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

[Loswr]

Still no RF 300/2.8? WHY, Canon…WHY?

Actually, Canon just announced with their financials that they plan to broaden the user base for the EOS R system. So the real question is, WHY is anyone surprised by this impending announcement of a cheap, slow FF kit zoom Instead of a bunch of different fast, expensive prime lenses for which a relative handful of people (on this forum, and who are already a part of that user base) are clamoring?

 

[AlanF]

The 800/11 is also excellent and is my go-to lens for bird photography in the tropics, where the bright light means that I don't have to be worried about the limitations of an F11 lens.

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.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

I wasn't aware that the f-number changes when one uses a full-frame lens on crop sensor camera. Is there a formula to calculate the difference in the f-number?

It doesn’t. I was talking about equivalence. There’s lots of discussion of that topic on dpr and elsewhere. I was talking about what lens on a crop body would have the same DOF and noise performance (given same sensor generation) as this lens will on full frame. And I’ve done the math correctly.

 

[AlanF]

It doesn’t. I was talking about equivalence. There’s lots of discussion of that topic on dpr and elsewhere. I was talking about what lens on a crop body would have the same DOF and noise performance (given same sensor generation) as this lens will on full frame. And I’ve done the math correctly.

You are spot on.

 

[LSXPhotog]

I can usually see a use for a lens, but I’m struggling to understand the need for this lens in the lineup. With there already being an ultra compact and affordable 24-105 variable aperture zoom with more reach, this has to be a collapsible lens design for very entry level.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I still hope that that one will be called R9 and that the rumored R8 will not be APS-C but FF and a succesor to the EOS R. But that´s just wishfull thinking.

I´m with you, I still do believe we are going to see at least one replacement for the R/ RP or maybe even two. Canon started the low-entry FF business and others have done the same after them. Why stop now? I also do hope the vlogging oriented cameras get a different naming scheme.

 

[entoman]

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.

Agreed. For BIF, which is only a quite low percentage of my photography, I'd always use the RF100-500mm, but you clearly have stronger arms than me - I simply couldn't hand-hold the lens for long periods. I agree with your comments about the performance and usage of both lenses, but I've managed a few good BIF shots with the 800mm F11, by carefully anticipating the moment when e.g. a falcon or osprey takes flight. Mostly however I use the 800mm for shots of perching birds, which form the majority of my bird photography.

Enjoy Eilat. My next trip is to the tiger reserves of India, and I'll be taking the RF100-500mm for mammals, reptiles and occasional birds (I don't have an extender, so 500mm will be my limit, but with 45MP that's rarely an issue for me). The RF800mm F11 will be left at home, simply because I don't want to have to constantly swap lenses in the field - it can be *very* dusty in Indian reserves in February, and currently my only spare body is my old 5DMkiv which won't accept my RF glass..

I'll also be taking my RF100-400mm (rather than my 100mm macro) for butterflies, grasshoppers and other insects in the grounds of the lodges, and my RF24-105mm F4L for habitat/scenery shots (I'm hesitant to call them landscapes, which sounds pretentious, as my scenic shots are intended as nostalgic records rather than works of art!).

 

[Exploreshootshare]

The 100-400mm is a huge bargain, super sharp, fast focusing, compact, light, has excellent IS, and focuses down to half life-size. I use it far more often than my 100-500mm, the latter being reserved for animal photography on safari, or bird photography from a hide, where I need a wider max aperture, and the extra size and weight aren't an inconvenience.

I will need to test it. But I do believe I'll stick to the RF 100-500mm since I hate selling lenses and quite often need the reach.

The 800/11 is also excellent and is my go-to lens for bird photography in the tropics, where the bright light means that I don't have to be worried about the limitations of an F11 lens.

I had the 600mm F11. I got some good shots out of it, even with the 2x extender. But in slightly foggy conditions/ or just a light missing, IQ drops rapidly imho. I still consider getting the 800mm one day, but for now I just don't have the need for it.

I probably wouldn't get the 16mm, as it would be used exclusively for landscape work where I need the highest edge to edge sharpness and detail rendering. *When* I can afford it, I'll go for the 14-35mm L, but in the meantime the T/S-E 24mm and 24-105mm F4L serve me well enough.

I recently got the RF 14-35mm and sold the 15-35mm, since I shot landscapes/ cityscapes at f8-f11 and such and I wanted to have something lighter and smaller. I do own the 16mm as well, and I'm going back and forth on this lens. Sometimes I am amazed by the overall IQ, sometimes I just want to sell the lens right after using it...
As for now, I use it when I go hiking (so lightweight) or at school (I am a teacher) for group shots and fun angles, e.g. on a field trip. The major downside on this lens (and the RF 50mm F1.8) is that AF is sometimes really horrible...

I think the 24-50mm will be a retractable zoom, and that the limited zoom range and aperture are indicative of two things - firstly that it will be very small and light, and secondly that it will be very affordable. It's almost certainly intended as a bottom end kit lens for the bottom end RF bodies, and I think it will *only* be sold as part of a kit.

Probably true, therefore not for me I use to own the EF 18-45mm kit lens (two generations... I think mk ii and mkiii) and I didn't like them at all.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Enjoy Eilat. My next trip is to the tiger reserves of India, and I'll be taking the RF100-500mm for mammals, reptiles and occasional birds (I don't have an extender, so 500mm will be my limit, but with 45MP that's rarely an issue for me).

Safe travels and godspeed Sounds like a fun trip and I hope you'll enjoy it!

 

[entoman]

Still no RF 300/2.8? WHY, Canon…WHY?

Actually, Canon just announced with their financials that they plan to broaden the user base for the EOS R system. So the real question is, WHY is anyone surprised by this impending announcement of a cheap, slow FF kit zoom Instead of a bunch of different fast, expensive prime lenses for which a relative handful of people (on this forum, and who are already a part of that user base) are clamoring?

The EF 300/2.8 has always been one of their best and most popular professional lenses, so it surprises me that an RF version wasn't given greater priority - particularly as they've launched a number of "unlikely" and relatively low-demand lenses already (e.g. the dual fish-eye).

The impending launch of a budget 24-50mm however comes as no surprise, as they need a very cheap, very compact, low-spec kit lens for the sub-$1000 bodies that are expected soon. My prediction FWIW (not much, I know) is that it will be a retractable lens to make the kit as pocketable as possible. I also think it's likely to have a power zoom. Most likely a full frame lens that will serve as a wide to standard vlogger's lens, and double up as a roughly 35-80mm zoom on an APS-C body.

 

[Loswr]

It doesn’t. I was talking about equivalence. There’s lots of discussion of that topic on dpr and elsewhere. I was talking about what lens on a crop body would have the same DOF and noise performance (given same sensor generation) as this lens will on full frame. And I’ve done the math correctly.

Thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding of your post.

 

[knight427]

This lens seems limited even compared to a phone. It doesn't seem worth the bother.
How about an L series of zoom lenses that are f/5.6 constant aperture? Like a 15-45 and 50-150. On a FF camera, they'd be a super light 2-lens landscape solution. On crop they would be a big step up from kit lenses in terms of optical quality and cover 24-70 and 80-240.

 

[entoman]

This lens seems limited even compared to a phone. It doesn't seem worth the bother.
How about an L series of zoom lenses that are f/5.6 constant aperture? Like a 15-45 and 50-150. On a FF camera, they'd be a super light 2-lens landscape solution. On crop they would be a big step up from kit lenses in terms of optical quality and cover 24-70 and 80-240.

Zooms with a constant maximum of F5.6 at all focal lengths, sounds like a good idea. And if they were L glass, they'd be sharp into the corners at all apertures, not to mention being weather-sealed and built to take an occasional bashing.

I'm not so sure that I agree however about a 15-45 and 50-150 being a "landscape solution" - many of my best landscapes have actually been taken at 300-400mm. I also think that the ultra-wide thing has become a bit of a cliche now.

I'd prefer a combination of a 20-80mm and the existing RF100-400mm, which is super-sharp whether shooting at infinity or at half life-size. Not weather-sealed of course, but I always carry a bin-liner in my back pocket on hikes, to protect the camera/lens in the event of an unexpected downpour.

 

[Loswr]

I'd favour a combination of a 20-80mm and the existing RF100-400mm, which is super-sharp whether shooting at infinity or at half life-size.

The RF 100-400 is really an excellent lens, it's very nearly as sharp as the 100-500L right into the corners. It doesn't test that way because one big differentiator between the two is that the 100-400 has a fair bit of field curvature, and since test charts focus on the center the corners of the 100-400 suffer in that scenario. In testing my copies of the two lenses, when I focus them both in the corners of the chart (I have the same 'enhanced' ISO 12233-type charts that Bryan/TDP uses), the sharpness is pretty similar (and very good).

A lens with that much field curvature would be more of a problem on a DSLR with the AF points restricted to the central portion of the frame. With MILCs, a subject at the periphery can be directly autofocused on, which mitigates the effect of field curvature.

 

[entoman]

The RF 100-400 is really an excellent lens, it's very nearly as sharp as the 100-500L right into the corners. It doesn't test that way because one big differentiator between the two is that the 100-400 has a fair bit of field curvature, and since test charts focus on the center the corners of the 100-400 suffer in that scenario. In testing my copies of the two lenses, when I focus them both in the corners of the chart (I have the same 'enhanced' ISO 12233-type charts that Bryan/TDP uses), the sharpness is pretty similar (and very good).

A lens with that much field curvature would be more of a problem on a DSLR with the AF points restricted to the central portion of the frame. With MILCs, a subject at the periphery can be directly autofocused on, which mitigates the effect of field curvature.

Also, it's probably true to say that in *most* tele shots the subject is fairly central, so any minor loss of corner sharpness isn't as important as with a wide-angle (which in most cases are used for landscapes or group shots).

I admit to originally poo-pooing the RF100-400mm on the basis of test charts and on-line reviews. AlanF convinced me to try the lens, so when a friend got a copy I borrowed it and was so impressed that I ordered one the next day. It's currently my most-used lens, producing excellent results whether I'm photographing butterflies, wild animals or landscapes.

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

A sub-USD1k bundle makes marketing sense at a dollar level. The lens only price must be <USD200 and closer to USD100.
It would need to be released at the same time as an appropriately matched body to be relevant otherwise every review will be less than positive.
But.... I question how users will perceive a 2x zoom lens vs their current 3 or 4 prime lenses on their phones that are brighter. Clearly there should be a better IQ/mp/etc but will it be enough to tempt them away from their phones and their simplicity of use.
I can see the entry level vlogger as a potential market.
For me, I am interested in what body would be released with it. I want RP replacement ie full frame R mount with better sensor than RP as a backup for landscapes.

 

[Loswr]

Here’s an interesting dichotomy based on the two busy threads today:

Sony opened their lens mounts to 3rd parties. Nikon opened their lens mounts to 3rd parties. Canon locked out 3rd party AF lenses. That doesn’t make sense.

Sony has a cheap 28-60/4-6.3. Nikon has a cheap 24-50/4-6.3. Canon is releasing a cheap 24-50/4.5-6.3 (with IS). That doesn’t make sense.

Ummmm…ok.

 

[shawnc]

A nifty 50 would be more worthwhile IMO.

 

[MartinVLC]

Here’s an interesting dichotomy based on the two busy threads today:

Sony opened their lens mounts to 3rd parties. Nikon opened their lens mounts to 3rd parties. Canon locked out 3rd party AF lenses. That doesn’t make sense.

Sony has a cheap 28-60/4-6.3. Nikon has a cheap 24-50/4-6.3. Canon is releasing a cheap 24-50/4.5-6.3 (with IS). That doesn’t make sense.

Ummmm…ok.

Although for an entry level compact FF body the lense can make sense, I still think there are a lot of other lenses missing. Especially an affordable fast zoom, and others that are (at least for my use for event photography) way more important. On Sony you get about 5 different 2.8 standard zooms for under 1200 $/€ and even for Nikon Z you get at least one. For RF nothing under 2K. If there already were 200 AF lenses from different brands on the RF mount, (like on the E-Mount) I couldn´t care less if canon would release more lenses that don´t fit my needs. But with a lot of IMO more important lenses missing, I´m disapointed that they don´t fill these gaps first. That´s all.

 

[JustUs7]

Here’s an interesting dichotomy based on the two busy threads today:

Sony opened their lens mounts to 3rd parties. Nikon opened their lens mounts to 3rd parties. Canon locked out 3rd party AF lenses. That doesn’t make sense.

Sony has a cheap 28-60/4-6.3. Nikon has a cheap 24-50/4-6.3. Canon is releasing a cheap 24-50/4.5-6.3 (with IS). That doesn’t make sense.

Ummmm…ok.

It kind of makes sense though, if one considers that Canon is in the business if selling Canon lenses, and they don’t make money when third party manufacturers sell lenses.