Delays seem to be the name of the game for 2021

[David - Sydney]

This really does sound absolutely crazy. But is the shortage only related to Canons problems or also maybe to the difficulties with the Brexit? I live in Germany and RP/ R bodies seem to available at most photo stores (just checked several online). Even the R6/ R5 can be found at some places to my surprise.

The adapter still can't be bought separately, but it is available in RP/ R bundles. It's a shame it is not sold with R5´s... You only get one for free when you register your camera on CPS I think, but then the adapter is not available

I got this today from a leading network equipment manufacturer to support their leadtime increases... up to double the normal leadtime for some products:

What is the current global landscape in the Semiconductor Industry?

• The semiconductor industry is reporting supply constraints that are resulting in lead time extensions.

• Global uncertainty and conservative forecasting in CY2020 caused reductions in production capacity and wafer starts.

• Demand recently surged unexpectedly in several markets, including 5G infrastructure, automotive, mobile, cloud and consumer products, creating significant supply gaps.

• These factors, compounded by years of industry consolidation and a shift to fabless manufacturing, have resulted in industry-wide bottlenecks.

 

[Antono Refa]

Well, you have to remember that the RP is now at XXD level prices, so, if they aren't making APS-C RF cameras, they need the equivalent ideas for enthusiast level users.

The EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM is sold, in white box, for $110. How cheaper do they need to make a new kit lens?

Did canon need to have 18-55 variable, 17-55 f/2,8, 15-85, 17-85 lenses all available? Maybe not, but they gave people different price segments to target and let them pick their trade-offs. An 18-50ish lens matches what Panasonic has in their 20-60; offers a different choice from the 24-105, and gives them maybe even a cheaper kit lens to offer in bundles

The last three are faster / longer and more expensive than the 18-55.

 

[deleteme]

As far as I can tell Canon is busy trying to fill back orders. This is usually an "All hands on deck" situation.
I would think that the belt tightening they and others have done have reduced the ability for many companies to respond to a surge in demand.

While some might say "They should have known..." the fact is that very few mangers are willing to stick their necks out in markets that are as unpredictable as the camera industry in pandemic.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

A crop 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM smells made up.

I can assure you that it is not made up, I can't post the proof. I just don't know for sure if it's a full-frame lens or not.

 

[SnowMiku]

I'm not sure that I understand the niche for the 100-400 rumour unless it's either very compact, reasonably cheap, or very very sharp. I always felt (right or wrong) that the 100-500 was a spiritual successor to the EF 100-400 so duplicating the lens on RF seems like an unexpected choice. I'm definitely curious to learn more about where it fits in to the lineup.

The RF 100-400mm is not an L lens so it will be significantly cheaper then the RF 100-500mm L and the EF 100-400mm L.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

No loss if those are delayed, especially yet another glacial tele photo. Canon RF, where f/7.1 is the new f/5.6.

 

[Traveler]

I'm not sure that I understand the niche for the 100-400 rumour unless it's either very compact, reasonably cheap, or very very sharp. I always felt (right or wrong) that the 100-500 was a spiritual successor to the EF 100-400 so duplicating the lens on RF seems like an unexpected choice. I'm definitely curious to learn more about where it fits in to the lineup.

It could be a replacement for the relatively cheap 70-300. I hope it’ll remain cheap, lightweight and compact

 

[Traveler]

Why anyone would ever complain about the possibility of more choices is beyond me.

Oh, because you personally would not buy it so your selfish worldview should be imposed on the rest of us?

My explanation is that people think that canon would sacrifice something that they’d like more. For me, I hope that they won’t go RF APSC because it means more focus on another lineup of cameras and lenses. I’d rather put an end to the mess of APSC vs FF

 

[HMC11]

Still holding out hope for a RF 24-70 F4

One can only imagine how small it can get given what they did with the 70-200 F4. A man can dream. I still use my ef version, it just balances so well, very light and compact compared to the 2.8 options. Also my favorite non dedicated macro lens for macro.

Not quite sure what the value proposition of a RF 24-70 F4 would be, particularly when the RF 24-105 F4 already exist. Presumably it would be price and size/weight. For the latter, the saving in weight and size might not be worth sacrificing the additional 35mm of focal length. Also, the 24-105 would be a more versatile lens for walkaround if one wishes to carry only one lens.

 

[shawn]

Not quite sure what the value proposition of a RF 24-70 F4 would be, particularly when the RF 24-105 F4 already exist. Presumably it would be price and size/weight. For the latter, the saving in weight and size might not be worth sacrificing the additional 35mm of focal length. Also, the 24-105 would be a more versatile lens for walkaround if one wishes to carry only one lens.

I agree completely, if Canon is doing one thing wrong with RF it is that they are remaking too many of the EF lenses. If you look at the performance of the RF 70-200 f/4 it is so close to flawless it makes you think they could have gone for a bigger range and kept the quality within the parameters of the old lens. Maybe a 50-200 f/4 could have been possible. Or maybe Canon could realistically do a 70-300mm f/4 with immaculate performance. I feel like the old f/2.8-f/4 trinity lenses are a touch old fashioned at this point and we need to start asking for more. I do have the RF 28-70mm f/2 and it is a special lens, but based on what Canon has been putting out recently I'm thinking they could make an even better 28-70 style lens, maybe 24-80 f/2 could be doable? Even looking at the RF 50mm f/1.8 it makes me think they could do better. The lens is great and costs nothing, it could be a bit of a loss leader but honestly I think it might render a little more nicely than the 28-70 does. Anywho, just rambling honestly but the point is yeah, people need to stop asking for these dud lenses that are firmly in the "Been There; Done That" category.

 

[Dragon]

I'm not sure that I understand the niche for the 100-400 rumour unless it's either very compact, reasonably cheap, or very very sharp. I always felt (right or wrong) that the 100-500 was a spiritual successor to the EF 100-400 so duplicating the lens on RF seems like an unexpected choice. I'm definitely curious to learn more about where it fits in to the lineup.

As I have mentioned before. This is a replacement for the 70-300 non L. At f/7.1 it will still have a 58mm filter and they might throw in a DO element to shorten it up a bit so probably just about the same size overall. Given how good the 24-240 is, this makes sense as a consumer 70-300 would be covering too much of the same territory. At the right price, it is also a spoiler for Tamron and Sigma. Canon may be a little slow and deliberate, but stupid, not really.

 

[unfocused]

I can assure you that it is not made up, I can't post the proof. I just don't know for sure if it's a full-frame lens or not.

I do wonder how Canon will handle crop sensor lenses if indeed they do offer an R7 crop frame body. Since the R system automatically crops the full frame when an EF-S lens is mounted, I could see something where the lens would crop the frame at 18mm on a full frame body, but at 45mm it could be used either cropped or uncropped.

 

[Rocksthaman]

Not quite sure what the value proposition of a RF 24-70 F4 would be, particularly when the RF 24-105 F4 already exist. Presumably it would be price and size/weight. For the latter, the saving in weight and size might not be worth sacrificing the additional 35mm of focal length. Also, the 24-105 would be a more versatile lens for walkaround if one wishes to carry only one lens.

I will say you probably would have had to use it.

First is definitely size and function. If you look at what they did with the RF 70-200 f4 you have to know it they can do something with this lens. It’s also not very intimidating and has a quick switch to go into macro mode that I don’t even have to take my eye off my viewfinder.

Second is with that size it leaves more room for the barrel to extend to use the Macro function. The 1:1.4 macro is awesome, even works well using AF in macro(pretty snappy). Usually you get a 1:2 (see the 35&85). It actually feels like you get more of a 1:1.2 if you are in manual.

Last is price. I primarily shoot primes. So having a bag with a prime (usually 85 1.4) and my 24-70 is perfect and cost effective as I get my zoom and my macro in one with “L” quality, without the guilt of buying two lenses.

In low light, I really don’t like using zooms, so I would almost never need 2.8 because I would rather be at 1.2-1.8

 

[amorse]

As I have mentioned before. This is a replacement for the 70-300 non L. At f/7.1 it will still have a 58mm filter and they might throw in a DO element to shorten it up a bit so probably just about the same size overall. Given how good the 24-240 is, this makes sense as a consumer 70-300 would be covering too much of the same territory. At the right price, it is also a spoiler for Tamron and Sigma. Canon may be a little slow and deliberate, but stupid, not really.

I may need to proof read my posts more thoroughly because I really didn't mean to imply that canon was making a stupid decision at all. I was really just curious about where it would fit in or what they would do to separate it from the 100-500. A low price, or smaller footprint, or lighter weight would all make perfect sense. As a replacement for the 70-300, especially if it has the same footprint for the right price, obviously makes sense.

 

[Bdbtoys]

I may need to proof read my posts more thoroughly because I really didn't mean to imply that canon was making a stupid decision at all. I was really just curious about where it would fit in or what they would do to separate it from the 100-500. A low price, or smaller footprint, or lighter weight would all make perfect sense. As a replacement for the 70-300, especially if it has the same footprint for the right price, obviously makes sense.

Your wording was fine.

Although I got to admit, this thread is kind of reminding me of watching Groundhog's Day. I'm sure there will be a few more that will answer your question for you.

 

[ncvarsity3]

I'm not sure that I understand the niche for the 100-400 rumour unless it's either very compact, reasonably cheap, or very very sharp. I always felt (right or wrong) that the 100-500 was a spiritual successor to the EF 100-400 so duplicating the lens on RF seems like an unexpected choice. I'm definitely curious to learn more about where it fits in to the lineup.

I think it's going to fall into the reasonably cheap category and be the rf improvement on the ef 70-300 non-L lens Canon puts out.

 

[ncvarsity3]

Your wording was fine.

Although I got to admit, this thread is kind of reminding me of watching Groundhog's Day. I'm sure there will be a few more that will answer your question for you.

... I answered that post after scanning down a bit and not seeing a response, only to stumble on all of the other responses after posting.

 

[quiquae]

Compare the rumored RF 18-45mm F4-5.6 to EF-M 11-22mm F4.5-5.6. 11mm on crop is 17.6mm full frame equivalent, or almost 18mm, so these are actually almost the same concept, except the 18-45 zooms longer.

Given how much I liked the 11-22mm on EOS M, I can see myself liking the 18-45 as well, as long as it’s also appropriately compact and sharp. The slow aperture doesn’t bother me: I typically stop down ultrawide shots for panfocal view anyway.

 

[HMC11]

Or maybe Canon could realistically do a 70-300mm f/4 with immaculate performance. I feel like the old f/2.8-f/4 trinity lenses are a touch old fashioned at this point and we need to start asking for more. I do have the RF 28-70mm f/2 and it is a special lens, but based on what Canon has been putting out recently I'm thinking they could make an even better 28-70 style lens, maybe 24-80 f/2 could be doable? Even looking at the RF 50mm f/1.8 it makes me think they could do better. The lens is great and costs nothing, it could be a bit of a loss leader but honestly I think it might render a little more nicely than the 28-70 does. Anywho, just rambling honestly but the point is yeah, people need to stop asking for these dud lenses that are firmly in the "Been There; Done That" category.

Indeed! I have the EF 70-300 F4-5.6L, and absolutely love it after getting used to the weight. It is not quite super-tele for wildlife, but close enough to be useable albeit in limited ways. Pairing it with APS-C body would extend it into the lower super-tele range, which I did on a number of occasions. At the same time, bringing along a 35mm prime would be a decently light combination for travel. If there is an RF 70-300 F4L at about the same weight as the EF variable aperture version, I would be most happy. In addition, if there were an RF 18-50 F4L (or 15-50 F4L), these would be ideal for me as I mostly take outdoor photos during the day, and I prefer the ultra-wide end to be around 17-19mm.

 

[HMC11]

I will say you probably would have had to use it.

First is definitely size and function. If you look at what they did with the RF 70-200 f4 you have to know it they can do something with this lens. It’s also not very intimidating and has a quick switch to go into macro mode that I don’t even have to take my eye off my viewfinder.

Second is with that size it leaves more room for the barrel to extend to use the Macro function. The 1:1.4 macro is awesome, even works well using AF in macro(pretty snappy). Usually you get a 1:2 (see the 35&85). It actually feels like you get more of a 1:1.2 if you are in manual.

Last is price. I primarily shoot primes. So having a bag with a prime (usually 85 1.4) and my 24-70 is perfect and cost effective as I get my zoom and my macro in one with “L” quality, without the guilt of buying two lenses.

In low light, I really don’t like using zooms, so I would almost never need 2.8 because I would rather be at 1.2-1.8

Given your usage & preferences, it does make sense . For me, I quite like the overlap, ie. 70-105, that having the 24-105 & 70-200 offer. It would save some switching of lenses, and I would have the option of just having one paired with a prime.