Is Canon prepping the announcement of two more lenses? It looks that way

[EverydayPhotographer]

I know it isn’t a popular thing to say, but I am happy about this announcement. It may not be “interesting L series lenses,” but it’s the consumer market that will actually pay the bills and make those flashy Ls possible. And in that arena, Canon continues to stretch the boundaries. It used to be APS-C and 18mm to 300mm, take it or leave it. Now they’re giving the consumer market full frame cameras and decent telephoto options to 400mm, plus 600 and 800mm. And we already have a 16mm consumer prime lens. If this rumor turns out to be true, it will continue to deliver possibilities that were previously reserved mostly for much more financially endowed users. I like the move. It’s not flashy, but more impressively, it opens doors.

 

[Beertje]

Continue reading...

This patent from september 2021 shows it will likely be an rf 16-30 4.0-5.6.

キヤノン「RF16-30mm F4-5.6」となりそうな特許出願

2021年9月27日付けでキヤノンの気になる特許出願が公開。「RF16-30mm F4-5.6」となりそうな実…

asobinet.com

 

[LogicExtremist]

The RF 24mm f/1.8 macro sounds promising, if it's at least the optical quality of the RF 50mm f/1.8, that would be great. If it's anything like the Rf 35mm f/1.8 that would be even better!

One thing that's for sure is that if we do see a RF 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, it will be worse that the RF 14-35mm L lens which relies o software corrections at that exorbitant price. It's almost a given that it will use software correction, most likely to a greater extent, so possibly on par with the RF 16mm f/2.8 with its 'pixel soup' corners.

Let's hope that Canon breaks its apparent trend of "less for more, so more profits for us":

• under designing lens optics (to more extreme levels than any other brands have ever gone) and relying on software fixes
• making lenses a stop darker than their predecessors, with the nonsense excuse of "high ISO modern sensors"
• charging 25-30% more for the RF version of a lens

The camera market is contracting, photography with dedicated cameras (vs smartphones) is becoming niche once again and therefore more expensive, technological updates are becoming less incremental, and companies need to find ways of surviving. That said, most consumers still care about value for money, and professionals also care about tools that are fit for purpose. So far it's been a bit of a mixed bag, hoping we get some more standout lens releases in terms of performance for price.

 

[TonyPM]

I have the Efs 24 f2.8 stm macro for my APSC Rebel camera, and it's a very fun lens, and very sharp. Also very small. If this lens is anything like it, it would be awesome for APSC shooters, as long as it's not too big.

 

[blackcoffee17]

The RF 24mm f/1.8 macro sounds promising, if it's at least the optical quality of the RF 50mm f/1.8, that would be great. If it's anything like the Rf 35mm f/1.8 that would be even better!

One thing that's for sure is that if we do see a RF 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, it will be worse that the RF 14-35mm L lens which relies o software corrections at that exorbitant price. It's almost a given that it will use software correction, most likely to a greater extent, so possibly on par with the RF 16mm f/2.8 with its 'pixel soup' corners.

Let's hope that Canon breaks its apparent trend of "less for more, so more profits for us":

• under designing lens optics (to more extreme levels than any other brands have ever gone) and relying on software fixes
• making lenses a stop darker than their predecessors, with the nonsense excuse of "high ISO modern sensors"
• charging 25-30% more for the RF version of a lens

The camera market is contracting, photography with dedicated cameras (vs smartphones) is becoming niche once again and therefore more expensive, technological updates are becoming less incremental, and companies need to find ways of surviving. That said, most consumers still care about value for money, and professionals also care about tools that are fit for purpose. So far it's been a bit of a mixed bag, hoping we get some more standout lens releases in terms of performance for price.

Few years ago i purchased my EF 100-400 II for £1799, brand new from an official retailer.
Now the equivalent 100-500 is £2979 at the same retailer. I know the pound lost some value but still, the price increase is crazy.

Few more years and 100-400 type of lenses will reach big white pricing territory.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Few years ago i purchased my EF 100-400 II for $1799, brand new from an official retailer.
Now the equivalent 100-500 is £2979 at the same retailer. Few more years and 100-400 type of lenses
will reach big white pricing territory.

Canon gear prices outside of the US are sky high, and with very few mid-range lenses, it's either cheap consumer level lenses, some great, some compromised, or super expensive L glass. Not sure if Canon is aiming to push their L series glass into a more premium, niche category out of the reach of many enthusiast buyers, but it sure seems that way.

 

[roby17269]

Most people can't afford such things. I'm not sure a system built only on the absolute upper end is the best way to remain maximally profitable. Canon are good at targeting casual consumers, and even if those are bleeding away, it's likely there's still money in catering to them.

Two points here:

1. I'm only writing about what I would like to see coming down the pipeline, not about what others would/should expect
2. having said so, I do think that, given the current market state and economy landscape and supply chain issues, manufacturers will increasingly focus on the high-end side of the market. Based on various financial reports from various manufacturers that were shared in the near past. How many casual consumers willing to buy a dedicated camera and lenses are there, and how many of them are going to buy enough cameras / lenses / accessories to make this a viable proposition for manufacturers, I have no clue but I assume that this population is dwindling down

 

[scyrene]

Two points here:

1. I'm only writing about what I would like to see coming down the pipeline, not about what others would/should expect
2. having said so, I do think that, given the current market state and economy landscape and supply chain issues, manufacturers will increasingly focus on the high-end side of the market. Based on various financial reports from various manufacturers that were shared in the near past. How many casual consumers willing to buy a dedicated camera and lenses are there, and how many of them are going to buy enough cameras / lenses / accessories to make this a viable proposition for manufacturers, I have no clue but I assume that this population is dwindling down

Sure, and that's fair enough, though a bit beside the point of this thread. On your second point, there's no doubt the lower-end market is dwindling, but it still constitutes the bulk of sales. It would be foolish to ignore it for the time being (Canon is rounding out both ends of their lineup - extremely expensive stuff like the 1200 f/8 on the one hand, new APSC consumer lenses on the other).

 

[Czardoom]

Few years ago i purchased my EF 100-400 II for £1799, brand new from an official retailer.
Now the equivalent 100-500 is £2979 at the same retailer. I know the pound lost some value but still, the price increase is crazy.

Few more years and 100-400 type of lenses will reach big white pricing territory.

I think it has been well documented that the UK is faced with unusually high prices for Canon stuff.

Here in the USA:
Canon EF 100-400mm L II: $2,399
Canon RF 100-500mm L: $2,899
So for $500 more you get the extra 100mm on the long end plus a lens that is over 250g lighter. I would consider that worth the $500 increase, others may differ, but the price it does not seem outrageous, especially compared to the new Nikon Z 100-400mm which is $2,696.

Yes, Canon L lenses are expensive, but certainly comparable with offerings from Sony and Nikon. But I think people sometimes forget that a lens purchase might very well be a purchase for life. Even if you are in your 20's, there is no reason not to think you'll be using these lenses for 20-30 years at least (if you are smart, anyway, and not a total gear head).

 

[JustUs7]

But I think people sometimes forget that a lens purchase might very well be a purchase for life. Even if you are in your 20's, there is no reason not to think you'll be using these lenses for 20-30 years at least (if you are smart, anyway, and not a total gear head).

But version 2!!!

 

[Czardoom]

The RF 24mm f/1.8 macro sounds promising, if it's at least the optical quality of the RF 50mm f/1.8, that would be great. If it's anything like the Rf 35mm f/1.8 that would be even better!

One thing that's for sure is that if we do see a RF 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, it will be worse that the RF 14-35mm L lens which relies o software corrections at that exorbitant price. It's almost a given that it will use software correction, most likely to a greater extent, so possibly on par with the RF 16mm f/2.8 with its 'pixel soup' corners.

Let's hope that Canon breaks its apparent trend of "less for more, so more profits for us":

• under designing lens optics (to more extreme levels than any other brands have ever gone) and relying on software fixes
• making lenses a stop darker than their predecessors, with the nonsense excuse of "high ISO modern sensors"
• charging 25-30% more for the RF version of a lens

The camera market is contracting, photography with dedicated cameras (vs smartphones) is becoming niche once again and therefore more expensive, technological updates are becoming less incremental, and companies need to find ways of surviving. That said, most consumers still care about value for money, and professionals also care about tools that are fit for purpose. So far it's been a bit of a mixed bag, hoping we get some more standout lens releases in terms of performance for price.

Not everyone hopes Canon will reverse its trend - especially if it means cheaper, and lighter lenses. Not sure if Canon is using software correction to a more extreme level - maybe they are, but as an Olympus user, I know that some of their lenses also rely heavily on auto-correction. The difference seems to be that Olympus users only care about the final result and completely ignore the fact that the lenses are using software correction, unlike many Canon users who somehow can't get over the idea, even when a lens such as the RF 16mm has almost the same level of sharpness in the corners as the EF 16-35 f/4 L and is considerably better than the EF 17-40mm L.

To you, the "excuse" of high ISO moderns sensors is nonsense, to me it makes perfect sense and once again allows for cheaper, and lighter lenses.

Can't argue that the lenses are expensive, and unfortunately we are in a time period with high inflation and extreme supply shortages, so prices have gone up recently. Of course, the nice option is that you can buy similar EF lenses used if the price is too high for the new RF offerings. This is not a new system where you have to buy new lenses. You have the choice. Lenses have always been the place where camera companies make their profit, so don't expect any price drops anytime soon. So, either wait and buy used or refurbished RF lenses or don't buy them at all. And as I mentioned in a post a few minutes ago, lenses should be a purchase that will last for 20-30 years or more.

 

[Czardoom]

But version 2!!!

Yes, as the old saying goes, "There's a sucker born every minute!" Not to say that there might not be an improvement in a mark II version of a lens, but I am sure the executives at Canon, Nikon or any other company do a lot of "high-fiving" when they see gear heads with GAS! If marketing executives didn't invent or promote "pixel peeping" they are sure glad it exists as that is the only way, in many cases, that you can tell a new lens from an old one.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Not everyone hopes Canon will reverse its trend - especially if it means cheaper, and lighter lenses. Not sure if Canon is using software correction to a more extreme level - maybe they are, but as an Olympus user, I know that some of their lenses also rely heavily on auto-correction. The difference seems to be that Olympus users only care about the final result and completely ignore the fact that the lenses are using software correction, unlike many Canon users who somehow can't get over the idea, even when a lens such as the RF 16mm has almost the same level of sharpness in the corners as the EF 16-35 f/4 L and is considerably better than the EF 17-40mm L.

To you, the "excuse" of high ISO moderns sensors is nonsense, to me it makes perfect sense and once again allows for cheaper, and lighter lenses.

Can't argue that the lenses are expensive, and unfortunately we are in a time period with high inflation and extreme supply shortages, so prices have gone up recently. Of course, the nice option is that you can buy similar EF lenses used if the price is too high for the new RF offerings. This is not a new system where you have to buy new lenses. You have the choice. Lenses have always been the place where camera companies make their profit, so don't expect any price drops anytime soon. So, either wait and buy used or refurbished RF lenses or don't buy them at all. And as I mentioned in a post a few minutes ago, lenses should be a purchase that will last for 20-30 years or more.

i agree, cheap lenses are good, as long as 'cheap' means affordable and good value for money, not 'cheap and crappy'!

Really? "even when a lens such as the RF 16mm has almost the same level of sharpness in the corners as the EF 16-35 f/4 L", I reckon no way, not even close, I have to disagree on that one! The EF 16-35mm F/4 is highly regarded by landscape photographers, and has produced plenty of top notch pro landscape photos. The RF 16mm f/2.8 is a totally different beast, it's a small, cheap, affordable product made to be "good enough" as an entry level lens with significant compromises to achieve that. It's primarily video lens for vloggers and a walkabout lens for travelers, that's good enough for those purposes.

Well, the rationalisation that Canon can sell you darker aperture lenses because "high ISO moderns sensors" fails logically on two points.

First, if a new camera has high ISO performance, then using the same EF mount lenses with give better low light or shorter shutter speed performance, and perhaps an extra usable stop or two which is handy. Put a darker aperture lens and we lose that gain, that's how the exposure triangle works! But... if Canon sells a more expensive body, and darker aperture (cheaper to produce) RF lenses that are the same price or more than their EF, then its a win-win in profits for Canon while the photographer loses a lot of the the benefit.

Second, in the world of physics and engineering, we have to give something to get something, there are always compromises! If we depend more on high ISO, we lose dynamic range (DR), which was a big fuss in the years gone by, much like the need for high MP are currently. Darker lenses will push higher ISO values and lower DR respectively.

I have to give it to Canon marketing, they've convinced the market that the things they fought bitterly over on forums (DR) don't matter anymore, and paying more for less is a good thing if the technology is new, because novelty matters, and the 'fear of missing out' is a valid emotion. That's probably tied to the misconception that proficiency can simply be bought, that better gear will produce a better photographer, a myth promulgated by marketing departments to get people to buy more gear, rather than master the sufficient gear they currently own and develop their skills with more training and practice. Once the next hyped tech (global shutters?) displaces high MP fad which displaced the high DR fad, Canon will probably convince the brand loyalists and fanboys that 12MP is all they need, because it works on iPhones. It's a strange world!

 

[JustUs7]

Well, the rationalisation that Canon can sell you darker aperture lenses because "high ISO moderns sensors" fails logically on two points.

They sell smaller, lighter, darker lenses because they don’t need to open to f/5.6 to focus anymore like DSLR’s did. Many DSLR lenses weren’t very good wide open and perhaps that f/5.6 was at its best at f/8. The lens they build now is smaller, lighter, and plenty sharp and can focus at f/8. It doesn’t have to open to 5.6 anymore. So we get a great 100-400 f/5.6-8 that I can take to my sons soccer game or hike all day with without it being an intrusion on any fun. And I come away with images than I’m happy with.

 

[blackcoffee17]

They sell smaller, lighter, darker lenses because they don’t need to open to f/5.6 to focus anymore like DSLR’s did. Many DSLR lenses weren’t very good wide open and perhaps that f/5.6 was at its best at f/8. The lens they build now is smaller, lighter, and plenty sharp and can focus at f/8. It doesn’t have to open to 5.6 anymore. So we get a great 100-400 f/5.6-8 that I can take to my sons soccer game or hike all day with without it being an intrusion on any fun. And I come away with images than I’m happy with.

And because they can have bigger profit. I still don't understand how can Nikon make a tiny 130g and very sharp 16-50 3.5-6.3 for their APS-C and Canon comes out with the 18-45 4.5-6.3. Less wide, bigger and darker.

 

[Nemorino]

So we get a great 100-400 f/5.6-8 that I can take to my sons soccer game or hike all day with without it being an intrusion on any fun. And I come away with images than I’m happy with.

Yes, I like it very much. The USM and the high magnification are also great benefits.

 

[LogicExtremist]

They sell smaller, lighter, darker lenses because they don’t need to open to f/5.6 to focus anymore like DSLR’s did. Many DSLR lenses weren’t very good wide open and perhaps that f/5.6 was at its best at f/8. The lens they build now is smaller, lighter, and plenty sharp and can focus at f/8. It doesn’t have to open to 5.6 anymore. So we get a great 100-400 f/5.6-8 that I can take to my sons soccer game or hike all day with without it being an intrusion on any fun. And I come away with images than I’m happy with.

Um, there are plenty of DSLRs from Canon that can focus at f/8, I know my 80D could.

Here's a whole list of camera bodies that can in this article:

Which Canon DSLR Cameras Maintain Autofocus with Extenders at f/8 Max Aperture?​

You do realise that fast apertures are used to shoot in low light (including indoors), and to get faster shutter speeds.
Small and light has a major convenience factor, as you mention, many people would take an RF 100-400 f/8 zoom out with them but not want to carry around a larger, heavier lens, and that's a bonus fur super-tele zooms for sure.

 

[SnowMiku]

First, if a new camera has high ISO performance, then using the same EF mount lenses with give better low light or shorter shutter speed performance, and perhaps an extra usable stop or two which is handy. Put a darker aperture lens and we lose that gain, that's how the exposure triangle works! But... if Canon sells a more expensive body, and darker aperture (cheaper to produce) RF lenses that are the same price or more than their EF, then its a win-win in profits for Canon while the photographer loses a lot of the the benefit.

Second, in the world of physics and engineering, we have to give something to get something, there are always compromises! If we depend more on high ISO, we lose dynamic range (DR), which was a big fuss in the years gone by, much like the need for high MP are currently. Darker lenses will push higher ISO values and lower DR respectively.

This is why when I eventually buy an RF body I'll be sticking to my wider aperture EF/EF-S lenses, some people also forget that you get a slightly more shallow depth of field as well with the wider aperture EF/EF-S lenses. I understand the reason for some of the f/6.3 EF-M lenses to keep it portable and light weight, but I think the entry level RF lenses should have been the same or better then all of the EF/EF-S equivalents.

I personally see the RF-S 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM as a bit of a missed opportunity to get the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM users to upgrade. In my opinion I think they should have made the RF-S at least the same specs or better. But they could always release one with the same specs sometime down the track.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Um, there are plenty of DSLRs from Canon that can focus at f/8, I know my 80D could.

Yes, but there are plenty that cannot. Thus, Canon kept all EF lenses to f/5.6. Since MILCs don’t have that limitation, Canon eliminated that constraint, first slightly with EF-M then more significantly with RF.

 

[JustUs7]

Um, there are plenty of DSLRs from Canon that can focus at f/8, I know my 80D could.

Here's a whole list of camera bodies that can in this article:

Which Canon DSLR Cameras Maintain Autofocus with Extenders at f/8 Max Aperture?​

You do realise that fast apertures are used to shoot in low light (including indoors), and to get faster shutter speeds.
Small and light has a major convenience factor, as you mention, many people would take an RF 100-400 f/8 zoom out with them but not want to carry around a larger, heavier lens, and that's a bonus fur super-tele zooms for sure.

In the article you link, it has to do with working with extenders. Note that most of the ones that can do it are newer and center point only. Some of the newest and best expand beyond this. But not to the capabilities of mirrorless, which allows for different lens designs.

Your 80D, for example, says center point only, except for in two rather costly lenses with the latest extender attached. Not $650 consumer lens that is super light weight.