# Is Canon prepping the announcement of two more lenses? It looks that way



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 23, 2022)

> Canon is going to continue and announce new RF glass during 2022, as they work to fill-out the lens lineup and catch up with the backlog of planned releases hampered by supply chain issues.
> One of the rumored lenses to be announced has been on our roadmap for quite some time, and Canon should sell a ton of them.
> Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
> *Accessories*
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 23, 2022)

I hope the 24mm is 1:2 or better, wide angle macro can be a lot of fun.


----------



## entoman (Jun 23, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I hope the 24mm is 1:2 or better, wide angle macro can be a lot of fun.


Yes, fantastic to show a small subject in context with its environment, e.g. a flower with a defocused mountain scene behind it.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 23, 2022)

That creates a dilemma. 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 or 16 f/2.8mm? If it’s under $400, has to be the zoom, no? Especially if landscape is the primary use.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 23, 2022)

If that 24mm f1.8 does .5x Max mag ratio then it would be another great lens for Macro on FF cameras(even entry level models). Eagerly awaiting for announcement.


----------



## peters (Jun 23, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> That creates a dilemma. 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 or 16 f/2.8mm? If it’s under $400, has to be the zoom, no? Especially if landscape is the primary use.


Indeed a good question... I guess I woul go for the 15-30, but only if its also very small. For biking and hiking this lense could be great. 
I dont care THAT much about the aperture in ultra wide angle lenses. The depth of field is very big, even with an 2,8 lense. And at f4 I often have enough light. So I think for me the bigger variety would trump the bigger aperture =)


----------



## ericblenman (Jun 23, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> That creates a dilemma. 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 or 16 f/2.8mm? If it’s under $400, has to be the zoom, no? Especially if landscape is the primary use.


Size will make a big difference for me too. The 16 is so small I don't think twice about throwing it in the bag wherever I go.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 23, 2022)

Finally, an affordable UWA option zoom. I do own the 16mm F2.8 but I have mixed feelings about it. It's great value for money, no doubt about it. But I do long for a better IQ in some circumstances. Maybe this lens will provide just that without breaking the bank...


----------



## jam05 (Jun 23, 2022)

F 3.5 - 5.6


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 23, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> That creates a dilemma. 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 or 16 f/2.8mm? If it’s under $400, has to be the zoom, no? Especially if landscape is the primary use.


The 24-105/4-7.1 is $400. I’d guess the 15-30mm will be $600. It could be higher. Still a bargain compared to the L-series UWA zooms.


----------



## nunataks (Jun 23, 2022)

I have been waiting for the 24mm for years! Please Canon don't make it an absurd $900 or something...


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 23, 2022)

The 15-30 could be an OK kit lens for the R7, even if it's a bit short and slow.

Canon never had a non-L full frame ultrawide before!


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 23, 2022)

jam05 said:


> F 3.5 - 5.6


Fast/ good enough for landscape...
open wide ever brighter than the 14-35mm F4...


----------



## Pixel (Jun 23, 2022)

So can we just write off any hopes of any interesting L glass for the rest of this year? It’d save me some time.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 23, 2022)

These lenses are right for me! Please the 15-30 be 300 grams. I’d appreciate the 24 mm to be non-macro and therefore smaller (the same size of the 50mm) as the 35 mm already has macro.


----------



## esspy2 (Jun 23, 2022)

no IS for the 24mm? it would be like the 35mm and the 85mm if it did have IS


----------



## Blue Zurich (Jun 23, 2022)

The 15-30 has been a winner for Tammy,this might be a winner for RF as well! I'll snatch this up for sure.


----------



## bbasiaga (Jun 23, 2022)

I wonder if the 15-30 would compare well against the (sometimes maligned) EF 17-40 L? I'm sure there will be a lot of digital stretching at the wide end. But that has worked out well with the 24-240 and 16mm 2.8. 

Brian


----------



## John Wilde (Jun 23, 2022)

jam05 said:


> F 3.5 - 5.6


Another way of saying "affordable".


----------



## unfocused (Jun 23, 2022)

esspy2 said:


> no IS for the 24mm? it would be like the 35mm and the 85mm if it did have IS


The rumor says IS.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 23, 2022)

Pixel said:


> So can we just write off any hopes of any interesting L glass for the rest of this year? It’d save me some time.


Interesting is subjective and these will be interesting to many people, just not you apparently.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 23, 2022)

Wondering where the 24mm will land in price. There is a lot of room between $600 for the EF f2.8 and $1,549 for the EF f1.4.


----------



## Sorosuub (Jun 23, 2022)

Where oh where is the 35L f1.2?!


----------



## entoman (Jun 23, 2022)

Pixel said:


> So can we just write off any hopes of any interesting L glass for the rest of this year? It’d save me some time.


Leaving aside "fantasy" lenses with crazy zoom ranges and ultra-wide apertures, what sort of L glass would you consider "interesting" and reasonable?

I think Canon have produced a great deal of "interesting" RF glass, including some very appealing non-L lenses.


----------



## nunataks (Jun 23, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> I wonder if the 15-30 would compare well against the (sometimes maligned) EF 17-40 L? I'm sure there will be a lot of digital stretching at the wide end. But that has worked out well with the 24-240 and 16mm 2.8.
> 
> Brian


I hope not...I feel like its unnecessary lazy and the 16 is very not usable on the edges for certain applications. Being as slow as it is I feel like its not necessary either.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 23, 2022)

Interesting! I have just started with the R system and what I lack is wide angle and wide aperture; I'd figured the 16mm would be the most appropriate next step, but maybe I should hold off. Or get either the 50 1.8 or 35 1.8 and then make a judgment of the wide angle options in a few months.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 23, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Interesting! I have just started with the R system and what I lack is wide angle and wide aperture; I'd figured the 16mm would be the most appropriate next step, but maybe I should hold off. Or get either the 50 1.8 or 35 1.8 and then make a judgment of the wide angle options in a few months.


(I should add, only the very cheapest lenses are in my price range! Even some of the consumer zooms are eye watering to me now).


----------



## jeanluc (Jun 23, 2022)

The 15-35 will likely be very affordable. Since it is a landscape lens, as long as it’s reasonably sharp the aperture won’t matter most of the time. For any low light/night work you could get it and the 16 2.8. I bet both together will be a lot cheaper than the 15-35L or the 14-35L.


----------



## pzyber (Jun 23, 2022)

Sorosuub said:


> Where oh where is the 35L f1.2?!


I wonder that too, but at the same time it took Canon 11 years from the release of the EF-mount to bring out EF 35L f1.4.


----------



## bergstrom (Jun 23, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> Another way of saying "affordable".


 or "more canon junk".


----------



## t.linn (Jun 23, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Interesting is subjective and these will be interesting to many people, just not you apparently.


He said "interesting L". These do not seem to be L series lenses.


----------



## roby17269 (Jun 23, 2022)

Sorosuub said:


> Where oh where is the 35L f1.2?!


I am with you. Yes the RF lens lineup needs to be fleshed out more in multiple ways, but most of the recent lens announcements have been underwhelming... to me.
The RF mount started strong with great L primes and zooms and some innovative non-L lenses, but recently we've had a series of less interesting (to me) lenses including cheaper primes and re-adapted / re-teleconverted exotics and crop zooms. 

I say bring on more fast primes and TS offerings!


----------



## Besisika (Jun 23, 2022)

Count me in for the 24mm. F1.8 is exactly what I need; bright enough, relatively small, and not too pricey; hopefully.


----------



## t.linn (Jun 23, 2022)

entoman said:


> Leaving aside "fantasy" lenses with crazy zoom ranges and ultra-wide apertures, what sort of L glass would you consider "interesting" and reasonable?
> 
> I think Canon have produced a great deal of "interesting" RF glass, including some very appealing non-L lenses.


Interesting L glass would include, for me, RF tilt-shift lenses with AF, an RF 35 F1.2L, and any small, lightweight L glass like we're seeing from Sony with their newer GM lenses like the v2 24-70 F2.8. I would also welcome an RF 20mm lens with controlled coma that works well for astrophotography. Sony and Nikon both offer something like this.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 23, 2022)

roby17269 said:


> I am with you. Yes the RF lens lineup needs to be fleshed out more in multiple ways, but most of the recent lens announcements have been underwhelming... to me.
> The RF mount started strong with great L primes and zooms and some innovative non-L lenses, but recently we've had a series of less interesting (to me) lenses including cheaper primes and re-adapted / re-teleconverted exotics and crop zooms.
> 
> I say bring on more fast primes and TS offerings!


Most people can't afford such things. I'm not sure a system built only on the absolute upper end is the best way to remain maximally profitable. Canon are good at targeting casual consumers, and even if those are bleeding away, it's likely there's still money in catering to them.


----------



## entoman (Jun 23, 2022)

t.linn said:


> Interesting L glass would include, for me, RF tilt-shift lenses with AF, an RF 35 F1.2L, and any small, lightweight L glass like we're seeing from Sony with their newer GM lenses like the v2 24-70 F2.8. I would also welcome an RF 20mm lens with controlled coma that works well for astrophotography. Sony and Nikon both offer something like this.


If leaked roadmaps are any guide, you could be in luck fairly soon. "The two rumored autofocus tilt-shift lenses from Canon will be the Canon TS-R 14mm f/4L and Canon TS-R 24mm f/3.5L." - _Canon Rumors May 2021_.

An RF lens specifically designed for astrophotography is also I think quite likely, and would be a guaranteed good seller.

Personally I rate close-focusing (at least 1:3, preferably 1:2) as one of the most important features that I'd like to see become a standard feature of new RF glass.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jun 24, 2022)

It's good to see some wide aperture non-L lenses like the Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro. I've never used a wide angle Macro but it sounds great to get the subject and background, I wonder if it's going to be real lifesize macro and not half .5x size.

It's good that they stuck with f/5.6 for the Canon RF 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM. But it's a shame that they didn't release an RF-S 15-55mm.


----------



## flaviojzk (Jun 24, 2022)

This is the rumor I have been waiting for since I found out the 18-45 was an aps-c lens!


----------



## HMC11 (Jun 24, 2022)

My guess is that the 15-30 would follow along the lines of the 24-240 and 16mm in having large distortion and heavy vignetting at the 15mm end, requiring software correction. This usually means that even stopped down to f8 (assuming that produces the best optical performance), the corners would still not improve much compared to wide-open. The distortion and vignetting may not reduce to 'acceptable' level till about 16-17mm, making this effectively a 17/18-30mm lens. At the same time, the optical quality could well not be high enough to compensate the software-corrected corners, unlike the 14-35L, which also have heavy vignetting and strong distortion at 14/15mm, but the optics are good enough to allow software-corrected corners to still be pretty good. Nevertheless, if I were to take this as an 18-30mm lens with good to very good optical performance, and if it is light (300g?) and that the price point is good, say, $400, then this could be an attractive option (for me).


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Jun 24, 2022)

I know it isn’t a popular thing to say, but I am happy about this announcement. It may not be “interesting L series lenses,” but it’s the consumer market that will actually pay the bills and make those flashy Ls possible. And in that arena, Canon continues to stretch the boundaries. It used to be APS-C and 18mm to 300mm, take it or leave it. Now they’re giving the consumer market full frame cameras and decent telephoto options to 400mm, plus 600 and 800mm. And we already have a 16mm consumer prime lens. If this rumor turns out to be true, it will continue to deliver possibilities that were previously reserved mostly for much more financially endowed users. I like the move. It’s not flashy, but more impressively, it opens doors.


----------



## Beertje (Jun 24, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


This patent from september 2021 shows it will likely be an rf 16-30 4.0-5.6.









キヤノン「RF16-30mm F4-5.6」となりそうな特許出願


2021年9月27日付けでキヤノンの気になる特許出願が公開。「RF16-30mm F4-5.6」となりそうな実…




asobinet.com


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jun 24, 2022)

The RF 24mm f/1.8 macro sounds promising, if it's at least the optical quality of the RF 50mm f/1.8, that would be great. If it's anything like the Rf 35mm f/1.8 that would be even better! 

One thing that's for sure is that if we do see a RF 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, it will be worse that the RF 14-35mm L lens which relies o software corrections at that exorbitant price. It's almost a given that it will use software correction, most likely to a greater extent, so possibly on par with the RF 16mm f/2.8 with its 'pixel soup' corners.

Let's hope that Canon breaks its apparent trend of "less for more, so more profits for us":

under designing lens optics (to more extreme levels than any other brands have ever gone) and relying on software fixes
making lenses a stop darker than their predecessors, with the nonsense excuse of "high ISO modern sensors"
charging 25-30% more for the RF version of a lens
The camera market is contracting, photography with dedicated cameras (vs smartphones) is becoming niche once again and therefore more expensive, technological updates are becoming less incremental, and companies need to find ways of surviving. That said, most consumers still care about value for money, and professionals also care about tools that are fit for purpose. So far it's been a bit of a mixed bag, hoping we get some more standout lens releases in terms of performance for price.


----------



## TonyPM (Jun 24, 2022)

I have the Efs 24 f2.8 stm macro for my APSC Rebel camera, and it's a very fun lens, and very sharp. Also very small. If this lens is anything like it, it would be awesome for APSC shooters, as long as it's not too big.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 24, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> The RF 24mm f/1.8 macro sounds promising, if it's at least the optical quality of the RF 50mm f/1.8, that would be great. If it's anything like the Rf 35mm f/1.8 that would be even better!
> 
> One thing that's for sure is that if we do see a RF 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, it will be worse that the RF 14-35mm L lens which relies o software corrections at that exorbitant price. It's almost a given that it will use software correction, most likely to a greater extent, so possibly on par with the RF 16mm f/2.8 with its 'pixel soup' corners.
> 
> ...



Few years ago i purchased my EF 100-400 II for £1799, brand new from an official retailer.
Now the equivalent 100-500 is £2979 at the same retailer. I know the pound lost some value but still, the price increase is crazy.

Few more years and 100-400 type of lenses will reach big white pricing territory.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jun 24, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Few years ago i purchased my EF 100-400 II for $1799, brand new from an official retailer.
> Now the equivalent 100-500 is £2979 at the same retailer. Few more years and 100-400 type of lenses
> will reach big white pricing territory.


Canon gear prices outside of the US are sky high, and with very few mid-range lenses, it's either cheap consumer level lenses, some great, some compromised, or super expensive L glass. Not sure if Canon is aiming to push their L series glass into a more premium, niche category out of the reach of many enthusiast buyers, but it sure seems that way.


----------



## roby17269 (Jun 24, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Most people can't afford such things. I'm not sure a system built only on the absolute upper end is the best way to remain maximally profitable. Canon are good at targeting casual consumers, and even if those are bleeding away, it's likely there's still money in catering to them.


Two points here:

I'm only writing about what I would like to see coming down the pipeline, not about what others would/should expect
having said so, I do think that, given the current market state and economy landscape and supply chain issues, manufacturers will increasingly focus on the high-end side of the market. Based on various financial reports from various manufacturers that were shared in the near past. How many casual consumers willing to buy a dedicated camera and lenses are there, and how many of them are going to buy enough cameras / lenses / accessories to make this a viable proposition for manufacturers, I have no clue but I assume that this population is dwindling down


----------



## scyrene (Jun 24, 2022)

roby17269 said:


> Two points here:
> 
> I'm only writing about what I would like to see coming down the pipeline, not about what others would/should expect
> having said so, I do think that, given the current market state and economy landscape and supply chain issues, manufacturers will increasingly focus on the high-end side of the market. Based on various financial reports from various manufacturers that were shared in the near past. How many casual consumers willing to buy a dedicated camera and lenses are there, and how many of them are going to buy enough cameras / lenses / accessories to make this a viable proposition for manufacturers, I have no clue but I assume that this population is dwindling down


Sure, and that's fair enough, though a bit beside the point of this thread. On your second point, there's no doubt the lower-end market is dwindling, but it still constitutes the bulk of sales. It would be foolish to ignore it for the time being (Canon is rounding out both ends of their lineup - extremely expensive stuff like the 1200 f/8 on the one hand, new APSC consumer lenses on the other).


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 24, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Few years ago i purchased my EF 100-400 II for £1799, brand new from an official retailer.
> Now the equivalent 100-500 is £2979 at the same retailer. I know the pound lost some value but still, the price increase is crazy.
> 
> Few more years and 100-400 type of lenses will reach big white pricing territory.


I think it has been well documented that the UK is faced with unusually high prices for Canon stuff.

Here in the USA:
Canon EF 100-400mm L II: $2,399
Canon RF 100-500mm L: $2,899
So for $500 more you get the extra 100mm on the long end plus a lens that is over 250g lighter. I would consider that worth the $500 increase, others may differ, but the price it does not seem outrageous, especially compared to the new Nikon Z 100-400mm which is $2,696.

Yes, Canon L lenses are expensive, but certainly comparable with offerings from Sony and Nikon. But I think people sometimes forget that a lens purchase might very well be a purchase for life. Even if you are in your 20's, there is no reason not to think you'll be using these lenses for 20-30 years at least (if you are smart, anyway, and not a total gear head).


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 24, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> But I think people sometimes forget that a lens purchase might very well be a purchase for life. Even if you are in your 20's, there is no reason not to think you'll be using these lenses for 20-30 years at least (if you are smart, anyway, and not a total gear head).


But version 2!!!


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 24, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> The RF 24mm f/1.8 macro sounds promising, if it's at least the optical quality of the RF 50mm f/1.8, that would be great. If it's anything like the Rf 35mm f/1.8 that would be even better!
> 
> One thing that's for sure is that if we do see a RF 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, it will be worse that the RF 14-35mm L lens which relies o software corrections at that exorbitant price. It's almost a given that it will use software correction, most likely to a greater extent, so possibly on par with the RF 16mm f/2.8 with its 'pixel soup' corners.
> 
> ...


Not everyone hopes Canon will reverse its trend - especially if it means cheaper, and lighter lenses. Not sure if Canon is using software correction to a more extreme level - maybe they are, but as an Olympus user, I know that some of their lenses also rely heavily on auto-correction. The difference seems to be that Olympus users only care about the final result and completely ignore the fact that the lenses are using software correction, unlike many Canon users who somehow can't get over the idea, even when a lens such as the RF 16mm has almost the same level of sharpness in the corners as the EF 16-35 f/4 L and is considerably better than the EF 17-40mm L. 

To you, the "excuse" of high ISO moderns sensors is nonsense, to me it makes perfect sense and once again allows for cheaper, and lighter lenses. 

Can't argue that the lenses are expensive, and unfortunately we are in a time period with high inflation and extreme supply shortages, so prices have gone up recently. Of course, the nice option is that you can buy similar EF lenses used if the price is too high for the new RF offerings. This is not a new system where you have to buy new lenses. You have the choice. Lenses have always been the place where camera companies make their profit, so don't expect any price drops anytime soon. So, either wait and buy used or refurbished RF lenses or don't buy them at all. And as I mentioned in a post a few minutes ago, lenses should be a purchase that will last for 20-30 years or more.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 24, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> But version 2!!!


Yes, as the old saying goes, "There's a sucker born every minute!" Not to say that there might not be an improvement in a mark II version of a lens, but I am sure the executives at Canon, Nikon or any other company do a lot of "high-fiving" when they see gear heads with GAS! If marketing executives didn't invent or promote "pixel peeping" they are sure glad it exists as that is the only way, in many cases, that you can tell a new lens from an old one.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jun 24, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Not everyone hopes Canon will reverse its trend - especially if it means cheaper, and lighter lenses. Not sure if Canon is using software correction to a more extreme level - maybe they are, but as an Olympus user, I know that some of their lenses also rely heavily on auto-correction. The difference seems to be that Olympus users only care about the final result and completely ignore the fact that the lenses are using software correction, unlike many Canon users who somehow can't get over the idea, even when a lens such as the RF 16mm has almost the same level of sharpness in the corners as the EF 16-35 f/4 L and is considerably better than the EF 17-40mm L.
> 
> To you, the "excuse" of high ISO moderns sensors is nonsense, to me it makes perfect sense and once again allows for cheaper, and lighter lenses.
> 
> Can't argue that the lenses are expensive, and unfortunately we are in a time period with high inflation and extreme supply shortages, so prices have gone up recently. Of course, the nice option is that you can buy similar EF lenses used if the price is too high for the new RF offerings. This is not a new system where you have to buy new lenses. You have the choice. Lenses have always been the place where camera companies make their profit, so don't expect any price drops anytime soon. So, either wait and buy used or refurbished RF lenses or don't buy them at all. And as I mentioned in a post a few minutes ago, lenses should be a purchase that will last for 20-30 years or more.


i agree, cheap lenses are good, as long as 'cheap' means affordable and good value for money, not 'cheap and crappy'! 

Really? "even when a lens such as the RF 16mm has almost the same level of sharpness in the corners as the EF 16-35 f/4 L", I reckon no way, not even close, I have to disagree on that one! The EF 16-35mm F/4 is highly regarded by landscape photographers, and has produced plenty of top notch pro landscape photos. The RF 16mm f/2.8 is a totally different beast, it's a small, cheap, affordable product made to be "good enough" as an entry level lens with significant compromises to achieve that. It's primarily video lens for vloggers and a walkabout lens for travelers, that's good enough for those purposes.

Well, the rationalisation that Canon can sell you darker aperture lenses because "high ISO moderns sensors" fails logically on two points. 

First, if a new camera has high ISO performance, then using the same EF mount lenses with give better low light or shorter shutter speed performance, and perhaps an extra usable stop or two which is handy. Put a darker aperture lens and we lose that gain, that's how the exposure triangle works! But... if Canon sells a more expensive body, and darker aperture (cheaper to produce) RF lenses that are the same price or more than their EF, then its a win-win in profits for Canon while the photographer loses a lot of the the benefit.

Second, in the world of physics and engineering, we have to give something to get something, there are always compromises! If we depend more on high ISO, we lose dynamic range (DR), which was a big fuss in the years gone by, much like the need for high MP are currently. Darker lenses will push higher ISO values and lower DR respectively. 

I have to give it to Canon marketing, they've convinced the market that the things they fought bitterly over on forums (DR) don't matter anymore, and paying more for less is a good thing if the technology is new, because novelty matters, and the 'fear of missing out' is a valid emotion. That's probably tied to the misconception that proficiency can simply be bought, that better gear will produce a better photographer, a myth promulgated by marketing departments to get people to buy more gear, rather than master the sufficient gear they currently own and develop their skills with more training and practice. Once the next hyped tech (global shutters?) displaces high MP fad which displaced the high DR fad, Canon will probably convince the brand loyalists and fanboys that 12MP is all they need, because it works on iPhones. It's a strange world!


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 24, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Well, the rationalisation that Canon can sell you darker aperture lenses because "high ISO moderns sensors" fails logically on two points.


They sell smaller, lighter, darker lenses because they don’t need to open to f/5.6 to focus anymore like DSLR’s did. Many DSLR lenses weren’t very good wide open and perhaps that f/5.6 was at its best at f/8. The lens they build now is smaller, lighter, and plenty sharp and can focus at f/8. It doesn’t have to open to 5.6 anymore. So we get a great 100-400 f/5.6-8 that I can take to my sons soccer game or hike all day with without it being an intrusion on any fun. And I come away with images than I’m happy with.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 24, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> They sell smaller, lighter, darker lenses because they don’t need to open to f/5.6 to focus anymore like DSLR’s did. Many DSLR lenses weren’t very good wide open and perhaps that f/5.6 was at its best at f/8. The lens they build now is smaller, lighter, and plenty sharp and can focus at f/8. It doesn’t have to open to 5.6 anymore. So we get a great 100-400 f/5.6-8 that I can take to my sons soccer game or hike all day with without it being an intrusion on any fun. And I come away with images than I’m happy with.



And because they can have bigger profit. I still don't understand how can Nikon make a tiny 130g and very sharp 16-50 3.5-6.3 for their APS-C and Canon comes out with the 18-45 4.5-6.3. Less wide, bigger and darker.


----------



## Nemorino (Jun 24, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> So we get a great 100-400 f/5.6-8 that I can take to my sons soccer game or hike all day with without it being an intrusion on any fun. And I come away with images than I’m happy with.


Yes, I like it very much. The USM and the high magnification are also great benefits.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jun 25, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> They sell smaller, lighter, darker lenses because they don’t need to open to f/5.6 to focus anymore like DSLR’s did. Many DSLR lenses weren’t very good wide open and perhaps that f/5.6 was at its best at f/8. The lens they build now is smaller, lighter, and plenty sharp and can focus at f/8. It doesn’t have to open to 5.6 anymore. So we get a great 100-400 f/5.6-8 that I can take to my sons soccer game or hike all day with without it being an intrusion on any fun. And I come away with images than I’m happy with.


Um, there are plenty of DSLRs from Canon that can focus at f/8, I know my 80D could.

Here's a whole list of camera bodies that can in this article:
Which Canon DSLR Cameras Maintain Autofocus with Extenders at f/8 Max Aperture?​
You do realise that fast apertures are used to shoot in low light (including indoors), and to get faster shutter speeds.
Small and light has a major convenience factor, as you mention, many people would take an RF 100-400 f/8 zoom out with them but not want to carry around a larger, heavier lens, and that's a bonus fur super-tele zooms for sure.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jun 25, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> First, if a new camera has high ISO performance, then using the same EF mount lenses with give better low light or shorter shutter speed performance, and perhaps an extra usable stop or two which is handy. Put a darker aperture lens and we lose that gain, that's how the exposure triangle works! But... if Canon sells a more expensive body, and darker aperture (cheaper to produce) RF lenses that are the same price or more than their EF, then its a win-win in profits for Canon while the photographer loses a lot of the the benefit.
> 
> Second, in the world of physics and engineering, we have to give something to get something, there are always compromises! If we depend more on high ISO, we lose dynamic range (DR), which was a big fuss in the years gone by, much like the need for high MP are currently. Darker lenses will push higher ISO values and lower DR respectively.



This is why when I eventually buy an RF body I'll be sticking to my wider aperture EF/EF-S lenses, some people also forget that you get a slightly more shallow depth of field as well with the wider aperture EF/EF-S lenses. I understand the reason for some of the f/6.3 EF-M lenses to keep it portable and light weight, but I think the entry level RF lenses should have been the same or better then all of the EF/EF-S equivalents.

I personally see the RF-S 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM as a bit of a missed opportunity to get the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM users to upgrade. In my opinion I think they should have made the RF-S at least the same specs or better. But they could always release one with the same specs sometime down the track.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Um, there are plenty of DSLRs from Canon that can focus at f/8, I know my 80D could.


Yes, but there are plenty that cannot. Thus, Canon kept all EF lenses to f/5.6. Since MILCs don’t have that limitation, Canon eliminated that constraint, first slightly with EF-M then more significantly with RF.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 25, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Um, there are plenty of DSLRs from Canon that can focus at f/8, I know my 80D could.
> 
> Here's a whole list of camera bodies that can in this article:
> Which Canon DSLR Cameras Maintain Autofocus with Extenders at f/8 Max Aperture?​
> ...


In the article you link, it has to do with working with extenders. Note that most of the ones that can do it are newer and center point only. Some of the newest and best expand beyond this. But not to the capabilities of mirrorless, which allows for different lens designs. 

Your 80D, for example, says center point only, except for in two rather costly lenses with the latest extender attached. Not $650 consumer lens that is super light weight.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 25, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> This is why when I eventually buy an RF body I'll be sticking to my wider aperture EF/EF-S lenses, some people also forget that you get a slightly more shallow depth of field as well with the wider aperture EF/EF-S lenses. I understand the reason for some of the f/6.3 EF-M lenses to keep it portable and light weight, but I think the entry level RF lenses should have been the same or better then all of the EF/EF-S equivalents.
> 
> I personally see the RF-S 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM as a bit of a missed opportunity to get the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM users to upgrade. In my opinion I think they should have made the RF-S at least the same specs or better. But they could always release one with the same specs sometime down the track.


The difference between f/5.6 on some of the older consumer lenses and f/8 on some of the newer consumer lenses is that older ones really only opened to 5.6 for focus. They had to step down for good results. The RF 100-400 shoots wide open at f/8 no problem.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jun 25, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, but there are plenty that cannot. Thus, Canon kept all EF lenses to f/5.6. Since MILCs don’t have that limitation, Canon eliminated that constraint, first slightly with EF-M then more significantly with RF.


It looks like 5D II (2008), 6D (2012), 70D (2013) era and before those couldn't AF at f/8, so basically ten years ago.
That worked in the favour of photographers in terms of lens design for so long, because Canon could only skimp so far on the lenses with aperture and optical correction. Now the tables have turned, Canon can now sell much less of a lens and it will still work.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jun 25, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> The difference between f/5.6 on some of the older consumer lenses and f/8 on some of the newer consumer lenses is that older ones really only opened to 5.6 for focus. They had to step down for good results. The RF 100-400 shoots wide open at f/8 no problem.


If you don't need shallow depth of field and blurred out background, or low light capability, depending on the genre of photography, f/5.6 or f/8 may be the aperture where most work is done, and many lenses have a sweet spot for sharpness at around f/5.6, some at f/8. Landscape, studio portraiture and macro are all higher aperture values.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 25, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> If you don't need shallow depth of field and blurred out background, or low light capability, depending on the genre of photography, f/5.6 or f/8 may be the aperture where most work is done, and many lenses have a sweet spot for sharpness at around f/5.6, some at f/8. Landscape, studio portraiture and macro are all higher aperture values.


I don’t disagree with any of that. That’s why I like the RF 100-400 so much. F/8 is fine and works great at f/8. I don’t need to step down at all if I need the light. Plus it’s lighter and smaller than the 24-240.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jun 25, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> I don’t disagree with any of that. That’s why I like the RF 100-400 so much. F/8 is fine and works great at f/8. I don’t need to step down at all if I need the light. Plus it’s lighter and smaller than the 24-240.


How are you finding the sharpness/image quality of the RF 100-400 lens? I've been considering getting one for a while now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> It looks like 5D II (2008), 6D (2012), 70D (2013) era and before those couldn't AF at f/8, so basically ten years ago.
> That worked in the favour of photographers in terms of lens design for so long, because Canon could only skimp so far on the lenses with aperture and optical correction. Now the tables have turned, Canon can now sell much less of a lens and it will still work.


As was pointed out, f/8 AF in DSLRs is needed only with extenders. All bare Canon EF/EF-S lenses are f/5.6 or faster.

Notably absent from the list you linked are entry-level bodies prior to the T8i/850D from 2020 (the first low-end body to include f/8 AF, albeit with only the center point). Notably, the SL3 and T7 that were launched in 2019/2018 could not AF at f/8. Since consumer-grade lenses are the ones most likely to get the slower apertures, Canon did not launch any EF/EF-S lenses with a max aperture narrower than f/5.6, including lenses launched years after the cameras you mention above (and of those cameras, many were —and are— still in service).

It is the fundamentally different AF systems in DSLRs vs. MILCs that enabled Canon to drop the f/5.6 constraint for EF-M and RF lenses.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 25, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> How are you finding the sharpness/image quality of the RF 100-400 lens? I've been considering getting one for a while now.


Personally, I’m loving it on my RP. I’m sure I don’t have the standards of some here though. Like I said above, I can take it to my sons soccer games or all day hiking and it’s super light and easy to carry. 








The 0.4x macro at 400mm is great too.
For some reason, I can’t upload full size files to this thread.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 26, 2022)

I'm already dreaming of a 24mm macro picture of edelweiss, unsharp snow covered mountains in the background...
Gimme gimme and quick !!!!


----------



## MartinVLC (Jun 26, 2022)

Beertje said:


> This patent from september 2021 shows it will likely be an rf 16-30 4.0-5.6.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I also noticed this in the source and I wonder why it says 3.5-5.6 in the canonrumors articel. 

I would love this lense to start at 15mm f/3.5, but I don´t know where they took this information from, 

I´m afraid in the end it will be a 4-5.6 or even 4.5-6.3 the way canon designs consumer zoom lenses (very unfortunately) lately.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 26, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> How are you finding the sharpness/image quality of the RF 100-400 lens? I've been considering getting one for a while now.


I’ve written somewhere that everyone should have one! I have two so I don’t have to share it with my wife when I don’t want carry the 100-500. Very sharp with excellent AF.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jun 27, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> Personally, I’m loving it on my RP. I’m sure I don’t have the standards of some here though. Like I said above, I can take it to my sons soccer games or all day hiking and it’s super light and easy to carry.
> 
> View attachment 204343
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing your experience and the photos!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jun 27, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I’ve written somewhere that everyone should have one! I have two so I don’t have to share it with my wife when I don’t want carry the 100-500. Very sharp with excellent AF.


Thanks! Now that's a positive endorsement - I liked it so much, I bought two!


----------



## AJ (Jun 28, 2022)

I think the 24/1.8 and 15-30 will both sell really well. 

I'm glad to see that Canon is producing a high-end L line and a consumer line of lenses. Both lines are filling out nicely. 

The thing right now is that for ultrawide consumer, there is the RF 14-35 which has some optical compromises (barrel distortion and black corners when corrections are not applied) but yet has a high-end price tag. I think most pros gravitate to the RF 15-35 L while consumers like myself pick up a 16/2.8. This leaves the 14-35 stranded somewhere in the middle.

So, if the 15-30 comes with an attractive pricetag, I think many consumers will snap up a copy.


----------



## jwpatmore (Jun 29, 2022)

Cannot wait for the RF 24mm f/1.8 IS... Any updates on a release date?


----------



## ashmadux (Jun 30, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> That creates a dilemma. 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 or 16 f/2.8mm? If it’s under $400, has to be the zoom, no? Especially if landscape is the primary use.


The 16 is not a good lens. There's you're answer.  Haven't seen a single positive review. My landscapes are almost always at 6.7/7.1, or smaller, so the variable aperture isnt a big deal. (to me)


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Jul 1, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> The 16 is not a good lens. There's you're answer.  Haven't seen a single positive review.


You're not looking that hard, it would appear. There's plenty of them out there.

DXO Mark, for instance, said "This is a good score for an ultra-wide lens and among the best tested in this range." https://www.dxomark.com/canon-rf-16mm-f2-8-stm-lens-review/


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 2, 2022)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> You're not looking that hard, it would appear. There's plenty of them out there.
> 
> DXO Mark, for instance, said "This is a good score for an ultra-wide lens and among the best tested in this range." https://www.dxomark.com/canon-rf-16mm-f2-8-stm-lens-review/


The DxO review is emphasises the performance relative to price and size, and doesn't focus too much on the negatives, but still makes it clear:

_"Touted as an affordable model, this new lens actually has very good sharpness, especially wide open at F2.8 and at F4 in the center. Stopped down, the sharpness remains relatively high in the centers, though there’s a drop in performance from the middle of the field and out to corners."_

Other reviews are based more on real-world applications where the shortcomings have greater implications. It's an intentionally under-designed lens optically to keep the price and size down, and its a decent vlogging and travel lens, but a poor landscaping lens.

This lens has an unusually close minimum focus distance (MFD) for a 16mm lens of 130mm (5.1") and a quite high magnification of 0.26x.
By comparison the RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM has an MFD of 200mm (7.9") @ 0.38x, and the RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM has a MFD of 280mm or 11.0" @ 0.21x.
Many UWA Canon-compatible lenses from other companies have MFDs of around 200mm (7.9") with 0.15x or less magnification according to TDP.

To quote TDP's article - https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-16mm-F2.8-STM-Lens.aspx

_"With a minimum focus distance of 5.1" (130mm), the RF 16mm lens has a relatively high 0.26x maximum magnification spec that allows big perspective size differences to be captured (close subjects appear large relative to background subjects). 

With some lenses, image quality takes a hit at the minimum focus distance, but the RF 16 produces minimum focus distance image quality similar to that from longer focus distances. 

Focus breathing negatively impacts photographers intending to use focus stacking techniques, videographers pulling focus, and anyone critically framing while adjusting focus. This lens produces a rather strong change in subject size through full extent focus distance adjustment."_

*What is this lens really for? *With roughly half the MFD of similar UWA lenses, high magnification that makes close subjects appear large relative to background, and the unusual fact that image quality at MFD is similar to longer distance focus, this look like a vlogging lens to me, where work is done 'in your face', and objects are frequently brought near the lens for close-ups.

What else are 16mm primes normally used for? It's definitely not a video lens as it has heavy focus breathing. Not a landscape lens as the corners are too smudged due to distortion correction, while stopping down doesn't improve IQ, and focus breathing prevents stacking. Architecture/indoor real estate work needs edge to edge image sharpness, so no good there. Not a choice for astrophotography as the lens has a fair bit of coma at the edges. Allowing for weight, size and cost, it makes an acceptable travel lens if the IQ compromise is acceptable. It's probably a reasonable pocketable 24mm equivalent lens on the new RF-S APSC cameras as the lower IQ periphery is cropped away.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 2, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> They sell smaller, lighter, darker lenses because they don’t need to open to f/5.6 to focus anymore like DSLR’s did. Many DSLR lenses weren’t very good wide open and perhaps that f/5.6 was at its best at f/8. The lens they build now is smaller, lighter, and plenty sharp and can focus at f/8. It doesn’t have to open to 5.6 anymore. So we get a great 100-400 f/5.6-8 that I can take to my sons soccer game or hike all day with without it being an intrusion on any fun. And I come away with images than I’m happy with.


Well, unfortunately, the sun hasn't gotten one stop brighter when Canon made the decision to make their lenses one stop darker, so that means longer shutter speeds (IBIS is less effective on longer focal lengths) or higher ISO values/lower DR. It's great to have a camera that can AF at f/8, but it doesn't mean it should be used at f/8 unless that's the ideal aperture for the task, let alone restricting a lens to that aperture. If Canon was able to make f/5.6 lenses in the past, they can still do so today if they chose to.


----------

