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.