Delays seem to be the name of the game for 2021

peters

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2017
433
431
We've had so many great bodies and lenses introduced in the last year or so, that one can almost feel spoiled to hear of further (& long) delays still to come!
But at least we've got CP+ to look forward to for whatever (if any) announcements come of it.

Here's hoping there's something good to hear! :unsure: :sneaky:
Hmm "so many" is a bit much I think. Actualy only 2 R bodys where introduced (R5 and R6) and I think only the R5 is suitable for professional use.
To get the R system realy moving I still miss a high resolution Camera R5s, a Sports Camera R1 and a video centric FF camera R5c thats not overheating. Looking at Sonys movement at the moment, I wish there where more bodies from canon.

Offtopic: did anyone try the wifi on the R5? Is it normal that a RAW takes 10 seconds+ to be transferred to a notebook? (So not usable in a commercial shoot with a client)
 
Nov 3, 2020
7
12
What I don´t really understand is why canon doesn´t offer affordable zoom lenses that don´t start at 4.0 or even 5.6 and go up to 7.1.

If the RF mount is so great how come that Tamron can offer for the "old" EF mount a 17-35mm 2.8-4.0 for 400-450 Euros/$ and a 100-400mm 4.5-6.3, for about 600 Euro/$ both very sharp lenses.

Now we are all waiting for canon lenses for the RF mount that are quite a bit darker (especially the 18-45 compared to Tamrons 17-35) and probably more expensive.

You can argue that the 50mm 1.8, 35 mm 1.8 and the 85mm 2.0 are good affordable prime options. But their affordable zoom lenses all are even darker than their EF siblings (eg 24-105 EF 3.5-5.6 vs. RF 4.0-7.1). If the RF mount is so great, why only make great 3000 $ lenses and NO good 500-1000 $ zoom lenses?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SnowMiku

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
2,239
317
31
34109
www.facebook.com
What I don´t really understand is why canon doesn´t offer affordable zoom lenses that don´t start at 4.0 or even 5.6 and go up to 7.1.

If the RF mount is so great how come that Tamron can offer for the "old" EF mount a 17-35mm 2.8-4.0 for 400-450 Euros/$ and a 100-400mm 4.5-6.3, for about 600 Euro/$ both very sharp lenses.

Now we are all waiting for canon lenses for the RF mount that are quite a bit darker (especially the 18-45 compared to Tamrons 17-35) and probably more expensive.

You can argue that the 50mm 1.8, 35 mm 1.8 and the 85mm 2.0 are good affordable prime options. But their affordable zoom lenses all are even darker than their EF siblings (eg 24-105 EF 3.5-5.6 vs. RF 4.0-7.1). If the RF mount is so great, why only make great 3000 $ lenses and NO good 500-1000 $ zoom lenses?
It's called market segmentation.

So far Canon is prioritizing lenses with the largest profit margins first before those with smaller profit margins. If I was building a lens collection from scratch I'd be very happy that they're pushing out mostly L lenses. These would be useful for at least 4 decades before a system change is commissioned.

They're leaving the smaller margin products to Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and other 3rd party lens brands.

Optical output is but one of the aspect of lenses. You have to consider focusing and stabilizing motor quality, build quality, water & dust resilience, durability and if it won't fail on you on a drop of a hat.

I do not expect cheap RF lenses to be that plentiful as the digital still camera market shrinks to largely professional and deep pocketed customers. This was the norm the year 2000 and we're going back there again.

This is all thanks to iPhone and Android smartphones
 
Nov 3, 2020
7
12
It's called market segmentation.

So far Canon is prioritizing lenses with the largest profit margins first before those with smaller profit margins. If I was building a lens collection from scratch I'd be very happy that they're pushing out mostly L lenses. These would be useful for at least 4 decades before a system change is commissioned.

They're leaving the smaller margin products to Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and other 3rd party lens brands.

Optical output is but one of the aspect of lenses. You have to consider focusing and stabilizing motor quality, build quality, water & dust resilience, durability and if it won't fail on you on a drop of a hat.

I do not expect cheap RF lenses to be that plentiful as the digital still camera market shrinks to largely professional and deep pocketed customers. This was the norm the year 2000 and we're going back there again.

This is all thanks to iPhone and Android smartphones

Thanks for your reply! You´re surely right about the segmentation. But it´s a bit frustrating for hoby photographers anyway, especially since there are not many third party lenses for the RF mount yet.

I just got the Tamron EF 35-150mm 2.8-4.0 for my EOS RP with the adapter. It´s really a great lense, it´s very sharp, the autofocus works well and it is weather sealed, but the best is the zoom range with quite bright 2.8-4.0. And all that for 700 Euros. But of course the AF is slower than the ones from the RF L lenses and the built quality of the RF L lenses shurely is a lot better, but for 3-4 times the price.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,067
1,671
Kentucky, USA
Hmm "so many" is a bit much I think. Actualy only 2 R bodys where introduced (R5 and R6) and I think only the R5 is suitable for professional use.
To get the R system realy moving I still miss a high resolution Camera R5s, a Sports Camera R1 and a video centric FF camera R5c thats not overheating. Looking at Sonys movement at the moment, I wish there where more bodies from canon.

Offtopic: did anyone try the wifi on the R5? Is it normal that a RAW takes 10 seconds+ to be transferred to a notebook? (So not usable in a commercial shoot with a client)
Well, I came from the Olympus system, where you had to wait for years for a EM1_II upgrade, only to get one with the same sensor, EVF, LCD and most everything else. So the R5 (which was desperately needed) and the R6 (which was also needed at a lower price point) within the same year is indeed "so many" IMHO. Maybe it's not as many bodies as Sony puts out, but they're better built bodies than Sony offers and I consider myself lucky to be able to enjoy a body as great as the R5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: peters

peters

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2017
433
431
Well, I came from the Olympus system, where you had to wait for years for a EM1_II upgrade, only to get one with the same sensor, EVF, LCD and most everything else. So the R5 (which was desperately needed) and the R6 (which was also needed at a lower price point) within the same year is indeed "so many" IMHO. Maybe it's not as many bodies as Sony puts out, but they're better built bodies than Sony offers and I consider myself lucky to be able to enjoy a body as great as the R5.
Ha, jeah ok, thats also true :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

BroderLund

5D Mark III
Feb 9, 2015
62
76
I agree it would be but that's putting the cart before the horse don't you think?
I get your point for an EOS R APS-C body. To have a stills body before the lens, but they do already have an RF APS-C video body out in the wild. The C70. So for a C70 user, it would make sense.
 

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
2,239
317
31
34109
www.facebook.com
Thanks for your reply! You´re surely right about the segmentation. But it´s a bit frustrating for hoby photographers anyway, especially since there are not many third party lenses for the RF mount yet.

I just got the Tamron EF 35-150mm 2.8-4.0 for my EOS RP with the adapter. It´s really a great lense, it´s very sharp, the autofocus works well and it is weather sealed, but the best is the zoom range with quite bright 2.8-4.0. And all that for 700 Euros. But of course the AF is slower than the ones from the RF L lenses and the built quality of the RF L lenses shurely is a lot better, but for 3-4 times the price.
Once 80% of the L lenses have an RF model then you'll see more STM lenses coming out. I'm thinking by year 2025?
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,594
1,913
Hamburg, Germany
Yeah, where is this lens? I don't understand why this wasn't one of the first to come out. And why aren't there any updates or mentions of it? The only excuse I can think of is that they are trying to something crazy with it.
The other valid excuse starts with a C and end in orona ;)

With the amount of lenses and bodies in the pipeline, there simply have to be priorities. So far, it looks like zooms take priority over the more niche primes. Which makes sense, as they fill out a greater range of use cases for which the RF range had no option previously.
 

canonnews

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2017
852
1,401
Canada
www.canonnews.com
The RF 18-45 is an odd one. Could be an interesting lens for video shooters, especially when using the cropped 4k etc on the R/RP.

But for a wide angle stills lens it's a total non starter. It's not quite a 17-40 replacement, nor it is an affordable UWA option. They really need to hurry up with a good cheap wide angle for RF. Something like an EFS 10-18 type of deal. £2k+ for the RF 15-35 is not an option for most!
it's actually not that odd. the Nikkor 18-35mm was well received. People are over thinking this. this will be Canon's cheap UWA lens. Probably smaller than the 17-40 and much cheaper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

canonnews

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2017
852
1,401
Canada
www.canonnews.com
I get your point for an EOS R APS-C body. To have a stills body before the lens, but they do already have an RF APS-C video body out in the wild. The C70. So for a C70 user, it would make sense.
I really doubt there's a market for a $5.5K CINI camera and a slow variable zoom that most likely isn't optimized for video (can't be really with variable aperture).
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene

shawn

EOS M6 Mark II
Jan 28, 2019
69
67
What I don´t really understand is why canon doesn´t offer affordable zoom lenses that don´t start at 4.0 or even 5.6 and go up to 7.1.

If the RF mount is so great how come that Tamron can offer for the "old" EF mount a 17-35mm 2.8-4.0 for 400-450 Euros/$ and a 100-400mm 4.5-6.3, for about 600 Euro/$ both very sharp lenses.

Now we are all waiting for canon lenses for the RF mount that are quite a bit darker (especially the 18-45 compared to Tamrons 17-35) and probably more expensive.

You can argue that the 50mm 1.8, 35 mm 1.8 and the 85mm 2.0 are good affordable prime options. But their affordable zoom lenses all are even darker than their EF siblings (eg 24-105 EF 3.5-5.6 vs. RF 4.0-7.1). If the RF mount is so great, why only make great 3000 $ lenses and NO good 500-1000 $ zoom lenses?

Good question! It's the contracting market. Canon had huge sales just a few years ago, they're trying to maintain profits while selling less gear. Canon lens designers are superior to Tamron and Sigma, it costs money to have superior talent. Also think about this, Canon builds out entire camera lineups and fully fleshed out lens lineups. There's something called "low hanging fruit" that is what Tamron and Sigma are after. They don't ask "how do we build the best possible lens", they ask, "how can we copy Canon for half price?". When Canon sets the bar so high, Tamron can't compete on quality so they have to figure out how to make an ok lens for less money. People buy cheaper because they don't know better which is sad.
 
Last edited:

Nigel95

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 2, 2020
66
87
When Canon sets the bar so high, Tamron can't compete on quality so they have to figure out how to make an ok lens for less money. People buy cheaper because they don't know better which is sad.
Even If I know Canon has better offers with their lenses, it still doesn't make me buy the expensive Canon L glass as a hobbyist necessarily. I am very satisfied personally with the Sigma art lenses that I tried so far. Why is that sad?
 
<-- start Taboola -->