A bit of a refresher on what’s next from Canon

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,239
1,404
Hamburg, Germany
Should that not be 100 -500 in the lens list? It says 100 -400 but the f stops don't match.
This is a completely different lens than the RF 100-500 4.5-7.1 L IS.

It will have to beat Sigma's pretty good EF 100-400 in some way though. Either by being lighter, cheaper, or faster focusing.
It doesn't. Being first party, and equal or better optically is enough for Canon to offer it. See the RF 600 mm f/11, that costs more than a Sigma 150-600 5.0-6.3. Those two are harder to compare (zoom, aperture), but I think Canon is perfectly fine positioning this lens relative to its own lineup.

Also, I don't think the 100-400mm from Sigma is all that great, is it? I remember AlanF being disappointed in multiple copies.

Unless the RF 100-400mm comes in at a low price and a super compact size, I don't see much point of it alongside the RF 100-500mm.
I am sure it will be very affordable. Cropped to 600 mm it is an f/11 equivalent. Being a zoom, it offers more flexibility than the RF 600mm f/11, so I could see them charging a bit more than for the RF 600 mm f/11. Maybe 999 €. Or The could go slightly below its price, if the optical quality is lesser due to being a zoom.

Unless Canon introduces entry level crop bodies as well (I still don't think they will), releasing slow aperture zooms isn't an unfortunate thing. It is Canon providing equivalents or upgrades for its crop lenses. The RF 24-105 4.0-7.1 is the equivalent of a 15-65 mm 2.5-4.5 on APS-C, so a replacement for a 15-85 3.5-5.6 type lens. This zoom is a 60-250 mm 2.5-4.5 equivalent, something that you can upgrade to when you want a little more quality than the excellent EF-2 55-250 mm IS STM provides, without paying too much or going Sigma.

Hard to believe (and disappointing) that the 100-400 will be a 7.1 rather than 5.6.
I agree, that f7.1 at the long end seems to become a trend in some RF glass unfortunately

The L glass is still coming. Catering to the entry level isn't taking Away from anything. It makes the RF system more future proof by ensuring there will be people apart from the current EF owners migrating or entering the system. Don't be so negative about affordable RF glass. Not every body has the enthusiasm or option to spent so much in gear, especially for niche lenses like a Tele. I am happy that Canon seems willing to lower the price of tele options.
 

YuengLinger

Sufficiently Pixilated
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,246
1,529
USA
I'd like to know more about "the positive things with stock on the EOS R5 and EOS R6..."

Amazon, for one, doesn't even have its own EOS R6 product page, just a renewed item and a bundle from a third party merchant.
 

Twinix

C100 III + R6?
May 6, 2020
94
56
Norway
I think there are a few more months to go to maybe at some point they will announce the development and add in a single picture of what it looks from the front.

It probably has the same relation to the C200 as the C70 has to the C300 III
So it will have the same sensor, same 8-bit 4:2:0 codecs with 4k60p and 1080p120p without RAW to SD cards. I would expect it to be a shrink-down C70 body as it will have the same internal ND.
Maybe it will look a bit like an R6 built together with the vertical grip to accomodate the two LP-E6NH batteries.

Hopefully it will cost half as much as the C200 (that would be 2750$) but the price is already discounted on that, so it may not go under 3000$, maybe around 3500$ as previously rumoured. It would be nice for the lowest new entry to be as cheap as possible to invite more people into the Cinema EOS System.
Yea, this is the along the lines of what we already know. I just want to have them posted again, but more confirmed on whats happening and maybe some more details.
Hopefully it will (and the R5+R6) get 4K 50p 10bit Clog2/3. Personally I hope it wont get a smaller body, but if thats the case I hope it still can have BPA batteries, as I really want to use the Swit ones with Dtap. The rumors says something else tho..
For me, having reliable, easy to use cameras is important, meaning the risk of an R6 overheating or that a small part of my rig becomes loose or breaks is not worth it. Therefor I now have a Xa50, and that has everything I need except 4K 50P and the “cinematic” of cinema cameras.
 
Yea, this is the along the lines of what we already know. I just want to have them posted again, but more confirmed on whats happening and maybe some more details.
Hopefully it will (and the R5+R6) get 4K 50p 10bit Clog2/3. Personally I hope it wont get a smaller body, but if thats the case I hope it still can have BPA batteries, as I really want to use the Swit ones with Dtap. The rumors says something else tho..
For me, having reliable, easy to use cameras is important, meaning the risk of an R6 overheating or that a small part of my rig becomes loose or breaks is not worth it. Therefor I now have a Xa50, and that has everything I need except 4K 50P and the “cinematic” of cinema cameras.
I really hope it gets 4:2:2 10bit
 
  • Like
Reactions: Twinix

Tangent

EOS 90D
Nov 13, 2015
123
65
1) If the non-L 100-400 is lightweight, it might be very handy for hiking.
2) I think a 30mm (or 28) f 2.8 pancake would be great!
3) I didn't have the spare change lying around to pay to skip ads, OK, but please dial it back a notch ... or two... Ads inline in posts, rotating ads on the bottom of the page, pages jumping around because of ads. Too much of anything, even greed, is not a good thing. Zheesh.
4) Enhanced Tracking Protection is now on. I'm good. If they're not obnoxious, I'm OK with letting ads run. Whatever.
 

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,070
712
I really hope it gets 4:2:2 10bit
I highly doubt it, there is not enough reasons to move up to the C70 in that case and it would really kill the C200 as well.
I may not even do it via externally either (if it did, it would be a reasobly good compromise) hopefully they will keep the full-size HDMI connector.
 

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
345
271
I agree, that f7.1 at the long end seems to become a trend in some RF glass unfortunately
And had it had been Tamron there would be mockery of "crappy third-party pinhole lenses". Funny that...
 
Last edited:

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,070
712
uh...this. Is this what I hope it is? I thought such a thing wasn't possible, so maybe not. Can you explain, Mr. Canonrumors Guy?

User interchangeable RF mount for Cinema EOS cameras
Makes sense, they didn't say outright that that the C500 II or C300 III would never get RF-mount.
It was already out when they came out with these cameras and it will keep them going for quite a bit longer.

They are going to sell a lot of 0.71x focal reducers for the C300 III or C70.
With this adapter, the extra cost and lack of 4k120p on the C500 II is a hard pill to swallow.

About the C200 or C700 they are older so they may not be compatible, we'll see.
 

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,239
1,404
Hamburg, Germany
Oh no more slow crap now in a 100-400 f/7.1, hell why not f/11. Doing their utmost to keep people away. But hey a 75-135 f/2L priced at probably $3K will do the trick.
Oh boy. This notion of equating consumer glass to crap is really annoying me. Are rebelsl cameras crap too? Is the M-Series crap? At what price point do cars or homes become crap for you? Could you image being in a situation where you buy crap in one aspect, to afford not having to so in an area that matters more to you?

If you are offended by the notion of affordable products, do yourself a favor and move to Leica and co. Canon has always been great at capturing the entry level market. It isn't that hard to imagine the high end benefitting from a healthy base of low end customers of the same system, right?
 

dwarven

EOS 90D
Dec 12, 2019
195
252
It doesn't. Being first party, and equal or better optically is enough for Canon to offer it. See the RF 600 mm f/11, that costs more than a Sigma 150-600 5.0-6.3. Those two are harder to compare (zoom, aperture), but I think Canon is perfectly fine positioning this lens relative to its own lineup.
That remains to be seen. The mere fact that a lens is first party doesn't necessarily make it better. Also, the Sigma version is pretty good for how much it costs. I don't care if a lens is made by Canon or not, and you shouldn't either. I only care if it provides good value.
 

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,239
1,404
Hamburg, Germany
That remains to be seen. The mere fact that a lens is first party doesn't necessarily make it better. Also, the Sigma version is pretty good for how much it costs. I don't care if a lens is made by Canon or not. I only care if it provides good value.
I don't care either. I use a Sigma 150-600 mm C and Sigma 35 mm 1.4 Art because paying more for the Canon variants does not really make sense for my hobby, especially since these two are really good. But Canon does not care about us. They care about the market. And for the market, there is a value in not having to think about compatibility or adapters. We currently don't even know when or if Sigma and Tamron will make native lenses for RF. So long as they don't, a native Canon that is guaranteed to work with the fancy AF and cooperative IBIS in the current and upcoming bodies has some value in itself. And they will probably charge for that value, as long as a sufficiently large portion of the market agrees with the pricing.
 

Swerky

G1X Mark III
Sep 3, 2020
17
13
It appears that these lenses are not for you. Rather, they are far budget buyers and newbies who are just getting started with interchangeable lens cameras. One of the things that makes Canon should a dominant company in photography is that it produces products for all market segments. Canon has a pretty close to complete offering on the high end (it's hard to imagine what zoom is missing, and the 1.2 primes are a good start for the high-end prime market), but they have very few RF offerings for the budget and mid-tier user. These lenses are for them.
I can understand that. But I also hope they would release a wide angle prime, 18 or 20mm at f2.8 for the RF mount. They have an old EF one. Sony and Tamron have such offerings. And a 40mm f2.8 won't be that expensive. Nor would a 20mm f2.8 be. 45mm at f6.3 is limiting.
 

lexptr

Photograph the nature while it exists...
Aug 8, 2014
63
27
www.len-lex.com
Sadly no good macro yet. It is currently the biggest omission in R system for me. Otherwise, the system is already very good for my needs and I'm in for switching as soon, as R5 will be available. Adapter will help with macro for a while.
 

YuengLinger

Sufficiently Pixilated
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,246
1,529
USA
Oh boy. This notion of equating consumer glass to crap is really annoying me. Are rebelsl cameras crap too? Is the M-Series crap? At what price point do cars or homes become crap for you? Could you image being in a situation where you buy crap in one aspect, to afford not having to so in an area that matters more to you?

If you are offended by the notion of affordable products, do yourself a favor and move to Leica and co. Canon has always been great at capturing the entry level market. It isn't that hard to imagine the high end benefitting from a healthy base of low end customers of the same system, right?
And what annoys me is Canon selling us on the idea there anything faster then f/8 should cost an arm and a leg.
We don't have to get upset when others give their opinions about desirable lenses. Not everything is a class struggle.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: scyrene

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
547
603
Those slower aperture zoom lenses being released that go from ultra wide angle to normal are kinda uninspiring. 18mm at 3.5 is fine when the lens is compact but 45mm f6.3 is just useless to me. I'd rather have a prime 18 or 20mm f2.8 and another normal prime f2.8 like the 40mm pancake.
It's great for travel or hiking tho. One compact lens going from ultra wide to normal, save you carrying more lenses or swapping them all the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swerky and Billybob