Canon RF lens specifications

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
1,028
120
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.
Interesting. Thanks for the info.

Yes, I've been somewhat underwhelmed with the 50 1.2 (EF) IQ-wise, but it has still gotten me a few unique perspectives. Hopefully this signifies an update of the EF version in the near future.
 

Etienne

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 19, 2010
1,360
156
Ottawa Ontario
!!! 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.
Apples and oranges.
The 28-70 f/2 is a miracle of engineering even at that weight and size. You'll get a completely different look to your images, especially at 70mm, with the f/2 version. This combo will do very low light and true shallow DOF portraits.
It's definitely heavier than I would like but holy crap, you get 28-70mm on FF at constant f/2. It is a one of a kind package.
 

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
1,028
120
It's definitely heavier than I would like but holy crap, you get 28-70mm on FF at constant f/2. It is a one of a kind package.
True - and I bet it will be priced accordingly as well.

Only mystery left is the IQ...
 

Sharlin

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 26, 2015
1,066
579
Turku, Finland
An EF 28-70 f/2L please.
I guess what makes the RF 28-70mm/2 feasible in the first place is the shorter flange distance, meaning that the lens can be a regular telephoto (focal length > flange distance over the whole zoom range), whereas a standard DSLR zoom has to be telephoto at the long end and retrofocal at the wide end, greatly complicating the design. The only other f/2 FF zoom, the Sigma 24-35mm/2 A, notably has a zoom range in its entirety wider than the 40+mm DSLR flange distance, which I guess is not a coincidence at all!
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,101
no. it is an optical illusion. :)
We have specs now. only 24-105 and 35 have IS.
Yes, we have the specs. Speaking of optical illusions, the RF 24-105/4L IS is essentially the same size and weight as the EF MkI version. Sure glad we're getting the huge benefit in smaller/lighter lenses for mirrorless. ;)
 

fullstop

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
we knew all allow that 105/4.0 will not allow for much of a size reduction with move to mirrorfree. consequently the RF is just a bit shorter and about 15% lighter than the EF 24-105 II. better than nothing!

RF 35/1.8 macro is also more compact and lighter than EF 35/2.0 IS, despite faster aperture and macro capability.

looking forward to a hopefully very compact RF 24-70/4 ... some day. and to a few pancake/ultracompact primes between f/2.0 and f/2.8.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,101
we knew all allow that 105/4.0 will not allow for much of a size reduction with move to mirrorfree. consequently the RF is just a bit shorter and about 15% lighter than the EF 24-105 II. better than nothing!l
As I stated, the RF 24-104/4 L IS is no lighter or smaller than the EF 24-105/4L IS MkI.

But I wonder...who are the 'we all' to whom you refer, who knew that, "105/4.0 will not allow for much of a size reduction," with a short FFD and a wide throat diameter? I have certainly mentioned that the size reduction benefit applies to only a limited subset of lens designs. I guess 'we all' who knew that are pretty intelligent and knowledgable folks. But you're not a part of that group.

For very large aperture, "high end IQ" lenses size/weight savings might be rather small, but those lenses are tiny niches anyways. But all decent "bread and butter" lenses - e.g. 24/35/50/85/100mm primes and 16-35, 24-70, 24-105 f/4 zooms could be made significantly more compact with a new "slim" mount ... with short(er) FFD and as wide-as-feasible throat width.
 

canonmike

EOS 80D
Jan 5, 2013
119
55
man, i think I'd rather stick w/ a 24-70 f2.8L instead. Wish there was an 85mm 1.2 or 1.4 and a 35mm 1.4L tho.
Give Canon a little time on some more lens offerings. After all, they can't just go turn on their 3D printer and make one over night and the R is not even on the street yet. Also, we haven't seen pricing for the body or the lenses, yet. Plus, we already have all the lenses on your wish list, using an adapter, of course. Time will tell how viable an option this will be. Who I feel somewhat sorry for are the aftermarket lensmakers, the Sigmas', the Tamron's, etc. When they offer a new Canon lens down the road, will they just offer it in EF mount, expecting the Canon user to use his adapter? Or do they offer it in both EF and dedicated RF, not to mention Nikon's Z mount and make you specify which mount you want. Pretty expensive proposition for them, opting for the second choice. I will have to admit that the new RF mount offerings seem pretty high end for a lower end 1st gen FF mirror less camera offering. I'm actually pleasantly surprised that they are not more comparable to the M mount offerings, that is, very basic. So, hang in there, my friend. You will get your lenses, eventually.
 

canonmike

EOS 80D
Jan 5, 2013
119
55
im not complaining. I am excited about the camera. I don't think it will have the same impact as the Sony or the Nikon Z because it has 15MP less but if the price is under $2K then it will be a winner. I think Canon can do it.
But 3 pounds for a lens that goes on a small body is bad. I don't care what brand it is.
I hope the specs are wrong about the weight. The lenses certainly look smaller than the EF ones but an F/2 lens is pprobably needs more heavy glass inside... I don't know.
I think we are all holding our Canon photographic breaths until Wed the 5th, or whenever the R and RF announcements come down the pipe. We have waited a long long time, endured repeated trashing and bashing for being Canon users, wondered when Canon would respond as we watch daily defections to the Sony camp and now, it looks like it will be "game on", round one. Let's hope that our Canon, for which we have put so much faith in, takes the gloves off and comes out swinging and slugging. We all want this camera to be a resounding success, even the smarter Sony Fan Boys, realizing real competition is good for us all.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,083
404
I think we are all holding our Canon photographic breaths until Wed the 5th, or whenever the R and RF announcements come down the pipe. We have waited a long long time, endured repeated trashing and bashing for being Canon users, wondered when Canon would respond as we watch daily defections to the Sony camp and now, it looks like it will be "game on", round one. Let's hope that our Canon, for which we have put so much faith in, takes the gloves off and comes out swinging and slugging. We all want this camera to be a resounding success, even the smarter Sony Fan Boys, realizing real competition is good for us all.
i think you may take the camera market way too personally.
 
Aug 11, 2010
402
30
Miami Beach
www.clicstudio.com
I think we are all holding our Canon photographic breaths until Wed the 5th, or whenever the R and RF announcements come down the pipe. We have waited a long long time, endured repeated trashing and bashing for being Canon users, wondered when Canon would respond as we watch daily defections to the Sony camp and now, it looks like it will be "game on", round one. Let's hope that our Canon, for which we have put so much faith in, takes the gloves off and comes out swinging and slugging. We all want this camera to be a resounding success, even the smarter Sony Fan Boys, realizing real competition is good for us all.
Defection? I didn't realize Canon was a country... @3kramd5 is right, u are taking this too personally...
 

fullstop

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
As I stated, the RF 24-104/4 L IS is no lighter or smaller than the EF 24-105/4L IS MkI.
But I wonder...who are the 'we all' to whom you refer, who knew that, "105/4.0 will not allow for much of a size reduction," with a short FFD and a wide throat diameter? I have certainly mentioned that the size reduction benefit applies to only a limited subset of lens designs. I guess 'we all' who knew that are pretty intelligent and knowledgable folks. But you're not a part of that group.
reported for the ad hominem attack. Just cut it out for once.

With a focal length of more than 100mm on the long end size advantages from shorter FFD mount are "fading out". Nevertheless fact is: Canon managed to make the RF 24-105 zoom noticeably more compact and 15% lighter than the EF version. Of course we compare it to the current EF 24-105 Mk. II, not to the out-of-production LEGACY Mark I. And we also fully expect the RF version to be at least on par with the EF 24-105 Mk. II in terms of IQ, AF and IS performance, no?
Intelligent folks prefer facts and apple-to-apple comparisons.
 

fullstop

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
It will be big of course, but the filter size is usually not the same as the diameter of the front element to avoid vignetting issues.
Filter diameter is 95mm.

Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM
  • Lens composition: 13 groups 19 sheets
  • Minimum focus distance: 39cm (15.35 inches)
  • Filter diameter: 95mm
  • Size: 103.8mm (4.08 inches) × 139.8mm (5.5 inches)
  • Weight: 1430g (3.15lbs)
 

fullstop

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
yes. But in the context of previous posters' remark on size of lens, filter thread is the best and most easily available parameter. Whether or not the actual front element itself has a bit less diameter is ... totally irrelevant.

28-70/2 is a big, fat pickle-jar lens. Looking forward to seeing the price. It'll likely be so high that i spontaneously start laughing. :D
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,101
With a focal length of more than 100mm on the long end size advantages from shorter FFD mount are "fading out". Nevertheless fact is: Canon managed to make the RF 24-105 zoom noticeably more compact and 15% lighter than the EF version. Of course we compare it to the current EF 24-105 Mk. II, not to the out-of-production LEGACY Mark I. And we also fully expect the RF version to be at least on par with the EF 24-105 Mk. II in terms of IQ, AF and IS performance, no?
Intelligent folks prefer facts and apple-to-apple comparisons.
Intelligent folks admit when they were wrong. The others typically justify, obfuscate and revise history.
 

fullstop

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
I was spot on. Moderately fast lenses up to around 100mm FL, including a 24-105/4.0 zoom can be made significantly smaller and lighter on a short FFD, wide-throat [mirrorfree] mount. Knowing you, you will now try to nitpick, whether about 10% less lens length and about 15% less weight are "significant" or not. While doing so, just make sure you don't lose sight of the bigger picture. Mirrorfree with well-chosen mount parameters allows for significantly more compact solutions than mirrorslappers throughout the most frequently used focal length range.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,101
I was spot on. Moderately fast lenses up to around 100mm FL, including a 24-105/4.0 zoom can be made significantly smaller and lighter on a short FFD, wide-throat [mirrorfree] mount. Knowing you, you will now try to nitpick, whether about 10% less lens length and about 15% less weight are "significant" or not. While doing so, just make sure you don't lose sight of the bigger picture. Mirrorfree with well-chosen mount parameters allows for significantly more compact solutions than mirrorslappers throughout the most frequently used focal length range.
Mirrorless allowed the 24-105/4 IS to be significantly more compact...as compact as the prior version of the EF lens for DSLRs. :rolleyes: As I said, justify and obfuscate, and we're right back where we started regarding the differentiation between folks with intelligence and...others.

Incidentally, I had the EF 24-105/4L IS for many years. It's not a compact lens by any stretch of the imagination.