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

definedphotography

I'm New Here
Mar 13, 2020
24
14
As an XF100 user, I'm hoping the XF500/5 is a return to form. I'd be interested in upgrading.

From the looks of it the XF400 was widely panned due to lack of physical controls and other changes from the 100 & 200 series.
 

SUNDOG04

EOS M6 Mark II
CR Pro
Mar 1, 2015
99
34
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.
 

SUNDOG04

EOS M6 Mark II
CR Pro
Mar 1, 2015
99
34
The IS works very well on the 100 macro when used as a regular lens. But for macro work, I too find the IS not helping a lot. Too many blurred shots when expecting the IS to be better.
 

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,067
711
The C70 has been announced, the C50 hasn't. Isn't it a bit premature to state the C50 attributes with such certainty?
No, because everything that was leaked much before about the C70 was correct, apart from the naming and pricing, which they knew about not being final.

But they knew that they are going to be smaller derivatives of the C300 Mark III and C200
So they were just calling them Cinema EOS R300 and Cinema EOS R200

So there is a very high probability that this is what the C50 will offer.

Canon Cinema EOS R200 (Name not confirmed)
  • Super 35mm 4K sensor (same as the Cinema EOS C200)
  • No IBIS
  • RF Mount
  • Internal ND (10 Stops)
  • CLog 2 & CLog 3
  • 4:2:0 8bit internally onto SD cards up to 4K60 & 1080/120
  • No RAW
  • Dual LP-E6NH battery slot
  • Price: $3,499 USD
The rest we can guess from how the C70 looks in detail, maybe they will equip it with a smaller screen, less inputs, etc. etc..
Looking at the C200, there is no indication of a 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 external output (only for 1080p)
So this is likely to be an 4K 8-bit only camera, which some people will not be happy about.
One can always dream about Canon changing their minds on that and the external is not limited, who knows.

It is the most entry-level Cinema camera they can do, and it still offfers a handful of things despite that, probably no need to buy new batteries or the quickest, most expensive SD cards either.
All in all, another interesting product.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Joel C
Add me to the list waiting for a 15-35 F/4 L. I don't care if it has IS or not, it will be riding on an R5 (and I'm really looking forward to the IBIS there).

I do want equal sharpness to the RF F/2.8 version at equal apertures, slightly smaller, lighter, cheaper, and with well controlled coma and better vignetting performance than the F/2.8.

I strongly considered the 2.8 (sharpness and 15mm looks great), but I have the EF 16-35 F/4 L, and shooting both wide open my 16-35 has brighter corners at f/4 than the RF does at 2.8, in absolute terms. In other words, the 2.8 does not get me an exposure advantage vs my F/4 for wide angle astro landscapes when corrected for vignetting. Really hoping for a low coma, low vignetting, sharp F4 for landscape use.
 

Joel C

EOS R6, EOS R, EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
51
46
Tacoma, WA
The C70 has been announced, the C50 hasn't. Isn't it a bit premature to state the C50 attributes with such certainty?
The specs were leaked in previous rumors. It was supposedly going to come out at the same time as the c70... Canon was saying the pandemic is to blame, I think they are going to announce it when the fx6 gets announced. (Announcing the c70 the same day the 7siii delivered)
 

samh004

I'm New Here
CR Pro
Sep 5, 2020
12
6
Gold Coast, Australia
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.
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.
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.
Like others, my view is that Macro really begins at 1:1 and while the 85mm f/2 sounds interesting, the lack of at least 1:1 and proper weather sealing disappoint me.

While I appreciate there is nothing wrong with the EF version, I’d rather have an adapter-free collection of lenses than have to occasionally add an adapter between the camera and lens. I appreciate that it will take time to build out the whole range and some lenses may take longer than others to make the switch to RF, if they do at all. For instance, I’m not expecting an updated fisheye from canon, or an RF version of the MP-E as these lenses seem to have such a niche market as it is. But my preference would be to only carry RF lenses and bodies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
462
379
www.flickr.com
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.
I used my RF100-500mm on the R5 at a Canon Collective event at Sydney Zoo last weekend - last one in Sydney :-(
We had access to 400 f2.8 II and 600 f4 II at the same time. The zoom was so much more useful although the 400/600 lenses were great with stationery subjects and where the distance to background was closer. The eye AF speed and sharpness of the 100-500mm was excellent. There was only a couple of times where the big lenses would have been significantly better in my opinion.
I was sold when it was advertised at 15% off even though it is more expensive than I liked, it is nothing compared to the big whites and much smaller/lighter to move around. The extra 100mm reach to 500mm was very useful and being lighter than the EF100-400mm it seems a no-brainer.
It should have a lock switch rather than tightening ring though. Almost an essential purchase as my RF70-200mm doesn't accept teleconvertors like my EF70-200mm did.
Big thumbs up from me :)
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,144
1,837
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.
I don't know anyone who ever loved the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 in any of its variations (original, II, or III with either USM or not). They've all been pretty crappy.

Perhaps you are thinking of the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS? (Or maybe the 1995 EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS that was the direct predecessor to the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS - which was a totally different design from all of the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 series that did not have IS.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,144
1,837
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.
They're already doing that. Manufacturers are already releasing "portrait" lenses that are so highly corrected for flat field performance that the bokeh is a mess compared to "inferior" lenses like the 85/1.2, 50/1.2, 135/2, 200/2.8, etc. The new lenses are great for shooting flat test charts, which seems to be all that anyone buying lenses these days seems to care about.

That's one reason I've never been a fan of using a 100mm Macro for portraits unless one is shooting in a studio at f/8 in front of a backdrop that is already printed out of focus.
 

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
462
379
www.flickr.com
I was actually leaning the other way, sort of. I currently have an EF 16-35 f/4L and I’m wondering if they’re going to release something wider than 15mm, like an RF 11-24 (to replace the EF version) and whether that’s worth waiting for.
I also have a EF16-35 f4L which works perfectly with an adaptor. Moving from 5Div to R5 is a big project for me and I started with the RF70-200m and kept my EF glass to use with the adaptor. When pricing is good then I will move when it makes sense.
Generally, Canon has been improving optics and size/weight with all their new lenses.... maybe not all 3 in each RF lens but significant changes to justify the high entry cost.
The exception is that the RF24-105mm is optically the same as the EF version although it has a zoom switch which would be nice to have.
The EF16-35mm and EF100mm f2.8L macro are already excellent so it only makes sense to replace when they have something significantly better especially as the EF versions are at a great price now (and even better second hand). Very few people have suggested that they really need an upgrade.
I believe that they won't do a RF11-24mm equivalent because the R mount filter adaptor is so useful. A 10-XXmm maybe but it would need to be very special and in the distant future.
Niche lenses like 8-15mm will probably never be replaced as additional sharpness has never been a priority over the flexibility before (IMO)
The EF TS-E lenses were recently refreshed so no RF versions especially as the rear elements need space to tilt/shift.
The big whites will be released with the R1 after going on diets.
The EF14/15mm primes aren't great so one area that Canon doesn't have a good lens is for astro - wide and fast would be a good seller.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darecinema

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,144
1,837
The EF TS-E lenses were recently refreshed so no RF versions especially as the rear elements need space to tilt/shift.
Some of the EF TS-E lenses were recently refreshed.

The TS-E 50mm f/2.8L, TS-E 90mm f/2.8L, and TS-E 135mm f/4L are the only ones introduced in 2017.

The TS-E 17mm f/4L and TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II have been around since 2009.

The older non-L TS-E 90mm f/2.8 and TS-E 45mm f/2.8, both from 1991, are also still in the catalog.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Darecinema

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
462
379
www.flickr.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.
Besides the other replies, a RF replacement would need to be special. Weight is not an issue. Quality/sharpness is already great and the price is very reasomable (especially second hand).
Perhaps significant sharpness at narrow apertures or maybe f2.0 but it would need to have something to differentiate from the EF100mm F2.8L.
Weld an adaptor to the EF lens for $100 and call it a RF lens :)
 
Sep 25, 2020
1
0
User interchangeable RF mount for Cinema EOS cameras
This was also supposed to announced at the same time as the Cinema EOS C70, bit it has apparently been delayed to mid 2021 at the earliest.
This is the first I've ever heard of this. Is this actually a thing that is going to happen? I thought the ND filters on the c300 and c500 kept such a mount from being used since the RF lenses are so close to the sensor? I have a c300 Mark III and I'd LOVE any info about this.
 

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,067
711
This is the first I've ever heard of this. Is this actually a thing that is going to happen? I thought the ND filters on the c300 and c500 kept such a mount from being used since the RF lenses are so close to the sensor? I have a c300 Mark III and I'd LOVE any info about this.
It would not be surprising to see the C300 Mark III or the C500 Mark II already using the same internal ND filter system as the C70
They came out after the introduction of the RF-mount, so they were probably taking this into account.
And they waited until they have enough RF-mount lenses to offer to do the swap.
So their new/renewed 2021 RF-mount Cinema lineup can look like C50 C70 C300 Mark III C500 Mark II and a new 8K Cinema camera. Of course the C200 is also going to remain as an option.

That's my theory on it, we'll see.
 

Bob Howland

EOS RP
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
580
178
The specs were leaked in previous rumors. It was supposedly going to come out at the same time as the c70... Canon was saying the pandemic is to blame, I think they are going to announce it when the fx6 gets announced. (Announcing the c70 the same day the 7siii delivered)
I knew about the previous leaks. I guess I'm just more skeptical about rumors than some other people here.
 
Last edited:

Bob Howland

EOS RP
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
580
178
Some of the EF TS-E lenses were recently refreshed.

The TS-E 50mm f/2.8L, TS-E 90mm f/2.8L, and TS-E 135mm f/4L are the only ones introduced in 2017.

The TS-E 17mm f/4L and TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II have been around since 2009.

The older non-L TS-E 90mm f/2.8 and TS-E 45mm f/2.8, both from 1991, are also still in the catalog.
The new 50, 90 and 135mm lenses are all macro lenses, since they tend to be used for table top product photography, not architectural photography. More importantly, the recent lenses allow the tilt and shift to be set parallel to each other or crossed or any angle in between. In short, important features were added. I'm not sure what important features would be added by moving to the RF mount. The sales volume of these lenses probably makes sales of the big whites look mass market in comparison.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,144
1,837
The new 50, 90 and 135mm lenses are all macro lenses, since they tend to be used for table top product photography, not architectural photography. More importantly, the recent lenses allow the tilt and shift to be set parallel to each other or crossed or any angle in between. In short, important features were added. I'm not sure what important features would be added by moving to the RF mount. The sales volume of these lenses probably makes sales of the big whites look mass market in comparison.
The 2009 lenses also allow tilt and shift to be set at any angle to one another. It was called "TS Rotation".
 

koenkooi

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,446
1,237
The new 50, 90 and 135mm lenses are all macro lenses, since they tend to be used for table top product photography, not architectural photography. More importantly, the recent lenses allow the tilt and shift to be set parallel to each other or crossed or any angle in between. In short, important features were added. I'm not sure what important features would be added by moving to the RF mount. The sales volume of these lenses probably makes sales of the big whites look mass market in comparison.
Not really RF-mount related, but the could add sensors for the tilt/shift and record it in the EXIF. The MP-E65mm does it for the magnification and @keithcooper mentioned that other systems (Hasselblad?) offer it already.