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

dcm

It's not the gear. But it helps.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
978
578
Colorado, USA
Totally useless. That focal range is referred to as a ‘standard zoom lens’ for no reason at all. :rolleyes:
Agreed. And it changes over time - think of it as pure marketing at this point. When I got started in the 1970s, the "standard zoom" on FD was 35-70. The FD 35-105 f/3.5 was a huge step forward. BTW: A "wide zoom" was 24-35 and later became 20-35.

These days I tend to think of anything that starts < 50 and ends > 50 as a standard zoom since it has both wide and telephoto aspects. That covers a lot of territory depending on your needs and even includes my RF 24-240. Similarly, a wide zoom is anything that starts and ends <50 and a telephoto zoom is anything that starts and ends >50
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

SnowMiku

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 4, 2020
96
64
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.

Not everything is the same about f/7.1 vs f/2.0 back in the film and early digital days, people have been forgetting about the more shallow depth of field that the wider apertures offer.

I think it would have been better if they kept all under 400mm consumer RF lenses at f/5.6 because it seems a bit odd that some of my old consumer EF lenses will have more shallow depth of field then some of the upcoming consumer RF lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pzyber

BPhoto06

Canon EOS R
Feb 12, 2021
14
19
I don't understand Canon. They made the EOS RP in 2019 as a full frame mirrorless camera people could afford, then priced their lenses sky-high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CameraMan

BurningPlatform

EOS 90D
Mar 4, 2014
130
80
I don't understand Canon. They made the EOS RP in 2019 as a full frame mirrorless camera people could afford, then priced their lenses sky-high.
They do have the line of consumer level lenses: 35mm f1.8, 50mm 1.8, 85mm f2, 24-105mm 4.0-7.1, 24-240mm, 600mm f11, 800mm f11, and all the adapted Canon and third party EF lenses. UW and longer tele zooms are missing from the list, though, Of course you gain quality by selecting L class lenses, which is a nice option to have.
 

BBarn

EOS M6 Mark II
Nov 2, 2020
57
36
They do have the line of consumer level lenses: 35mm f1.8, 50mm 1.8, 85mm f2, 24-105mm 4.0-7.1, 24-240mm, 600mm f11, 800mm f11, and all the adapted Canon and third party EF lenses. UW and longer tele zooms are missing from the list, though, Of course you gain quality by selecting L class lenses, which is a nice option to have.
Owning an RP and a few of those lenses, I do find the combos deliver good performance for the price. I passed on the 50 though since it lacks IS. Perhaps Canon will have the good sense to add a 50mm f/1.4 with IS to the line for improved low light capability.
 

mdcmdcmdc

7Dii, M5, 100 (film), α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
125
164
While the lens on a 1.6 crop sensor is indeed a 16mm f2.8 lens, it is "Equivalent" to a "Full Frame" ~26mm f4.5 lens on a Full Frame sensor.
If the "Full Frame Equivalent" wasn't obvious enough in my post, my apologies, and I have edited my initial post to make it more so.
If you don't agree with this, then go ahead and reply how I'm wrong. I've had this discussion too many times to bother having it again, and will let you have the last word.
It’s OK. Lots of people are confused by the difference between focal length and field of view, and between aperture, focal ratio, and depth of field. They also think lenses magically get longer or shorter depending on the sensor that’s behind them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

JustUs7

EOS RP
Feb 5, 2020
238
442
It’s OK. Lots of people are confused by the difference between focal length and field of view, and between aperture, focal ratio, and depth of field. They also think lenses magically get longer or shorter depending on the sensor that’s behind them.

Nobody is confused by that and you aren’t revealing any special knowledge here. Discussions of equivalence are just a generally accepted simplification of what one might expect to see in a final image when using a particular camera and lens combination.

You don’t often hear super zoom bridge camera users show off their 178mm moon pictures. They talk of 1,000mm focal lengths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SnowMiku

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
767
516
There's actually a Samyang AF 14mm F2.8 for RF weighing 523g and can be bought for less than $600, and a manual focus version for less than $350 but weigh more at 800g. Unless, of course, you are referring to only native lenses.
So, the question is how good those cheap Chinese lenses are, really. I know they’re acceptable.

‘’I do expect Chinese lenses to both get better, and more expensive as time goes on. At an earlier time, Sigma was known for just producing junk lenses too.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
767
516
Not everything is the same about f/7.1 vs f/2.0 back in the film and early digital days, people have been forgetting about the more shallow depth of field that the wider apertures offer.

I think it would have been better if they kept all under 400mm consumer RF lenses at f/5.6 because it seems a bit odd that some of my old consumer EF lenses will have more shallow depth of field then some of the upcoming consumer RF lenses.
Why compare 7.1 to 2.0? I think people here are ticked at the difference between 6.3 and 7.1, or more unrealistically, 5.6 to 7.1.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,658
4,086
Irving, Texas
I don't understand Canon. They made the EOS RP in 2019 as a full frame mirrorless camera people could afford, then priced their lenses sky-high.
There are several affordable RF lenses. There's also the EF lenses that can be used on the RP that many of those buyers probably already owned with their EFs bodies.. L series lenses have always been expensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

Skux

EOS 90D
Feb 21, 2020
128
165
It’s OK. Lots of people are confused by the difference between focal length and field of view, and between aperture, focal ratio, and depth of field. They also think lenses magically get longer or shorter depending on the sensor that’s behind them.
No they aren't lol, that's what 'equivalent' is used for.
 

mdcmdcmdc

7Dii, M5, 100 (film), α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
125
164
Nobody is confused by that and you aren’t revealing any special knowledge here. Discussions of equivalence are just a generally accepted simplification of what one might expect to see in a final image when using a particular camera and lens combination.

You don’t often hear super zoom bridge camera users show off their 178mm moon pictures. They talk of 1,000mm focal lengths.
That's exactly my point. There is no special knowledge, and yet, so many people get it wrong, or at least, play fast and loose with the numbers.

Focal ratio = the focal length of the lens divided by the aperture, which is the diameter of the entrance pupil. This is photography 101 folks.

Nowhere in that equation does the size of the sensor come into play.

Focal ratio is NOT the same as depth of field. DoF is a combination of many factors, including the focal ratio, yes, but also the size of the final image, the viewing distance, and subjective factors such as what the viewer perceives as "in focus".

An f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens no matter what size sensor is behind it. F/2.8 is NOT a measure of depth of field, it is a property of the lens. It is more accurately a metric for the amount of light per unit area that is transmitted to the image plane (albeit inversely proportional).

To say f/2.8 on full frame is "equivalent" to f/4.5 on APS-C *might* be valid if your context is DoF, with all other factors being the same. But the amount of light the lens transmits to the sensor per unit area does not change, so in terms of exposure calculation for low-light scenarios, the lens is f/2.8 for either sensor.

Without that context, a blanket statement like "f/2.8 on full frame is equivalent to f/4.5 on crop" is meaningless.
 

mpmark

EOS RP
Aug 9, 2016
231
278
The 100-500mm lets in exactly the same amount of light as the 100-400mm II: both have front elements of 71-72mm. If the light is limiting, upping the iso of the 7.1 at 500mm by 2/3 stop over the 5.6 at 400mm at the same shutter speed and downsizing the resulting image by 20% gives the same S/N for a crop image.

You are mistaken, it doesn't let in the same amount of light at the relative apertures, please don't tell people this, that is not correct information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

mpmark

EOS RP
Aug 9, 2016
231
278
So you're already shooting at high ISO? It's fairly telling that older camera with Auto ISO set fixed at ISO 400 with a flash attached, while newer cameras fix at ISO 1600. Noise performance has improved significantly.

Having said that, when shooting birds I need high 1/2000 or faster and am often shooting at the beginning or end of the day or with overcast, so I do need pretty high ISO settings. But that's why I have a 600mm f/4.


So true. In fact, the EF 100-400 II is actually T6.3 at the long end, so @mpmark should probably just toss it in the bin, if that 1/3-stop is so problematic the lens must be useless.

Whether cameras today have better performance at higher iso is irrelevant to aperture size, you could argue, that just because you can shoot at F/7.1 at iso10,000 with respective results in lower light, the same is true that you can shoot even later with that great iso performance with a f/4 aperture lens, F/7.1 is still slow regardless.
 

mpmark

EOS RP
Aug 9, 2016
231
278
It is truly, utterly remarkably, speechlessly incredible that anyone on earth can even waste a breath of their time complaining about the difference of F5.6 to F/6.3. Literally.

What on earth are you doing that you feel like 1/3rd of a stop is worth splitting hairs about? These lenses are built for long daylight reach to begin with, if 1/3rd of a stop is going to ruin your photo, it's probably a godawful photo to begin with.

The honest-to-god truth is that the 100-400 and 100-500 are, in practice, the same lens between 100-400, with the 100-500 giving the user a built-in 500mm option if they want it. That's literally it. Whether or not the LCD reads "5.6" or "6.3", it's not going to make a difference. Depending on the setting, the camera literally shows you F/5.6 at 400mm. The majority of 100-400 users are big on teleconverters to begin with, and are out there shooting F/8. Instead the 100-500 gives that extra reach while saving the wide end.

Just wait until you find out about T stops and that your f/2.8 lenses are actually T/3.1... Guess that makes the F/2.8 zooms unusable now too. :rolleyes:
frankly plenty, but it doesn't matter anymore, I have long sold my slow 100-400, not even thinking of the new 100-500 (even slower). I've moved to f/4 glass. thanks.