The State of RF – 5 Years of Lenses

[jam05]

Since they chose to milk it, I will continue to use adapted EF lenses. I only purchased one RF lens. Voila. There are plenty EF lenses available. So now.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Since they chose to milk it, I will continue to use adapted EF lenses. I only purchased one RF lens. Voila. There are plenty EF lenses available. So now.

No doubt Canon will read this and increase their pace of lens releases just to please you.

Oh, look – 8 lenses this year, one more than usual. That sure was a fast response. All thanks to you!

 

[scyrene]

I don't think it's felt slow, so the premise is a bit bemusing; it's nice to see the analysis anyhow

 

[john1970]

I think Canon is releasing RF lenses at a good pace especially when COVID-19 is taken into account. IMO they have released some amazing RF lenses such as the 100-300 mm f2.8.

 

[Del Paso]

What admin left out is lens manufacturing and the process improvements over the decades. Albeit the flange distance of EF and RF is different it's not as if lens design is all manually done with paper and pencil and Canon "reinvented the wheel". Its all done by software. And they had other manufacturers ahead of them. They did not pioneer mirrorless FF. Manufacturing process have been automated more than trifold also. So I would dissagree. Canon is rather slow milking their lens roll out. They were still selling EF lenses for basic photographic needs and for Cinema use. They had no incentive to produce lenses quickly. They're simply milking it. Squeezing every drop of $$$ profit from EF.

You believe that everything is now done by computers?
A computer cannot by itself design a lens. It must be programmed by an optical engineer or lens developer, who needs a lot of experience.
Then, developing new optical glass formulas also relies , sometimes widely, on empirism and experience. All this takes of course more time for a complex lens than for, say, a 50mm f1,8. Additionally, it takes about one full year to install the manufactoring-machining process and equipment for a new product line.
And yes, some tools often required are still pencil and paper, not only IBM's Blue Gene or its collegues.

 

[DhlcadR6]

I used this black Friday sale to look for an alternative for my M5. R6, S5Ii and A7C were close in price and all interesting.

Went with the A7C ultimately since E mount has the 20-70 F4, a lens which I found quite intriguing as an "always on" lens for family outings and travel. Also the fact that you can connect a mic through the hotshot and don't need a separate cable was a bonus. If I want a small setup I can use the 2.5G lens trio or Samyangs tiny 1.8 set.

In the end Canon could not retain me as a customer because I think it is missing a small but high quality standard zoom. 24-105 F4 is IMO to big, the cheap 24-105 is not really good and none of them go to 20mm anyway.

Why went for a7c in 2023 when there's R8 and a7c2 available... Anyways I respect your choice.

RF24-105STM is actually a very nice cheap lens if you know what to do. And RF16 complements well with it.

 

[DhlcadR6]

RF lenses introduction are not slow statically. However E Z mount has 3rd parties dumping lenses out as well make Canon look slow.

Sony actually introduces less lens than Canon in the recent 3 years.

I'm gonna nag again. RF problem is the lack of a cheap f2.8 trinity that rivals Sigma Tamron. Unless Canon opens partially to SigTam, or slash the price of the f4L(14-35,70-200,24-105) into sub-900USD price range. It's difficult to make it attractive over others.

And if Canon has some spare money, they should consider pour those money into PR and buying lapdogs(youtubers) to speak for them Sony/Panasonic proven that's more effective than making good products.

 

[Richard CR]

There are a few points not to be missed:
- all new lenses are better than their predecessors
- most (all?) new lenses are brand-new calculations
- many premieres, not only for Canon (28-70 f2, 24-105 f2,8, 100-300, 200-800, inexpensive 600 & 800 teles, soon a TS 14mm etc...)
Despite extensive use of supercomputers, all this still takes time. Developing, melting and cooling new glass formulas too.
Same for the industrialization.

i mentioned the second that all new optical designs, including their patent library had to be redone, and the first one isn't entirely true.

 

[simonella_virus]

I used this black Friday sale to look for an alternative for my M5. R6, S5Ii and A7C were close in price and all interesting.

Went with the A7C ultimately since E mount has the 20-70 F4, a lens which I found quite intriguing as an "always on" lens for family outings and travel. Also the fact that you can connect a mic through the hotshot and don't need a separate cable was a bonus. If I want a small setup I can use the 2.5G lens trio or Samyangs tiny 1.8 set.

In the end Canon could not retain me as a customer because I think it is missing a small but high quality standard zoom. 24-105 F4 is IMO to big, the cheap 24-105 is not really good and none of them go to 20mm anyway.

I once had the 20-70 on an a7r5. The lens was neither wide enough for cool perspective, nor tele enough for the odd animal/ tele landscape, nor wide aperture enough for low light/ thin dof. That’s the part of ILC, is there’s always a better lens.

In the end i have an r8, 24-240, 28/2.8, 16/2.8 etc. there are so many ways you could’ve skinned this cat in RF.

I liked certain aspects of Sony, but there are others that i didn’t. There is def no perfect system.

 

[Richard CR]

What admin left out is lens manufacturing and the process improvements over the decades. Albeit the flange distance of EF and RF is different it's not as if lens design is all manually done with paper and pencil and Canon "reinvented the wheel". Its all done by software. And they had other manufacturers ahead of them. They did not pioneer mirrorless FF. Manufacturing process have been automated more than trifold also. So I would dissagree. Canon is rather slow milking their lens roll out. They were still selling EF lenses for basic photographic needs and for Cinema use. They had no incentive to produce lenses quickly. They're simply milking it. Squeezing every drop of $$$ profit from EF.

No, I actually didn't

we should have seen upticks that with the EF lenses in the digital era post-2000.

Canon was at the forefront of automated manufacturing and also optical design - in ~2010's. One of the most aggressive dumps of Canon's R&D pocket change for the last 2+ decades was automation. however it still takes engineering time because optical designs have to be developed, and patented in most cases, or used from existing patent material, etc.

Secondly, you can't use someone else's optical designs.. if anything being a latecomer is more difficult because you have to find a way around Sony, et all patents.

 

[Richard CR]

RF lenses introduction are not slow statically. However E Z mount has 3rd parties dumping lenses out as well make Canon look slow.

Sony actually introduces less lens than Canon in the recent 3 years.

Agreed.

 

[Richard CR]

@Richard CR are you sure of your count? I believe there are:

• 18 RF primes for FF
• 15 RF zooms for FF
• 3 RF zooms for APS-C
• 2 RF extenders

That’s 38 lenses launched to date, not 37.

If you add in the three recently announced lenses not counted above (RF 24-105/2.8L, RF 200-800, and RF-S 10-18), that puts Canon at 41 lenses by the end of the year, assuming Canon ships on time (B&H now has estimated ship dates of 12/4 for the RF-S 10-18 and 12/14 for the two RF zooms).

didn't include extenders as a lens. for either EF or RF. but i'll check the RF totals again. thanks for the heads up.

Edit: There is 39 but I did the math but i forgot to write up what the math was. 64 months of the RF mount moved down to 60 so 39 * (60/64) = 37. similar to what it shows over the first 7 years of the EF mount. but i missed 1 lens somewhere, there's 232 total. thanks for having me re-look that.

 

[sanj]

Well done Canon. I realize that we all want more and that one specific lens, but Canon seems to be providing what both professionals and hobbiests need. Steadily and regularly. Personally, I am waiting for wide primes.

 

[sanj]

i mentioned the second that all new optical designs, including their patent library had to be redone, and the first one isn't entirely true.

How is the first one not necessarily true, please? I want to learn. Thx.

 

[mxwphoto]

People do not have as much patience and there are more alternatives these days.
I would have given Canon a pass if they would not have discontinued so many EF lenses before having RF alternatives.

Lack of patience no doubt attributed to the social media frenzy nowadays. We live in the 10 second attention span society where everything should have been done/introduced yesterday.

Good things are worth waiting for; and when a need truly arises, one will buy the best tool for the job right then and there (case and point my friend truly needed something small and light yet has range for a job, so she ended up getting a RX10 IV, not even a MILC).

Anything else is a want and not a true need and can either wait till the lens is introduced or add/switch systems to one's liking (honestly, Fuji is rather tempting for the way I tend to shoot nowadays).

 

[Del Paso]

i mentioned the second that all new optical designs, including their patent library had to be redone, and the first one isn't entirely true.

Agreed!
(I didn't refer to your post!)

 

[David - Sydney]

So…. How long was it after the ef mount was available that the first 3rd party ef lens with af was released??

 

[David - Sydney]

I'm gonna nag again. RF problem is the lack of a cheap f2.8 trinity that rivals Sigma Tamron. Unless Canon opens partially to SigTam, or slash the price of the f4L(14-35,70-200,24-105) into sub-900USD price range. It's difficult to make it attractive over others.

Canon is selling almost everything they can make if the the lens supply chain notices says anything. Is it really a problem for canon not to price match a 3rd party lens trinity?

Let’s say that canon reduces their lens prices…. Would it mean selling more bodies but lower margins on lenses? I would imagine that most people who seriously look at a f2.8 trinity will have price as only one of a number of factors when choosing a camera system and generally already have a preferred ecosystem

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Canon is selling almost everything they can make if the the lens supply chain notices says anything. Is it really a problem for canon not to price match a 3rd party lens trinity?

Let’s say that canon reduces their lens prices…. Would it mean selling more bodies but lower margins on lenses? I would imagine that most people who seriously look at a f2.8 trinity will have price as only one of a number of factors when choosing a camera system and generally already have a preferred ecosystem

I agree David. Canon are constantly looking for innovations and features that justify theur super-expensive and lofty pricing. When I compare Canon lenses to the competition (3rd party), their lenses aren't as sharp, have flare issues, isn't built to the same standard, their AF isn't as accurrate and their IS systems are way behind. Canon are consistenly top of the pile and priced accordingly.
Canon rarely make a mistake with their lenses. When I look back at their EF 24-70mm f2.8 mkI, which they got so much right first time around and then compare how many iterations Sigma had with their constant re-working.
The current Canon Mirrorless cameras are really pushing the resolution needs upwards well beyond what 35mm slide could resolve. Which I belive was around the 20-22mp point. As an upshot we now need mkII EF glass or the newer RF glass to keep up with our 45mp sensors. A lot of the 3rd party lenses are cheaper because they aren't that new and are still resolving for 20mp sensors.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Question is if Canon will gear up with RF-S lenses.

I think they will.
There is definitely less of a need for RF-S primes than there was for EF-M primes but they could still use a few smaller and cheaper ones.
I would also like to see RF-S f/4 and f/2.8 zoom lenses but I am less sure about those.