A new patent showing three different mirrorless optical formulas have been uncovered by Canon News.
Canon RF 85mm f/1.8 Macro
- Focal length: 84.05mm
- F-Number: 1.86
- Half-angle: 14.44°
- Image height: 21.64mm
- Full length: 100.02mm
- BF: 14.64mm
Canon RF 100mm f/2.8
- Focal Length: 101.03mm
- F-Number: 2.88
- Half-angle: 12.09°
- Image height: 21.64mm
- Full length: 130.45mm
- BF: 18.70mm
Canon EF-M 100mm f/2
- Focal length: 96.24mm
- F Number: 2.06
- Half-angle: 8.08°
- Image height: 13.66mm
- Full length: 115.28mm
- BF: 14.96mm
I thought I would mind the difference as well, but then I realized I'm using my EF85mm f/1.8 mostly at f/2.5 to get better IQ. So if f/2 will be better than f2.5 on the EF I'm OK with that. It's only for taking pictures of my family, so I can't make up a decent excuse to get the f/1.2 :)
If these are actually brought out it's a strong signal that they expect the future to be in RF and that they expect EF will eventually die on the vine as more people leave it.
Today we have a patent, probability of being a real product we'll eventually see....50/50 maybe?
Neither one of these reports is anything to bank on. But the reassuring thing about them is that the higher quantity and frequency of the various bits of information circulating means we will eventually see some from of this product.
Whatever Canon decides to release, bring it on. I want to see the lens that could draw me into R systzem the most (..or not).
Would prefer an 85/1.8, of course.
The displayed optical formula seems to be about 1.5 cm shorter than the old EF design. The mechanical lens could be longer because of flange distance, of course. But this together with an RP or R6 body... *yummy
By the way:
Quick dive but couldn't find the optical formula of the old EF 85/1.8. Does anybody have a link? Thanks
Myself as well, really. You've mentioned battery power and long term use of the viewfinder. That's not quite the only disadvantage, but it's the only one I can't see any way around and that isn't subjective. The other SLR benefits (so far) is less lag in the viewfinder, less "blank" time after taking a picture, and so on--I'm sure I'm missing a few. But those are all things that are improving, they aren't inherent to mirrorless, just aspects of something still in its early development. What's left? There are those who simply hate using an EVF. (Whether they are justified or not, the hate is there.)
I'm all-in on mirrorless, personally, though I won't spurn EF lenses. They will continue to serve one very useful role for the foreseeable future--they can be used on ALL Canon mirrorless cameras-- M and RF. How long that will impel Canon to continue to make them (not develop, but make) is another question entirely.
An f/2.0-zoom is a brilliant piece of engineering, but not in reach for my budget.
Right now I see only 2 RF lenses that I would be willing to buy, if I had the will to get there: the 35 and the 24-105. Maybe the 70-200, too.
It would be nice to see Canon tackle the more pressing needs like a fast ultra-wide or a super-telephoto lens. We've all been asking for a 15mm f/2 small prime or something longer and faster than 200mm f/6.3. Would it be too much of a challenge to get a native 300mm f/5.6 or 400mm f/5.6 lens? I take my M6 Mark II out with me almost every day when I walk my dog by the lake and love it for bird photography. The 55-200 is not a good lens for this, sadly. So I will typically use the 55-250 or 70-300.