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

Jethro

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
996
1,037
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: 2 users
Upvote 0

Jethro

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
996
1,037
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).
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

reefroamer

CR Pro
Jun 21, 2014
145
211
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: 1 user
Upvote 0
I know that the R5 is hot stuff right now, but where's the dirt-cheap lens collection for the RP?
24-105 F4-7.1
35mm1.8
50mm F1.8
85mm F1.8
24-240mm

seems like a good start to me. just really missing a UWA and a 70-200 option really. you have a trinity of f1.8's and a normal zoom and a 10x zoom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

martin_p_a

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jul 30, 2019
25
30
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$
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

martin_p_a

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jul 30, 2019
25
30
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
 
Upvote 0

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,376
2,308
Kentucky, USA
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.
 
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 68328

Guest
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: 1 user
Upvote 0