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

[koenkooi]

I cant see the point of the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM when we ( and me ) already have the RF 100-500mm . I can only assume its a lot cheaper .....

The 100-500 is an L lens, the 100-400 isn't and L lens. That alone will make it a lot cheaper. And black plastic.

 

[AlanF]

Are you for real. Come to Australia where one retails for $2600 and the other $4900. In what unvierse do live in that the 100-500L rip-off replace a lens nearly half the price. I suppose the 500 f/4 renders the 400 f/5.6L obsolete. I wouldn't pay $4900 for the 100-500L if it were f/5.6.

You also shoot the Nikon 500mm PF and D500, which I also have. The RF 100-500mm is 2/3rd of a stop slower, but it is a zoom that is indistinguishably as sharp, right across the field, at 500mm, of similar weight and build quality and is 10-15% cheaper here than the Nikon. My 500PF has been gathering dust since I got the R5 and RF 100-500mm. Pricey as the RF 100-500mm is, it is a top quality product.

 

[Ian K]

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.

The 100-500 is an L lens, the 100-400 isn’t.

 

[Ian K]

Seeing that the 18-135 is labeled CUSM, I suppose it just stands for Nano USM, as opposed to the full ring type USM.

I think it’s a typo, the 24-240 doesn’t have a C

 

[Ian K]

I'm hoping it can do better than 0.5X or maybe it could be used with extension tube? the rf 35mm cannot.

The 35mm does great with a 15mm extension tube. Producing a x0.93x magnification.

 

[AlanF]

I cant see the point of the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM when we ( and me ) already have the RF 100-500mm . I can only assume its a lot cheaper .....

I'll be getting one for my wife who now struggles with the weight of the 100-400/5.6.

 

[Etienne]

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...

If the 18-45 offers the same quality but smaller and cheaper than the 14-35 I'd go for it. I don't need wider than 18mm, but small and light is a priority.

 

[rontele7]

I can’t help but feel sad the RF 16mm f/2.8 isn’t on that list

I'd have to imagine there is 0 demand for a 16mm f/2.8!

Canon already has a 15-35mm f/2.8, and a 16-35mm f/2.8.

Meanwhile, Sony has a 14mm f/1.8!

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Meanwhile, Sony has a 14mm f/1.8!

Sony has been at it a bit longer

 

[Nemorino]

I wonder if this a fake or not.
The line of the "24mm Macro" looks really strange. No number but it is the only lens with "mm" behind the focal length. And why is it the only prime without a aperture mentioned?
And if this are all non-L-lenses why are the 85 and 50 stm missing?

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I'd have to imagine there is 0 demand for a 16mm f/2.8!

Canon already has a 15-35mm f/2.8, and a 16-35mm f/2.8.

I disagree. The 15-35mm F2.8 is a brilliant, yet expensive zoom for multiple purposes.
But there are people who need a wide-angle lense (zoom or prime) just every once in while. Therefore, they need it to be quite compact (because it is an extra carry) and comparably cheap, and the RF 15-35mm sure does not fit this description.
Furthermore, there are R users who like to shoot cityscapes at night but don't wanna get an expensive zoom. Also, 16mm F2.8 will also be great for all kinds of group photos with bad light conditions...

Don't forget those photographers that are happy with 24mm and really only need a cheap UWA option for 16-23mm. They can use the RF 16mm and just crop a little. Job done.

Last but not least: It will be a good option for those who do astro "every now and then".


From a pricing point of view, it should be perfectly in the line-up, since the 15-35mm and the 14-35mm are ridiculously expensive and a affordable 16mm is a viable option to a lot of people..

But in order to be successful, it must be in the 35mm F1.8, RF 85mm F2 price range.

Meanwhile, Sony has a 14mm f/1.8!

Comparing apples and pears. The Sony is GM lense with 1.600 € price tag. Of course, it will be superior, it has to be due to naming and pricing. Canon is aiming at a different customer group with this lense.

I Imagine Canon releasing a true and dedicated astro L prime lense somewhere in the year 2023/ latest 2024. There are a lot of patents out (remember RF 16mm F1, RF 14mm F1.4...patents in CR article) that suggest such a lense will be coming sooner or later. My guess is that it'll be an RF 12mm F2 (or 2.8 at least) in order to distinguish this prime lense from the 15-35mm & 14-35mm UWA zooms. It would/ will be the spiritual successor of the EF 14mm F2.8.

 

[slclick]

TIFMSNOSWO

'This Isn't For Me So No One Should Want One'

(All the old cats here should appreciate how it's time for a new acronym)

 

[SteveC]

TIFMSNOSWO

'This Isn't For Me So No One Should Want One'

(All the old cats here should appreciate how it's time for a new acronym)

And the mirror image of that is TAGMTOLIWSTAFU

'They aren't giving me the one lens I want so they are f*cking up.'

 

[mpeeps]

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.

Bold statement!!

 

[dlee13]

I'd have to imagine there is 0 demand for a 16mm f/2.8!

Canon already has a 15-35mm f/2.8, and a 16-35mm f/2.8.

Meanwhile, Sony has a 14mm f/1.8!

I think there would be a huge demand, especially for prime shooters like me. The two Canon lenses you mentioned along with the Sony GM lens are all high end and expensive, this is a more budget orientated lens so it already has an advantage/appeal there.

I’ve owned several 16-35mm lenses and I use them at either 16mm or 35mm and rarely between, I treat them like a prime. This lens would likely be tiny so when traveling this and the RF 35mm f/1.8 would make an amazing small kit!

16mm is also a really good focal length since it’s decently wide but not as difficult as 14mm can be. You can also easily use front filters. I personally think it would sell well and I would definitely preorder it as soon as it’s announced.

 

[SHAMwow]

@Canon Rumors Guy Any updates on the 35mm 1.4?

 

[slclick]

And the mirror image of that is TAGMTOLIWSTAFU

'They aren't giving me the one lens I want so they are f*cking up.'

I like how it rolls off the tongue.

 

[Nemorino]

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.

I guess the smaller battery causes the problems. I just had a conversation with a RP owner who has problems with the RP and focus bracketing (Sigma 105). I use the same lens with the R5 and was surprised how fast and precise it was.

 

[AlanF]

I guess the smaller battery causes the problems. I just had a conversation with a RP owner who has problems with the RP and focus bracketing (Sigma 105). I use the same lens with the R5 and was surprised how fast and precise it was.

The R is also reported to be sluggish with the 100-500mm so probably not the battery.

 

[SteveC]

I like how it rolls off the tongue.

It does help if you have experience with languages that have nasty (to English speakers) consonant clusters. Russian is mildly nasty that way, Georgian far more so (and I have no real experience with Georgian).