Canon will announce the RF 16mm f/2.8 and RF 100-400mm next
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I was initially interested in the 14-35mm f4, but the distortion in that lens makes it hard to be a replacement for my EF 16-35mm f4. But a decent lightweight RF16mm 2.8 would cover off the wide end when I have to travel light. Hopefully not too expensive in Australia, or is that asking too much (pun intended).
Upvote
0
The EF 200-400 f/4L 1.4ext is not much cheaper than the 600 f/4L (91K vs 109K here in DK), so I would expect an RF-200-600 f/5.6L 1.4ext to follow that trend.
Considering that the 600 f/5.6 would require +15% larger front element than a 400 f/4, the selling price could ballon further up.
Sorry.
Upvote
0
Just seen this
”"EOS R3 Body" and accessories (ST-E10, AD-E1, DM-E1D, ER-L1, ER-HE, ER-H) have been added to Canon's latest product list. According to the corresponding accessories table, RF16mm has a hood of EW-65C, a cap of E-43, and a lens pouch of LP1014. RF100-400mm seems to have a cap of E-67II and a pouch of LP1224.”
43mm front filters thread would be tiny.
”"EOS R3 Body" and accessories (ST-E10, AD-E1, DM-E1D, ER-L1, ER-HE, ER-H) have been added to Canon's latest product list. According to the corresponding accessories table, RF16mm has a hood of EW-65C, a cap of E-43, and a lens pouch of LP1014. RF100-400mm seems to have a cap of E-67II and a pouch of LP1224.”
43mm front filters thread would be tiny.
Upvote
0
That’s true with the sales tax. But with the RF100-500mm pricing in Europe the savings are enormous even with a 8,25% sales tax!
I ordered my RF100-500mm at the beginning of March, hoping it would be there at the end of August (at the latest). As you know, didn’t work out but it’ll be there next year
Upvote
0
A 600 f/5.6 would have an entrance pupil of 107mm which is only 7% larger than that of a 400 f/4
Upvote
0
Sorry, but @kaihp is correct, a 600/5.6 entrance pupil is ~14.5% larger than that of a 400/4.
You might want to revisit some basic principles of geometry that you probably learned as a youth. I’d suggest starting with the method for calculating the area of a circle. A pi may help your calculations, but please don’t try to eat it (irrational numbers are notoriously hard on your digestion).
Upvote
0
Aussie shooter
https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
I am in on the 16mm if the IQ is acceptable for astro. It is the one i am waiting for. Dont need IS. TBH I don't even need AF really although I am sure that wont be the case. Will need to see reviews of IQ first though
Upvote
0
My Tamron 100-400mm has a 67mm filter thread and a aperture of f/6.3 on the long end so we could see something of a similar size/weight. Might need to list mine for sale if this Canon isn't too pricey.That’s consistent with an f/6.3 max aperture.
Upvote
0
I believe they have a well developed roadmap of retirement dates for all of them.
Sorry to say it, but EF and DSLR is a thing of the past. Luckily the glass you have will still work for decades on a new RF body with an adapter (which will eventually be easier to get).
-Brian
Upvote
0
I would have also bought the RF 14-35 f/4 as a replacement for my EF 17-40 f/4 but on seeing the hefty price tag and waiting time I bought a used, but mint Sigma DG 14-24mm f/2.8 HSM ART for just under £600. A chunk of a lens and needs adapted but I thought a better option for me for the little ultra-wide photography I do.
Canons lens prices are through the roof! And will cost them in new camera body sales, talk of this new RF 16mm f/2.8 being 600, 700 800 £$ is ridiculous
Upvote
0
If it's reasonably sharp, that 100-400 would be nice for hiking. My current options are either the 55-250 in crop mode on the R5 or the 100-400 II.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)