mangobutter said:

The RF 50 was just lazy and i always hated that it was merely a reshuffled EF 50 STM which itself was just a re-dressed design going back decades.

Click to expand...

The RF 50/1.8 is not a reshuffle of the EF 50/1.8.
If it’s a reshuffle (or rather a modern update) of anything then it’s the 40/1.7 of the 1970s Canonet rangefinder models. Incidentally that lens had a stellar reputation in its day.

m4ndr4ke said:

That's higher end, I think he meant the old gold rings, and the best modern silver rings, like the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, and EF 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS USM.

Click to expand...

I assumed so, and probably when he stated, "Essentially nearly none of the RF lenses in the "normal" focal length range make me proud to own, hold, touch, and operate them," he meant lenses that he personally owns, not lenses that are available.

He did mention the EF 85/1.8, specifically, and while I remember that lens fondly (it was one of the very first pair of lenses that I bought, back in 2009), I don't kid myself about its optical performance. That lens had wicked bad axial CA...if the Jimmy Hendrix song didn't predate the lens by 25 years, I'd have said the song was written about the lens. The fact is that the RF 85/2 delivers significantly better optical results than the EF 85/1.8.

I can't speak to the build quality of the RF 85/2 as I've never used it, but holding the RF 24/1.8 STM and the RF 24/1.4L VCM side by side, the build quality is actually very similar, both are very good.



In terms of optics, the RF 24/1.8, RF 28/2.8, and especially the RF 35/1.8 are better than their EF 'best modern silver ring' counterparts, for example see this 35mm comparison.

mimbu said:

I met a retired dentist (how cliche is that) in Japan who owned both this Nikon and the EF 1200/5.6.

Click to expand...

For what dental care costs here, ours could easily afford them.

Since, the current 400 & 600 primes are EF lenses adapted to the RF mount; their due for a refresh. Before the world cup would make sense, but that doesn't mean they will do it.

As for a switchable teleconverter; I would prefer a completely separate unit. That way it can be used on other lenses and when it's needed. A built in teleconverter adds weight, length, and cost to the lens. I only need 1.4, not a fan of a 2.0 teleconverters ( my personal opinion). They have a working switchable teleconverter from the EF 200-400mm, that has shown reliability for years. Why haven't they adapted this into a separate teleconverter; there is no doubt in my mind it would sell. I would buy it. SEE DISCUSSION BELOW. I've learned you can't make a generic separate switchable teleconverter.

In my opinion, since the introduction of the RF mount Canon has put the long glass needs on the back burner. During this time, Sony & Nikon have developed better options and it's time for Canon to step up. The classic example is the gap between the 100-500mm and 400/600mm primes in the "L" series lenses. If you want upgrade to 600mm or faster glass from your 100-500, your ONLY option is a $13 to 14k prime. Then there is the mythical 300-600mm that has been teased for years. This would be a great wildlife lens, if their smart enough to make it a variable aperture of f4 to 5.6. For those of us that shoot in low light and want better bokeh; a fixed f5.6 aperture is unacceptable at the 300 to 400mm range for the anticipated price of at least 7K.

Canon Rumors said:

... and it would cost $30,000

Click to expand...

and weigh a large number of pounds

A 600-1200 f/4-f/8 zoom would be a nice twist and much more useful that dual TCs.

I can't really see 85/1.8 non-IS being an upgrade over 85/2 IS. I'd pick IS over an extra third of a stop, anytime.
What the 85/2 really needs is a different focusing motor, rather than a different opical formula.

neuroanatomist said:

Highly doubtful. One set of flip-out 1.4x elements, yes. Two sets of them, no.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking more like a tommy gun implementation:



In which case we could also get 4x, 8x, and 16x extenders that spin into place for rapid duck action!

kirbic said:

Oh, BTW "prospective buyers" not "perspective buyers"

Click to expand...

Maybe it's both?

I would like any telephoto lens to be as light as possible. I owned the FD 400mm 2.8 and at over 6Kg with a camera body it was very difficult to use. My EF 500mm ii is much more manageable at 3.97Kg on a R6ii with adapter. Currently the RF 600mm is 3.76 with a R6ii, how much heavier is acceptable for the 'benefit' of two built in extenders. I would prefer the extenders in my backpack for when I need them rather than supporting their weight in the my left hand when I don't.

It will be interesting to see what Canon does with the super-teles... not that I am in the market. I could not justify splashing out five digits for a super-telephoto for my use cases. Oh, BTW "prospective buyers" not "perspective buyers"

I had the same surprise this morning. Here, we're 10°C below normal.

mimbu said:

That's about all there is to say on the matter then.

Click to expand...

I stated that before you replied that it was all about FF cameras. So clearly you felt differently prior to posting that drivel. It's almost like you felt compelled to argue the matter. Like you were unable to resist replying. Like some sort of bot...and it's obvious which sort.

mimbu said:

I'd be curious how you define "helped". By being the janitor? It's a critical job to society in general but I think it might be a bit of a stretch to equate it to helping with a cancer treatment.

Click to expand...

Yes, that was it. Always happy to put my PhD and decades of drug development experience to good use.

mimbu said:

I volunteer at animal shelters and donate as much as I can.

Click to expand...

It's good that you help out with small, local problems, and even better that you provide assistance to creatures with more maturity than you possess.

mimbu said:

Every mount seems to have people who think including a 1.4x and 2x TC in the same lens would somehow be easy. It's not. The only way it might happen is if a single TC can be used for both. Either with a zoom function of sorts, or by having some subset of the elements work for 1.4x and the full set of elements work for 2x. Neither seems particularly likely.

Click to expand...

Canon has filed patent applications for a switchable 1.4x-2x TC, essentially a 1.4x with a second 1.4x that flips out. Not sure it will become a product, but Canon is certainly thinking about such an optic.

Pretty cool shot. Well done, Speedfinder.

neuroanatomist said:

Just to add, though Nikon didn't make a 1200/5.6 with a built-in 1.4x TC, they did come out with a basically equivalent version as a zoom lens, the 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8. They were only 6 years behind Canon for that one.

View attachment 228788

Click to expand...

I met a retired dentist (how cliche is that) in Japan who owned both this Nikon and the EF 1200/5.6.

neuroanatomist said:

Highly doubtful. One set of flip-out 1.4x elements, yes. Two sets of them, no.

Click to expand...

Something we can agree on.

Every mount seems to have people who think including a 1.4x and 2x TC in the same lens would somehow be easy. It's not. The only way it might happen is if a single TC can be used for both. Either with a zoom function of sorts, or by having some subset of the elements work for 1.4x and the full set of elements work for 2x. Neither seems particularly likely. Two full sets of elements (and the mechanisms to swap them each in and out) seems even less likely.

neuroanatomist said:

Personally, I helped develop a breakthrough cancer therapy that has benefited millions of patients so far.

Click to expand...

I'd be curious how you define "helped". By being the janitor? It's a critical job to society in general but I think it might be a bit of a stretch to equate it to helping with a cancer treatment.

neuroanatomist said:

I wonder what @mimbu has done to benefit society? Evidently he doesn't realize that by being an insulting buffoon on an Internet forum, he benefits no one...least of all himself.

Click to expand...

I volunteer at animal shelters and donate as much as I can. Honestly dealing with people like you makes me much more inclined to help mistreated animals than much of the human population.

Finally these just might be stuff I have been praying for, especially the 55/1.8.
The 50/1.8 is is cheap crap, and although I bought the 45/1.2 which is much better quality, it's size and weight is more than what would be ideal in scenarios when it matters.
I'd be happy with a 55/1.8 around 250g.

Also, a 85/1.8 with better AF but not more weight would be a welcomed upgrade to the 85/2.
I'd pre-order both.

P-visie said:

You have reached a new low. Cancer kills millions of people each year.

Click to expand...

How is recommending he stop doing something that might cause cancer a new low? Seems like a positive to me.

neuroanatomist said:

Many of us have figured out that you’re asinine and irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Yet, you cannot resist replying. You're like some sort of bot. Push buttons, get reply. It's very entertaining, I must say.

neuroanatomist said:

Repeating myself, but you perceive statements of fact as 'defending Canon'

Click to expand...

Your delusions of grandeur have become so strong that you think your opinions are somehow fact. Interesting.

neuroanatomist said:

I've agreed that Canon is blocking 3rd parties from making FF AF lenses for RF.

Click to expand...

That's about all there is to say on the matter then.

Just to add, though Nikon didn't make a 1200/5.6 with a built-in 1.4x TC, they did come out with a basically equivalent version as a zoom lens, the 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8. They were only 6 years behind Canon for that one.

Canon Rumors said:

Click to expand...

Don’t worry, I’ve started a new RF wishlist

Exploreshootshare said:

omg, how heavy was this lens? According to google AI, it was 16,8 kg. Instead of a tripod one should have probably used a golf cart Useful for a safari, for sure. But for which sport would one use a lens like this?

Click to expand...

Those five FDn lenses were all converted to EF mount (with the TC removed).