Five Canon RF lenses show up for certification

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
7,989
786
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
Five SKUs for upcoming Canon RF lenses have appeared at a Russian certification agency.

3986C005
3987C005
4112C005
4113C005
4114C005

Of these SKUs, we can assume one is for the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM. It’s also possible that two others are for the two extenders that were announced.
The Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM has the SKU 4111C002.
The other two could be for an upcoming macro, pancake and/or DO super-telephoto lenses. We do expect further lens announcements quite soon.
I was told today that three L lenses were coming in 2020.
More to come…
Continue reading...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: frisbfreek

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,755
636
Germany
This chart posted here recently shows five empty lines for lenses yet to come in 2020.
So maybe we can expect and hope for even more to come than named here by CR Guy :)
 

Bangrossi

I'm New Here
Feb 5, 2018
16
12
Indonesia
I expect this year canon will release low-end to mid-range kind of lenses. Not something ground breaking similar to 28-70 f2. Hopefuly canon will make another f/1.2 primes soon
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Codebunny

EOS RP
Sep 5, 2018
252
189
I have to agree with this, it waters down the L-designation ..
I would argue that any variable aperture lens would water down the L-designation. However, it is just not practical to have every L lens being f/4 at the slowest, and the L-designation seams to mean build quality, water sealing, and focus speed.
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,430
1,076
I would argue that any variable aperture lens would water down the L-designation. However, it is just not practical to have every L lens being f/4 at the slowest, and the L-designation seams to mean build quality, water sealing, and focus speed.
f5,6 has always been an L-aperture, but 6.3 is low end Sigma, and 7.1? No thanks... no matter IS and this and that, that is super slow and unusable in a lot of scenarios.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,371
4,579
f5,6 has always been an L-aperture, but 6.3 is low end Sigma, and 7.1? No thanks... no matter IS and this and that, that is super slow and unusable in a lot of scenarios.
Fortunately, you are not in charge of Canon's lens naming department. A 50mm f/1.2 L would be unusable for just about anything I do as it is too short and it's soft at the edges wide open so by your criteria it's unusable in a wide range of scenarios and not an L.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,371
4,579
400mm f/5.6 vs 500mm f/7.1 is the same situation as 500mm f/5.6 vs 600mm f/6.3. By analogy, 500mm f/7.1 is advantageous because it can put more pixels on target and lets in the same amount of light. See for discussion:
"So, all things being equal, shooting the 500mm at f/7.1 at the same shutter speed as a 400mm f/5.6 but at 2/3 stops higher iso puts 56% more pixels on target and similar noise when viewing images at the same size!"
 
Last edited:

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,430
1,076
Fortunately, you are not in charge of Canon's lens naming department. A 50mm f/1.2 L would be unusable for just about anything I do as it is too short and it's soft at the edges wide open so by your criteria it's unusable in a wide range of scenarios and not an L.
The 50 L is an L because Aperture and build, and it’s the worst L in terms of IQ so I half way agree. But it’s not the overall standard of L’s, it’s far below. Besides, it’s 14 years old and has been replaced in RF mount and REALLY shines now. That’s what I don’t get, why do RF lenses that are worse than the EF-version. Granted, there is no 100-500 in EF, but I think 5,6 is the slowest an L should be. Just my opinion. Fortunately there are and will be f2.8 zooms and even f2.0 zooms. Guess it’s just disappointing when they started off so epic with RF-L’s...
 
Last edited:

Codebunny

EOS RP
Sep 5, 2018
252
189
The 50 L is an L vevside Aperture and build, and it’s the worst L in terms of IQ so I half way agree. But it’s not the overall standard of L’s, it’s far below. Besides, it’s 14 years old and has been replaced in RF mount and REALLY shines now. That’s what I don’t get, why do RF lenses that are worse than the EF-version. Granted, there is no 100-500 in EF, but I think 5,6 is the slowest and L should be. Just my opinion. Fortunately there are and will be f2.8 zooms and even f2.0 zooms. Guess it’s just disappointing when they started off so epic with RF-L’s...
The announced teleconverters don’t have anything viable to attach to yet. I suspect we’re getting a fast tele photo along with the lightweight one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso and Viggo

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,371
4,579
The 50 L is an L because Aperture and build, and it’s the worst L in terms of IQ so I half way agree. But it’s not the overall standard of L’s, it’s far below. Besides, it’s 14 years old and has been replaced in RF mount and REALLY shines now. That’s what I don’t get, why do RF lenses that are worse than the EF-version. Granted, there is no 100-500 in EF, but I think 5,6 is the slowest an L should be. Just my opinion. Fortunately there are and will be f2.8 zooms and even f2.0 zooms. Guess it’s just disappointing when they started off so epic with RF-L’s...
Whether it's the 50L or any other L lens is not the point. All lenses are restricted to scenarios where they can be used and just because you would not use one does not mean it is should not be an L. And, as I have tried to point out, when it comes to narrow apertures, increasing the focal length at the expense of increasing the f-number does not necessary mean a loss of quality in IQ and is often advantageous. Loads of nature people here are perfectly happy to use a 400mm DO II with a 2xTC at f/8 since the gain in resolution more than makes up for the doubling of the f-number. Sony A9 shooters are getting fantastic shots with their 200-600mm f/6.3s with 2xTCs at f/12.6 on A9s. I am looking forward to the 100-500.