The Canon EOS RP shipments begin on Wednesday

mangobutter

EOS 80D
Dec 11, 2014
101
13
www.e46mango.com
I'm an R user and see no reason to ever return to traditional dSLRs. My R is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and has as good or better IQ than the 5Div. Plus the AF is amazing, mounted to my Sigma 150-600mm is a dream come true! I think the RP will be a benchmark product, which is exactly what Canon wants it to be. A true gateway FF and mirrorless. I have no need for one but am glad its out there.
Agreed. Owning the R makes you realize how stupid and compromising that huge mirrorbox space of a DSLR is. Take it from a long time FF DSLR snob. The massive mirror box/flange distance really makes it hard (and costly) to design a lens that performs. It also makes lenses unnecessarily HUGE. As the flange distance gets bigger, the lens gets exponentially larger.
 
Reactions: SwissFrank

SwissFrank

EOS T7i
Dec 9, 2018
97
43
Owning the R makes you realize how stupid and compromising that huge mirrorbox space of a DSLR is. Take it from a long time FF DSLR snob. The massive mirror box/flange distance really makes it hard (and costly) to design a lens that performs. It also makes lenses unnecessarily HUGE. As the flange distance gets bigger, the lens gets exponentially larger.
Well not exponentially, but could easily be 4-8x the size. Compare a Leica 35/1.4 with the EF 35/1.4. (I use a Leica 35/1.4 on my R as my main lens now.) The EF is twice as long, and twice as wide and twice as tall making it 8x the volume, and on top of all that it's not even that sharp wide open. (Hilarious coma in the corners.)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,654
712
Well not exponentially, but could easily be 4-8x the size. Compare a Leica 35/1.4 with the EF 35/1.4. (I use a Leica 35/1.4 on my R as my main lens now.) The EF is twice as long, and twice as wide and twice as tall making it 8x the volume, and on top of all that it's not even that sharp wide open. (Hilarious coma in the corners.)
Sure, you can cherry pick some examples. So can I...

Leica APO-Summicron-SL 35mm F2 ASPH for Panasonic/Leica MILCs – 102mm (4”) long, weights 720 g (25.4 oz)
Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM for Canon DSLRs – 63 mm (2.5”) long, weighs 335 g (11.8 oz)

The Leica is nearly double the weight, 60% longer, and has 40% more volume (your 8x figure is wrong, unless you’re talking about the boxes the lenses come in...lenses aren’t cubes) and on top of all that it doesn’t even have IS.

And 35mm is a focal length where a shorter flange distance can have a big impact (unlike telephoto designs, for example).
 

Kit.

EOS 7D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
706
278
Agreed. Owning the R makes you realize how stupid and compromising that huge mirrorbox space of a DSLR is. Take it from a long time FF DSLR snob. The massive mirror box/flange distance really makes it hard (and costly) to design a lens that performs. It also makes lenses unnecessarily HUGE. As the flange distance gets bigger, the lens gets exponentially larger.
Are you saying that your 16-35 is "exponentially" smaller on your EOS R?
 

SwissFrank

EOS T7i
Dec 9, 2018
97
43
your 8x figure is wrong, unless you’re talking about the boxes the lenses come in...lenses aren’t cubes
Go review your fifth-grade geometry text: not only cubes but ALL solid figures are 8x more voluminous when doubled in length, depth, and width. (Here's a Leica 35/1.4 vs. a Canon 35/1.4... I'm trying to remember how I took this photo in 2001 given that my main cameras were in the picture. Contax G2 maybe?)

183377
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,654
712
Go review your fifth-grade geometry text: not only cubes but ALL solid figures are 8x more voluminous when doubled in length, depth, and width.
Oops. Then again, I generally don’t refer to cylinder dimensions by height, length and width, but rather by height and diameter.

Your picture is nice, but doesn’t address the main point – a shorter flange focal distance does not automatically mean a smaller lens.
 

Pape

EOS 80D
Dec 31, 2018
119
24
yep its easier put lot of big sucky lenses to get good picture quality than doing it with few small.
like sigma art serie
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,654
712
Granted, but for wider than 50mm... and for f/1.2, 85mm and wider... all other aspects of the attempted design being equal... it will...
Will it? So how does that explain the fact that the new Leica 35mm f/2 SL is 60% longer and double the weight of the Canon 35mm f/2 IS? I’m sure you’ll say ‘different attempted design’, of course. But the fact remains – shorter flange distance does not automatically mean smaller lenses.
 

Pape

EOS 80D
Dec 31, 2018
119
24
sharpness demands raise all time ,more and more lens elements needed for new monstermegapixel cameras :(
even leica cant make it anymore with 7 lense :(
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
2,797
234
Granted, but for wider than 50mm... and for f/1.2, 85mm and wider... all other aspects of the attempted design being equal... it will...
What does “attempted design being equal” mean? What is the rationale behind your stated cutoffs?

A short flange 50mm lens may be the same size as a long flange 50mm lens, but all else being equal in design goals, a 49mm lens will automatically be smaller for short flange than long?

I’m not an optical engineer, but can think of really nothing that works that way.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
2,952
531
Irving, Texas
It also makes lenses unnecessarily HUGE. As the flange distance gets bigger, the lens gets exponentially larger.
Tell that to the RF 28-70 f/2L and the RF 50mm f/1.2L (vs EF 50mm f/1.2L). Photo from SLRLounge. I don't believe Canon chose a mirrorless design to take away "unnecessary" size. Seems pretty low on the checklist. I know you didn't say that, but facts is facts. I'd happily take the far larger RF 50... if I had an R body. Add the adapter for the EF 50 f/1.2L and it is still smaller. Comparing lenses of different designs and from different manufacturers is apples and oranges. Many of my old screw mount lenses are tiny and have wide apertures. They were made for FF, however, the lens design itself has more to do with size than flange distance (though flange distance must be taken into account.). At this point, Canon is clearly not worried about size and weight.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

SwissFrank

EOS T7i
Dec 9, 2018
97
43
At this point, Canon is clearly not worried about size and weight.
Canon clearly decided to stake out the extreme end of photography first: the hyper-sharp 50/1.2, the so-speccy-it-still-looks-like-a-type 28-70/2. I hope they circle back and give us a tiny 35/2 and/or 50/1.8. But it may be that they're assuming third-party manufacturers will be making the modest-spec lenses anyway so they needn't be a priority. Myself, I'm using my Leica 35/1.4 ASPH on the R with excellent results. I've probably shot more frames with it in two months than I ever did on my M6TTL film body. And since I'm positive any Canon would be autofocus, it follows that Canon will never make a lens this small.
 

flip314

EOS T7i
Sep 26, 2018
81
86
At this point, Canon is clearly not worried about size and weight.
Sigma has been getting praise lately for building lenses with uncompromised optical performance even if it means larger, heavier lenses. I think Canon may be taking something away from that trend.

For people who really want a small system, there's still m43
 

SwissFrank

EOS T7i
Dec 9, 2018
97
43
For people who really want a small system, there's still m43
Canon's public prediction is that the small/portable end of the market is dying: if I recall correctly, something like 50% in 5 years or thereabouts. I imagine they're expecting that smartphones will keep progressing to the point that there's no reason to have a m43 outfit, no reason to even have the EF-M/M system, and possibly even no reason to have small lenses for MILFF's such as non-IS pancakes or 50/1.8 or 35/2.

In short, they may be thinking the iPhone of 2022 is going to be so awesome, that if you'd settle for the image quality of a compact double-Gaussian 50/1.8, you'd already get that with the iPhone so why would you go buy such a lens for your R-series?
 
Reactions: Pape