Canon officially announces 4 new RF lenses, mount adaptors and Speedlite EL-100

BeenThere

EOS Rebel T7i
Sep 4, 2012
737
99
#21
The new 28-70mm looks like a honey of a lens. The published MTF shows this lens to be better than the other 24-70 options and at f/2 to boot. Can hardly wait for hands on reviews.
 
#24
These lenses look fantastic. 28-70 f2 is just phenomenal. But it's more lens than I personally need or want to carry around. I understand and appreciate Canon's wanting to demonstrate the potential of the new mount, but I'm betting they'll have some more pedestrian versions soon, along with these. A really compact 28-70 or 24-70 would be a perfect travel lens...
 

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,369
408
#25
Is that black segment in the middle made of a composite material instead of metal? I guess that could be where some of the weight savings comes from.
Which ‘black segment’? If you mean the widest black ring, the one that tapers from a wider to a narrower diameter, that’s the rubber covering of the manual focus ring.

Regardless, it looks essentially the same as the MkII.

 

BeenThere

EOS Rebel T7i
Sep 4, 2012
737
99
#26
Which ‘black segment’? If you mean the widest black ring, the one that tapers from a wider to a narrower diameter, that’s the rubber covering of the manual focus ring.

Regardless, it looks essentially the same as the MkII.

Ok, I did not see the groves in the surface. It looked smooth in the image I had. Thanks!
 
#28
I had a Sony DSC-F707 about 20 years ago that had a control ring on the front of the lens and it could be assigned to change focus or zoom. So Canon is doing it 20 years too late. :rolleyes:
That camera was what made me get into photography. I felt like I had a professional camera in my hands. It felt great and although the quality was pretty bad it looked great... And it had NIGHT VISION! :p
 

Woody

EOS 77D
Jul 20, 2010
1,096
12
#29
Recycling time for EL-100 when using AA/LR6 alkaline batteries:
Normal flash: Approx. 0.1–5.8 sec.
Quick flash: Approx. 0.1–5.3 sec.
- https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/cameras/flashes/speedlite-el-100

Recycling time for 270EX II when using AA/LR6 alkaline batteries:
Normal flash: Approx. 0.1 - 3.9 sec. / Lamp lights
Quick flash: Approx. 0.1 - 2.6 sec. / Lamp blinks at 8 Hz
- https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...ts/details/cameras/flashes/speedlite-270ex-ii

In an apple to apple comparison, the EL-100 recycling time is truly awful...
 

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,369
408
#30
A slightly lower GN and double the recycle time from a full-power flash? I think I've decoded the nomenclature:

EX = excellent
EL = extra lame
 

Act444

EOS Rebel T7i
May 4, 2011
924
55
#31
Recycling time for EL-100 when using AA/LR6 alkaline batteries:
Normal flash: Approx. 0.1–5.8 sec.
Quick flash: Approx. 0.1–5.3 sec.
- https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/cameras/flashes/speedlite-el-100

Recycling time for 270EX II when using AA/LR6 alkaline batteries:
Normal flash: Approx. 0.1 - 3.9 sec. / Lamp lights
Quick flash: Approx. 0.1 - 2.6 sec. / Lamp blinks at 8 Hz
- https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...ts/details/cameras/flashes/speedlite-270ex-ii

In an apple to apple comparison, the EL-100 recycling time is truly awful...
Wow, thanks for sharing that info.

I was actually eyeing a trade-in of my 270EX for this new model (seems the EL100 is a little taller which might help with zoom barrel shadows), but may reconsider now.
 
Aug 26, 2015
272
52
#33
One thing kind of weird for me is that despite being so big and heavy, the RF 50/1.2 is not a true internal focusing lens.
The front group moves within a tube like you can see on these pictures:






I am sure it is sealed in some ways and that it is super tack sharp, but moving all that huge chunk of glass means that it may not be super quick to focus and if they release a cheap 50mm it may be snappier. I guess it will still be faster than a 50/1.0L or 85/1.2L II
 
Aug 26, 2015
272
52
#35
Isn't that the definition of an internal focussing lens?
I think not, if the front element does not stay in one place.
In that case the old EF 50/1.2 is also internally focusing - but it's not.
Same with the EF 40/2.8 STM or EF-M 22/2 STM

And the RF 35/1.8 also works the same way. I am sure it works fine, just expected to be smaller in this case.


I do have an other theory for why those silver parts look like that on these lenses.

I think that a bigger, more professional hybrid RF/EF mount camera that was patented earlier (with switch for the different mount and communication systems) is still on the way some time later on.
So people who vary about using any kinds of lens adapters will be happy.
But implementing this mount will be more costly.
 

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,369
408
#36
I think not, if the front element does not stay in one place.
In that case the old EF 50/1.2 is also internally focusing - but it's not.
Same with the EF 40/2.8 STM or EF-M 22/2 STM.
Correct, all are front focusing lenses.

I suspect this means that the RF 50/1.2L will require a front filter to complete the weather sealing, just like the EF 50/1.2L and the UWA L zooms.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,074
277
#37
I think not, if the front element does not stay in one place.
In that case the old EF 50/1.2 is also internally focusing - but it's not.
The definition of IF lenses is where moving the inner lens group or groups only, without any rotation or shifting of the front lens element. " Put a flat glass on the front of the barrel and voila.
Put a polarising filter on that thread and it does not rotate which means it is OK with filters - in practical terms what is the difference? Certainly some early IF lenses were this sort of construction.
And if you are dong macro with such a lens the barrel does not extend.
 

Act444

EOS Rebel T7i
May 4, 2011
924
55
#38
DPReview has got some sample images taken with the 50 1.2 as well as the 24-105.

50 - wow is all I can say. MILES better than the EF version and sharpness is excellent even at f1.2. Reminds me of the Sigma Art lens, although I don't know how the two directly compare. But at a minimum it's close. Then again, you could say that for $2300 you'd demand no less than that level of performance. Bottom line, sucks that it can't be used on a 5D or similar DSLR...

24-105 - meh. It's sharp enough, but I found I could tell the difference which pic was shot by which lens when I zoomed in. The pics from the 50 were punchy, crisp while the 24-105 shots were softer, less detailed. But as an all-rounder, travel lens it may be adequate. (keeping in mind it's *still* not a small or light lens by any means...but is still a step up IQ-wise from an M camera and 18-150 lens for instance)
 
May 30, 2015
4
0
#39
"The Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R allows photographers to utilize the full breadth of Canon’s EF, EF-S, TS-E, and MP-E lenses on the newly introduced EOS R camera system. "

I'm not an optics nerd so I'm curious what this statement means. Is it saying an EF-S lens will cover the full frame sensor in the EOS R with the right adapter, or just that it can be made to physically fit the new body?

Is there some voodoo physics with the shorter flange distance that allows the smaller APS-C EF-S lenses to fill the full frame, or would it have blacked out sections around it where there is no light due to the smaller light circle?

It would be nifty if my EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS works with it - smoothes the upgrade path cost from my 40D, but it sounds too good to be true. Anyone?
 

Act444

EOS Rebel T7i
May 4, 2011
924
55
#40
^ I think your EF-S lens will be cropped to 11MP. So it will be like shooting with an 11MP crop-sensor camera (you won't get the full FF benefit or image area). Still better than your lens being completely useless with it though. It's probably a bigger benefit for video/4K shooters though, as it would mitigate the controversial crop issue.
 
Likes: researcher