Canon registers a new RF mount lens

[KenLLL]

It’s the 18-55mm f/8-13 kit lens for the low cost APS-C R body that will replace the M series.

God, I hope not. I just fully invested in the M lineup. Make no sense that Canon would cannibalize its best sellers. What drew me to the M series is the size and weight. I can fit my entire kit into one case rather than decide what I'm gonna leave behind. I hike a lot too, so weight means something to me.

 

[Emyr Evans]

18-35mm f1.8 sigma would like to have a word with you. Light and compact. The lens of choice for many videographers. Issues... slow focus, questionable build quality, no IS.

And APS-C only.

 

[Loswr]

And APS-C only.

Yes, because he mentioned wanting a lens for Super35 (e.g., the Cinema EOS C70). But I doubt we’ll see a lens like that.

 

[Bob Howland]

God, I hope not. I just fully invested in the M lineup. Make no sense that Canon would cannibalize its best sellers. What drew me to the M series is the size and weight. I can fit my entire kit into one case rather than decide what I'm gonna leave behind. I hike a lot too, so weight means something to me.

Actually it makes a lot of sense. Cannibalizing their best sellers is not the same as taking those best sellers off the market. People who want to buy M equipment can still do so. Granted there is the R&D redundancy, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of M-system R&D going on.

 

[entoman]

What I'd really like is an updated 180mm macro with OIS, to replace the discontinued but optically stunning EF version.

But what I *expect* is a 500mm F4 DO optic that will probably cost a small fortune...

 

[Deleted member 387121]

God, I hope not. I just fully invested in the M lineup. Make no sense that Canon would cannibalize its best sellers. What drew me to the M series is the size and weight. I can fit my entire kit into one case rather than decide what I'm gonna leave behind. I hike a lot too, so weight means something to me.

I wasn't trying to hijack the thread with my comment. The joke was really about the f/8-13 max aperture, although suggesting that Canon will make an APS-C R body is anathema to a lot of people around here so that was also intentional. But I should really know better. Mentioning APS-C is like Frankenstein's monster: It attracts a lot lightning, takes on a life of its own, and eventually you get a torch-and-pitchfork mob coming after you.

I agree the M is a great system. I have an M5 that I bought a few years ago when I was doing a lot of traveling, and I love it for all of the reasons you say. I also used it for hiking and biking, although lately my son has adopted it for astrophotography.

I'm also a 7D Mark II fan, and high-end APS-C is about the only thing Canon has shown less interest in than the M series lately.

Cheers!

 

[Deleted member 381342]

While I hope for the sake of my birding friends that we're going to continue to see more diffractive designs, I suspect Canon might be dropping the "DO" designation. It's been seen as a negative by segments of the market who didn't "get" it, especially in regards to the 70-300 DO, so I wonder if that's why Canon didn't mark the two f/11 teles as such. Of course, it could just be that they're reserving it for high-end diffractive lenses.

While the advantage of a short flange distance typically doesn't make much of a difference in the size of teles, Canon has already shown a couple ways they intend to do that, so I expect they could do something for a fast prime explicitly designed to be compact.

I think the original 400mm f/4.0 DO did way more damage than the 70-300. The original 400 had rather awful IQ and it took a lot of convincing for people to try out the second edition which by all accounts is spectacular.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Please be a RF 500 mm f4 DO lens!!

If they make a 200-500 f/4.0 (DO) and a 120-300 f/2.8 I could see there being no 500 prime and 300 prime as turning them into zoom's adds enough value add to make 'cheep' lenses into expensive lenses that don't cannibalise the 400 prime and 600 prime.

 

[fastprime]

I hope it’s the 35mm 1.2. Just not sure how I’m going to tell my wife I took a “small” loan out of my savings.

 

[slclick]

Funny thing about the 'ancient' 135L. It doesn't degrade with age fwiw, lol and it actually out performs in terms of AF and and imho rez while adapted on an RF mount over a dslr. It's timeless and very special. I've been shooting with one or another since 1999 and never once could come up with anything negative to say.

 

[john1970]

If they make a 200-500 f/4.0 (DO) and a 120-300 f/2.8 I could see there being no 500 prime and 300 prime as turning them into zoom's adds enough value add to make 'cheep' lenses into expensive lenses that don't cannibalise the 400 prime and 600 prime.

I would still prefer a fixed 500 mm f4 DO lens because it would be both lighter and less expensive than a 500 mm f4 DO zoom. I don't think the EF 500 mm f4 ever cannibalized the the 400 mm f2.8 or the 600 mm f4. Just gave people more options.

 

[KenLLL]

I wasn't trying to hijack the thread with my comment. The joke was really about the f/8-13 max aperture, although suggesting that Canon will make an APS-C R body is anathema to a lot of people around here so that was also intentional. But I should really know better. Mentioning APS-C is like Frankenstein's monster: It attracts a lot lightning, takes on a life of its own, and eventually you get a torch-and-pitchfork mob coming after you.

I agree the M is a great system. I have an M5 that I bought a few years ago when I was doing a lot of traveling, and I love it for all of the reasons you say. I also used it for hiking and biking, although lately my son has adopted it for astrophotography.

I'm also a 7D Mark II fan, and high-end APS-C is about the only thing Canon has shown less interest in than the M series lately.

Cheers!

No apology necessary. I would say the M6 II is high-end. 14fps is no joke. I agree aps-c gets too much hate. I personally love it. Ultra shallow depth of field is overrated and doesn't make a good image. Composition, lighting, and subject material are far more important. Sure there's a little more noise introduced but we have amazing software to correct that nowadays.

 

[RayValdez360]

And APS-C only.

i clearly wrote S35 and that lens actually works on full frame cameras. I used plenty of times for a great low light wide zoom. I just edit out the vignetting.

 

[DrToast]

What I'd really like is an updated 180mm macro with OIS, to replace the discontinued but optically stunning EF version.

Yes! I guess that lens was never a big seller since Canon seems to keep their macro lenses 100mm and below. I think a 200mm f/4 macro lens would be great.

 

[RayValdez360]

It isn't exactly light though -- 810g. The EF 24-70/2.8L II is 805g and the RF 24-70/2.8L IS is 900g. The zoom range is also limited: slightly less than 2x wide to tele, while the 24-70s are slightly less than 3x.

Those are light. Have you ever tried a 1.2 85mm, 70-200mm 2.8 , or a 28-70mm. What are we going back and forth about. Canon needs to replace the 17-55.

 

[frankchn]

Those are light. Have you ever tried a 1.2 85mm, 70-200mm 2.8 , or a 28-70mm. What are we going back and forth about. Canon needs to replace the 17-55.

Sure, those are heavier, but I won't call a lens in the same class as a 24-70/2.8 from Canon either light or compact. To me, light and compact is something like a 18-55 zoom or one of the non-L primes.

In any case, Canon probably won't replace a the EF-S 17-55mm with an RF version until they release an APS-C RF camera.

 

[Loswr]

Canon needs to replace the 17-55.

And the 7DII. They needed to replace the 10-22, and they did…with the slower, softer, plastic-mount, cheaper 10-18.

Those are clues to the importance Canon places on the ‘high-end APS-C market’.

 

[entoman]

And the 7DII. They needed to replace the 10-22, and they did…with the slower, softer, plastic-mount, cheaper 10-18.

Those are clues to the importance Canon places on the ‘high-end APS-C market’.

I've become convinced that Canon (rightly or wrongly) believes there is no commercial future in the high end APS-C market.
I'll be very surprised if they ever introduce an APS-C in RF mount.

They clearly want to move people completely away from EF mount, and leave us with a choice between 2 very different systems:

• M series, seemingly aimed at novices or people who want a very compact system and who don't want or need exotic or more specialised lenses.
• RF series, full frame only, with a range covering novices, enthusiasts and pros, and with 2 distinct sets of lenses - "budget" lightweight glass, and exotic and expensive L glass.

 

[JMV Portraits]

18-35mm f1.8 sigma would like to have a word with you. Light and compact. The lens of choice for many videographers. Issues... slow focus, questionable build quality, no IS.

The Sigma 18-35 1.8 is very much one of the lenses I had in mind that doesn't meet your requirements.

810g isn't exactly light, and makes it one of the heaviest non-cine lenses for the APS-C/super 35 format. Anything heavier than in the same format is going to be things like the sigma 50-100 1.8 and Fuji's super-teles.

So with it is f/1.8, it isn't lightweight and doesn't have IS. While it is technically a zoom, it's only barely so- for photography there's not much you would use that for that you couldn't use a 24mm or 28mm just as easily. For video, the only time you'd need that lens over a prime or a zoom with a more typical speed are when you need a zooming shot, but not much of a zooming shot, AND need an aperture wider than f/2.8 AND aren't shooting at your export resolution, preventing you from zooming in post AND can afford the optical and mechanical compromises compared to other workflows. It's a very narrow use-case indeed, which explains why, despite being widely advocated by internet gear-heads for videography, doesn't sell in the numbers to justify claims that it's "the lens of choice for many videographers".

The compromises involved in very fast zooms mean that they just don't sell in the numbers that first-party manufacturers generally require to justify R&D and marketing costs. Canon was able to justify the 28-70 f/2- probably largely because of the marketing value of having such an absurd lens in the new ecosystem, more so than because it was going to be directly profitable. Angieneux was able to justify a couple- though I think the 24-290 f/2.5 might be discontinued, and the others are more fast for their zoom ratio than fast on objective terms- based on being able to charge a high enough price to justify only selling a handful to rental houses and that being about it.

If you really want a super 35 f/1.8 lens that's technically a zoom, buy one of the Sigmas, because even the other third-party lens manufacturers like Tamron and Rokinon, don't see much value in that space.

 

[JMV Portraits]

It isn't exactly light though -- 810g. The EF 24-70/2.8L II is 805g and the RF 24-70/2.8L IS is 900g. The zoom range is also limited: slightly less than 2x wide to tele, while the 24-70s are slightly less than 3x.

In fact, the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is among the heaviest non-cine lenses for the format. I know there's the SIgma 50-100 f/1.8 and Fuji makes a couple super-teles that are heavier, but the 18-35 1.8 is definitely hard to construe as "light".