# Here’s a full list of what will be announced with the Canon EOS R3 this month



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 1, 2021)

> The Canon EOS R3 and a couple of lenses will be announced this month. I have reported that the date of announcement will be September 14, 2021, but I haven’t confirmed that date as of yet.
> What will be announced?
> Canon EOS R3 camera body with a rumoured availability being in November.
> There will be a bunch of accessories announced alongside the Canon EOS R3.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Stuart (Sep 1, 2021)

Will the *Canon RF 16mm f/2.8* be a lower cost lens, or is it video focused?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 1, 2021)

It is a bit of a miss to release the R3 without a new super tele to go with it that shows of what RF can do. Perhaps a 500 f/4.0 DO?


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 1, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> It is a bit of a miss to release the R3 without a new super tele to go with it that shows of what RF can do. Perhaps a 500 f/4.0 DO?


Agreed. To launch the R3 with lower end budget lenses implies that the R3 is also lower end, which does not seem right. Hopefully there will be some surprise lenses added to the announcement.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 1, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> ST-E10
> AD-E1
> DM-E1D
> ER-L1
> ...



Any idea what some of these codes mean?


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 1, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Any idea what some of these codes mean?


The ST-E10 is most likely a new flash trigger, no idea on the others.


----------



## -pekr- (Sep 1, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Any idea what some of these codes mean?



Maybe just a cat on the keyboard?


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 1, 2021)

Important note: 43mm lens cap is what the EF-M 22mm F/2 uses. 

I'm pretty certain this means the RF 16mm f/2.8 is going to be *absolutely* tiny. 

The EF 40mm f/2.8 even used a 52mm filter thread, which is 9mm bigger!



Codebunny said:


> It is a bit of a miss to release the R3 without a new super tele to go with it that shows of what RF can do. Perhaps a 500 f/4.0 DO?



In fairness, by the time the R3 ships the RF 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm F/4 should hopefully actually be available, which covers most of what the high end sports photogs use. I would say a 100-300mm f/2.8 would be the perfect lens for the R3, but Canon will definitely keep us waiting on that.


----------



## tooyoung225 (Sep 1, 2021)

Still no info on another RF Cinema camera….


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 1, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> In fairness, by the time the R3 ships the RF 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm F/4 should hopefully actually be available, which covers most of what the high end sports photogs use. I would say a 100-300mm f/2.8 would be the perfect lens for the R3, but Canon will definitely keep us waiting on that.



The RF 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4.0 are good lenses, but they are still modified EF lenses and don't show to the fullest what RF can be. For instance, Nikon are building brand new, never before seen designs for the Z 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4.0 that appear to also have built in 1.4X TC's. Canon have always been able to make glass that no one else even has the R&D budget for, something that can show us what the a modern mirrorless super tele can be (this doesn't mean shorter or even lighter). I very much don't wish to believe bolting a EF to RF converter and changing the focus system is all we can expect from Canon.


----------



## VadaPhoto (Sep 1, 2021)

Was really hoping the 35mm f/1.x L would be announced alongside the R3... it's long overdue!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 1, 2021)

VadaPhoto said:


> Was really hoping the 35mm f/1.x L would be announced alongside the R3... it's long overdue!



A 35 L would be a bit pedestrian for a body targeting wildlife, sports, and new vehicle AF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> ST-E10
> AD-E1
> DM-E1D
> ER-L1
> ...





FrenchFry said:


> Any idea what some of these codes mean?



ST- is a Speedlite Transmitter, I suspect they jumped from the ST-E3-RT to the ST-10 with new features using the extra hotshoe connectivity
AD- is used on some of their power supplies, so I suspect it's a power adapter of some sort but that's a guess. Maybe a USB-C PD adapter to power the camera and charge a battery in-camera?
DM- is directional microphone (I have the DM-100 for my Vixia camcorder, there is currently a DM-E1 for for EOS cameras, so the DM-E1D should be similar
ER- denotes a strap, e.g. the ER-100B is the neck strap for the EOS R


----------



## rick2 (Sep 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> ST- is a Speedlite Transmitter, I suspect they jumped from the ST-E3-RT to the ST-10 with new features using the extra hotshoe connectivity
> AD- is used on some of their power supplies, so I suspect it's a power adapter of some sort but that's a guess. Maybe a USB-C PD adapter to power the camera and charge a battery in-camera?
> DM- is directional microphone (I have the DM-100 for my Vixia camcorder, there is currently a DM-E1 for for EOS cameras, so the DM-E1D should be similar
> ER- denotes a strap, e.g. the ER-100B is the neck strap for the EOS R


Are you going to get any of these? Would they help with canine photography?


----------



## HenWin (Sep 1, 2021)

It's a useless list without descriptions....... ☹


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2021)

HenWin said:


> It's a useless list without descriptions....... ☹


Well, some educated guesses can be made based on part numbers. But yeah, for things like the features of the ST-E10 and DM-E1D, we'll need to wait for the announcement. Hopefully, that's only a couple of weeks away. Full specs are sometimes leaked on Nokishita a day or two before the announcement, but generally only for major products, not accessories. 

Maybe the ER-L1 is a wrist strap for the R3 that has a Leash attachment point for a dog.


----------



## VadaPhoto (Sep 1, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> A 35 L would be a bit pedestrian for a body targeting wildlife, sports, and new vehicle AF.


True, but so are a budget telephoto and ultra-wide!


----------



## Berowne (Sep 1, 2021)

As i said, CR-Guy is not realy happy with the R3.


----------



## tcphoto (Sep 1, 2021)

Gee, I hope my SBA loan gets approved or I'll be waiting for the R3 to come to Canon's refurbished Store by the time my regular clients are comfortable getting back to shooting.


----------



## Aregal (Sep 1, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Important note: 43mm lens cap is what the EF-M 22mm F/2 uses.
> 
> I'm pretty certain this means the RF 16mm f/2.8 is going to be *absolutely* tiny.
> 
> ...


The RF 50mm f/1.8 STM also has a 43mm front filter thread. I love the small profile of it but I do wish it was weathersealed. Inclement weather is the only time I seem to use my L-series lenses now.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> ST- is a Speedlite Transmitter, I suspect they jumped from the ST-E3-RT to the ST-10 with new features using the extra hotshoe connectivity
> AD- is used on some of their power supplies, so I suspect it's a power adapter of some sort but that's a guess. Maybe a USB-C PD adapter to power the camera and charge a battery in-camera?
> DM- is directional microphone (I have the DM-100 for my Vixia camcorder, there is currently a DM-E1 for for EOS cameras, so the DM-E1D should be similar
> ER- denotes a strap, e.g. the ER-100B is the neck strap for the EOS R


Thanks for explaining the codes!

Three new types of straps! These are really exciting times!!!

Presumably L for leg straps and H/HE for head straps, got it.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2021)

rick2 said:


> Are you going to get any of these? Would they help with canine photography?


Give it a rest. You are coming across as a really sad loser.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 1, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Important note: 43mm lens cap is what the EF-M 22mm F/2 uses.
> 
> I'm pretty certain this means the RF 16mm f/2.8 is going to be *absolutely* tiny.


Sounds great although I’d prefer the size of the 35mm with a dedicated control ring.

Does the „pancake size“ effect the IQ? I’ve never owned a pancake and have no experience with such tiny lenses.

I figure that a tiny UWA pancake lense is canons answer to smartphones with capable UWAs.


----------



## sanj (Sep 1, 2021)

A tiny 16 mm on a gimbal with be superb with R5.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2021)

I must be missing something. How can a 16mm f2.8 lens be as small as people are imagining.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Sep 1, 2021)

November! Damn it... haha Oh well, better late than never. My motorsports work ends on October, but there are plenty of other work I'll be throwing at this thing.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 1, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I must be missing something. How can a 16mm f2.8 lens be as small as people are imagining.



The glass is in the reverse order perhaps with the biggest element being at the body.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 1, 2021)

VadaPhoto said:


> True, but so are a budget telephoto and ultra-wide!



This too is true. The budget lenses suggest a budget camera is coming with them. Perhaps something in the R/RP space that has animal eye AF?

I feel big cameras should be launched with the platform seller lens, like the 5-series often comes with a 24-105 type lens.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 1, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I must be missing something. How can a 16mm f2.8 lens be as small as people are imagining.


16mm is close to the RF flange distance, so you don't need any retrofocus elements to extend the focal point to the sensor. So you end up with what is generally called a 'pancake' lens. On EF the 40mm is one example, on EF-S the 24mm is another example.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 1, 2021)

There is a big photo fair called "Photopia" in Hamburg from September 26 to 29. Canon said they want to show their latest products there. I really would like to go, because it is not far form here, but then I would have to use a train during a pandemic. I am sure they will have the R3 and all the new lenses there. The main photo fair in Germany used to be the "Photokina", but was cancelled for the foreseeable future. So Photopia now is the main place for showing new photo gear in Germany besides "IFA" in Berlin, which also was cancelled this year. At IFA Canon usually had a big tent right in the center.


----------



## styoda (Sep 1, 2021)

Are you sure about the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM, could this be for the M and not the RF?

https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-application-canon-rf-100-400-f55-71


----------



## HMC11 (Sep 1, 2021)

> Along with the camera body and accessories, Canon will announce two new RF mount lenses.
> 
> *Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM*(The aperture range is rumoured, but the lens has a 67mm filter thread, so it’s not fast)
> Cap E-67II
> ...


Is it too unrealistic to interpret this as Canon finally including a lens hood for a non-L lens?


----------



## padam (Sep 1, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I must be missing something. How can a 16mm f2.8 lens be as small as people are imagining.


Take a look at the Fujifilm XF 16mm f/2.8 lens. I'm guessing it will be in that ballpark in terms of size as the rear element will be bigger to accommodate the bigger FF image circle, and it will be externally focusing. Maybe to keep it simple it won't employ a lot of distortion correction (as with the RF 14-35mm f/4).


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 1, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> November! Damn it... haha Oh well, better late than never. My motorsports work ends on October, but there are plenty of other work I'll be throwing at this thing.


Where are you getting November from?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> Is it too unrealistic to interpret this as Canon finally including a lens hood for a non-L lens?


Sadly, yes. An accessory being listed doesn't mean that accessory will be included. The R3 is not going to include a flash transmitter, hotshoe mic and 3 different straps in the box.


----------



## Cyborx (Sep 1, 2021)

By the time the R3 hits the market it will be 1. outdated with only 24 mpix, and Sony will have another camera announced that will blow the R3 away I'm affraid. Missing the Canon domination times...


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 1, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> (The aperture range is rumoured, but the lens has a 67mm filter thread, so it’s not fast)



Tell that to Tamron, who make all their lenses now with a 67mm filter thread for uniform handling, including f/2.8 (and very likely the upcoming f/2-2.8) zooms with IQ which equals or exceeds that of equivalent, larger first-party lenses.
On the other end of the scale we've had Sigma putting out a 105mm f/1.4 lens a couple of years ago with a useless 105mm filter size, and worse vignetting and overall lower transmission than the 82mm filter Nikon equivalent.

In the 60s Canon were making f/1.2 lenses with a 58mm filter. That's also when they made a 19mm f/3.5 pancake lens, too; seem familiar?) A lot of Korean and Chinese companies right now are making f/0.95 lenses, usually with filter threads below 62mm.

With a maximum front size of 67mm, a 400mm lens could be up to f/6.3 'clean', or possibly get away with f/5.6 with the modern trend of allowing excessive vignetting and having lenses frame wider then crop in with opcodes. (e.g. 24-105 f/7.1, 24-240, Fuji's 100-400, etc.)

I *do* think this lens _will_ top out at f/7.1, but I believe that because that just seems to be the aperture Canon have become fixated on, _not_ because of the filter size.



unfocused said:


> I must be missing something. How can a 16mm f2.8 lens be as small as people are imagining.



There are a few ways to do it. The most common two methods are to either stick your larger elements towards the rear or even protruding into the camera a bit (which is how the 1960s 19mm f/3.5 worked), or just not care about optical corrections and make a wider, distorted, darker image circle, which is easy to do within a small lens, and rely on opcodes to correct everything. That's what the recent 14-35mm f/4L does as well as many other lenses I mentioend above.

The Fuji 16mm f/2.8 which has been mentioned in this thread is a _slightly_ different matter, as that lens is only projecting an image circle slightly larger than the APS-C sensor. Mechanically that lens is only as demanding as a 24mm f/4.2, so it's very easy for it to be as small as it is. Additionally Fuji rely on a lot of software corrections for it. Fuji use opcodes more than any manufacturer anyway, but the 16mm f/2.8 is hugely reliant on them even by Fuji's standards and the images it puts out are stretched and brighten to breaking point. That's why it also has the poorest reputation among users of the compact XF lenses. (And unsurprisingly the lens at the other end of that series, the 50mm f/2, is by far the best performer.)

This Canon 16mm f/2.8 is going to be trying to cover a 135 sensor, which is much more demanding than the equivalent 24mm f/4.2 the Fuji has to put out. So I fully expect this lens, if it is indeed a pancake or semi-pancake lens, to be relying on the most dramatic software corrections seen on any lens by any manufacturer to date. While putting larger elements towards the rear can help somewhat... well, go look up what Canon had to do to make the FL 19mm f/3.5 work, and how far that had to protrude into the camera. To open up another 3mm and two thirds of a stop will be a tall order, even despite the advancements made since back then, and people should not be expecting optical miracles here. Canon can't cheat the laws of physics.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 1, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> By the time the R3 hits the market it will be 1. outdated with only 24 mpix, and Sony will have another camera announced that will blow the R3 away I'm affraid. Missing the Canon domination times...


1) "Canon domination" doesn't matter. What camera is selling #1 in the world doesn't change how the cameras and lenses you have operate or how skilled you are at using them.
2) 24mp is still large by the standards of sports & news shooters, which is who Canon have explicitely stated the R3 is designed for. Most of its users will be shooting medium .jpg files. Going any larger than 24mp would actually be detrimental to many of the customers the camera is supposed to be used by. You don't look at, let alone buy, sports cameras if you are, for whatever reason, invested in the resolution race.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Sep 1, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Where are you getting November from?



"Canon EOS R3 camera body with a rumoured availability being in November."


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 1, 2021)

tooyoung225 said:


> Still no info on another RF Cinema camera….


Exactly my thoughts - Canon need more RF cinema cameras and in particular a full frame camera please.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 1, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> The RF 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4.0 are good lenses, but they are still modified EF lenses and don't show to the fullest what RF can be. For instance, Nikon are building brand new, never before seen designs for the Z 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4.0 that appear to also have built in 1.4X TC's. Canon have always been able to make glass that no one else even has the R&D budget for, something that can show us what the a modern mirrorless super tele can be (this doesn't mean shorter or even lighter). I very much don't wish to believe bolting a EF to RF converter and changing the focus system is all we can expect from Canon.


Apart from the fact Canon had a 1200mm lens with a built in TC in the 1980's, and they have the EF 200-400 f4 L with built in TC....


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 1, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I must be missing something. How can a 16mm f2.8 lens be as small as people are imagining.


The Leica FF 18mm f2.8.


----------



## Berowne (Sep 1, 2021)

Forget the R3, the new RED V-RAPTOR ST is available for 24.500 $ and has a RF-Mount!


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> There are a few ways to do it. The most common two methods are to either stick your larger elements towards the rear or even protruding into the camera a bit (which is how the 1960s 19mm f/3.5 worked), or just not care about optical corrections and make a wider, distorted, darker image circle, which is easy to do within a small lens, and rely on opcodes to correct everything. That's what the recent 14-35mm f/4L does as well as many other lenses I mentioend above.
> 
> The Fuji 16mm f/2.8 which has been mentioned in this thread is a _slightly_ different matter, as that lens is only projecting an image circle slightly larger than the APS-C sensor. Mechanically that lens is only as demanding as a 24mm f/4.2, so it's very easy for it to be as small as it is. Additionally Fuji rely on a lot of software corrections for it. Fuji use opcodes more than any manufacturer anyway, but the 16mm f/2.8 is hugely reliant on them even by Fuji's standards and the images it puts out are stretched and brighten to breaking point. That's why it also has the poorest reputation among users of the compact XF lenses. (And unsurprisingly the lens at the other end of that series, the 50mm f/2, is by far the best performer.)
> 
> This Canon 16mm f/2.8 is going to be trying to cover a 135 sensor, which is much more demanding than the equivalent 24mm f/4.2 the Fuji has to put out. So I fully expect this lens, if it is indeed a pancake or semi-pancake lens, to be relying on the most dramatic software corrections seen on any lens by any manufacturer to date. While putting larger elements towards the rear can help somewhat... well, go look up what Canon had to do to make the FL 19mm f/3.5 work, and how far that had to protrude into the camera. To open up another 3mm and two thirds of a stop will be a tall order, even despite the advancements made since back then, and people should not be expecting optical miracles here. Canon can't cheat the laws of physics.


Thanks for the detailed explanation. It will be interesting to see what this lens really is.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 1, 2021)

JohanCruyff said:


> "Canon EOS R3 camera body with a rumoured availability being in November."


Oops! Missed that in the original article, thanks for pointing it out.
That would be a much bigger gap between final announcement and ship date than the R5, which was just 3 weeks (July 9th announcement, July 30th ship date). The R6 was 7 weeks.
9/14 plus 3 weeks is 10/5
9/14 plus 7 weeks is 11/2

Waiting much longer than that would potentially lead to missed holiday shopping sales.

Hopefully November is for more widespread availability and not initial ship date...


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2021)

JohanCruyff said:


> "Canon EOS R3 camera body with a rumoured availability being in November."


That's disappointing, if true. That means the entire fall sports season will be lost for this sports oriented camera.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 1, 2021)

How about an ER-DM - directional mike built into a camera strap.
The size of the 16mm 2.8 will be interesting.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2021)

Berowne said:


> Forget the R3, the new RED V-RAPTOR ST is available for 24.500 $ and has a RF-Mount!


Yeah, but that's 35 MP so at least it's not a total failure like the R3. Just mostly a failure because it doesn't have 50 MP.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, but that's 35 MP so at least it's not a total failure like the R3. Just mostly a failure because it doesn't have 50 MP.



OK, but what about a camera that is 65MP? Is it a negative failure, or does it become a different kind of failure?


----------



## fastprime (Sep 1, 2021)

Really hoping the 100-400 comes in under $1,500


----------



## rick2 (Sep 1, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> 1) "Canon domination" doesn't matter. What camera is selling #1 in the world doesn't change how the cameras and lenses you have operate or how skilled you are at using them.
> 2) 24mp is still large by the standards of sports & news shooters, which is who Canon have explicitely stated the R3 is designed for. Most of its users will be shooting medium .jpg files. Going any larger than 24mp would actually be detrimental to many of the customers the camera is supposed to be used by. You don't look at, let alone buy, sports cameras if you are, for whatever reason, invested in the resolution race.


This is false. Market domination is definitely relevant. It's the reason people who want the absolute best gear switch brands. With the new raw compression canon has, the raw files from my 45mp r5 are between 15mb-25mb, smaller than the raw files from my sony a9ii 24mp camera. They could have definitely made the R3 30mp and made it slightly more future proof. In it's current state(and assuming it is $6k) it will be a pass for a lot of people who would have otherwise bought if it were 30mp-ish. The point of higher MP is cropping ability which translates into extra reach if you need it. Very few people will actually print a 45mp image.


----------



## slclick (Sep 1, 2021)

fastprime said:


> Really hoping the 100-400 comes in under $1,500


Time for a smarty pants member to post the highest price Non L and Non DO lenses......I'm not worrying about the price so much, my guess is under 1k usd.


----------



## JordanCS13 (Sep 1, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The Leica FF 18mm f2.8.
> View attachment 199971


That is not a full-frame lens, it's an APS-C lens. The TL in the name (it's the Elmarit TL 18mm f/2.8) gives it away, as the Leica T cameras are APS-C, as are their lenses...their full frame L mount lenses are marked 'SL'.

There is no UWA lens in existence for full-frame with a filter thread as small as 43mm...mainly because despite the size of the front elements, which can be made to be very tiny, the filter thread is larger to not vignette with such a wide lens. Take the Laowa 14mm f/4, which is a stop slower (and yes, a little wider). It's a TINY lens. Exceptionally small for a 14mm lens, but it still has a 52mm filter thread. 

At this point, I'm thinking the 16mm f/2.8 is either an APS-C lens (and perhaps we get an APS-C RF mount camera as well), or the 43mm filter thread is incorrect. I would be shocked if Canon can create a 16mm full frame lens (that doesn't completely suck) with a 43mm filter thread.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 1, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> With a maximum front size of 67mm, a 400mm lens could be up to f/6.3 'clean', or possibly get away with f/5.6 with the modern trend of allowing excessive vignetting and having lenses frame wider then crop in with opcodes. (e.g. 24-105 f/7.1, 24-240, Fuji's 100-400, etc.)
> 
> I *do* think this lens _will_ top out at f/7.1, but I believe that because that just seems to be the aperture Canon have become fixated on, _not_ because of the filter size.


A 400mm f/5.6 requires an element of not less than 400/5.6 mm, ie 71.4mm so you can't have one with a 67mm front size.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2021)

rick2 said:


> This is false. Market domination is definitely relevant. It's the reason people who want the absolute best gear switch brands.


Earlier, you correctly stated that it’s the low-end ILC sales —entry-level APS-C models— that determine who leads in terms of market share, i.e., market domination. Now you’re claiming that market domination drives people switching brands to get ‘the absolute best gear’. So, you are saying that whoever sells the most entry-level cameras makes the absolute best gear. That’s the top-notch logic we’ve come to expect from you.


----------



## jam05 (Sep 1, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Agreed. To launch the R3 with lower end budget lenses implies that the R3 is also lower end, which does not seem right. Hopefully there will be some surprise lenses added to the announcement.





FrenchFry said:


> Agreed. To launch the R3 with lower end budget lenses implies that the R3 is also lower end, which does not seem right. Hopefully there will be some surprise lenses added to the announcement.


----------



## jam05 (Sep 1, 2021)

Its not the flagship, its not an R5, it a new line above the R5. Above $3800. You can call it what ever you please. Cameras are niche devices. Not many people spend $3800 on a camera concerned about others perception.


----------



## jam05 (Sep 1, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I must be missing something. How can a 16mm f2.8 lens be as small as people are imagining.


Yes you must be missing a lot


----------



## tbgtomcom (Sep 1, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> By the time the R3 hits the market it will be 1. outdated with only 24 mpix, and Sony will have another camera announced that will blow the R3 away I'm affraid. Missing the Canon domination times...


My guess is the R3 is not to pull competing camera users away from their platforms, but to give more tools to existing Canon users. The target audience of this camera likely already have heavy investments in Canon glass and want to take advantage of features that 1D users enjoy with added benefits.


----------



## JustUs7 (Sep 1, 2021)

slclick said:


> Time for a smarty pants member to post the highest price Non L and Non DO lenses......I'm not worrying about the price so much, my guess is under 1k usd.


RF 24-240mm F/4-6.3 IS USM at $899.99 USD. What to I win for being smart enough to use the filters at USA.canon.com?

For EF, it’s about $799.99 not counting specialty non-L EF-S lenses.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 1, 2021)

unfocused said:


> That's disappointing, if true. That means the entire fall sports season will be lost for this sports oriented camera.


A very valid observation, unfocused......not Canon's first choice for a ship date, I'm sure. However, in this market of huge delays, this might be the best they can do.


----------



## rick2 (Sep 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Earlier, you correctly stated that it’s the low-end ILC sales —entry-level APS-C models— that determine who leads in terms of market share, i.e., market domination. Now you’re claiming that market domination drives people switching brands to get ‘the absolute best gear’. So, you are saying that whoever sells the most entry-level cameras makes the absolute best gear. That’s the top-notch logic we’ve come to expect from you.


----------



## DBounce (Sep 1, 2021)

tooyoung225 said:


> Still no info on another RF Cinema camera….


Well there is the one that Red announced today.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 1, 2021)

The new lens price hikes for this month probably do not bode well for anyone hoping the R3 will be a bargain.

CPW's new price list:

EOS 5D Mark IV is now $2699.00 (was $2499)
RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM is now $2399.00 (was $2299)
RF 28-70mm F2 L USM is now $3099.00 (was $2999)
RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM is now $2399.00 (was $2299)
RF 100-500mm F4-7.1L IS USM is now $2799.00 (was $2699)
RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is now $2799.00 (was $2699)
RF 85mm f/1.2L USM is now $2799.00 (was $2699)
RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS is now $3099.00 (was $2999)


----------



## tbgtomcom (Sep 1, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> The new lens price hikes for this month probably do not bode well for anyone hoping the R3 will be a bargain.
> 
> CPW's new price list:
> 
> ...


On the plus side it's nice knowing our investments in these lenses is holding strong.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 1, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The Leica FF 18mm f2.8.
> View attachment 199971


It is an APS/C lens for the Leica CL/TL2 models.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 1, 2021)

RF 16 2.8 with 43mm filter ?
I think this is an EF-M lens or a lens for an R APS-C camera.
Or it has 5+ stops of vignetting at f/8.

RF 16 2.8 with IS would have been great for video and vlogging
with e.g. an RP ... but maybe that is a non-market-


----------



## Cyborx (Sep 1, 2021)

unfocused said:


> That's disappointing, if true. That means the entire fall sports season will be lost for this sports oriented camera.



Every Canon update is disappointing so far, except for the R5, if you don’t need a weather sealed pro body.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 1, 2021)

rick2 said:


> This is false. Market domination is definitely relevant. It's the reason people who want the absolute best gear switch brands. With the new raw compression canon has, the raw files from my 45mp r5 are between 15mb-25mb, smaller than the raw files from my sony a9ii 24mp camera. They could have definitely made the R3 30mp and made it slightly more future proof. In it's current state(and assuming it is $6k) it will be a pass for a lot of people who would have otherwise bought if it were 30mp-ish. The point of higher MP is cropping ability which translates into extra reach if you need it. Very few people will actually print a 45mp image.


"Tell people you have zero industry experience and don't know what you're talking about, without saying you have zero industry experience and don't know what you're talking about."



AlanF said:


> A 400mm f/5.6 requires an element of not less than 400/5.6 mm, ie 71.4mm so you can't have one with a 67mm front size.



Read the second half of the sentence you quoted.



mb66energy said:


> RF 16 2.8 with 43mm filter ?
> I think this is an EF-M lens or a lens for an R APS-C camera.
> Or it has 5+ stops of vignetting at f/8.



The smart money says #3. Just look at how every other recent wide-angle Canon lens operates, and multiply that by how every other manufacturer compromises on optics to create compact lenses.

They're not going to announce APS-C RF (not R; that was a Canon mount in the early 60s!) lenses until they have an APS-C RF body to show, and given how all of this has leaked out well ahead of announcement but a body hasn't, it's safe to say there's no APS-C RF body on the horizon.
EF-M is basically abandonware at this point. Nobody should expect any new EF-M products. I'm not going to go as far as to say Canon have formally shuttered the product line—they still have existing stock to sell—but they're clearly not working on any new products and are only paying the current ones lip service. Once the RF line has moved on to the point the original RP can be priced at under the £800 mark (which may be as soon as the next year) I bet they will then officially call quits on EF-M. There's no point competing with themselves.



mb66energy said:


> RF 16 2.8 with IS would have been great for video and vlogging
> with e.g. an RP ... but maybe that is a non-market-



The handheld video market mostly buys zooms, and Canon have the 14-35mm f/4L IS that they're trying to sell people on. As woefully overpriced as that lens is, they still seem to be pushing that as some kind of 'bargain' as well as the lightweight video option, and they won't undercut that advertising with a cheaper and smaller lens like this. For the people who want even smaller, lighter and cheaper, they still have that leftover EOS M-series stock to get rid of.
What I expect is they'll show it doing video on the R6 or R5, then they'll show it being used for street & lifestyle photos on the RP. That way they can show how small it and the RP can be together, while still implying it can be good for video without having to acknowledge the lack of stabilisation. Canon are very experienced at showing new products in _very_ specific ways to maximise implied capability without admitting the realities of those uses.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 1, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> On the plus side it's nice knowing our investments in these lenses is holding strong.


Right... Investments!
I wonder how this $100 increase would compare to the gains from investing the same cost as the lens when it came out in traditional investment methods, like the stock market. Something tells me the $100 would fall short unless I kept it in a low interest savings account.
Of course the value gotten from owning and receiving the lenses is priceless, so always best to "invest" in glass as it brings more joy.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 1, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Agreed. To launch the R3 with lower end budget lenses implies that the R3 is also lower end, which does not seem right. Hopefully there will be some surprise lenses added to the announcement.


The announcement of one is not a reflection on the other. The price of the body itself is enough to convince it is not lower end.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 1, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Right... Investments!
> I wonder how this $100 increase would compare to the gains from investing the same cost as the lens when it came out in traditional investment methods, like the stock market. Something tells me the $100 would fall short unless I kept it in a low interest savings account.
> Of course the value gotten from owning and receiving the lenses is priceless, so always best to "invest" in glass as it brings more joy.


After B&H offered me $1100 for my pristine RF 50mm f/1.2, I decided to see how much I could get on the market in a private sale. Turns out that number was about $1800, effectively meaning I rented it for $125/year since I ordered it day 1. The used market is nuts right now for lenses as with cars. If I can ever get the RF 100 - 500 shipped to me, I will be able to unload the last of my EF zooms along with the TC's.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 1, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The announcement of one is not a reflection on the other. The price of the body itself is enough to convince it is not lower end.


It makes sense for Canon to announce items that pair nicely with the R3 at the same time as the R3. The R3 has a new hot shoe so we expect to see new accessories that are part of that theme (speedlight/SL transmitters, new microphone, etc.)
I personally think it's odd that a higher end camera is being announced alongside lower end lenses, and hope to see more lenses (and a new speedlight) included as part of this announcement event. That may not happen.


----------



## arbitrage (Sep 1, 2021)

Canon is dead to me until they announce the RF 600 f/4 DO 

Get on with it Canon...bolt on adapters to EF lenses doesn't cut it....


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 1, 2021)

tooyoung225 said:


> Still no info on another RF Cinema camera….


RED has got you covered.








RED Announces the New V-RAPTOR 8K VV DSMC3 Cinema Camera; Watch the RED livestream Find More Info at B&H
 

/PRNewswire/ -- B&H is excited to announce the new RED V-RAPTOR 8K VV DSMC3 cinema camera with a new 8K VV sensor that moves the RED family of cameras into a...




www.prnewswire.com


----------



## jedy (Sep 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sadly, yes. An accessory being listed doesn't mean that accessory will be included. The R3 is not going to include a flash transmitter, hotshoe mic and 3 different straps in the box.


Every other major lens maker includes a lens hood with their lenses. Why are Canon such misers with their non-L lenses and still are selling them as overpriced extras??


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> ...I personally think it's odd that a higher end camera is being announced alongside lower end lenses, and hope to see more lenses (and a new speedlight) included as part of this announcement event. That may not happen.


Canon already has the 400 f2.8, 600 f4, 100-500 zoom, and two 70-200 zooms. At the wide end they just released the 14-35 and already had the 15-35 2.8. They announced a new professional level speedlite not that long ago. The 100-400 should appeal to some who want a lighter lens. I'm guessing they feel like they pretty much have things covered for sports shooters for the time being.


----------



## bergstrom (Sep 1, 2021)

Sony A7iv being rumoured to launch at $2500. Wonder if Canon might come down in price to steal some of Sony's thunder.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 1, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> Read the second half of the sentence you quoted.


Please explain it as it is written in jargon and not readily understandable to the non-specialist reader. I don't understand how a lens can have an f-number that is lower (wider) than the simple equation of f-number = focal length/entrance pupil. The 24-105 and 24-240mm that you quote have apertures diameters wide enough. So, I'd like to learn


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 1, 2021)

slclick said:


> Time for a smarty pants member to post the highest price Non L and Non DO lenses......I'm not worrying about the price so much, my guess is under 1k usd.


$899 24-240 I believe.


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 1, 2021)

jedy said:


> Every other major lens maker includes a lens hood with their lenses. Why are Canon such misers with their non-L lenses and still are selling them as overpriced extras??


They probably have ample data that very few buyers actually use them, and that they earn more profit by offering them without.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 1, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> They probably have ample data that very few buyers actually use them, and that they earn more profit by offering them without.


A lens hood is pretty well essential for the RF 800mm f/11 and the 600mm f/11, as for telephoto lenses in general. I bought a cheap 3rd party hood for the 800/11 at about 1/3rd the price of the Canon's flimsy piece of plastic.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Sep 1, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Please explain it as it is written in jargon and not readily understandable to the non-specialist reader. I don't understand how a lens can have an f-number that is lower (wider) than the simple equation of f-number = focal length/entrance pupil. The 24-105 and 24-240mm that you quote have apertures diameters wide enough. So, I'd like to learn


@AlanF:

I very much appreciate your response here...more than you know.

I could go on and on here...

I will not, except to say this:

There are people who post here who I learn from.

There are people who post here who I respect.

And, in both of these categories...not so much (learning and respecting) from some posters.

Some of those in this latter group seem to be interested (mostly) in demonstrating their supposed knowledge and their supposed dominance.

One in particular...who 'stole' an observation of mine and called it his own...thread after thread.

Then, this same bloke, in a rather pedantic way...was highly critical of a poster (not me) who kind of wondered out loud about stuff that made the general point that the mirror in a standard DSLR provided some protection (to the sensor) from dust and dirt (compared to a mirrorless camera).

The pedantic guy was rude and obnoxious...and probably to this day doesn't even realize.

He still is...on this very thread in fact...all in an effort to establish that he has the biggest **** in the room.

I have hardly learned anything from this poster.

THEN I READ A FEW WEEKS AGO THAT CANON HAS PATENTED (OR TRIED TO) A KIND OF 'COVER' FOR MIRRORLESS SENSORS THAT ACTS AS A PREVENTATIVE BARRIER TO DUST AND DIRT!!!!!!!

To my knowledge not a peep from this particular poster.

=====

I can only add that, in my own academic field--I had more than one go-round with pre-med types who needed an 'A' in my class.

I knew 'A' work from 'B' work from decades of experience...at some of the world's best academic and industrial labs.

If they deserved an 'A"...they got it.

...

My deans always backed me...and some of those who post here probably had a course or two in organic chemistry.

I never changed a grade.

I recognize their 'persuasive/obnoxious' strategies and techniques...here on CR.

From these types, more heat than light, for sure...almost always. 

=====

Thanks for reading.

edit: spelling/cellphone


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 1, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> RED has got you covered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here’s hoping that pushes Canon to release their 8K cinema cameras and freeing up the C500 Mkii sensor for a lover end RF camera.. Full frame, oversampled 4K with HDMI and SDI output in the C90 please Canon. 

The C70 was announced shortly after the R5 so let’s hope the same happens with the R3.


----------



## calfoto (Sep 1, 2021)

jedy said:


> Every other major lens maker includes a lens hood with their lenses. Why are Canon such misers with their non-L lenses and still are selling them as overpriced extras??


That's what the "L" stands for ~ _*"Lens Hood Included"*_


----------



## jedy (Sep 1, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> They probably have ample data that very few buyers actually use them, and that they earn more profit by offering them without.


That’s not a reasonable excuse, if true though. When every other major lens maker offers a lens hood with their lenses, and yes, lens hoods are used by photographers all the time, it just makes Canon look like penny pinchers.


----------



## calfoto (Sep 1, 2021)

arbitrage said:


> Get on with it Canon...bolt on adapters to EF lenses doesn't cut it....


I'm curious, in your opinion why?

All my EF lenses work just fine with the EF-R adapter. - Zooms, Teles, Macros...

I even have an adapter for my Nikon lenses, as well as for Leica...

I'm thinking of getting the Hasselblad one too...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2021)

calfoto said:


> I'm curious, in your opinion why?
> 
> All my EF lenses work just fine with the EF-R adapter. - Zooms, Teles, Macros...
> 
> ...


I suspect the reference is to the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4, which are optically identical to their most recent EF counterparts, with an empty, slightly elongated section at the mount end of the lens to provide the proper flange distance for RF instead of EF – hence, the term ‘bolt-on’ adapter.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 1, 2021)

calfoto said:


> I'm curious, in your opinion why?
> 
> All my EF lenses work just fine with the EF-R adapter. - Zooms, Teles, Macros...
> 
> ...


I’d like to try the Nikon 500PF on the R5 but the only adapters I can find are all for manual AF. Do you know of any that will allow AF?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 1, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> It is an APS/C lens for the Leica CL/TL2 models.


I was actually looking for one or two of the Voigtlander pancakes. My mistake.

Here is a Voigtlander 21mm.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 2, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> The new lens price hikes for this month probably do not bode well for anyone hoping the R3 will be a bargain.
> 
> CPW's new price list:
> 
> ...


This could be as simple as the USD:JPY exchange rate changes. The last 6 months have been @ ~110 but at least 5% lower for the 18 months before hand.

USD100 increase across the board for RF but surprising to see $200 increase for the 5Div. Chip shortages have meant higher prices but this seems to be excessive for both shortage and exchange rate reasons... not to mention a very mature product with R&D amortised already.

Besides the demand for replacement bodies due to damage and natural death, the 5Div should have a relatively low new demand now with R (released 3 years ago) and R5/R6 bodies exceeding the 5Div specifications in many ways.


----------



## HotPixels (Sep 2, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> The RF 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4.0 are good lenses, but they are still modified EF lenses and don't show to the fullest what RF can be. For instance, Nikon are building brand new, never before seen designs for the Z 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4.0 that appear to also have built in 1.4X TC's. Canon have always been able to make glass that no one else even has the R&D budget for, something that can show us what the a modern mirrorless super tele can be (this doesn't mean shorter or even lighter). I very much don't wish to believe bolting a EF to RF converter and changing the focus system is all we can expect from Canon.


It is sad that these two lenses, the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4, which are two of the finest lenses ever made, and are optical masterpieces, are somehow dismissed as being just "good lenses." They are fantastic lenses, regardless of when they were designed and their EF counterparts.

In reality, what happened was that Canon designed these lenses for both RF and EF mount, but released the EF lenses first due to the fact that at the time Canon had EF cameras out that would naturally be used with these lenses, and not yet their more advanced R cameras.

So it's really sad how so many just dismiss super high quality products on some artificial standards, in this case the idea that these lenses weren't designed yesterday or that they reuse technology also seen in EF lenses. Of course neither of those factors influences the quality of the lenses.

We see the same thing when in some forums, some commenters write about the fantastic 1DXIII as if it were virtually useless, just because it's a DSLR and not mirrorless. It's a total lack of perspective.


----------



## sanj (Sep 2, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> A 35 L would be a bit pedestrian for a body targeting wildlife, sports, and new vehicle AF.


A lot many other people would use R3 than just wildlife photographers.


----------



## mpmark (Sep 2, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Agreed. To launch the R3 with lower end budget lenses implies that the R3 is also lower end, which does not seem right. Hopefully there will be some surprise lenses added to the announcement.


Implies? Says who. Just because they are releasing other items it doesn’t imply anything. They’ve already released the 400/600. Which is for THIS body.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 2, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> In reality, what happened was that Canon designed these lenses for both RF and EF mount, but released the EF lenses first due to the fact that at the time Canon had EF cameras out that would naturally be used with these lenses, and not yet their more advanced R cameras.



I thought so too, until I read this: "The EF 400mm F2.8L IS III USM and EF 600mm F4L IS III USM, which we released in 2018, were manufactured to an extremely high level of perfection in order to realize high image quality, light weight and high-performance IS. However, we did not develop these lenses with the intention of making them 'dual-mount.'"
Source: Go Tokura, Chief Executive, Image Communication Business Operations at Canon. https://www.dpreview.com/interviews...devices-supporting-8k-is-a-very-high-priority

According to Canon, they have yet to release any of their high quality supertelephoto primes designed from the ground up for RF. I, for one, am really looking forward to seeing what they come up with. In the meantime, the RF 400 and RF 600 are "optical masterpieces" as you say.


----------



## David_D (Sep 2, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Please explain it as it is written in jargon and not readily understandable to the non-specialist reader. I don't understand how a lens can have an f-number that is lower (wider) than the simple equation of f-number = focal length/entrance pupil. The 24-105 and 24-240mm that you quote have apertures diameters wide enough. So, I'd like to learn


It is over 30 years since I studied any optics, but since nobody else has answered, I'll try to explain what I remember, without using jargon.

The formula for f-number needs the word _effective_ inserted into it, twice.
f-number = _effective _focal length/_effective _entrance pupil

If you have a simple, single, symmetric lens it is easy, you can measure the focal length and diameter and calculate the f-number. In a modern camera lens which have multiple elements it is not so obvious. Each element alters the characteristics of the ones in front of it. However, what also changes is where the effective entrance pupil is located ... is it nearer the front element or the rear element or somewhere in between? The answer to the mystery is that with some lens designs the effective entrance pupil can be *in front of* the front element, thus its diameter can be wider than it. (Unfortunately, before someone thinks to suggest a 600mm F1 lens, it can only be a short distance in front without excessive distortions.)

I hope that explanation is sufficiently accurate for certain members, if not please offer a better explanation. (Also, not 100% sure this is the case for the lenses being discussed, but I know it is theoretically possible.)


----------



## Emyr Evans (Sep 2, 2021)

If it is indeed 24MP, I just hope it will give us the option to have 6K video and not just downsampled 4K.

Add Pre-record to both video and stills and I'm all in


----------



## Koemans (Sep 2, 2021)

The Canon XF400 is listed as discontinued. Maybe a new camcorder on the horizon?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 2, 2021)

sanj said:


> A lot many other people would use R3 than just wildlife photographers.


Indeed, like the sports and motor sports photographers it is also aimed at.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 2, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> It is sad that these two lenses, the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4, which are two of the finest lenses ever made, and are optical masterpieces, are somehow dismissed as being just "good lenses." They are fantastic lenses, regardless of when they were designed and their EF counterparts.
> 
> In reality, what happened was that Canon designed these lenses for both RF and EF mount, but released the EF lenses first due to the fact that at the time Canon had EF cameras out that would naturally be used with these lenses, and not yet their more advanced R cameras.
> 
> ...



It's not about these lenses being good or bad.


----------



## Chig (Sep 2, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I thought so too, until I read this: "The EF 400mm F2.8L IS III USM and EF 600mm F4L IS III USM, which we released in 2018, were manufactured to an extremely high level of perfection in order to realize high image quality, light weight and high-performance IS. However, we did not develop these lenses with the intention of making them 'dual-mount.'"
> Source: Go Tokura, Chief Executive, Image Communication Business Operations at Canon. https://www.dpreview.com/interviews...devices-supporting-8k-is-a-very-high-priority
> 
> According to Canon, they have yet to release any of their high quality supertelephoto primes designed from the ground up for RF. I, for one, am really looking forward to seeing what they come up with. In the meantime, the RF 400 and RF 600 are "optical masterpieces" as you say.


Can't see how the R mount makes much difference for long telephotos as the different flange distance isn't very significant on these huge lenses .
If Canon did a clean sheet new design of the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 for the R mount what would be different ?
The extra electrical contacts in the R mount would offer more options for the electronics though.
I hope Canon doesn't make any new RF telephoto zooms or primes which don't work properly with extenders like the RF100-500 (sorry only works at 300mm +) fiasco


----------



## AlanF (Sep 2, 2021)

David_D said:


> It is over 30 years since I studied any optics, but since nobody else has answered, I'll try to explain what I remember, without using jargon.
> 
> The formula for f-number needs the word _effective_ inserted into it, twice.
> f-number = _effective _focal length/_effective _entrance pupil
> ...


Thank you so much for attempting to explain what the poster failed to do, I really appreciate it, and it has clarified my own thoughts. I do know that we use effective focal lengths and effective entrance pupils. For the telephoto lenses we use and are discussing here, like a 100-400mm or a 600mm, they are much shorter than their effective focal lengths. The stated focal lengths of a lens and the f-numbers are for the objects at infinity and the light rays entering the lens are parallel. So, the amount of light let into the lens cannot be greater than the area of the hole at the front of the lens times the light flux. It doesn't help the brighness of the image by having an effective entrance pupil greater than the diameter of the front hole, it can't let in any more light than the size of the front hole allows. This is summed up nicely in a paragraph of a review of the Canon 50-1000mm cine lens: https://www.studiodaily.com/2015/07/review-canon-50-1000mm-t5-0-8-9-ultra-telephoto-zoom/

_"The size of the front elements in a zoom lens is critical. When magnification exceeds the entrance lens diameter, some light is inevitably lost as the pupil entrance diameter exceeds the physical diameter of the input lens group. The imperative to limit size and weight means that some ramping is inevitable. As shooters and more or less mature individuals, we don’t like it, but we accept some ramping and are in fact quite used to it. The Canon 50-1000 holds a constant T5 (F4.5) until 560mm, when the entrance pupil size exceeds the available real estate in the front lens group and gentle ramping begins. The lens speed slows to a still-reasonable T8.9 at 1000mm._"

So, you could have a lens that is nominally 400mm f/5.6 with a 67mm front element, but the actual brightness of the image (governed by T-stop) would be equivalent to f/6 at best and dimmer in practice. The difference between f-number and T-stop becomes critical when entrance pupil exceeds physical diameter. I guess also that the effects of diffraction depend on the physical diameter and not effective entrance pupil. In practice, the effective entrance pupils of the lenses we use are equal to or less than the physical diameters of the front element and the manufacturers f-numbers never wider than the effective focal length/front element diameter.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 2, 2021)

Chig said:


> Can't see how the R mount makes much difference for long telephotos as the different flange distance isn't very significant on these huge lenses .
> If Canon did a clean sheet new design of the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 for the R mount what would be different ?
> The extra electrical contacts in the R mount would offer more options for the electronics though.
> I hope Canon doesn't make any new RF telephoto zooms or primes which don't work properly with extenders like the RF100-500 (sorry only works at 300mm +) fiasco



Super telephotos could have built in TC's.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 2, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Super telephotos could have built in TC's.



Supposedly the upcoming Nikon 400mm f/2.8 S has a built in 1.4x TC which would make it a very versatile lens. Your lens might be frozen to the camera in the snow and ice, but you can flick a switch to get closer to the subject.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 2, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> A 35 L would be a bit pedestrian for a body targeting wildlife, sports, and new vehicle AF.


And yet my EF 35 f2 IS almost lives. on my 1DX II whenever I am shooting for myself.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 2, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Supposedly the upcoming Nikon 400mm f/2.8 S has a built in 1.4x TC which would make it a very versatile lens. Your lens might be frozen to the camera in the snow and ice, but you can flick a switch to get closer to the subject.


Canon lead the field in lenses that include TC's. Starting in the 1980's with an FD 1200 and now with the EF 200-400 f4 L, if they haven't put it in their 400 and 600 primes yet it is for a good reason.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 2, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> If it is indeed 24MP, I just hope it will give us the option to have 6K video and not just downsampled 4K.
> 
> Add Pre-record to both video and stills and I'm all in


Canon clearly states that R3 will shoot internal RAW video.
Canon has never had downsampled RAW video.
There is no reason to think they would start now.


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 2, 2021)

Chig said:


> I hope Canon doesn't make any new RF telephoto zooms or primes which don't work properly with extenders like the RF100-500 (sorry only works at 300mm +) fiasco


Designing a lens has tradeoffs. To satisfy a tiny minority who prioritizes extender compatibility on a certain lens will presumably make the lens less attractive in way that are more important to far more potential customers. It's not a "fiasco" - it's presumably a smart choice. I switched to Canon for great lens designs like the 70-200 2.8 and the 100-500, whose benefit is to get to 500 without an extender.


----------



## danfaz (Sep 2, 2021)

Regarding the ST-E10...any ideas what this would do differently than the Version 2 ST-E3 that was created/updated to work with the EL-1?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 2, 2021)

Given the R3 release date of September 14th it will definately appear at The Photographer Show in Birmingham, UK later in the month.


----------



## Emyr Evans (Sep 2, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon clearly states that R3 will shoot internal RAW video.
> Canon has never had downsampled RAW video.
> There is no reason to think they would start now.


I know.
So 6K RAW at 16x9 off a 6000 x 4000 sensor would do me.
I'll downsample it myself or, indeed, upsample it to an 8K video timeline.


----------



## HotPixels (Sep 2, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I thought so too, until I read this: "The EF 400mm F2.8L IS III USM and EF 600mm F4L IS III USM, which we released in 2018, were manufactured to an extremely high level of perfection in order to realize high image quality, light weight and high-performance IS. However, we did not develop these lenses with the intention of making them 'dual-mount.'"
> Source: Go Tokura, Chief Executive, Image Communication Business Operations at Canon. https://www.dpreview.com/interviews...devices-supporting-8k-is-a-very-high-priority
> 
> According to Canon, they have yet to release any of their high quality supertelephoto primes designed from the ground up for RF. I, for one, am really looking forward to seeing what they come up with. In the meantime, the RF 400 and RF 600 are "optical masterpieces" as you say.


Thanks for the clarification. But to me and really any person thinking of buying one of these lenses, or using them already, the key point is that these are optical masterpieces. That's my whole point: that we get caught up in minutiae that doesn't really mean anything, and overlook the fact that these are two the finest lenses ever made.

Bryan at TDP wrote about the RF 400: " This is one of the most incredible lenses available, and it is the ultimate action sports photography lens."

Christopher Frost wrote "This is literally the highest quality camera lens I have ever handled - physically awesome, optically impeccable"

Discussion of gear always has its technical details, but one point someone else made on another discussion was that it seems with the rise of Sony and their army of trolls, that discussions of gear tend even more towards the details that do not matter to the neglect of those that do.

To me the major point when discussing these 400 and 600 lenses is that they simply are as close to optical perfection as one can get these days, and the rest is just fluff.


----------



## Emyr Evans (Sep 2, 2021)

jeffa4444 said:


> Given the R3 release date of September 14th it will definately appear at The Photographer Show in Birmingham, UK later in the month.


Will Canon be selling any of their products at these kind of shows, or are they just for exhibition etc?


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 2, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Supposedly the upcoming Nikon 400mm f/2.8 S has a built in 1.4x TC which would make it a very versatile lens. Your lens might be frozen to the camera in the snow and ice, but you can flick a switch to get closer to the subject.


Switchable TCs are fine for an occasional model, but there's a reason most big lens buyers don't prefer to perpetually carry the size and weight of a TC everywhere the lens goes (not to mention the cost). I suspect it's those (like me) who don't own a single big white lens who imagine their first being unusually versatile to avoid making compromises. Owning a 100-500, I suspect the more versatile alternative is a 400 2.8 to gain speed with ample extendability.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 2, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> Designing a lens has tradeoffs. To satisfy a tiny minority who prioritizes extender compatibility on a certain lens will presumably make the lens less attractive in way that are more important to far more potential customers. It's not a "fiasco" - it's presumably a smart choice. I switched to Canon for great lens designs like the 70-200 2.8 and the 100-500, whose benefit is to get to 500 without an extender.


Considering the following:

RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 - cannot add TC
100 - 500 - can apply TC 2.0 or 1.4, but only starting at 300mm

That means with a 1.4 you get 420 - 700mm, and with a 2.0 you get 600 - 100mm.

With the 1.4 on I have a hole in my bag from 200 - 420mm, I have to take the TC off to get there.

With the 2.0 on, I'd have to swap to the 1.4 to get 500 - 600mm, or take it off entirely to get 200 - 420mm.

I could carry the EF 70 - 200 f/2.8 IS III instead of the RF, which allows stacking a 2.0 and a 1.4 TC (MK II models only) for 196 - 560 f/8, but now I have to carry 4 TC's and an EF converter to maximize my options. At that point, I could leave the 2.0 on the 100 - 500 and my only "hole" is 560 - 600mm, which basically isn't one....but now I'm operating with sub-optimal setups IQ-wise on both lenses. And while I use the EF 70 - 200 f/2.8 + stacked TC's + EF converter setup today, it's very long and heavy, and doesn't give anything the 100 - 500 + 1.4 wouldn't if the full range was available (actually would provide less).

If I'm willing to carry (and buy) 3 lenses, I could do an RF 70 - 200, an EF with the stacked teleconverters, and a 100 - 500 with the 2.0 on it. Or, an RF 70 - 200, and two 100 - 500's, where I'd use the one defaulted to no TC's from 200 - 500 and add the 1.4 when 420 - 700 is needed, and the 2nd one would have the 2.0 on it all the time and be for the situations where 700+ is needed.

Another option would be if Canon made like a 200 - 400mm f/4 zoom. I suppose one could carry the forthcoming 100 - 400mm for that, but it's slower than I would like, especially considering a 2.0x-extended 70 - 200 f/2.8 gives a constant f/5.6 wide open.

None of this would be necessary if the RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 took TC's as one would expect, and/or the 100 - 500 got its full range when on a TC.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> Bryan at TDP wrote about the RF 400: " This is one of the most incredible lenses available, and it is the ultimate action sports photography lens."
> 
> ...and the rest is just fluff.


Most reviews have plenty of fluff. For example, Bryan at TDP wrote: "This is simply one of the most incredible lenses available and one of the ultimate action sports lenses." Sounds very much like the quote you posted above, except this one was about the 400/2.8 IS MkII. He also described the 400/2.8 IS MkI as the, "Ultimate Canon professional field/track sports lens." So it's very possible that a new 400/2.8 designed for the RF mount from the ground up would be a further improvement (which Bryan and other Canon-friendly reviewers would describe in similarly superlative language). Even if there is no benefit from the shorter flange distance (which is likely the case for a supertele design) it would effectively be a MkIV version of the lens.

If nothing else, I suspect a supertele lens designed for RF would have a dedicated control ring.


----------



## dboris (Sep 2, 2021)

Telezoom don't directly benefit from RF mount so there's no reason to hope for better tele lenses design in the future.
With my enthusiast budget, I'll grab the 100-500 + TC + R3 and will never look back. 
Having a 1000mm stabilised with autofocus and 6K raw probably, will make killer street photog videos.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 2, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> Switchable TCs are fine for an occasional model, but there's a reason most big lens buyers don't prefer to perpetually carry the size and weight of a TC everywhere the lens goes (not to mention the cost). I suspect it's those (like me) who don't own a single big white lens who imagine their first being unusually versatile to avoid making compromises. Owning a 100-500, I suspect the more versatile alternative is a 400 2.8 to gain speed with ample extendability.



A 400 f/2.8 with a built in 1.4x TC gives you a 560 f/4.0 at the flick of a switch which makes it compete more better with the 180/200-400 f/4.0 which is very popular for wildlife. The build in TC's add negligible weight to the lens and lots of convenience. An external TC means you have to take your body of the lens whenever you need the TC attached, which isn't all that fun on mirrorless bodies. The 100-500 is not even remotely a able to take over from a 400 f/2.8, frankly the 100-199mm part of that lens is useless for many shooters, I start at 200mm and that is as wide as I can go.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 2, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> Thanks for the clarification. But to me and really any person thinking of buying one of these lenses, or using them already, the key point is that these are optical masterpieces. That's my whole point: that we get caught up in minutiae that doesn't really mean anything, and overlook the fact that these are two the finest lenses ever made.
> 
> Bryan at TDP wrote about the RF 400: " This is one of the most incredible lenses available, and it is the ultimate action sports photography lens."
> 
> ...



The predecessors of these lenses are arguably sharper. The latest versions are lighter and there where tradeoffs to make them lighter. That the RF 400 and 600 are good or great or even fantastic if you want isn't in question, what we are waiting to see is a barrel and optics that are designed from the start for RF. That could mean the next 400 and 600 are DO or have extra buttons on them or even just the control ring. The closest we have is the 100-500 showing off engineering plastic for what to expect. The RF 400 and 600 aren't examples of RF super tele anymore than the folks that sent F lenses back to Canon to turn them into EF lenses.


----------



## Rajinder Shukla (Sep 2, 2021)

For the kind attention of CANON:-
I have a keen desire and expectation from Canon to manufacture the following 3 lenses which are,
1. RF 12-35 mm f4L IS USM to RF standard plus all the specifications of EF 14-24 mm f4L IS USM.
2. RF 24-240mm f4L IS USM Zoom lens to RF standard. Instead of current 24-240 mm zoom lens.
3. RF 100-500 mm F4L IS USM Zoom lens to RF standard instead of current 100-500 mm zoom.
This will be a Canon Trinity of my dreams.
Opinions Welcome.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 2, 2021)

Rajinder Shukla said:


> For the kind attention of CANON:-
> I have a keen desire and expectation from Canon to manufacture the following 3 lenses which are,
> 1. RF 12-35 mm f4L IS USM to RF standard plus all the specifications of EF 14-24 mm f4L IS USM.
> 2. RF 24-240mm f4L IS USM Zoom lens to RF standard. Instead of current 24-240 mm zoom lens.
> ...



If you make that a 200-500mm f/4.0 L then you'll be able to carry it and it'll be easier for them to make a excellent lens instead of a compromise.


----------



## nickstan (Sep 2, 2021)

Who else is wondering when more L series prime lenses will be coming, still waiting on a 35mm


----------



## AlanF (Sep 2, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> If you make that a 200-500mm f/4.0 L then you'll be able to carry it and it'll be easier for them to make a excellent lens instead of a compromise.


Sadly, I wouldn't be able to carry a zoom of that size.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 2, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Sadly, I wouldn't be able to carry a zoom of that size.


Just get a golf caddy to carry it to the hide for you and shove it on a gimbal headed tripod. It'll certainly be easier to carry a 200-500 f/4.0 than a 100-500 f/4.0. There isn't anything to suggest it would be markably heavier than say a 600mm f/4.0 or 400mm f/2.8.


----------



## tooyoung225 (Sep 2, 2021)

DBounce said:


> Well there is the one that Red announced today.





EOS 4 Life said:


> RED has got you covered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For $24k, I'll pass. RED cameras are amazing, but over the last several years, you're mostly just paying for the name. Also, I do more run and gun work than anything, and RED's are not very ideal for that.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 2, 2021)

tooyoung225 said:


> For $24k, I'll pass. RED cameras are amazing, but over the last several years, you're mostly just paying for the name. Also, I do more run and gun work than anything, and RED's are not very ideal for that.


Its not 45-50MP so it's a total flop.


----------



## Billybob (Sep 2, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> If you make that a 200-500mm f/4.0 L then you'll be able to carry it and it'll be easier for them to make a excellent lens instead of a compromise.


Given the current EF 500mm III f/4 is around 7lbs, the RF600 is only slightly less, and the Nikon 200-400 f/4 is 7.4lbs, I'd expect your 200-500 to be, optimistically, closer to 8lbs. You might be able to carry it, but I'd rather not.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 2, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Given the current EF 500mm III f/4 is around 7lbs, the RF600 is only slightly less, and the Nikon 200-400 f/4 is 7.4lbs, I'd expect your 200-500 to be, optimistically, closer to 8lbs. You might be able to carry it, but I'd rather not.


It'll still be lighter than the proposed 100-500mm f/4.0 of the OP. Also I have no idea what 7.4 freedom units to 8 is for comparison, I know the Nikon 180-400 f/4.0 TC is very easy to carry all day though at 3500g.

Edit: We also have 120-300mm f/2.8 lenses now instead of 300 primes because it is now light enough and more marketable. My old 300 f/2.8 was way more effort than the 120-300 f/2.8 I tried. 2855g for the prime vs 3250g for the zoom, yet it felt more balanced..


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 2, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> It'll still be lighter than the proposed 100-500mm f/4.0 of the OP. Also I have no idea what 7.4 freedom units to 8 is for comparison, I know the Nikon 180-400 f/4.0 TC is very easy to carry all day though at 3500Kg.


I think you mean 3500g, not 3500kg. Unless you are exceptionally strong.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 2, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I think you mean 3500g, not 3500kg. Unless you are exceptionally strong.



Already corrected.


----------



## Billybob (Sep 2, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> It'll still be lighter than the proposed 100-500mm f/4.0 of the OP. Also I have no idea what 7.4 freedom units to 8 is for comparison, I know the Nikon 180-400 f/4.0 TC is very easy to carry all day though at 3500g.
> 
> Edit: We also have 120-300mm f/2.8 lenses now instead of 300 primes because it is now light enough and more marketable. My old 300 f/2.8 was way more effort than the 120-300 f/2.8 I tried. 2855g for the prime vs 3250g for the zoom, yet it felt more balanced..


Agreed about the 100-500 f/4, but 200-500 is no picnic either. I wish I'd grown up learning grams, but alas, I was born on the left side of the Atlantic, and we're a little backwards in those matters. So, 8lbs, is about 3628g. Yes, there are those who would cart such a beast around, but, my personal limit is around 6lbs/2700g. I dislike using tripods, so getting there is half the battle. Lifting the beast to the sky isn't something I want to do.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 2, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> Switchable TCs are fine for an occasional model, but there's a reason most big lens buyers don't prefer to perpetually carry the size and weight of a TC everywhere the lens goes (not to mention the cost). I suspect it's those (like me) who don't own a single big white lens who imagine their first being unusually versatile to avoid making compromises. Owning a 100-500, I suspect the more versatile alternative is a 400 2.8 to gain speed with ample extendability.


I think that most people who have been on a wildlife photography trip with supertelephoto primes in areas that are extremely humid or dusty would agree that a built in teleconverter adds tremendous value. Taking a teleconverter on and off dozens of times per day is not fun and puts the equipment at increased risk from the elements. It can also result in missed shots. A built-in teleconverter is extremely valuable on these lenses. Hopefully Canon will incorporate more of them in their supertelephoto lenses built for RF.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 2, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Agreed about the 100-500 f/4, but 200-500 is no picnic either. I wish I'd grown up learning grams, but alas, I was born on the left side of the Atlantic, and we're a little backwards in those matters. So, 8lbs, is about 3628g. Yes, there are those who would cart such a beast around, but, my personal limit is around 6lbs/2700g. I dislike using tripods, so getting there is half the battle. Lifting the beast to the sky isn't something I want to do.



You tend not to lift the big boys to the sky. At least I don't. I shove the 500mm f/5.6 PF on a light body (equivalent to a 100-500 f/7.1 and a R6/R5) and then put the big lens on a tripod and it doesn't leave the tripod. Carrying a big lens is actually easier however, if it isn't in the dedicate backpack you have actual lens strap lungs on it unlike a smaller lens which make it much easier to carry. 3500g on the lens plus a gripped body is what I am accustomed too and can hike all day with. But most of the time it'll be in a pack until I find a stop to 'camp' or it'll be supported by the strap or tripod on my back.

edit: A 200-500 means one less lens in your bag too. With a 200-400 TC you often need a 600 with you too I have found and that is way more on the back than just one heavier lens.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 2, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I think that most people who have been on a wildlife photography trip with supertelephoto primes in areas that are extremely humid or dusty would agree that a built in teleconverter adds tremendous value. Taking a teleconverter on and off dozens of times per day is not fun and puts the equipment at increased risk from the elements. It can also result in missed shots. A built-in teleconverter is extremely valuable on these lenses. Hopefully Canon will incorporate more of them in their supertelephoto lenses built for RF.



Been there, it gets to the point where you don't want to put it on or take it off. During a shoot you can't in realtime while tracking a fox that is running towards you, switch out the TC, but you can stop AF for a moment and flick a switch.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 2, 2021)

dboris said:


> Telezoom don't directly benefit from RF mount so there's no reason to hope for better tele lenses design in the future.


I wouldn't underestimate Canon's ability to innovate for new telephoto RF lenses.
So far we have the excellent 100-500, which goes 100mm further than its 100-400 predecessor in a smaller/lighter package, the 70-200 which is significantly smaller/lighter than its predecessor, and the 600/800mm F11 lenses which were, to say the least, unexpected. They have their limitations but reviews are overall positive and the reach per gram on these lenses is incredible.
So, it's quite possible that Canon has some interesting ideas in the pipeline for future telephoto RF primes that we don't expect. There are rumors here for a 500mm prime that is extremely light weight, for example.
The new mount's additional pins may also enable faster and/or more accurate AF, we will have to wait and see.
It may not be that the new mount directly benefits these designs, but that Canon is taking advantage of the new mount to offer more "revolutionary" designs to its customers.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 2, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I wouldn't underestimate Canon's ability to innovate for new telephoto RF lenses.
> So far we have the excellent 100-500, which goes 100mm further than its 100-400 predecessor in a smaller/lighter package, the 70-200 which is significantly smaller/lighter than its predecessor, and the 600/800mm F11 lenses which were, to say the least, unexpected. They have their limitations but reviews are overall positive and the reach per gram on these lenses is incredible.
> So, it's quite possible that Canon has some interesting ideas in the pipeline for future telephoto RF primes that we don't expect. There are rumors here for a 500mm prime that is extremely light weight, for example.
> The new mount's additional pins may also enable faster and/or more accurate AF, we will have to wait and see.
> It may not be that the new mount directly benefits these designs, but that Canon is taking advantage of the new mount to offer more "revolutionary" designs to its customers.


If Canon got serious and brought out the long awaited 11-800mm F2.8 lens I'd only have to worry about carrying one lens and camera and I'd have it permanently on camera (so no dust spots). If they put wheels on it I could tow it around with me.


----------



## Billybob (Sep 2, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> You tend not to lift the big boys to the sky. At least I don't. I shove the 500mm f/5.6 PF on a light body (equivalent to a 100-500 f/7.1 and a R6/R5) and then put the big lens on a tripod and it doesn't leave the tripod. Carrying a big lens is actually easier however, if it isn't in the dedicate backpack you have actual lens strap lungs on it unlike a smaller lens which make it much easier to carry. 3500g on the lens plus a gripped body is what I am accustomed too and can hike all day with. But most of the time it'll be in a pack until I find a stop to 'camp' or it'll be supported by the strap or tripod on my back.
> 
> edit: A 200-500 means one less lens in your bag too. With a 200-400 TC you often need a 600 with you too I have found and that is way more on the back than just one heavier lens.


Yes, it's a matter of personal preference. I don't have an exotic prime yet (I have one on my wish list), but with the 100-500L and 500pf (they handle similarly) I have never used them with a tripod. Perhaps I'll reconsider if I do pick up an exotic, but for now--and until my strength starts to fade--the tripod stays at home.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 2, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Just get a golf caddy to carry it to the hide for you and shove it on a gimbal headed tripod. It'll certainly be easier to carry a 200-500 f/4.0 than a 100-500 f/4.0. There isn't anything to suggest it would be markably heavier than say a 600mm f/4.0 or 400mm f/2.8.


If my style was to go to a hide and sit there for several hours, it would be a solution. But, my m.o. is to walk around with a camera and take opportunistic shots of interesting birds etc. I do visit hides a lot, but only as a part of the general walkabout. Try taking a cart by boat to the Farne Isles and trundling up a narrow path with steps - it's just not possible. I need light lenses, which is why I like the 400mm DO II, 500PF and now the RF 100-500mm.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 2, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> If you make that a 200-500mm f/4.0 L then you'll be able to carry it and it'll be easier for them to make a excellent lens instead of a compromise.


I know nothing about lens design, but I am curious. Would a 300-600mm F4 be easier to design than 100-500 or 200-500 because it is a 2x zoom?
For a single lens that can do mammals and birds, I have always wondered whether manufacturers would consider making a 300-600. (Probably without constant F4 aperture.)
Or alternatively, would they consider offering a 400mm f2.8 with built-in 1.4x AND built-in 2x one day? 
I would love to take those on safari.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 2, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I know nothing about lens design, but I am curious. Would a 300-600mm F4 be easier to design than 100-500 or 200-500 because it is a 2x zoom?
> For a single lens that can do mammals and birds, I have always wondered whether manufacturers would consider making a 300-600. (Probably without constant F4 aperture.)
> Or alternatively, would they consider offering a 400mm f2.8 with built-in 1.4x AND built-in 2x one day?
> I would love to take those on safari.



Someone with more knowledge can go into the why, but yes a less complicated zoom like a 300-500 would be potentially better than a 200-500. We can see the 24-70s are always better then the 24-105 of the same generation. I think after a point it gets very hard to make it a constant aperture. As for a 1.4 + 2.x tc, both have to sit in the same place so that mechanism would be very complex. Just trying to design it makes my head spin.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 2, 2021)

AlanF said:


> If my style was to go to a hide and sit there for several hours, it would be a solution. But, my m.o. is to walk around with a camera and take opportunistic shots of interesting birds etc. I do visit hides a lot, but only as a part of the general walkabout. Try taking a cart by boat to the Farne Isles and trundling up a narrow path with steps - it's just not possible. I need light lenses, which is why I like the 400mm DO II, 500PF and now the RF 100-500mm.



I know your style is to walk about. So if a 100-500 f/4, 200-500 f/4, or even a 500 f/4 comes out not one of these lenses would remotely interest you. The op’s dream lens is a 100-500 f/4, I suggested a 200-500 f/4 as a more practical and better potential IQ alternative. The 100-500 f/7.1 is a completely different topic and for a different use case.


----------



## DBounce (Sep 2, 2021)

tooyoung225 said:


> For $24k, I'll pass. RED cameras are amazing, but over the last several years, you're mostly just paying for the name. Also, I do more run and gun work than anything, and RED's are not very ideal for that.


I can’t imagine anyone will cross shop the Red with an R3. They are just two entirely different animals.

I think the R3 is ideal primarily as a stills camera, with some video work. Whereas the Red is best for professional video productions with budgets and crews.

I could see myself owning both, but one cannot replace the other.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 2, 2021)

dboris said:


> Telezoom don't directly benefit from RF mount so there's no reason to hope for better tele lenses design in the future.
> With my enthusiast budget, I'll grab the 100-500 + TC + R3 and will never look back.
> Having a 1000mm stabilised with autofocus and 6K raw probably, will make killer street photog videos.


Most of the benefit of RF telephoto lenses is that they are new and the EF 400 and 600 are already new.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 2, 2021)

Rajinder Shukla said:


> For the kind attention of CANON:-
> I have a keen desire and expectation from Canon to manufacture the following 3 lenses which are,
> 1. RF 12-35 mm f4L IS USM to RF standard plus all the specifications of EF 14-24 mm f4L IS USM.
> 2. RF 24-240mm f4L IS USM Zoom lens to RF standard. Instead of current 24-240 mm zoom lens.
> ...


Please be advised that this is Canon Rumors.
If you are trying to send suggestions to Canon then you are in the wrong place.
You would be better to contact your local Canon representative.
If they get enough of the same request then it mat be granted.


----------



## Nord0306 (Sep 2, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> Considering the following:
> 
> RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 - cannot add TC
> 100 - 500 - can apply TC 2.0 or 1.4, but only starting at 300mm
> ...


I have just been happy with my EF 100-400 and 2x TC and converter. I use the RF 24-240 for anything else. It's a bummer that the RF 100-500 is locked below 300mm, so I will continue to use the EF. I was excited to see the RF 70-200, but most of my work is hobby and family and the high ISO performance of the R6 is so good, I don't need f/2.8. Some day...


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 2, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> If Canon got serious and brought out the long awaited 11-800mm F2.8 lens I'd only have to worry about carrying one lens and camera and I'd have it permanently on camera (so no dust spots). If they put wheels on it I could tow it around with me.


If it supports teleconverters then count me in.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 2, 2021)

DBounce said:


> I can’t imagine anyone will cross shop the Red with an R3. They are just two entirely different animals.
> 
> I think the R3 is ideal primarily as a stills camera, with some video work. Whereas the Red is best for professional video productions with budgets and crews.
> 
> I could see myself owning both, but one cannot replace the other.


I think tooyoung255 wants an RF mount C500.
The C70 is better for me in that regard but I do also plan to use an R3 as well if it turns out to be what I expect it to be.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 2, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I know nothing about lens design, but I am curious. Would a 300-600mm F4 be easier to design than 100-500 or 200-500 because it is a 2x zoom?
> For a single lens that can do mammals and birds, I have always wondered whether manufacturers would consider making a 300-600. (Probably without constant F4 aperture.)
> Or alternatively, would they consider offering a 400mm f2.8 with built-in 1.4x AND built-in 2x one day?
> I would love to take those on safari.


I've no idea whether a 300-600 F4 would be easier to design than 100-500 or 200-500. 
For me something like a 400-800mm F7.1 or F8 would be interesting. 
As nobody has made one it must not be that easy to do or the market they feel would be of highly limited interest or basically too expensive.
I see Tokina have a 400mm F8 Reflex lens out. The review I read was positive given the price of the lens. I'm surprise they or someone else haven't looked again at doing a 800mm version. You would think that with more modern materials and tolerances the old lens could be improved upon.
The Canon 600mm and 800mm F11 are interesting but F11 is quite restrictive.
150-600mm seems to have done well. I shoot up to 1200mm and sometimes that's not even enough.
I would assume though a 300-600 F4 would be even heavier than a 600 F4 - which is really heavy


----------



## Chig (Sep 2, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Super telephotos could have built in TC's.


Yep, but that could easily be added to modified EF Great Whites and a clean slate design isn't needed as the RF mount offers no special advantage for this and both the EF1200 and EF200-400 already have this feature.


----------



## Chig (Sep 2, 2021)

Rajinder Shukla said:


> For the kind attention of CANON:-
> I have a keen desire and expectation from Canon to manufacture the following 3 lenses which are,
> 1. RF 12-35 mm f4L IS USM to RF standard plus all the specifications of EF 14-24 mm f4L IS USM.
> 2. RF 24-240mm f4L IS USM Zoom lens to RF standard. Instead of current 24-240 mm zoom lens.
> ...


Your RF100-500 f/4 would be very heavy - too heavy for hand holding for more than a few seconds 
A RF100-500 f/5.6 would be a better compromise and still plenty bright with modern sensors


----------



## Chig (Sep 2, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I've no idea whether a 300-600 F4 would be easier to design than 100-500 or 200-500.
> For me something like a 400-800mm F7.1 or F8 would be interesting.
> As nobody has made one it must not be that easy to do or the market they feel would be of highly limited interest or basically too expensive.
> I see Tokina have a 400mm F8 Reflex lens out. The review I read was positive given the price of the lens. I'm surprise they or someone else haven't looked again at doing a 800mm version. You would think that with more modern materials and tolerances the old lens could be improved upon.
> ...


I think a 300-600 f/4 would be far too heavy , I would suggest a 200-600 f/4-f/5.6 DO zoom with built-in 1.4x extender which would give you 280 f/5.6 - 840 f/8 and if you added an external 1.4x give you 400 f/8 - 1200 f/11 which would work fine with the latest R6 ,R5 & R3 cameras especially the R3.
Perhaps it's feasible to have switchable built-in 1.4x and 2x extenders which would be even better ?
Or perhaps a prime RF600mm D.O. f/5.6 with built-in 1.4x and 2x extenders giving you 840mm f/8 or 1200 f/11 at the flick of a switch ?
Has any one ever made a prime or zoom with both 1.4x and 2x T.Cs built-in ? Is it feasible ?


----------



## Nord0306 (Sep 2, 2021)

Chig said:


> I think a 300-600 f/4 would be far too heavy , I would suggest a 200-600 f/4-f/5.6 DO zoom with built-in 1.4x extender which would give you 280 f/5.6 - 840 f/8 and if you added an external 1.4x give you 400 f/8 - 1200 f/11 which would work fine with the latest R6 ,R5 & R3 cameras especially the R3.
> Perhaps it's feasible to have switchable built-in 1.4x and 2x extenders which would be even better ?
> Or perhaps a prime RF600mm D.O. f/5.6 with built-in 1.4x and 2x extenders giving you 840mm f/8 or 1200 f/11 at the flick of a switch ?
> Has any one ever made a prime or zoom with both 1.4x and 2x T.Cs built-in ? Is it feasible ?


I say, why bother with the 1.4x? Since f5.6 or f8 are no longer an issue for AF, just a switchable 2x is good with me.


----------



## Chig (Sep 2, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> If Canon got serious and brought out the long awaited 11-800mm F2.8 lens I'd only have to worry about carrying one lens and camera and I'd have it permanently on camera (so no dust spots). If they put wheels on it I could tow it around with me.


Yep attached to the back of a 4x4 tractor


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 2, 2021)

Nord0306 said:


> I say, why bother with the 1.4x? Since f5.6 or f8 are no longer an issue for AF, just a switchable 2x is good with me.


1.4x has very little IQ loss. 2x has moderate to bad IQ and AF speed loss.


----------



## Chig (Sep 2, 2021)

Found this article about a rumoured 1.4x & 2x switchable built-in T.C https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...x-and-2x-could-be-built-into-an-rf-300mm-lens
Perhaps could make new RF Great Whites with this:
RF 300mm D.O f/2.8 with 420mm f/4 and 600mm f/5.6
RF 400mm D.O f/4 with 560mm f/5.6 and 800mm f/8
RF 500mm D.O f/4 with 700mm f/5.6 and 1000mm f/8
RF 600mm D.O f/5.6 with 840mm f/8 and 1200mm f/11
RF 600mm D.O f/4 with 840mm f/5.6 and 1200mm f/8

I'd be keen on either the 300mm or 400mm ones as they'd be light enough for me to carry and hand hold


----------



## SteveC (Sep 2, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> If Canon got serious and brought out the long awaited 11-800mm F2.8 lens I'd only have to worry about carrying one lens and camera and I'd have it permanently on camera (so no dust spots). If they put wheels on it I could tow it around with me.


Why stop there? Demand a 1-1000mm f/1.0.

And it should fit in your pocket.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> 1.4x has very little IQ loss. 2x has moderate to bad IQ and AF speed loss.


For EF superteles, AF was throttled back 50% with the 1.4x and 75% with the 2x. Since the context here is RF lenses, does the AF speed reduction apply?


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 2, 2021)

Chig said:


> Found this article about a rumoured 1.4x & 2x switchable built-in T.C https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...x-and-2x-could-be-built-into-an-rf-300mm-lens
> Perhaps could make new RF Great Whites with this:
> RF 300mm D.O f/2.8 with 420mm f/4 and 600mm f/5.6
> RF 400mm D.O f/4 with 560mm f/5.6 and 800mm f/8
> ...


An RF400mm 2.8 would also be an option for your list.

Also, some articles age better than others. If this switchable teleconverter 300mm RF lens was really intended to come to market in 2020 we should start hearing about it any day now. 
"According to a report on Canon Rumors, the manufacturer is working on an innovative new RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM lens for 2020 that will come with a “new and unique feature” for super telephoto optics. 
Could it be that these two stories are related, and that Canon will announce a revolutionary 300mm lens with built-in teleconverter that can toggle between 300, 420 and 600mm at the flick of a switch, without the need to unmount anything?"


----------



## blackcat (Sep 2, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Important note: 43mm lens cap is what the EF-M 22mm F/2 uses.
> 
> I'm pretty certain this means the RF 16mm f/2.8 is going to be *absolutely* tiny.
> 
> ...


Announcing the R3, when still waiting for an RF600 F4 that I have already paid for to come into stock is a bit frustrating.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 2, 2021)

blackcat said:


> Announcing the R3, when still waiting for an RF600 F4 that I have already paid for to come into stock is a bit frustrating.


First world problems....


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 2, 2021)

Chig said:


> Found this article about a rumoured 1.4x & 2x switchable built-in T.C https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...x-and-2x-could-be-built-into-an-rf-300mm-lens
> Perhaps could make new RF Great Whites with this:
> RF 300mm D.O f/2.8 with 420mm f/4 and 600mm f/5.6
> RF 400mm D.O f/4 with 560mm f/5.6 and 800mm f/8
> ...


Here is the rumor that that article was based on, from June 2019. I hope these RF 300 and 500 lenses will come soon, as they were originally slated to launch last year. It looks like the 400/600mm lens releases were not planned as of 2019, or at least not planned to come out before the 300/500mm lenses. 

I would love to purchase the RF500 as a companion to the R3, especially if it is as lightweight as the rumors have led us to believe. Built-in teleconverter(s) on the 300 and/or 500mm lenses would be incredible.

"We’ve previously reported that Canon will be introducing an RF 500mm f/4L IS USM as their first super telephoto lens for the RF mount.

Now we’re hearing that an RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM will also be launching sometime in 2020, and the source has claimed that this lens will come with a “new and unique” feature for super telephoto lenses, unfortunately, no details about this were given.

I think we’re going to see a lot more professional lens announcements in 2020 for the RF mount."









A Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM is on the way [CR2]


We've previously reported that Canon will be introducing an RF 500mm f/4L IS USM as their first super telephoto lens for the RF mount. Now we're hearing th



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 3, 2021)

Chig said:


> I hope Canon doesn't make any new RF telephoto zooms or primes which don't work properly with extenders like the RF100-500 (sorry only works at 300mm +) fiasco


Not sure that it is a fiasco. The RF100-500mm is still hard to find for buyers. Canon are selling them as fast as they can make them.

The RF100-500 is effectively a EF100-400mm plus built in 1.25x teleconverter. It would be even better to add a TC to widen the focal range but I would suggest that most people are using either the shorter end (100-500mm) or longer end (420-700mm or 600-1000mm). 

I can think of a couple of use cases with TC where it would be a problem... eg whale watching from a boat where you are not sure where the whale will surface and harder to change TCs on a moving boat and motor racing tracking cars etc around a circuit.

The small size of the lens is an easy tradeoff for me against TC limitations.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 3, 2021)

Nord0306 said:


> I have just been happy with my EF 100-400 and 2x TC and converter. I use the RF 24-240 for anything else. It's a bummer that the RF 100-500 is locked below 300mm, so I will continue to use the EF. I was excited to see the RF 70-200, but most of my work is hobby and family and the high ISO performance of the R6 is so good, I don't need f/2.8. Some day...


Isn't it great that we have both EF and RF options! Best of both worlds


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> If nothing else, I suspect a supertele lens designed for RF would have a dedicated control ring.


The problem would be where to locate the control ring on a big white. 
If on a tripod/monopod then having the control ring on the silver section to the body may make sense but hand holding would need the ring to be much further forward. Adding the ring to the silver section would be relatively simple but further out would require a re-design of the lens body which would be much more expensive.
Where would you like to see the ring located on your 600/4?


----------



## Chig (Sep 3, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> An RF400mm 2.8 would also be an option for your list.
> 
> Also, some articles age better than others. If this switchable teleconverter 300mm RF lens was really intended to come to market in 2020 we should start hearing about it any day now.
> "According to a report on Canon Rumors, the manufacturer is working on an innovative new RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM lens for 2020 that will come with a “new and unique feature” for super telephoto optics.
> Could it be that these two stories are related, and that Canon will announce a revolutionary 300mm lens with built-in teleconverter that can toggle between 300, 420 and 600mm at the flick of a switch, without the need to unmount anything?"


I'd be really keen on the 300mm f/2.8 especially if it's a DO version with the freznel elements , could be similar size and weight to the EF400mm DO f/4 ii.
I have the first EF300 f/2.8 and it's a fantastic lens but the 2.8kg weight is just too heavy for hand holding


----------



## Chig (Sep 3, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The problem would be where to locate the control ring on a big white.
> If on a tripod/monopod then having the control ring on the silver section to the body may make sense but hand holding would need the ring to be much further forward. Adding the ring to the silver section would be relatively simple but further out would require a re-design of the lens body which would be much more expensive.
> Where would you like to see the ring located on your 600/4?


Could make the knobby focus preset ring reprogrammable


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 3, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The problem would be where to locate the control ring on a big white.
> 
> Where would you like to see the ring located on your 600/4?


Just distal to the MF ring, which could give up a centimeter or so for it. Whether on a tripod/monopod or handholding, having all the lens barrel controls nearby is preferable, although they should be distinguishable by feel. For handholding, they should be by the lens foot, reachable with fingertips as the lens is supported.

Yes, a redesign would be needed for that, which reinforces the point that the current RF 400/600 lenses are not specifically designed for the RF mount.


----------



## Chig (Sep 3, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Not sure that it is a fiasco. The RF100-500mm is still hard to find for buyers. Canon are selling them as fast as they can make them.
> 
> The RF100-500 is effectively a EF100-400mm plus built in 1.25x teleconverter. It would be even better to add a TC to widen the focal range but I would suggest that most people are using either the shorter end (100-500mm) or longer end (420-700mm or 600-1000mm).
> 
> ...


The RF100-500mm is almost identical in size to the EF100-400mm ii and is only lighter because it's mostly plastic whereas the EF version is all metal.
It could easily have been made slightly longer (1-2cm) to accommodate the T.Cs properly just like the EF version it's closely based on.
As it stands I personally would much prefer to keep using my EF100-400ii plus 1.4x & 2x mark ii extenders when I move to mirrorless as the versatility of 100-400 ; 140-560 ; 200-800 and even 280-1120 (1.4x & 2x stacked) is so much better than 100-500 ; 420-700 & 600-1000
The RF version is a slightly better lens otherwise but here in New Zealand it's 70% more expensive and I already own the EF version.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 3, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> None of this would be necessary if the RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 took TC's as one would expect, and/or the 100 - 500 got its full range when on a TC.


Rather than focusing(!) on TCs, Canon is encouraging you to get the RF70-200mm/2.8 + RF100-500mm + either the RF600/800 or both.
Perhaps you could do a comparison in weight and size for this combination vs your EF solution. Cost is obviously higher though 
Canon's RF lenses have brought something new to the table vs their EF counterparts in virtually every example. Size/weight, focal length, focus speed, sharpness, macro etc. the RF400/2.8 and RF600/4 have the least difference but are still are fantastic optically.
I used to have the EF70-200/2.8 + 1.4x/2x TCs but haven't regretted getting the 100-500mm instead
Either way, you have great options to either use EF or RF.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 3, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Here is the rumor that that article was based on, from June 2019. I hope these RF 300 and 500 lenses will come soon, as they were originally slated *falsely rumored* to launch last year. It looks like  The 400/600mm lens releases were not planned as of 2019, or at least not planned to come out before the 300/500mm lenses. *at the top of the priority list for Canon's RF Big White development cycle.*


I've fixed your post. I'm always surprised when readers of a rumor site don't understand the definition of a rumor. Nothing was "originally slated." The rumor was wrong. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that the 400/600mm lens releases were not planned as early as 2019. Just because a "source" used by Canon Rumors didn't know what they were talking about doesn't mean these two lenses weren't always at the top of Canon's development list.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 3, 2021)

Chig said:


> The RF100-500mm is almost identical in size to the EF100-400mm ii and is only lighter because it's mostly plastic whereas the EF version is all metal.


Indeed much better being lighter. I don't see any issues with the use of plastic and happy that we won't see paint chips near the lens mount


Chig said:


> It could easily have been made slightly longer (1-2cm) to accommodate the T.Cs properly just like the EF version it's closely based on.


"easily"? On what basis are you making this assertion?


Chig said:


> As it stands I personally would much prefer to keep using my EF100-400ii plus 1.4x & 2x mark ii extenders when I move to mirrorless as the versatility of 100-400 ; 140-560 ; 200-800 and even 280-1120 (1.4x & 2x stacked) is so much better than 100-500 ; 420-700 & 600-1000


Of course! Isn't it fantastic that Canon made the RF mount backward compatible  
The size/weight of the RF70-200mm/2.8 amazed my wife and she said to get it when it was 15% off (AUD3600) and it was 3 months before I got my R5.


Chig said:


> The RF version is a slightly better lens otherwise but here in New Zealand it's 70% more expensive and I already own the EF version.


NZ doesn't seem to get the same discounts as Australia is seeing with our 5 year warranty and we aren't a huge market compared to Europe or the US. When (if?) the borders are open, would you consider traveling to buy it here and ship back for any warranty given the savings (including 10% Oz GST) and extended warranty?


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 3, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I need light lenses, which is why I like the 400mm DO II, 500PF and now the RF 100-500mm.


The 100-500 (and improving high ISO image quality) may have saved me $10,000 on a big white. I had the RF 400 2.8 ordered the first day but cancelled as the 100-500 is meeting my needs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 3, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> The 100-500 (and improving high ISO image quality) may have saved me $10,000 on a big white. I had the RF 400 2.8 ordered the first day but cancelled as the 100-500 is meeting my needs.


I'll definitely be comparing the performance of the 100-500 (w/ 1.4x and 2x TCs) vs. my EF 600/4 II (also with TCs), once I get an R3 in my hands.


----------



## Chig (Sep 3, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> "easily"? On what basis are you making this assertion?


Well they did on the EF version on which it's closely based but they chose not to as a design decision possibly optimising the wide end functionality instead but I would much prefer access to the full zoom range using extenders .



> NZ doesn't seem to get the same discounts as Australia is seeing with our 5 year warranty and we aren't a huge market compared to Europe or the US. When (if?) the borders are open, would you consider traveling to buy it here and ship back for any warranty given the savings (including 10% Oz GST) and extended warranty?


No I'd rather suck up the extra cost for the peace of mind and convenience of a local (5 year) warranty but having said that if I (or a family member) travelled overseas then I could buy it here in NZ duty free which would be a worthwhile saving
Also our gst rate is 15% in NZ so if you factor that in and the exchange rate the difference is only about $150


----------



## Chig (Sep 3, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Indeed much better being lighter. I don't see any issues with the use of plastic and happy that we won't see paint chips near the lens mount


I'm not bothered about the use of plastic , just stating that this is the main reason the RF version is lighter than the EF one


----------



## Chig (Sep 3, 2021)

Camera Pro in Australia is accepting deposits for preorders on the R3 already:








Canon R3 Mirrorless Camera Body


Canon R3: Superb Low Light Performance Featuring reliable AF technology and up to 8-stops image stabilisation, the R3 Canon minimises shake even in low light conditions. With the right lens the Canon R3 is a great camera for concerts, night shots and sports photography. 24MP Full-Frame...




www.camerapro.com.au




So is Rubber Monkey in New Zealand:





Canon EOS R3 Mirrorless Digital Camera (Body Only) | NZ


Canon Authorised Dealer. Fast New Zealand shipping. Phone 0800 4MONKEY to buy Canon EOS R3 Mirrorless Digital Camera (Body Only), or visit our Auckland & Wellington Stores. EOSR3 . 24.1 MP Full-Frame Stacked BSI CMOS Sensor; 6K60 Raw, 4K120 10-Bit Video; Eye Control AF, Dual Pixel CMOS AF...



www.rubbermonkey.co.nz


----------



## quiquae (Sep 3, 2021)

jedy said:


> Every other major lens maker includes a lens hood with their lenses. Why are Canon such misers with their non-L lenses and still are selling them as overpriced extras??


When was the last time you saw an amateur in the field using a lens hood correctly, that is to say, not deployed backwards on the lens? It's so rare that I do a double take every time someone actually has the hood mounted properly.

I can see why you'd think that way, but on the other hand, I can also see Canon thinking: "if no one uses the hood anyway, why bother including one?"


----------



## kaihp (Sep 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Most reviews have plenty of fluff. For example, Bryan at TDP wrote: "This is simply one of the most incredible lenses available and one of the ultimate action sports lenses." Sounds very much like the quote you posted above, except this one was about the 400/2.8 IS MkII. He also described the 400/2.8 IS MkI as the, "Ultimate Canon professional field/track sports lens." So it's very possible that a new 400/2.8 designed for the RF mount from the ground up would be a further improvement (which Bryan and other Canon-friendly reviewers would describe in similarly superlative language). Even if there is no benefit from the shorter flange distance (which is likely the case for a supertele design) it would effectively be a MkIV version of the lens.



Not to take anything away from Bryan (I really appreciate his reviews and the content of his website), but he tends to use _very_ favourable language* towards Canon's products. I have come to the point that I try to notice the places where he isn't lyrical about the product and take that as a negative. It's an indirect communication style that is somewhat opposed to the very direct American (and western in general) communication style, but quite common in Asian cultures.

*) Your "Canon-friendly reviewers" language make me think you tend to agree.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 3, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Not to take anything away from Bryan (I really appreciate his reviews and the content of his website), but he tends to use _very_ favourable language* towards Canon's products. I have come to the point that I try to notice the places where he isn't lyrical about the product and take that as a negative. It's an indirect communication style that is somewhat opposed to the very direct American (and western in general) communication style, but quite common in Asian cultures.
> 
> *) Your "Canon-friendly reviewers" language make me think you tend to agree.


Yes, Bryan "grades on a curve" when it comes to Canon products. I do the same thing as you and I also look for relative comparisons to lenses I have used, e.g. "as sharp as the classic 17-40L".


----------



## AlanF (Sep 3, 2021)

Chig said:


> The RF100-500mm is almost identical in size to the EF100-400mm ii and is only lighter because it's mostly plastic whereas the EF version is all metal.
> It could easily have been made slightly longer (1-2cm) to accommodate the T.Cs properly just like the EF version it's closely based on.
> As it stands I personally would much prefer to keep using my EF100-400ii plus 1.4x & 2x mark ii extenders when I move to mirrorless as the versatility of 100-400 ; 140-560 ; 200-800 and even 280-1120 (1.4x & 2x stacked) is so much better than 100-500 ; 420-700 & 600-1000
> The RF version is a slightly better lens otherwise but here in New Zealand it's 70% more expensive and I already own the EF version.


I have used both the 100-400mm II and the 100-500mm extensively on the R5. The 100-400mm II is very good indeed on the R5 and the performance with the 1.4xTC is enhanced over using it on a DSLR. There are advantages with the 100-500mm but whether they are worth the extra money is another matter. The 100-500mm at 500mm and f/7.1 resolves as well as the 100-400mm + 1.4xTC at 560mm and f/8, so having the bare RF lens has effectively the same flexibility as having the EF ± 1.4xTC without having to put on a TC. When it comes to using the 2xTC, the 100-400mm + 2xTCIII is pretty good at 800mm for far distances but soft close up. The RF 2x at 1000mm is very good both at long and short distances, but you can zoom out only to 600mm. I would not pin high hopes on using the EF with stacked TCs at 1120mm.


----------



## degos (Sep 3, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> Designing a lens has tradeoffs. To satisfy a tiny minority who prioritizes extender compatibility on a certain lens will presumably make the lens less attractive in way that are more important to far more potential customers. It's not a "fiasco" - it's presumably a smart choice. I switched to Canon for great lens designs like the 70-200 2.8 and the 100-500, whose benefit is to get to 500 without an extender.



Tamron and Sigma don't seem to have any problem getting a zoom to 600mm without an extender. And f/6.3 too...


----------



## Emyr Evans (Sep 3, 2021)

degos said:


> Tamron and Sigma don't seem to have any problem getting a zoom to 600mm without an extender.


With a +50% weight increase over the RF 100-500.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 3, 2021)

degos said:


> Tamron and Sigma don't seem to have any problem getting a zoom to 600mm without an extender. And f/6.3 too...


Depends on how you define ‘problem’. At the long end, the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm lenses are relatively soft, sufficiently so that Canon’s EF 100-400 delivers similar (if not slightly better) results at 400mm, and the RF 100-500 at 500mm delivers clearly better IQ. (Note - I am referring to comparing the 400mm image upsampled or the 600mm downsampled to the same ‘pixels on duck’ size). 

The Canon lenses are also much smaller and lighter. For me, carrying a larger, heavier lens and getting similar or worse IQ is a problem (if I am going to go big, I take the 600/4 which gains over a stop and delivers much better IQ). Weather sealing is also a feature of the Canon lenses that may be important to some. 

The Canon lenses are also significantly more expensive, which is a problem of a different sort. If a 3rd party 150-600mm gives nearly the IQ of a Canon 100-400/500 at 1/3-1/4 the cost, that may be worth the extra length and weight to some. However, if the forthcoming non-L RF 100-400 delivers 400mm IQ equivalent to the 3rd party 600mm, that may take cost out or the equation.


----------



## Bahrd (Sep 3, 2021)

styoda said:


> Are you sure about the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM, could this be for the M and not the RF?
> 
> https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-application-canon-rf-100-400-f55-71


It would make sense. And would make our host perplex...


----------



## AlanF (Sep 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Depends on how you define ‘problem’. At the long end, the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm lenses are relatively soft, sufficiently so that Canon’s EF 100-400 delivers similar (if not slightly better) results at 400mm, and the RF 100-500 at 500mm delivers clearly better IQ. (Note - I am referring to comparing the 400mm image upsampled or the 600mm downsampled to the same ‘pixels on duck’ size).
> 
> The Canon lenses are also much smaller and lighter. For me, carrying a larger, heavier lens and getting similar or worse IQ is a problem (if I am going to go big, I take the 600/4 which gains over a stop and delivers much better IQ). Weather sealing is also a feature of the Canon lenses that may be important to some.
> 
> The Canon lenses are also significantly more expensive, which is a problem of a different sort. If a 3rd party 150-600mm gives nearly the IQ of a Canon 100-400/500 at 1/3-1/4 the cost, that may be worth the extra length and weight to some. However, if the forthcoming non-L RF 100-400 delivers 400mm IQ equivalent to the 3rd party 600mm, that may take cost out or the equation.


The latest variant of the Sigma 150-600mm Sport designed for the Sony, and most likely the basis for any R model, has just been reviewed and is not impressive at 400-500mm. https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-dg-dn-os-sport-lens-review-35605


----------



## adrian_bacon (Sep 3, 2021)

Interesting note: Fro Knows Photo over on YouTube has an R3 and made a big deal about not being able to talk about the megapixels. I doubt this changes anything, but wouldn't that be cool if the R3 had more than 24mp and we've just been seeing the exif data from jpegs that have been downscaled in camera (like medium jpegs).


----------



## tooyoung225 (Sep 3, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I think tooyoung255 wants an RF mount C500.
> The C70 is better for me in that regard but I do also plan to use an R3 as well if it turns out to be what I expect it to be.


I love the C70, and it has been an incredible camera for me since I bought it. I honestly wouldn't mind a FF RF cine cam , but more so looking for a smaller form (box cam?) like the c50 is supposed to be, to use as a dedicated gimbal/Bcam/Ccam. Assuming the specs we've seen for it are the full story.... Either way, I'd bet I'm not alone in saying that Canon seems to be dragging their feet in the cinema cam world when it comes to the new RF mount.


----------



## definedphotography (Sep 3, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> Interesting note: Fro Knows Photo over on YouTube has an R3 and made a big deal about not being able to talk about the megapixels. I doubt this changes anything, but wouldn't that be cool if the R3 had more than 24mp and we've just been seeing the exif data from jpegs that have been downscaled in camera (like medium jpegs).



Also interesting he said it was the best MLC from Canon thus far.


----------



## Mo Cee (Sep 3, 2021)

Waiting for rebate on R5 to be announced. I don't need the R3. I have one R5, will buy more when rebate is announced. Fingers crossed it'll be this month. Rebate info, please.


----------



## Chig (Sep 3, 2021)

Mo Cee said:


> Waiting for rebate on R5 to be announced. I don't need the R3. I have one R5, will buy more when rebate is announced. Fingers crossed it'll be this month. Rebate info, please.


Canon has just raised it's prices so don't hold your breath !
All manufactured goods are going up in price due to supply issues and increased cost of materials, freight and labour.


----------



## Mo Cee (Sep 3, 2021)

Chig said:


> Canon has just raised it's prices so don't hold your breath !
> All manufactured goods are going up in price due to supply issues and increased cost of materials, freight and labour.


I purchased my first R5 for $3899 in LA about two months ago. I see that this is still the current price. Do you see a higher price? Hope not. Thanks!


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 4, 2021)

From the Google translation of the Nokishita twitter:

"The new accessories for Canon "EOS R3" added the other day are "Speedlight Transmitter ST-E10", "Multi Accessory Shoe Adapter AD-E1", "Stereo Microphone DM-E1D", "Strap ER-L1", and "Eye Cup ER-HE". I was able to confirm with "Eye Cup ER-E"."

And then later :
"Correction × "Eyecup ER-E" → 〇 "Eyecup ER-H" #Correction"



https://mobile.twitter.com/nokishita_c


----------



## danfaz (Sep 4, 2021)

Mo Cee said:


> I purchased my first R5 for $3899 in LA about two months ago. I see that this is still the current price. Do you see a higher price? Hope not. Thanks!


Canon Direct has refurbished R5s for $3509 now.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 4, 2021)

definedphotography said:


> Also interesting he said it was the best MLC from Canon thus far.


That is utterly unsurprising, actually. But it would be good to know by what criteria he was judging...what's important to _him_? If resolution, then the folks who think it's been getting scaled down are right.

I just need to remember to change my signature line when it comes out.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 5, 2021)

SteveC said:


> That is utterly unsurprising, actually. But it would be good to know by what criteria he was judging...what's important to _him_? If resolution, then the folks who think it's been getting scaled down are right.
> 
> I just need to remember to change my signature line when it comes out.


Fro is a sports shooter who hates DSLR cameras.


----------



## fox40phil (Sep 5, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Apart from the fact Canon had a 1200mm lens with a built in TC in the 1980's, and they have the EF 200-400 f4 L with built in TC....


they should update both for RF!!

More tele lenses please!


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 5, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> Interesting note: Fro Knows Photo over on YouTube has an R3 and made a big deal about not being able to talk about the megapixels. I doubt this changes anything, but wouldn't that be cool if the R3 had more than 24mp and we've just been seeing the exif data from jpegs that have been downscaled in camera (like medium jpegs).


I enjoyed his video, I'm not usually a huge fan. It was good to get it in hand to get a proper view of it. I still hold vague hopes 24MP is understating the sensor size but who knows. Hopefully it will all be out in the open soon.


----------



## DJL329 (Sep 5, 2021)

Mo Cee said:


> Waiting for rebate on R5 to be announced. I don't need the R3. I have one R5, will buy more when rebate is announced. Fingers crossed it'll be this month. Rebate info, please.



Check out canonpricewatch.com. There's an active deal on the R5 for $3699.99. It's from an authorized dealer, with a 1-year Canon USA warranty.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Sep 5, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> It is a bit of a miss to release the R3 without a new super tele to go with it that shows of what RF can do. Perhaps a 500 f/4.0 DO?


Even the first EOS R made the EF 85mm 1.2 L ii seem like a brand new lens. As long as Canon has even the EF super tele lenses available, an R3 body seems like a great idea. Scores of photographers already own the lenses.


----------



## slclick (Sep 5, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Well, it IS only 24MP. Arguably on a mirrorless design, even a consumer 16/2.8 can deliver that... 14-45mm is the sweet spot where SLR designs always had to be highly compromised to leave film-flange clearance for the mirror.





SwissFrank said:


> Well, it IS only 24MP. Arguably on a mirrorless design, even a consumer 16/2.8 can deliver that... 14-45mm is the sweet spot where SLR designs always had to be highly compromised to leave film-flange clearance for the mirror.


How ricockulous is that logic. The flagship Canons have been 20MP for how long? Plus, announcing things at the same time doesn't necessarily mean they are matched like a set.


----------



## becceric (Sep 6, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Why stop there? Demand a 1-1000mm f/1.0.
> 
> And it should fit in your pocket.


Didn’t that famous photographer Paul Bunyan carry one of those?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2021)

becceric said:


> Didn’t that famous photographer Paul Bunyan carry one of those?


Yeah, but he had his blue ox Babe to help.


----------



## becceric (Sep 6, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, but he had his blue ox Babe to help.


That’s what I thought. Dragging the rotating tripod mount created the Grand Canyon...


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 6, 2021)

becceric said:


> That’s what I thought. Dragging the rotating tripod mount created the Grand Canyon...


His wife had the Sigma 200-500 2.8. Found it very hand holdable.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 6, 2021)

becceric said:


> Didn’t that famous photographer Paul Bunyan carry one of those?


Yeah, and he used to gripe about how the grip on his 1-series was too small.


----------



## slclick (Sep 6, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Yeah, and he used to gripe about how the grip on his 1-series was too small.


Don't quote me but I'm pretty sure he used Large Format


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2021)

slclick said:


> Don't quote me but I'm pretty sure he used Large Format


Yeah, but he had composition problems – couldn’t see the forest for the trees.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 6, 2021)

slclick said:


> Don't quote me but I'm pretty sure he used Large Format


Nope...though I certainly shouldn't have said 1 series.

He used Tall format.


----------



## becceric (Sep 6, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> His wife had the Sigma 200-500 2.8. Found it very hand holdable.


I’ll be sure to keep my manners around her. I don’t want her slapping my face.


----------



## becceric (Sep 6, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Nope...though I certainly shouldn't have said 1 series.
> 
> He used Tall format.


With a Sequoia monopod.


----------



## slclick (Sep 7, 2021)

John Henry shot film


----------



## slclick (Sep 7, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Nope...though I certainly shouldn't have said 1 series.
> 
> He used Tall format.


You can do better than that


----------



## Emyr Evans (Sep 7, 2021)

So today we hear the 14th SEPTEMBER is official.









キヤノン、EOS新製品発表会のカウントダウンを開始。日本時間の9月14日19時　


キヤノンは9月7日、同社Webサイトにカウントダウン表示のページを公開した。日本時間9月14日19時から「Canon EOS Presentation 新製品発表会」を実施するという。




dc.watch.impress.co.jp


----------



## dboris (Sep 7, 2021)

While I'm excited by the idea of having a wireless "Stereo Microphone DM-E1D" microphone,
the Canon DM-E1D microphone is a BAD microphone. Probably the DM-E1D will be the same just wire-less.
Hopping Rode will be able to design something better using Canon's multifunction hot shoe.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Sep 8, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I enjoyed his video, I'm not usually a huge fan. It was good to get it in hand to get a proper view of it. I still hold vague hopes 24MP is understating the sensor size but who knows. Hopefully it will all be out in the open soon.


I'm not a regular watcher either, but it came up on the suggestion list and wasn't super long, so I said, why not? Not really anything new we didn't already know/suspect.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 9, 2021)

Mo Cee said:


> Waiting for rebate on R5 to be announced. I don't need the R3. I have one R5, will buy more when rebate is announced. Fingers crossed it'll be this month. Rebate info, please.


That would be nice. In the meantime, it's encouraging to see that one can buy a refurb R5 at a reduced price, direct from the Canon store.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 13, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> ST- is a Speedlite Transmitter, I suspect they jumped from the ST-E3-RT to the ST-10 with new features using the extra hotshoe connectivity
> AD- is used on some of their power supplies, so I suspect it's a power adapter of some sort but that's a guess. Maybe a USB-C PD adapter to power the camera and charge a battery in-camera?
> DM- is directional microphone (I have the DM-100 for my Vixia camcorder, there is currently a DM-E1 for for EOS cameras, so the DM-E1D should be similar
> ER- denotes a strap, e.g. the ER-100B is the neck strap for the EOS R


One interesting thing to note...
The ST-E3-RT sells for $300+, and this new ST-10 has leaked pricing of $119.
Almost as if it's a more entry level transmitter, but for a fancier hotshoe? I'm curious to see how this gets pulled off?


----------

