Well, well, well… could this be Canon’s lens roadmap for 2021? [CR2]

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
2,242
317
31
34109
www.facebook.com
You're not the target customer for the super teles so you do not understand the design history of the long white primes.

As such further discussion is moot.

But you are referring (at this moment) to super-tele in the EF line, and not the non-existent RF line. As far as RF super-tele, you have absolutely no idea yet what they will weigh.

Then I kindly turn you towards a look at the other RF lenses that are already here. What is lighter than an EF 85mm f/1.2L, EF 50mm f/1.2L, EF 28-70mm f/2.8L? Any of the RF's? No. Sure, the RF 70-200 is lighter than the EF version. Isn't that just about it? The Canon EF 24-70 is 95gr lighter than the RF version. So where is this advantage of RF over EF? I don't see it when it comes to weight, which for some reason, people keep trying to claim.



You claim there is a weight advantage to RF. I don't see it.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,578
3,976
Irving, Texas
You're not the target customer for the super teles so you do not understand the design history of the long white primes.

As such further discussion is moot.
I don't understand the design history of long white primes? Sure I do. You claim that the reason to switch to RF long white primes is for weight savings... with absolutely zero evidence. Zero. That's what makes the discussion moot. Has absolutely zero to do with me being the target market or not. You have absolutely no idea whether or not an RF 600mm f/4L will be lighter in weight than the current EF 600mm f/4L. No idea. Then, lets say it saves 4oz. That's worth the upgrade for a lens mostly mounted on a gimbal? Ok.
 
Last edited:

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
581
317
Unfortunately the 180mm f/3.5 is not the sharpest "black" lens. Not even close. TDP is good source of comparison chart-shoots for many lenses. Here is the comparison of 180mm f/3.5 and 100mm f/2.8L. The 100 is much sharper even at 2.8. Bunch of other lenses are significantly sharper too. E.g. look at this comparison with 200mm f/2.8L II (at 2.8) - it is night and day! Most (if not all) contemporary L-line zooms are sharper or much sharper. So it is very old and soft lens by todays standards. There is almost no difference on low-MP FF sensors, but high-MP sensors show the age of 180mm f/3.5 and, I believe, it can be improved a lot. I hope they will release a new version eventually and it will be better, than 100mm f/2.8L. I will, most likely, replace mine with it.
Hmmm! To be clear I was reporting Canon's own MTFs as a source. While they seem to be problematic in some ways, I assumed that whatever problems their methodology had would cancel out between lenses. (For instance they don't take film/sensor into account. In fact I don't think they take production into account and instead are theoretical calculations.)

Also, the impression the Canon MTFs gave backs up my own findings with owning 2xEF 14mm/2.8, 2xTS 24/3.5, EF 24/1.4, EF 35/1.4, 50/1.0 1.2 1.4 1.8 MkI, 85/1.2 MkI, old non-USM 100Mac, 135/2 and 600/4, plus about six zooms. And a bag of Leica lenses, whole Contax G2, Mamiya 7+3 lens, couple other MFs. The experience I've had is that 1) Mamiya 7 probably beat everything, but then the 135 and 180 are so much sharper than everything there's no point in even comparing numbers. 600 could well be too but I use it at distances atmospheric haze and heatwaves always hurt the results.

As to the charts you kindly link to: I dunno! Maybe Canon MTFs aren't fit to use as toilet paper. Maybe I'm only happy with the 180 and 135 because I haven't had to buy a lens since like 2005 :-D OTOH, maybe your site's 180Mac simply sucked? If multiple sites have bad results for them, maybe they all suck, or maybe they're easy to break or something.

My last guess is that I never use it for portrait-style shooting, I'm always focusing FAIRLY close even if not macro. Maybe it gets quite blurry at long range.



Here's the Canon MTFs in question, for whatever they're worth. I'll admit the 100Mac looks awesome, but it's hardly wiping the floor with the 180. Edging it out, perhaps?

Canon's 180Mac MTF:
1602577748315.png


100mm/2.8L Mac:
1602578049562.png


And as for your claim that practically any recent EF prime is sharper, you may know best, but in that case Canon's MTFs are useless. 85/1.4L should be an easy-ish formula, not too crazy aperture, not retrofocus, and yet even at 10lp/mm, Canon's own MTFs show it's not as contrasty as the 180 at 30lp/mm for most of the image.

1602578995889.png
 

Traveler

EOS R
Oct 6, 2019
94
122
wish canon would AT LEAST address the ef-m line... I wanted to invest in more ef-m lenses but I'm scared that they're gonna kill it off soon :(
They’re gonna produce new cameras as long as people buy them. And they still sell quite a lot of them. The lens lineup has been very small though.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,188
1,262
Just confirmed with B&H that orders placed after July 13th have not shipped yet!

So yes, as I said, Canon has only shipped 1 batch of the R5, indicating a problem with the camera or with production.

Please stop spreading misinformation. This a MASSIVE screw up on Canon’s behalf, tantamount to the 1DXiii debacle which chased away a lot of users to Nikon.

Anyone ordering an R5 now won’t see it until well after Jan 2021.

And any new lenses won’t hit the market until 2022-2023. Sorry!
Don't we have enough conspiracy-theories yet?
Did you read this BS in the Qanon Weekly?
 

CanonGrunt

C70
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2012
209
136
I wonder if we will get an RF 200mm 1.8 L or similar?

On that note, someone was looking for one of the EF mount ones, I forget who, but it’s over at KEH if you’re in the market.


 

FitzwaterPhoto

I'm New Here
Dec 30, 2019
14
11
Portability? Ok, this is going out on a limb--but a very good smartphone camera offers superb portability; however, putting a pancake on a FF body, in my opinion, kind of turns one of the best cameras in the world into...a smartphone without the portability. I'm sorry to upset pancake fans, but once I commit to carrying my FF for a specific purpose, be it a session, an event, or just walking/traveling with family, that's it, I know portability is not the priority. I don't have the R5 yet, but of all cameras, putting a pancake on it seems a huge mismatch.

To compare a pancake lens on a 45 MP FF body to a cellphone is pretty ridiculous. I have photos taken on my 6D with my pancake lens that I've printed large and are beautiful. One of the selling points of mirrorless has been the compact size. Thats cool you commit to carrying a heavy load - when I'm riding my bike I'm not going to lug a f/1.4 and I wouldn't want to bounce around my L glass anyways.
 

YuengLinger

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,460
1,901
USA
To compare a pancake lens on a 45 MP FF body to a cellphone is pretty ridiculous. I have photos taken on my 6D with my pancake lens that I've printed large and are beautiful. One of the selling points of mirrorless has been the compact size. Thats cool you commit to carrying a heavy load - when I'm riding my bike I'm not going to lug a f/1.4 and I wouldn't want to bounce around my L glass anyways.
There is a reason that smartphones have put point and shoot cameras on the endangered species list. The newest and best phones have astounding built-in cameras! Of course the sensor in a FF is going to allow for larger prints at the highest quality, but if my goal heading out the door is to produce great photos that somebody would want to keep on their wall, a pancake would not be my first choice. If going out for relaxation, for the fun of photography, I'd rather have a smaller, more flexible body and lens combo, but that's my personal choice.

(Ok, I'll admit, for the fun of photography, I'd still rather have a FF and a good zoom or fast prime or a macro that can work for portraits too. I understand, working in post with FF images makes it hard to downsize. But if really space-limited, or for keeping something in the car for whatever might come up, the 80D isn't too bad!)

Here are some suggested print sizes for smartphones, grouped by sensor size:


Also, I wonder why you think it's ok to "bounce around" a $3800 camera body, but not, say, a $1000 or less 24-105mm. Could you share a little more?

PS When I say putting a pancake on an R5 makes the camera an expensive smartphone without the phone, I'm using an exaggeration to express my gut reaction to the idea. A little ridiculous? Maybe once I finally get my hands on an R5, and it is less an object of abstract reverence, I would feel comfortable enough to see it as my "fun" camera. Right now, it's still somewhere near the level of the obelisk in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
 
Last edited:

vxcalais

I'm New Here
Feb 11, 2020
24
18
If this is the same source / proof as Craig got last year, then M lenses wouldn't show up on the list.
Its a bit disappointing but maybe not as dissapointed as those waiting for the m50 mark ii may feel. Seems Canon were keeping true with flagship being M6ii.

Anyway, I have been tempted to get an RP but I am at a time in my life I just cant afford those lenses. I would need to sell one of my kids . The imagery from R is just amazing. These lenses should be fantastic.
 

canonnews

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2017
852
1,401
Canada
www.canonnews.com
Just confirmed with B&H that orders placed after July 13th have not shipped yet!

So yes, as I said, Canon has only shipped 1 batch of the R5, indicating a problem with the camera or with production.

Please stop spreading misinformation. This a MASSIVE screw up on Canon’s behalf, tantamount to the 1DXiii debacle which chased away a lot of users to Nikon.

Anyone ordering an R5 now won’t see it until well after Jan 2021.

And any new lenses won’t hit the market until 2022-2023. Sorry!

Again. That's just B&H .. and they could be saying anything to you, and you also don't know the reasons why. For instance, there could have been such a demand from professional services, that they preempted retail stores. You can bet if high profiles clients that deal directly with Canon USA wanted R5's.. They'd probably get them before retail outlets.

also again, in what world do you live in where camera manufacturing would impact lens manufacturing?
 

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
2,242
317
31
34109
www.facebook.com
I don't understand the design history of long white primes? Sure I do. You claim that the reason to switch to RF long white primes is for weight savings... with absolutely zero evidence. Zero. That's what makes the discussion moot. Has absolutely zero to do with me being the target market or not. You have absolutely no idea whether or not an RF 600mm f/4L will be lighter in weight than the current EF 600mm f/4L. No idea. Then, lets say it saves 4oz. That's worth the upgrade for a lens mostly mounted on a gimbal? Ok.
Take a breather. You won the internet.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
691
1,294
PS When I say putting a pancake on an R5 makes the camera an expensive smartphone without the phone, I'm using an exaggeration to express my gut reaction to the idea. A little ridiculous? Maybe once I finally get my hands on an R5, and it is less an object of abstract reverence, I would feel comfortable enough to see it as my "fun" camera. Right now, it's still somewhere near the level of the obelisk in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I use my R5 with an RF 35mm f/1.8 as my everyday carry everywhere I go, normally just slung on a shoulder strap over one shoulder. I don't even really care about the image quality of a smartphone, I just detest the shutter delay/ergonomics/poor exposure controls/normally awful shutter speed/etc. I was leaning towards getting a Fuji X100F for a while for that reason, but my R5 with the 35 is basically a slightly bigger X100 with perfect Canon controls that also serves as my primary body for all my professional work.

I'm a breaking news photographer, and I would hate myself if I ever was in a situation where I came upon a structure fire or shooting while only carrying my smartphone. With my R5 as my everyday carry, I always know I'll have an incredible 45 megapixel 20 FPS camera at the ready, even if it only had a pancake or 35mm on it. My situation may be a little out of the ordinary, but realistically most street photography or photography involving people is about the decisive moment, and it is far easier to catch that moment with an R5 than a smartphone.

I would be very excited to pick up a 40mm pancake for the R5 to replace the 35 1.8 as an everyday carry when I'm just going to the grocery store/etc, though the 35 would definitely remain as my main travel/vacation lens for the wider aperture and macro features.
 

Pixel

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 6, 2011
212
114
Which ones? IS stops for AF are better on EF lens on R bodies than on EF bodies? Using the R mount adapters provides even more functionality for EF lenses.
Well, that list of “officially supported lenses” in the back of the manual should give you an idea. The older the lens, the slower the mechanical shutter is going to be.
Although I haven’t timed it, with my 600 f4IS the camera probably only lets me shoot at 6-8 fps.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
836
696
www.flickr.com
Well, that list of “officially supported lenses” in the back of the manual should give you an idea. The older the lens, the slower the mechanical shutter is going to be.
Although I haven’t timed it, with my 600 f4IS the camera probably only lets me shoot at 6-8 fps.
What would be causing that? AF control with the faster RF mount communication protocols would impact older lenses. I guess that you would get higher fps from a 1D but that has a higher battery voltage to power the AF. Can you get a higher fps from your 600/4 from any other Canon body?
 

Pixel

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 6, 2011
212
114
What would be causing that? AF control with the faster RF mount communication protocols would impact older lenses. I guess that you would get higher fps from a 1D but that has a higher battery voltage to power the AF. Can you get a higher fps from your 600/4 from any other Canon body?
Of course on my 1Dx II’s it’s fine.
Canon has been clear, to get the maximum fps, you have to use an RF lens or an EF lens off of that list which is naturally comprised of only the newest EF releases.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,686
1,556
What would be causing that? AF control with the faster RF mount communication protocols would impact older lenses. I guess that you would get higher fps from a 1D but that has a higher battery voltage to power the AF. Can you get a higher fps from your 600/4 from any other Canon body?

Rudy Winston hinted at, but didn't say outright, that the speed of the aperture motor plays a role. I don't think that's the whole story, since that wouldn't impact shooting wide open, but I did notice that on a (rented) 1dx3 the fps dropped significantly when stopping down my 180L. My EF85 f/1.8 gives a white blinky 'H' even wide open on the R5, so no full speed.

On the R5/R6, make sure wifi is off, the manual says that will limit fps as well, regardless of lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
CR Pro
Sep 9, 2014
476
146
54
I think i read somewhere that there may only be 8-12 of the original EF version of the 1200 ever made. So yeah, not a cash cow, more of a statement/specialty/made-to-order kind of thing.

-Brian
The Original EF 1200mm f/5.6L weighed about 25 lbs and sold for $100,000 USD they were a serious specialty lens, and a special order item I believe. And to my knowledge were only ordered and sold to news agencies. BH Photo had a used one for sale in 2009 for $120,000 USD, I believe a Saudi Prince bought it (or some Prince in the Middle East). In any case, they fellow who purchased it is into photography and not just collecting. See embedded screen snip from Wikipedia... For interesting 'recent' sales info see bottom area of snip...
1602783412363.png
 

lexptr

Photograph the nature while it exists...
Aug 8, 2014
79
51
Hmmm! To be clear I was reporting Canon's own MTFs as a source. While they seem to be problematic in some ways, I assumed that whatever problems their methodology had would cancel out between lenses. (For instance they don't take film/sensor into account. In fact I don't think they take production into account and instead are theoretical calculations.)

Also, the impression the Canon MTFs gave backs up my own findings with owning 2xEF 14mm/2.8, 2xTS 24/3.5, EF 24/1.4, EF 35/1.4, 50/1.0 1.2 1.4 1.8 MkI, 85/1.2 MkI, old non-USM 100Mac, 135/2 and 600/4, plus about six zooms. And a bag of Leica lenses, whole Contax G2, Mamiya 7+3 lens, couple other MFs. The experience I've had is that 1) Mamiya 7 probably beat everything, but then the 135 and 180 are so much sharper than everything there's no point in even comparing numbers. 600 could well be too but I use it at distances atmospheric haze and heatwaves always hurt the results.

As to the charts you kindly link to: I dunno! Maybe Canon MTFs aren't fit to use as toilet paper. Maybe I'm only happy with the 180 and 135 because I haven't had to buy a lens since like 2005 :-D OTOH, maybe your site's 180Mac simply sucked? If multiple sites have bad results for them, maybe they all suck, or maybe they're easy to break or something.

My last guess is that I never use it for portrait-style shooting, I'm always focusing FAIRLY close even if not macro. Maybe it gets quite blurry at long range.



Here's the Canon MTFs in question, for whatever they're worth. I'll admit the 100Mac looks awesome, but it's hardly wiping the floor with the 180. Edging it out, perhaps?

Canon's 180Mac MTF:
1602577748315.png


100mm/2.8L Mac:
1602578049562.png


And as for your claim that practically any recent EF prime is sharper, you may know best, but in that case Canon's MTFs are useless. 85/1.4L should be an easy-ish formula, not too crazy aperture, not retrofocus, and yet even at 10lp/mm, Canon's own MTFs show it's not as contrasty as the 180 at 30lp/mm for most of the image.

1602578995889.png
God knows, how Conon cooks MTF. Never treated them seriously. I believe more those TDP real-picture charts. Sure, they may have a bad copy. It is, by the way, another problem of old lenses. Nowadays they much more stable in terms of copy variation. But there is another source of comparisons - DxOMark. I don't like their super-simplified, number-only results, but there are no many places with comparisons of various lenses on various bodies. Here are comparisons of 180L with 100L and 24-70L II: on 5Dmk2, on 5Dmk3, on 5Dmk4 and on 5DSR. On sharpness score newer lenses are better already from the lowest-mp 5Dmk2. All get better with sensor resolution grow, but 180L stops at (or before) the 30mp of 5Dmk4. Other two get better and much better at 50mp of 5DSR. They don't have 85 1.4L to compare, but at TDP it looks sharper wide open. Another source, which has no many tests, but here are few with MTF charts for 180L, 100L and 200L. Those tests were on old 8mp APS-C camera, but still show the same: 100L and 200L resolve better. By the way, while 100L is newer, 200L is from the same '96. So, IDK, maybe they all had a bad copy, or you are right, and it should be sharper at macro distance, or it seems better, because it is, probably, used on tripod, with remote and mirror look-up. Anyway, for me it is an old and odd lens, which I avoid, until Canon make a new one. And, I return to the beginning of our discussion, I believe it can be improved a lot. Meanwhile 100L serves well and double as decent portrait lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwissFrank