Canon Introduces Three New Lenses, Enhancing Still Photography and Video Production for Any Skill Level

[EOS 4 Life]

Some technical data of the RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM:

2.050 g weight
102,3 x 314,1 mm size
95 mm filter
0,8 m MFD @200mm
0,25x max. magnification @200mm (in comparison: RF100-500L: 0,33x @)

Couldn't find MFD @800mm yet.
And max. magnification @200mm ?

Same filter size as the RF 800 f/11.
Although, I doubt very many people will have both.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

What prices are you referring to?
AFAIK the $1,899.00 are ex. VAT.

I calculated the VAT for Texas and the final price is 2.055 $. So with current exchange it costs 1.939 € in Texas.

 

[xps]

24-105 ordered.
But the 200-800 with f9?.... too dark for me. 600mm with 5.6-6.3 would have been great... for me.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Is this "Manual aperture ring for video use" any different from the "regular" control ring?

It is labeled with aperture markings.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

The Canon RF-S 10-18 IS STM has arrived and issued in the era finally where we can look at the RF-S system as a “system” and not just APS-C Camera bodies with a couple of kit lenses. When the EOS-M first came out, the EF-M 11-22mm was “the” lens that got me interested in the

See full article...

 

[Maximilian]

I calculated the VAT for Texas and the final price is 2.055 $. So with current exchange it costs 1.939 € in Texas.

Then be happy to live in Texas.
I am happy to have German welfare and healthcare

As I said, you'll have to calculate without taxes. Then it's a fair comparison.

 

[kypr.eos]

Gordon’s first-looks review of the 200-800mm is out.

A few things to know:
- MFD: 0.8m @ 200mm, 1.8m @ 400mm, 2.8m @ 600mm, 3.3m @ 800mm
- Weather sealed
- Hood and lens strap included
- Fully compatible (so at all focal lengths) with the 1.4x and 2x extenders, although with a reduced AF area, more so with the 2x.
- Aperture changes:

Two more reviews, which include sample pictures:

…and one in french, but with many sample images (and a brief comparison to the Sony 200-600 and Canon 100-500):

 

[Groundhog]

Sadly the RF-S 10-18 is slightly too late for me (needed a wide lens for my R7 last month) so I got the RF 15-30 and I am going to keep it - maybe when there is a nice sale I can add it for the 2 times a year I want something <15mm.

 

[Maximilian]

In this lens, we have an extremely small lens, that is inexpensive and when we look at the MTF we see good image quality, equally as good as the EF-S counterpart. I'd suggest that the resolution is even slightly better in the corners at the business end of the lens, 10mm, with the RF-S lens and also the resolution falloff is much more natural with the RF-S lens.

Size comparison is shocking fantastic.
In principle, I'd agree with this conclusion.
Slight difference in my interpretation:
Definitely better performance in the corners for the RF-S.
But a bit worse than the EF-S in midframe.

Best to wait for RL preformance

 

[SwissFrank]

regardless of the genre, vignette correction means more noise in the corners

I'm asking people who are saying things like you are here to illustrate their statements with actual photos. My hunch is such real-world photos basically don't exist but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

You always have the option of exposing for the corners. Granted you then have the risk of blowing out highlights in the center, and might have a little more camera motion, subject motion, or high-ISO noise, but again, show us a photo where you exposed for the corners and the photo no longer is nice.

Alternatively please share a photo where the noise in the corners (when exposed more for the center) is notable.

And of these photos, ideally we'd have some other lens of the past where the image actually DOES work.

 

[SwissFrank]

I have to say that 24-105/2.8 is startlingly cheap. They probably could have sold a lot at 50% more.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I too am interested in picking up the 10-18mm. I shoot with an R5 and don’t own anything wider than 24mm. There has been an occasion or two where wider than 24mm would’ve been nice to have but I can’t bring myself to spend over a thousand dollars on a large zoom lens I’m going to use so infrequently. I’ll happy throw that small of a lens in my bag and accept crop mode for the rare occasion I want an UWA.

Why don't just buy the 15-30? It's cheap enough, small and a full frame lens.

 

[blackcoffee17]

24-105 ordered.
But the 200-800 with f9?.... too dark for me. 600mm with 5.6-6.3 would have been great... for me.

I wish it was 7.1 at 600mm. F8 is a too dark already at 500mm but let's see the reviews.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Canon announced the Canon Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9, the first super telephoto zoom that reaches 800mm. Canon also kept the price to a surprisingly low $1900. In this article, as much as I’d love to compare the MTFs against other notables from the other camps, the methods used for MTFs for Sony, Nikon et all

See full article...

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

+1 for the 10-18. that’s the one I’m pre-ordering.

The 200–800 looks like a great lens and a great price. But that’s not for me right now. It won’t replace my 100–400 because I need the low end of the range and the light weight for hand-holdability. I also have an 800 f/11 already, and I don’t use them for the same subjects, so it won’t help me having one lens versus two. But I like the idea of a higher-end, weather-resistant, non-L lens, and I hope Canon brings out more like this.

 

[photographer]

Is this "Manual aperture ring for video use" any different from the "regular" control ring?

According to the photos, it looks like the lens has an extra (fourth) ring and there are aperture numbers (22, 16, 11, 8,...).

 

[Del Paso]

Nice (and inexpensive too!)

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Canon announced the Canon Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9, the first super telephoto zoom that reaches 800mm.

First mirrorless 800 mm zoom.
Let's not forget the Sigmonster.

 

[patrick1480]

Competition is good for us, thank you Sony and Nikon. Can you imagine the price if this is L lens?

 

[Maximilian]

Now to be fair the 100-500L is a little more balanced, and better in the corners than the 200-800 on the wide end, but I'd argue that no one buys either of these lenses to be shooting much at 100 or 200mm respectively. The 100-500L is also a more demanding lens to make as it's a 5x zoom, which is always hard to maintain optical quality throughout the zoom range as 3-4x zoom seems to be the sweet spot.

The 200-800 seems to be a really great lens for all sports, birders and wildlife photogs.
As I am into insects and therefore magnification, too, I am happy that I already did my buy with the 100-500.
Otherwise it would have been a tough decission.

Of course, the Canon RF 800mm F5.6L IS USM kicks both to the curb, but we are talking about the difference between $1,900 and $17,000 and a weight difference of 2050g versus 3140g.

To even think about comparing those to the 800/5.6 is somewhat weird