There Are Two More VCM Prime Lenses Coming

[Eloniel]

I´d guess a new RF 180mm Makro would come with new features, just like the RF 100mm did.

Interesting, but maybe some creative possibilities open which aren't aware of as of now.

Exactly, I think people miss my point, it's seems I was not clear enough.

I'm not saying that beginners will start with macro or tilt shift lenses. I'm saying that seeing stunning pictures might push people to buy entry level cameras gear to create photos that can't be done with phone and computational photography. And the kind of lenses described earlier would help to create such photos more easily.

Widening the gap between cameras and phone is more important than ever to make people desire using dedicated photo gear, even if they don't start with such lenses or big sensors cameras. Such camera gear come later in a photographer journey.

Also, extreme aperture prime or lenses can come relatively early in a photographer journey, if the person can afford it.

 

[picky]

I expect 14mm and 105mm. The 105mm may fits in the same tube with a slower aperture more likely with f1.8 instead of f2 and the same at wide angle side with f1.8 but the tube size is questionable. 135mm doesnt fit in the pattern.

 

[photographer]

what are the disadvantages of VCM lenses for stills photography?

1.2 is better when there is a lack of light (both focusing and shooting), slightly better bokeh and 1.2 stopped down to 1.4 will be slightly sharper than a 1.4 wide open at 1.4.

 

[photographer]

We're definitely going to see more of them. The primes to round out the lineup and then I think we're going to see it in zooms. The next 24-70 2.8 wouldn't surprise me.

I would buy such a zoom for video and maybe even as a replacement for the RF 24 105 in my travel kit. But for portraits & nudes I prefer "proper" fixed lenses and I certainly won't buy the 105 1.8 (or 2.0) when I have the 105 1.4 Sigma Art.

 

[Malm]

Has anybody already done startrail photography with a wide VCM lens? Usually I'm getting moiré pattern when stacking images AFTER distortion correction in 'lighten' mode.

 

[photographer]

I see 2 paths to keep this edge:

• Bigger Sensors: As seen with Fujifilm and Hasselblad, increasing sensor size offers a clear leap in image quality.
• Crazy Lenses: The approach taken by Sony and Sigma—releasing innovative, unique glass that can't be replicated on a smartphone or a older camera setup.

Canon was once synonymous with state-of-the-art lenses, and that reputation was a key reason so many chose their system. These days, it feels like they've lost that edge.

Should they cancel RF or produce APS-C, FF and MF at the same time? And what would be the prices of Canon's MF cameras and lenses? I think there's not much to criticize about lenses like the 50 1.2, 85 1.2 or 70 - 200 2.8 (and others) and only the photographer's skill plays a role.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I'm using the 35 1.8 underwater with an R6. I'm going to spring a leak one day, it's just the law of averages for me personally.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I see 2 paths to keep this edge:

• Bigger Sensors: As seen with Fujifilm and Hasselblad, increasing sensor size offers a clear leap in image quality.
• Crazy Lenses: The approach taken by Sony and Sigma—releasing innovative, unique glass that can't be replicated on a smartphone or a older camera setup.

There's no money in medium format. It doesn't even make a blip in Fuji's financials. Intax outsells everything else they make in photography by a large margin.

Sony doesn't really have any "innovative & unique glass". FE 50-150mm F2 GM & FE 14mm F1.8 GM maybe?

Canon has more "innovation" in the RF lineup that Sony. The VCM lineup is innovation. The 28-70 f/2 was innovative, it needs a diet for V2. The 100-300 2.8, those f/11 prime lenses, the 85 DS, The 100-500 and the UD front element, the 5.2mm dual lens fisheye, and they have huge glass. Whether any of those fit what you want is a different thing.

I wouldn't call Sigma "innovative", they're simply doing what they've always done, make stuff that others don't. Cool lenses, but I can't think of one I'd personally buy, maybe the 200 f/2. The 300-600 could have been innovative, but it's 10lbs, which is absurd.

Nikon probably has more innovative lenses than Sony or Sigma.

 

[Malm]

Why I will not buy VCM lenses (from the perspective of an astro shooter):
- Heavy distortion. The correction is reducing the resolution.
- Heavy 'vignette'. That is a killing fact for panoramas which are often used for milky-way images as a 35/1.4 is gathering MUCH more light than a 14/1.4 lens (just as example). Correcting for the vignette increases the noise at the darker outer areas.

I also think that Canon knows the market very well and the video VCM lenses (which are good lenses) cover a broad spectrum, but not the whole spectrum. As the available Canon RF lenses are still limited and 3rd party (AF) lenses aren't really allowed, Canon shooter will have to struggle for a while with the availability of not-so-popular RF lenses. There will be more manual RF lenses from 3rd party companies and Canon can still introduce non-VCM f/1.2 lenses (one day in the future when the VCM market is saturated).

And I agree that Sigma is recently building very interesting lenses, but not for RF ..... It's probably not attractive for Sigma to build their latest lenses in a manual RF version.

 

[Canon Rumors]

And I agree that Sigma is recently building very interesting lenses, but not for RF ..... It's probably not attractive for Sigma to build their latest lenses in a manual RF version.

I'm buying that EF Laowa 200 f/2. $1999? Crazy.

 

[frankchn]

The 300-600 could have been innovative, but it's 10lbs, which is absurd.

I don't think a zoom with that weight and aperture is unreasonable. The Sony 600 f/4 GM is 3040g (Canon RF/Nikon Z is similar) and the Sigma 300-600 f/4 is 3985g or approximately 1 kg more. The Sony 300 f/2.8 GM is about 1470g and the Canon 100-300 f/2.8L is 2650g, or slightly over 1 kg more.

Either way, given a similar generation of lenses, adding a 3x zoom with the the same aperture and focal length limits as the supertele prime adds about a kilogram to the weight.

Sure, it is going to be a monopod/tripod lens, but I think the 600 f/4 primes are still monopod lenses too.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I don't think a zoom with that weight and aperture is unreasonable. The Sony 600 f/4 GM is 3040g (Canon RF/Nikon Z is similar) and the Sigma 300-600 f/4 is 3985g or approximately 1 kg more. The Sony 300 f/2.8 GM is about 1470g and the Canon 100-300 f/2.8L is 2650g, or slightly over 1 kg more.

Either way, given a similar generation of lenses, adding a 3x zoom with the the same aperture and focal length limits as the zoom adds about a kilogram to the weight.

Sure, it is going to be a monopod/tripod lens, but I think the 600 f/4 primes are still monopod lenses too.

The 100-300 a far more versatile lens. Canon brought a lens that can be used for indoor sports, along with field sports. It's also a stellar safari/wildlife lens.

It's absurd that the Sigma 300-600 is 10 pounds. If you can't hand hold a lens, it's pointless. Gimbals and ball heads are restrictive for what it's going to be used for. Even monopods are restrictive.

The RF 600 is easy to hand hold, the balance is correct (with full grip) and is 3lbs lighter. The balance of the Sigma is front heavy.

 

[yeahright]

1.2 is better when there is a lack of light (both focusing and shooting), slightly better bokeh and 1.2 stopped down to 1.4 will be slightly sharper than a 1.4 wide open at 1.4.

I know the difference between 1.2 and 1.4, however I don't quite understand the practical differences between USM and VCM focusing motors for stills though

 

[VivaLasVegas]

RF 105 f1.4 is doable in the RF 85 f1.4 shell imo. Canon 85 was able to go to from 82mm(f1.2) to 67mm(f1.4). As a precedent, the 82mm Nikkor 105 f1.4 with VR is a few mm within the RF 85 f1.4 shell(length wise). All canon needs to do is study nikkor’s optical formula, then adapt RF’s optical ethos without the VR of course. 28, 42, 65 are all possible within the existing VCM f1.4 shell. For sure the 14, 16 and 135 will require bending/massaging of physics and still not fit in VCM shell.

So my guess is, RF 105 f1.4 is 1 of 2 lenses that’ll be release.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Nikon_AF-S+NIKKOR+105mm+f_1.4E+ED+Lens_vs_Canon_RF+85mm+f_1.4+L+VCM+Lens+Canon+RF_vs_Canon_RF+85mm+f_1.2+L+USM+Lens/BHitems/1269658-REG_1919559-REG_1477265-REG

 

[frankchn]

The 100-300 a far more versatile lens. Canon brought a lens that can be used for indoor sports, along with field sports. It's also a stellar safari/wildlife lens.

It's absurd that the Sigma 300-600 is 10 pounds. If you can't hand hold a lens, it's pointless. Gimbals and ball heads are restrictive for what it's going to be used for. Even monopods are restrictive.

The RF 600 is easy to hand hold, the balance is correct (with full grip) and is 3lbs lighter. The balance of the Sigma is front heavy.

I think you can say same thing about a 300-600mm vs a 600mm. Much more versatile and you get better coverage in field sports vs having a fixed 600mm.

Also I don't think the lens is 10 pounds -- it is about 8.75 pounds or so, and the 600 primes from the big three are 6.75 pounds, so it is two pounds more. On a monopod, which is how I shot the 600 when I covered football, I don't think it makes that much of a difference.

Handholding the superteles for a while is fine, but across a full 3 hour long football game, even 7 pound lenses are tiring to handhold. And for $7400 off, I'll take a monopod lol.

 

[frankchn]

RF 105 f1.4 is doable in the RF 85 f1.4 shell imo. Canon 85 was able to go to from 82mm(f1.2) to 67mm(f1.4). As a precedent, the 82mm Nikkor 105 f1.4 with VR is a few mm within the RF 85 f1.4 shell(length wise). All canon needs to do is study nikkor’s optical formula, then adapt RF’s optical ethos without the VR of course. 28, 42, 65 are all possible within the existing VCM f1.4 shell. For sure the 14, 16 and 135 will require bending/massaging of physics and still not fit in VCM shell.

So my guess is, RF 105 f1.4 is 1 of 2 lenses that’ll be release.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Nikon_AF-S+NIKKOR+105mm+f_1.4E+ED+Lens_vs_Canon_RF+85mm+f_1.4+L+VCM+Lens+Canon+RF_vs_Canon_RF+85mm+f_1.2+L+USM+Lens/BHitems/1269658-REG_1919559-REG_1477265-REG

You can't make a 105/1.4 in the same chassis. The front filter sizes of the VCM lenses are 67mm, and a 105/1.4 requires a 75mm front element at the minimum. In fact, the outer diameter of the VCM chassis is only 76.5mm, so the front element would have to be as big as the chassis itself. A 105 f/1.8 is definitely doable though.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I wouldn't call Sigma "innovative", they're simply doing what they've always done, make stuff that others don't. Cool lenses, but I can't think of one I'd personally buy, maybe the 200 f/2. The 300-600 could have been innovative, but it's 10lbs, which is absurd.

25% extra weight over the Canon RF 600 is not bad, especially being a zoom. The biggest problem is no TC compatibility outside L mount

 

[Malm]

I'm buying that EF Laowa 200 f/2. $1999? Crazy.

I found 1799 U$ for Canon EF and 1999 U$ for Sony and Nikon. Anyway, a crazy lens, but first I would like to see some reviews. And do I really need an ultra-fast 200mm lens???

 

[Ozarker]

This is just my opinion: A camera setup is very expensive, even at the low end. Most people have cameras on their phones. From the gear to the processing, this hobby costs big $$$$.

The economic pressures on the young (unprecedented pressures) make much of this hobby unattainable. A phone offers a decent alternative to the masses and to those with an interest in photography, but with little money.

Many here have lots of money. Every time a new lens or camera hits, they buy. Most younger people can barely pay rent. So it is an economics issue, not what Canon is offering.

The utility and convenience of a smart phone makes more sense to the cash strapped.

 

[Ozarker]

I found 1799 U$ for Canon EF and 1999 U$ for Sony and Nikon. Anyway, a crazy lens, but first I would like to see some reviews. And do I really need an ultra-fast 200mm lens???

I think that's a good point. Need and want are very different. I like taking portraits. Would I like to have a fast 200mm? Sure! Does it make sense? To me, not at all.

Would I buy if I had excess cash? In a minute, whether needed or not. Money can sometimes make want, feel like need.