Canon registers a new RF mount lens

JohnC

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
212
225
Gainesville,GA
An interesting comment, JohnC and leads one to wonder if a dedicated RF drop in filter adapter is possible, an option that would add increased flexibility to existing RF lenses, especially at the ultra wide end. Perhaps our fellow CR engineering wizards can chime in here, as to whether the flange distance requirement or other engineering restrictions would negate this possibility. I have a large box full of various screw on filters that I rarely use, ranging from 52-95mm, as well as various adapters to hold the 100mm square filters.
I have a strong suspicion that it would have to be designed into the lens from the beginning. I believe adding one to the existing RF lenses wouldn't work if I understand your question correctly.

On another note, I do believe it would be beneficial to design ultra-wides (particularly those with convex front elements) with that capability. I suppose the use case isn't large enough overall to support that unfortunately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: canonmike

canonmike

EOS R6
CR Pro
Jan 5, 2013
450
389
Are you saying that I shouldn't have been able to use my 14-35 right now just because Canon didn't ship all those 100-500s some other people ordered?
Not at all. Setting your obvious sarcasm aside, Kit, I own both of those lenses, as well but many of us feel the process to acquire them was more than a little frustrating. I, also own the RF100 macro and pre-ordered the companion dedicated tripod collar the same day, as I patiently wait for the latter which has still not shipped almost FOUR months later, while I continue to receive notices from B&H every two weeks that they still have not rec'd inventory for same. Note to some who have remarked that EVERYTHING they have ordered has been received within two months, implying, if you just order it, you'll get it within two months. For some of us, our experience has been and continues to be different than yours. Heaven forbid that anyone that still hasn't rec'd their ordered product(s), might throw a suggestion out there, looking for input and reasonable debate about possible cause and effect, then look for potential solutions to break up these shipping bottlenecks. I don't have any solutions but I do hope that I will always come to this forum, respecting the fact that there are others out there that don't necessarily share my opinion(s), without adding my special brand of wit and sarcasm to the mix. I completely acknowledge that all Mfgs. have unique challenges in this market, as they work to fulfil demand and create new products and also realize they would love to be able to fill all orders timely. In the meantime, I am not a Mfg but a consumer who wants nothing more than to be able to order and receive products timely, like we have been accustomed to and have taken for granted for so many years. Meanwhile, like others, I try and polish my patience skills while I wait for market conditions to return to some semblance of normalcy. I hope you enjoy your lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanj

canonmike

EOS R6
CR Pro
Jan 5, 2013
450
389
I have a strong suspicion that it would have to be designed into the lens from the beginning. I believe adding one to the existing RF lenses wouldn't work if I understand your question correctly.

On another note, I do believe it would be beneficial to design ultra-wides (particularly those with convex front elements) with that capability. I suppose the use case isn't large enough overall to support that unfortunately.
I so concur. Would love to see the improbable, an RF10-24mm F4 with integrated drop in filter holder, even knowing I would pay dearly for it.
 

roby17269

R5 + RF & EF L glass
Feb 26, 2014
49
25
New York
rdmfashionphoto.com
I concur with your statement, John but think what Sanj is referring to here is, "Why come out with new lenses in a market where you are not even able to meet demand for already announced lenses?" Just adds more buyer frustration to the order process that further inhibits your ability to get older RF lenses. If you are unable to meet demand for it, which we understand, just hold off awhile until such time when you CAN meet demand.
Imagine if Canon would stop announcing new stuff in order to shore up supply of existing products. Everyone would be complaining about Canon abandoning the RF systems and Canon is about to die etc. etc.
They have a though act to balance, but the RF system is new and still largely incomplete (compared to the EF system) and they need to be seen as they're expanding the RF system with innovative solutions, which is what they are doing.

Moreover, as the previous poster stated, I have ordered the things I wanted at announcement day and so far I have received the goods on the expected date. For the lenses I have ordered after release date, in average I had to wait a month. It was annoying, yes, but nothing too bothersome for an hobbyist like me
 

roby17269

R5 + RF & EF L glass
Feb 26, 2014
49
25
New York
rdmfashionphoto.com
Yes, in many cases it makes a lot more sense to use adapted EF lenses. Sometimes the RF versions offer superior sharpness, but it's worth asking whether we'd actually notice the difference if photographing anything other than a test chart. Sometimes the RF versions are more compact, but that may be because they extend when zooming or focusing, and it's arguable that "extending" lenses are more prone to suck in moisture or fine dust. Sometimes the RF versions focus closer, but it's worth asking whether that abilty is worth the usually considerably higher asking price.

... and sometimes there simply isn't an RF version of a favourite lens available - it seems pretty unlikely e.g. that an RF 180mm macro will appear in the next couple of years, and there is no RF 24mm tilt-shift yet.

I've got a couple of RF lenses - 24-105mm F4 (to replace a stolen EF version) and 800mm F11 (unavailable in EF), but I won't be "upgrading" my EF 100mm macro, or my EF 100-400mm, as there is no worthwhile (to me) advantage in doing so.
Agreed that there's a significant number of EF lenses that still make plenty of sense to use with RF. The TS-E lenses, the MP-E, the exotic wides and the exotic teles. All of these not only do not have RF equivalents yet, but they also work better with the RF cameras thanks to the AF and the MF aids and the adapter with the drop-in filter. Also for people on a budget, EF lenses provide a lot of bang for the buck.
I am still regretting selling my MP-E 65mm time ago. I will be looking for a used one soon since I think that it'd be much more usable with my R5.

Having said so, I have not regretted one bit migrating my EF lenses to the new RF equivalents that are available - the 2 RF 1.2 primes are much better than the EF ones, not only for the sharpness wide open, but also for the improved focus speed and reduced min focussing distance: for me they are all game-changers. And the new RF macro has had a significant bump in magnification ability, which is a material improvement (don't care much for the aberration adjustment).

So I will keep migrating glass. C'mon Canon get on to delivering the 35 1.2! I have sold my EF 35 1.4 already! :D
 

canonmike

EOS R6
CR Pro
Jan 5, 2013
450
389
I trust you realize that you’ve essentially described the EF 11-24/4 with the EF-RF DI adapter, for which you would pay $3300-3400.
Absolutely and that will invariably be the only solution for this combo, going forward. But one can dream, as I don't currently own either. Still, since the 10-24 is on the CR roadmap and neither EF or RF versions are on my critical want list, I look fwd to seeing the RF specs and capabilities before making that determination, unless I found a bargain on the EF version, something that is probably less likely to happen than winning the lottery.