Canon to announce the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM soon

JordanCS13

EOS R6
Aug 1, 2020
13
35
www.admiringlight.com
I think $1,800 would be far too expensive for the 70-200/4. That's a 50% increase over the current EF version, which is also quite new. For typical similar lenses, Canon's been a bit higher than their EF glass, but not crazily so. The RF 70-200/2.8 released at $2700, while the EF 70-200/2.8 III was $2,099 - a price hike, but one of 28%. The 24-70/2.8's are 21% higher for the RF version.

Assuming a similar approx. 25% increase, that would put the RF 70-200/4 at around $1,600.

I still think that's a bit too high, as it's higher than any other 70-200/4 on the market, but I could see $1,500. (though I hope they surprise us and go for $1,300.

I expect the 50/1.8 to come in at around $249. Higher than that would be hard to swallow, with the EF 50/1.8 STM being available for $150, and it's not even large with the adapter. Sony's 50/1.8 is $249. Only Nikon has taken crazy pills with their 50/1.8 pricing.
 

esglord

EOS RP
May 9, 2019
42
54
Is the term "nifty 50" to you in relation to the EF 50/1.8 STM or to the EF 50/1.4 USM?
To me it always was to the 50/1.8 and its predecessors, also called "plastic fantastic".
IMO the RF50/1.8 STM will be the equivalent to the EF 50/1.4, as the RF85/2 is for the EF 85/1.8 USM.
I was referring to the nifty 50 EF 50 f/1.8 being replaced by the new nifty rf 50 f/1.8. However, based on previous rumors, I think it will be equivalent only in terms of max aperture. I expect the build quality to be higher though, similar to the RF 35 f/1.8.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,256
3,505
Irving, Texas
Soon the complainers from that other forum for that other brand are going to lose the argument that the other brand beats Canon on # of lenses in the ecosystem. Then, they have nothing. Nothing. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy on this cold 48 degree day in Dallas, Texas. Yeah, I'm gloating. :cool::ROFLMAO:
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
491
732
The RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS was an incredible surprise, and everytime I use it I'm so astonished that no one had made an extending zoom 70-200 before it. It's a perfect lens, there's absolutely no reason why the 70-200 had to be internal zoom--- you wouldn't want your 24-70 to be internal zoom---and when you realize the 70-200 is basically just another 24-70 now, it truly changes how I use my RF 70-200.

WIth that in mind though, I'm blown away that no one thought to shrink the 70-200 F/4 like this before. That lens in itself was always designed for vacation/travel and would have benefited greatly from external zooming. The EF 70-300 F/4-5.6L IS is a great example of that, and a lot of people would choose that lens for its smaller size, over even the 70-200 F/4L IS.

I'm absolutely sure the RF 70-200mm F/4 is going to sell like hotcakes, even if it's around $1,500. It feels so ridiculous when you see how big the competitor's lenses in this class are in comparison to the Canons. If you're hiking into the woods and want a light, compact telephoto, Canon is really going to look like a sweet deal right now.
 

ozturert

EOS 90D
Jan 16, 2019
135
106
I wonder 70-200mm f4 will follow the design philosophy of 70-200mm f2.8. If it does, it may be smaller and lighter than 24-70mm f2.8L IS :)
 
Oct 8, 2016
3
7
The RF 50mm f1.8 STM will be all about hitting a low price point as it was with the EF mount version. It’s a fast prime for the masses. The EF version is US$129. The RF will no doubt cost more but it will need to be in the range of US$149 to US$179 to have that mass appeal. At $149 it will quickly become the bestselling mirrorless lens of all time, by far. Canon knows it and that’s an accolade that they will want, not just for ego but for marketing purposes since it will make a significant contribution to their market share in terms of mirrorless lens units sold. Canon marketing has liked to tout the vast number of EF lenses sold in the past (remember seeing the ads and press releases every time they pass a major milestone?) and that will continue with the RF mount. In order to achieve that price point, Canon will omit 1:2 macro. The RF lens may focus a bit closer than the EF version but it won’t be macro. There will no doubt be a separate macro 50mm with IS at some point in the future at a much higher price point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrunRad

ctk

EOS M50
Mar 25, 2020
48
51
50 1.8 can't come soon enough. A decent budget 50 from Canon is literally decades overdue. I've given up hope on a budget 135 so that 50 and a gimbal are the last pieces of my kit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OTMT

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
561
632
I think $1,800 would be far too expensive for the 70-200/4. That's a 50% increase over the current EF version, which is also quite new. For typical similar lenses, Canon's been a bit higher than their EF glass, but not crazily so. The RF 70-200/2.8 released at $2700, while the EF 70-200/2.8 III was $2,099 - a price hike, but one of 28%. The 24-70/2.8's are 21% higher for the RF version.

Assuming a similar approx. 25% increase, that would put the RF 70-200/4 at around $1,600.

I still think that's a bit too high, as it's higher than any other 70-200/4 on the market, but I could see $1,500. (though I hope they surprise us and go for $1,300.

I expect the 50/1.8 to come in at around $249. Higher than that would be hard to swallow, with the EF 50/1.8 STM being available for $150, and it's not even large with the adapter. Sony's 50/1.8 is $249. Only Nikon has taken crazy pills with their 50/1.8 pricing.
Nikons 50mm is in a different league tho. Its comparable in image quality to the RF50 1.2, only less bright. For me Nikons 50mm is the most desirable. Almost perfect optical quality, weather sealed, internal focus but small and affordable.
I don't need a brick 50 1.2 and don't especially like Canons extending 1.8 lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: woodman411

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
491
732
20201028_143909.jpg


I know we're all visual people, so I thought I'd take a quick comparison with my RF 70-200.

Supposedly the source had said the new RF 70-200 F/4L is going to be the same size as a coke can...well...since I don't drink coke, here's a can of Pepsi for comparison. (Propped up on my wallet, which is unfortunately a bit thinner than the EOS R5, due to the EOS R5...)

I'm actually surprised to say a can of soda is a good bit smaller than the F/2.8, so the new F/4 must be absolutely tiny.
 

Andy Westwood

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 10, 2016
128
184
UK
Value for money the current EF Nifty Fifty is the best value EF lens you can buy. It's far from faultless but on a budget even with an adaptor on an R body to shoot 50mm at f/ 1.8 all this for less than 100 bucks, it's hard to knock it.

Let us hope the new RF version is as good value for the money
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
653
753
The RF 50mm f1.8 STM will be all about hitting a low price point as it was with the EF mount version. It’s a fast prime for the masses. The EF version is US$129. The RF will no doubt cost more but it will need to be in the range of US$149 to US$179 to have that mass appeal. At $149 it will quickly become the bestselling mirrorless lens of all time, by far. Canon knows it and that’s an accolade that they will want, not just for ego but for marketing purposes since it will make a significant contribution to their market share in terms of mirrorless lens units sold. Canon marketing has liked to tout the vast number of EF lenses sold in the past (remember seeing the ads and press releases every time they pass a major milestone?) and that will continue with the RF mount. In order to achieve that price point, Canon will omit 1:2 macro. The RF lens may focus a bit closer than the EF version but it won’t be macro. There will no doubt be a separate macro 50mm with IS at some point in the future at a much higher price point.
I wanna believe you, but my heart tells me it's coming in between $249 and $349, depending on final build and features.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
744
818
Kentucky, USA
Edit: Since an image of the RF 50 f1.8 shows it's short, without IS or Macro printed on it, I'll take my guess for it to be $349.

edit: My guess for the RF 70-200 f4L IS is $1,499.

I'm hoping Canon comes out with a RF 50 f1.4L (I'll wait to see, but I know it may never happen)
I've got the RF 70-200 f2.8L, so I'll pass on the f4L version but agree that it's a great lens to come out with!
As far as f1.8, I really would like to see a RF 105 f1.8L IS. A 58mm aperture would be ideal for portrait IQ, bokeh size & portability.

It's really *fun* being in the Canon RF camp now!
And walking around with that smooth R5 grip in my right hand is soooo nice. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

Ale_F

6D - 7D
Nov 22, 2018
76
52
What's better?
If the F4 follow the design philosophy of 70-200mm f2.8, it has the size of a coke (pepsi) can.
Otherwise I appreciate the internal zoom of the EF, it represent a very rock solid lens.

Compatibility with extenders?