Announcement Soon: Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 and Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
9,300
2,072
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
The long-rumored Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM will be announced soon as reported easrlier this week, and it was a longtime part of the Canon RF lens roadmap.
Canon will also be announcing a Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM in the near future. This is a non-L lens. While I cannot confirm the aperture range of this lens yet, I have reported it as an f/5.6-7.1 IS USM on the roadmap.
The third lens will be a Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 prime lens. This is a non-L prime lens and has not appeared on the roadmap until now. This is an interesting prime lens for a full-frame sensor. If an APS-C RF mount camera is coming, this would be a nice and compact 25mm f/2.8.
More to come…

Continue reading...
 
Last edited:

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
746
1,463
I actually really hope the 16mm is a nice cheap full-frame compatible prime, that would be an incredibly full frame popular lens if it was around $500-600.

But that said--the combination of the 70-400 and 16mm make me think an APS-C camera is coming soon. Both lenses would make an excellent start to a crop camera if they were cheap enough. The 70-400 sounds like an upgrade over the typical APS-C 70-300 sorta kit lens, though I'm sure that's a full frame lens as well and will make an excellent small travel zoom, especially with the wide end being 70mm.
 

Rpaulsen

I'm New Here
Dec 13, 2019
14
17
I’m really hoping the 16mm will be IS, though I guess IBIS would negate the need, but a tiny 16mm would be perfect for gimbal/handheld dance floor videos. My wedding videos got so much better when I started handholding my camera with a light super wide and just one of those tiny Aperture LED lights.
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
695
889
But why 7.1 at 400mm? I could understand it and make sense perfectly at 500mm but it's just too dark at 400mm. The 400mm on FF is too short for wildlife most of the time and already at 7.1 will limit the use of TC's.

I don't understand this obsession of Canon making huge 1kg lenses and then trying to save weight on everything affordable by making lenses super dark.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
746
1,463
But why 7.1 at 400mm? I could understand it and make sense perfectly at 500mm but it's just too dark at 400mm. The 400mm on FF is too short for wildlife most of the time and already at 7.1 will limit the use of TC's.

I don't understand this obsession of Canon making huge 1kg lenses and then trying to save weight on everything affordable by making lenses super dark.
Not unlike the 100-500 4.5-7.1 basically being a 100-400 f/5.6 with extra reach, this is a EF 70-300 F/5.6 with 100mm tacked onto the end. I'm sure it will be roughly F/5.6 at 300mm.

400mm at F/7.1 is a 58mm filter thread, so this is going to be a very small and cheap lens.
 

Chaitanya

EOS R
Jun 27, 2013
1,487
671
35
Pune
I hope both these lenses have a good mag ratio(higher than .3x) which would be great for crop bodies. That 16mm lens with high mag ratio would be a good option to Venus 15mm f/4 macro for ultrawide macros.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,245
2,132
Kentucky, USA
400mm and 500mm at f/7.1 is just terrible.

Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k. And it’s a great lens.

Why can’t Canon at least match Sony?
If you think 500mm f7.1 is just terrible, you must have never taken photos with the RF 100-500 f5.6-7.1L lens.
It is the best & most useful RF lens they've made so far for my purposes.

With that said, it will be nice to see future super tele RF lenses that get closer to 100mm entrance pupils for those with bigger wallets & biceps.
 

goldenhusky

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 2, 2016
432
253
While I am not a fan of ultra wide lenses 16mm sounds like an exciting lens. 70-400 is also a very versatile focal length. I am still not a fan of f/7.1. Regardless if the price is right this will be a good beginner wildlife lens for some folks.
 

SnowMiku

EOS 90D
Oct 4, 2020
107
77
Why are the consumer RF lenses such as the Canon RF 70-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM so slow? I understand they have to make these lenses cheaper, but if they want people to upgrade and move on from EF then they should match the EF apertures. I guess since the RF system can focus at more narrow apertures they can get away with slower and cheaper lenses that are more profitable.

If this was f/5.6 at 300mm or even f/6.3 at 400mm I would consider buying an RF crop body in the future. Since it starts at f/5.6 I doubt it's going to be f/5.6 at 300mm.

I wish they would have made a consumer EF 100-400mm F/4.5 - f/5.6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pzyber and rontele7

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
419
276
Australia
But why 7.1 at 400mm? I could understand it and make sense perfectly at 500mm but it's just too dark at 400mm. The 400mm on FF is too short for wildlife most of the time and already at 7.1 will limit the use of TC's.

I don't understand this obsession of Canon making huge 1kg lenses and then trying to save weight on everything affordable by making lenses super dark.
me neither, totally absurd. I could get it if the 100-500L say weren't an L and was half the price, and they also announced a 150-500 f/5.6L IS, but so far we are only getting slow apertures L or not. Sure build the 70-400 as slow as you like, but where is the RF repalcement for the EF 100-400L II f4.5-5.6. Maybe put that on the road map to given people confidence you haven't entirely lost the plot.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
988
829
www.flickr.com
400mm and 500mm at f/7.1 is just terrible.

Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k. And it’s a great lens.

Why can’t Canon at least match Sony?
I don't think that Canon needs to match Sony. They march to their own drum.
The RF100-500mm is a great lens. Sharp at 500mm and perfect for moon shots :)
f7.1 is still manageable even at higher ISO.
Works well with 1.4/2x teleconvertors as well which will give you very narrow apereture.
The 600/800 f11 lenses show that you don't need wide apereture to get good shots in good light.
Not as great in low light/wide aperture though. Big whites will give you that at an appropriate price.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
988
829
www.flickr.com
me neither, totally absurd. I could get it if the 100-500L say weren't an L and was half the price, and they also announced a 150-500 f/5.6L IS, but so far we are only getting slow apertures L or not. Sure build the 70-400 as slow as you like, but where is the RF repalcement for the EF 100-400L II f4.5-5.6. Maybe put that on the road map to given people confidence you haven't entirely lost the plot.
Not sure what you mean... The RF100-500mm is the replacement EF100-400 with 100mm tacked on. It is approximately f5.6 @400mm. I am glad that they added the extra 100mm even at the expense of ~2/3 stop difference. The choice is mine whether to limit the reach to 400mm/5.6 like the EF100-400mm or enjoy the extra reach at a higher ISO.... hint the latter one :)
 

rontele7

EOS M6 Mark II
Nov 8, 2017
62
76
Earth
If you think 500mm f7.1 is just terrible, you must have never taken photos with the RF 100-500 f5.6-7.1L lens.
It is the best & most useful RF lens they've made so far for my purposes.

With that said, it will be nice to see future super tele RF lenses that get closer to 100mm entrance pupils for those with bigger wallets & biceps.
$3k for an f/7.1 lens is objectively bad.

If your uses are exclusively shooting at noon on sunny days, then that’s great, but slow lenses break down as soon as the light drops, even a partly cloudy day at f/7.1 requires a shutter well below 1/1000th. It’s just bad.

Sony gives users 1 stop faster, 100mm extra, for $1k less. Why can’t Canon compete?
 

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
348
736
That 70-400mm certainly catches my eye. And keep in mind that the admin is just guessing at the aperture - and even if he is correct, I guess it is expected to get the usual "7.1 is terrible" blah blah comments. Of course, those who actually have used the 100-500 at 7.1 realize there is no issue with 7.1. With today's cameras easily shooting practically noise free at ISO 3200 and even 6400, this would be the same as shooting at f/2.0 or so back in the day when we used ISO 400 film - or even the early days of digital when we might not have gone past ISO 400. So, if f/2.0 or f/2.8 is too slow, then keep on complaining. If they can get this lens under 1,000 grams, then it will be something I will seriously consider.