As many as 7 new RF lenses coming in 2019 [CR2]

[scyrene]

For me, as a 5DSR owner and a couple of EF and manual Zeiss lenses, I don't really see me investing in Canon gear for the forseable future. No new EF lenses announced, no new DSLRs announced. R lenses coming in 2019, which I can't use, EOS-R body, that doesn't appeal to me and offers me more than my DSRL, even in 2019. If they had put out a pro-R-body first, I could have used my old lenses, but that didn't happen.
No signs that the EF line will be alive in the future, no roadmap, no announcments. Just a big question mark...

There was never an EF roadmap, we're no more in the dark now than we were a year ago. And what EF lenses are missing from the lineup at present that you need? It's a pretty mature ecosystem for almost all uses. It's only natural they should focus on an immature system at this point, but EF is still the way to go for most photographers at the present time (even if you're mounting them on an R body).

 

[scyrene]

Looking at this list I wonder whether Canon will really come up with a RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS like lens. Wouldn't that cannibalize sales of their new RF 28-70mm f/2 lens? Given the price level of actual EF 24-70 f/2.8 lenses, they wouldn't play exactly in the same league, of course, but close enough for sales interferences. On the other hand, a cheaper RF 24-70mm f/4 lens wouldn't make too much sense because the new 24-105mm RF kit lens seems to be very good and much more versatile. Interesting to watch which new RF lenses Canon will finally give a real go.

Well does the 70-200 f/4 cannibalise the 70-200 f/2.8? Or the 300 f/4 versus the 300 f/2.8? There's plenty overlap in EF lenses at different apertures with wildly different price points. I'm not sure 'cannibalising' is the right way to look at how they coexist.

 

[unfocused]

The dilemma for Canon comes with the high-end lenses. Do they make a 500mm f4 RF lens that will only work on one series of bodies? Do they continue to make the big whites and other specialty lenses as EF series, to maximize compatibility? Or do they design adapters that allow some RF lenses to be used on EF and EF-S bodies?

So long as the 1Dx, 7D and 5D series remain the dominant bodies for sports, birding and wildlife, these lenses probably stay as EF mount.

People compare this to the FD mount, but there are significant differences. Autofocus was always going to make manual focus lenses obsolete anyway, but while the RF mount has some apparent advantages, none are comparable to the difference between manual and autofocus. Mirrorless is different, but not so clearly "better" in all aspects to make users feel compelled to abandon DSLRs (despite what a handful of forum experts might think).

Right now, for anyone planning to continue to use both DSLRs and Mirrorless, the choice between investing in an expensive, specialty lens in EF or RF mount (even if it were available in RF mount) the scales would likely be tipped toward EF or no purchase at all. I have simply suggested that Canon is smart enough to understand this dilemma and is likely considering how to address it. It seems odd to me that only Neuro is willing to discuss this rationally.

 

[Cochese]

I'm not the one claiming a practical RF lens to EF mount adapter is impossible. I certainly don't think Canon will produce one, but that doesn't mean it's impossible… I suspect it could even offer some functionality to the control ring on RF lenses, considering that the EF supertelephoto lenses have an AF Stop button, to which any of several functions can be assigned.

Then again, it is 2019, the year that some people make ridiculous assertions and expect people to take their bullshit as truth. So by all means, do go on making your unsubstantiated claims.

My claims are of any kind of practical solution being possible. And as ridiculous as it may seem to you to say that a practical solution is impossible, we're talking more than basic functionality, but full compatibility. Otherwise it would be a useless endeavor to even do. There is no need to purchase any RF lenses prior to purchasing an RF body if your EF lenses already mount to it. And if you don't have an EF body, than you don't have to worry about it since buying lenses first would be pretty useless. It's just not a practical or useful item to make.

 

[Ladislav]

They will if it no longer makes sense. It is rumored they killed off at least 1 DSLR in development, and rumor also had it that the 24-70 II was chosen amongst a version that had IS. I can see that releasing an EF 24-70 f/2.8 IS making sense if it is close, but I would also expect the upcoming RF version to be better or lighter or both. For as much as it takes to develop a new design and a prototype, it costs much more to put it into production.

I also expect RF version to be better. That's why I believe releasing EF as well would not eat from its sales. People who already have "R" or plan to switch to RF would go for that one but there is still a market for people with DSLR who want 2.8 standard zoom with stabilization. I wouldn't even argue if it had worse optical performance than non-IS version (if priced with respect to that). Good IQ, reliable focus, weather sealing, 2.8, IS - that is all I wished for. Third party lenses don't deliver on that.

 

[Antono Refa]

Looking at this list I wonder whether Canon will really come up with a RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS like lens. Wouldn't that cannibalize sales of their new RF 28-70mm f/2 lens? Given the price level of actual EF 24-70 f/2.8 lenses, they wouldn't play exactly in the same league, of course, but close enough for sales interferences.

I wouldn't rule it out.

Canon sells 24-70mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/4 IS, and apparently makes enough profit on both to keep both manufacturing facilities running. I think the same would work, only a stop faster, on RF.

On the other hand, a cheaper RF 24-70mm f/4 lens wouldn't make too much sense because the new 24-105mm RF kit lens seems to be very good and much more versatile. Interesting to watch which new RF lenses Canon will finally give a real go.

Canon added a 24-70mm f/4 IS to the 24-105mm f/4 IS, and as both are still manufactured, apparently the pair makes more profit than dropping one of them and saving the manufacturing facilities for one of them,

This is demonstrated in the 70-200mm and 70/5-300mm brackets as well - Canon can profit from several similar lenses, as long as there's a price & performance differences to separate them.

 

[Cochese]

The dilemma for Canon comes with the high-end lenses. Do they make a 500mm f4 RF lens that will only work on one series of bodies? Do they continue to make the big whites and other specialty lenses as EF series, to maximize compatibility? Or do they design adapters that allow some RF lenses to be used on EF and EF-S bodies?

So long as the 1Dx, 7D and 5D series remain the dominant bodies for sports, birding and wildlife, these lenses probably stay as EF mount.

People compare this to the FD mount, but there are significant differences. Autofocus was always going to make manual focus lenses obsolete anyway, but while the RF mount has some apparent advantages, none are comparable to the difference between manual and autofocus. Mirrorless is different, but not so clearly "better" in all aspects to make users feel compelled to abandon DSLRs (despite what a handful of forum experts might think).

Right now, for anyone planning to continue to use both DSLRs and Mirrorless, the choice between investing in an expensive, specialty lens in EF or RF mount (even if it were available in RF mount) the scales would likely be tipped toward EF or no purchase at all. I have simply suggested that Canon is smart enough to understand this dilemma and is likely considering how to address it. It seems odd to me that only Neuro is willing to discuss this rationally.

I don't think it's much of a dilemna for Canon. They cut off the FD line for the EF line pretty cleanly, even if people didn't like it, they still made it to number one.
They just refreshed a ton of glass for the EF line, so most of those lenses will not likely be seeing another EF varient. Which should be enough to carry them for the next five to ten years since lenses often update at a pretty glacial pace. If canon updated the 7D, 1D, and 5D lines in EF, and ended those lines right there, while working on the RF line of cameras, that'd carry them into the future.
The issue of whether or not to pick of an EF or RF lens should only be an issue if Canon decides to stick with the DSLR lineup.
Even so, all EF glass can be mounted to the RF camera via a standard adapter, so the sensible choice would be to stick with EF unless the lens you want isn't in EF mount, such as the 28-70 f/2.
At least, that's my plan. The 5DMIV easily fits my needs, so unless something happens to it, it'll be my main camera for the next four years. By that time, Canon should have a decent array of RF bodies and perhaps a reason to switch over.

 

[AlanF]

There was never an EF roadmap, we're no more in the dark now than we were a year ago. And what EF lenses are missing from the lineup at present that you need? It's a pretty mature ecosystem for almost all uses. It's only natural they should focus on an immature system at this point, but EF is still the way to go for most photographers at the present time (even if you're mounting them on an R body).

There is a big difference now, we are at a watershed; is Canon going to bifurcate its roadmap down two major highways or is it going to have one major road, ie R and the other is a cul de sac?

 

[6degrees]

How about these:

RF 85mm F1.2
RF 24mm F1.2

 

[Ozarker]

You're implying that the high-end bodies drive sales, but that's not true. The vast majority of cameras sold are at the low end - so why would the introduction of a 1-series equivalent mirrorless cause significant growth of that sector? Even within FF, which is itself a minority of bodies, the 1-series must sell far less than cheaper cameras.

Because Canon makes all the money selling 20,000 of the 1D series instead of 10,000,000 of everything else. (sarcasm)

 

[Loswr]

wouldn't it be better to fix the complaints people had with the eos r camera and come out wit a new improved mark 2, instead of bringing out a tonne of lenses to attatch to a product that still doesn't match up to a sony a7iii.

The EOS R doesn’t match up to the a7III in your mind, fine. But the data we have to date show that more people are buying the EOS R than are buying the a7III. Like many here, you seem to believe that your opinion represents that of the majority, even though the facts contradict your opinion. As they say, you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

 

[Don Haines]

There is a big difference now, we are at a watershed; is Canon going to bifurcate its roadmap down two major highways or is it going to have one major road, ie R and the other is a cul de sac?

Yes, none of us know what is going to happen, but one huge fact should (but probably will not) keep people from panicking: Canon went to great pains to make sure that all the EF lenses work on he RF. (it even uses the LP-E6N battery) Even in the most extreme case, where Canon never makes another EF mount camera ever, all your glass still has a home on an R body.

 

[nchoh]

There is a big difference now, we are at a watershed; is Canon going to bifurcate its roadmap down two major highways or is it going to have one major road, ie R and the other is a cul de sac?

Good question, but a fairly complex one to answer accurately, so let’s break it down.

• Canon likes to segment.
• Do not know how long it will take Canon to have a full range of R cameras to have maximum segmentation.
• RF lens manufacture process is no different than EF lens manufacture process.
• Canon makes more money if customers first buy EF then upgrade to RF.
• Will mirrorless beat DSLR in all use cases?

So looking at #2, we could probably guess that it would take at least 10 years for Canon to fully build out a camera line up (R1, R5, R6, R7, R80…). Canon could still produce EF glass into its already crowded lineup to stock the distribution chain. Canon could still introduce newer better EF glass into its already crowded EF lineup. So I would take that EF lenses would still be available for purchase at least 15 years. If DSLR still has a profitable use case, would Canon just totally drop the EF system? Probably not.

 

[Talys]

Yes, none of us know what is going to happen, but one huge fact should (but probably will not) keep people from panicking: Canon went to great pains to make sure that all the EF lenses work on he RF. (it even uses the LP-E6N battery) Even in the most extreme case, where Canon never makes another EF mount camera ever, all your glass still has a home on an R body.

I wish there were a betting site where people could put their money where there mouth is, and either bet that Canon will make another EF body (or EF lens), or not. I'd bet even with 1000:1 odds that Canon will build more of both.

 

[Loswr]

My claims are of any kind of practical solution being possible. And as ridiculous as it may seem to you to say that a practical solution is impossible, we're talking more than basic functionality, but full compatibility. Otherwise it would be a useless endeavor to even do. There is no need to purchase any RF lenses prior to purchasing an RF body if your EF lenses already mount to it. And if you don't have an EF body, than you don't have to worry about it since buying lenses first would be pretty useless. It's just not a practical or useful item to make.

Your claims have no basis in reality. From an optical standpoint, an RF lens to EF mount adapter is definitely feasible. Certainly no adapter can confer functions on a camera that are not already present, but that would constitute a rather silly definition of ‘fully compatible’. I already pointed out one analogy for the RF control ring being functional on a DSLR. It’s worth pointing out that the supertele AF Stop button function cannot be customized on, say, a Rebel/xxxD camera body. I suppose that by your definition, a lens like the EF 300/2.8L IS II is thus not ‘fully compatible’ with Canon’s entry level cameras. Like I said, silly.

As for a ‘need to purchase RF lenses prior to purchasing’ an EOS R...sure, why would someone buy an RF 24-105/f4 L IS for their DSLR. But can you really not conceive that some people might want an f/2 standard zoom like the RF 28-70/2L for use on their DSLR? How long have some Canon DSLR users been clamoring for an updated 50/1.2L without the intentionally undercorrected spherical aberration that trades bokeh for sharpness? For that, there’s the RF 50/1.2L.Your claim of ‘no need’ seems either disingenuous or seriously obtuse.

So yes, an adapter is possible, and would be useful for some Canon shooters. I still don’t believe they’ll ever make one, but that’s not the point here.

 

[Ozarker]

Yes, none of us know what is going to happen, but one huge fact should (but probably will not) keep people from panicking: Canon went to great pains to make sure that all the EF lenses work on he RF. (it even uses the LP-E6N battery) Even in the most extreme case, where Canon never makes another EF mount camera ever, all your glass still has a home on an R body.

And that is unbelievably wonderful, to me. Still, people really are doing a lot of hand wringing, aren't they? Personally, I can find no reason to worry. For those still shooters (sports, birds, wildlife, etc.) that must have high frame rates, I highly doubt Canon will leave them high and dry in any case. It will be interesting to see what happens. I can't wait!

 

[privatebydesign]

I don't think it's much of a dilemna for Canon. They cut off the FD line for the EF line pretty cleanly, even if people didn't like it, they still made it to number one.

Well yes and no. They did succumb to pressure from pros and made an FDn 200 f1.8 after the EF 200 f1.8, they also made the rare genuine FD-EOS adapter for long lenses that was an effective 1.26 TC that lost you 2/3 stop of light.

https://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/200mm.htm
https://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdeos.htm

 

[Don Haines]

And that is unbelievably wonderful, to me. Still, people really are doing a lot of hand wringing, aren't they? Personally, I can find no reason to worry. For those still shooters (sports, birds, wildlife, etc.) that must have high frame rates, I highly doubt Canon will leave them high and dry in any case. It will be interesting to see what happens. I can't wait!

One of the advantages of mirrorless is that there is no mirror (duh!) and that means that the potential for silly-high burst rates is there. We have an Oly at work that has a 60FPS burst mode! I fully expect to see a high end R come out with a very large buffer and 20 (or 30) FPS burst mode.

 

[Del Paso]

No they really dont ! I want usable 120fps and something that can shoot videos that has good value. Now with the R there’s absolutely no value upgrading from the M50.

Why don't you just buy a real video camera???

 

[Rockskipper]

I could see people buying mirrorless and then putting their previously-owned EF lenses on them just so they don't have to mess with lens calibration. That's a huge benefit to me, anyway, being an impatient eat dessert now type.