Here’s the full list of gear Canon will announce on September 5

Jul 21, 2010
31,100
12,864
EF-M and EF-R are the new systems going forward for mirrorless. Adapters are for M-bodies to accept R lenses. In the interim, while Canon builds out a "complete" R lens line, there will be a EOS-R cameras that take both EF and EF-R lenses.

... that's my guess.
I agree that an adapter to use R (FF) lenses on M (APS-C) bodies makes the most sense, and is a requirement. But that begs the question...assuming the EOS R accepts EF lenses natively (because otherwise an EF-to-R adapter would be listed), what makes RF lenses different than EF? If they are different because they can result in a smaller lens/body combination by protruding into the body, they’d also protrude into the space within the RF to M adapter. But in that case, where is the room for the CPL and ND filters that are part of the adapter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
The lack of an adapter suggests a dual mount. It would make for a spectacular marketing fail to force customers to buy new lenses with thei cameras.

Yes, but they are releasing expensive RF lenses and there is only going to be one camera which you can mount them on for at least six months apparently. So Canon must think this Camera is worth a >1k $ lens, else they would have focused on more affordable lenses for this release.
 
Upvote 0

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
1,035
931
Frankfurt, Germany
The lack of an adapter suggests a dual mount. It would make for a spectacular marketing fail to force customers to buy new lenses with thei cameras.
In fact, Canon did that back in the 80s, when they came up with the completely new EF mount that was not compatible with the old mount. It was a risky bet but it worked. Btw our Canon gear never has trouble with lens connection failures, our Nikon gear (serveral cameras) produces quite frequently such errors. The advantage of the Nikon (D)SLR mount is its compatibility with older lenses but that comes with a price. I think, besides the much bigger diameter of the Z mount this could have been another reason why Nikon now pulled the plug.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Aug 31, 2014
194
26
56
UK
Why? I only see if you still have alot of Canon EF lens. It's going to be harder for Sony users with alot of native lens. Beside, Sony is releasing their A7SIII soon too
I have a Sony A6000 with 16-50F4, 10-18F4 and 35f1.8 and for a whole bunch of reasons would rather go back to Canon, I used to have a 70D and 450D with some decent lens and all of my favourite pics are pre Sony
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Aug 31, 2014
194
26
56
UK
ok lets pump the brakes a bit. no ratings on these rumors. CR explicitly stated they're just going to post anything, regardless of quality. so there's a good chance a lot of that list is fiction. sorry, but a lot of those items seem like fanboy dreams, not reality.
This stuff came from Nokishita, they're a Japanese site and are never wrong, in fact most of what they post are controlled leaks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Roger Cicala has a post on his tear down of the 70-200 F4 on the Lensrental site. It''s more than coatings and a paint job.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to the 70-200 f/2.8 III rather than the 70-200 f/4 IS II. I was under the impression that the f/2.8 was coatings and a paint job while the f/4 was much more? Unless the 2.8 was shown to receive more adjustment as well?
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,100
12,864
Do you really need a circular polarizer on a mirrorless camera with DPAF?
Circular polarisers are widely used, for example, in landscape/architechture photography, mirrorlessness or DPAF are irrelevant to CIR-PL filters.
That wasn’t Kit.’s point – he was suggesting that a circular polarizer is not required, i.e. it could be a linear polarizer instead. However, while that would be true for CDAF, I think a linear PL wold be a problem for DPAF. The problem occurs when the the angle of polarization conflicts with the orientation of the beam splitter for PDAF. The fact that DPAF uses millions of really tiny beam splitters and off-sensor PDAF uses a few larger beam splitters doesn’t negate the problem.

With a MILC, you might have to look harder for the problem, since the cameras default to CDAF if PDAF fails meaning focus is achieved albeit more slowly, whereas on a DSLR if PDAF fails, you can’t achieve focus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Aug 24, 2016
88
98
ok lets pump the brakes a bit. no ratings on these rumors. CR explicitly stated they're just going to post anything, regardless of quality. so there's a good chance a lot of that list is fiction. sorry, but a lot of those items seem like fanboy dreams, not reality.
The original list comes from Nokishita though, they usually don't get a lot of things wrong, save for the occasional detail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
On the contrary. "RF 35mm f/1.8 M IS" - that implies there's no IBIS unfortunately, doesn' it? I'm disappointed. I was hoping to eventually buy it and mount my 24-70 on it and make it stabilised. The only faint hope is in that 'M'. What is it, 'M'? An RF-mount lens also mountable on EF-M? That doesn't add up.

Macro would be my guess. There's already a 35mm macro in the EF-S mount, so this has some precedent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
1,035
931
Frankfurt, Germany
One thing I still wonder, looking at this list: will Canon simply stick with their classic SLR flange distance or did they really implement an IBIS that can shift the Sensor closer to the back of an R lens? It'll be interesting to get more information about that.

I think one of the real longterm strengths of Nikon's Z concept is the extremely short flange distance combined with a much wider Z mount. This very smart solution promises gorgeous lenses coming up for this mount.
 
Upvote 0

docsmith

CR Pro
Sep 17, 2010
1,223
1,109
I’ll be captain obvious for a second.

Ok, two quick things:
1) the overlap with existing EF lens ( 24-105 f/4, for example) implies that there is something different about RF lenses.
2). If the EF lens can be mounted natively, it would imply complete functionality. Thus, what is the point of the RF mount?

That, to me is a bit of a paradox. It is true with EF and EF-s lenses, but that is a minor difference of where the last element could be situated. If similar to EF-s, that only really benefits shorter focal lengths. Thus is the future still EF for longer focal lengths?

What does it say about flange distance? For EF to work, it would need to be 44 mm. So they are not going to something shorter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
1,035
931
Frankfurt, Germany
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
May 11, 2017
1,365
635
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to the 70-200 f/2.8 III rather than the 70-200 f/4 IS II. I was under the impression that the f/2.8 was coatings and a paint job while the f/4 was much more? Unless the 2.8 was shown to receive more adjustment as well?
Not sure about the F2.8, but given the changes to the F4, I think it's likely there were some major upgrades in the construction, if not the optical quality of the F2.8
 
Upvote 0
Aug 24, 2016
88
98
I think one of the real longterm strengths of Nikon's Z concept is the extremely short flange distance combined with a much wider Z mount. This very smart solution promises gorgeous lenses coming up for this mount.
This was such good marketing from Nikon, really. The Z mount is only huge next to Nikon's own F mount and Sony's E mount. It's just one mm wider than the EF mount.
So of course flange distance seems to be a thing, but based on the Z lenses we've seen so far, only the f/4 wide angle zoom looks exceptionally small (but then again it doesn't have an IS so the f/4 zooms from Canon and Nikon are probably not a good comparison).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,100
12,864
Given there is some possible mention of an adapter maybe RF really will be a new mount. However I thought I would offer this link to anyone confused by the notion that Canon might keep the EF mount - it's a Voigtlander lens made for Nikon F-mount (as Nikons allow mirror lock up) that gets the rear most elements right up to the sensor. The result is tiny size and outstanding quality in a 15mm lens.
http://blog.16-9.net/1236-2

Neat – hadn’t run across this lens previously.

9213014-2.jpg


Bet it comes with a nice Dixie cup-style rear lens cap...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0