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

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
348
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.
It looks like 5D II (2008), 6D (2012), 70D (2013) era and before those couldn't AF at f/8, so basically ten years ago.
That worked in the favour of photographers in terms of lens design for so long, because Canon could only skimp so far on the lenses with aperture and optical correction. Now the tables have turned, Canon can now sell much less of a lens and it will still work.
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
348
The difference between f/5.6 on some of the older consumer lenses and f/8 on some of the newer consumer lenses is that older ones really only opened to 5.6 for focus. They had to step down for good results. The RF 100-400 shoots wide open at f/8 no problem.
If you don't need shallow depth of field and blurred out background, or low light capability, depending on the genre of photography, f/5.6 or f/8 may be the aperture where most work is done, and many lenses have a sweet spot for sharpness at around f/5.6, some at f/8. Landscape, studio portraiture and macro are all higher aperture values.
 

JustUs7

EOS RP
Feb 5, 2020
285
558
If you don't need shallow depth of field and blurred out background, or low light capability, depending on the genre of photography, f/5.6 or f/8 may be the aperture where most work is done, and many lenses have a sweet spot for sharpness at around f/5.6, some at f/8. Landscape, studio portraiture and macro are all higher aperture values.
I don’t disagree with any of that. That’s why I like the RF 100-400 so much. F/8 is fine and works great at f/8. I don’t need to step down at all if I need the light. Plus it’s lighter and smaller than the 24-240.
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
348
I don’t disagree with any of that. That’s why I like the RF 100-400 so much. F/8 is fine and works great at f/8. I don’t need to step down at all if I need the light. Plus it’s lighter and smaller than the 24-240.
How are you finding the sharpness/image quality of the RF 100-400 lens? I've been considering getting one for a while now.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,579
7,382
It looks like 5D II (2008), 6D (2012), 70D (2013) era and before those couldn't AF at f/8, so basically ten years ago.
That worked in the favour of photographers in terms of lens design for so long, because Canon could only skimp so far on the lenses with aperture and optical correction. Now the tables have turned, Canon can now sell much less of a lens and it will still work.
As was pointed out, f/8 AF in DSLRs is needed only with extenders. All bare Canon EF/EF-S lenses are f/5.6 or faster.

Notably absent from the list you linked are entry-level bodies prior to the T8i/850D from 2020 (the first low-end body to include f/8 AF, albeit with only the center point). Notably, the SL3 and T7 that were launched in 2019/2018 could not AF at f/8. Since consumer-grade lenses are the ones most likely to get the slower apertures, Canon did not launch any EF/EF-S lenses with a max aperture narrower than f/5.6, including lenses launched years after the cameras you mention above (and of those cameras, many were —and are— still in service).

It is the fundamentally different AF systems in DSLRs vs. MILCs that enabled Canon to drop the f/5.6 constraint for EF-M and RF lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

JustUs7

EOS RP
Feb 5, 2020
285
558
How are you finding the sharpness/image quality of the RF 100-400 lens? I've been considering getting one for a while now.
Personally, I’m loving it on my RP. I’m sure I don’t have the standards of some here though. Like I said above, I can take it to my sons soccer games or all day hiking and it’s super light and easy to carry.

9C41E3F8-874C-4F69-B148-63AC22072635.jpeg
3FFB806E-B643-4B85-AD56-221EEF6DBF1F.jpeg 46A246DE-F08D-4AB3-94EF-0CA29F6AE635.jpeg D743BA7F-8FF1-4618-A377-2D849EEB57EF.jpeg

The 0.4x macro at 400mm is great too.
For some reason, I can’t upload full size files to this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,818
2,121
I'm already dreaming of a 24mm macro picture of edelweiss, unsharp snow covered mountains in the background...:D
Gimme gimme and quick !!!!
 

MartinVLC

EOS RP
Nov 3, 2020
29
46
www.picma.eu
This patent from september 2021 shows it will likely be an rf 16-30 4.0-5.6.


I also noticed this in the source and I wonder why it says 3.5-5.6 in the canonrumors articel.

I would love this lense to start at 15mm f/3.5, but I don´t know where they took this information from,

I´m afraid in the end it will be a 4-5.6 or even 4.5-6.3 the way canon designs consumer zoom lenses (very unfortunately) lately.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,129
16,209
How are you finding the sharpness/image quality of the RF 100-400 lens? I've been considering getting one for a while now.
I’ve written somewhere that everyone should have one! I have two so I don’t have to share it with my wife when I don’t want carry the 100-500. Very sharp with excellent AF.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
348
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
348
I’ve written somewhere that everyone should have one! I have two so I don’t have to share it with my wife when I don’t want carry the 100-500. Very sharp with excellent AF.
Thanks! Now that's a positive endorsement - I liked it so much, I bought two! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AJ

EOS R
Sep 11, 2010
824
241
I think the 24/1.8 and 15-30 will both sell really well.

I'm glad to see that Canon is producing a high-end L line and a consumer line of lenses. Both lines are filling out nicely.

The thing right now is that for ultrawide consumer, there is the RF 14-35 which has some optical compromises (barrel distortion and black corners when corrections are not applied) but yet has a high-end price tag. I think most pros gravitate to the RF 15-35 L while consumers like myself pick up a 16/2.8. This leaves the 14-35 stranded somewhere in the middle.

So, if the 15-30 comes with an attractive pricetag, I think many consumers will snap up a copy.
 

ashmadux

Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Jul 28, 2011
495
77
New Yawk
photography.ashworld.com
That creates a dilemma. 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 or 16 f/2.8mm? If it’s under $400, has to be the zoom, no? Especially if landscape is the primary use.
The 16 is not a good lens. There's you're answer. :) Haven't seen a single positive review. My landscapes are almost always at 6.7/7.1, or smaller, so the variable aperture isnt a big deal. (to me)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

EverydayPhotographer

EOS RP, and M50. R10 on the way.
Feb 7, 2019
66
127
Minnesota
www.trexroadtrip.com

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
348
You're not looking that hard, it would appear. There's plenty of them out there.

DXO Mark, for instance, said "This is a good score for an ultra-wide lens and among the best tested in this range." https://www.dxomark.com/canon-rf-16mm-f2-8-stm-lens-review/
The DxO review is emphasises the performance relative to price and size, and doesn't focus too much on the negatives, but still makes it clear:

"Touted as an affordable model, this new lens actually has very good sharpness, especially wide open at F2.8 and at F4 in the center. Stopped down, the sharpness remains relatively high in the centers, though there’s a drop in performance from the middle of the field and out to corners."

Other reviews are based more on real-world applications where the shortcomings have greater implications. It's an intentionally under-designed lens optically to keep the price and size down, and its a decent vlogging and travel lens, but a poor landscaping lens.

This lens has an unusually close minimum focus distance (MFD) for a 16mm lens of 130mm (5.1") and a quite high magnification of 0.26x.
By comparison the RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM has an MFD of 200mm (7.9") @ 0.38x, and the RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM has a MFD of 280mm or 11.0" @ 0.21x.
Many UWA Canon-compatible lenses from other companies have MFDs of around 200mm (7.9") with 0.15x or less magnification according to TDP.

To quote TDP's article - https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-16mm-F2.8-STM-Lens.aspx

"With a minimum focus distance of 5.1" (130mm), the RF 16mm lens has a relatively high 0.26x maximum magnification spec that allows big perspective size differences to be captured (close subjects appear large relative to background subjects).

With some lenses, image quality takes a hit at the minimum focus distance, but the RF 16 produces minimum focus distance image quality similar to that from longer focus distances.

Focus breathing negatively impacts photographers intending to use focus stacking techniques, videographers pulling focus, and anyone critically framing while adjusting focus. This lens produces a rather strong change in subject size through full extent focus distance adjustment."


What is this lens really for? With roughly half the MFD of similar UWA lenses, high magnification that makes close subjects appear large relative to background, and the unusual fact that image quality at MFD is similar to longer distance focus, this look like a vlogging lens to me, where work is done 'in your face', and objects are frequently brought near the lens for close-ups.

What else are 16mm primes normally used for? It's definitely not a video lens as it has heavy focus breathing. Not a landscape lens as the corners are too smudged due to distortion correction, while stopping down doesn't improve IQ, and focus breathing prevents stacking. Architecture/indoor real estate work needs edge to edge image sharpness, so no good there. Not a choice for astrophotography as the lens has a fair bit of coma at the edges. Allowing for weight, size and cost, it makes an acceptable travel lens if the IQ compromise is acceptable. It's probably a reasonable pocketable 24mm equivalent lens on the new RF-S APSC cameras as the lower IQ periphery is cropped away. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
348
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.
Well, unfortunately, the sun hasn't gotten one stop brighter when Canon made the decision to make their lenses one stop darker, so that means longer shutter speeds (IBIS is less effective on longer focal lengths) or higher ISO values/lower DR. It's great to have a camera that can AF at f/8, but it doesn't mean it should be used at f/8 unless that's the ideal aperture for the task, let alone restricting a lens to that aperture. If Canon was able to make f/5.6 lenses in the past, they can still do so today if they chose to. :oops: