Canon to announce at least 6 new RF lenses next week

[jdavidse]

Focus should be the one near the front of the lens. Unless they pull a Nikon

Let's hope they aren't that stupid

Oh, CRAP. I just saw the zoom numbers on the front ring. Well that's going to suck

 

[deleteme]

Great, solid bunch of lenses that fill out the RF line very well.
The 70-200, as others have noted, seems to promise a very compact lens. I am thinking that the weight might be a bit lower too.
The 24-70 will stop the complaints of the previous versions and the 24-240 looks to be a potentially very versatile addition to the line.

 

[deleteme]

I was holding out for the 24-70 f/2.8—but now I'm wondering if I could make that 15-35 do what I do with a 17mm TSE. I don't mind stitching exposures, and even if I have to correct for converging lines in PS, a future 75MP body would make that reasonable…...

Expensive couple of years coming up!

I already do that with my 11-24. Works a treat on my R with adapter. IQ is better than the TS-E.

 

[Ozarker]

Wow Canon is really pumping them out. Makes Panasonic's initial offerings look extremely lame in comparison.

Panasonic's camera division has no money.

 

[saveyourmoment]

Looks like Canon's lens team is given a free reign. While nikon still hasn't released their 50mm .95 lens here we have Canon launching some practical lenses which pros and normal users can use.
I am really hoping to see a 100mm Macro for EOS-R mount.

why not the 90mm tse macro. that lense is incredible

 

[Viggo]

Oh, CRAP. I just saw the zoom numbers on the front ring. Well that's going to suck

Agreed, I can’t see why it’s better all the way at the end unless the lens is 2.5 inch shorter..

 

[gbc]

That stood out to me as well. The 70-200L glass on EF forewent a telescoping barrel. I'm not sure how they can make a 2.8 telephoto zoom that short without a telescoping barrel, even on a mirrorless system.

REALLY interested to see if this is real, and if so... I had zero plans to replace my 70-200 IS II anytime soon. Probably the last lens I would replace, actually. but if they're making one this size, and for the R... that form factor would be a game changer.

 

[IsaacImage]

Did Canon went, Nikon route and switched Zoom and Focusing ring on the new upcoming 70-200 ??

 

[AlanF]

Lee, I think when you eventually go full-frame, you'll see that you do have some additional cropping ability borne out of the increased image quality that'll make up for a portion of your crop factor loss. I found, also, that the 100-400 m2 had just about 0 image quality denigration with the 1.4x teleconverter on full frame, but was a little more touchy on my 7D2. All in all, I found I missed the 1.6 crop factor a whole lot less than I'd anticipated. Then again, I did wind up buying a big white, but I suspect I would have done so anyway.

A 50px FF has indeed the same resolution as a 7DII. I have an excellent copy of the Sigma 150-600mm, but my 100-400mm II with a 1.4xTCIII is even sharper and more contrasty, and definitely much sharper at the edges. So, I am very much in agreement with you, especially as I like the wider field of view of FF vs crop.

 

[Chaitanya]

why not the 90mm tse macro. that lense is incredible

It would be insanely expensive and a niche lens. If I remember correctly Canon(and Schneider) used to make 90mm Tilt-shift macro(1:2) and cheapest of those two is 1400$ nearly 2x the cost of 1:1 100mm Macro.

 

[navastronia]

Since an R mount is entirely for mirrorless, what if the zoom lock switch was electrical too? We already know there is more communication points, and if the power if off you can't see through the lens anyhow. If it was unlocked automatically when the zoom is physically rotated and the power is on that would take care of #3 & #4.

For #1 that is certainly true unless they have figured out a better way to do this. But if it's lighter and smaller that might be an acceptable tradeoff if you can still use EF lenses that offer better weather proofing. (that might also be a way to introduce an L+ class - L's that are more ruggedized but larger/heavier?)

For #6 it's my understanding that most of the moving parts of the focusing side of the newer R lenses are in closer to the body and thus move less but more precisely than their corresponding EF versions. This might help with how fast it refocuses after zooming.

If Canon splits the L series into 2 different lines of lenses, I will cry.

 

[PGSanta]

Did Canon went, Nikon route and switched Zoom and Focusing ring on the new upcoming 70-200 ??

Looks like it, but if it’s as short as it looks, it won’t be such an ergonomic faux pas.

 

[navastronia]

REALLY interested to see if this is real, and if so... I had zero plans to replace my 70-200 IS II anytime soon. Probably the last lens I would replace, actually. but if they're making one this size, and for the R... that form factor would be a game changer.

What are the chances that this 70-200 could be so small and have no telescoping barrel?

Not a rhetorical question - I honestly have no idea

 

[LensFungus]

God: You can become a rich man.
Me: No, I wanna have Canon L lenses!

 

[dolina]

I appreciate Canon's sense of urgency in populating their RF lenses.

 

[Ozarker]

I understand the "why" of the 15-35---> versatility. I just wish it could be a 14-24 or *something* -24 instead. Just me not caring for the focal length overlap. Nothing more. But there will probably be an 11-24 for that.

 

[Lee Jay]

Lee, I think when you eventually go full-frame, you'll see that you do have some additional cropping ability borne out of the increased image quality that'll make up for a portion of your crop factor loss. I found, also, that the 100-400 m2 had just about 0 image quality denigration with the 1.4x teleconverter on full frame, but was a little more touchy on my 7D2. All in all, I found I missed the 1.6 crop factor a whole lot less than I'd anticipated. Then again, I did wind up buying a big white, but I suspect I would have done so anyway.

I was full-frame (5D) before I switched to the 7D II. And cropping would only be equal on the 5Ds (same pixel size). So, unless the R is coming with a 50MP sensor, then it's not the same, and I already crop into my 7DII + 600mm images quite severely at times. And I have to have a zoom because my subjects are moving so much and so fast that a prime is a non-starter. The only "big white" that's even close is the 200-400/4, and it's over-priced by a factor of 10 in my opinion.

I'd also have to find out if the R has a usable viewfinder. I haven't found an EVF that was truly usable yet but the last one I tried was on the Sony A7rii.

 

[AlanF]

I was full-frame (5D) before I switched to the 7D II. And cropping would only be equal on the 5Ds (same pixel size). So, unless the R is coming with a 50MP sensor, then it's not the same, and I already crop into my 7DII + 600mm images quite severely at times. And I have to have a zoom because my subjects are moving so much and so fast that a prime is a non-starter. The only "big white" that's even close is the 200-400/4, and it's over-priced by a factor of 10 in my opinion.

I'd also have to find out if the R has a usable viewfinder. I haven't found an EVF that was truly usable yet but the last one I tried was on the Sony A7rii.

If the 200-400mm f/4 is overpriced by a factor of 10, then it should be sold at about $1000 or £ or € in you opinion, which would be cheaper than the 100-400mm?

 

[gbc]

What are the chances that this 70-200 could be so small and have no telescoping barrel?

Not a rhetorical question - I honestly have no idea

That seems almost physically impossible. But if its even the same form factor as the 70-300 IS L with a telescoping barrel, I would be happy with that.

 

[dtaylor]

But do I want to sell my EF gear to fund it? Argh!

Only you can answer that for yourself. I recently overhauled my kit and I'm not interested in overhauling it again for quite some time. If I were to replace my EF system with an RF system I would gain an EVF (pros and cons) and IS on the 24-70. IS would be nice on that lens but not huge since I'm not having trouble capturing what I want without IS given my use cases.

Since I went with the 16-35 f/4L IS I already have IS on the ultra wide, but I would gain 1 stop and 1mm if I traded to RF (meh). Ironically I consider IS on the 16-35 more important than on the 24-70, but that's related to my use cases. Given those use cases I couldn't care less about f/2.8 on the ultra wide even though it's a big deal to me on the other two members of the 'holy trinity.'

Of course my kit and use cases are not yours or anyone else's. Maybe IS on the 24-70 or IS+f/2.8 on the ultra wide is huge for you. Only you can make that call.

Canon could sell me an RF backup body at the right price with the right video features. They might be able to sell me a high(er) resolution pro RF body, but I kind of doubt it since I can add another 5Ds for just under $2k now gray market and the high resolution R will likely be $3,500-$4,000. I guess it depends on when that R comes out and what it can do. If it's a 50mp R with slightly better features and DR...probably not. If it's a 75-100mp beast with IBIS that cooperates with lens OIS...tempting.

That said: I think lenses and ergonomics are more important than anything reviewers cry about on spec sheets. Canon is flexing their lens design muscle and my prediction is that it's going to win them the #1 spot in FF MILC sales. The one thing that bugs me is the lack of better video options (FF 4k 30p would be nice), and I hope Canon resolves that soon. Otherwise Canon is building a winning system while other companies are focusing on winning spec sheets.