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

May 9, 2022
3
0
De hecho, necesita ir a las patentes para acercarse a la verdad de la distancia focal y los números f. Medí el diámetro de la lente frontal del 400 mm f/4 DO II y recuerdo que era de 95 mm, por debajo de los 100 mm necesarios para un 400 mm f/4.
No estoy de acuerdo con esta definición de este gran objetivo.
El Rf 100 500 es majestuoso, lijero y con una calidad sublime, rapido y eficaz. Es una pata negra.
no lo juzgueis si no lo habeis probado como se merece.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,115
16,150
No estoy de acuerdo con esta definición de este gran objetivo.
El Rf 100 500 es majestuoso, lijero y con una calidad sublime, rapido y eficaz. Es una pata negra.
no lo juzgueis si no lo habeis probado como se merece.
Google translate: "I do not agree with this definition of this great objective. The Rf 100 500 is majestic, light and with sublime quality, fast and efficient. It's a black leg. do not judge it if you have not tried it as it deserves."

You clearly haven't been following discussions in CanonRumors. You have missed my many posts in which I have written that the RF 100-500mm is my favourite lens and I have posted regularly images of birds and insects taken with it. I started one of the earliest threads on the lens in Dec 2020 when I was one of the first group to buy the lens.
And here is another thread I started about the lens.

There is a some possibility that I have used this lens for longer and more than you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,532
7,278
Google translate: "I do not agree with this definition of this great objective. The Rf 100 500 is majestic, light and with sublime quality, fast and efficient. It's a black leg. do not judge it if you have not tried it as it deserves."

You clearly haven't been following discussions in CanonRumors. You have missed my many posts in which I have written that the RF 100-500mm is my favourite lens and I have posted regularly images of birds and insects taken with it. I started one of the earliest threads on the lens in Dec 2020 when I was one of the first group to buy the lens.
And here is another thread I started about the lens.

There is a some possibility that I have used this lens for longer and more than you.
Yes, Alan, but what do you really think of the lens? ;)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

SnowMiku

EOS RP
Oct 4, 2020
203
148
Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM
  • Maximum shooting magnification: 0.5x
I have a question about this, since this lens has 0.5x magnification, why did they leave the Macro label out since the 24mm f/1.8 Macro has the same magnification?
 

Nemorino

EOS R5
Aug 29, 2020
423
1,162
This magnification is only possible at 15mm and manual focussing. For every other focal length the mfd is 28cm. Not enough to call a lens macro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Felix

Greetings from Germany
Nov 9, 2021
39
18
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.
No but I have no pressure to wait for an L version to be released.
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
347
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.
That's besides the point! Lens specs aren't exact, there are tolerances, ie. +/- a certain percentage, like all things! You're buying a lens with a specific optical design consisting of several elements to do a certain task, not a piece of equipment used to calibrate lens measurements! Have a look at the patents, then the marketing labels, they do differ. If a specific lens formula works out to 23.4mm, it will be marketed as a 24mm lens, that's why lenses are always nice round numbers!
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
347
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?
Thanks for misstating my point, nobody is claiming that "Canon takes greater liberties with focal length measurements today", you've obviously misunderstood what I was saying. No point labouring the statement you made earlier. 10mm on APSC and 15mm of full frame are going to be equivalent, despite your protestations, because 15/1.6 = 9.375 and you can be damn hard pressed to find a 10mm lens that's exactly 10mm and a 15mm lens that's exactly 15mm! Relax, the EF-S 10-18mm and RF 15-30mm are equivalent focal length lenses on the two sensor sizes, with very similar dimensions, and that was my point. :)
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
347
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.
I'm not sure what your intended use is, but I've found the RF 35mm f/1.8 a very useful lens for static subjects, allowing for excellent close-ups as well as wide shots with great perspective. I've found the lens has excellent sharpness and bokeh as well. At f/2 it's quite sharp, with peak centre sharpness at f/2.8 and edge sharpness at f/4. I would consider this a very versatile and outstanding quality lens, worth every dollar. Some reviewers claim it approachesd L series lens quality. It's small and light, but not weatherproof. I'm curious, where did it fall short for you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,115
16,150
That's besides the point! Lens specs aren't exact, there are tolerances, ie. +/- a certain percentage, like all things! You're buying a lens with a specific optical design consisting of several elements to do a certain task, not a piece of equipment used to calibrate lens measurements! Have a look at the patents, then the marketing labels, they do differ. If a specific lens formula works out to 23.4mm, it will be marketed as a 24mm lens, that's why lenses are always nice round numbers!
They'd market it as a 23mm - looks wider for marketing and more mathematically correct to round to nearest!
 

JustUs7

EOS RP
Feb 5, 2020
285
558
It's small and light, but not weatherproof. I'm curious, where did it fall short for you?

For me, the only place it falls short is wide open, low light for night skies or Christmas lights. Can’t really hand hold such pictures or even tripod astro because the batwing coma is so bad at f/1.8.

Tried walking out and taking a quick snap of our house at Christmas, and ended up having to step down the aperture and get the tripod out. Which was okay, because I closed way down and went for long exposure with star points instead. However for Astro, that would force star trails.

Not a huge deal. Just means it can’t do everything!

I’ve watched some videos on the 16f/2.8 and it isn’t as bad. Curious where the 24 will fall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
347
They'd market it as a 23mm - looks wider for marketing and more mathematically correct to round to nearest!
You're probably right, wider sells better on that end of the focal range. Probably would be something like 25.6mm rounded down to 24. Most people prefer the standard sizes rather than the odd ones lol! It was just a random example anyway. :)
 
Last edited:

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
347
For me, the only place it falls short is wide open, low light for night skies or Christmas lights. Can’t really hand hold such pictures or even tripod astro because the batwing coma is so bad at f/1.8.

Tried walking out and taking a quick snap of our house at Christmas, and ended up having to step down the aperture and get the tripod out. Which was okay, because I closed way down and went for long exposure with star points instead. However for Astro, that would force star trails.

Not a huge deal. Just means it can’t do everything!

I’ve watched some videos on the 16f/2.8 and it isn’t as bad. Curious where the 24 will fall.
Makes sense, the RF 35mm f/1.8 isn't good for use as an astro lens. The RF 16mm f/2.8 smears the corners by stretching the pixels during software correction. I'm looking forward to seeing some proper tests run on the RF 24mm f/1.8, if there's no extreme distortion correction required, and the coma in the corners is managed well, it might be a popular lens!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

photophil

In therapy for GAS
Jun 17, 2022
6
4
I'm not sure what your intended use is, but I've found the RF 35mm f/1.8 a very useful lens for static subjects, allowing for excellent close-ups as well as wide shots with great perspective. I've found the lens has excellent sharpness and bokeh as well. At f/2 it's quite sharp, with peak centre sharpness at f/2.8 and edge sharpness at f/4. I would consider this a very versatile and outstanding quality lens, worth every dollar. Some reviewers claim it approachesd L series lens quality. It's small and light, but not weatherproof. I'm curious, where did it fall short for you?
Thanks for your input. This is me being nitpicky, and I absolutely agree that it is a very decent lens, especially at that price point. The 35 is what I use most of the time, which is why it would consider upgrading even with diminishing returns.
 

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
1,006
352
I'm not sure what your intended use is, but I've found the RF 35mm f/1.8 a very useful lens for static subjects, allowing for excellent close-ups as well as wide shots with great perspective. I've found the lens has excellent sharpness and bokeh as well. At f/2 it's quite sharp, with peak centre sharpness at f/2.8 and edge sharpness at f/4. I would consider this a very versatile and outstanding quality lens, worth every dollar. Some reviewers claim it approachesd L series lens quality. It's small and light, but not weatherproof. I'm curious, where did it fall short for you?
I'm not the person you were responding to, and I should probably just stay out of this, but ... as someone interested in stills photography (not video), I find the RF 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 and 85 f/2 all very disappointing lenses. I look at lenses for the Sony system such as the Sony 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8, the Samyang 35mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8 and 75mm f/1.8, and the Sigma 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2, and I look at the Nikon f/1.8 lenses for the Nikon Z system, and to me the Canon lenses have the worst IQ of the group (I am not talking about sharpness, they all seem sharp enough, but about the overall image), and they aren't even necessarily the smallest, lightest, cheapest, best weather sealed or fastest to AF. For example, the RF 35mm f/1.8 has good enough bokeh when used close up (as just about any lens will), but at typical portrait distances it can produce horrible bokeh (for example see https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/canon-rf-35mm-f-1-8-is-macro-the-ugly-bokeh-king.36469/), and is not particularly fast to AF. I accept the Canon 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/2 are the only lenses in that group with IS and I believe they have the closest minimum focus distance, so if those things are important to you then the Canons have a clear advantage. For me, though, those things are much less important (particularly with newer bodies having IBIS) than other aspects. I feel that so far as RF native lenses go, Canon generally gives you a choice between extremely expensive L lenses which are often large and heavy as well, or disappointing non-L lenses, subject to an exception or two more recently (eg the RF 100-400mm seems to be good for its size, weight and price). Obviously the RF 35mm f/1.8 must suit your uses for the lens very well for you to be so happy with it, but I am afraid I just cannot get excited about the lens.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

photophil

In therapy for GAS
Jun 17, 2022
6
4
I'm not the person you were responding to, and I should probably just stay out of this, but ... as someone interested in stills photography (not video), I find the RF 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 and 85 f/2 all very disappointing lenses. I look at lenses for the Sony system such as the Sony 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8, the Samyang 35mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8 and 75mm f/1.8, and the Sigma 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2, and I look at the Nikon f/1.8 lenses for the Nikon Z system, and to me the Canon lenses have the worst IQ of the group (I am not talking about sharpness, they all seem sharp enough, but about the overall image), and they aren't even necessarily the smallest, lightest, cheapest, best weather sealed or fastest to AF. For example, the RF 35mm f/1.8 has good enough bokeh when used close up (as just about any lens will), but at typical portrait distances it can produce horrible bokeh (for example see https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/canon-rf-35mm-f-1-8-is-macro-the-ugly-bokeh-king.36469/), and is not particularly fast to AF. I accept the Canon 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/2 are the only lenses in that group with IS and I believe they have the closest minimum focus distance, so if those things are important to you then the Canons have a clear advantage. For me, though, those things are much less important (particularly with newer bodies having IBIS) than other aspects. I feel that so far as RF native lenses go, Canon generally gives you a choice between extremely expensive L lenses which are often large and heavy as well, or disappointing non-L lenses, subject to an exception or two more recently (eg the RF 100-400mm seems to be good for its size, weight and price). Obviously the RF 35mm f/1.8 must suit your uses for the lens very well for you to be so happy with it, but I am afraid I just cannot get excited about the lens.
I had not seen that thread, thanks for the input.
I am not particularly concerned about the bokeh issue, this has actually not bothered me before and when I prioritize bokeh I usually go for longer focal lengths anyway.

However, since switching to the R6 from an RP, weight and size of the lens I use most of the time have become more of a priority and current 35mm alternatives with AF are not exactly ideal when it comes to that; here is comparison.
So for now the RF35 seems to be the best stop-gap for what I need. I should probably just learn to properly use a nifty fifty instead :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
347
I'm not the person you were responding to, and I should probably just stay out of this, but ... as someone interested in stills photography (not video), I find the RF 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 and 85 f/2 all very disappointing lenses. I look at lenses for the Sony system such as the Sony 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8, the Samyang 35mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8 and 75mm f/1.8, and the Sigma 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2, and I look at the Nikon f/1.8 lenses for the Nikon Z system, and to me the Canon lenses have the worst IQ of the group (I am not talking about sharpness, they all seem sharp enough, but about the overall image), and they aren't even necessarily the smallest, lightest, cheapest, best weather sealed or fastest to AF. For example, the RF 35mm f/1.8 has good enough bokeh when used close up (as just about any lens will), but at typical portrait distances it can produce horrible bokeh (for example see https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/canon-rf-35mm-f-1-8-is-macro-the-ugly-bokeh-king.36469/), and is not particularly fast to AF. I accept the Canon 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/2 are the only lenses in that group with IS and I believe they have the closest minimum focus distance, so if those things are important to you then the Canons have a clear advantage. For me, though, those things are much less important (particularly with newer bodies having IBIS) than other aspects. I feel that so far as RF native lenses go, Canon generally gives you a choice between extremely expensive L lenses which are often large and heavy as well, or disappointing non-L lenses, subject to an exception or two more recently (eg the RF 100-400mm seems to be good for its size, weight and price). Obviously the RF 35mm f/1.8 must suit your uses for the lens very well for you to be so happy with it, but I am afraid I just cannot get excited about the lens.
Thanks for your sharing your opinion, no problem there. You're correct, I tend to shoot the 35mm up close for small subjects up to around 30cm in size at f/2 for good bokeh (more like product/food photography scale), and when I shoot wider scenes at medium to far range (nature settings) I'm stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 for greater depth of field, which is why it works for me, as I don't use it wide open for subject separation on wider scenes where the bokeh would become apparent, such as portraiture.

I've seen too many reviews where the RF 85mm is described as a sharp lens with lots of contrast, with a flat plane of focus like a macro lens, 0.5 macro capability, great for photos of subjects close up, possibly a great product photography lens, but for portraits the bokeh is too contrasty and busy, and not up to par with the bokeh that other 85mm lenses produce stopped down to f/2. Bad for video, doesn't maintain focus well on moving subjects. It has its shortcomings, which is why I didn't buy it.

The RF 50mm f/1.8 is said to be every so slightly better in in most aspects than the old EF 50mm f/1.8, I find mine noticeably sharper stopped down at f/5.6 where it has peak sharpness. It's got decent sharpness at f/2.8, and I stop it down to f/2 when I want balance between bokeh and sharpness. It's not a fancy bokeh lens though.

Totally agree with the huge gulf between these lenses and expensive L versions, as well as the fact that depending on what you use them for, these lenses may not serve your needs at all and be quite disappointing. Personally, I don't think Canon has any decent non-L series portrait lenses, which is really disappointing. I'm definitely not wanting to pay thousands for an RF 85mm f/1.2 L.

In the thread you linked to, there was some very useful information - when the RF 35mm (and other 35mm lenses) are used wide open with the focus point greater than 3m (10') away, and a busy background, such photos don’t play to the 35mm strengths. The fancy EF 35mm II L and Sigma 35mm Art lenses produce a better bokeh in these situations, but not ideal still.

To quote the last post in that thread, which may be helpful, "The best looking bokeh often takes place in a distance sweet spot, especially with 35mm lenses. When you get past 10 feet with this lens you start to see some issues with bokeh in the corners. You almost get this split image that happens and it can give a very distracting nervous feel. So at f1.8 you’ll want to stay within 10 feet (3 meters) for the best looking bokeh.This is pretty standard though. I include this in my reviews now because people will often complain about nervous bokeh, or this bokeh or that bokeh, but the quality of bokeh varies massively with distance on most lenses so this lens will be suited well for head shots, but for full body portraits you will get a distracting bokeh."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,115
16,150
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.
The patent for the RF 100-500mm has its maximum focal length at infinity 489.98mm and f/7.2 according to photonstophotos. I have tried to calculate the focal lengths at a distance closer to infinity from the size of images of the moon using tabulated distances when my photos were taken. Using the usual quoted pixel length for the R5 of 4.39µ (eg TDP), I calculate
RF 100-400mm @400mm, 399mm
RF 100-500mm @500mm, 501mm.

However, the quoted pixel dimension on the various sites I believe is calculated by assuming 44.8 Mpx on 24x36mm sensor. But, Canon quotes 47.1 effective Mpx, which would equate to 4.28µ pixels.
Using 4.28µ
EF 100-400mm II @400mm, 389mm
RF 100-500mm @500mm, 488mm.
which are within 3% of the "official" figures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user