Two ‘Big Whites’ coming for the RF mount in 2021 [CR2]

[mb66energy]

whatever the big white will come, if there is similar EF mount lens with similar picture quality, would you buy RF or EF for your R-series camera?
At one point when you'd want to sell it, i imagine it would be easier to sell EF lens as it is compatible (with adapters) with more cameras, right?

Good question - had a hard time with RF or EF 1.8 or 2 lens to choose from. A very good offer of RP + RF 35 lens (the lens was more or less a free add on price wise) solved it.
EF is compatible to ALL my Canon cameras just the M series which I like for time lapses with Magic Lantern, the RF lens is not. EF lenses are compatible to the ND filter adapter on RF cameras, RF lenses are not (for video the C70 changes all with its built in ND filter system).

On the other hand Canon knows how to draw people into the RF system: The RF 35 1.8 is a super flexible lens with very good to excellent image quality. I really like the very effective stabilizer, f/1.8 AND 1:2 macro capability, the STM fast enough for photo/smooth enough for video in ONE compact and sturdy package ...

 

[mb66energy]

The only real improvement in lens design is in sharpness, and in my opinion sharpness is vastly overrated in its importance. MILC ‘s do allow for more accurate auto focus as well as much wider scene coverage and lower light auto focus.Indeed I see AF improvements as the biggest advantage for MILC’s over DSLR’s.

That is the main reason I really like my basic M50 and RP so much over better DSLRs: Freedom of choice of AF field + ultra high reliability to get the right focus. Just my 10-22 could be improved vastly - it suffers a little bit of field curvature and now I can place the AF area on the important detail without recomposing which counteracts errors from field curvature etc.

About sharpness: While I like sharpness very much in general, contrast of a lens and other properties how the image is rendered are more important in my opinion if a photo looks "believable, real, great".
And I hate my very sharp meaningless photos most ...

 

[privatebydesign]

Recently, the biggest improvement has been less weight In equivalent lens FLs.

That simply isn’t true.

EF 50 f1.2 19.2 oz (545g)
RF 50 f1.2 33.2 oz (950g)

EF 85 f1.2 36.2 oz (1025g)
RF 85 f1.2 42.2 oz (1196g)

EF 24-70 f2.8 28.4 oz
RF 24-70 f2.8 31.8 oz

The RF 15-35 is heavier than the EF 16-35 as well, indeed the only real weight advance for the RF line is in the 70-200 f2.8’s where the RF version does make a good weight saving over the EF version. There is less than an ounce between even modest lenses like the 35 f1.8/2.

 

[David - Sydney]

Recently, the biggest improvement has been less weight In equivalent lens FLs.

The RF70-200mm is definitely smaller and lighter.
The RF100-500mm is lighter than the EF100-400mm, 14mm longer physically and adds 100mm reach and reviews indicate similar quality. Much lighter and shorter than if a 1.4x TC is added to the EF100-400mm.
The RF24-205mm is lighter and virtually the same size.
The wider angle/prime lenses have not been on such a diet though.

 

[koenkooi]

[..]The RF100-500mm is lighter than the EF100-400mm, 14mm longer physically [..]

Apples-to-apples the RF100-500 is actually shorter, since the EF100-400 needs an adapter that's longer than 14mm. And it also makes the weight difference larger

 

[Mr Majestyk]

500 f/16 most likely

 

[Joules]

500 f/16 most likely

What do you even want? I get that you are frustrated with low end offerings. Why that is an attitude I dislike I have explained in a different thread.

Now here comes a credible rumor about updated higher end offerings - and still all you have to contribute is silly complaints?

 

[Antono Refa]

500mm f5.6L DO!!!

IIRC, I've read Nikon released 500mm & 600mm f/5.6 PF (Nikon's equivalent of DO) for relatively low price, which sold as fast as Nikon could make them.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

IIRC, I've read Nikon released 500mm & 600mm f/5.6 PF (Nikon's equivalent of DO) for relatively low price, which sold as fast as Nikon could make them.

300 f/4 PF and 500mm f/5.6 PF. The 500mm f/5.6 PF seems to be 'the' wildlife lens to buy and people will have a Nikon body just for it. I have a Nikon body just for it and will have mine in Feb. Its performance is right up there with and of the big f/4 primes but you are much more manoeuvrable. If Canon had one combined with the animal eye AF it would be a killer portable setup for BIF and just about anything where we need good portability.

 

[Jasonmc89]

IIRC, I've read Nikon released 500mm & 600mm f/5.6 PF (Nikon's equivalent of DO) for relatively low price, which sold as fast as Nikon could make them.

True, there was quite a long waiting list to get that lens. Tried a friends in Costa Rica and it was truly amazing.. so compact and light. COME ON CANON!!

 

[CvH]

That simply isn’t true.

EF 50 f1.2 19.2 oz (545g)
RF 50 f1.2 33.2 oz (950g)

EF 85 f1.2 36.2 oz (1025g)
RF 85 f1.2 42.2 oz (1196g)

EF 24-70 f2.8 28.4 oz
RF 24-70 f2.8 31.8 oz

The RF 15-35 is heavier than the EF 16-35 as well, indeed the only real weight advance for the RF line is in the 70-200 f2.8’s where the RF version does make a good weight saving over the EF version. There is less than an ounce between even modest lenses like the 35 f1.8/2.

The RF24-70 F2.8L is IS where the EF24-70 F2.8L II isn't. So isn't a fair comparison.

You also forgot to mention the RF100-500 which is longer focal length and lighter than the EF100-400

 

[degos]

The RF70-200mm is definitely smaller and lighter.

No it's fatter, and longer at 200mm

The old 70-300L is shorter when retracted, does that make it a miracle lens?

 

[Michelef]

Didn't you mention a 500mm f2.8 recently ???

 

[derpderp]

i'd buy a 600mm f1.8 in a heartbeat.

 

[arbitrage]

It better be the RF version of the beauty alongside the 300/2.8....

 

[Quarkcharmed]

There was just a knock at the door so I’m sure that’s it. No kidding. It just arrived.

Congrats!
I ordered my R5 a few hours after it was available in the Australian stores and got it a couple of weeks ago as a surprise, because they expected the second batch from Canon in the end of October.
It's of limited use anyway because of corona lockdown here.

 

[Antono Refa]

True, there was quite a long waiting list to get that lens. Tried a friends in Costa Rica and it was truly amazing.. so compact and light. COME ON CANON!!

Either way, seems there's a healthy demand for said super tele primes.

300 f/4 PF and 500mm f/5.6 PF.

I stand corrected. A quick Google search shows a 600mm f/5.6 PF is rumored as well.

The 500mm f/5.6 PF seems to be 'the' wildlife lens to buy and people will have a Nikon body just for it. I have a Nikon body just for it and will have mine in Feb. Its performance is right up there with and of the big f/4 primes but you are much more manoeuvrable. If Canon had one combined with the animal eye AF it would be a killer portable setup for BIF and just about anything where we need good portability.

Exactly - Nikon is making money on mid-speed (slower than Canon's fastest, faster than f/11) PF super teles. Seems to me like Canon has an incentive to compete, e.g. RF 300mm f/4L DO IS USM & RF 500mm f/5.6 DO IS USM.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Exactly - Nikon is making money on mid-speed (slower than Canon's fastest, faster than f/11) PF super teles. Seems to me like Canon has an incentive to compete, e.g. RF 300mm f/4L DO IS USM & RF 500mm f/5.6 DO IS USM.

Nikon did miss a trick by making these F lenses instead of Z mount. They could be even shorter without the FTZ and would have shifted a lot of Z6 and Z7 bodies. The 500mm f/5.6 'feels' like a mirrorless lens, so small and light yet able to take pictures that best the f/4 prime in everything but raw light gathering, but that doesn't matter as much because ISO 10,000 and even ISO 20 odd thousand produce rather clean pictures and the AF is quick.

I haven't tried with the 1.4x or 2x converters yet, but all reviews point to the 1.4x having no sharpness loss and on the Z bodies you can still use every AF point without perceived slowdown.

A 500mm f/5.6 L IS would just keep me locked into Canon, I don't want to buy for a old mount just now but will buy the Nikon one until there is a 'big' white that pulls me into RF.

 

[Ale_F]

Why Canon cannot make two different version of the lens (EF and RF), like cinema in PL or EF mount?

 

[usern4cr]

Why Canon cannot make two different version of the lens (EF and RF), like cinema in PL or EF mount?

By 2 versions of the lens, do you mean a RF version which is just the EF version with extra spacer embedded like Sigma does? If so, then they're better of making just a new EF version which can also be used with converters on the RF mount. If you mean to have a new EF and also have a RF version optimized for the RF mount, it will not be the same lens at all since an "RF mount optimized lens" would have to be completely re-designed to take advantage of the much shorter mount to sensor distance.