Are these the 7 RF lenses Canon will be announcing in 2020? [CR1]

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
749
512
Well, that is simply not what I experience, having STM lens, old USM lens and new USM lens. I'm afraid your statement is more from marketing materials and official articles than actual real life use.
Just like there are multiple USM types (regular, ring, nano), there are multiple STM types, have a look at https://www.eos-magazine.com/articles/EOS_feature/canon-stm-stepping-motor-lens.html .

So non-ring USM compared to lead-screw STM would likely favour STM for speed and noise. Canon is quite blatant in their press materials, after a while you start to notice that on select lenses they will say "But this one uses the awesome version of <focus tech>", while the other lenses just get the generic blurb.
 

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
749
512
Well there you go - there are going to be some unhappy people.

What are the odds of Kenko or Sigma coming up with a TC design which does physically fit? And if so, has Canon done anything in the RF mount protocol to prevent electronic compatibility?
I'm already unhappy with the colour scheme, on the RF mount both sides have a satin polish metal ring, but the RF extenders seem white. So you get:
Black body - metal colour RF ring - white extender - metal colour RF ring - black/white lens

First world problems :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoTomOz

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
196
62
I'm already unhappy with the colour scheme, on the RF mount both sides have a satin polish metal ring, but the RF extenders seem white. So you get:
Black body - metal colour RF ring - white extender - metal colour RF ring - black/white lens
I'm the same with my 600/4L IS III - they've changed the white again so it doesn't match the Mark III Extender. For that sort of money you'd think they'd give a matching Extender for free!
 

telemaque

Before Sunset
Nov 30, 2019
68
30
... and the performance, both AF and optical, with the x2 attached. And more fundamentally, if the 2x will physically fit which I would guess is unlikely.

The best route to that combination of focal length and aperture would be the 70-200/2.8 with a 1.4x, giving you a 98-280 f/4. Slightly more range and only a 1.4x so very likely better performance. Also has the advantage of not being a rumour! Again the problem might be compatibility - Bryan Carnathan notes here: "the RF 70-200's rear lens element is quite shallow when the lens is retracted, leaving little space for an extender to be inserted into the back of the lens." He wrote this before the RF Extenders were announced, and we now know they have quite significant projections into the lens. Surely, you might say, Canon wouldn't take away the Extender compatibility we had with the EF 70-200s? Let's hope not, but I wouldn't bank on it :-(.
I take your point.
I agree with your comment on the better option using 70-200 f2.8 and 1.4X.

I suppose we will know for sure the real quality in the field once all this is available and people have reported the quality or the lack of quality.

Looking forward to those reports.
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
532
482
118
Williamsport, PA
Which RF zooms (except possibly 100-500) are very well suited for TCs?
Looking at photos of 1.4x and 2x and their protruding elements I'm not even sure if they would fit on the RF 70-200mm.

Previous rumor mentioned that there is a possibility of two DO prime super-telephoto lenses being announced for RF.
I think those would be the prefect candidates to be coupled with RF 1.4x an 2x extenders.
Since the rumor also mentioned that we should expect slower lenses, maybe some light lenses like 300mm f4 IS, 400mm f4 or f5.6 IS or 500mm f5.6 IS?
You misunderstand then.
I referenced that the EF TCs work wonderfully especially with the 100-400mm L MII.
Well Canon has a couple of incredible zooms already that will likely work as well or better than on the 100-400mm MII with TCs.
The 100-400mm MII actually works better than many primes with the MIII TCs in the EF series.
 

Ph0t0

EOS M50
Mar 27, 2015
33
13
You misunderstand then.
I referenced that the EF TCs work wonderfully especially with the 100-400mm L MII.
Well Canon has a couple of incredible zooms already that will likely work as well or better than on the 100-400mm MII with TCs.
The 100-400mm MII actually works better than many primes with the MIII TCs in the EF series.
Yeah I kind of understood that bks54 was referring to RF extenders and RF lenses when he wrote:

This is an amazing list. But why release the converters without well-suited primes to use them with?
And I concluded(obviously wrongly) that you were talking about RF zooms well suited to be used with newly released RF TCs.
 

Dexter75

EOS M50
Dec 18, 2019
48
34
I don’t know... if we are to consider it like the equivalent of the 70-200 but within a new f/2 trinity, I can’t see it being this affordable. Of course there’s a significant loss of zoom power, but my money would be something closer to 3200$
$3200? Well that would just be more overpricing from Canon on their RF lenses. You can get an 85 1.4, a Sigma 105 1.4 and a Canon 135 f/2 used for half that and have faster lenses.
 

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,705
2,625
Irving, Texas
$3200? Well that would just be more overpricing from Canon on their RF lenses. You can get an 85 1.4, a Sigma 105 1.4 and a Canon 135 f/2 used for half that and have faster lenses.
Dexter, Dexter, Dexter... comparing a very old Canon prime and third party primes to a fast zoom and calling it over pricing? tsk tsk tsk. Then throwing in used? wow. Why not add up the price of the three primes brand new, at those various focal lengths, and see what the total is? Sigma 105 = $1,599, Canon 85mm f/1.4L = $1,499, Canon EF 135mm f/2L = $999... Total = $4,097 vs $3,000 for the zoom and you'd have to use an adapter while carrying around 3 lenses. Now, everybody has to decide for themselves what is best for them, but the idea that the three primes are less $ just doesn't hold water. Two of the lenses are faster, yes.
 
Last edited:

Bert63

EOS 80D
Dec 3, 2017
176
389
Whidbey Island, Washington
$3200? Well that would just be more overpricing from Canon on their RF lenses. You can get an 85 1.4, a Sigma 105 1.4 and a Canon 135 f/2 used for half that and have faster lenses.

I'd ahve to shop the used side forever to find something I like (I'm picky) and wouldn't likely get them from the same source (never happen) and would still overpay compared to the price on the zoomer that would do it all, be new, and cost less.

Hmm..

I'd press the easy button. I am not to the point where money doesn't matter but I am to the point where I don't pinch the pennies nearly as hard as I used to.

You can't take it with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

dslrdummy

EOS RP
Aug 28, 2012
364
131
If I may, I think Zeiss and Leica are not targetting the same type of customers.
What they produce is pleasing their customers A LOT.

If you look at comments from Leica and Zeiss owners, they speak about their lenses and cameras as if God had produced them.

I love Canon quality but I see Leica and Zeiss as high end producers and would not rank them below Canon.

Maybe being a European influences my point of view... :)
Not just Europeans, Aussies too ;) (and Voigtlander isn't far behind).
 

Dexter75

EOS M50
Dec 18, 2019
48
34
Dexter, Dexter, Dexter... comparing a very old Canon prime and third party primes to a fast zoom and calling it over pricing? tsk tsk tsk. Then throwing in used? wow. Why not add up the price of the three primes brand new, at those various focal lengths, and see what the total is? Sigma 105 = $1,599, Canon 85mm f/1.4L = $1,499, Canon EF 135mm f/2L = $999... Total = $4,097 vs $3,000 for the zoom and you'd have to use an adapter while carrying around 3 lenses. Now, everybody has to decide for themselves what is best for them, but the idea that the three primes are less $ just doesn't hold water. Two of the lenses are faster, yes.
Sorry, but as a portrait shooter, I will take a fast prime over a slower zoom all day everyday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: photographer

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,705
2,625
Irving, Texas
Sorry, but as a portrait shooter, I will take a fast prime over a slower zoom all day everyday.
No doubt a fast prime has it's place for sure. As a portrait/fashion/model boot camp shooter I also know the value of a fast zoom in high pressure production situations. f/2 is no slouch when it comes to portrait work. Of course, you will pick what you know you need. For me f/2 that covers a wider focal range in a single lens than a prime is invaluable and much more convenient than swapping around three different lenses when I need a different perspective. Especially when I can't keep an eye on a bag full of gear. In my situation, f/2 is kind of a sweet spot. $3k would be very worth it to me.
 

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
596
210
If I may, I think Zeiss and Leica are not targetting the same type of customers.
What they produce is pleasing their customers A LOT.

If you look at comments from Leica and Zeiss owners, they speak about their lenses and cameras as if God had produced them.

I love Canon quality but I see Leica and Zeiss as high end producers and would not rank them below Canon.

Maybe being a European influences my point of view... :)
I was a long time Leica and Hasselblad owner and while their lenses are excellent, my point is that neither has the breadth of line up that Canon has and neither are introducing lenses at the same pace as Canon.
As to the customers, yes they are happy but few. In addition, one will ignore issues that may arise when one has paid a lot for the product. The fact that Zeiss sells few AF lenses for third party bodies is scarcely a victory of quality but more an acknowledgement that they want to avoid more direct comparison.