Here are the Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM and Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

[LogicExtremist]

I'll guess the same at the 85mm STM lens.

From all the reviews the RF 85mm f/2 macro is a great photography lens but atrocious as a video lens, the AF is not up for video work.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Perhaps most people who buy consumer lenses don't pay much attention to aperture, or maybe people are shooting the majority of their photos at f/8 or somewhere near there. I may not be typical, but especially for a wide angle lens, it's going to be used for sunsets and an occasional landscape when my 24-105 is not wide enough. Also for vacations, especially in places such as older cities where streets are narrow and your shooting distance is limited. For myself, I can't imagine any situation where I want a fast aperture for a wide angle lens. My default camera setting is Aperture priority and it is set at f/7.1 and I almost never have to change it. Again, that may not be typical - especially for forum dwellers.

Perhaps most people who buy consumer lenses don't pay much attention to aperture, or they just always run their camera in Auto mode!

 

[LogicExtremist]

I generally agree, and shoot similarly. But one fast aperture wide angle application jumps immediately to mind - wide field astrophotography. Especially if you're chasing dramatic milky way shots, the faster the better. And in a case like that, it's the somewhat exclusive territory of big, heavy, fast primes like the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or 20mm f/1.4. Something that if I owned, I'd likely bypass most of the time in favor of a lens like the 15-30. I am intrigued to see what the 24mm can do, but even for wide field astro, on the times I've gone out and done it, I've found 24mm to be a bit too narrow of an FOV.

As an "also fits full frame" option, I also like the idea of the 15-30 as an alternative to the RF-S 18-45 as a primary lens on an R7 or R10 in a mixed bag with FF kit like I will be carrying.

Fast wide angle lenses are also useful for low-light indoor and night events.

 

[scyrene]

Canon raised the price of the EF 100-400L
The price difference between it and the RF 100-500L is not all that much

I hadn't noticed that, wow.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Officially announced!

RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM

Take the next step with this macro lens

www.canon.co.nz

RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

Take the Next Step With This Ultra-wide Lens

www.canon.co.nz

Heaps of YouTube impressions videos are coming out too, looks like the embargo has lifted.

The zoom has some pretty decent macro chops as well.

Interesting looking at the specs, the 15-30mm zoom doesn't earn the 'macro' title in its name because AF doesn't work at minimum focus distances by the look of it. Only manual focus.


From https://www.canon.co.nz/camera-lenses/rf-15-30mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm

Take impressive macro shots

Enjoy broad use, with the RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM's macro capability in manual focus mode. Get up close and personal, with focusing distances as close as 13cm magnified up to 0.5x. Handy for more intricate shots like food, flowers and smaller subjects you really want to show off.

 

[sobrien]

The Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM is literally the EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM for full frame.

Yes, literally the same, apart from the different equivalent focal length (16mm-28.8mm), aperture (f/7.2-f/8.96), physical dimensions and weight.

 

[scyrene]

Too rich for my blood!

 

[Felix]

The prices in Germany:
RF24 749€
RF15-30 699€

 

[LogicExtremist]

Yes, literally the same, apart from the different equivalent focal length (16mm-28.8mm), aperture (f/7.2-f/8.96), physical dimensions and weight.

Um, factor in the missing metal lens mount on the EF-S 10-18mm and the extra bit of plastic to make up the flange distance and the weight is quite close.

I'm not sure if anybody has let you in on one of photography's worst kept secrets, but the focal lengths quoted by manufacturers are conveniently rounded of the next best marketable figure! The 100-400 II is something closer to 380mm at the long end, the RF 85mm f/2 has a narrower FOV than other 85mm lenses and is probably closer to 90mm, etc... The apertures are rounded off too!

Like I said, same lens specs, but brighter!

 

[Traveler]

Internal focus is extremely useful at close distances and lighting subjects is also easier and so is weather resistance compared to lenses with extending barrels.

I didn't have any issues with the 35mm even when shooting at close distance. But as always, we have the choice. The STM lenses are supposed to be cheaper, lighter, smaller. Good enough for me. Other people can buy dedicated macro lenses I guess.

 

[AlanF]

The prices in Germany:
RF24 749€
RF15-30 699€

£719, £669 UK. Should be without price gouging by Canon Europe: £635 and £592. That's 13% higher with the same taxes and warranties. Simple, as a matter of principle, I'll wait for the gray market and Canon Europe will lose out. Canon seem to have made a pricing mistake with the R7 and had the pre-orders at the same price in the EU and UK from stores. But, they have upped the price in the UK on-line store by 10%. It's still the old price from some dealers. I paid on the first day of pre-ordering on 25 May £1699 for the kit with RF 18-150mm + free EF to R adapeter, it's now £1849 for the kit with no adapter.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Um, factor in the missing metal lens mount on the EF-S 10-18mm and the extra bit of plastic to make up the flange distance and the weight is quite close.

I'm not sure if anybody has let you in on one of photography's worst kept secrets, but the focal lengths quoted by manufacturers are conveniently rounded of the next best marketable figure! The 100-400 II is something closer to 380mm at the long end, the RF 85mm f/2 has a narrower FOV than other 85mm lenses and is probably closer to 90mm, etc... The apertures are rounded off too!

Like I said, same lens specs, but brighter!

The focal length is quoted at infinity focus. The 380mm you talking about is at minimum focusing distance. At infinity is much closer to 400mm.

 

[sobrien]

I'm not sure if anybody has let you in on one of photography's worst kept secrets, but the focal lengths quoted by manufacturers are conveniently rounded of the next best marketable figure!

Have you any evidence to support an argument that Canon takes greater liberties with focal length measurements today than it did when it released the 10-18 STM?

 

[Felix]

£719, £669 UK. Should be without price gouging by Canon Europe: £635 and £592. That's 13% higher with the same taxes and warranties. Simple, as a matter of principle, I'll wait for the gray market and Canon Europe will lose out. Canon seem to have made a pricing mistake with the R7 and had the pre-orders at the same price in the EU and UK from stores. But, they have upped the price in the UK on-line store by 10%. It's still the old price from some dealers. I paid on the first day of pre-ordering on 25 May £1699 for the kit with RF 18-150mm + free EF to R adapeter, it's now £1849 for the kit with no adapter.

I don't understand the canon prices. The RF24 comes in the same concept as the RF35 and both have IS & STM. I can understand that the development and production of a 135mm 1.8 is more expensive, but I cannot understand the surcharge. I had the RF35 and was happy with the image quality (corrected in Lr). However, the slow STM and lack of weather protection made me sell the lens. I think the RF24 will have the same problems.

 

[AlanF]

The focal length is quoted at infinity focus. The 380mm you talking about is at minimum focusing distance. At infinity is much closer to 400mm.

The focal length of the 100-400mm II at its minimum focal distance is 175mm, as calculated from Canon's own figures for the magnification at its mfd. I measured it to be 178mm. At 1.6m distance, it increases to 228mm.
I just calculated the following focal lengths for these lenses at 19.5m from target with the R5 (from measured magnifications):
400mm DO II, 377mm
100-400mm II @400mm, 373mm
RF 100-400mm @400mm, 377mm
RF 100-500mm @500mm, 463mm.
This assumes the pixel size is 4.39 µ for the R5, as given on various sites. However, if the 8192 px width of the images is 36mm, then the pixels would be 4.15 µ, and those calculations a 5.7% overestimate and so the EF 100-400mm II calculates at 353mm, and @LogicExtremist claim of 360mm at infinity focus most reasonable.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The focal length of the 100-400mm II at its minimum focal distance is 175mm, as calculated from Canon's own figures for the magnification at its mfd. I measured it to be 178mm. At 1.6m distance, it increases to 228mm.
I just calculated the following focal lengths for these lenses at 19.5m from target with the R5 (from measured magnifications):
400mm DO II, 377mm
100-400mm II @400mm, 373mm
RF 100-400mm @400mm, 377mm
RF 100-500mm @500mm, 463mm.
This assumes the pixel size is 4.39 µ for the R5, as given on various sites. However, if the 8192 px width of the images is 36mm, then the pixels would be 4.15 µ, and those calculations a 5.7% overestimate and so the EF 100-400mm II calculates at 353mm, and @LogicExtremist claim of 360mm at infinity focus most reasonable.

Several of Canon's patents for RF 100-500mm lenses are actually 102-485mm.

 

[bernie_king]

It should be more on the budget side as an STM non-L lens.
I just wish it had higher magnification for macro work, but otherwise it looks great.

I would have preferred to see the long -rumored 300mm and 500mm lenses, but it does not seem those are coming any time soon

I am expecting the 300 2.8 and 500 f4 to be released with the R1. I'd imagine we'll see a dev announcement this fall.

 

[photophil]

I don't understand the canon prices. The RF24 comes in the same concept as the RF35 and both have IS & STM. I can understand that the development and production of a 135mm 1.8 is more expensive, but I cannot understand the surcharge. I had the RF35 and was happy with the image quality (corrected in Lr). However, the slow STM and lack of weather protection made me sell the lens. I think the RF24 will have the same problems.

Did you find any alternative for the RF35 that filled that niche for you? I have similar gripes about my RF35, but I am not aware of anything that could replace it, especially with EF mount lenses being significantly bigger and heavier from the adapter alone.

 

[AlanF]

Several of Canon's patents for RF 100-500mm lenses are actually 102-485mm.

You do indeed need to go to the patents to get closer to the truth for the focal length and f-numbers. I measured the diameter of the front lens of the 400mm f/4 DO II and recall it was 95mm, below the 100mm required for a 400mm f/4.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You do indeed need to go to the patents to get closer to the truth for the focal length and f-numbers. I measured the diameter of the front lens of the 400mm f/4 DO II and recall it was 95mm, below the 100mm required for a 400mm f/4.

Yes, my 600/4 II has a front element of ~144mm. But apertures are rounded, too. So the 600/4 is could be something like 593mm f/4.12, for example.