Here is the Canon EOS R5 and Canon EOS R6, along with the announcement date

[Act444]

Question. For auditorium events / lighting.

I have the RF 24-240 f/4-6.3.
Is a constant f/4 (on the new 70-200) enough of a benefit at the long end to justify adding it? Losing 40 mm and only gaining 1.3 stops at 200mm.

Or keep saving for the 2.8 and enjoy the current lens.

From my personal experience, I was in a similar boat 10 years ago and got the f4 version. To make a long story short, I ended up trading up to the 2.8 as soon as I could afford to do so.

It is my experience that the difference between f4 and f2.8 in moderate to dim lighting can be very noticeable, and even substantial in some cases. Say at f6.3 you’re at ISO 12,800. F4 is 1.3 stop difference = ISO 5,000. F2.8 is another stop = ISO 2,500. Considering that IQ on many camera sensors deteriorates considerably past 3200, this could affect print size, cropping power, etc. The 2.8 lens would allow for a much better shot than either the f4 or 6.3. But in good light you’ll see far less of a difference...

I suppose final results will ultimately depend on the camera body you’re shooting with.

 

[AJ]

At those very extreme focal lengths, you might as well focus manually, and have rock-steady support as well as clean air...
After a certain point you are better of with an EF 600mm f/4 and teleconverters (either new or used).
But you have those options, no one is forcing you to buy f/11 DO lenses.

That's true, but the R-mount TC takes R-mount lenses, and there are currently very few R-mount telephoto lenses. I'm wondering about the use of those TCs. Maybe there'll be more coming in the future, like 300/2.8 or 600/4.

 

[koenkooi]

That's true, but the R-mount TC takes R-mount lenses, and there are currently very few R-mount telephoto lenses. I'm wondering about the use of those TCs. Maybe there'll be more coming in the future, like 300/2.8 or 600/4.

So put the EF-RF adapter between the EF lens and RF TC.

 

[padam]

That's true, but the R-mount TC takes R-mount lenses, and there are currently very few R-mount telephoto lenses. I'm wondering about the use of those TCs. Maybe there'll be more coming in the future, like 300/2.8 or 600/4.

That's a definite yes.
There is also the latest EF 400mm f/2.8 IS III and EF 600mm f/2.8 IS III lenses, which are much more like the RF-mount lenses with focus-by-wire manual focusing and more electrical contacts internally, which suggest that these two lenses could be upgraded to the RF-mount at some point and take those new teleconverters.

 

[sanj]

I typically don't photograph birds in foliage, and I've only been shooting for a little over a year, but I'm pretty okay at math. This shot was taken at f/6.3, 1/400, 1600 ISO. I can get the same exposure by closing the aperture to f/11, leaving the shutter speed the same, and bumping the ISO to ~5000. This was taken around 4pm with not great lighting. There was a clearing nearby with close to perfect lighting and I could have used nearly whatever ISO I wanted. No, the 800mm isn't going to let you take the same shots as a 600mm f/4, but it will probably be half the weight or less and cost 1/10th as much. It sounds like this lens isn't for you? I don't know what to tell you. Go practice at f/11 I guess if it bothers you that much.


View attachment 190892

Nice photo. In my experience, I need faster shutter speed generally.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

There is also the latest EF 400mm f/2.8 IS III and EF 600mm f/2.8 IS III lenses, which are much more like the RF-mount lenses with focus-by-wire manual focusing and more electrical contacts internally, which suggest that these two lenses could be upgraded to the RF-mount at some point and take those new teleconverters.

I'd be very reluctant to have my 600/4L IS III converted to RF mount, even if it's inexpensive. It would cut me off from using it on my EF bodies, which will be around for a long time yet. (Maybe for ever, if Canon has no plans for a high end mirrorless replacement for the 7D2.)

 

[padam]

I'd be very reluctant to have my 600/4L IS III converted to RF mount, even if it's inexpensive. It would cut me off from using it on my EF bodies, which will be around for a long time yet. (Maybe for ever, if Canon has no plans for a high end mirrorless replacement for the 7D2.)

The R5 might function just fine as a 7D2 replacement (for the time being), as the in-camera 1.6x crop mode it works just like any APS-C mirrorless camera would.

 

[Rule556]

possibly, but I’ve learned the hard way that I’d rather have more noise than a blurry picture, so I usually shoot at higher ISOs these days.

Absolutely. Here in Seattle, I‘m at 1600 way more often than 100 or 400. For me, I’ve rarely had any issues with noise at higher ISOs with my R.

 

[usern4cr]

You can see a comparison here:



https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It shows that the f/2.8 lens is sharper and has better contrast at f/4. But the F/4 DO lens is pretty darned good. I've shot both.

The sharpness is similar, but the DO contrast is significantly worse. I hope they can do better than that with the new RF DO lenses. But that may explain why they're not "L" lenses.

 

[TracerHD]

Question 1:
does f 2,8 stop down to 5,6 natively at lens
effect the image qualitiy the same than use 2,8 + 2x tele converter?
At some lenses stop down increase the sharpness in the corners, aswell f13+ decrease the image quality.

Question 2:
Won't be flicker a problem at 800mm + 2x tele-converter?

 

[Traveler]

Speaking only for myself, I’m not spending $5000-10,000 on a new lens in order to hang it on a mismatched tube with a second mount interface to wobble. If I need a big long lens I’ll buy an inexpensive resellable used one. No revenue for Canon for me in the category until they have native big whites.

All it takes is a longer rear housing and no change to any of the other mechanical, optical, and electronic components.

Of course that rear housing will presumably include a control ring and the matching RF silver element like the RF70-200.

I get it. But the big whites are the least painfull lenses to use covertor with. Of course they can just make the lens longer and make it native. But I don't think they want to. They'd probably try to make it even shorter, faster AF etc

 

[Traveler]

I totally agree. I don't see much advantage making a 11-24 or 8-15 in RF version. Of course they would be a bit smaller but i would probably buy the EF versions anyway and use them with the drop-in filter adapter.

Of course I'd love to have the 8-15 as a native RF lens so I could get rid of the adapter for good. But it's not that big of a deal, I use it occasionally.

 

[NoNaCannon]

Are there any details or rumors about the data rates for the R5 and R6 video file types? Is the "raw" a "raw lite" codec or the full, humungous files like with the 1DX Mkiii?

 

[Otara]

I'd be very reluctant to have my 600/4L IS III converted to RF mount, even if it's inexpensive. It would cut me off from using it on my EF bodies, which will be around for a long time yet. (Maybe for ever, if Canon has no plans for a high end mirrorless replacement for the 7D2.)

I dont think this would be easy for lenses already made, more that making an RF equivalent would be fairly simple. The only reason Id want an RF equivalent would be to allow the high speed display to work, which probably needs some kind of electronic changes for the extra pins, as well as the mount adapter.

 

[Viggo]

11-24 RF? Nine stops of vignetting?

 

[reefroamer]

Canon will be offering a good range of resolution (and prices) across the R-body lineup, with R5 at 45mp, R6 at 20mp, RP at 26mp and R at 30mp. Every shooter should be able to find something that works best in most of their cases. So take your pick. We always have to make compromises on price and feature set, but I think it’s a pretty nice spread here. And on the RF glass, I think Canon has done a pretty stellar job in getting so many RF lenses out the door in less than 24 months while also bringing four new full-frame R bodies (or five if you include the Ra) to market in the same time frame. (I’m including the R5 and R6 in this group.) All in under two years. Who says an elephant can’t learn to dance?

 

[AJ]

So put the EF-RF adapter between the EF lens and RF TC.

You're right. That would work.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

The R5 might function just fine as a 7D2 replacement (for the time being), as the in-camera 1.6x crop mode it works just like any APS-C mirrorless camera would.

Not the first time this has been proposed, but I don't need to replace the 7D2 with something slightly worse (in some important ways) than the six-year-old body I already have. I want to replace it with something six years better, which improves on the 7D2 by at least as much as the R5 improves on the 5D4.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I dont think this would be easy for lenses already made, more that making an RF equivalent would be fairly simple. The only reason Id want an RF equivalent would be to allow the high speed display to work, which probably needs some kind of electronic changes for the extra pins, as well as the mount adapter.

Sigma has developed a system which allows them to exchange mounts for a reasonable price, even between mounts for different brands. For Canon to create an EF lens which can be converted to RF would be trivial in comparison.

But yes, the high speed display is critical. If I can't get full performance from the R5 with my best lenses, it starts to look like a bad idea.

 

[tmroper]

That Adorama link has a quote from Linsey Alder saying the R5 is an "amazing deal," which sounds promising for the price.