I have always chased edge-to-edge sharpness at maximum apertures in low light, so this kind of lens engineering could speak directly to me. If the result holds up it will be a massive move forward. In the end real shots will reveal what actually works.

This is our "never before seen" lens design to go with the 45 1.2?
Edit: "world's first"

Del Paso said:

I don't rely on TDP's or D. Abbott's chart pictures, among other reasons because they are taken at a distance which doesn't necessarily match my photography habits.
I have also noticed in the past that lenses I found exceptional performed badly for chart photography.
Therefore, I will test mine, and keep it or send it back. Yet, I'm quite convinced I'll keep it!

Click to expand...

I can fully understand that. Testing it yourself works best for decision-making.

I also read Richard's article from CanonNews about the RF 20-50's MTF. His explanation of the MTF confirms that the mid-frame and periphery are not as good as the center. Based on my own tests, I want to see what this means for architecture photography (indoor and outdoor) and landscape photography. I certainly believe this is a great lens for street photography.

candyman said:

TDP updated the review (06/20) with more info about image quality.

TDP review RF 20-50mm f/4L IS USM

Compared to RF 14-35 and RF 10-20 @20 this RF 20-50 shows less contrast especially in the mid-frame and periphery. Also sharpness is less in the mid-frame and periphery. All at f/4.
It performs better in the mid-frame and periphery compared to RF 24-105 @ 24, 35 and 50mm

Click to expand...

I don't rely on TDP's or D. Abbott's chart pictures, among other reasons because they are taken at a distance which doesn't necessarily match my photography habits.
I have also noticed in the past that lenses I found exceptional performed badly for chart photography.
Therefore, I will test mine, and keep it or send it back. Yet, I'm quite convinced I'll keep it!

Exploreshootshare said:

Of course, a one to one comparison between the lenses is necessary, but also your lens collection as a whole. When I upgraded from APS to full frame (EOS R) I owned four EF lenses and two RF lenses. But, after going on a six-week trip I was fed up with the mixed EF/ RF collection. The biggest pain for me of having EF and RF was handling the adapter. Sometimes, I just left the adapter on the camera, other times I had to look for it in my bag because it was still on different lens and so on and so forth... it really got my nerves. I then had three choices:
1. all native RF lenses
2. all EF lenses and keep the adapter on the camera
3. buy an adapter for every EF lens used.
4. keep one EF lens with one adapter

Click to expand...

That's a good list of solutions to each use case scenario. I'm not currently in this situation because all my glass is EF mount. However, I need a walkabouts ultra wide (RF 10-20 L looks so sweet) and I do fancy a few of the RF portrait primes. The RF 85mm f1.2 L and RF 50mm f1.2 L come to mind.
I've considered the above scenarios previously and because I'm a 2 camera body user, I will probably put the EF adapter on one camera and use taht as my EF lens camera and then go R mount native lenses on my other camera. With one caveat, I'd still have a spare Ef to R adapter in my gear bag, just in case.

GMCPhotographics said:

AF expectation has gone up dramatically with the mirrorless / software based Af systems. I don't own any RF glass, my entire lens catalogue (which is quite vast) are all EF lenses. I tried a EOS R and didn't like it, it felt too much like a beta camera. I tried the R5 and love it, but it was too expensive and the R6 was a bit too low res for me to make the jump from my trusty and proven Eos 5Diii's. I bought a R8 just after launch to dip my toe into the newer Canon ecology and was blown away by how far Canon had come with their tech. I soon wanted a better version of the R8 and bought a R6ii as my primary camera and my R8 was my second camera. Only recently have I upgraded my R8 to a R6iii (I dallied with a R5 for 6 months, but that's another story).

Click to expand...

When I started reading the first couple of lines, I immediately thought: the r6iii must be for you turns out, it is

GMCPhotographics said:

Most of the RF glass is a wee bit better in some regards to the EF glass. Some of these benefits are marginal and others are quite dramatic. However, if you already have great EF glass and it's giving you great results (and it's paid for) then it's free and doesn't cost you anything. Where as the RF lenses are expensive for sometime very little benefits for the cost.

Click to expand...

Of course, a one to one comparison between the lenses is necessary, but also your lens collection as a whole. When I upgraded from APS to full frame (EOS R) I owned four EF lenses and two RF lenses. But, after going on a six-week trip I was fed up with the mixed EF/ RF collection. The biggest pain for me of having EF and RF was handling the adapter. Sometimes, I just left the adapter on the camera, other times I had to look for it in my bag because it was still on different lens and so on and so forth... it really got my nerves. I then had three choices:
1. all native RF lenses
2. all EF lenses and keep the adapter on the camera
3. buy an adapter for every EF lens used.
4. keep one EF lens with one adapter

In the end (long story) I opted for no. 1 although I started with no. 4.

GMCPhotographics said:

For example, the EF 100-400 f5.6 LIS II vs the RF 100-500mm f7.1 LIS. Sure the newer lens is slightly lighter, longer and it's AF is a bit better too. However optically, the old one is brighter and equally sharp. In the UK, the nwer lens retails at around £2.5K, the trade in for a the EF lens is often quite low, maybe £800 in trade in.

Click to expand...

I traded the EF 100-400mm for the 100-500mm. I did pay a premium, but it was absolutely ok because I got the RF for a great price (with discounts, great currency exchange and before all the price hikes) and due to the pandemic I even got more money for my 100-400mm then I originally paid for. Nowadays, the value of the EF version has declined and the RF had some price hikes... I couldn't/ wouldn't want to do it again concerning financials.

Concerning the lenses itself: Saving more than 10% of the weight (1750gr vs 1530gr), four times vs five times zoom, with TC additional 200mm range, slight faster AF (imo) were worth the money.

At that point, I thought that would have been my only upgrade because the RF 14-35mm had an RRP of 1.819 € at launch in Germany. That was 2,5 times the money I paid for the EF 16-35mm. Sure, better magnification, 2mm wider, less weight (especially with the adapter) were intriguing, but the price wasn't. It was only by chance that I got the RF version on a refurbished sell-out sale and the upgrade cost me slight less than 300 €. To cover that I ditched the Sigma, the EF 50mm and the adapter as well and bought the 85mm F2 from the extra money. I think I actually had some money left.

All in all, my EF to RF tranistion went - financially speaking - pretty smoothly with only losing one lens in total and a manageable amount of money. But this is a very individual case because I didn't have a big EF portfolio.

GMCPhotographics said:

So I would still need to find £1.7K, which is a LOT for something that's only a bit better than my existing lens.
Other lenses like the RF 50mm f1.4 VCM L and the RF 24mm f1.4 VCM L have no direct EF lens comparision that is worth mentioning.

Some lenses like the EF 11-24mm f4 L are amazing performers and gain the option of using drop in filters behind the lens when using a EF to R adapter. This means that a large and bulbous lens like this can use filters very efficiently when crossing the EF to R mount divide. It's RF equivelent is the sublime RF 10-20mm L. Which is a stunning little lens. It's a little wider, not as long and it looses the drop in adapter option (obviously). But it is so much smaller and easier to use than the giant EF version. Sure, the EF version doesn't rely on corner stretching / math geometric correction, but compare the size difference and it's a night and day experiance.

Click to expand...

This one is though. I don´t own either lens, but I imagine the decision could be hard: keep the EF with the ability to add filters or carry a soooo much lighter and wider lens. You win some features, you lose some features (as you said)

GMCPhotographics said:

As you can see, you gain some features and loose some others. it's not quite a like for like comparison.

Click to expand...

I am currently looking at macro lenses: the decision is between the EF 100mm F2.8 L and the RF 100mm F2.8. Do I really need the magnification of 1,4:1? Is it worth a premium of about 400-600 €? I don't think so because I am not that much into macro... only thing with the EF... I need an adapter once again... grrrr

Exploreshootshare said:

I shot with the EF 100-400mm L mkii on the 6dii and the AF struggled with slightly higher aperture. I later used it on the EOS R and it worked flawlessly even down to f22. So yeah, I agree with the sentiment. In my experience the same can be said about the EF 16-35mm F4 L, 70-300mm and EF 70-200mm F4 L. Those are the only lenses with which I had a direct comparison. (rented the 6dii for testing it before deciding to purchase the EOS R instead).

Click to expand...

AF expectation has gone up dramatically with the mirrorless / software based Af systems. Photographers can now do more, have better accuracy and way better tracking. The old chip based AF is slow and pretty much redundant when compared to what even a EOS RP or R8 can do.
I personally don't own any RF glass, my entire lens catalogue (which is quite vast) are all EF lenses. I tried a EOS R when it was launched and didn't like it, it felt too much like a beta camera. When the R5 came out, i tried it and loved it, but it was too expensive and I didn't need 45mp. The R6 was a bit too low res for me to make the jump from my trusty and proven Eos 5Diii's. I bought a R8 just after launch to dip my toe into the newer Canon ecology and was blown away by how far Canon had come with their camera tech. I soon wanted a better version of the R8 and bought a R6ii as my primary camera and my R8 was my second camera. Only recently have I upgraded my R8 to a R6iii (I dallied with a R5 for 6 months, but that's another story).

Most of the RF glass is a wee bit better in some regards to the EF glass. Some of these benefits are marginal and others are quite dramatic. However, if you already have great EF glass and it's giving you great results (and it's paid for) then it's free and doesn't cost you anything. Where as the RF lenses are expensive for sometime very little benefits for the cost.

For example, the EF 100-400 f5.6 LIS II vs the RF 100-500mm f7.1 LIS. Sure the newer lens is slightly lighter, longer and it's AF is a bit better too. However optically, the old one is brighter and equally sharp. In the UK, the nwer lens retails at around £2.5K, the trade in for a the EF lens is often quite low, maybe £800 in trade in. So I would still need to find £1.7K, which is a LOT for something that's only a bit better than my existing lens.
Other lenses like the RF 50mm f1.4 VCM L and the RF 24mm f1.4 VCM L have no direct EF lens comparision that is worth mentioning.

Some lenses like the EF 11-24mm f4 L are amazing performers and gain the option of using drop in filters behind the lens when using a EF to R adapter. This means that a large and bulbous lens like this can use filters very efficiently when crossing the EF to R mount divide. It's RF equivelent is the sublime RF 10-20mm L. Which is a stunning little lens. It's a little wider, not as long and it looses the drop in adapter option (obviously). But it is so much smaller and easier to use than the giant EF version. Sure, the EF version doesn't rely on corner stretching / math geometric correction, but compare the size difference and it's a night and day experiance. As you can see, you gain some features and loose some others. it's not quite a like for like comparison.

ctk said:

Maybe Im being harsh but good riddance. RP always felt phoned in and overly reliant on its price. R8 costs a little more but is worth the premium. Id argue R50 is a better camera at half the price if you can find the lenses you need for it. RP just carried the disappointing 6D2 into RF mount.

Cheap FF is an oxymoron because if you go with cheap FF lenses youre not much better off than APS-C and if you get good glass you're hampering them with a mediocre body. Again I know RF-S is limited in lens choices but E mount or even Z DX is a better choice than building around the RP IMO

Click to expand...

Cheap FF is not an oxymoron. This is one of those gate-keeping opinions that discourages new people from starting photography. Have you actually used cheaper modern RF lenses? The real secret weapon of cheap mirrorless FF is a 30€ SLR mount adapter. It allows new photographers to use all the old lenses relatives has lying in drawers without a crop-factor.

Not suprising, the R8 eclipses it in every regard and will eventually settle at the same price point.

I use my R8 as a lighter camera for social events, it even supports dual back button focus exactly like my R6 II so it makes for a great backup camera.

In Australia you can get an RP body only for only $181 more then an R100 with the 18-45mm lens, and that's only checking one website.

Hopefully when the R8 II gets released the R8 will stick around and take the RP's price slot.

At the time, spending less on the RP over the R, and putting the difference toward a lens was the right move for me. However, today, the R8 is worth paying a bit more for. Hopefully, they drop its price a little (or at least that of the R10) for the budget conscious.

GMCPhotographics said:

I'm a long time user of a EF 85mm f1.2 II L. I love the look and teh files it turns in. However, my biggest issue with it is it's AF accuracy. This lens literally entered into a whole new world of ability and usefulness when I put it on my R8 / R6ii. Suddenly, I could explor the new world of eye detection AF and no longer use point and re-compose. Prevously I would use a single point AF then move the camera / lens so that my subject was now in focus. It was tedious, slow and required a fair amount of skill / patience. Now...the eye AF pretty much nails it every time and "oh....this is how sharp and contrasty this lens can be" is now my current rhetoric. In low like I still see a lot of focus errors, especially if the subject isn't posing but moving about a bit. The R6ii / R8's AF struggles tracking with this lens. HOWEVER...it's completely different on my R6iii. it's nailing fast moving people and I'm getting a higher keeper rate.

But, I would like to buy the current RF L version, it's sharper and it's AF is less taxing on the camera. I'm not sure this rumoured RF silver ring version would be much of an upgrade for me compared to my current EF version.

Click to expand...

I’m using the RF 85 1.2, the results are fantastic, you must try it

Maybe Im being harsh but good riddance. RP always felt phoned in and overly reliant on its price. R8 costs a little more but is worth the premium. Id argue R50 is a better camera at half the price if you can find the lenses you need for it. RP just carried the disappointing 6D2 into RF mount.

Cheap FF is an oxymoron because if you go with cheap FF lenses youre not much better off than APS-C and if you get good glass you're hampering them with a mediocre body. Again I know RF-S is limited in lens choices but E mount or even Z DX is a better choice than building around the RP IMO

ScreensMatter said:

I dearly hope that they will release a new model to replace it. It has been such an easy recommendation for anyone wanting to pick up a first camera. Buy it new on promotion or used from a camera store that offers some time of warranty. Good enough for everything except maybe sports or birds in flight.

There is a room for a very cheap FF camera.

Click to expand...

The R8 is the new model. It's already couple of years old and discounted. Considering the competition, it makes no sense to release a model that is better than the RP but worse and significantly cheaper than the R8.

exkeks said:

Same situation as with Canon's 50mm section: The might just call it a 80mm/1.2 STM and be there. Especially if you look at the real focal length in the cited patents.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. There are the 1.2/45 STM, the 1,2/50L USM, the 1.4/50 VCM and the 1.8/50 STM. That makes four lenses. And we already have four 85mm lenses. Another one would be the fifth I am all for new lenses, but how about an 1.2/35? 1.4/28? 1.8/105? ...

Exploreshootshare said:

In Germany, the MSRP on launch day for the R8 was 1.799 €. Last November, it was on sale for 999 € on Black Friday (actually for over two weeks) and this was recently repeated with the added gift of a second spare battery and a 128 GB SD card which that cheap anymore. I believe the camera could hit 800-900 € price point but probably not less in the next two years. The RP had so much less to offer which made it slip in price.

Click to expand...

The R8 offers a lot of value, but even at 1000 euro to 800 euro it is a lot of money compared to a RP bellow 500 € new. That is why I hope they release a successor. Anyway, it will still be available in the used section of many camera stores for bellow 400 € with some months of warranty. I just hope there will always be a affordable path to get in to the RF-system for beginners.

this one was showing off today

Exploreshootshare said:

In Germany, the MSRP on launch day for the R8 was 1.799 €. Last November, it was on sale for 999 € on Black Friday (actually for over two weeks) and this was recently repeated with the added gift of a second spare battery and a 128 GB SD card which that cheap anymore. I believe the camera could hit 800-900 € price point but probably not less in the next two years. The RP had so much less to offer which made it slip in price.

Click to expand...

The RP is usually under €700 here in Portugal, and it has dropped below €500 on last year’s black friday.

Currently is at €649 at the largest national retailer.

I bought mine a year ago, an open box with extra battery and a RF 50mm f/1.8 for €570. Then I sold the lens, since I already had it.

The R8 usually drops to about €1000~1100 (that has been happening for the past two years or so), and that retailer celebrated 30 years in March. On that day, the R8 was available for €840 with an extra battery.
Currently is at €1232 body only, and €1259 with extra battery.
At a photography store it’s currently available for 1180€ with two extra batteries.

I had my Canon RF 100 macro on today and this red one flew by... I started getting closer and had my picture taken right up to its nose

Ruddy Darter - Sympetrum sanguineum

DocInfoSci said:

I mean, I get what's being said — but that stated, all contemporary bodies only seem to supercharge EF lenses (at least the USM varieties)...I tell everyone with a serious EF stable to go get a modern body.

Click to expand...

I shot with the EF 100-400mm L mkii on the 6dii and the AF struggled with slightly higher aperture. I later used it on the EOS R and it worked flawlessly even down to f22. So yeah, I agree with the sentiment. In my experience the same can be said about the EF 16-35mm F4 L, 70-300mm and EF 70-200mm F4 L. Those are the only lenses with which I had a direct comparison. (rented the 6dii for testing it before deciding to purchase the EOS R instead).

ScreensMatter said:

I hope you are right in that the R8 will become cheap. I had totally forgot the MSRP on lunch for the RP was $1299 body-only. The RP had fallen a lot in price before the R8 launch so the $1499 MSRP made think of it as a tier above and not so much a replacement.

Click to expand...

In Germany, the MSRP on launch day for the R8 was 1.799 €. Last November, it was on sale for 999 € on Black Friday (actually for over two weeks) and this was recently repeated with the added gift of a second spare battery and a 128 GB SD card which that cheap anymore. I believe the camera could hit 800-900 € price point but probably not less in the next two years. The RP had so much less to offer which made it slip in price.

Maximilian said:

I especially like the typical "sun pointer" pose of the third photo, normally typical for the genus Trithemis.

Click to expand...

As you (probably) know, dragonflies use the obelisk posture for thermoregulation to minimize their exposure to the sun. According to Wikipedia about 30 species of dragonflies and damselflies have been observed in this posture.
More pictures: https://imagewildlife.com/dragonfly-obelisk-posture-natures-sun-salutation/

I think it's sad to see any affordable camera leave the stable, but with newer bodies coming in I assume that pricing will eventually correct.

I do have to laugh at this, though:

"We still recommend it to EF shooters who want a full-frame mirrorless camera but have no intentions of replacing all of their EF glass with RF."

I mean, I get what's being said — but that stated, all contemporary bodies only seem to supercharge EF lenses (at least the USM varieties); and with full electronic shutter shooting the slower aperture blades don't hold anything back. I tell everyone with a serious EF stable to go get a modern body.