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

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
547
603
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.
Macro and wide angle lenses are probably the least of their priority ATM. Plenty of options available in EF mount, mostly used in manual mode and you even get extra functionality with the drop-in filter adapter.
 

YuengLinger

Sufficiently Pixilated
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,244
1,526
USA
But, again with wide apertures, doesn't anybody remember the NON L faster lenses Canon is loved for? ef 85mm 1.8, ef 100mm 2.8 Macro, ef 50mm f/1.4 (and 1.8), EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6. And there are the affordable L's--the ef 135mm f/2L, ef 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, and the venerable 400mm f/5.6...And then there are, of course, the smaller ef-s lenses.

This push to tighter apertures in the name of "budget" and "portability" is frustrating. I thought the Rf mount would lead to innovation, not just stopping down.

I would have been glad to carry an extra half pound and a little more bulk for a 100-500mm f/5.6L. But, in fact, I don't know if they could have brought it in at the same price as the 7.1 version and still be profitable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zim and EOS 4 Life

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,239
1,404
Hamburg, Germany
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.
Class struggle or not, this is about business. Being mad about Canon for following good business practices is a poor excuse for using strong language in my eyes. And it is good business to flesh out the low end of what I suppose will be their main ILC platform in the future.

I can see a 100-400mm 7.1 FF lens priced below 1k being desirable for me. That is an opinion. And it is fine to have a different one, but there is nothing worth arguing with this opinion, as it is exclusively about my perception.

Saying something is crap is of course also just shorthand for expressing one's perception. But if an opinion is worded poorly or based on some questionable with, I feel justified in questioning it.

I don't get the impression that Canon is selling the notion that anything faster than f/8 should cost and arm and a leg. As I said, I see this as a step up from the 55-250 3.5-5.6 IS STM. If you want to compare it to an FF lens, this is applying the a similar approach as what they did with the 100-400 mm - > 100-500 mm to the EF 70-300mm IS Nano USM: keep the absolute aperture the same and increase the focal length. Presumably also involving updated mechanics and electronics, which in combination with the decrease in expected sales due to the market shrinking warrants an increase in price in Canon's eyes. If the market disagrees with that, I am open to be critized in turn for calling this good business.

With Tele lenses, I think we're paying more for absolute aperture than f number. f/1.8 cost ~100 if you want cheap. The costs do indeed explode to an frustrating level once you go beyond 100 mm aperture with Canon.
 

YuengLinger

Sufficiently Pixilated
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,244
1,526
USA
I'm all for Canon producing a wide price range of lens offerings! But when they start pushing f/7.1 for L series zooms, I get frustrated. Mad? No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,239
1,404
Hamburg, Germany
I'm all for Canon producing a wide price range of lens offerings! But when they start pushing f/7.1 for L series zooms, I get frustrated. Mad? No.
Genuine curiosity here:

Would you prefer it if they released an RF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 instead of increasing the reach? If so, what is this preference based on?

I am under the impression that their optimized they midrange L Tele workhorse for the most common use case: shooting things that are far away. Am I mistaken?

What innovation beyond improving its key use would have been preferable to you?

As I said, I am open for being critized if I am missing something. And I am genuinely curious how you arrived at your view. I am not dismissing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billybob

YuengLinger

Sufficiently Pixilated
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,244
1,526
USA
Genuine curiosity here:

Would you prefer it if they released an RF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 instead of increasing the reach? If so, what is this preference based on?

I am under the impression that their optimized they midrange L Tele workhorse for the most common use case: shooting things that are far away. Am I mistaken?

What innovation beyond improving its key use would have been preferable to you?

As I said, I am open for being critized if I am missing something. And I am genuinely curious how you arrived at your view. I am not dismissing it.
I don't know how much extra it would have cost us if Canon could have made a slightly larger 100-500mm f/5.6, but that would have been more exciting to me. On the other hand, I see the appeal of more reach and less weight. Still, I'd have gone with a heavier but faster lens if offered.

When it comes to standard zooms, my thinking goes the other way. I see the rf 24-70mm f/2.8L IS as a just right, Goldilocks type of lens, while the rf 28-70mm f/2L seems more of a showcase, attention getter for the new Rf mount, and not something I would choose--and certainly not pay more for.
 

Aregal

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 3, 2018
87
87
The chance for this 24mm to be a pancake is close to zero - it has IS and Macro functionality which increase the lens dimensions. A 24mm pancake would have another disadvantage: The incident angle of light is large so more reflected light = vast vignetting.
But I appreciate the idea of having lots of image stabilized Macro lenses - I really like my RF 35mm as a general purpose lens!
Yeah. I didn’t expect to like my RF 35/1.8 As much a I do.
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS 90D
Sep 20, 2020
112
69
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?
I will not pretend to have any experience marketing lenses, but Canon concentrating on expensive RF photography lenses seems to make sense.
Third parties tend to make cheaper lenses. (It is the other way around with cinema lenses.)
Canon only makes cheap lenses for the M line and even though a ton of M cameras are sold there no third parties seem to want to make M mount lenses.
It seems like third parties do not think they can make cheaper or better M mount lenses than Canon.
 

Mr.Burberry

EOS man
CR Pro
Feb 14, 2020
22
25
U.S.A.
I am hoping that this would come out soon. There was some patents for this lens and its equivalent some time back, but no news since. Will also be interested in a 100mm f2.8 macro, but doesn't look like it has entered the collective consciousness yet.
Ain't current 100mm macro good enough? It is sharp and quite fast. I don't see how much else they can improve upon unless they decide to change f-number.
I'm sure, it will be eventually replaced but most likely this is not a top priority for them right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

YuengLinger

Sufficiently Pixilated
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,244
1,526
USA
Ain't current 100mm macro good enough? It is sharp and quite fast. I don't see how much else they can improve upon unless they decide to change f-number.
I'm sure, it will be eventually replaced but most likely this is not a top priority for them right now.
Yes! I think the ef 100mm macro works great on the R. Nicely balanced and very quick with AF. And the IS still helps with portraits, even though it might be first gen (?).

And as for Canon concentrating on higher end, well, yes that's a business decision. They can't compete too cheaply because, I believe, the market volume for cheap interchangeable FF bodies and lenses is not what it was a decade ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr.Burberry

Mr.Burberry

EOS man
CR Pro
Feb 14, 2020
22
25
U.S.A.
Yes! I think the ef 100mm macro works great on the R. Nicely balanced and very quick with AF. And the IS still helps with portraits, even though it might be first gen (?).

And as for Canon concentrating on higher end, well, yes that's a business decision. They can't compete too cheaply because, I believe, the market volume for cheap interchangeable FF bodies and lenses is not what it was a decade ago.
Absolutely agree. The cheap market is being killed by smarphones.
As far as 100mm goes, L version is quite the same as non-L, the only difference is IS system. At least this is what everybody says.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

Joel C

EOS R6, EOS R, EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
51
46
Tacoma, WA
If the C70 looks this awesome and has come in at the 5,500$ I am really excited to see the functionality of the Canon Cinema EOS C50 and the price point. That will likely be where I can actually pull the trigger on ordering, so I am patiently waiting for that model to come to fruition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Twinix

koenkooi

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,449
1,247
Absolutely agree. The cheap market is being killed by smarphones.
As far as 100mm goes, L version is quite the same as non-L, the only difference is IS system. At least this is what everybody says.
The AF is a bit smoother as well, but very little difference overall. I got a good price for my 13 year old non-L and a financial windfall to replace it with the L version. Without that windfall I'd still be happily using the non-L :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billybob

Joel C

EOS R6, EOS R, EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
51
46
Tacoma, WA
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.
They already released the 85mm f/2 macro. I am waiting on delivery to see how it shapes up against the 100mm ef... I have seen some really compelling images so far from the 85, hopefully it fills in nicely.
 

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
124
247
I don't know how much extra it would have cost us if Canon could have made a slightly larger 100-500mm f/5.6, but that would have been more exciting to me. On the other hand, I see the appeal of more reach and less weight. Still, I'd have gone with a heavier but faster lens if offered.

When it comes to standard zooms, my thinking goes the other way. I see the rf 24-70mm f/2.8L IS as a just right, Goldilocks type of lens, while the rf 28-70mm f/2L seems more of a showcase, attention getter for the new Rf mount, and not something I would choose--and certainly not pay more for.
The problem is it would not be slightly larger, but much larger. It would be comparable to the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 if not bigger (most likely bigger), which is 2lbs heavier, requires 95mm filters versus 77mm, and is 60mm longer. Thus, what you're asking for is not the compact, workhorse, take-anywhere long tele that epitomizes the Canon 100-400L series but rather a lens in a very different lens category. I might be interested in such a beast, but I welcome the opportunity to go small and not have to carry around a lens that requires stopping down to f/7.1 or f/8 anyway for best results.

Full disclosure, I sold my 100-400 and replaced in with the 100-500. I didn't expect better IQ (fortunately it's at least as good). What I expected was getting out to 500mm while keeping essentially the same small size. I got what I hoped for, albeit, I still wince when I think about the cost.
 

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,239
1,404
Hamburg, Germany
I will not pretend to have any experience marketing lenses, but Canon concentrating on expensive RF photography lenses seems to make sense.
Third parties tend to make cheaper lenses. (It is the other way around with cinema lenses.)
Canon only makes cheap lenses for the M line and even though a ton of M cameras are sold there no third parties seem to want to make M mount lenses.
It seems like third parties do not think they can make cheaper or better M mount lenses than Canon.
There are plenty of third party EF-M lenses. Tamron and Sigma come to mind, but I'm almost certain Samyang and co. Have something too.
 

Darecinema

Addicted to lenses.
CR Pro
Sep 8, 2018
33
39
With the C70 release, I'm now preparing a large acquisition of RF lenses with all their RF L Zooms (16-35, 24-70, 70-200 and 100-500) plus the 50 1.2, 85 1.2. I'm actually most curious about when to expect their Tilt-Shift line to migrate over to RF. I have been getting more and more architectural work requiring TS and I'm tired of renting and am considering just buying up the existing EF TS ones. I'm curious what everyone thinks about the Tilt shift line coming to RF: are we years away? Obviously the advantage of EF with adapters is ND but since the c70 has built in NDs, not a major selling point although for the R5 would be super convenient. Thoughts?