Canon announces development of the EOS R5 full-frame mirrorless camera

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,441
1,266
With that said the 16-35 f/4L IS is an amazing value. It may not be your coma wonder or low light beast but it is a great all rounder wide zoom with negligible vignetting and fantastic color/contrast. I use it with a 100mm filter system and it's a champ. I would hope Canon does something like it for RF one day.

You and me both. Lee 100 for me as well, though I don't use it nearly as much as I should.

But that lens does everything I ask of it. A perfect travel/hiking companion as well -- light, IS, sealed, front filterable, etc.

_Y8A0956R.jpg
_Y8A3643Rc.jpg
_Y8A4162Rc.jpg

(FTR in the last shot -- the 16-35 normally makes brilliant sunstars but I was very rushed here and was fighting a brutally high contrast scene. Operator error on that one.)

- A
 
Last edited:

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,724
1,440
Canon, please make some AFFORDABLE RF mount prime lenses with FAST apertures.

RF 50mm f/1.4
RF 85mm f/1.4
RF 135mm f/1.4
RF 100mm Macro

I’m sure all the current “L” series lenses you‘ve released are fantastic, but I would need to sell limbs to be able to afford a few lenses as I’m not a working photography professional who earns revenue from my photography.

I also do not want to “adapt” glass. I have invested in an RP body in December, having a good hunch you’d be coming out with a better body and IBIS in 2020 and it looks like my hunch was correct. I now want to invest in RF glass.

Thank you!
Those are fantastic wishes however Canon has your back with the EF-RF adapter. Unlike mostly all other adapted situations, you can even get better quality out of your EF glass from an R body.
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
379
418
I dunno. Filtering UWA is a big deal for me and around 14-15mm the filter ring tends to disappear -- fine for astro but problematic for other groups of shooters. They could pull a Nikkor Z 14-30 f/4 and put a step up frame around the front element and keep a filter ring, I guess, but at f/2 one imagines that lens would be 11-24L big and heavy.

Also, with fast UWA lenses, you tend to have a choice of a front filter ring OR manageable vignetting. The last two 16ish-35 mm f/2.8 lenses Canon produced were hall of fame vignetters presumably because Canon didn't want a more bulbous (and filter problematic) front element.

To me, and perhaps I have this wrong, but UWA + fast usually ends in sadness for one of the various camps of shooters -- daylight landscapers, astro folks and sports folks. Since the front-filtering crowd was supported with the 15-35, perhaps the 14-28 f/2 would just give up on that and go all mega-bulbous and delight the astro folks.

- A
All valid points, though I daresay there was never a lens made without some kind of compromise ;)
 
Feb 14, 2020
4
3
I like your prime wish list. But an RF 135 f/1.4 AFFORDABLE? lol ...
Yeah ok, I was reaching there.. LOL. But Sigma makes a 1.8 version for Sony at around $1,400 so a Canon non-L RF f/1.8 in this focal length may be good enough IF sharp wide open and the pricing around $1,700.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,441
1,266
Canon, please make some AFFORDABLE RF mount prime lenses with FAST apertures.

Your list with comments:

RF 50mm f/1.4 -- a f/1.8 surely coming, but f/1.4 perhaps not :cry:
RF 85mm f/1.4 -- f/1.8 I would say. f/1.4 for EF today is $1500!
RF 135mm f/1.4 -- that's a $3k lens, I would guess -- esp. if it has IS handling all that weight
RF 100mm Macro -- you are certain to get one, but if may be L and $$$. Consider the 100 2.8 non-L adapted?


You'll get some of the above, but not exactly what you want.

- A
 

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,724
1,440
Yeah ok, I was reaching there.. LOL. But Sigma makes a 1.8 version for Sony at around $1,400 so a Canon non-L RF f/1.8 in this focal length may be good enough IF sharp wide open and the pricing around $1,700.
Have to be 1.8? How about a reworking of the OG magikal 135L? Add some IS and spectra-wonder coatings....BOOM! at f/2 it would be *new* magic on RF.

F/2 is more than fine, all this fighting for the lowest f stop is nuts.
 
Feb 14, 2020
4
3
Your list with comments:

RF 50mm f/1.4 -- a f/1.8 surely coming, but f/1.4 perhaps not :cry:
RF 85mm f/1.4 -- f/1.8 I would say. f/1.4 for EF today is $1500!
RF 135mm f/1.4 -- that's a $3k lens, I would guess -- esp. if it has IS handling all that weight
RF 100mm Macro -- you are certain to get one, but if may be L and $$$. Consider the 100 2.8 non-L adapted?


You'll get some of the above, but not exactly what you want.

- A
I guess what I was getting at is that RF 85 f/1.2 is $2,700 USD. So even at $1,500 a 1.4 is $1,200 less.

RF50 1.2 is $2,300 USD so a 1.4 at $900 (non-L) is think should be achievable.

I know these are not “affordable” in terms of their EF equivalents, but affordable in relation to the current L series lineup.

I am willing to pay a premium for quality non-L glass, but the L glass prices are really out of reach for many.
 
Feb 14, 2020
4
3
Have to be 1.8? How about a reworking of the OG magikal 135L? Add some IS and spectra-wonder coatings....BOOM! at f/2 it would be *new* magic on RF.

F/2 is more than fine, all this fighting for the lowest f stop is nuts.
SURE! F/2 at that focal length would be great!
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,422
203
S Florida
I'm just glad I have all the EF glass that I do. With the exception of the R + 24-105 + 35 that I picked up refurbed for very reasonable cash, I'll end up waiting a year and a half after release for future R & RF purchases as the intro prices are a wee bit lofty...
 

joestopper

Rrr...
Feb 4, 2020
99
79
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
So, we have the fantastic R5 body by mid of the year with all the whistles and bells we ever dreamt of... (and more)
But: Where does the journey go from here?
I am moderately impressed (nicely phrased) by the two recent RF lens development announcements. What are these other FIVE lenses they work on? Why dont they tell us what these lenses are? Remember last year, same time: Canon gave us a roadmap of six RF lenses for the course of the year.
I am about to sell my EF lens portfolio and want to go 100% RF.
PLEASE CANON: Do announce the roadmap!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Bangrossi

I'm New Here
Feb 5, 2018
14
12
Indonesia
Your list with comments:

RF 50mm f/1.4 -- a f/1.8 surely coming, but f/1.4 perhaps not :cry:
RF 85mm f/1.4 -- f/1.8 I would say. f/1.4 for EF today is $1500!
RF 135mm f/1.4 -- that's a $3k lens, I would guess -- esp. if it has IS handling all that weight
RF 100mm Macro -- you are certain to get one, but if may be L and $$$. Consider the 100 2.8 non-L adapted?


You'll get some of the above, but not exactly what you want.

- A
I just bought used 100L macro like new condition for $450. I think i will skip the RF version. The RF version might be better but the EF version is very good performer and cheap on used market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

cayenne

EOR R
Mar 28, 2012
2,078
200
About the same as the "Rate" button on the left side of your 5D3?

WOW!!!! :oops::oops::oops:o_O

Honest to God, I did NOT know that button was there?!?!?

After I read what you posted, I had to stand up and walk to the living room to get my 5D3 and give it a look and sure enough on far left side down a little is a "RATE" button.

LOL...well, I guess it hasn't been a deal breaker for me on cameras....haha.

Hell, I might even take a bit of time to find the old 5D3 manual and see what that button is for and how best to actually use it!!

cayenne. :p
 

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,724
1,440
I just bought used 100L macro like new condition for $450. I think i will skip the RF version. The RF version might be better but the EF version is very good performer and cheap on used market.
It's easy to skip something they don't have! (Or did I miss a dev announcement?) True folks have speculated this would be desirable by most people....
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,422
203
S Florida
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
So, we have the fantastic R5 body by mid of the year with all the whistles and bells we ever dreamt of... (and more)
But: Where does the journey go from here?
I am moderately impressed (nicely phrased) by the two recent RF lens development announcements. What are these other FIVE lenses they work on? Why dont they tell us what these lenses are? Remember last year, same time: Canon gave us a roadmap of six RF lenses for the course of the year.
I am about to sell my EF lens portfolio and want to go 100% RF.
PLEASE CANON: Do announce the roadmap!
You don't need a roadmap. You need a bank account.
I just bought used 100L macro like new condition for $450. I think i will skip the RF version. The RF version might be better but the EF version is very good performer and cheap on used market.
One of Canon's truly "must have"" lenses. That's a great price...
 

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,724
1,440
WOW!!!! :oops::oops::oops:o_O

Honest to God, I did NOT know that button was there?!?!?

After I read what you posted, I had to stand up and walk to the living room to get my 5D3 and give it a look and sure enough on far left side down a little is a "RATE" button.

LOL...well, I guess it hasn't been a deal breaker for me on cameras....haha.

Hell, I might even take a bit of time to find the old 5D3 manual and see what that button is for and how best to actually use it!!

cayenne. :p
Best thing for me is to go into settings, turn off rating 2 and up. Use rate as simply as can be and import all, then delete non rated (after a 2nd looksie). I'm careful not to delete in camera anything I don't see as very good or worthy of post, be it minor adjustments or artistic editing such as for ICM or crazy shi*e like that. ART!

Of course, if you import with EOS Utility you can import rated only.
 

joestopper

Rrr...
Feb 4, 2020
99
79
Yeah ok, I was reaching there.. LOL. But Sigma makes a 1.8 version for Sony at around $1,400 so a Canon non-L RF f/1.8 in this focal length may be good enough IF sharp wide open and the pricing around $1,700.
Lens prices closely relate to the size of the entry lens element. A 135 f/1.8 entry element would be larger in diameter than that of a 85 f/1.2. Therefore, the price is to be expected north of 2.5k (not even to mention the 135 f/1.4).
 

Go Wild

EOS 80D
Dec 8, 2014
153
102
Oversampling 8K for 4K video and shooting 8K video are not mutually exclusive. When canon says it's an 8K camera, they mean it's an 8K video output. For example, the EOS C100 II cinema camera has a 4K Super35 sensor that outputs ONLY 1080P. They call that camera 1080p only, not 4K.
Ok and thats what i want to believe it is also! I know that and thats why i put the example of Sony delivering 4k oversampling a 6k image and they also dont quote the camera as a 6k camera.

However, how you interpret this: "...as well as process 8K video into higher-quality 4K video." Again, this are not my words, this is the announcement statement from Canon. And again, this for me at least is the least important thing in the R5. I will/would buy the camera with the 4k60 without the 8k.
 

Quackator

EOS RP
Jul 19, 2011
301
116
A RF 135 f/1.4 would be fantastic. A filter thread in the ballpark of 105mm I guess.
No. Don't forget that with the new RF mount capabilities, Canon has
started to put the big heavy glass to the back of the lens, resulting in
overall better balance and smaller filter threads.

If it is as good as the Sigma 135 ART but smaller, I might jump ship.
Until then, the 135 ART on any R camera is a stellar performer.