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

[Mikehit]

Huh? No, the EOS R kit would the RF 24-105 f/4L. If it was EF, it would have had the IS designation because there is no EF 24-105mm f/4L without IS (and it would also have had the II designation because the MkI has been DC’d).

True
Boy, all this is getting mind-spinning!

 

[ahsanford]

Oh boy. Here we go! Any bets on how many pages we can get to by tomorrow?

Depends on how many more threads get started from updated news, leaks of photos, etc.

If no new thread by tomorrow, I'd guess we're in the 20-30 page range.

Once photos drop, the visual confirmation/tell that it's happening or it's over for native mounting of EF will be a 20-30 page chatterstorm alone.

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

• IBIS potentially not there -- I see IS called out on one lens
• Thin mount (I saw an adaptor line item)
  • But there's also an M designation attached to the aperture of the 35 prime. They don't do that with macro (also, f/1.8 + macro tends not to coexist), so is it another line of lens?
  • USM lives on, so the hope of non-FBW lenses continues (...though they might be Nano and therefore FBW)

Ridiculous. The thin mount tell will make this a 30 page thread, but I think the lenses are the real star of this announcement. Canon's pushing the boat out here.

Wrong on the above, I think. IS is called out on the M lens, M almost certainly means Macro (recall that this is translated from Japanese) and it makes sense for that lens to have Hybrid IS. So, I think this really supports the idea of IBIS.

The adapter designation is M.ADAP R, likely meaning an adapter to use RF lenses (FF) on EOS M (APS-C) bodies, very logical to preserve the upgrade path analogous to EF-S/EF for DSLRs. The very lack of an R.ADAP EF adapter to mount EF lenses on the EOS R pretty much confirms the EOS R will be able to mount EF lenses directly.

 

[criscokkat]

I'd expect a rear lens pot, not a cap...

I guess I'll have to stock up on extra ebay rear lens pots (avoiding the canon tax). I tend to swap the end cap whenever I swap the lens. I'd hate to have to carry around 2 sets of lens caps, I'd rather have all of them big and waste a bit of space.

 

[DaveGrice]

Damn it, I just bought a 5D Mark IV.

*Head Desk*

(love the camera, but dang it, the new shinny one will be the bomb! *LOL*)

OMG! Almost 100 posts without a single threat to jump ship.

Wait until Sept 6th, then the carnage will begin...

 

[amorse]

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?

Or maybe the camera has an electronically curved sensor and the RF lenses are the only ones than can take advantage of that feature (i.e. each RF lens may need a different sensor curvature). I know there was a patent earlier for an electronically curved sensor that could change shape as needed. If that were the case, a curved sensor could (maybe?) flatten out to receive input from an EF lens, but then curve to the needs of each RF lens. A curved sensor would allow different lens designs than are currently possible with EF, but a lens which needs curvature wouldn't likely work on a flat sensor camera with an EF mount.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I am really keen to learn more about the new Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM. Past week I decided to give the EF 50mm f/1.2 a go and upgrade my mediocre EF 50mm f/1.4, but I did not yet hit the button. Now I gonna wait, definitely.

 

[neuroanatomist]

aha, i took it for a typo and thought there will only be *one* 24-105/4 lens (in kit and separate) especially as both have the "L" designation.
A "kit" R 24-105 L *and* a "non-kit" RF 24-105 L ? strange!

Credit where credit is due, you were entirely correct in your count of 4 lenses.

 

[Meatcurry]

Quite possibly the RF lens protrudes into the body, into the space formerly occupied by the mirror box, meaning a lens+body combo that’s about 1” / 2.5cm shorter than the current DSLR+24-105/4L IS. The lack of IS (because of IBIS) may also enable them to make the RF version smaller than the EF version. Plus, if it’s a new mount, a kit lens is needed.

Like this?

 

[justaCanonuser]

Or maybe the camera has an electronically curved sensor and the RF lenses are the only ones than can take advantage of that feature (i.e. each RF lens may need a different sensor curvature). I know there was a patent earlier for an electronically curved sensor that could change shape as needed. If that were the case, a curved sensor could (maybe?) flatten out to receive input from an EF lens, but then curve to the needs of each RF lens. A curved sensor would allow different lens designs than are currently possible with EF, but a lens which needs curvature wouldn't likely work on a flat sensor camera with an EF mount.

Interesting, but that would require switching between two sensor geometries both of which need to be very precise!

 

[oXo_se]

I hope the EOS R body is similar to Nikons Z7, if it is I will hit the buy buttom as soon as possible. If it something like Z6 I will pass.

 

[ahsanford]

Don't neglect the crappy 4K implementation.

And an old-school off-chip ADC sensor a la 6D2.

- A

 

[Uneternal]

Still puzzled about the letter R.
Could it simply mean "reflex" like in DSLR?
Or return, rear, retractable, rebel, etc...

 

[Flyingskiguy]

Here’s an idea.

EF lenses will mount to RF mount. RF will not mount to EF. Similar to the EF-S situation.

The three “M.Adapt R” adapters that are listed are to adapt RF/EF lenses to the EF-M mount. This is important because the long-rumored entry level cinema camera will have an EF-M mount to suit its small/lightweight construction. BUT with the addition of one of the M.Adapt R adapters, essentially takes on the form of one of the Cxxx bodies with internal ND filters and all.

I think this is justified because we see Canon still releasing EF-M glass, so clearly it is not an abandoned mount.

 

[FramerMCB]

"Holy MILC (w/lens line-up) Batman!" This is looking more and more like the market jump they did when they released the 5D mk II. Perhaps not quite, as Sony has been in this space for a little while now. But for Canon, just WOW. Now let's see all this happen! Do we have to actually wait 3 more weeks for this [hopeful] reality?!$!@%#%!%????? ;-)

 

[paulo defender]

Everyone always say's the best thing about mirrorless systems is you can put any manufacturers lenses on a mirrorless body because of the short flange length, but this is only an advantage to the consumer not the manufacturer. If the new body takes EF lenses natively by keeping the flange focal length the same and the RF lenses do indeed project into the body, like some older style Arri and Voigtlander glass, that would be an incredibly shrewd move on canons part, perhaps meaning that only EF and RF lenses could be used on the new body but also with an adaptor, possibly RF and already EF lenses, can be used on all the other companies mirrorless bodies. Canon then possibly protect their lens line, sell more lenses and bodies to people who own other systems and don't upset any of their pre-existing users who already have a lot of EF glass. It's not great for the consumer but it would be a very smart choice for a company. If it's all true however!

 

[takesome1]

I didn't see anyone pick up on this, maybe I missed it.

But they gave the lenses the L designation. This should be indication of the quality we can expect to see out of the glass.

Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM
Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM
Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L USM

 

[amorse]

Still puzzled about the letter R.
Could it simply mean "reflex" like in DSLR?
Or return, rear, retractable, rebel, etc...

Maybe they're moving to letters to designate models on mirrorless full frame mount instead of numbers a la the older 1D series? i.e. EOS R vs EOS S vs EOS X etc. Or maybe this is our new 5D SR and R stands for resolution

 

[ahsanford]

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?

This this this. The mount is still a mystery, IMHO. Until I see an EF lens mount on to this thing, I don't think we know:

• If it's not just a thin mount and adaptor yet to come (i.e. the EF to R adaptor exists but Canon hasn't leaked it yet*)
  
  
• If it's a nested mount
  
  
• If it's identical mechanically to the EF mount but has some added contacts / fancier lens communication for better DPAF performance

*It's possible that this is just a vanilla thin mount + adaptor but Canon wants to fire us up the lenses before they drop the boom that an EF adaptor is required. Hope that's not the case, but perhaps Canon had to make a thin mount body and they don't want to reveal that until everyone's already salivating over f/2 zooms and f/1.8M (whatever the hell that is), etc.

- A

 

[LDS]

A bit funny Canon "R" was the first SLR mount for Canon... about sixty years ago.