Canon to announce at least 6 new RF lenses next week

[ColinJR]

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?

...and IS on a 2.8 lens!!! RIDICULOUSLY EXCITED. I bought a Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 for my R (for real estate photography) but it's way too heavy for day-to-day use, especially with the adapter. I will be selling as soon as possible for this lens.

 

[H. Jones]

Really rough test of matching the size of the mount to estimate, but I would for sure say the RF 70-200 is not much larger than the 24-70.. That's a pretty drastic difference when you think about carrying bags that the lens can fit in, especially when mounted to a smaller-size R series.

 

[Larsskv]

These news makes me very happy for not having invested in the Sony system...

 

[Rezen73]

• Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM

This lens is enough for me to switch, given that I need a new copy because my current one is damaged goods, and I am a strong believer in the RF system. I was hoping to wait until the prosumer R model was available (e.g. 5d4 version) before switching... Really sucks, because I just bought the EF 16-35 f/2.8L III a couple of months ago... and could have saved some extra cash by waiting for the RF 15-35. :/

 

[YuengLinger]

• Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM

This lens is enough for me to switch, given that I need a new copy because my current one is damaged goods, and I am a strong believer in the RF system. I was hoping to wait until the prosumer R model was available (e.g. 5d4 version) before switching... Really sucks, because I just bought the EF 16-35 f/2.8L III a couple of months ago... and could have saved some extra cash by waiting for the RF 15-35. :/

Perhaps you won't feel so bad if the 15-35mm has the same level of vignetting? I hear that the 16-35mm III is a fantastic lens in other respects.

 

[Treyarnon]

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.

Well, according to Tony Northrup, the new coatings on the mk3 was not quite a 'minimal change':

 

[Viggo]

Am I the only who thinks the 85 looks less than sexy?

 

[Treyarnon]

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.

OK 'Rush' was perhaps rather over dramatic.

But - I am very much contemplating an upgrade to my 70-200 F2.8 - I would expect to get 10 years use out of the lens, and I have been weighing up getting the EF mk3 or waiting a bit longer and move to the 'RF' system first. *IF* the new RF lens is indeed a telescoping design, it will have to offer some genuine knockout performance advantages in other areas for me to choose it over the EF mk3.

 

[docsmith]

Really rough test of matching the size of the mount to estimate, but I would for sure say the RF 70-200 is not much larger than the 24-70.. That's a pretty drastic difference when you think about carrying bags that the lens can fit in, especially when mounted to a smaller-size R series.
View attachment 182982

Like being able to stand it up in your bag so it takes 1 slot rather than laying down and taking two. If that holds up, that is a massive difference.

 

[knight427]

Well, according to Tony Northrup, the new coatings on the mk3 was not quite a 'minimal change':

That's an interesting video, I had not seen it. It makes a nice specific use case rationale for upgrading. It does not however have anything to do with the interwebz group-think conclusion that the change was minimal in the context of my post (which is all about minimal effort, not minimal results). From an R&D and manufacturing perspective, the mkIII still seems like a minimal effort change. Of course I'd be happy to change my opinion if any Canon optical design engineers wanted to jump in and contradict me!

 

[jdavidse]

Like being able to stand it up in your bag so it takes 1 slot rather than laying down and taking two. If that holds up, that is a massive difference.

This is so huge. Think Tank is going to have to sell smaller bags

 

[deleteme]

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!

Ghosting and flare is decently controlled on the 11-24. The real issues are that on interiors I just can't avoid windows or ceiling lights. The other thing is one has to keep the front element scrupulously clean or you get spots on the image.

 

[deleteme]

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.

Have to say the RF24-105 has been a superb performer for me. Far sharper than the EF versions.

 

[Aaron D]

Ghosting and flare is decently controlled on the 11-24. The real issues are that on interiors I just can't avoid windows or ceiling lights. The other thing is one has to keep the front element scrupulously clean or you get spots on the image.

Yeah, I don't know why buildings need so many windows and lights!

 

[PGSanta]

Am I the only who thinks the 85 looks less than sexy?

Yes.

 

[PGSanta]

Any word on pricing yet? I hope Canon doesn't increase prices relative to EF offerings too much.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Did Canon went, Nikon route and switched Zoom and Focusing ring on the new upcoming 70-200 ??

They did that on the EF 70-300L. I find it moderately annoying, it’s one reason I use the lens collar with a lens plate on it – supporting the lens by the foot puts my fingers right under the zoom ring.

 

[6degrees]

Wait a minute. Check the shape of RF85mmF1.2. I start to question if this is a completely (optically) redesigned (native) RF lens? Or the EF lens with a build-in adapter/extension?

People pointed out that a Sony E Mount lens manufacturer did such trick.

 

[analoggrotto]

Well, according to Tony Northrup, the new coatings on the mk3 was not quite a 'minimal change':

happy couple but why do they always look like they have been snorting?

 

[DrToast]

Wait a minute. Check the shape of RF85mmF1.2. I start to question if this is a completely (optically) redesigned (native) RF lens? Or the EF lens with a build-in adapter/extension?

People pointed out that a Sony E Mount lens manufacturer did such trick.

I was gonna say this was B.S., but then I went back and looked at the lens again and you may be on to something. The front part looks very much like the EF version.

It would be a shame if that's the case, as the whole point of the size of the R mount is to make better glass.