Canon to announce the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM soon

[koenkooi]

Well, it does not say macro in it. The RF 35 mm 1.8 and 85 mm 2.0 both have the word macro printed before the STM.

The 35mm and 85mm also have 'IS' printed on them, so no IS for this 50mm. I hope that means good things for the price

 

[blackcoffee17]

So next year the 24 1.8 is coming. Will be a nice set of affordable primes.

 

[mangobutter]

If it is indeed that small (size of a coke can), I might be interested. With the size of R5, you can sneak the pair, and security won't bother you with this "you are a pro nonsense".

R5? Forget that. RP. Then you'd really be under the radar.

 

[GrunRad]

Disagree! The picture shows the typical ring to attach a macro flash.

Zooming into this image shows that this is not ring (going all around) but a bayonet type lens attachment feature.

 

[dichterDichter]

i have the ef 50mm 1.4. it seems, the 1.8 is better in terms of image quality, is it?

 

[degos]

The RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS was an incredible surprise, and everytime I use it I'm so astonished that no one had made an extending zoom 70-200 before it.

Of course they had, just at the lower end of the market.

 

[Nemorino]

Zooming into this image shows that this is not ring (going all around) but a bayonet type lens attachment feature.

Yes indeed! Looking now with a desktop and not with a mobile I have to say I was wrong.
Sorry for the confusion!

 

[cwabramowicz]

When they say the 70-200 F4 is the size of a can of coke, I can only imagine that they mean the length, not the width. I have the rf 24-105 F4, and it's definitely stout on the width, and would think that the have a 200 reach at F4 would be a bit wider physically than 105, but sometimes optics can be crazy as far as what they can manage.

 

[Nemorino]

and would think that the have a 200 reach at F4 would be a bit wider physically than 105,

It is easy to calculate:
105mm :4= 26,25mm
200mm :4 = 50mm

So there could be space to design a 70-200 f/4 smaller then a 24-105 f/4.

 

[H. Jones]

It is easy to calculate:
105mm :4= 26,25mm
200mm :4 = 50mm

So there could be space to design a 70-200 f/4 smaller then a 24-105 f/4.

The EF 70-200mm F/4L IS II has a 72mm filter thread, smaller than the RF 24-105mm f/4's 77mm filter thread, so I would agree that it should be possible to be slightly smaller than the RF 24-105mm, if only by 5mm.

When you really look at the EF 70-200mm F/4L IS II, it's really striking how much of a skinny drainpipe it looks like, in comparison to the extending RF 70-200.


Looking back, it's been long overdue that a lens as compact as this gets an external zoom to really make it able to minimize space for those who would be choosing this over the F/2.8 anyway.

 

[JordanCS13]

Not only that, but the previous 70-200/4L's (both the non-IS and the first IS version) had 67mm filter threads. The Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 for E-mount is also a 67mm thread, so you can do some pretty crazy things with the right design.

 

[Nemorino]

Yes, I agree. But the absolut limit would be the physical size of the aperture.

 

[David - Sydney]

View attachment 193657

I know we're all visual people, so I thought I'd take a quick comparison with my RF 70-200.

Supposedly the source had said the new RF 70-200 F/4L is going to be the same size as a coke can...well...since I don't drink coke, here's a can of Pepsi for comparison. (Propped up on my wallet, which is unfortunately a bit thinner than the EOS R5, due to the EOS R5...)

I'm actually surprised to say a can of soda is a good bit smaller than the F/2.8, so the new F/4 must be absolutely tiny.

Surely the diet can is smaller than a regular can

 

[danfaz]

R5? Forget that. RP. Then you'd really be under the radar.

Yep, I took an RP w/ the 24-105 f/4 into an event...no questions asked!

 

[danfaz]

Not only that, but the previous 70-200/4L's (both the non-IS and the first IS version) had 67mm filter threads. The Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 for E-mount is also a 67mm thread, so you can do some pretty crazy things with the right design.

The EF 70-200mm F/4L IS II has a 72mm filter thread, smaller than the RF 24-105mm f/4's 77mm filter thread, so I would agree that it should be possible to be slightly smaller than the RF 24-105mm, if only by 5mm.

Since we now know the lens hood for the 70-200 f/4 is the ET-83G (WIII), we can gestimate this will have a 77mm filter thread. The 2.8 has a 77mm filter thread, and the lens hood is the ET-83F (WII). Also, the lens hood for the 24-105 L is an 83-something, and it has a 77mm filter thread.

Thoughts?

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Since we now know the lens hood for the 70-200 f/4 is the ET-83G (WIII), we can gestimate this will have a 77mm filter thread. The 2.8 has a 77mm filter thread, and the lens hood is the ET-83F (WII). Also, the lens hood for the 24-105 L is an 83-something, and it has a 77mm filter thread.

I was looking at this too. Surely it seems very unlikely that the f/4 lens will be as fat as the RF 70-200/2.8? Especially when it has been described as 'like a Coke can'? I wouldn't bank on the Nokishita report being correct just yet.

 

[koenkooi]

I was looking at this too. Surely it seems very unlikely that the f/4 lens will be as fat as the RF 70-200/2.8? Especially when it has been described as 'like a Coke can'? I wouldn't bank on the Nokishita report being correct just yet.

The RF70-200 f/2.8 does get a lot wider right after the filter thread, the picture on page2 shows it quite nicely.

 

[Kiton]

I will get both, this is great news, now Canon, keep it up and bring us 28 f2 please!!!

 

[Kiton]

View attachment 193657



. (Propped up on my wallet, which is unfortunately a bit thinner than the EOS R5, due to the EOS R5...)

It that a typo? The wallet is thinner BECAUSE of the R5??

 

[danfaz]

I was looking at this too. Surely it seems very unlikely that the f/4 lens will be as fat as the RF 70-200/2.8? Especially when it has been described as 'like a Coke can'? I wouldn't bank on the Nokishita report being correct just yet.

I'm really curious. Hopefully we'll see it soon!