Canon officially announces the development of 6 new RF mount lenses

yeahright

EOS M50
Aug 28, 2014
25
1
looks like on the RF 24-240 there are only two rings, so the control ring doubles as the focus ring and the type of operation is selected by the switch...
 
Reactions: Joatamos
Mar 14, 2012
2,224
122
Well that was underwhelming. Where are the non-L IS primes to complement the 35mm? Or at least a 35-105 f4 IS and then they can go back to their usual tactic of ignoring anyone who can't afford L lenses.

I only hope that Sigma and Tamron show some interest in the RF mount for the amateurs, just like they did for EF.
Why would there be a 35-105 f/4 IS lens? There are already many 24-105s around including the EF non L version. Canon is bringing the lenses that maximize their return on investment. 24-70s, 70-200s, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm primes. 24, 28mm f/2.8 non-L IS; not so popular, so they're not as high a priority. Plus, you can still use the EF adapter.
 

degos

EOS 80D
Mar 20, 2015
119
61
Why would there be a 35-105 f/4 IS lens? There are already many 24-105s around including the EF non L version.
Because it would be (1) useful (2) easier to optimise than the 24-105s with their crappy wide ends and (3) hopefully affordable

There are lots of EF 24-70s and 70-200s and 85s, so why bother with RF versions?

There are no constant-aperture non-L lenses in the Canon catalogue. With its alleged weight and size benefits RF would seem to provide an opportunity to address that with a useful focal range that permits maximisation of IQ within a budget. But instead we get one 35mm prime and a dark superzoom. Cheers, Canon.
 

BeenThere

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 4, 2012
817
150
Because it would be (1) useful (2) easier to optimise than the 24-105s with their crappy wide ends and (3) hopefully affordable

There are lots of EF 24-70s and 70-200s and 85s, so why bother with RF versions?

There are no constant-aperture non-L lenses in the Canon catalogue. With its alleged weight and size benefits RF would seem to provide an opportunity to address that with a useful focal range that permits maximisation of IQ within a budget. But instead we get one 35mm prime and a dark superzoom. Cheers, Canon.
Patience. Your desires may not be at the top of Canon’s priority list, but they can release only so many new lenses each year. Your time will probably come if you can wait.
 
Mar 14, 2012
2,224
122
And there are lots of EF 24-70s and 70-200s and 85s, so why bother with RF versions?

There are no constant-aperture non-L lenses in the Canon catalogue. With its alleged weight and size benefits RF would seem to provide an opportunity to address that with a useful focal range that permits maximisation of IQ within a budget. But instead we get one 35mm prime and a dark superzoom. Cheers, Canon.

Maybe they should just drop anything non-L and stop pretending.
Because they sell; why wouldn't they introduce the lenses that people use the most first? They did introduce the RF 35 f/1.8 IS at a lower price than the existing EF 35 f/2 IS, and now that the RP is out, I'm guessing they'll bring out other non-L lenses later. However, from a price perspective, it's hard to beat adapting existing non-L EF glass.

Or perhaps your expectation were too high for what Canon releases within a year of launching the EOS R system. 10 native lenses within 1.5 years of launch. Sony couldn't do that and Nikon isn't doing that. The bigger joke is that Nikon is charging $1000 for its 24-70 f/4 for its Z system, and it doesn't even have IS. Why don't you wait a few years and before judging?
 

PGSanta

EOS M50
Sep 5, 2018
29
10
San Diego, CA
There’s still nothing on pricing? So all of this amounts to a lens release map with pictures? Sometime in 2019 is all we get? Seriously? Maybe I should grab a 28-70 afterall.
 
Reactions: bokehmon22

BeenThere

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 4, 2012
817
150
There’s still nothing on pricing? So all of this amounts to a lens release map with pictures? Sometime in 2019 is all we get? Seriously? Maybe I should grab a 28-70 afterall.
I appreciate getting a road map from Canon. Helps plan when determining lens purchases from what is available now, or by the end of the year.
 

Skyscraperfan

I'm New Here
Aug 7, 2018
18
7
I have a few issues with the 70-200 extending when zooming:

1: Doesn't it suck air (with potential dust) into the lens when extending? The extended lens will have a larger volume than the short lens. So there must be some kind of gaps, which can let in all that air within a fraction of a second. Dust has always been my single worst problem with interchangeable lenses.

2: Extending a lens while zooming normally means that you have a smaller maximum aperture at the long end. I can't think of any exception. So if the 70-200 has f/2.8 at the long end, something like f/2 or even bigger should be possible at the wide end. So the restriction to f/2.8 even at the wide end is artificial. f/2 or even f/1.8 at 70mm would be amazing.

3. An extending lens let's other people see that you zoom closer to your subject. That can have some disadvantages.

If I had the choice I would prefer a lens that does not extend while zooming.
 
Mar 14, 2012
2,224
122
I have a few issues with the 70-200 extending when zooming:

1: Doesn't it suck air (with potential dust) into the lens when extending? The extended lens will have a larger volume than the short lens. So there must be some kind of gaps, which can let in all that air within a fraction of a second. Dust has always been my single worst problem with interchangeable lenses.

2: Extending a lens while zooming normally means that you have a smaller maximum aperture at the long end. I can't think of any exception. So if the 70-200 has f/2.8 at the long end, something like f/2 or even bigger should be possible at the wide end. So the restriction to f/2.8 even at the wide end is artificial. f/2 or even f/1.8 at 70mm would be amazing.

3. An extending lens let's other people see that you zoom closer to your subject. That can have some disadvantages.

If I had the choice I would prefer a lens that does not extend while zooming.
1. Even the non-extending 70-200s move air as the lens focuses. Lenses aren't air tight; air will move as it must. In reality, this brings the 70-200 to a similar design as the 100-400s and 70-300s. Do the 100-400s and 70-300s have dust problems that are significantly much worse than the 70-200s? Bryan at TDP indicated that the lens is shorter than his iPhone 8 at 5.5 in. Think of the amount of space that can be saved in a camera bag if it can be stored vertically instead of horizontally. The size is why I loved having the 70-300L while I had it. Now the question is how heavy will the RF 70-200 be? Will it be significantly lighter than its EF counterpart?

2. This is true of any constant aperture zoom lens. 24-105 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8, 24-70 f/4, etc.
 
Reactions: Del Paso and jd7

Pape

EOS 80D
Dec 31, 2018
119
24
R serie cameras can focus more darker than cameras earlier.
Now we need 600mm f8 as replacer for 400mm f5,6 :) or what :?
would make low megapixel cameras like RP and D1 more equivalent with high density sensor cameras ,when diffraction cuts bit off with 5ds
 
Reactions: tiggy@mac.com

davidcl0nel

Canon 5D3, 17 TSE, 35 IS, 100 L, 70-200 2.8 IS II
Jan 11, 2014
132
3
Berlin
www.flickr.com
I like the speed of the announcements, but they should deliver them soon and not at the end of the year.

The weight and the prices are missing, so I am not soo excited, because I think there might be a bigger problem. ;)

I also dislike the fact of an outer focus, as the RF 35mm 1.8 IS shows (older announcement). I like the EF 35 2 IS very very much, and also because of the internal focus/durability (no moving parts to the outside. There are plenty of broken 50 1.4 USM, because the tube is broken a little bit...
And because of the already existing RF 35mm 1.8 IS, there might be a RF 35mm 1.4L or lower in the future, but I think there will be no internal focus 35mm f/2 USM equivalent.... :(
The extension on a zoom lens is ok, but please not with focus...
This is a big problem for me, but I also will wait for a EOS RS announcement, which will come in the future I hope...

I also had the old EF 24-105L, and dislike the higher weight of the 24-105L II or also the RF equivalent. Yes yes, if they are sharper thats ok... But if you want to push a smaller and lighter mirrorless system you shouldnt waste the adventage by having too heavy lenses. The announced 70-200 here looks very tiny, maybe its much less then the EF counterpart, which would be amazing. I like the EF 70-200 IS II very much, although the 1700gramm is very heavy in my backpack... (no please no correction in the theoretical weight, nobody transport it without any caps)...
 

Etienne

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 19, 2010
1,304
88
Ottawa Ontario
Check out that small 70-200 f/2.8 IS. And now where are all the "geniuses" on this forum who fancy themselves lens engineers... all of whom insisted that there was no way to make telephotos smaller on the mirrorless systems. ... crickets
 

Joules

EOS 80D
Jul 16, 2017
125
40
Hamburg, Germany
Check out that small 70-200 f/2.8 IS. And now where are all the "geniuses" on this forum who fancy themselves lens engineers... all of whom insisted that there was no way to make telephotos smaller on the mirrorless systems. ... crickets
Well, the current 70-200mm lenses are an exception to that because those don't extend when zooming. That makes them longer than they have to be. Unlike this RF version which will very likely vary in length while zooming. So, that doesn't count as mirrorless making lenses shorter...

Birds.
 

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
445
59
Because it would be (1) useful (2) easier to optimise than the 24-105s with their crappy wide ends and (3) hopefully affordable

There are lots of EF 24-70s and 70-200s and 85s, so why bother with RF versions?

There are no constant-aperture non-L lenses in the Canon catalogue. With its alleged weight and size benefits RF would seem to provide an opportunity to address that with a useful focal range that permits maximisation of IQ within a budget. But instead we get one 35mm prime and a dark superzoom. Cheers, Canon.
1. A constant aperture zoom is more difficult to optimize even when you make it less useful by leaving off the wide end.
2. The weight and size benefits (plus cost benefits) of variable aperture zooms are real and can be optimized for mirrorless.
3. Canon WILL bother with RF versions for precisely the same reasons it bothered with EF versions of FD lenses. Because it will be phasing out the EF platform.
 

Larsskv

Enthusiast with Canon related GAS
Jun 12, 2015
737
146
I like the speed of the announcements, but they should deliver them soon and not at the end of the year.

The weight and the prices are missing, so I am not soo excited, because I think there might be a bigger problem. ;)

I also dislike the fact of an outer focus, as the RF 35mm 1.8 IS shows (older announcement). I like the EF 35 2 IS very very much, and also because of the internal focus/durability (no moving parts to the outside. There are plenty of broken 50 1.4 USM, because the tube is broken a little bit...
And because of the already existing RF 35mm 1.8 IS, there might be a RF 35mm 1.4L or lower in the future, but I think there will be no internal focus 35mm f/2 USM equivalent.... :(
The extension on a zoom lens is ok, but please not with focus...
This is a big problem for me, but I also will wait for a EOS RS announcement, which will come in the future I hope...

I also had the old EF 24-105L, and dislike the higher weight of the 24-105L II or also the RF equivalent. Yes yes, if they are sharper thats ok... But if you want to push a smaller and lighter mirrorless system you shouldnt waste the adventage by having too heavy lenses. The announced 70-200 here looks very tiny, maybe its much less then the EF counterpart, which would be amazing. I like the EF 70-200 IS II very much, although the 1700gramm is very heavy in my backpack... (no please no correction in the theoretical weight, nobody transport it without any caps)...
I don’t like extending lenses while focusing either, but the RF 35 f1.8 automatically retract when the camera is turned off, which is very nice. Ultimately, I usually want the smaller lens over an internally focusing one, and especially with a small lens like the RF 35.
 

Pape

EOS 80D
Dec 31, 2018
119
24
Is anyone else worried that each of these lenses are $1000 more than their EF brothers?
Lenses are expensive because there is so many thick wallet sony user without canon lenses atm :D.
They run back like sheep pack,when hearing first soundless eos ReX 50 fps roar :p
theyll be cheaper later i bet,when first buying mania is over :)
or hrmm burst speed must be lot more higher if its able do constant 30fps 8K. if thinking 8k uses whole sensor.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Viggo