I'd love to see an RF180mm F/4L IS STM. I picked the STM to make it even quieter to not scare away the bugs
Upvote
0
What’s next from Canon in 2020?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I'd love to see an RF180mm F/4L IS STM. I picked the STM to make it even quieter to not scare away the bugs
For me, the next paragraph is more interesting, containing, as it does, this statement about the EOS R5:
"Including high-speed, high-resolution, 8K video..."
That seems to knock on the head those speculations that the 8K video will be some "crippled" effort, such as a timelapse mode. I don't understand the "high-resolution" description in connection to 8K video though, as if you could have low-resolution, mid-resolution and high-resolution versions of it.
Upvote
0
It weighs nearly 1kg and costs over 2 grand. I'm sure it's great but I'm not sure it's a good fit for me.
Upvote
0
While the R5 is certainly going to be in the kit one day...... still want a genuine 7D mk II replacement. That kinda sucks such a great camera line will cease.
Upvote
0
"We have also been told that Canon will announce at least one DO super-telephoto prime lens for the RF mount. There is a possibility of two being announced. Expect slower aperture lenses, since Canon already has the amazing big white lenses that are easily adapted to the RF mount."
I wonder if any RF owners buying new big whites to use with an adapter? Adapters are great for:
1. lenses you own, and
2. used bargains, and for
3. lenses that are essential and unavailable now in RF.
My own strong opinion is that spending $10,000+ on a lens only to put it on an adapter that adds wobble, inconvenience, and is a visual mismatch is not as appealing as awaiting a lens designed for the camera.
My prediction is that if Canon wants to sell (m)any new lenses to owners of (only) RF bodies, they need to be offered in an RF mount. It's technically trivial to create a second version of any existing EF mount lens like the wonderful 400mm f2.8 IS III. Change one mechanical part and lengthen a few flex circuits. It's also feasible to sell one version with an adapter built on that can be de-mated for EF users, but is solid and a visual match for RF buyers. And the optical designers may well be able to improve performance, weight, size, or cost by designing specifically for the RF mount, although I suspect that that kind of R&D investment in big whites won't be a priority as long as EF sales dominate.
Suggestion/prediction #1: New EF big whites can be offered with a "free" adapter styled to actually match the lens. Possibly with a detachment button requiring more deliberate action for removal.
Suggestion/prediction #2: When the mirrorless tide hits the sideline pros, Canon can offer big white conversions: Maybe $3-500 for a solid bolt-on adapter that replaces the rear bayonet and adds a control ring, or $700-1000 for a replacement rear housing.
Suggestion/prediction #3: All RF TCs can be offered in a lengthened TC+EF/RF adapter form. Three bayonet connection is too many for a $10,000 lens on a $4000 body.
Personally, if I believe they're planning a RF400 DO f4 (or 300 f2.8) lens weighing no more than 2kg I might well skip the 100-500 and let the prime and TCs anchor my long end above the RF70-200.
I may not be typical in my cringing at the adapters in this context. Is any RF-only owner buying new EF big whites?
I wonder if any RF owners buying new big whites to use with an adapter? Adapters are great for:
1. lenses you own, and
2. used bargains, and for
3. lenses that are essential and unavailable now in RF.
My own strong opinion is that spending $10,000+ on a lens only to put it on an adapter that adds wobble, inconvenience, and is a visual mismatch is not as appealing as awaiting a lens designed for the camera.
My prediction is that if Canon wants to sell (m)any new lenses to owners of (only) RF bodies, they need to be offered in an RF mount. It's technically trivial to create a second version of any existing EF mount lens like the wonderful 400mm f2.8 IS III. Change one mechanical part and lengthen a few flex circuits. It's also feasible to sell one version with an adapter built on that can be de-mated for EF users, but is solid and a visual match for RF buyers. And the optical designers may well be able to improve performance, weight, size, or cost by designing specifically for the RF mount, although I suspect that that kind of R&D investment in big whites won't be a priority as long as EF sales dominate.
Suggestion/prediction #1: New EF big whites can be offered with a "free" adapter styled to actually match the lens. Possibly with a detachment button requiring more deliberate action for removal.
Suggestion/prediction #2: When the mirrorless tide hits the sideline pros, Canon can offer big white conversions: Maybe $3-500 for a solid bolt-on adapter that replaces the rear bayonet and adds a control ring, or $700-1000 for a replacement rear housing.
Suggestion/prediction #3: All RF TCs can be offered in a lengthened TC+EF/RF adapter form. Three bayonet connection is too many for a $10,000 lens on a $4000 body.
Personally, if I believe they're planning a RF400 DO f4 (or 300 f2.8) lens weighing no more than 2kg I might well skip the 100-500 and let the prime and TCs anchor my long end above the RF70-200.
I may not be typical in my cringing at the adapters in this context. Is any RF-only owner buying new EF big whites?
Upvote
0
It worries me a little that Canon is introducing such slow lenses. For the new 24-205 non-L they actually say “the RF24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM packs a broad zoom range and a bright maximum aperture”. Who considers f7.1 a bright aperture for a 105mm Mirrorless or DSLR lens? It’s bright compared to f16 I guess.
Upvote
0
With the new Canon Cloud (I don't recall their brand) giving real-time continuous backups, the notion of a second card slot will be going by the wayside as archaic insurance. I'd even boldly suggest that before long some cameras (like smartphones) will have NO card slots, but just some internal memory.
Upvote
0
We don't know of course, but it is safe to assume that Canon defines a similar profit margin on all of these new lenses.
And these have a similar build quality and the same level of optical quality, same L designation, same physical design.
So a price close to 2700$ or more is a realistic estimation.
In simpler terms, white means expensive, even the 100-400 II was 2200$, this has to be a good deal more than that with increased development costs, inflation, etc.
Upvote
0
No but they had an excellent EOS 3 film body, I still use mine. It was basically on par with the 5D series in digital. (The EOS 5 film body was a much inferior model)
Upvote
0
I don't assume that Canon has a constant profit margin on all lenses. I'll be there's a wide range depending on what competitors offer, who the customer is, and how new a lens is (to cover development costs).
My assumption is that the RF70-200 was a ground-up development to create virtually a new category (compact near-normal portrait lens that reaches 200) with no competition, and lots of development cost to cover. I assume that the 100-500 is a redesign of the venerable 100-400 with a stretch at the high end, and some design benefits due to RF.
$1999 is possible as a way to grab attention and sell more R5 bodies, because this shouldn't cost more to manufacture than a 100-400, and didn't have the R&D investment of the RF70-200, which is a 2.8 trinity lens (as opposed to the longest lens an enthusiast might buy if not going to the big whites). Then again, the RF seems to command a premium because they're selling to we early adopters, so adding a 15% premium top the $1999 gives room for future discounts. I'll predict $2299 like the 24-70 f2.8 with $2099 by year end sales.
Upvote
0
I'm fine with the RF35mm 1.8 as my pretty-fast prime.
I'd sell the EF 11-24 in a heartbeat for an RF (as I'm not an adapter fan if I can avoid it).
Upvote
0
I recall you mentioned this before, but I am confused why Canon made the RF extenders white instead of satin to match both the body and lens end of the RF mount. Now it goes grey - white - grey - white for RF whites
Upvote
0
Makes sense that they skipped it for the digital era, as a "Canon 3D" would imply a wildly different kind of camera.
Upvote
0
It is completely ridiculous to complain about wanting a 50mm prime better than the EF 50mm 1.2, and then also complain that the RF 50mm 1.2 is too big/expensive.
Contrary to what most people on this forum like to think, the EF 50mm 1.2 is a pretty good lens. I'm sorry but the narrative of it being a piece of junk just isn't true. It does have its flaws, but it is still a very good lens, regardless of when it was released.
It's not possible for Canon to make a lens that significantly exceeds the performance of the EF 50mm 1.2 that is not both large and expensive.
And while we're on the topic of cost, the EF 50mm 1.2 cost $1600 when it came out, which adjusted for inflation is, you guessed it, just shy of $2000 in today's dollars.
Everyone complaining that Canon didn't make the successor to the EF 50mm 1.2 that they wanted simply doesn't want to foot the bill or carry around the weight of the lens that they did make as a successor to it. And that's really not a problem anyone can solve. You can't ask for a lens that's a lot better than an already good lens and then not accept the fact that that lens is big and expensive. (And again, really not much more expensive than its predecessor was when it was first released.)
Upvote
0
Similar threads
