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

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
368
362
USA
I think the Canon gear is good gear, don't get me wrong about that, and I do like the look of the R system bodies more than the a7 series bodies. However, for 15% less than Canon RF 70-200/4, in the Sony system I could get a Tamron 70-180/2.8. I could pay a fortune for an RF 85/1.2, or in the Sony system I could get the Sigma 85/1.4 DN Art, which is less than half the price of the Canon and is smaller and lighter as well. The Canon RF 85 may be technically better, and for all I know may even be better built (although I have found Sigma to be good too in that regard), but the smaller and lighter lens would be more useful to me, and the IQ certainly looks good enough for my purposes. I could go on with other examples but I will resist :) I realise that some people will prefer to go for as close to optical perfection as possible regardless of size/weight/cost, of course. For my purposes though, the Sony system seems more appealing than Canon's RF system, at least if I can deal with the ergonomics of the bodies (or the next a7 series camera is more to my liking in that regard). Canon's pricing for the RF system gear really does put me off.
Keep in mind that many of those 3rd party lenses are available on the EF mount, and will work on the R cameras. Also, we have yet to see much 3rd party offering for native RF lenses, but it will come, and put downward pressure on Canon prices. As someone mentioned above, we're still in the early adopter pricing phase right now. If you can be patient, the cost of the RF system will come down.

-Brian
 

highdesertmesa

R5/Ra | GFX 50R
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
328
392
Placitas, NM
www.instagram.com
On my RF 70-200 F/2.8, I've almost always had the tripod ring off to make the lens slightly more compact, and it's been great! The big perk to me is that, when using a tripod, it's easy to switch between a wide angle zoom and the 70-200, all while keeping the R5 connected to the tripod. In the past, I'd have to take them off the tripod, swap the lens, have a plate on both the 70-200 and camera, and then place them back on the tripod.

Balance-wise, it doesn't feel all that different from using a 24-70 f/2.8 on a tripod. On my EF 70-200, I always kept the tripod ring on as a nice grip for the hand, since the lens was going to be huge with or without the tripod ring.

As the RF 70-200 F/4 doesn't weight all that much more than an EOS RP, and weighs less than the EOS R5, I'm sure the balance will be even better.
Definitely used my EF70-200mm's tripod ring as a handle as I don't use a strap. With the RF70-200mm I don't need it ie I can carry by holding just the lens and body in one hand. The ring stays on my RF100-500mm though
I keep the tripod mount on the RF 70-200 2.8 since it not only helps with balance/grip, but it keeps me from accidentally bumping the focus ring, control ring, and switches with my left hand while shooting.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,368
756
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
£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.

Maybe they should have done a non-IS option. I always had great results with the 70-200 non-IS, it's cheap, light and optically fine. And with IBIS the non-IS f/4 should perform pretty well.
 

reefroamer

EOS M6 Mark II
CR Pro
Jun 21, 2014
90
114
I agree with a lot of what you say, but the question I have is - why are so many people willing to pay them? (OK, I don't know the sales data so I don't know what "so many people" really means. I simply mean that there are a lot of people online who are excited about the RF gear and willing to pay for it.)

I have really enjoyed my Canon gear and I am far from anti-Canon. However, I am struggling with the price of the RF gear, and that is only emphasised when I look at what is available in the Sony system (albeit often from third party manufacturers). Even if a lot of Canon's L series RF lenses have legitimate claims to be best in class, it's not like you cannot get excellent lenses in the Sony system. A few years ago I would never have dreamed I would be suggesting the Sony system offers better value than the Canon system, but as things stand now that is how it seems to me (at least if you leave aside service - which Canon seems to do very well at least in some parts of the world, and I can understand that being valuable to professional photographers).
A couple of things I try to keep in mind: It's a lot easier to lower prices than raise them. New RF lenses will be priced up for a while after introduction, until production begins to outrun demand. Early adopters always pay up. Secondly, Canon is still building the RF system and still has a ways to go to flesh out its lens lineup options. Patience is being rewarded, as far as I can see. Right now, competitors such as Sony have more options, but over the next couple of years that advantage will erode as Canon introduces more glass and prices begin to come down a bit On “older” RF lenses. If you’re already in the Canon system, it will probably pay to be patient .... to a point.
 

Codebunny

EOS R1
Sep 5, 2018
647
627
Maybe they should have done a non-IS option. I always had great results with the 70-200 non-IS, it's cheap, light and optically fine. And with IBIS the non-IS f/4 should perform pretty well.
I think a non IS version would have made a lot of sense, but what we don't know if if they want to sell these to the cinema people or future entry level bodies with no IBIS. Personally I would rather they just put out a 200mm L f/4 or f/2.8, preferably with a switch to make it macro 1:1. I have only used a 70-200 at 200.
 

armd

I'm New Here
Aug 21, 2019
22
24
Canon's mistake was making the R5/R6 work so well with EF lenses. Given these RF lens prices, there is no compelling reason to buy other than GAS.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,855
1,716
I'd hardly call that a mistake. If anything the scarcity of the RF-EF adapters is a mistake.
They were readily available earlier this year. And knowing I was getting an RF camera one way or another (I just wasn't sure which one), I bought them then.

Actually I probably would have waited and been wearing shoes that look very much like yours, but I was annoyed at the way they were giving the $100 model away for free as parts of kits but not letting you pay $100 for the $200 (with control ring) model as part of a kit. So when I saw the refurb shop selling control ring adapters for $140 back in March I believe, I bought two of them.
 

vrpanorama.ca

Canon r6
Mar 23, 2020
20
1
Pre-order my 70-200mm. lightweight 1/2 length , up to 7.5 stops, fast focus I am not hesitating. My first 70-200v1 f4 feel antique now
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
626
705
I think a non IS version would have made a lot of sense, but what we don't know if if they want to sell these to the cinema people or future entry level bodies with no IBIS. Personally I would rather they just put out a 200mm L f/4 or f/2.8, preferably with a switch to make it macro 1:1. I have only used a 70-200 at 200.
I sold my EF 70-200/2.8 L IS II and got an EF 200/2.8 II. Less than half the price and far better image quality at 200. Never looked back (pair with 85/1.8 on jobs, as necessary)
 

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
840
191
Keep in mind that many of those 3rd party lenses are available on the EF mount, and will work on the R cameras. Also, we have yet to see much 3rd party offering for native RF lenses, but it will come, and put downward pressure on Canon prices. As someone mentioned above, we're still in the early adopter pricing phase right now. If you can be patient, the cost of the RF system will come down.

-Brian
Well, except for the fact that the lenses I'm talking about don't have EF equivalents :( :) For example, while there are EF versions of the Sigma 85 Art and 24-70/2.8, there is no equivalent to the DN versions of those lenses. Other examples include there is no EF equivalent of the Tamron 70-180/2.8 or the Sony 55/1.8.

Maybe Canon will get there one day, but I have doubts about that unless we start seeing third party RF lenses, and the question is whether that is going to happen or whether Canon has found a way to, and wants to, prevent it. (I know there are a few third party RF lenses already, but I understand they all function as if they are EF lenses with adapters rather than genuine RF lenses.)
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
I sold my EF 70-200/2.8 L IS II and got an EF 200/2.8 II. Less than half the price and far better image quality at 200. Never looked back (pair with 85/1.8 on jobs, as necessary)
Another EF 200/2.8 II fan here. Even have the genuine tripod mount for it, which is one of the reasons I prefer it to the 135L; for portrait tripod mounted shooting you can just spin the camera and lens in the mount.
 

armd

I'm New Here
Aug 21, 2019
22
24
I'd hardly call that a mistake. If anything the scarcity of the RF-EF adapters is a mistake.
You missed the intent entirely. Canon's offerings are way overpriced, there's no competition at present, and other than GAS there is no compelling reason to switch to EF lenses. Though I guess if one were a 98 lb weakling and had $ to burn? Now, if Canon made a 200-600, non-bayoneting, zoom lens which was sharp wide open for less than $2k, maybe I would reconsider?
 

analoggrotto

EOS RP
Aug 27, 2016
259
150
You missed the intent entirely. Canon's offerings are way overpriced, there's no competition at present, and other than GAS there is no compelling reason to switch to EF lenses. Though I guess if one were a 98 lb weakling and had $ to burn? Now, if Canon made a 200-600, non-bayoneting, zoom lens which was sharp wide open for less than $2k, maybe I would reconsider?
In for a penny in for a pound.

Canon is high priced as it is, we shop around for specials and CPW deals anyway right? But, anything less than a seamless EF to RF experience would be a travesty and EF glass prices would plunge. If RF glass moves slowly for now while the R5 is still on back-order for heavy demand, I don't think Canon will be too upset. Someone starting out fresh with a new Canon R body will probably buy RF lenses anyway.

I'm 132 lbs, not particularly strong, even less so due to constant restlessness, not rich either but am selling my EFs for RFs as the equivalents are available; had 2 (50L 15-35L) ready waiting for the R5 both of which are heavier than their EF counterparts. The main reason for this is I'd just like to leave my one RF-EF adapter on my 200L for good (I carry this stuff around for fun no lie). A mixed RF EF lens experience isnt going to be much fun either.


I agree about lens innovatoins, the best reason to go RF are such unique optics as the F11 twins, the 28-70 F2 high speed zoom special, and even this super compact F4 zoom.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene and Joules

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,368
756
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
You missed the intent entirely. Canon's offerings are way overpriced, there's no competition at present, and other than GAS there is no compelling reason to switch to EF lenses. Though I guess if one were a 98 lb weakling and had $ to burn? Now, if Canon made a 200-600, non-bayoneting, zoom lens which was sharp wide open for less than $2k, maybe I would reconsider?
Are they really overpriced? The only RF L lens I currently own is the 24-105 and I'd *love* to be able to afford to buy more. But when Canon have upped their game in terms of image quality over even their impressive EF L lenses of the past, perhaps one needs to think of them as great value compared to Zeiss lenses (and with amazing autofocus) rather than comparing them to the old EF range.

I don't think I'll upgrade my EF glass in a hurry, but I probably won't buy any more EF glass now that I have an R body.
 

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
368
362
USA
Well, except for the fact that the lenses I'm talking about don't have EF equivalents :( :) For example, while there are EF versions of the Sigma 85 Art and 24-70/2.8, there is no equivalent to the DN versions of those lenses. Other examples include there is no EF equivalent of the Tamron 70-180/2.8 or the Sony 55/1.8.

Maybe Canon will get there one day, but I have doubts about that unless we start seeing third party RF lenses, and the question is whether that is going to happen or whether Canon has found a way to, and wants to, prevent it. (I know there are a few third party RF lenses already, but I understand they all function as if they are EF lenses with adapters rather than genuine RF lenses.)
I'm not sure what you mean by 'no equivalent'. THe DN series is just Sigma's mirrorless series, and canon has both EF and RF options at 85 and 24-70. Same for the 70-180...though with canon its 70-200. There is no 55mm canon lens, but there are a number of 50s in both EF and RF mounts.

I am curious to about the 3rd party RF support. I suspect it has less to do with Canon 'blocking' their development, and more to do with the fact there was no compelling reason for the 3rd parties to offer a lot of things. They 1 - needed to see people buying enough Canon mirrorless to make it worth it (which I don't think started really happening until this year) 2 - needed to see what Canon was going to offer in terms of focal lengths, price and performance so they could then form a basis on what to compete against. For instance if they built a bunch of lenses using the R or RP as a template, they may have missed the boat on IBIS compatibility. Or they may have ended up with a bunch of stuff that couldn't resolve similar detail to the other RF offerings. Or they may have set prices that were too low or too high compared to offerings canon hadn't announced yet.

Now, I'm sure Canon is not in a hurry to help them. So they also have to reverse engineer the AF system, etc. But that is only a matter of time. With a lens roadmap out there, super popular bodies (R5/6)...i'm sure some engineer in a Sigma or Tamron lab is working on glass for this mount.

-Brian
 

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,215
1,363
Hamburg, Germany
I'm not sure what you mean by 'no equivalent'. THe DN series is just Sigma's mirrorless series
The point was that Sigma has lenses specially designed for mirror less, which look really nice in terms of performance compared to previous models. Those are not available at all for Canon right now.

With EF-M, some of such glass for the crop sensor ecosystems has been made available by Sigma. But if the rules that enabled that are also in place for RF, I don't know.
 

Dantana

EOS RP
Jan 29, 2013
318
164
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
The point was that Sigma has lenses specially designed for mirror less, which look really nice in terms of performance compared to previous models. Those are not available at all for Canon right now.

With EF-M, some of such glass for the crop sensor ecosystems has been made available by Sigma. But if the rules that enabled that are also in place for RF, I don't know.
Sure, but look how long it took Sigma to offer EF-M glass. RF has been out, what, 2 years? Sigma and Tamron RF lenses will come in time. Canon doesn't release their systems to 3rd parties. EF lenses from other manufacturers were reverse engineered, and the same will have to be done for RF, especially if they want to take advantage of the extra electronics that RF has over EF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

slclick

Pinhole
Dec 17, 2013
4,224
2,239
Every different focal length or zoom range of a lens has a unique field of view. It's measured in degrees and the hood is designed to protect from bangs and drops yet more importantly flare and stray light. The shape works with the FoV degree without being overly large and causing vignetting. I think that's correct. Some folx love the look of petal style hoods and put them on lenses not designed for that. They may be risking compromising some shots. YMMV
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dantana