Three new RF prime lenses coming in early 2020 [CR2]

[Ozarker]

If Canon releases a hi-res body (60+mp) then it needs a set of lens that resolve to that level. No use releasing the body when the resolution can't be used.

What I don't understand is why there needs to be a new set of non-L lens for the R mount. There already exists a wide range of cheap EF-S and EF glass that can be adapted to the R or RP body. The emphasis from the reviewing community that cheap glass must be native is very strange to me... just weld on an adaptor and get even more with control ring or drop-in filter features. It is not like adapting 3rd party glass like Sony/Metabones/Canon for instance.

Isn't the control ring on RF lenses only? I could be wrong, but there isn't a control ring on the adapters. There does need, I think, to be some native non-L lenses precisely to take advantage of that feature ability and to make the RP/R series cameras more attractive to some. Those could churn into future customers for the high end lenses. Personally, I'd have never bought an "L" lens (or FF camera) had Canon not got me interested through the EF-S and non-L EF lines. My track was XSi, T5i, 70D, then 5D Mark III. Had 1 L with the T5i (EF 400mm f/5.6L), Then expanded that when I got the 70D (EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II) before I got the 5D Mark III. To me, a non-L line of RF lenses makes sense. There are still features one can only get through the native mount (control ring and improved AF capabilities, if I am not mistaken.). In that sense, adapting EF to RF is exactly like adapting 3rd party glass if it does not have the control ring or take full advantage of R/RF AF capabilities. Canon might think differently. We'll see. I suspect the majority of owners do not participate in forums.

 

[dominic_siu]

Isn't the control ring on RF lenses only? I could be wrong, but there isn't a control ring on the adapters. There does need, I think, to be some native non-L lenses precisely to take advantage of that feature ability and to make the RP/R series cameras more attractive to some. Those could churn into future customers for the high end lenses. Personally, I'd have never bought an "L" lens (or FF camera) had Canon not got me interested through the EF-S and non-L EF lines. My track was XSi, T5i, 70D, then 5D Mark III. Had 1 L with the T5i (EF 400mm f/5.6L), Then expanded that when I got the 70D (EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II) before I got the 5D Mark III. To me, a non-L line of RF lenses makes sense. There are still features one can only get through the native mount (control ring and AF capabilities, if I am not mistaken.). In that sense, adapting EF to RF is exactly like adapting 3rd party glass if it does not have the control ring or take full advantage of R/RF AF capabilities. Canon might think differently. We'll see.

There is a EF-EOS-R Control Ring Adapter which I’m currently using with my EF lenses.

 

[Ozarker]

There is a EF-EOS-R Control Ring Adapter which I’m currently using with my EF lenses.

Ahhh... I was unaware. What does the control ring let you do with EF lenses? edit Just checked Adorama, the same thing the new RF lenses get... but there are still advantages to native RF, right? As far as AF goes? Or information from lens to camera that EF does not provide? Besides the fact that native RF lenses would be updated and probably have better IQ (newer design) than older EF lenses.

 

[dominic_siu]

Ahhh... I was unaware. What does the control ring let you do with EF lenses?

I set it to change aperture which is much faster than turning the little sub-dial on the mode switch

 

[privatebydesign]

If Canon releases a hi-res body (60+mp) then it needs a set of lens that resolve to that level. No use releasing the body when the resolution can't be used.

Said nobody ever who actually understands the concept of system resolution.

Reposted yet again/again:-

System resolution can be broadly shorthanded down to this equation, it isn't perfect but pretty close.

tsr = 1/sqrt((1/lsr) ² + (1/ssr) ² )

Where tsr is total system resolution, lsr is lens spatial resolution, and ssr is sensor spatial resolution.

So if, for example, we have a sensor that can resolve 100 lppmm, and a lens that can resolve 100 lppmm we get this

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/100) ² ) = tsr of 71 lppmm

Leave the same lens on, good or bad, and double the sensor resolution to 200 lppmm

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/200) ² ) = tsr of 89 lppmm


You will notice that the system resolution, even in this simplified form, can never resolve 100% of the lowest performing portion of that system, so if a 24MP sensor is returning 80% of the potential of a lens then a 50MP sensor might return 90%, how useful that is in real life is a moot point, but it does illustrate that even the most modest lens will show increased resolution when put in front of a higher resolving sensor.

Canon EOS R body with more than 75mp on the horizon [CR2]

Ultimatly, there are only so many photons. Lets use a pair of imaginary sensors to show the point with easy math. Both sensors are perfect, and both have a perfect A/D circuit to read them. Both sensors cover the same area, one is 10X10 pixels, the other one is 40X40 pixels. Both sensors are...

www.canonrumors.com

 

[Chaitanya]

A zoom 1:1 macro hasn't been done by Canon so far.
Or a TSe zoom macro...

Nikon used to make 70-180mm f4-5.6 zoom macro. Yeah a TS-E zoom hasnt been done and Canon seems to have filed patent for those. Tilt-shift zooms would be really expensive and out of reach of most photograpers.

For Venus Optics I'd mention the 24mm probe or the 15mm UWA before the 60mm.Anyway, what I think you're getting at is:

• 5x magnification: already done
• IS: already done
• Tilt/Shift: Already done
• Builtin lights: already done
• 1:1 in 15mm-180mm: already done
• Probe: already done

I can't think of many things left that aren't technicalities, from the top of my head:

• Autofocus for >1.2x magnification
• Drop-in filters
• Something light-field like
• front element not being parallel to sensor (think prism, not tilt)
• Apodization

Completely forgot about the probe and UWA from Laowa. Probe lens is quite unique in terms of its underwater capabilities as well.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

wow this is getting expensive.

24
50
85
135

That’s what about 10k right there?

$10K and 10kg

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

Would prefer a 135mm f/2 IS

 

[Jethro]

Agreed. Maybe not dead but pretty much low priority. The whole MILC/FF movement by the big boys is to sell a bit fewer but far more profitable higher end equipment that smartphones cannot immediately threaten. Canon somewhat went rogue with the low-cost RP body but I don't expect much give on the lenses and so far it's showing.

I think their attitude has been that the non-L glass is simply EF lenses with the adaptor. The RF L lenses so far have mostly been something 'different' (in varying degrees) from the EF equivalents. The focus on interchangeability with EF lenses seems to me part of the program to get (especially) existing Canon users to make the EOS R/RP their next upgrade, while potentially keeping their existing EF lenses, or retaining access to the cheaper non-L EF lenses. But with the likely higher-specced R series cameras coming (early next year?) they need to make sure there are plenty of native RF mount lenses available.

The macro rumour is very intriguing! I'm eyeing off the new Laowa 100mm (obviously at a different price point), so the decision to buy or wait comes up ...

 

[Etienne]

wow this is getting expensive.

24
50
85
135

That’s what about 10k right there?

Yeah, an affordable lightweight kit seems a long way off

 

[dsut4392]

Consumer oriented glass from Canon (or Nikon) in their new mirrorless mounts is dead on arrival. Just like consumer oriented compact cameras, there's no real market demand for them any more.

I strongly disagree. There are a bunch of people who use their camera for travel & outdoors, who simply won't buy into RF unless/until some more compact lenses become available, including consumer oriented glass like the 24-240. None of the people I know who have left EOS full-frame did so for spec-sheet one-upmanship or because they preferred not having a mirror, they all left for smaller systems and lower weight. Those that went to Sony all complemented their 'consumer grade' lenses with G-master and Zeiss lenses for those times they are shooting around town, but it was the compact glass that sold them in the first place, and they used their L-series glass on adapters until Sony got up to speed with native lenses.

 

[jtf]

Thanks to the instant rebate I recently added the R with the RF 24-105. The R joins my 6D/7D combo and M5 walk around. That's 4 bodies and 3 different mounts. The one constant thanks to adapters is using my EF lenses. I have several L zooms and 3 Sigma Arts (50, 85, 135). I really like the versatility of being able to use these lenses on any of the Canon bodies. I've held on to some of the lighter weight EF non L lenses like the 2 pancakes and the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 just for the M5.

Unless there's a lens that I will only use on the current R or a future R version, the RF mounts are less versatile than what I have. The rumored RF lens that appeals to me the most is the "fast" 14mm. I'm recently retired and have been doing a lot of night shooting now that I don't have to get up in the AM. I've been looking at the Art 14mm and/or 20mm. Those are focal lengths that would only go on the R so I might be tempted to wait and see what Canon brings out. Unless Sigma has a sale or rebate first.

 

[Drainpipe]

I’m guessing it’s going to be an autofocus macro lens that can go beyond 1:1. There are a couple of manual focus lenses that go to 2:1 (Venus Optics 60mm and 100mm), but no autofocus. The newest 100mm from them has auto aperture (for Canon only), which is brand new for any manufacturer for a lens over 1:1.

IMO, Canon needs to have a macro lens that can go from infinity to at least 2:1 that has autofocus. That would be the first of its kind, and I would think pretty easy for Canon to accomplish. If they wanted to hit it out of the park 3:1 in a fixed length at >100mm would please a lot of macro shooters. Having that kind of magnification with a 100mm’s reach would be preferable to what is currently offered on the market.

On that note, autofocus isn’t necessarily needed, the MP-E proves that, but it would be a nice feature for a sharp portrait lens that doubled as a crazy macro lens. Wishful thinking on my part here, I’ll be the first to admit.

While I love my 100L and the MP-E, I have preordered the Laowa 100mm 2:1 because I think it can bridge the gap between the two. I’m excited to get it in to compare between the two.

 

[degos]

I hope an RF 100-400 4-5.6L is coming early in 2020, hopefully even made smaller like the RF 70-200 2.8L IS, which is a great update, size-wise.

A 100-400 won't be smaller, just like the 70-200 isn't any smaller. Shorter flange distance isn't any help with telephotos. And it certainly won't be any smaller if you're expecting it to open up to f/4.

What I don't understand is why there needs to be a new set of non-L lens for the R mount. There already exists a wide range of cheap EF-S and EF glass that can be adapted to the R or RP body. The emphasis from the reviewing community that cheap glass must be native is very strange to me... just weld on an adaptor and get even more with control ring or drop-in filter features.

You could extend that logic to ask why bother making any RF L lenses in that case, other than the 50mm 1.2 that desperately needed an update? Just stick your EF L on the adapter...

Certainly the RF mount hasn't yet delivered on the smaller / lighter / faster possibilities. The RF 24-105 is marginally better than the EF to the degree that it's not worth changing, and everything else is monstrously big and expensive.

 

[JoFT]

Consumer oriented glass from Canon (or Nikon) in their new mirrorless mounts is dead on arrival. Just like consumer oriented compact cameras, there's no real market demand for them any more.

I guess you are wrong: the RF35mm f1.8 IS shows that there is space for lightweight compact glass, I expect an RF85mm f1.8 IS as well as a RF 50mm f1.8, both hopefully with IS...

 

[Deleted member 378664]

To me the RF lens lineup is too much L and too much upmarket.
The lenses are all great, lovely and desireable - if you've got the money.
But when Canon wants to gain market share they should also introduce more lenses like the RF 35 or even smaller and less expensive - now and not in 2, 3 years.

Same is valid for me. If I was in the market for a DSLM now, I would look else where. Nikon seems to make much more affordable lenses right from the beginning. As I surely would dislike the solution of adapting my exisiting EF lenses to R cameras a change to DSLM will be a complete switch anyway. So there is no need for me to stick with Canon. Time will tell whether Canon will bring more less expensive lenses when I'm ready to switch.

 

[Maximilian]

... What does the control ring let you do with EF lenses? ... the same thing the new RF lenses get... but there are still advantages to native RF, right? ...

If somebody really has a big advantage of the functions of that control ring, then I cannot imagine big use of that adapter control ring together with a big tele lens as it would totally destabilize holding my kit.
When I saw this adapter, my initial thought was "nice but useless".

 

[Maximilian]

... Nikon seems to make much more affordable lenses right from the beginning ...

Honestly... looking at the Nikkor Z lens lineup available this would directly drive me into Canon RF.
I wouldn't have any need of any of those Z except fot the 35.
And here I have the better option with the RF, IMO.
When I want a f/4 zoom lens, then please give me the RF 24-105. But I want small primes here.

My current travel setup is the 200D/SL2 with the two pancakes and the 85/1.8. All together with spare battery in a small toploader bag.
The RP is just slightly bigger than the 200D but offers FF and a much better AF system. For better glass I'd be willing to add some space for better lenses.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Nikon used to make 70-180mm f4-5.6 zoom macro. Yeah a TS-E zoom hasnt been done and Canon seems to have filed patent for those. Tilt-shift zooms would be really expensive and out of reach of most photograpers.

Completely forgot about the probe and UWA from Laowa. Probe lens is quite unique in terms of its underwater capabilities as well.

Most of Canon's recent target audience have been the wealthy and their Rf lenses are truly out of reach for 99.9% photographers....including professionals.

 

[M_S]

I don't understand the big hype for RF lenses neither. Granted, they are very good, and the announced lenses sound very promising. But: EF glas can be adapted to lots of different camera types (Panasonic, Sony, soon Nikon), which gives a lot of freedom in choosing camera bodys. Adapting RF glas to other mirrorless bodies is difficult or plain impossible. If, god forbid ( ), the future pro body of canon is not what I expect it to be, I can still use the lenses I have on other bodies, making EF more future proof imo.