Here’s confirmation of the RF 100-400, RF 24 Macro and RF 18-45. Sadly, they’re quite delayed

juststeve

EOS M6 Mark II
Nov 29, 2018
69
104
A 24/1.8 macro lens focusing to .5x would make an interesting wildflower lens. Might also make for a very interesting bug photography lens. The close focusing ability and compositional flexibility of the 14-35/4 L may make it the more useful choice, though.
 

rontele7

EOS M6 Mark II
Nov 8, 2017
55
66
Earth
F/7.1 @ 400mm - why? We already have 100-400mm f/5.6 and a 100-500 f/7.1.
Is Canon becoming allergic to fast zooms?
 

amorse

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2017
799
1,088
www.instagram.com
F/7.1 @ 400mm - why? We already have 100-400mm f/5.6 and a 100-500 f/7.1.
Is Canon becoming allergic to fast zooms?
I didn't understand that lens either with the 100-500 already in play, but after discussing it here it seems to be more a spiritual successor to the 70-300 for a lower cost, larger zooming lens. Personally, I'm fine with the 7.1 apertures as long as we get that reduced weight/cost benefit.
 

fastprime

EOS R6
Feb 10, 2021
15
33
I didn't understand that lens either with the 100-500 already in play, but after discussing it here it seems to be more a spiritual successor to the 70-300 for a lower cost, larger zooming lens. Personally, I'm fine with the 7.1 apertures as long as we get that reduced weight/cost benefit.
I'm very curious on the 100-400. I'd love to have a native RF telephoto, but can't justify the cost of the 100-500.
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,717
2,130
Hamburg, Germany
What does the "C" mean in RF 100-400 IS C USM ? My first thought was "crop" (it made my heart beat faster for a second), but then I saw the same moniker in RF 24-240 IS CUSM and EF-S 18-135 IS CUSM ?
(For the 100-400 it looks like there's a tiny space beteen C and USM, on the other two lenses it looks like CUSM without a space. But I assume it is the same, and just bad typography in presentation)
Seeing that the 18-135 is labeled CUSM, I suppose it just stands for Nano USM, as opposed to the full ring type USM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Exploreshootshare
May 26, 2020
4
0
With the 14-35 and 15-35 already in existence, I'm really questioning whether that 18-45 is going to be a full-frame lens... I guess it could be a price-point wide angle, designed to pair with the 24-105 STM for an inexpensive lightweight kit? But still...
Maybe it's less meant as a true wide angle zoom but more of an alternative to the 24/28-70 kind of lens. For when you could take or leave the focal range above fifty-ish but often times want wider than the typical 24mm.
 

JPAZ

If only I knew what I was doing.....
CR Pro
Sep 8, 2012
1,106
342
What does the "C" mean in RF 100-400 IS C USM ? .........................

Wonder if, because there is no L designation, that will stand for "Consumer" and will be less weather sealing, perhaps physically smaller and lighter and less expensive?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Exploreshootshare

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Motorsports, Commerical, & Real Estate
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
523
529
www.diossiphotography.com
I wonder what the size of the 100-400 will be. Right now, I really want a small, light telephoto…that has aperture blades…to use as a fun walk around wildlife lens when I walk my dog or go to the zoo. I fear the days are numbered for my EF 100-400 II right now. The weight really makes it a “work” only lens for me as it’s unjustifiably heavy to pack in a bag regularly.
 

dcm

It's not the gear. But it helps.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
960
536
Colorado, USA
F/7.1 @ 400mm - why? We already have 100-400mm f/5.6 and a 100-500 f/7.1.
Is Canon becoming allergic to fast zooms?
In many cases, Canon isn’t just duplicating the EF line in the RF mount. With better sensors and AF, they don’t have the same limitations as the xD and EF line.

The RF 100–500 is a replacement for the EF 100-400. The RF 100-400 is likely a replacement for EF 70-300 with a 67mm filter, costs and weighs less than half as much as the EF 100-400, and won’t be white.

With the new generation of sensors, 7.1 appears to be the new 5.6 for low end zooms. And the RF800 has shown that f/11, f/16, and f/22 AF are also possible with DPAF.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dominic_siu

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
441
548
A 24/1.8 macro lens focusing to .5x would make an interesting wildflower lens. Might also make for a very interesting bug photography lens. The close focusing ability and compositional flexibility of the 14-35/4 L may make it the more useful choice, though.
We'll see! Best to pick up one of each, just in case!
 

mccasi

EOS M50
Oct 24, 2019
41
60
I guess this must be the consumer/prosumer- roadmap. Still waiting on my Astro lens in RF mount
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frodo

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,557
11,256
I would respectfully suggest that the only reason to wait for an RP mk2 is that the original RP is 2+ years old and while stil great value for money, a replacement or similarly-priced R body may come as soon as late 2021 or early 2022. I do not miss IBIS as all the RF lenses I own are equipped with the latest IS. The non-L 24-240mm and 35mm 1.8 are great glass for their purpose, and the rather more costly 24-105L and 100-500L are superlative. A mirrorless body does not have the shake induced by the mirror, so even without IBIS you are ahead of a DSLR. The relatively light weight of the RP is achieved because (among other things) it has a lighter battery (LP 17) which may not be able to cope with the power drain of IBIS.
You don't have a 100-500mm in your signature list. Several review sites have reported its AF is sluggish with the RP, which in any case is reputed to be rather slow for tracking birds in flight - I don't know whether any firmware upgrades have corrected this. So, for @Maximilian who likes photographing dragonflies in flight, which is even more difficult than BIF, an RP would not be of much use so he has to wait for a mk2 as his DSLR is much better.
 

PhotonShark

EOS M50
Jun 10, 2020
28
17
The RF 100–500 is a replacement for the EF 100-400. The RF 100-400 is likely a replacement for EF 70-300 with a 67mm filter, costs and weighs less than half as much as the EF 100-400, and won’t be white.
R6 with 100-400 might make a good replacement for my 70D with 75-300.

Wonder if the 1.4 extender will offer full range with this lens.