The 2020 RF lens roadmap, up to 8 new lenses coming in 2020

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,604
2,059
I say this as someone who has stuck with Canon primarily because of their tilt-shifts—I don't think they need to focus on tilt-shifts for RF, but I'd be damn curious to know what kind of improvements they might be able to bring to TS-E lenses designed for the RF mount.
Certainly not specific to RF versions, but they could add encoders for the tilt and shift to report that in the EXIF. That would enable lens profile-based corrections for vignetting, etc., in RAW converters.
 

uri.raz

EOS 80D
Jan 5, 2016
140
95
Ah, yes you're right. Still, another way of phrasing it is "since 2012, Canon has filled in the few gaps in their sub-$1k FF lens lineup". Seriously, they have a standard zoom, tele zoom, trio of IS primes, and a pancake. The 100L macro is barely over $1k, and the non-L is $600. For the entry-FF user, what's missing?
The trio of IS primes is from 2012, all the 100mm lenses are older than that.

What's missing at the sub $1,000 price point? For starters 50mm & 85mm primes w/ IS, I would buy both at $600. A case could be made for 135mm with IS, but the f/2L is already priced at $999.
 

MayaTlab

EOS 80D
Oct 6, 2015
191
77
Yannick Hong
Oh please can we stop spreading Yannick's articles ? It's to optical science what homeopathy is to medicine.

It's not because it's got a bunch of graphs in it that an article actually contains some valuable knowledge. Yannick's articles are 90% horse manure, 10% graphic design, 0% science, facts, rational thinking, or valid observations.

For starters given that there's basically nothing in common between the Sigma 35mm 1.4 ART and the 40mm 1.4 ART in terms of astigmatism, field curvature, vignetting, spherical aberration, colour aberrations, coma, etc...- all of which affect bokeh and transition areas - it doesn't make any sense to bunch all Sigma lenses into the same basket. Same applies to Zeiss, Leica or any other lens manufacturer.

(The 3D-pop effect in images [...] are pretty clear at the same time, though.)
No. 3D pop is clear to no one as it's got no operational definition upon which we can start to draw hypothesis or experiments. Basically, no one understands in the same way what 3D pop means. Therefore it's completely pointless to use the term in a conversation or an article, it won't lead anywhere.

([...]the differences between different lenses' rendering are pretty clear at the same time, though.)
Obviously yes. But there are much better ways to talk about it than using the term above.
 
Last edited:

Gillettecavalcad3

I'm New Here
Mar 14, 2019
9
4
"Too long" to release a pro camera is relative to the user. Too long for you may not be too long for others, and it certainly doesn't seem to be too long for Canon. I'm content waiting a while longer because there's nothing wrong with my 5D IV and I honestly don't think I can blame even one missed shot on the camera. Canon has said they'll take their time to get it right, and frankly I believe that's the right choice. I can wait, and despite the doom and gloom from camera reviewers, Canon as a company seems to be fine.
But my point is why release all these great lenses if there is not yet a pro body to use them on. The EOSR isn't a pro body. I'm solely focussing on mirrorless cameras here, not dslrs.
 

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
437
251
Frankfurt, Germany
Why do you quote their reference to 'easier to design' then talk about weight? The two are not mutually exclusive. They seem to have done more with the RF 50mm f1.2 than they managed with the EF version.
OK, I accept we are talking about several years' technolgical development since the EF was released so they would have improved that but comments I have seen suggest the RF has taken it further.
The old EF 50mm f/1.2 has a relatively simple design for such a lens, which makes it so nicely compact but often creates visible softness even in the in-focus areas when you shoot it white open. From the viewpoint of optical quality, it is a quite mediocre lens, but if one can accept its character, one can get nice results with a touch of vintage look. I personally had to overcome some dissappointment first when I started to use it, because my expectations were biased by my EF 85mm f/1.2 II. The EF 50mm f/1.2 does not deliver this pop of visual sharpness in-focus and huge creamy bokeh oof that makes the EF 85mm f/1.2 so very special. Btw am I talking about "3D pop"? No, I talk about personal reception, no scientifically based facts.

It is clear that Canon couldn't stick with this old design when they created a successor for the new RF system.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
437
251
Frankfurt, Germany
Designing a lens to have a high degree of flat field correction in order to do well from center to edge at the same focus position when imaging flat test charts seems to suck the soul out of the rendering character of a lens.
This reminds me of my Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 lens. It's design has no flat field correction - well, quite the opposite. When I made my first test shots with my then new copy I really was a bit shocked. I shot a big bookshelf wide open with close distance and realized that only the center was in focus. Then I started to use this lens in real life for landscape, in the street, for exhibition installations of artists for their catalogues etc. and realized to my great relief how sharp and contrast-rich the images were - from the center to the edges (of course mostly stopped down, like you do with an UWA lens). Zeiss has this lens optimized for motivs in medium to far distance, there this lens shines. But it would always get a bad rating shooting test charts from typical lab review distances.

That's why I do not always trust lens reviews, in particular those of specialized lenses. Finally, it's you as a photographer who has to personally like a lens in real life, and that's much more than optical test chart results.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Michael Clark

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,604
2,059
But my point is why release all these great lenses if there is not yet a pro body to use them on. The EOSR isn't a pro body. I'm solely focussing on mirrorless cameras here, not dslrs.
So you buy the EOS R to use ‘all these great lenses’ for now, then when the ‘pro body’ comes along, you buy that too. More ¥ for Canon.
 

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
458
270
So you buy the EOS R to use ‘all these great lenses’ for now, then when the ‘pro body’ comes along, you buy that too. More ¥ for Canon.
You're implying you would actually use the camera + lens to take a picture?!?! Blasphemy!
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,604
2,059
You're implying you would actually use the camera + lens to take a picture?!?! Blasphemy!
No, please don’t misinterpret. :p Canon doesn’t care if you actually use anything they sell you. They just care that you buy it. Particularly for th first 1-2 years (depending on geography), if you actually use it it might break and they’d be out the repair costs.

But for me, yes...buying the R to use a lens for which I had a need would make sense. I just don’t need a 50/1.2, or a 28-70/2. But I do need to use an ND filter with a TS-E 17 and an 11-24, and the PITA of front-filtering those lenses was one of the reasons I bought the R.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GMCPhotographics

mk0x55

[5DsR]
Nov 16, 2018
55
52
No. 3D pop is clear to no one as it's got no operational definition upon which we can start to draw hypothesis or experiments.
Well, thanks for your input on this. I've seen examples of differences in lenses' ability to reproduce the 3D look of a scene through tonal gradations and provided them - see my post higher above with the link to Tony and Chelsea's video, which compares the Sigma 135 with the Sony 135. There the difference is showed beyond obvious - in one case you see the 3D structure of the sceene as if it was popping out of the image. In the other case (Sigma), you see that to a much lesser degree.

On the flipside, I agree with the critics that statements such as "a lens with more than N optical elements will produce poor microcontrast" are flat out BS; because it doesn't take into considerations the quality of the glass, its surfaces, coatings, and other design characteristics, all of which impact the final rendering a lens has.

Definition? I thought I also provided it: Low-frequency intertonal detail. I admit that I haven't operationalized it and indeed it is a tougher one to operationalize (mathematically), but not impossible. Attempt to a free-text operationalization: Given a gradient between two shades of a color (e.g., let's say grey), the ability of the lens to retain that gradient true-to-life, so as to evoke that 3D pop at the one who looks at the picture.

If you don't agree with it, I'm eager to hear what I'm getting wrong here.
 

MayaTlab

EOS 80D
Oct 6, 2015
191
77
Well, thanks for your input on this. I've seen examples of differences in lenses' ability to reproduce the 3D look of a scene through tonal gradations and provided them - see my post higher above with the link to Tony and Chelsea's video, which compares the Sigma 135 with the Sony 135. There the difference is showed beyond obvious - in one case you see the 3D structure of the sceene as if it was popping out of the image. In the other case (Sigma), you see that to a much lesser degree.
I don't know what "3D structure" means. So I don't know what to look for.
I'm not quite sure that a short video with a couple of zoomed in comparison shots is quite enough to ascertain anything.

Definition? I thought I also provided it: Low-frequency intertonal detail.
I'm not an optical engineer but I don't think that this will have any meaning to them. Does it ?

I admit that I haven't operationalized it and indeed it is a tougher one to operationalize (mathematically), but not impossible. Attempt to a free-text operationalization: Given a gradient between two shades of a color (e.g., let's say grey), the ability of the lens to retain that gradient true-to-life, so as to evoke that 3D pop at the one who looks at the picture.

If you don't agree with it, I'm eager to hear what I'm getting wrong here.
Well start testing away then. We've heard a lot of claims about "3D pop" whatever over the years. Perhaps it's time to actually provide measurable test results or at least unequivocal visual evidence instead of claiming that "Grass is red. Don't you see how red grass is ? I'm sorry if you can't see it. Maybe you're just colour blind ?".

It's the job of those who claim these things to demonstrate them. Otherwise scientists would waste their time having to disprove every single bonkers opinion.

I'm all ears to carefully detailed demonstrations / explanations. I used to send people towards this link for an example of how reasonable people go about demonstrating "rendering" claims in a rational, well detailed way but alas the pictures are now missing : https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4031515. This thread is far more informative than anything Yannick Khong has written on his blog over the years.
 

mk0x55

[5DsR]
Nov 16, 2018
55
52
What a lot of confrontation here... I find it a bit unnecessary, but here come my answers more adjusted to that tone:

I'm not an optical engineer but I don't think that this will have any meaning to them. Does it ?
I think it would, but it might be time for you to lift your sight and not limit yourself to what you can express by what you know about numbers and mathematics. Mathemathics is indeed very elegant, concise and beautiful way of capturing things; but also constrained, limited and not always intuitive as all/most other human constructs.
Don't misunderstand me here - I like mathematics and the quantitative, but limiting my view and reasoning to it would be foolish, I'm convinced. Moreover, photography is an art in its essence and the final impact of the images one produces is what is most important. All the operationalizations and definitions are merely tools to crisply understand how things work and how we can optimize them.
I also believe that an optical engineer dealing with photographic equipment will only benefit from developing his/her artistic vision and skill when it comes to photography. That way one can more efficiently do effective optimizations of photographic equipment without the need for hundreds of pages of scientific text, analysis, descriptions, data, etc. etc. to be produced and published.

Well start testing away then. We've heard a lot of claims about "3D pop" whatever over the years. Perhaps it's time to actually provide measurable test results or at least unequivocal visual evidence instead of claiming that "Grass is red. Don't you see how red grass is ? I'm sorry if you can't see it. Maybe you're just colour blind ?".
It's the job of those who claim these things to demonstrate them. Otherwise scientists would waste their time having to disprove every single bonkers opinion.
No argument against the direction which you suggest me to take here. I agree with it. However, this inquiry of mine and my drive to publish about it also has its limits and the level of rigor that you suggest exceed both that and the budgetary constraints I find defensible for it in my case. To get all the stuff (incl. lenses) for a piece of small research study like that, do the analysis and publish on it has requirements that fall beyond what I'm willing to give it at this point. Sorry for that if it disappoints you - I don't care enough to persuade those that are not themselves seeking what lies in and beyond these concepts. Perhaps more, perhaps less. I've seen enough to rule out that it is altogether bogus, though. It's not entirely my job do to what you say, as I haven't committed myself to carrying out a scientific research study on it.

If I was a paid optical scientist/engineer and had the time and possibility to carry out such research, I'd gladly commit myself to the task with the ambition to come up with results as true and waterproof as possible.

I don't know what "3D structure" means. So I don't know what to look for.
I'm not quite sure that a short video with a couple of zoomed in comparison shots is quite enough to ascertain anything.
If you have eyes to see and curiosity to drive you, you might indeed try. It's not my mission to convince you nor motivate you to understand; that is entirely up to your free will.

Those who are curious and willing to explore and understand what this 3D pop might be, will give it honest attempts, just as I do. Those that just want to disprove the concept or diminish it, will find their ways of doing so and there is pretty little I can do about it however hard I try.
 

MayaTlab

EOS 80D
Oct 6, 2015
191
77
What a lot of confrontation here... I find it a bit unnecessary, but here come my answers more adjusted to that tone:
Not any more confrontational than a government stopping reimbursing homeopathic medicine after years of failing to demonstrate its effectiveness.
At some point you've got to draw a line.

Let's just say that I'm tired of seeing the work of people who actually know a thing or two about optics drowned in a mass of baseless articles.

I think it would, but it might be time for you to lift your sight and not limit yourself to what you can express by what you know about numbers and mathematics.
Oh please cut the [Censored].
I'm not asking you to use maths. Just a minimum amount of reasonable, rational demonstration. Sometimes a basic photo will just do, for example such as :

184160

If we were to ask people to A/B them on the basis of "which was has a rounder bokeh ball" we'd get a nearly 100% success rate.

Obviously for finer, less obvious details that's not going to work quite as well. But since as you so rightly put it photography is a visual endeavour you probably should be able to give us some visuals that would lead to non equivocal results if we were to poll people.

I also believe that an optical engineer dealing with photographic equipment will only benefit from developing his/her artistic vision and skill when it comes to photography. That way one can more efficiently do effective optimizations of photographic equipment without the need for hundreds of pages of scientific text, analysis, descriptions, data, etc. etc. to be produced and published.
I don't think that optical engineers have been waiting for your advice to do so.

If you have eyes to see and curiosity to drive you, you might indeed try. It's not my mission to convince you nor motivate you to understand; that is entirely up to your free will.
It's not my mission to try to understand what isn't understandable because it's not expressed in a way that's conductive to sharing an idea in a form that remains reasonably well defined among various people.

Those that just want to disprove the concept or diminish it, will find their ways of doing so and there is pretty little I can do about it however hard I try.
Many things wrong here :
  • If we were very strict, we could say that one cannot prove or disprove a concept. One can prove or disprove an hypothesis / thesis. Well, we talk about "proof of concept" but to some degree that's an abuse of language.
  • to prove of disprove anything, one needs some degree of operational definition.

Right now the sentence "those that just want to disprove the concept or diminish it" is akin to saying "those that just want to disprove God or diminish it".

I don't want to disprove whatever the hell you're thinking about because it's just impossible to prove or disprove it.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,604
2,059
“3D pop” – sounds completely subjective. Even with technical (or at least pseudo technical) terminology like ‘low-frequency intertonal detail’ it still sounds subjective and undefined. What frequencies? What detail? How does a gray gradient in a two dimensional image translate to three dimensionality? Subjectively. That was even acknowledged as, “...so as to evoke that 3D pop at the one who looks at the picture.”

Subjective discussions are perfectly fine, whether they’re about 3D pop, ‘rendering’ (whatever that means, again something subjective that varies from person to person), etc. Some discussions along these lines do blur the distinction, for example saturation. For a given color, the degree of saturation can be defined and measured in an image. But as soon as someone mentions oversaturation, it becomes a subjective discussion. Once you’re discussing something subjective, it boils down to ‘I like A more than B,’ and obviously someone else may prefer B. Arguing about whether A or B is better under those circumstances is ridiculous and pointless.

Heck, even things that are easily defined and measured can become subjective. Sharpness, for example. It’s quite easy to state that lens A delivers more sharpness than lens B. But then you’ll have some portrait photographers adding Gaussian blur to images from lens A in post for a “better“ portrait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7
Mar 14, 2012
251
6
The RF 35 is smaller, lighter, sharper than its EF 35 f/2 IS counterpart. With the camera market contracting like it is, I don't see much of a market for smaller, slower, cheaper lenses. Many of those users will be using their cell phones. Camera manufacturers are targeting enthusiasts and pros that want high IQ that that means more corrected and larger lenses. Sure, there might be a place for a pancake like 40 f/2.8, but I can't see f/1.8 or f/2 primes from the 24-85mm range being small/uncorrected. More likely, they'll sit near the RF 35 in IQ and size.
Many pro's, such as Thom Hogan, have been asking for a kit of light, compact lenses for years. I had to go way outside of Canon's lineup to find such a kit to pair with my RP. Canon needs to at least make a pancake -- that doesn't require an adapter -- ASAP.
 
Mar 14, 2012
251
6
This is the sort of thing I'd imagined when the RP was announced:

184161



Voigtländer 10mm Heliar-Hyper Wide f/5.6 with an RF to Leica M adapter. Widest non-fisheye lens on the market. 1/3 the size and weight of the nearest Canon lens. Much less distortion, too.

Amazing what you can do when you remove the mirror box.

184162
 
Last edited:

ColinJR

EOS-R
Nov 27, 2018
28
19
robertsonrep.com
An obvious (but far from easy) one would be autofocus (including autotilt).
I don't think the RF mount makes that any more possible than EF... I think I wonder if they can make the image circle that much larger, thus offering more shifting ability. Or, maybe the new mount will make it easier to have better, sharper images when fully shifted? ‍♂
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

mk0x55

[5DsR]
Nov 16, 2018
55
52
“3D pop” – sounds completely subjective. Even with technical (or at least pseudo technical) terminology like ‘low-frequency intertonal detail’ it still sounds subjective and undefined. What frequencies? What detail? How does a gray gradient in a two dimensional image translate to three dimensionality? Subjectively. That was even acknowledged as, “...so as to evoke that 3D pop at the one who looks at the picture.”
Well photography as an art form has a lot of subjectivity going for it.
When it comes to 3D pop, I'd rather call it intersubjective.

As MayaTlab wrote above, it is ultimately about impossible to prove or disprove stuff like hypotheses (since everything we work with is somehow conditional and relative), and similar it is with objectivity. Between the poles of objectivity and subjectivity there is inter-subjectivity as a proxy to getting closer to the objective.

However, when someone claims that 3D pop is altogether non-existent BS and compares it to homeopathy that even doesn't make logical sense; that person is either missing the forest for the trees or downright behaves as a troll to only a win a verbal argument. It is also likely that such person really lacks photographic vision and the ability to distinguish the characteristics of an image.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
906
429
Michael Clark



Does this image(s) represent the Sigma Art entire range rendering character qualities you are referring to?

https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/91jtuh
https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/8y17wm
Yes, it does. The background blur is course and uneven. Put those shots side to side with the same model, scene, camera, and lighting using the EF 85mm f/1.2L II and you'll immediately be able to see the difference. But keep on believing that you're using a better lens because it does better shooting flat test charts at closer distances with no background to render.

The 85L would smooth out those cut-off bokeh balls that are fouling some of your edges and make that mistake hardly even noticeable, too.
 
Last edited: