Pro-Canon Whining

[Maximilian]

I was getting ahead of myself. it's still a rumor

This is a rumour page, not an official Canon PR page

 

[basketballfreak6]

I feel confident that although the Canon version will be more expensive, it will also be superior.

I hope so, as we both know UWA has not been a forte of Canon's since the EF days...and I hope that if they do make a version of their own they'd include something like that focus lock switch.

Extremely bright UWA primes is somewhere Canon don't care since FD/EF. If they let Sigma go for it. I believe a lot of Astro-landscape guys will consider RF.


Either a RF14 f2.8L that's smaller than recent RF10-20L. Or RF14 f2 at best. I doubt they can pull of 14mm f1.2L that's the same size as Sigma's f1.4

For sure. The sensor in my R6II is so good I am now looking to pick up an R8 to get it modified for astro use only.

My only reservation is that I've learnt while looking at modifying the R8 that apparently a lot of the Canon RF lenses emit some sort of internal IR light to aid in focusing which shows up in longer exposure shots and even more so in modified cameras. May have to keep my EF lenses and adapt them for astro use or if hopefully Sigma brings their lenses to the RF mount it won't have the same issues.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I think that as Canon users, we've never had it so good. We have sensors in the 24-45mp range that are the higest resolving ever in the Canon portfolio. Those newer MP seem to be superior to the older MP too. The newer camera bodies have AF systems that are class leading. Great DR and iso noise results.

We have the entire back catalogue of EF range of lenses to choose from, which have never been so cheap on the used market. I'm sure this is why Canon aren't making many mid tier lenses...because they would need to compete against their own old top tier lens portfolio in a new vs old market.

Then we have the super juicy new RF L lenses that are eye wateringly expensive but very much best of breed. There are no clunkers or lemons in the RF L lens world and very fedw in the old EF catalogue. Canon do their homework and generally get it right first time.

Canon also seem to be delivering a lot of interesting lens options. Does one go for the (now common) 24-70mm f2.8 LIS or 24-105mm f4 LIS? Or the rare and exotic RF 28-70mm f2.0 or the new and hernia inducing RF24-105mm f2.8 LIS? Or the super cheap RF 24-105 STM plastique? To quote Bill Bailey as he shed tears over the "laminated book of dreams"...."I cannot have them all!"

The fans of the RF 100-500 LIS are puzzled by the need for the new RF 200-800mm IS. However it's obvious that this lens sits in a 2 lens split. Ie a 70-200 general use telephoto and the 200-800 as a long wildlife / birding option. The 100-500LIS steps into both of the above lenses focal ranges and sits snugly between them. Options. Here in the UK, the older 100-500LIS is now cheaper than the new RF200-800IS...which just adds more confusion to the situation. I suspect that Canon will shift more 100-500's in the Uk in 2024 as a curious consequence. In the USA, the 200-800 has a substantially cheaper RRP.

I suspect that there's a sublime RF 12-24mm f2.8 coming at some point to "trinity out" the RF 24-105mm f2.8 and RF 100-300mm f2.8 duo. Again...options.

So my point here is that as photographers, we've never had SO many great options. There's literally no bad choices in the Canon range at the moment.

 

[EricN]

I think that as Canon users, we've never had it so good. We have sensors in the 24-45mp range that are the higest resolving ever in the Canon portfolio. Those newer MP seem to be superior to the older MP too. The newer camera bodies have AF systems that are class leading. Great DR and iso noise results.

We have the entire back catalogue of EF range of lenses to choose from, which have never been so cheap on the used market. I'm sure this is why Canon aren't making many mid tier lenses...because they would need to compete against their own old top tier lens portfolio in a new vs old market.

Then we have the super juicy new RF L lenses that are eye wateringly expensive but very much best of breed. There are no clunkers or lemons in the RF L lens world and very fedw in the old EF catalogue. Canon do their homework and generally get it right first time.

Canon also seem to be delivering a lot of interesting lens options. Does one go for the (now common) 24-70mm f2.8 LIS or 24-105mm f4 LIS? Or the rare and exotic RF 28-70mm f2.0 or the new and hernia inducing RF24-105mm f2.8 LIS? Or the super cheap RF 24-105 STM plastique? To quote Bill Bailey as he shed tears over the "laminated book of dreams"...."I cannot have them all!"

The fans of the RF 100-500 LIS are puzzled by the need for the new RF 200-800mm IS. However it's obvious that this lens sits in a 2 lens split. Ie a 70-200 general use telephoto and the 200-800 as a long wildlife / birding option. The 100-500LIS steps into both of the above lenses focal ranges and sits snugly between them. Options. Here in the UK, the older 100-500LIS is now cheaper than the new RF200-800IS...which just adds more confusion to the situation. I suspect that Canon will shift more 100-500's in the Uk in 2024 as a curious consequence. In the USA, the 200-800 has a substantially cheaper RRP.

I suspect that there's a sublime RF 12-24mm f2.8 coming at some point to "trinity out" the RF 24-105mm f2.8 and RF 100-300mm f2.8 duo. Again...options.

So my point here is that as photographers, we've never had SO many great options. There's literally no bad choices in the Canon range at the moment.

I agree with you. I have been feeling positive since I saw the first photos using RF 50mm f1.2L. I didn't particularly want most of the new lenses, but I understood they will be good for other people and after seeing enough great photos, I've changed my mind and bought some I didn't originally plan on.
All that said, I can understand wanting some hypothetical lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I didn't particularly want most of the new lenses, but I understood they will be good for other people and after seeing enough great photos, I've changed my mind and bought some I didn't originally plan on.

I definitely wanted some of them. Initially, the R system was on trial for me with the original EOS R because I prefer integrated grip bodies for everyday use. So, I kept using my 1D X and only had the RF 24-105/4L that I bought alongside the R, everything else was adapted. Once the R3 came out, I preordered that and bought the 70-200/2.8, 100-500, and 28-70/2 before the R3 came, and several other RF lenses after. I preordered the 100-300/2.8 and 24-105/2.8.

Others I initially had little or no interest in and I've changed my mind. I ended up swapping my EF 100/2.8 Macro for the RF 100/2.8 Macro (first time I've bought a refurb lens, the price was very good). I didn't pre-order the 10-20/4, but I'll probably order it at some point soon. Will probably sell the 11-24/4, the light weight and small size of the RF lens means I'll take it more places than I do the 11-24/4.

 

[SteveC]

I've changed my mind and bought some I didn't originally plan on.

GAS will find a way...

 

[EricN]

I definitely wanted some of them. Initially, the R system was on trial for me with the original EOS R because I prefer integrated grip bodies for everyday use. So, I kept using my 1D X and only had the RF 24-105/4L that I bought alongside the R, everything else was adapted. Once the R3 came out, I preordered that and bought the 70-200/2.8, 100-500, and 28-70/2 before the R3 came, and several other RF lenses after. I preordered the 100-300/2.8 and 24-105/2.8.

Others I initially had little or no interest in and I've changed my mind. I ended up swapping my EF 100/2.8 Macro for the RF 100/2.8 Macro (first time I've bought a refurb lens, the price was very good). I didn't pre-order the 10-20/4, but I'll probably order it at some point soon. Will probably sell the 11-24/4, the light weight and small size of the RF lens means I'll take it more places than I do the 11-24/4.

I decided on the 28-70 f/2 (not a hard choice) and 85 f/1.2 (it is much better af speed and sharpness than the ef mark ii), and thought I would get the 100-500, but my old ef 100-400 ii seemed to work better and I thought I don't really need that extra 100mm.
I didn't plan on the 16mm but I after buying one for my niece, I realized it's comparable to the ef 14 , but cheaper and smaller.
I didn't plan on the rf 50mm 1.8 or rf 100-400 but a pinched nerve became much worse with numbness & pain suddenly and a doctor recommended I don't carry more than 20 pounds on a regular basis until I can get an mri and decide what to do. So that weight savings will keep me from worrying.
I still have my ef 100 macro, but I think the rf is sharper and since I don't need the adapter for ef 100-400, I might as well...
I never tried the 11-24, but went with 8-15 fisheye I'm thinking that like you, the 10-20 because I have been impressed with posted photos.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I decided on the 28-70 f/2 (not a hard choice) and 85 f/1.2 (it is much better af speed and sharpness than the ef mark ii), and thought I would get the 100-500, but my old ef 100-400 ii seemed to work better and I thought I don't really need that extra 100mm.
I didn't plan on the 16mm but I after buying one for my niece, I realized it's comparable to the ef 14 , but cheaper and smaller.
I didn't plan on the rf 50mm 1.8 or rf 100-400 but a pinched nerve became much worse with numbness & pain suddenly and a doctor recommended I don't carry more than 20 pounds on a regular basis until I can get an mri and decide what to do. So that weight savings will keep me from worrying.
I still have my ef 100 macro, but I think the rf is sharper and since I don't need the adapter for ef 100-400, I might as well...
I never tried the 11-24, but went with 8-15 fisheye I'm thinking that like you, the 10-20 because I have been impressed with posted photos.
View attachment 213608

Love the meme....yes we buy emotionally and rationalise later.
The RF 100mm f2.8 LIS Macro is a tad sharper according to the MFT charts. However the difference is marginal and is hardly likely to be seen in any real world photos. I have noticed a bit of copy variation with the EF 100mm LIS Macro and there are sharp and slightly less sharp copies out there. My 2nd photographer's copy is noticably shaper than mine when shooting wedding ring shots and other half to quarter sized macro shots wide open.

The comparision between the RF and EF versions is a curious one. The Rf lens is larger, but on the RF mount the two are pretty similair if we include the EF to R mount adapter. The newer lens is natively heavier, again less of an issue once we dial in the adpater.
The new lens has a closer max magnification 1.4x vs 1.1, which is significant if that's what you need. I've rarely found that I need more than 1.1 but the option is nice if it 's needed. The defocus / soft focus ring is a nice touch and great for in-camera abstraction.

However, the lens' achillies heel is the very strong lens breathing (and effective aperture drop) through the focus range. This can be used creatively to create a long exposure zoom burst, but it can be annoying. Both lenses suffer from this "feature" but the RF seems ot suffer noticably worse. The other issue with the RF lens is that there's a focus shift according to aperture. Chnage aperture and the point of focus moves. This can be a really annoying if you are stopping down on a tripod, it's another "feature" and has to be worked around out in the field.

I think if you already have a great copy of the EF version, there's not a massive reason to side grade to the Rf version. Unless you MUST have every RF lens and expunge all EF from your lens portfolio or you are the guy who like "new and shiney". Either way, it's a comsumer's choice.

 

[koenkooi]

Love the meme....yes we buy emotionally and rationalise later.
The RF 100mm f2.8 LIS Macro is a tad sharper according to the MFT charts. However the difference is marginal and is hardly likely to be seen in any real world photos. I have noticed a bit of copy variation with the EF 100mm LIS Macro and there are sharp and slightly less sharp copies out there. My 2nd photographer's copy is noticably shaper than mine when shooting wedding ring shots and other half to quarter sized macro shots wide open.

The comparision between the RF and EF versions is a curious one. The Rf lens is larger, but on the RF mount the two are pretty similair if we include the EF to R mount adapter. The newer lens is natively heavier, again less of an issue once we dial in the adpater.
The new lens has a closer max magnification 1.4x vs 1.1, which is significant if that's what you need. I've rarely found that I need more than 1.1 but the option is nice if it 's needed. The defocus / soft focus ring is a nice touch and great for in-camera abstraction.

However, the lens' achillies heel is the very strong lens breathing (and effective aperture drop) through the focus range. This can be used creatively to create a long exposure zoom burst, but it can be annoying. Both lenses suffer from this "feature" but the RF seems ot suffer noticably worse. The other issue with the RF lens is that there's a focus shift according to aperture. Chnage aperture and the point of focus moves. This can be a really annoying if you are stopping down on a tripod, it's another "feature" and has to be worked around out in the field.

I think if you already have a great copy of the EF version, there's not a massive reason to side grade to the Rf version. Unless you MUST have every RF lens and expunge all EF from your lens portfolio or you are the guy who like "new and shiney". Either way, it's a comsumer's choice.

For me and my not so steady way of holding the camera, the IBIS on the R5 made things worse with the EF100L. When shooting butterflies while holding the camera at arms length, the RP and M6II had a much larger percentage of keepers. In some situations where I could brace the camera 'correctly' against my face, disabling IS improved IQ. For most of the shots and video IBIS+IS worked great and helped, but for natural light macro shots where I had the opportunity to experiment, the IS would sometimes be a hindrance. The EF100L also predates the decision to have user updatable firmware, so it will never get better.
The combination of those things made me dislike the lens and avoid using it, which factored heavily into the decision of buying the RF100L at its introduction price.

After getting the RF100L I have not encountered a situation yet where tuning off IS improved things and I love using it! But I agree with you: if you are happy with the EF100L, think twice before getting the RF100L. It's a good upgrade, but spending that money on photography trips or workshops might have a bigger impact for hobbyists like me.

Speaking of IBIS hating ILIS: the Sigma 150 OS is a joy to use on the R8 and takes the Sigma 1.4x TC very well, so I now have 2 stabilized macro lenses that can do 1.4:1

 

[Del Paso]

I decided on the 28-70 f/2 (not a hard choice) and 85 f/1.2 (it is much better af speed and sharpness than the ef mark ii), and thought I would get the 100-500, but my old ef 100-400 ii seemed to work better and I thought I don't really need that extra 100mm.
I didn't plan on the 16mm but I after buying one for my niece, I realized it's comparable to the ef 14 , but cheaper and smaller.
I didn't plan on the rf 50mm 1.8 or rf 100-400 but a pinched nerve became much worse with numbness & pain suddenly and a doctor recommended I don't carry more than 20 pounds on a regular basis until I can get an mri and decide what to do. So that weight savings will keep me from worrying.
I still have my ef 100 macro, but I think the rf is sharper and since I don't need the adapter for ef 100-400, I might as well...
I never tried the 11-24, but went with 8-15 fisheye I'm thinking that like you, the 10-20 because I have been impressed with posted photos.
View attachment 213608

+ a 24-105 F2,8. Once you have it, you'll regret not having bought it earlier!

 

[EricN]

+ a 24-105 F2,8. Once you have it, you'll regret not having bought it earlier!

it does look like it haha

 

[neuroanatomist]

+ a 24-105 F2,8. Once you have it, you'll regret not having bought it earlier!

First real use of my 24-105/2.8 yesterday at a concert. Was great for the venue, especially paired with the 100-300/2.8.

 

[Del Paso]

First real use of my 24-105/2.8 yesterday at a concert. Was great for the venue, especially paired with the 100-300/2.

Two truly exceptional lenses. Number three will be, without any doubt, the RF 200-500.
PS: do you use a filter on your 24-105?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Two truly exceptional lenses. Number three will be, without any doubt, the RF 200-500.

Not for me. I shouldn’t say never, but I don’t have much interest in it. For birds, I use the 600/4 II + 1.4x and 200-500 won’t be long enough. For larger subjects, I get 140-420/4 with the 1.4x on the 100-300.

PS: do you use a filter on your 24-105?

I do, a B+W clear (I had two spares from prior lenses, meaning I still have one for a future lens ).

 

[Del Paso]

Not for me. I shouldn’t say never, but I don’t have much interest in it. For birds, I use the 600/4 II + 1.4x and 200-500 won’t be long enough. For larger subjects, I get 140-420/4 with the 1.4x on the 100-300.


I do, a B+W clear (I had two spares from prior lenses, meaning I still have one for a future lens ).

+ 1.
Neither I am interested in such a large lens. My size limit when travelling being EF 100-400 or RF 100-500. Yet, a "little" 70-135 F2 could tempt me...
"Thanks" to the optical quality of that damned 24-105, I'll have to rethink my entire well-honed travel or hiking equipment...What shall I take, what will have to stay home or in the hotel??? If only I had bought Tamron the Wonderful recommended by pros...
Ain't it nice to have only such "problems"?

 

[Del Paso]

It's hard for me to imagine a f1.4 that is a full macro

No chance, far too many optical compromises.