Here’s a full list of what will be announced with the Canon EOS R3 this month

[InchMetric]

Every other major lens maker includes a lens hood with their lenses. Why are Canon such misers with their non-L lenses and still are selling them as overpriced extras??

They probably have ample data that very few buyers actually use them, and that they earn more profit by offering them without.

 

[AlanF]

They probably have ample data that very few buyers actually use them, and that they earn more profit by offering them without.

A lens hood is pretty well essential for the RF 800mm f/11 and the 600mm f/11, as for telephoto lenses in general. I bought a cheap 3rd party hood for the 800/11 at about 1/3rd the price of the Canon's flimsy piece of plastic.

 

[josephandrews222]

Please explain it as it is written in jargon and not readily understandable to the non-specialist reader. I don't understand how a lens can have an f-number that is lower (wider) than the simple equation of f-number = focal length/entrance pupil. The 24-105 and 24-240mm that you quote have apertures diameters wide enough. So, I'd like to learn

@AlanF:

I very much appreciate your response here...more than you know.

I could go on and on here...

I will not, except to say this:

There are people who post here who I learn from.

There are people who post here who I respect.

And, in both of these categories...not so much (learning and respecting) from some posters.

Some of those in this latter group seem to be interested (mostly) in demonstrating their supposed knowledge and their supposed dominance.

One in particular...who 'stole' an observation of mine and called it his own...thread after thread.

Then, this same bloke, in a rather pedantic way...was highly critical of a poster (not me) who kind of wondered out loud about stuff that made the general point that the mirror in a standard DSLR provided some protection (to the sensor) from dust and dirt (compared to a mirrorless camera).

The pedantic guy was rude and obnoxious...and probably to this day doesn't even realize.

He still is...on this very thread in fact...all in an effort to establish that he has the biggest **** in the room.

I have hardly learned anything from this poster.

THEN I READ A FEW WEEKS AGO THAT CANON HAS PATENTED (OR TRIED TO) A KIND OF 'COVER' FOR MIRRORLESS SENSORS THAT ACTS AS A PREVENTATIVE BARRIER TO DUST AND DIRT!!!!!!!

To my knowledge not a peep from this particular poster.

=====

I can only add that, in my own academic field--I had more than one go-round with pre-med types who needed an 'A' in my class.

I knew 'A' work from 'B' work from decades of experience...at some of the world's best academic and industrial labs.

If they deserved an 'A"...they got it.

...

My deans always backed me...and some of those who post here probably had a course or two in organic chemistry.

I never changed a grade.

I recognize their 'persuasive/obnoxious' strategies and techniques...here on CR.

From these types, more heat than light, for sure...almost always.

=====

Thanks for reading.

edit: spelling/cellphone

 

[Gazwas]

RED has got you covered.

RED Announces the New V-RAPTOR 8K VV DSMC3 Cinema Camera; Watch the RED livestream Find More Info at B&H

/PRNewswire/ -- B&H is excited to announce the new RED V-RAPTOR 8K VV DSMC3 cinema camera with a new 8K VV sensor that moves the RED family of cameras into a...

www.prnewswire.com

Here’s hoping that pushes Canon to release their 8K cinema cameras and freeing up the C500 Mkii sensor for a lover end RF camera.. Full frame, oversampled 4K with HDMI and SDI output in the C90 please Canon.

The C70 was announced shortly after the R5 so let’s hope the same happens with the R3.

 

[calfoto]

Every other major lens maker includes a lens hood with their lenses. Why are Canon such misers with their non-L lenses and still are selling them as overpriced extras??

That's what the "L" stands for ~ "Lens Hood Included"

 

[jedy]

They probably have ample data that very few buyers actually use them, and that they earn more profit by offering them without.

That’s not a reasonable excuse, if true though. When every other major lens maker offers a lens hood with their lenses, and yes, lens hoods are used by photographers all the time, it just makes Canon look like penny pinchers.

 

[calfoto]

Get on with it Canon...bolt on adapters to EF lenses doesn't cut it....

I'm curious, in your opinion why?

All my EF lenses work just fine with the EF-R adapter. - Zooms, Teles, Macros...

I even have an adapter for my Nikon lenses, as well as for Leica...

I'm thinking of getting the Hasselblad one too...

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm curious, in your opinion why?

All my EF lenses work just fine with the EF-R adapter. - Zooms, Teles, Macros...

I even have an adapter for my Nikon lenses, as well as for Leica...

I'm thinking of getting the Hasselblad one too...

I suspect the reference is to the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4, which are optically identical to their most recent EF counterparts, with an empty, slightly elongated section at the mount end of the lens to provide the proper flange distance for RF instead of EF – hence, the term ‘bolt-on’ adapter.

 

[AlanF]

I'm curious, in your opinion why?

All my EF lenses work just fine with the EF-R adapter. - Zooms, Teles, Macros...

I even have an adapter for my Nikon lenses, as well as for Leica...

I'm thinking of getting the Hasselblad one too...

I’d like to try the Nikon 500PF on the R5 but the only adapters I can find are all for manual AF. Do you know of any that will allow AF?

 

[privatebydesign]

It is an APS/C lens for the Leica CL/TL2 models.

I was actually looking for one or two of the Voigtlander pancakes. My mistake.

Here is a Voigtlander 21mm.

 

[David - Sydney]

The new lens price hikes for this month probably do not bode well for anyone hoping the R3 will be a bargain.

CPW's new price list:

• EOS 5D Mark IV is now $2699.00 (was $2499)
• RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM is now $2399.00 (was $2299)
• RF 28-70mm F2 L USM is now $3099.00 (was $2999)
• RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM is now $2399.00 (was $2299)
• RF 100-500mm F4-7.1L IS USM is now $2799.00 (was $2699)
• RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is now $2799.00 (was $2699)
• RF 85mm f/1.2L USM is now $2799.00 (was $2699)
• RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS is now $3099.00 (was $2999)

This could be as simple as the USD:JPY exchange rate changes. The last 6 months have been @ ~110 but at least 5% lower for the 18 months before hand.

USD100 increase across the board for RF but surprising to see $200 increase for the 5Div. Chip shortages have meant higher prices but this seems to be excessive for both shortage and exchange rate reasons... not to mention a very mature product with R&D amortised already.

Besides the demand for replacement bodies due to damage and natural death, the 5Div should have a relatively low new demand now with R (released 3 years ago) and R5/R6 bodies exceeding the 5Div specifications in many ways.

 

[HotPixels]

The RF 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4.0 are good lenses, but they are still modified EF lenses and don't show to the fullest what RF can be. For instance, Nikon are building brand new, never before seen designs for the Z 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4.0 that appear to also have built in 1.4X TC's. Canon have always been able to make glass that no one else even has the R&D budget for, something that can show us what the a modern mirrorless super tele can be (this doesn't mean shorter or even lighter). I very much don't wish to believe bolting a EF to RF converter and changing the focus system is all we can expect from Canon.

It is sad that these two lenses, the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4, which are two of the finest lenses ever made, and are optical masterpieces, are somehow dismissed as being just "good lenses." They are fantastic lenses, regardless of when they were designed and their EF counterparts.

In reality, what happened was that Canon designed these lenses for both RF and EF mount, but released the EF lenses first due to the fact that at the time Canon had EF cameras out that would naturally be used with these lenses, and not yet their more advanced R cameras.

So it's really sad how so many just dismiss super high quality products on some artificial standards, in this case the idea that these lenses weren't designed yesterday or that they reuse technology also seen in EF lenses. Of course neither of those factors influences the quality of the lenses.

We see the same thing when in some forums, some commenters write about the fantastic 1DXIII as if it were virtually useless, just because it's a DSLR and not mirrorless. It's a total lack of perspective.

 

[sanj]

A 35 L would be a bit pedestrian for a body targeting wildlife, sports, and new vehicle AF.

A lot many other people would use R3 than just wildlife photographers.

 

[mpmark]

Agreed. To launch the R3 with lower end budget lenses implies that the R3 is also lower end, which does not seem right. Hopefully there will be some surprise lenses added to the announcement.

Implies? Says who. Just because they are releasing other items it doesn’t imply anything. They’ve already released the 400/600. Which is for THIS body.

 

[FrenchFry]

In reality, what happened was that Canon designed these lenses for both RF and EF mount, but released the EF lenses first due to the fact that at the time Canon had EF cameras out that would naturally be used with these lenses, and not yet their more advanced R cameras.

I thought so too, until I read this: "The EF 400mm F2.8L IS III USM and EF 600mm F4L IS III USM, which we released in 2018, were manufactured to an extremely high level of perfection in order to realize high image quality, light weight and high-performance IS. However, we did not develop these lenses with the intention of making them 'dual-mount.'"
Source: Go Tokura, Chief Executive, Image Communication Business Operations at Canon. https://www.dpreview.com/interviews...devices-supporting-8k-is-a-very-high-priority

According to Canon, they have yet to release any of their high quality supertelephoto primes designed from the ground up for RF. I, for one, am really looking forward to seeing what they come up with. In the meantime, the RF 400 and RF 600 are "optical masterpieces" as you say.

 

[David_D]

Please explain it as it is written in jargon and not readily understandable to the non-specialist reader. I don't understand how a lens can have an f-number that is lower (wider) than the simple equation of f-number = focal length/entrance pupil. The 24-105 and 24-240mm that you quote have apertures diameters wide enough. So, I'd like to learn

It is over 30 years since I studied any optics, but since nobody else has answered, I'll try to explain what I remember, without using jargon.

The formula for f-number needs the word effective inserted into it, twice.
f-number = effective focal length/effective entrance pupil

If you have a simple, single, symmetric lens it is easy, you can measure the focal length and diameter and calculate the f-number. In a modern camera lens which have multiple elements it is not so obvious. Each element alters the characteristics of the ones in front of it. However, what also changes is where the effective entrance pupil is located ... is it nearer the front element or the rear element or somewhere in between? The answer to the mystery is that with some lens designs the effective entrance pupil can be in front of the front element, thus its diameter can be wider than it. (Unfortunately, before someone thinks to suggest a 600mm F1 lens, it can only be a short distance in front without excessive distortions.)

I hope that explanation is sufficiently accurate for certain members, if not please offer a better explanation. (Also, not 100% sure this is the case for the lenses being discussed, but I know it is theoretically possible.)

 

[Emyr Evans]

If it is indeed 24MP, I just hope it will give us the option to have 6K video and not just downsampled 4K.

Add Pre-record to both video and stills and I'm all in

 

[Koemans]

The Canon XF400 is listed as discontinued. Maybe a new camcorder on the horizon?

 

[Deleted member 381342]

A lot many other people would use R3 than just wildlife photographers.

Indeed, like the sports and motor sports photographers it is also aimed at.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

It is sad that these two lenses, the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4, which are two of the finest lenses ever made, and are optical masterpieces, are somehow dismissed as being just "good lenses." They are fantastic lenses, regardless of when they were designed and their EF counterparts.

In reality, what happened was that Canon designed these lenses for both RF and EF mount, but released the EF lenses first due to the fact that at the time Canon had EF cameras out that would naturally be used with these lenses, and not yet their more advanced R cameras.

So it's really sad how so many just dismiss super high quality products on some artificial standards, in this case the idea that these lenses weren't designed yesterday or that they reuse technology also seen in EF lenses. Of course neither of those factors influences the quality of the lenses.

We see the same thing when in some forums, some commenters write about the fantastic 1DXIII as if it were virtually useless, just because it's a DSLR and not mirrorless. It's a total lack of perspective.

It's not about these lenses being good or bad.