Five Canon RF lenses show up for certification

Chaitanya · Feb 19, 2020

24-105mm macro might be one of those.

frisbfreek · Feb 19, 2020

Chaitanya said:
24-105mm macro might be one of those.

No I think that one is 4111C002.

CanonFanBoy · Feb 19, 2020

Never thought I would be interested in a slow lens again, but this RF 100-500mm has me intrigued.

Maximilian · Feb 19, 2020

This chart posted here recently shows five empty lines for lenses yet to come in 2020.
So maybe we can expect and hope for even more to come than named here by CR Guy

Bangrossi · Feb 19, 2020

I expect this year canon will release low-end to mid-range kind of lenses. Not something ground breaking similar to 28-70 f2. Hopefuly canon will make another f/1.2 primes soon

Cochese · Feb 19, 2020

I don't quite understand all of these 7.1 L series lenses. Why? And no, sensor stabilization is not a good reason.

Viggo · Feb 19, 2020

Cochese said:
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 ..

Sharlin · Feb 19, 2020

Cochese said:
I don't quite understand all of these 7.1 L series lenses.

All one of them?

Codebunny · Feb 19, 2020

Viggo said:
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.

Viggo · Feb 19, 2020

Codebunny said:
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.

Codebunny · Feb 19, 2020

Viggo said:
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.

AlanF · Feb 19, 2020

Viggo said:
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.

AlanF · Feb 19, 2020

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

"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!"

Viggo · Feb 19, 2020

AlanF said:
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...

Codebunny · Feb 19, 2020

Viggo said:
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.

dominic_siu · Feb 19, 2020

Let’s wait until the official announcement and see how it performs then decide whether buy or not

AlanF · Feb 19, 2020

Viggo said:
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.

brad-man · Feb 19, 2020

dominic_siu said:
Let’s wait until the official announcement and see how it performs then decide whether buy or not

That's just crazy talk...

AlanF · Feb 19, 2020

dominic_siu said:
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.

EOS R

Purple

The dark side - I've been there

I'm New Here

EOS 90D

EOS R5

EOS R

Elil

EOS R5

Elil

Stay at home

Stay at home

EOS R5

Elil

EOS R5, RF2870, RF70200 2.8, RF50 1.8, RF100 Macro

Stay at home

Semi-Reactive Member

Stay at home

Similar threads

Related posts