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

[Ozarker]

Did you guys hear Sony has a new 24-70 f/2.8? Fingers crossed Canon will release a 29-43mm f/7.1 in order to compete!

RF 28-70 f/2L
RF 24-70 f/2.8L

Let me know when Sony catches up.

 

[HMC11]

It's very telling that I can get 15mm super wide angle on my phone - yet for my RP there is no lens anywhere near that, aside from something that costs £2500+

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.

 

[1D4]

$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?

You forgot to mention that the Sony is a 3x zoom and the Canon is 5x and the latter is more expensive to produce. 200-600 is great if all you're doing is shooting things at a long distance, but if you need to zoom out, the 100mm vs. 200mm difference is huge. In my photography, a zoom that starts at 200mm is useless. I tried that with the Nikkor 200-500, and constantly needed to switch between that and the Nikkor 70-200 FL ED to make sure I could frame closer subjects. The RF100-500 works perfectly for my needs, and I'm not missing shots at the wide end anymore.

 

[noncho]

RF 16 2.8 sounds interesting!
The only telephoto lens I'm jelous about is Nikon 500 5.6 PF.
Please bring something silimar for RF.
Until that I'll use my Sigma 150-600C.

 

[mpmark]

My understanding that there is enough rounding and fudging (never in the consumers' favor) by makers that I can't be certain of the 5.6 at 400 of the 100-400. Not disputing a tiny difference at that focal length, but being careful not to trust any number as guaranteed.

Im giving you facts, that's all. In the end the 100-400 does let in more light, comparing it to the 100-500 is misleading, the new lens is slower at all focal lengths above 300mm, its bad enough how low light the 100-400 already is, canon made a mistake here in my view. but that's my view. 7.1 is ridiculously slow and useless for my photography.

 

[H. Jones]

Im giving you facts, that's all. In the end the 100-400 does let in more light, comparing it to the 100-500 is misleading, the new lens is slower at all focal lengths above 300mm, its bad enough how low light the 100-400 already is, canon made a mistake here in my view. but that's my view. 7.1 is ridiculously slow and useless for my photography.

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.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Im giving you facts, that's all. In the end the 100-400 does let in more light, comparing it to the 100-500 is misleading, the new lens is slower at all focal lengths above 300mm, its bad enough how low light the 100-400 already is, canon made a mistake here in my view. but that's my view. 7.1 is ridiculously slow and useless for my photography.

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.

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.

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.

 

[navastronia]

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.

Many forumers at CR buy only 1st party glass, so a lens like the Samyang 14mm RF is a no-go for them and basically does not exist, for their purposes. Personally, I can't afford (fast) 1st party glass, so I'll shoot with the Samyang and adapted-Sigma lenses all day long.

 

[unfocused]

What’s the harm in releasing more lenses?...

There may not be any, as none of us knows where exactly the supply chain issues are and what the causes are. But, here are some POTENTIAL harms:

Global electronic component shortage: If Canon cannot deliver existing lenses because of a shortage of electronic components needed for their lenses, then adding new lenses can mean spreading a limited supply of components over more units, which means even longer waits for existing lenses.

Manufacturing facilities are finite: Every time Canon produces a new lens they don't create a new assembly plant. They use existing resources and those resources are finite (they can add new capacity, but that is a multi-year process based on long term demand, not short term shortages). As with the shortage of components, spreading those manufacturing facilities over more units contributes to shortages.

Added pressure to use third party suppliers that may not be as reliable or as ethical: If Canon cannot meet the demand with their traditional supply chain, they face pressures to farm out components to new third party suppliers who may not have the same reliability as Canon's traditional in-house and subcontractor supply chain. That could mean more units being delivered with substandard components that may fail in the future. Or, worse yet, if could mean buying components that are manufactured in Chinese plants using Uyghur slave labor.

Higher costs to the consumer: Demand already exceeds supply. Adding new lenses will only increase demand. We've already seen price gouging by third party sellers and Canon has said that one of the upsides of the supply shortage is that they are selling more bodies and lenses directly through their own channels, which means added profits for the company (since they charge full retail but don't share it with any retailers), but gives consumers fewer options and fewer discounts from retailers. Both Adorama and B&H offer rebate programs for people using their in-house credit cards. But if they don't have product and you can only get certain products from the Canon store, you won't get those rebates.

More local retailers closing: Granted, most local camera retailers are already out of business. But, it certainly doesn't help those few remaining businesses if they don't have stock to sell.

Now, remember, these are just some speculative POTENTIAL harms. Only Canon knows that the real impact, if any, might be. But you asked what the harm might be.

Sure, I agree it would be nice if Canon were more transparent about their future plans. It would make life a lot easier for all of us if we could plan our purchases knowing what future releases Canon has in mind. But, Canon has never released such road maps and I don't see any indication that's what they intend to do.

Now, as I told @neuroanatomist, I fully recognize that I am an impatient, spoiled American consumer who expects to be able to buy any product I want from multiple sources. I recognize the we are in challenging times brought about by a global pandemic, but I can still whine if I want to and frankly, I fully understand that Canon doesn't really care about my whining.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Was really hoping that one of the lens would be a 35 mm f1.2.

I am pretty sure that at least Canon will come up with an RF version of the EF 35mm f/1.4. They are really serious about the new mount, no doubt.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Many forumers at CR buy only 1st party glass, so a lens like the Samyang 14mm RF is a no-go for them and basically does not exist, for their purposes. Personally, I can't afford (fast) 1st party glass, so I'll shoot with the Samyang and adapted-Sigma lenses all day long.

In fact, for such a wide lens, manual focus is a good option, since such lenses have a huge DoF anyway. I have a Zeiss 18mm with EF mount which I quite frequently used for street shooting.

 

[justaCanonuser]

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.

Just wait a bit. I am pretty sure that Sigma and Tamron will come up with RF versions of their 150-600mm f/5-6.3 lenses. Tamron's 150-600mm still opens to f/5.6 @ 400mm, other than Sigma's bit darker zooms, and the G2 is a well made lens for a decent price. Only for fast action, I'd prefer Canon's native lenses, because their AF works better with Canon's cameras.

 

[AlanF]

Im giving you facts, that's all. In the end the 100-400 does let in more light, comparing it to the 100-500 is misleading, the new lens is slower at all focal lengths above 300mm, its bad enough how low light the 100-400 already is, canon made a mistake here in my view. but that's my view. 7.1 is ridiculously slow and useless for my photography.

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.

 

[rontele7]

Did you hear Canon has a 28-70mm F2 and a freaking amazing 70-200mm F2.8? They're both one of the reasons why Sony is developing those two lense AGAIN just four and five years after they hit the market. And according to user comments on Sonyalpha rumors, the 70-200mm can't always keep up with 30FPS from the A1 for some reason...

A 28-70…as if 24-70 wasn’t already the most useless focal length zoom, they went and made it worse!

 

[neuroanatomist]

A 28-70…as if 24-70 wasn’t already the most useless focal length zoom, they went and made it worse!

Totally useless. That focal range is referred to as a ‘standard zoom lens’ for no reason at all.

 

[Billybob]

Totally useless. That focal range is referred to as a ‘standard zoom lens’ for no reason at all.

Yes, I absolutely hate the range, but somehow a 24-70 stays permanently glued to my second camera body!

I may not love it, but useless? Absolutely not.

 

[Skux]

Knowing Canon, the non-L telephoto zoom is probably f/11-f/32.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Craig mentioned the 16mm f2.8 might be for a crop sensor which would be 25mm f2.8.
But a 1.6x crop would make it ~26mm f4.5.

You're both wrong. On a crop sensor it will be exactly 16mm f/2.8.

 

[Bert63]

where is the RF repalcement for the EF 100-400L II f4.5-5.6

It's the 100-500L.

 

[usern4cr]

You're both wrong. On a crop sensor it will be exactly 16mm f/2.8.

If this is a 1.6x crop lens on a 1.6x crop sensor camera then it will take a photo whose image is the same ("Equivalent") to a "Full Frame" ~26mm f4.5 lens on a Full Frame sensor camera.
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 accordingly. I've had this discussion too many times to bother having it again, and will let you have the last word.