Three new RF prime lenses coming in early 2020 [CR2]

slclick

Blessed Be The Fruit Loops
Dec 17, 2013
2,870
308
Well indeed the EF Mark I was pretty lousy. I mean there are years of Internet history calling it a 'faux L'.

The new RF 24-105 is slightly better than the EF Mark II, with more vignetting, and about the same optically as the Sigma Art. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the New Wonder Mount. If the short flange is so capable at the wide end, why wasn't it a 16-105? Now that would have been a game-changer.
I owned two copies of the EF and one of the Art, the Art was superior to both my EF and not just slightly like TDP and oithers remarked. I also group the 17-40L in the same class as the Mark 1 24-105 , if it didn't have a red ring you would never think it deserved one.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,090
1,322
Mp-E doesnt shoot to infinity while both Laowa lenses(60mm for crop with manual aperture and 100mm for FF with electronic aperture) are infinity to 2x Mag ratio.
Sure sure. But my statement was a response to the claim that no manufacturer previously had auto aperture in a lens >1x, when that's the point of the -E in MP-E, and that lens was released 20 years ago.
 
Reactions: Chaitanya

6degrees

RF 85mm F1.2
Sep 6, 2018
49
40
Trying for 24mm F1.4 is not a good strategy at all. It is so lame.

These are much better choices:

RF 20mm F1.4 L
RF 16-21mm F1.4 L as rumored
 

Dantana

EOS 80D
Jan 29, 2013
199
48
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
I owned two copies of the EF and one of the Art, the Art was superior to both my EF and not just slightly like TDP and oithers remarked. I also group the 17-40L in the same class as the Mark 1 24-105 , if it didn't have a red ring you would never think it deserved one.
I guess a lot of that is left to expectations, copy variance, and opinion.

I've been quite happy with the images that I get out of my kit 24-105 v1, and a second hand 17-40 I picked up before a trip a few years ago. Those 2 lenses are on my camera the majority of the time.

I'd say their build quality, image quality, and constant aperture put them on a level above Canon's non-L glass.
 
Reactions: slclick

Hector1970

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 22, 2012
1,034
209
Canon are really raising my expectations on the camera to go with these lens.
These are going to be really expensive lens.
I wasn't into photography when Canon started with the EF lens. Maybe its a similar path of progress.
I'm just surprised the rate at which Canon is churning out these lens. All the ones produced so far seem stellar.

I am hoping for a clear 5D IV replacement. 30-40 MP would do me, better ISO performance and some sort of effective eye focusing capability.
After the 5DSR I'm not keen on the prospect of over stretched high MP sensor
Hopefully both the high and medium MP choices will come out at the same time.

The IDX III will be interesting too. It would be great if they made that a hybrid of mirrored with mirrorless functionality. EVF with mirror up.
Better start saving.
 
Reactions: navastronia

Adelino

EOS RP
Jan 21, 2015
282
125
I owned two copies of the EF and one of the Art, the Art was superior to both my EF and not just slightly like TDP and oithers remarked. I also group the 17-40L in the same class as the Mark 1 24-105 , if it didn't have a red ring you would never think it deserved one.
Thanks for reminding me I need to try out my 17-40 on my RP!
 
Reactions: slclick

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
539
190
I am hoping for a clear 5D IV replacement. 30-40 MP would do me, better ISO performance and some sort of effective eye focusing capability.
After the 5DSR I'm not keen on the prospect of over stretched high MP sensor
Hopefully both the high and medium MP choices will come out at the same time.
There is no 'separate' 5D replacement (if people are struggling to accept the EOS R as the equivalent mirrorless model)
The models are stacked between their DSLR counterparts (RP under 6D II, R under 5D IV).
There are two models high and low MP coming in between a 5D and a 1D so probably in a considerably higher price class than a 5D. And the FF mirrorless lineup will be complete for now with four different models.

With the new separate mirrorless line they can keep it conservative as they used to, no need for a hybrid viewfinder, DSLRs will keep the EF mount and the optical viewfinder.

Of course the EOS R Mark II might get the currently missing features like dual card slots and IBIS that will probably come with the top-end models (usually as time goes by the lower end model inherits features from a class above), but it is probably three years away (possibly after a 5D Mark V)

The 5DSR II has been axed but the 1DX III is coming for sure as well as the 5D V, not sure about a 6D III it's been fairly popular but the R and RP (II) might take over that segment if they start addig in cheaper RF lenses.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: slclick

slclick

Blessed Be The Fruit Loops
Dec 17, 2013
2,870
308
There is no 'separate' 5D replacement (if people are struggling to accept the EOS R as the equivalent mirrorless model)
The models are stacked between their DSLR counterparts (RP under 6D II, R under 5D IV).
There are two models high and low MP coming in between a 5D and a 1D so probably in a considerably higher price class than a 5D. And the FF mirrorless lineup will be complete for now with four different models.

With the new separate mirrorless line they can keep it conservative as they used to, no need for a hybrid viewfinder, DSLRs will keep the EF mount and the optical viewfinder.

Of course the EOS R Mark II might get the currently missing features like dual card slots and IBIS that will probably come with the top-end models (usually as time goes by the lower end model inherits features from a class above), but it is probably three years away (possibly after a 5D Mark V)
It is this info/conjecture (which I pretty much agree to that assures me that my next body to replace and use alongside my 5D3) will be either a 5D4 at a great price once the Mk5 launches or a 5D5 itself.
 
Reactions: Michael Clark

Chaitanya

EOS 6D MK II
Jun 27, 2013
1,011
118
33
Pune
Totally right, I meant for third party manufacturers (and didn’t type that).
Even for 3rd party maker there have been a lot of lenses with Electromagnetic diaphragm. Zeiss ZE, Irix, etc all made EF mount Manual focus lenses with electronic control for aperture.
 

Drainpipe

It's all about the little things.
Aug 30, 2014
92
22
www.instagram.com
Even for 3rd party maker there have been a lot of lenses with Electromagnetic diaphragm. Zeiss ZE, Irix, etc all made EF mount Manual focus lenses with electronic control for aperture.
Yup, not disputing that. I’m saying for a lens that goes past 1:1 magnification.

This portion of my original post should have read (bold and underlined are additions):

“I’m guessing it’s going to be an autofocus macro lens that can go beyond 1:1. There are a couple of manual focus lenses that go to 2:1 (Venus Optics 60mm and 100mm), but no autofocus. The newest 100mm from them has auto aperture (for Canon only), which is brand new for any third party manufacturer for a lens over 1:1.”
 

lawny13

I'm New Here
Mar 6, 2019
18
28
Consumer oriented glass from Canon (or Nikon) in their new mirrorless mounts is dead on arrival. Just like consumer oriented compact cameras, there's no real market demand for them any more.
Now now.... we don’t all want to be spending 2-3k per lens we buy now do we? Though a nifty fifty may be nice for many, it doesn’t mean that a lot of us do not appretiate quality glass at a more affordable price. For example, I would be willing to pay 700-1000 for a quality 50 f1.8 or f1.4 lens. 2.5k for the 50 f1.2... not so much.

And I don’t even think canon agrees with you... cuase then why should they have bothered with the RP at all?
 
Reactions: Adelino

David

I'm New Here
Sep 28, 2013
16
0
Why not to introduce a RF 35mm f1.4L first? The 35mm FOV is standard and most common, therefore should be introduced first. I will start investing into Canon R only the moment Canon releases a 35mm L.
 

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,447
245
Germany
Why not to introduce a RF 35mm f1.4L first? The 35mm FOV is standard and most common, therefore should be introduced first. ...
I Think that was the reason Canon startet the RF line with the 35/1.8 (non L):
as the most common standard (WA) lens - for a common price.

I will start investing into Canon R only the moment Canon releases a 35mm L.
That one surely will come by time. Question is about the priorities set by Canon market researches.
You want a 35L, I want a 85 and a 50, both f/1.8 and non L, somebody else wants a 20 mm.
But we all do not know, what in Canon's opinion will gain the highest profit and market share.
That's the nice and thrilling thing about introducing such a new system. ;)
 
Reactions: navastronia
Aug 22, 2010
1,581
281
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
Trying for 24mm F1.4 is not a good strategy at all. It is so lame.

These are much better choices:

RF 20mm F1.4 L
RF 16-21mm F1.4 L as rumored
Actually a fast 24mm is a very good idea, it's just that it's not as revolutionary as when Canon first launched one. It sits in a bag of primes well, so it's a tactical choice of focal length that sits with the 50mm. Ie a 24L / 50L and then a 100L. In the same way a 35L and 85L sit well together.
But from a marketing point of view...the world has had 24mm f1.4's for quite a while. Even Sigma and Nikon makes one now. So what's Canon going to do make it more impressive apart from adding size / weight / cost and an extra R ring?
I thin Canon needed to expand their f1.2 range and have all their fast primes in that category. 24/35/50/85 all in f1.2 to give it the extra cache of exclusivity over the existing and rather good EF versions.
There's just not a lot of "WOW" left in lens design. This is apparent with the 28-70 f2. It's remarkable but huge. The Rf 50mm f1.2 would have been more remarkable if it was f1.0....but even that's not new in the Canon world.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
959
189
I Think that was the reason Canon startet the RF line with the 35/1.8 (non L):
as the most common standard (WA) lens - for a common price.


That one surely will come by time. Question is about the priorities set by Canon market researches.
You want a 35L, I want a 85 and a 50, both f/1.8 and non L, somebody else wants a 20 mm.
But we all do not know, what in Canon's opinion will gain the highest profit and market share.
That's the nice and thrilling thing about introducing such a new system. ;)
Now now.... we don’t all want to be spending 2-3k per lens we buy now do we? Though a nifty fifty may be nice for many, it doesn’t mean that a lot of us do not appretiate quality glass at a more affordable price. For example, I would be willing to pay 700-1000 for a quality 50 f1.8 or f1.4 lens. 2.5k for the 50 f1.2... not so much.

And I don’t even think canon agrees with you... cuase then why should they have bothered with the RP at all?
Another piece of the puzzle is the demand for reasonably priced primes in comparison to reasonably priced zooms. A lot of buyers are going to start with zooms not primes. And then there are people who will be using lenses they already have on adapter. It is not clear to me how robust the market is going to be for low to moderate priced RF primes. The RF 35 is a no brainer. Slap one of those on an RP and you have something sort of like a Leica Q.
 
Reactions: Michael Clark

uri.raz

EOS 80D
Jan 5, 2016
104
55
Actually a fast 24mm is a very good idea, it's just that it's not as revolutionary as when Canon first launched one.
A system needs the familiar, non-revolutionary, work horse lenses as well.

But from a marketing point of view...the world has had 24mm f1.4's for quite a while. Even Sigma and Nikon makes one now. So what's Canon going to do make it more impressive apart from adding size / weight / cost and an extra R ring?
As far as I understand, 24mm on EF is retrofocal, but not on EOS-R. I (naively?) expect Canon can make an RF 24mm f/1.4 which is smaller, lighter, better, and maybe even cheaper than the EF 24mm f/1.4, e.g. has much less than 3.3 stops of vignetting.
 

jeffa4444

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 28, 2013
1,415
67
65
Canon will no doubt have a 24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 and aim to have a 100mm f 1.4 series of L lenses. These then will provide the basis for T 1.5 cine lenses with a shorter back-focus in the future where consistent T stops matter.
 

koenkooi

EOS RP
Feb 25, 2015
265
127
As far as I understand, 24mm on EF is retrofocal, but not on EOS-R. I (naively?) expect Canon can make an RF 24mm f/1.4 which is smaller, lighter, better, and maybe even cheaper than the EF 24mm f/1.4, e.g. has much less than 3.3 stops of vignetting.
Speaking of flange distance, how would you feel about an f2 or f2.8 20mm pancake?
 
Reactions: Equinox