These are a few of the RF lenses coming in 2021 [CR2]

jedy

EOS 90D
Feb 14, 2014
152
94
Hm, 24mm macro sounds weird for me. Is this a usefull lense? I never heard of anything like that...
I once had a Sigma 24mm f1.8 macro and the macro (not true 1:1) was next to useless imo. The field of view close up was too distorted and when trying to take photos of flowers, for example, because I had to stand so close, there would always be unwanted shadows in the shot. Macro should really be left to longer focal lengths.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,411
899
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
LOL have you paid for and used an RF 28-70, 85 1.2, or 50 1.2? Canon ain’t shy about expensive, big and heavy.

I don't think a good quality 28-300 L lens would be possible under about $10k and I don't think Canon would release something below average. The EF 28-300 lens was launched in 2004 when DSLR sensors were around the 6-8 megapixel range.

So no, you won't see a 'pro' RF lens covering the 28-300 range. *

*Of course I could be wrong. If they WERE to do it, maybe it would be more likely be something like a 28-150 with a flip in/out 2x extender
 

lawny13

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 6, 2019
96
68
After this year, they will have a cheaper 35-50-85, they have the 24-105/4 from the start, they will have the 70-200/4, and you can adapt from EF, which is probably cheaper. They also have more Samyang lenses coming after the 14/2.8 and 85/1.4
Not sure what's your problem exactly, for a two year old system it has many options, rest is available from EF, the adapter is a must have for any complainers who buy it anyway. If they don't invest in the system, they have 0 reasons to complain...
Simply put, the more you wait, the more options you'll get.

I don’t agree with you there.

If adapted EF glass gave us full functionality then sure I agree with you. Yes yes it is “seemless” and I do adapt lenses to the R, but it isn’t RF functionality since you miss out on the High Speed Display setting. And HSD does considerably better when it comes to shooting action.

As a result i have held off on buying particular EF lenses. For example if I get a 70-200, it would double for portrait work but also some sports. I wasn’t going to spend the money on the EF version if the bodies that come after the R are only able to do HSD with RF lenses.

And I care about the present not some potential future release, canon has after all not officially announced those lenses. So as of now, the only affordable option for native lenses are the 35, 24-240, and 24-105, that’s it. And since I don’t exactly do action shooting with certain FLs, I have the 50 stm (which is meh optically, soft wide open for example), the 100 L, and the EF 16-35. Native I have the 35, and 24-105.

IF... IF the R5 will shoot and have good live view update of the screens with EF glass as well as RF lenses than I agree with you about the options. But till we see that it is an idea based in fantasy and not reality. End of the day though, I will throw your argument right back at you then. Why insist on high end RF prime lenses while you can simply adapt the EF ones?? See? Goes both ways.

As for third party lenses like the samyang... meh. Decent optically, but all kinds of potential problems when it comes to quality, motor noise etc etc, and how long the lens will last. I would rather spend the money on RF lenses at F1.8 apertures, because to me it isn’t only about cost. To me it has a lot to do with portability, and the 50, and 85 F1.2 are simply ginormous. I mean that 50F1.2 is heavier than the 24-105f4. And the latter is not exactly discrete.

If canon were to release a high end but decently sized 50 F1.4 or F1.8, I have no issue paying 1k for it.
 

AEWest

EOS RP
Jan 30, 2020
265
320
I'll take a fully featured APS-C over a heavily crippled FF any day of the year. It proves nothing.
Given the collapse in demand for cameras overall, not much point in coming out with yet another line of lenses. Manufacturers need to consolidate lineups, not expand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob Howland

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
593
680
Given the collapse in demand for cameras overall, not much point in coming out with yet another line of lenses. Manufacturers need to consolidate lineups, not expand.

I agree but also sports and especially wildlife shooters need a fast and tough body under or around $2000. A 3500-4000 R5 will not do it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SecureGSM

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
262
181
I agree but also sports and especially wildlife shooters need a fast and tough body under or around $2000. A 3500-4000 R5 will not do it.
Yep. Loads of wildlife photographers use the 7D2 with the 100-400L II - this has become a go-to combination. If Canon's plan is to move everyone across to mirrorless they will have to do something to address this. And you are absolutely right that a £3500 body which requires 1.6x bigger lenses is not the answer!
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
593
680
Yep. Loads of wildlife photographers use the 7D2 with the 100-400L II - this has become a go-to combination. If Canon's plan is to move everyone across to mirrorless they will have to do something to address this. And you are absolutely right that a £3500 body which requires 1.6x bigger lenses is not the answer!

The R6 with the new 100-500 might be the closest to that but 20mp resolution is not really enough for cropping.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,198
2,070
Yep. Loads of wildlife photographers use the 7D2 with the 100-400L II - this has become a go-to combination. If Canon's plan is to move everyone across to mirrorless they will have to do something to address this. And you are absolutely right that a £3500 body which requires 1.6x bigger lenses is not the answer!

Uh, no, the 100-400 for fullframe won't be 1.6 times bigger than the 100-400 these wildlife togs are using on their 7D. Because the 100-400 they are using was designed for a full frame camera in the first place. So a corresponding RF model--a truly corresponding one--will be about the same size.

But wait, you say: because of crop factor, it won't look the same! But if you're using an R5 you can crop it down in post so that it does, and still have a 17MP image that's framed EXACTLY like it would have been with your 7D. What the 7D buys you is it does the cropping for you. With the R5 you have a higher chance of still getting the wildlife in the frame if it should move at just the wrong time--so by cropping off center instead of on center, you save a shot you would have lost on the 7D.

So functionally the only difference between the R5 and the 100-400L (with an adapter) [or a hypthetical 100-400 RF] and the 7D with the same lens is you have to crop afterwards, and the camera body combined with the adapter is a bit bigger. Yes, it DOES cost more up front.

If you're willing to bend on build quality, you can stick that 100-400L on an EF-M adapter, bolt it onto a M6 mark II, and get a properly pre-cropped image at 32 MP.
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
593
680
Uh, no, the 100-400 for fullframe won't be 1.6 times bigger than the 100-400 these wildlife togs are using on their 7D. Because the 100-400 they are using was designed for a full frame camera in the first place. So a corresponding RF model--a truly corresponding one--will be about the same size.

But wait, you say: because of crop factor, it won't look the same! But if you're using an R5 you can crop it down in post so that it does, and still have a 17MP image that's framed EXACTLY like it would have been with your 7D. What the 7D buys you is it does the cropping for you. With the R5 you have a higher chance of still getting the wildlife in the frame if it should move at just the wrong time--so by cropping off center instead of on center, you save a shot you would have lost on the 7D.

So functionally the only difference between the R5 and the 100-400L (with an adapter) [or a hypthetical 100-400 RF] and the 7D with the same lens is you have to crop afterwards, and the camera body combined with the adapter is a bit bigger. Yes, it DOES cost more up front.

If you're willing to bend on build quality, you can stick that 100-400L on an EF-M adapter, bolt it onto a M6 mark II, and get a properly pre-cropped image at 32 MP.


But R5 is in a different price bracket, not affordable for many. And the M6 is not comparable to a 7D in ergonomics or anything else.
 

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
638
537
www.flickr.com
But R5 is in a different price bracket, not affordable for many. And the M6 is not comparable to a 7D in ergonomics or anything else.
I wonder if Canon regrets releasing the 7D/7Dii at the price points they had. Great build quality, speed and autofocus capabilities that perhaps took sales away from 1D and 5D bodies. They could have charged a lot more for it and people would have still bought it. A niche that is now replaced by either M6ii or R5 with equivalent speed and better AF but not the build/ergonomics. A 5Dv will combine build/speed and AF (when in live view) but is likely to cost more than R5 if similar to Eor R vs 5Div pricing.
I wonder if the R1 will be cheaper that the 1Dxiii. It would certainly have to have the same build / ergonomics (integrated grip) as the 1D
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

highdesertmesa

R5 | 50R | Q | M
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
348
485
www.instagram.com
I don't think a good quality 28-300 L lens would be possible under about $10k and I don't think Canon would release something below average. The EF 28-300 lens was launched in 2004 when DSLR sensors were around the 6-8 megapixel range.

So no, you won't see a 'pro' RF lens covering the 28-300 range. *

*Of course I could be wrong. If they WERE to do it, maybe it would be more likely be something like a 28-150 with a flip in/out 2x extender

An RF 24-240 f/4 L could be a possibility.

But I'm not convinced an RF replacement for the EF 28-300 would be that high. Even double the old price would "only" be $5K. I can also see them using DO elements and/or software correction to cut down on the weight/size.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,198
2,070
But R5 is in a different price bracket, not affordable for many. And the M6 is not comparable to a 7D in ergonomics or anything else.

The first isn't a functional difference, but will take it off the table. The second, though, certainly is!

I wonder if the M5-II--if there ever is one--will cover part of that gap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

OneSnark

Canon Fanboy
Aug 20, 2019
51
22
Given the collapse in demand for cameras overall, not much point in coming out with yet another line of lenses. Manufacturers need to consolidate lineups, not expand.

THIS.

I am definitely a victim of GAS. I have bought a number of dSLR bodies, and a PILE of EF glass.

Sure. . . adaptors can work for one or two special lenses. . . but for the entire lens kit? meh.
For the "M" series - - - I have been spoiled by my F4 EF glass. Just not interested in F7.1 lenses.
For the "RF" series - - - Ok. . if I buy two *decent* lenses and a body . . . that's what. . . $5K? $6K Ballpark?
For the "EF" series - - - Dead line. When was the last time we saw something new? The knowledge that this line is dead kept me from buying a nice EF lens (or two) in the last six months.

Is this new stuff REALLY that much better than the old EF stuff? I tried out the R and RP EVF in a store. . . .really not impressed for PREMIUM PRICED equipment.
I could splurge for a body. . .but body PLUS glass? There are limits to my cash. ;)

Honestly. . . I think I'm out.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,419
3,758
Irving, Texas
I wonder if Canon regrets releasing the 7D/7Dii at the price points they had. Great build quality, speed and autofocus capabilities that perhaps took sales away from 1D and 5D bodies. They could have charged a lot more for it and people would have still bought it. A niche that is now replaced by either M6ii or R5 with equivalent speed and better AF but not the build/ergonomics. A 5Dv will combine build/speed and AF (when in live view) but is likely to cost more than R5 if similar to Eor R vs 5Div pricing.
I wonder if the R1 will be cheaper that the 1Dxiii. It would certainly have to have the same build / ergonomics (integrated grip) as the 1D
Just wondering how you know the build quality of the R5, which has yet to be released? Or for that matter, the build quality of a 5D Mark V?
 

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
638
537
www.flickr.com
Just wondering how you know the build quality of the R5, which has yet to be released? Or for that matter, the build quality of a 5D Mark V?
Fair question - I don't know for sure but:
Making a 5Dv with a lessor build quality than 5D/ii/iii/iv/S(R) would be a poor marketing move from Canon assuming they release a 5Dv.
Making the R5 with a lessor build quality than the R but charging ~double the price would also be a poor marketing decision or a poor engineering implementation. Canon has said that this is a 5 series body and that implies workhorse ruggedness based on previous history.
So I believe my comment includes reasonable assumptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,411
899
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
An RF 24-240 f/4 L could be a possibility.

But I'm not convinced an RF replacement for the EF 28-300 would be that high. Even double the old price would "only" be $5K. I can also see them using DO elements and/or software correction to cut down on the weight/size.

Superzooms tend to have poor resolution. With Canon going to a 42+mpx sensor in the R5, I really just can't seem them going down this route. It was all so much easier in the 8mpx days when the 28-300 was launched.
 

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,175
778
Superzooms tend to have poor resolution. With Canon going to a 42+mpx sensor in the R5, I really just can't seem them going down this route. It was all so much easier in the 8mpx days when the 28-300 was launched.
To be fair, that was also 16 years ago, lens technology has evolved since then and we have a new mount as well.
So something better is certainly a possibility, but the price has to be somewhat reasonable, and there is a fine line with that.

For instance, they have a patent for an RF 24-70mm f/2 lens as well, 20 elements, only one more than the 28-70mm f/2
Which indicates they could have done it, but it would have been unreasonable to sell it at a good enough profit or it wouldn't have been nearly as good.

As far as superzoom lenses go, they have an RF 24-300mm f/4-5.6L IS patent, maybe for those who are willing to pay a lot more (and carry a much heavier lens with more elements) for the better aperture and optical performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: highdesertmesa

lawny13

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 6, 2019
96
68
I been waiting for RF 14-24mm. Where is it?

In the future... where? No one knows where exactly :p

In the mean time there are options you can adopt.

Sorry for the sarcasm. But no one should buy into a brand new system and expect their preferred lens is around the corder. I have been waiting for a good RF 50, and other f1.8 primes. Others have probably been waiting for f4 zooms. They can't simply release them all at once. Though that would be sweet.
 
<-- start Taboola -->