Canon Introduces Three New Lenses, Enhancing Still Photography and Video Production for Any Skill Level

[BostonPaul]

Same filter size as the RF 800 f/11.
Although, I doubt very many people will have both.

Except for those of us who own the 800 and just pre-ordered the 200-800.

Used 800 prices will crater.

 

[josephandrews222]

Good reading this morning!

 

[AlanF]

Except for those of us who own the 800 and just pre-ordered the 200-800.

Used 800 prices will crater.

My 95mm has gone from a Tammy 150-600 to a Sigma 150-600 to a Nikon 500/5.6 to a Canon 900/11. Perhaps to be fair, I should get a Sony 200-600...

 

[AlP]

I haven't seen definitively no, but I've seen for instance in the 200-800 vid where TCs are mentioned and when talking about other lenses that TC works with they do not mention the 24-105.

I actually used the 2x TC's on the 24 tilt-shift, if I recall correctly. It sounds like an expensive and stupid way to make a 50mm f/7.0, but the shift range also doubled, so I was able to get a squared-off correct-perspective shot of a little church on top of a tiny hill or mound. using that extra shift range. The hill was about 2-3 stories tall, not tall, and just big enough at the top for the church, so you couldn't stand near to the church and take a photo of it level. This was around 1996-1998 so there correcting it in photoshop wasn't as simple as it is now, though I think I ended up doing exactly that to get a sharper photo.

The 24-105 is not compatible with current teleconverters. It's impossible to fit anything which protrudes into the lens, independently from the zoom position (see diagram below from Canon Japan, 24 mm on the left, 105 mm on the right) as the rearmost element is fixed and located at the mount.

 

[bbasiaga]

www.airbnb.com

In a place where I can test the new lens!

 

[neuroanatomist]

My 95mm has gone from a Tammy 150-600 to a Sigma 150-600 to a Nikon 500/5.6 to a Canon 900/11. Perhaps to be fair, I should get a Sony 200-600...

I've only needed one 95mm filter, on my RF 28-70/2. However, I do have a pair of 82mm clear filters with no homes...one of them will go on the 24-105/2.8.

 

[Del Paso]

These are just for record. The Nuthatch was taken at iso 51,000, showing full size and the crop. The Pheasant is taken at iso 40,000, cropped and reduced by 20% to fit.

View attachment 212650View attachment 212651View attachment 212652

Hard to believe.
If you hadn't posted these pictures...

 

[Del Paso]

I preordered the 200-800. First ever preorder for me. Got in at Adorama last night just a few minutes past midnight EST. We'll see when I get it. Wife will be mad. May need a couch to sleep on.

Brian

Tell her it's a drain pipe (mine could almost believe it)

 

[Docofthewild]

Really slick what they did with the combined focus and control ring on the 200-800. I was pretty sure I only saw 2 rings but figured they would only have the custom function button and a zoom ring with no control ring. I rarely use either the focus ring or the control ring so have no problem having a combined ring if it helped keep this lens out of the L price range.

 

[roby17269]

While I wallow in sadness for the protracted lack of my preciousss 35 1.2, a couple of things:

• got an email from Adorama: I did not make it in the first batch of the 10-20 f/4L... so will have to wait for that one entirely my fault for messing up the order initially and having to cancel and re-do later in the day of the announcement
• I am interested in the 200-800.
  • I believe it will be better than the 800 11 at 800mm (not a high bar, f you ask me) with the added flexibility of zoom, aperture control, shorter MFD, use of extenders at every fl.
  • Weight is higher but not an issue, length (collapsed) is longer and that is annoying to me.
  • I will probably sell 800 11 and the 24-240 due to lack of use and get this new big bad boy.
  • Love that it will sell with the hood included, don't love the non-removable tripod foot (if I have understood correctly).
  • I will keep the 100-500 since it is more portable, has probably better IQ all considered and it is more versatile when no extreme tele is needed... and well, it is an L
  • But why they say it's the first 800mm zoom? For Canon maybe, but what about the ancient Sigma 300-800?
  • But more thinking is needed, so I won't make it in the first batch for this one as well
    • Canon, do get a grip on supply!... it can't be that every interesting lens you make goes in backorder before it is shipped for the first time
• No interest in the other 2 lenses, although the 24-105 2.8 is impressive
  • But I'll never "forgive" the 24-105 2.8 for taking the place of the 35 1.2

 

[H. Jones]

I'll hazard a guess that one of the next lenses coming from Canon will be a RF 70-200mm F/2.8L Z lens, of some sort.

Maybe 70-240mm F/2.8L Z? Or 50-200mm F/2.8L Z? Looking at the size and shape of the RF 24-105mm F/2.8L Z, I almost wonder if they could copy the external body over to an internal zoom 70-200mm with the same servo attachment compatibility.

 

[SwissFrank]

How am I supposed to illustrate my statement with the actual photos? I'd need a new 24-105 lens for that.
I have numerous examples of vignetting from asto/milky way shots taken with an EF 16-35. After applying lens corrections for vignetting, the increased noise in the corners is quite noticeable.

Thanks for hearing me out.

To be clear I don't necessarily mean that exact lens. I'd love to see an example of what you're talking about here, whichever lens it may be. It may not be possible but a full comparison would include:

1) center-exposed, software-corrected image with noise in the corners. Even that by itself would be very instructive.

2) corner-exposed, software-corrected image that shows blown-out highlights in the center. Again, even by itself would be very instructive, and show that simply exposing for the corner isn't an adequate solution.

3) image (1) or (2) but without software correction, as it'd be interesting to see if the corrected version is ever actually worse than uncorrected,

4) any alternative lens not depending heavily on software correction of vignetting (or distortion). Ideally they'd be same subject same time, but I understand that's practically impossible to have access to. (I do usually try to shoot some comparisons, though, when I'm upgrading to the latest generation, e.g. EF135 to RF135.)

 

[Tony Drummond]

Nope, rear element right up against the mount.

Nope, rear element right up against the mount.

What's wrong with the existing (relatively low cost) RF 24-240mm?
Sure it has some slight red / green colour aberrations towards the edge of frame, but DxO PL6 fixes that. And for a Zoom, 10:1 is an incredibly wide and useful range, it's NOT an "L", but for that price and range (so what!) I reckon it's surprisingly GOOD, and it saves carting a rucksack full of lenses around!

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Competition is good for us, thank you Sony and Nikon. Can you imagine the price if this is L lens?

This is a different kind of lens for Canon.
I doubt they would have made it if it were not for Sony.
I also think it would cost more if it were not for Nikon.
Canon usually prices slightly above Sony.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I am happy that I already did my buy with the 100-500.

If I already had an RF 100-500 then I would probably stick with the RF 800 f/11.
I know that I need 800 mm.

 

[jim]

The times, they are a-changin’. White, non-L lenses with weather sealing? Hoods included with inexpensive, non-L lenses? Yes and yes.

View attachment 212613

I just ordered this lens from B&H but did not see the hood being included!

 

[blackcoffee17]

Really slick what they did with the combined focus and control ring on the 200-800. I was pretty sure I only saw 2 rings but figured they would only have the custom function button and a zoom ring with no control ring. I rarely use either the focus ring or the control ring so have no problem having a combined ring if it helped keep this lens out of the L price range.

It's not the first time they combined the 2 rings. Even the RF 50mm 1.8 has a combined ring.

 

[roby17269]

I'm asking people who are saying things like you are here to illustrate their statements with actual photos. My hunch is such real-world photos basically don't exist but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

You always have the option of exposing for the corners. Granted you then have the risk of blowing out highlights in the center, and might have a little more camera motion, subject motion, or high-ISO noise, but again, show us a photo where you exposed for the corners and the photo no longer is nice.

Alternatively please share a photo where the noise in the corners (when exposed more for the center) is notable.

And of these photos, ideally we'd have some other lens of the past where the image actually DOES work.

AFAIK, there are 2 ways modern lenses / cameras deal with vignetting:

• traditionally the camera / software would brighten the corners to offset / mitigate vignetting. This could result in higher noise in the corners, and it would be more or less visible depending on exposure
• more recently, some lenses are made to be actually wider than declared fl, but with extremely dark corners. The camera / software crops / stretches the image eliminating the dark corners and increasing the fl to the declared fl of the lens. This will not affect noise but it will potentially reduce resolution in the corners due to stretching. Again, this may be very visible or very little. This approach is used with the RF 24-240 and 10-20 lenses, and possibly other wide zooms.

 

[neuroanatomist]

more recently, some lenses are made to be actually wider than declared fl, but with extremely dark corners. The camera / software crops / stretches the image eliminating the dark corners and increasing the fl to the declared fl of the lens. This will not affect noise but it will potentially reduce resolution in the corners due to stretching. Again, this may be very visible or very little. This approach is used with the RF 24-240 and 10-20 lenses, and possibly other wide zooms.

Important thing to keep in mind is that optically correcting the corners of wide/ultrawide lenses (i.e. with the design of the glass in the lens) still stretches the corners and reduces resolution. From my testing, correcting the distortion digitally yields similar results in terms of resolution, but results in a smaller, lighter, and cheaper lens.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Most interesting fact:
Canon is announcing such different lenses at once.

There seems to be no pattern to it and it is the same day that the RF 10-20 f/4 IS L was released.