Canon officially announces the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

tiggy@mac.com

R5
CR Pro
Jan 20, 2014
678
551
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
A little anti-climatic after the leaks, but the claim to have better IQ then the EF version for the 50mm is most encouraging.

50mm looks significantly better. MTF charts put up here. However, the 70-200 looks like it it's slightly worse on the telephoto end versus the older EF version. Not something you'd likely notice in a real picture. For my part, I'd take the form factor improvements over the older version, but it does put me on the fence when considering the price point. $1,600 is quite a lot for an f/4. I get the sense the other members here don't think so, which surprises me.
 

juststeve

EOS M6 Mark II
Nov 29, 2018
57
86
The original 70-200/2.8 L IS came with a tulip style lens hood. Worked quite well and was compact. Later 70-200/2.8L EF lenses did come with a tube lens hood, but it was much narrower and fit better, more compactly, when reversed. In use, they will offer as good protections as the monstrosities on the RF lenses.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,564
1,393
50mm looks significantly better. MTF charts put up here. However, the 70-200 looks like it it's slightly worse on the telephoto end versus the older EF version. Not something you'd likely notice in a real picture. For my part, I'd take the form factor improvements over the older version, but it does put me on the fence when considering the price point. $1,600 is quite a lot for an f/4. I get the sense the other members here don't think so, which surprises me.

I'm just gonna link to https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/ef-vs-rf-50-1-8-stm-mtf-chart-comparison.39607/post-871590 and hope Canon USA gets off their asses and finally updates their old-style MTFs.

 

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,716
1,388
$2450 for the RF70-200 here, absolutely RIDICOLUS... The EF MK2 is $1500...
 

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
161
289
50mm looks significantly better. MTF charts put up here. However, the 70-200 looks like it it's slightly worse on the telephoto end versus the older EF version. Not something you'd likely notice in a real picture. For my part, I'd take the form factor improvements over the older version, but it does put me on the fence when considering the price point. $1,600 is quite a lot for an f/4. I get the sense the other members here don't think so, which surprises me.
No, I have to agree. The f/4 doesn't save you nearly as much size over the EF version as does the f/2.8 version. If the IQ isn't better, than I'd just as well save money for the already excellent EF version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

PerKr

EOS 90D
Jul 11, 2018
111
105
Sverige
is it just me or are the canon f/1.8 lenses noticeably shorter than the sony equivalents? That 50/1.8 is about the size of my old minolta 50/1.4. I like it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rule556

Surab

Olympus OM-D E-M5II
Aug 22, 2020
45
57
is it just me or are the canon f/1.8 lenses noticeably shorter than the sony equivalents? That 50/1.8 is about the size of my old minolta 50/1.4. I like it!

They are, often also cheaper, but the Nikons appear to be better optically and are sealed. Canon is offering on the extreme ends while Nikon is targeting the middle, in terms of price. quality, and size.

But even then, the RF 1.8 are plenty good and as an amateur more than good enough for me. I am still deciding where to put my money. Time will tell.
 

gbc

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 19, 2018
66
86
The RF 50mm F/1.8 was the easiest pre-order decision in my life. I've spent 3x more on a pair of boots than I did the lens...

Really, really looking forward to that tiny size on the R5. The fact that the physical size is the same but the flange distance is smaller makes this a much smaller lens when in use, far more compact having this on a R5 than even a 40mm pancake on a 6D.

The other reality is that this saves me another spot for my EF adapter, during portraits my EF adapter swaps between the 50mm and 24-70, now it'll just be on the 24-70.
Yeah, if I can get a 50mm 1.8 for the price of another control ring EF-R adapter... I'll take the lens. As much as I like and still use my 50mm 1.4, that thing is almost useless for autofocus when it's dark and I need the 1.4.
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,827
972
UK
www.flickr.com
The rated IBIS stabilisation for the 50mm was what I was waiting to hear - and 7 stops is excellent. It's a touch more expensive here in the UK (£219) but there's no point quibbling over £20 either way. It would be a very enticing entry point for me into the R system, if only R5/R6 bodies were actually in stock, and I could justify the outlay. I'd like to say I'll wait for prices to come down, but I don't know when that might happen here. Still, positive news!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andy Westwood

max

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 20, 2010
81
19
I think I prefer the EF design where the front element is fixed.
 

Tangent

EOS 90D
Nov 13, 2015
134
91
No tripod mount ring for the RF 70-200 f4. Of course, considering the size. But it's easier to rotate a lens in its collar than to un- and re- clamp an L plate. Looks like the only downside. But small size for non-mounted use and easier pack fit compensate, convenience-wise. So, yeah, looks good to me. Also glad they went from 67 to widely-used 77 filter size: no problem there.
 

filmmakerken

EOS R, EOS 10, FTb
CR Pro
Apr 12, 2020
39
25
Virginia
www.cinefoundry.com
The RF 70-200 f/4L looks great. And the size -- almost exactly the same as my EF 17-40mm f/4L with the EF to RF adapter.

I'm seeing a projected availability of December 11th. Merry Christmas to me.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,857
8,917
I have made a collage of Canon's diffraction-corrected MTFs for the RF and EF versions. Wide open the RF are better.

RFvsEF_70-200_50ann2_00x.jpg
 

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
638
537
www.flickr.com

Jack Jian

EOS M50
Feb 14, 2018
49
56
£400 more for that RF 70-200 f/4.0 than the latest EF. Thats a wee bit steep for what has traditionally been a very affordable lens you didn't have to think about when hitting the buy button. £1,699.00 needs to drop for to the £1,299.00 to hit that easy buy.
Considering the newer design from scratch, stronger internals (to support extending zoom), 2 nano USM AF drivers and a bit of adjustment for inflation, I think, from a corporate business standpoint, the launch price is fair. In a few months, the price will come down as usual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dantana

AJ

EOS RP
Sep 11, 2010
697
111
It's interesting how the EF 35/2 IS is priced at $600, and the RF 35/1.8 macro is priced at $500. I had hoped we'd get a similar break on these two new workhorse lenses. Not so. The 50/1.8 went up in price by 60%, and the 70-200/4 went up in price as well, for the RF versions. This in spite of MTFs that show that these lenses perform similarly to their EF brethren. Also, the EF 70-200/4 IS has internal zoom which is a real bonus, plus it takes teleconverters. So in all I see no strong reasons to upgrade other than shaving off a few ounces.
 
<-- start Taboola -->