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

Bob Howland

EOS RP
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
574
166
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?
My guess is that tilt-shift lenses may be among the last lenses to appear in the the RF line, at least five years and more likely ten. The rear of the lenses are recessed a lot. (The rear element of my 24 L II is recessed 16mm from the rear of the lens.) It has to be to allow tilt and shift movements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darecinema

Kiton

Too deep in Canon to list! :o
Jun 13, 2015
67
49
RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
This should be announced sometime in 2020.


RF 50mm f/1.8 STM
This should also be announced sometime in 2020.


these two I will buy right away,

the EF 50 STM is better than the 1.4, please tell me they cant screw up the RF version...........
 

lexptr

Photograph the nature while it exists...
Aug 8, 2014
53
18
www.len-lex.com
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, it is good. But not as good, as current RF lenses. I'm still not in the R system, so I judge about those by TDP charts. What I can compare is 100L and 100-400L II. And the latter has better IQ (being a zoom lens) than the former (prime macro). Also the IS (not so important for macro, but still) is jerky sometimes, while on 100-400 it works like a charm. Nothing is actually bad and it is more about pixel peeping, but truth is that 100L has some room for improvement. Also wider aperture may be a good addition. But you are right, it is, probably, not a high priority segment. Will wait and see.
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.
Yes, but it is not 1:1. For me macro starts from 1:1. I also like higher focal length as it gives more distance and better background. Weather sealing is important too. I had failed equipment in past due to moisture. So will wait for 100L replacement and hope for something in 150-180mm range too.
 

snapshot

5d2,5d4,r5
CR Pro
Jul 24, 2020
3
0
For macro, I like the EF 100mm L IS, but the IS isnt worth much. I wonder if IBIS is any help for hand held macro. Maybe something to try out on the R5.
Although IS on the macro used to be useful for portraits, I am now pretty sold on EF 85mm F/1.4 L IS, it produces lots of great stuff on the 5D4.
 

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
291
144
Australia
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?
Typical fanboy response. Keep your head in the sand buddy. If you think a R5 should be paired with budget crap telephoto lenses you are delusional, not that Canon wouldn't still want $2K for the 100-400. We just got the ridiculously over-priced 100-500 that is slow as a wet week. Oh but maybe you think someone that needs a 100-400 presumably for things that move quickly like birds, or animals etc would also endure the rubbish RP or R as their action cameras too.

No what we've got is the most unbalanced lens line-up in mirrorless. Either ridiculously expensive or stupidly slow. We've been waiting for a decent camera for a decade and now they delived the R5/R6 they are delivering ultra-slow crap in the telephoto range. If you want to buy 600 f/11 and other slow lenses fine, but where are the real lenses that were the hallmark of the EF system. Where's the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, where's the 300/400 f/2.8, 500/600 f/4, 200-600 f/5-6.3, 400 f/4, 300 f/4, where's the 16-35 f/4, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/4.

This slow crap might make sense if they also had a budget camera that could focus worth a damn, but for a camera like the R5 and R6 it's a total waste of money.
 

drama

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 1, 2016
98
236
Typical fanboy response. Keep your head in the sand buddy.

Some more jive talk
I never understood how or why people got so worked up about cameras, enough to turn up on a product they don't like's forum and yell at people. Is your life that empty?

ANYWAY

Nice to see Canon stocking the pond so quickly with glass offerings. And between RP up to R5, a ton of good gear to put them on. By the middle of next year, it looks like there will be a combination for nearly everyone, which is the point, I guess.
 

Darecinema

Addicted to lenses.
CR Pro
Sep 8, 2018
29
36
Typical fanboy response. Keep your head in the sand buddy. If you think a R5 should be paired with budget crap telephoto lenses you are delusional, not that Canon wouldn't still want $2K for the 100-400. We just got the ridiculously over-priced 100-500 that is slow as a wet week. Oh but maybe you think someone that needs a 100-400 presumably for things that move quickly like birds, or animals etc would also endure the rubbish RP or R as their action cameras too.

No what we've got is the most unbalanced lens line-up in mirrorless. Either ridiculously expensive or stupidly slow. We've been waiting for a decent camera for a decade and now they delived the R5/R6 they are delivering ultra-slow crap in the telephoto range. If you want to buy 600 f/11 and other slow lenses fine, but where are the real lenses that were the hallmark of the EF system. Where's the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, where's the 300/400 f/2.8, 500/600 f/4, 200-600 f/5-6.3, 400 f/4, 300 f/4, where's the 16-35 f/4, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/4.

This slow crap might make sense if they also had a budget camera that could focus worth a damn, but for a camera like the R5 and R6 it's a total waste of money.
Maybe I’m missing something here but my current EF zooms work flawlessly with the RF mount. I want tilt-shifts in RF mount eventually but until they are released I’ll use the EF ones which are great. Also in my opinion the 5DIV isn’t a decent camera, it’s a spectacular camera. But that’s just based on my usage scenario but I’ve put that thing through hundreds of shoots of all sorts in different environments and it’s always rendered awesome images and 4k video and never failed.
 

landon

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 26, 2020
83
116
C50 and C70 have internal NDs. Will be so useful recording wedding events. Bright morning sun to dim indoor.
C50 supposed to be super small, lighter, cheaper. If you can live with 8 bit, then it's a great beginner Cinema camera. One you would take to a fun shoot, but still have Cinema functions.
 

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,106
1,245
Hamburg, Germany
If you want to buy 600 f/11 and other slow lenses fine, but where are the real lenses that were the hallmark of the EF system. Where's the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, where's the 300/400 f/2.8, 500/600 f/4, 200-600 f/5-6.3, 400 f/4, 300 f/4, where's the 16-35 f/4, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/4.

This slow crap might make sense if they also had a budget camera that could focus worth a damn, but for a camera like the R5 and R6 it's a total waste of money.
I don't necessarily want to buy these lenses. I am just against calling budget offerings crap. You don't have to like or buy something yourself in order to appreciate the value it may provide to others. Photography is a hobby for many. It is about fun. You can have fun with the lenses you call crap. They are fine for what they are. If you don't see it as offensive calling the things people enjoy crap just because they aren't high end well, so be it. I find it annoying.

As to your other points, I'm not sure if you know how aperture works. If you shoot with at 400 mm 5.6 and crop the image to match a 500 mm FoV, you now have the same amount of light in your shot as you would have if you had just shot it at 500 mm 7.1. Only, since you had to crop, you loose a little bit of resolution.

By extending the focal length of the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS II and 70-300 4.0-5.6 IS Nano USM by 100 mm each, they can keep the lens diameter roughly the same, as the physical aperture stays the same. I think it is very reasonable to assume increasing physical aperture adds more weight and cost to a design than focal length, since aperture is related to the lens diameter and so it influences things quadratic ally, as opposed to the linear influence of focal length. So what Canon is doing here is giving their FF mainstream EF lenses (The L lens being ~ 2000 € and the other ~ 500€) a bit more reach.

I think somehow you imagine the 100-400mm 4.5-7.1 IS STM will cost around 2000 €? It won't. It will cost below 1k. Note that it is a STM lens.

Some of the lenses you list are already available. The RF 100-500 4.5-7.1 L IS is the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS II. The RF 85 mm 2.0 macro is the EF 85 mm 1.8 counterpart. The RF 70-200 4.0 L IS is expected to be announced soon.

The fast tele primes are indeed not right around the corner it seems. If the R1 is released next year, I expect this to change right after that.

The 50 mm 1.4 is the only lens you list that we can't reasonably expect to become a reality. It really depends on what the 50 mm 1.8 will be.

Also, your last point makes zero sense to me. We are talking about an unreleased lens here. One that is clearly extremely budget oriented, being an STM lens. We are talking about the 100-400 mm 4.5-7.1 IS STM, right? And you complain that this is a lens not well suited for the R6 and R5? Did you miss that the RP is already a push towards lowering the cost to FF on the body side and that we'll likely get an even cheaper R early next year? I am not talking about using this lens on high end bodies (and yes, the R6 is high end compared to the the context of this lens).

This is an unreleased lens, being designed for yet unreleased bodies that will work together nicely and provide a decent upgrade and path into FF for folks shooting with a 850D and EF-S 55-250 mm IS STM or similar setup today. To me at least that seems pretty obvious. Unless Canon do change direction and introduce low end crop bodies to the RF system. My interpretation is based on the premise that they won't do that, and that these slow zooms are their way of providing FF lenses that are match or exceed the experience of shooting with an equivalent crop setup.
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,666
578
S Florida
Typical fanboy response. Keep your head in the sand buddy. If you think a R5 should be paired with budget crap telephoto lenses you are delusional, not that Canon wouldn't still want $2K for the 100-400. We just got the ridiculously over-priced 100-500 that is slow as a wet week. Oh but maybe you think someone that needs a 100-400 presumably for things that move quickly like birds, or animals etc would also endure the rubbish RP or R as their action cameras too.

No what we've got is the most unbalanced lens line-up in mirrorless. Either ridiculously expensive or stupidly slow. We've been waiting for a decent camera for a decade and now they delived the R5/R6 they are delivering ultra-slow crap in the telephoto range. If you want to buy 600 f/11 and other slow lenses fine, but where are the real lenses that were the hallmark of the EF system. Where's the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, where's the 300/400 f/2.8, 500/600 f/4, 200-600 f/5-6.3, 400 f/4, 300 f/4, where's the 16-35 f/4, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/4.

This slow crap might make sense if they also had a budget camera that could focus worth a damn, but for a camera like the R5 and R6 it's a total waste of money.
Don't be such a whiner. You are like a 9 year old. You want it and you want it now. In less than 3 years, Canon has put out a nice variety of RF lenses. It took them over 3 decades to round out the EF catalog. I'm frustrated that they haven't released a fast wide prime, but I gather their market research guides them more than my desires. If you don't like the RF lens lineup, then don't buy any. Being petulant won't produce any positive results.
 

BeenThere

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2012
1,212
635
Eastern Shore
I don't necessarily want to buy these lenses. I am just against calling budget offerings crap. You don't have to like or buy something yourself in order to appreciate the value it may provide to others. Photography is a hobby for many. It is about fun. You can have fun with the lenses you call crap. They are fine for what they are. If you don't see it as offensive calling the things people enjoy crap just because they aren't high end well, so be it. I find it annoying.

As to your other points, I'm not sure if you know how aperture works. If you shoot with at 400 mm 5.6 and crop the image to match a 500 mm FoV, you now have the same amount of light in your shot as you would have if you had just shot it at 500 mm 7.1. Only, since you had to crop, you loose a little bit of resolution.

By extending the focal length of the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS II and 70-300 4.0-5.6 IS Nano USM by 100 mm each, they can keep the lens diameter roughly the same, as the physical aperture stays the same. I think it is very reasonable to assume increasing physical aperture adds more weight and cost to a design than focal length, since aperture is related to the lens diameter and so it influences things quadratic ally, as opposed to the linear influence of focal length. So what Canon is doing here is giving their FF mainstream EF lenses (The L lens being ~ 2000 € and the other ~ 500€) a bit more reach.

I think somehow you imagine the 100-400mm 4.5-7.1 IS STM will cost around 2000 €? It won't. It will cost below 1k. Note that it is a STM lens.

Some of the lenses you list are already available. The RF 100-500 4.5-7.1 L IS is the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS II. The RF 85 mm 2.0 macro is the EF 85 mm 1.8 counterpart. The RF 70-200 4.0 L IS is expected to be announced soon.

The fast tele primes are indeed not right around the corner it seems. If the R1 is released next year, I expect this to change right after that.

The 50 mm 1.4 is the only lens you list that we can't reasonably expect to become a reality. It really depends on what the 50 mm 1.8 will be.

Also, your last point makes zero sense to me. We are talking about an unreleased lens here. One that is clearly extremely budget oriented, being an STM lens. We are talking about the 100-400 mm 4.5-7.1 IS STM, right? And you complain that this is a lens not well suited for the R6 and R5? Did you miss that the RP is already a push towards lowering the cost to FF on the body side and that we'll likely get an even cheaper R early next year? I am not talking about using this lens on high end bodies (and yes, the R6 is high end compared to the the context of this lens).

This is an unreleased lens, being designed for yet unreleased bodies that will work together nicely and provide a decent upgrade and path into FF for folks shooting with a 850D and EF-S 55-250 mm IS STM or similar setup today. To me at least that seems pretty obvious. Unless Canon do change direction and introduce low end crop bodies to the RF system. My interpretation is based on the premise that they won't do that, and that these slow zooms are their way of providing FF lenses that are match or exceed the experience of shooting with an equivalent crop setup.
I would guess that many owners of big white teles in the 300:to 800mm range will be slow to switch to new RF replacements as they will not see much incentive from a performance stand point over using their EF glass with an adapter. I hope I am wrong and all that “old” glass gets dumped on the used market so that used prices drop to where I can afford one. The trend has been for new big white releases to get lighter in weight, but that is where the majority of improvement has been. That trend will likely continue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,106
1,245
Hamburg, Germany
I would guess that many owners of big white teles in the 300:to 800mm range will be slow to switch to new RF replacements as they will not see much incentive from a performance stand point over using their EF glass with an adapter. I hope I am wrong and all that “old” glass gets dumped on the used market so that used prices drop to where I can afford one. The trend has been for new big white releases to get lighter in weight, but that is where the majority of improvement has been. That trend will likely continue.
I guess it depends on what Canon has in store. I think eventually they will have to directly compete with Sigma and Sony and the 150-600 mm 5.0-6.3, 60-600 mm 4.5-6.3 and Sony 200-600 5.6-6.3 in terms of absolute aperture. Such a lens may be quite appealing.

And if they are indeed pursuing the option of releasing the insanely fast tele primes 250 2.0 and 500 2.8 from the recent CR1 rumor, maybe they intent to continue adding capabilities to staple EF lenses instead of just duplicating them. Still, you are likely correct for a majority of people, as the EF line up is still great and doesn't suffer from being adapted. All the more reason for Canon to produce lenses that we don't see in EF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

zim

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Oct 18, 2011
1,981
172
I don't necessarily want to buy these lenses. I am just against calling budget offerings crap. You don't have to like or buy something yourself in order to appreciate the value it may provide to others. Photography is a hobby for many. It is about fun. You can have fun with the lenses you call crap. They are fine for what they are. If you don't see it as offensive calling the things people enjoy crap just because they aren't high end well, so be it. I find it annoying.

As to your other points, I'm not sure if you know how aperture works. If you shoot with at 400 mm 5.6 and crop the image to match a 500 mm FoV, you now have the same amount of light in your shot as you would have if you had just shot it at 500 mm 7.1. Only, since you had to crop, you loose a little bit of resolution.

By extending the focal length of the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS II and 70-300 4.0-5.6 IS Nano USM by 100 mm each, they can keep the lens diameter roughly the same, as the physical aperture stays the same. I think it is very reasonable to assume increasing physical aperture adds more weight and cost to a design than focal length, since aperture is related to the lens diameter and so it influences things quadratic ally, as opposed to the linear influence of focal length. So what Canon is doing here is giving their FF mainstream EF lenses (The L lens being ~ 2000 € and the other ~ 500€) a bit more reach.

I think somehow you imagine the 100-400mm 4.5-7.1 IS STM will cost around 2000 €? It won't. It will cost below 1k. Note that it is a STM lens.

Some of the lenses you list are already available. The RF 100-500 4.5-7.1 L IS is the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS II. The RF 85 mm 2.0 macro is the EF 85 mm 1.8 counterpart. The RF 70-200 4.0 L IS is expected to be announced soon.

The fast tele primes are indeed not right around the corner it seems. If the R1 is released next year, I expect this to change right after that.

The 50 mm 1.4 is the only lens you list that we can't reasonably expect to become a reality. It really depends on what the 50 mm 1.8 will be.

Also, your last point makes zero sense to me. We are talking about an unreleased lens here. One that is clearly extremely budget oriented, being an STM lens. We are talking about the 100-400 mm 4.5-7.1 IS STM, right? And you complain that this is a lens not well suited for the R6 and R5? Did you miss that the RP is already a push towards lowering the cost to FF on the body side and that we'll likely get an even cheaper R early next year? I am not talking about using this lens on high end bodies (and yes, the R6 is high end compared to the the context of this lens).

This is an unreleased lens, being designed for yet unreleased bodies that will work together nicely and provide a decent upgrade and path into FF for folks shooting with a 850D and EF-S 55-250 mm IS STM or similar setup today. To me at least that seems pretty obvious. Unless Canon do change direction and introduce low end crop bodies to the RF system. My interpretation is based on the premise that they won't do that, and that these slow zooms are their way of providing FF lenses that are match or exceed the experience of shooting with an equivalent crop setup.
Excellent summary of what's going on
 

privatebydesign

Garfield is back...
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,115
3,284
120
Regarding the EF 100L Macro, it’s a nice lens but not a standout and for a macro could certainly be sharper especially stopped down. However the combination of focal length, robustness, weather sealing, IS, image quality and price make it a very nice lens.

For a budget minded portrait shooter it would be my first recommendation, closely followed by the EF 100 f2 and the EF 85 f1.8, but neither of them have the build quality, IS, close focusing ability, nor weatherproofing of the L macro.

But I’d caution against this ever increasing mindset that sharpness equals image quality, some of the greatest lenses are not particularly sharp (EF 50 f1.0) others are (EF 200 f2.0). If we keep using sharpness as the be all and end all of image quality then we will end up missing out on other good lens designs because manufacturers will sacrifice any kind of different characteristics for the sake of sharpness.
 
Last edited:

Bob Howland

EOS RP
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
574
166
C50 and C70 have internal NDs. Will be so useful recording wedding events. Bright morning sun to dim indoor.
C50 supposed to be super small, lighter, cheaper. If you can live with 8 bit, then it's a great beginner Cinema camera. One you would take to a fun shoot, but still have Cinema functions.
The C70 has been announced, the C50 hasn't. Isn't it a bit premature to state the C50 attributes with such certainty?
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
886
916
I too have never understood the "hype " about the 100 L IS macro.
Maybe I've bought THE mediocre one out of a series of excellent ones? Anyway, mine lacks sharpness at infinity setting on the sides and corners, the 70-200 f4 II and the superb 100-400 L IS II are MUCH sharper at the 100mm focal length. For macro work, the 100 is pretty good, but definitely not for landscapes. I've replaced it with the Leica R 100mm Macro Elmarit: best lens I ever had.