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

[Deleted member 381342]

If my style was to go to a hide and sit there for several hours, it would be a solution. But, my m.o. is to walk around with a camera and take opportunistic shots of interesting birds etc. I do visit hides a lot, but only as a part of the general walkabout. Try taking a cart by boat to the Farne Isles and trundling up a narrow path with steps - it's just not possible. I need light lenses, which is why I like the 400mm DO II, 500PF and now the RF 100-500mm.

I know your style is to walk about. So if a 100-500 f/4, 200-500 f/4, or even a 500 f/4 comes out not one of these lenses would remotely interest you. The op’s dream lens is a 100-500 f/4, I suggested a 200-500 f/4 as a more practical and better potential IQ alternative. The 100-500 f/7.1 is a completely different topic and for a different use case.

 

[DBounce]

For $24k, I'll pass. RED cameras are amazing, but over the last several years, you're mostly just paying for the name. Also, I do more run and gun work than anything, and RED's are not very ideal for that.

I can’t imagine anyone will cross shop the Red with an R3. They are just two entirely different animals.

I think the R3 is ideal primarily as a stills camera, with some video work. Whereas the Red is best for professional video productions with budgets and crews.

I could see myself owning both, but one cannot replace the other.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Telezoom don't directly benefit from RF mount so there's no reason to hope for better tele lenses design in the future.
With my enthusiast budget, I'll grab the 100-500 + TC + R3 and will never look back.
Having a 1000mm stabilised with autofocus and 6K raw probably, will make killer street photog videos.

Most of the benefit of RF telephoto lenses is that they are new and the EF 400 and 600 are already new.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

For the kind attention of CANON:-
I have a keen desire and expectation from Canon to manufacture the following 3 lenses which are,
1. RF 12-35 mm f4L IS USM to RF standard plus all the specifications of EF 14-24 mm f4L IS USM.
2. RF 24-240mm f4L IS USM Zoom lens to RF standard. Instead of current 24-240 mm zoom lens.
3. RF 100-500 mm F4L IS USM Zoom lens to RF standard instead of current 100-500 mm zoom.
This will be a Canon Trinity of my dreams.
Opinions Welcome.

Please be advised that this is Canon Rumors.
If you are trying to send suggestions to Canon then you are in the wrong place.
You would be better to contact your local Canon representative.
If they get enough of the same request then it mat be granted.

 

[Nord0306]

Considering the following:

RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 - cannot add TC
100 - 500 - can apply TC 2.0 or 1.4, but only starting at 300mm

That means with a 1.4 you get 420 - 700mm, and with a 2.0 you get 600 - 100mm.

With the 1.4 on I have a hole in my bag from 200 - 420mm, I have to take the TC off to get there.

With the 2.0 on, I'd have to swap to the 1.4 to get 500 - 600mm, or take it off entirely to get 200 - 420mm.

I could carry the EF 70 - 200 f/2.8 IS III instead of the RF, which allows stacking a 2.0 and a 1.4 TC (MK II models only) for 196 - 560 f/8, but now I have to carry 4 TC's and an EF converter to maximize my options. At that point, I could leave the 2.0 on the 100 - 500 and my only "hole" is 560 - 600mm, which basically isn't one....but now I'm operating with sub-optimal setups IQ-wise on both lenses. And while I use the EF 70 - 200 f/2.8 + stacked TC's + EF converter setup today, it's very long and heavy, and doesn't give anything the 100 - 500 + 1.4 wouldn't if the full range was available (actually would provide less).

If I'm willing to carry (and buy) 3 lenses, I could do an RF 70 - 200, an EF with the stacked teleconverters, and a 100 - 500 with the 2.0 on it. Or, an RF 70 - 200, and two 100 - 500's, where I'd use the one defaulted to no TC's from 200 - 500 and add the 1.4 when 420 - 700 is needed, and the 2nd one would have the 2.0 on it all the time and be for the situations where 700+ is needed.

Another option would be if Canon made like a 200 - 400mm f/4 zoom. I suppose one could carry the forthcoming 100 - 400mm for that, but it's slower than I would like, especially considering a 2.0x-extended 70 - 200 f/2.8 gives a constant f/5.6 wide open.

None of this would be necessary if the RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 took TC's as one would expect, and/or the 100 - 500 got its full range when on a TC.

I have just been happy with my EF 100-400 and 2x TC and converter. I use the RF 24-240 for anything else. It's a bummer that the RF 100-500 is locked below 300mm, so I will continue to use the EF. I was excited to see the RF 70-200, but most of my work is hobby and family and the high ISO performance of the R6 is so good, I don't need f/2.8. Some day...

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If Canon got serious and brought out the long awaited 11-800mm F2.8 lens I'd only have to worry about carrying one lens and camera and I'd have it permanently on camera (so no dust spots). If they put wheels on it I could tow it around with me.

If it supports teleconverters then count me in.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I can’t imagine anyone will cross shop the Red with an R3. They are just two entirely different animals.

I think the R3 is ideal primarily as a stills camera, with some video work. Whereas the Red is best for professional video productions with budgets and crews.

I could see myself owning both, but one cannot replace the other.

I think tooyoung255 wants an RF mount C500.
The C70 is better for me in that regard but I do also plan to use an R3 as well if it turns out to be what I expect it to be.

 

[Hector1970]

I know nothing about lens design, but I am curious. Would a 300-600mm F4 be easier to design than 100-500 or 200-500 because it is a 2x zoom?
For a single lens that can do mammals and birds, I have always wondered whether manufacturers would consider making a 300-600. (Probably without constant F4 aperture.)
Or alternatively, would they consider offering a 400mm f2.8 with built-in 1.4x AND built-in 2x one day?
I would love to take those on safari.

I've no idea whether a 300-600 F4 would be easier to design than 100-500 or 200-500.
For me something like a 400-800mm F7.1 or F8 would be interesting.
As nobody has made one it must not be that easy to do or the market they feel would be of highly limited interest or basically too expensive.
I see Tokina have a 400mm F8 Reflex lens out. The review I read was positive given the price of the lens. I'm surprise they or someone else haven't looked again at doing a 800mm version. You would think that with more modern materials and tolerances the old lens could be improved upon.
The Canon 600mm and 800mm F11 are interesting but F11 is quite restrictive.
150-600mm seems to have done well. I shoot up to 1200mm and sometimes that's not even enough.
I would assume though a 300-600 F4 would be even heavier than a 600 F4 - which is really heavy

 

[Chig]

Super telephotos could have built in TC's.

Yep, but that could easily be added to modified EF Great Whites and a clean slate design isn't needed as the RF mount offers no special advantage for this and both the EF1200 and EF200-400 already have this feature.

 

[Chig]

For the kind attention of CANON:-
I have a keen desire and expectation from Canon to manufacture the following 3 lenses which are,
1. RF 12-35 mm f4L IS USM to RF standard plus all the specifications of EF 14-24 mm f4L IS USM.
2. RF 24-240mm f4L IS USM Zoom lens to RF standard. Instead of current 24-240 mm zoom lens.
3. RF 100-500 mm F4L IS USM Zoom lens to RF standard instead of current 100-500 mm zoom.
This will be a Canon Trinity of my dreams.
Opinions Welcome.

Your RF100-500 f/4 would be very heavy - too heavy for hand holding for more than a few seconds
A RF100-500 f/5.6 would be a better compromise and still plenty bright with modern sensors

 

[Chig]

I've no idea whether a 300-600 F4 would be easier to design than 100-500 or 200-500.
For me something like a 400-800mm F7.1 or F8 would be interesting.
As nobody has made one it must not be that easy to do or the market they feel would be of highly limited interest or basically too expensive.
I see Tokina have a 400mm F8 Reflex lens out. The review I read was positive given the price of the lens. I'm surprise they or someone else haven't looked again at doing a 800mm version. You would think that with more modern materials and tolerances the old lens could be improved upon.
The Canon 600mm and 800mm F11 are interesting but F11 is quite restrictive.
150-600mm seems to have done well. I shoot up to 1200mm and sometimes that's not even enough.
I would assume though a 300-600 F4 would be even heavier than a 600 F4 - which is really heavy

I think a 300-600 f/4 would be far too heavy , I would suggest a 200-600 f/4-f/5.6 DO zoom with built-in 1.4x extender which would give you 280 f/5.6 - 840 f/8 and if you added an external 1.4x give you 400 f/8 - 1200 f/11 which would work fine with the latest R6 ,R5 & R3 cameras especially the R3.
Perhaps it's feasible to have switchable built-in 1.4x and 2x extenders which would be even better ?
Or perhaps a prime RF600mm D.O. f/5.6 with built-in 1.4x and 2x extenders giving you 840mm f/8 or 1200 f/11 at the flick of a switch ?
Has any one ever made a prime or zoom with both 1.4x and 2x T.Cs built-in ? Is it feasible ?

 

[Nord0306]

I think a 300-600 f/4 would be far too heavy , I would suggest a 200-600 f/4-f/5.6 DO zoom with built-in 1.4x extender which would give you 280 f/5.6 - 840 f/8 and if you added an external 1.4x give you 400 f/8 - 1200 f/11 which would work fine with the latest R6 ,R5 & R3 cameras especially the R3.
Perhaps it's feasible to have switchable built-in 1.4x and 2x extenders which would be even better ?
Or perhaps a prime RF600mm D.O. f/5.6 with built-in 1.4x and 2x extenders giving you 840mm f/8 or 1200 f/11 at the flick of a switch ?
Has any one ever made a prime or zoom with both 1.4x and 2x T.Cs built-in ? Is it feasible ?

I say, why bother with the 1.4x? Since f5.6 or f8 are no longer an issue for AF, just a switchable 2x is good with me.

 

[Chig]

If Canon got serious and brought out the long awaited 11-800mm F2.8 lens I'd only have to worry about carrying one lens and camera and I'd have it permanently on camera (so no dust spots). If they put wheels on it I could tow it around with me.

Yep attached to the back of a 4x4 tractor

 

[Deleted member 381342]

I say, why bother with the 1.4x? Since f5.6 or f8 are no longer an issue for AF, just a switchable 2x is good with me.

1.4x has very little IQ loss. 2x has moderate to bad IQ and AF speed loss.

 

[Chig]

Found this article about a rumoured 1.4x & 2x switchable built-in T.C https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...x-and-2x-could-be-built-into-an-rf-300mm-lens
Perhaps could make new RF Great Whites with this:
RF 300mm D.O f/2.8 with 420mm f/4 and 600mm f/5.6
RF 400mm D.O f/4 with 560mm f/5.6 and 800mm f/8
RF 500mm D.O f/4 with 700mm f/5.6 and 1000mm f/8
RF 600mm D.O f/5.6 with 840mm f/8 and 1200mm f/11
RF 600mm D.O f/4 with 840mm f/5.6 and 1200mm f/8

I'd be keen on either the 300mm or 400mm ones as they'd be light enough for me to carry and hand hold

 

[SteveC]

If Canon got serious and brought out the long awaited 11-800mm F2.8 lens I'd only have to worry about carrying one lens and camera and I'd have it permanently on camera (so no dust spots). If they put wheels on it I could tow it around with me.

Why stop there? Demand a 1-1000mm f/1.0.

And it should fit in your pocket.

 

[neuroanatomist]

1.4x has very little IQ loss. 2x has moderate to bad IQ and AF speed loss.

For EF superteles, AF was throttled back 50% with the 1.4x and 75% with the 2x. Since the context here is RF lenses, does the AF speed reduction apply?

 

[FrenchFry]

Found this article about a rumoured 1.4x & 2x switchable built-in T.C https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...x-and-2x-could-be-built-into-an-rf-300mm-lens
Perhaps could make new RF Great Whites with this:
RF 300mm D.O f/2.8 with 420mm f/4 and 600mm f/5.6
RF 400mm D.O f/4 with 560mm f/5.6 and 800mm f/8
RF 500mm D.O f/4 with 700mm f/5.6 and 1000mm f/8
RF 600mm D.O f/5.6 with 840mm f/8 and 1200mm f/11
RF 600mm D.O f/4 with 840mm f/5.6 and 1200mm f/8

I'd be keen on either the 300mm or 400mm ones as they'd be light enough for me to carry and hand hold

An RF400mm 2.8 would also be an option for your list.

Also, some articles age better than others. If this switchable teleconverter 300mm RF lens was really intended to come to market in 2020 we should start hearing about it any day now.
"According to a report on Canon Rumors, the manufacturer is working on an innovative new RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM lens for 2020 that will come with a “new and unique feature” for super telephoto optics.
Could it be that these two stories are related, and that Canon will announce a revolutionary 300mm lens with built-in teleconverter that can toggle between 300, 420 and 600mm at the flick of a switch, without the need to unmount anything?"

 

[blackcat]

Important note: 43mm lens cap is what the EF-M 22mm F/2 uses.

I'm pretty certain this means the RF 16mm f/2.8 is going to be *absolutely* tiny.

The EF 40mm f/2.8 even used a 52mm filter thread, which is 9mm bigger!



In fairness, by the time the R3 ships the RF 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm F/4 should hopefully actually be available, which covers most of what the high end sports photogs use. I would say a 100-300mm f/2.8 would be the perfect lens for the R3, but Canon will definitely keep us waiting on that.

Announcing the R3, when still waiting for an RF600 F4 that I have already paid for to come into stock is a bit frustrating.

 

[privatebydesign]

Announcing the R3, when still waiting for an RF600 F4 that I have already paid for to come into stock is a bit frustrating.

First world problems....