Canon will announce the RF 16mm f/2.8 and RF 100-400mm next

[SteveC]

Sorry, but @kaihp is correct, a 600/5.6 entrance pupil is ~14.5% larger than that of a 400/4.

You might want to revisit some basic principles of geometry that you probably learned as a youth. I’d suggest starting with the method for calculating the area of a circle. A pi may help your calculations, but please don’t try to eat it (irrational numbers are notoriously hard on your digestion).

It's all those dang 5s: 3.14159265358...

Well, we've had irrational posters, why not irrational numbers?

 

[InchMetric]

Is there a chance the 100-400 would be compatible with the extender?

Not a chance they will worsen weight, size, cost, and performance to appeal to the minuscule populations that wants to put a $600 converter on a cheap consumer lens, making it less sellable to the 99% of actual potential customers.

 

[unfocused]

A reality check about possible pricing. Canon just announced $100 price hikes on seven RF lenses. It remains to be seen if they will introduce "rebates" that bring the prices back down to yesterday's list prices. But, I wouldn't be planning on any bargains for these new lenses.

 

[gruhl28]

RF 16mm F2.8mm is an instant buy, if…
- same size, built quality as 35mm F1.8
- control ring (a must)
- IS

I’ll preorder it seconds after the annoucement


I sold my EF 16-35mm F4 in order to get the RF 14-35mm F4. After canon revealed the price for the RF Lense I cancelled this plan immediately…
Now, a RF 16mm F2.8 sounds like an intriguing option to replace my UWA. It’ll be lighter than a zoom and therefore it’ll be great for traveling I just crop for the missing 17-23mm (I do own the 24-105mm so I’m covered from there on)

Hi Exploreshootshare,

I'm curious what you use the control ring for since you wrote that it is a must. I had considered it a must when I bought my RP and EF to RF adaptor, to have direct control over another variable since the RP doesn't have much direct control, but I've struggled finding a use for it that I'm happy with. I tried ISO first, but I find that it does not behave the same as setting ISO other ways. Using the controls on the camera, ISO always has the options of Auto and 100 - 1200, but if I'm on Auto ISO and I turn the Control Ring it seems to act just as a temporary adjustment if I've half-pressed the shutter recently. It doesn't seem to work well to take ISO on or off Auto. Then I thought about using it for aperture, but for Manual mode the camera makes you choose one of the control dials on the body for aperture, so then the control ring would be redundant. I'd really like to find a use that I'm happy with.

Thanks,
Glenn

 

[neuroanatomist]

A reality check about possible pricing. Canon just announced $100 price hikes on seven RF lenses. It remains to be seen if they will introduce "rebates" that bring the prices back down to yesterday's list prices. But, I wouldn't be planning on any bargains for these new lenses.

Glad I bought my 100-500 a couple of weeks ago! I had planned on holding off until after I get the R3 to decide if I want the 24-70/2.8 or the 28-70/2.

 

[InchMetric]

They can't deliver the stuff they promised last year.

They delivered everything everyone ordered on the first day. The big boys make decisions without waiting for things to be “in stock”.

I‘m way past 108 days and still counting…

Took 1 day after release for mine to arrive. I order on announcement day.

 

[InchMetric]

This 16mm is appealing as a lightweight adjunct to a 24-XX(X) zoom.

But I spent a day at the park with my little kids and lovely wife and the RF 15-35 was great to capture wide shots in the climbing structure, under the swings, and ground level tricycle shots, while also capturing plenty of normal images with the 35mm length. A fixed 16 means 2 lenses instead of one heavier one.

Still, I’m likely to get the 10-24 when it arrives.

 

[Chig]

Sorry, but @kaihp is correct, a 600/5.6 entrance pupil is ~14.5% larger than that of a 400/4.

You might want to revisit some basic principles of geometry that you probably learned as a youth. I’d suggest starting with the method for calculating the area of a circle. A pi may help your calculations, but please don’t try to eat it (irrational numbers are notoriously hard on your digestion).

Yes , obviously in terms of area it is 14.8% larger (and of course this is what determines the light gathering) , but I thought he was talking about the diameter which is what I mostly think about in terms of entrance pupils (107mm vs 100mm) and front elements and the overall size of a lens (i.e. length x diameter) .
Also the weight would be very roughly proportional to this area times the length the lens.
Comparing a 600mm f/4 vs 600mm f/5.6 their entrances pupils are 150mm vs 107mm and the area of the f/4 is twice the f/5.6 which makes sense as this is one stop of aperture and the weight of the f/4 would be very approximately double too.
For the EF400mm L f/2.8 ii vs the EF400mm DO f/4 ii the weights are 3.85kg vs 2.1kg which is nearly double so potentially for an RF600mm DO f/5.6 the weight may be a little over half the weight of the RF600 L f/4 (which weighs 3.1kg) so probably around 1.7kg is achievable which would be fantastically light (and shorter due to the DO freznell elements), even around 2kg would be really great and the loss of one stop of light would be worth it I think especially with the low light capabilities of the latest sensors.
Bit surprising no company (that I'm aware of) has made a 600mm f/5.6 lens yet as it would be a great compromise.
Edit : Nikon made a manual focus one : the 600mm f/5.6 ED from 1976-1986 (and a second version from 1986-1999) the first version weighed 2.7kg but a modern one might well be 2kg or less.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Hi Exploreshootshare,

I'm curious what you use the control ring for since you wrote that it is a must. I had considered it a must when I bought my RP and EF to RF adaptor, to have direct control over another variable since the RP doesn't have much direct control, but I've struggled finding a use for it that I'm happy with. I tried ISO first, but I find that it does not behave the same as setting ISO other ways. Using the controls on the camera, ISO always has the options of Auto and 100 - 1200, but if I'm on Auto ISO and I turn the Control Ring it seems to act just as a temporary adjustment if I've half-pressed the shutter recently. It doesn't seem to work well to take ISO on or off Auto. Then I thought about using it for aperture, but for Manual mode the camera makes you choose one of the control dials on the body for aperture, so then the control ring would be redundant. I'd really like to find a use that I'm happy with.

Thanks,
Glenn

I have the EOS R and after trying several configurations I finally selected putting the aperture on the control ring. My R let’s me put shutter speed and ISO (which iniatially I put in the Touch Bar) on the other two dials.

The reason why I stated „control ring is a must for me“ is because I like to take night shots of city’s or the nightsky. I often change the aperture to find the right lighting and using the touchscreen I somehow give the camera a strong shake or whatever (I used to think my motorskills were pretty decent…I don’t anymore). With aperture set on the control ring I nearly eliminated any issues I had with a shaky camera and therefore blurry images. And since the 16mm would be my no 1 go-to lense for night shots, I’d absolutely love a control ring on it. And it’d pair perfectly with the 35mm

 

[Exploreshootshare]

EF 17-40 f/4 hefty price tag

Totally agree

Sigma DG 14-24mm f/2.8 HSM ART

I keep thinking about UWA zooms and keep coming back to this lense. I owned the Sigma 20mm F1.4 for a while, but I sold it because it is extremely heavy, needs an adapter and has no IS. These aapects keep me from getting the Sigma 14-24mm

Canons lens prices are through the roof! And will cost them in new camera body sales, talk of this new RF 16mm f/2.8 being 600, 700 800 £$ is ridiculous

Absolutely, it should be cheaper than that! Especially with the distortion everybody in this forum is expecting.

 

[Marximusprime]

A reality check about possible pricing. Canon just announced $100 price hikes on seven RF lenses. It remains to be seen if they will introduce "rebates" that bring the prices back down to yesterday's list prices. But, I wouldn't be planning on any bargains for these new lenses.

Where did you see this announcement?
EDIT: nvm, found it. That sucks.

 

[gruhl28]

I have the EOS R and after trying several configurations I finally selected putting the aperture on the control ring. My R let’s me put shutter speed and ISO (which iniatially I put in the Touch Bar) on the other two dials.

The reason why I stated „control ring is a must for me“ is because I like to take night shots of city’s or the nightsky. I often change the aperture to find the right lighting and using the touchscreen I somehow give the camera a strong shake or whatever (I used to think my motorskills were pretty decent…I don’t anymore). With aperture set on the control ring I nearly eliminated any issues I had with a shaky camera and therefore blurry images. And since the 16mm would be my no 1 go-to lense for night shots, I’d absolutely love a control ring on it. And it’d pair perfectly with the 35mm

Thanks for the reply. I think the RP lets me set one of the dials to ISO for other modes but not manual (in case a lens without control ring is used?) but I’ll take another look. If the R allows I don’t see why they wouldn’t allow it on the RP also, but Canon sometimes does things like that.

 

[sanj]

It would be a bummer if the 100-400 is the old lens with a built-in adaptor.

 

[Joules]

It would be a bummer if the 100-400 is the old lens with a built-in adaptor.

In case you missed the hint in this OP and from all the patents previously published: The upcoming 100-400 mm will be an affordable lens, likely with a 7.1 aperture on the long end. Essentially applying the same reach upgrade that the EF 100-400mm 5.6 L IS II got with the RF 100-500 7.1 L IS to the much more budget oriented EF 70-300 mm 5.6 IS Nano USM.

 

[JustUs7]

In case you missed the hint in this OP and from all the patents previously published: The upcoming 100-400 mm will be an affordable lens, likely with a 7.1 aperture on the long end. Essentially applying the same reach upgrade that the EF 100-400mm 5.6 L IS II got with the RF 100-500 7.1 L IS to the much more budget oriented EF 70-300 mm 5.6 IS Nano USM.

Early rumors, in fact, had this listed as a 70-400 rather than a 100-400.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Early rumors, in fact, had this listed as a 70-400 rather than a 100-400.

The 70-400mm rumors were about an “L” lense, this lense never had a “L” in its name while going through the rumor mill.

 

[ThatCW]

Perhaps someone posted, but I didn't see this.... Amazon shows the RF 16mm f/2.8 for $299.99 and a release date of Sept 14th, Canon RF16mm F2.8 STM. Focusing distance of 5.11 inches.

Product Dimensions	2.7 x 2.7 x 1.6 inches
Item Weight	9.4 ounces

 

[JustUs7]

Perhaps someone posted, but I didn't see this.... Amazon shows the RF 16mm f/2.8 for $299.99 and a release date of Sept 14th, Canon RF16mm F2.8 STM. Focusing distance of 5.11 inches.

Product Dimensions	2.7 x 2.7 x 1.6 inches
Item Weight	9.4 ounces

Should have screen grabbed it. I saw it too. Gone again. Must have accidentally showed it early. Hard to tell though if that was a fake of the 50mm. Awfully well done if it was fake.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Should have screen grabbed it. I saw it too. Gone again. Must have accidentally showed it early. Hard to tell though if that was a fake of the 50mm. Awfully well done if it was fake.

I saw it as well. $299 is quite reasonable. Lends credence to the sub-$1K FF MILC rumor.

 

[JustUs7]

I saw it as well. $299 is quite reasonable. Lends credence to the sub-$1K FF MILC rumor.

Well, $299 definitely lands this on my Christmas or Birthday list. Hopefully the reviews are good and the coma isn’t bad.