Five Canon RF lenses show up for certification

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
239
498
So, let's speculate about future lenses.

I'd love to see an "affordable" DO lens similar to Nikon's offering. Perhaps a 600mm f/5.6 DO for $6000-$6500.

Am I dreaming? Would such a lens be more like $9000?
 

amorse

EOS R
Jan 26, 2017
817
1,111
www.instagram.com
The 50 L is an L because Aperture and build, and it’s the worst L in terms of IQ so I half way agree. But it’s not the overall standard of L’s, it’s far below. Besides, it’s 14 years old and has been replaced in RF mount and REALLY shines now. That’s what I don’t get, why do RF lenses that are worse than the EF-version. Granted, there is no 100-500 in EF, but I think 5,6 is the slowest an L should be. Just my opinion. Fortunately there are and will be f2.8 zooms and even f2.0 zooms. Guess it’s just disappointing when they started off so epic with RF-L’s...
I think there's good reason for a 7.1 aperture in some situations. In the case of the 100-500, if it keeps the weight and price down, that will be a very versatile lens if it's sharp. The images make it look similar to the form factor of the 100-400 which would be a feat compared to the size and weight of comparable lenses which are nearly all 2kg or over.

Also, I believe Canon stuck with f/5.6 on EF glass as the upper limit because not all Canon cameras had many (or any) f/8 auto focus points - higher apertures just wouldn't be possible to autofocus for some of their line. That's no longer true with RF: the whole focal area can focus at f/11, so the penalties for using a higher apertures are smaller.

That's not to say 7.1 will perform like 5.6, but if they compromise the aperture to reduce size/weight/cost but not quality; I'd probably buy one.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,497
5,723
The 50 L is an L because Aperture and build, and it’s the worst L in terms of IQ
The EF 50 f1.2L was designed as a no compromise portrait lens, the aberrations it has are deliberate, in that context IQ is subjective and the EF 50 f1.2L renders exactly as it was intended to. That you, and many others, don't appreciate that rendering is a personal opinion that seems to have grown from the endless and soulless measurable metrics tested nowadays.

If your idea of IQ is sharpness and contrast and your measure of build quality is weatherproofing and AF speed then the RF 50 f1.2L lights your fire, personally I find most modern lenses far too clinical and soulless, the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII and MkI were the perfect illustration of that, the MkI is a much nicer portrait lens, the MkII is sharper and faster to focus but I'd argue by my standards the IQ is worse because the oof rendering is often distracting and 'odd' looking, that is why I still own and use a MkI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quirkz and scyrene

mb66energy

EOS 5D Mark IV
Dec 18, 2011
1,527
381
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
I don't quite understand all of these 7.1 L series lenses. Why? And no, sensor stabilization is not a good reason.

DPAF makes it possible while PD-AF sensors at most DSLRs haven't.

While I do not like the idea to go beyond f/5.6 I like the idea of e.g. a 100-500mm lens which has f/5.6 up to 400mm (I hope it does but I am not shure) but gives me 25% more magnification while sacrificing half an f-stop.
And if it has the same price and IQ like EF 100-400 maybe it is the light and moderately priced long range tele for the RF system - later they might add a 70-400 4.0-5.6 RF which I would like very much.

Maybe that is the thinking of the people @ Canon.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,862
1,792
DPAF makes it possible while PD-AF sensors at most DSLRs haven't.

While I do not like the idea to go beyond f/5.6 I like the idea of e.g. a 100-500mm lens which has f/5.6 up to 400mm (I hope it does but I am not shure) but gives me 25% more magnification while sacrificing half an f-stop.
And if it has the same price and IQ like EF 100-400 maybe it is the light and moderately priced long range tele for the RF system - later they might add a 70-400 4.0-5.6 RF which I would like very much.

Maybe that is the thinking of the people @ Canon.

The 100-400mm L II is on my "to buy" list for this year, I've rented it before and liked it very much. The RF100-500mm announcement makes me strongly consider the RF one. I guess I'll rent both and see which I like best. The EF has the advantage of being compatible with my M6II and 7D1 and being able to the the CPL in the RF adapter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,778
1,465
The EF 50 f1.2L was designed as a no compromise portrait lens, the aberrations it has are deliberate, in that context IQ is subjective and the EF 50 f1.2L renders exactly as it was intended to. That you, and many others, don't appreciate that rendering is a personal opinion that seems to have grown from the endless and soulless measurable metrics tested nowadays.

If your idea of IQ is sharpness and contrast and your measure of build quality is weatherproofing and AF speed then the RF 50 f1.2L lights your fire, personally I find most modern lenses far too clinical and soulless, the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII and MkI were the perfect illustration of that, the MkI is a much nicer portrait lens, the MkII is sharper and faster to focus but I'd argue by my standards the IQ is worse because the oof rendering is often distracting and 'odd' looking, that is why I still own and use a MkI.
I understand you can’t know me or where I’m coming from. But, be owned 5-6 copies of the EF 50 L and know it extremely well. It’s not suited for closer portraits, unless you don’t want to show no ears and really get that huge nose. For looser portraits and full body it’s better suited , but still, and 85 would often be the better choice. And while it’s designed for best bokeh the price one pays for that is extreme softness, focus shift, distortion etc, and slow AF that’s not very precise.

I 100% agree with the 70-200 mk2 being poor, it’s sharp, but that’s it. I don’t like the mk1 as much as I really like the non-IS version, great pop and smooth background and sharp enough.

the thing I love about the RF 50 and 85 is precisely that they have the superb combination of wicked sharpness right into the corners that really matters for composition and the nice rendering and pop. And that is also why I love the Zeiss 100 f2. But of course MF and it suffers from pretty bad purple fringing.

So I get the 50 L, but I’m not exactly the only one who thinks it’s a pretty bad lens, especially as a 50 that’s used by everyone for everything. It’s a one trick pony.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
[
DPAF makes it possible while PD-AF sensors at most DSLRs haven't.

While I do not like the idea to go beyond f/5.6 I like the idea of e.g. a 100-500mm lens which has f/5.6 up to 400mm (I hope it does but I am not shure) but gives me 25% more magnification while sacrificing half an f-stop.
And if it has the same price and IQ like EF 100-400 maybe it is the light and moderately priced long range tele for the RF system - later they might add a 70-400 4.0-5.6 RF which I would like very much.

Maybe that is the thinking of the people @ Canon.
the thinking of people at Canon is likely around OVF becoming dark and uncomfortable to use at F7.1.
EVF focusing however is not affected by a darker lens aperture.
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
732
870
The EF 50 f1.2L was designed as a no compromise portrait lens, the aberrations it has are deliberate, in that context IQ is subjective and the EF 50 f1.2L renders exactly as it was intended to. That you, and many others, don't appreciate that rendering is a personal opinion that seems to have grown from the endless and soulless measurable metrics tested nowadays.

If your idea of IQ is sharpness and contrast and your measure of build quality is weatherproofing and AF speed then the RF 50 f1.2L lights your fire, personally I find most modern lenses far too clinical and soulless, the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII and MkI were the perfect illustration of that, the MkI is a much nicer portrait lens, the MkII is sharper and faster to focus but I'd argue by my standards the IQ is worse because the oof rendering is often distracting and 'odd' looking, that is why I still own and use a MkI.

Damn, wish my 70-200 mk. II was too sharp (see my thread in the lens discussion forum, if you like)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viggo

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
450
493
USA
So if its 500 F 7.1, that's about a 70mm objective. At 400mm, that's F5.6. Now I know that there are other considerations in these zooms that mean the aperture it not just a function of focal length and objective size, but its at least in the realm of possibility this lens is 5.6 or 6.3 at 400mm. That would be like the 100-400L plus an extra 100mm on the tele end. That wouldn't be so bad.

And I think that high iso pefromance and IBIS/ lens IS ARE reasons to add features like this. The reality is they do increase the effectiveness of lenses in low light, and on top of that you have sensor driven focusing which improves AF functionality in low light. If you're a 500mm shooter and you need F5.6 or 6.3 (or faster), you're going to have a prime to do that, or a more expensive zoom like the 200-600. If you're a lot of other people, that extra 100mm on the long end of this zoom would be handy. Its all about the target audience (and the audience's target, if you're looking for a nice pun).

-Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,497
5,723
I understand you can’t know me or where I’m coming from. But, be owned 5-6 copies of the EF 50 L and know it extremely well. It’s not suited for closer portraits, unless you don’t want to show no ears and really get that huge nose. For looser portraits and full body it’s better suited , but still, and 85 would often be the better choice. And while it’s designed for best bokeh the price one pays for that is extreme softness, focus shift, distortion etc, and slow AF that’s not very precise.

I 100% agree with the 70-200 mk2 being poor, it’s sharp, but that’s it. I don’t like the mk1 as much as I really like the non-IS version, great pop and smooth background and sharp enough.

the thing I love about the RF 50 and 85 is precisely that they have the superb combination of wicked sharpness right into the corners that really matters for composition and the nice rendering and pop. And that is also why I love the Zeiss 100 f2. But of course MF and it suffers from pretty bad purple fringing.

So I get the 50 L, but I’m not exactly the only one who thinks it’s a pretty bad lens, especially as a 50 that’s used by everyone for everything. It’s a one trick pony.
Yes and none of that disagrees with my point that 'image IQ' is a subjective term that we should not fall into the trap of narrowing down to sharpness and contrast. It might seem unbelievable but the aberrations in the EF 50mm f1.2L are deliberate, they wanted it to look like that so should that be judged as a fault or just a lens you don't like because Canon's idea of rendering for that one lens isn't the same as yours. For sure other lenses have compromises for cost, features etc etc, but the EF 50 f1.2L, the EF 85 f1.2L and the EF 200 f1.8 L were no compromise lenses.

There are countless working pros who love the EF 50 f1.2L and the look it gives them, indeed as time moves on I think image character will be a bigger and bigger defining aspect between pro and non pro images, after all anybody can buy sharp lenses and good AF, but you can't post process the look an EF 50 f1.2L gives a portfolio.
 

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,778
1,465
Yes and none of that disagrees with my point that 'image IQ' is a subjective term that we should not fall into the trap of narrowing down to sharpness and contrast. It might seem unbelievable but the aberrations in the EF 50mm f1.2L are deliberate, they wanted it to look like that so should that be judged as a fault or just a lens you don't like because Canon's idea of rendering for that one lens isn't the same as yours. For sure other lenses have compromises for cost, features etc etc, but the EF 50 f1.2L, the EF 85 f1.2L and the EF 200 f1.8 L were no compromise lenses.

There are countless working pros who love the EF 50 f1.2L and the look it gives them, indeed as time moves on I think image character will be a bigger and bigger defining aspect between pro and non pro images, after all anybody can buy sharp lenses and good AF, but you can't post process the look an EF 50 f1.2L gives a portfolio.
The 50 L is a “no compromise lens”?? No, the 200 f2.0 L is a no compromise lens, it’s nearly flawless in every aspect, but it is very heavy and very expensive. Same goes for the 28-70 f2.0 and RF85 etc. Same goes for the Otus range. To me the EF 50 L is all about compromise.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,497
5,723
Damn, wish my 70-200 mk. II was too sharp (see my thread in the lens discussion forum, if you like)
In general the MkII tests sharper than the MkI, it also has much harsher background rendering. The MkII also focuses faster so truthfully is better designed for action style images, sports, PJ's etc, not portrait shooters.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,497
5,723
The 50 L is a “no compromise lens”?? No, the 200 f2.0 L is a no compromise lens, it’s nearly flawless in every aspect, but it is very heavy and very expensive. Same goes for the 28-70 f2.0 and RF85 etc. Same goes for the Otus range. To me the EF 50 L is all about compromise.
Yes, because it was designed to render like it does, that you and many others don't like it or it doesn't work like you want a 50L to work is irrelevant, it is what it is supposed to be. I've been trying to find the article I read about the designer and the thought process behind the lens design, I can't seem to find it, but in it they are categorical that they were given completely free reign to design 'the best portrait lens' and that all the aberrations are deliberate. The 'look', sharpness and overall IQ is what they wanted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uri.raz

zonoskar

EOS M6 Mark II
Aug 29, 2018
71
102
About those extenders, the images that have been shown look like the EF counterparts. Do we know for sure there will be protruding elements in the RF extenders? If not, any lens could be attached, even the RF 70-200L, for which these extenders would be a great use.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,862
1,792
About those extenders, the images that have been shown look like the EF counterparts. Do we know for sure there will be protruding elements in the RF extenders? If not, any lens could be attached, even the RF 70-200L, for which these extenders would be a great use.

The images are the same on all official Canon websites, so are you saying that all of those have had the wrong images up for days now?
 

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,778
1,465
Yes, because it was designed to render like it does, that you and many others don't like it or it doesn't work like you want a 50L to work is irrelevant, it is what it is supposed to be. I've been trying to find the article I read about the designer and the thought process behind the lens design, I can't seem to find it, but in it they are categorical that they were given completely free reign to design 'the best portrait lens' and that all the aberrations are deliberate. The 'look', sharpness and overall IQ is what they wanted.
I’ve never said it wasn’t intentional...
 

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
967
1,028
Scotland
About those extenders, the images that have been shown look like the EF counterparts. Do we know for sure there will be protruding elements in the RF extenders? If not, any lens could be attached, even the RF 70-200L, for which these extenders would be a great use.

I think the only lens they currently fit on are the 100-500, but that may be optimised for size and lack the room for extenders. For certain they protrude into the lens which puts them off limits for all current RF lenses. I expect to see 'a' big white released, most likely the 300mm and/or 500mm, or perhaps a new zoom that borrows from the 200-400 to cover the largest range.