Two more RF mount lenses could be coming in 2019 [CR2]

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
2,965
541
Irving, Texas
How about an RF-EF 1.4X teleconverter. That would be ideal for people with some big EF glass already in hand. I mean, if you're going to fill that space, it might as well be with a teleconverter for use with long glass.
Can't you just use the already available EF teleconverters? The cameras come with an EF-RF adapter.
 

AJ

EOS 7D MK II
Sep 11, 2010
605
10
Does the mount have advantages over EF for longer focal lengths? Would a 100-400 have a different optical formula?
I thought the main advantage is for short focal lengths, less than 50 mm normal. For example the 15-35/2.8 IS with a non-bulbous front element. Or standard zooms extending into the short focal lengths.
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
3,813
371
Does the mount have advantages over EF for longer focal lengths? Would a 100-400 have a different optical formula?
I thought the main advantage is for short focal lengths, less than 50 mm normal. For example the 15-35/2.8 IS with a non-bulbous front element. Or standard zooms extending into the short focal lengths.
The 70-200 looks like it...
 
Reactions: ken

ERHP

EOS RP
May 9, 2013
338
54
San Diego
erhp.smugmug.com
How about an RF-EF 1.4X teleconverter. That would be ideal for people with some big EF glass already in hand. I mean, if you're going to fill that space, it might as well be with a teleconverter for use with long glass.
Just after the R was released I did ask that very question to some Canon types. Notes were taken but I believe then there was talk about volume vs engineering effort. Not being an engineer of lenses, I have no idea how difficult it would be to remove the 1.4X III guts and migrate them into an EF/RF adapter, but as they like to say on the Grant Tour, 'How hard can it be?'
 

Tom W

EOS 80D
Sep 5, 2012
133
60
Can't you just use the already available EF teleconverters? The cameras come with an EF-RF adapter.
Of course, but why add length to an already lengthy package. I mean it's not a big deal, but why add a half inch or so of additional length to the lens with the adapter, and then another inch and a quarter for the 1.4X.
 

AJ

EOS 7D MK II
Sep 11, 2010
605
10
The 70-200 looks like it...
Yes, that stubby-looking lens. I was wondering if that thing has DO elements, rather than rear elements closer to the sensor. 70-200 traditionally takes teleconverters, and for this to happen the rear element is recessed.
 

bf

EOS RP
Jul 30, 2014
238
8
100-400 & a pancake lens for sure!
I also like a light wide angle zoom, FF alternative of the ef-m 11-22
 
Reactions: fox40phil

M. D. Vaden of Oregon

I'm New Here
Dec 6, 2018
23
34
I’m wondering when we will see some non-L kit lenses. Now that the RP is out, Canon could use a few low cost zooms to help people move over to FF.
The gap may be filled for now. The EF to EOS S adapter is dirt cheap, and there are scores of EF glass that would work better on the EOS R adapted than on a DSLR until some future season.
 
Reactions: Ah-Keong

Ah-Keong

EOS 80D
Dec 1, 2016
151
8
Does the mount have advantages over EF for longer focal lengths? Would a 100-400 have a different optical formula?
I thought the main advantage is for short focal lengths, less than 50 mm normal. For example the 15-35/2.8 IS with a non-bulbous front element. Or standard zooms extending into the short focal lengths.
Looking at the RF 35mm and the 15-35mm f/2,8 IS.
The new mount with short back flange distance would lift some of the physical / optical constraints of the EF mount especially for the wide and ultra wide end of the focal length below 35mm.

and more leeway for new formula like the new RF 70-200mm f/2,8 and the RF 27-70mm f/2.
Would there be a "RF 85-135mm f/1,4L IS DS" :p
 

Pape

EOS 80D
Dec 31, 2018
124
30
gnah i am allergic for smell of lens rubber .all canon lenses got rubber wheels for zoom and focus?
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
2,965
541
Irving, Texas
Of course, but why add length to an already lengthy package. I mean it's not a big deal, but why add a half inch or so of additional length to the lens with the adapter, and then another inch and a quarter for the 1.4X.
You think an EF to RF teleconverter would not add that length? I'm no optics engineer, but there would still be the flange distance to deal with. That isn't going away. Who knows? Maybe it is possible. I don't think so though.
 
Reactions: Michael Clark