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.
It's not that simple. One reason the Canon
extenders give such high quality images compared to the teleconverter designs from other lensmakers is that the front of them
extends into the rear of the main lens. The optical elements for an extender with such high optical quality would still need to be located in front of the extra 24mm spacing taken up by an EF to RF adapter. So your EF to RF adapter with built-in 1.4X TC would be about the same size, length, and weight as a regular EF to RF adapter coupled with an EF1.4X III.
I wish they would make a cheap wide angle, something that will pair well with the RP camera. Like the EF-s 10-18 but for full frame.
A FF 10-18 is 16-28.8. There is already the EF 16-35mm f/4. We'll probably see something similar in RF eventually. As the size of the image circle grows, "cheap" gets harder and harder for wide angle lenses with an expectation of high image quality.
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.
See above. The resulting EF to RF adapter with 1.4X would be the same length as an EF to RF adapter + EF1.4X to give the same performance.
gnah i am allergic for smell of lens rubber .all canon lenses got rubber wheels for zoom and focus?
They are fairly easy to remove.
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.
If they do buy more, the first one is almost always a 50mm f/1.8. It's interesting that they went with the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM before releasing a consumer 50mm f/1.8.
Sure, if you like a zoom with a 100mm-diameter (at least) front element...
Why not go whole hog and make it f/2.8 with a front element at least 142mm across?
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.
That's not exactly how it works. Just because the IC at the sensor is 44mm does not mean the image circle cone is that large when it passes through the flange. Many wide aperture lenses have baffles behind the rear element that are smaller than the 54mm throat (or the 44mm diagonal of the sensor). They do this to reduce flare caused by light outside the part of the image circle that will actually fall on the sensor reflecting off the walls of the mirror box. Remember, with zoom lenses the IC is often much larger at longer focal lengths than the minimum IC needed for a particular sensor size. The IC is usually the smallest at the shortest FL and expands more or less in proportion to the zoom ratio as it is zoomed.
It would be huge, heavy, expensive. Look at the 200/2L IS... That's a prime with a 100mm front element.
Or look at the EF 200-400mm f/4 1.4X. Also look at the price. Now you want a 100-400 f/4?
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!
They probably intended to do more for EOS-M before shifting over to RF, but market forces forced them to shift gears to FF RF earlier than they had planned?
Will Canon just abandon all wildlife shooters by not updating the 7D or just drop the whole Rebel line?
I don't think so. I think they will release one more version of 7D/80D and by the time of the next update in 4-5 years, mirrorless will be good enough in performance to make everything mirrorless.
I hope you are right about one more high end APS-C "sports/wildlife" body. Call it a 7D Mark III or a 90D.
It’s interesting to look at Olympus. Their latest beast has a 60FPS mode on the bursts, and then there is the “ pro capture” mode which buffers a number of shots before the shutter is pressed so that if you miss the action, you can go back! I really could have used that yesterday when photographing chickadees. Then we have AI tracking!
I’m not upgrading my 7D2 until I can do something similar, so at least for me, that means no more mirrored cameras.
That 60fps does not have the ability to do AF tracking of a moving subject. It slows down to about 1/3 that speed if you want to refocus between each frame.
Of course it would add length. But it would only add the length of one device rather than 2. As it stands now, you have the length of the adapter plus the length of the teleconverter. You could save maybe half an inch or so by combining the 2 functions, with a teleconverter that is designed for the shorter flange-sensor distance in the first place.
Again, not a really big deal, but not impossible either.
You'd also get the lower IQ current TCs with elements that don't extend into the back of lenses with a 44mm registration give. The reason Canon calls their magnifiers "extenders" is because they "extend" into the rear of the lens.
Not all but plenty, especially bird photographers. What should they buy? A 5D4 or 1DX with 600mm F4?
I'm sure Canon would be more than happy if even 2/3 of the 7DII/100-40mm users did that!
And a magic lens
For $5.7K, it had better be magic!
The focal length and speed of the lenses Canon chooses to release first could be used as an indicator of what lenses will sell the most out of the gate. Any delays on the zooms could be technical or manufacturing process in nature.
If Canon were to maintain a release clip of 8 RF L lenses every 12 months would allow them to replicate the EF lineup in about 4 years.
I would not be surprised if the RF equivalent of the TS-E lenses were released after the fast long white primes.
I would not be surprised if it is a very, very, very long time before we see fast, long white primes in RF mount. The disappearance of the pro sports shooter that can actually afford such lenses and still make a living is going to make such lenses very low volume. And there is little advantage to the shorter registration distance for such long focal lengths.