Here’s confirmation of the RF 100-400, RF 24 Macro and RF 18-45. Sadly, they’re quite delayed

[juststeve]

A 24/1.8 macro lens focusing to .5x would make an interesting wildflower lens. Might also make for a very interesting bug photography lens. The close focusing ability and compositional flexibility of the 14-35/4 L may make it the more useful choice, though.

 

[rontele7]

F/7.1 @ 400mm - why? We already have 100-400mm f/5.6 and a 100-500 f/7.1.
Is Canon becoming allergic to fast zooms?

 

[Sharlin]

Why is the 100-400mm a f/5.6 to 7.1...

It's a non-L lens. It was never ever going to be fast.

 

[amorse]

F/7.1 @ 400mm - why? We already have 100-400mm f/5.6 and a 100-500 f/7.1.
Is Canon becoming allergic to fast zooms?

I didn't understand that lens either with the 100-500 already in play, but after discussing it here it seems to be more a spiritual successor to the 70-300 for a lower cost, larger zooming lens. Personally, I'm fine with the 7.1 apertures as long as we get that reduced weight/cost benefit.

 

[fastprime]

I didn't understand that lens either with the 100-500 already in play, but after discussing it here it seems to be more a spiritual successor to the 70-300 for a lower cost, larger zooming lens. Personally, I'm fine with the 7.1 apertures as long as we get that reduced weight/cost benefit.

I'm very curious on the 100-400. I'd love to have a native RF telephoto, but can't justify the cost of the 100-500.

 

[Joules]

What does the "C" mean in RF 100-400 IS C USM ? My first thought was "crop" (it made my heart beat faster for a second), but then I saw the same moniker in RF 24-240 IS CUSM and EF-S 18-135 IS CUSM ?
(For the 100-400 it looks like there's a tiny space beteen C and USM, on the other two lenses it looks like CUSM without a space. But I assume it is the same, and just bad typography in presentation)

Seeing that the 18-135 is labeled CUSM, I suppose it just stands for Nano USM, as opposed to the full ring type USM.

 

[slclick]

I had to look up what a Herper was.

It's a colloquialism for those in Herpes Anonymous

 

[xlksii]

With the 14-35 and 15-35 already in existence, I'm really questioning whether that 18-45 is going to be a full-frame lens... I guess it could be a price-point wide angle, designed to pair with the 24-105 STM for an inexpensive lightweight kit? But still...

Maybe it's less meant as a true wide angle zoom but more of an alternative to the 24/28-70 kind of lens. For when you could take or leave the focal range above fifty-ish but often times want wider than the typical 24mm.

 

[JPAZ]

What does the "C" mean in RF 100-400 IS C USM ? .........................

Wonder if, because there is no L designation, that will stand for "Consumer" and will be less weather sealing, perhaps physically smaller and lighter and less expensive?

 

[Canon Rumors]

Wonder if, because there is no L designation, that will stand for "Consumer" and will be less weather sealing, perhaps physically smaller and lighter and less expensive?

I imagine it will be a very small, light, and affordable lens.

 

[LSXPhotog]

I wonder what the size of the 100-400 will be. Right now, I really want a small, light telephoto…that has aperture blades…to use as a fun walk around wildlife lens when I walk my dog or go to the zoo. I fear the days are numbered for my EF 100-400 II right now. The weight really makes it a “work” only lens for me as it’s unjustifiably heavy to pack in a bag regularly.

 

[dcm]

F/7.1 @ 400mm - why? We already have 100-400mm f/5.6 and a 100-500 f/7.1.
Is Canon becoming allergic to fast zooms?

In many cases, Canon isn’t just duplicating the EF line in the RF mount. With better sensors and AF, they don’t have the same limitations as the xD and EF line.

The RF 100–500 is a replacement for the EF 100-400. The RF 100-400 is likely a replacement for EF 70-300 with a 67mm filter, costs and weighs less than half as much as the EF 100-400, and won’t be white.

With the new generation of sensors, 7.1 appears to be the new 5.6 for low end zooms. And the RF800 has shown that f/11, f/16, and f/22 AF are also possible with DPAF.

 

[FrenchFry]

A 24/1.8 macro lens focusing to .5x would make an interesting wildflower lens. Might also make for a very interesting bug photography lens. The close focusing ability and compositional flexibility of the 14-35/4 L may make it the more useful choice, though.

We'll see! Best to pick up one of each, just in case!

 

[FrenchFry]

I had to look up what a Herper was.

LOL!, nothing to do with herpes!

For the uninitiated, herping is to look for amphibians and reptiles. Herpetology is the study of amphibians and reptiles.

 

[mccasi]

I guess this must be the consumer/prosumer- roadmap. Still waiting on my Astro lens in RF mount

 

[slclick]

I imagine it will be a very small, light, and affordable lens.

Give me better IQ than the Tamron 100-400 and less money than the Canon EF version and I'm in.

 

[AlanF]

I would respectfully suggest that the only reason to wait for an RP mk2 is that the original RP is 2+ years old and while stil great value for money, a replacement or similarly-priced R body may come as soon as late 2021 or early 2022. I do not miss IBIS as all the RF lenses I own are equipped with the latest IS. The non-L 24-240mm and 35mm 1.8 are great glass for their purpose, and the rather more costly 24-105L and 100-500L are superlative. A mirrorless body does not have the shake induced by the mirror, so even without IBIS you are ahead of a DSLR. The relatively light weight of the RP is achieved because (among other things) it has a lighter battery (LP 17) which may not be able to cope with the power drain of IBIS.

You don't have a 100-500mm in your signature list. Several review sites have reported its AF is sluggish with the RP, which in any case is reputed to be rather slow for tracking birds in flight - I don't know whether any firmware upgrades have corrected this. So, for @Maximilian who likes photographing dragonflies in flight, which is even more difficult than BIF, an RP would not be of much use so he has to wait for a mk2 as his DSLR is much better.

 

[LeBlobe]

Even if it does .5x, I can see it being a good seller among herpers.

I'm hoping it can do better than 0.5X or maybe it could be use with extension tube? the rf 35mm cannot.

edit: rf 35mm apparently works with tube.

 

[John Wilde]

No RF-S lenses, matches no APS-C R camera bodies.

 

[PhotonShark]

The RF 100–500 is a replacement for the EF 100-400. The RF 100-400 is likely a replacement for EF 70-300 with a 67mm filter, costs and weighs less than half as much as the EF 100-400, and won’t be white.

R6 with 100-400 might make a good replacement for my 70D with 75-300.

Wonder if the 1.4 extender will offer full range with this lens.