Del Paso said:

GRRRRR!!!!!
I just saw that Big Bad Ugly Canon sent mine with the old version rear lens cap!

Click to expand...

That's what I expected when I ordered the new rear lens caps. I ordered one extra for my pre-ordered 20-50.
I am still waiting for the lens. Today they informed me that they can't say when it will arrive. Maybe I cancel it and order it from Germany. It says 4-10 business days.

GRRRRR!!!!!
I just saw that Big Bad Ugly Canon sent mine with the old version rear lens cap!

MISTAKENIDENTITY said:

While it may look one way to customers, the reality is customers are surprisingly ignorant. (No offense intended to any readers) Most who shop at Target and buy an R100 don't really understand the difference between APS-C and Full Frame. So, it actually ends up being a point of frustration for many when they put an APS-C lens on a Full Frame camera and whoopsie... the Full Frame camera isn't working as expected!! That's why they didn't allow that on EF mount. It's never been about manipulating the market but rather protecting people's feelings. While customers naturally want specific lenses for APS-C, the actual unavoidable truth is that those lenses kind of suck because they can never cover a Full Frame sensor! There's no upgrade path path for an APS-C only lens. On the other hand, if customers buy an APS-C camera and a full frame lens... there is a clear upgrade path! That is the kindness of Canon at work.

Click to expand...

The reason that the lens mount for EF-S (APS-C) lenses was not compatible with full frame bodies is that the EF-S lenses, especially the wider angle lenses, had a rearward lens element(s) that protruded into the mirror box. The mirror design in the crop camera bodies, starting with (I think) the 20D or maybe 30D had a design where the mirror would move rearward away from the rear of the lens as it flipped up to take the photograph. Full frame bodies had no such mechanism - a full frame mirror was larger and did not have an articulating mechanism to back the mirror out of the way of the extended protrusion of the EF-S lens.

I had a 10D - the EF-S lenses did not exist yet with that design but I had pretty good results with the Canon 17-40 f/4L lens. It gave great performance and also fit on full frame bodies.

The purpose of the rearward protruding lens elements was to improve optical performance at the very short (ultra-wide on full frame) focal lengths that were needed on the crop sensor. The original crop bodies were basically full frame designed bodies and lenses with cropped sensors, so the distance from the lens to the sensor was fairly long. Shortening that distance, even a few mm, helped optical performance without resorting to very expensive designs. And at the time, the full frame 17-40 was considerably more expensive than most any crop designed lenses that followed.

Ouch. That level of damage might be worth an insurance claim.

ctk said:

Theres just no business case for 1st party crop glass.

Click to expand...

I’d bet good money that in terms of unit sales, Canon’s best-selling lenses are the lenses included in 1- or 2-lens kits with entry-level APS-C cameras. Seems like a very good business case for OEM crop lenses.

ScreensMatter said:

I don't care about digital sensor sizes. But I am a true believer of 6x6 negative film . What else has there really been to recommend on the low end for a new mirrorless camera? Around the same price class there has been the A6100, Z50, R50, E-M10 Mark IV and G-97. None of them are bad cameras, most of them use old tech. All the systems have enough lenses to get you by. I don't really know what to say about the current stat of all the systems except RF, they seem a bit on life support.

Click to expand...

IMO theres not much point buying a brand new camera in any segment unless you want the latest and greatest or need serious warranty/service coverage. Someone looking for a lower priced camera should absolutely go used.

Plus even with the arbitrary "new mirrorless" limitation there's nothing any of those cameras can't do thats within the realm of what most low budget photographers need. Used cameras are the new entry level camera.

Tom R5R7 said:

This is really a big deal, providing it's optically sound. The lens that Canon should have made right off the bat really, but they seem to have no interest in providing reasonably high-end solutions for APS-C shooters. My friend has an R7 to replace one of her crop Nikon DSLR bodies that failed (after some 250,000 actuations), since Nikon doesn't even have anything close to the R7. I gave her my 18-150 to try, but she gave it back because it felt flimsy. She opted, instead, to get an adapter and use the EF-S 18-135 USM, which optically is pretty good and has the advantage of feeling quite sturdy. The USM is the last rendition of that focal length range, and is optically better than the first version.

Click to expand...

Theres just no business case for 1st party crop glass. We kind of saw this in the DSLR days. 3rd party brands were able to undercut 1st party brands on price by like 2/3rds. Partially prob due to accepting much lower margins, but also sheerly by economies of scale. Much easier to design and sell a low price low margin lens for 3-4 systems instead of 1. This is the path forward for crop systems.

The only thing I can think of is that someone intentionally hit my lens with a laser pointer at one of the recent public events I shot. I had the camera cap-off for almost a whole ren fair, and again walking the street for Fiesta De Mayo. Plausible that someone did this while I was seated and composing shots. If this were a festering problem on the sensor I wouldn't be the only one crying over it, and I know for a fact the sensor was fine the last time I was doing night sky photos.

CMOS assembly replacement. $4,524.40 plus labor.

I am a CPS Platinum member, so there's a 30% discount on that.

I doubt anything else in the camera costs more than that to fix.

neuroanatomist said:

Mine is on a FedEx truck right now, expecting delivery in a few hours.

Click to expand...

Mine arrives off the truck soon as well.
Looking forward to some discussion. I’ll be using mine more heavily on the video side.

Tom R5R7 said:

This is really a big deal, providing it's optically sound. The lens that Canon should have made right off the bat really, but they seem to have no interest in providing reasonably high-end solutions for APS-C shooters. My friend has an R7 to replace one of her crop Nikon DSLR bodies that failed (after some 250,000 actuations), since Nikon doesn't even have anything close to the R7. I gave her my 18-150 to try, but she gave it back because it felt flimsy. She opted, instead, to get an adapter and use the EF-S 18-135 USM, which optically is pretty good and has the advantage of feeling quite sturdy. The USM is the last rendition of that focal length range, and is optically better than the first version.

Click to expand...

While it may look one way to customers, the reality is customers are surprisingly ignorant. (No offense intended to any readers) Most who shop at Target and buy an R100 don't really understand the difference between APS-C and Full Frame. So, it actually ends up being a point of frustration for many when they put an APS-C lens on a Full Frame camera and whoopsie... the Full Frame camera isn't working as expected!! That's why they didn't allow that on EF mount. It's never been about manipulating the market but rather protecting people's feelings. While customers naturally want specific lenses for APS-C, the actual unavoidable truth is that those lenses kind of suck because they can never cover a Full Frame sensor! There's no upgrade path path for an APS-C only lens. On the other hand, if customers buy an APS-C camera and a full frame lens... there is a clear upgrade path! That is the kindness of Canon at work.

This 20-50 + 70-200 f/4 each on its own camera is the perfect equipment for a short city trip.
OK, with an additional TS 17 or 24.
Edit: Lightroom Classic automatically recognises the lens, which wasn't the case with the 24-105 f/2,8!

GMCPhotographics said:

No one seems to have noticed this new RF 20-50mm f4 L is the 2nd lens in a new F4 trio started with the RF 10-20mm f4 L. It's easy to guess what focal length and aperture the 3rd lens of the range will be, 50-xxx f4 L.

Click to expand...

I certainly noticed. But IMO, the trio is here already 10-20/4, 20-50/4 and 70-200/4.

neuroanatomist said:

So Canon shouldn’t make a 70-200mm f/2 because with a 1.4x TC that’s a 98-280mm f/2.8 and that’s ’a threat’ to the 100-300mm f/2.8.

Shhhhh. Don’t tell Canon that a 400mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC is a 560mm f/4. If they ever figure that out, they’ll understand the threat that poses to a 600mm f/4, and they’ll never make such a lens.

Or maybe that ‘threat’ is why, while Canon made 7 versions of a 400/2.8, they’ve only made 5 versions of a 600/4.


Forum dwellers thinking they understand the camera market better than manufacturers is a never-ending source of amusement.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. You can make a 400mm f2.8 similar to a 600mm f4 with tele converters. The difference is that the 400 has a shorter min focus distance and is a smaller and lighter lens than the big 600. Both options will out resolve our current full frame snesors. Both can make an excellent approximate 800mm f5.6 with teleconverters. What the 400 can't do is make a great 1200mm that the 600mm can do with a 2x tc. The Big 600 can't make a short 400mm or do f2.8. So yes there's a lot of overlap, but ultimatly, one is wider the other is longer. I would never buy both a 600 and a 400, but would weight up the benfits of each and choose the best for for me.

Likewise your lovely RF 100-300mm is great with telecoverters, something like a theoretical 70-200mm f2 might be able to step into the RF 100-300's native range with converters, but it certainly won't be able to produce a sharp 200-600mm lens with teleconverters. If a 600mm is the goal, there are better ways to do this. Having a 100-300 f2.8 and a 600 f4 is a perfect set up for many.

Bob Howland said:

He did say 70-200 f/1.4 (or f/2) The front element would have to be the same size as a 400 f/2.8. I want a longer sibling to the 20-50 f/4 L IS Z, with the same design philosophy and at the same price, perhaps 35-85 f/2.8 L IS Z or 60-150 f/2.8 L IS Z.

Click to expand...

No one seems to have noticed this new RF 20-50mm f4 L is the 2nd lens in a new F4 trio started with the RF 10-20mm f4 L. It's easy to guess what focal length and aperture the 3rd lens of the range will be, 50-xxx f4 L.

Bob Howland said:

Good to hear. Neuro also ordered one.

Click to expand...

Mine is on a FedEx truck right now, expecting delivery in a few hours.

Del Paso said:

I just tested mine (not scientifically!).
And I am extremely satisfied with this little lens, I can only recommend it!

Click to expand...

Good to hear. Neuro also ordered one. I'll be interested to hear how he likes it when traveling with his R8. I don't think he'll use it much for movies, even with a BR-E1/E2 remote. I'm very interested in seeing where Canon takes this architecture.