Canon to announce RF 24-50mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM this month

[roby17269]

The last rumor pertaining to the 35 L said it might not be 1.2 and might be 1.4.

I surely would prefer a 1.2. I want new exciting lenses, not repeats of EF predecessors (unless they are materially better like the 50 and 85 1.2)

 

[scyrene]

That might work for you, and I do use the 800/11 occasionally for bird photography, but no way would that be my go-to-lens for bird photography. It's pretty well useless for BIF apart from very slow moving distant birds as it focusses only in the middle of the sensor and so has a desperately low field of view in which to find and focus on the bird, and also it focusses a bit slow. It's also large for packing for travel, has a very long minimum focus distance and doesn't zoom to accommodate larger birds a bit beyond that 6m mfd. The RF 100-500mm is my go-to lens. It has blisteringly fast AF, very sharp, folds up small, focusses close, easier to find a small bird in its much wider fov, and put the 2xTC on it and it outresolves the 800mm/11. I also take my RF 100-400mm with me instead of it. The 800/11 for me is one of my niche lenses for occasional use. For our big birding trip next month in Eilat, I'm taking the R5 + RF 100-500mm, and my wife the R7 and RF 100-400mm.

Horses for courses, but the 800 f/11 is my only bird lens at present (yes it works in British winters, to all the naysayers who claim it's only for midday on the Equator!), and I'm using it with the 1.4x extender a lot. But I'm mostly shooting perched birds, like entoman, and my budget won't stretch to an RF L lens. The budget RF lenses have definitely opened up opportunities that were missing before.

 

[TonyG]

I surely would prefer a 1.2. I want new exciting lenses, not repeats of EF predecessors (unless they are materially better like the 50 and 85 1.2)

I agree. If it’s going to cost $2000+, it should be a 1.2.
Especially since a Sony 35 1.4 gm is $1400, and a Sigma 35 DGDN is $900.

 

[entoman]

A question I've had for years is, does edge-to-edge sharpness matter as much to the viewers of landscape shots as to practitioners of that genre? I don't do much of that kind of thing myself, but my feeling is when the whole scene is the subject, sharpness matters less than, say, for a bird/insect/flower with a defocused background, where your eye is on one part of the image rather than ranging around or taking it all in at once.

Generally, I think that people viewing our images are far less critical than we are as photographers, not only regarding sharpness, noise and other technical matters, but also regarding aesthetics, lighting and composition. As photographers we constantly strive for improvement in all areas, and as a "perfectionist" myself, I know that I'll *never* be satisfied, no matter how good the photograph might possibly be.

As for landscapes, I think corner to corner sharpness is really important. I would almost always reject a landscape where buildings or trees became soft at the edges of the frame (there may be rare exceptions for "impressionistic" landscapes, although those aren't the type of images that I produce).

With birds, insects, flowers, it rarely matters if the corners are soft, because the subject matter rarely extends to the edges or corners of the frame.

 

[Sporgon]

A question I've had for years is, does edge-to-edge sharpness matter as much to the viewers of landscape shots as to practitioners of that genre? I don't do much of that kind of thing myself, but my feeling is when the whole scene is the subject, sharpness matters less than, say, for a bird/insect/flower with a defocused background, where your eye is on one part of the image rather than ranging around or taking it all in at once.

Answering that is taking a dive into the rabbit hole to see how deep it goes ! Content matters above anything else, as long as the technical quality is good enough to not detract from that content. So of course this is variable depending upon what the content is.
But regarding landscape, I’d ask a question: would Ansel Adams’s photographs be as appreciated if they weren’t of such high technical quality ?

 

[AlanF]

Horses for courses, but the 800 f/11 is my only bird lens at present (yes it works in British winters, to all the naysayers who claim it's only for midday on the Equator!), and I'm using it with the 1.4x extender a lot. But I'm mostly shooting perched birds, like entoman, and my budget won't stretch to an RF L lens. The budget RF lenses have definitely opened up opportunities that were missing before.

Most hobbyists got by until relatively recently with an EF 100-400 or an EF 400/5.6. This can still be done with the RF 100-400mm, which is much cheaper than the EF glass. We are now spoiled for choice.

 

[scyrene]

Answering that is taking a dive into the rabbit hole to see how deep it goes ! Content matters above anything else, as long as the technical quality is good enough to not detract from that content. So of course this is variable depending upon what the content is.
But regarding landscape, I’d ask a question: would Ansel Adams’s photographs be as appreciated if they weren’t of such high technical quality ?

Would his images stand up to the kind of technical scrutiny people subject modern lenses to? I bet 99.9%+ of people wouldn't even think to look in an extreme corner of a landscape image to see how sharp edges were compared to the centre. Not that such aspects are irrelevant but I do wonder about the rejection of so many optics on that basis. Even more so for astro landscapes - the practitioners of which seem to reject every lens for poor coma, but even though I can see it, I really don't think it matters (but then I'm mostly jealous because I've never even seen the Milky Way properly).

 

[ashmadux]

Canon keeps showing that if it ain't an L, it's likely slow trash.

That's a weird, unfortunate, & extremely BORING lens setup. Yikes.

The usually standard lenses for RF are all seemingly getting downgraded to the extra slow 6.3 or worse.

So glad I have my core EF lenses to use, because I would just jump ship other wise.

 

[ashmadux]

Firstly, there are decades of Canon DSLR lenses that need to be updated to the new mount so some or many of the popular ones of those have to be ”copied”. Secondly, there has been a series of novel telephoto lenses that are much, much cheaper than previous ones etc.

It infuriates me the lack of attention given to canons abject refusal to release a replacement for the 50 1.4.
It never gets a mention ... ever. They are hell bent on protecting sales of the huge expensive L version.

What a great choice... nifty fity or nifty TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS.

Not having access to 3rd party lens is sure working out for RF owners..argh.

 

[David - Sydney]

Exactly my thoughts too

No wonder it’s got IS, you’ll be needing it!!

The R line is not appealing to me tbh

I'm intrigued... what is it about the R line that is not appealing to you?

 

[David - Sydney]

Would his images stand up to the kind of technical scrutiny people subject modern lenses to? I bet 99.9%+ of people wouldn't even think to look in an extreme corner of a landscape image to see how sharp edges were compared to the centre. Not that such aspects are irrelevant but I do wonder about the rejection of so many optics on that basis. Even more so for astro landscapes - the practitioners of which seem to reject every lens for poor coma, but even though I can see it, I really don't think it matters (but then I'm mostly jealous because I've never even seen the Milky Way properly).

The milky way is pretty impressive especially a full bow late in the year in the southern hemisphere close to the horizon after sunset. Coma control is preferred but not essential for wide angle astro landscapes. A single vertical shot @8mm (EF8-15mm/4) would be fine but it doesn't help if you are stitching multiple rows/shots as most milky way photos are.
Definitely needed for deeper shots eg if a Hubble/JWT shot showed coma in the corners then it wouldn't be great.

 

[Juangrande]

The last rumor pertaining to the 35 L said it might not be 1.2 and might be 1.4.

Geez I really hope that’s not true. I’ve been salivating for the rumored 35 1.2 for years now. Im
Ready to purchase

 

[Sporgon]

Would his images stand up to the kind of technical scrutiny people subject modern lenses to? I bet 99.9%+ of people wouldn't even think to look in an extreme corner of a landscape image to see how sharp edges were compared to the centre. Not that such aspects are irrelevant but I do wonder about the rejection of so many optics on that basis. Even more so for astro landscapes - the practitioners of which seem to reject every lens for poor coma, but even though I can see it, I really don't think it matters (but then I'm mostly jealous because I've never even seen the Milky Way properly).

Yes they do, but because they are shot on large format and so not enlarged to anything like what we are used to seeing now.
My point was that some kinds of images do require a high technical quality, Adams’s pictures wouldn’t have the same appeal (much of which is beautiful tonality) if he’d shot them on 35 mm film for instance. However in this mature digital age an R8 would give that kind of quality a run for its money - with a suitable lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not having access to 3rd party lens is sure working out for RF owners..argh.

Evidently not for you. Hasn’t bothered me in the least.

 

[AlanF]

Horses for courses, but the 800 f/11 is my only bird lens at present (yes it works in British winters, to all the naysayers who claim it's only for midday on the Equator!), and I'm using it with the 1.4x extender a lot. But I'm mostly shooting perched birds, like entoman, and my budget won't stretch to an RF L lens. The budget RF lenses have definitely opened up opportunities that were missing before.

By the way, my avatar of a Bee-eater in flight is taken with an 800 f/11 on an R7! The Bee-eater was perched on a wire more than 60m away and that combo is great for long distances - horses for courses. It suddenly flew off and I just caught it - sheer luck, but it could have been planned by waiting there with pre-burst mode.

 

[Antono Refa]

The 24-105 non-L adds $300 to the RP as a kit. The RF-S 18-45 adds $130 to the R10 as a kit. For an $800 FF camera, a slow 24-50 means the kit price lands under $1000. I'd say that's a bright light, not a shadow.

For ab $800 FF camera, a sack of potatoes means the kit price lands under $1000 as well. A slow 24-50 isn't useful enough.

 

[ghalib737]

One of the lenses that Canon will announce in the near future that hasn’t been on our roadmap is a Canon RF 24-50mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM. I think it’s safe to assume that such a lens will be very small and very light. The price should also be on the lower end of the line-up

See full article...

Canon must use a faster aperture. it must start from 3.5, not 4.5. RF 15-30 f4.5-6.3 is just a waste of money.

 

[Sporgon]

Canon must use a faster aperture. it must start from 3.5, not 4.5. RF 15-30 f4.5-6.3 is just a waste of money.

Why ? People moving from crop sensors to FF often get a shock with not enough dof. Even then, most general purpose pictures are taken at around f/5.6 to 8. (With the exception of CR members where I admit most would shoot everything at f/1.2 if possible ). Mirrorless cameras don't need an f/2.8 aperture for optimum performance like a DSLR.
If the lens had been this small but designed completely to use FF sensor without digital manipulations and had a metal mount then I'd have had one as a hiking lens. Unfortunately for me though, if it follows the Nikon route and price this won't be the case.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Why ? People moving from crop sensors to FF often get a shock with not enough dof. Even then, most general purpose pictures are taken at around f/5.6 to 8. (With the exception of CR members where I admit most would shoot everything at f/1.2 if possible ). Mirrorless cameras don't need an f/2.8 aperture for optimum performance like a DSLR.
If the lens had been this small but designed completely to use FF sensor without digital manipulations and had a metal mount then I'd have had one as a hiking lens. Unfortunately for me though, if it follows the Nikon route and price this won't be the case.

"Mirrorless cameras don't need an f/2.8 aperture for optimum performance" - They need for light tho if we don't want to use ISO 6 million indoors.

 

[neuroanatomist]

"Mirrorless cameras don't need an f/2.8 aperture for optimum performance" - They need for light tho if we don't want to use ISO 6 million indoors.

Sounds like you need RAW conversion software with better noise reduction. I’d also recommend you look into hardware with better hyperbole reduction.