The State of RF – 5 Years of Lenses

[Richard CR]

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.

I don't think they will at all.

I need to re-write something i wrote up on canonnews around 3-4 years ago, and while we have seen the RF-S come out since then the premise remains the same. Canon doesn't WANT APS-C at all. They are being forced into the RF-S kicking and screaming every step of the way.

I should write it up again, just because I love to stir up the forums

 

[David - Sydney]

Tbh IRL using UWA wouldn't need f2.8 all the time except Astro. (Personally I use tripods for Astro anyway, one stop can be compensated by slower shutter)

Would anyone be handholding for astro besides moon shots? f2.8 isn't needed there. Tripods are a must for astro.
Star trailing and photons received (integration time) are the primary issues. Whether you use 500 rule or NPF etc it depends on your sensor for 1:1 pixel movement and you start hitting high ISO noise problems. Topaz denoise etc works well for foregrounds but not for the sky. Taking multiple shots and then stacking works okay when there is little above the horizon but trees etc are problematic to stack and then stitch.
Either way, the only way for more integration time without trailing is with a tracker and its quality and polar alignment will dictate the longest shutter speed before trailing. Portable trackers are lucky to get more than 2 minutes and wind can significantly reduce that time.

There are other use cases for fast/wide besides astro. Others have commented that f2.8 or faster is very useful for stage/music performances. Another is close up/wide angle/wide aperture of fungi etc if there are reasonable magnification at MFD.

 

[David - Sydney]

decent door stop.

I'm sure that the Sigma Art equivalent would be a better door stop (weight/size) IQ may be better though

 

[DhlcadR6]

...A f2.8 trinity is also an unusual first purchase of lenses.

If you were recommending to someone which system to buy then that would be a different question I think and we will always be biased to some degree by what we have and are used to using.

Not sure about other nations. From Hong Kong, PRC and ROC, There's a common habit from shop sales and friends' recommendation to push first purchasers to get f2.8 trinities from the get-go. Everyone saying is better to only buy once and avoid the temptation to buy again(if coming from kit lens). So E mounts having the Tamron trinity done within 2000USD is high praised.

 

[tomri]

It would be interesting to see the accumulated cost for the consumer to buy the RF lens portfolio compared to EF.

 

[DhlcadR6]

It would be interesting to see the accumulated cost for the consumer to buy the RF lens portfolio compared to EF.

Unless you calculate with inflation in consideration, RF line up will be more expensive

 

[Del Paso]

I would certainly suggest that that lens (released in 2003!) wasn't great quality... luckily it is discontinued so you can't buy it today
I think it was discontinued about the same time as the EF16-35/4 came out in 2014.

In case you miss it, a few European camera stores would be happy to sell you this fanstastic lens ...

 

[Software2]

I never thought my GAS would get this bad, but I now own half of all 3rd party RF autofocus lenses ever made.

It's just one lens, but that's besides the point.

 

[nickorando]

I never thought my GAS would get this bad, but I now own half of all 3rd party RF autofocus lenses ever made.

It's just one lens, but that's besides the point.

Same here - 14mm in my case. Mind you, when I bought the R, I also bought half the RF lenses then available, and now, despite being in double figure with RF lenses, I'm nowhere near that level. Which means I for one don't think RF lens announcements have been in any way slow. Yeah, there's a few lenses some people want that aren't available yet, but then there are some groundbreaking designs that are available. And blimey, no fewer than 6 standard zooms starting at 24mm - there were only 5 at most available at one time in EF mount. And 2 800mm lenses, with a third - a wide-ranging zoom - on its way.

Yes, there are some lenses I'm still wanting that haven't been announced. A fisheye. A TS-R. That's about it, though.

 

[stillviking]

Needed lens:
- RF Fisheye
- 50mm 1.4 (ofc)
- 400 f4.5 like Nikkor.

 

[BBarn]

Though RF lens releases have seemed slow, in less than 5 years Canon has released most of the FF lenses I'm likely to buy. The most important factors to me have been size and weight, and Canon has done an excellent job releasing FF RF lenses that are small and light.

I own 10 Canon FF RF lenses (2 L), and all of those lenses were released no later than 2021.
So from my point of view, Canon has done an excellent job of releasing lenses that I wanted to purchase. And right now, I'm not sure what I would buy beyond what I already own. Perhaps a stabilized 50mm prime. Possibly a 20mm (or narrower) stabilized prime that would be good for astro. But that's about it for me.

I would think that the current FF Canon RF lens catalog covers over 80% of the FF market (for Canon FF lenses) in terms of potential sales volume. And they accomplished that in 5 years (or less).

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Mobile 01 made the point that Canon has the biggest full-frame focal range for mirrorless autofocus going from 10 mm to 1200 mm.
They still need a fisheye but that is rumored to be coming.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

That might be true for telephoto lenses, but it certainly isn't true for wide angles. No Canon L wide angle lenses I have ever owned can hold a candle to Sigma Art lenses.

Canon never seemed to take wide-angle prime lenses as seriously on the EF mount.
Hopefully, that changes but they are not even here yet which is not the best sign.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I am surprised by your statement... the EF16-35/4 and the RF14-35/4 are very good. Are the equivalent Art lenses that much better?
Happy to read a review showing the differences if you can point to them.

Canon EF 11-24 f/4, EF 16-35 f/4 IS, and EF 24-105 f/4 IS lenses are all spectacular.
Although, I would recommend the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 OS over the EF 24-70 f/2.8.
I would also recommend the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC G2 over the EF 16-35 f/2.8.
The RF versions are way better.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Some people just want to convince themselves and others that the lenses they can't or don't want to afford are not better than the ones they buy.
Many categorical statements have no objective or proven basis.

I do not blame people for that.
Thoughts like that keep people happy and sane.
The problem is that it puts them into conflict with other people who need to rationalize their purchases of expensive gear.
That is why all my gear is the best ever or gear doesn't matter.

 

[Del Paso]

You are demonstrating a level of technical knowledge that would be unusual for someone choosing an ecosystem from the beginning. Once you are in an ecosystem then migrating is a lot more expensive. Users certainly switch systems but it costs them. A f2.8 trinity is also an unusual first purchase of lenses.

If you were recommending to someone which system to buy then that would be a different question I think and we will always be biased to some degree by what we have and are used to using.

"Products will reduce margins over the product cycle. Canon is pricing them to ensure it's still profitable at the product sales-cycle end stage"
That is not necessarily true.
Higher initial price for early adopters and to have ROI on initial R&D means lower margins at a product level at the beginning. Once R&D has been amortised then there is a higher product profit margin ie later in the product lifecycle during their cashcow phase. There can be price decreases over time for marketing specials and price competition but that would be a deliberate decision and not taken lightly. Apple products don't (or rarely) discount and luxury products don't either.... it depends on the product and market.
I've seen the lowest prices for the R5 for the black Friday sales but they will go back up next week. 3.5 years after release and widely anticipated version 2 to be released probably within 6 months


Sony had to reduce their margins because they invited 3rd parties lens manufacturers to compete directly with them. That isn't the case with Canon - or at least not yet. The question is whether Canon would increase sales if they did reduce their prices... the publicly listed lenses on backorder would indicate that they couldn't increase volume to match any increased demand for those lenses.
I would love to buy a new Toyota/Lexus but with local leadtimes of 12-18 months, it is just silly to wait. Second hand vehicles are selling for more than new car prices in some cases.

When I first went digital, I knew almost nothing, maybe just that the MP number was about definition. Twin SD, DR, IBIS, AF modes? Didn't have a clue or cared. I even got convinced (by some stupid reviewer) that Raw meant complex, fastidious editing and Jpeg was the best choice...(but never shot Jpeg).
As I've written here before, I chose Canon for the lenses. All the rest, I learnt afterwards, and this process goes on. Yet, in the begining, I was unable to appreciate a system's advantages over another one's.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If you were recommending to someone which system to buy then that would be a different question I think and we will always be biased to some degree by what we have and are used to using.

That does not bother me.
It might not turn out to be the best but it is at least good enough for the person recommending it.
What bothers me is when people recommend systems that they have never used because they assume it is better.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

There's a common habit from shop sales and friends' recommendation to push first purchasers to get f2.8 trinities from the get-go

I see that as advice a lot of time for a first pro setup though I do not think it fits every type of photography.
I pretty much think everyone should start with a 50 f/1.8 since it is very versatile and very affordable.

 

[kaihp]

Although, I would recommend the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 OS over the EF 24-70 f/2.8.

If you are referring to the EF 24-70/2.8 mark I, then it definitely had some deficiencies - optically and build-wise. The Mk II (from 2012?) was much better.

 

[roby17269]

EF400L and EF600L mark 3 was introduced along with 1DX3, which is in the mirrorless era. It's modern enough despite RF equivalents are just embedded EF-RF adapters.

Well, the discussion was about all RF lenses being new optical formulas. I brought up the fact that that is not true for the prime exotics. Doesn't matter how recent they are, they still existed as EF lenses before the "new" RF ones