What lenses are coming next for the Canon RF mount?

[eosuser1234]

they had the system on display at the Canon Ginza gallery today. Went in, and you can have 5 minutes with the camera system. (EOS R) There was about a 20 minute wait and i had to run so no hand to camera time. One thing I noted is the lenses seem pretty big, the 50mm is bigger than my sigma 50 Art.

 

[Antono Refa]

The EF lens development is fully up and running. Please take a look at their whole TS-E lineup, with release dates.
If they announce an RF TS-E lens, they need to announce at least two, maybe three and also promise to make a whole new lineup as well.

Because... EOS-R owners can't mount the rest of the line with an adapter?

Splitting up the family of speciality lenses makes zero sense, it is good for nobody, especially if we are talking about these, which have a much longer product cycle anyway.

It does, if only one or two lenses, say the 17mm & 24mm, can be improved on EOS-R, and the rest can be mounted with an adapter.

And they have way more important things to do.

Which is why I think, and noted before, it would take a few years to get there.

A lot of this has to do with thinking with simple, common sense, it seems a constant problem with "requesting" or predicting future lenses - or maybe some of it is just trolling.

Insults was always a great way to convince people prove you're an s-hole.

 

[Kiton]

20, 24, 28, 50, 85, 100, 135 1.8 STM serie lens
and pancake 40mm 2.0.

That is a nice list.
But I think most of the camera makers have forgotten their roots and are chasing what is "sexy". Sad really.

28mm f2
85mm f2

and optionally, a 70-200 2.8 is all a street shooter really needs most often.

Some may wish for one very wide, but still small, prime.

The current 50 1.8 stm and the 40mm are decent glass. I have a permanent (but rotating the images every month) display of 12x18 prints in one of the city's most popular cafes and the little 50 and 40 have held up beside my 135 f2 or my 3 L zooms. I won't say they are as sharp as the 100mm macro, but when displayed on the wall at 12x18 inches, I doubt anyone would notice the difference from 2 or 3 feet away.

 

[Talys]

Because... EOS-R owners can't mount the rest of the line with an adapter?
/QUOTE]
If I end up really liking the Canon EOS R, to the point where I prefer it to DSLR enough that I'll always grab it instead -- keeping in mind that mostly what I want a more expensive camera for is birding, and mirrorless has not been an ideal birding tool for me to date -- then I think that within a few years, I'd "upgrade" all of my EF lenses to RF. I really don't like an adapter, as cool ask geitting a control ring may be. Even if we're talking the Canon/Sony price difference, where I would have to sell me $1200 EF lens for $900, and then buy a $2500 RF equivalent that offers almost don't nothing different, I'd end up doing it. That man's how much I dislike adapters

There is, however, another possibility: if EOS R is better at some things and worse at others, as compared to a 5D4 for example, then there's a great chance that I simply keep both mirrorless AND DSLR, and maintain both RF and EF lenses. My favorite lenses in RF I'd buy to have native mount, but a lot of my infrequently used lenses (everything wide-ish, zoom or prime), I'd just use an adapted lens, mostly because I want fewer total lenses.

 

[melgross]

I’ve got the 5Dmk IV. So I’m not in a hurry to buy an R mount model. But when (if?) they come out with a higher end model, and it’s better, in the ways that are meangful to me, I will consider it. Not very soon, but likely by the end of 2019 to mid 2020. That should give the lens side a chance to grow out a bit, and hopefully will have Canon tell us something about their further lens plans.

If this happens, I wouldn’t replace the lenses I currently have with new equivalent ones - unless the new ones are unquestionably better, and that for my use, that would actually show up in prints. But I would buy ones that match what I want, but don’t have. So, for me, it would be a slow rollout of new lens purchases to fill spots that are empty.

I honestly can’t say how I would feel about my 5D at that point. I might prefer it, or I might prefer the new R. There’s really no way to tell now. But as I get older, lighter seems better, to a point.

 

[melgross]

I’d like to make a point about sensor quality. While I’d like to see better with every new model, and dispute what some have said, I can see a good stop improvement in a new sensor, if Canon wants it, there is a myth about this. For almost 30 years, I was with a commercial photo lab in NYC, as one involved in running it for almost 20 of them.

We did a lot of publishing work in addition to still and film.

We see a lot of talk about differences in noise and density range. While on a good, properly calibrated graphics monitor, even small differences of 0.5 stop are easily apparent. But a strange thing happens when going to a high quality inkjet print. And, many inkjets today, if properly calibrated with good paper, can give a high quality print without being a pro level machine. That strange thing is that much of the differences in noise and density go away. The printer can’t deliver these extended ranges. Now, go to 4 color, and guess what? The differences disappear completely! Yes, I know how to do this.

But, paper and ink simply can’t handle the range. An interesting, simple, experiment that can be done, which I’m sure many people have, is to take the best print of a difficult subject, and hold it up to a light from the back of the print, and see all of the detail in the darker areas you can’t see otherwise.

No matter what you do, detail in darker areas, usually the bottom two stops, and even three with 4 color, is compressed to the point of visual impossibility. With 4 color, it’s worse, because the ink simply can’t hold those levels.

This is why Pros don’t worry about this as much as Pixel peepers using monitors do.

 

[NorskHest]

IBIS is not an ideal solution although it may help in some cases.

Maybe! I think we are talking about different things. Also I do not find anything missing from EF line or anything interesting in R line.

There really is nothing interesting in the R line. Sure an f2 might sound cool but it really isn't. When you are at 20-30 mm on a zoom lens you most likely wish you were wider when you are at 60-70 you wish you were tighter. That f2 28-70 is a pretty lame lens in my opinioin but a 24-70 2.8 with IS on a c200 out capturing documentary style footage, now that is interesting. I got to play with the new Eos r since I happened to stop at my local camera store and talked with the rep and I know it is the first iteration but man it was a let down. It has no where to go but up. The focusing was slower than the 5d4 when we swapped lenses back and forth, the selecting autofucos points was awkward and the click on that ring was rigid and loud, canon might offer a service to declick them. Anyway, it's a new direction that currently is boring but let's hope there are better things to come.

 

[Talys]

I’d like to make a point about sensor quality. While I’d like to see better with every new model, and dispute what some have said, I can see a good stop improvement in a new sensor, if Canon wants it, there is a myth about this. For almost 30 years, I was with a commercial photo lab in NYC, as one involved in running it for almost 20 of them.

We did a lot of publishing work in addition to still and film.

We see a lot of talk about differences in noise and density range. While on a good, properly calibrated graphics monitor, even small differences of 0.5 stop are easily apparent. But a strange thing happens when going to a high quality inkjet print. And, many inkjets today, if properly calibrated with good paper, can give a high quality print without being a pro level machine. That strange thing is that much of the differences in noise and density go away. The printer can’t deliver these extended ranges. Now, go to 4 color, and guess what? The differences disappear completely! Yes, I know how to do this.

But, paper and ink simply can’t handle the range. An interesting, simple, experiment that can be done, which I’m sure many people have, is to take the best print of a difficult subject, and hold it up to a light from the back of the print, and see all of the detail in the darker areas you can’t see otherwise.

No matter what you do, detail in darker areas, usually the bottom two stops, and even three with 4 color, is compressed to the point of visual impossibility. With 4 color, it’s worse, because the ink simply can’t hold those levels.

This is why Pros don’t worry about this as much as Pixel peepers using monitors do.

I certainly won't argue that a lot of printers can't keep up with sensor capabilities.

However, I would argue that we're moving to a world where less and less is actually printed. A lot of photography ends being consumed is on screens, and everything from smartphones to tablets to laptops and desktops all have increasing resolutions, pixel densities, and more vibrant color display capabilities.

When it comes to product photography, I'm not worried about printed photos at all. Even 6 megapixel photos are just fine for very large prints. What I'm worried about is two things: first, the magnifier tool that end users want to see the product in great detail, which is essentially pixel peeping.

And second, I'm worried about the colors looking good -- not so much the colors being accurate, because it's going to look different between a BenQ monitor and an iPad, but customers want the colors to pop on the latest AMOLED displays and presentation screens, while making people perceive that they are seeing the correct color. For example, an accurate navy in a color-calibrated monitor is very dark (and actually, a proper navy fabric is very dark); but if you present it that way on a screen, the end user may perceive it as a black, so this is undesirable.

 

[Ozarker]

RE: Anyone complaining their newly acquired or well loved EF "L" glass is now obsolete... please do flood the pre owned "L" market with your glass. Please? Your participation will be greatly appreciated by those looking for lenses at discount prices due to the flood cause by the ignorant. Not understanding that a simple adapter that only replaces the flange distance lost (Is it 12mm?) from DSLR to mirrorless is just plain silly. This is not at all the same as adapting Canon to Sony. Please. Canon is doing right by Canon's customers. I would not hesitate for a second to buy more EF glass. Headed to Ebay now.

 

[Ozarker]

Anyone need their lawn mowed, car washed and waxed, or dog walked? Need to make some extra cash. I want the new 28-70 even if I don't get the first R, or an R at all. Is it okay if I add a "+" to my screen name?

 

[padam]

I got to play with the new Eos r since I happened to stop at my local camera store and talked with the rep and I know it is the first iteration but man it was a let down. It has no where to go but up. The focusing was slower than the 5d4 when we swapped lenses back and forth, the selecting autofocus points was awkward and the click on that ring was rigid and loud, canon might offer a service to declick them. Anyway, it's a new direction that currently is boring but let's hope there are better things to come.

Thanks for your impressions. Would you choose a 5D IV over this (with EF lenses) just for using live view and video?

 

[AJ]

The new mount will be most beneficial for ultrawides. Canon launched the R series with a prosumer zoom (24-105/4) and a pro zoom (28-70/2). I expect to see a consumer ultrawide (14-35/4 IS) and a pro ultrawide (12-24/2.8). I think the shorter mount will allow for zooms with somewhat larger zoom ranges.

 

[NorskHest]

Thanks for your impressions. Would you choose a 5D IV over this (with EF lenses) just for using live view and video?

I do a lot of video; from small commercials to documentaries and what not, the thing that I like personally about dslrs is battery life. I've used the 5d4 and I don't think it's a life changing camera but it is a great camera. It's pretty great in low light and I don't mind the 1.7 crop especially with the 16-35. I own a 1dc, 1dxmkii and a c200 and I would totally add a cheap used 5d4 to my collection for back packing over a eos r. Obviously the new system will get better but not for 4 to 5 years. If your looking for a camera the 1dx2 is incredible and I will probably never part ways with it. I like the codec even tho most don't. Fcpx natively edits mjpeg. With that said if you can't afford a 1dx2 get that 5d4 and send it. That crop comes in handy when you are doing video of wild life and you want to keep more distance between you and your subject.

 

[melgross]

I certainly won't argue that a lot of printers can't keep up with sensor capabilities.

However, I would argue that we're moving to a world where less and less is actually printed. A lot of photography ends being consumed is on screens, and everything from smartphones to tablets to laptops and desktops all have increasing resolutions, pixel densities, and more vibrant color display capabilities.

When it comes to product photography, I'm not worried about printed photos at all. Even 6 megapixel photos are just fine for very large prints. What I'm worried about is two things: first, the magnifier tool that end users want to see the product in great detail, which is essentially pixel peeping.

And second, I'm worried about the colors looking good -- not so much the colors being accurate, because it's going to look different between a BenQ monitor and an iPad, but customers want the colors to pop on the latest AMOLED displays and presentation screens, while making people perceive that they are seeing the correct color. For example, an accurate navy in a color-calibrated monitor is very dark (and actually, a proper navy fabric is very dark); but if you present it that way on a screen, the end user may perceive it as a black, so this is undesirable.

Adjustments are always made for specific uses. That’s why we never did a final sharpen when a print is flattened, but save that for the specific purpose, so that we can change the final Rez and sharpening for whatever it’s being purposed for. We also would correct for the lighting that the image would be viewed under, if at all possible. But even now, print is the major destination for professional work, in one way or the other.

At some point, that will tilt towards digital viewing. But until then, sensors are well above the requirements of print. It’s also why Canon and Nikon can deal with around 20MP for their top line cameras where speed is more important. After all, years ago, when Canon came out with their 16.7MP 1D, it was because that resolution gave a double page spread at 300dpi for magazine repro.

 

[[email protected]]

After having read the Canon whitepaper, I think it provides some real insights into their strategy for producing RF versus EF lenses. In essence, they see the RF mount has having some specific advantages, and they will exploit those for those lenses that can be designed to take advantage. They do a few pages on each of the lenses released, and it becomes quite clear the specific advantages gained by using the RF features (primarily flange distance). And, interestingly, the lenses that don't benefit from those things were released on the same day in EF mount (the 400mm and the 600mm).

What this indicates to me is that they will continue to produce EF lenses where there is no advantage to be gained because both audiences can use them about as well as one another. Thus more sales. Once they come out with 1d and 5d replacements in RF mount, then you might think about a point in time where they will concentrate on RF lenses. But even after initially coming out with pro body models in RF, they're going to sell more lenses by putting them in the mount that is used by both types of cameras.

I feel pretty confident that you'll see EF lenses coming out for another three years or so. The only disadvantage to keeping just EF bodies will be the inability to take advantage of some of the new designs they'll be releasing that can only be done in RF. It'll push everyone in that direction through temptation (Provided they can actually provide an FPS rate during focus-priority servo AF that is higher than 3).

 

[Cthulhu]

That's quite wrong, because I've checked that picture that I saw from a case being part of a heated debate. The lens was mounted on a 5D IV.
The 17-40mm f/4 and 16-35mm f/2.8 II (also out of date) are extensively being used in Syria on 1DX Mark II bodies

And the images are perfectly fine at full-resolution, sharp were they need to be (slightly less sharp in the corners but not that visible on 20 megapixels).
You can also use the old 24-105mm f/4 in a studio at f/11, f/16 with perfectly fine "professional" results.

So please stop embarrassing yourself further.

But looking at some new test images from the new RF 24-105mm f/4, while it won't be perfectly sharp in the corners at 24mm it looks to be even sharper than the previous EF iterations with less aberrations, so very sharp for what it is.

I have no idea what photo you're talking about. I'm speaking from personal experience.

 

[BillB]

After having read the Canon whitepaper, I think it provides some real insights into their strategy for producing RF versus EF lenses. In essence, they see the RF mount has having some specific advantages, and they will exploit those for those lenses that can be designed to take advantage. They do a few pages on each of the lenses released, and it becomes quite clear the specific advantages gained by using the RF features (primarily flange distance). And, interestingly, the lenses that don't benefit from those things were released on the same day in EF mount (the 400mm and the 600mm).

What this indicates to me is that they will continue to produce EF lenses where there is no advantage to be gained because both audiences can use them about as well as one another. Thus more sales. Once they come out with 1d and 5d replacements in RF mount, then you might think about a point in time where they will concentrate on RF lenses. But even after initially coming out with pro body models in RF, they're going to sell more lenses by putting them in the mount that is used by both types of cameras.

I feel pretty confident that you'll see EF lenses coming out for another three years or so. The only disadvantage to keeping just EF bodies will be the inability to take advantage of some of the new designs they'll be releasing that can only be done in RF. It'll push everyone in that direction through temptation (Provided they can actually provide an FPS rate during focus-priority servo AF that is higher than 3).

Another market advantage of EF lenses if that they can be adapted to pretty much any full frame camera made by anybody, while RF lenses can only be used on R cameras.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

I certainly won't argue that a lot of printers can't keep up with sensor capabilities.

However, I would argue that we're moving to a world where less and less is actually printed. A lot of photography ends being consumed is on screens, and everything from smartphones to tablets to laptops and desktops all have increasing resolutions, pixel densities, and more vibrant color display capabilities.

Physical prints won't go anywhere in the foreseeable future. However, even with the digital media, my 2560x1440 monitor only requires 3.6Mpix. Full 4K monitors and TVs are 4096x2160 = 8.8Mpix. Consider it's best to downsample, even 16Mpix would be enough. Having more than 24Mpix in camera is basically redundant for digital media, although it's good to have more room for postprocessing.
Dynamic range and low light performance, however, are still hugely important for certain types of photography.

 

[Talys]

Physical prints won't go anywhere in the foreseeable future. However, even with the digital media, my 2560x1440 monitor only requires 3.6Mpix. Full 4K monitors and TVs are 4096x2160 = 8.8Mpix. Consider it's best to downsample, even 16Mpix would be enough. Having more than 24Mpix in camera is basically redundant for digital media, although it's good to have more room for postprocessing.
Dynamic range and low light performance, however, are still hugely important for certain types of photography.

The issue is that people can want to be able to zoom in -- so even on a smartphone, the customer ask on product photography is to be able, for example, to see fabric textures and fibers. If someone is paying for those photos, they want it to be ultracrisp, not just when the whole item is displayed, but also when it is magnified to much greater detail.

I was referring specifically to product photography. In nearly all cases of professional product photography, nobody cares about low light performance, because light isn't a constraint; to the contrary, you usually control it absolutely and can have as much light as you want, in a perfectly reproducible fashion. I have a hard time imagining products where dynamic beyond what any prosumer DSLR is capable of today would matter at all.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

The issue is that people can want to be able to zoom in -- so even on a smartphone, the customer ask on product photography is to be able, for example, to see fabric textures and fibers. If someone is paying for those photos, they want it to be ultracrisp, not just when the whole item is displayed, but also when it is magnified to much greater detail.

I was referring specifically to product photography. In nearly all cases of professional product photography, nobody cares about low light performance, because light isn't a constraint; to the contrary, you usually control it absolutely and can have as much light as you want, in a perfectly reproducible fashion. I have a hard time imagining products where dynamic beyond what any prosumer DSLR is capable of today would matter at all.

I'm not really into product photography. I'd have guessed you'd do a separate macro/close-up shot to show off the fabric/texture. Anyway, big resolutions are good for landscape photography too, if your target is an A3+ or an A2 print. Also it's good to have some room for cropping and downsampling. But if your camera has at least 24Mp+, you'll be more concerned about DR and high ISOs (in case of night/astrophotography). I do pixel-peeping on my landscape shots, but I'm very well aware I'm most likely the first and last person who views my shots magnified to 1:1. Everyone else sees them printed, or on a relatively small screen, far below 30Mpix of my 5DIV.

With the full frame format, I think 50Mp cameras are already scratching the limits of what can possibly be needed without losing quality. Higher resolutions are better fit for medium format sensors, IMO. I'd be interested to see something like 40-45Mp EOS 5R from Canon, but say 60Mp would be an overkill, even the Canon's glass wouldn't cope.