Canon officially announces the EOS R100 and RF 28mm f/2.8 STM

[neuroanatomist]

That one looks cool!
I hope it is performing at least as good as the old pancakes.

If so, it's mine.

Edit: thinking about this, paired with an R8 for city and street...

Will be a nice lens for travel paired with the R8. Not for my next trip, since it ships too late, so I won’t preorder it.

It will also be good for local use. I would often go to events with the 1D X and 70-200/2.8, and put the little 40/2.8 in my pocket in case I needed a wider view. This will serve that purpose with the R3. Plus, it makes a nice body cap.

 

[AlP]

I wonder if these lenses are made of optical glass or optical resins...interesting design anyway!

Those are "precision plastic molded" lenses, so likely manufactured using injection molding, which is the cheapest manufacturing method (for larger volume)

 

[Sharlin]

Wow! That looks interesting! Thanks for sharing.
With such complex grounded lenses, I can understand, that the price is far away from the EF pancakes.

These sorts of aspherics are most definitely not ground. I don't think there even exist good technologies to mass-produce lenses like these by grinding and polishing.

 

[Maximilian]

These sorts of aspherics are most definitely not ground. I don't think there even exist good technologies to grind elements like these.

Thanks for that comment. I suppose @AIP delivered the answer.

Those are "precision plastic molded" lenses...

But even if those are "precision plastic molded" I'd guess the process is more complex than producing the old pancakes.
If not, I'd like to see the IQ results here and take my hat off to the engineers who have this process under control.

 

[JustUs7]

Canon USA specs indicate the 28mm is a fixed aperture f/2.8.


But they also say 7 aperture blades- so something is incorrect.

 

[AlP]

Thanks for that comment. I suppose @AIP delivered the answer.

But even if those are "precision plastic molded" I'd guess the process is more complex than producing the old pancakes.
If not, I'd like to see the IQ results here and take my hat off to the engineers who have this process under control.

If we take simulated (!) sharpness and contrast into account, this lens doesn't look bad. This is the MTF chart for the 28 mm f/2.8 lens:

And this ist the chart for the 16 mm f/2.8 (I am taking this one since it's an f/2.8 lens)


All other non-L fixed focal length lenses also have worse MTF. They have a larger maximum aperture, which could make MTF results worse, but I don't think that stopping them down to f/2.8 will get corner sharpness and contrast to the same level as the 28 mm. This is of course just a guess.

 

[AlP]

Canon USA specs indicate the 28mm is a fixed aperture f/2.8.


But they also say 7 aperture blades- so something is incorrect.

That must be wrong, the specification table on Canon Japan's site (https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf28-f28/spec.html) indicates that minimum aperture is f/22.

 

[JustUs7]

That must be wrong, the specification table on Canon Japan's site (https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf28-f28/spec.html) indicates that minimum aperture is f/22.

That makes a lot more sense.

 

[[email protected]]

For $200 more, the R50 clearly wins:

For us weirdos, yeah, the R50 would be better for the money. For newbies, though, the +40 percent on cost would toll much more than having DPAF II versus DPAF I. By the way, what's a DPAF, and can I by refill DPAFs? Does the DPAF come in red? Or is it that the R50 comes with two DPAFs? Etc.

I think they probably did well on pricing and features. The fact you don't want to save $200 to buy the cheaper one is evidence that they've correctly price-stratified.

I thought about getting one to play with for my remote wildlife camera work. Cheap is good, and everything's on manual focus. But I find that it's tough to beat 6D Mark 1 used wedding shooter bodies on both price (~ $350).

 

[[email protected]]

Launching a consumer entry level camera without a touchscreen in 2023?

I am wondering if releasing a camera without EVF but with touchscreen and smaller form factor would have been better idea.

This above is the headline for me (aside from the pancake lens, which is really the headline, of course). Many of us expected the R100 to *not* have an EVF, as that was often the way they'd degrade the lower-end models for their line-up.
Canon zigged this time instead of zagging. They doinked the touch display, but gave the EVF.

The logic behind this is interesting. Possibilities:
- People using touch display are heavy into phone photography, and they're not the big available market now among noobs. The ones willing to jump into the interchangeable lens market are looking to be more deliberate with photography.
- The touch screen feature really is a significant cost savings
- EVF-as-option way to go confused consumers back in the M-mount days and caused the price perceptions to be non-competitive when they factored in the external EVF

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Well, every EOS M product is now discontinued

Not so, the M50 with the single kit lens is still selling in Japan.
The double lens kit was recently discontinued.

お探しのページが見つかりません：

｜キヤノンマーケティングジャパンが運営する公式通販サイトです。税込5,500円以上のご購入で送料無料。お買い物でポイントも貯まってお得。デジタルカメラ・交換レンズ・プリンター・各種アクセサリー・消耗品・パーツ等を取り扱っています。

store.canon.jp

 

[Hector1970]

I think this will be a big seller. I wonder how tight margins are on it. It’s a gateway camera (only a portion will move beyond it but enough will to create a new generation of GAS addicted customers)
They really need to get the 11-22 wide angles lens out. The cropped R cameras are missing this.

 

[Ozarker]

Will these also take ef lenses like the ef-s cameras did? I assume so.

 

[[email protected]]

I would often go to events with the 1D X and 70-200/2.8, and put the little 40/2.8 in my pocket in case I needed a wider view. This will serve that purpose with the R3. Plus, it makes a nice body cap.

I have a 40mm pancake in a cupholder in my car, and it never leaves. I bring my big white with me various places in the passenger seat, and if I ever have something I need to shoot, where I don't want to be able to count eyelashes, I pop the pancake on. Honestly, I don't use it very often at all, but it has saved me from having to bring a camera bag with me for years. It sits in the bottom of the cupholder, so someone ransacking the car wouldn't even see it or think that it might be something useful. Besides, here in Vermont we mostly don't lock our doors anyway.

Like Neuro, I have stayed with the EF version of the 600mm f/4 series on my R bodies, which I find more versatile (and, of course, cheaper). This means I don't need to worry about an additional adapter for the 40mm when I pop it on.

I pre-ordered the 28 for the expressed purpose of adding it to my other cupholder. Kids won't be very pleased, as they're already relegated to the back due to the big lens. Now they have to hold their drinks too, if they're cold ones.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon USA specs indicate the 28mm is a fixed aperture f/2.8.

Fixed as in not variable (e.g. f/3.5-5.6).

 

[EOS 4 Life]

This above is the headline for me (aside from the pancake lens, which is really the headline, of course). Many of us expected the R100 to *not* have an EVF, as that was often the way they'd degrade the lower-end models for their line-up.
Canon zigged this time instead of zagging. They doinked the touch display, but gave the EVF.

The logic behind this is interesting. Possibilities:
- People using touch display are heavy into phone photography, and they're not the big available market now among noobs. The ones willing to jump into the interchangeable lens market are looking to be more deliberate with photography.
- The touch screen feature really is a significant cost savings
- EVF-as-option way to go confused consumers back in the M-mount days and caused the price perceptions to be non-competitive when they factored in the external EVF

Canon's two biggest sellers are the m50 and T7.
Both are their cheapest cameras with viewfinders.
The T7 has a fixed screen.

 

[[email protected]]

These sorts of aspherics are most definitely not ground. I don't think there even exist good technologies to mass-produce lenses like these by grinding and polishing.

I'm very interested in this topic. Have been ever since the Blue Goo introduction back in the days of the EF 35mm f/1.4 II. In addition to being able to do crazier shapes with these plastics, they can pretty much define whatever their refractive index should be. The combination should allow for higher image quality than we can get in glass, which can't be shaped quite as nuttily, and with which we have more limited refractive index options (although glass options are always increasing over time).

The big question I have is whether or not the plastic changes its clarity, shape, or indices over year of use and repeated extreme temperature changes. I know that many plastics used in fine art installations (like those of the Dadaists from the 50s) are falling apart, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Plastics have come a long way since then, but are camera companies putting in additives and doing other things to make these lenses perform at 100 percent 20 years on?

One story idea I had - and will probably pursue at some point - is to rent 10 35mm f/1.4 Mark II lenses with different manufacturing years and test them to see if there is a trend of poorer performance over time.

 

[SnowMiku]

Will these also take ef lenses like the ef-s cameras did? I assume so.

Yes, you can use both RF/RF-S lenses and with the adapter you can use EF/EF-S lenses.

On the APS-C R bodies the mount is the same as the full frame bodies. You could even use an RF-S lens on an R5 if you wanted to and the R5 will automatically crop the image.

 

[Ozarker]

I'm very interested in this topic. Have been ever since the Blue Goo introduction back in the days of the EF 35mm f/1.4 II. In addition to being able to do crazier shapes with these plastics, they can pretty much define whatever their refractive index should be. The combination should allow for higher image quality than we can get in glass, which can't be shaped quite as nuttily, and with which we have more limited refractive index options (although glass options are always increasing over time).

The big question I have is whether or not the plastic changes its clarity, shape, or indices over year of use and repeated extreme temperature changes. I know that many plastics used in fine art installations (like those of the Dadaists from the 50s) are falling apart, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Plastics have come a long way since then, but are camera companies putting in additives and doing other things to make these lenses perform at 100 percent 20 years on?

One story idea I had - and will probably pursue at some point - is to rent 10 35mm f/1.4 Mark II lenses with different manufacturing years and test them to see if there is a trend of poorer performance over time.

Another benefit to plastic is weight. I would think they are far easier to scratch. Of course, this only matters to the front element.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm very interested in this topic. Have been ever since the Blue Goo introduction back in the days of the EF 35mm f/1.4 II. In addition to being able to do crazier shapes with these plastics, they can pretty much define whatever their refractive index should be. The combination should allow for higher image quality than we can get in glass, which can't be shaped quite as nuttily, and with which we have more limited refractive index options (although glass options are always increasing over time).

The big question I have is whether or not the plastic changes its clarity, shape, or indices over year of use and repeated extreme temperature changes. I know that many plastics used in fine art installations (like those of the Dadaists from the 50s) are falling apart, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Plastics have come a long way since then, but are camera companies putting in additives and doing other things to make these lenses perform at 100 percent 20 years on?

One story idea I had - and will probably pursue at some point - is to rent 10 35mm f/1.4 Mark II lenses with different manufacturing years and test them to see if there is a trend of poorer performance over time.

Maybe like fine wine, the blue goo gets better with age.