# Canon to announce at least 6 new RF lenses next week



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 4, 2019)

> *Update:* Canon will announce at least 6 new RF lenses, we’ve added the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS to the list.
> Canon is going to be announcing at least 5 RF lenses next week, and we’ve also been told as many as 8 will be announced.
> *Five lenses have already leaked and they include the following:*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## ozwineguy (Feb 4, 2019)

Here I am, thinking all I want is the 24-70 2.8 IS. But now it seems I want a few more.

But do I want to sell my EF gear to fund it? Argh!


----------



## sdz (Feb 4, 2019)

Hmmm, Canon seems serious about it's R system. I've read otherwise. Yet....


----------



## addola (Feb 4, 2019)

ozwineguy said:


> Here I am, thinking all I want is the 24-70 2.8 IS. But now it seems I want a few more.
> 
> But do I want to sell my EF gear to fund it? Argh!


I wish Canon did trade-in offers like Sony & Nikon are doing with their cameras.

I want that RF 85mm f/1.2L, but I really hope Canon implement IBIS because that heavy glass will need it.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 4, 2019)

WOW !!!
Sorry for Sony 
I wonder how good the 24/240 will be.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 4, 2019)

Looks like Canon's lens team is given a free reign. While nikon still hasn't released their 50mm .95 lens here we have Canon launching some practical lenses which pros and normal users can use. 
I am really hoping to see a 100mm Macro for EOS-R mount.


----------



## AlP (Feb 4, 2019)

Wow! IS confirmed on the 24-70 and that 70-200 looks really compact for a f/2.8 zoom!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 4, 2019)

Looks like the 24-240 is missing the customizable ring?


----------



## fox40phil (Feb 4, 2019)

Next lenses we waited for a long time on EF.... to sad Canon is doing this with us. They score with better bodys for EF as R, but not with long awaited lenses (50 1.2, 24-70 2.8 IS, ~16-35 2.8 IS). Maybe we will also see a new 135 2.0 with IS?! Would freak me totaly.

So lets hope they will bring a decent upgraded 5IV on R!! (min. of 10fps!)


----------



## twoheadedboy (Feb 4, 2019)

Want that wide. That will leave 3 EF lenses in my R system... 85mm f/1.4 IS, 70-200mm f/2.8 (can't do this one until teleconverters are released), and the Sigma 28mm f/1.4. Exciting!


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Feb 4, 2019)

That 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS USM is the lens I was waiting for. It looks like it's going to be a top seller for the EOS R and EOS RP cameras. I'm a little surprised Canon didn't launch the EOS R with this lens, but x10 optical zoom full-frame glass is no easy feat to make, so maybe it got hit with production/testing delays.


----------



## bellorusso (Feb 4, 2019)

We've been waiting for 24-70 with IS for more than a decade. Canon was never going to make one for EF.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Feb 4, 2019)

AlP said:


> that 70-200 looks really compact for a f/2.8 zoom!



That stood out to me as well. The 70-200L glass on EF forewent a telescoping barrel. I'm not sure how they can make a 2.8 telephoto zoom that short without a telescoping barrel, even on a mirrorless system.


----------



## AlP (Feb 4, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Looks like the 24-240 is missing the customizable ring?



Could be that the "focus" ring is in reality a customisable ring which could be configured as a MF ring? The texture is consistent with that of the other customisable rings.


----------



## cfibanez (Feb 4, 2019)

This is great. Now it's just to wait till they release a proper mirrorless camera that makes justice of all that glass.


----------



## AlP (Feb 4, 2019)

Josh Leavitt said:


> I'm not sure how they can make a 2.8 telephoto zoom that short without a telescoping barrel, even on a mirrorless system.



That's true. And one of the drawings in the 70-200 patent application had a moving front element, so a telescoping barrel could be a possibility.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 4, 2019)

Josh Leavitt said:


> That stood out to me as well. The 70-200L glass on EF forewent a telescoping barrel. I'm not sure how they can make a 2.8 telephoto zoom that short without a telescoping barrel, even on a mirrorless system.


It has a red ring, so I guess it’s not DO. Also noticed the 15-35 will use screw in front filters.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 4, 2019)

Guess who’s preeeeetty happy I decided to sell my EF 85 L IS just a month ago


----------



## jolyonralph (Feb 4, 2019)

Strange that the 70-200 has no function ring either, and is probably a telescoping design. 

I wonder if this is going to be significantly cheaper than the EF version?


----------



## Kit. (Feb 4, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> Strange that the 70-200 has no function ring either, and is probably a telescoping design.


70-200 has the ring, it is just put into a position more suitable for a tele lens.


----------



## knight427 (Feb 4, 2019)

AlP said:


> That's true. And one of the drawings in the 70-200 patent application had a moving front element, so a telescoping barrel could be a possibility.



In a market where size and weight are allegedly very important, it makes sense. Does anyone else make a telescoping 70-200 f/2.8? It seems like a good trade off to me, but I suspect there was a reason the 70-200 lenses settled on non-telescoping, I just haven't been doing this long enough to know why. Still, it looks like a positive to me. 

I'm also anxious for them to get around to the 100-400 zoom. Not because I'll buy it right away, but because I want it on the market soon so it's readily available on the used market when I'm ready for it. It will also be interesting to see if there is any size and weight available for them to take out.


----------



## jolyonralph (Feb 4, 2019)

Kit. said:


> 70-200 has the ring, it is just put into a position more suitable for a tele lens.


The grey band near the mount? Could well be, I missed that...


----------



## Totoro (Feb 4, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> Strange that the 70-200 has no function ring either, and is probably a telescoping design.
> 
> I wonder if this is going to be significantly cheaper than the EF version?



there is a ring, near the lens mount.

Seems all L lenses have function ring but non L (24-240) does not


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 4, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Looks like the 24-240 is missing the customizable ring?



It appears that way. I wonder if the non-zoom ring is the customizable one and you can set it to MF if you'd like.


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 4, 2019)

Together with the EOS RP I would have expected more consumer grade primes like a 50 or 85 f/1.8. 
The zooms were quite obvious. Let's see the IQ...


----------



## shutterlag (Feb 4, 2019)

Geez I hope they get their act together and this body has better AF. I'd love to go back to Canon - but that first RF body is half-baked at best. I'm on the cusp of moving to the Fuji system due to the X-T3, but maybe Canon will surprise with this next option.


----------



## criscokkat (Feb 4, 2019)

I'm guessing at least one of the possible 8 lenses is the 50mm that's been rumored. I guess I'd be surprised there wasn't a 24-70 & 70-300 lens for the consumer. Mostly because why wouldn't they want to sell you two? I guess if the new lens is more expensive with greater performance, the "cheap' lenses of R will occupy the space of the midrange that used to be out there in the form of EF-S upgraded lenses.


----------



## criscokkat (Feb 4, 2019)

shutterlag said:


> Geez I hope they get their act together and this body has better AF. I'd love to go back to Canon - but that first RF body is half-baked at best. I'm on the cusp of moving to the Fuji system due to the X-T3, but maybe Canon will surprise with this next option.


With their claims of eye af on more modes, I'm wondering if they've upgraded their algorithms to be more efficient? On the Sony models, the focusing parts of the sensors were different between then A9 and the A7III models. However all of their models have upgraded eye focusing capabilities based on firmware updates, and the more advanced focusing sensors in the A9 are getting much improved tracking via software updates, along with adding that hardware to the cheaper a6400.

I'm wondering if we will see an announcement concerning better AF and eye focus tracking this with the current R. It wouldn't surprise me if this wasn't the case.


----------



## Stuart (Feb 4, 2019)

Is canon only planning to make money on glass only - how expensive will these be.


----------



## Treyarnon (Feb 4, 2019)

That 70-200 looks tiny for a 2.8 - Please tell me it is not a telescoping design!

Or rather if it is, then I'll rush out and get the EF mk3 version...

I notice that this lens does not appear to feature the zoom lock/friction adjustment ring found on the 100-400 Mk2




knight427 said:


> In a market where size and weight are allegedly very important, it makes sense. Does anyone else make a telescoping 70-200 f/2.8? It seems like a good trade off to me, but I suspect there was a reason the 70-200 lenses settled on non-telescoping, I just haven't been doing this long enough to know why. Still, it looks like a positive to me.
> .



Reasons why non-telescoping designs are preferable:
1) easier to weather seal / better better weather sealing
2) Less mass to move when zooming, which makes zooming easier
3) No chance of zoom creep when the lens is pointed down
4) No need to worry about a zoom lock switch being in the wrong setting
5) More consistant ballance in the hand

and finally (apologies if this not appropriate for all telescoping lenses, just the one I have but...)
6) When the lens is extended, then moves the focusing off so lenses will need to be refocused after zooming. This effect seems to be much more accute than for non-telescoping lenses.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 4, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> Strange that the 70-200 has no function ring either, and is probably a telescoping design.
> 
> I wonder if this is going to be significantly cheaper than the EF version?



It has a control ring .. it’s gray and close to the mount.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 4, 2019)

I really hope the 85 is closer to the 50 in price and not a lot more like the EF versions...


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 4, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> It appears that way. I wonder if the non-zoom ring is the customizable one and you can set it to MF if you'd like.



If that's the case, will it be de-clicked by default?


----------



## josephandrews222 (Feb 4, 2019)

Perhaps those with more general lens history knowledge than I...can remember a 24-240mm zoom lens. I cannot.

It kind of seems like something I might want...I have found the 18-150 EF-M lens to be quite useful at times (which converts to 28-240).

Exciting times.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2019)

josephandrews222 said:


> Perhaps those with more general lens history knowledge than I...can remember a 24-240mm zoom lens. I cannot.


Sony has one now.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Feb 4, 2019)

*Rumoured RF lenses for 2019:*

RF 16-35mm f/2.8L (or similar)
RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS (or similar)
RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (or similar)
RF 105mm f/1.4L
RF 85mm f/1.8 IS STM
RF Macro lens
RF non-L kit lens
*Five lenses have already leaked and they include the following:*

Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM
Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM
Is the 105 1.4 RF still coming? 85 1.2L seems to come out of nowhere.


----------



## approximatt (Feb 4, 2019)

Wow Canon is really pumping them out. Makes Panasonic's initial offerings look extremely lame in comparison.


----------



## maxfactor9933 (Feb 4, 2019)

all my old canon gear are listed now. switching to EOS R


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 4, 2019)

To me, the big news is the 24-240. It is not an L lens, and it goes to F6.3.

This is important! This tells us that kit lenses can hit the point where they get lighter and more affordable, this is where the top end of the crop cameras get squeezed!

If you are a new buyer, are you going to get a 80D and a kit lens, or are you going to go FF with a 10X kit lens for about the same price?


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 4, 2019)

approximatt said:


> Wow Canon is really pumping them out. Makes Panasonic's initial offerings look extremely lame in comparison.


Even shaming Nikon at the same time(atleast in terms of lenses).


----------



## RayValdez360 (Feb 4, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> Even shaming Nikon at the same time(atleast in terms of lenses).


 Canon pretends not to replace the EF DSLR yet has better versions of all the most popular lenses in less than a year.


----------



## docsmith (Feb 4, 2019)

I haven't tried to scale it or anything, but the RF 24-70 IS also looks smallish. Front filter maybe 77 mm instead of 82 mm? It will be very interesting to find out. On the 70-200, I prefer the zoom ring closer to the body. This is similar to the 70-300L. We will see how small it is and maybe the ergonomics work well. But right now I very much prefer adjusting zoom on my 70-200 f/2.8 II vs my 70-300 L.


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 4, 2019)

I was holding out for the 24-70 f/2.8—but now I'm wondering if I could make that 15-35 do what I do with a 17mm TSE. I don't mind stitching exposures, and even if I have to correct for converging lines in PS, a future 75MP body would make that reasonable…...

Expensive couple of years coming up!


----------



## jdavidse (Feb 4, 2019)

Aaron D said:


> Expensive couple of years coming up!



Exactly


----------



## Viggo (Feb 4, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Canon pretends not to replace the EF DSLR yet has better versions of all the most popular lenses in less than a year.


Absolutely, I didn’t believe that either, and at least, thought it would be enough bonkers lenses to simply switch sooner rather than later. I’m quite happy with my decision ...


----------



## bokehmon22 (Feb 4, 2019)

approximatt said:


> Wow Canon is really pumping them out. Makes Panasonic's initial offerings look extremely lame in comparison.



They shame Panasonic, Nikon and Sony when it comes to lens. 
Spectacular release and have a little of everything for most photographers.

They are still behind the Panasonic when it come to the body though.


----------



## criscokkat (Feb 4, 2019)

docsmith said:


> I haven't tried to scale it or anything, but the RF 24-70 IS also looks smallish. Front filter maybe 77 mm instead of 82 mm? It will be very interesting to find out. On the 70-200, I prefer the zoom ring closer to the body. This is similar to the 70-300L. We will see how small it is and maybe the ergonomics work well. But right now I very much prefer adjusting zoom on my 70-200 f/2.8 II vs my 70-300 L.


They might be wanting to standardize on the control ring being close, and the zoom further out.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 4, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Absolutely, I didn’t believe that either, and at least, thought it would be enough bonkers lenses to simply switch sooner rather than later. I’m quite happy with my decision ...


Yeah, a little hard to believe these will all come in 2019. They would of had to be developing some of them over the past two years. Was Canon looking that far ahead?


----------



## Viggo (Feb 4, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> Yeah, a little hard to believe these will all come in 2019. They would of had to be developing some of them over the past two years. Was Canon looking that far ahead?


Oh, I believe they will come pretty soon, what I didn’t believe is the parallel production and update on both RF and EF system 

Lenses are easily being developed two-three years ahead of release. It’s quite difficult to create a brand new lens from scratch I should think.


----------



## criscokkat (Feb 4, 2019)

Treyarnon said:


> That 70-200 looks tiny for a 2.8 - Please tell me it is not a telescoping design!
> 
> Or rather if it is, then I'll rush out and get the EF mk3 version...
> 
> ...



Since an R mount is entirely for mirrorless, what if the zoom lock switch was electrical too? We already know there is more communication points, and if the power if off you can't see through the lens anyhow. If it was unlocked automatically when the zoom is physically rotated and the power is on that would take care of #3 & #4. 

For #1 that is certainly true unless they have figured out a better way to do this. But if it's lighter and smaller that might be an acceptable tradeoff if you can still use EF lenses that offer better weather proofing. (that might also be a way to introduce an L+ class - L's that are more ruggedized but larger/heavier?)

For #6 it's my understanding that most of the moving parts of the focusing side of the newer R lenses are in closer to the body and thus move less but more precisely than their corresponding EF versions. This might help with how fast it refocuses after zooming.


----------



## jdavidse (Feb 4, 2019)

Wow. It's all becoming apparent now how brilliant Canon's rollout plan is. Lenses are forever, but a body is only for about 3 years. By leading with the best collection of pro lenses on the market, they have the attention of not only the pros but every amateur who hopes to go pro one day. Would it have been nice if they had led with a 5D equivalent R? Yes, but not entirely necessary. A few years down the line nobody will remember which came first. But within a year of launch Canon R system will be the clear choice for wedding photographers, portrait photographers, landscape photographers, etc. Yes, they need to get the body right. But with this lens lineup they have some room for mistakes here and there, or maybe not-class-leading dynamic range, etc. 

As was said above, this is going to be an expensive couple of years. Just assuming the below prices (ha right), my wish list is already north of 18k.

Future 5D R: 3500 x2
15-35 rf 2300
24-70 IS rf 2300
70-200 IS rf 2500
50mm rf 2k
85mm rf 2k


----------



## criscokkat (Feb 4, 2019)

I'm actually hoping the holy trinity holds the line on prices. If they were priced the same as the current line they may actually bring more profit in from prosumers who can be upsold a bit more easier. If the market for dedicated cameras is dropping to 5-6 million as canon predicts, those buyers that remain will be a higher percentage of discerning customers who do and can tell the difference between a computational photography enhanced smartphone and a real camera with good lenses. Right now I think Canon sells extra lenses beyond the first sale to less than 20% of their buyers. If you can increase that to 40% by holding the line on the popular lenses while also making them cheaper to produce they may make lots more money in the long run, even if they do lose a bit of profit off of pro's not paying a higher premium.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 4, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



I currently use a 7D mark II, and my second most-used lens is the Sigma 150-600C. If I were going to change to a full-frame R camera, I'd have to replace that 240mm-960mm equivalent range. I'd probably tolerate something like a 200-800/5-8. My third most-used lens is the 8-15/4L, which could only be replaced by something like a 13-25ish zoom fisheye.

One of the big reasons I changed from full-frame to crop is that the 24-70/2.8ii didn't have IS. Looks like Canon finally got that message, but it's several years too late for me. I was all set to give them over $5k of my money for a 5DIV + 24-70/2.8 IS, but they didn't come out with one. I'm glad they didn't - the 7D Mark ii system saved me a lot of money and I have over 70,000 images on it since I got it.


----------



## jdavidse (Feb 4, 2019)

Just from a usability point of view, that zoom ring on the 70-200 is disappointing. I am sure the shorter length of the lens will be nice, but it appears that the zoom ring has been trimmed. Why keep such a wide focus ring?

Also, am hoping for either a removable foot or one with arca swiss shape.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 4, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> I currently use a 7D mark II, and my second most-used lens is the Sigma 150-600C. If I were going to change to a full-frame R camera, I'd have to replace that 240mm-960mm equivalent range. I'd probably tolerate something like a 200-800/5-8. My third most-used lens is the 8-15/4L, which could only be replaced by something like a 13-25ish zoom fisheye.
> 
> One of the big reasons I changed from full-frame to crop is that the 24-70/2.8ii didn't have IS. Looks like Canon finally got that message, but it's several years too late for me. I was all set to give them over $5k of my money for a 5DIV + 24-70/2.8 IS, but they didn't come out with one. I'm glad they didn't - the 7D Mark ii system saved me a lot of money and I have over 70,000 images on it since I got it.




Lee, I think when you eventually go full-frame, you'll see that you do have some additional cropping ability borne out of the increased image quality that'll make up for a portion of your crop factor loss. I found, also, that the 100-400 m2 had just about 0 image quality denigration with the 1.4x teleconverter on full frame, but was a little more touchy on my 7D2. All in all, I found I missed the 1.6 crop factor a whole lot less than I'd anticipated. Then again, I did wind up buying a big white, but I suspect I would have done so anyway.


----------



## PGSanta (Feb 4, 2019)

Yessssssssssss!!!!!

So glad I held off on getting the 28-70 RF. 

Funds will immediately be diverted to the 24-70 IS, and 70-200. 

Sweet! Now I hope they don’t break hearts by shipping in summer.


----------



## flip314 (Feb 4, 2019)

While the 24-70 f2.8 IS is the killer FF lens for me (and will be enough for me to move to the R as my main camera), I always assumed I'd hold on to my 80D for a while because I love the EF-S 18-135... But that 24-240 looks really tempting as a replacement, especially since it's both wider and longer than the 18-135 equivalent

Can't wait to hear some release dates, I have a mountain trip this summer and hope I can get some of these before then... That may be a long shot


----------



## Viggo (Feb 4, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> Just from a usability point of view, that zoom ring on the 70-200 is disappointing. I am sure the shorter length of the lens will be nice, but it appears that the zoom ring has been trimmed. Why keep such a wide focus ring?
> 
> Also, am hoping for either a removable foot or one with arca swiss shape.
> 
> ...


Wide focus ring? It looks very narrow to me...


----------



## jdavidse (Feb 4, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Wide focus ring? It looks very narrow to me...



Focus should be the one near the front of the lens. Unless they pull a Nikon 




Let's hope they aren't that stupid


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 4, 2019)

I think the release of this level of pro glass prior to getting a pro camera reconfirms our collective suspicions that there was supposed to have been a pro body released prior to this point in time. This doesn't doom Canon, but it is interesting from an intent-versus-performance perspective. 

In retrospect, this tells me that:
A) The slowness with L lens releases over the past couple of years was not Canon de-emphasizing the photography market, but rather refocusing it without us knowing then about the new mount
B) They intended to have a high resolution camera out, but something is holding it up
C) They knew about B early enough that they were able to cobble together the 5D4 sensor + mirrorless design to make the R, which indicates to me that the problem they faced in development was known at least 18 months ago
D) The pro model isn't necessarily coming out very soon, as the above behavior would be most logical if it weren't. Also, if there is a technical hurdle, those aren't controllable in terms of time (versus production, logistical, supply, etc.)


----------



## jdavidse (Feb 4, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> Focus should be the one near the front of the lens. Unless they pull a Nikon
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, CRAP. I just saw the zoom numbers on the front ring. Well that's going to suck


----------



## deleteme (Feb 4, 2019)

Great, solid bunch of lenses that fill out the RF line very well.
The 70-200, as others have noted, seems to promise a very compact lens. I am thinking that the weight might be a bit lower too.
The 24-70 will stop the complaints of the previous versions and the 24-240 looks to be a potentially very versatile addition to the line.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 4, 2019)

Aaron D said:


> I was holding out for the 24-70 f/2.8—but now I'm wondering if I could make that 15-35 do what I do with a 17mm TSE. I don't mind stitching exposures, and even if I have to correct for converging lines in PS, a future 75MP body would make that reasonable…...
> 
> Expensive couple of years coming up!



I already do that with my 11-24. Works a treat on my R with adapter. IQ is better than the TS-E.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 4, 2019)

approximatt said:


> Wow Canon is really pumping them out. Makes Panasonic's initial offerings look extremely lame in comparison.


Panasonic's camera division has no money.


----------



## saveyourmoment (Feb 4, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> Looks like Canon's lens team is given a free reign. While nikon still hasn't released their 50mm .95 lens here we have Canon launching some practical lenses which pros and normal users can use.
> I am really hoping to see a 100mm Macro for EOS-R mount.


why not the 90mm tse macro. that lense is incredible


----------



## Viggo (Feb 4, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> Oh, CRAP. I just saw the zoom numbers on the front ring. Well that's going to suck


Agreed, I can’t see why it’s better all the way at the end unless the lens is 2.5 inch shorter..


----------



## gbc (Feb 4, 2019)

Josh Leavitt said:


> That stood out to me as well. The 70-200L glass on EF forewent a telescoping barrel. I'm not sure how they can make a 2.8 telephoto zoom that short without a telescoping barrel, even on a mirrorless system.


REALLY interested to see if this is real, and if so... I had zero plans to replace my 70-200 IS II anytime soon. Probably the last lens I would replace, actually. but if they're making one this size, and for the R... that form factor would be a game changer.


----------



## IsaacImage (Feb 4, 2019)

Did Canon went, Nikon route and switched Zoom and Focusing ring on the new upcoming 70-200 ??


----------



## AlanF (Feb 4, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> Lee, I think when you eventually go full-frame, you'll see that you do have some additional cropping ability borne out of the increased image quality that'll make up for a portion of your crop factor loss. I found, also, that the 100-400 m2 had just about 0 image quality denigration with the 1.4x teleconverter on full frame, but was a little more touchy on my 7D2. All in all, I found I missed the 1.6 crop factor a whole lot less than I'd anticipated. Then again, I did wind up buying a big white, but I suspect I would have done so anyway.


A 50px FF has indeed the same resolution as a 7DII. I have an excellent copy of the Sigma 150-600mm, but my 100-400mm II with a 1.4xTCIII is even sharper and more contrasty, and definitely much sharper at the edges. So, I am very much in agreement with you, especially as I like the wider field of view of FF vs crop.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 4, 2019)

saveyourmoment said:


> why not the 90mm tse macro. that lense is incredible


It would be insanely expensive and a niche lens. If I remember correctly Canon(and Schneider) used to make 90mm Tilt-shift macro(1:2) and cheapest of those two is 1400$ nearly 2x the cost of 1:1 100mm Macro.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 4, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> Since an R mount is entirely for mirrorless, what if the zoom lock switch was electrical too? We already know there is more communication points, and if the power if off you can't see through the lens anyhow. If it was unlocked automatically when the zoom is physically rotated and the power is on that would take care of #3 & #4.
> 
> For #1 that is certainly true unless they have figured out a better way to do this. But if it's lighter and smaller that might be an acceptable tradeoff if you can still use EF lenses that offer better weather proofing. *(that might also be a way to introduce an L+ class - L's that are more ruggedized but larger/heavier?)*
> 
> For #6 it's my understanding that most of the moving parts of the focusing side of the newer R lenses are in closer to the body and thus move less but more precisely than their corresponding EF versions. This might help with how fast it refocuses after zooming.



If Canon splits the L series into 2 different lines of lenses, I will cry.


----------



## PGSanta (Feb 4, 2019)

IsaacImage said:


> Did Canon went, Nikon route and switched Zoom and Focusing ring on the new upcoming 70-200 ??



Looks like it, but if it’s as short as it looks, it won’t be such an ergonomic faux pas.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 4, 2019)

gbc said:


> REALLY interested to see if this is real, and if so... I had zero plans to replace my 70-200 IS II anytime soon. Probably the last lens I would replace, actually. but if they're making one this size, and for the R... that form factor would be a game changer.



What are the chances that this 70-200 could be so small _and_ have no telescoping barrel?

Not a rhetorical question - I honestly have no idea


----------



## LensFungus (Feb 4, 2019)

God: You can become a rich man.
Me: No, I wanna have Canon L lenses!


----------



## dolina (Feb 4, 2019)

I appreciate Canon's sense of urgency in populating their RF lenses.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 4, 2019)

I understand the "why" of the 15-35---> versatility. I just wish it could be a 14-24 or *something* -24 instead. Just me not caring for the focal length overlap. Nothing more. But there will probably be an 11-24 for that.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 4, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> Lee, I think when you eventually go full-frame, you'll see that you do have some additional cropping ability borne out of the increased image quality that'll make up for a portion of your crop factor loss. I found, also, that the 100-400 m2 had just about 0 image quality denigration with the 1.4x teleconverter on full frame, but was a little more touchy on my 7D2. All in all, I found I missed the 1.6 crop factor a whole lot less than I'd anticipated. Then again, I did wind up buying a big white, but I suspect I would have done so anyway.



I was full-frame (5D) before I switched to the 7D II. And cropping would only be equal on the 5Ds (same pixel size). So, unless the R is coming with a 50MP sensor, then it's not the same, and I already crop into my 7DII + 600mm images quite severely at times. And I have to have a zoom because my subjects are moving so much and so fast that a prime is a non-starter. The only "big white" that's even close is the 200-400/4, and it's over-priced by a factor of 10 in my opinion.

I'd also have to find out if the R has a usable viewfinder. I haven't found an EVF that was truly usable yet but the last one I tried was on the Sony A7rii.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 4, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> I was full-frame (5D) before I switched to the 7D II. And cropping would only be equal on the 5Ds (same pixel size). So, unless the R is coming with a 50MP sensor, then it's not the same, and I already crop into my 7DII + 600mm images quite severely at times. And I have to have a zoom because my subjects are moving so much and so fast that a prime is a non-starter. The only "big white" that's even close is the 200-400/4, and it's over-priced by a factor of 10 in my opinion.
> 
> I'd also have to find out if the R has a usable viewfinder. I haven't found an EVF that was truly usable yet but the last one I tried was on the Sony A7rii.


If the 200-400mm f/4 is overpriced by a factor of 10, then it should be sold at about $1000 or £ or € in you opinion, which would be cheaper than the 100-400mm?


----------



## gbc (Feb 4, 2019)

navastronia said:


> What are the chances that this 70-200 could be so small _and_ have no telescoping barrel?
> 
> Not a rhetorical question - I honestly have no idea


That seems almost physically impossible. But if its even the same form factor as the 70-300 IS L with a telescoping barrel, I would be happy with that.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 4, 2019)

ozwineguy said:


> But do I want to sell my EF gear to fund it? Argh!



Only you can answer that for yourself. I recently overhauled my kit and I'm not interested in overhauling it again for quite some time. If I were to replace my EF system with an RF system I would gain an EVF (pros and cons) and IS on the 24-70. IS would be nice on that lens but not huge since I'm not having trouble capturing what I want without IS given my use cases.

Since I went with the 16-35 f/4L IS I already have IS on the ultra wide, but I would gain 1 stop and 1mm if I traded to RF (meh). Ironically I consider IS on the 16-35 more important than on the 24-70, but that's related to my use cases. Given those use cases I couldn't care less about f/2.8 on the ultra wide even though it's a big deal to me on the other two members of the 'holy trinity.'

Of course my kit and use cases are not yours or anyone else's. Maybe IS on the 24-70 or IS+f/2.8 on the ultra wide is huge for you. Only you can make that call.

Canon could sell me an RF backup body at the right price with the right video features. They might be able to sell me a high(er) resolution pro RF body, but I kind of doubt it since I can add another 5Ds for just under $2k now gray market and the high resolution R will likely be $3,500-$4,000. I guess it depends on when that R comes out and what it can do. If it's a 50mp R with slightly better features and DR...probably not. If it's a 75-100mp beast with IBIS that cooperates with lens OIS...tempting.

That said: I think lenses and ergonomics are more important than anything reviewers cry about on spec sheets. Canon is flexing their lens design muscle and my prediction is that it's going to win them the #1 spot in FF MILC sales. The one thing that bugs me is the lack of better video options (FF 4k 30p would be nice), and I hope Canon resolves that soon. Otherwise Canon is building a winning _system_ while other companies are focusing on winning _spec sheets._


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 4, 2019)

AlanF said:


> If the 200-400mm f/4 is overpriced by a factor of 10, then it should be sold at about $1000 or £ or € in you opinion, which would be cheaper than the 100-400mm?



Well, I paid $700 for my Sigma 150-600C, brand new.


----------



## criscokkat (Feb 4, 2019)

navastronia said:


> What are the chances that this 70-200 could be so small _and_ have no telescoping barrel?
> 
> Not a rhetorical question - I honestly have no idea


If they've really had serious luck with DO lenses I suppose it's possible, I dunno what the picture quality is. I think most people are saying it because it's highly unlikely that the 24-240 doesn't and the pictures included make it look like there is a gap around the end of the lens. Although the business end of it does look different than the 24-105 which does extend. The 24-105 has a definitive gap between the part that extend and the part that doesn't. Comparing this 70-200 with the 100-400 the end looks more similar than the 24-105. I guess we'll find out soon.


----------



## jedy (Feb 4, 2019)

Just seems odd that Canon are producing pro grade L RF lenses but their next R body will be a prosumer body. It’s not like there are any decent f1.8/f2.8 primes to use with the prosumer body. Canon need to release the pro R body if they want to do these lenses justice.


----------



## jdavidse (Feb 4, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Agreed, I can’t see why it’s better all the way at the end unless the lens is 2.5 inch shorter..



Hmmm interesting thought. There is also the shorter flange distance. Essentially an RF lens starts out closer to the back of the camera, and hence ergonomically closer to your eye. I would be interested to see a photo of this lens mounted on an R next to the EF version mounted on a 5D4, and see where the two zoom rings land


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 4, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> I already do that with my 11-24. Works a treat on my R with adapter. IQ is better than the TS-E.



That's good to hear…. I've had trouble with ghosting and flare with the 17 TSE, and if I shift it very far at all I get a lot of 'smooshing' at the extremes. A lot of times I'll center it and tilt up, correct in PS. And it's sharper!

AND with this I could use filters!


----------



## Viggo (Feb 4, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> Hmmm interesting thought. There is also the shorter flange distance. Essentially an RF lens starts out closer to the back of the camera, and hence ergonomically closer to your eye. I would be interested to see a photo of this lens mounted on an R next to the EF version mounted on a 5D4, and see where the two zoom rings land


That makes two of us.


----------



## juststeve (Feb 4, 2019)

I dug out my dial calipers and did a little measuring and calculating. It turns out a couple of other web sites have the lenses pictured and pretty close to actual size. 

Using the lens mount as the basis of comparison, it seems the 15-35/2.8 L is about 4 1/8 long and the 24-7/2.8 L is about 4 1/16 long. Both appear to have 72 mm filters. At those figures the 15-35/2.8 is about as compact, actually more so slightly, than my 16-35/4 L and the 24-70/2.8 is not all that much bigger than my much loved and appreciated 24-70/4 L. 

I did not measure out the 70-200 L, but it seems to be pictured at actual size, which would make it very compact at 70 mm. Of course, it has to be an extending lens, unless there are DO elements in there. Ah hell, went back and measured the 70-200. It looks to be in the 4 1/2 inch length range and again with a 72 mm filter diameter. And prices were posted on FM.

Again, these are calculations based upon assumptions with a little windage thrown in. But I think they are reasonably close. All I can say further is "WOW."


----------



## Nadoor (Feb 4, 2019)

The prices of the lenses would be (looking at Canon's recent pricing strategy)
RF 15-35/2.8 IS - $2599
RF 24-70/2.8 IS - $2499
RF 24-240 - $1599
RF 70-200/2.8 IS - $2499
RF 85/1.2 IS - $2699


----------



## Kit. (Feb 4, 2019)

Treyarnon said:


> That 70-200 looks tiny for a 2.8 - Please tell me it is not a telescoping design!
> 
> Or rather if it is, then I'll rush out and get the EF mk3 version...


I don't think you need to _rush out_. But it's nice to be able to choose whether you want a shorter one or a more dust proof one.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 4, 2019)

Makes the "nothing" update of the ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS to version III even harder to understand.


----------



## ColinJR (Feb 4, 2019)

I’m even more excited about these lenses that I thought I would be. I just recently bought the 70-200 f/4 and love it, but the size of this one is kind of blowing my mind!


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 4, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> I think the release of this level of pro glass prior to getting a pro camera reconfirms our collective suspicions that there was supposed to have been a pro body released prior to this point in time. This doesn't doom Canon, but it is interesting from an intent-versus-performance perspective.
> 
> In retrospect, this tells me that:
> A) The slowness with L lens releases over the past couple of years was not Canon de-emphasizing the photography market, but rather refocusing it without us knowing then about the new mount
> ...



Or maybe they decided they really can't get away with another 1.7x 4k crop factor again...
Or maybe they realized not a single person on the planet likes the touchy-slidey bar thingy...
Or maybe they have come up with an even better OVF system and decided to put it in sooner rather than later...


----------



## criscokkat (Feb 4, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Makes the "nothing" update of the ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS to version III even harder to understand.


Better weather sealing and drop in filters via the adapter? All I can think of.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 4, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> Better weather sealing and drop in filters via the adapter? All I can think of.


Maybe backported RF autofocus protocol as well (they have a patent for that).


----------



## PGSanta (Feb 4, 2019)

So happy I made the decision to move against the grain and come back to Canon. My A7III is still a more capable camera than my R is, but a system is more than just the body. Going to be ditching all of my Sony gear very soon.


----------



## knight427 (Feb 4, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Makes the "nothing" update of the ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS to version III even harder to understand.



Politics and profit.

By politics, I mean that Canon wants customers believe that they are still supporting EF and DSLRs. This was an easy lens to release as they just changed some coatings and paint color. And of course for such a minimal change, they got a fair number of customers to upgrade to the latest version. I would assume there wasn't much R&D sunk into this, and maybe the production lines weren't significantly effected.

Also, I could speculate that releasing a "new" EF 70-200 right before launching the RF gave them permission to try out this new compact design. It's a bit gutsy, some people will complain that they shouldn't have to use an adapter to have their preferred 70-200 size/geometry/layout/exact shade of white/etc, but I see it as having more diverse options. If you really love the existing 70-200 ergonomics on DSLR, you can stick with DSLR, or get an adapter which will place the RF lens roughly in the same position as it would be on a DSLR (while adding optional functionality). Meanwhile, the RF version seems tailored toward the as-small-as-you-can-make-it-please crowd.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 4, 2019)

I'll certainly be considering the new lenses, but see no need to hurry, my EF lenses work well on my R. I might be more interested in a pro level body than new glass when mine is already excellent. A relatively short and light everyday lens is the one exception, I wish they had a 20-200 rather than a 24-240, or even 17-170. 

I'll likely get the 24-105L for a all purpose lens, but that's still not certain.

From what I've read in some of the patents, they are able to trade larger diameter for a shorter lens length so we'll see what the actual sizes and weights are.


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 4, 2019)

knight427 said:


> Politics and profit.
> Also, I could speculate that releasing a "new" EF 70-200 right before launching the RF gave them permission to try out this new compact design. It's a bit gutsy, some people will complain that they shouldn't have to use an adapter to have their preferred 70-200 size/geometry/layout/exact shade of white/etc, but I see it as having more diverse options. If you really love the existing 70-200 ergonomics on DSLR, you can stick with DSLR, or get an adapter which will place the RF lens roughly in the same position as it would be on a DSLR (while adding optional functionality). Meanwhile, the RF version seems tailored toward the as-small-as-you-can-make-it-please crowd.



Agreed, I myself am not sold on a telescoping design for the 70-200, but that said, my 1DX2 isn't going anywhere, and as long as I have it as a second body, at minimum it'll need my EF 70-200. I could see a future where all my wide-standard glass is RF mount on a pro R series, and my 1DX2 is a second body almost entirely dedicated to telephoto glass. And even if I wanted to use the 70-200 on an RF mount, in my time trying out the R I had no issues at all with the mount adapter behind the white lenses-- the bigger problem I had was the mount adapter making the wide lenses seem so much bigger.

That said, if the eventual pro R-series really knocks my socks off, maybe I'll just make the total leap to RF and just accept the telescoping 70-200....


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 4, 2019)

I don't like extending lens barrels, though I have the 24-70mm f/2.8L II and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II. They are great lenses otherwise. Still, I got sand in the barrel of the 24-70 once, and often worry about it (and water droplets) with the 100-400.

But about that 15-35mm...Is anybody else excited about a 15mm zoom that has a front element that can be protected with a filter?


----------



## ColinJR (Feb 4, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> It has a red ring, so I guess it’s not DO. Also noticed the 15-35 will use screw in front filters.


Oh god, it better not be DO! I actually have the 70-300 DO and it's... not great. I'd take telescoping any day over DO, as long as the IQ is up to Canon's existing 70-200's.


----------



## ColinJR (Feb 4, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> I don't like extending lens barrels, though I have the 24-70mm f/2.8L II and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II. They are great lenses otherwise. Still, I got sand in the barrel of the 24-70 once, and often worry about it (and water droplets) with the 100-400.
> 
> But about that 15-35mm...Is anybody else excited about a 15mm zoom that has a front element that can be protected with a filter?



...and IS on a 2.8 lens!!! RIDICULOUSLY EXCITED. I bought a Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 for my R (for real estate photography) but it's way too heavy for day-to-day use, especially with the adapter. I will be selling as soon as possible for this lens.


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 4, 2019)

Really rough test of matching the size of the mount to estimate, but I would for sure say the RF 70-200 is not much larger than the 24-70.. That's a pretty drastic difference when you think about carrying bags that the lens can fit in, especially when mounted to a smaller-size R series.


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 4, 2019)

These news makes me very happy for not having invested in the Sony system...


----------



## Rezen73 (Feb 4, 2019)

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM

This lens is enough for me to switch, given that I need a new copy because my current one is damaged goods, and I am a strong believer in the RF system. I was hoping to wait until the prosumer R model was available (e.g. 5d4 version) before switching... Really sucks, because I just bought the EF 16-35 f/2.8L III a couple of months ago... and could have saved some extra cash by waiting for the RF 15-35. :/


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 4, 2019)

Rezen73 said:


> Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
> 
> This lens is enough for me to switch, given that I need a new copy because my current one is damaged goods, and I am a strong believer in the RF system. I was hoping to wait until the prosumer R model was available (e.g. 5d4 version) before switching... Really sucks, because I just bought the EF 16-35 f/2.8L III a couple of months ago... and could have saved some extra cash by waiting for the RF 15-35. :/


Perhaps you won't feel so bad if the 15-35mm has the same level of vignetting? I hear that the 16-35mm III is a fantastic lens in other respects.


----------



## Treyarnon (Feb 4, 2019)

knight427 said:


> Politics and profit.
> 
> By politics, I mean that Canon wants customers believe that they are still supporting EF and DSLRs. This was an easy lens to release as they just changed some coatings and paint color. And of course for such a minimal change, they got a fair number of customers to upgrade to the latest version. I would assume there wasn't much R&D sunk into this, and maybe the production lines weren't significantly effected.
> 
> Also, I could speculate that releasing a "new" EF 70-200 right before launching the RF gave them permission to try out this new compact design. It's a bit gutsy, some people will complain that they shouldn't have to use an adapter to have their preferred 70-200 size/geometry/layout/exact shade of white/etc, but I see it as having more diverse options. If you really love the existing 70-200 ergonomics on DSLR, you can stick with DSLR, or get an adapter which will place the RF lens roughly in the same position as it would be on a DSLR (while adding optional functionality). Meanwhile, the RF version seems tailored toward the as-small-as-you-can-make-it-please crowd.



Well, according to Tony Northrup, the new coatings on the mk3 was not quite a 'minimal change':


----------



## Viggo (Feb 4, 2019)

Am I the only who thinks the 85 looks less than sexy?


----------



## Treyarnon (Feb 4, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I don't think you need to _rush out_. But it's nice to be able to choose whether you want a shorter one or a more dust proof one.



OK 'Rush' was perhaps rather over dramatic.

But - I am very much contemplating an upgrade to my 70-200 F2.8 - I would expect to get 10 years use out of the lens, and I have been weighing up getting the EF mk3 or waiting a bit longer and move to the 'RF' system first. *IF* the new RF lens is indeed a telescoping design, it will have to offer some genuine knockout performance advantages in other areas for me to choose it over the EF mk3.


----------



## docsmith (Feb 4, 2019)

H. Jones said:


> Really rough test of matching the size of the mount to estimate, but I would for sure say the RF 70-200 is not much larger than the 24-70.. That's a pretty drastic difference when you think about carrying bags that the lens can fit in, especially when mounted to a smaller-size R series.
> View attachment 182982



Like being able to stand it up in your bag so it takes 1 slot rather than laying down and taking two. If that holds up, that is a massive difference.


----------



## knight427 (Feb 4, 2019)

Treyarnon said:


> Well, according to Tony Northrup, the new coatings on the mk3 was not quite a 'minimal change':



That's an interesting video, I had not seen it. It makes a nice specific use case rationale for upgrading. It does not however have anything to do with the interwebz group-think conclusion that the change was minimal in the context of my post (which is all about minimal effort, not minimal results). From an R&D and manufacturing perspective, the mkIII still seems like a minimal effort change. Of course I'd be happy to change my opinion if any Canon optical design engineers wanted to jump in and contradict me!


----------



## jdavidse (Feb 4, 2019)

docsmith said:


> Like being able to stand it up in your bag so it takes 1 slot rather than laying down and taking two. If that holds up, that is a massive difference.


This is so huge. Think Tank is going to have to sell smaller bags


----------



## deleteme (Feb 4, 2019)

Aaron D said:


> That's good to hear…. I've had trouble with ghosting and flare with the 17 TSE, and if I shift it very far at all I get a lot of 'smooshing' at the extremes. A lot of times I'll center it and tilt up, correct in PS. And it's sharper!
> 
> AND with this I could use filters!



Ghosting and flare is decently controlled on the 11-24. The real issues are that on interiors I just can't avoid windows or ceiling lights. The other thing is one has to keep the front element scrupulously clean or you get spots on the image.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 4, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'll certainly be considering the new lenses, but see no need to hurry, my EF lenses work well on my R. I might be more interested in a pro level body than new glass when mine is already excellent. A relatively short and light everyday lens is the one exception, I wish they had a 20-200 rather than a 24-240, or even 17-170.
> 
> I'll likely get the 24-105L for a all purpose lens, but that's still not certain.
> 
> From what I've read in some of the patents, they are able to trade larger diameter for a shorter lens length so we'll see what the actual sizes and weights are.



Have to say the RF24-105 has been a superb performer for me. Far sharper than the EF versions.


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 4, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> Ghosting and flare is decently controlled on the 11-24. The real issues are that on interiors I just can't avoid windows or ceiling lights. The other thing is one has to keep the front element scrupulously clean or you get spots on the image.



Yeah, I don't know why buildings need so many windows and lights!


----------



## PGSanta (Feb 4, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Am I the only who thinks the 85 looks less than sexy?




Yes.


----------



## PGSanta (Feb 4, 2019)

Any word on pricing yet? I hope Canon doesn't increase prices relative to EF offerings too much.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2019)

IsaacImage said:


> Did Canon went, Nikon route and switched Zoom and Focusing ring on the new upcoming 70-200 ??


They did that on the EF 70-300L. I find it moderately annoying, it’s one reason I use the lens collar with a lens plate on it – supporting the lens by the foot puts my fingers right under the zoom ring.


----------



## 6degrees (Feb 5, 2019)

Wait a minute. Check the shape of RF85mmF1.2. I start to question if this is a completely (optically) redesigned (native) RF lens? Or the EF lens with a build-in adapter/extension?

People pointed out that a Sony E Mount lens manufacturer did such trick.


----------



## analoggrotto (Feb 5, 2019)

Treyarnon said:


> Well, according to Tony Northrup, the new coatings on the mk3 was not quite a 'minimal change':


happy couple but why do they always look like they have been snorting?


----------



## DrToast (Feb 5, 2019)

6degrees said:


> Wait a minute. Check the shape of RF85mmF1.2. I start to question if this is a completely (optically) redesigned (native) RF lens? Or the EF lens with a build-in adapter/extension?
> 
> People pointed out that a Sony E Mount lens manufacturer did such trick.



I was gonna say this was B.S., but then I went back and looked at the lens again and you may be on to something. The front part looks very much like the EF version.

It would be a shame if that's the case, as the whole point of the size of the R mount is to make better glass.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 5, 2019)

Wow, looks like they are cranking 'em out right off the bat. Their strength is lenses and they know it...now for an equivalent body to be able to mount them to...

FINALLY a 24-70 2.8 IS but of course it's RF mount. 

That 70-200 looks surprisingly compact, but I'm assuming that this is a telescoping zoom design...which I have mixed feelings about. I like that my EF 70-200 does not extend, makes for greater durability, etc. On the flip side, it really is a beast which is a disincentive to bringing it into certain places. There actually might be room to have BOTH the RF and EF versions in this case...

Interesting that they chose 15-35, a little wider than 16mm which is fine but hopefully not at the cost of more distortion (there is enough already at 16mm)

24-240 - the ultimate travel lens for the R? Although I can't imagine the IQ would be very good, especially in comparison to the 24-105 (which has enough compromises already). Think I'd rather sacrifice the telephoto reach for better quality at the wide end, personally.

And finally, that 85 looks like a true beast. Even more so than the 50...no IS though. The EF version will likely continue to be unique for a while to come...

I wonder how these will stack up to their EF counterparts...they sold the RF system as this amazing breakthrough in technology and optics, now let's see if there's any real improvement here...


----------



## flip314 (Feb 5, 2019)

6degrees said:


> Wait a minute. Check the shape of RF85mmF1.2. I start to question if this is a completely (optically) redesigned (native) RF lens? Or the EF lens with a build-in adapter/extension?
> 
> People pointed out that a Sony E Mount lens manufacturer did such trick.



Telephoto lenses don't benefit from shorter backfocus. Presumably any 85mm they design for RF could also be designed for EF.

That said, the 85mm 1.2L II is 12+ years old, so I would expect a new formula. I'm puzzled by the lack of IS though. I would think that's almost long enough that OIS would help even once Canon delivers a body with IBIS...


----------



## 6degrees (Feb 5, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Telephoto lenses don't benefit from shorter backfocus. Presumably any 85mm they design for RF could also be designed for EF.
> 
> That said, the 85mm 1.2L II is 12+ years old, so I would expect a new formula. I'm puzzled by the lack of IS though. I would think that's almost long enough that OIS would help even once Canon delivers a body with IBIS...



FYI: "EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM" does not have IS.

RF lenses and EF lenses should not have the same structure. EF lenses, using adapter, can be used on RF Mount. But RF lenses can't be used on EF mount. Correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## flip314 (Feb 5, 2019)

6degrees said:


> FYI: "EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM" does not have IS:
> 
> https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...andard-medium-telephoto/ef-85mm-f-1-2l-ii-usm



Ah, I hadn't meant to imply that it did, just that I'm surprised they didn't add it for RF.


----------



## windsorc (Feb 5, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> Wow. It's all becoming apparent now how brilliant Canon's rollout plan is. Lenses are forever, but a body is only for about 3 years. By leading with the best collection of pro lenses on the market, they have the attention of not only the pros but every amateur who hopes to go pro one day. Would it have been nice if they had led with a 5D equivalent R? Yes, but not entirely necessary. A few years down the line nobody will remember which came first. But within a year of launch Canon R system will be the clear choice for wedding photographers, portrait photographers, landscape photographers, etc. Yes, they need to get the body right. But with this lens lineup they have some room for mistakes here and there, or maybe not-class-leading dynamic range, etc.
> 
> As was said above, this is going to be an expensive couple of years. Just assuming the below prices (ha right), my wish list is already north of 18k.
> 
> ...


Looks pretty even Stevens to me with Canon, Nikon and Sony. These lens releases don't make much difference to existing Nikon and Sony professionals. Not many wedding pros want to use a 85mm f1.2 lens, that is one big heavy lens. All this tells me is that Canon are on the right track with lenses, but behind the game with bodies. If I was a wedding pro, I'd be tempted to stick with DSLRs until we have the next round of camera upgrades. I am looking to move from APSC to FF,with few lenses to tie me to any one company, but Nikon with the 20mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 are what I need, not excessive 1.2 lenses. All the companies will have the bread and butter 24-70 and 70-210 so lenses make no difference there.


----------



## Chuckmet (Feb 5, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> To me, the big news is the 24-240. It is not an L lens, and it goes to F6.3.
> 
> This is important! This tells us that kit lenses can hit the point where they get lighter and more affordable, this is where the top end of the crop cameras get squeezed!
> 
> If you are a new buyer, are you going to get a 80D and a kit lens, or are you going to go FF with a 10X kit lens for about the same price?



80D with a 18-135 kit sells about $1400, I doubt the RP with the 24-240 will even be close. I suspect it will be at least $800 more.


----------



## Chuckmet (Feb 5, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> Lee, I think when you eventually go full-frame, you'll see that you do have some additional cropping ability borne out of the increased image quality that'll make up for a portion of your crop factor loss. I found, also, that the 100-400 m2 had just about 0 image quality denigration with the 1.4x teleconverter on full frame, but was a little more touchy on my 7D2. All in all, I found I missed the 1.6 crop factor a whole lot less than I'd anticipated. Then again, I did wind up buying a big white, but I suspect I would have done so anyway.


Everything you said is true however, I purchased an 80D and a Sigma 150-600C for about $2000 total. To get even close to that versatility with a full frame your going to have to double or even triple that price even with being able to crop full frame more. As a bird photographer I quite often have to crop anyway so full frame would be even a bigger crop. We can only hope that Sigma or Tamron would come out with their long zooms in a R mount. By the way I skipped buying the 7D2 because I was hoping to wait for the 7D3 and then delegate my 80D as a second body but who knows if or when the 7D3 will be released?


----------



## Viggo (Feb 5, 2019)

I have no doubts about the image quality of the new RF’s. I also have no doubt the design is new for the 85 and that it will match IQ with the RF50. “Adapted old EF version” ? Not a chance...


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 5, 2019)

Aaron D said:


> Yeah, I don't know why buildings need so many windows and lights!



That's why I only take pictures of bunkers, Channel Islands recommended!


----------



## GulliNL (Feb 5, 2019)

Josh Leavitt said:


> That stood out to me as well. The 70-200L glass on EF forewent a telescoping barrel. I'm not sure how they can make a 2.8 telephoto zoom that short without a telescoping barrel, even on a mirrorless system.


I seem to remember this lens was rumored about a month ago and there was a variable length, so it could be that it's telescoped indeed.


----------



## GulliNL (Feb 5, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> Strange that the 70-200 has no function ring either, and is probably a telescoping design.
> 
> I wonder if this is going to be significantly cheaper than the EF version?


It has, only it is white and more towards the mount, look closely


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 5, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Ah, I hadn't meant to imply that it did, just that I'm surprised they didn't add it for RF.



As to the missing IS in Canon's most expensive RF lenses, adding IS could have compromised their optical quality, centering issues for instance.
Tests have proven these lenses (28/70, 1,2/50...) to offer an extreme level of sharpness, which could suffer from a moving lens group.
I recently visited Leica in Wetzlar, and was explained the enormous degree of complexity required in assembling & centering their Noctilux lenses (F 0,95, F 1,25).
After that, I'd rather have the F 1,2 RF lenses "IS-less". IBIS is coming anyway.
PS: I have started to save for the 1,2/85...


----------



## Meatcurry (Feb 5, 2019)

New image of 70-200, looks kinda short, must be a "barrel extender" design?


----------



## padam (Feb 5, 2019)

Yes, according to the previous RF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS patent, it is (length 173-243mm)


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 5, 2019)

I am wondering if the weight will be less than Panasonic's 70-200 F4



Meatcurry said:


> New image of 70-200, looks kinda short, must be a "barrel extender" design?
> View attachment 182984


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 5, 2019)

Meatcurry said:


> New image of 70-200, looks kinda short, must be a "barrel extender" design?
> View attachment 182984



You know... The more I see this the more I feel like Canon has made a major move here. The 70-200 suddenly becomes a much smaller lens to transport, and I bet a small-medium sling could hold this, the EOS R, and a 24-70 with room to spare. 

As much as I don't like telescoping lenses, I would barely use my 100-400 if it was an internal zoom--it would be huge, so telescoping down to the size of a 70-200 makes it stupid easy to transport a 400mm. But a 70-200 the size of a 24-70mm? That's crazy to think about. 

Flashback to when Nikon released the exact opposite, their crazy huge 24-70 2.8 VR that was the size of a 70-200


----------



## IsaacImage (Feb 5, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> They did that on the EF 70-300L. I find it moderately annoying, it’s one reason I use the lens collar with a lens plate on it – supporting the lens by the foot puts my fingers right under the zoom ring.


Tnx 
No Good Canon, no Good


----------



## Viggo (Feb 5, 2019)

I can’t really see where it would extend?


----------



## Act444 (Feb 5, 2019)

Meatcurry said:


> New image of 70-200, looks kinda short, must be a "barrel extender" design?
> View attachment 182984



Yeah, that’s almost certainly the case. Although admittedly it is hard to tell scale from that small blurry image...

Hopefully it is lighter as well.

ETA: it LOOKS like this lens has a setting for mode 3 IS, which was strangely omitted from the EF version III


----------



## jdavidse (Feb 5, 2019)

padam said:


> Yes, according to the previous RF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS patent, it is (length 173-243mm)


Let’s hope it’s shorter than that. 173mm = 6.8 inches. The EF version is 7.8 inches


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 5, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> Let’s hope it’s shorter than that. 173mm = 6.8 inches. The EF version is 7.8 inches





The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS is exactly 6.8 inches--the RF sure does not look the size of the 70-200 F/4, it seems a lot more cramped with less real estate. I'd bet it's a little bit wider but definitely shorter than the F/4. I doubt the patents are exact to the specifications of the consumer lens.

I get he feeling it's at least as short as the 70-300mm F/4-5.6L IS, if not possibly even shorter,. The lens mount makes it look barely larger than the RF 24-70, but that's again just a rough estimate that could be skewed. 

If not.. What good is sacrificing the internal zoom just to save an inch?


----------



## padam (Feb 5, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> Let’s hope it’s shorter than that. 173mm = 6.8 inches. The EF version is 7.8 inches


Plus the length of the EF-EOS R adapter as well.


----------



## padam (Feb 5, 2019)

H. Jones said:


> The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS is exactly 6.8 inches--the RF sure does not look the size of the 70-200 F/4, it seems a lot more cramped with less real estate. I'd bet it's a little bit wider but definitely shorter than the F/4. I doubt the patents are exact to the specifications of the consumer lens.



It is possible that the product shot was done with a wider FL lens, makes it look fatter and shorter.


----------



## knight427 (Feb 5, 2019)

H. Jones said:


> View attachment 182986
> 
> The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS is exactly 6.8 inches--the RF sure does not look the size of the 70-200 F/4, it seems a lot more cramped with less real estate. I'd bet it's a little bit wider but definitely shorter than the F/4. I doubt the patents are exact to the specifications of the consumer lens.
> 
> ...



Just for fun, I compared the A7iii w/ 70-200 f/2.8 to Canon M5 (winch is ~430 g) with the 70-300 (plus adapter). Of course an adapter won't be needed for native R mount.


----------



## DrToast (Feb 5, 2019)

At this point, I'd be very surprised if the R mount lens isn't the same design as the EF lens. The front element gives it away. They probably have plans to make a new 85mm f/1.2, but decided to put this one out for now and then down the road release an 85mm f/1.2 R II


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 5, 2019)

What if the 70-200 is not extendable but uses DO lenses (i know there is no green ring).


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 5, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> That's why I only take pictures of bunkers, Channel Islands recommended!



Good thinking! I don't know why I make it hard on myself….


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 5, 2019)

Meatcurry said:


> New image of 70-200, looks kinda short, must be a "barrel extender" design?
> View attachment 182984


Yeah, I bet. And I bet that's why the zoom ring is at the front—probably a mechanical necessity.


----------



## saveyourmoment (Feb 5, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> It would be insanely expensive and a niche lens. If I remember correctly Canon(and Schneider) used to make 90mm Tilt-shift macro(1:2) and cheapest of those two is 1400$ nearly 2x the cost of 1:1 100mm Macro.


It would? yes it is expensive (€2.549,00 here in Germany) But for macrowork (here jewelry) it is better (and more versatile) than my old 100mm 2.8 L Macro. It pays for itself.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 5, 2019)

DrToast said:


> View attachment 182989
> View attachment 182990
> 
> 
> At this point, I'd be very surprised if the R mount lens isn't the same design as the EF lens. The front element gives it away. They probably have plans to make a new 85mm f/1.2, but decided to put this one out for now and then down the road release an 85mm f/1.2 R II



I'd be very surprised if the RF 85 f/1.2 is the same design as the EF 85 f/1.2. Given that both EF and RF versions are 85mm and f/1.2 and have the same mount diameter, I would expect them to look similar. The picture comparison you showed seems to indicate that the newer RF design carries the larger diameter further to the rear which may indicate additional elements or larger elements closer to the rear of the optical design.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 5, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> I'd be very surprised if the RF 85 f/1.2 is the same design as the EF 85 f/1.2. Given that both EF and RF versions are 85mm and f/1.2 and have the same mount diameter, I would expect them to look similar. The picture comparison you showed seems to indicate that the newer RF design carries the larger diameter further to the rear which may indicate additional elements or larger elements closer to the rear of the optical design.



I’ll eat my RF 50 if the EF and RF 85 f1.2 are the same lens.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 5, 2019)

DrToast said:


> View attachment 182989
> View attachment 182990
> 
> 
> At this point, I'd be very surprised if the R mount lens isn't the same design as the EF lens. The front element gives it away. They probably have plans to make a new 85mm f/1.2, but decided to put this one out for now and then down the road release an 85mm f/1.2 R II



the problem with your hypothesis is that you have to allow for the spacer of EF to RF. the new RF 85mm would have a much longer rear end if it was the same design.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 5, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> Let’s hope it’s shorter than that. 173mm = 6.8 inches. The EF version is 7.8 inches



173mm to the sensor plane. which means the actual length of the lens was 153mm making it just a shade over 6 inches.


----------



## chik0240 (Feb 5, 2019)

That looks like a promising release but this might actually cure my gear acquisition syndrome, looking back at my completed gear set centered around an 5D mk iii it just don’t feel as tempting to sell it at a loss and the Re acquire the whole set in RF, recent trip to japan for some Sakura photos I find my old 70-200 f4 IS just did look perfectly great, and the feel of Evf still don’t convince me to replace with an mirrorless system, plus I can go with 2x 6 years old batteries on 7 days without worrying charging.

To me who’s getting middle aged life have more stuffs worth spending that money on than the marginal image quality gain with lots of trade off


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Feb 5, 2019)

The more I see all these new lenses coming out, the more I feel like the EOS R was rushed into production.

The number and class of lenses coming out for the RF mount far outpaces the number and quality of cameras we have to use them with. (Namely, one.)

It's almost as if Canon was slowly and steadily developing a full lineup of cameras and lenses to be released later, maybe this year, but they got caught out by Nikon planning to release their Z series last fall. Not wanting to lag behind so severely, they rushed together what they had on the camera side, and released the EOS R, along with the RF lenses they had ready at the time so they would have some lenses to go with the new camera.

Don't get me wrong, the R does a lot of things well, and the few things that it really excels and even beats DSLRs at (AF accuracy and low light AF) have led me to use it pretty much exclusively now.

But when you boil it down, the R is really little more than a 5D4 that's stuck in live view with a new housing with some decontented cotnrols. Add to that the bugs present in the R (I continue to have my viewfinder information overlay randomly disappear on me), and the missing features (no burst mode in silent shutter mode, really? And yes, I know that's coming with a firmware update), and it's pretty clear that Canon really wasn't prepared to go out with the RF system until this year. Not for a lack of lenses, but because of still struggling to nail down quick and reliable full frame mirrorless operation.

I'm just kind of befuddled by all of these lenses coming out, some of them $2000+ primes and wide aperture zooms that really only professionals will buy, and the only camera you can currently use them with costs less than some of the lenses and is, let's be honest here, not a top level camera, even though it's pretty capable.

I really hope they start making cameras worthy of all of these lenses soon. Again, I don't hate the R, I use it almost all the time now, but it just feels like more of a slightly rushed design experiment rather than something I feel like is a worthy successor to a 5D4.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 5, 2019)

windsorc said:


> Looks pretty even Stevens to me with Canon, Nikon and Sony. These lens releases don't make much difference to existing Nikon and Sony professionals. Not many wedding pros want to use a 85mm f1.2 lens, that is one big heavy lens. All this tells me is that Canon are on the right track with lenses, but behind the game with bodies. If I was a wedding pro, I'd be tempted to stick with DSLRs until we have the next round of camera upgrades. I am looking to move from APSC to FF,with few lenses to tie me to any one company, but Nikon with the 20mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 are what I need, not excessive 1.2 lenses. All the companies will have the bread and butter 24-70 and 70-210 so lenses make no difference there.



If I still shot weddings I would probably go with Fuji for weight and IQ. FF is nice but the advantages are slight in the real world while the fatigue at the end of a long day is real.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 5, 2019)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> The more I see all these new lenses coming out, the more I feel like the EOS R was rushed into production.
> 
> The number and class of lenses coming out for the RF mount far outpaces the number and quality of cameras we have to use them with. (Namely, one.)
> 
> ...



I agree that the R has a few bugs and one could argue that it is a mirror-free mkIV. However, when it really comes down to it all mirrorless cameras are like that. A sensor that could be in a DSLR in a body that has a ton of customizability and some reduction in mass.

As for the expensive lenses introduced at an early stage, IMO they wanted to declare that they were serious about the platform. They have gotten a lot of grief over the past few years of being indifferent to improvement and specifically mirrorless. These halo lenses are statement that they have heard the public and are responding with innovation.
While the 50 1.2 and the 28-70 f2 will not likely sell in large numbers, they are aspirational markers for many to dream about. At the same time they did intro a very good 24-105 and an affordable and versatile 35. I am confident that a lot of new and affordable lenses will be coming. 

On the issue of affordability, however, I think that is a relative term as the needs to recoup R&D and the increased expenses of 21st century production will move prices higher.
Sadly we can't cling to the pricing of yore when a 50 1.8 was ~$100 or less.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 5, 2019)

approximatt said:


> Wow Canon is really pumping them out. Makes Panasonic's initial offerings look extremely lame in comparison.



If anyone can, Canon can.


----------



## DrToast (Feb 5, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> the problem with your hypothesis is that you have to allow for the spacer of EF to RF. the new RF 85mm would have a much longer rear end if it was the same design.



I could be wrong. We’ll find out soon. But it’s interesting that the 85mm f/1.2 is the only RF lens that has what looks like a built-in adapter on it.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 5, 2019)

DrToast said:


> I could be wrong. We’ll find out soon. But it’s interesting that the 85mm f/1.2 is the only RF lens that has what looks like a built-in adapter on it.


So did the EF version and the 50 f1.0 L...


----------



## Act444 (Feb 5, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> I agree that the R has a few bugs and one could argue that it is a mirror-free mkIV.



I’d say it’s closer to a mirror-free 6D but with a 5D4 sensor...


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 5, 2019)

DrToast said:


> I could be wrong. We’ll find out soon. But it’s interesting that the 85mm f/1.2 is the only RF lens that has what looks like a built-in adapter on it.


Totally wrong. If it were at all possible mathematically, you'd be 1000% wrong. Fortunately, the worst you can be is 100% wrong, and that's where the idea is sitting on the wrong meter. But that's okay. Facts get made up here all the time. So do conspiracies.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Feb 5, 2019)

The 24-70 RF IS really intrigues me along with the 15-35. These lenses would make me go buy an R despite its shortcomings (I evaluated the EOS R through CPS). My 70-200 2.8 can live on my 1DX2 and the 24-70 on the R.


----------



## eninja (Feb 6, 2019)

jedy said:


> Just seems odd that Canon are producing pro grade L RF lenses but their next R body will be a prosumer body. It’s not like there are any decent f1.8/f2.8 primes to use with the prosumer body. Canon need to release the pro R body if they want to do these lenses justice.



Enthusiast will be force to buy the current R body now. More money for Canon, more R body on peoples hand. Better for Canon.


----------



## PGSanta (Feb 6, 2019)

eninja said:


> Enthusiast will be force to buy the current R body now. More money for Canon, more R body on peoples hand. Better for Canon.



Everyone keeps ignoring the secondary market. Tons of EF glass for prosumers to match up with a low tier R available significantly cheaper than new versions. 

Canon is doing this right. They are building the foundation before offering something for pros.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2019)

jdavidse said:


> Let’s hope it’s shorter than that. 173mm = 6.8 inches. The EF version is 7.8 inches


It’ll be 20mm shorter. ‘Lens patents’ are actually optical formula patents, so the patent length includes the distance between the mount and the sensor.


----------



## jdavidse (Feb 6, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’ll be 20mm shorter. ‘Lens patents’ are actually optical formula patents, so the patent length includes the distance between the mount and the sensor.



Ok that sounds excellent. So using sensor to front of the lens as a comparison, it looks like:

5DIV + EF 70-200 2.8: 243mm
R + RF 70-200 2.8: 173mm

That's 70mm, or 2.75 inches shorter for the combo. That is insane


----------



## abgraphy (Feb 6, 2019)

What could be the size of the front lens of the 85 mm f1.2?


----------



## scyrene (Feb 6, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> Well, I paid $700 for my Sigma 150-600C, brand new.



LOL. Well if you can't tell the difference then the 200-400 is not for you.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 6, 2019)

scyrene said:


> LOL. Well if you can't tell the difference then the 200-400 is not for you.



I can...the Sigma is much more capable of properly framing a fast moving subject because of its wider continuous zoom range and it's much lighter and easier to use.

Optical quality is quite good and I don't need the speed. When I do, I shoot with my 70-200/2.8L IS II.

The closest thing to the Sigma in Canon's lineup is the 100-400L II + 1.4x TC. But that severely limits your autofocus capabilities.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 6, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> I can...the Sigma is much more capable of properly framing a fast moving subject because of its wider continuous zoom range and it's much lighter and easier to use.
> 
> Optical quality is quite good and I don't need the speed. When I do, I shoot with my 70-200/2.8L IS II.
> 
> The closest thing to the Sigma in Canon's lineup is the 100-400L II + 1.4x TC. But that severely limits your autofocus capabilities.



I'm glad you like that lens, I'm sure it's very capable! But saying therefore the 200-400 is 10x too expensive is still silly. Maybe it's overpriced, but there are reasons it costs a lot more.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 6, 2019)

scyrene said:


> I'm glad you like that lens, I'm sure it's very capable! But saying therefore the 200-400 is 10x too expensive is still silly. Maybe it's overpriced, but there are reasons it costs a lot more.



Okay, given what it is and what it can do, I think it should be MSRP $4,000, maximum. For my uses, it's not as good as the Sigma 150-600C, and I wouldn't trade 1-for-1.

I really wish Canon would make a decent competitor for the three available Tamron and Sigma 150-600s and the Sigma 60-600. But they seem to be protecting their big white cash cows instead, which is one reason I've never bought one.


----------



## masterpix (Feb 6, 2019)

You can buy the adapter and use the EF lenses as long as you like


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Feb 6, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> I agree that the R has a few bugs and one could argue that it is a mirror-free mkIV. However, when it really comes down to it all mirrorless cameras are like that. A sensor that could be in a DSLR in a body that has a ton of customizability and some reduction in mass.
> 
> As for the expensive lenses introduced at an early stage, IMO they wanted to declare that they were serious about the platform. They have gotten a lot of grief over the past few years of being indifferent to improvement and specifically mirrorless. These halo lenses are statement that they have heard the public and are responding with innovation.
> While the 50 1.2 and the 28-70 f2 will not likely sell in large numbers, they are aspirational markers for many to dream about. At the same time they did intro a very good 24-105 and an affordable and versatile 35. I am confident that a lot of new and affordable lenses will be coming.
> ...


Yes obviously all mirrorless cameras are essentially like a DSLR in live view. But I'm talking specifically about how close the EOS R is to a 5D4, technologically. Really all they had to do to make the EOS R is take the sensor and interface that already existed for the 5D4's live view mode, and stick it in a new body with an EVF. Dual pixel autofocus has been around for years on the 5D4. It's just getting put to good use in the EOS R.

Granted there are a few improvements related to making the "live view" function of the EOS R into a fully featured way to shoot rather than the side show that it's always been in DSLRs. But really, there isn't a whole lot that the EOS R is that the 5D4 isn't when it's in live view. I'm just saying I don't think the EOS R was that huge of an engineering undertaking, aside from making the new RF mount.

Regardless of how exactly how much the lenses cost, it just seems weird to have Canon coming out with all of these top end, professional lenses when the only camera there is to use them with is... A little less than professional.

I still say that this product rollout is not exactly how Canon wanted it to go. Seems like they're struggling with mirrorless camera tech and didn't want to come out with it quite as early as they were forced to by Nikon. But meanwhile, they know how to make good lenses all day long, so those are coming out in droves.


----------



## Daner (Feb 6, 2019)

As titillating as these rumors are, Canon needs to balance them against the risk of negative consequences from the Osborne effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect

As a 5DIV owner that currently uses "bargain" glass (older but perfectly functional L versions purchased used) I have been on the cusp of upgrading stepwise to current, better versions of my EF lenses, but the likelihood of even better RF glass becoming available soon presents a bit of a dilemma. If Canon had a true RF equivalent to my 5DMkIV I would definitely consider taking the plunge and changing out both my 5DMkIV and used glass for a new RF body and glass. Since they haven't yet released a pro body, but we have reason to believe that these new RF lenses are coming soon (with no compelling evidence of EF equivalent models) it makes me not want to buy anything right now.

On the bright side, this is good for my own economy, but it is not necessarily directly good for Canon. Of course, it also serves to dampen any temptation that I might have to switch platforms, so there is that...


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 6, 2019)

addola said:


> I wish Canon did trade-in offers like Sony & Nikon are doing with their cameras.
> 
> I want that RF 85mm f/1.2L, but I really hope Canon implement IBIS because that heavy glass will need it.



IS seems to work OK with the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS.

It's also pretty good with the EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS III from what I hear.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 6, 2019)

One can only speculate why Nikon and Sony are running trade-in offers


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 6, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> Yeah, a little hard to believe these will all come in 2019. They would of had to be developing some of them over the past two years. Was Canon looking that far ahead?



Canon always thinks that far ahead.

When the first IS lens was released in 1995, it turned out that all bodies introduced since 1993 were already compatible with the new IS lens.

When the first bodies with user accessible AFMA were introduced in 2007, it turned out that all new EF lenses introduced since around 2004 had internal serial numbers communicated to the body so that the camera could discriminate between two different copies of the same model lens.

When the 470EX-AI was introduced in early 2018, it turned out that all new bodies introduced since the 7D Mark II in late 2014 (1D X Mark II, 5Ds/5Ds R, 5D IV, 6D II, 80D, 77D, several Rebels, and the EOS M50) had the needed firmware to run the whiz-bang self aiming bounce flash.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 6, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> I currently use a 7D mark II, and my second most-used lens is the Sigma 150-600C. If I were going to change to a full-frame R camera, I'd have to replace that 240mm-960mm equivalent range. I'd probably tolerate something like a 200-800/5-8. My third most-used lens is the 8-15/4L, which could only be replaced by something like a 13-25ish zoom fisheye.
> 
> One of the big reasons I changed from full-frame to crop is that the 24-70/2.8ii didn't have IS. Looks like Canon finally got that message, but it's several years too late for me. I was all set to give them over $5k of my money for a 5DIV + 24-70/2.8 IS, but they didn't come out with one. I'm glad they didn't - the 7D Mark ii system saved me a lot of money and I have over 70,000 images on it since I got it.





Lee Jay said:


> Well, I paid $700 for my Sigma 150-600C, brand new.



If you are happy with the image quality and maximum aperture you get at 600mm f/6.3 with the Sigma 150-600mm on an APS-C camera, the high end Canon long glass is not for you.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 7, 2019)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Yes obviously all mirrorless cameras are essentially like a DSLR in live view. But I'm talking specifically about how close the EOS R is to a 5D4, technologically. Really all they had to do to make the EOS R is take the sensor and interface that already existed for the 5D4's live view mode, and stick it in a new body with an EVF. Dual pixel autofocus has been around for years on the 5D4. It's just getting put to good use in the EOS R.
> 
> Granted there are a few improvements related to making the "live view" function of the EOS R into a fully featured way to shoot rather than the side show that it's always been in DSLRs. But really, there isn't a whole lot that the EOS R is that the 5D4 isn't when it's in live view. I'm just saying I don't think the EOS R was that huge of an engineering undertaking, aside from making the new RF mount.
> 
> ...



I think this rollout was exactly what they wanted to do. Introduce a couple of halo lenses to establish their commitment to the mirrorless platform, and a moderately priced body with enough features to not fall flat. Then introduce a value priced model for the mass market and finally a “pro” model for all the hobbyists to drain their retirement savings on.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 7, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Canon always thinks that far ahead.
> 
> When the first IS lens was released in 1995, it turned out that all bodies introduced since 2003 were already compatible with the new IS lens.



Aren’t those numbers the wrong way around?


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 7, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> If you are happy with the image quality and maximum aperture you get at 600mm f/6.3 with the Sigma 150-600mm on an APS-C camera, the high end Canon long glass is not for you.



It's a good light lens, and the IQ is a match for my 70-200L IS II when both are 1/3 of a stop down.

The Canon long glass doesn't zoom making it useless for my purposes, and I rarely need f/2.8 when shooting long. And I have a much bigger 'lens' than anything Canon makes when I need serious focal length (2000mm f7 or 2800mm f/10).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> If you are happy with the image quality and maximum aperture you get at 600mm f/6.3 with the Sigma 150-600mm on an APS-C camera, the high end Canon long glass is not for you.


Indeed. In less challenging conditions (eg. full daylight), APS-C and lower quality lenses can certainly deliver excellent images. In those conditions, something like a Sony RX10 will do just as well, and be much smaller and lighter than a 7D/150-600 combo. In more challenging conditions (needing fast shutter speeds in lower light, like birds in flight in the early morning or late evening where light quality is great but light quantity isn’t), a faster lens and a larger sensor really make a difference – but there’s a trade off in size, weight and cost.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Feb 7, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> I think this rollout was exactly what they wanted to do. Introduce a couple of halo lenses to establish their commitment to the mirrorless platform, and a moderately priced body with enough features to not fall flat. Then introduce a value priced model for the mass market and finally a “pro” model for all the hobbyists to drain their retirement savings on.


Did they also intend to put out a camera that doesn't even do burst shooting in silent shutter mode without a firmware update like essentially every other good mirrorless camera can?

I maintain that Canon got caught out by Nikon's release, and had to push the EOS R out the door before it was really ready. The R isn't a bad camera, but it is a rushed camera.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 7, 2019)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Did they also intend to put out a camera that doesn't even do burst shooting in silent shutter mode without a firmware update like essentially every other good mirrorless camera can?
> 
> I maintain that Canon got caught out by Nikon's release, and had to push the EOS R out the door before it was really ready. The R isn't a bad camera, but it is a rushed camera.



Nikon announced the Z7 in August 2018. Canon announced the R system in September 2018 with availability in October 2018. That is some feat to finish engineering/tooling and to manufacture the product in volume in two months, so I disagree that Canon only released the R in response to Nikon Zs because the engineering for the R already had to be finished to be widely available that quickly.

I think it is more likely that Canon had decided to release the R system around October 2018 years ago, but that the body development had more delays than the lenses. The R system launched with more lenses than the Panasonic or the Nikon, and again the Canon lenses were more widely available at launch. The software wasn't quite ready with eyeAF, so I wouldn't be surprised that it is updated when the RP launches (similar software build). There were also rumors that one of the EOS R bodies in development was killed off, and I think the Z7 might have caused Canon to do that to the higher spec'ed R camera. Nikon launched with two cameras, Panasonic launched with two cameras, and I think that Canon had originally planned to launch with two cameras as well... which would make sense because as fantastic as the RF lenses are, the 28-70 and 50 should go on a higher end body than the R. So I think that the R was always in Canon's original plan. It wasn't "rushed" but it definitely sits below the 5D4, although it is closer to the 5D4 than the 6D2.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Feb 7, 2019)

Yes I think they were ready on the hardware side to go out with the camera, but they seem to be struggling with the software side of it, as evidenced by the fact that the EOS R can't currently do a burst in silent mode, unlike basically every other mirrorless camera. Really I think the release date for the camera probably shouldn't have been until whenever they are going to come out with this major firmware update, but they decided to push it out probably for two reasons... Not wanting to leave people empty handed when Nikon had two cameras out, and the fact that the lens side of the business was all ready to go with the lenses, but obviously you can't announce or release lenses without a camera to use them on.

And I think that's why we're at the point we're at. Canon knows lenses. They've been making great ones for decades. The processing and software for full frame mirrorless is something they're still struggling with. So I think that's why we're at the point that we are of having one single camera released with a boat load of lenses either already released or about to be announced, many of them that out-class the only camera that's able to use them.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 7, 2019)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> And I think that's why we're at the point we're at. Canon knows lenses. They've been making great ones for decades. The processing and software for full frame mirrorless is something they're still struggling with. So I think that's why we're at the point that we are of having one single camera released with a boat load of lenses either already released or about to be announced, many of them that out-class the only camera that's able to use them.



The R&D required to bring out a new camera line (time and money) is probably more than a lens. Companies do best when they can iterate on previous designs. The R represents a larger departure from what Canon sold previously. At least the EOS R system was much better at launch than the EOS M system.


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 7, 2019)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Yes obviously all mirrorless cameras are essentially like a DSLR in live view. But I'm talking specifically about how close the EOS R is to a 5D4, technologically. Really all they had to do to make the EOS R is take the sensor and interface that already existed for the 5D4's live view mode, and stick it in a new body with an EVF. Dual pixel autofocus has been around for years on the 5D4. It's just getting put to good use in the EOS R.
> 
> Granted there are a few improvements related to making the "live view" function of the EOS R into a fully featured way to shoot rather than the side show that it's always been in DSLRs. But really, there isn't a whole lot that the EOS R is that the 5D4 isn't when it's in live view. I'm just saying I don't think the EOS R was that huge of an engineering undertaking, aside from making the new RF mount.
> 
> ...



I have to disagree with your description of the AF function on the R vs the 5DIV. I own and shot both several times a week. The dual pixel AF on the R works much better than on the 5DIV, also when using EF lenses. Just try a moving subject in poor light, and it becomes very obvious that the difference is more than significant. Put the RF 50L on the R, and the advantage increases much, much more. I am getting difficult shots in focus at f1.2 at a high keeper rate, a keeper rate that I could only dream of with my former 1DXII.

An example of difficult shots is my 1 year old daughter sitting on a kind of bike (toy) that moves back and forth (like a rocking chair). She moves either back or forth for maybe 0,5 seconds each way. The light is quite dim, but the R + the RF50L in AI servo and face tracking nails her eyes in shot after shot at f1.2, at a distance of 1-1,5 meters. I didn’t have her attention for more than a few seconds, and I can say for certain, that if I had the 1DXII I would need a good portion of luck to get away with one shot in ok focus. 

Add to that, that I could leave it to the camera to focus. I could look up at her and get her to smile while shooting.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 7, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> I have to disagree with your description of the AF function on the R vs the 5DIV. I own and shot both several times a week. The dual pixel AF on the R works much better than on the 5DIV, also when using EF lenses. Just try a moving subject in poor light, and it becomes very obvious that the difference is more than significant. Put the RF 50L on the R, and the advantage increases much, much more. I am getting difficult shots in focus at f1.2 at a high keeper rate, a keeper rate that I could only dream of with my former 1DXII.
> 
> An example of difficult shots is my 1 year old daughter sitting on a kind of bike (toy) that moves back and forth (like a rocking chair). She moves either back or forth for maybe 0,5 seconds each way. The light is quite dim, but the R + the RF50L in AI servo and face tracking nails her eyes in shot after shot at f1.2, at a distance of 1-1,5 meters. I didn’t have her attention for more than a few seconds, and I can say for certain, that if I had the 1DXII I would need a good portion of luck to get away with one shot in ok focus.
> 
> Add to that, that I could leave it to the camera to focus. I could look up at her and get her to smile while shooting.



1000% agreed, it’s as if I wrote it myself. It’s the exact same story on swings also.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Feb 7, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> I have to disagree with your description of the AF function on the R vs the 5DIV. I own and shot both several times a week. The dual pixel AF on the R works much better than on the 5DIV, also when using EF lenses. Just try a moving subject in poor light, and it becomes very obvious that the difference is more than significant. Put the RF 50L on the R, and the advantage increases much, much more. I am getting difficult shots in focus at f1.2 at a high keeper rate, a keeper rate that I could only dream of with my former 1DXII.
> 
> An example of difficult shots is my 1 year old daughter sitting on a kind of bike (toy) that moves back and forth (like a rocking chair). She moves either back or forth for maybe 0,5 seconds each way. The light is quite dim, but the R + the RF50L in AI servo and face tracking nails her eyes in shot after shot at f1.2, at a distance of 1-1,5 meters. I didn’t have her attention for more than a few seconds, and I can say for certain, that if I had the 1DXII I would need a good portion of luck to get away with one shot in ok focus.
> 
> Add to that, that I could leave it to the camera to focus. I could look up at her and get her to smile while shooting.


I really haven't used autofocus on the 5D4 in live view enough to comment on how well it works compared to the R. I was just saying that it's essentially the same focusing technology from the same sensor. Are all those cases you talked about with the 5D4 and 1DXii when using live view? I've just never known people to use those cameras in live view for anything high action or hard to track. Seems like it'd be kind of cumbersome compared to the viewfinder.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 7, 2019)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> I really haven't used autofocus on the 5D4 in live view enough to comment on how well it works compared to the R. I was just saying that it's essentially the same focusing technology from the same sensor. Are all those cases you talked about with the 5D4 and 1DXii when using live view? I've just never known people to use those cameras in live view for anything high action or hard to track. Seems like it'd be kind of cumbersome compared to the viewfinder.


For me the comparison I agreed to was all VF focusing. The 1dx2 doesn’t have Servo in live view for stills. 1dx2 AF for swings etc can’t match the DPAF in the EOS R. Going off center with AF the gap becomes wider. Before I shot at 14 fps to try and get it anything. Now I take one .


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 7, 2019)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> I really haven't used autofocus on the 5D4 in live view enough to comment on how well it works compared to the R. I was just saying that it's essentially the same focusing technology from the same sensor. Are all those cases you talked about with the 5D4 and 1DXii when using live view? I've just never known people to use those cameras in live view for anything high action or hard to track. Seems like it'd be kind of cumbersome compared to the viewfinder.



No, I would never use 1DXII or 5DIV in live view in a situation like I described. The viewfinder AF works much better in the DSLRs for any type of action. And that was my point, the dual pixel AF in the R works so good, that it is much better than DSLRs in a challenging situation like the one I described. But please note, I haven’t used the R for other types of action photography, such as sports or BIF. I don’t have the experience to claim that the AF in the R is better than a DSLR in such situations. (But I recall Viggo praising the R for shooting soccer with the 85L f1.4 IS.)


----------



## MartinF. (Feb 7, 2019)

ozwineguy said:


> Here I am, thinking all I want is the 24-70 2.8 IS. But now it seems I want a few more.
> 
> But do I want to sell my EF gear to fund it? Argh!


that is exactly the problem in this EF to RF transition....


----------



## flip314 (Feb 7, 2019)

I'm waiting for a refresh of the 1200mm f5.6. I can't buy into the R system until they replace that one.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 8, 2019)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Did they also intend to put out a camera that doesn't even do burst shooting in silent shutter mode without a firmware update like essentially every other good mirrorless camera can?
> 
> I maintain that Canon got caught out by Nikon's release, and had to push the EOS R out the door before it was really ready. The R isn't a bad camera, but it is a rushed camera.



I would note that the competition (including Sony) have had their share of SW shortfalls and bugs. So far Fuji is the one to beat in terms of SW and FW upgrades/updates. Let us hope that Canon will get there as well.

Not disappointed that the R was not a hero body. Had they brought hat out and flopped it would have been very costly to Canon. Nikon was stung by the pratfalls in their own AF performance and lack of second slot.


----------



## jdavidse (Feb 8, 2019)

MartinF. said:


> that is exactly the problem in this EF to RF transition....



I was thinking about mapping a purchase strategy over the next few years for weddings. I currently own two 5DIVs and want to end up completely converted to RF down the road. The trick will be to buy the most beneficial lenses first. That can be defined as lenses that either save considerable weight or are a huge improvement over their counterparts. Assuming all of these rumored lenses get stellar reviews of course. Also since RF can't be used on the 5DIV, gotta be careful not to get caught without redundancy at certain focal lengths. I came up with something like this:

1. Buy 1 (unreleased) 5d R mount. Keep one 5DIV as backup
2. Buy RF 50, sell EF 50 
3. Buy RF 70-200, sell EF 70-200
4. Buy RF 15-35, sell EF 35
5. Buy 2nd 5d R camera
6. Buy RF 24-70, sell EF 24-70
7. Buy RF 85, sell EF 85

That just leaves the 100 macro, which I'll probably leave alone for a while.
What I really love about Canon's strategy here is nearly every lens I want is either out already or about to be released. And just 6 months in! That blows my mind. This is why Canon is going to have strong support from working professionals


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Feb 8, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> No, I would never use 1DXII or 5DIV in live view in a situation like I described. The viewfinder AF works much better in the DSLRs for any type of action. And that was my point, the dual pixel AF in the R works so good, that it is much better than DSLRs in a challenging situation like the one I described. But please note, I haven’t used the R for other types of action photography, such as sports or BIF. I don’t have the experience to claim that the AF in the R is better than a DSLR in such situations. (But I recall Viggo praising the R for shooting soccer with the 85L f1.4 IS.)


Ok, well then you're missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm not debating the superiority of the old DSLR autofocus performance compared to the EOS R's on-sensor DPAF. I'm not debating how good or bad of a camera the R is. I'm only saying that it wasn't a very big undertaking, engineering-wise, especially hardware engineering-wise, because most of the underlying technology had already been around for years, in the form of the 5D4's sensor.

All they really did was make a 5D4 that's stuck in live view mode, added a few software features to make it a fully functioning shooting mode instead of the secondary mode it is in the 5D4, and added an EVF. And it shows from things like the camera's inability to keep a smooth video feed going to the EVF, and the fact that there's no burst mode in silent mode, that Canon doesn't seem to have the software and processing aspects of full frame mirrorless nailed down yet. They basically just gave us a 5D4 stuck in live view minus a lot of its controls and with poorer weather sealing, and for some reason are already releasing a whole slew of lenses for it. It's just kind of strange to go right to releasing a ton of top of the line lenses when the only camera you can use them with, while again, capable in most regards, is definitely not what most people would want from a camera they would buy such expensive lenses to use with.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Feb 8, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> I would note that the competition (including Sony) have had their share of SW shortfalls and bugs.


That's true, but the bugs combined with the somewhat slow performance of the camera (again, no smooth feed to the EVF, no burst in silent mode for right now) says to me that overall Canon was not quite ready to enter the market when they did.


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 8, 2019)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Ok, well then you're missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm not debating the superiority of the old DSLR autofocus performance compared to the EOS R's on-sensor DPAF. I'm not debating how good or bad of a camera the R is. I'm only saying that it wasn't a very big undertaking, engineering-wise, especially hardware engineering-wise, because most of the underlying technology had already been around for years, in the form of the 5D4's sensor.
> 
> All they really did was make a 5D4 that's stuck in live view mode, added a few software features to make it a fully functioning shooting mode instead of the secondary mode it is in the 5D4, and added an EVF. And it shows from things like the camera's inability to keep a smooth video feed going to the EVF, and the fact that there's no burst mode in silent mode, that Canon doesn't seem to have the software and processing aspects of full frame mirrorless nailed down yet. They basically just gave us a 5D4 stuck in live view minus a lot of its controls and with poorer weather sealing, and for some reason are already releasing a whole slew of lenses for it. It's just kind of strange to go right to releasing a ton of top of the line lenses when the only camera you can use them with, while again, capable in most regards, is definitely not what most people would want from a camera they would buy such expensive lenses to use with.



And yet again, we disagree. Canon worked much harder making the R and RF mount than you seem to be aware of. You should read this interview with developers, and get more insights on the new system:

https://d25tv1xepz39hi.cloudfront.net/2018-09-05/files/EOS_R_An_Interview_with_the_Developers_.pdf

One thing you will see emphasized is the increase of communication between lens and camera. The R and lens communicates 40 times more data than the 5DIV, when both are in DPAF-mode.

Edit: If you have seen the tear down of the RF 50L, you should be aware of the extra electronics built into the new lenses. The differences between R and EF cameras go way beyond software improvements.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 8, 2019)

Did the 5d4 have 5666 AF points in LV?


----------



## padam (Feb 8, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Did the 5d4 have 5666 AF points in LV?


It was never specified, but with the older processor it didn't differentiate nearly as many points. I would still call them 'areas' instead of 'AF points', since within that there are still many individiual pixels (out of 30.3 million) that can be utilized to achieve focus, it is unclear how this works within that selected AF point (area).


----------



## Viggo (Feb 8, 2019)

padam said:


> It was never specified, but with the older processor it didn't differentiate nearly as many points. I would still call them 'areas' instead of 'AF points', since within that there are still many individiual pixels (out of 30.3 million) that can be utilized to achieve focus, it is unclear how this works within that selected AF point (area).


Ah, okay. Well, the 5d4 didn’t have the banding from DPAF like the R either. I think it’s a bit more complicated in the R than a simple swap. I tried to push normal frames and saw no banding, tried a very dark frame to push and I see the banding. I wonder if that can be fixed with firmware. It’s not that the sensor is poor, but rather a side effect... fingers crossed


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 8, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Did the 5d4 have 5666 AF points in LV?


I don’t know the official number of AF points, but I can say that the 5DIV has a smaller live view AF area than the R, both vertically and horizontally.


----------



## BigShooter (Feb 8, 2019)

addola said:


> I want that RF 85mm f/1.2L, but I really hope Canon implement IBIS because that heavy glass will need it.



not true at all, I use the 85 1.2L and never felt it needs IS at all.


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 8, 2019)

BigShooter said:


> not true at all, I use the 85 1.2L and never felt it needs IS at all.


IS definitely do make a difference in an 85mm lens. I own the 85LII and just sold the 85L f1.4 (to fund RF lenses). I rarely shot at 85mm with slower shutter speeds than 1/200 seconds, and even at such shutter speeds, I benefited from IS. It was easy to tell that the 85L IS pictures were sharper (beyond the sharper optics). 

I don’t find the lack of IS to be a big issue, but it is beneficial.


----------



## BigShooter (Feb 8, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> IS definitely do make a difference in an 85mm lens. I own the 85LII and just sold the 85L f1.4 (to fund RF lenses). I rarely shot at 85mm with slower shutter speeds than 1/200 seconds, and even at such shutter speeds, I benefited from IS. It was easy to tell that the 85L IS pictures were sharper (beyond the sharper optics).
> 
> I don’t find the lack of IS to be a big issue, but it is beneficial.



Of course IS is 'beneficial', but not having IS means you just need to become a better shooter - blaming lack of IS on poor image quality is lame.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 8, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> It's a good light lens, and the IQ is a match for my 70-200L IS II when both are 1/3 of a stop down.
> 
> The Canon long glass doesn't zoom making it useless for my purposes, and I rarely need f/2.8 when shooting long. And I have a much bigger 'lens' than anything Canon makes when I need serious focal length (2000mm f7 or 2800mm f/10).



Then you need to have your EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II fixed.

Not to mention that the EF 70-200mm f/28 L IS II is not exactly "high end Canon long glass". It's a medium telephoto zoom. "High end Canon long glass" are lenses such as the EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS III, EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS 1.4X, and EF 600mm f/4 L IS III.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 8, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Aren’t those numbers the wrong way around?



Ooops. "2003" should be "1993."


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 8, 2019)

flip314 said:


> I'm waiting for a refresh of the 1200mm f5.6. I can't buy into the R system until they replace that one.



Why not? Adapting an EF lens to an R mount camera is as seamless as using an EF extension tube or an EF extender (without the extra glass to degrade IQ). You lose _absolutely nothing_ in the transition. In the case of the EF to R mount, you _gain_ better One Shot AF performance and never have to worry about AFMA again.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 8, 2019)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> That's true, but the bugs combined with the somewhat slow performance of the camera (again, no smooth feed to the EVF, no burst in silent mode for right now) says to me that overall Canon was not quite ready to enter the market when they did.



Right... so Canon should not have entered the market in 2018 but should have entered the market in 2020 with the camera you want without releasing anything else prior to that. The R isn't for you, and the RP isn't for you either. Yet, you're staying with Canon because Canon is showing what it can do with RF lenses. And that is where Canon is smart. It couldn't produce a mirrorless 5D4 killer in 2018, but it has it's foot in the door for FF mirrorless. It stops a lot of the bleeding to Sony/Nikon with its initial launch either because the launch products are sufficient for some people or because people can see the potential of the system in a couple years.

The R doesn't replace my 5D4, but for a lot of cases (non sports), I prefer it to the 5D4. But the R gives me a unique backup/coprimary body and gives me access to some fantastic RF lenses. Once the mirrorless 5D4 killer is released, then I'll be swapping out all my workhorse EF lenses (16-35,24-70,70-200 and 100-400) because there will no longer be any reason to keep EF bodies.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 8, 2019)

MartinF. said:


> that is exactly the problem in this EF to RF transition....



There is only a transition if you choose to make that transition. For the past decade, and for the moment - and perhaps for years to come - the mirrorless cameras are an addition , not a transition. Keep buying DSLRs and EF lenses and it will remain so.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 8, 2019)

BigShooter said:


> not true at all, I use the 85 1.2L and never felt it needs IS at all.



Might be true for you, but do really think what is true for you is automatically true for everyone else?


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 9, 2019)

I can't help but marvel at the loyalty and honor Canon employees show with their lack of leaks through the years of development. Especially in this age of so many feeling the need to share everything.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 9, 2019)

dak723 said:


> Might be true for you, but do really think what is true for you is automatically true for everyone else?


IS would be wonderful. I would need/want it. Especially in low light. I could always get the EF version though.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 9, 2019)

Stuart said:


> Is canon only planning to make money on glass only - how expensive will these be.


I would imagine that lenses are the bulk of where the profit is.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I would imagine that lenses are the bulk of where the profit is.


And I for one care a lot more about quality than price. That doesn’t mean I [email protected] money, it means that, for example now, I have ONE lens I downgraded my camera body and sold the other lenses for. I would much rather have the flawless RD50 than the 85 L IS and/or a couple of other lenses ... currently saving for a RF 100 f1.4 if it comes at all... otherwise it would be the RF85.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 9, 2019)

Viggo said:


> And I for one care a lot more about quality than price. That doesn’t mean I [email protected] money, it means that, for example now, I have ONE lens I downgraded my camera body and sold the other lenses for. I would much rather have the flawless RD50 than the 85 L IS and/or a couple of other lenses ... currently saving for a RF 100 f1.4 if it comes at all... otherwise it would be the RF85.


Same here on quality. I'm not a person of means by any stretch of the imagination. I have to really sacrifice to buy a lens or camera. But when I do buy, I want something nice and that will last. My perception is that L glass does that for me, and lenses are more important to me than the camera. I believe all Canon cameras can take nice photos, though I prefer full frame after using APSc. This is my only hobby.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I would imagine that lenses are the bulk of where the profit is.


I had always assumed that, but I happened to see a Canon report that showed bodies had by far the largest amount of income.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 9, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I had always assumed that, but I happened to see a Canon report that showed bodies had by far the largest amount of income.


Wow! Very surprising! I wonder if that report included non ILC cameras?


----------



## PGSanta (Feb 9, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I had always assumed that, but I happened to see a Canon report that showed bodies had by far the largest amount of income.



Revenue does not equal profit. I’d be shocked if margins for lenses were not far larger than margins for bodies.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 10, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Same here on quality. I'm not a person of means by any stretch of the imagination. I have to really sacrifice to buy a lens or camera. But when I do buy, I want something nice and that will last. My perception is that L glass does that for me, and lenses are more important to me than the camera. I believe all Canon cameras can take nice photos, though I prefer full frame after using APSc. This is my only hobby.


You’re lucky, my other hobby is cars


----------



## sanj (Feb 10, 2019)

Where are these lenses friends?


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 11, 2019)

sanj said:


> Where are these lenses friends?


Probably be released Thursday next to the new RP.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 12, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> If we use the IBIS term to only mean mechanically-moving sensors, then Canon may never have it. I think the digital processing of the sensor data to achieve the same thing is advancing and will do the same thing. (Except for motion towards/away from subject; that can't be done digitally, exactly: you can't make something out of focus in focus. On the other, other hand, the Dual Pixel data actually allows some focus adjustment after the fact.)
> 
> If we use the IBIS term to mean stabilization in the camera somehow, though, then the R ALREADY does it, albeit digitally. It's not bragged about at all but there are little hints. For instance the diagram showing IS shows "five-axis IS" including roll. You can't fix roll with optics! Only by counter-rolling your sensor physically... or counter-rolling your sensor DATA digitally...
> 
> My best guess is that the digital IBIS Canon already has in the R is not the 4-stop stuff of headlines, so they can't simply discontinue IS on wide and normal lenses yet. Further, they don't want to cannibalize sales of the IS stuff. So my guess is that when they start actively promoting the digital IBIS, they'll say, yeah, we got it but it's 2 stops, so there's still a value in buying the IS lenses. Then the next model will claim 3 stops, and so on.


The current "5 axis IS" is only for video and involves manipulating the data. To get "stabilized" 2K video, you sample the video to a larger size (say 2.5K) and select a 2K image out of the approximate centre of the 2.5K image to get a steadier image. This has been done for quite a while in post-processing, but now cameras have the computing power to do this on-the-fly. I believe the 6D2 was the first Canon DSLR to do this... The "5 axis IS" can shift the image by hundreds of pixels, but can not shift to sub-pixel accuracy.

IBIS involves moving the sensor. IBIS moves the sensor only a few pixels, and can me moved with sub-pixel accuracy. This is the best system for short focal lengths.

OIS is optical Image Stabilization, and involves moving lens elements to stabilize the image. This is the best system for long focal lengths.

Hybrid IS is using OIS and IBIS together, and will outperform either. So far, Panasonic and Olympus are the only two who use it. Olympus has hit 7 stops of IS with it.


----------



## Jethro (Feb 12, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> If we use the IBIS term to only mean mechanically-moving sensors, then Canon may never have it. I think *the digital processing of the sensor data to achieve the same thing *is advancing and will do the same thing.


Is this a real thing? Is it being talked about as being in development?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Do you have any reference that "the "5 axis IS" can shift the image by hundreds of pixels, but can not shift to sub-pixel accuracy" in the EOS R? Page 33 of the EOS R white paper talks of fixing yaw, pitch, and roll. To do these surely requires sub-pixel accuracy, and I can't imagine why they'd do that for these more complicated transforms but not for simple X and Y offsets.


Because physics – large shifts don’t require as much precision.



SwissFrank said:


> *However for reasons I can't figure out this is only described for video, not stills.*
> 
> For me, if the camera can do it for video, why NOT do it for stills?


It’s only for video because video doesn’t use the whole sensor. Still images do, so there aren’t extra pixels to allow shifting the image.

The point is, the sensor isn’t moving. It’s not IBIS. Canon states, “During video recording there is the added ability to combine any optical Image Stabilization in the lens with *electronic* Image Stabilization within the CMOS image sensor.” Electronic means data processing, not physical movement of the sensor.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Because physics – large shifts don’t require as much precision.
> 
> 
> It’s only for video because video doesn’t use the whole sensor. Still images do, so there aren’t extra pixels to allow shifting the image.
> ...



Yes.

Think of it like this..... say you are shooting with a 6D2 and want to stabilize some 4K video. (I know it is 2K, but let's say 4K anyway)

You want a series of images that are 3840 by 2160 pixels, your sensor is 6240 by 4160 pixels.....

The first image is from the middle of the sensor, you have 1200 unused pixels to each side of your image and 1000 unused pixels to the top and the bottom. (hey! nice round numbers, I wonder why  )

you moved a bit, so the next image might have a few less pixels to the size, and less above, so rather than build the second frame out of the same pixels used in the first image, it chooses a different set. Think of this as taking a whole lot of full sensor images and taking each frame and aligning it to the one before with photoshop, cropping it and rotating it as need be to get the best match. This is what the camera is doing in camera. We used to shoot at a higher resolution and do this in post-process, but we now have enough computing power in the cameras to let them do it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> The 4k mode doesn't use the full sensor. The "Movie Cropping" mode doesn't use the full sensor. Ditto various aspect ratios. But otherwise, movies on the EOS R use the whole sensor.


Video output is 16:9, the sensor is 3:2. So clearly, not using the whole sensor. But even if using the full width, for electronic IS Canon states, “Recording with Movie digital IS (p.220) further crops the image around the center of the screen.” So as I stated, not using the whole sensor.



SwissFrank said:


> Why do you totally rule out that one could theoretically "slightly magnify" still images in the same way? It's not as if the camera is unusable unless the images are exactly 6720 pixels wide! I can't believe anyone would think otherwise.


Canon quotes the resolution as 6720x4480. They probably feel they should deliver that, which makes perfect sense. Would you be happy with HD video output at 1880x1058?

I agree the resulting image would be usable, but that’s not the point. And yes, it’s theoretically possible, and moreover likely very easy to implement. But do keep in mind that correcting for roll is destructive, i.e. costs resolution. There’s also the ‘face’ aspect – Canon has touted lens IS as superior for many years. Implementing digital IS for stills that results in delivering less than specified pixel resolution and potential loss of image resolution...I’m not surprised that haven’t done it.



SwissFrank said:


> Why does IBIS require the sensor to be moving? Why is digital in-body image stabilization not IBIS while mechanical in-body image stabilization is? Why does the method matter? If it's stabilized in body, it's stabilized in body, right?


Technically digital IS is in the body, and it’s a form of stabilization. But in conventional use, the term IBIS means mechanical/optical stabilization. If you want to call digital IS something like IBIS or piezo-free anti-vibratification, go right ahead. But don’t expect others to understand what you mean.


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 13, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Looks like the 24-240 is missing the customizable ring?



I was wondering that as well and that is a big concern to me as it is a great feature that sets Canon apart from the lesser antiquated lens systems.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 13, 2019)

Wow...that 70-200 f2.8 LIS looks tiny compared to the ef version...and the 24-70 f2.8 is sporting an IS unit too....ok...now the Rf mount is starting to look attractive....aww...and a 15-35mm f2.8...with IS....very...very sweet....Canon are pulling out all their qudos for the Rf mount. 
Ah...the 70-200 isn't a constant length....it's got and extending barrel like the 70-300L and 100-400 LIS II


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 13, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> I was wondering that as well and that is a big concern to me as it is a great feature that sets Canon apart from the lesser antiquated lens systems.



The ring closest to the mount is knurled, so it looks like it does have the customizable ring. What's missing is a focus ring!


----------



## delta0 (Feb 13, 2019)

Any news on the price of the 24-70 yet?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Equally clearly, using the whole width. You claim: "It’s only for video because video doesn’t use the whole sensor. Still images do, so there aren’t extra pixels to allow shifting the image." Just how do you think this works?!!? You think Digital stabilization never needs to move picture side to side?


I’m not the one who claimed video uses the whole sensor, that was you...and you were wrong. I also addressed the fact that while the full width can be used for non-4K / non-crop video capture, with digital IS enabled the full sensor width is not used. Either you didn’t bother to read what I wrote (you selectively omitted the relevant bit from your quoted text), you failed to understand what I wrote, or didn’t bother to read more carefully in the Advanced User Guide which you seem to enjoy liberally quoting. If you had done one of those, you would have seen (pasting from my post above): _But even if using the full width, for electronic IS Canon states, “Recording with Movie digital IS (p.220) further crops the image around the center of the screen.”_ Further crops...in other words, not using the full width. I’m not sure why you cannot grasp the basic, underlying concept here – for digital IS to work, the output must be smaller in size than the sensor area used for capture. The full sensor width is sub-sampled to generate the video output, so for any given frame of the video the full width is not being used. Since the output video is being downsampled anyway (to 1080p or 720p), you don’t really notice the cropping. But it’s there. For the fifth or sixth time, the full sensor is not being used for the resulting output, with digital IS enabled.



SwissFrank said:


> You're saying Canon thinks users wouldn't understand 6720 pixels being cut a bit in still photos, in exchange for in-camera stabilization? Canon already cuts some pixels off stills if you use Digital Lens Optimization. Why would users shrug that off yet not even want the OPTION of digital image stabilization that likewise reduced some pixels? You're apparently aware digital image stabilization likewise costs a few more pixels, yet Canon's clearly offering that as an option to video users: trade off some width for stabilization.


No, I’m not saying that at all. Please read more carefully. I’m saying Canon is choosing not to provide digital IS applied to still images for their users.



SwissFrank said:


> So for the fifth or sixth time, now, why not give the user the option? They can turn on digital stabilization in movies IF THEY CHOOSE. They can turn on distortion correction and the rest of the Digital Lens Optimization suite, IF THEY CHOOSE. There must be some reason Canon doesn't offer digital in-camera stabilization for stills. What could that reason be? Patent? Built-in limitation to protect IS lens sales? Or what? It's absolutely not because they wouldn't gleefully settle for 6600 pixels width in return for in-body stabilization, digital or not.


Obviously they have reasons for choosing not to implement dgital IS for still images, and just as obviously those reasons do _not_ include lack of technical capability to implement it. I speculated on some of those reasons above, as did you, but ultimately our speculation is irrelevant – Canon makes the cameras, they get to decide on the feature sets. If you don’t like the lack of a feature, telling CR Forums for the seventh or eight time...or a few hundred more times, is useless. Tell Canon. Or don’t buy any Canon camera that doesn’t offer digital IS for stills. Or both.



SwissFrank said:


> Given that your explanations about why digital image stabilization isn't offered are so mistaken, I can't really take your word for this. You could be right but I don't trust you right now.


LOL.  There’s a clear distinction between optical image stabilization methods (which include both lens-based IS and IBIS) and digital image stabilization methods. Those familiar with the concepts understand that distinction, although it’s apparent that you do not. You might try starting with the Wikipedia entry on image stabilization. It’s a bit long although not technically complex, but given the evident lack of reading comprehensiveness and/or comprehension you displayed above, maybe it would help if I excerpt the most relevant bits for you:

*Optical image stabilization*
An *optical image stabilizer*, often abbreviated OIS, IS, or OS, is a mechanism used in a still camera or video camera that stabilizes the recorded image by varying the optical path to the sensor. This technology is implemented in the lens itself, as distinct from *in-body image stabilization*, which operates by moving the sensor as the final element in the optical path. The key element of all optical stabilization systems is that they stabilize the image projected on the sensor before the sensor converts the image into digital information.

Different companies have different names for the OIS technology, for example:

Image Stabilizer (IS) - Canon introduced the EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM) in 1995. In 2009, they introduced their first lens (the EF100mm F2.8 Macro L) to use a four-axis *Hybrid IS*.)
IBIS - In Body Image Stabilisation - Olympus
SteadyShot (SS), Super SteadyShot (SSS), SteadyShot INSIDE (SSI) - Sony (based on *Konica Minolta's Anti-Shake* originally, Sony introduced a 2-axis full-frame variant for the DSLR-A900 in 2008 and a *5-axis stabilizer* for the full-frame ILCE-7M2 in 2014)
*Digital image stabilization*
Real-time *digital image stabilization*, also called electronic image stabilization (EIS), is used in some video cameras. This technique shifts the electronic image from frame to frame of video, enough to counteract the motion.[23] It uses pixels outside the border of the visible frame to provide a buffer for the motion.

Hopefully that clarifies matters for you.


----------



## Joules (Feb 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Obviously they have reasons for choosing not to implement dgital IS for still images, and just as obviously those reasons do _not_ include lack of technical capability to implement it.


I don't have any Problem with you guys beeing all up in arms about how much sensor is used for the digital IS in video.

But aside from that, what are you talking about? Image Stabilization for Stills is a technique that aims to reduce motion blur. For video, that is not the point of IS - in Video it is supposed to reduce camera motion, but motion blur is often actually desirable.

Digital Image Stabilization that crops the sensor or frame to keep it similar with regards to framing to the previously captured frames has no effect on motion blur. So, in which context does it even help to talk about implementing for Stills?

Or are you saying motion blur can be reduced during image capture without having to mechanically move anything?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2019)

Joules said:


> But aside from that, what are you talking about? *Image Stabilization for Stills is a technique that aims to reduce motion blur.* For video, that is not the point of IS - in Video it is supposed to reduce camera motion, but motion blur is often actually desirable.


Assuming you mean subject motion blur, then absolutely not. IS (any type) is all about reducing camera shake and does nothing for subject motion blur (well, nothing good assuming you want to reduce it). To reduce subject motion blur, you need a faster shutter speed (or a slower subject). Optical image stabilization for stills enables using a _slower_ shutter speed than would otherwise be possible when handholding the camera (which will accentuate subject motion – although sometimes that’s good, e.g. waterfalls without a tripod).



Joules said:


> Digital Image Stabilization that crops the sensor or frame to keep it similar with regards to framing to the previously captured frames has no effect on motion blur. So, in which context does it even help to talk about implementing for Stills?


Same benefit – you move the camera in any direction, digital IS helps compensate. One obvious extension of that is automatic horizon leveling (same application as compensating for roll). But as I pointed out above, with digital IS that results in a loss of optical resolution, whereas optical IS (sensor shift) does not.


----------



## Joules (Feb 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Assuming you mean subject motion blur, then absolutely not. [...] Optical image stabilization for stills enables using a _slower_ shutter speed than would otherwise be possible when handholding the camera


Well, sorry that I didn't mention which kind of motion blur I was referencing. I didn't mean subject motion. But what you're saying is what I was refering to. While handholding, the camera is moving by small amounts in some direction relative to the subject (assuming that the subject is static, or moving on its own in a direction that is different from the shake direction). And the longer the shutter speed, the more prominent the motion blur resulting from this camera shake ks going to be. Unless it is compensated for - mechanically. I don't see how that could be done otherwise.

I may be missing something, but in the Wikipedia article you mentioned digital image stabilization is also just described for video aplication. 

I mean, in the most basic example we have a sensor with 2 pixels and a static subject that fills just one of those pixels. Let's say over the duration of an exposure the camera moves slightly, so that half the light from a static subject falls on each pixel. For digital removal of the resulting blur, the camera would have to know during which intervals of time which pixel received light from the subject? And that is not possible with circuitry that reads each pixel only once the exposure is over.

So you're probably talking about something different, right? Something along the lines of taking multiple stills and using Photoshop's align layers option to make them overlap by cropping and shifting?


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 14, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> The ring closest to the mount is knurled, so it looks like it does have the customizable ring. What's missing is a focus ring!



Could be. Interesting either way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> You didn't speculate. You stated as a matter of fact a bizarre scenario that has no understanding of photographers, or of camera firms' understanding of photographers. You said that still photographers were so attached to the exact pixel width of a still shot that they wouldn't accept digital image stabilization, and would dis Canon if it were even offered. That's absolutely ludicrous. The same users that are happy to exchange a few pixels for digital stabilization in movie mode, or for distortion correction in still mode, would joyously give up the same for digital IBIS.


Really? Is that what I said?



neuroanatomist said:


> Canon quotes the resolution as 6720x4480. *They* *probably* feel they should deliver that, which makes perfect sense. *Would you* be happy with HD video output at 1880x1058?



So to you, statements including ‘they probably’ and ‘would you’ are not speculation but statements of fact? 

I’m a big fan of intelligent discussion, but this is like a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Trying to engage in intelligent debate with someone who has manifest difficulties with basic reading comprehension and flagrantly misrepresents my statements is pointless. Hopefully the fact that you chose not to reply to my points about IBIS vs. digital IS means you actually learned something here, which would mean my prior posts weren’t a complete waste of time. But any further replies from me would be.


----------



## Joules (Feb 14, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> I'd say the main point it to reduce blur from camera movement.


I was trying to say the same thing.

As to taking multiple sub exposures of short length and combining them in camera to get close to a single long exposure shots, I think there are three reasons why we don't see that in Canon Cameras.

The first one is that full sensor readout seems to be too slow on most Canon sensors to even handle dual digit frames per second - taking tens or hundreds of shots in a fraction of a second just doesn't seem likely at this point.

The second one is that with this kind of stacking, motion artifacts often appear. And I feel like Canon would not implement a feature that would output results where a user who doesn't understand the technique could react with "Ugh, obviously the camera is bad because it produes weird results".

Ant with examples like cars or the moon, where relative motion between subject and camera is indeed constant enough for alignment, but the camera isn't moving itself, aligning is hard. I'm using Photoshop CC, Autostakkert, Sequator and Deep Sky Stacker for this kind of stuff. All of them take quite some time and memory to produces results on a Xeon E3-1230v3 and 16 GB ram PC. It would likely take extremely long to do such conputations with the minimalsitic Hardware inside a Canon ILC.

Apart from that, when imaging under low light, where longer handheld shutterspeeds would be desireable, you actually lose some quality by stacking multiple short exposures instead of taking one long one.

So, if "digital image stabilization for stills" is just stacking, it a) can be done with a number of Freeware software tools and b) is not an alternative to mechanical stabilization I think.


----------



## dolina (Feb 14, 2019)

Left i the EF mount and on the right is the RF mount 70-200/2.8 IS.


----------



## flip314 (Feb 14, 2019)

dolina said:


> Left i the EF mount and on the right is the RF mount 70-200/2.8 IS.



Interesting choice for the location of the control ring vs. other RF lenses, but I'm glad they didn't shrink the zoom ring to fit it at the other end.

I'm also curious to see how the RF lens compares in size once it's extended. I think it's still shorter, but nobody's showed it side-by-side yet


----------



## dolina (Feb 14, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Interesting choice for the location of the control ring vs. other RF lenses, but I'm glad they didn't shrink the zoom ring to fit it at the other end.
> 
> I'm also curious to see how the RF lens compares in size once it's extended. I think it's still shorter, but nobody's showed it side-by-side yet


I’m guessing they’ll protect the extended element with a long lens hood.


----------



## govindvkumar (Feb 15, 2019)

Will there be any lenses in the Super telephoto range like 40mm and beyond. It would be very attractive for Wildlife and Bird photographers.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 15, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Equally clearly, using the whole width. You claim: "It’s only for video because video doesn’t use the whole sensor. Still images do, so there aren’t extra pixels to allow shifting the image." Just how do you think this works?!!? You think Digital stabilization never needs to move picture side to side?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OMG!


----------



## Joules (Feb 15, 2019)

Okay, so a quick warning upfront: There's some friday morning maths coming up, so I'll gladly admit to beeing wrong if you can point out a mistake in my thoughts.



SwissFrank said:


> I'm hardly demanding it be always-on. EVERY special setting of the camera has cases where it provides poor results.


With Canon, features don't become available just because they're easy to implement and usefull for some people though. So if there are a lot of possible issues with a feature, or not many people would use it often, it's just not present in Caon cameras. It would just clutter up the menu for little benefit to the larger market. Or why else are so many Magic Lantern features not present by default? For example, a RAW Histrogramm, Focus Trap release, Focus Peaking, AF Focus Stacking, and so on, have been available there for a long time. But most people get about without them, so some features have been added only recently to some mirrorless models, or are still missing (I'd love a RAW Histogramm).



SwissFrank said:


> It's a good example, but a custom chip can often do calculations FAR faster than a general-purpose PC.


Yeah, you're right. Its what allows smartphones to handle 4K Video - And it still took Canon quite a while to adapt that, despite it beeing widely available technology. I image a hardware solution for content based image alignment is going to be a good deal more tricky than that. But that's again confusing the topic. I thought we're talking about blur caused by camera motion - which the camera can detect through sensors without having too look to deep into the image content. As they can obviously do that already with video frames, it surely could be done for stacks of still too.



SwissFrank said:


> I gave examples of moonrise, but also say just say a nighttime view of the Alps: Milky Way over the Matterhorn, say, a 10 second hand-held exposure at 15mm. [...] I grant the outside 10% margin may be unusable, with too few photos in the stack to give a low-noise approximation, but the main 80% of the image could be both utterly rock solid and no noise [...] That may be true in many or most cases today, but I don't see a rule of physics that would make it so. Happy to learn I'm wrong though if you can think of something specific.


Okay, so I'm mainly drawing info from this resource here: https://jonrista.com/the-astrophotographers-guide/astrophotography-basics/snr/

Based on that, I'm under the impression that an image is composed of signal and noise. Noise comes from different sources: The subject (shot noise), the sensor (dark current noise) and the camera circuitry (read noise). Apart from the read noise, these values all increase proportionally to the exposure time. The ratio between the signal and the sum of noise sources is called signal to noise ratio (SNR) and expresses, how visible the signal is, compared to the noise. So you want you SNR to be as high as possible. For weak sources of signal (low light), a single long exposure is likely to yield a better SNR than many short exposures.

Lets define some variables:
r = stops of image stabilization
n = number of subexposures = 2^r
t = total exposure time [seconds]
t/n = exposure time per subexposure [seconds]
s = signal per time [electrons/second]
dc = darc current per time [electrons/second]
rn = read noise [electrons]

Ignoring the difference between sky and object signal that the linked side makes, I get this formula for SNR:

SNRstack = (n * t/n * s) / sqrt( n * (t/n * s + t/n * dc + rn^2) )
=> SNRstack = t * s / sqrt( t * s + t * dc + n * (rn^2) )

For a regular exposure without stacking, n is 1 so the SNR becomes:

SNRsingle = t * s / sqrt( t * s + t * dc + rn^2 )

To find out, how much higher the SNR of single exposure image is, in comparison to a stack of multiple ones, we can devide the second term by the first one:

SNRrel(t, n, dc, rn) = SNRsingle / SNRstack = sqrt( t * s + t * dc + n * (rn^2) ) / sqrt( t * s + t * dc + rn^2 )

According to the linked page, rn = 3 e- and dc = 0.02 e-/s are decent values to assume for an average modern ILC.

SNRrel(t, n, 0.02, 3) = sqrt( t * s + t * 0.02 + n * 9 ) / sqrt( t * s + t * 0.02 + 9 )

That leaves exposure time and number of desired stops of stabilization. Looking at 2 stops, 3 stops and 5 stops and 0.1, 1, 10 and 100 second exposure times I get these four formulas, which now only depend on signal (now called x), so how bright you subject is:

0.1 second 2 stops = ( 0.1*x + 0.1*0.02 + 2^2 * 9)^(1/2) / ( 0.1*x + 0.1*0.02 + 9)^(1/2)
0.1 second 3 stops = ( 0.1*x + 0.1*0.02 + 2^3 * 9)^(1/2) / ( 0.1*x + 0.1*0.02 + 9)^(1/2)
0.1 second 5 stops = ( 0.1*x + 0.1*0.02 + 2^5 * 9)^(1/2) / ( 0.1*x + 0.1*0.02 + 9)^(1/2)

1 second 2 stops = ( x + 0.02 + 2^2 * 9)^(1/2) / ( x + 0.02 + 9)^(1/2)
1 second 3 stops = ( x + 0.02 + 2^3 * 9)^(1/2) / ( x + 0.02 + 9)^(1/2)
1 second 5 stops = ( x + 0.02 + 2^5 * 9)^(1/2) / ( x + 0.02 + 9)^(1/2)

10 second 2 stops = ( 10*x + 10*0.02 + 2^2 * 9)^(1/2) / ( 10*x + 10*0.02 + 9)^(1/2)
10 second 3 stops = ( 10*x + 10*0.02 + 2^3 * 9)^(1/2) / ( 10*x + 10*0.02 + 9)^(1/2)
10 second 5 stops = ( 10*x + 10*0.02 + 2^5 * 9)^(1/2) / ( 10*x + 10*0.02 + 9)^(1/2)

100 second 2 stops = ( 100 *x + 100 *0.02 + 2^2 * 9)^(1/2) / ( 100 *x + 10*0.02 + 9)^(1/2)
100 second 3 stops = ( 100 *x + 100 *0.02 + 2^3 * 9)^(1/2) / ( 100 *x + 10*0.02 + 9)^(1/2)
100 second 5 stops = ( 100 *x + 100 *0.02 + 2^5 * 9)^(1/2) / ( 100 *x + 10*0.02 + 9)^(1/2)







Graphs created with https://rechneronline.de/funktionsgraphen/

y axis and x axis are the same scale on all four. Each image shows the graphs for each set of exposure times, which vary only in the number of stops of image stabilization (Or, duration of subexposures if you prefer that). y axis is the ratio between SNR of a single exposure image and a stack of 32 (green), 8 (red) or 4 (blue) images. If this is high, a single exposure will look much cleaner than a stack of multiple shorter ones. The x axis is the subject's signal strength (brigthness).

From the first two graphs, I conclude that for very low light subjects such as your milky way example, stacking multiple short exposures will always result in a visibly more noisy image than just taking one longer one. So this "digital image stablization" would be a tradeoff between noise and blur. For bright subjects or long exposure times, the difference probably becomes small enough to call the result equivalent in terms of noise, meaning the stabilized verision will look better as it is less blurry. Unfortunatley I have not idea, how the subject brightness in electrons per second translates to brightness as we know it. For example, if a subjects emits 200 e-/s, what exposure time would result in a good exposure for that?

So take my analysis with a mountain of salt. And keep in mind that I may have screwed up the calculation and am just talking fancy BS here. But it was fun, and on occasion I'll try to experiment with some actual images. After all, the technique here doesn't have to be applied in camera. As mentioned, there are many software solutions for aligning and stacking out there.


----------

