There are jints of a version II of a current RF lens coming in 2024 [CR2]

[robotfist]

Ummmm, Canon maybe finish creating a full pro lineup before updating zoom lenses?? If you're gonna restrict 3rd party manufacturers, then please offer a complete set of L primes? Canon's lens strategy is so bizarre to me. They're lucky I despise Sony so much because they really do seem to be doing everything they can to make me jump ship. It's been 5 years since the RF mount was released and we still don't have a complete set of RF mount L primes. Where are the wides like the L 14, 24, or 35??? We don't need 2nd gen RF zooms. They're all optically fantastic already.

 

[SwissFrank]

I haven't found either the RF70-20/2.8 or the RF100-500 as dust collectors. I have had my R5 sensor cleaned once (recently) after 3 years of usage.

I'll agree David. I always THOUGHT the size-changing-zooms would pump dust and stuff in and out with every zoom but my EF24-70 was no dustier after 15 years of heavy amateur usage than my EF70-200IS. I was concerned, but the facts changed my mind. Now maybe pros in dirtier environments DO have a legitimate beef but I'm no longer worried about it.

HOWEVER, what I WAS concerned about was that to me, the EF 70-200's were just part of a kit along with the TC's. I probably used it 40% of the time with a TC. Just the 70-200/2.8 with no TC-ability is not a convincing prospect to me. Also, I've belabored the point elsewhere but I'm convinced F/4 is the right answer for today's trinity. To me, the 100-500/4.5-7.1 is in effect a 70-200 (same max 72mm entrance pupil so similar bokeh) but 1) expanded to more like 100-280 because my middle zoom is the 24-105 now, then 2) doesn't need TC's due to much longer zoom and the variable aperture.

So for me, taking TC's would at least allow me to consider an RF70-200/2.8 MkII. But ultimately the fact that I've moved on from f/2.8 means I don't need it after all.

Additionally I hear complaints about the balance and controls changing as you zoom, and I can believe that annoys people. It's a legitimate complaint. You have to take ergonomics complaints seriously.

 

[Nemorino]

The only "lenses" which need IMO an update, are the extenders. A second version which can fit the 70-200's and fully the 100-500 would be welcomed by a lot of users.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The only "lenses" which need IMO an update, are the extenders. A second version which can fit the 70-200's and fully the 100-500 would be welcomed by a lot of users.

Such extenders would then be compatible with all lenses for the mount, and that is something that Canon has never allowed.

 

[Del Paso]

Such extenders would then be compatible with all lenses for the mount, and that is something that Canon has never allowed.

And, if I may guess, for optical quality reasons. Externally "flat" converters, as produced by many non OEMs (Kipon, Komura...), never offered the best optical qualites, compared to the ones with protruding lenses. There's always to pay a price if you want the best possible optical properties.

 

[Czardoom]

And, if I may guess, for optical quality reasons. Externally "flat" converters, as produced by many non OEMs (Kipon, Komura...), never offered the best optical qualites, compared to the ones with protruding lenses. There's always to pay a price if you want the best possible optical properties.

Seems logical. All the extenders I have ever owned native to the camera brand extend into the lens. Canon put the priority on small and light for the RF 70-200 and the RF 100-500. Making them extender compatible or fully compatible in the case of the 100-500 would no doubt make them bigger and heavier and necessitate a new optical formula.

 

[Del Paso]

Seems logical. All the extenders I have ever owned native to the camera brand extend into the lens. Canon put the priority on small and light for the RF 70-200 and the RF 100-500. Making them extender compatible or fully compatible in the case of the 100-500 would no doubt make them bigger and heavier and necessitate a new optical formula.

The only high-end extender I know that didn't "extend" was the Leica R 2X Apo extender. But it wasn't recommended for universal usage.

 

[AlanF]

Seems logical. All the extenders I have ever owned native to the camera brand extend into the lens. Canon put the priority on small and light for the RF 70-200 and the RF 100-500. Making them extender compatible or fully compatible in the case of the 100-500 would no doubt make them bigger and heavier and necessitate a new optical formula.

Canon made the RF 100-400mm far smaller, lighter and cheaper than the RF 100-500mm and it's fully compatible with the extenders. The el cheapo is nearly the same optical quality despite the use of cheaper components. The old EF 100-400mm II is pretty close to the RF 100-500mm in weight when both have the tripod ring and foot, and of similar size and optical quality, and it is also fully compatible with extenders. Until Canon comes out and says there would have been a loss of optical quality to have the RF 100-500mm fully extender compatible, the jury is out on whether or not it was a cock up or deliberate design. The extender incompatibility is the only real criticism of the RF 100-500mm - not that it worries me as I only use the extender when necessary and don't mind changing it several times a day.

And the new 100-300mm is fully compatible.

 

[canonmike]

The Canon EOS R system was originally announced with 4 lenses, the RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, RF 28-70mm f/2L USM, RF 50mm f/1.2L USM and the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro. The second round of announcements came about 6 months later with the pair of 85mm f/1.2L USM lenses, the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L

See full article...

Forget the upgrades until we see a 1st gen 10/11/12-24 super wide.

 

[David - Sydney]

I was wondering about the in flight shot, how many did you take vs how many good ones?

Good question. I have already deleted many of the out of acceptably-focused shots so hard to confirm which series of sequential shots were for each burst. Worst case (from the file numbers) there were 3 after and 10 before but I was shooting gannets prior and after so some of the deleted ones could have been part of that burst.
Panning is always more difficult of course - at least for me.

 

[Dragon]

Amazing the amount of whinging about the lack of a 35mm f/1.4 when you can get the excellent 35 f/1.8 on the cheap. Does a half stop really make that much difference at 35mm? If so, how?

 

[danfaz]

Amazing the amount of whinging about the lack of a 35mm f/1.4 when you can get the excellent 35 f/1.8 on the cheap. Does a half stop really make that much difference at 35mm? If so, how?

It's not just a difference of f-stop. There's a difference in optical quality, AF speed and accuracy, weather "sealing," build, etc.

 

[Dragon]

It's not just a difference of f-stop. There's a difference in optical quality, AF speed and accuracy, weather "sealing," build, etc.

The 35 f/1.8 is very quick to focus, so not much gain there. Optical quality gain will also be small as the f/1.8 is very sharp. No argument on "build", but often a small light lens is less vulnerable than a big heavy lens even when not as robust. Also no argument re weather sealing for those who must do street photos at night in the rain, but for most, not a big issue for the majority of 35mm applications. Maybe the biggest issue is the overwhelming need for some to have "bigger and better" than the rest .

 

[neuroanatomist]

The 35 f/1.8 is very quick to focus, so not much gain there.

A USM L lens will definitely focus faster than an STM lens. Whether or not that makes a difference depends on the use. Environmental portraits, STM is fine. Sports, maybe not. Nano USM (assuming that's what is used) will also be quieter than STM, and that matters to video shooters.

Optical quality gain will also be small as the f/1.8 is very sharp.

The EF 35/1.4L II delivers substantially higher resolution (blue lines) than the RF 35/1.8, and better contrast (black lines) away from the center of the frame. Again, whether that makes a difference will depend on the use case, but I'd expect an RF 35L to be significantly sharper (even if the improvement over the EF MkII is minimal).

EF 35/1.4L II


RF 35/1.8

No argument on "build", but often a small light lens is less vulnerable than a big heavy lens even when not as robust. Also no argument re weather sealing for those who must do street photos at night in the rain, but for most, not a big issue for the majority of 35mm applications. Maybe the biggest issue is the overwhelming need for some to have "bigger and better" than the rest .

Recent non-L lenses including the RF lenses are delivering very good IQ for a very reasonable price. The 100-400 and 28/2.8 are examples of lenses that punch well above their weight in terms of IQ for cost.

But the corresponding L-series lenses are optically better. Heavier and a lot more expensive, too. Some people just want the best. Some people can't afford the best, and for them it's great that they can get close for much less money. Personally, I prefer to use the right tool for the job and there are certainly times (e.g., travel) when the RF 100-400 that I bring will deliver infinitely better images than the RF 100-500L that I leave at home because it's too heavy.

Here's an example of a shot with the 100-400 that I took from near the summit of Mt. Etna, of an island that's ~90 km away. I would not have brought the 100-500L on the trip at all, but the lighter weight of the 100-400 made it worth packing for the few occasions I thought I'd need a long lens.

"Salina"

EOS R8, RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM @ 400mm, 1/400 s, f/8, ISO 1000

 

[danfaz]

Optical quality gain will also be small as the f/1.8 is very sharp.

To add to @neuroanatomist excellent examples, it's not just sharpness that defines quality.
I have taken portraits with the 50mm 1.2L and 50mm 1.8, as well as the 85mm 1.2L and 85mm f/2. Both the consumer grade lenses created purple fringing on the reflection of my light source in my subject's eyes. Neither L lens did this. My 35mm f/1.8 did exactly the same thing, but I don't have a 35mm L lens to compare it to.
I had to do a custom color selection in Lightroom to remove the purple fringing in every single eye (what a pain!), because the one-click CA removal didn't work.
I would rather have a lens that allows me to shoot and be done than one that requires me to lose hours of my life removing purple fringing.

 

[Dragon]

To add to @neuroanatomist excellent examples, it's not just sharpness that defines quality.
I have taken portraits with the 50mm 1.2L and 50mm 1.8, as well as the 85mm 1.2L and 85mm f/2. Both the consumer grade lenses created purple fringing on the reflection of my light source in my subject's eyes. Neither L lens did this. My 35mm f/1.8 did exactly the same thing, but I don't have a 35mm L lens to compare it to.
I had to do a custom color selection in Lightroom to remove the purple fringing in every single eye (what a pain!), because the one-click CA removal didn't work.
I would rather have a lens that allows me to shoot and be done than one that requires me to lose hours of my life removing purple fringing.

No doubt there are cases where the L lens will be a better solution, but the case you cite is kind of interesting. Pretty easy to see where the difference is in the case of the 50s https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 .

With the 85s, it is harder to see where you would run into a CA problem https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1514&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 , but the 85 f/1.2 is clearly sharper. OTOH, the RF 85mm f/1.2 is one of all around best lenses you can buy (at any price) and it does have a hefty price.

If you compare the 35 f/1.8 to the best of the EF 35s, again it is hard to see where CA is likely to be much more of an issue as both are quite clean in that regard. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 .

Please note that at the beginning of this discussion I did not say that an L lens would not be better. I simply said the 1.8 was very good and thus close in many performance parameters. You are clearly not financially constrained (nor am I), but I have to wonder how many of the posters carping about the immediate need for a 35 f/1.4 would be willing to choke up $2,500 for one or if that price point would just stir up yet another round of whinging about how overpriced Canon stuff is. I would not have been surprised (nor would I have commented) if a couple of folks had expressed a desire for a fast 35 L, but there were quite a few in that camp and several would have you believe that it should be Canon's highest priority. That was what seemed a bit over the top.

EDIT
On rereading the entire thread, it appears that I overreacted. There were only a couple of 35mm comments, but one rather obnoxious one kept resurfacing and triggered me. I should have responded to the OP of that one and simply caused that post to resurface yet one more time. Sorry for the disturbance.

 

[danfaz]

On rereading the entire thread, it appears that I overreacted. There were only a couple of 35mm comments, but one rather obnoxious one kept resurfacing and triggered me. I should have responded to the OP of that one and simply caused that post to resurface yet one more time. Sorry for the disturbance.

No disturbance at all, just a healthy dialogue! I use flash quite bit in my photography, and this was really the only situation that I recall seeing that fringing. Bryan's testing just didn't have that type of scenario in it, and perhaps many people wouldn't ever see it.