Three of the four new RF lenses are still scheduled for release in 2019

hamish

Canon 7D II
CR Pro
Apr 15, 2019
22
20
Melbourne, Australia
Just get a Panasonic G9 with the 100-400mm (200-800 equivalent) lens. Plus you get awesome stable 4K video, even at 800mm, for much less. I am not joking. Just came back from a Safari and couldn't be happier with the results. I got a Canon RP camera but I use it in other situations.

I have had smilar thoughts. I went on safari last year with just the Canon 200D and the Canon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM. Got some good shots too (Animals of Africa, 2018). I was backpacking for 3 months and had to compromise on size and weight. I've considered upgrading to FF for the better IQ, but I enjoy travel too much and I'm not a big guy, so heavy, bulky equipment is really problematic.

I'm strongly considering something like the Pana G9, the 100-300mm (it's much smaller and cheaper than the 100-400mm), and some of the primes and/or zooms. I know, that compared to FF, there are compromises on DoF and certain low light situations with m43, but I'm an enthusiast not a pro and I'm prepared to live with those. There's a significant size and weight saving, which is a consideration for carry-on luggage. Also much cheaper, so I get to spend more on beer while travelling :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Just get a Panasonic G9 with the 100-400mm (200-800 equivalent) lens. Plus you get awesome stable 4K video, even at 800mm, for much less. I am not joking. Just came back from a Safari and couldn't be happier with the results. I got a Canon RP camera but I use it in other situations.
It hink that using current Canon 100-400 II with crop body is much more universal solution than another system with poor low light performance.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 29, 2016
404
313
The electronic viewfinder is the main advantage.
Well, the EVF is not as advantage in my view (it does simplify the camera and allows the lens to be much closer to the sensor which allows better optics). I was testing the Sony A7 (ii?) a few weeks ago and it had three main disadvantages in my view: 1) there was a short but noticed lag between reality and the image on the EVF, 2) Small objects on the frame (leaves mostly) that moved caused flickering in the EVF which were quite annoying to me, and 3) The image in the EVF was much brighter than the real image so were the colors, when opening my left eye (which I do while taking pictures of moving objects) I saw TWO differnt pictures which obscure my view. All in all, I prefere to see the real optical image.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Well, the EVF is not as advantage in my view (it does simplify the camera and allows the lens to be much closer to the sensor which allows better optics). I was testing the Sony A7 (ii?) a few weeks ago and it had three main disadvantages in my view: 1) there was a short but noticed lag between reality and the image on the EVF, 2) Small objects on the frame (leaves mostly) that moved caused flickering in the EVF which were quite annoying to me, and 3) The image in the EVF was much brighter than the real image so were the colors, when opening my left eye (which I do while taking pictures of moving objects) I saw TWO differnt pictures which obscure my view. All in all, I prefere to see the real optical image.
Your experience is with two generations old technology. I've upgraded from 1ds3 + 1d4 to a7r3 +A9 and EVF (realtime zebra, dof, wb) + almost whole frame AF coverage + Eye AF (realtime tracking - reiliable at f1.4 on 105mm and 85mm) + silent shooting are the most used features I like far better than a bit faster OVF. (EVF does not limit me shooting rally cars - I have bigger kepper rate with Canon 100-400 II + mc-1 on A9 than on 1d4 tracking rally car.) + reviewing pictures in bright sun linght is far better in VF than on display on dslr.
 
Upvote 0

6degrees

RF 85mm F1.2
Sep 6, 2018
125
83
They will be great. Coming up with the $ is another thing. I'd imagine an RF f/2 zoom 70mm and above will cost as much or more than the RF 28-70 f/2. 5 year plan, in my case.

I think RF 70-135mm F2 L may not be a priority giving the fact that RF 85mm F1.2 L is so great. I would think RF 135-200mm F2 L will be a game changer.
 
Upvote 0

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
583
571
122
Williamsport, PA
I think it was a year ago I realized that Sony did not offer a fast, mid-range 35mm prime except the 35mm f/2.8. Which costs $800! It wasn't until just now that they FINALLY released a regular 35mm f/1.8 for their FF bodies. AT $750!!! They're outside of their damn minds.

That does not matter as long as you can brag that you have a Sony sensor, screw that you have crap for lenses that are way over priced for what you get.
 
Upvote 0

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
583
571
122
Williamsport, PA
Just a question: if the main advantage of mirrorless over DSLR's is the size and weight of the camera body, adding a huge heavey lenses, reduces thes this advantage, so?

That was the Sony mantra. Never was true as the Canon Rebel and others were small and light. Once you put a real lens on a Sony it became unwieldy due to extreme front heaviness. Canon looked at this myth and designed the R cameras to actually fit a human hand and if you look at the long lenses they are much lighter and the weight has been pushed way back to the rear for decent balance. Canon is the whole package not just a marginally, at best, sensor at ISO 100. Ergonomics plays a large part for me as I know 99% of people viewing the final PP manipulated photo would have no clue if it came from a Canon Rebel or a Sony a7IV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

RayValdez360

Soon to be the greatest.
Jun 6, 2012
787
555
42
Philadelphia
I think RF 70-135mm F2 L may not be a priority giving the fact that RF 85mm F1.2 L is so great. I would think RF 135-200mm F2 L will be a game changer.
seeing that an 200 f2 is not only huge but also super expensive. i dont see how this is an option and it would kill 200 f2 unless this lens is 6000-8000 to keep the 200 f2 relevant unless they simply discontinue it.
.
 
Upvote 0

FredEOS

EOS R / m50 / a6400
Jul 18, 2019
7
8
I really look forward to the new RF lenses.....I have an R and really like it. I shoot it together with my 5D4 and they are a nice combo. I especially want the RF 15-35.

Having said that, the only thing that will hold me back on buying the Rf trio is lack of a matching body. Specifically something as weather sealed as the 5D4 or better. The R is good, but the 5D4 is clearly a tougher body. I shoot landscapes in pretty challenging environments a lot, and I would be afraid to use the R in a lot of scenarios. So until they release the next R body that is up to 5d standards (hopefully the high-res R....a modern high res body is WAY overdue IMHO) getting the RF lenses is of questionable benefit since I need to use both bodies. When they do, the 5D4 goes and it will be RF all the way. Until then, it's both bodies and adapted glass. Which, for anyone who is on the fence, works very well.

I suspect I am not the only one who will jump in to Rf totally as soon as we see an upper end body that is both durable and up to date in terms of sensor tech, resolution etc.
Same, I sold my 5D4 not a long time after I bought the EOS R. The few drawbacks don’t bother me for what I do and the smaller size and better ergonomics are a win. My only RF is the 25-105, and I use my L glasses with the adapter. Can’t wait to have a second R body with better specs... I know it’s coming Canon won’t let Sony dominate and the announcement of all these RF lenses is the sign that it’s time :)
 
Upvote 0
That was the Sony mantra. Never was true as the Canon Rebel and others were small and light. Once you put a real lens on a Sony it became unwieldy due to extreme front heaviness. Canon looked at this myth and designed the R cameras to actually fit a human hand and if you look at the long lenses they are much lighter and the weight has been pushed way back to the rear for decent balance. Canon is the whole package not just a marginally, at best, sensor at ISO 100. Ergonomics plays a large part for me as I know 99% of people viewing the final PP manipulated photo would have no clue if it came from a Canon Rebel or a Sony a7IV.

The EOS R and A7III are almost identical in weight, but obviously the Sony is physically smaller. It is simply a different priority between manufacturers. When I mount a 28f2 or a 35f2.8 on the Sony, I appreciate the overall size reduction. When I mount my 24-70 GM, I throw on a grip. I find a physically smaller camera easier to work with on small mirrorless gimbals that don't have a lot of clearance. But then again, if you are always working with large lenses, the R would probably be better in general out of the box.

One thing though about the body design/ergonomics is when Sony was forced to move the lens release button on the other side when they went to the NEX form factor it was a great decision. I can now keep my hand on the grip, depress the lens release with my ring finger and use my entire left hand to remove the lens. Most cameras have this button the other side. I used to have to press the lens release button with my left thumb and twist the lens at the same time.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

6degrees

RF 85mm F1.2
Sep 6, 2018
125
83
seeing that an 200 f2 is not only huge but also super expensive. i dont see how this is an option and it would kill 200 f2 unless this lens is 6000-8000 to keep the 200 f2 relevant unless they simply discontinue it.
.

Hope RF Mount does have advantage in term of optical design, which may make this possible and be able to design it in smaller size but to maintain just similar IQ, not like RF 85mm F1.2 aiming to offer much better IQ. This is also a prove for that assertion, :).

Just to clarify my points. If Canon RF Mount does have advantage over saying Sony E mount, RF lenses design should have either of those:
- Smaller size/simpler optical formula, but same IG
- Same size/similar optical formulae, but better IQ
This will prove the assertion.

Canon RF F1.2 primes and RF F2 Zoom seem to open up mirrorless to a different level of photography. Simply put it this way, One Stop (in term of aperture) better with improved IQ (for future photography) as well. Sony E mount seems just to maintain the same level as DSLR. This is just my observation. I can’t be sure yet.

I remember read somewhere Sigma CEO mentioned if shorter flange distance (in Sony E mount) has some advantages over DSLR, it will provide advantage in wide angle lens design. If what he said is true, than the newly released Sigma Art 35mm F1.2 will not be that significant, comparing to RF 85mm F1.2, and RF 16-28mm F2 or RF 14-21mm F1.4.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fabao

RF 10-24 f/4???
Apr 26, 2019
32
54
I have had smilar thoughts. I went on safari last year with just the Canon 200D and the Canon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM. Got some good shots too (Animals of Africa, 2018). I was backpacking for 3 months and had to compromise on size and weight. I've considered upgrading to FF for the better IQ, but I enjoy travel too much and I'm not a big guy, so heavy, bulky equipment is really problematic.

I'm strongly considering something like the Pana G9, the 100-300mm (it's much smaller and cheaper than the 100-400mm), and some of the primes and/or zooms. I know, that compared to FF, there are compromises on DoF and certain low light situations with m43, but I'm an enthusiast not a pro and I'm prepared to live with those. There's a significant size and weight saving, which is a consideration for carry-on luggage. Also much cheaper, so I get to spend more on beer while travelling :)
I like your idea to spend more on beer! ;)
I think it is a matter of picking up the right tool for the job. Portability was also my main concern (travelling with 4 kids) and my gear had to be as minimal as possible. What I really like about this is that I can hand hold the camera all day long and still have the reach to take pictures of small birds in a tree. But also very important to me: awesome stable 4K video at 60fps. Canon still does not (cheaply) offer that.
 
Upvote 0