Canon to announce the EOS R100 and RF 28mm f/2.8 STM

The RP debuted at $1,300 USD.
I am not sure when the pricing changed permanently to USD1k in the US exactly but it from CPwatch it looks to be earlier than 2021 - the graph doesn't seem to be working.
It is long enough ago that I don't think that the initial price is really relevant to the current discussion.
It is already 4 years old and using tech from the 6Dii ie 2017.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
The RP debuted at $1,300 USD.
Guessing very few ever paid $1,300 body only for that. Even in December 2019 I got it kitted with the 24-240 and a free adapter for $1,499. They were literally giving away Pixma Pro-10 printers too at that time. $700 with a $350 instant rebate and a $350 gift card rebate to follow. Which I used to buy the RF 35.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Well, and Sigma :p It's the only non-native RF lens I use. On the SLRs, my 35/1.4 was unused as "too normal" while the 24/1.4 was unused because "too wide."
I had it on my Sony A7RIII, really good lens, but on that mirrorless body it was too heavy, and I found I was reaching for my 35mm GM which performed a little better (unadapted) and much lighter and smaller.

Waiting for a fast small 28mm L, so I can get back to Canon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
It is long enough ago that I don't think that the initial price is really relevant to the current discussion.
Well, in 4 years the R8 might be close to $1K USD.
We can't expect the price of a 4-year-old model to be replaced by a new model at its current price.
That is exactly why I think the initial price is relevant to the discussion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
Well, in 4 years the R8 might be close be $1K USD.
We can't expect the price of a 4-year-old model to be replaced by a new model at its current price.
That is exactly why I think the initial price is relevant to the discussion.
But we can expect the R50 at 2/3 of the current RP to give an example of what is possible at the 1K price point.
 
Upvote 0
Waiting for a fast small 28mm L, so I can get back to Canon.
I hear you but I'm not sure you need to wait for an L.

The RF50/1.8 doesn't have an L but in my SHOOTOUT tests on the lens forum here, it actually did REALLY well. I know how to read an MTF chart and it seems to look better in practice than the chart would suggest, while the 24-105/4L doesn't look at good.

In short, L doesn't necessarily mean great image quality.

It's also a quarter-century ago at this point but in the 90s I owned the 14L, 24L TS, 50/1.0L and they were dogs as far as sharpness went. Back then the official definition of L was hard to find but somewhere--I think in the "Lens Work" book second edition (which was the only place I ever found the MTF charts for everything) it said (if I recall correctly) L lenses would have either UD, fluorite, or ground (not molded) aspherical elements. That was it. It didn't say they were sharp, or even, sharper, or built for pro abuse, or anything like that. Just had one of those three special lens types. That said, the book was like 1997. By 2010s, the definition clearly had changed. Several non-L lenses had one of these glass types, e.g. EF24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, EF-S18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, etc. The "Canon Lens Museum" doesn't specify ground vs. molded aspherical elements but it seems like practically everything has at least a molded aspherical. (May be related to the "onion ring" effect in out-of-focus highlights on many lenses, that I think didn't occur before asphericals.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Just seems...bizarre to release this now.

So this will be the (bigger!) m100- without the evf, which i dont have a problem with - but it seems like now there's too many cameras and not enough lenses.

Where is the aspc lenses? A tradgedy to sell those bodies to consumers and leave them hanging. So glad i didnt buy one.

And STILL no 50mm 1.4 update, wtf.

Dear 50mm f/1.4 Dreamer,


Sincerely,

Canon

P.S. 1993 was a loooong time ago.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I tried few 3rd party radio triggers(Pocket wizard and Godox(apparently X2 might be better in that aspect but havent tried it)) and for short distances it would fail quite often, so these days I rely on built in optical trigger of my body(in case of multiple lights) or just use a off shoe cable for single light. Those radio triggers were very useful while shooting some shy wildlife(foxes and owls) from a distance at night.

I use the Godox/Flashpoint X2 system. The FP R2 Pro Mk II transmitter has a menu setting to choose between 0-30m or 1-100mm radio range. With the option set to 0-30m I've never had an issue using the trigger in my hot shoe with a flash on a fairly small bracket attached to the camera. In landscape orientation they're almost touching. I know not if any or all of the Godox versions have this, but I'd be surprised if they did not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
And STILL no 50mm 1.4 update, wtf.
We might not need one.

Back in the day there were a lot of factors making even your subject not very sharp, so to contrast with that not-sharp subject, the out-of-focus background had to be far less sharp yet. And, that lack of sharpness of subject meant you often didn't use photos at more than like 4x6" or 10x15cm, so you wanted a background that was obviously blurred even at that small size.

Factors making your subject blurry were: 1) lower quality lenses than we have today, 2) focus basically never being perfect, 3) hand-shake, 4) subject movement, 5) noise at high ISOs (in fact even ISO 100 then was far grainier than ISO 4000 on an R5).

But today, we think nothing of 10x15" photos (a full screen on a medium-large LCD) (25x37cm or so), because of the really good lens quality, focus being nailed, image stabilization, subjects frozen when need be by fast shutter even in low light, and low noise. In this environment, even 50/1.8 gives you a lot of subject pop. And while your subject is far bigger as you confidently display bigger images, the background is likewised magnified making even 50/1.8 bokeh quite obvious.

Also, that large image we now share around all the time means that if DOF doesn't cover your subject's head it will be really obvious. In the days of small images no-one would notice. That means you may need to use f/4.0 or something now where you'd be able to get away with f/1.4 in the 90s. So opportunities to use a lens wide-open are significantly lessened.

Further, with an f/1.4 (or even 1.2 or 1.0) lens is not using it wide open exclusively. You take a LOT of shots at f/1.8 to f/16, and those shots aren't night-and-day better than the 1.8. (The RF1.2 may be usefully sharper at f/1.8 but I have no photos with it that would be keepers with the 1.2 but would not be keepers with the 1.8. And at f/8 or so or numerically higher, all lenses are pretty much the same.)

Finally there's the question of which lens design you'd use. If it's an old-school double Gaussian, it's not going to be much if any sharper than the f/1.8, which hardly differs from Canon 50/1.8's of the early 1970s and earlier. The EF 1.0 1.2 1.4 and 1.8 were all double Gaussian designs and frankly none of them were that sharp, though in other respects they were pleasing and predictable. If instead an RF 50/1.4 were a new-school design like the RF50/1.2 or a few other ultra-sharp modern lenses like the Otus or the Leica 50/2 APO ASPH, then it's going to be far bigger than the 1.4 of old even with its extension tube, and heavier, and pricier. I think Nikon has a modern 50/1.4 now that shows it can be smaller than the RF50/1.2 and usefully cheaper, while usefully sharper than an old-school design, so such a lens can clearly be created, but I don't think it will be as cheap OR as sharp as you want. But arguably if you're OK with big weight and size and price, just get the RF50/1.2 that's been around since day 1. If you're willing to sacrifice some IQ for better size weight and price, just get the RF50/1.8. Again how valuable is it to get that extra 2/3 stop?

My personal experience: I had all EF 50's, so I admit it's nice to have them all on hand. But I only used the 1.0 for special projects. I usually used the 1.8 MkI for unplanned shooting as the camera was always in my backpack, and 1.4 but later 1.2 for planned shooting. I don't think I really used my 1.4 after getting the 1.2, even though the 1.2 wasn't great: the 1.4 just wasn't usefully smaller or lighter. And weirdly, though I preferred the 1.2 over the 1.4 when I had both, I actually kind of wish I hadn't bothered with the 1.2. Once I had it I used it but it wasn't worth getting, really, once you offset that slight extra ability with the trouble of buying it, testing and getting to know it, then selling it.

I'm not sure who will be convinced, but that's how I see it. How often does anyone really absolutely have to have that f/1.4 and f/1.6 shot, but doesn't want an f/1.2 shot?

I had the RF50/1.2 and just wasn't using it and it was too big to always have on me. Now I have the RF50/1.8 and since it's always in my backpack I'm taking a lot of images with it. And while the MTF chart makes it look like only a modest performer, my own tests show it's really quite good enough for my usage. I could see buying another 50/1.2 at SOME point--it was a great lens and I sold it to buy other toys--but I never think about it, much less a 1.4 that might not be as good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
We might not need one.

Back in the day there were a lot of factors making even your subject not very sharp, so to contrast with that not-sharp subject, the out-of-focus background had to be far less sharp yet. And, that lack of sharpness of subject meant you often didn't use photos at more than like 4x6" or 10x15cm, so you wanted a background that was obviously blurred even at that small size.

Factors making your subject blurry were: 1) lower quality lenses than we have today, 2) focus basically never being perfect, 3) hand-shake, 4) subject movement, 5) noise at high ISOs (in fact even ISO 100 then was far grainier than ISO 4000 on an R5).

But today, we think nothing of 10x15" photos (a full screen on a medium-large LCD) (25x37cm or so), because of the really good lens quality, focus being nailed, image stabilization, subjects frozen when need be by fast shutter even in low light, and low noise. In this environment, even 50/1.8 gives you a lot of subject pop. And while your subject is far bigger as you confidently display bigger images, the background is likewised magnified making even 50/1.8 bokeh quite obvious.

Also, that large image we now share around all the time means that if DOF doesn't cover your subject's head it will be really obvious. In the days of small images no-one would notice. That means you may need to use f/4.0 or something now where you'd be able to get away with f/1.4 in the 90s. So opportunities to use a lens wide-open are significantly lessened.

Further, with an f/1.4 (or even 1.2 or 1.0) lens is not using it wide open exclusively. You take a LOT of shots at f/1.8 to f/16, and those shots aren't night-and-day better than the 1.8. (The RF1.2 may be usefully sharper at f/1.8 but I have no photos with it that would be keepers with the 1.2 but would not be keepers with the 1.8. And at f/8 or so or numerically higher, all lenses are pretty much the same.)

Finally there's the question of which lens design you'd use. If it's an old-school double Gaussian, it's not going to be much if any sharper than the f/1.8, which hardly differs from Canon 50/1.8's of the early 1970s and earlier. The EF 1.0 1.2 1.4 and 1.8 were all double Gaussian designs and frankly none of them were that sharp, though in other respects they were pleasing and predictable. If instead an RF 50/1.4 were a new-school design like the RF50/1.2 or a few other ultra-sharp modern lenses like the Otus or the Leica 50/2 APO ASPH, then it's going to be far bigger than the 1.4 of old even with its extension tube, and heavier, and pricier. I think Nikon has a modern 50/1.4 now that shows it can be smaller than the RF50/1.2 and usefully cheaper, while usefully sharper than an old-school design, so such a lens can clearly be created, but I don't think it will be as cheap OR as sharp as you want. But arguably if you're OK with big weight and size and price, just get the RF50/1.2 that's been around since day 1. If you're willing to sacrifice some IQ for better size weight and price, just get the RF50/1.8. Again how valuable is it to get that extra 2/3 stop?

My personal experience: I had all EF 50's, so I admit it's nice to have them all on hand. But I only used the 1.0 for special projects. I usually used the 1.8 MkI for unplanned shooting as the camera was always in my backpack, and 1.4 but later 1.2 for planned shooting. I don't think I really used my 1.4 after getting the 1.2, even though the 1.2 wasn't great: the 1.4 just wasn't usefully smaller or lighter. And weirdly, though I preferred the 1.2 over the 1.4 when I had both, I actually kind of wish I hadn't bothered with the 1.2. Once I had it I used it but it wasn't worth getting, really, once you offset that slight extra ability with the trouble of buying it, testing and getting to know it, then selling it.

I'm not sure who will be convinced, but that's how I see it. How often does anyone really absolutely have to have that f/1.4 and f/1.6 shot, but doesn't want an f/1.2 shot?

I had the RF50/1.2 and just wasn't using it and it was too big to always have on me. Now I have the RF50/1.8 and since it's always in my backpack I'm taking a lot of images with it. And while the MTF chart makes it look like only a modest performer, my own tests show it's really quite good enough for my usage. I could see buying another 50/1.2 at SOME point--it was a great lens and I sold it to buy other toys--but I never think about it, much less a 1.4 that might not be as good.

I agree.

On the EF side of things, when the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM was introduced it corrected almost all of the deficiencies of the EF 50mm f/1.8 II that weren't also shared by the EF 50mm f/1.4. There was no longer any real reason to buy the f/1.4 at all.

I've had an f/1.4 for years, and I use it when I need a 50mm prime but I almost never use it wider than f/2.2. I also tend to use 35mm, 85mm, and 135mm primes much more than the 50mm or 100mm primes I also have. But if my EF 50mm f/1.4 broke tomorrow I wouldn't even consider having it repaired. I wouldn't replace it with another EF 50mm f/1.4, either. I'd buy an EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. At common apertures it's just as good as the EF 50mm f/1.4 is.

In terms of test chart performance, the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is as good as the EF 50mm f/1.4 and the EF 50mm f/1.2 L everywhere except in the center of the field for the f/1.2, and the difference there isn't much. Both the f/1.8 and f/1.4 are sharper on the edges than the f/1.2 from about f/2 to about f/4. Hopefully, no one buys an EF 50mm f/1.2 L to shoot test charts... because that's pretty much the exact opposite of what it was designed to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Like most, I have the 16 & 50 the new 28 pancake will fit perfectly between. I only have the RP, but for my needs and wants it’s all I really need. I might pick up another used RP to save constant lens changing.

As for the consumer zooms like the 24-50 and 24-105…No, just No. I have and loathe the EF-m 15-45, the plastic mount, retracted design and appallingly slow max aperture means it never gets used. I really do hate it, so the RF versions will not even get a look in!!
 
Upvote 0
The RF 28 2.8 looks like a handy pancake - leave on the body for a quick grab shot instead of a body cap - lens. The three way MF-CR-AF switch should enable you to set MF without menu diving. The three- way switch should have been on these type lenses (50 1.8, 16 2.8) from day one. Well, at least Canon was listening. I wasn't paying much attention when this lens was first announced but I think it's gonna be a plenty-great twenty-eight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I don't need a pancake on the R5 as the handle already sticks out pretty far. But this lens is actually kind of wierdly good news... why so?

If they're making a 28/2.8, that means they probably won't make a 28/2.0.

And if they're not making a 28/2.0... they're probably making a 28/1.4.

Yea!
 
Upvote 0
I don't need a pancake on the R5 as the handle already sticks out pretty far. But this lens is actually kind of wierdly good news... why so?

If they're making a 28/2.8, that means they probably won't make a 28/2.0.

And if they're not making a 28/2.0... they're probably making a 28/1.4.

Yea!

Either that, or they'll make a 24/1.2 L and a 35/1.2 L and be done with it. No 28mm L at any aperture.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0