Patent: Various RF mount zoom lenses, including an APS-C RF mount design

[blackcoffee17]

7.1 is the sharpness sweet spot of most APS-C kit lenses

That really depends on the design of the lens. There is no rule that 7.1 should be the sharpest. But even if is, the increased noise would compensate. My point is that if Fuji can make a 18-55 2.8-4 that is tiny and cheap, Canon should be able to make a small lens with 5.6 aperture.

 

[Nigel95]

Still waiting for a R6 with APS-C sensor. I want a high end hybrid body with the specs of a R6 and willing to pay like 2k for it. Don't have the budget as a hobbyist to upgrade to a R6 and all the expensive FF glass that comes with it. I would need to replace my Canon 10 18, sigma 18-35mm and 60mm macro with ff equivalent glass. The FF benefits are not worth it to me with all the costs involved. I am perfectly happy with Aps-C but I need better specs especially for video work. 4k 60p 10 bit, 1080 120p all with dpaf no crop and IBIS.

So yes IMO please offer a R Aps-C body. The m series is not doing it for me ergonomics wise.

 

[Dragon]

Given the range of back focus specified, my bet is that the 15-70 is an EF-M lens. It is just slightly longer than the EF-M 18-55 and no reason the be any bigger in diameter. It would make sense as a very compact alternative to the EF-s 15-85. If it is equally sharp, they will get my money. It would be a perfect kit lens for the upscale M body that has been rumored.

 

[josephandrews222]

Given the range of back focus specified, my bet is that the 15-70 is an EF-M lens. It is just slightly longer than the EF-M 18-55 and no reason the be any bigger in diameter. It would make sense as a very compact alternative to the EF-s 15-85. If it is equally sharp, they will get my money. It would be a perfect kit lens for the upscale M body that has been rumored.

...this is a perceptive post...and is, in my view, likely to be 'true'.

Sometimes (sometimes a lot some times!) there is a lack of perception on this forum regarding the EF-M format...including the fact that the likelihood that this lens is for the EF-M format and not for some as-yet unannounced cropped R lens was not mentioned in the OP article!

This post does not fall into that unfortunate category.

I would buy the 15-70 IS (f4 at 15mm) EF-M lens in a heartbeat...if it proves to be a superior lens at the wide end...to the 15-45 kit lens (we have three fine copies of that one in our family).

The 18-150...is a tad long for walkaround use (but I still use it for that). The 15-70 might just be 'great' (for me).

My three cents.

 

[David - Sydney]

Are you serious, or joking? How can you say f7.1 is bad without any mention of what the lens focal length is? A 700mm f7.1 would have almost a 100mm aperture - Would you call that a bad lens?
Not every application needs big background blur or big apertures for dark venues. Some applications, like daytime landscape use, are ideal for smaller & lighter f7.1 use. And if you ever get a RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 lens and take pictures at 500mm f7.1 I think you will be stunned at how beautiful they can be!

I have to concur with the RF 100-500mm @ 500mm. Pictures are lovely! I went back to back with a 400/2.8 II and 600/4 II (cropped in to 600mm FOV wide open for each) and there is some difference but not as much as you would think given the massive difference in cost!

.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Gee they have a woody for f/7.1 all of a sudden. Total turn-off

The 100-500 f/7.1 IQ is no better than the 100-400 f/5.6 they are no more beautiful as they have about the same background blur.

 

[David - Sydney]

Gee they have a woody for f/7.1 all of a sudden. Total turn-off

The 100-500 f/7.1 IQ is no better than the 100-400 f/5.6 they are no more beautiful as they have about the same background blur.

"Total turn-off"? The EF lenses are 4.5 to 5 times more expensive! Big, heavy primes and they should be better for the price!
It was clear to me when walking around the zoo that the RF100-500mm was far more useful for the different animals than the 400/600mm primes. Yes, there is a difference for the bokeh but decreasing returns for price. Clearly you have much bigger budgets than I do.
The EF100-400mm is a great lens but the RF100-500mm lens is a 5x zoom and still very sharp at 500mm. It has limitations for zoom range with extenders but 500mm is good enough for me. I could have bought the EF + 1.4 TC but that would have been close to the same cost and need 3 items (R mount adapter, extender and lens) to get approximately the same focal length range. Even second hand EF100-400mm lenses are hard to come by and haven't dropped a lot in cost. EF focus speed will be slower with a TC compared to the RF native lens. The RF lens weighs less than the EF lens (even excluding the adapter) but is slightly longer and wider.
Ken's review is pretty comprehensive
https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/100-500mm.htm
YMMV.

 

[quiquae]

Try comparing the lens layouts in this patent application with that of RF 24-105 F4-7.1 STM. They are almost identical, with only 2 or 3 elements changed at most. This patent appears to be one of those “let’s patent every conceivable minor variation of that 24-105 design even though we’ll never sell any of them” that Canon files every time they come out with a new optical design. My guess is that none of the full frame versions will ever see the light of day, and even the APS-C variant is pretty suspect.

 

[LRPP]

I just don't understant why people are angry about eventual aps-c R bodies or RF lenses ...

 

[SteveC]

I just don't understant why people are angry about eventual aps-c R bodies or RF lenses ...

I don't understand why they're so mad at the prospect that it could be an EF-M mount, either.

 

[bbasiaga]

OK so I have a technical question. Each of these lenses has a pretty wide range of back focus. Does that open up the possibility they are designed to work on both the RF mount and M mount? IF the M back focus is 18mm, and the RF back focus is 20 (or is it 22?) then you have enough flexibility in some of these offerings to mount an M to RF adapter 6mm thick and keep the M mount sensor within the 24mm back focus distance on most of these lenses.
Admittedly I don't understand the physics of back focus and how that listed range actually works. Just a question that popped up when I read the theory that one or more of these may actually be M mount lenses.

-Brian

 

[Dragon]

I just don't understant why people are angry about eventual aps-c R bodies or RF lenses ...

Not angry, just questioning the logic. The vast majority of folks bucking for an APS-c R body are those wishing for a 7D II replacement. The R5 already will do far more than a 7D II in terms of AF performance and the reach is about the same given the new AA filter. I haven't seen anyone bucking for an APS-c body because they want a "smaller R", or even a "cheaper R". There are many pundits who somehow fancy lens crossover who think Canon should abandon the M and put everything on the R platform, but that completely misses the point (and the market) of the M line. M is about small and light and an R body simply can't be that small and light or it won't properly support the FF R lenses. Most of the 7D II commentary involves the use of Big Whites, so if you can afford a 500mm f/4, just choke up the extra $1500 and get an R5. I can assure you the extra field of view is more than worth the difference. If you are wishing for 90D kind of reach, then just be patient and wait for the R5s. It will be here sooner than you think.

 

[Act444]

Well...one thing is clear, Canon’s definitely got something for f7.1 zooms in the MILC age...

 

[SteveC]

Not angry, just questioning the logic. The vast majority of folks bucking for an APS-c R body are those wishing for a 7D II replacement. The R5 already will do far more than a 7D II in terms of AF performance and the reach is about the same given the new AA filter. I haven't seen anyone bucking for an APS-c body because they want a "smaller R", or even a "cheaper R". There are many pundits who somehow fancy lens crossover who think Canon should abandon the M and put everything on the R platform, but that completely misses the point (and the market) of the M line. M is about small and light and an R body simply can't be that small and light or it won't properly support the FF R lenses. Most of the 7D II commentary involves the use of Big Whites, so if you can afford a 500mm f/4, just choke up the extra $1500 and get an R5. I can assure you the extra field of view is more than worth the difference. If you are wishing for 90D kind of reach, then just be patient and wait for the R5s. It will be here sooner than you think.

You already get 17MP on an R5 in crop mode, and that's not that much less than the 7D II of 20.2 MP. Reach is almost as good, therefore.

If you really want more, you DO have the 90D or even (gasp) the M6-II. But then there's build quality issues. Nevertheless at the moment the 7D people have a choice between build quality and reach, either one of which (but not both) can be improved over their 7D.

 

[Fletchahh]

You already get 17MP on an R5 in crop mode, and that's not that much less than the 7D II of 20.2 MP. Reach is almost as good, therefore.

If you really want more, you DO have the 90D or even (gasp) the M6-II. But then there's build quality issues. Nevertheless at the moment the 7D people have a choice between build quality and reach, either one of which (but not both) can be improved over their 7D.

I can only speak for myself, and as a college student who loves bird photography the R5 is more money than I’m willing to spend, especially since most of my lenses are crop sensor lenses. I’d be thrilled to use either a M7/M5 Mark II or R7 (I want that animal eye AF), but would prefer an R7 because then I could get the 100-500mm sometime down the line.

Plus, there’s a hope that if an RF crop mount became a thing, that Sigma would make some high end lenses for it like the 18-35mm f/1.8 or 50-100mm f/1.8 Ef-s lenses.

 

[Czardoom]

Not angry, just questioning the logic. The vast majority of folks bucking for an APS-c R body are those wishing for a 7D II replacement. The R5 already will do far more than a 7D II in terms of AF performance and the reach is about the same given the new AA filter. I haven't seen anyone bucking for an APS-c body because they want a "smaller R", or even a "cheaper R".

I would guess that virtually everyone looking for an APS-C "R" camera to replace the 7D II is looking to spend considerably less than of the cost of the R5. So, yes, people are bucking for a cheaper alternative - and an R APS-C body would be cheaper.

....Most of the 7D II commentary involves the use of Big Whites, so if you can afford a 500mm f/4, just choke up the extra $1500 and get an R5.

Thanks for spending our money. You have no idea what people can afford or not. Most 7D II folks commenting about using "Big Whites" probably already have EF Big Whites. They just want a comparably priced new camera that will be similar to what they have now.

That's the logic. Pretty easy to understand, if you ask me.

 

[Dragon]

I would guess that virtually everyone looking for an APS-C "R" camera to replace the 7D II is looking to spend considerably less than of the cost of the R5. So, yes, people are bucking for a cheaper alternative - and an R APS-C body would be cheaper.



Thanks for spending our money. You have no idea what people can afford or not. Most 7D II folks commenting about using "Big Whites" probably already have EF Big Whites. They just want a comparably priced new camera that will be similar to what they have now.

That's the logic. Pretty easy to understand, if you ask me.

Yes, it is easy to understand, but it may not make business sense. If Canon builds that camera and produces no APS-c lenses for it, there will be hell to pay. If they do make lenses, what is the real market for them? Not much I suspect, unless they were to drop the M line and then probably way less than the sales of the M cameras/lenses. I think the 90D may be as close as you are going to get to what you are looking for and it is a very capable camera (I have one) that doesn't need an adapter for those big whites you already have. It is very hard to please everybody, particularly in a shrinking market. BTW, I suspect an APS-c camera that has all the features of an R5 actually wouldn't be that much cheaper either.

 

[Iain L]

I’ve just bought a 7D II last week. Because the 90D has too many reports of focus weirdness and the weatherproofing’s not as good, but also it was £1350. At the very top end of my budget - an R5 is literally £1000 more expensive than me buying both this 7 and a 5D iv as well for if I were desperate for the extra width full frame would give me.

Yes, a 400mm f/2.8 is the cost of a small car, but my second hand mk 1 100-400mm was £600 and works just fine, thanks. Not everyone has the budget for this new mirrorless world.

My main thing, though, is that all the glass in my regular bag (ie not raiding my son’s hand-me-down primes) is EF. As is the case with most of Canon’s best pre-RF lenses. I really couldn’t care less if an R7 never had a dedicated range of crop-frame lenses, because I’d rather be ready for whenever I could supplement it with an R6 for wide shots.

 

[Aaron Lozano]

I keep saying it but I want more pancake lens for my walk arounds. a trilogy of 2.8 pancakes at 24-50-85 or even 35-85-135* with a compact design would do wonders for RF mount.

 

[SUNDOG04]

No one should have to live with f/7.1. No one.

I won't live with 7.1. Nikon makes a very fine 24-70 f4 S line lens and it is available now. Just sayin.