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

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
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.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 13, 2010
4,932
1,608
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...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
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?'
 
Upvote 0

Tom W

EOS R5
Sep 5, 2012
360
357
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
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
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0