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

[privatebydesign]

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.

Of course, and I don't think we are better for it. It first became apparent to me when they brought out the EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, sharpener than it's predecessor for sure but it seriously messed with the bokeh of what had been a superb portrait lens. It is the reason I stayed with my MkI version of the lens.

 

[SteveC]

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?

Consider the source. All Mr. Majestyk does around here is come in and crap on the M series. I guess at least he's diversifying now.

 

[JaimeAndresPhoto1]

This was definitely the year of Canon for many. I've been a Sony shooter for the past 8 years since the first a7, I was a Canon shooter before that and have been looking at coming back to Canon, last year I bought the EOS R, fell in love with it, and began to invest in RF glass. I was shooting both, Sony a7iii and the EOS R for the past 9 months, and after the R5 was announced I decided to go all-in with Canon, sold all my Sony gear and I now only shoot Canon. There have been some drawbacks to that decision, but I love having only one lens mount system and not have to worry about which camera to bring for a shoot. There's definitely some things that Canon could (and should) learn from Sony, but I'm not looking back. At least for the next 8 years LOL

 

[Aregal]

Of course, and I don't think we are better for it. It first became apparent to me when they brought out the EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, sharpener than it's predecessor for sure but it seriously messed with the bokeh of what had been a superb portrait lens. It is the reason I stayed with my MkI version of the lens.

That’s very interesting about the 70-200/2.8Lis. The zero points of CPS support bothers me less now. Haha.

 

[Iain L]

The thing that strikes me on the lens front is that a *lot* of the people buying the R5 are already in the EOS ecosystem. So they’ve probably got a fair few EF lenses, and some expensive ones at that. The new RF glass includes some great stuff, but the priority being on things that don’t have a perfectly good EF equivalent seems the right call to me.

 

[degos]

To clarify, only the 50/90/135mm TS-E lenses were refreshed
The wide RF mount helps with wide angle designs so the TS-E 17/24mm could easily be on the RF path.

The 'wide' RF mount is exactly the same width as the EF...

 

[SteveC]

The thing that strikes me on the lens front is that a *lot* of the people buying the R5 are already in the EOS ecosystem. So they’ve probably got a fair few EF lenses, and some expensive ones at that. The new RF glass includes some great stuff, but the priority being on things that don’t have a perfectly good EF equivalent seems the right call to me.

Not everyone has an irrational hatred of adapters.

 

[Jethro]

Not everyone has an irrational hatred of adapters.

A suspicion about using adapters is quite rational - but the almost universal experience with EF - RF is that the old lenses work fine (in some cases anecdotally better) on the R series. Mine have all been fine. My issue has been a reluctance to buy new EF lenses, although the issue hasn't arisen yet with any of the old EFs I frequently use.

 

[David - Sydney]

A suspicion about using adapters is quite rational - but the almost universal experience with EF - RF is that the old lenses work fine (in some cases anecdotally better) on the R series. Mine have all been fine. My issue has been a reluctance to buy new EF lenses, although the issue hasn't arisen yet with any of the old EFs I frequently use.

Not all anecdotally... Canon has stated that some non-IS EF lens now have xx stops of stabilisation due to the combination of IBIS and gyro sensors in the non-IS lens.
Can be lots of reasons to still get a EF lens with RF bodies:
- Compatability across RF and EF-M systems,
- Cost where there are equivalents between EF/RF eg 70-200mm),
- EF lens which are unlikely to have a RF equivalent (8-15mm, some TS-E lens, 400/600mm which were recently updated),
- EF lens that are unlikely to have a replacement in the short term eg EF100mm macro but you need it now,
- EF lenses which will only be used occasionally so a second hand version is acceptable for the cost/benefit

 

[SteveC]

A suspicion about using adapters is quite rational - but the almost universal experience with EF - RF is that the old lenses work fine (in some cases anecdotally better) on the R series. Mine have all been fine. My issue has been a reluctance to buy new EF lenses, although the issue hasn't arisen yet with any of the old EFs I frequently use.

My comment was aimed at people who proclaim that they will never use an adapter, or that they are always bad, some even claim that the adapter has glass in it that degrades performance. That's prejudging it as an adapter, without regard to the specific case in question. Of course, some adapters are bad and all adapters should be vetted because of this.

As for buying new EF lenses, sometimes it can make sense particularly if I want to use the lenses on cameras that aren't RF mount (e.g., my EF-M cameras). But that consideration certainly won't apply to everyone. If you're in a position where you own nothing other than RF mount cameras, then the only reason I can see to buy a new EF lens is if you judge it to be nearly as good as the RF one, but significantly cheaper. In my case, this didn't apply in the case of the 15-35 f/2.8 nor the 24-105 f/4, and in both of those cases I already had other EF-S or even EF-M lenses I can use on my M series cameras, that I cannot use on the R5. So I felt justified in simply buying RF in the first place. My EF 100-400 II I bought recently, knowing I'd use it on the R5, but also knowing I'd use it on my M6 mk II, so it's a pretty good example of buying an EF lens for an R series camera (I didn't own any full frame cameras at all before getting the R5).

 

[David - Sydney]

The 'wide' RF mount is exactly the same width as the EF...

You are correct that the mount diameter is the same as EF mount but in combination with the shorter flange distance allows for the larger lens elements to be near the rear of the lens and closer to the camera mount and the image sensor. Allowed the RF70-200m to be very compact but means that extenders couldn't be used with it...meaning I had to buy the RF100-500mm for >200mm.
Canon and Canon News provided more insight on the benefits of the RF vs EF mount.
https://www.canonrumors.com/the-benefits-of-the-large-diameter-of-the-eos-rs-rf-mount-explained/

 

[CanonOregon]

How many new adapters will they be able to develop with the Fujitsu FX1000 supercomputer.....?

Yea but that's a heap of 'teras' flopping there! The new supercomputer will achieve an expected theoretical computational performance of 648.8 teraflops.

 

[Michael Clark]

Not everyone has an irrational hatred of adapters.

We really need another word for adapter when we're talking about the same communication protocol between camera and lens. The RF protocol is an expanded version built upon the basic EF protocol.

Adapter implies some less than perfect reverse engineering of communication protocols is going on.

 

[Michael Clark]

You are correct that the mount diameter is the same as EF mount but in combination with the shorter flange distance allows for the larger lens elements to be near the rear of the lens and closer to the camera mount and the image sensor. Allowed the RF70-200m to be very compact but means that extenders couldn't be used with it...meaning I had to buy the RF100-500mm for >200mm.
Canon and Canon News provided more insight on the benefits of the RF vs EF mount.
https://www.canonrumors.com/the-benefits-of-the-large-diameter-of-the-eos-rs-rf-mount-explained/

That headline should probably have read:

"The benefits of the shorter registration distance of the EOS R's RF mount explained"

That's what the post actually said.

 

[Christoph Müller]

Where is the RF equivalent of the EF 100mm F2.8 IS Macro?

I can not believe that Canon sees it as such a low priority.
This is the only lens I miss in the current lineup.

 

[fox40phil]

100-400 ?!
Okay by the price of the 100-500 it makes sense.... but I would really prefer a decent tele-zoom insteat of a 100-400 parallel to the 100-500.... maybe 200-600 5.6 or just 300-600 5.6... or something else.

24 2.8 macro? sounds sweet. but we already have the 35mm macro! A 14mm AF 2.8 macro would be nice! (1:1?!) with light in the lens! And a new 180 or 150mm macro please!

 

[Lance vdv]

A super small, light, weather sealed 70-200 would be great
But what would be even better would be a 1kg 500mm f5.6

 

[Arod820]

RF really needs a fast wide for those Super35 C70 and upcoming C50 – wonder when 14-28 f/1.4 is coming out.

I’m going to use my sigma ART 18-35 f1.8 and an Ef - rf adapter.

 

[fox40phil]

It's not an L lens

Oh wait... and the 100-500L is F7.1

 

[Bob Howland]

I’m going to use my sigma ART 18-35 f1.8 and an Ef - rf adapter.

Will that work? The C70 uses a Super 35 sensor, which is (slightly) larger than the APS-C size that lens was designed for.