Canon to announce at least 6 new RF lenses next week

[Lee Jay]

If the 200-400mm f/4 is overpriced by a factor of 10, then it should be sold at about $1000 or £ or € in you opinion, which would be cheaper than the 100-400mm?

Well, I paid $700 for my Sigma 150-600C, brand new.

 

[criscokkat]

What are the chances that this 70-200 could be so small and have no telescoping barrel?

Not a rhetorical question - I honestly have no idea

If they've really had serious luck with DO lenses I suppose it's possible, I dunno what the picture quality is. I think most people are saying it because it's highly unlikely that the 24-240 doesn't and the pictures included make it look like there is a gap around the end of the lens. Although the business end of it does look different than the 24-105 which does extend. The 24-105 has a definitive gap between the part that extend and the part that doesn't. Comparing this 70-200 with the 100-400 the end looks more similar than the 24-105. I guess we'll find out soon.

 

[jedy]

Just seems odd that Canon are producing pro grade L RF lenses but their next R body will be a prosumer body. It’s not like there are any decent f1.8/f2.8 primes to use with the prosumer body. Canon need to release the pro R body if they want to do these lenses justice.

 

[jdavidse]

Agreed, I can’t see why it’s better all the way at the end unless the lens is 2.5 inch shorter..

Hmmm interesting thought. There is also the shorter flange distance. Essentially an RF lens starts out closer to the back of the camera, and hence ergonomically closer to your eye. I would be interested to see a photo of this lens mounted on an R next to the EF version mounted on a 5D4, and see where the two zoom rings land

 

[Aaron D]

I already do that with my 11-24. Works a treat on my R with adapter. IQ is better than the TS-E.

That's good to hear…. I've had trouble with ghosting and flare with the 17 TSE, and if I shift it very far at all I get a lot of 'smooshing' at the extremes. A lot of times I'll center it and tilt up, correct in PS. And it's sharper!

AND with this I could use filters!

 

[Viggo]

Hmmm interesting thought. There is also the shorter flange distance. Essentially an RF lens starts out closer to the back of the camera, and hence ergonomically closer to your eye. I would be interested to see a photo of this lens mounted on an R next to the EF version mounted on a 5D4, and see where the two zoom rings land

That makes two of us.

 

[juststeve]

I dug out my dial calipers and did a little measuring and calculating. It turns out a couple of other web sites have the lenses pictured and pretty close to actual size.

Using the lens mount as the basis of comparison, it seems the 15-35/2.8 L is about 4 1/8 long and the 24-7/2.8 L is about 4 1/16 long. Both appear to have 72 mm filters. At those figures the 15-35/2.8 is about as compact, actually more so slightly, than my 16-35/4 L and the 24-70/2.8 is not all that much bigger than my much loved and appreciated 24-70/4 L.

I did not measure out the 70-200 L, but it seems to be pictured at actual size, which would make it very compact at 70 mm. Of course, it has to be an extending lens, unless there are DO elements in there. Ah hell, went back and measured the 70-200. It looks to be in the 4 1/2 inch length range and again with a 72 mm filter diameter. And prices were posted on FM.

Again, these are calculations based upon assumptions with a little windage thrown in. But I think they are reasonably close. All I can say further is "WOW."

 

[Nadoor]

The prices of the lenses would be (looking at Canon's recent pricing strategy)
RF 15-35/2.8 IS - $2599
RF 24-70/2.8 IS - $2499
RF 24-240 - $1599
RF 70-200/2.8 IS - $2499
RF 85/1.2 IS - $2699

 

[Kit.]

That 70-200 looks tiny for a 2.8 - Please tell me it is not a telescoping design!

Or rather if it is, then I'll rush out and get the EF mk3 version...

I don't think you need to rush out. But it's nice to be able to choose whether you want a shorter one or a more dust proof one.

 

[YuengLinger]

Makes the "nothing" update of the ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS to version III even harder to understand.

 

[ColinJR]

I’m even more excited about these lenses that I thought I would be. I just recently bought the 70-200 f/4 and love it, but the size of this one is kind of blowing my mind!

 

[YuengLinger]

I think the release of this level of pro glass prior to getting a pro camera reconfirms our collective suspicions that there was supposed to have been a pro body released prior to this point in time. This doesn't doom Canon, but it is interesting from an intent-versus-performance perspective.

In retrospect, this tells me that:
A) The slowness with L lens releases over the past couple of years was not Canon de-emphasizing the photography market, but rather refocusing it without us knowing then about the new mount
B) They intended to have a high resolution camera out, but something is holding it up
C) They knew about B early enough that they were able to cobble together the 5D4 sensor + mirrorless design to make the R, which indicates to me that the problem they faced in development was known at least 18 months ago
D) The pro model isn't necessarily coming out very soon, as the above behavior would be most logical if it weren't. Also, if there is a technical hurdle, those aren't controllable in terms of time (versus production, logistical, supply, etc.)

Or maybe they decided they really can't get away with another 1.7x 4k crop factor again...
Or maybe they realized not a single person on the planet likes the touchy-slidey bar thingy...
Or maybe they have come up with an even better OVF system and decided to put it in sooner rather than later...

 

[criscokkat]

Makes the "nothing" update of the ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS to version III even harder to understand.

Better weather sealing and drop in filters via the adapter? All I can think of.

 

[Kit.]

Better weather sealing and drop in filters via the adapter? All I can think of.

Maybe backported RF autofocus protocol as well (they have a patent for that).

 

[PGSanta]

So happy I made the decision to move against the grain and come back to Canon. My A7III is still a more capable camera than my R is, but a system is more than just the body. Going to be ditching all of my Sony gear very soon.

 

[knight427]

Makes the "nothing" update of the ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS to version III even harder to understand.

Politics and profit.

By politics, I mean that Canon wants customers believe that they are still supporting EF and DSLRs. This was an easy lens to release as they just changed some coatings and paint color. And of course for such a minimal change, they got a fair number of customers to upgrade to the latest version. I would assume there wasn't much R&D sunk into this, and maybe the production lines weren't significantly effected.

Also, I could speculate that releasing a "new" EF 70-200 right before launching the RF gave them permission to try out this new compact design. It's a bit gutsy, some people will complain that they shouldn't have to use an adapter to have their preferred 70-200 size/geometry/layout/exact shade of white/etc, but I see it as having more diverse options. If you really love the existing 70-200 ergonomics on DSLR, you can stick with DSLR, or get an adapter which will place the RF lens roughly in the same position as it would be on a DSLR (while adding optional functionality). Meanwhile, the RF version seems tailored toward the as-small-as-you-can-make-it-please crowd.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'll certainly be considering the new lenses, but see no need to hurry, my EF lenses work well on my R. I might be more interested in a pro level body than new glass when mine is already excellent. A relatively short and light everyday lens is the one exception, I wish they had a 20-200 rather than a 24-240, or even 17-170.

I'll likely get the 24-105L for a all purpose lens, but that's still not certain.

From what I've read in some of the patents, they are able to trade larger diameter for a shorter lens length so we'll see what the actual sizes and weights are.

 

[H. Jones]

Politics and profit.
Also, I could speculate that releasing a "new" EF 70-200 right before launching the RF gave them permission to try out this new compact design. It's a bit gutsy, some people will complain that they shouldn't have to use an adapter to have their preferred 70-200 size/geometry/layout/exact shade of white/etc, but I see it as having more diverse options. If you really love the existing 70-200 ergonomics on DSLR, you can stick with DSLR, or get an adapter which will place the RF lens roughly in the same position as it would be on a DSLR (while adding optional functionality). Meanwhile, the RF version seems tailored toward the as-small-as-you-can-make-it-please crowd.

Agreed, I myself am not sold on a telescoping design for the 70-200, but that said, my 1DX2 isn't going anywhere, and as long as I have it as a second body, at minimum it'll need my EF 70-200. I could see a future where all my wide-standard glass is RF mount on a pro R series, and my 1DX2 is a second body almost entirely dedicated to telephoto glass. And even if I wanted to use the 70-200 on an RF mount, in my time trying out the R I had no issues at all with the mount adapter behind the white lenses-- the bigger problem I had was the mount adapter making the wide lenses seem so much bigger.

That said, if the eventual pro R-series really knocks my socks off, maybe I'll just make the total leap to RF and just accept the telescoping 70-200....

 

[YuengLinger]

I don't like extending lens barrels, though I have the 24-70mm f/2.8L II and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II. They are great lenses otherwise. Still, I got sand in the barrel of the 24-70 once, and often worry about it (and water droplets) with the 100-400.

But about that 15-35mm...Is anybody else excited about a 15mm zoom that has a front element that can be protected with a filter?

 

[ColinJR]

It has a red ring, so I guess it’s not DO. Also noticed the 15-35 will use screw in front filters.

Oh god, it better not be DO! I actually have the 70-300 DO and it's... not great. I'd take telescoping any day over DO, as long as the IQ is up to Canon's existing 70-200's.