Canon Eyes a Canon RF 50-150mm F2.8

[Del Paso]

Maybe a travel lens to combo with the 14-35 L. Maybe.

Probably still would rather take 70-200 f4 and a fast 50mm prime. Actually this.

That's "exactly" what I do, for day-trips, RF 15-35 f/2,8 + RF 70-200 f/4, each on its own body. I dislike changing lenses (missed occasions and laziness).
But for longer trips, I add the RF 100-500 + EF 24mm TSE + 60mm macro.

 

[Sharlin]

With the 28-70 STM ending at 70 mm, this 70 mm should be the starting FL and it should go further than 150 mm.
With 200 or else preferred.

You mean Canon doesn't already have 70–200mm RF lenses?

In any case, if this ever becomes reality and is reasonably priced, it would be a perfect partner to a hypothetical, sorely lacking 17ish-50ish mm f/2.8 RF-S. Not every lens needs to be a part of a FF "trinity".

 

[neuroanatomist]

It can't meaningfully be done with the equipment we have available because you can't use the same lens to do both at the same time, meaning that there will always be differences in the image created.

The best you could do would be to take a lens such as this and create a system where you can alter the position of the sensor relative to the back of the lens so that when it is at 50mm, the position of the sensor is further back allowing the spread of light to cover more area. that assumes that the photos coming out the back of the lens are coming out at an angle.

It doesn't have to be the same lens, a similar one would be fine. As I've stated, I compared the RF 14-35/4 to the EF 11-24/4, where the latter at 14mm has very little geometric distortion to start. Corner sharpness of the corrected RF lens at 14mm was similar. That supports the idea that digital correction is non-inferior from an IQ standpoint. What I keep asking is for someone to provide some reasonable evidence to back up the claim that digital correction is inferior.

It would also require custom firmware to record what comes out of the sensor because I think Canon do the stretching very early so you can never see an unstretched image.

Wrong. The distortion correction (stretching) is done during conversion of the RAW image. If you open a RAW image from a lens that doesn't fill the corners and turn off the lens profile, you see the black corners.

This is the corner of a shot with the RF 24-105/2.8 Z taken just after I got the lens, before DxO had a correction profile.



Incidentally, there's may be an easier way to achieve a practically meaningful result – the RF 24-105/2.8 Z doesn't fill the corners at 24mm but does by 28mm (maybe wider, I have not checked). So a comparison of filling the corners with digital extrapolation vs. with light is possible using the same lens (albeit at a different zoom setting, but a close one). I may try that at some point.

 

[PinholeR5]

The length in the patent application is from the front of the lens to the image plane, so it includes the 20mm flange distance. So you need to substract 20mm from the lens length in the patent application. The lens size would be almost the same as the RF70-200mm f2.8.

See: https://www.canonrumors.com/canons-new-patent-ultra-compact-body-cap-lenses-for-the-rf-mount/

Ah, cool, thanks! So I was missing something Still, it would be marginaly larger than the RF 70-200mm F2.8 and meaningfully larger than the F4.

 

[DhlcadR6]

I need this lens ASAP

 

[rombe3jr]

A bit confused by this. If it is supposed to round out the trinity of STM lenses (16-28 & 28-70) then its overlapping and limited on the long side, at least compared with its competitors in other mounts. For example the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 ($700 USD on the e-mount), the 28-75 f/2.8 ($700 USD on the e-mount), and 70-180 f/2.8 ($1,000 USD on the e-mount), to round out the trinity with very little overlap. Not sure I like how much overlap a 50-150 would have with the 28-70 and the 30mm short of 180. Sony did release a 50-150 but it is f/2.0.

 

[Maximilian]

You mean Canon doesn't already have 70–200mm RF lenses?

If it was planned as a "mainly" APS-C f/2.8 zoom , why does it offer FF image circle for almost any FL?
And why does CR decide to call it RF instead of RF-S then?
With their experience and internal information not offered to us I suppose they not only speculate about the positioning of this lens in the RF(-S) lineup - if it really becomes a product.

In any case, if this ever becomes reality and is reasonably priced, it would be a perfect partner to a hypothetical, sorely lacking 17ish-50ish mm f/2.8 RF-S. Not every lens needs to be a part of a FF "trinity".

Again: where do you see this lens as a mainly APS-C focused lens?
I see this as a third lens in a f/2.8 STM trinity, but with other FL as the L lens trinity, supposedly for price and size and differentiation.
And of course I know that there are two f/2.8 70 to 200 mm FF L lenses offerings. But when I checked the prices of those lately they were both far north 2k €/$.
When this lens comes with a price closer to the 28-70 STM this would be an interesting prosumer/consumer alternative, great to pair with RP/R8/R6m1 to 3.
This is how I see this lens. And if I am right, I would prefer a more tele oriented FL setting, but this would supposedly be contrary to Canons size plans.

 

[David_B]

It doesn't have to be the same lens, a similar one would be fine.

If someone used different lenses and could prove a difference, would it be accepted? Or would people argue that the results aren't meaningful because different lenses. Maybe it doesn't matter because people will just be argumentative.

As I've stated, I compared the RF 14-35/4 to the EF 11-24/4, where the latter at 14mm has very little geometric distortion to start. Corner sharpness of the corrected RF lens at 14mm was similar. That supports the idea that digital correction is non-inferior from an IQ standpoint. What I keep asking is for someone to provide some reasonable evidence to back up the claim that digital correction is inferior.

Sorry, I can't help as I don't have the required equipment (a lens that doesn't fill the sensor.)

IMHO, to do a proper test you'd need to shoot a test pattern chart, the kind that's used by digitalpicture, dpreview, with all the lines at angles to enable measuring lpmm, etc.

Wrong. The distortion correction (stretching) is done during conversion of the RAW image. If you open a RAW image from a lens that doesn't fill the corners and turn off the lens profile, you see the black corners.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

 

[AlanF]

IMHO, to do a proper test you'd need to shoot a test pattern chart, the kind that's used by digitalpicture, dpreview, with all the lines at angles to enable measuring lpmm, etc.

As @neuroanatomist has written many times, he has the same charts as the digital-picture and has got them to correct some results. You can do digital-picture type charts for free by downloading them from the bobatkins site. However, to measure lp/mm with precision you need to use IMATEST or similar, which is done by opticallimits, lenstip, ephotozine etc.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

That's "exactly" what I do, for day-trips, RF 15-35 f/2,8 + RF 70-200 f/4, each on its own body. I dislike changing lenses (missed occasions and laziness).
But for longer trips, I add the RF 100-500 + EF 24mm TSE + 60mm macro.

For city trips, I take the R5 along with the 14-35mm F4 L and the 70-200mm F4, sometimes a fast prime. For hiking, it depends on the route. Either I take the exact same combo, or I switch the 14-35mm for the 35mm F1.8. The 16mm sometimes gets a place somewhere between my stuff

This year, I have to go lighter because we're now traveling with a kid So, I got the R8 (surprisingly capable camera!!) and I plan to pair it with the 28mm F2.8 for landscapes and such, 50mm (family pics and my kid) and a zoom. I don't which zoom I'll be carrying. I can always take my in-laws 100-400mm (which used to be mine) in exchange for my 100-500mm. I am currently looking to replace the 24-105mm F4 L (too heavy for the R8), but I don´t exactly know what I want. I'll wait and see what Canon does with the third F2.8 STM lens.

 

[Skyfall]

For city trips, I take the R5 along with the 14-35mm F4 L and the 70-200mm F4, sometimes a fast prime. For hiking, it depends on the route. Either I take the exact same combo, or I switch the 14-35mm for the 35mm F1.8. The 16mm sometimes gets a place somewhere between my stuff

This year, I have to go lighter because we're now traveling with a kid So, I got the R8 (surprisingly capable camera!!) and I plan to pair it with the 28mm F2.8 for landscapes and such, 50mm (family pics and my kid) and a zoom. I don't which zoom I'll be carrying. I can always take my in-laws 100-400mm (which used to be mine) in exchange for my 100-500mm. I am currently looking to replace the 24-105mm F4 L (too heavy for the R8), but I don´t exactly know what I want. I'll wait and see what Canon does with the third F2.8 STM lens.

I agree, i mostly just use the 14-35mm or 24-105 f4 for hiking with the 100-500 in the bag(its to heavy to have on your neck while hiking), but a 50-150 with the 14-35 would be more versatile, light and still long enough for the ocassionnal wildlife pic than both a 70-200 and the 100-500

 

[neuroanatomist]

If someone used different lenses and could prove a difference, would it be accepted? Or would people argue that the results aren't meaningful because different lenses. Maybe it doesn't matter because people will just be argumentative.

It would likely depend on the comparison. For example, I’m not sure that comparing the digitally corrected corners of the inexpensive RF 16/2.8 to the optically corrected RF 15-35/2.8 would be valid, because the base quality of the two lenses is very different. Having said that, it is interesting that the digitally corrected corners of the RF 16/2.8 deliver similar IQ to the optically corrected corners of the far more expensive (but also much older) EF 14/2.8L II.

Sorry, I can't help as I don't have the required equipment (a lens that doesn't fill the sensor.)

I see. So you’re belief that optical correction is superior is akin to faith – belief without evidence.

IMHO, to do a proper test you'd need to shoot a test pattern chart, the kind that's used by digitalpicture, dpreview, with all the lines at angles to enable measuring lpmm, etc.

As @AlanF mentioned, I have the same enhanced ISO 12233-type charts used by Bryan/TDP.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

You’re welcome.

 

[Traveler]

Would be much nicer to have something like 70-180 (closer to the 200mm and maybe less wide if it makes the lens easier to design). But I get that the diameter of the front element depends… you all know it.

And Canon probably needs to protect their 70-200 (both f/4 and f/2.8) so there must be some disadvantages to that STM lens.

 

[Snapster]

Checking travel pics from last summer, I realized I shoot so much landscape at 200mm this won't make it. Also in cities and with people I often use apertures faster than 2.8.

I might also be inherently against "one lens solution" type of lenses. It's rarely if ever the best tool for the job.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I might also be inherently against "one lens solution" type of lenses. It's rarely if ever the best tool for the job.

IMO, sometimes the ‘one lens solution’ is the best tool for the job. For me, when the ‘job’ is a family trip where I want good quality photos including memory shots, but don’t want to detract from time with the family by carrying a bag full of lenses and changing them out, the best tool is often the R8 and RF 24-240mm.

But yeah, if I’m being honest then I will add that I often also carry a fast, wide prime (24/1.4, 24/1.8 or 20/1.4) and the 10-20/4 since that kit fits in a bag small enough that it isn’t excluded from venues (museums, etc.) that don’t allow backpacks.

 

[David_B]

As @neuroanatomist has written many times, he has the same charts as the digital-picture and has got them to correct some results. You can do digital-picture type charts for free by downloading them from the bobatkins site. However, to measure lp/mm with precision you need to use IMATEST or similar, which is done by opticallimits, lenstip, ephotozine etc.

To get meaningful results, I think dedicate software such as IMATEST or similar is required. Otherwise there's too much subjetivity.

 

[David_B]

It would likely depend on the comparison. For example, I’m not sure that comparing the digitally corrected corners of the inexpensive RF 16/2.8 to the optically corrected RF 15-35/2.8 would be valid, because the base quality of the two lenses is very different. Having said that, it is interesting that the digitally corrected corners of the RF 16/2.8 deliver similar IQ to the optically corrected corners of the far more expensive (but also much older) EF 14/2.8L II.

Now you get it.

I see. So you’re belief that optical correction is superior is akin to faith – belief without evidence.

If I was to believe that digital correction was the equivalent to or better than optical correction then that too would be akin to faith because I have no evidence to support it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If I was to believe that digital correction was the equivalent to or better than optical correction then that too would be akin to faith because I have no evidence to support it.

I have shown evidence to support that they can give equivalent results. I have seen no evidence to the contrary, nor have I seen evidence that digital correction provides superior results.