svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDEwMjQnIHhtbG5zPSdodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2Zyc+PC9zdmc+ - Five Canon RF lenses show up for certification

    Five Canon RF lenses show up for certification

    By Updated:113 Comments1 Min Read Canon Lens Rumors

    Five SKUs for upcoming Canon RF lenses have appeared at a Russian certification agency.

    • 3986C005
    • 3987C005
    • 4112C005
    • 4113C005
    • 4114C005

    Of these SKUs, we can assume one is for the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM. It's also possible that two others are for the two extenders that were announced.

    The Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM has the SKU 4111C002.

    The other two could be for an upcoming macro, pancake and/or DO super-telephoto lenses. We do expect further lens announcements quite soon.

    I was told today that three L lenses were coming in 2020.

    More to come…

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    113 comments

    7. I don't quite understand all of these 7.1 L series lenses. Why? And no, sensor stabilization is not a good reason.
      I have to agree with this, it waters down the L-designation ..
    9. I have to agree with this, it waters down the L-designation ..

      I would argue that any variable aperture lens would water down the L-designation. However, it is just not practical to have every L lens being f/4 at the slowest, and the L-designation seams to mean build quality, water sealing, and focus speed.
    10. I would argue that any variable aperture lens would water down the L-designation. However, it is just not practical to have every L lens being f/4 at the slowest, and the L-designation seams to mean build quality, water sealing, and focus speed.
      f5,6 has always been an L-aperture, but 6.3 is low end Sigma, and 7.1? No thanks... no matter IS and this and that, that is super slow and unusable in a lot of scenarios.
    11. f5,6 has always been an L-aperture, but 6.3 is low end Sigma, and 7.1? No thanks... no matter IS and this and that, that is super slow and unusable in a lot of scenarios.

      The easy solution is to not buy lenses that you deem too slow. I am going to get this 100-500 and a 200-400, one I can keep in my bag at all times.
    12. f5,6 has always been an L-aperture, but 6.3 is low end Sigma, and 7.1? No thanks... no matter IS and this and that, that is super slow and unusable in a lot of scenarios.
      Fortunately, you are not in charge of Canon's lens naming department. A 50mm f/1.2 L would be unusable for just about anything I do as it is too short and it's soft at the edges wide open so by your criteria it's unusable in a wide range of scenarios and not an L.
    13. 400mm f/5.6 vs 500mm f/7.1 is the same situation as 500mm f/5.6 vs 600mm f/6.3. By analogy, 500mm f/7.1 is advantageous because it can put more pixels on target and lets in the same amount of light. See for discussion:

      Iso, noise, extenders, cropping, and 600mm f/6.3 vs 500mm f/5.6 zooms

      Another one of my geek notes that may be of some practical use. This has been stimulated by discussion in the threads about 600mm f/6.3 vs 500mm f/5.6 telephoto lenses. It is usually thought that the larger f-number of the longer lens means either a slower shutter speed or introducing more...
      www.canonrumors.com www.canonrumors.com
      "So, all things being equal, shooting the 500mm at f/7.1 at the same shutter speed as a 400mm f/5.6 but at 2/3 stops higher iso puts 56% more pixels on target and similar noise when viewing images at the same size!"
    14. Fortunately, you are not in charge of Canon's lens naming department. A 50mm f/1.2 L would be unusable for just about anything I do as it is too short and it's soft at the edges wide open so by your criteria it's unusable in a wide range of scenarios and not an L.
      The 50 L is an L because Aperture and build, and it’s the worst L in terms of IQ so I half way agree. But it’s not the overall standard of L’s, it’s far below. Besides, it’s 14 years old and has been replaced in RF mount and REALLY shines now. That’s what I don’t get, why do RF lenses that are worse than the EF-version. Granted, there is no 100-500 in EF, but I think 5,6 is the slowest an L should be. Just my opinion. Fortunately there are and will be f2.8 zooms and even f2.0 zooms. Guess it’s just disappointing when they started off so epic with RF-L’s...
    15. The 50 L is an L vevside Aperture and build, and it’s the worst L in terms of IQ so I half way agree. But it’s not the overall standard of L’s, it’s far below. Besides, it’s 14 years old and has been replaced in RF mount and REALLY shines now. That’s what I don’t get, why do RF lenses that are worse than the EF-version. Granted, there is no 100-500 in EF, but I think 5,6 is the slowest and L should be. Just my opinion. Fortunately there are and will be f2.8 zooms and even f2.0 zooms. Guess it’s just disappointing when they started off so epic with RF-L’s...

      The announced teleconverters don’t have anything viable to attach to yet. I suspect we’re getting a fast tele photo along with the lightweight one.
    17. The 50 L is an L because Aperture and build, and it’s the worst L in terms of IQ so I half way agree. But it’s not the overall standard of L’s, it’s far below. Besides, it’s 14 years old and has been replaced in RF mount and REALLY shines now. That’s what I don’t get, why do RF lenses that are worse than the EF-version. Granted, there is no 100-500 in EF, but I think 5,6 is the slowest an L should be. Just my opinion. Fortunately there are and will be f2.8 zooms and even f2.0 zooms. Guess it’s just disappointing when they started off so epic with RF-L’s...
      Whether it's the 50L or any other L lens is not the point. All lenses are restricted to scenarios where they can be used and just because you would not use one does not mean it is should not be an L. And, as I have tried to point out, when it comes to narrow apertures, increasing the focal length at the expense of increasing the f-number does not necessary mean a loss of quality in IQ and is often advantageous. Loads of nature people here are perfectly happy to use a 400mm DO II with a 2xTC at f/8 since the gain in resolution more than makes up for the doubling of the f-number. Sony A9 shooters are getting fantastic shots with their 200-600mm f/6.3s with 2xTCs at f/12.6 on A9s. I am looking forward to the 100-500.
    19. Let’s wait until the official announcement and see how it performs then decide whether buy or not
      Absolutely right. There is too much negativity and writing off in advance. And, it's happening in the Sony and Nikon forums as well.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment