Canon to announce at least 6 new RF lenses next week

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
232
36
Let’s hope it’s shorter than that. 173mm = 6.8 inches. The EF version is 7.8 inches
Untitled3.png
The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS is exactly 6.8 inches--the RF sure does not look the size of the 70-200 F/4, it seems a lot more cramped with less real estate. I'd bet it's a little bit wider but definitely shorter than the F/4. I doubt the patents are exact to the specifications of the consumer lens.

I get he feeling it's at least as short as the 70-300mm F/4-5.6L IS, if not possibly even shorter,. The lens mount makes it look barely larger than the RF 24-70, but that's again just a rough estimate that could be skewed.

If not.. What good is sacrificing the internal zoom just to save an inch?
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
598
217
The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS is exactly 6.8 inches--the RF sure does not look the size of the 70-200 F/4, it seems a lot more cramped with less real estate. I'd bet it's a little bit wider but definitely shorter than the F/4. I doubt the patents are exact to the specifications of the consumer lens.
It is possible that the product shot was done with a wider FL lens, makes it look fatter and shorter.
 

knight427

EOS 80D
Aug 27, 2018
104
160
View attachment 182986
The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS is exactly 6.8 inches--the RF sure does not look the size of the 70-200 F/4, it seems a lot more cramped with less real estate. I'd bet it's a little bit wider but definitely shorter than the F/4. I doubt the patents are exact to the specifications of the consumer lens.

I get he feeling it's at least as short as the 70-300mm F/4-5.6L IS, if not possibly even shorter,. The lens mount makes it look barely larger than the RF 24-70, but that's again just a rough estimate that could be skewed.

If not.. What good is sacrificing the internal zoom just to save an inch?
Just for fun, I compared the A7iii w/ 70-200 f/2.8 to Canon M5 (winch is ~430 g) with the 70-300 (plus adapter). Of course an adapter won't be needed for native R mount.

1549379066478.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: jdavidse

DrToast

EOS M50
Mar 10, 2016
25
23
Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.2-L-II-USM-Lens.jpg
canon.jpg


At this point, I'd be very surprised if the R mount lens isn't the same design as the EF lens. The front element gives it away. They probably have plans to make a new 85mm f/1.2, but decided to put this one out for now and then down the road release an 85mm f/1.2 R II
 

saveyourmoment

EOS M50
Apr 1, 2013
47
6
It would be insanely expensive and a niche lens. If I remember correctly Canon(and Schneider) used to make 90mm Tilt-shift macro(1:2) and cheapest of those two is 1400$ nearly 2x the cost of 1:1 100mm Macro.
It would? yes it is expensive (€2.549,00 here in Germany) But for macrowork (here jewelry) it is better (and more versatile) than my old 100mm 2.8 L Macro. It pays for itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: padam
Mar 14, 2012
2,301
189
View attachment 182989View attachment 182990

At this point, I'd be very surprised if the R mount lens isn't the same design as the EF lens. The front element gives it away. They probably have plans to make a new 85mm f/1.2, but decided to put this one out for now and then down the road release an 85mm f/1.2 R II
I'd be very surprised if the RF 85 f/1.2 is the same design as the EF 85 f/1.2. Given that both EF and RF versions are 85mm and f/1.2 and have the same mount diameter, I would expect them to look similar. The picture comparison you showed seems to indicate that the newer RF design carries the larger diameter further to the rear which may indicate additional elements or larger elements closer to the rear of the optical design.
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,212
773
I'd be very surprised if the RF 85 f/1.2 is the same design as the EF 85 f/1.2. Given that both EF and RF versions are 85mm and f/1.2 and have the same mount diameter, I would expect them to look similar. The picture comparison you showed seems to indicate that the newer RF design carries the larger diameter further to the rear which may indicate additional elements or larger elements closer to the rear of the optical design.
I’ll eat my RF 50 if the EF and RF 85 f1.2 are the same lens.
 

rrcphoto

EOS 5D MK IV
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
View attachment 182989View attachment 182990

At this point, I'd be very surprised if the R mount lens isn't the same design as the EF lens. The front element gives it away. They probably have plans to make a new 85mm f/1.2, but decided to put this one out for now and then down the road release an 85mm f/1.2 R II
the problem with your hypothesis is that you have to allow for the spacer of EF to RF. the new RF 85mm would have a much longer rear end if it was the same design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larsskv

chik0240

I'm New Here
Dec 31, 2016
24
4
That looks like a promising release but this might actually cure my gear acquisition syndrome, looking back at my completed gear set centered around an 5D mk iii it just don’t feel as tempting to sell it at a loss and the Re acquire the whole set in RF, recent trip to japan for some Sakura photos I find my old 70-200 f4 IS just did look perfectly great, and the feel of Evf still don’t convince me to replace with an mirrorless system, plus I can go with 2x 6 years old batteries on 7 days without worrying charging.

To me who’s getting middle aged life have more stuffs worth spending that money on than the marginal image quality gain with lots of trade off
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7

Kit Lens Jockey

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 12, 2016
528
190
The more I see all these new lenses coming out, the more I feel like the EOS R was rushed into production.

The number and class of lenses coming out for the RF mount far outpaces the number and quality of cameras we have to use them with. (Namely, one.)

It's almost as if Canon was slowly and steadily developing a full lineup of cameras and lenses to be released later, maybe this year, but they got caught out by Nikon planning to release their Z series last fall. Not wanting to lag behind so severely, they rushed together what they had on the camera side, and released the EOS R, along with the RF lenses they had ready at the time so they would have some lenses to go with the new camera.

Don't get me wrong, the R does a lot of things well, and the few things that it really excels and even beats DSLRs at (AF accuracy and low light AF) have led me to use it pretty much exclusively now.

But when you boil it down, the R is really little more than a 5D4 that's stuck in live view with a new housing with some decontented cotnrols. Add to that the bugs present in the R (I continue to have my viewfinder information overlay randomly disappear on me), and the missing features (no burst mode in silent shutter mode, really? And yes, I know that's coming with a firmware update), and it's pretty clear that Canon really wasn't prepared to go out with the RF system until this year. Not for a lack of lenses, but because of still struggling to nail down quick and reliable full frame mirrorless operation.

I'm just kind of befuddled by all of these lenses coming out, some of them $2000+ primes and wide aperture zooms that really only professionals will buy, and the only camera you can currently use them with costs less than some of the lenses and is, let's be honest here, not a top level camera, even though it's pretty capable.

I really hope they start making cameras worthy of all of these lenses soon. Again, I don't hate the R, I use it almost all the time now, but it just feels like more of a slightly rushed design experiment rather than something I feel like is a worthy successor to a 5D4.
 

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
525
132
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.
If I still shot weddings I would probably go with Fuji for weight and IQ. FF is nice but the advantages are slight in the real world while the fatigue at the end of a long day is real.
 

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
525
132
The more I see all these new lenses coming out, the more I feel like the EOS R was rushed into production.

The number and class of lenses coming out for the RF mount far outpaces the number and quality of cameras we have to use them with. (Namely, one.)

It's almost as if Canon was slowly and steadily developing a full lineup of cameras and lenses to be released later, maybe this year, but they got caught out by Nikon planning to release their Z series last fall. Not wanting to lag behind so severely, they rushed together what they had on the camera side, and released the EOS R, along with the RF lenses they had ready at the time so they would have some lenses to go with the new camera.

Don't get me wrong, the R does a lot of things well, and the few things that it really excels and even beats DSLRs at (AF accuracy and low light AF) have led me to use it pretty much exclusively now.

But when you boil it down, the R is really little more than a 5D4 that's stuck in live view with a new housing with some decontented cotnrols. Add to that the bugs present in the R (I continue to have my viewfinder information overlay randomly disappear on me), and the missing features (no burst mode in silent shutter mode, really? And yes, I know that's coming with a firmware update), and it's pretty clear that Canon really wasn't prepared to go out with the RF system until this year. Not for a lack of lenses, but because of still struggling to nail down quick and reliable full frame mirrorless operation.

I'm just kind of befuddled by all of these lenses coming out, some of them $2000+ primes and wide aperture zooms that really only professionals will buy, and the only camera you can currently use them with costs less than some of the lenses and is, let's be honest here, not a top level camera, even though it's pretty capable.

I really hope they start making cameras worthy of all of these lenses soon. Again, I don't hate the R, I use it almost all the time now, but it just feels like more of a slightly rushed design experiment rather than something I feel like is a worthy successor to a 5D4.
I agree that the R has a few bugs and one could argue that it is a mirror-free mkIV. However, when it really comes down to it all mirrorless cameras are like that. A sensor that could be in a DSLR in a body that has a ton of customizability and some reduction in mass.

As for the expensive lenses introduced at an early stage, IMO they wanted to declare that they were serious about the platform. They have gotten a lot of grief over the past few years of being indifferent to improvement and specifically mirrorless. These halo lenses are statement that they have heard the public and are responding with innovation.
While the 50 1.2 and the 28-70 f2 will not likely sell in large numbers, they are aspirational markers for many to dream about. At the same time they did intro a very good 24-105 and an affordable and versatile 35. I am confident that a lot of new and affordable lenses will be coming.

On the issue of affordability, however, I think that is a relative term as the needs to recoup R&D and the increased expenses of 21st century production will move prices higher.
Sadly we can't cling to the pricing of yore when a 50 1.8 was ~$100 or less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viggo

DrToast

EOS M50
Mar 10, 2016
25
23
the problem with your hypothesis is that you have to allow for the spacer of EF to RF. the new RF 85mm would have a much longer rear end if it was the same design.
I could be wrong. We’ll find out soon. But it’s interesting that the 85mm f/1.2 is the only RF lens that has what looks like a built-in adapter on it.