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

MayaTlab

EOS 80D
Oct 6, 2015
185
66
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?
Perhaps marketing should try to find a way to market things that are actually useful to improving one's photography instead of chasing pointless spec numbers.
f1.2 might be useful at some focal lengths... provided vignetting is under control, otherwise it's pointless for actual photography (vignetting doesn't just affect brightness but DOF as well, as it results in effect in a reduction of the aperture off centre).
 
Reactions: GMCPhotographics

slclick

Blessed Be The Fruit Loops
Dec 17, 2013
2,870
308
Speaking of flange distance, how would you feel about an f2 or f2.8 20mm pancake?
I'd love it personally and it would make me rethink buying into the R system. (Which at this point I'm not yet interested, with the 5D4/5 being the next logical step to replace my Mk3)

Yes, more pancakes, please!
 

Equinox

I'm New Here
Jun 29, 2017
17
27
Speaking of flange distance, how would you feel about an f2 or f2.8 20mm pancake?
I personally would really appreciate f2 or f2.8 20mm pancake! Love the EF 40mm f2.8 pancake.....I'm sure someone much more educated than myself will say its not possible...
 

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,198
141
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
I personally would really appreciate f2 or f2.8 20mm pancake! Love the EF 40mm f2.8 pancake.....I'm sure someone much more educated than myself will say its not possible...
I would like to say that it is possible but the light will enter the sensor from a flat angle (relative to the sensor surface) where the reflection of the light is supported ... by physics. Microlenses help a little bit but such a pancake if it's the size of the existing 40mm will show a lot of vignetting at all f-stops.
But: If size matters you have to make compromises and better to have a good compromise than nothing!

Maybe a 40mm "thick" pancake might be a very compact compromise with less vignetting - I would prefer that solution.
 
Reactions: Equinox and slclick

st jack photography

..a shuttered lens, backwards viewing backwards..
Consider this: the EF 50 f2.5 MACRO is/was a masterpiece, BUT it is one of their oldest EF lenses, still in use after a 1987 design (I think it was 1987). I would look for an updated RF 50 f2.5 MACRO, with a rear element that moves, not the front barrel, and I believe this may be a first on a technicality (the internal focus on a 50 macro). If you really want to see something original, though, as Canon does innovate at times, then they may make a RF 50 w/true MACRO 1:1 magnification, which I think would definitely be a first, as the Laowa is 60mm, and the SIGMA is 70, I believe. Still, think about how loooonnnng a 50mm IF 1:1 macro would be. Isn't it essentially a 50 macro with a built-in extension tube? That would make a Sigma art lens look like a pancake lens. Maybe they'll do it though.
 
Reactions: Michael Clark

bdbender4

EOS M50
Jan 19, 2017
28
14
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.
Slap a 32 f/1.4 EF-M on an M5 and you have something even more like a Leica Q, at half the price of the RP+35.

But these days I'm feeling - sadly and unhappily - justified at having given up on EOS M last Fall, after 7 years of patient hoping that Canon would fill it in with a real system. RF doesn't take M's place for me personally, either, seeming sort of incoherent in approach. And filling up with humongous, heavy, expensive lenses.
 

slclick

Blessed Be The Fruit Loops
Dec 17, 2013
2,870
308
Slap a 32 f/1.4 EF-M on an M5 and you have something even more like a Leica Q, at half the price of the RP+35.

But these days I'm feeling - sadly and unhappily - justified at having given up on EOS M last Fall, after 7 years of patient hoping that Canon would fill it in with a real system. RF doesn't take M's place for me personally, either, seeming sort of incoherent in approach. And filling up with humongous, heavy, expensive lenses.
I know exactly what you mean. I sold my M5 system because it didn't turn out to accentuate my 5D3 and EF system in the way I had hoped and so far nothing in the R Universe (within my budget) sings to me yet. So I wait for the rumored two other R bodies and the 5DV in order to make a decision. My 5D3 keeps on ticking, even after almost 7 years.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,224
840
Irving, Texas
Perhaps marketing should try to find a way to market things that are actually useful to improving one's photography instead of chasing pointless spec numbers.
f1.2 might be useful at some focal lengths... provided vignetting is under control, otherwise it's pointless for actual photography (vignetting doesn't just affect brightness but DOF as well, as it results in effect in a reduction of the aperture off centre).
I actually add vignette to a lot of my shots. I like it. Different strokes for different folks (working in many different genres), I guess. I've never had a subject complain about vignette, and sometimes it is very heavy. Then again, I work for free. ;) I don't think I'll ever be good enough to get paid on a regular basis.

I'm wondering what product marketing could market to improve a person's photography though. It seems, in most cases, that would be up to the photographer to work out and is what separates the wheat from the chaff.
 

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
483
87
Tilt-shift zooms would be really expensive and out of reach of most photograpers.
I saw an article detailing how to use a TS adapter on APS-C to use a FF zoom. We get pre-occupied with the idea that a TS lens has to be frantically expensive because of its eye watering acutance. In reality the bulk of the pricing decision comes form the very small volumes of production.
The actual challenge here is the lack of interest.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Chaitanya

pj1974

EOS 7D MK II
Oct 18, 2011
588
43
Adelaide, Australia
Slap a 32 f/1.4 EF-M on an M5 and you have something even more like a Leica Q, at half the price of the RP+35.

But these days I'm feeling - sadly and unhappily - justified at having given up on EOS M last Fall, after 7 years of patient hoping that Canon would fill it in with a real system. RF doesn't take M's place for me personally, either, seeming sort of incoherent in approach. And filling up with humongous, heavy, expensive lenses.
I know exactly what you mean. I sold my M5 system because it didn't turn out to accentuate my 5D3 and EF system in the way I had hoped and so far nothing in the R Universe (within my budget) sings to me yet. So I wait for the rumored two other R bodies and the 5DV in order to make a decision. My 5D3 keeps on ticking, even after almost 7 years.
I can appreciate what both of you are saying, with regard to the EOS M and where it sits as a photography system / package.

Having used a range of Canon DSLRs since 2005, I bit the bullet and bought a 2nd hand M5 at a bargain price, just after the M50 came out. With the 'entry level' M50 incorporating a number of good features, this indicated to me that Canon committed well for future EOS M bodies and lenses. I have the Canon EF-M 18-150, 15-45mm, 22mm f/2 and the Samyang / Rokinon 12mm f/2. All have their place. I like the size and reasonably good ergonomics of the EOS M system.

I expect the M5mk2 will be a decent upgrade, and it has IBIS or another feature that I'll really like e.g. advanced AF (qual-pixel auto-focus anyone?) then I will probably upgrade to that. I am considering trying out the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 in store sometime, and deciding if that's a lens I'll like. I have found my 50mm f/1.8 STM with adapter does really well on the M5.

Having written that (and back to topic) - I am keeping a very close eye on the RF lenses. They are some spectacular pieces of glass (& engineering) - both the zooms and the primes. I currently use my 80D as my main 'go to' body - with the arsenal of lenses (including some quality L glass). The RF lenses are expensive, but look like superb investments. Hopefully as the RF lens line-up fills out, I will find lenses AND a R-mount body that convince me to get into that system. The R and RP haven't done it for me (yet). Whether it will replace my existing EF-S / DSLR and/or EOS-M systems or complement it/them, remains to be seen.

PJ
 

MayaTlab

EOS 80D
Oct 6, 2015
185
66
I actually add vignette to a lot of my shots. I like it. Different strokes for different folks (working in many different genres), I guess. I've never had a subject complain about vignette, and sometimes it is very heavy. Then again, I work for free. ;) I don't think I'll ever be good enough to get paid on a regular basis.

I'm wondering what product marketing could market to improve a person's photography though. It seems, in most cases, that would be up to the photographer to work out and is what separates the wheat from the chaff.
It's unfortunate that vignetting has been associated with peripheral brightness to the point that it's not known that it actually affects depth of field.
So to be very clear : you can't "add" vignetting in post, and neither can you remove it. You can add or remove peripheral brightness - which is very much a question of taste :D.

I wasn't suggesting that marketing helps improve people's photography, but manages to push forwards the aspects that truly make a difference in most people's shots. The 50mm RF's f1.2 aperture is mostly a marketing move as it's got too much vignetting to make it noticeable for 80% of the frame at common shooting distances. On the other and, the way it deals with out of focus areas off centre vs. the EF version isn't just marketing and can easily be perceived even in very small prints.
 

Equinox

I'm New Here
Jun 29, 2017
17
27
I would like to say that it is possible but the light will enter the sensor from a flat angle (relative to the sensor surface) where the reflection of the light is supported ... by physics. Microlenses help a little bit but such a pancake if it's the size of the existing 40mm will show a lot of vignetting at all f-stops.
But: If size matters you have to make compromises and better to have a good compromise than nothing!

Maybe a 40mm "thick" pancake might be a very compact compromise with less vignetting - I would prefer that solution.
Thanks for the clarification, appreciated. I would happily have a thicker pancake as long as it retained its portability and IQ. Personally if Canon produced such a lens IMHO i think they would sell tons of them....would be a killa landscape travel lens. C'mon Canon make this lens!
 

RayValdez360

EOS RP
Jun 6, 2012
282
90
Canon is probably just making expensive lenses because the cheap ones will threaten the high end ones. Technology is at the point where a cheaper RF lens is going to be good and comparable to the expensive ones at the fraction of the price. You want cheap adapt or wait. until they sell enough high end lenses.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
575
246
As far as macro is concerned Canon themselves have some uniques macros- MP-E 65, Ef-M 28mm. Apart from these there are 2 Venus Laowa lenses 60mm and 100mm macros. few Tilt shift Macros from Schnieder and hartblei along with Canon's own Tilt shift macros. So there nothing new Canon can do that they or others havent dont before.
Well.....

Canon did just file a patent for a TS lens with IS.


I agree that it's a lower priority, but I'll argue against dead as well. To me, the existence of the RP shows that Canon is still interested in providing products for its enthusiast customers. Once they have the major L glass gaps covered, I'd be shocked if they didn't start rolling out the non-L glass lineup.
I won't be shocked by non-L glass in the RF mount. I will be pleasantly surprised if any of those lenses are remotely as cheap as their EF counterparts. I doubt we will ever see any RF glass such as a sub-$500 85/1.8, 100/2, or 24/2.8. We may see a 50/1.8 or 35/2 below $500, but they'll be priced closer to $500 than to the $150 EF50mm f/1.8 STM.



A zoom 1:1 macro hasn't been done by Canon so far.
Or a TSe zoom macro...
For all practical purposes, the MP-E 65mm 1-5X Macro is a zoom lens. Since it can not focus collimated light anywhere behind the lens' rear element, there's no real way to express it's "actual" focal length, which is measured by how far behind the rear nodal point collimated light (light coming from a distance of infinity) is brought to focus.

At 1X it gives the same angle of view (AoV) as a theoretical 65mm single element thin lens lens focused at unity (1:1 magnification) which is equivalent to the AoV provided by a 130mm lens focused at infinity.

At 5X it gives the same AoV as a theoretical 325mm single element thin lens focused at unity, which is equivalent to the AoV provided by a 650mm lens focused at infinity.


Same here - while the money is there I cannot justify these expenses for the minimum advantage for my photography. And I would prefer unsuspicousness over the least quantum of quality only visible close up in 100x150cm prints.

I think the 1.8 85 companion to the RF 35 and similar lenses (e.g. 2.8 200 IS and 2.8 20mm) might be released in the next year ... hopefully. But I am confident to use my existing EF lenses on an EOS R body because the size advantage isn't that dramatic and the IQ difference maybe only small.
Which is exactly why I made the suggestion above that consumer glass in the RF mount is DOA. Adapted EF lenses are "good enough" for those who desire "price/performance" or "size/performance" instead of "absolute image quality" no matter what the price.


I guess you are wrong: the RF35mm f1.8 IS shows that there is space for lightweight compact glass, I expect an RF85mm f1.8 IS as well as a RF 50mm f1.8, both hopefully with IS...
The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS is the "nifty fifty" of the shorter RF registration distance. 35mm is the design "sweet spot" for a FF sensor with a 43mm diagonal and a 20mm registration distance the same way 50mm is for 135 film with a 44mm BFD. $450 for the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS is a lot more than $150, which is what the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is currently selling for.

If you think the RF 85/1.8 will be anywhere near as cheap as the EF 85/1.8, you're going to be disappointed. I'd love to be wrong, by the way.


There are two protocols for EF and RF, when you use adapter to mount EF lenses on R/RP, it switch to EF protocol. AF speed is same as using on EF body, but the RF lenses have DLO information store in the lenses which EF lenses don’t.
AF speed is also dependent upon available electrical current. That's why many of the same EF lenses will focus a lot faster on, say, a 1D X than on a Rebel SL1. With the smaller batteries in the R bodies, at least at this point, AF with EF lenses that have heavy focusing elements on R bodies will be slower than with EF cameras that use more powerful batteries.

On every level this statement is wrong. We already have the RF 35mm f1.8, Canon have announced the RF 24-240mm. Canon know only too well you need entry points into a system that's why they produced the RP camera and that's why in time they will expand the non-L RF lens line-up. Canon have already stated future cameras will have IBIS higher up the food chain so they are concentrating on the higher end RF lenses to entice pros & prosumers into the top end. Once this line-up has a decent catalogue of lenses they will turn to the entry level again because if they dont they know they will not get the younger, newer customers. Its no different to BMW with the 1 series to the 7 series.
The RF 35mm f/1.8 is the "nifty fifty" for the RF mount with its 20mm registration distance (instead of 44mm for the EF mount). And $450 is 3X what the EF 50mm f/1.8 is selling for these days. Will the RF system have non-L lenses? Certainly. Will they have a wide range of sub $500 primes like EF does: 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 100/2? Not a chance. Those interested in sub $500 lenses already have the EF versions and are mostly happy to keep them to use on both RF and EF-M mount bodies.

I'd love to be wrong, by the way.


Pro get RF.
Consumer get M.
Or consumer use existing EF glass on both M and RP.



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.
You seem to be judging the differences between the EF 24-105mm and the RF 24-105mm based strictly on "spec sheet" and measurement of performance when imaging flat test charts at relatively short distances. Have you actually gotten out and shot with the RF 24-105mm in real world scenarios?

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.
Yeah, I'd really like to see the 5D Mark V as soon as possible. Not because I'd buy one, but I'd like to get a 5D mark IV after the price drops.


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?
I don't consider $700-1000 "consumer level." That's the lower half of "mid-grade" ($700-1500) in my mind. To me "consumer level" is sub $600 ala the 85/1.8, 100/2, 35/2, non-L 100/2.8 Macro, etc.
 
Reactions: Chaitanya

st jack photography

..a shuttered lens, backwards viewing backwards..
I saw an article detailing how to use a TS adapter on APS-C to use a FF zoom. We get pre-occupied with the idea that a TS lens has to be frantically expensive because of its eye watering acutance. In reality the bulk of the pricing decision comes form the very small volumes of production.
The actual challenge here is the lack of interest.
I would have to agree. I remember I took on a bunch of extra work just to buy the tse-135, and while that was a super sharp lens, I used it for my pro work once in 6 months, and then just did an even trade for a sony rx1rm2 once the Canon R came out and I saw Canon going in the opposite direction of what I wanted. I haven't bought a single piece of Canon gear since the R came out. I am just waiting for the 5dsr m2 replacement. Really, most of my pro work I was able to do with a 50 and a 100 macro, and that is it. I never use my tse45 or tse90 enough to justify the price, ever.
 

neonlight

EOS 80D
Jul 10, 2015
116
8
For Venus Optics I'd mention the 24mm probe or the 15mm UWA before the 60mm.Anyway, what I think you're getting at is:
  • 5x magnification: already done
  • IS: already done
  • Tilt/Shift: Already done
  • Builtin lights: already done
  • 1:1 in 15mm-180mm: already done
  • Probe: already done
I can't think of many things left that aren't technicalities, from the top of my head:
  • Autofocus for >1.2x magnification
  • Drop-in filters
  • Something light-field like
  • front element not being parallel to sensor (think prism, not tilt)
  • Apodization
Built in coaxial illumination
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,224
840
Irving, Texas
It's unfortunate that vignetting has been associated with peripheral brightness to the point that it's not known that it actually affects depth of field.
So to be very clear : you can't "add" vignetting in post, and neither can you remove it. You can add or remove peripheral brightness - which is very much a question of taste :D.

I wasn't suggesting that marketing helps improve people's photography, but manages to push forwards the aspects that truly make a difference in most people's shots. The 50mm RF's f1.2 aperture is mostly a marketing move as it's got too much vignetting to make it noticeable for 80% of the frame at common shooting distances. On the other and, the way it deals with out of focus areas off centre vs. the EF version isn't just marketing and can easily be perceived even in very small prints.
I must completely misunderstand the two terms then. My understanding is that vignette and peripheral brightness go hand in hand and are the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignetting

As far as it affecting depth of field... oh well. ;) Either way, vignetting/peripheral brightness are well corrected in post through Adobe's profiles, if desired. I think it is a mistake to think vignette is only caused by a lens and cannot be introduced into a photo in post or that it cannot be corrected in post. It absolutely can be. So we have a difference of opinion when it comes to definitions. I agree to disagree. :)
 
Last edited:

slclick

Blessed Be The Fruit Loops
Dec 17, 2013
2,870
308
I for one am not going to stop calling it vignetting, lol. Colloquialisms, jargon, slang...people KNOW what you mean. Scientific terms, not so much.
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
898
375
As far as it affecting depth of field... oh well. ;) Either way, vignetting/peripheral brightness are well corrected in post through Adobe's profiles, if desired.
I don't think you can correct rugby bokeh (which is a result of mechanical vignetting) through Adobe's profiles.
 
Reactions: Michael Clark