Canon to announce at least 6 new RF lenses next week

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
1,018
115
Wow, looks like they are cranking 'em out right off the bat. Their strength is lenses and they know it...now for an equivalent body to be able to mount them to...

FINALLY a 24-70 2.8 IS but of course it's RF mount. :(

That 70-200 looks surprisingly compact, but I'm assuming that this is a telescoping zoom design...which I have mixed feelings about. I like that my EF 70-200 does not extend, makes for greater durability, etc. On the flip side, it really is a beast which is a disincentive to bringing it into certain places. There actually might be room to have BOTH the RF and EF versions in this case...

Interesting that they chose 15-35, a little wider than 16mm which is fine but hopefully not at the cost of more distortion (there is enough already at 16mm)

24-240 - the ultimate travel lens for the R? Although I can't imagine the IQ would be very good, especially in comparison to the 24-105 (which has enough compromises already). Think I'd rather sacrifice the telephoto reach for better quality at the wide end, personally.

And finally, that 85 looks like a true beast. Even more so than the 50...no IS though. The EF version will likely continue to be unique for a while to come...

I wonder how these will stack up to their EF counterparts...they sold the RF system as this amazing breakthrough in technology and optics, now let's see if there's any real improvement here...
 

flip314

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2018
240
347
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.
Telephoto lenses don't benefit from shorter backfocus. Presumably any 85mm they design for RF could also be designed for EF.

That said, the 85mm 1.2L II is 12+ years old, so I would expect a new formula. I'm puzzled by the lack of IS though. I would think that's almost long enough that OIS would help even once Canon delivers a body with IBIS...
 

6degrees

RF 85mm F1.2
Sep 6, 2018
93
63
Telephoto lenses don't benefit from shorter backfocus. Presumably any 85mm they design for RF could also be designed for EF.

That said, the 85mm 1.2L II is 12+ years old, so I would expect a new formula. I'm puzzled by the lack of IS though. I would think that's almost long enough that OIS would help even once Canon delivers a body with IBIS...
FYI: "EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM" does not have IS.

RF lenses and EF lenses should not have the same structure. EF lenses, using adapter, can be used on RF Mount. But RF lenses can't be used on EF mount. Correct me if I am wrong.
 
Last edited:

windsorc

I'm New Here
Oct 14, 2014
19
6
Wow. It's all becoming apparent now how brilliant Canon's rollout plan is. Lenses are forever, but a body is only for about 3 years. By leading with the best collection of pro lenses on the market, they have the attention of not only the pros but every amateur who hopes to go pro one day. Would it have been nice if they had led with a 5D equivalent R? Yes, but not entirely necessary. A few years down the line nobody will remember which came first. But within a year of launch Canon R system will be the clear choice for wedding photographers, portrait photographers, landscape photographers, etc. Yes, they need to get the body right. But with this lens lineup they have some room for mistakes here and there, or maybe not-class-leading dynamic range, etc.

As was said above, this is going to be an expensive couple of years. Just assuming the below prices (ha right), my wish list is already north of 18k.

Future 5D R: 3500 x2
15-35 rf 2300
24-70 IS rf 2300
70-200 IS rf 2500
50mm rf 2k
85mm rf 2k
Looks pretty even Stevens to me with Canon, Nikon and Sony. These lens releases don't make much difference to existing Nikon and Sony professionals. Not many wedding pros want to use a 85mm f1.2 lens, that is one big heavy lens. All this tells me is that Canon are on the right track with lenses, but behind the game with bodies. If I was a wedding pro, I'd be tempted to stick with DSLRs until we have the next round of camera upgrades. I am looking to move from APSC to FF,with few lenses to tie me to any one company, but Nikon with the 20mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 are what I need, not excessive 1.2 lenses. All the companies will have the bread and butter 24-70 and 70-210 so lenses make no difference there.
 

Chuckmet

I'm New Here
Jan 18, 2019
23
12
To me, the big news is the 24-240. It is not an L lens, and it goes to F6.3.

This is important! This tells us that kit lenses can hit the point where they get lighter and more affordable, this is where the top end of the crop cameras get squeezed!

If you are a new buyer, are you going to get a 80D and a kit lens, or are you going to go FF with a 10X kit lens for about the same price?
80D with a 18-135 kit sells about $1400, I doubt the RP with the 24-240 will even be close. I suspect it will be at least $800 more.
 

Chuckmet

I'm New Here
Jan 18, 2019
23
12
Lee, I think when you eventually go full-frame, you'll see that you do have some additional cropping ability borne out of the increased image quality that'll make up for a portion of your crop factor loss. I found, also, that the 100-400 m2 had just about 0 image quality denigration with the 1.4x teleconverter on full frame, but was a little more touchy on my 7D2. All in all, I found I missed the 1.6 crop factor a whole lot less than I'd anticipated. Then again, I did wind up buying a big white, but I suspect I would have done so anyway.
Everything you said is true however, I purchased an 80D and a Sigma 150-600C for about $2000 total. To get even close to that versatility with a full frame your going to have to double or even triple that price even with being able to crop full frame more. As a bird photographer I quite often have to crop anyway so full frame would be even a bigger crop. We can only hope that Sigma or Tamron would come out with their long zooms in a R mount. By the way I skipped buying the 7D2 because I was hoping to wait for the 7D3 and then delegate my 80D as a second body but who knows if or when the 7D3 will be released?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bahrd
Dec 17, 2018
5
2
That stood out to me as well. The 70-200L glass on EF forewent a telescoping barrel. I'm not sure how they can make a 2.8 telephoto zoom that short without a telescoping barrel, even on a mirrorless system.
I seem to remember this lens was rumored about a month ago and there was a variable length, so it could be that it's telescoped indeed.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
548
528
Ah, I hadn't meant to imply that it did, just that I'm surprised they didn't add it for RF.
As to the missing IS in Canon's most expensive RF lenses, adding IS could have compromised their optical quality, centering issues for instance.
Tests have proven these lenses (28/70, 1,2/50...) to offer an extreme level of sharpness, which could suffer from a moving lens group.
I recently visited Leica in Wetzlar, and was explained the enormous degree of complexity required in assembling & centering their Noctilux lenses (F 0,95, F 1,25).
After that, I'd rather have the F 1,2 RF lenses "IS-less". IBIS is coming anyway.
PS: I have started to save for the 1,2/85...
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
598
217
Yes, according to the previous RF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS patent, it is (length 173-243mm)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bahrd

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
232
36
New image of 70-200, looks kinda short, must be a "barrel extender" design?
View attachment 182984
You know... The more I see this the more I feel like Canon has made a major move here. The 70-200 suddenly becomes a much smaller lens to transport, and I bet a small-medium sling could hold this, the EOS R, and a 24-70 with room to spare.

As much as I don't like telescoping lenses, I would barely use my 100-400 if it was an internal zoom--it would be huge, so telescoping down to the size of a 70-200 makes it stupid easy to transport a 400mm. But a 70-200 the size of a 24-70mm? That's crazy to think about.

Flashback to when Nikon released the exact opposite, their crazy huge 24-70 2.8 VR that was the size of a 70-200
 

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
1,018
115
New image of 70-200, looks kinda short, must be a "barrel extender" design?
View attachment 182984
Yeah, that’s almost certainly the case. Although admittedly it is hard to tell scale from that small blurry image...

Hopefully it is lighter as well.

ETA: it LOOKS like this lens has a setting for mode 3 IS, which was strangely omitted from the EF version III
 
Last edited: