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

[Stig Nygaard]

Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM

That is an insane long zoom-range for such a super-wide fullframe zoom. Is that even technically possible?
I know, Canon likes to demonstrate new possibilities using the R-mount, but I'm pretty skeptical about this rumor.

 

[Sharlin]

That is an insane long zoom-range for such a super-wide fullframe zoom. Is that even technically possible?
I know, Canon likes to demonstrate new possibilities using the R-mount, but I'm pretty skeptical about this rumor.

It’s just a one-mm extension to the range of the existing EF 11–24mm f/4L which, admittedly, is a bit crazy lens especially for EF. With the much shorter backfocus distance of the RF mount, a 10–24mm lens isn’t *that* surprising.

 

[Kit.]

Would the R mount allow for a 10-24mm f/4L USM *with* front filter thread? One can dream.

If 8+ stops of vignetting are OK to you...

 

[degos]

That is an insane long zoom-range for such a super-wide fullframe zoom. Is that even technically possible?
I know, Canon likes to demonstrate new possibilities using the R-mount, but I'm pretty skeptical about this rumor.

Why wouldn't it be possible? We already have an EF 11-24mm f/4. The advantages of the shorter RF register distance would seem to open that up to 10mm without drama

 

[Deleted member 68328]

If you compare based in the prices of a 50mm I would rather say 1.8 is the new 1.4. The EF 50mm 1.4 is not really comparable to the RF 50mm 1.2.

No, not comparing the prices at all. On the R mount, the standard for a fast primes is 1.2 now. 1.4 is out of the game imho.

 

[Proscribo]

No, not comparing the prices at all. On the R mount, the standard for a fast primes is 1.2 now. 1.4 is out of the game imho.

But there never was a 50mm/1.4L for EF mount.

 

[Lukas Haupt]

I already own 28-70/2, which is the best lens I ve ever used, but I dont see a point to buy 70-135/2 instead of 70-200. I m mostly shooting wedding and for portaits I have 85/1.2, which is also fantastic. Next lens I need has more reach, as far as I was using my previous 135/2 mostly for moments and emotions. For that purpose is (IMO) 70-200 better, because of reach and definitelly weight. I m affraid, that 70-135 will be really heavy. But we will see Maybe I will change my mind, If it will be stellar as 28-70.

 

[arbitrage]

The list seems fine. But I find it strange that if that list is correct, why are they releasing the TCs at this point? The 70-200/2.8 isn't compatible. To use on a f/7.1 lens? I could see attempting to use the 1.4 on the 100-500 but the 2x would be really pushing things for the slow f-stop.
Now maybe if this list is correct, the 70-135/2 will be compatible for a 98-189 f/2.8 and a 140-270 f/4.

But because of the release of the TCs (especially the 2x), I think the list is bogus and there has to be at least one 300mm+ prime coming f/4 or faster.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

It’s just a one-mm extension to the range of the existing EF 11–24mm f/4L

Ahh, yes. I forgot about that one

 

[[email protected]]

these are APS-C lenses, not full frame lenses.

Sigma’s full frame equivalent (borrowed from 18-35 design) was the excellent f/2 24-35, which was panned for shortness of zoom range, but which was also sharper than the 24 or 35 Art primes. Incredible, under-appreciated lens.

 

[Ozarker]

But there never was a 50mm/1.4L for EF mount.

There was and there is.

Canon 50mm F/1.4

EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Standard AutoFocus Lens Kit, USA - Bundle with 58mm Filter Kit (UV/CPL/ND2), Lens Cap Leash, Lens Pouch, Lens Wrap (15x15")

www.adorama.com

 

[koenkooi]

There was and there is.

Canon 50mm F/1.4

EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Standard AutoFocus Lens Kit, USA - Bundle with 58mm Filter Kit (UV/CPL/ND2), Lens Cap Leash, Lens Pouch, Lens Wrap (15x15")

www.adorama.com

You missed the 'L' in Proscribo's statement.

 

[Photo Hack]

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.

Can someone link the rumored Aps-c R bodies for him? I think he’s wandered into the full frame body discussion on accident.

You may wanna slow your roll on the innovation comments about these lenses, as Canon hasn’t innovated a body yet for the lenses you’re looking for.

 

[Quackator]

Until it finally launches, it isn't clear if the 10-24 is FF or APS-C......

Just saying.

 

[Kit.]

Until it finally launches, it isn't clear if the 10-24 is FF or APS-C......

Just saying.

I'd say it's less likely that it launches as non-FF than that it never launches at all.

 

[Antono Refa]

And I think it will probably never happen. f1.2 is the new f1.4 on the R mount

Yes, the EF 24mm f/1.4L, 35mm f/1.4L, and 85mm f/1.4L were premium lenses with a price tag to match, and its reasonable to claim those are replaced by premium RF f/1.2L lenses.

But the 50mm f/1.4 was not L, premium, or expensive. I could settle on cheap f/1.8 primes in the RF mount, when I switch. I will definitely not fork four figure sums on L primes. I hope Canon would have a trio of 50mm primes in RF, same as it did on the EF mount.

 

[Act444]

What percentage of the time is a 70-200mm f/2.8 too dark? 1%? Maybe 3% on a really bad shoot?

Dimly lit (read: poorly lit) ice skating shows, typically at night with faint colored show lighting. ISO 12,800 needed to stop action at f2.8.

Although, I will say that on the 5D4, the difference between 6400 and 12,800 ISO isn't, IMO, dramatic enough to justify the extra weight/expense/restriction of an f2 lens vs a 2.8. (Note: this may NOT be the case for other cameras!) However, I would have considered anything slower than f2.8 to have been unusable in that situation.

To me, when we're talking about the difference between ISO 1600 and 3200, for instance, now f2 begins to sound more appealing because IQ begins to really drop off on most cameras above 1600...

 

[Ozarker]

You missed the 'L' in Proscribo's statement.

I sure did! Thanks.

 

[RobbieHat]

A 2nd holy trinity f2 is no question on the roadmap. We don't know when but Canon is going to do it! Period. Very expensive though and I imagine not in 1st priority also..

I would think this trinity with the new R5 would be a godsend for wedding, event and portrait photography. I am not in that market but release all four ( camera and three lenses) and they will be selling tons of 12-15k kits.

 

[SecureGSM]

Dimly lit (read: poorly lit) ice skating shows, typically at night with faint colored show lighting. ISO 12,800 needed to stop action at f2.8.

Although, I will say that on the 5D4, the difference between 6400 and 12,800 ISO isn't, IMO, dramatic enough to justify the extra weight/expense/restriction of an f2 lens vs a 2.8. (Note: this may NOT be the case for other cameras!) However, I would have considered anything slower than f2.8 to have been unusable in that situation.

To me, when we're talking about the difference between ISO 1600 and 3200, for instance, now f2 begins to sound more appealing because IQ begins to really drop off on most cameras above 1600...

quite opposite. on 5DIV difference between ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 isn't even noticeable, however ISO12800 becoming noisy.. much different to ISO6400