Canon RF lens specifications

Larsskv

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 12, 2015
789
213
Which is why these seem like odd choices for initial lens releases, the 35mm F/1.8 yeah that looks like exactly the kind of lens a lot of buyers would be after(moreso than Sony's under speced 35mm F/2.8) but the 28-70mm F/2 and 50mm F/1.2? hardly lenses to show off size saving are they? even the 24-105mm F/4 is notable larger and heavier than Nikon's 24-70mm F/4 kit lens.

WIth mirrorless even moreso than DSLR's I think you really have a core lineup of lenses, the desire to save weight tends to push people towards more compact UWA/normal zooms and sub F/1.4 primes. Part of the reason Canon overturned Sony at APSC was IMHO that they did the core lens lineup better/cheaper so the lack of overall choice didn't matter as much. I think Sony have the same weakness at FF, they tended to release lower quality compact lenses hoping to drive sales of larger more expensive ones but a lot of people want quality in a smaller package.
Absolutely! So far I am more convinced by Nikon strategy, with smaller but yet fast enough lenses. The 50 f0.95 they are planning will be very tempting, if they can keep it under 700 grams.

Personally, I don’t see EVF as an advantage over DSLR. The main reason why I would consider a FF mirrorless is to have weight and size savings, with both camera and lenses. Another reason to go mirrorless is to gain solid and reliable AF performance with fast aperture lenses, even off center. Shooting a 50 f1.2 with reliable performance at f1.2 is tempting.
 

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
1,034
126
Comparing the weight of the 5D4 with a 24-70mm II against the EOS R with the new 28-70mm...

!!! wow.

So much for size/weight savings...

How about 5D4/24-70 f4 vs. R/24-105 f4? I like the former for general shooting & sightseeing - was wondering if an R/24-105 combo would at least be lighter in weight (probably won't be smaller though due to the lens, I'm guessing)

ETA: You know, after pondering it over a bit - considering the extra stop you're getting, the R combo being "only" 400g heavier is actually somewhat of an achievement TBH...still though, completely negates supposed size/weight advantage of FF mirrorless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nitram

fullstop

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
Is it just me or do all the RF lenses except the 28-70 have what appears to be a second switch on the bottom of the lens? An IS switch? So that might mean a 50 F1.2 IS?
no. it is an optical illusion. :)
We have specs now. only 24-105 and 35 have IS.
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,816
35
Sure, but how much? And at what point does saving weight on the body lead to ergonomic problems / lenses feeling unbalanced on the body?

I will be interested to hear what people think after they've had actually got to shoot with the EOS R and the RF 50/1.2 and the RF 28-70/2L. Maybe it will turn out to work well ... but I remain to be convinced.
Nor am I. Just looked at the specs and I am disappointed
 

mppix

EOS T7i
Feb 13, 2018
68
34
no. it is an optical illusion. :)
We have specs now. only 24-105 and 35 have IS.
There seems to be a switch, and no we dont have official specs, just something leaked. Its definitively possible that we dont have the full picture. I'd be very surprised if it has IS, more likely it's a focus limiter switch..
 
  • Like
Reactions: nitram

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,347
1,980
Irving, Texas
Right, so the RF 35/1.8 IS a touch lighter than the EF 35/2 IS, and RF 24-105/4L IS is a bit lighter than the EF 24-105/4L IS II (although a fraction heavier than the EF 24-105/4L IS) ... and the RF 28-70/2L and RF 50 1.2L are fairly heavy lenses. Unsurprising for their specs given they are all FF lenses (and what we've seen other brands), but again it has me questioning whether FF mirrorless really has much of a weight or size advantage over DSLR ... and assuming it doesn't, what the big deal is about FF mirrorless.

I understand mirrorless may offer some other benefits over DSLR, but DSLR offers some benefits of [edit: over] mirrorless too (depending on what features you value, eg I am yet to see an EVF I like as much as an OVF although I realise others prefer EVF).

I will be interested to hear more about the EOS R and the RF lenses as information becomes available, but at this point personally I'm not feeling a likely buyer for the EOS R (at least any time soon).
The size/weight advantage mantra was mostly something screamed about by the mirrorless zealots (AvTvM aka:fullstop). I guess they thought M4/3 lenses were going to be what they were getting. Wait! EF-S lenses can be used with an adapter (somebody said). I guess that's it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nitram

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,347
1,980
Irving, Texas
Agreed for tripod and liveview shooting in general. I was thinking more when the camera is up on your eye and you need to adjust AF points (or area) on the fly. Typically you have the left hand on the lens and the right hand on the cam. Reading the spec-pdf, the idea seems to be use the cross keys in this situation. I very much prefer a 5D type joystick but this is workable..

For me, an intuitive and fast operation of the AF (point/area selection, AF mode - point/area/face, and AF shot/servo switch) is a make or break. Needless to say that the 5DIV does a hell of a job..
No camera touch screen adjusts anything when your face is in the screen that I am aware of. You'd probably see the focus points in viewfinder like you do with your 5D Mark IV when the thing is up in your face.
 

moreorless

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 18, 2011
778
2
Absolutely! So far I am more convinced by Nikon strategy, with smaller but yet fast enough lenses. The 50 f0.95 they are planning will be very tempting, if they can keep it under 700 grams.

Personally, I don’t see EVF as an advantage over DSLR. The main reason why I would consider a FF mirrorless is to have weight and size savings, with both camera and lenses. Another reason to go mirrorless is to gain solid and reliable AF performance with fast aperture lenses, even off center. Shooting a 50 f1.2 with reliable performance at f1.2 is tempting.
From the look of it I suspect the Nikon 58mm 0.95 will weigh somewhere around 1 KG but then again that isn't a launch lens, there 50mm F/1.8 though weights 415g with what looks like performance you would associate with modern F/1.4 prime does seem like a good idea to me. Its larger than simple lower performance 50mm lenses but its about the right size to balance with a 600-700g camera offering performance anyone would be happy with if the spec is satisfactory.

The Nikon 0.95 as an attention getter does actually seem better to me, the Canon 28-70mm seems like more of a utilitarian design, I suspect performance will be good but really F/2 at that range isn't anything exceptional, its more a convenience lens that isn't very convenient I suspect certain pro's will use. Shooting at 0.95 though is obviously something much more unique, especially if it delivers good performance wide open unlike other 0.95 lenses. Don't think it will be bought by large numbers of people but will probably get more attension.

Nikon's 14-30mm F/4 also looks VERY tempting indeed, relatively small size, excellent range AND a non bulb front element. I can see a large number of landscape shooters buying that and viewing it as a reason to shoot Nikon over Sony's UWA offerings.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nitram and Larsskv

Sharlin

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 26, 2015
1,078
615
Turku, Finland
!!! wow.
How about 5D4/24-70 f4 vs. R/24-105 f4? I like the former for general shooting & sightseeing - was wondering if an R/24-105 combo would at least be lighter in weight (probably won't be smaller though due to the lens, I'm guessing)

ETA: You know, after pondering it over a bit - considering the extra stop you're getting, the R combo being "only" 400g heavier is actually somewhat of an achievement TBH...still though, completely negates supposed size/weight advantage of FF mirrorless.
Eh, a 24-70mm f/4 (or even f/2.8!) and a 28-70mm f/2 are completely different lenses with most likely very different price points. Such a silly comparison. The 28-70/2 is a special tool and only the second full-frame f/2 zoom in existence, and the first one (Sigma 24-35mm f/2 A) has a zoom range of less than 1.5x...
 
  • Like
Reactions: bks54

Larsskv

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 12, 2015
789
213
I just realized that the RF 50L will have almost identical physical specs as the EF 85 f1.4 L. Maybe a lot of similar design as well, such as the similarities between the 50L f1.0 and the 85L f1.2 back in the day..?

A good thing is that I don’t find the size and weight of the 85L f1.4 to be too big and heavy. Maybe the RF 50L will be acceptable after all.
 

vangelismm

EOS T7i
Jul 28, 2015
80
24
I just realized that the RF 50L will have almost identical physical specs as the EF 85 f1.4 L. Maybe a lot of similar design as well, such as the similarities between the 50L f1.0 and the 85L f1.2 back in the day..?

A good thing is that I don’t find the size and weight of the 85L f1.4 to be too big and heavy. Maybe the RF 50L will be acceptable after all.
I do not want to know the size of the new 85mm......
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,349
121
S Florida
I find Canon's trend towards wide macro lenses most disturbing. What, no LEDs? Foodies of the world rejoice!
 

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
1,034
126
Eh, a 24-70mm f/4 (or even f/2.8!) and a 28-70mm f/2 are completely different lenses with most likely very different price points. Such a silly comparison. The 28-70/2 is a special tool and only the second full-frame f/2 zoom in existence, and the first one (Sigma 24-35mm f/2 A) has a zoom range of less than 1.5x...
I don't think it's that silly to be honest. Yes, engineering-wise and price-wise, the two lenses are in different classes, but at the end of the day you've got two zoom lenses covering basically the same range, with one letting in more light than the other. The intention is not to downplay the innovation of an f2 zoom, but to view from a more practical perspective.

Personally, if we're talking practicality, I would have preferred them keep it at f2.8 and add IS than go to f2, but like Nikon, it's about the bragging rights (as someone else said, it's a "look what we can do" type of lens). All that said, it's still going to be interesting to see the results out of a lens like this. I already like the great subject/background separation of the 24-70 II...sounds like this could take that a step further...too bad there is not an EF version though.
 

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
1,034
126
To move onto one of the other lenses - the new RF 50 1.2 - I wonder if there is going to be any optical difference between this lens and the (older) EF version.
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,497
866
To move onto one of the other lenses - the new RF 50 1.2 - I wonder if there is going to be any optical difference between this lens and the (older) EF version.
RF 50/1.2 vs EF 50/1.2: 15 vs 8 elements, 9 vs 6 groups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Act444

Sharlin

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 26, 2015
1,078
615
Turku, Finland
To move onto one of the other lenses - the new RF 50 1.2 - I wonder if there is going to be any optical difference between this lens and the (older) EF version.
Yeah, as Kit said, almost certainly. The old one is a traditional double-Gauss with fairly poor performance wide open. The RF seems to be a modern "pickle jar" with a considerably more complex optical design. The weight of the latter is 950g compared to the former's 580g.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Act444