There are 4 wide-angle L prime lenses coming in the next 12 months [CR2]

The RF16 f/2.8 STM is much, much sharper in the corner than the 17-40L, even after distortion correction. It's also much sharper in the center at f/2.8 than the 17-40L is stopped down to f/5.6. And it may very well be that cropping the RF16 to 40mm field-of-view might give similar image quality to the 17-40L at 40mm.

The RF15-30 STM is also much sharper everywhere, but isn't f/4.

The 17-40L also need a filter to be weather sealed, so all in all, it's not what you'd expect from an L lens. But it's black with a red ring, so it looks great on a camera :)
I am aware of this - I did switched from 17-40 to the 16mm. Yes the 16 is lot better. But there are 20 Years of R&D in-between.
What u or some "expect" from a L Lense seams to be based an modern EF and RF Ls. In the past there where a lot of pretty bad Ls around, even worse than the 17-40. The 17-40 just got a bit famous for that, since it still keeps being in production for decades now.

And it is also not the only lens I mentioned. Its was just about the point, that there are in fact a decent amount of L Lenses in a Mid Price Range. Of course some are not as good as others. but the 100L Macro and the 24-70 f/4 L are definitely not bad at all while still pretty cheap (EF Versions).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
That 12mm could double as an R7 vlogger lens, no? All the YouTubers will love it.
I highly doubt that. You don't get a light and affordable APS-C camera and than pair it with what appears to be an expensive, extremely heavy (though we don't know yet) and exotic statement L lens. I'm expecting this lens to hit 3k $ and weigh somewhere between 800g-1.200 g.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
3,276
4,159
Oh ok didn't knew that. But if I u don't consider cash back and other advertising prices (because they can apply to other lenses aswell) - there would also be some other L lenses still. The 17-40 f/4 (ok - maybe not as excellent as others but I still ok)and the 70-200 f/4 non IS are currently at 600€ here in Germany. the EF 24-70 f/4 L currently is at 1200€ but I am pretty sure this was a lot cheaper too in the past and is, for what it is, an excellent lens. The EF 100 L Macro is also around 1k. If u look in the past ull find even more.
Yes, the 24-70 f4 was cheaper....
Got mine for Euro 550. And yes, it's a very good lens which you can find used for little money. But pay attention to the "wobbing tendency" of some front lens-tubes.
 
Upvote 0

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
352
I must be extremely lucky then because the RF 100-400mm I have is very sharp at 400mm wide open. Is it as good as the RF 100-500mm or the EF 100-400 MKII? No but then again it’s 1/4 of the price and 1/3 of the weight. When I go hiking I almost never take the RF 100-500 but the 100-400 is small and light enough to take and gets the job done. Moreover I did a test with the RF 24-105mm f4L, the RF 70-200mm f4L and the RF 100-400 all at 100mm all at f5.6 with fine detail in the subject and at 100% you really had to struggle to see a difference with corner detail being slightly softer and with more chromatic aberration. I didnt read articles I conducted tests and before anyone asks I worked for Panavision for 35years and know how to test lenses on a MTF bench, projector and test charts. In real world use those differences are minimal and I would be more concerned with defraction at beyond f11.
But why test these lenses all at 100mm? It may be their common focal length, but that's not where they're all likely to be used in real world application. Testing a long tele lens at its shortest focal length is playing to its strengths, when these lenses typically spend most time at their extreme long end in birding and wildlife uses (and yes there are exceptions for the hair-splitters out there).

As you said "it gets the job done" for you, which is subjective but it may not do so for everyone, depending on their requirements. You sound like a person with considerable experience, so I'll pose this question in a more objectively. I understand that the RF 100-500mm or the EF 100-400 MKII are a completely different tier of lens, and a comparison to them is hardly fair considering the price difference. In your opinion, in terms of the actual detail that this lens can render and image contrast, do you believe the RF 100-400mm, at the long end, is capable of taking images for professional use, such as commercial publication like it's more expensive counterparts mentioned, or is it a lightweight, great value for money, 'good enough' lens for every other non-critical application?

Just so I'm clear, the objective here is not a 'measurement competition' or a subjective emotional debate about whether people hate or love a lens, that is often seen in many forums. It's a kind request for an honest objective assessment to give potential buyers a clearer understanding of the image quality this lens can be expected to deliver, so they can determine if it suits their needs or not. Thanks! :)
 
Upvote 0

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
352
Patience.
The problem is that most of the people on this forum are on the upper end of the age spectrum. Time vs money, younger people usually have more of the former and less of the latter, while for older people who have worked a very long time, it's the other way around. If you've ever told an elderly person that they might need to wait to wait a few years for something, you'd be familiar with the reaction you usually get. I don't make that mistake anymore... :oops:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Nov 2, 2020
132
134
The problem is that most of the people on this forum are on the upper end of the age spectrum. Time vs money, younger people usually have more of the former and less of the latter, while for older people who have worked a very long time, it's the other way around. If you've ever told an elderly person that they might need to wait to wait a few years for something, you'd be familiar with the reaction you usually get. I don't make that mistake anymore... :oops:
As one becomes elderly, the value of a lifetime warranty fades as well.
 
Upvote 0
Not only noisy. Because of it being "macro" it makes the focus hunt a lot. Don't know how you use it, but that lens is just not a good lens. Does the job, but it's not good at all.
Well I've not had chance to use it a lot yet, but I wanted it for its wide aperture, good stabilisation (I think Canon claims up to 7 stops with IBIS), and medium focal length; I was thinking food and drink, occasional contextual portraiture, and environmental macro, eg flowers/fungi with a bit of background. I'm not a particular lover of 35mm though, so I'll see - I had the EF 35mm f/2 and this is surely similar (I did sell it however, as I didn't use it enough). I think "not good at all" is exaggerated, it clearly has a lot better IQ than basic kit lenses (though the price is a little high imo).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
I've posted previously about how, according to reviews, this RF 100-400mm suffers from poor minimum aperture, diffraction softness at apertures smaller than F11, slow and noisy AF, and other non-L traits such as potentially inadequate weather-sealing and build quality, lack of lens hood, lack of rotating tripod collar etc.

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to try the lens for a few moments myself. I found it to be very light and compact, although slightly front-heavy at 400mm. Stabilisation is very effective, possibly better than my RF 100-500mm in that regard. I only had a couple of minutes with the lens, but that was enough to convince me that the AF is at least as fast as the RF 100-500mm. I didn't find the AF to be noisy. The close-focusing ability was impressive, and I could switch rapidly back and forth between distant and close subjects without any hunting (test carried out in overcast/shady conditions outdoors). The zoom ring was quite stiff.

As for sharpness and detail rendering, judging purely from the magnified image on the screen, I'd say the lens was fine for medium-long distance subjects, although it won't render fur or feathers as sharply as the RF 100-500mm. For highly detailed near-macro subjects the lens isn't as sharp as the RF 100-500mm, and it certainly isn't as sharp as either the EF 100m macro or RF 100mm macro, both of which will render every scale on a butterfly's wing with incredible detail and sharpness.

For those on a limited budget, the RF 100-400mm offers very good value, light weight and ease of use. My initial impression is that the level of sharpness and detail for close-up work would be inadequate for my own personal usage. Equally I don't think I'd be happy with it for highly detailed landscape photography. But, if you shoot mainly sports, portraits, mammals etc at medium distances and in reasonably good light, you probably won't be disappointed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
That 12mm is super interesting. I'm sure it'll be popular for anyone who does video.
Also, as already noted in the thread, it may be interesting for astro, but it'd depend on the amount of distortions and aberrations. Some of the latest Canon RF lenses, including the L ones, require quite a bit of software corrections, which makes them much less usable for astrophotography.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
My two cents on the 100-500 debate...

This lens has instantly become my favorite RF lens. The RF 70-200 2.8L now barely gets used, I'm almost regretting buying it. Having such huge tele range in a single and (by my standards at least) compact and light package is a game changer.

The images coming out of the camera have exceeded my expectations in terms of sharpness even wide open.

It's a pricey thing, but if you can afford it it's worth every penny. Pair it with the kit RF 24-105 and you have a walkable setup covering an insane range, with excellent results.

I've shot nature, landscape, people, street, sports and wildlife with this thing and it's amazing.

20220820194001_DS__0808-01.jpeg20220817051734_DS__8286-01.jpeg20220820011123_DS__9509-01.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
I
My two cents on the 100-500 debate...

This lens has instantly become my favorite RF lens. The RF 70-200 2.8L now barely gets used, I'm almost regretting buying it. Having such huge tele range in a single and (by my standards at least) compact and light package is a game changer.

The images coming out of the camera have exceeded my expectations in terms of sharpness even wide open.

It's a pricey thing, but if you can afford it it's worth every penny. Pair it with the kit RF 24-105 and you have a walkable setup covering an insane range, with excellent results.

I've shot nature, landscape, people, street, sports and wildlife with this thing and it's amazing.

View attachment 205668View attachment 205669View attachment 205670

Sunset v-ball game's got my pick
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
My two cents on the 100-500 debate...

This lens has instantly become my favorite RF lens. The RF 70-200 2.8L now barely gets used, I'm almost regretting buying it. Having such huge tele range in a single and (by my standards at least) compact and light package is a game changer.

The images coming out of the camera have exceeded my expectations in terms of sharpness even wide open.

It's a pricey thing, but if you can afford it it's worth every penny. Pair it with the kit RF 24-105 and you have a walkable setup covering an insane range, with excellent results.

I've shot nature, landscape, people, street, sports and wildlife with this thing and it's amazing.

View attachment 205668View attachment 205669View attachment 205670
Stop making me want it more! :cry:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0