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

Sep 17, 2014
804
1,060
We are aiming at the same goal but having different views on the situation. I'm using the 100-400 for travelling (actually very important for me) and was hoping for a new smaller/lighter RF version but no loss of aperture. RF design makes that possible, that's the great about it. Making a lens lighter with loss of aperture, is not a game changer, not much innovation needed for that. And it's not even the same lens anymore. I would even be OK with a lens design change like in the case of the 70-200 loosing internal zoom.
For hiking we will have a very portable 70-200/4 which everybody will love I guess. I would definitely buy it hadn't I tried the 100-400 on my last backpacking trip. Kills my back and makes me sweat but I just can't live without 300-400mm anymore.
I don't need the extra 100mm in the 100-500 tho and a weight/size reduction on the 100-400 without loosing aperture would have been my wish.
I guess a 70-200/2.8 style 100-300/4 with external zoom optimized for size and weight would be my dream travel lens. Accepting teleconverters of course.

Please note that justifying lens aperture loss with higher ISO is not valid imho. Aperture changes DoF which make it a different image. You can't give a painter lower quality paints and tell him he has better brushes to compensate.

I don't think an L 100-400 with the same parameters as the EF would be significantly lighter. I rather have the 100-500 which is actually lighter than the EF 100-400 but gaining extra 100mm than an RF 100-400 which is 1300g instead of 1400g. Just shame for the huge price increase.
 
Upvote 0

AEWest

EOS RP
Jan 30, 2020
410
513
I don't think an L 100-400 with the same parameters as the EF would be significantly lighter. I rather have the 100-500 which is actually lighter than the EF 100-400 but gaining extra 100mm than an RF 100-400 which is 1300g instead of 1400g. Just shame for the huge price increase.
Look at the bright side...if you get the RF your wallet will be a lot lighter when hiking!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

rightslot

Canon R5 ++
Aug 22, 2018
46
27
RF 85mm 1.2 ??

Can we help each other out?

Wondering if anyone here has ever dealt with PROCAM as a retailer?

I am looking at a new RF 85mm 1.2 at the normal price. They say they have it in stock (18 in fact).

But my concern is that NOBODY else seems to have it in stock. I'm not interested in some scheme that takes my money and then keeps with delays in getting the shipment to me.

Any transactions?
 
Upvote 0

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,674
580
S Florida
RF 85mm 1.2 ??

Can we help each other out?

Wondering if anyone here has ever dealt with PROCAM as a retailer?

I am looking at a new RF 85mm 1.2 at the normal price. They say they have it in stock (18 in fact).

But my concern is that NOBODY else seems to have it in stock. I'm not interested in some scheme that takes my money and then keeps with delays in getting the shipment to me.

Any transactions?
I've never heard of them, but they appear to be Canon authorized retailers. If you order and they don't have it in stock, you can always cancel. There seem to be plenty non-USA lenses available. How bad do you want it?
Great lineup. I’m looking forward to these.
  • Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM
  • Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM
  • Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM

Looks like $7500 well spent...
 

Attachments

  • canon-ad-06-19-2020.pdf
    590.2 KB · Views: 287
Upvote 0

riker

5D4
Jan 19, 2015
112
53
riker.hu
I don't think an L 100-400 with the same parameters as the EF would be significantly lighter. I rather have the 100-500 which is actually lighter than the EF 100-400 but gaining extra 100mm than an RF 100-400 which is 1300g instead of 1400g. Just shame for the huge price increase.

I don't get the logic. If the 24-105 can be 795g -> 700g, the 70-200 can be 1440g -> 1070g and the 100-500 can be 205g lighter than the shorter 100-400, just why do you think the 100-400 can't be something like 1570g -> 1150-1250g? With the same optical formula but obviously with the new extending lens design. It's not that it is not easily possible, but since they opted for the 100-500, no reason to make it anymore. A weaker 100-400 fits better under the 100-500.
Sidenote, I'm furious for the 70-200 not accepting teleconverters. It would make life so much easier but I guess it's not that good for the business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

riker

5D4
Jan 19, 2015
112
53
riker.hu
Right. But you can give a photographer more focal length while maintaining the same pyhsical aperture (or in other words, decrease the f-number), and in all situations where that photographer was limited by reach previously improve their quality.

And that's what Canon is doing here. The 100-500 mm 4.5-7.1 L IS USM has a comparable f-number to the EF predecessor at 400 mm and offers greater reach. The 100-400 mm you are talking about here is an entirely different lens. I am certain it is an RF upgrade to the EF 70-300 mm 4.0-5.6 IS USM (a well regarded 525 € lens, NOT to be confused with the abysmal 75-300 mm 4.0-5.6 line of lenses). It is not an L lens, and I expect it to be very compact. Maybe it is more of an amalgamation of the EF lens I just mentioned and the lovely EF-S 55-250 mm IS STM (Also not to be confused with the mediocre predecessors).

In the context of tele lenses, you have too keep your reach and magnification in mind. Only saying that you are losing aperture doesn't show the full picture. If you shoot with a faster, wider lens and crop, you are likely getting worse results than shooting a longer and slower lens without cropping as much. As long as the pyhsical aperture is the same and the class of the lens is comparable. I would not compare this RF 100-400 mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM to the EF 100-400 4.5-5.6 L IS.

I mainly agree, good point. I was only saying I wished the successor was a lighter/smaller 100-400 with the same optical formula. I chose more weight reduction instead of the extra 100mm which I don't need. It's a great lens just not exactly what I was hoping for.
My dream lens is probably a 100-300/4 with builtin 1.4X at the weight of the 100-500. That would be really versatile. And I'm even fine with 120-280 if that helps (probably doesn't).
IMHO if the RF 70-200 accepted 2X, that would be it, 80% of the 100-400 and 100-500 market gone and I would have never posted my comment :)
I was not that much into using 70-200 with 2X (thus having 100-400) but now with the new light RF version, omg, would be a killer. The same lens for work and
travel. If I could only have one wish...:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,801
2,240
Hamburg, Germany
IMHO if the RF 70-200 accepted 2X, that would be it, 80% of the 100-400 and 100-500 market gone and I would have never posted my comment :)
I guess your best hope is that the high MP R (R5 S or R3, whatever it will be called, 80+ MP) will be in your budget. That's effectively a 1.67 teleconverter for all your lenses if they simply upscale the 32.5 MP APS-C sensor to FF. Might be even more, if they decide to go higher with the resolution. I think Canon is intentionally not making the RF TCs compatible with the most lenses possible, because their new sensor readout speed and modern storage solutions allow them to rekindle the megapixel war.
 
Upvote 0
Sep 17, 2014
804
1,060
I don't get the logic. If the 24-105 can be 795g -> 700g, the 70-200 can be 1440g -> 1070g and the 100-500 can be 205g lighter than the shorter 100-400, just why do you think the 100-400 can't be something like 1570g -> 1150-1250g? With the same optical formula but obviously with the new extending lens design. It's not that it is not easily possible, but since they opted for the 100-500, no reason to make it anymore. A weaker 100-400 fits better under the 100-500.
Sidenote, I'm furious for the 70-200 not accepting teleconverters. It would make life so much easier but I guess it's not that good for the business.

First of all because the 100-500 is around F6.3 or F6 at 400mm vs 5.6 for the 100-400. The extra 100mm won't add that much weight. Probably a few other barrel changes were made also. For example the 100-500 cannot be used with teleconverter at the short end.

"With the same optical formula but obviously with the new extending lens design"

The 100-400 is already an extending design, so no weight saving left to be done there. I just don't see how they could reduce the weight in any significant way without reducing the quality or features.

The 70-200 was changed from internal zoom to extending design, that's where the weight and size difference comes from. Also not compatible with extenders, a big negative.
 
Upvote 0

AJ

EOS R
Sep 11, 2010
843
261
Sidenote, I'm furious for the 70-200 not accepting teleconverters. It would make life so much easier but I guess it's not that good for the business.
No kidding, eh. In the past there used to be a lot of discussion whether an EF 70-200/2.8 with 1.4x and 2x TCs would hold up against an EF 100-400. They were close. I guess we won't be having this discussion any more... :(

FWIW I see the RF 100-500 as the new EF 100-400, and the rumored RF 100-400 as the new EF 70-300L.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,291
2,173
Kentucky, USA
No kidding, eh. In the past there used to be a lot of discussion whether an EF 70-200/2.8 with 1.4x and 2x TCs would hold up against an EF 100-400. They were close. I guess we won't be having this discussion any more... :(

FWIW I see the RF 100-500 as the new EF 100-400, and the rumored RF 100-400 as the new EF 70-300L.
In all fairness to Canon, the whole benefit of the new R... camera bodies and lenses is that there is a short 20mm flange-to-sensor distance, and an even shorter possible back-focus distance from the furthest lens surface (which may stick out past the flange towards the sensor). This much-reduced distance allows them to design lenses with much better optical performance.

The RF 70-200mm f2.8L IS lens takes advantage of this new option in lens design to give a better performance for all of us that buy it. But that better performance comes at the cost of not having a big enough back-focus distance with which to design a new RF TC to fit it, since there is not enough room for the lenses it would need.

I, for one, am very glad that Canon made such a design decision for their RF 70-200 f2.8L lens to get the best optical performance in a more compact and lightweight form as possible. Since it can not accept the RF TC, I have chosen to also buy the RF 100-500 lens. And since that lens can only accept the RF 1.4X TC if the lens is set to 300mm or beyond, I have chosen to not use the TC on it and instead also buy the RF 800mm f11 lens. I'm very happy to have new lenses with their optimal performance, even if it means that I can't use a TC in the ways that other users have previously enjoyed.

If you would rather Canon provided less optimal RF lenses just for the sake of allowing the normal use of a TC, then I would suggest that you try to be happy that their EF lenses and EF-to-RF TC's can do just that, and in fact they perform better on the R... bodies than they used to on the EF bodies. :)
 
Upvote 0

AEWest

EOS RP
Jan 30, 2020
410
513
In all fairness to Canon, the whole benefit of the new R... camera bodies and lenses is that there is a short 20mm flange-to-sensor distance, and an even shorter possible back-focus distance from the furthest lens surface (which may stick out past the flange towards the sensor). This much-reduced distance allows them to design lenses with much better optical performance.

The RF 70-200mm f2.8L IS lens takes advantage of this new option in lens design to give a better performance for all of us that buy it. But that better performance comes at the cost of not having a big enough back-focus distance with which to design a new RF TC to fit it, since there is not enough room for the lenses it would need.

I, for one, am very glad that Canon made such a design decision for their RF 70-200 f2.8L lens to get the best optical performance in a more compact and lightweight form as possible. Since it can not accept the RF TC, I have chosen to also buy the RF 100-500 lens. And since that lens can only accept the RF 1.4X TC if the lens is set to 300mm or beyond, I have chosen to not use the TC on it and instead also buy the RF 800mm f11 lens. I'm very happy to have new lenses with their optimal performance, even if it means that I can't use a TC in the ways that other users have previously enjoyed.

If you would rather Canon provided less optimal RF lenses just for the sake of allowing the normal use of a TC, then I would suggest that you try to be happy that their EF lenses and EF-to-RF TC's can do just that, and in fact they perform better on the R... bodies than they used to on the EF bodies. :)
How much better optically is RF 70-200 vs EF 70-200 2.8 III? I saw a comparison and it didn't seem noticeably better.
 
Upvote 0

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
456
321
I, for one, am very glad that Canon made such a design decision for their RF 70-200 f2.8L lens to get the best optical performance in a more compact and lightweight form as possible. Since it can not accept the RF TC, I have chosen to also buy the RF 100-500 lens. And since that lens can only accept the RF 1.4X TC if the lens is set to 300mm or beyond, I have chosen to not use the TC on it and instead also buy the RF 800mm f11 lens. I'm very happy to have new lenses with their optimal performance, even if it means that I can't use a TC in the ways that other users have previously enjoyed.

I went with the 100-500 + TC's and not the 800. Thinking being the tc is lighter than another lens and it does allow some zoom (420-700 or 600-1000)... even though the cost is walking around with an almost fully extended lens. However I got to say, your method has its advantages in other aspects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AJ

EOS R
Sep 11, 2010
843
261
The 100-500 is also in part the new 70-200//2.8, because instead of f/2.8 trinity from 17-200, you've now got (or will have soon) an f/4 *-7.1) trinity from 10-500. For "most shots" you don't need the extra stops, thx to 1) IBIS and IS , 2) far sharper and less ISO-sensitive sensors and 3) AF that doesn't require f/2.8 to work.

Even in cases you NEED bokeh, the 24-105/4 at 105/4 has the same amount of bokeh the 24-70/2.8 did at 70/2.8, and at 500/7.1 you have the same 71mm aperture the 200/2.8 does wide open. So for doing "portraits without a dedicated portrait lens" you're about as well set-up.
Many togs work in confines spaces. e.g. weddings, events, studios. In a studio there is often no way to back up in order to use 105 mm instead of 70 mm. At events you are stuck in the press box with no way to back up. Weddings are similar. Most togs choose their focal length first and then their aperture. For events and weddings a 100-500 is not a substitute for the 70-200/2.8
That said, I have often in the past relied on fast lenses for a brighter viewfinder and better focus (whether AF or MF). With mirrorless/EVF and DPAF, large aperture isn't as big of a deal for these two aspects. Also I feel more comfortable these days cranking up the iso a bit to get faster shutterspeeds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

gmon750

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jan 30, 2015
132
90
Definitely very useful underwater but I wouldn't see a big difference in quality needed over the EF version.
My Ikelite housing with the R5 is working very well for me :)

True, but I plan on getting either an Aquatica or Nauticam housing for the R5 and EF fisheye may not fit as well in the housing than a native RF lens. I prefer the smaller footprints of Aquatica and Nauticam for big camera housings. The Ikelite's bulk doesn't do it for me.
 
Upvote 0

David - Sydney

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,553
1,327
www.flickr.com
True, but I plan on getting either an Aquatica or Nauticam housing for the R5 and EF fisheye may not fit as well in the housing than a native RF lens. I prefer the smaller footprints of Aquatica and Nauticam for big camera housings. The Ikelite's bulk doesn't do it for me.
Your budget is a little higher than mine :)
Nice gear but I can’t justify it for the amount of diving I do. Ikelite is definitely bulky... I use a trim weight when I use my 8” dome but not needed for my macro setup.
Based on the ikelite port chart for rf mount and the only difference is the port length based on the overall lens length. The only direct ef/rf lens is the 16-35mm f2.8iii vs rf version. 92mm vs 78mm. The width is not an issue ie that is the overall port system for ikelite’s dl system and fits all lens... even the 11-24mm
 
Upvote 0