Are these the 7 RF lenses Canon will be announcing in 2020? [CR1]

[privatebydesign]

Hi all, for the R camera body (R5 expected for this Summer) I am looking for a wide angle lens (not necessary a fish eye but close to it).
I currently own an RF 15-35mm f2,8 and I need something quite wider. Ideally, the current EF 8-15 f/4 will be ok. However it is NOT an RF lens and the F/4 aperture is not too bright.
Just wondering if you think that realistically speaking, that is the best and maybe only option available now and probably for the next 6-12 months (or even more?).

In R mount the 15-35 is probably all you will have for a while, if you are going to use EF glass I'd highly recommend the older 15mm f2.8 fisheye and a program called Fisheye Hemi. The results I get from that combination are a quarter the price and the IQ is better than the EF14, and it is less than half the price and one stop faster than the EF8-15.

https://imadio.com/products/prodpage_hemi.aspx They actually have version 2 out now and there is an excellent review of it here http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/imadio-fisheye-hemi-v2-review/

 

[derpderp]

People buying MILC an FF are not the norm (the bread and butter), pros and those already invested in the system will still use EF glass, and likely EF bodies and adopt to the RF mount. I really don't believe that the RP's intended target was really people completely new to photography, as most don't do 1k for a body.

Sorry for being late to the party, but I'm afraid I will have to disagree with what you said (in bold). There aren't that many ppl who are 'new' to photography nowadays, due to the proliferation of excellent cameras in smartphones (most mid to high-end smartphones). So for ppl who actually are looking to invest in a camera now (excluding professionals and enthusiasts from DSLR days), full frame and mirrorless is where they'd be looking, since that's where most of the development/investment is going to now. $1k for a body really isn't that much, seeing that most high-end SMARTPHONES cost more than that.

I bought my RP because its (1) cheaper than any other full-frame mirrorless camera out there and (2) it uses the RF mount. I never once considered any of the other (frankly dated) offerings from Canon.

 

[lawny13]

Sorry for being late to the party, but I'm afraid I will have to disagree with what you said (in bold). There aren't that many ppl who are 'new' to photography nowadays, due to the proliferation of excellent cameras in smartphones (most mid to high-end smartphones). So for ppl who actually are looking to invest in a camera now (excluding professionals and enthusiasts from DSLR days), full frame and mirrorless is where they'd be looking, since that's where most of the development/investment is going to now. $1k for a body really isn't that much, seeing that most high-end SMARTPHONES cost more than that.

I bought my RP because its (1) cheaper than any other full-frame mirrorless camera out there and (2) it uses the RF mount. I never once considered any of the other (frankly dated) offerings from Canon.

hahaha... sorry but it sound like you are saying that most people would pay 1k for a phone. I disagree with you on that. Sure those who can afford a 1k phone might look at the RP, but the fact is that most people do not buy 1k phones. And if you were to insist that is the case then there is no point talking to you on the matter,

Additionally people can’t justify that phone purchase because it does a lot more than just take pictures. It is multifunctional device. Where as a camera only does 1-2 things, many people balk at the thought of spending 1.3k on a camera let along the expensive FF glass that goes with it. People who talk about this on here and on DPR is not the common joe/jane, and if they use themselves as anecdotal evidence I can’t take them seriously.

We buying gear and justifying it is us to the regular joes as someone buying leica gear is to us,

 

[derpderp]

hahaha... sorry but it sound like you are saying that most people would pay 1k for a phone. I disagree with you on that. Sure those who can afford a 1k phone might look at the RP, but the fact is that most people do not buy 1k phones. And if you were to insist that is the case then there is no point talking to you on the matter,

Additionally people can’t justify that phone purchase because it does a lot more than just take pictures. It is multifunctional device. Where as a camera only does 1-2 things, many people balk at the thought of spending 1.3k on a camera let along the expensive FF glass that goes with it. People who talk about this on here and on DPR is not the common joe/jane, and if they use themselves as anecdotal evidence I can’t take them seriously.

We buying gear and justifying it is us to the regular joes as someone buying leica gear is to us,

Idk which part of my post that you don't understand, but nowhere in my post did I suggest that most people would pay 1k for a phone. What I did suggest, however, is that ppl who are looking to invest in a camera now (beyond the already excellent cameras they have in their phones) will in most likelihood be looking at a mirrorless camera.

 

[SteveC]

Idk which part of my post that you don't understand, but nowhere in my post did I suggest that most people would pay 1k for a phone. What I did suggest, however, is that ppl who are looking to invest in a camera now (beyond the already excellent cameras they have in their phones) will in most likelihood be looking at a mirrorless camera.

As I recall you said that high end phones cost over $1000...not that tons of people had them. So yeah, there's a comprehension issue here.

...

With the demise of really cheap-ass point and shoots, we are seeing a situation where the break point--the time one says, "I want an actual, stand-alone camera" goes higher and higher, as the cell phone ones get better. Which makes that jump more and more expensive. And yes, IF they actually learn what the difference between a DSLR and a mirrorless is, and they came from phones, they're likely to wonder who the heck needs that silly mirror flapping around for anyway when you have perfectly good live view.

Now remember, I'm talking about NEW people, who may never have used a viewfinder before; but even there, they'll think an EVF is perfectly fine so why bother with that neandertal flapping mirror. To a lot of people who expect a computer to fix everything, that mirror is a kludge they'd find pointless.

I know that's their attitude because that was MY attitude way back when; I almost got into Sony 4/3s when I decided I wanted better controls than a cheapie point and shoot, as the wave of the future, before I remembered how much I hate their other products.

So a mirrorless will seem "modern" and it will be more like what they're used to.

 

[derpderp]

As I recall you said that high end phones cost over $1000...not that tons of people had them. So yeah, there's a comprehension issue here.

...

With the demise of really cheap-ass point and shoots, we are seeing a situation where the break point--the time one says, "I want an actual, stand-alone camera" goes higher and higher, as the cell phone ones get better. Which makes that jump more and more expensive. And yes, IF they actually learn what the difference between a DSLR and a mirrorless is, and they came from phones, they're likely to wonder who the heck needs that silly mirror flapping around for anyway when you have perfectly good live view.

Now remember, I'm talking about NEW people, who may never have used a viewfinder before; but even there, they'll think an EVF is perfectly fine so why bother with that neandertal flapping mirror. To a lot of people who expect a computer to fix everything, that mirror is a kludge they'd find pointless.

I know that's their attitude because that was MY attitude way back when; I almost got into Sony 4/3s when I decided I wanted better controls than a cheapie point and shoot, as the wave of the future, before I remembered how much I hate their other products.

So a mirrorless will seem "modern" and it will be more like what they're used to.

Very well put Steve. That's exactly what I was trying to convey. Thanks!

 

[lawny13]

Idk which part of my post that you don't understand, but nowhere in my post did I suggest that most people would pay 1k for a phone. What I did suggest, however, is that ppl who are looking to invest in a camera now (beyond the already excellent cameras they have in their phones) will in most likelihood be looking at a mirrorless camera.

I agree with your mirrorless part 100%. But you should read your post. You didn’t just say mirrorless, but FF.

And then you brought up the RP as the cheapest entry to FF. And then you said that 1k isn’t that much since people are willing to spend that on a phone. It all sounded like a generalization..

So I went on that. Phone cameras are in fact that that great when it comes to non-ideal lighting, moving subject etc. The whole M line would in fact make more sense for entry people.

You are honestly also making a mistake with the mirrorless comment. But you if you go out and ask a bunch of random people on the street about dslr and mirrorless that most wont even know what you are talking about.

If any regular person asks me advice on camera gear 90% of the time I push them towards something like a rebel. It is the best bang for your buck option in terms of IQ, and good but budget glass. They can start for 450 dollars no problem. If they really get into photography then they can upgrade and spend more.

Stats show that people on average own 1.5 lenses. And most of those lenses are kit lenses. What does that tell you? Most people don’t upgrade or invest further than the kit.

 

[Ronny Wertelaers]

As a wedding photographer can't wait to pair a canon R5 with the 35mm F1.2 R.

Huwelijksfotograaf Ronny Wertelaers - Hasselt - Belgium

Huwelijksfotograaf Ronny Wertelaers uit Hasselt - niet geposeerde trouwfoto's voor vastleggen van echte emoties

www.ronnywertelaers.com

 

[lawny13]

It is more likely to be a sensor readout speed issue, just look at how much data the M6II and 90D can process using the 'old' digic 8. That can do 32mpix, 14fps with AF and AE, which is like 3x the performance of the R, which has the same digic 8.

Well... now that we know what the R5 will be able to do.... seems like canon had resolved sensor and processor issues.

 

[Khatgs]

Hi,

Do you think Canon could announce a 500 5.6 like Nikon ?