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

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,044
313
Vancouver, BC
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.
No, you got it. The optical formula for every lens has a focal point, where the light converges and that's where the sensor has to be. In order to make an EF lens work on an RF body, whether you have a teleconverter or not, you need to add a spacer to increase the distance between the sensor and the lens (since RF has a shorter focal flange distance). There's no way out of it without a different optical formula. The only time you can shorten the lens without any other changes is if there was a bunch of space between the first glass element and the lens mount anyways.

If Canon made an EF to RF adapter with a built in teleconverter, it would be exactly the size of an EF to RF adapter attached to a teleconverter.
 

Woody

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
1,120
30
As pointed out by Thom Hogan, there is a disparity in the thinking behind the releases of the RP camera and RF lenses:

"The Canon RP is clearly an entry camera positioned to be affordable. It's a lowest-common denominator product set up to be sold to folk who can't stretch very far on price above the crop sensor products. The RP is truly a consumer product.

Meanwhile, look at the RF lenses we know about so far:

15-35mm f/2.8L
24-70mm f/2.8L
24-105mm f/4L
24-240mm f/4-6.3
28-70mm f/2L
35mm f/1.8
50mm f/1.2L
70-200mm f/2.8L
85mm f/1.2L

Remember, L is Canon's high-end designation. Which means we have exactly two lenses designed and priced for the RP crowd: 24-240mm f/4-6.3 and the 35mm f/1.8.

... there's a clear cognitive dissonance in Canon's early body/lens lineup, and it has to have some people scratching their heads. L lenses and non-L bodies doesn't seem right."
- https://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/2018-mirrorless-camera/jan-mar-2018-mirrorless/the-strange-canon-mismatch.html

Where are the more relevant lenses (relatively low weight and cheap) for the RP crowd: 24-70mm f/4, 50mm f/1.8 or even 28-105mm f/4-5.6?
 
Last edited:

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
4,848
1,482
As pointed out by Thom Hogan, there is a disparity in the thinking behind the releases of the RP camera and RF lenses:

"The Canon RP is clearly an entry camera positioned to be affordable. It's a lowest-common denominator product set up to be sold to folk who can't stretch very far on price above the crop sensor products. The RP is truly a consumer product.

Meanwhile, look at the RF lenses we know about so far:

15-35mm f/2.8L
24-70mm f/2.8L
24-105mm f/4L
24-240mm f/4-6.3
28-70mm f/2L
35mm f/1.8
50mm f/1.2L
70-200mm f/2.8L
85mm f/1.2L

Remember, L is Canon's high-end designation. Which means we have exactly two lenses designed and priced for the RP crowd: 24-240mm f/4-6.3 and the 35mm f/1.8.

... there's a clear cognitive dissonance in Canon's early body/lens lineup, and it has to have some people scratching their heads. L lenses and non-L bodies doesn't seem right."
- https://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/2018-mirrorless-camera/jan-mar-2018-mirrorless/the-strange-canon-mismatch.html

Where are the more relevant lenses (relatively low weight and cheap) for the RP crowd: 24-70mm f/4, 50mm f/1.8 or even 28-105mm f/4-5.6?
It is often said that the overwhelming number of customers for the Rebels buy only the 18-55mm and sometimes as well the 55-250mm as part of a kit and no other lenses. If true, then the RF 24-105mm may well be sufficient for the RP as a consumer body for the majority of buyers.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,565
263
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
As pointed out by Thom Hogan, there is a disparity in the thinking behind the releases of the RP camera and RF lenses:

"The Canon RP is clearly an entry camera positioned to be affordable. It's a lowest-common denominator product set up to be sold to folk who can't stretch very far on price above the crop sensor products. The RP is truly a consumer product.

Meanwhile, look at the RF lenses we know about so far:

15-35mm f/2.8L
24-70mm f/2.8L
24-105mm f/4L
24-240mm f/4-6.3
28-70mm f/2L
35mm f/1.8
50mm f/1.2L
70-200mm f/2.8L
85mm f/1.2L

Remember, L is Canon's high-end designation. Which means we have exactly two lenses designed and priced for the RP crowd: 24-240mm f/4-6.3 and the 35mm f/1.8.

... there's a clear cognitive dissonance in Canon's early body/lens lineup, and it has to have some people scratching their heads. L lenses and non-L bodies doesn't seem right."
- https://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/2018-mirrorless-camera/jan-mar-2018-mirrorless/the-strange-canon-mismatch.html

Where are the more relevant lenses (relatively low weight and cheap) for the RP crowd: 24-70mm f/4, 50mm f/1.8 or even 28-105mm f/4-5.6?
There is no dissonance here. Canon know that the fullframe R/DSLR market is declining at a predicted 50% over the next 2 years. Canon are pushing out the L rf lenses while they still have budget. Once the decline kicks in...no more Rf lenses. It's the R&D budget that's the issue here. Canon are investing for an income famine....concentrating on high profit / low volume lenses. Meanwhile...making a Pro camera requires a lot of R&D and time...which are both in short supply. So they have outted a mid and low end camera bodies that will sell due to their price point.
If you want an Rf lens and on a budget...there are lots of ef lenses available that work great with the bundled adapter.
The market has shown that many serous and pros will put up with a mediocre camera body (the original 5D comes to mind) in order to access great full frame lenses. Canon know their market better than most gear junkies give them credit for.
 

degos

EOS 80D
Mar 20, 2015
153
88
If Canon made an EF to RF adapter with a built in teleconverter, it would be exactly the size of an EF to RF adapter attached to a teleconverter.
Only if they copied the optics of the EF extender exactly. Why would they? Even EF teleconverters from different manufacturers are different lengths!

At the backplane of the EF lens the optics are making a 44mm image circle. An EF TC takes the central 32 or 22mm portion of that and bends it out again to 44mm in a telephoto manner. An EF-RF-TC insert would actually have an easier job because the optics could be 'weaker' in that it has a longer distance in which to do that. Less bending, more quality.
 
Last edited:

razorzec

700D
Sep 16, 2016
30
36
Mars
Sure, if you like a zoom with a 100mm-diameter (at least) front element...
Not sure what exactly your point is but if my assumption's correct, then I don't see any problem with a 100mm front element if the inherent design of the RF mount allows placement of most of the elements closer to the sensor for better weight distribution, not to mention that it is certainly going to have a drop in filter like their super telephoto zooms.
 

Bob Howland

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 25, 2012
414
21
Wild guess: tiny 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 and 70-300 f/4-5.6. The 100-400 can wait until Canon introduces a pro or enthusiast level body, especially if the current EF 100-400 works well with the adapter. Personally, I badly want the 24-240, although I first want to try my Tamron EF 28-300 with the adapter.
 
Last edited:

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,097
672
Irving, Texas
For now, you use the included mount adapter so you can use any cheap EF lens you want.
And that is exactly where most APSC owners are probably sitting. If they are to move to FF, but are not likely to have the $$$ to stretch very far all at once, their non-L lenses are exactly what they'll use to start. That's why the free adapter. I have a cousin who, just a few weeks ago, switched to Sony FF from Sony APSC. Although he has money, he is loath to spend more on his lenses than he spent on the body. He'll eventually come around. But I think Canon is right with their strategy. Besides, Canon will issue less expensive lenses in the future. It just seems many in the crowd around here are always in a perpetual rush.
 

max_sr

EOS M50
Jan 8, 2019
27
20
It is often said that the overwhelming number of customers for the Rebels buy only the 18-55mm and sometimes as well the 55-250mm as part of a kit and no other lenses. If true, then the RF 24-105mm may well be sufficient for the RP as a consumer body for the majority of buyers.

But the 18-55mm and the 55-250mm together don't cost half as much as the RF 24-105mm, which would push you back to the EF 24-105 STM and if that's the only lens you need, why not go with a 6DII or just buy a better lens for your APSC camera.
The RF lenses are interesting, but the positioning of the RF bodies is just weird. They don't really give you a great upgrade, if you come from APSC and they don't offer many upgrades, if you already have a fullframe DSLR, without taking away other things.
 

bf

EOS RP
Jul 30, 2014
245
11
As pointed out by Thom Hogan, there is a disparity in the thinking behind the releases of the RP camera and RF lenses:

"The Canon RP is clearly an entry camera positioned to be affordable. It's a lowest-common denominator product set up to be sold to folk who can't stretch very far on price above the crop sensor products. The RP is truly a consumer product.

Meanwhile, look at the RF lenses we know about so far:

15-35mm f/2.8L
24-70mm f/2.8L
24-105mm f/4L
24-240mm f/4-6.3
28-70mm f/2L
35mm f/1.8
50mm f/1.2L
70-200mm f/2.8L
85mm f/1.2L

Remember, L is Canon's high-end designation. Which means we have exactly two lenses designed and priced for the RP crowd: 24-240mm f/4-6.3 and the 35mm f/1.8.

... there's a clear cognitive dissonance in Canon's early body/lens lineup, and it has to have some people scratching their heads. L lenses and non-L bodies doesn't seem right."
- https://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/2018-mirrorless-camera/jan-mar-2018-mirrorless/the-strange-canon-mismatch.html

Where are the more relevant lenses (relatively low weight and cheap) for the RP crowd: 24-70mm f/4, 50mm f/1.8 or even 28-105mm f/4-5.6?
I agree with his comment and had personally made similar comments earlier.
On the positive note: argubly, Canon's best strength is making the glass. They are putting their best options on the table. Even for EOSM, they started relatively strong but felt short quickly (22mm & 11-22). For R, they've shown much more commitment. I think even if R doesn't succeed in photo, it will become a movie maker's mount although the bodies suggest the opposite!
 

max_sr

EOS M50
Jan 8, 2019
27
20
There is no dissonance here. Canon know that the fullframe R/DSLR market is declining at a predicted 50% over the next 2 years. Canon are pushing out the L rf lenses while they still have budget. Once the decline kicks in...no more Rf lenses. It's the R&D budget that's the issue here. Canon are investing for an income famine....concentrating on high profit / low volume lenses. Meanwhile...making a Pro camera requires a lot of R&D and time...which are both in short supply. So they have outted a mid and low end camera bodies that will sell due to their price point.
If you want an Rf lens and on a budget...there are lots of ef lenses available that work great with the bundled adapter.
The market has shown that many serous and pros will put up with a mediocre camera body (the original 5D comes to mind) in order to access great full frame lenses. Canon know their market better than most gear junkies give them credit for.
I would guess, that coming up with new optical formulas costs much less R&D money, than creating a new sensor manufacturing line, as the underlying technology of lenses hasn't changed all that much and you can simulate almost everything about it before making the first prototype. That's why they put out lenses quite quickly, but use the same old sensors.
 
Reactions: Michael Clark

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
4,848
1,482
But the 18-55mm and the 55-250mm together don't cost half as much as the RF 24-105mm, which would push you back to the EF 24-105 STM and if that's the only lens you need, why not go with a 6DII or just buy a better lens for your APSC camera.
The RF lenses are interesting, but the positioning of the RF bodies is just weird. They don't really give you a great upgrade, if you come from APSC and they don't offer many upgrades, if you already have a fullframe DSLR, without taking away other things.
The major retailers in the UK are bundling the RP + adaptor with the 24-105mm STM for only £199 extra for the lens - if you don't want to pay the price of the RF lens, there are loads of cheap EF lenses on sale. The RP + 24-105 STM is really very good value. The local camera store is very enthusiastic about possible sales of the bodies alone. Canon has a winner here.
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
171
135
117
Williamsport, PA
This is yet another indicator that Canon will not develop the EF system any further. 100% of all R&D DSC resources will be for the RF system.
Why develop the EF anymore?
The just introduced some powerhouses in it that will carry for several years.
Once EF cameras are stopped, sooner than later is a guess then why bother with new lenses for the EF?
The market is flooded with them and even used ones will be available for decades.
I would only ask that they somehow extend the life of servicing these older lenses to be perhaps 30 years.
This way most EF users will have moved on by death or got the new R mount camera.
 
Reactions: Mark D5 TEAM II
Dec 15, 2014
2
1
I'm a birder with a 1DX Mark II with a 600mm II lens. If Canon announced an RF lens like the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens and an RF Mount 2X teleconverter I'd buy into the R system.
 
Reactions: fox40phil
Aug 22, 2010
1,565
263
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
I'm a birder with a 1DX Mark II with a 600mm II lens. If Canon announced an RF lens like the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens and an RF Mount 2X teleconverter I'd buy into the R system.
That's assuming the Eos R can focus and track anywhere nearly as fast or accurately as a 1DxII....I think you'll find that the Ros R camera is nice but no where near the confidence inspiring AF lock on ability of a 1DxII. Canon have pretty much stated as much in their recent releases.
With my experiences with the Eos R (and i'm no expert with this camera) is that there is an inconsistent amount of time for the processor to read the focus data off the sensor. Sometimes it seems quite sprightly....other times it seems very pedestrian. It seems to have a period of time where the processor has to think a bit for the initial lock and that's the bit that feels very alien to me.