Here are the Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM and Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

[BadHorse]

One thing I that baffled me was that the R5 defaults to Movie Cropping mode enabled. I've been using an my EF 35mm F/1.4 II as my primary lens for video in full-frame mode but I can't help but wonder if there would be an advantage to this little 24mm in crop-mode. Apart from being 1/3rd the weight and easier on a gimbal I guess you're trading IQ and sensitivity for less rolling-shutter? I'm not sure.

 

[David - Sydney]

Well, they did just come out.

Really? 15mm on a crop sensor is full frame 24mm.
"Crop RF bodies don't have a native ultra wide solution besides adapting EFs Canon/3rd party lenses today."
My comment was for ultra wide options. The EFs 10-22 and 10-16mm both go out to 16mm full frame equivalent.
Can you elaborate on other native RF options for crop sensors?

Strangely enough, I don't consider 16mm of full frame to be "ultra wide" given I use it often for many genres. Being limited to 24mm on a crop sensor would be quite restrictive for my shooting style.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The RF100-500mm is just a perfect 2nd lens for me. My recent Iceland trip 2 lens daily combo was an adapted EF16-35mm/4 plus RF100-500mm covering almost every situation from waterfalls/landscapes/city to icebergs/seals/puffins.

My kit for my last trip was the RF 14-35/4, RF 24-105/4, and RF 100-500. I used them about equally. That was with no architecture planned, for that I’d add a TS-E lens as well.

 

[David - Sydney]

It's interesting how different people see comps. It's hard for me to imagine going without the 35-100mm focal range but I know there are more than a few landscapers who don't own a standard zoom.

I own the RF24-105mm/4 but don't use it often. It was perfect for aerial shooting and would be my choice for a 1 lens option.
I was seriously annoyed when I researched a hike to Múlagljúfur canyon and was told that 24mm was sufficient and hence took the 24-105mm when wider was certainly needed and I had to stitch panoramas. 100mm was perfect to video dancing rainbows in the waterfall though.

With the R5, I could easily crop from 35mm if I needed to but I appreciate the perspective would be different. For a 2 lens combo, it was perfect. I was switching between them often on a zodiac iceberg lagoon tour between shooting icebergs and seals though.

I use my RF70-200mm/2.8 mostly for indoor sports now but my previous EF70-200mm plus TCs were a standard part of my 2 lens DLSR combo . I never had the EF100-400mm.
Given the lack of TC support for RF70-200mm, the RF100-500mm now covers any situation if a telephoto subject appeared and the smaller aperture isn't a major concern for me in those scenarios.

 

[navastronia]

I'm past the point of buying low-end glass unless it covers a wide range like 24-105, etc., so the 15-30 zoom doesn't do anything for me. I hope those who need it are satisfied with its price and performance.

 

[MartinVLC]

Perhaps most people who buy consumer lenses don't pay much attention to aperture, or maybe people are shooting the majority of their photos at f/8 or somewhere near there. I may not be typical, but especially for a wide angle lens, it's going to be used for sunsets and an occasional landscape when my 24-105 is not wide enough. Also for vacations, especially in places such as older cities where streets are narrow and your shooting distance is limited. For myself, I can't imagine any situation where I want a fast aperture for a wide angle lens. My default camera setting is Aperture priority and it is set at f/7.1 and I almost never have to change it. Again, that may not be typical - especially for forum dwellers.

I´m mostly shooting portraits, events and arcitecture. For the latter I agree, that the aperture of the upcoming 15-30mm is perfectly fine. For portrait you can get some nice effects though with a faster lense and for event/low light moving subjects the new 15-30mm is way to slow. If it was a 2.8-4 like the Tamron EF 17-35mm (that´s roughly the same size and weight) it would be great. To me it´s a pitty that canon only offers very slow affordable zooms.

It always amazes me that no matter what Canon does, people just simply complain...

I just knew there would be whining about the aperture of a cheap, compact, lightweight 15-30mm

In my opinion the affordable STM primes are ok, so I´m not complaining about everything ;-).

But the problem is, that Canon does not offer ANY affordable fast zoom lenses. And the upcoming 15-30mm is just another example.
It´s obvious that they could offer them, if Tamron can, and even Nikon offers at least a halfway affordable 28-75mm 2.8.
I understand, that they don´t care about non rich enthousiasts and beginning pros and want you to spend 2500 $/€ on fast L-zooms. But that has to be critizised from the consumers point of view, that´s no whining.

On the Sony E-Mount you get a ton of fast zooms between 600-1000 $/€ on the Canon RF mount not a single one. I´ve been shooting Canon for 15 years (300D, 30D, 7D, RP) and I wish there were more third party options on the RF-Mount because I don´t want to have to switch to Sony.

 

[danfaz]

My kit for my last trip was the RF 14-35/4, RF 24-105/4, and RF 100-500. I used them about equally. That was with no architecture planned, for that I’d add a TS-E lens as well.

My last trip was mainly split between the 28-70 and 100-500, with the occasional 16mm usage.

 

[mbike999]

I doubt we'll ever see an 'in between' 800mm lens. An 800/8 would still have a 100mm front element – that's the same size as the 200/2L, and it's 'intermediate' cost would likely fall in line, say $7-8K. Get a 500/4 and put a 1.4x TC on it, you have 700/5.6 in the same price range as 800/8.

$7K is a lot better than $18K. One needs only to look at Nikon is currently doing to see what is possible.

 

[David - Sydney]

My kit for my last trip was the RF 14-35/4, RF 24-105/4, and RF 100-500. I used them about equally. That was with no architecture planned, for that I’d add a TS-E lens as well.

I gravitate to wider perspectives in general but after shooting puffins, I now have some interest in birding as well. I got ~500 shots of acceptable and critically sharp shots of them which was remarkable

Never had a TSE lens but I can see a wide angle TSE lens being very useful for cityscapes and waterfalls. It would be hard to justify the expense though. Maybe a second hand TSE17/4 once a RF version comes out as they are currently very rare on the 2nd hand market

 

[JustUs7]

Well definitely useless for low light work, niteclubs etc..

So is a 100-500 f/4.5-7.1, because that’s not what it’s for.

 

[JustUs7]

I'm sure the RF 15-30mm will look just fine IQ-wise stopped down to F8.

I feel like the idea of improved performance when stepped down is a holdover from DSLR thinking. When lenses had to open to f/5.6 for AF to work, but optically at their best a stop slower. Mirrorless seems built to be sharp through the range, with maybe some weakness at the widest due to reliance on digital lens optimization. My RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 is plenty sharp wide open. And because it can focus at f/8, it’s a lot smaller and lighter too.

I bet this will be just fine at 30mm f/6.3, but probably rely on lens corrections at 15mm regardless of aperture.

 

[Bonich]

The legendary 400/5.6 was an L-series lens. The RF 100-500 gives the same FL in it's range, and while f/6.3 at 400mm, is optically better, smaller when retracted, and much more flexible. It is the update to the legendary 300/4, 400/5.6 and 100-400L lenses. People generally prefer zoom lenses, I really doubt we'll ever see updates to the middle-range telephoto primes like the 200/2.8, 300/4 and 400/5.6.

The RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 is a consumer version of that lens, and with the optional hood comes in at $660.

I doubt we'll ever see an 'in between' 800mm lens. An 800/8 would still have a 100mm front element – that's the same size as the 200/2L, and it's 'intermediate' cost would likely fall in line, say $7-8K. Get a 500/4 and put a 1.4x TC on it, you have 700/5.6 in the same price range as 800/8.

That's why Nikon is introducing a stellar 400 4.5 .....

 

[neuroanatomist]

One needs only to look at Nikon is currently doing to see what is possible.

That's why Nikon is introducing a stellar 400 4.5 .....

In the past 10 years, Nikon has gone from >40% ILC market share to <15%. Does it sound like Nikon has a strategy worth emulating?

 

[Blue Zurich]

It always amazes me that no matter what Canon does, people just simply complain...and honestly, I gotta include myself here, too (where's my 12mm F2? )

Canon delivers the...
...RF 15-35mm F2.8.... too heavy, too expensive...
...RF 14-35mm F4...not affordable, software corrected images...
...RF 16mm F2.8...ohhh the corners, I want a cheap zoom, if it was... (too many wished for options here...)

now they're about to release an affordable, light wide-angle zoom with IS, and it's a like...
"ohhh, optical trade-offs, vignetting, F6.3? not for me..."

Honestly, we are damn lucky to have so many native UWA options! Plus, they all brought something new and unique to the table In addition, there are intriguing third party options, of course with some payoff. At some point, there are probably more to come! (Tamron/ Sigma)

Since I myself am still trying to figure out which UWA lens I want to keep permanently, I'd love to read about feedback from those lenses and whom they are suited for. Currently, I do own the 15-35mm and 16mm, but I'm still confused

Negative Vibe Merchants! (to quote Neil from The Young Ones)

 

[SNJ Ops]

hahah This made me LOL. I'm still not a fan of any macro designation that's not 1.0x magnification.

I think there's still that gaping hole between the budget-focused and super "professional" L-grade lenses. Not everyone needs f/1.2, but f/1.4 and some quality build features, a lens hood and a decent pouch are appreciated. If only third party companies like Sigma could fill in that space for RF-mount w/o an adapter.

I was at a local photography trade show on Saturday and I spoke to a Sigma UK rep and one of the things I asked him was about the lack of RF and Z mount glass. His response was “We are just waiting on licenses from them, the lenses are ready to go and all we would need to do is add RF and Z mounts on the end of them”

Unfortunately I didn’t get to speak to any of the Canon reps and ask them the same question.

 

[Skux]

Officially announced!

RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM

Take the next step with this macro lens

www.canon.co.nz

RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

Take the Next Step With This Ultra-wide Lens

www.canon.co.nz

Heaps of YouTube impressions videos are coming out too, looks like the embargo has lifted.

The zoom has some pretty decent macro chops as well.

 

[H. Jones]

It's interesting how different people see comps. It's hard for me to imagine going without the 35-100mm focal range but I know there are more than a few landscapers who don't own a standard zoom.

Knew a war photographer who *only* used a 24mm and 35mm prime. His view was, if he wasn't close enough to be able to use those lenses and be in the situation, the pictures didn't matter anyway because they wouldn't put the viewer into the situation. To him the 35mm was "for more reach"

Hard for me to imagine as a photojournalist who often uses 560mm on police incidents, but that's the beauty of photography as an art form, everyone has their own way of working. I drove across America with only one body and my 16-35mm and 100-400mm, and while I definitely missed having a general zoom, I was ultimately very happy with the combination. 35-100mm is mostly a distance that can be spanned by cropping lightly or moving closer to your subject.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I really love the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art for astro (and other unique UWA shots), but understand this is significantly more than the Rokinon/Laowa options.

I had the Sigma 20mm F1.4 Art for quite a while and the 14mm F1.8 for a short period. While both are exceptional lenses, they are very heavy to carry around for city travel... Plus, I actually did like the IQ of the RF 35mm a bit better when shooting cityscapes at night. So I sold them both.

 

[H. Jones]

Park Camera video of the lenses:

The listings: https://www.parkcameras.com/shop/ca...m_medium=youtube&utm_campaign=canon-rf-lenses

Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens | Park Cameras

The Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens is a compact wide to ultra wide angle zoom with 5.5-stop stabilisation & 0.5x magnification for macro. Buy now.

www.parkcameras.com

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Crop RF bodies don't have a native ultra wide solution besides adapting EFs Canon/3rd party lenses today.

Honestly, it feels like the announcement of the Crop RF bodies was only two days ago...only very few have received their day-one preorder R7 & R10 cameras...
Feels like the common complaint from October 2018 when introduced the EOS R, "but there are only three lenses...".
Give it time, there will be a native UWA lens for RFs mount.