This is the Canon RF lens roadmap

[rightslot]

Not directed at me--I know. But most likely because the f4 version should be smaller, lighter. And the 2.8 vs the f4 is not the end of end all.

Notice that with the notable exception of the world below HIS belt, bigger is not always better.

 

[SteveC]

Just a question

why would you buy a 24-70mm f4 over a 24-105mm f4?

A good question. One other reply suggested it was an issue of compactness but the 24-105 isn't a huge lens. (Yes there are smaller lenses out there, but this one doesn't seem THAT grotesquely huge.) So now that you ask, I'm curious about this myself.

 

[Lucas Tingley]

A good question. One other reply suggested it was an issue of compactness but the 24-105 isn't a huge lens. (Yes there are smaller lenses out there, but this one doesn't seem THAT grotesquely huge.) So now that you ask, I'm curious about this myself.

budget maybe, but I don't know how much cheaper you can get with an L series lens

 

[rightslot]

Some of us are still stuck on the thought/belief/expectation/somewhat pie-in-the-sky, that the whole mirrorless evolution included reduction in size & weight while delivering even better imaging.

We seem to forget the "engineering degrees" given out on various internet forums conveniently obscure apparent laws of physics. We wonder out-loud, Why Can't it be smaller/lighter? We can go to the moon. Right?

 

[privatebydesign]

Some of us are still stuck on the thought/belief/expectation/somewhat pie-in-the-sky, that the whole mirrorless evolution included reduction in size & weight while delivering even better imaging.

We seem to forget the "engineering degrees" given out on various internet forums conveniently obscure apparent laws of physics. We wonder out-loud, Why Can't it be smaller/lighter? We can go to the moon. Right?

I don’t really understand this kind of comment, Canon have very clearly decided that for them at this time APS-C is best represented in small light cameras with small slower lenses, whereas FF cameras are not.

One of the biggest criticisms of Sony FF ILC’s is they are too small. Further, high quality fast FF lenses are not and cannot be smaller than they are so hanging a tiny body off the back of them makes little sense. You only have to compare an R5 with an RF 50 f1.2 and a 5D IV with an EF 50 f1.2 to see this.

 

[rightslot]

"Further, high quality fast FF lenses are not and cannot be smaller than they are..."

My Point. Thank You. But that doesn't stop dreaming/wanting.

In other news...Please tell me my new RF lenses 50 1.8 and 70-200 f4 have been shipped and I'll receive before Christmas!!

Ordered and waiting-----

 

[LeBlobe]

Just a question

why would you buy a 24-70mm f4 over a 24-105mm f4?

i just saw the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS has 0.7X magnification ratio. If they can do something similar with RF would be great.The 24-105 is 0.23X

 

[Dragon]

This is a interesting response. A different perspective. I am wondering? What is Tamron going to do to make the lens RF ready? That’s pretty interesting. Thanks, MJ

With current firmware, the Tamron lens is "RF ready" (with an adapter, of course). It could easily be converted to an RF mount, but that would still only use the EF compatibility mode of the RF camera. in my limited experience with actual Canon RF lenses they have much more responsive AF than their EF counterparts. Oh, and then there is that bit about cooperative IS between the lens and the camera IBIS. Tamron and other 3rd party manufacturers may be some while figuring out the secret sauce that Canon has brewed before they can produces true RF lenses with dynamics similar to the OEM lenses. To make it just a bit more challenging, Canon is cranking out some really pristine optical formulas that will be hard to best or even match. Autofocus has always been hit and miss on both Tamron and Sigma lenses, no matter how good the optical quality (and the Sigma Arts are really good optically). Canon made autofocus the centerpiece of the R5 and that puts them in a good position to sell RF glass that fully supports the cameras capability. Seems like a smart competitive strategy to me.

 

[rightslot]

With current firmware, the Tamron lens is "RF ready" (with an adapter, of course). It could easily be converted to an RF mount, but that would still only use the EF compatibility mode of the RF camera. in my limited experience with actual Canon RF lenses they have much more responsive AF than their EF counterparts. Oh, and then there is that bit about cooperative IS between the lens and the camera IBIS. Tamron and other 3rd party manufacturers may be some while figuring out the secret sauce that Canon has brewed before they can produces true RF lenses with dynamics similar to the OEM lenses. To make it just a bit more challenging, Canon is cranking out some really pristine optical formulas that will be hard to best or even match. Autofocus has always been hit and miss on both Tamron and Sigma lenses, no matter how good the optical quality (and the Sigma Arts are really good optically). Canon made autofocus the centerpiece of the R5 and that puts them in a good position to sell RF glass that fully supports the cameras capability. Seems like a smart competitive strategy to me.

Thanks DRAGON, you made my thoughts even more clear. Like I mentioned prior, I have the RF version of the 24-70 and IT IS GREAT. The focus is quick (maybe no quicker than the Nikon Z or a Sony version), but the feeling is so locked on! I mean you feel like you just have FOCUS. And the proof is in the files.

Having said that I must talk about the Sigma 135 1.8 I had prior to my switch from Nikon Z7. This 135 was WOW every time I shot with it. Made me go grab my wife with each shot..."you gotta see this, this is what I've been talking about for years!" Yea, she tired of all of that.

We'll see. B&H says I'll have the new RF50mm 1.8 by weeks end. Should be pretty good. We'll see.

 

[Dragon]

Thanks DRAGON, you made my thoughts even more clear. Like I mentioned prior, I have the RF version of the 24-70 and IT IS GREAT. The focus is quick (maybe no quicker than the Nikon Z or a Sony version), but the feeling is so locked on! I mean you feel like you just have FOCUS. And the proof is in the files.

Having said that I must talk about the Sigma 135 1.8 I had prior to my switch from Nikon Z7. This 135 was WOW every time I shot with it. Made me go grab my wife with each shot..."you gotta see this, this is what I've been talking about for years!" Yea, she tired of all of that.

We'll see. B&H says I'll have the new RF50mm 1.8 by weeks end. Should be pretty good. We'll see.

Just for FYI I got the Tamron 15-30 (A012) and the 150-600 (A011) back from Tamron yesterday after firmware updates. They now both work with the R5. The 15-30 seems to focus pretty fast and in limited testing it looks accurate. The 150-300 now works correctly. Focus is fairly slow, but it seems to be accurate and very consistent and that is an improvement over its past behavior on SLR bodies. Haven't tried either one on the 5DSr or the 90D yet, but no reason to believe that they won't work correctly.

 

[Refraction]

70-700 f2.8.?

70-200 of course. Not 700. But who knows, maybe someday.

 

[Lucas Tingley]

70-200 of course. Not 700. But who knows, maybe someday.

that would be such a massive lens, like the sigma 1600mm f5.6

 

[dolina]

These are the long fast white primes I think that will be out within 2021-2022 or later

• Canon RF 500mm f/4L IS USM @ less than 2.5kg from 3.2kg
• Canon RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM @ less than 2.9kg from 4.5kg
• Canon RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM @ less than 2.9kg from 3.05kg

These are the long fast white primes I think that will be out by 2023 or later for the 2024 Summer Olympics or later

• Canon RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM @ less than 2.8kg from 2.84kg
• Canon RF 600mm f/4L IS USM @ less than 2.8kg from from 3.05kg

The latest EF version of the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 came out in 2019.

Would be awesome to have a lighter

• Canon RF 200mm f/2L IS USM @ less than 2kg from 2.52kg
• Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM @ less than 2kg from 2.35kg

All with a shorter MFD, more stops of IS, faster & more accurate USM AF

Weight reduction is based on the Pareto Principle and the weight of the newest lens with the same lens front element diameter.

The weight reduction alone will induce purchases even if the replacement SKU is nearly double the price of the previous SKU.

 

[Ronny Wertelaers]

It's a little disappointing to me that they aren't planning on releasing a 24 1.4 any time soon...this would be the perfect lens in RF mount!

Together with a 35 mm prime a very important one

 

[dolina]

Together with a 35 mm prime a very important one

What I want to see is more pancake lenses

 

[jd7]

Some of us are still stuck on the thought/belief/expectation/somewhat pie-in-the-sky, that the whole mirrorless evolution included reduction in size & weight while delivering even better imaging.

We seem to forget the "engineering degrees" given out on various internet forums conveniently obscure apparent laws of physics. We wonder out-loud, Why Can't it be smaller/lighter? We can go to the moon. Right?

I don’t really understand this kind of comment, Canon have very clearly decided that for them at this time APS-C is best represented in small light cameras with small slower lenses, whereas FF cameras are not.

One of the biggest criticisms of Sony FF ILC’s is they are too small. Further, high quality fast FF lenses are not and cannot be smaller than they are so hanging a tiny body off the back of them makes little sense. You only have to compare an R5 with an RF 50 f1.2 and a 5D IV with an EF 50 f1.2 to see this.

While I generally agree with what you say about how Canon is approaching things, there are a number of lenses over on the Sony E mount which come pretty close to delivering on the promise of small and light yet good IQ. Look at the samyang 18mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8, 75mm f/1.8, Sigma 35 f/2 and 65 f/2, Sony 35mm f/1.8, 55mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8, and even the samyang 85mm f/1.4 and sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN. They may not be optically as good as an RF 85 f/1.2L but I'd argue they still offer very good IQ at a fraction of the size and weight. It's just that, sadly (in my opinion) we aren't seeing them for the Canon system, except for the Samyang 85mm f/1.8, at least so far. From what I've seen, the RF 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/2 IS and even the 35mm f/1.8 IS aren't in the same league (although perhaps the 35 f/1.8 IS may be not so far off).

 

[SteveC]

What I want to see is more pancake lenses

This 50mm 1.8 isn't even truly a pancake lens, so I'd like to see a pancake lens, period.

 

[dlee13]

My bet is that this lens is the mirrorless replacement for the EF 70-300 f/4-f/5.6 IS. Canon extended the reach on 100-400L with the 100-500L RF, so why not on the consumer version of the 70-300 (which is a decent lens, BTW).

This would be great but I’d be worried about the price and not sure if it would be sub 1k AUD like the 70-300 II here.

 

[rightslot]

Just giving kudos where they are deserved. Today was my 2nd day using the RF100-500mm. And while it is still limited experience, some things are now obvious.
1. The contrast from any focal length is OUTSTANDING. This was the most surprising "feature" I have found so far. The ability of the lens to produce such great contrast with the R5 even with jpegs makes the $$$$ almost justifiable. You'll see when you get one, rent one, use one.

2. Surprising how well the stabilizing works. Even at 500mm you can hand hold at pretty slow shutter speeds.

3. The weight is OK. I say this because I had read previous reviews stating how light the lens was and I agree---relative to a BRICK. No, it is solid and the weight is commensurate with a lens on this level. So don't expect a light lens unless you've been carrying very heavy gear.

4. It does pack nice and easy in my THINK TANK bag.

This is a nice lens. Probably the highest level I have ever owned.

SUPER HAPPY

 

[Sporgon]

Dissapointed that they don't plan an 85mm 1.4. 85mm f2 doesn't seem as sharp and 1.2 is too expensive, loud and large :/

I’m sure they do plan a RF 85mm F/1.4, you just have to be patient. In the EF system in took exactly 30 years to get one