Canon announcements coming in late September [CR1]

[clearlyed]

CANON CINE line.
C500 RF
C700 RF
C300 RF
C50 RF.

 

[sanj]

No one needs 1.2 at 35mm. We need a 1.4 RF lens small just like the Sony 1.4 gm at around 530 grams.

I would prefer a 1.2 as it will be sharper at 1.4 compared to the 1.4 lens at 1.4.

 

[sanj]

There is a 35mm 1.8 already. So most likely the next 35mm will be a 1.2. My guess.

 

[tq0cr5i]

Guessing absolutely nothing about the R5 firmware upgrade we've been waiting for all year.

You are not the only one who is waiting for the loooooooooooooooong rumored EOS R5 HUGE firmware upgrade. Maybe this Thursday, if not then the next Thursday or next.

The last firmware upgrade wave for the EOS R3 and R5 cameras was nearly 5 months ago. So there maybe a big shake, soon, very soon.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

In the EF line up Canon still list four f1.4 lenses

EF 24mm f1.4L
EF 35mm F1.4L
EF 50mm f1.4
EF 85mm f1.4L

Of all the lenses they have discontinued these still survive. Surely that must mean they sell in enough numbers to warrant staying in the line up so why no RF versions?

I read recently that the EF 50mm f1.8 plastic fantastic lens is still Canon's biggest selling lens. So while everyone thinks that RF is taking over the world....that little EF 50mm lens is still Canon's biggest seller.
When I look at my extensive and comprehensive array of Canon L lenses, both zooms and Primes, I don't really see the need to replace many of them with their RF versions. The EF stuff is working better for me than they did on my DSLR bodies (and they worked pretty well for me back then too) and they won't cost me a further £2.5K per lens to get pretty much the same results.

Sure the new RF 135L and rumoured RF 35L are 1/3 of a stop brighter, I'm not sure that will dial into much visible difference in the end photographs. Some guys here have deep pockets and need the very latest version of each lens, good for you guys. For me the transition to Mirrorless was always about the AF system and adapter drop in filters not about the RF lenses.

I can see a RF 100-500mm L IS and maybe a RF 24-70mm f2.8 L IS in my bag at some point. However, the EF 100-400mm LIS II and EF 24-70mm F2.8 L II are very tempting and very similar in terms of capability. I could buy both of the EF lenses for the same price of either of the RF versions. For me, this year's expense has been the jump to mirrorless. I'm a little late to the party. Acquiring and learning the EOS R6ii and R8, Swapping my TS-e 17L for a EF-11-24L and upgrading my EF 400mm f2.8 L IS to a mkII version have been my financial priorities from my excess income.

 

[flaviojzk]

Canon is going to silence the apsc naysayers by releasing the RF-S 11-22 and 22 pancake

 

[stillviking]

Still waiting for RF 50mm 1.4.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

In the EF line up Canon still list four f1.4 lenses

EF 24mm f1.4L
EF 35mm F1.4L
EF 50mm f1.4
EF 85mm f1.4L

Of all the lenses they have discontinued these still survive. Surely that must mean they sell in enough numbers to warrant staying in the line up so why no RF versions?

If anything, their survival means that there is less of a pressing need for replacements.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I read recently that the EF 50mm f1.8 plastic fantastic lens is still Canon's biggest selling lens. So while everyone thinks that RF is taking over the world....that little EF 50mm lens is still Canon's biggest seller.
When I look at my extensive and comprehensive array of Canon L lenses, both zooms and Primes, I don't really see the need to replace many of them with their RF versions. The EF stuff is working better for me than they did on my DSLR bodies (and they worked pretty well for me back then too) and they won't cost me a further £2.5K per lens to get pretty much the same results.

That is a good reason for Canon to make RF 24 f/1.2 L and RF 35 f/1.2 L instead of f/1.4.
Although, they could just add IS instead of upping the aperture.

 

[shores11]

24mm or 28mm 1.4 for astrophotography would be most welcome. Come on Canon!

 

[jam05]

Announcing two basic lenses in Q4 sounds kinda meh. Certainly will not excite many consumer or investors. Unless those tilt shift lenses that have AF is included in the lens announcement. Fujifilm is also on the verge of releasing TS lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Announcing two basic lenses in Q4 sounds kinda meh. Certainly will not excite many consumer or investors. Unless those tilt shift lenses that have AF is included in the lens announcement. Fujifilm is also on the verge of releasing TS lenses.

I don't think niche products like TS lenses will excite many consumers or investors.

 

[clearwaterphotog]

As someone that bought into RF specifically due to the excellent optics in RF lenses especially relative to their reduced size and weight, I'm not interested in purchasing EF lenses, which are larger and heavier than they need to be, if they were native to the RF mount. Let's see those compact high performing primes that Canon is clearly capable of making. I'm hoping Canon launches the RF 35L, though at f/1.2 it'll probably be as big as the EF 1.4L II which is already pretty huge for 35mm (relative to 35mm's usefulness as a versatile walkaround lens for travel, kids, street). Here's hoping it's meaningfully smaller and lighter, and ideally cheaper (good joke).

 

[christianf]

I would move to a RF CANON from my long in the tooth my EOS 7mk2 if there was a new 17-55 f2.8 or the like.

 

[angelisland]

Maybe it’s an R5 Mark II - i’ve been thinking since they’ve recently had it on sale with free grip, etc. - with Canon that usually means that it’s either Christmas, or that model is being replaced.

 

[David - Sydney]

24mm or 28mm 1.4 for astrophotography would be most welcome. Come on Canon!

wider would be even better... unfortunately Canon has not been that interested in lenses that target coma at a reasonable price that are wide/bright.

 

[Bishop80]

As someone that bought into RF specifically due to the excellent optics in RF lenses especially relative to their reduced size and weight, I'm not interested in purchasing EF lenses, which are larger and heavier than they need to be, if they were native to the RF mount. Let's see those compact high performing primes that Canon is clearly capable of making. I'm hoping Canon launches the RF 35L, though at f/1.2 it'll probably be as big as the EF 1.4L II which is already pretty huge for 35mm (relative to 35mm's usefulness as a versatile walkaround lens for travel, kids, street). Here's hoping it's meaningfully smaller and lighter, and ideally cheaper (good joke).

Some RF equivalents are lighter, and some are heavier. For example:

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM: 805g
RF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM: 900g (~3.4oz heavier)

EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM: 3050g
RF 600mm F4 L IS USM: 3090g (~1.4oz heavier)

EF 50mm f/1.2L USM: 545g
RF 50mm F1.2 L USM: 950g (~14oz heavier)

EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM: 1025g
RF 85mm F1.2 L USM: 1195g (6oz heavier)

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM: 790g
RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM: 840g (1.75oz heavier)

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM: 1440g
RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM: 1200g (8.5oz lighter)

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM: 795g
RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM: 700g (~3oz lighter)

 

[GMCPhotographics]

As someone that bought into RF specifically due to the excellent optics in RF lenses especially relative to their reduced size and weight, I'm not interested in purchasing EF lenses, which are larger and heavier than they need to be, if they were native to the RF mount. Let's see those compact high performing primes that Canon is clearly capable of making. I'm hoping Canon launches the RF 35L, though at f/1.2 it'll probably be as big as the EF 1.4L II which is already pretty huge for 35mm (relative to 35mm's usefulness as a versatile walkaround lens for travel, kids, street). Here's hoping it's meaningfully smaller and lighter, and ideally cheaper (good joke).

In theory, mirrorless lenses are only shorter than SLR lenses under 40mm focal length. On an SLR, this is because optical and engineering effort has to be included in the optical formula to account for the physical distance that the mirror box occupies. Most SLR lenses under 40mm are a retro focus design. which is larger and more complex and the focal length could be on a mirrorless format. One an RF lens, there is no mirror box to account for. However, we are seeing on most RF lenses a funky (and expensive) array of Aspherical last element groups to bend the light rays from the rear element to the sensor. Also modern lenses are used a lot of videography and require more exotic and complicated focus motor systems than thier older "photo only" brethren. All of the EF lenses have an focus system that rotates (internally) the focus groups. All of the RF lenses have their focus groups sliding back and forth on rails. Photographer's don't care for this, but videographers do.
In theory, tele focus lenses will all be longer and slightly heavier on RF than EF, but the wide angle lenses should be superior, smaller and lighter. If you look at say the EF 400mm f2.8 L IS III, on the RF mount (it's the same lens, just adapted) it's heavier and longer to account for the baked in adapter. A ground up RF version redesign wouldn't be smaller or lighter unless Canon can utilise some other funky wizardry / technology.
Some lenses have been made smaller (like the amazing RF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS) because they have cunningly change the optical design so that it retracts at the wide end and extends at the long end. Rack the lens back to 70mm and it looks tiny compared to the EF version. However at 200mm..it's pretty much the same size.
The both the EF 24mm f1.4 II L and EF 35mm f1.4 II L are fine lenses. I have no idea how Canon can improve upon them in terms of a worthy / worth while upgrade other than open up the Aperture by 1/3rd of a stop, increase the AF speed and accuracy a touch and add and Image Stabiliser. The latter isn't particularly important considering the angle of view and it's relation to a low shutter speed.
I use a mk 1 EF 35mm f1.4 L, it's a lens that I bought new over 12 years ago and it's been amazing and I've loved the imagery that I've created with it it. It's truly an "Art portraiture" lens. it's hard to upgrade it to a MkII when the mkI is still turning in great images. However...come the arrival of the long awaited RF version...there will be a flood of S/H EF 35mm L II's on the used market and I might well snap one up then.

 

[David - Sydney]

Some RF equivalents are lighter, and some are heavier. For example:

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM: 805g
RF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM: 900g (~3.4oz heavier)

EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM: 3050g
RF 600mm F4 L IS USM: 3090g (~1.4oz heavier)

EF 50mm f/1.2L USM: 545g
RF 50mm F1.2 L USM: 950g (~14oz heavier)

EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM: 1025g
RF 85mm F1.2 L USM: 1195g (6oz heavier)

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM: 790g
RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM: 840g (1.75oz heavier)

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM: 1440g
RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM: 1200g (8.5oz lighter)

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM: 795g
RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM: 700g (~3oz lighter)

Thanks for the analysis but we should include the weight of the adaptor as well in the calculations which is 110gm or 121gm for the drop-in filter variant.
This would mean that all bar the RF50mm would be lighter for RF versions

 

[landscaper]

Please Canon

Your Landscape and Studio Market segment has been waiting 10 YEARS for an upgrade to the
High Megapixel 5DS / 5DSr Body

Please Bring out a 100 Megapixel Model :
R5s / RS

And a Couple RF Tilt Shift Lenses
So we don't have to switch over to
Fuji and Hassleblad

Canon will Sell Millions of these !!

Ten Years is too Long to Wait