This is the Canon RF lens roadmap
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Agrees, that one is a "mystery". There's a patent for that specs looking like an APS-C lens. However APS-C camera rumor says there wont be any APS-C lenses. Rumor says there will be some fullframe lenses also targeting APS-C use. And that frightends me a bit. I hope it wont be a fullframe lens with optical sacrifices like the cheap/light 24-105, to make it compact like it was an APS-C lens.
I would love to see it as a true APS-C lens, but most importantly enthusiast optical quality. Rather a "real" fullframe than a "tweaked for fullframe use too" lens with optical compromises that needs to be corrected in post.
Upvote
0
The 100-500 is fine with that aperture because of the size, its a small lens. But very expensive, basically another £1000 over the EF 100-400.
Upvote
0
I think the 100-400 in the roadmap will be a cheap lens without weather sealing and focused on small size. Should be much smaller than the 100-500.
Upvote
0
Really interested in the 14-35! I love wide angles but I believe they need to be a little flexible sometimes, so a zoom lens is best.
Of course, if money wasn’t a problem, the 2.8 would be amazing (low light shooting and such), but I guess it’s going to be at least 1000-1200$ more expensive than the f4, and since it’s a landscape lens I usually use it above 5.6 anyway
A Great lens selection is coming!
Of course, if money wasn’t a problem, the 2.8 would be amazing (low light shooting and such), but I guess it’s going to be at least 1000-1200$ more expensive than the f4, and since it’s a landscape lens I usually use it above 5.6 anyway
A Great lens selection is coming!
Upvote
0
No, they don't fit. He knows not of what he speaks. At the moment the extenders work on the RF 600, RF 800, and RF 100-500 natively.
Upvote
0
Sorry
I googled, and it is dissaponting to say about the new rf extenders compatiblity. Not compatible. Canon really skillfully chases profit. Lets wait a few years. At the same time I'd say to crop 135 mm image out of 85 mm from R5 45 mpx, ibis sensor would be good enough for me. Sharpness is still there, and really good for small prints / web usage.
Upvote
0
Sony is f6.3 at 600mm. Canon 600mm f11 is 1.7 stops darker but it is much smaller, much lighter, much less expensive.
Canon 100-500mm is about 700 USD more than Sony but it can be found cheaper if you hunt for it (10-15%). It is 10cm (!!!!!) shorter and 800 grams lighter.
Looking at above data, I think Canon 100-500mm is a huge value compared to that Sony lens. It is a real L lens. If Canon can come up with a cheaper 100-500mm lens for less than 1400 USD, than that will be better of course but Sony 200-600mm isn't better today.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 68328
Guest
Would definitely have preferred a RF 135mm f/1.8 L IS rather than f/1.4 to add yet some extra stabilisation to the system. More useful than half a stop extra that can easily be compensated with ISO or a slightly longer exposure if subject is static. As for bokeh, the EF version at f/2.0 is already as creamy as it gets. No need for f/1.4 of f/1.8 for that.
Upvote
0
The extenders didn't fit the EF 85mm or EF 50mm lenses either. That design has nothing to do with wanting to force you to buy other lenses, it has to do with what is and is not possible under the design parameters.Sorry
At the same time I'd say to crop 135 mm image out of 85 mm from R5 45 mpx, ibis sensor would be good enough for me. Sharpness is still there, and really good for small prints / web usage.
Upvote
0
Of course, the 135 f2 was launched in 1996, there 1000$ was probably really expensive. Now, with better IQ + one stop more and, again, making an unique lens, I dont doubt that will cost +3000$. 200mm f2 costs arround 5k-6k$. This lens with teleconverter have almost the same properties. Then, 3500$ would be even "cheap" as a lens itself. Unless it dont let you use the teleconverter to protect this 200mm f2....
Upvote
0
This!
What I m always saying...
Nothing like the ~1300€ Nikon 200-500 or ~1750€ Sony 200-600...
everything in this area is more expensive in Canon RF, less „mm“ and more darker...
Upvote
0
I think it really depends on what you're shooting with it. I am really excited about the 100-500, but I plan on using it for landscapes so the 7.1 aperture is a non-issue for me. The 100-500 is a lot more attractive to me than the other options because with it I can make a 3-lens kit that goes from 15mm to 500mm with no gaps and still fits comfortably in a regular sized backpack, and without compromising image quality.
For my use case, the size and weight savings are much more important than having a faster aperture, but obviously your milage may vary depending on what you're shooting.
Upvote
0
The 14-35mm f/4 L is the most interesting of yet-to-be-announced-and-released lenses from this roadmap for me.
I love UWA for landscape mainly, and so prefer each mm of (ultra) wide angle goodness over an extra stop of speed. 95% of the time at ~14mm/15mm I'm at f/8 - f/16 anyway. I also use UWA for some architecture, and occasionally creative photography (e.g. artistic subjects appearing disproportionately large in the foreground).
I understand that some people prefer the slightly smaller and lighter weight of a 24-70mm f/4 over a 24-105mm f/4, however there's not much in it, and the reviews of the RF 24-105mm f/4 are very positive.
(The 24-70 f/4 are around 600g on average, with the 24-105 f/4 @ ~700g).
Distortion is not that much different (2.4% vs 3.3% on average) - which can be (batch-auto)corrected in post.
The f/2.8 24-70mm lenses often have around 3% distortion anyway.
Each person's style of, and needs within photography is unique. I really miss the 71mm-105mm range when limited to a 70mm for a walk around.
My plan is have the 14-35mm f/4 L, 24-105mm f/4 L, and 100-500m f/4.5-7.1 as my 'trinity'.
I have a bunch of EF (and even some EF-S) glass that also goes well on the R5, e.g. 100mm f/2.8 macro L, EF 50mm, etc.
It's a great time to be a photographer, we have so much choice (just maybe not so much in our bank account to be everything straight away!)
Regards
PJ
Yes to all of this!
The RF 24-105 is much better than either of the EF versions. So much so that after a summer of schlepping my 5D4 + EF 24-70 f/2.8 around taking primarily landscape shots in France and California I was happy to switch to an EOS R + RF 24-105 f/4. Less weight for one-bag carry-on travel (not that I am doing much of that lately), and much better face and eye tracking for shooting people. For me the 70-105mm range is much more frequently useful than the additional aperture. If I need more light and/or less depth of field I have primes, and now with the RF 85mm f/2 IS half-macro I don't have to hit up my brother-in-law to borrow my old EF 100mm macro quite as often.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
