Patent: Canon RF 14-21mm f/1.4L, yes…. f/1.4

[Antono Refa]

no. 24 vs 28 makes more difference in real life than f/2.0 vs f/2.8 in most use cases.

Playing words won't help you:

1. The innovation is in how fast this normal zoom lens, not in how wide it is.

2. You've ignored 3 of the four examples.

 

[mb66energy]

Unfortunately, I can see a lot of people showed excited about RF lenses. They did not realize the prices that they cannot afford it. Canon tries to increase the cost for the RF lenses. The RF lenses were all junk and worthless because it limited to mirrorless Canon R camera bodies.

Canon will abandon EF lenses and hope that they can find a way to terminate it as much as like they did in 1987/1989 against world most reliable lenses as known as FD and FDn included older lenses, R and FL.

These lenses are reliable, long-life constructed. Also, it is repairable easy. Canon decided to cease replacement parts available for FD and FDn as well as against tanks like constructed Canon A and F series camera bodies. That is why they ceased it due lack of profitability.

Be smart, DO NOT BUY RF lenses and R camera series until Canon announce that they will put EF lenses and EF based cameras as primary in the market. Canon must restore replacement parts for FD and FDn plus Canon F-1 and A-1 with full support! Why? They have not dead but very popular nowadays. Many Sony mirrorless users used Canon FD and FDn lenses. I will not be surprised by users use these lenses for Nikon Z and Canon R.

The difference was no autofocus and stabilizer features on FD or FDn lenses. Everything is manual control and more fun to use it. It is same as Carl Zeiss ZF lenses for EOS camera bodies as 100% manual setting. My 45 years old Canon F-1 with FD and FDn lenses included accessories such as motor drive, Servo EE finder, Booster T finder, and an external battery pack are all 100% functional. Only that I always wish to have digital back available for this camera as much as like Hasselblad. Unfortunately, Canon abandoned and ran away from it to work with EF based EOS system. I also have 44 years old Canon A-1 is still working flawlessly.

If you are so fascinated about FD lenses ... why don't you praise the introduction of the EOS R? Which can take FD lenses via adaptor without any crop.
I experimented a lot with FD lenses on my M and M50 and these are fine. But when it comes to flare resistance, color fringing, focus speed they are vastly behind just medium expensive EF lenses (2.8 24 (old one), 2.8 40, 2.0 100, 2.8 100 Macro non-IS ). If you like the look of the images with FD lenses - portrait might be a very good field for not too sharp lenses with very natural rendering - why not.

And while AF is not always the best focus method - with the EVF, on-sensor DPAF and good low light AF just the M50 is an AF heaven for me: I would say sth. like 99% hit rate with EF-M 32 and EF 70-200 4.0 IS in closeup, objects at moderate speed, landscape and the same for macro work and the EF 400 5.6 WITH 2x TC.

But sometimes I dream of a FF sensor for the F-1 where battery and CPU go into the film cardridge space! Ergonomically these cameras are great so I understand your "suffering"

 

[Talys]

Canon must restore replacement parts for FD and FDn plus Canon F-1 and A-1 with full support! Why? They have not dead but very popular nowadays. Many Sony mirrorless users used Canon FD and FDn lenses. I will not be surprised by users use these lenses for Nikon Z and Canon R.

I'm sure that Canon is considering this in their boardroom this very moment!

What better way to steal users from Sony and Nikon ecosystems with FD lenses!

 

[mirage]

Playing words won't help you:

1. The innovation is in how fast this normal zoom lens, not in how wide it is.
.

yes. i understand that. Real question for me is "what for"? Extreme lenses have extremely limited applications and serve extremely small market niches. Canon is showing off the optical design potential of the new mount. And a few people will buy (or rent) them. Even fewer will be able to create truly "innovative images" with them that would not have been possible with "lesser", slower lenses, eg with a more irdinary 24-70/2.8 or 14/2.8. that's fine.

But, myself and the vast majority of the (potential) market are much more interested in "decent, compact and affordable lenses". Not only for APS-C (EF-M) but also for FF image circle (RF). Instead of currently 2 systems (crop and FF) i want to have only one in the near future: mirrorfree, as compact size as possible, "affordable", FF image circle. and i know many others who are looking for exactly the same.

i therefore expect the current Canon (and Nikon) "lens designers' R and Z honeymoon" to end soon and business priorities taking over again: launch of "lesser", workhorse RF lenses that make more sense for vast majority of customers and for Canon's balance sheet.

size/weight/portability of gear is very important to me, but i also want "full frame goodness". A smaller, less expensive "R50" body (same relation to EOS R as M50 vs M5 in terms of capability, size and pricing) along with a few compact, good and affordable non-L f/4.0 zooms and f/1.8-2.8 primes will serve me fine. eg RF 12-24/4, 24-85/4, 50-150/4.0 and 24/2.0, 35/1.8 (launched already), 50/1.8, 85/2.0, 135/2.8.

i don't need imaging gear to show off. i want unspectacular, inconspicuous, compact and light equipment for my non-professional, but enthusiastic use, that allows me to capture and create images within the limits of my equally unspectacular creativity, wallet and imaging situations.

so - f/2.0, f/1.8, f/1.4 zooms all fine and well, but "not needed here".

 

[Deleted member 378664]

yes. i understand that. Real question for me is "what for"? Extreme lenses have extremely limited applications and serve extremely small market niches. Canon is showing off the optical design potential of the new mount. And a few people will buy (or rent) them. Even fewer will be able to create truly "innovative images" with them that would not have been possible with "lesser", slower lenses, eg with a more irdinary 24-70/2.8 or 14/2.8. that's fine.

But, myself and the vast majority of the (potential) market are much more interested in "decent, compact and affordable lenses". Not only for APS-C (EF-M) but also for FF image circle (RF). Instead of currently 2 systems (crop and FF) i want to have only one in the near future: mirrorfree, as compact size as possible, "affordable", FF image circle. and i know many others who are looking for exactly the same.

i therefore expect the current Canon (and Nikon) "lens designers' R and Z honeymoon" to end soon and business priorities taking over again: launch of "lesser", workhorse RF lenses that make more sense for vast majority of customers and for Canon's balance sheet.

size/weight/portability of gear is very important to me, but i also want "full frame goodness". A smaller, less expensive "R50" body (same relation to EOS R as M50 vs M5 in terms of capability, size and pricing) along with a few compact, good and affordable non-L f/4.0 zooms and f/1.8-2.8 primes will serve me fine. eg RF 12-24/4, 24-85/4, 50-150/4.0 and 24/2.0, 35/1.8 (launched already), 50/1.8, 85/2.0, 135/2.8.

i don't need imaging gear to show off. i want unspectacular, inconspicuous, compact and light equipment for my non-professional, but enthusiastic use, that allows me to capture and create images within the limits of my equally unspectacular creativity, wallet and imaging situations.

so - f/2.0, f/1.8, f/1.4 zooms all fine and well, but "not needed here".

That's exactly my thoughts also.

Imagine that there are people out there which find the EOS R interesting and would consider to buy it. But if these are people who are willing to switch from another system or want to start with a mirrorless FF without having any camera gear so far. Would they really buy into the R system seeing which lenses are already here and which are rumoured to come along next? Besides the 35 f/1.8 and the 24-105 f/4 these are all very expensive L lenses. To get such people on the Canon EOS R ship Canon should start with more affordable RF-lenses. I for one wouldn't buy EF glass for the time being when I was new to the Canon EOS R eco system.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I agree. The 24-70 f/2 isn't absurd at all. The price is reasonable too, if one considers the EF 200mm f/2L is $5600. I know, apples and oranges, but still a bargain. *If* I ever get an R the 24-70 f/2 would be the first lens I'd buy. Personally, I would love a 24-70 f/1.4... I don't care how heavy. 4 lbs. would be just fine with me. Same with a 70-200 (5.5-6.5 lbs?). I'd only have to have two lenses, nothing more.

Canon invented the 24-70 f2.8...but they started the revolution with the legendary 28-70 f2.8 L. So I can't help but wonder if Can have deliberately made a 28-70 f2.0L with a view to make a 24-70 f2.0L later on. I also wonder if it's the first in a new range of f2 zooms. Canon trail blazed with their F4 range a few years back.

 

[RGF]

This is very likely. At the same time usually people shoot at the ends of the zoom (not saying that this is right, merely stating a fact) and whoever gets those zooms most probably checks first for the widest angle part. Altough with proper IQ (sharpness, lack of coma) this lens would shine for astrophotography the cost would be ebormous and the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 would be a fantastic closest match alternative for much much less. I got it for astrophotography and I didnt't regret it

Do you have problems getting the foreground and stars both sharp. The F1.8 limits DOF

 

[tron]

Playing words won't help you:

1. The innovation is in how fast this normal zoom lens, not in how wide it is.

2. You've ignored 3 of the four examples.

I do not think he did. He commented on the one example I corrected you. You did not like the correction but they were stating the truth just like your 3 examples.
By the way I already own the first 2 (11-24, Ts-e 17) ... examples!

 

[Antono Refa]

yes. i understand that.

So you agree Canon makes innovative lenses in practice (that was the point, remember?), but choose to argue something else? Wonderful.

Real question for me is "what for"?

I responded to you saying "Canon makes like a million patents and like 1% opf the stuff actually comes out then even that takes years", which means you're now changing the subject of the discussion.

That's your right, but lets admit this is a new discussion.

Even fewer will be able to create truly "innovative images" with them that would not have been possible with "lesser", slower lenses, eg with a more irdinary 24-70/2.8 or 14/2.8. that's fine.

1. People could have said pretty much the same back when Canon moved from 28-70mm zooms to 24-70mm zooms.

2. If Canon made just an ordinary 24-70mm f/2.8, you would have said Canon isn't innovative.

3. Well, the whole point of making MILC is doing things that couldn't have been done before, even if some of them are niche.

But, myself and the vast majority of the (potential) market are much more interested in "decent, compact and affordable lenses".

Legit, and the reason why I'm not switching to EOS-R myself. I own three lenses I think Canon can improve on in the RF mount (11-24mm f/4, 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8), when two out of three come out, so will the cash come out of my wallet.

i therefore expect the current Canon (and Nikon) "lens designers' R and Z honeymoon" to end soon and business priorities taking over again: launch of "lesser", workhorse RF lenses that make more sense for vast majority of customers and for Canon's balance sheet.

My guess is Canon thinks the adapter allows it to give the workhorse lenses to take the back seat for a while. My bet is the balance sheet will wake them up soon enough.

 

[Antono Refa]

I do not think he did. He commented on the one example I corrected you. You did not like the correction but they were stating the truth just like your 3 examples.
By the way I already own the first 2 (11-24, Ts-e 17) ... examples!

In Hebrew there's a phrase that describes this situation - "he made a claim about wheat, and was answered his claim about barley is right".

 

[tron]

In Hebrew there's a phrase that describes this situation - "he made a claim about wheat, and was answered his claim about barley is right".

To tell the truth I do not know what this means - English is not my native language - and to tell the truth I do not really care. This is a photography forum. What I see is that you spend much more effort to say anything but acknowledge your mistake and the fact that some may care more about the 24 to 28mm difference rather than the f/2.0 to f/2.8 one.

 

[Don Haines]

For those forum surfers who are saying this would be a great lens for them, how many of you currently have a full frame lens wider than 35mm that has an f/1.4 aperature or wider. If you are not shooting one now, it’s unlikely you will buy this lens. Nice to dream, but reality is a different kettle of fish.

Have not used a 20 F1.4 for almost 10 hours now.....

If you shoot at night, wide FAST! lenses are a must......

 

[Don Haines]

24 f/1.4, first generation, from when I photographed bands in rather dimly lit clubs. I don't do that any more after realizing how much hearing I had lost.

I have a baggie of ear plugs in my camera bag

 

[Antono Refa]

To tell the truth I do not know what this means - English is not my native language - and to tell the truth I do not really care. This is a photography forum. What I see is that you spend much more effort to say anything but acknowledge your mistake and the fact that some may care more about the 24 to 28mm difference rather than the f/2.0 to f/2.8 one.

Oh, I admit the mistake. It's just not relevant to the point I was trying to make.

 

[mirage]

Have not used a 20 F1.4 for almost 10 hours now.....
If you shoot at night, wide FAST! lenses are a must......

only if there are moving subjects in the frame (including "astro on the cheap" without using an astro tracker) and/or if you insist on shooting handheld instead of using a tripod.

 

[mirage]

So you agree Canon makes innovative lenses in practice (that was the point, remember?), but choose to argue something else? Wonderful.

1.) "innovative" or more "art for art's sake"?

2.) But my main point is rather: "Canon got priorities wrong" by launching super exotic, extreme niche glass FIRST, without even a suitable hi-end/hi-rez camera available yet for those lenses. It would have been smarter to first launch lenses in line with the positioning of EOS R ("6D class" camera). Fancy "pink unicorn lenses" would have still early enough later on, along with fancy, hi-end camera bodies.

 

[mirage]

2. If Canon made just an ordinary 24-70mm f/2.8, you would have said Canon isn't innovative.

it depends. Had Canon launched an RF 24-70/2.8 with IS (!) that is either
* significantly smaller/lighter than EF 24-70 Mk. II and/or
* significantly higher IQ and/or
* significantly less expensive ...
I would have said: "yes, USEFUL innovation, most potential customers will love that, not only a very few."

Had they launched an RF 24-70 without IS that is same size, weight and IQ as the EF version, but 40% more expensive, i would have said what i am saying with regards to the RF 24-105: "not innovative. Too bad, Canon was not able or willing to leverage R mount potential and offer us meaningful advantages."

 

[Antono Refa]

1.) "innovative" or more "art for art's sake"?

I think Canon does not make lenses it expects to lose money on, so "art for art's sake" is off the menu.

I'm not saying profit is Canon's only consideration, nor that Canon makes a profit on every lens it makes. I'm saying Canon would not make a lens expecting to lose money on it.

2.) But my main point is rather: "Canon got priorities wrong" by launching super exotic, extreme niche glass FIRST, without even a suitable hi-end/hi-rez camera available yet for those lenses. It would have been smarter to first launch lenses in line with the positioning of EOS R ("6D class" camera). Fancy "pink unicorn lenses" would have still early enough later on, along with fancy, hi-end camera bodies.

You responded to a patent relating to ultra wide ultra fast lenses (if that's not super exotic, extreme niche glass, I don't know what is) with the claim only a small percent of Canon patents turns into lenses, and then only after a long time. Pardon me if I took it to mean you're disappointed those pink unicorn lenses aren't going to appear any time soon.

Just to be clear - I'd like to see an RF 16-35mm f/2.8 before either an RF 14-21mm f/1.4L or an RF 12-20mm f/2L (I expect both to be too expensive for me) too, but it didn't sound like what you were saying.

 

[Antono Refa]

it depends. Had Canon launched an RF 24-70/2.8 with IS (!) that is either
* significantly smaller/lighter than EF 24-70 Mk. II and/or
* significantly higher IQ and/or
* significantly less expensive ...
I would have said: "yes, USEFUL innovation, most potential customers will love that, not only a very few."

To my knowledge, no other company makes a 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS which is either
* Smaller/lighter than same company's IS-less 24-70mm f/2.8
* Has higher IQ than same company's IS-less 24-70mm f/2.8 (IIRC, I've read repeated complaints to the reverse)
* significantly less expensive than same company's IS-less 24-70mm f/2.8

So I disagree such a lens would be ordinary.

 

[Architect1776]

New lenses are fun and gorgeous, but:

These new lenses are very expensive...
In days of high ISO sensors, these very large and bright lenses still come in useful, but a modern camera with ISO up to 50000 would make the shot too (yeah, with a bit higher noise) that you otherwise would not have got 10 years ago.

What I want to say is: Lenses are nerdy and great but still very expensive when such apertures are featured and these apertures are not that much needed anymore as they were back in the day. I would also want to see a move forward on the camera body side .

I like the EOS R, but as an enthusiast the costs go through the ceiling, although yeah, I can still use my EF glass

The large aperture has more to do than a fast shutter speed. It has creative value as well.