Here’s the full list of gear Canon will announce on September 5

[justaCanonuser]

A sneak preview of Canon's mirrorless !!

Ha ha, like that much!

 

[fullstop]

Some write 5 lenses, I count 4 ... ?

Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 M IS
Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM
Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM
Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L USM

 

[Quarkcharmed]

That wasn’t Kit.’s point – he was suggesting that a circular polarizer is not required, i.e. it could be a linear polarizer instead. However, while that would be true for CDAF, I think a linear PL wold be a problem for DPAF. The problem occurs when the the angle of polarization conflicts with the orientation of the beam splitter for PDAF. The fact that DPAF uses millions of really tiny beam splitters and off-sensor PDAF uses a few larger beam splitters doesn’t negate the problem.8

With a MILC, you might have to look harder for the problem, since the cameras default to CDAF if PDAF fails meaning focus is achieved albeit more slowly, whereas on a DSLR if PDAF fails, you can’t achieve focus.

Very true then. I forgot there are simple linear polarisers.

 

[paulo defender]

A sneak preview of Canon's mirrorless !!

This is so very, very good.
Even if the new camera doesn't appear we should all be glad that the rumours produced this comedy gold. "Canon is doomed, it's a failure!" You sir are a genius!

 

[Mikehit]

Some write 5 lenses, I count 4 ... ?

Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 M IS
Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM
Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM
Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L USM

You missed the Canon EOS R w/24-105mm f/4L kit

Which is an interesting division between 'RF' and 'R' lenses

 

[justaCanonuser]

This was such good marketing from Nikon, really. The Z mount is only huge next to Nikon's own F mount and Sony's E mount. It's just one mm wider than the EF mount.
So of course flange distance seems to be a thing, but based on the Z lenses we've seen so far, only the f/4 wide angle zoom looks exceptionally small (but then again it doesn't have an IS so the f/4 zooms from Canon and Nikon are probably not a good comparison).

Well, for Nikon that was a revolution! Finally, they turn their "after lens pinhole" technology into a real lens mount But you're right, the specs of the current Z lenses doesn't indicate that they already make full use of the possibilities they have.

 

[mjg79]

Neat – hadn’t run across this lens previously.

Bet it comes with a nice Dixie cup-style rear lens cap...

You can read a bit more here, and also about the 12mm version:

https://www.cameraquest.com/VCSL1215.htm

If you compare it to the E-mount Voigtlander 12 and 15mm lenses you can see the size ends up being about the same, it's just a question of whether the glass elements are forward of the mount (e.g. Sony), inside the mount (e.g. these for Nikon) or perhaps one might add with Leica M mount a bit of both. There's no free lunch at the end of the day! I think if Canon adopts such an approach we will see the rear parts very well protected, as you can see to a smaller scale in some of the Leica M-mount lenses. And yeah the rear lens cap would be pretty extreme!

 

[justaCanonuser]

You missed the Canon EOS R w/24-105mm f/4L kit

Which is an interesting division between 'RF' and 'R' lenses

Well I was the guy with the 5 lenses, but fullstop is right, it's only 4 so far. I don't think the 24-105 mm in the kit will differ from that one sold separately. So it was wishful self-deception, sorry...

 

[Quarkcharmed]

You missed the Canon EOS R w/24-105mm f/4L kit

Which is an interesting division between 'RF' and 'R' lenses

I think the new lenses are all RF, and R in 'Canon EOS R' relates to camera model, not the lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I’ll be captain obvious for a second.

Ok, two quick things:
1) the overlap with existing EF lens ( 24-105 f/4, for example) implies that there is something different about RF lenses.
2). If the EF lens can be mounted natively, it would imply complete functionality. Thus, what is the point of the RF mount?

That, to me is a bit of a paradox. It is true with EF and EF-s lenses, but that is a minor difference of where the last element could be situated. If similar to EF-s, that only really benefits shorter focal lengths. Thus is the future still EF for longer focal lengths?

What does it say about flange distance? For EF to work, it would need to be 44 mm. So they are not going to something shorter?

Quite possibly the RF lens protrudes into the body, into the space formerly occupied by the mirror box, meaning a lens+body combo that’s about 1” / 2.5cm shorter than the current DSLR+24-105/4L IS. The lack of IS (because of IBIS) may also enable them to make the RF version smaller than the EF version. Plus, if it’s a new mount, a kit lens is needed.

 

[DaveGrice]

EOS R = EOS Revolution

I'm going with "R for Reinventing Mirrorless". Oh wait... that's already taken...

 

[Mikehit]

Well I was the guy with the 5 lenses, but fullstop is right, it's only 4 so far. I don't think the 24-105 mm in the kit will differ from that one sold separately. So it was wishful self-deception, sorry...

I see - the initial 'R' kit has the standard 24-105 EF lens

 

[amorse]

Not sure about the F2.8, but given the changes to the F4, I think it's likely there were some major upgrades in the construction, if not the optical quality of the F2.8

Certainly possible that there was some un-announced construction changes, but according to Canon's announcement there were no optical changes, and no changes to lens design, AF motor, IS system. From the announcement:

"It’s very important to be clear that the EF 70–200mm f/2.8L IS III USM lens has not changed: the glass in this lens is the same as its predecessor. The optical design itself, highlighted by one Fluorite and five UD-glass (Ultra-low Dispersion) elements, remains exactly the same as with the highly-regarded f/2.8 Version II design.

The lens’ electronic design, ring-type Ultrasonic motor for AF, Image Stabilization system (3.5 stops of shake correction), and so on are likewise identical in the Version III lens to its predecessor. Mechanically, this lens remains the same as the previous model, including its weather-resistant construction."

This was a point of significant forum ire - lots of people questioned why the lens was being updated when the rumours started, suggesting it was good enough as is. Then many complained it was not updated enough following the announcement that the only changes were updates to some lettering on the lens, the paint colour, and the coatings to reduce flare.

My only point here (and originally) was that it made sense for Canon to avoid messing too much with this design when it is so good already, and there may have been significant design demands behinds the scenes for this laundry list of lenses rumoured today.

 

[ahsanford]

Just got into the office and I'm reading all this.

Holy crap.

So if I've got this right (please straighten me out -- 8 pages of comments are too much to parse this morning):

• FF mirrorless is indeed happening
• One body only
• IBIS potentially not there -- I see IS called out on one lens
• Thin mount (I saw an adaptor line item)
• Holy hell those lenses
  • f/2 zoom and f/1.2 prime - yowza
  • The L moniker lives on (no surprise)
  • But there's also an M designation attached to the aperture of the 35 prime. They don't do that with macro (also, f/1.8 + macro tends not to coexist), so is it another line of lens?
  • USM lives on, so the hope of non-FBW lenses continues (...though they might be Nano and therefore FBW)

Ridiculous. The thin mount tell will make this a 30 page thread, but I think the lenses are the real star of this announcement. Canon's pushing the boat out here.

I still think it will be the $2k-ish 'entry' price point spec on the body, but with these lenses -- wow -- does anyone think the first body out will be 5-series spec'd instead?

- A

 

[fullstop]

A sneak preview of Canon's mirrorless !!

priceless!

 

[ahsanford]

No CR3 tag, so presumably this remains a rumor. If this rumor turns out to be true, there will be plenty of crow to be served on these forms.

Does Noki ever get it wrong? I thought they were the end-game leak store.

Am I wrong to treat this as a done deal?

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

I see - the initial 'R' kit has the standard 24-105 EF lens

Huh? No, the EOS R kit would the RF 24-105 f/4L. If it was EF, it would have had the IS designation because there is no EF 24-105mm f/4L without IS (and it would also have had the II designation because the MkI has been DC’d).

 

[justaCanonuser]

You can read a bit more here, and also about the 12mm version:

https://www.cameraquest.com/VCSL1215.htm

And yeah the rear lens cap would be pretty extreme!

I'd expect a rear lens pot, not a cap...

 

[mjg79]

I think the lenses are the real star of this announcement. Canon's pushing the boat out here.

- A

At the end of the day, over the long term, it is the lenses that count. Canon is right I think to push to boat out on lenses and just have one body for now.

If we look back over the past several years even fans of Canon will admit that Sony sensors have at times jumped ahead and also it has been frustrating to not have IBIS etc. But with canon there was always the overall package - i.e. build quality, service, ergonomics, accessories etc - but also underpinning it all has been the lens system and the way Canon continually refines and improves it. The L lenses remain top of the tree in almost all classes.

Over the long run debates about this or that feauture or sensor performance kind of even out but the system with the best lenses will always have support. It's also why Nikon remained popular, we can't deny that there have been some great lenses in F mount too.

 

[fullstop]

You missed the Canon EOS R w/24-105mm f/4L kit

Which is an interesting division between 'RF' and 'R' lenses

aha, i took it for a typo and thought there will only be *one* 24-105/4 lens (in kit and separate) especially as both have the "L" designation.
A "kit" R 24-105 L *and* a "non-kit" RF 24-105 L ? strange!