Canon will do a Livestream for the EOS R5 and EOS R6 official announcement [CR2]

[Etienne]

1. Juggling adapters is a headache, and not suitable for all users, especially those who use $10,000 lenses. I keep a $200 adapter on each $1000-2000+ lens. I have thought about grinding off the switch to make it hard to accidentally activate.
2. RF will be supplanting EF over time, so fewer and fewer will have to throw away the adapter.
3. The detachable adapter manufacturing cost is small ($20-40?) relative to a $10,000 lens.
4. It's hard to sell a new $10,000+ lens that is of the "wrong" format and requires an adapter. Adapters are for lenses you already have.
5. Having a detachable adapter means one product SKU in inventory, not two, to cover RF and EF customers. That saves much more than the little tube costs.
6. As noted elsewhere, the adapter can provide the benefit of being replaced with a more advanced (TC, switchable, filter) replacement element for RF or EF users. More benefits to all.

I hope you find the "slightest bit of sense" in one or more of those reasons.

I seriously doubt that Canon will design its RF lenses to be basically EF lenses with an adapter added to it. That completely eliminates the engineering teams ability to optimize the design taking advantage of the new mount.
Everything they have done for RF has been brand new designs taking full advantage of the new mount, resulting in entirely new and innovative lenses like the 24-70 f/2, and the much smaller and lighter RF 70-200 f/2.8L. The RF mount is the future. They said they will continue to support EF, and DSLRs for some time, and they might put out an RF-EF adapter with a built-in switchable teleconverter, which is cool, but they have shown no indication to prioritize the EF mount compatibility in their designs of RF lenses.... quite the opposite.

 

[koenkooi]

I seriously doubt that Canon will design its RF lenses to be basically EF lenses with an adapter added to it. That completely eliminates the engineering teams ability to optimize the design taking advantage of the new mount.
[..]

I completely agree with that, but IMO there are a few lenses that would hugely benefit from new coatings, improved motors and distance encoders. That would seem like low-hanging fruit. But maybe it's so low-hanging Canon doesn't want to explain why they didn't do that for the EF versions already

 

[LensFungus]

"Cool adapters" means we can finally attach an ice cream maker to the Canon EOS R cameras.

 

[BakaBokeh]

The only interesting new adapter that comes to my mind would indeed be an RF to EF-M speedbooster. Since you need glass in the adapter anyway for that mount combination, making it useful would be very welcome. I doubt they'll do it though, despite the patent they have. Just too good to be true.

I would like that to come true also. Maybe also one that just has optics to fit, but not speedboost so that would satisfy the APS-C shooters that like the crop.

But I'm chuckling at the thought of a RF28-70 mounted on an M50. It's like, "why are you carrying just a lens around? Oh, I didn't realize there was a body on there."

 

[Eclipsed]

I seriously doubt that Canon will design its RF lenses to be basically EF lenses with an adapter added to it. That completely eliminates the engineering teams ability to optimize the design taking advantage of the new mount.
Everything they have done for RF has been brand new designs taking full advantage of the new mount, resulting in entirely new and innovative lenses like the 24-70 f/2, and the much smaller and lighter RF 70-200 f/2.8L. The RF mount is the future. They said they will continue to support EF, and DSLRs for some time, and they might put out an RF-EF adapter with a built-in switchable teleconverter, which is cool, but they have shown no indication to prioritize the EF mount compatibility in their designs of RF lenses.... quite the opposite.

I agree, but even as an industry optics expert, I defer to those real lens design exp[erts who say that for long lenses (Big Whites) the difference in mounts is essentially irrelevant for lens design. WHen discussing adapters and converters, and $10k lenses, I'm talking only about those. Not the zooms and wider lenses you discuss.

 

[Ozarker]

RF 70-200 may be able to use the TCs? is this not the best news we could hear this year so far (70-200 owners?)
All RF lenses to boot? Canon working some real magic this year.

Provided I can keep my RF 85.... this news is fantabulous!

 

[Eclipsed]

I would like that to come true also. Maybe also one that just has optics to fit, but not speedboost so that would satisfy the APS-C shooters that like the crop.

But I'm chuckling at the thought of a RF28-70 mounted on an M50. It's like, "why are you carrying just a lens around? Oh, I didn't realize there was a body on there."

Now add a 2x teleconverter for the nastiest 56-140 f4 imaginable!

 

[SteveC]

I would like that to come true also. Maybe also one that just has optics to fit, but not speedboost so that would satisfy the APS-C shooters that like the crop.

But I'm chuckling at the thought of a RF28-70 mounted on an M50. It's like, "why are you carrying just a lens around? Oh, I didn't realize there was a body on there."

I did briefly put a friend's Sigma 500 onto my M50; we were pretty much just clowning around. And I have a truly hideous picture of his nose hairs from 50 feet away to show for it.

 

[Ozarker]

speed booster is an adaptor that turns a 1.4 lens to an f1 omn an m camera not an rf, new stuff from canon is not just for the R system

Speed boosters are so M43.

 

[brad-man]

I agree, but even as an industry optics expert, I defer to those real lens design exp[erts who say that for long lenses (Big Whites) the difference in mounts is essentially irrelevant for lens design. WHen discussing adapters and converters, and $10k lenses, I'm talking only about those. Not the zooms and wider lenses you discuss.

There may not be as much optical improvement for long RF primes, but the increased data throughput and improved algorithms will likely yield impressive results. Time will tell.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I completely agree with that, but IMO there are a few lenses that would hugely benefit from new coatings, improved motors and distance encoders. That would seem like low-hanging fruit. But maybe it's so low-hanging Canon doesn't want to explain why they didn't do that for the EF versions already

Thy explained why they were able to accurately encode distance with RF, its due to the ability to exchange much more information with the camera.

Canon and the whole industry is always trying to develop new lens coatings. Its difficult to find one that is a improvement and does not cause unwanted issues. We have seen new motors developed and used in EF lenses, like anything else, we'd always like more. Right now, the emphasis is on sound elimination.

No change to a lens design is low hanging fruit. Every aspect from lens production thru servicing is potentially impacted. Even slight changes to the color of the paint upset some people.

 

[Max TT]

Dear Canon,

I just want to know how much this is going to set me back:
EOS R6 + RF 24-105 f4 (Kit)
RF 70-200 f4
RF 85 f2

Please, thank you, much obliged, appreciated etc etc etc

PS. Here is my money!

 

[highdesertmesa]

You're forgetting about all those people out there who'd rather die than use an adapter. We have a few of them here prepared to defend their positions most vociferously.

No, you're forgetting how I originally described the design – big white RF lens with removable segment (white and more rugged + locking mechanism) to convert to EF or to accept flip-TCs. I just called it an adapter so you could understand the concept. It would be marketed as a modular RF lens.

 

[scyrene]

I seriously doubt that Canon will design its RF lenses to be basically EF lenses with an adapter added to it. That completely eliminates the engineering teams ability to optimize the design taking advantage of the new mount.
Everything they have done for RF has been brand new designs taking full advantage of the new mount, resulting in entirely new and innovative lenses like the 24-70 f/2, and the much smaller and lighter RF 70-200 f/2.8L. The RF mount is the future. They said they will continue to support EF, and DSLRs for some time, and they might put out an RF-EF adapter with a built-in switchable teleconverter, which is cool, but they have shown no indication to prioritize the EF mount compatibility in their designs of RF lenses.... quite the opposite.

I don't disagree with the gist of what you're saying, but is it not the case that the new 70-200 is smaller only because they went with a non-internal zoom design (and indeed it's no smaller zoomed out)? That has nothing to do with RF per se, they could have done it with an EF lens. It's usually said that the benefits of mirrorless mounts like RF are only for designing wider-angle lenses; I think Canon feels freed up with new designs, but it's not a technical issue, rather a change in philosophy.

 

[SteveC]

No, you're forgetting how I originally described the design – big white RF lens with removable segment (white and more rugged + locking mechanism) to convert to EF or to accept flip-TCs. I just called it an adapter so you could understand the concept. It would be marketed as a modular RF lens.

I haven't forgotten that at all.

Remember these are die-hard anti-adapter people; they'll simply call this an adapter and refuse to use it.

(One of their complaints about an adapter is that it's another "joint" in the system...and that's true for your suggestion as well, even if it is beefed up.)

 

[highdesertmesa]

They already have that. In fact they have three versions. Why would they include an RF to EF adapter with every lens when no one needs more than one adapter? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

No, they don't have an adapter that is more rugged, matches the big white lenses, locks more securely, etc. It wouldn't be called an adapter – it would simply be a removable segment of every RF big white.

 

[highdesertmesa]

I haven't forgotten that at all.

Remember these are die-hard anti-adapter people; they'll simply call this an adapter and refuse to use it.

It literally comes as a part of the lens. You'd use it as-delivered, and it would operate at full RF communication speed.

What you need to remember about big white users is they would run excitedly with their hands flailing in the air throwing cash wildly at Canon to have the ability to swap in flip-TCs.

 

[SteveC]

It literally comes as a part of the lens. You'd use it as-delivered, and it would operate at full RF communication speed.

What you need to remember about big white users is they would run excitedly with their hands flailing in the air throwing cash wildly at Canon to have the ability to swap in flip-TCs.

Looks like you began to reply before I edited my comment, so I'll just respond with what I added as an edit.

One of the anti-adapter complaints is the additional mechanical joint, which you'd necessarily still have with your idea. They'd therefore simply dismiss it as "an adapter" and turn their noses up at it.

To be clear, I am not criticizing your idea personally (I think it makes some degree of sense), but I expect that significant numbers of people will have an objection to it (some of them can be quite irrational about it). Since Canon must take that into account when they decide how much of a market the lens will have, they may be reluctant to adopt your idea. (Also, if I understand you correctly, removing the thingamabob will result in them placing an RF set of contacts directly onto an EF mount, and I don't know how well that would work. I imagine it could be worked around, but I'd not be 100% sure of that.)

 

[highdesertmesa]

Looks like you began to reply before I edited my comment, so I'll just respond with what I added as an edit.

One of the anti-adapter complaints is the additional mechanical joint, which you'd necessarily still have with your idea. They'd therefore simply dismiss it as "an adapter" and turn their noses up at it.

To be clear, I am not criticizing your idea personally (I think it makes some degree of sense), but I expect that significant numbers of people will have an objection to it (some of them can be quite irrational about it). Since Canon must take that into account when they decide how much of a market the lens will have, they may be reluctant to adopt your idea. (Also, if I understand you correctly, removing the thingamabob will result in them placing an RF set of contacts directly onto an EF mount, and I don't know how well that would work. I imagine it could be worked around, but I'd not be 100% sure of that.)

I'm thinking the EF end of the RF big white could have two complete sets of electronic connections on opposite sides of the mount – or they simply add the extra RF connection points that work when the segment is attached and are simply not used when connected to a DSLR. Not sure if that's possible, though.

Simplest and most likely design would be to forget about backward EF compatibility, and the removable segment would only be used to swap in the flip-TCs. So in that scenario, it's all RF – no "fears" that you're technically buying an EF lens. Big white users already use TCs, so a strong, modular flip-TC segment would be even more secure than that. I'm positive Canon would over-engineer the #$%^ out of it. Look at how creative Canon was designing the new RF 70-200 with a built-in dust filter to soothe the fears photographers have over extending lenses and dust induction. Look at how they over-engineered the barrel extension mechanism (as per the Lens Rentals tear-down).

 

[Etienne]

No, they don't have an adapter that is more rugged, matches the big white lenses, locks more securely, etc. It wouldn't be called an adapter – it would simply be a removable segment of every RF big white.

I don't see it happening, so I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
Canon is more likely to want to push these high end buyers into including a new R5 in their purchase order.
We'll have to wait and see.. In my opinion, if that's what you're waiting on, you better have a lot of patience and tolerance for frustration.