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

Jethro

EOS R
Jul 14, 2018
359
244
Luckyly, canon provide many possible lens option for us to choose based on our case scnario.
And that's a big part of the reason that most of use Canon. And the lens options for the EOS R series include the full range of EF lenses adapted seamlessly. So the new range of RF lenses (apart from the holy trinities) seem to me to be in addition to the EF range at this stage. Some to show off the possibilities of the new mount, others filling gaps. I'd personally love them to produce an RF version of the 100mm 2.8 macro (o similar), but they won't because they have two perfectly good EF versions which they expect me to adapt. And eventually, in their own good time, when they update those lenses the update will likely be in RF. And similar for a whole bunch of lenses that people want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoTomOz and scyrene

Jethro

EOS R
Jul 14, 2018
359
244
I'm curious why the 50 would be labelled macro. Does perhaps the shorter flange distance in the RF mount allow shorter MFD so it's easier to give RF lenses that label?
It's likely to be more of a 'close focusing' function rather than a true macro, like the recent 24 - 105mm. With max (say) .4 to .5 magnification in focus. Not sure that the flange difference in the RF makes much difference from a macro point of view (others may have more detailed knowledge).
 

AdmiralFwiffo

Terrible photographer
Feb 17, 2020
28
44
I don't think the shorter flange distance would help, because if you want to macroify a lens, you'd add extension tubes to move the lens away from the sensor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ruiloba and Pape

canonnews

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 27, 2017
543
786
Canada
www.canonnews.com
I'm curious why the 50 would be labelled macro. Does perhaps the shorter flange distance in the RF mount allow shorter MFD so it's easier to give RF lenses that label?
it would probably be a .5x macro like the 35mm .. and have a similar optical design. it's just the optical design, flange distance doesn't play a factor.

here's the potential patent application discussing the 35 and possibly a new 28 and 50mm 1.8 macro.
 

reefroamer

EOS M50
Jun 21, 2014
45
41
I know that the R5 is hot stuff right now, but where's the dirt-cheap lens collection for the RP? It would make masses finally move to full frame mirrorless. And yes, I speak about RF lenses, not EF + adapter.
It looks like there soon will be a pretty affordable two-zoom lens RF combo to cover 24-500mm. And that could be stretched from 10-500mm with a reasonable price on 10-24mm zoom. Not a bad way to get started in the RF system, IMHO. Affordable 35, 50 and 85mm primes expand the options. If ”dirt cheap” is your thing, you might want to consider alternatives to the RF system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Dexter75

EOS M50
Dec 18, 2019
48
34
Finally! Hope this is true and we finally get some inexpensive primes aside from the bone they threw us with the RF 35. I would be all over that 70-135 though, assuming it wasnt something ridiculous like $2200
 

yoms

EOS T7i
Jul 4, 2012
76
29
Not strange at all: This lens is already MASSIVE without IS. With IS, this would be practically infeasible ...
I’m not sure of that at all given the designs the R mount allows. Also, these focal lengths are begging for IS.
 

martin_p_a

EOS RP
Jul 30, 2019
5
4
Montreal
Finally! Hope this is true and we finally get some inexpensive primes aside from the bone they threw us with the RF 35. I would be all over that 70-135 though, assuming it wasnt something ridiculous like $2200
I don’t know... if we are to consider it like the equivalent of the 70-200 but within a new f/2 trinity, I can’t see it being this affordable. Of course there’s a significant loss of zoom power, but my money would be something closer to 3200$
 

martin_p_a

EOS RP
Jul 30, 2019
5
4
Montreal
I’m not sure of that at all given the designs the R mount allows. Also, these focal lengths are begging for IS.
with IBIS — if they do a good job implementing it — it’d be as if it had it... just not in the lens, so not as cumbersome. And lenses *with* IS would just have better stabilization at the price of size and weight
 

usern4cr

EOS M50
Sep 2, 2018
33
29
The RF 70-135 f2 is what interests me most. I know the size will be really big, so I would have to compare it to their RF 70-200 f2.8 to decide which one I'd be willing to lug around.

The extra 2x of light from f2.8 to f2 is nice, but only a secondary advantage IMHO. The main advantage is that the area of the f2 bokeh blur will be 2x that of the 2.8 which will make for truly stunning portrait images. That is the whole point of the 70-135 range.

The RF 70-200 f2.8 ability to go to 200mm will have the advantage of more zoom range and the bokeh at 200mm will have the advantage that the background size is expanded and thus make the bokeh appear even smoother.

If I was a professional, I'd get the 70-135 f2 to make money on portraits. But I'm just a prosumer, so I'm guessing I would be better suited with the 70-200 f2.8 for the smaller & lighter lens with more long telephoto use & backgroung magnification, plus adding optical IS will result in better stabilization than just IBIS alone.
 

yoms

EOS T7i
Jul 4, 2012
76
29
Usability.

28-70mm is such a bizarre focal length. Are people really eager to shoot at 70mm f/2, enough to justify MASSIVE weight, cost and size penalties? For what? Sigma nailed it with an 18-35 and 50-100 f/1.8 lenses. Extremely useful focal lengths for a wide variety of applications.

The 17-55 f/2.8 is supremely useful in a massive range of situations. Same goes for an 18-80mm f/2.8. Those are show stopping focal lengths. Given the improvements in ISO, f/2 isn't really all that it used to be.

Given that the 18-80 f/2.8 already exists w/speed boosters, what's mind boggling is that Canon didn't just take that internally and produce a knockout lens.

Instead we are getting slow f/7.1 zooms and enormous expensive f/2's. Both have limited usability. That doesn't look like innovation to me.
Hope by now that you understood that your answers/comments are “wrong” because you mix sensor sizes and crop factors. The 17-55 you want is actually the “boring” 28-70 as you say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpphoto

yoms

EOS T7i
Jul 4, 2012
76
29
Would the R mount allow for a 10-24mm f/4L USM *with* front filter thread? One can dream.