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

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,610
2,072
I don't think you can correct rugby bokeh (which is a result of mechanical vignetting) through Adobe's profiles.
Nor do those profiles correct the differences in depth of field that result from optical vignetting. Having said that, I agree with @slclick that I’ll keep using the word vignetting. In the context of photography, it is clearly synonymous with peripheral shading.
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,365
748
Nor do those profiles correct the differences in depth of field that result from optical vignetting. Having said that, I agree with @slclick that I’ll keep using the word vignetting. In the context of photography, it is clearly synonymous with peripheral shading.
Yeah, but if we talk about practical limits of fast lens designs, it's not only peripheral shading that matters.
 

uri.raz

EOS 80D
Jan 5, 2016
150
101
Speaking of flange distance, how would you feel about an f2 or f2.8 20mm pancake?
I would be interested in a 20mm f/2 pancake, IS would be welcome.

As I have the holy trinity of zooms, which I carry in spite of the weight, an f/2.8 wouldn't really interest me.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,060
514
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. :)
From Uncle Roger:

In addition to the resolution loss from geometric distortion correction, which is what Roger Cicala is mainly concerned about, there's also the extra noise that comes with pushing exposure in the corners, which is what vignetting correction does.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,060
514
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.
The EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro was officially discontinued in 2016, even though there was no direct replacement for it.

The demand for it was affected by the release of the EF-S 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro (which is the equivalent of a 50mm 1:2 macro lens on FF for an APS-C camera), and the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS STM for EOS M cameras. In full frame territory the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS goes to 0.70X MM (1:1.4), which is greater than the 50/2.5 Macro at 1:2 or 0.50X. It also has IS and "L" build quality.

I would be surprised if support for the EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro lasts much longer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

lawny13

EOS M50
Mar 6, 2019
35
43
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.
Well well... what you are describing is everyone being spoiled rotten .

This reasoning of yours can pretty much be applied to every single piece of tech we have. Cars, computers, phones, planes etc etc. we may invent new things every once in a while, but then we iterated and optimize it to death. One of the major issues with us humans if is the fact batt we have developed into a society obsessed with money, and entertainment. As such the only justification to making something is for the making of money, and it takes away a little of that daring, that out of the box thinking that we used to do. Look at how we generate electrinicty for example. Turn turbines... steam, water, wind, fossil fuels (steam generation), nuclear (also stream).

Point is that once we push passed a certain point we simple enter the realm of deminishing returns, and the fact that money is a major consideration when taking risks or not taking them, or advancing at all, we end up where we are. Look at sensor tech for example, we know that silicon is at its limits in what it can give us in terms of DR, yet we are still stuck using it. Optical designs are even more limiting, since we are very much limited to the one example it is all based on (the human eye), and the one thing that it is consumed by (the eye), and of course physics,
 

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
527
134
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.
I recently had a tabletop shoot for a Bourbon distillery. I shot it with my 100 macro but longed for the 135 TS-E. In truth it would not have made a nickel's worth of difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Refurb7

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
213
231
From Uncle Roger:

In addition to the resolution loss from geometric distortion correction, which is what Roger Cicala is mainly concerned about, there's also the extra noise that comes with pushing exposure in the corners, which is what vignetting correction does.
IME, the extra noise from pushing exposure in the corners is about as minimal an issue as they come, since the focal point will so rarely be in the corner. No one would possibly notice but the pixel-peeping photographer who took the photo (cough me cough).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Normalnorm

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,113
1,669
Irving, Texas
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.
I stayed away from the 24-105 because of all the hate it gets from so many, but there's a pro on this board who couldn't understand the flak the 24-105 gets so he posted some absolutely beautiful car photos he took with it. I still don't have the lens, but his photos sold me on it and I'll probably end up with one sooner or later. Thanks to him I learned to take with a grain of salt what I read about a lens or camera body on forums. It is apparent to me that people pass around what they've read somewhere as though they have actually used what it is they are bashing. That includes lenses, cameras, etc. ;) Or they don't know how to use their equipment and blame the equipment rather than their incompetence. This guy is really good at what he does and my hat is off to him. I can't remember his screen name. LSX something, I think. When people who can't take photos start pixel peeping and then drawing conclusions on what they can only see at 200%... I turn the page. I wish I knew where to look for what he posted. Absolutely awesome work from the unfairly maligned (In my opinion) 24-105. Ever notice that the photos at many review sites suck no matter what the camera/lens combo? :LOL: I just check flickr anymore. Damn the review sites and bash threads.
 

jeffa4444

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 28, 2013
1,437
88
65
Well.....

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




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.





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.




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.




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.




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.



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.




Or consumer use existing EF glass on both M and RP.





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?



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.




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.
The RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM may look marginally better than the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM II on test charts but the reality is this lens is superior in every way to its cousin. More flat field, less vignetting, sharper and better bokeh. Mechanically it is better made and now adds the custom ring.
I would never use the EF version for portraits but the RF version is a great portrait lens.
 

caffetin

EOS M50
Apr 20, 2019
44
15
Just curious.Maybe are good rf lenses but don't You think are way expensive.I mean I can buy R model but lenses can not follow the tempo.
 

Pape

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 31, 2018
417
258
RF 300mm f4 1:2 macro would be cool!
And would be good excuse update old ef 300
 
Last edited:

mikekx102

1DX Mark II =)
Aug 2, 2015
52
0
Western Australia
I've been waiting for an EF14mm F2L since it was rumoured April 9, 2018.

Whats the deal with this? Since then the R mount has been released and does this mean that any release of an awesome Astro lens wouldn't be compatible with my 1DX II anyway?