Canon RF lens size comparison when mounted to the Canon EOS R body

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Canon Rumors reader InsungFilms did up a good comparison showing the size differences between the RF lenses when mounted to the Canon EOS R body.
The RF 28-70mm f/2L USM is obviously the biggest of the bunch, but we’re also surprised at the size of the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM, it looks like an impressive chunk of glass.
Also included for reference is an EOS DSLR and the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS.

RF mount lens comparison // click for larger

Continue reading...

 

[Chaitanya]

Grip on both Canon and Nikon cameras is quite substantial and should be much better in use.

 

[padam]

When you add in the EF R adapter to the mix, it basically weighs the same as a 6D Mark II, so the advantage is not really there in terms of weight - but that wasn't a design consideration as opposed to making it rigid and ergonomic.
Maybe there will be a lighter, cheaper model later on.

 

[MrAndre]

I still dont get, why the 28-70 does not have IS. As a wedding photographer this is a no go. 2.8 is only a little slower when it comes to apperture, but with IS compensating for 4-5 stops the 2.8 IS is better suitable.
For portraits I have primes going down to 1.4 and which will probably be a lot sharper at the respective focal length.

Lets see if the pro body has IS.

 

[padam]

It's big enough and weighs enough as-is...
The 24-70 2.8 II doesn't have IS either (if there is going to be something new, it will be heavier again for sure), and yet it is a lens I see the most mounted on cameras at weddings besides L primes (which are also not stabilised for the most part and barely faster than this zoom)

 

[jebrady03]

I'd like to see a 5D with the 24-70 f/2.8L II attached compared to the RF with the 28-70/2 attached. I know it's about 400 grams heavier, but I'm curious to see the size/bulk difference.

 

[Josh Leavitt]

I'm hoping that extended silver tube on the lens mount is a solid block of magnesium or aluminum that's part of the core camera skeleton. That would really strengthen the mount for large lenses like 28-70/f2 (not to mention super telephotos).

 

[H. Jones]

The more I see about this 28-70mm F/2L the more I wish it was on EF mount. Golly. Really not a bad size in the grand scheme of things. Too many questions about how the next few years will look for me to commit to anything though. Hope Canon releases a roadmap like Nikon did.

 

[Sharlin]

I still dont get, why the 28-70 does not have IS.

You go designing a unique groundbreaking lens and also somehow fitting an IS group somewhere there, as if this one wasn't difficult enough to design as is, most likely! It's not like IS is just some sort of a checkbox you toggle in the CAD software...

 

[Sharlin]

The RF 50mm/1.2 weighs 950 grams, compared to 580 g of the EF 50/1.2. It has double the lens elements too. It is clear that it's a modern "pickle jar" design instead of a venerable double Gauss, and will likely optically far surpass the EF lens at 1.2.

 

[H. Jones]

The RF 50mm/1.2 weighs 950 grams, compared to 580 g of the EF 50/1.2. It has double the lens elements too. It is clear that it's a modern "pickle jar" design instead of a venerable double Gauss, and will likely optically far surpass the EF lens at 1.2.

If the f/1.2 can retain some of that beautiful 'creaminess' while also being super great optically, this is going to be a really incredible lens. This announcement has had me all focused on the 28-70 and EOS R, but I think this is going to be a highly acclaimed lens. I wonder what next EF 50mm Canon is going to release? Seems like it would be strange if they release an EF 1.4L IS while the mirrorless gets faster glass.

 

[Respinder]

I still dont get, why the 28-70 does not have IS. As a wedding photographer this is a no go. 2.8 is only a little slower when it comes to apperture, but with IS compensating for 4-5 stops the 2.8 IS is better suitable.
For portraits I have primes going down to 1.4 and which will probably be a lot sharper at the respective focal length.

Lets see if the pro body has IS.

Completely agree. Lack of IS was why I have held out against purchasing the 24-70 f2.8, and I had hoped that Canon would finally include IS due to Nikon including VR into their equivalent lens. Sadly it does not look like this is happening, and it just means I'll have to wait longer until Canon releases something with IBIS or an equivelent lens with IS.

 

[bokehmon22]

I still dont get, why the 28-70 does not have IS. As a wedding photographer this is a no go. 2.8 is only a little slower when it comes to apperture, but with IS compensating for 4-5 stops the 2.8 IS is better suitable.
For portraits I have primes going down to 1.4 and which will probably be a lot sharper at the respective focal length.

Lets see if the pro body has IS.

Canon 24-70 2.8 II doesn't have IS and it's a stable in most wedding photographer lens arsenal including me. How did all these wedding photographers including me survive before IS?

No other camera manufacture have created something ground breaking in this zoom range as 28-70 F2. Not Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss, Sony, Tamron, Batis etc.

28-70 is already 3lb and some already complain about the weight which is similiar to Sigma 105 1.4 Art/70-200 2.8 II IS. They would have added an extra 4mm and make 24-70 F2 IS if it's an easy engineering feat.

Engineers have to make compromises on cost, size, weight, and optic performance and under marketing team decision.

 

[Respinder]

One thing I don't understand about these lenses - you can clearly see a metal material protruding from the end of the lens, and so it doesn't quite fit flush into the camera (unlike the EF mount comparison in the image to the far left) - why is this the case? Is it simply design related, or is this perhaps the sign that another camera will arrive with full EF/RF native compatibility?

Generally, there are still a lot of unanswered questions concerning the EOS R, including the adapter, which doesn't appear to be the "sexy solution" as described in previous CR posts. I guess we will be finding out in 2 days.

 

[Respinder]

Canon 24-70 2.8 II doesn't have IS and it's a stable in most wedding photographer lens arsenal including me. How did all these wedding photographers including me survive before IS?

No other camera manufacture have created something ground breaking in this zoom range as 28-70 F2. Not Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss, Sony, Tamron, Batis etc.

28-70 is already 3lb and some already complain about the weight which is similiar to Sigma 105 1.4 Art/70-200 2.8 II IS. They would have added an extra 4mm and make 24-70 F2 IS if it's an easy engineering feat.

Engineers have to make compromises on cost, size, weight, and optic performance and under marketing team decision.

That's fine - but some form of stabilization is warranted here - if not in the lens, then perhaps in the body?

 

[bokehmon22]

That's fine - but some form of stabilization is warranted here - if not in the lens, then perhaps in the body?

It would be nice to have IBIS in camera so we have to wait a couple more months to see what their professional EOS 5D mirrorless offer. 50 1.2 & 28-70 F2 aren't hobbyist lens so I expect Canon to come out with a professional EOS R in the future. If the 28-70 F2 is under $2000, I would order one right away.

I have Sigma 135 1.8 & 105 1.4 Art, 24-70 2.8 II and neither of those have IS with my 5D IV. I get by with these lens for wedding just fine.

 

[Igor Trifonov]

Maybe I missed it, but can I attach a new 28-70 RF lens to my canon 5dmkIV body with an adapter? On the paper it's looking like a dream lens to me. Not sure about if I do need a new Eos.

 

[Sharlin]

Maybe I missed it, but can I attach a new 28-70 RF lens to my canon 5dmkIV body with an adapter? On the paper it's looking like a dream lens to me. Not sure about if I do need a new Eos.

No, not without extra optics in the adapter. RF is a mirrorless mount with a short flange distance (20mm compared to EF's 44mm). Time will tell whether someone will offer such a thing, Canon itself almost certainly won't.

 

[fentiger]

No, not without extra optics in the adapter. RF is a mirrorless mount with a short flange distance (20mm compared to EF's 44mm). Time will tell whether someone will offer such a thing, Canon itself almost certainly won't.

So on that basis i would say Canon will produce a pro spec EOSR, because them lenses are definitely pro spec, i really can not see a 3lb lens on a 1/2lb camera. not for the normal folk (we are not normal)

 

[João Taveira]

It would be also great to have a comparison with an EOS DSLR with the EF 50mm f/1.2 to comparison.