Canon working on another f/2 zoom lens for the RF mount [CR1]

Phil

EOS R, RF24-105 f4, RF35 1.8, RF50 1.2, RF85 1.2
Oct 17, 2018
40
33
What do you mean by "full potential"? EOS R has the best single AF in Canon history; far better than any DSLR before it. The 30MP sensor is the best sensor Canon has. Its weather sealing is as good as 5D IV. Its ergonomy is great and the body is solid.
So what is holding EOS R to be used as the camera with RF 50mm f1.2L, for example?
Of course any RF lens can be used with the EOS R and get great results. But don’t you think that Canon is going to release a more professional body with even better autofocus and ergonomics for large heavy lenses? To be honest it’s a rhetorical question because of course they are so I’m kinda finding it hard to see the point you are trying to make?
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
Of course any RF lens can be used with the EOS R and get great results. But don’t you think that Canon is going to release a more professional body with even better autofocus and ergonomics for large heavy lenses? To be honest it’s a rhetorical question because of course they are so I’m kinda finding it hard to see the point you are trying to make?
The point you were originally trying to make is that an R or RP are not worthy of the RF glass (with zero evidence). Then, you concocted a way to make it sound as though you actually do own all this (your many like minded friends too). My point was that you know not that of which you speak, and you don't.

Maybe you do own it all (along with your many friends). Who cares? That has no bearing on such a ludicrous statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,569
4,109
The Netherlands
Of course any RF lens can be used with the EOS R and get great results. But don’t you think that Canon is going to release a more professional body with even better autofocus and ergonomics for large heavy lenses? To be honest it’s a rhetorical question because of course they are so I’m kinda finding it hard to see the point you are trying to make?

With that attitude you can never be happy: "What if there's a better model in the future?!?!?! All my current pictures will be crap compared to those!!!!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Phil

EOS R, RF24-105 f4, RF35 1.8, RF50 1.2, RF85 1.2
Oct 17, 2018
40
33
The point you were originally trying to make is that an R or RP are not worthy of the RF glass (with zero evidence). Then, you concocted a way to make it sound as though you actually do own all this (your many like minded friends too). My point was that you know not that of which you speak, and you don't.

Maybe you do own it all (along with your many friends). Who cares? That has no bearing on such a ludicrous statement.

Dude get a grip, you gave a Unprovoked smart arse reply to one of my posts then you have been destroyed and your ignorance and arrogance has been put on display for everybody to see. I have the experience and the gear and would not comment unless I did, but I don’t like to go on about that in every post I make just to prove a point to the ignorant or to throw it in the face of photographers who can’t yet afford such gear or don’t yet have the experience because I was in the same boat for many years. Weak forum bullies like yourself need to learn when to give up especially if they are really really losing a battle it certainly doesn’t benefit your credibility on here to keep replying with you ignorant BS.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Phil

EOS R, RF24-105 f4, RF35 1.8, RF50 1.2, RF85 1.2
Oct 17, 2018
40
33
With that attitude you can never be happy: "What if there's a better model in the future?!?!?! All my current pictures will be crap compared to those!!!!"

Dude I’m gonna stop this conversation now, I really don’t care about all the insecurities you have that you are trying to project onto me and if you are someone who feels insecure or threatened by a discussion on camera gear then start ranting nonsense I just can’t be bothered continuing the conversation. Of course unless I find it amusing but to reply anymore to you would just be sad.
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
Dude get a grip, you gave a Unprovoked smart arse reply to one of my posts then you have been destroyed and your ignorance and arrogance has been put on display for everybody to see. I have the experience and the gear and would not comment unless I did, but I don’t like to go on about that in every post I make just to prove a point to the ignorant or to throw it in the face of photographers who can’t yet afford such gear or don’t yet have the experience because I was in the same boat for many years. Weak forum bullies like yourself need to learn when to give up especially if they are really really losing a battle it certainly doesn’t benefit your credibility on here to keep replying with you ignorant BS.
My misunderstanding (and utter confusion) was about your original quote: "That the RF lenses were too good for the present cameras." (very well paraphrased) I asked you to please explain. You haven't, because you cannot. You were simply bloviating. You have nothing to back up your statement, except more bloviating. It wasn't a smart ass reply to you. It was wondering what the heck you were getting at and going on about. The answer? Nothing. Around here (Texas) we call that, "All hat and no cattle." The very definition of a "dude". Dude: The word was first used in the late 1800s as a term of mockery for young men who were overly concerned with keeping up with the latest fashions. It later came to stand for clueless city folk (who go to dude ranches) before it morphed into our all-purpose laid-back label for a guy. You fit the older definition just fine, dude.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Phil

EOS R, RF24-105 f4, RF35 1.8, RF50 1.2, RF85 1.2
Oct 17, 2018
40
33
My misunderstanding (and utter confusion) was about your original quote: "That the RF lenses were too good for the present cameras." (very well paraphrased) I asked you to please explain. You haven't, because you cannot. You were simply bloviating. You have nothing to back up your statement, except more bloviating. It wasn't a smart ass reply to you. It was wondering what the heck you were getting at and going on about. The answer? Nothing. Around here (Texas) we call that, "All hat and no cattle." The very definition of a "dude". Dude: The word was first used in the late 1800s as a term of mockery for young men who were overly concerned with keeping up with the latest fashions. It later came to stand for clueless city folk (who go to dude ranches) before it morphed into our all-purpose laid-back label for a guy. You fit the older definition just fine, dude.

Sorry son but with your last reply you have just made it so easy now it would be irresponsible of me to keep punching down. Also no challenge and boring.
 
Upvote 0

Phil

EOS R, RF24-105 f4, RF35 1.8, RF50 1.2, RF85 1.2
Oct 17, 2018
40
33
Like I said... you got nuthin'.

I gotta admit your history lesson on the word dude and how you dress cows in hats is priceless and will make me chuckle for quite some time. But I can see you are a last word Larry so this conversation won’t end in a hurry unless I finish it and like I’ve already done with you that’s what I’m about to do.
 
Upvote 0

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,360
1,231
What do you mean by "full potential"? EOS R has the best single AF in Canon history; far better than any DSLR before it. The 30MP sensor is the best sensor Canon has. Its weather sealing is as good as 5D IV. Its ergonomy is great and the body is solid.
So what is holding EOS R to be used as the camera with RF 50mm f1.2L, for example?

Unfortunately, you are incorrect.


Speaking of the Sony A7RIII, it’s taken a bit of internet trashing for its lack of weather sealing. Throw no stones from your glass house, oh Canon shooters. The Canon EOS-R is just about the same; well-sealed buttons and dials, not much else. That means, I think, that it will be fine in a misty rain for a while, but don’t get it saturated and don’t set it somewhere wet.
You can make an argument that tightly fitted plastic shells are good weather sealing. Then again, you can argue that weather sealing means waterproof. Lots of people do that on the way to finding out the warranty doesn’t cover water damage.
The Canon EOS-R sells currently for $2299. It’s very close in build quality and weather sealing to the Canon 6D II which sells for about $1600.
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
I gotta admit your history lesson on the word dude and how you dress cows in hats is priceless and will make me chuckle for quite some time. But I can see you are a last word Larry so this conversation won’t end in a hurry unless I finish it and like I’ve already done with you that’s what I’m about to do.
All ya gotta do is explain how the R and RP are not good enough for the current RF lenses. That's the claim you made, Laurentius (Larry). As expected, you have zero data to back it up. Just bloviating an opinion with no facts. Instead, you resorted to attacks (That I couldn't possibly understand your explanation of your claim.), the usual hiding place for those who can't substantiate claims they just made up out of thin air. All the FF cameras Canon has made are fine with "L" lenses. So are many of the ASP-C cameras. Yet, somehow, you believe now that the current crop of RF "L" lenses are far too supercharged for the R and RP. Then you claim the lenses will perform far better on the next two camera releases, also with zero evidence. Since you are new here, I should warn you: Baseless claims are always challenged around here. Skin too thin for that? Tough. There are several learned members on this forum who see no advantage of close flange distance for these lenses. Do you really think a higher $ camera is going to fix that? Vignetting (which I love) is still a big issue.

So please, educate us cretins with your vast knowledge as to why the R/RP are not up to the task when mounted to the current crop of RF mount lenses. My bet is that you won't, because you can't. You'll claim that the next camera releases will do a better job with the lenses. Something that is IMPOSSIBLE for you to know.

BTW: "All hat and no cattle" has nothing to do with putting headgear on steers. Here is the definition for you:
"Description of a person that is all talk and no substance; full of big talk but lacking action; a person who cannot back up his/her words; a fake; a pretender.
That guy is all hat, no cattle. Pay no attention to him.
#poser#fake#pretender#imposter

Yup, perfecto mundo!

You had an opinion, you represented it as fact... as though you have some special knowledge. I can respect an opinion, easily. But making up "facts" is just plain boorish. There is a vast difference between an opinion and a fact. You're welcome.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
With that attitude you can never be happy: "What if there's a better model in the future?!?!?! All my current pictures will be crap compared to those!!!!"
Yes, but with the "right camera" his skills will vastly improve. He just needs the right camera to match his lenses. Of course, he might then start screaming, "SONY!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jan 16, 2019
141
111
Unfortunately, you are incorrect.


Speaking of the Sony A7RIII, it’s taken a bit of internet trashing for its lack of weather sealing. Throw no stones from your glass house, oh Canon shooters. The Canon EOS-R is just about the same; well-sealed buttons and dials, not much else. That means, I think, that it will be fine in a misty rain for a while, but don’t get it saturated and don’t set it somewhere wet.
You can make an argument that tightly fitted plastic shells are good weather sealing. Then again, you can argue that weather sealing means waterproof. Lots of people do that on the way to finding out the warranty doesn’t cover water damage.
The Canon EOS-R sells currently for $2299. It’s very close in build quality and weather sealing to the Canon 6D II which sells for about $1600.
Fortunately I am correct:

And see:
 
Upvote 0

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,360
1,231
Fortunately I am correct:

And see:

Lens Rentals have the Canon R camera disassembled to bits whereis the imagine resource looked at some elements.
We don't currently disassemble the cameras we test, so we can only comment on the weather seals that are visible when you open the various compartments and peel back the port covers.

Uncle Rog is a trustworthy source of information. He pointed out that:
... there’s weather sealing below each of the top dials. ... the rest of the body depends on a plastic overlap to keep stuff out, there are no gaskets..

and

There is a nice thick weather seal under the diopter adjustment knob. For those who want to skip ahead, the knobs and dials are all weather sealed nicely, but not much else. As long as it only rains on your knobs and dials, though, you should be fine.

Canon R was not water torture tested in the second link you have provided. Sony A7R III weather resistance level is very basic if not poor.

My point is : Canon R weather resistance is on par with Canon 6D II, not with 5D IV. but each to his own..
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Dec 13, 2010
4,932
1,608
Upvote 0
Jan 16, 2019
141
111
Lens Rentals have the Canon R camera disassembled to bits whereis the imagine resource looked at some elements.


Uncle Rog is a trustworthy source of information. He pointed out that:

and



Canon R was not water torture tested in the second link you have provided. Sony A7R III weather resistance level is very basic if not poor.

My point is : Canon R weather resistance is on par with Canon 6D II, not with 5D IV. but each to his own..
Imaging Resource tested EOS R under huge rain, and it passed the test with flying colours and A7R III failed (in the other test I gave). That's what matters for me.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
correction: an excellent 24-200 /f2.0 lens Would never leave a body for an event shooter. And I would sell my second body ASAP.
And I do not mind the size or the price of the lens that will likely be $4000. It will afford me shooting with a single camera for a weight and cost relief.
But...it has to be excellent. Did I say it has to be excellent?

You do realize any 200mm f/2 lens must have a front element at least 100mm in diameter? That the smallest 200mm f/2 lens Canon has ever released is the 5.5 pound EF 200mm f/2 L IS?
 
Upvote 0