The RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS is coming soon

[Don Haines]

True. Plus the fact that discussing the light gathered by a lens in the absence of a sensor to capture it is rather irrelevant.

And don’t forget how the optical properties of a lens change, depending on what body you mount it on

 

[SecureGSM]

An APS-C lens normally has a smaller image circle than a FF lens. So, whatever I said about illuminance and liuminous flux for sensors, is also relevant for lenses.

Yes, aps-c lens (typically) has a smaller image circle. By definition. And some aps-c lenses cover FF image circle pretty well.
e.g. Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art at 35mm end only.

Solved

 

[Michael Clark]

Well, it is st


It is stabilized, which helps. Also, on vacation who wants to take pictures on cloudy days anyway?

Those who don't want their skys to be the same boring thing in every.single.shot?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Those who don't want their skys to be the same boring thing in every.single.shot?

+1

Blue skies are pretty boring and rarely make for nice landscapes. I’d take some interesting clouds, and maybe a CPL to make them pop a bit, over a featureless daytime blue sky any day. OTOH, clear blue skies make nice blue hour shots.

 

[BillB]

Those who don't want their skys to be the same boring thing in every.single.shot?

True. The 24-240 is definitely not the right lens for everyone or the right lens for all occasions, but it will likely find a market, especially at its price point.

 

[Michael Clark]

Wouldn't you rather use a weather-sealed lens for kayaking?

"Weather resistant", which is the term Canon uses, does not men waterproof. As Uncle Roger has so often pointed out, "weather resistant" only means they won't cover water damage under warranty. For kayaking/canoeing one needs "waterproof." No Canon EF or RF lens is waterproof.

No such bundle in Europe and adapter is still another interface between lens and camera. A native lens will be infinitely better.

EF and RF protocols are fully backwards compatible both ways. It's nothing like an adapter that must translate "Canon EF" to "Sony E" based in reverse engineering one or both of those protocols. It's even less disruptive than using an extender, which adds additional optics.

Ok, not infinitely better. The adapter not having optics isn't solution to ither issues such as:

• Additional interface which may break, may have imperfections, may bend, and have 2 more sets of pins which increase probability of failure.
• Increased length. This is bothersome to me because I cannot put adapter + 70-200mm f4 L IS vertically into my favourite bag. Plus, with long glass I am scared to put camera+lens in and pull out of the bag.
• Although AF accuracy is excellent, the adapter doesn't work well with some of my lenses (like 100mm f2.8 Macro and 85mm f1.8 USM). Some lenses also focus slower with adapter (compared to my 7D).

I am using many of my EF lenses on Eos R with the adapter and it is usually OK. Here, Canon's target should be, to sell RP + RF kit lens to newbies or inexperienced APS-C users or EF users (or anyone) who want a simple solution. An additional device is almost always negative for these people.

As far as length goes, it's six of one, a half dozen of the other. The front element will be the same distance from the sensor either way. EF lens on EF body with 44mm from flange to sensor or EF lens + 24mm adapter + RF camera with only 20mm from flange to sensor.

A lot of your EF lenses also focus slower on other Canon DSLRs compared to your 7D. Mainly because they have smaller batteries and it seems Canon regulates the speed at which those cameras with smaller batteries can move AF elements in lenses with heavy AF elements.

The 18-200 is a crop lens. Looking at crop lenses, there is the 50-1000 with a built in 1.5X extender. Its super 35 and is available with a EF mount. Thats 30X. It costs no more than some new cars. ($70,000)

At that point, why not go for the DigiSuper 100AF that projects an image circle large enough for a 2/3" broadcast camera with a 9.3-930mm focal length? It gives an equivalent field of view on such a cameras as that of a 36-3656mm lens on a FF camera. It only weighs 60 pounds and costs a bit more than $200,000. It is made for a 9.59x5.39mm video sensor with a 3.9X crop factor.

 

[briansquibb]

Short answer, I'm betting nothing will come on EF but maybe RF. Long answer to follow:

Canon doesn't seem to want to stray from f/5.6 at the most narrow on EF as it would impact focusing success on some lower end bodies. In fact, I think the long offerings from Sigma and Tamron actually trick the autofocus system into believing that their most narrow aperture is 5.6 and not the actual 6.3 that it is, but that can impact focus success in lower light. Since the focus system on most Canon cameras has a lot of f/5.6 autofocus points, but few or no f/8 autofocus points, I suspect that any f/6.3 Canon-manufactured lenses are out of the question for EF. A long zoom with f/5.6 at its most narrow gets really big really fast, and there's a lot of competition out there from third party manufacturers so it may not be worth it for Canon to bother trying to compete. If Canon released a direct competitor to the Sigma/Tamron, it would be huge to get the f/5.6 they'd want and it would likely need to be a fair bit more expensive. I'd point to the Nikon 200-500 - it hits the f/5.6 threshold, but it's still 100mm shy of the offerings from Sigma/Tamron and weighs half a pound more. I think Canon has bet that there aren't enough people who would choose their expensive offering over the Sigma/Tamron reasonably priced offerings, especially if they had to settle for 500mm instead of 600mm.

With that said, the EOS R can focus at f/11, so those f/6.3s shouldn't be as limiting on RF as on EF. On the M system Canon has moved away from that f/5.6 threshold (i.e. the EF-M 15-45 f/3.5-6.3), so it stands to reason that they could do the same on RF. Further, I'm not sure the third party manufacturers have been able to reverse engineer the RF mount protocol, so I don't think they can make an RF mount super zoom with autofocus yet (other than having users just use the adapter), so Canon may arguably have less competition on super zooms for RF which may make building such a lens more attractive to them. It's possible, but if they do it I'll bet that the quality wouldn't meet the 100-400, and it will be expensive as hell because there's no competition.

Probably not the answer people want to hear, but that's my thinking for the little that it's worth!

I regularly use my R with a EF-S 18-135 and the 50-250 - makes a good travel set

 

[briansquibb]

I really want to stay with Canon but at the moment Sony seems incredibly attractive with the 200-600 paired with A7R3 and a tiny A6300/6400 for backup.

How about the 150-600 s that are around?

 

[Don Haines]

Wouldn't you rather use a weather-sealed lens for kayaking?

Yes, I would. The problem is that an Olympus TG-5 (got one) is about as good as you can get with a waterproof camera, and that any DSLR or MILC in production will outperform it. Nobody makes a waterproof high end camera, and nobody makes a waterproof zoom.

The compromise is to use a dry bag or a pelican case to protect a better camera. The problem arises when you try to change lenses. One hand on the camera, one hand on the lens coming off, one hand on the dry bag, one hand on the lens going on, and one hand on the paddle. I am not handy enough (pun intended) to do this without risking something expensive falling into the water. This is most definitely a case where an all-in-one lens is the best choice.

 

[luiskp]

Well, actually, the total light (number of photons) captured by a full frame sensor with the same aperture is 1,6² times more than the total light captured on the final image of a Canon APS-C sensor. You have to (basically) multiply the exposure with the area of the sensor to get the total light. That is the ground reason why the same generation of sensors with the same number of pixels on APS-C have worse high ISO performance (at image and pixel level) than the FF sensors.There are less photons to form the image both for each pixel and the total image on APS-C in this case.

Thus, the total amount of light hitting the FF sensor from an f4.0 lens is the same as the total light of an f2.5 (4/1.6) lens on Canon APS-C, as the aperture is calculated linearly against a single image dimension,( not f1.56, as previously claimed).

Of course, if you crop the FF image to APS-C in post, you get a more or less identical image with he same lens, but that is not the point here.

I

I'll agree with you regarding the distance from rear element to sensor but not regarding diameter of rear element. The rear element is not going to be designed to direct a light ray from one side of the rear element to the opposite side of the sensor. Rather it will be designed to direct the ray outward onto the same side of the sensor. A larger diameter rear element will reduce the amount of light bending occurring in the rear element.

To change the subject and to repeat myself, I want to know if there is a difference in rear element diameter in EF and RF lenses. Some people seem to be assuming that the RF rear elements are larger than EF rear elements. This is far from obvious to me and I would like people to actually measure the diameter of RF lens rear elements, especially the 50 f/1.2 and 28-70 f/2. The three EF lens rear elements I measured all were 37-38mm in diameter.

I didn’t took into account the sensor area size , only the total amount of light, like calculating radiation doses. My bad

Well, actually, the total light (number of photons) captured by a full frame sensor with the same aperture is 1,6² times more than the total light captured on the final image of a Canon APS-C sensor. You have to (basically) multiply the exposure with the area of the sensor to get the total light. That is the ground reason why the same generation of sensors with the same number of pixels on APS-C have worse high ISO performance (at image and pixel level) than the FF sensors.There are less photons to form the image both for each pixel and the total image on APS-C in this case.

Thus, the total amount of light hitting the FF sensor from an f4.0 lens is the same as the total light of an f2.5 (4/1.6) lens on Canon APS-C, as the aperture is calculated linearly against a single image dimension,( not f1.56, as previously claimed).

Of course, if you crop the FF image to APS-C in post, you get a more or less identical image with he same lens, but that is not the point here.

I didn’t took into account the sensor area size , only the total amount of light, like calculating radiation doses. My bad

 

[Bob Howland]

True. The 24-240 is definitely not the right lens for everyone or the right lens for all occasions, but it will likely find a market, especially at its price point.

And what is its price point? I don't think anybody knows.

 

[BillB]

And what is its price point? I don't think anybody knows.

And what is its price point? I don't think anybody knows.

We know it is not an L