bottom 31-45 selling EF L lenses on BH are mostly macro, wide, super teles and tilt shifts. Super teles get updated before the Olympics or other major sporting event while tilt shift will be updated after 2024.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 13, 2021)

kaihp said:


> In that long list of Big White's, a 300mm f/2.8 is surprisingly missing. Not that there is any thing wrong with my EF 328 Mk II


It is a rumor after all and it could be that at 45 MP and maybe soon 90 MP that 200 is the new 300 at least for a while so the lightweight zoom covers the base. By the same logic, the 100-500 is really a 100-1000+ (just not f/2.8). I do think the 1200 is interesting. At f/8, it will be the same diameter as as the 600 and if they toss in a DO element it might be about the same length.


----------



## muentzer (Jan 25, 2021)

dolina said:


> Excluding the five tilt shift lenses, there are 25 L lenses that need a RF equivalent.



There may be others, but a notable omission from your list is the 4/400 DO. Apart from a decent macro this is what I am missing most.


----------



## dolina (Jan 25, 2021)

muentzer said:


> There may be others, but a notable omission from your list is the 4/400 DO. Apart from a decent macro this is what I am missing most.


DO is not L lens.


----------



## muentzer (Jan 25, 2021)

While this is true, we all know, that the distinction between the white Ls and the white DOs is quite arbitrary.


----------



## dolina (Jan 25, 2021)

muentzer said:


> While this is true, we all know, that the distinction between the white Ls and the white DOs is quite arbitrary.


I think the DOs will eventually get an RF mount. I just dont know when so do not comment on it.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 25, 2021)

dolina said:


> I think the DOs will eventually get an RF mount. I just dont know when so do not comment on it.


Given that the 600 and 800 f/11 are both DO and size and weight reduction may have priority, I wouldn't be surprised to see all the RF Supertelephotos employ DO technology. At that point, the distinction is moot.


----------



## dolina (Jan 25, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Given that the 600 and 800 f/11 are both DO and size and weight reduction may have priority, I wouldn't be surprised to see all the RF Supertelephotos employ DO technology. At that point, the distinction is moot.


That is a surprise. I wonder why they did not market it as such.


----------



## David Norris (Jan 26, 2021)




----------



## Dragon (Jan 26, 2021)

dolina said:


> That is a surprise. I wonder why they did not market it as such.


They mention it in the feature section, but no green ring and no hype. They do mention that the DO elements are used among other things to minimize CA, so my thought is that DO may replace fluorite in the super teles. That would reduce size and weight, lower cost, and increase ruggedness (fluorite is very fragile and very expensive). AFAIK, the EF400 f/4 DO does not have a fluorite element and it is quite sharp and relatively light. Canon's DO tech has come a long way since that lens was introduced and has clearly been cost reduced to have been included in the 600 and 800 f/11. Also, the EF 200mm F/2 is a reference lens, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a return to the 200 f/1.8 (with IS this time) just to give folks a reason to move off of their EF 200. 2021 should be an interesting year from Canon.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Jan 31, 2021)

Who wants to predict what lens will be announced next?


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jan 31, 2021)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Who wants to predict what lens will be announced next?



My guess is they are completing the f4 trinity...so...
Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM


----------



## LeBlobe (Jan 31, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> My guess is they are completing the f4 trinity...so...
> Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM



We will see if its 14-35 or 15-35, are we sure its 14 now? would love if it was


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jan 31, 2021)

LeBlobe said:


> We will see if its 14-35 or 15-35, are we sure its 14 now? would love if it was



That's the current rumor. Also, I picked the 14-35 vs the 10-24 non-IS as first f4 based on what they released for the 2.8 trinity.


----------



## drhuffman87 (Feb 1, 2021)

I would love a 400mm f/5.6L


----------



## drhuffman87 (Feb 1, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> Still holding out hope for a 24-70F4 L IS!
> 
> -Brian



What would be the upside to a 24-70F4 L IS vs the 24-105F4 L IS which to me seems relatively light, extremely sharp, keeps distortion minimal and is reasonably priced?


----------



## bbasiaga (Feb 1, 2021)

drhuffman87 said:


> What would be the upside to a 24-70F4 L IS vs the 24-105F4 L IS which to me seems relatively light, extremely sharp, keeps distortion minimal and is reasonably priced?


SIze. The EF 24-70 F4L IS is considerably smaller than the 35-105s, mainly shorter and lighter. Optically, in theory, it could be better as they have less trade off in correction between the wide and short ends, but in practice it may not be that much different. 

Brian


----------



## aboudd (Feb 4, 2021)

TS, TS, TS ... I would love to see AF tilt-shift lenses, especially the 14MM version. Right now I have to tilt my R6 with the 15MM Laowa and bend the pixels back in PS. It works to a point, but as part of the image is lost with perspective correction, it is a less than ideal solution.


----------



## cruso (Feb 7, 2021)

Anyone got any idea when the rf 100 L macro lens is out ? for Release


----------



## Darecinema (Feb 14, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Question: I seem to recall at least one version of the Canon roadmaps mentioning anamorphic rf lenses. Was that just completely incorrect? I know it wasn’t on this site, but was curious if you could shed some light on it.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 15, 2021)

It's been more than three months since the last lense announcement (RF 70-200mm & RF 50mm on Nov. 4th) and I'm honestly growing impatient. Is there any sign/ rumor of announcements soon to come? I'm specifically waiting for the RF 14-35mm since I'll be needing a wide-angle lense this summer... if it's not coming I might have to get a sigma or laowa to adapt on my R...


----------



## Darecinema (Feb 15, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> It's been more than three months since the last lense announcement (RF 70-200mm & RF 50mm on Nov. 4th) and I'm honestly growing impatient. Is there any sign/ rumor of announcements soon to come? I'm specifically waiting for the RF 14-35mm since I'll be needing a wide-angle lense this summer... if it's not coming I might have to get a sigma or laowa to adapt on my R...


I’d say the chances of that RF14-35 being available for use by summer are zero to none based off what we saw in 2020, but why not adapt the EF L 16-35 which is still a fantastic lens? I like the Laowa offerings (And they have some great specialty lenses) but I don’t feel in sharpness or CA handling they are necessarily the best choice for wide angle. Sigmas I’ve heard good things about but have no hands on with.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 15, 2021)

Darecinema said:


> I’d say the chances of that RF14-35 being available for use by summer are zero to none based off what we saw in 2020


Sadly, I'm worried you're right :/



Darecinema said:


> why not adapt the EF L 16-35 which is still a fantastic lens?


I actually forget to mention the EF 16-35 L as an option. I used to own but sold it in order to find something slightly wider (14 or 15mm). If I decide 16mm is enough for my summer project (Vienna/ alps hometown shots for prints in my dads remodeled apartment), then I´ll go back and get it. 



Darecinema said:


> I like the Laowa offerings (And they have some great specialty lenses) but I don’t feel in sharpness or CA handling they are necessarily the best choice for wide angle.


Thx for the input! I'm searching for good reviews on the Laowa Lenses since the 12mm F2.8 and the 15mm F2 both sound tempting, but I figure there have some major downsides with these lenses. Sharpness is usually one aspect I don't like to make any compromises...


----------



## Dragon (Feb 15, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Sadly, I'm worried you're right :/
> 
> 
> I actually forget to mention the EF 16-35 L as an option. I used to own but sold it in order to find something slightly wider (14 or 15mm). If I decide 16mm is enough for my summer project (Vienna/ alps hometown shots for prints in my dads remodeled apartment), then I´ll go back and get it.
> ...


I have been happy with the Tamron 15-30 and with a firmware update (I have the original model) it works fine with the R5. Very competitive pricewise and f/2.8 with both AF and VC.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 15, 2021)

Dragon said:


> I have been happy with the Tamron 15-30 and with a firmware update (I have the original model) it works fine with the R5. Very competitive pricewise and f/2.8 with both AF and VC.


Thx, I´ll definitely check it out


----------



## rbr (Feb 22, 2021)

Darecinema said:


> I’d say the chances of that RF14-35 being available for use by summer are zero to none based off what we saw in 2020, but why not adapt the EF L 16-35 which is still a fantastic lens? I like the Laowa offerings (And they have some great specialty lenses) but I don’t feel in sharpness or CA handling they are necessarily the best choice for wide angle. Sigmas I’ve heard good things about but have no hands on with.


I was in the same boat, but I went with the Sigma 14-24 ART. I didn't want to wait until summer. I am thrilled with the lens. It's enormous, but after seeing the images from it with the R5 at 100%, I don't care. I have the 16-35 f4L IS, and the Sigma is much better than it at the wide end. That lens is a bargain for the corner to corner sharpness and the almost complete lack of CA even in the extreme corners. The Sigma is weakest at 24mm, but nobody is buying that lens for 24mm. Dustin Abbott's review is very accurate and mirrors my experience with it. Even when or if Canon comes out with a RF14-35 f4 , it's going to have to be the the most amazing wide angle Canon has ever made to get me to part with the Sigma. I can't wait to dump my 16-35 f4.


----------



## Coffy83 (Feb 22, 2021)

The Samyang 14mm f2.8 AF RF...pretty good lens for the price and the newest version was better than the EF 16-35 in different tests I saw.


----------



## VicP83 (Feb 23, 2021)

Any word on 1.4 L lenses ? A friend told me canon filed for patents for this? Would live to see a 85 1.4 from canon that’s cheaper than the 1.2.


----------



## No Longer Active (Feb 26, 2021)

For me, the possibility of an RF 10-24 offers the chance of my own 'Holy Trinity" of lenses: 10-24, 24-105, 100-500, that would provide me with all the coverage I need. 

I currently have a couple of R6 bodies with the 100-500 and am waiting for the delivery (long delayed) of the RF24-105. I have been using the bodies with my other lenses and the results are still very encouraging: I use my Sigma 60-600, 50-600 and EF-L 100-400MkII, (1.4MkIII Extender), 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8, and even my 70-300L lenses with the EF adapter, but having the coverage with RF glass would be awesome!
View attachment 196034
View attachment 196035
View attachment 196036
View attachment 196037
View attachment 196038


----------



## BPhoto06 (Mar 3, 2021)

I Think that canon should make a low priced RF 17-40mm F/4L lens with IS USM (and if canon releases the RF 18-45mm F/4-5.6 IS STM, this will probably be a kit lens that comes with the R7 when it's released and/or RP sometime in the future) and I'm sure a lot of people with low budgets would buy it if they made it about £400. That would be a good price for such a lens.


----------



## eliz82 (Mar 10, 2021)

As a wildlife photographer I don't like their roadmap to much. Given the fact the image quality of the new RF mount 1.4x and 2x TC's are better then the EF mount TC's and they do not reduce focus speed I think they are to many equivalent lenses there:


> *Canon RF Super Telephoto Lenses:*
> 
> Canon RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
> Canon RF 500mm f/4L IS USM *=> 400/2.8 * 1.4x TC*
> ...


A 400mm F/2.8 (11500$), a 400mm F/4 (6500$) and a 100-400mm F/5.6 (2500$) should have been good enough for the start, and for all pockets.
Also I always wanted the 1.7x that Nikon have.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 10, 2021)

eliz82 said:


> As a wildlife photographer I don't like their roadmap to much. Given the fact the image quality of the new RF mount 1.4x and 2x TC's are better then the EF mount TC's and they do not reduce focus speed I think they are to many equivalent lenses there:
> 
> A 400mm F/2.8 (11500$), a 400mm F/4 (6500$) and a 100-400mm F/5.6 (2500$) should have been good enough for the start, and for all pockets.
> Also I always wanted the 1.7x that Nikon have.



Get the 400mm and both teleconverters (provided they will stack). Now you can make up anything.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 11, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Get the 400mm and both teleconverters (provided they will stack). Now you can make up anything.


Protruding rear elements. Not a chance of stacking the TCs.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 11, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Protruding rear elements. Not a chance of stacking the TCs.



I suffered that same disappointment when I got (at two separate times) the EF 1.4 and 2.0 TCs...mark IIIs. The mark IIs would stack, and I had heard of people using them that way, but I had missed that they needed to be Mark IIs.

Oh, well, I really don't need to do it very often. In fact only once so far have I missed that capability.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 13, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I suffered that same disappointment when I got (at two separate times) the EF 1.4 and 2.0 TCs...mark IIIs. The mark IIs would stack, and I had heard of people using them that way, but I had missed that they needed to be Mark IIs.
> 
> Oh, well, I really don't need to do it very often. In fact only once so far have I missed that capability.


Yes, I have both the EF mark IIs and mark IIIs. The only one that physically allows stacking is the 2x mark II. It will accept any of the others mark II or III or another 2x mark II behind it. Beyond that you are off to Kenko Land. For the hell of it, I just tried stacking the 2x mark III behind the 2x mark II behind a 135 L f/2 and attached the whole mess to an R5 via EF adapter. It lied about the aperture by two stops (i.e. f/4), and the focal length (270mm) but AF worked fine and the result was decent considering. The downside is that the IBIS was clearly misinformed re the focal length, so it would only attenuate the shake, but not remove it. The attached shot is a 100% crop. The tower is about a mile away and there is quite a bit of thermal activity in the air (hence the wiggly tower), but you can get the Idea. A good 500mm lens will show detail in the arc suppressors hanging down along side the insulators on a good day, but probably not with as much distortion as there is in the air today. Bottom line, I would say the result is on a par with a Tamron or Canon FD 500mm mirror lens. It could be useful with a 20Mp camera, but not gaining much over a single 2x with the R5. PS. Just noticed that the website did about a 50% shrink, so take that into consideration.


----------



## vladk (Mar 14, 2021)

I'd love to see a circular fisheye, say, 8mm f/2.8 L, or 8-15 f/4 L.
And 150 or 180mm L macro 1:1 would be amazing.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 4, 2021)

eliz82 said:


> As a wildlife photographer I don't like their roadmap to much. Given the fact the image quality of the new RF mount 1.4x and 2x TC's are better then the EF mount TC's and they do not reduce focus speed I think they are to many equivalent lenses there:
> 
> A 400mm F/2.8 (11500$), a 400mm F/4 (6500$) and a 100-400mm F/5.6 (2500$) should have been good enough for the start, and for all pockets.
> Also I always wanted the 1.7x that Nikon have.


You cannot stack the RF extenders.


----------



## AlP (Apr 8, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I'm actually hoping for a 35/1.0. 35/1.4 is _soooooo_ done that.


Well, at least there is some finished work on a potential 35/1.2: https://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageN...1=canon.AANM.%26OS=aanm/canon%26RS=AANM/canon

Of course this is just a patent application and the final design will likely be different.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 8, 2021)

AlP said:


> Well, at least there is some finished work on a potential 35/1.2: https://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20210103123&IDKey=E0B22E18246F&HomeUrl=http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2%26Sect2=HITOFF%26u=%252Fnetahtml%252FPTO%252Fsearch-adv.html%26r=37%26p=1%26f=G%26l=50%26d=PG01%26S1=canon.AANM.%26OS=aanm/canon%26RS=AANM/canon
> 
> Of course this is just a patent application and the final design will likely be different.


Canon will ruin my heirs!


----------



## SonicStudios (Apr 15, 2021)

Total redesign for a 10-24 2.8 and 300 2.8, hopefully, more improvements than just new RF mount capabilities


----------



## ozlopupple (Apr 23, 2021)

I think the auto focus Tilt shift lenses will allow automated focus stacking!


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 23, 2021)

ozlopupple said:


> I think the auto focus Tilt shift lenses will allow automated focus stacking!


I don’t see that, tilting makes calculating the plane of focus much more complicated to no effective benefit over a parallel plane of focus. It is immeasurably easier to focus stack a series of images from a normal, not tilted, lens than one where tilt or swing has been applied. Indeed given the nature of the plane of focus from applying tilt there are areas of the image that cannot achieve focus, this is not true of a normal lens.

I can see auto focus stacking becoming a thing, heck we had multiple point depth of field modes years and years ago, but I don’t see how tilt makes that more likely.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 23, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I don’t see that, tilting makes calculating the plane of focus much more complicated to no effective benefit over a perpendicular plane of focus. It is immeasurably easier to focus stack a series of images from a normal, not tilted, lens than one where tilt or swing has been applied. Indeed given the nature of the plane of focus from applying tilt there are areas of the image that cannot achieve focus, this is not true of a normal lens.
> 
> I can see auto focus stacking becoming a thing, heck we had multiple point depth of field modes years and years ago, but I don’t see how tilt makes that more likely.


Wouldn't focus stacking sort of defeat the purpose of a tilt-shift lens? (Mostly I've seen tilt-shift used to reduce the plane of focus not increase it.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 23, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Wouldn't focus stacking sort of defeat the purpose of a tilt-shift lens? (Mostly I've seen tilt-shift used to reduce the plane of focus not increase it.)


Well that is the ‘reverse tilt’ or ‘toy’ look that became very popular after Vincent Lafouret started using it. Though of course he wasn’t the first, just the one that seemed to kickstart the look.

But used in the traditional sense, going back to view cameras, tilt was used to maximize (increase really is the wrong word) the placement of the wedge of focus. And that really is the key, as soon as you take the plane of focus off parallel to the sensor it is no longer a plane of acceptable focus but it becomes a wedge of acceptable focus. So, for instance, you can use your lens at it’s maximum resolving aperture and put the plane of focus onto the area of the frame most important, generally in landscapes that is the ground.

I have examples from when I was testing my TS-E17 of everything from a dock across a lake and into the far background being pin sharp at f4, not acceptable focus, pin sharp, but the trees not far in front of me are outside that dof wedge so they blur out very quickly vertically. I’ll try and find one or two examples.

EDIT: Here is one from the TS-E17 at f4 with the plane of focus laid onto the dock. This means the dock is in optimal focus all the way to the horizon but the handrail on the same vertical plane of the dock falls out of focus vertically until it enters that wedge of acceptable focus.


----------



## becceric (Apr 23, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Well that is the ‘reverse tilt’ or ‘toy’ look that became very popular after Vincent Lafouret started using it. Though of course he wasn’t the first, just the one that seemed to kickstart the look.
> 
> But used in the traditional sense, going back to view cameras, tilt was used to maximize (increase really is the wrong word) the placement of the wedge of focus. And that really is the key, as soon as you take the plane of focus off perpendicular to the sensor it is no longer a plane of acceptable focus but it becomes a wedge of acceptable focus. So, for instance, you can use your lens at it’s maximum resolving aperture and put the plane of focus onto the area of the frame most important, generally in landscapes that is the ground.
> 
> I have examples from when I was testing my TS-E17 of everything from a dock across a lake and into the far background being pin sharp at f4, not acceptable focus, pin sharp, but the trees not far in front of me are outside that dof wedge so they blur out very quickly vertically. I’ll try and find one or two examples.


You know, l can’t seem to explain the benefits of tilting without using my hands for demonstration. I’ll have to paraphrase your second paragraph in future emails. I’m sure you’ve got copyrights on it


----------



## slclick (May 14, 2021)

Now that I have the R6 and the 35 STM I am excited to ditch my HEAVY adapted 24-105L ll for a 24 and 85 prime. Let's see that 24 consumer RF lens!


----------



## JohnC (May 15, 2021)

Rakuten is doing 15% cash back at canon USA if you guys are interested. I ordered some stuff this morning including the upcoming RF 100 macro.


----------



## Viggo (May 15, 2021)

Short rant//

Do Canon actually expect people to get as heavy into lenses etc with the prices they’re released at when comparing EF vs RF? It seems there is a premium to pay when they’re new and they slowly get discounted in the US at least. There is NO such thing here, even in bodies they cost the same from day one until maybe the new version is released and it’s a ridiculous low discount , but never lenses.

the RF’s have increased in price even though out currency has strengthened a lot.

where I could afford a 1-series and 6 L’s of the highest quality I can’t really afford a 5-series body and two L’s which are already a lot more … all prices go up and there is no way for hobbyists here to get into the system compared to DSLR’s and EF glass.
It seems Canon are determined to further shrink the user base and ultimately the market.

I paid $14000 dollars for a 5-series and 50+85 L.. insane…

it doesn’t work to double the prices when you’re selling half as many products…


----------



## jd7 (May 15, 2021)

Viggo said:


> Short rant//
> 
> Do Canon actually expect people to get as heavy into lenses etc with the prices they’re released at when comparing EF vs RF? It seems there is a premium to pay when they’re new and they slowly get discounted in the US at least. There is NO such thing here, even in bodies they cost the same from day one until maybe the new version is released and it’s a ridiculous low discount , but never lenses.
> 
> ...


Actually, literally it does work for Canon to sell half as many products at twice the price. Canon gets the same revenue for less cost. In all other ways I agree with you though! I just cannot see the value, particularly for a hobbyist, in the RF gear at the prices Canon charges, especially when you look at what you can get elsewhere.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 15, 2021)

I have been saying this repeatedly, from an output perspective I haven’t seen anything new from the RF system that compels me to buy into it, particularly given the cost. It’s always nice to have shiny new toys but unless, in the case of cameras, they provide me with more compelling images the investment is normally better spent elsewhere.

Mind you this move up in price structure has been laid out in all camera manufacturers business plans to shareholders in their annual reports for several years, so nobody should be surprised that Canon are doing it more successfully than most...


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (May 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I have been saying this repeatedly, from an output perspective I haven’t seen anything new from the RF system that compels me to buy into it, particularly given the cost. It’s always nice to have shiny new toys but unless, in the case of cameras, they provide me with more compelling images the investment is normally better spent elsewhere.
> 
> Mind you this move up in price structure has been laid out in all camera manufacturers business plans to shareholders in their annual reports for several years, so nobody should be surprised that Canon are doing it more successfully than most...


For me it was the RF 50mm 1.2 that got me into the R system. I had waited over a decade for an EF 50mm Prime that I could use wide open and get crisp results without any obvious fringing etc. - it never came. Sure, probably no one will notice the difference in the finished image at the end of the day (especially at the most common modern day viewing sizes)... it’s just a really nice feeling picking up the RF 50mm and knowing my images won’t be compromised by the lens at any aperture I choose to use. Has made me enjoy shooting a lot more knowing that the auto focus is also extremely accurate and repeatable. In the last year I have not had to discard a favourite image because the focus was missed for example... that makes the whole process a lot more exciting for me. Different for everyone I guess? (And yes I probably could have bought a third party lens instead of waiting so long, but that’s not the point I’m making haha)


----------



## privatebydesign (May 15, 2021)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> For me it was the RF 50mm 1.2 that got me into the R system. I had waited over a decade for an EF 50mm Prime that I could use wide open and get crisp results without any obvious fringing etc. - it never came. Sure, probably no one will notice the difference in the finished image at the end of the day (especially at the most common modern day viewing sizes)... it’s just a really nice feeling picking up the RF 50mm and knowing my images won’t be compromised by the lens at any aperture I choose to use. Has made me enjoy shooting a lot more knowing that the auto focus is also extremely accurate and repeatable. In the last year I have not had to discard a favourite image because the focus was missed for example... that makes the whole process a lot more exciting for me. Different for everyone I guess? (And yes I probably could have bought a third party lens instead of waiting so long, but that’s not the point I’m making haha)


That really is my point, we, the photographer , ‘feel better’ but the viewer really doesn’t see the difference. Now it depends why we have this gear, who we are shooting for etc etc. if we are shooting for ourselves and we have the disposable income then the new stuff is a no brainer. If we are shooting for others on a budget the equation is very different.


----------



## Dragon (May 15, 2021)

Viggo said:


> Short rant//
> 
> Do Canon actually expect people to get as heavy into lenses etc with the prices they’re released at when comparing EF vs RF? It seems there is a premium to pay when they’re new and they slowly get discounted in the US at least. There is NO such thing here, even in bodies they cost the same from day one until maybe the new version is released and it’s a ridiculous low discount , but never lenses.
> 
> ...


What kind of dollars were you using? R5 +50L +85L =$10k USD. Still definitely expensive, but everything is expensive post-COVID because all currencies have been unscrupulously inflated. Note that there are also darn few discounts on EF stuff these days. I think that holds true for other brands as well unless they are clearing models or starting a goin-out-of-business sale.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 15, 2021)

Dragon said:


> What kind of dollars were you using? R5 +50L +85L =$10k USD. Still definitely expensive, but everything is expensive post-COVID because all currencies have been unscrupulously inflated. Note that there are also darn few discounts on EF stuff these days. I think that holds true for other brands as well unless they are clearing models or starting a goin-out-of-business sale.


Scandinavian dollars, they are almost 1:1 with rupees.


----------



## Peter Bergh (May 15, 2021)

Dragon said:


> What kind of dollars were you using? R5 +50L +85L =$10k USD. Still definitely expensive, but everything is expensive post-COVID because all currencies have been unscrupulously inflated. Note that there are also darn few discounts on EF stuff these days. I think that holds true for other brands as well unless they are clearing models or starting a goin-out-of-business sale.


In most of Europe, the price for anything includes a Value-Added Tax that varies from (ballpark) 20 to 40 percent. I don't know what the VAT rate is in Sweden, but the VAT alone accounts for most of the price difference. Also, the advertised prices in the US do not include sales tax, possibly because the sales taxes vary a lot between communities.


----------



## JohnC (May 15, 2021)

If you sit back and observe this forum and others photographers are constantly asking for/demanding higher performance. More DR, sharper wide open, better IS, less distortion, etc etc etc. 

Do we collectively think that kind of performance doesn’t cost a lot in r&d? I’m not sure why we are so surprised it costs more.

Peraonally, regarding lenses I don’t see higher performance with RF, but that is in comparison to manual focus primes so I’m not surprised. The camera bodies, at least the R5, has indeed allowed me to get images I could not get before however....most of that to do with af performance.


----------



## Del Paso (May 15, 2021)

I'm into the RF system! But...
I got my EOS R with a huge discount, my 24-104 L VAT free in a European fiscal "paradise".
And that's it. All other new lenses I bought since were EF (85, 135, 35). I just can't (don't want?) to afford the new RF lenses, not needing extreme apertures or super high MP bodies. If I started photography today, the new Canon RF price structure would deter me from entering Canon world. As the saying goes, other mothers have beautiful daughters too...
Don't tell me there's the RP and non L lenses, I want sensor quality in the 5 DIV range, and non L lenses (I own a few) lack weather sealing...
Therefore, I'll go on using the R with vintage lenses and adapted EFs, the 5 DIV with all the same relatively affordable great EF L lenses.
Next buy is the EF 11-24 L.
Yet, the R3 is really tempting, the TS 14mm too


----------



## slclick (May 15, 2021)

So many articles (marketing) stating 'Which EF lenses to upgrade to RF First!'
Meanwhile, all your EF glass works just fine or even better on RF. So.....if EF works fine, I read it as buy the focal lengths you don't have already. For many of us that translates into keeping everything or scoring a great deal on adapted EF lenses on your wishlist. The RF gear is very polarizing price point wise. They really need some middle ground primes, ala EF IS 2.8's.


----------



## JohnC (May 15, 2021)

slclick said:


> So many articles (marketing) stating 'Which EF lenses to upgrade to RF First!'
> Meanwhile, all your EF glass works just fine or even better on RF. So.....if EF works fine, I read it as buy the focal lengths you don't have already. For many of us that translates into keeping everything or scoring a great deal on adapted EF lenses on your wishlist. The RF gear is very polarizing price point wise. They really need some middle ground primes, ala EF IS 2.8's.


Agreed. I still shoot my zeiss ze lenses for the most part and considering adding an 85mm to that collection. I did buy a 15-35 and 24-70 but only because I didn’t already have zooms in that range. I also ordered the upcoming 100 macro for the same reason.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (May 16, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> That really is my point, we, the photographer , ‘feel better’ but the viewer really doesn’t see the difference. Now it depends why we have this gear, who we are shooting for etc etc. if we are shooting for ourselves and we have the disposable income then the new stuff is a no brainer. If we are shooting for others on a budget the equation is very different.


100% agree. For myself my situation is a mix of both, so I decided to upgrade for my own piece of mind mainly.

I will say though, the technical qualities of the final output are just one part of the equation to consider when you’re shooting with a team of people (on a fashion shoot for instance). The improved autofocus means I don’t have to ‘overshoot’ to ensure I have a good frame with perfect focus. I can move on to the second and third look with more confidence - saving time and being in a more positive mindset / less stressed. I suppose that helps everyone feel a bit better on the shoot in those situations. But once again it’s a ‘nice feeling’


----------



## Dragon (May 16, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> In most of Europe, the price for anything includes a Value-Added Tax that varies from (ballpark) 20 to 40 percent. I don't know what the VAT rate is in Sweden, but the VAT alone accounts for most of the price difference. Also, the advertised prices in the US do not include sales tax, possibly because the sales taxes vary a lot between communities.


Ah, yes taxes. In Oregon we don't have sales tax so I have gotten out of the habit of figuring it into the cost of stuff. In any case, COVID inflation is in full swing so expect prices of everything to continue to climb. Lumber prices are insane. We have a mill in town and they are running around the clock but the local lumberyards can't get lumber from them because their entire output is booked for months in advance.


----------



## Viggo (May 17, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Ah, yes taxes. In Oregon we don't have sales tax so I have gotten out of the habit of figuring it into the cost of stuff. In any case, COVID inflation is in full swing so expect prices of everything to continue to climb. Lumber prices are insane. We have a mill in town and they are running around the clock but the local lumberyards can't get lumber from them because their entire output is booked for months in advance.


Same here, lumber materials went up 40(!!) % April first…


----------



## Viggo (May 17, 2021)

As for anecdotal improvements in my pictures I disagree completely… the freedom to AF wherever I want in the frame with absolute precision and fast lenses sharp enough in the corner to match that is a complete game changer for composition. And the face/eye tracking means I can hold my subject in frame when they move without having to depend on my single AF point. I can’t tell you how many full body portraits that are cropped too close at the feet because my dslr’s didn’t have af points far enough out. I shoot to not crop in post and this is a huge upgrade with mirrorless.

and the AF speed and precision with the RF50L and RF85L compared to their EF counterpart couldn’t be bigger. The RF’s are everything I’ve ever wanted in those lenses where the EF glass on DSLR was a reeeeaaaal PITA to use…


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (May 17, 2021)

Viggo said:


> As for anecdotal improvements in my pictures I disagree completely… the freedom to AF wherever I want in the frame with absolute precision and fast lenses sharp enough in the corner to match that is a complete game changer for composition. And the face/eye tracking means I can hold my subject in frame when they move without having to depend on my single AF point. I can’t tell you how many full body portraits that are cropped too close at the feet because my dslr’s didn’t have af points far enough out. I shoot to not crop in post and this is a huge upgrade with mirrorless.
> 
> and the AF speed and precision with the RF50L and RF85L compared to their EF counterpart couldn’t be bigger. The RF’s are everything I’ve ever wanted in those lenses where the EF glass on DSLR was a reeeeaaaal PITA to use…



I agree that the AF combined with the great RF 85L and RF 50L really does improve things noticeably - much more enjoyable shooting when the equipment gets out of the way and let’s you focus on the more creative aspects. That is bound to make you miss less shots and probably improve the creative output also.

Having said that though, some of my favourite photos were taken years ago with a (now) lowly 5D Mark ii combined with the EF 50mm f1.4. That combination was pretty awful for me when it came to autofocus accuracy and I found the outer focus points particularly useless on that camera. Resorted to focus and recompose for every shot using the middle focus point only. Even with that worse equipment, I suppose you just learn to work around it and can still find ways to produce good results.

Funnily enough, moving to a 5D Mark III felt like a game changer to me at the time because I could finally use outer focus points reliably. And I suppose if you had a 1D level camera, the AF would have been even better... perhaps why some people here don’t feel compelled to move to mirrorless. I was sceptical at first, but after owning the EOS R and then now the R5 I would never go back to a DSLR, nor would I recommend anyone else (who does similar work to me) to buy anything but a good mirrorless camera. I get much more excited about shooting these days, because I don’t have to think about the equipment nearly at all. That’s truly a nice feeling 

All I need now is a 35mm F1.2L! Common Canon!


----------



## koenkooi (May 17, 2021)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> [..]Funnily enough, moving to a 5D Mark III felt like a game changer to me at the time because I could finally use outer focus points reliably. And I suppose if you had a 1D level camera, the AF would have been even better...[..]


When I tried to rent an R5 last year the rental place double booked it and offered an 1DX3 instread at the same price. Almost everything on that 1DX3 was miles ahead of my RP, except the AF. I couldn't get past how clumped together the AF points were and how little they covered. It felt less than on my 1D, but that cheats by being APS-H 

The shoot was dragonflies at dawn in a peat bog, so not much AF was needed, but still, it was jarring when looking through the viewfinder and trying to move the AF point to the edges and failing.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (May 17, 2021)

JohnC said:


> Rakuten is doing 15% cash back at canon USA if you guys are interested. I ordered some stuff this morning including the upcoming RF 100 macro.


Is there also 15% cash back on RF lenses?


----------



## Exploreshootshare (May 17, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> In most of Europe, the price for anything includes a Value-Added Tax that varies from (ballpark) 20 to 40 percent. I don't know what the VAT rate is in Sweden, but the VAT alone accounts for most of the price difference. Also, the advertised prices in the US do not include sales tax, possibly because the sales taxes vary a lot between communities.


The prices between the US and most of Europe do make a difference, VAT does it's share. The RF 100-500mm is about 800 $ more expensive in Germany (compared to Texas VAT which is 8.25%) and the difference is even more significant when compared to Oklahoma (VAT 4.5%) or Oregon (0% VAT). 

So RF gear in Germany is extremely costly with its 19% VAT...


----------



## JohnC (May 17, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Is there also 15% cash back on RF lenses?


yes there is, I ordered the not yet released 100 macro and picked up the 70-200 f4 zoom.

as far as I know the only limit is the refurb items which have a smaller cash back.

Now, I THOUGHT yesterday was the last day, but I"m not positive about that.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (May 17, 2021)

JohnC said:


> yes there is, I ordered the not yet released 100 macro and picked up the 70-200 f4 zoom.
> 
> as far as I know the only limit is the refurb items which have a smaller cash back.
> 
> Now, I THOUGHT yesterday was the last day, but I"m not positive about that.


Thx for the reply. I'll check it out right away


----------



## Viggo (May 18, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> The prices between the US and most of Europe do make a difference, VAT does it's share. The RF 100-500mm is about 800 $ more expensive in Germany (compared to Texas VAT which is 8.25%) and the difference is even more significant when compared to Oklahoma (VAT 4.5%) or Oregon (0% VAT).
> 
> So RF gear in Germany is extremely costly with its 19% VAT...


Indeed, and we have 25% vat…


----------



## Finn (May 30, 2021)

Still waiting for a 14-28mm f/2.

My trinity setup would be:

14-28mm f/2, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8. The 28-70 f/2 is a great lens but too heavy and not wide enough for me for a standard zoom range. Also, super bummed the 70-200 doesn't take a teleconverter...really stupid. But we have see whispers of new style teleconverters for RF.


----------



## FrenchFry (May 31, 2021)

Finn said:


> Still waiting for a 14-28mm f/2.
> 
> My trinity setup would be:
> 
> 14-28mm f/2, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8. The 28-70 f/2 is a great lens but too heavy and not wide enough for me for a standard zoom range. Also, super bummed the 70-200 doesn't take a teleconverter...really stupid. But we have see whispers of new style teleconverters for RF.


Got a link to those whispers?


----------



## Exploreshootshare (May 31, 2021)

Finn said:


> Still waiting for a 14-28mm f/2.


That'd be super awesome, especially for astrophotography! And to complete the trinity I'd love to see a 70-135mm F2... although at this point I'm not sure which lense I'd get. At the moment, I'm desperately waiting for the RF 14-35mm F4...

There seems to be no F2 lense on this roadmap. Is there any news whether Canon will eventually "complete" a F2 trinity? CR Guy reported a CR1 rumor about a 16-28mm F2 lense in 2019, since then I haven't read anything about it in terms of "f2 trinity"...


----------



## Dragon (May 31, 2021)

Finn said:


> Still waiting for a 14-28mm f/2.
> 
> My trinity setup would be:
> 
> 14-28mm f/2, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8. The 28-70 f/2 is a great lens but too heavy and not wide enough for me for a standard zoom range. Also, super bummed the 70-200 doesn't take a teleconverter...really stupid. But we have see whispers of new style teleconverters for RF.


If Canon doesn't make them, Kenko will .


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 16, 2021)

Nokishita leaked the RF 14-35mm today. I hope it will be available this year! So excited 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1405076564627181578


----------



## Chig (Jun 19, 2021)

SV said:


> Conspicuous in their absence from the list: 300mm f/2.8 or any DO lenses...


Yep , imagine a RF 300mm f/2.8 DO with built in 1.4 and 2.0 T.Cs and similar size and weight to the EF 400 f/4 D.O ii ?


----------



## Chig (Jun 19, 2021)

Khatgs said:


> Do you think telephoto lens (400 2.8, 500 f4,...) will be shorter in term of size than EF versions?


Only if they're D.O. freznel lenses otherwise they'll be same as EF other than the flange distance.
Can't understand why Canon aren't using their freznel technology more


----------



## Chig (Jun 19, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Im still not happy about the telephoto selection. We ether have cheap and slow like the 100-400 7.1 or expensive like the 100-500. Or super expensive like the 400+ primes.
> Still not affordable quality lens to go above 600mm. Not counting the super slow DO primes.


How can they make a high quality 600mm + lens cheap ? 
No company ever has before !
High quality = expensive 
Cheap = compromise


----------



## Chig (Jun 19, 2021)

dolina said:


> Below would be my lens wishlist target weights and physical dimension
> 
> Canon RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM at *2kg or lighter*
> Canon RF 500mm f/4L IS USM at *2kg or lighter*
> ...


Even using their D.O. freznel elements those weights aren't likely ( the EF400 f/4 DO ii which is about as good as it gets is 2kg so can't see a 400mm f/2.8L being under 2.5kg even with DO ), maybe if the lens bodies are made from magnesium instead of aluminium (I presume the lens barrels are made of aluminium) it might be doable ?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 19, 2021)

Chig said:


> How can they make a high quality 600mm + lens cheap ?
> No company ever has before !
> High quality = expensive
> Cheap = compromise



Take the Sony 200-600 for example. 600mm at under $2000. And great optical quality, fast AF, metal build, weathersealing and internal zoom. No, not asking for 600mm F4 for $1000.


----------



## dolina (Jun 19, 2021)

Chig said:


> Even using their D.O. freznel elements those weights aren't likely ( the EF400 f/4 DO ii which is about as good as it gets is 2kg so can't see a 400mm f/2.8L being under 2.5kg even with DO ), maybe if the lens bodies are made from magnesium instead of aluminium (I presume the lens barrels are made of aluminium) it might be doable ?


Instead of my Nov 2020 posting I wish I spent my time buying more stocks that would have yielded a 500% return by now


----------



## deleteme (Jul 4, 2021)

I have mixed feelings about the 10-24. I currently use the EF 11-24 with an adapter. 
It is wicked sharp and the AF is fast. I tis a huge money maker for me shooting interiors with that and my 17 TS-E. Both are unlikely to be supplanted any time soon and thus I may be out of the game before they come to market.
I guess I was fortunate to be shooting in the golden age of the TS-E and the 11-24 as I know if I had retired before they came out I would be just envious of those who got to use them.

I really appreciate the cameras and lenses we have today as I started out in the 70's with film and every format from 35mm half frame (Olympus PEN the original) to 8x10 view cameras. All had their charms but the image Is get today are many orders of magnitude better than what could be achieved then. 
Yes, film is fun but the real benefit of digital is the commercial results I get in less time and higher quality.


----------



## Khatgs (Aug 2, 2021)

Is there a chance to see another RF telephoto zoom L lens ? The aperture 7.1 from the 100-500 isn't very exciting.


----------



## slclick (Aug 3, 2021)

Khatgs said:


> Is there a chance to see another RF telephoto zoom L lens ? The aperture 7.1 from the 100-500 isn't very exciting.


But the images in capable hands are.


----------



## Khatgs (Aug 3, 2021)

slclick said:


> But the images in capable hands are.


Only during a sunny day, i couldn’t use this lens for deer photography in the early morning for example. I have a 400 2.8 is ii right now but i want something lighter for travel but with a better aperture than 7.1..


----------



## Dragon (Aug 3, 2021)

Khatgs said:


> Only during a sunny day, i couldn’t use this lens for deer photography in the early morning for example. I have a 400 2.8 is ii right now but i want something lighter for travel but with a better aperture than 7.1..


That lens is f.5.6 to 360mm. If you want a zoom that goes through 400 at f/4, it is going to be a LOT heavier. If Canon makes the rumored 400mm f/3.6 mirror lens that has been rumored, it might be perfect if you are OK with doughnuts (personally, I like mirror lenses and am looking forward AF and IS included).


----------



## neurorx (Aug 11, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Take the Sony 200-600 for example. 600mm at under $2000. And great optical quality, fast AF, metal build, weathersealing and internal zoom. No, not asking for 600mm F4 for $1000.


I would really love a Canon version of the Sony 200-600. That would be an awesome lens.


----------



## neurorx (Aug 11, 2021)

I keep hoping for the RF 135 f1.4L.....


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 25, 2021)

Since this list - so far very accurate list! - is for 2020/ 2021 and a few months due to delays, I'm wondering whether there are new rumors about lenses coming in 2022 (which isn't really far away). I really hope Canon will complete the F2 trinity. I'd be excited to see a 16-28mm F2 or 70-135mm F2 or something similar.


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 25, 2021)

Khatgs said:


> Only during a sunny day, i couldn’t use this lens for deer photography in the early morning for example. I have a 400 2.8 is ii right now but i want something lighter for travel but with a better aperture than 7.1..


It does not have to be sunny to use a lens at f/7.1. It can be morning. It can be evening. It can be cloudy. Unless your deer are running fast and you need a really high shutter speed, you will have no problems.


----------



## masterpix (Sep 26, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> [url=https://www.canonrumors.com/this-is-the-canon-rf-lens-roadmap/]Continue reading...


What about those CAT lenses that were patented not long ago?


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 1, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> *** one thing I'd like is a mode that keeps taking pictures until it gets a super sharp one...


I'd like a mode where the camera (or in-post software) could give you some numerical measure of sharpness in the image, so that you could take many shots of the same thing and be able to easily choose only the sharpest one and discard the rest. I doubt we'll see it in-camera, but I'd really like to see it in post (like FastRawViewer or PhotoLab) as it would save me a TON of time there!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 23, 2021)

Im waiting for the RF 85mm f1.4L IS USM hope that shows up on a 2022 list.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 23, 2021)

jeffa4444 said:


> Im waiting for the RF 85mm f1.4L IS USM hope that shows up on a 2022 list.


You might have a long wait. It took 30 years to the EF version .


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Oct 25, 2021)

Dragon said:


> You might have a long wait. It took 30 years to the EF version .


Especially since Canon has released three 85mm RF primes so far. Don't expect them to release another one in the next years.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 28, 2021)

jeffa4444 said:


> Im waiting for the RF 85mm f1.4L IS USM hope that shows up on a 2022 list.


Since there are so many 85mm RF lenses, I'd suggest you pin your hopes on a future RF 100mm f1.4L lens. There might be a chance for that in the future, and it'd be an awesome portrait lens!


----------



## Pixel (Nov 12, 2021)

Is the 300 2.8 focal length dead? There's never been any mention of it in the Canon road map and it's not appearing in the Nikon road map either? 
What gives?


----------



## dennishensphoto (Nov 24, 2021)

Comparing the lens lineup of Sony vs Canon and got a bit disappointed.
In terms of primes there is no 24mm, there is no 35mm f1.4, no 50 f1.4 and no 85 f.14, also missing the 135 actually.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2021)

mrmagic said:


> Comparing the lens lineup of Sony vs Canon and got a bit disappointed.
> In terms of primes there is no 24mm, there is no 35mm f1.4, no 50 f1.4 and no 85 f.14, also missing the 135 actually.


Patience, young padawan. Sony has been making FE lenses for 9 years, Canon has been making RF lenses for 4 years. Canon’s launch rate (lenses/year) is higher than Sony’s. Zooms are generally more popular than primes, and they prioritized accordingly.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 24, 2021)

mrmagic said:


> Comparing the lens lineup of Sony vs Canon and got a bit disappointed.
> In terms of primes there is no 24mm, there is no 35mm f1.4, no 50 f1.4 and no 85 f.14, also missing the 135 actually.


I think Canons lineup is quite impressive for three years and two months in the making. At the moment, there are more Sony offerings on the table, but not for long anymore. 
Plus, I like Canons innovation with their lenses on the consumer side (600/ 800mm/ 70-400mm/ affordable primes) as well on the professional side (14-35mm F4/ 28-70mm f2/ 100-500mm/ 70-200mm and their primes) and I expect more great things to come.


----------



## SHAMwow (Nov 24, 2021)

Just waiting for the next RF 35mm. Only piece I want to add to my RF based kit at this point.


----------



## HenryL (Nov 25, 2021)

SHAMwow said:


> Just waiting for the next RF 35mm. Only piece I want to add to my RF based kit at this point.


I've only got one missing piece at this point as well, but mine's a big white to fill the hole left by the 500 f/4 IS I sold a while back. Canon's picks for the initial offerings hit all my marks, and for the first time ever I've duplicated some focal lengths with the STM 16, 35, 50 and 85. I use them for packing a light kit for hiking and honestly loan them out to my son who uses them more than I do but is on a limited budget.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 25, 2021)

HenryL said:


> I've only got one missing piece at this point as well, but mine's a big white to fill the hole left by the 500 f/4 IS I sold a while back. Canon's picks for the initial offerings hit all my marks, and for the first time ever I've duplicated some focal lengths with the STM 16, 35, 50 and 85. I use them for packing a light kit for hiking and honestly loan them out to my son who uses them more than I do but is on a limited budget.


Are you planning to replace it with an RF 500 f4? Not to be too pessimistic but given the fact that Canon never updated the 500mm when they updated the 400mm and 600mm, plus we don't know to what extent the 100-500 zoom may have cut into the market and also knowing that both the 400 f2.8 and the 600 f4 are in short supply, I have my doubts that we will see an RF 500 f4 any time soon.


----------



## HenryL (Nov 25, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Are you planning to replace it with an RF 500 f4? Not to be too pessimistic but given the fact that Canon never updated the 500mm when they updated the 400mm and 600mm, plus we don't know to what extent the 100-500 zoom may have cut into the market and also knowing that both the 400 f2.8 and the 600 f4 are in short supply, I have my doubts that we will see an RF 500 f4 any time soon.


Nope, I'll be picking up the RF 600/4 this time around. I want the additional reach, and it's almost two pounds lighter than what I had. Not in a rush by any means, although I would likely have picked one up recently had I not ordered an R3. Been waiting a few years, so another one or two isn't a big deal. I do think Canon will eventually add a 300/2.8 and 500/4 to the RF line, but neither are on my roadmap.


----------



## john1970 (Nov 25, 2021)

I am actually hoping that Canon releases a 500 mm f4 and 300 mm f2.8 in 2022. Both lenses are in the RF roadmap so hopefully we see then sooner rather than later. I also considered the 600 mm f4, but prefer the 500 mm f4 for lighter weight and easier to travel due to smaller size.


----------



## dennishensphoto (Nov 25, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I think Canons lineup is quite impressive for three years and two months in the making. At the moment, there are more Sony offerings on the table, but not for long anymore.
> Plus, I like Canons innovation with their lenses on the consumer side (600/ 800mm/ 70-400mm/ affordable primes) as well on the professional side (14-35mm F4/ 28-70mm f2/ 100-500mm/ 70-200mm and their primes) and I expect more great things to come.


Absolutely true, however, working with a 5DmkIII and looking to upgrade I went to a photography event trying some new cameras.
I really didn't like the way Sony cameras felt in my hand and was 100% sure to stay with Canon. However, when looking at the lens lineup, I got kind of the opposite reaction. I kinda hoped that after the f2.8 zooms they would go for the fast primes (but not the L primes which cost over 2000 EUR). Cool to see the nifty fifty and nifty 16, but not interesting for the professional users  
Anyway: I we would know when certain lenses would come, that would help a lot actually, not much to do about it, but closely following CR


----------



## kaihp (Nov 25, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I am actually hoping that Canon releases a 500 mm f4 and 300 mm f2.8 in 2022. Both lenses are in the RF roadmap so hopefully we see then sooner rather than later. I also considered the 600 mm f4, but prefer the 500 mm f4 for lighter weight and easier to travel due to smaller size.


I have the 300/2.8 II and the 200-400/4 1.4x TC. Of those, I would rather have the 200-400 to be released than the 300.

On the other hand, with the price hikes on the 400 & 600, I am not likely to be willing to pay the price of an RF 200-400 from new (I got the EF as a Black Friday sale on used items a couple of years ago).


----------



## john1970 (Nov 25, 2021)

kaihp said:


> I have the 300/2.8 II and the 200-400/4 1.4x TC. Of those, I would rather have the 200-400 to be released than the 300.
> 
> On the other hand, with the price hikes on the 400 & 600, I am not likely to be willing to pay the price of an RF 200-400 from new (I got the EF as a Black Friday sale on used items a couple of years ago).


Good point. Maybe we get a RF 120-300 mm f2.8 similar to the Nikon offering? That would be very similar to the 200-400 mm f4.


----------



## kaihp (Nov 25, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Good point. Maybe we get a RF 120-300 mm f2.8 similar to the Nikon offering? That would be very similar to the 200-400 mm f4.


I was only aware of the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. Just goes on to show how little I look outside the "Canon world" 

Having a 120-300mm f/2.8 is not quite the same as a 200-400mm f/4 when you factor extenders in. On an EF camera, you are limited to 2x TC, so you can get to 400-800mm f/8. With the 120-300 you'd have 240-600mm.

It would be interesting to try the 200-400 with the internal 1.4x TC and an external 2x TC + EF-RF adapter on the R3/R5 and see how well the combo works. Given that it's within the f/11 of the 600 & 800 lenses, it should work for AF. Question is how much the image quality and AF speed would suffer.


----------



## TMT (Dec 1, 2021)

I'm confused. The Canon RF 35mm f1.8 Macro has been around since the beginning, but I don't see it listed here. Also, Amazon says it is not sure this lens will work with my R5. What am I missing?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

TMT said:


> I'm confused. The Canon RF 35mm f1.8 Macro has been around since the beginning, but I don't see it listed here. Also, Amazon says it is not sure this lens will work with my R5. What am I missing?


CRGuy forgot to add an affiliate link for the RF 35 macro and Amazon is not a reliable source of such information. The lens will work fine on your R5.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 20, 2021)

Has anybody heard about the two RF lenses which were supposed to be coming until the end of the year? I'm guessing they've been postponed but its unlike Canon to make an announcement like that and then don't deliver...


----------



## john1970 (Dec 20, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Has anybody heard about the two RF lenses which were supposed to be coming until the end of the year? I'm guessing they've been postponed but its unlike Canon to make an announcement like that and then don't deliver...


I have not heard anything, but there are still 11 days left in 2021! Would be interesting if they made the announcement on Dec 31, 2021.


----------



## BBarn (Dec 20, 2021)

Rumors forgot to count the two teleconverters in the total when comparing total lens numbers. I'd say no more lenses for 2021.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 22, 2021)

BBarn said:


> Rumors forgot to count the two teleconverters in the total when comparing total lens numbers. I'd say no more lenses for 2021.


Admittedly, people do forget about the converters but that’s not the case here. Canon stated in their last financial report and their currently are 24 RF lenses (that includes the converters as well as the 100-400/ 16mm/ 5.2mm fisheye) and that there will be 26 by the end of the year. With this statement canon actually pre-announced two more lenses but so far nobody has heard anything…


----------



## BBarn (Dec 22, 2021)

As someone else pointed out, Canon currently lists 26 RF lenses on their website. Those 26 lenses include the two RF teleconverters. So, it comes down to how Canon counts lenses. Of course, in less than 10 days we'll know whether two more RF lenses are announced in 2021.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 22, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Canon stated in their last financial report and their currently are 24 RF lenses (that includes the converters as well as the 100-400/ 16mm/ 5.2mm fisheye) and that there will be 26 by the end of the year. With this statement canon actually pre-announced two more lenses but so far nobody has heard anything…


I don’t see where they say they had 24. They did state in their Q3 materials, “We plan to increase our lens lineup to 26 within this year, including the RF 5.2 mm F2.8 L DUAL FISHEYE lens that we announced this month.”

As @BBarn points out (again), there are 26 RF lenses now.




I’m not sure why anyone is confused about this, there are no more lenses coming this year.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 23, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t see where they say they had 24. They did state in their Q3 materials, “We plan to increase our lens lineup to 26 within this year, including the RF 5.2 mm F2.8 L DUAL FISHEYE lens that we announced this month.”
> 
> As @BBarn points out (again), there are 26 RF lenses now.
> 
> ...


Ahhh, I was fooled by an "always-up-to-date-RF lenses" list, which actually was missing two of them. Furthermore, I miscounted on the Canon website :/ sry for the inconvenience...


----------



## AutoMatters (Dec 24, 2021)

The elephant in the room, that nobody is talking about, is the lack of a broad range, RF, high quality, fast, super zoom lens for all-around use when you only want to take the camera with one attached lens. Nikon's F-Mount 28-300mm full frame lens is incredibly versatile. Tamron makes one too. However, Canon's EF 28-300mm lens is almost 20 years old and way more expensive than either the Nikon or the Tamron. The Canon RF 24-240mm lens has a great zoom range for all-around use but it has received a lot of bad reviews: poor IQ at either end of the zoom range, no manual focus switch, very slow at long end of the zoom range (therefore poor in low light), lack of weather sealing and lens hood not included. It seems to be a poor lens choice for advanced photographers. Surely Canon can do better than this. How about a fast, L-series RF version?


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 24, 2021)

AutoMatters said:


> The elephant in the room, that nobody is talking about, is the lack of a broad range, RF, high quality, fast, super zoom lens for all-around use when you only want to take the camera with one attached lens. Nikon's F-Mount 28-300mm full frame lens is incredibly versatile. Tamron makes one too. However, Canon's EF 28-300mm lens is almost 30 years old and way more expensive than either the Nikon or the Tamron. The Canon RF 24-240mm lens has a great zoom range for all-around use but it has received a lot of bad reviews: poor IQ at either end of the zoom range, no manual focus switch, very slow at long end of the zoom range (therefore poor on low light), lack of weather sealing, lens hood not included) is a poor lens choice for advanced photographers. Surely Canon can do better than this. How about a fast, L-series RF version?


The 24-240 is also a lens that gets rave reviews from actual people that are actually using it, so I'm inclined to take the "poor IQ" reviews with a lot of salt.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 24, 2021)

AutoMatters said:


> The elephant in the room, that nobody is talking about, is the lack of a broad range, RF, high quality, fast, super zoom lens for all-around use when you only want to take the camera with one attached lens.


Ahhh yes, the elephant.






AutoMatters said:


> Nikon's F-Mount 28-300mm full frame lens is incredibly versatile. Tamron makes one too. However, Canon's EF 28-300mm lens is almost 30 years old and way more expensive than either the Nikon or the Tamron. The Canon RF 24-240mm lens has a great zoom range for all-around use but it has received a lot of bad reviews: poor IQ at either end of the zoom range, no manual focus switch, very slow at long end of the zoom range (therefore poor on low light), lack of weather sealing, lens hood not included) is a poor lens choice for advanced photographers. Surely Canon can do better than this. How about a fast, L-series RF version?


Superzoom lenses are always an optical compromise. I had the 28-300L, it was decent. The IQ of the RF 24-240 is similar, which is impressive for a non-L lens.

I suspect the market for an RF L superzoom just isn’t large enough to justify one. Canon said about the 28-300 that it was aimed at photojournalists, and that’s a vastly smaller group today than when the lens launched as an update to the venerable 35-350L.


----------



## AutoMatters (Dec 24, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The 24-240 is also a lens that gets rave reviews from actual people that are actually using it, so I'm inclined to take the "poor IQ" reviews with a lot of salt.


Koenkooi,

Thank you for your encouraging reply.

Since posting about this less than a day ago, I've sought out and been reading lots of reviews about Canon's 24-240mm RF lens, since I really need a superzoom walkaround lens, and for use when I have a long telephoto zoom (Canon's 100-500mm, which I own but have not used yet) on another camera body. I agree with you. A lot of people really like this lens, so I've decided to take a chance on it.

If the extreme wide and zoomed-in positions of this lens are not good due to extreme distortion and vignetting, as some people are explaining in great detail in their reviews (including one reviewer on B&H and in the Canon online store), I will simply avoid using those extreme positions of the zoom range.

FYI, very recently I switched from 50 years of shooting Nikons (mostly SLRs and DSLRs, plus a Nikon Z6 — all of which I have sold) to try Canon mirrorless (EOS R3) — after trying and rejecting Sony mirrorless (Alpha 1). I often shoot motorsports (especially professional car racing), but Sony's Alpha 1 was not particularly well-suited to reliably focus-tracking racing cars, and I could not get used to its ergonomics. Canon has car focus tracking.

Also, I often shoot in low light. Most recently I shot in low light using my Nikon D5 DSLR with Nikon's slow 28-300mm lens, for photos that I successfully published in my "AutoMatters & More column, at AutoMatters.net. My Nikon D5 (and, before that, my D4s and D3s) all had good enough lowlight capabilities that the photos were still acceptable for me to publish (online and in newspapers). That is why I am not worried that Canon's 24-240mm is also a slow lens — especially when zoomed way in at the far end of the zoom range, which would necessitate shooting at pretty high ISOs.

I do have one important question for you, though. Many of the reviewers of Canon's 24-240mm RF lens are stressing the importance of using Canon's lens profiles to correct this lens (in-camera and when editing), but they do not say how to do that. I shoot RAW and edit in Lightroom Classic.

Can and will you tell me in which menu are these lens profiles located in Canon cameras, how can I invoke them within Lightroom Classic and exactly how am I supposed to use them?

Thank you, and Happy Holidays!

Jan


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 24, 2021)

AutoMatters said:


> I do have one important question for you, though. Many of the reviewers of Canon's 24-240mm RF lens are stressing the importance of using Canon's lens profiles to correct this lens (in-camera and when editing), but they do not say how to do that. I shoot RAW and edit in Lightroom Classic.
> 
> Can and will you tell me in which menu are these lens profiles located in Canon cameras, how can I invoke them within Lightroom Classic and exactly how am I supposed to use them?


In-camera corrections are selected in one of the shooting menus (which will depend on the camera, on my R3 they’re in Shooting 4). Those apply only to the JPG you see on the camera review (Canon’s DPP will apply your settings to RAWs, but you don’t use DPP). 

Lens profiles are in the optical corrections tab in ACR, I suspect there’s a similar tab in LRc (I don’t use LR at all). The profile for the RF 24-240 was added in LRc v8.4.


----------



## AutoMatters (Dec 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> In-camera corrections are selected in one of the shooting menus (which will depend on the camera, on my R3 they’re in Shooting 4). Those apply only to the JPG you see on the camera review (Canon’s DPP will apply your settings to RAWs, but you don’t use DPP).
> 
> Lens profiles are in the optical corrections tab in ACR, I suspect there’s a similar tab in LRc (I don’t use LR at all). The profile for the RF 24-240 was added in LRc v8.4.


Thank you very much for telling me that.
A drawback with being self-taught about technology (including digital photography and photo editing) is that there are gaps in my knowledge. Thank goodness for help from people like you, and Google searches!


----------



## AutoMatters (Dec 25, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I actually liked the way handled the situation. 100-500mm is a loooot more versatile and more useable in so many situations. It also is lighter and shorter. The 200-600mm is quite long...
> Since there are several telephotos and Converters available I'm quite sure Canon sees the need for another zoom lense. If they do, I'd actually hope the go for a "real telezoom wildlife lense". I think on canon news there once was a patent for like 250-700mm or even 800mm. That'd fit quite nice in the portfolio.


28-300mm L series is my hope.


----------



## AutoMatters (Dec 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ahhh yes, the elephant.
> 
> View attachment 201796
> 
> ...


I am a photojournalist. I guess that is why I like the 28-300mm range so much. It lets me be prepared for almost any shooting situation. If there was an RF L-series version with fast auto focusing and good weather sealing, I would use that lens a lot, saving my 100-500mm RF lens for use on my second body at auto races and air shows.
When I cover auto races and air shows, I carry two cameras with a Cotton Carrier. When I shot with Nikon, I'd put a Tamron 150-600 G2 on my Nikon D5, and the Nikon 28-300mm on the D4s. I was ready for anything.


----------



## Rivermist (Dec 26, 2021)

AutoMatters said:


> Thank you very much for telling me that.
> A drawback with being self-taught about technology (including digital photography and photo editing) is that there are gaps in my knowledge. Thank goodness for help from people like you, and Google searches!


We are all on the same leaning curve, this and other RF lenses are the new generation following on the trail of cell phone cameras and their computational photography. The premise is to intentionally not seek perfection in the optical system, but make it such that with software computational corrections developed at the same time as the lens the outcome is acceptable, good or excellent. The 14-35L is the first L lens with this logic, while the 24-240 (which I own) was the most noticeable first step. I have pretty much given up using RAW with that lens, the corrected JPGs are very good (for a non-L lens), exposure bracketing can help if unsure about lighting, but the RAWs always look less appealing and require hard work to process if not using DPP. If only Canon (or the industry at large) would come up with a 10-bit or 12 bit jpeg or some similar format with better dynamic range than the current jpeg but a processed file....


----------



## AutoMatters (Dec 26, 2021)

Rivermist said:


> We are all on the same leaning curve, this and other RF lenses are the new generation following on the trail of cell phone cameras and their computational photography. The premise is to intentionally not seek perfection in the optical system, but make it such that with software computational corrections developed at the same time as the lens the outcome is acceptable, good or excellent. The 14-35L is the first L lens with this logic, while the 24-240 (which I own) was the most noticeable first step. I have pretty much given up using RAW with that lens, the corrected JPGs are very good (for a non-L lens), exposure bracketing can help if unsure about lighting, but the RAWs always look less appealing and require hard work to process if not using DPP. If only Canon (or the industry at large) would come up with a 10-bit or 12 bit jpeg or some similar format with better dynamic range than the current jpeg but a processed file....


For a few months recently I tried going back to shooting the highest quality JPEGs (with a Sony Alpha 1), so that I would not have to continue editing every single raw picture in Lightroom (Classic), but with minimal editing I could make my RAW images look as good or better than the JPEGs, and save poorly exposed photos. Is the extra work of which you speak specifically due to the conversions necessitated by the 24-240mm and other R-series lenses (eg. due to having apply the appropriate Canon lens profile)?
I shoot in low light a lot, and many of these underexposed images, when shot as JPEGs, cannot be saved. That is why I've gone back to shooting RAW.


----------



## Rivermist (Dec 26, 2021)

AutoMatters said:


> For a few months recently I tried going back to shooting the highest quality JPEGs (with a Sony Alpha 1), so that I would not have to continue editing every single raw picture in Lightroom (Classic), but with minimal editing I could make my RAW images look as good or better than the JPEGs, and save poorly exposed photos. Is the extra work of which you speak specifically due to the conversions necessitated by the 24-240mm and other R-series lenses (eg. due to having apply the appropriate Canon lens profile)?
> I shoot in low light a lot, and many of these underexposed images, when shot as JPEGs, cannot be saved. That is why I've gone back to shooting RAW.


Yes, that is the gist. I have also been an avid RAW shooter, and when I take the "serious" glass (RF 24-105L, RF 70-200L, RF100-500L, even the 35mm f:1.8), I shoot RAW for the same reasons you mention: exposure compensation, white balance, tweaks to the LUT, and that sort of correction takes next to no time, for excellent results. The lenses requiring computational corrections are a different kettle of fish, unless using DPP (and I agree that is not a workflow of choice) a lot of corrections are involved, hence the tendency to use the JPEG which, while not perfect, is properly corrected for all the intentional optical flaws that are part of the lens's design.


----------



## AutoMatters (Dec 26, 2021)

Rivermist said:


> Yes, that is the gist. I have also been an avid RAW shooter, and when I take the "serious" glass (RF 24-105L, RF 70-200L, RF100-500L, even the 35mm f:1.8), I shoot RAW for the same reasons you mention: exposure compensation, white balance, tweaks to the LUT, and that sort of correction takes next to no time, for excellent results. The lenses requiring computational corrections are a different kettle of fish, unless using DPP (and I agree that is not a workflow of choice) a lot of corrections are involved, hence the tendency to use the JPEG which, while not perfect, is properly corrected for all the intentional optical flaws that are part of the lens's design.


I agree that we need a version of JPEGs that collects more image data, but that is unlikely anytime soon.

Is the full range of computational adjustments for Canon's 24-240mm RF lens only available when shooting JPEGs or when processing RAW images through DPP ( which I am unlikely to use, since the workflow that I am very familiar with mostly uses Lightroom Classic? Is it not also available when bringing RAW photos into Lightroom? My other RF lenses are Canon's 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L, 24-70mm F2.8 L and 50mm F1.2 L. Do they not require these computational corrections?M, or can they benefit from them also.

If I keep it (and I think that I will need to, because there is no other RF or RF-compatible lens with this or a similar zoom range, which I need), when I shoot with the Canon 24-240mm RF lens (which may be for most of my general purpose shooting, including general photojournalism), are you recommending that I shoot the highest quality of JPEGs — not RAW, unless I am shooting in low light conditions, which will require the greater range of adjustment enabled by shooting RAW — because the design of that one lens makes it important to take advantage of the computational adjustments that the Canon R3 will make to the images.

Thank you again.


----------



## Rivermist (Dec 26, 2021)

AutoMatters said:


> I agree that we need a version of JPEGs that collects more image data, but that is unlikely anytime soon.
> 
> Is the full range of computational adjustments for Canon's 24-240mm RF lens only available when shooting JPEGs or when processing RAW images through DPP ( which I am unlikely to use, since the workflow that I am very familiar with mostly uses Lightroom Classic? Is it not also available when bringing RAW photos into Lightroom? My other RF lenses are Canon's 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L, 24-70mm F2.8 L and 50mm F1.2 L. Do they not require these computational corrections?M, or can they benefit from them also.
> 
> ...


I am not a 100% expert but to the best of my understanding the in-camera adjustments to create the JPEGs are identical to the corrections in DPP for these lenses. I tend to shoot RAW + highest JPEG resolution anyway, with a 64GB SD card there is plenty of room for both, but unless there is a big snafu I will tend to discard the RAWs for the 24-240 since when using that lens (walk-around + family) the pictures I'm taking are more casual in nature anyway and 95% of the JPEG images are keeper-grade for that purpose. Displaying the histogram in the viewfinder while shooting helps nail exposure much better that in the old days of DSLRs, that reduces somewhat the need for RAW in most cases. I think I saw somewhere else in this thread a contribution mentioning that Adobe had now come out with profiles for at least some of these lenses, remains to be seen if they have corrected as much as Canon's in-camera / DPP profiles which were designed together with the lenses, in other words does Canon publish and license this information or do companies like Adobe have to figure it out for themselves by reverse-engineering the corrections? For the 24-240 most of the corrections, the tough ones anyway, are said to be in the 24-35 mm range, beyond that the corrections are more of the usual kind for regular lens profiles. For the 14-35 I read that the major corrections are in the 14-17mm range.


----------



## AutoMatters (Dec 26, 2021)

Rivermist said:


> I am not a 100% expert but to the best of my understanding the in-camera adjustments to create the JPEGs are identical to the corrections in DPP for these lenses. I tend to shoot RAW + highest JPEG resolution anyway, with a 64GB SD card there is plenty of room for both, but unless there is a big snafu I will tend to discard the RAWs for the 24-240 since when using that lens (walk-around + family) the pictures I'm taking are more casual in nature anyway and 95% of the JPEG images are keeper-grade for that purpose. Displaying the histogram in the viewfinder while shooting helps nail exposure much better that in the old days of DSLRs, that reduces somewhat the need for RAW in most cases. I think I saw somewhere else in this thread a contribution mentioning that Adobe had now come out with profiles for at least some of these lenses, remains to be seen if they have corrected as much as Canon's in-camera / DPP profiles which were designed together with the lenses, in other words does Canon publish and license this information or do companies like Adobe have to figure it out for themselves by reverse-engineering the corrections? For the 24-240 most of the corrections, the tough ones anyway, are said to be in the 24-35 mm range, beyond that the corrections are more of the usual kind for regular lens profiles. For the 14-35 I read that the major corrections are in the 14-17mm range.


It is beginning to look like what I should do is shoot RAW on one card, JPEGs on the other and see if the JPEGs are good enough, all things considered. The problem with that, though, is that the JPEGs will have less dynamic range. Low light shooting using the histograms for reference, in a fast-paced shooting situation, is probably not going to produce the desired exposure results.


----------



## kaihp (Dec 27, 2021)

Rivermist said:


> If only Canon (or the industry at large) would come up with a 10-bit or 12 bit jpeg or some similar format with better dynamic range than the current jpeg but a processed file....


Isn't that format HEIF? It supports up to 16-bit colour depth. 






High Efficiency Image File Format - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org













HEIF – What you need to know - Photo Review


A new image file format, High Efficiency Image Format (HEIF) is being introduced, with the first camera to use it, the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III paving the way for what is being touted as ‘JPEG’s replacement’.




www.photoreview.com.au


----------



## Rivermist (Dec 27, 2021)

AutoMatters said:


> It is beginning to look like what I should do is shoot RAW on one card, JPEGs on the other and see if the JPEGs are good enough, all things considered. The problem with that, though, is that the JPEGs will have less dynamic range. Low light shooting using the histograms for reference, in a fast-paced shooting situation, is probably not going to produce the desired exposure results.


Yes, precise use of histograms and fast-paced shooting do not mingle well, especially in a fast-changing lighting environment. An alternate can be exposure bracketing +- 1 ½ stops should cover most cases. On the RP if you activate exposure bracketing and have the camera on multiple exposure, it takes the 3 pictures with a single pressing of the shutter release, and does not continue to shoot even if you keep the shutter button depressed. No idea how that works on the R3 (can't afford to let another kidney go  )


----------



## AutoMatters (Dec 27, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Isn't that format HEIF? It supports up to 16-bit colour depth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True, I wonder if the R3's in-camera adjustments, when applied to the HEIF format images, will be carried over to Lightroom Classic intact? If so, perhaps I should shoot HEIFs. JPEGs with the in-camera adjustments, RAW with the in-camera adjustments NOT carried over to Lightroom Classic and HEIF — unknown as to whether or not the in-camera adjustments are carried over to Lightroom Classic — all this is getting a bit overwhelming.


----------



## Rivermist (Dec 27, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Isn't that format HEIF? It supports up to 16-bit colour depth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are correct, apologies for having forgotten about that, definitely something to pursue if you are one of the lucky ones (it is only available on the EOS 1D X Mk3, R5, R6 and R3, and I'm going to guess it will not be retroactively implemented on older camera bodies like my RPs). Apparently it requires the DIGIC X processor used by these more recent high-end cameras. Adobe's website mentions HEIF, so there is a chance it is supported https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-cc/kb/heic-files-support.html It is interesting that Canon went along with a format standard that is vendor-defined (Apple, 2017), instead of trying to revive industry consortia initiatives e.g. JPEG2000 to address the issue of better bit depth. To Apple's credit, HEIF not only adds 2 bits (and apparently allows for more as a format), it also has a more efficient compression such that the resulting file is approximately the same size as an 8-bit JPG. Setting your camera to use HEIF is somewhere in the HDR menus, I do not have a manual for any of the supported cameras so you will need to sit down and look through the user manual to get the details. Sony seems to have also implemented HEIF, less clear about Nikon. Most computer browsers do not support it (yet).


----------



## AutoMatters (Dec 27, 2021)

Rivermist said:


> You are correct, apologies for having forgotten about that, definitely something to pursue if you are one of the lucky ones (it is only available on the EOS 1D X Mk3, R5, R6 and R3, and I'm going to guess it will not be retroactively implemented on older camera bodies like my RPs). Apparently it requires the DIGIC X processor used by these more recent high-end cameras. Adobe's website mentions HEIF, so there is a chance it is supported https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-cc/kb/heic-files-support.html It is interesting that Canon went along with a format standard that is vendor-defined (Apple, 2017), instead of trying to revive industry consortia initiatives e.g. JPEG2000 to address the issue of better bit depth. To Apple's credit, HEIF not only adds 2 bits (and apparently allows for more as a format), it also has a more efficient compression such that the resulting file is approximately the same size as an 8-bit JPG. Setting your camera to use HEIF is somewhere in the HDR menus, I do not have a manual for any of the supported cameras so you will need to sit down and look through the user manual to get the details. Sony seems to have also implemented HEIF, less clear about Nikon. Most computer browsers do not support it (yet).


According to what Adobe says at the link that you have included, Lightroom Classic will not support photos and videos captured in the HEIF format unless they were shot with iOS devices. I saw nothing about HEIF photos and videos shot with any Canon cameras:
"Although modern camera devices provide the capability to capture HEIF/.heic photos and HEVC (H.265) videos, Lightroom and Camera raw support only HEIF/.heic files created with iOS devices."


----------



## Rivermist (Dec 27, 2021)

AutoMatters said:


> According to what Adobe says at the link that you have included, Lightroom Classic will not support photos and videos captured in the HEIF format unless they were shot with iOS devices. I saw nothing about HEIF photos and videos shot with any Canon cameras:
> "Although modern camera devices provide the capability to capture HEIF/.heic photos and HEVC (H.265) videos, Lightroom and Camera raw support only HEIF/.heic files created with iOS devices."


Ah, yes, I see that. Full disclosure although I pay $10/month to the Adobe empire for PhotoShop and assorted other photo software, I am not a huge fan, and what you have found there is one such reason. A responsible company, seeing the #1 digital camera company adopting a new format for its flagship bodies would work tirelessly at supporting this format, since one can infer that it is mainly professional photographers who have access to these cameras. Why you would support folks using cell phones (yes, I know, some forms of pro imagery use them too) but snub people spending north of $6,000 on the camera alone is baffling to me. I use ON-1 Photo RAW for my RAW and JPG general photo sorting, editing and converting (RAW to JPG), the documentation for ON-1 Photo RAW 2022.1 (December 2021) adds the R3, with only a proviso that the sRAW and mRAW file formats are not fully supported (no access to the "tier 1" engine). In the supported formatted it lists "Apple HEIC" but this does not tell me whether this means "HEIC files as defined by Apple" or "Only HEIC files produced by Apple devices", and I do not have a Canon body that does HEIC so I can't check this feature.


----------



## AutoMatters (Dec 28, 2021)

Rivermist said:


> Ah, yes, I see that. Full disclosure although I pay $10/month to the Adobe empire for PhotoShop and assorted other photo software, I am not a huge fan, and what you have found there is one such reason. A responsible company, seeing the #1 digital camera company adopting a new format for its flagship bodies would work tirelessly at supporting this format, since one can infer that it is mainly professional photographers who have access to these cameras. Why you would support folks using cell phones (yes, I know, some forms of pro imagery use them too) but snub people spending north of $6,000 on the camera alone is baffling to me. I use ON-1 Photo RAW for my RAW and JPG general photo sorting, editing and converting (RAW to JPG), the documentation for ON-1 Photo RAW 2022.1 (December 2021) adds the R3, with only a proviso that the sRAW and mRAW file formats are not fully supported (no access to the "tier 1" engine). In the supported formatted it lists "Apple HEIC" but this does not tell me whether this means "HEIC files as defined by Apple" or "Only HEIC files produced by Apple devices", and I do not have a Canon body that does HEIC so I can't check this feature.


Like you, I too have Adobe's $10/month photographers' package. I fought the subscription model for a long time, until they made it impossible to use their standalone software with the latest computer operating systems. While there may well be other, better editing software out there, I do not have the time or desire to learn how to use it. I can't keep up with everything I do as it is. I will be covering CES (the Consumer Electronics Show) next week. Before I leave on Sunday I still need to finish this week's column, setup and learn how to use my new EOS R3, write next week's column, pack and do a bunch of other stuff — including eating and sleeping. The fun never ends...


----------



## Rivermist (Dec 28, 2021)

Safe travels. I did find this info on a Fred Miranda forum https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1655827/0?keyword=HEIF#15291671 
It seems that Lightroom supports .HIF files. For Photoshop rename your file from IMG_1130.HIF to IMG_1130.HEIF and it should work. .HEIF is the file extension for Apple iPhone photos


----------



## AutoMatters (Dec 28, 2021)

Rivermist said:


> Safe travels. I did find this info on a Fred Miranda forum https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1655827/0?keyword=HEIF#15291671
> It seems that Lightroom supports .HIF files. For Photoshop rename your file from IMG_1130.HIF to IMG_1130.HEIF and it should work. .HEIF is the file extension for Apple iPhone photos


I still clearly remember when the only competing formats were 8-tracks and cassettes for audio, and VHS and Beta for video. File formats have taken things to a new, nearly incomprehensible level for most people.


----------



## Rivermist (Dec 28, 2021)

AutoMatters said:


> I still clearly remember when the only competing formats were 8-tracks and cassettes for audio, and VHS and Beta for video. File formats have taken things to a new, nearly incomprehensible level for most people.


Yes, agreed. For our use as photographers one has to admit that JPEG has been a strong standard and remains relavant for 80% of image consumption. The pity is that JPEG 2000 that was meant to address among other things the need for something better than 8 bits per color channel never caught on. Was it simply too far ahead of its time (digital cameras in 2000 were seldom much better than 8 bits)? If there is consensus that Apple's HEIC - HEIF is the way to go, how long will it take to sort out filename extensions and other minutiae to make it a truly universal standard used across all operating systems, photo software, browsers, etc..?


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jan 26, 2022)

Any news about the once rumored 

RF 14-28mm F2 and 

RF 70-135mm F2? 

I'd be in the market for one of these lenses, probably the RF 14-28mm but I'm doubting its actual release more and more... 

An F2 trinity would be so amazing! (I'd still only get one out three)


----------



## unfocused (Jan 26, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Any news about the once rumored
> 
> RF 14-28mm F2 and
> 
> ...


I don't see either of those lenses on Craig's roadmap. Am I missing something?


----------



## Rivermist (Jan 26, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I don't see either of those lenses on Craig's roadmap. Am I missing something?


I definitely recall mentions of the 70-135 f:2, I too would have loved that as a replacement for heavy primes (85, 100, 135) and more versatile in a context of e.g. live music locales. I have since given up (for now) on expensive IBIS cameras and got the 70-200 f:4 lens for compactness and light weight and IS. 
The 14-28 sounds attractive, it may have been mentioned but less than the 70-135. The 10-24 is on the list now, not an f:2 of course.
If anyone at Canon is listening, after filling a few obvious gaps for pros (wide angle primes and maybe a TS lens) they should prioritize a mid-range selection of L-grade primes, e.g. 24 1.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 135 2.5 that are excellent optically but not as heavy and bulky as the current super-premium all-1.2 primes costing north of $2,000 each without IS


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jan 26, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I don't see either of those lenses on Craig's roadmap. Am I missing something?


No, you're not missing anything. The RF 14-28mm F2 is just a rumored lense and not on Craigs roadmap. Since Canon execs stated after the release of the 28-70mm F2 that they are considering/ planning more F2 zoom lenses and there are patents for it, I figured it might be about time now. The release of the first f2 zoom dates back over three years and would be great to see another one. 

Craig posted the patent back in October 2019:

https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-rf-10-24mm-f-4-and-canon-rf-14-28-f-2-0/ 

I just thought I asked if somebody had heard anything else, since don't have to the time to follow multiple camera forums.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Jan 30, 2022)

I look forward to any updates on the rumored the 10-24 f/4L 

Peace


----------



## SonicStudios (Feb 12, 2022)

Not sure, but I think I saw something today that Canon maybe retiring the EF 300 2.8 prime, Maybe something is soon on the horizon for an RF replacement.


----------



## Fredster (Feb 21, 2022)

What a shame throughout the years I purchased a great deal of Lenses there is no way I can start all over again sell my Lenses and buy all new R. Lenses. Life is too short. I did purchase four or five R Lenses maybe a few more.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 24, 2022)

Rivermist said:


> Ah, yes, I see that. Full disclosure although I pay $10/month to the Adobe empire for PhotoShop and assorted other photo software, I am not a huge fan, and what you have found there is one such reason. A responsible company, seeing the #1 digital camera company adopting a new format for its flagship bodies would work tirelessly at supporting this format, since one can infer that it is mainly professional photographers who have access to these cameras. Why you would support folks using cell phones (yes, I know, some forms of pro imagery use them too) but snub people spending north of $6,000 on the camera alone is baffling to me. I use ON-1 Photo RAW for my RAW and JPG general photo sorting, editing and converting (RAW to JPG), the documentation for ON-1 Photo RAW 2022.1 (December 2021) adds the R3, with only a proviso that the sRAW and mRAW file formats are not fully supported (no access to the "tier 1" engine). In the supported formatted it lists "Apple HEIC" but this does not tell me whether this means "HEIC files as defined by Apple" or "Only HEIC files produced by Apple devices", and I do not have a Canon body that does HEIC so I can't check this feature.


The reason is simple, HEIC/HEIF is owned by Apple, naturally Apple wants THEIR files editable in Photoshop.. The fact that Canon put it in their cameras is just them falling for Apple's trick in trying to get HEIF to be the mainstream replacement for JPG. Probably because some genius decided hey, imagine if we could charge licensing fees for every JPG on earth by replacing JPG with our own made up format!! Wow!! We're gonna be rich!

BTW, most file formats shouldn't even be patentable, they're literally all the same damn thing! They hold RGB data!! What is the damn difference?? TIFF, PNG, HEIF, JPG, all RGB data format. Transparency? It's like patenting a spreadsheet layout. Can you patent your excel spreadsheets? Lets all send our spreadsheets to the patent office and sue anyone who uses our layouts. Sounds like a great idea...


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 24, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> The reason is simple, HEIC/HEIF is owned by Apple, naturally Apple wants THEIR files editable in Photoshop.. The fact that Canon put it in their cameras is just them falling for Apple's trick in trying to get HEIF to be the mainstream replacement for JPG. Probably because some genius decided hey, imagine if we could charge licensing fees for every JPG on earth by replacing JPG with our own made up format!! Wow!! We're gonna be rich!
> 
> BTW, most file formats shouldn't even be patentable, they're literally all the same damn thing! They hold RGB data!! What is the damn difference?? TIFF, PNG, HEIF, JPG, all RGB data format. Transparency? It's like patenting a spreadsheet layout. Can you patent your excel spreadsheets? Lets all send our spreadsheets to the patent office and sue anyone who uses our layouts. Sounds like a great idea...


I take photos in raw format only. I wish DXO PhotoLab would have the option to export files in HEIC/HEIF format as I am tired of exporting, storing and sharing jpg files as they are lower quality and take up more storage than the HEIC/HEIF files would. As sensor resolutions increase through the roof, and the ease of digital photography helps create tens to hundreds of thousands of photos for me, it is more urgent than ever for *any* file format to replace jpg files in the future.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 24, 2022)

usern4cr said:


> I take photos in raw format only. I wish DXO PhotoLab would have the option to export files in HEIC/HEIF format as I am tired of exporting, storing and sharing jpg files as they are lower quality and take up more storage than the HEIC/HEIF files would. As sensor resolutions increase through the roof, and the ease of digital photography helps create tens to hundreds of thousands of photos for me, it is more urgent than ever for *any* file format to replace jpg files in the future.


You can already do that using JPG2000. BTW, show me a comparison where HEIF actually looks better than JPG and is still lower weight. I haven't seen one. For all the claims about formats like WEBP and HEIF they actually seem to be worse than JPG. It's probably shocking to people who don't understand what a bunch of scammers these silicon valley types are.


----------



## Rivermist (Mar 24, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> You can already do that using JPG2000. BTW, show me a comparison where HEIF actually looks better than JPG and is still lower weight. I haven't seen one. For all the claims about formats like WEBP and HEIF they actually seem to be worse than JPG. It's probably shocking to people who don't understand what a bunch of scammers these silicon valley types are.


There is a reason why a standard is adopted, or not. JPG prevailed because the industry converged on a single 8-bit format, with variable compression, and more than enough for the sensors, screens and most printing systems. JPEG2000 suffered from excessive customization possibilities, 1 to 39 bits per channel, different color encodings, and to the best of my knowledge camera manufacturers never got together to standardize to a specific set of specifications such that any application can read all JPG2000 files from any origin, the way they can with JPG. 
Some (me) use RAW as an insurance policy, allowing for exposure correction, color balance, shadows or brights assimilation, etc, but from there we produce jpgs to print of share with others, and now that 10-bit monitors and other facilities are there is makes sense to look for something new. Apple does not create standards if there is a competent one out there, they went along with MP3 until it was no longer satisfactory, now you will find most A/D D/A converters supporting Apple Lossless Audio Codec, which is license- and royalty-free under the Apache 2.0 licensing scheme. For photography Apple adopted HEIF, a format defined by Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) (ISO/IEC 23008-12), and made it popular by integrating it with the iPhone, iOS and MacOS. So it is not really an Apple standard so much as a standard that was dormant until a very influential company adopted it. Canon are smart to follow that trend. 
I am interested in HEIF, even if I do not have (yet) a 10 bit monitor, because I would be able to take images from the camera with the possibility to correct + - 1 EV the luminosity, so I may not need to swamp my disk drives with RAW files quite so much.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 25, 2022)

Rivermist said:


> There is a reason why a standard is adopted, or not. JPG prevailed because the industry converged on a single 8-bit format, with variable compression, and more than enough for the sensors, screens and most printing systems. JPEG2000 suffered from excessive customization possibilities, 1 to 39 bits per channel, different color encodings, and to the best of my knowledge camera manufacturers never got together to standardize to a specific set of specifications such that any application can read all JPG2000 files from any origin, the way they can with JPG.
> Some (me) use RAW as an insurance policy, allowing for exposure correction, color balance, shadows or brights assimilation, etc, but from there we produce jpgs to print of share with others, and now that 10-bit monitors and other facilities are there is makes sense to look for something new. Apple does not create standards if there is a competent one out there, they went along with MP3 until it was no longer satisfactory, now you will find most A/D D/A converters supporting Apple Lossless Audio Codec, which is license- and royalty-free under the Apache 2.0 licensing scheme. For photography Apple adopted HEIF, a format defined by Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) (ISO/IEC 23008-12), and made it popular by integrating it with the iPhone, iOS and MacOS. So it is not really an Apple standard so much as a standard that was dormant until a very influential company adopted it. Canon are smart to follow that trend.
> I am interested in HEIF, even if I do not have (yet) a 10 bit monitor, because I would be able to take images from the camera with the possibility to correct + - 1 EV the luminosity, so I may not need to swamp my disk drives with RAW files quite so much.


Actually, the standards that tend to get the widest adoption are the ones that have no royalty attached and don't have multiple players trying to extort money out of anybody they can. JPEG had its trials with patent claims, but they came late in the game and were all shot down. Most of the stuff out of the MPEG committee has been very problematic with respect to patent claims and the MPEG video standard only took off after a central licensing administrator was set up to standardize the process. HEIC definitely has a license requirement because you have to activate it to make Canon DPP read the files (not to mention that some AV software sees it as a root kit). Another alternative that may well win the game is JPEG XL https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/index.html . It has similar efficiency to HEIC along with some other neat tricks and also lossless compression mode that many would find interesting.


----------



## Rivermist (Mar 25, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Actually, the standards that tend to get the widest adoption are the ones that have no royalty attached and don't have multiple players trying to extort money out of anybody they can. JPEG had its trials with patent claims, but they came late in the game and were all shot down. Most of the stuff out of the MPEG committee has been very problematic with respect to patent claims and the MPEG video standard only took off after a central licensing administrator was set up to standardize the process. HEIC definitely has a license requirement because you have to activate it to make Canon DPP read the files (not to mention that some AV software sees it as a root kit). Another alternative that may well win the game is JPEG XL https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/index.html . It has similar efficiency to HEIC along with some other neat tricks and also lossless compression mode that many would find interesting.


I worked for 4 years in an industry consortium developing data standards for oil & gas data, our standards had no licensing or royalty fees but they did have a license to which companies that used them had to subscribe, essentially committing to certain terms and conditions when using the intellectual property, but the consortium never solicited any payments. A company building products that used the standards could of course charge for the licensing of their software. 
HEIC is free on iOS, MacOS, Windows 10, some Android, etc. There seem to be license fees for some derivatives, e.g. the HEVC video extensions on Windows.
Ultimately a standard "wins" when its adoption is transparent to end-users and it is supported by all the major players in the workflow, in the case of photography camera manufacturers, operating systems of the computers on which pictures are stored, the major software vendors of photographic software and the display systems. HEIC seems to be reaching the tipping point at all steps of the workflow except web browsers. As we learnt with examples such as Betamax versus VHS, it is not always technical merit alone that creates the winners, it is the de facto adoption that matters.


----------



## dolina (Apr 10, 2022)

The 80-100% of the 1st 3 years of RF lens SKUs are the highest volume EF lens SKUs.

No big surprise that these staples came out within the 1st 6 months of the RF system

Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS USM
Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM
Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
For a lead on what to expect within the next 4 years only look at the now discontinued and currently selling EF lenses.


----------



## meltemi (May 22, 2022)

I cannot understand, why the
*Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM (first official information February 12, 2020)*
is still missing in the Canon RF Lens Roadmap after more than two years.


----------



## Dragon (May 22, 2022)

meltemi said:


> I cannot understand, why the
> *Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM (first official information February 12, 2020)*
> is still missing in the Canon RF Lens Roadmap after more than two years.


I think it was already in the catalog when the roadmap was first generated. None of the earlier lenses are in the roadmap.


----------



## meltemi (May 24, 2022)

Dragon said:


> I think it was already in the catalog when the roadmap was first generated. None of the earlier lenses are in the roadmap.


I'd wish to have *a complete list of RF lenses in the roadmap*.


----------



## Dragon (May 25, 2022)

meltemi said:


> I'd wish to have *a complete list of RF lenses in the roadmap*.


A roadmap is a prediction of the future. To see what is as well as what might be, you need to concatenate the roadmap with the catalog.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2022)

Dragon said:


> A roadmap is a prediction of the future. To see what is as well as what might be, you need to concatenate the roadmap with the catalog.


I don’t know. The Thomas Guides that I used to use before Google Maps was a thing which showed me where I was going but also where I had been.

Semantics aside, it’s pretty clear that CR guy started the roadmap page at some point, and lenses that existed before he started it were not ever added retroactively. He’s probably missing out on a small amount of affiliate link revenue from that oversight, but it’s his call to make


----------



## Dragon (May 25, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t know. The Thomas Guides that I used to use before Google Maps was a thing which showed me where I was going but also where I had been.
> 
> Semantics aside, it’s pretty clear that CR guy started the roadmap page at some point, and lenses that existed before he started it were not ever added retroactively. He’s probably missing out on a small amount of affiliate link revenue from that oversight, but it’s his call to make


Actually, if he added all the lenses that exist, the "roadmap" would be far less interesting because the relatively few predictions would be buried in the list of what is. An arguably better approach would be to delete a lens from the list when it arrives, but that clearly doesn't satisfy an "I told you so" ego  . It is worth noting that the list includes lenses that were not predicted crossed off as if they were predicted. The 16mm f/2.8 comes to mind. As I recall, the 600 and 800 f/11 were surprise entries as well. I suspect the lenses that Craig will most likely be able to predict are pro lenses that will be test driven by pros in prototype form months or even years before final release. The consumer stuff has much less advance visibility, NDA or no NDA.


----------



## Dragon (May 26, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> One can use color to differentiate in such cases. Here's Fuji for instance. (Actually makes me wonder a bit what I'm doing with Canon.)
> 
> View attachment 203899


I think you confirmed my point. A huge list of lenses with all of two coming down the pike. It makes a good marketing tool for Fuji, but not very interesting for a rumor site. To your last point, the RF 800mm f/11 on an R7 should be a pretty unique experience. I use the 800 on the R5 with a 1.4 extender and it holds up quite well. If you do the math, that is almost identical resolution to the R7 on the bare lens, so the results should be similar without the extra weight, length, and optical loss of the TC.


----------



## Dragon (May 26, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> How is that almost identical resolution to the R7? If you mean identical field of view, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. Will the dynamic range be comperable? Will high ISO noise be comperable? Why not just crop the center of your R5 image if you want a narrower field of view but don't need 45MP?


I mean the same number of pixels on the bird (which is also the same number of pixels per angular degree of view in the lens). If you do the math, the R7 has 84.4 MP equiv FF resolution, and the R5 with the TC has 88.2 equiv FF resolution. That is assuming 33Mp for the full area of the R7 sensor and 45 MP for the full area of the R5 sensor. Actual pictures are closer to 31.5 and 44.7 MP, but there is the question of what area is actually used for imaging. In any case, the number of pixels on the bird are pretty close and with the R7 you wouldn't have the loss of the TC.


----------



## danfaz (Jun 7, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> One can use color to differentiate in such cases. Here's Fuji for instance. (Actually makes me wonder a bit what I'm doing with Canon.)
> 
> View attachment 203899


You're wondering what you are doing buying Canon because of a lens roadmap?


----------



## nunataks (Jun 10, 2022)

I'm so confused as to why Canon hasn't addressed the lower prime range with the R mount (and the latest rumor shows patents for RF-S versions of what we've been asking for even...)

Something like a 20mm f/1.8, or a 24mm f/1.8 would be such an easy addition and would sway me back to Canon from Fuji.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 10, 2022)

nunataks said:


> I'm so confused as to why Canon hasn't addressed the lower prime range with the R mount (and the latest rumor shows patents for RF-S versions of what we've been asking for even...)
> 
> Something like a 20mm f/1.8, or a 24mm f/1.8 would be such an easy addition and would sway me back to Canon from Fuji.


Because Canon can design and manufacture only so many lenses a year and the RF mount has only been around for a few years. So no matter what lenses Canon decided to release first, some folks will be unhappy with what has not yet been released. They have 30+ years of sales data on how all of their EF lenses sold, so, most likely, 20 and 24mm primes were not near the top of the list.


----------



## HealthyNoodles (Jun 19, 2022)

There is still a "Canon RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM" listed under RF zoom lenses. I thought this was probably the 18-45mm 4.5-6.3 APSC lens that Canon released recently or is it a fullframe lens yet to be announced?


----------



## Bonich (Jul 16, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t know. The Thomas Guides that I used to use before Google Maps was a thing which showed me where I was going but also where I had been.
> 
> Semantics aside, it’s pretty clear that CR guy started the roadmap page at some point, and lenses that existed before he started it were not ever added retroactively. He’s probably missing out on a small amount of affiliate link revenue from that oversight, but it’s his call to make


You du have the full list of RF lenses
- on the Canon homepage (noremarkhs regarding time scale)
- in Wikipedia (with year of announcement)


----------



## dolina (Jul 23, 2022)

Off the top of my head...

RF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM
RF 200mm f/2.0 L IS USM (or f/1.8)
RF 40mm f/2.8 IS STM pancake
RF 35mm f/1.4 L USM
RF 24mm f/1.4 L USM
RF 14mm f/2.8 L USM


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jul 31, 2022)

dolina said:


> Off the top of my head...
> 
> RF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM
> RF 200mm f/2.0 L IS USM (or f/1.8)
> ...


I´d love an affordable (not cheap!) 

50mm F1.4 or 
85mm F1.4 

The F1.2 are too expensive and heavy for me, the new nifty fifty does lack some IQ imho.


----------



## dolina (Jul 31, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I´d love an affordable (not cheap!)
> 
> 50mm F1.4 or
> 85mm F1.4
> ...


Eventually


----------



## cdl (Aug 3, 2022)

Any idea when the TS-R 24mm f/3.5L might be expected? Thanks.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 10, 2022)

nunataks said:


> Something like a 20mm f/1.8, or a *24mm f/1.8* would be such an easy addition and would sway me back to Canon from Fuji.



Hmm, seems that Canon heard you considering they announced a 24mm f/1.8 around one month after you posted this.


----------



## nunataks (Sep 14, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Hmm, seems that Canon heard you considering they announced a 24mm f/1.8 around one month after you posted this.


Yeah until they priced it at an absurd $600 and dropped all third party support. Don't know if I'll ever go back to Canon now.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 15, 2022)

nunataks said:


> Yeah until they priced it at an absurd $600 and dropped all third party support. Don't know if I'll ever go back to Canon now.


Same price as the EF 24 f2.8 before it was discontinued and about $200 less than the EF at introduction.


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 15, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Same price as the EF 24 f2.8 before it was discontinued and about $200 less than the EF at introduction.


Yes, an absurdly reasonable price!


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 15, 2022)

nunataks said:


> Yeah until they priced it at an absurd $600 and dropped all third party support. Don't know if I'll ever go back to Canon now.


Usual ignorant comment from someone with an obvious agenda. Don't like Canon? Why are you here then? Have no idea what a reasonable or absurd price is? I guess you don't. Dropped all 3rd party support? Nope, just AF lenses, and absolutely no word one way or the other whether licenses to produce 3rd party lenses will be negotiated with Sigma and Tamron in the next year or two. But, who cares about reality, when you're obvious objective was just to whine and bash Canon.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 15, 2022)

nunataks said:


> Yeah until they priced it at an absurd $600 and dropped all third party support. Don't know if I'll ever go back to Canon now.



I’m personally not a fan of the Canon RF 24 f/1.8 for its optical properties but I don’t think you can characterize its price as unreasonable.

So like the others mentioned, it seems that you never really had any openness to using Canon to begin with, and your reasoning for not using Canon having been removed (since the lens is now offered), you seem to be pivoting to another reason you won’t be using Canon that appears to be founded on a somewhat non-logical basis (that the lens is overpriced).

If you don’t want to use Canon that’s your choice, but it would be better to just state that up front and give a rational argument stating why rather than playing silly word games.


----------



## nunataks (Sep 15, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Usual ignorant comment from someone with an obvious agenda. Don't like Canon? Why are you here then? Have no idea what a reasonable or absurd price is? I guess you don't. Dropped all 3rd party support? Nope, just AF lenses, and absolutely no word one way or the other whether licenses to produce 3rd party lenses will be negotiated with Sigma and Tamron in the next year or two. But, who cares about reality, when you're obvious objective was just to whine and bash Canon.



Lol, I've shot Canon for years so your comment made me laugh. Their practices are not cool these days, and yes AF third party lenses are important to have especially when Canon isn't providing good options themselves at a reasonable price. The RF 24mm is overpriced for what it is - a lens that REQUIRES correction to work properly. Canon is cheaping out on us and apologists like you can see no wrong with them. Thankfully this is an open forum so I can have whatever opinion I want!


----------



## Johnw (Sep 15, 2022)

nunataks said:


> The RF 24mm is overpriced for what it is



Well again I simply have to disagree.

Pros
——-
1. Low weight
2. IS (including combo mode with Canon IBIS)
3. 5.5” MFD
4. Pretty good IQ after digital correction
5. Separate focus and control rings 
6. Wide and bright 
7. 1:2 Macro capability 

Cons
——-
1. Poor optical correction 
2. No weather sealing/hood, typical non-L items

Are you wrong to reject the lens for the cons? Absolutely not, I have rejected it myself for the same reason. Clearly the lens will not be for everyone, but to say the pros list is not worth $599US simply makes no sense imo and I think it certainly will be for a lot of people.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2022)

nunataks said:


> The RF 24mm is overpriced for what it is - a lens that REQUIRES correction to work properly.


The RF 14-35/4 L also requires optical correction of the distortion to work properly. When corrected with DxO PhotoLab, I get images at the wide end equivalent to ~13.5mm on my 11-24/4L (which has almost no geometric distortion at 13-14mm), and equivalent corner sharpness. The 14-35/4 is relatively small and light, and takes convenient 77mm front filters (meaning it makes a great travel kit with the 24-105/4L and 100-500L).


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 17, 2022)

nunataks said:


> a lens that REQUIRES correction to work properly


You say that like it's a bad thing. It actually doesn't matter. It blurs by at most .5 pixels, which would only be visible on an R5 if you had 130 lp/mm resolution, which no lens does. And with 24mm you're not even going to have most of the shot focused well enough to worry about 1-pixel-wide details.

Even pixel-peeping I doubt you'd be able to show the loss, not even in a staged, unrealistic scenario.

Really, post an example. Even explain textually even a hypothetical, staged example where they thing you're mocking even could possibly be detected much less matter.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 17, 2022)

nunataks said:


> Lol, I've shot Canon for years so your comment made me laugh. Their practices are not cool these days, and yes AF third party lenses are important to have especially when Canon isn't providing good options themselves at a reasonable price. The RF 24mm is overpriced for what it is - a lens that REQUIRES correction to work properly. Canon is cheaping out on us and apologists like you can see no wrong with them. Thankfully this is an open forum so I can have whatever opinion I want!


You dislike optical corrections?
I guess you also dislike Lightroom, DPP , color adjustments, vignetting reduction, CA suppression etc...
What matters is what you obtain with RF L lenses, and that's excellent. No matter how you obtain it!


----------



## nunataks (Sep 19, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> You say that like it's a bad thing. It actually doesn't matter. It blurs by at most .5 pixels, which would only be visible on an R5 if you had 130 lp/mm resolution, which no lens does. And with 24mm you're not even going to have most of the shot focused well enough to worry about 1-pixel-wide details.
> 
> Even pixel-peeping I doubt you'd be able to show the loss, not even in a staged, unrealistic scenario.
> 
> Really, post an example. Even explain textually even a hypothetical, staged example where they thing you're mocking even could possibly be detected much less matter.


Wait, you're actually defending software correction being required instead of optical? Wow, destroying pixels is apparently a great idea now! Lol, some people...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2022)

nunataks said:


> Wait, you're actually defending software correction being required instead of optical? Wow, destroying pixels is apparently a great idea now! Lol, some people...


Wait, you're actually defending lenses being larger, heavier and more expensive because they need to rely on optical corrections instead of leveraging modern algorithms to correct geometry with IQ loss that is minimal to undetectable? Wow, paying more to carry bigger heavier lenses that deliver similar IQ is apparently a great idea now! Lol, some people...


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 19, 2022)

nunataks said:


> Wait, you're actually defending software correction being required instead of optical? Wow, destroying pixels is apparently a great idea now! Lol, some people...


I've asked you for a specific example, doesn't even have to be real-world, where you can notice this "destroying pixels." I've suggested it doesn't even have to be something visible at any realistic use case for the resulting image; it's fine if you want to supply an example where the "destruction" can be observed even looking at individual pixels. Say at 800% mag in Photoshop or what have you.

I've made clear it doesn't even have to be realistic or even a photo as such, just explain textually a case where this "destroying pixels" would be visible.

Do you have such an example image? Or can you think of such an example and explain it to us?


----------



## nunataks (Sep 19, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wait, you're actually defending lenses being larger, heavier and more expensive because they need to rely on optical corrections instead of leveraging modern algorithms to correct geometry with IQ loss that is minimal to undetectable? Wow, paying more to carry bigger heavier lenses that deliver similar IQ is apparently a great idea now! Lol, some people...



This review sums up why its an issue quite well:






Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM - Review / Test Report


Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM - Review / Test Report




photozone.de





Older EF lenses were not overly large and heavy and had optical distortion. Other brands don't seem to have this issue. Canon is being lazy.


----------



## BBarn (Sep 19, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I've asked you for a specific example, doesn't even have to be real-world, where you can notice this "destroying pixels." I've suggested it doesn't even have to be something visible at any realistic use case for the resulting image; it's fine if you want to supply an example where the "destruction" can be observed even looking at individual pixels. Say at 800% mag in Photoshop or what have you.
> 
> I've made clear it doesn't even have to be realistic or even a photo as such, just explain textually a case where this "destroying pixels" would be visible.
> 
> Do you have such an example image? Or can you think of such an example and explain it to us?


 
I had similar questions, so I attempted to verify pixel destruction as a result of software distortion correction. On a couple of occasions (using the RF 16 and the RF 14-35) I've compared corner detail of a RAW uncorrected image with the same corrected image.

In those cases, I was unable to observe any significant difference between image detail of the corrected and uncorrected images. What I did observe was a slightly smaller corner in the RAW image due to the effects of barrel distortion. In order to compare those corner images at the same approximate size, the RAW image required more magnification to match the size of the corrected image. So, a takeaway was that any apparent softness in the corners of highly software corrected images was possibly a result of the additional magnification required in the software correction process.

And since the detail of the two images appeared much the same when viewed at the same size, the software distortion correction itself wasn't directly reducing image quality; rather it was the need for additional magnification to offset the barrel distortion. So based on my observations, I would say the statement that software distortion correction is destructive to pixels is misleading. Rather, I'd say that the additional magnification required to correct for barrel distortion simply highlights (magnifies) the detail that was lost as a result of the reduced magnification caused by barrel distortion in the corner.

The end result is the same: Substantial barrel distortion contributes to loss of detail in the image corner. I'm just not convinced that software correction (beyond necessary increases in magnification) reduces the image quality any further. Ultimately, it's up to the individual to assess whether the final quality is acceptable, and whether to waste time fretting over how the results were achieved.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 19, 2022)

BBarn said:


> And since the detail of the two images appeared much the same when viewed at the same size, the software distortion correction itself wasn't directly reducing image quality; rather it was the need for additional magnification to offset the barrel distortion. So based on my observations, I would say the statement that software distortion correction is destructive to pixels is misleading.


OK, but it's not as if magnification changes by a factor of 2 or something, does it?

And, the alternative to a lens that requires software correction isn't the same lens that doesn't need software correction. Instead, it's a lens that, in order to to keep the geometry perfect, had to have compromises made somewhere else: either more axial CA, say, or more coma, or more size weight price or complexity that weakens it, or less sharpness. This last, especially, means that while the (moderate) extra magnification you describe would certainly lower sharpness over this non-existent mythical lens, it may nonetheless be sharper than the actual alternative lens that could have been designed! 

*And this is where nunataks makes his error: he is making a confident statement that could only be made if you knew what this actual alternative lens was. Yet no-one knows that except perhaps Canon.*

Engineering is the art of tradeoffs. As an engineer I can happily and often trivially improve ANY parameter of my system... at the expense of others. You want less vignetting? I can do it in an hour. If you agree to a 122mm front filter I can eliminate vignetting completely. And the lens will weigh 4x more. Oh, you agree to the filter size but not the weight? No problem! I will keep the weight down to only 50% heavier, and make it out of carbon fiber. It will cost 5x more. Oh, you can't accept the cost increasing more than 50%? No problem! I will just cut the thinness of the components in half, and make all the lenses plastic! It will break if you drop it, and it now has lots of chromatic aberations, but I have now met your vignetting target, AND weight target, AND price point. And it's not even 5PM.


----------



## BBarn (Sep 19, 2022)

Another observation I made from my RAW and corrected comparisons of those two wide angle RF lenses requiring substantial software distortion correction was the difference in corner performance between the two lenses. The RF 16 was somewhat soft in the corners (both RAW and corrected) whereas the RF 14-35 was very good in the corners even at 14mm. The alleged pixel destruction due to software correction of lens geometric distortion was clearly absent with the RF 14-35, where it should have been obvious if it existed.

As you suggested, those claiming software correction of geometric distortion is destructive at the pixel level need to provide convincing evidence that such is true. Especially given evidence to the contrary (RF 14-35 corner performance).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2022)

nunataks said:


> This review sums up why its an issue quite well:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In summary, an ultrawide f/2.8 prime lens that costs a mere $300 has soft corners. I’m severely shocked, surprisingly stunned, and stupendously stupefied.

What, you were expecting the optical performance of a lens that would cost several times as much, but you were expecting not to pay for that? Yeah, I’m sure you were. Do you need those sharp corners to resolve the unicorns at the edges of your images?



nunataks said:


> Older EF lenses were not overly large and heavy and had optical distortion.


Sure, like the EF 14mm f/2.8L II that is more than double the size, four times the weight, and costs 7 times as much as the 16/2.8? Or the EF 17-40/4L that is more than double the size, three times the weight, costs 2.7 times as much as the 16/2.8…and is just as soft in the corners? (Actually, the prime is a bit sharper if stopped down to f/4.)



nunataks said:


> Other brands don't seem to have this issue. Canon is being lazy.


Really? Sony, Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic reportedly all force corrections for certain lenses and have been doing so since long before Canon followed suit with the RF 24-240 (Canon does not force corrections for any EF-M lenses). Nikon does so as well (including in some cases where it really doesn’t seem needed, e.g. the Z 28/2.8 that has <3% distortion when not corrected).

You should at least make a modicum of effort to get your facts straight before you post such drivel.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 20, 2022)

BBarn said:


> Another observation I made from my RAW and corrected comparisons of those two wide angle RF lenses


Now if we could only get *nunataks *to actually investigate this stuff before making categorial statements that there's a problem!

> The RF 16 was somewhat soft in the corners

Sure but it's a $250 lens and the smallest Canon even makes. Compare it to say the EF14mm/2.8, which was nearly the same spec, but 10x the price. The EF14mm was rectilinear, but the corners were soft as oatmeal, despite its size and price. Clearly, Canon made huge sacrifices to keep it rectilinear, as required in the film era: the price was 10x higher, ultimate corner resolution was lower, lens was far bigger and far more likely to break. Heck, the lens CAP for the 14mm cost more more than the entire 16mm.


----------



## nunataks (Sep 20, 2022)

You guys are a trip...

Remember the fact that the 14-35 and the 16mm have BLACK corners as the lenses don't cover the full frame sensor, and thus they're required to be both cropped and distortion corrected. If you think that's an improvement, then be my guest and buy them. I won't, especially at their inflated prices over the much better quality EF lenses that existed before.


----------



## BBarn (Sep 20, 2022)

Your statements ring somewhat hollow. The overall quality of the corrected RF 14-35 compares very favorably with the EF 16-35, though it does command a steep premium for improvements in size, weight, and IS. As far as the RF 16, there is no EF counterpart, so a fair comparison isn't possible.

Arguments about the need for cropping and distortion correction can be regarded as idealistic if the final image is comparable. Hate those corrections if you wish but results oriented individuals may not care if the final results are essentially the same.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2022)

nunataks said:


> You guys are a trip...
> 
> Remember the fact that the 14-35 and the 16mm have BLACK corners as the lenses don't cover the full frame sensor, and thus they're required to be both cropped and distortion corrected. If you think that's an improvement, then be my guest and buy them. I won't, especially at their inflated prices over the much better quality EF lenses that existed before.


I see that you decided to ignore my suggestion to try and get your facts straight before you post drivel.

Please tell me, how is it a fact that images from the 14-35/4 and 16/2.8 are required to be *both cropped* and distortion corrected? That is false, correcting the distortion actually fills in the corners. No cropping is needed. In fact, as I've stated (and shown) previously the 14-35/4 at the wide end, when converted with DxO PhotoLab, delivers images with a field of view equivalent to 13.5mm on the EF 11-24/4L, and the corrected corners are just as sharp (the 11-24 has almost no corner distortion in that comparison because 13mm is the point where the lens crosses from barrel to pincushion distortion, although there is a small amount of mustache distortion in the mid-frame throughout the range). That means that, after correction, the 14-35 at it's wide end (where UWA zoom performance is generally worst) is delivering IQ equivalent to a lens costing double the amount and with excellent optical corrections (and more than double the weight to achieve them), when the latter lens is not at an extreme of its zoom range.

If the above was confusing, the short version is that the RF 14-35/4 delivers IQ every bit as good as the EF 16-35/4L, and does so with an extra 2 mm on the wide end while being smaller, lighter, and still taking the same 77mm filters. Yes, it costs ~$300 more (depending on rebates)...and that doesn't seem unreasonable for a lens that delivers a wider focal range in a smaller package with equivalent optical performance. Maybe the price tag of the 14-35 puts it out of your reach, but that's a you problem.

As for the price of the RF 16/2.8 being 'inflated over the much better quality EF lenses that existed before', that lens costs $300 and there is nothing like it in the EF lineup.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 21, 2022)

BBarn said:


> As far as the RF 16, there is no EF counterpart, so a fair comparison isn't possible.


Well, the EF 14mm f/2.8 is close-ish, but 10x the price, 5x the volume, and probably a LOT more fragile. And I don't know if it's any sharper. The MkI certainly wasn't.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 21, 2022)

nunataks said:


> Remember the fact that the 14-35 and the 16mm have BLACK corners as the lenses don't cover the full frame sensor, and thus they're required to be both cropped and distortion corrected. If you think that's an improvement, then be my guest and buy them.



I don't care if the image uses 100% of the sensor or 1%. I look at the resulting photos to see if they take good photos. I know I should forget the images and just concentrate on trivia, I know, but I guess I'm just clinically insane.



nunataks said:


> I won't, especially at their inflated prices over the much better quality EF lenses that existed before.


RT16mm/2.8's closes competitor is the EF14mm/2.8. I took a LOT of images with that lens (inc. my first published) but the 16mm is better images, 1/10th the price, 1/5th the volume, and seems likely to be far more resilient. I really cannot fathom why you're so hung up on trivia and don't seem to care about the actual resulting image.

Why not just post some side by sides images and show us how much worse the 16mm is?


----------



## nunataks (Sep 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I see that you decided to ignore my suggestion to try and get your facts straight before you post drivel.
> 
> Please tell me, how is it a fact that images from the 14-35/4 and 16/2.8 are required to be *both cropped* and distortion corrected? That is false, correcting the distortion actually fills in the corners. No cropping is needed. In fact, as I've stated (and shown) previously the 14-35/4 at the wide end, when converted with DxO PhotoLab, delivers images with a field of view equivalent to 13.5mm on the EF 11-24/4L, and the corrected corners are just as sharp (the 11-24 has almost no corner distortion in that comparison because 13mm is the point where the lens crosses from barrel to pincushion distortion, although there is a small amount of mustache distortion in the mid-frame throughout the range). That means that, after correction, the 14-35 at it's wide end (where UWA zoom performance is generally worst) is delivering IQ equivalent to a lens costing double the amount and with excellent optical corrections (and more than double the weight to achieve them), when the latter lens is not at an extreme of its zoom range.
> 
> ...











Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Review


The Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM's lightweight build makes it an ideal lens for travelers and hikers. Raw format photographers will need to take some care processing photos to get distortion-free results, however.




www.pcmag.com





They literally show the black corners in an uncorrected photo from the 14mm. I can find more examples, but you just want to argue so I'm going to block you instead. Have a nice day!


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2022)

nunataks said:


> They literally show the black corners in an uncorrected photo from the 14mm. I can find more examples, but you just want to argue so I'm going to block you instead. Have a nice day!


If you block @neuroanatomist , then you will miss some of the most informative posts here. But, it's your choice if you don't like his direct style. I can't say I learn anything from those who speak only from viewing a few review sites and don't have hands-on experience.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2022)

I had a negative attitude towards RF 14-35 f/4L IS but I always liked its small size. When I found an offer in my country about RF lenses (Canon supposedly asks for an EF lens but they actually accept a photo of the EF lens and its serial number and not the lens itself!) of 25% off the price I got it (saving almost 500 euros!). It joined my collection of many RF and EF UWA zooms (and some EF mount fixed UWA lenses) because I still have 5DIV and 5DsR so I kept most of my EF lenses.

What I see at 100% is excellent and the corners good to very good even at f/4 in low light/contrast shots. So no complaints. The end result is very good. The only problem is it will have to compete the 2.8 RF which is my museum selection and my DSLR UWA lenses for astrophotography (starting from next year, this year passed with no such photos unfortunately).

But when I go out for birding I usually take my Nikon for birds and for landscapes I use EOS 200D with EF-S 10-18 and EF-S 15-85 but now I can replace them with R5 with 14-35 and 24-105.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2022)

nunataks said:


> They literally show the black corners in an uncorrected photo from the 14mm. I can find more examples, but you just want to argue so I'm going to block you instead. Have a nice day!


Good job hitting the trifecta – posting false information, failing to read the correct information provided, and then ignoring any further information that contradicts your own misguided beliefs. You remind me of the Flat Earthers, they behave in the same way.

Apparently the explanation is beyond you, but just in case anyone else is deluded by your asinine claims, I'll try one more time.

As a first step, read again what I wrote (and @nunataks try to comprehend it, this time): "Correcting the distortion actually fills in the corners, no cropping is needed." Where do I dispute that the corners are black? I don't because they are. I have the RF 14-35, I have looked at uncorrected RAW images from it. So, thanks for providing a link that doesn't contradict what I stated.

You stated that _both cropping and_ distortion correction are required because of the black corners. As I said, that is false because cropping is not needed, the distortion correction is sufficient to completely fill in the black corners resulting from the image circle being too small to cover the full frame sensor.

Canon designed the RF 14-35/4 and 16/2.8 that way – strong barrel distortion left in the design, in lieu of optical elements to correct the distortion which would make the lenses substantially larger, heavier, and more expensive (and in the case of the 14-35/4, preclude the use of 77mm front filters). They did so knowing that after distortion correction, the lenses would deliver the full 14mm or 16mm FoV, respectively.

If that bothers you so much, don't buy the lenses. Actually, I don't know why you even care.



nunataks said:


> Don't know if I'll ever go back to Canon now.


If you've left Canon why are you here posting false information about their lenses? Trolling, presumably. How novel and droll.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 22, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Well, the EF 14mm f/2.8 is close-ish, but 10x the price, 5x the volume, and probably a LOT more fragile. And I don't know if it's any sharper. The MkI certainly wasn't.


Yep, the EF 14 is close, but the RF 16 is a bit sharper https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 . Also note that the 16 is 25.6mm equiv. on an R7. That makes a pretty cool combo on the cheap.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 22, 2022)

nunataks said:


> They literally show the black corners in an uncorrected photo from the 14mm. I can find more examples, but you just want to argue so I'm going to block you instead. Have a nice day!


Why would anyone care what the uncorrected photo looks like? I really don't understand. Could you show us a corrected 14-35 photo thats worse than a photo by any other lens, especially one for the same price or less? Just show us side by side and everyone will have no choice but to admit you have a point.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 22, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Also note that the 16 is 25.6mm equiv. on an R7. That makes a pretty cool combo on the cheap.


What's cheaper than getting an R7 is just using my R5 and cropping :-D In my backpack I always have a 50/1.8 on the R5 and a 16/2.8 floating around. I can crop to 35mm frame and still get 10MP which actually is publishable, though I'm not working professionally any more. Actually I can crop anything up to as small as 50mm frame and still have 4.6MP. In fact I can then crop the 50mm up to 150mm and have 5MP.

In the later 90s I always had a Contax G2 with 28 45 90 in the backpack.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 22, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> What's cheaper than getting an R7 is just using my R5 and cropping :-D In my backpack I always have a 50/1.8 on the R5 and a 16/2.8 floating around. I can crop to 35mm frame and still get 10MP which actually is publishable, though I'm not working professionally any more. Actually I can crop anything up to as small as 50mm frame and still have 4.6MP. In fact I can then crop the 50mm up to 150mm and have 5MP.
> 
> In the later 90s I always had a Contax G2 with 28 45 90 in the backpack.


Yes, I have the same luxury of having the 16 and an R5 (as well as an EF 24 f/2.8 IS), but I was speaking for those on a tighter budget. The R7 offers most of the features of the R5, albeit cropped, at a much more budget friendly price and the cropped area of the 16 makes a creditable near 24mm equivalent. BTW, even having an R5 (and an M6 II), I may well pick up an R7 for the added portability with the 800mm f/11 relative to the same lens on an R5 with a 1.4 TC.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 22, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Why would anyone care what the uncorrected photo looks like? I really don't understand. Could you show us a corrected 14-35 photo thats worse than a photo by any other lens, especially one for the same price or less? Just show us side by side and everyone will have no choice but to admit you have a point.


Totally off-topic, but I actually like to look at the uncorrected versions. Sometimes they are more interesting.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 23, 2022)

Dragon said:


> may well pick up an R7 for the added portability with the 800mm f/11 relative to the same lens on an R5 with a 1.4 TC


I can understand having a back-up body, or a lighter-weight/cheaper-to-lose body, so I'm not against the general idea.
But if I had an R5 and 800/11 and wanted a longer shot, I'd just be cropping. 45MP is a LOT of MP. You can crop 80% away and still have 4k resolution. Cropping is hampered far more by the len's ultimate resolving power than the sensor.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 23, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Totally off-topic, but I actually like to look at the uncorrected versions. Sometimes they are more interesting.



I haven't done anything serious with this yet, but Tamron EF-S lenses do _not_ trigger the automatic crop mode on my RP and R5. Although they don't distort like the 16mm, the tunnel vision effect might be useful someday.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 23, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I can understand having a back-up body, or a lighter-weight/cheaper-to-lose body, so I'm not against the general idea.
> But if I had an R5 and 800/11 and wanted a longer shot, I'd just be cropping. 45MP is a LOT of MP. You can crop 80% away and still have 4k resolution. Cropping is hampered far more by the len's ultimate resolving power than the sensor.


If you do the math, the "pixels on the bird" with the R5 and the 1.4 extender is very close to the same as the R7 without the extender. That makes for a smaller, lighter package with very similar IQ at the pixel level (smaller pixels, but a stop brighter). And yes, cropping works well with the R5, but shooting hummingbirds, I find the TC to often be necessary. The attached example is at about 70 ft distance. Any less pixels would be detrimental to the result.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 23, 2022)

Dragon said:


> If you do the math, the "pixels on the bird" with the R5 and the 1.4 extender is very close to the same as the R7 without the extender.


Right, you explained what I meant to be saying, thanks!
And absolutely gorgeous little bird! Agreed the pixels (or lens resolution) feels like it's about at its limits,


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 23, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Totally off-topic, but I actually like to look at the uncorrected versions. Sometimes they are more interesting.


Yes!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 29, 2022)

Dont the managers of the site think it’s overdue to redo the RF lens roadmap? After four years Canon have been really slow in getting lenses out particularly f1.4L lenses and now they have RF-S wide angles for APS-C are badly needed. Actually in the main RF mount wide angle primes are few with the RF 16mm f2.8, RF 24mm f1.8 and the RF 35mm f1.8 and zero L lenses. 
Sony are leagues ahead in this area.


----------



## SwissFrank (Sep 30, 2022)

jeffa4444 said:


> After four years Canon have been really slow in getting lenses out particularly f1.4L lenses and now they have RF-S wide angles for APS-C are badly needed.


Agreed. I hate Canon's policy of blocking third-party AF lens makers, but in theory at least, if they had not slipped their lens schedule it wouldn't be so bad.

That said I feel like I've never had it so good WRT wide-angles. I freaking love the 14-35/4 and 16/2.8, after shooting since the 90s the EF/2.8 and 17-35's and 16-35's that were far bigger yet not as sharp. It's only two lenses, granted, but I personally am not moaning the lack of a fisheye, and while I don't do astro, I think the super-fast third-party wide-angles are mostly MF anyway and work fine.


----------



## Avenger 2.0 (Oct 21, 2022)

When will we see some EF-M lenses get ported to the RF-S like the 11-22mm, 22mm and 32mm???
Should be a quick one for Canon, just use the existing optical design, add plastic housing and lens mount instead, increase f-stop and price.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 21, 2022)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> When will we see some EF-M lenses get ported to the RF-S like the 11-22mm, 22mm and 32mm???
> Should be a quick one for Canon, just use the existing optical design, add plastic housing and lens mount instead, increase f-stop and price.


If they use the existing design, then they will use the same f-stop as increasing the f-stop will mean changing the design. The EF-M 18-150 has already been ported to the RF-S version with the same design and f-stops.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 6, 2022)

The roadmap is now almost exactly two years old and has been very precise so far. If I'm correct there are a only a few lenses missing:

RF TS-R 14mm F/4L
RF TS-R 24mm F/3.5L

RF 10-24mm F4 L
RF 35mm F1.2L
RF 500mm F/4L IS USM


These are all very exclusive lenses, I doubt Canon will release them all within one year. Since Canon stated to release about 6-8 lenses annually, I wonder what is coming next. What about...

...RF 300mm F2.8
...RF 200mm F1.8?

...RF 180mm macro

The missing F2 trinity lenses? A rumored 14-28 F2 and 70-135mm F2?

I'd wish for at least a one supertelezoom option such as a RF 250-750mm.

But especially:
What about all the (possible) F1.4 primes? And RF-s lenses? Are they bringing more EF-m lenses over? Or are there possible new design e.g. for RF-s tele lenses.

Is there a way to update the roadmap and maybe list the already released lenses separately? That´d be a great help! Thx in advance!


----------



## AlanF (Nov 6, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> The roadmap is now almost exactly two years old and has been very precise so far. If I'm correct there are a only a few lenses missing:
> 
> RF TS-R 14mm F/4L
> RF TS-R 24mm F/3.5L
> ...


What f-numbers for the 250-750?


----------



## Dragon (Nov 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> What f-numbers for the 250-750?


An RF-s 250-750 that topped out at f/8 would be interesting. The R7 works amazingly well with the 800 f/11, so a 1 stop faster zoom that was still light and compact should be a hot seller.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2022)

Dragon said:


> An RF-s 250-750


…would be essentially pointless. At those focal lengths, the image circle diameter is not limiting so there would be nothing gained, an RF lens would be the same size.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> What f-numbers for the 250-750?


Since I'm already wishing for it: I'd take F3.5 - 5.6
Considering it is a Canon lense, I'd guess F5-8 hoping it won't be F11 at long end.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> …would be essentially pointless. At those focal lengths, the image circle diameter is not limiting so there would be nothing gained, an RF lens would be the same size.


Ohhh ups, my mistake. I actually meant a full-frame RF 250-750mm tele-lens. My wording was misleading, I'll edit it asap.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 6, 2022)

Dragon said:


> An RF-s 250-750 that topped out at f/8 would be interesting. The R7 works amazingly well with the 800 f/11, so a 1 stop faster zoom that was still light and compact should be a hot seller.


The RF 100-500mm with the 2xTC for when I need more length would be my choice over a 250-750 f/8. That size of zoom would have a 95mm front element and be bulkier and heavier, probably of similar size to the Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm f/6.3.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 6, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Since I'm already wishing for it: I'd take F3.5 - 5.6
> Considering it is a Canon lense, I'd guess F5-8 hoping it won't be F11 at long end.


A 750mm f/5.6 would need a whopping great 134mm front element and be rather heavy as well. It would be bigger than a 500mm f/4.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 6, 2022)

I had the 1.4x and the 2x RF extender and sold them. Imho, I hated the fact that they only work between 300-500mm (so retrospective between 600-1.000mm and 420-700mm) because especially on safari you sometimes need a long focal length to get very close and then you turn around and you need something much wider as 420mm or 600mm...That´s why I sold them both... 

In addtion, a RF 250-750mm (or similiar) which takes adapters could be great.

Oh, and some Canon fans would favor such a lense to shut down the Sony fanboys


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> A 750mm f/5.6 would need a whopping great 134mm front element and be rather heavy as well. It would be bigger than a 500mm f/4.


Oooooooook, I surrender It was simply a wish based on the fact that Canon filled several patents which such focal lengths.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> …would be essentially pointless. At those focal lengths, the image circle diameter is not limiting so there would be nothing gained, an RF lens would be the same size.


Agreed that the objective would be the same size, but I think you will find that much of the glass in back end of the lens could be smaller with the restricted image circle. OTOH, a FF lens would be an even better seller and probably not that much more costly to make. Either would be a killer bird lens for the R7.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Dec 13, 2022)

31 RF lenses (29 Full Frame and 2 APS-C) plus 2 extenders have been released since 2018. 
That's about 8 lens /year.

If Canon keeps the same pace in 2023, hopefully we will see more than the 6 lensens remaining in the list written by @Canon Rumors Guy 

Canon TS-R 14mm f/4L
Canon TS-R 24mm f/3.5L
Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM
Canon RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM
Canon RF 500mm f/4L IS USM


Maybe a RF 50mm F/1.4 USM? A 200mm F/1.8? 
Or "just" a few APS-C RF lenses (22mm F/2, 10-18mm, 55-250mm)?

I wouldn't mind genuine Canon RF extension tubes. I would trust them more than the currently available third party ones, and I'd like to see how they work on my 35mm F/1.8 and 85mm F/2 STM lenses.


----------



## Photographix (Dec 13, 2022)

> Canon TS-R 14mm f/4L
> Canon TS-R 24mm f/3.5L
> Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM
> Canon RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
> ...



Five out of those six are "L" lenses, and will have four-digit price tags and thus be unaffordable to non-professional photgraphers. What I should like to see are some affordable RF-S lenses. The rumoured 22mm and 32mm lenses, being ported from M lenses, should have attractive pricing points, but a long zoom would also be good if under €/£/$ 500.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 13, 2022)

Photographix said:


> Five out of those six are "L" lenses, and will have four-digit price tags and thus be unaffordable to non-professional photgraphers. What I should like to see are some affordable RF-S lenses. The rumoured 22mm and 32mm lenses, being ported from M lenses, should have attractive pricing points, but a long zoom would also be good if under €/£/$ 500.


That would be a yes on the M ports, but an RF-s long zoom wouldn't be much smaller than a FF since telephoto objective lens sizes are dictated by f stop, not sensor size. The RF100-400 is already available and about as small and inexpensive as it is going to get.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2022)

Photographix said:


> ...but a long zoom would also be good if under €/£/$ 500.


Ask and ye shall receive. Not as a rumor, but as something you can buy today (albeit just barely under $500, by $1). 









Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM Lens


Buy Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM Lens featuring RF-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format, Aperture Range: f/5.6 to f/45, One UD Element, One Aspherical Element, Super Spectra Coating, Nano USM AF Motor, Maximum Magnification: 0.41x at 400mm, Optical Image Stabilizer, Customizable Control Ring...




www.bhphotovideo.com





Note that with longer lenses, there is no design advantage of a smaller image circle because the size of the image circle is not limiting with those lenses, rather the entrance pupil diameter (functionally equivalent to the front element in a tele design) is the limitation. That's why you don't see Canon APS-C lenses longer than 200/250mm, it's not more expensive to make them to cover a FF sensor.


----------

