Close Menu

    It looks like Samyang is about the announce an RF-S AF 12mm f/2.0, yes.. with autofocus

    By 26 Comments Third Party Lenses 2 Mins Read

    Samyang was one of if not the first brand to release autofocus lenses for the RF mount under the Rokinon name. However that was short lived, as Canon’s lawyers stepped in with the ban hammer.

    It now appears Samyang will become the third manufacturer licensed to produce RF-S lenses with autofocus. Here are images of a Samyang 12mm f/2 AF.

    Asobinet is also reporting that three more manufacturers have received approval from Canon and will be announcing autofocus lenses for the RF mount in the near future. We believe one of them is Meike, and we wouldn’t be surprised if Viltrox is another one.

    For the moment, there is no evidence that full-frame RF mount lenses are coming from third-party manufacturers. However, that’s not going to be the case forever.

    This is probably a good place for Samyang to start. With this being about a 19mm equivalent on APS-C sensors, most of what you see through the lens is going to be in focus, or close to it.

    I want to add that there has been some confusion about “RF” and “RF-S” for some people. EF and EF-S were different mounts, but that is not the case with RF. RF-S just tells us that the lens is for APS-C sensors, but it’s still the RF mount.

    Source: asobinet

    When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

    Go to discussion...

    26 comments

    1. I wonder if licensees' lenses will benefit from the various R-mount upsides, like the additional communications lanes to have tilt and shake info communicated to the camera.

      I have the Rokinon 85mm f/1.4, which I like very much - especially the price. But it's essentially an adapted EF lens.
    2. Does the comment that the RF and RF-S mount is the same, mean that putting an RF-S lens on a full-frame camera would simply produce a smaller image on-sensor? Is there a downside to doing that?
    3. Does the comment that the RF and RF-S mount is the same, mean that putting an RF-S lens on a full-frame camera would simply produce a smaller image on-sensor? Is there a downside to doing that?
      The camera automatically crops the resulting images to APS-C size.

      The downside is the same as any crop, less image area used means proportionally higher image noise.
    4. I wonder if licensees' lenses will benefit from the various R-mount upsides, like the additional communications lanes to have tilt and shake info communicated to the camera.

      I have the Rokinon 85mm f/1.4, which I like very much - especially the price. But it's essentially an adapted EF lens.
      I just ordered the EF version, on B&H for a mere $202. It arrives today, along with an Irix 15mm f/2.4. I shoot astro and will use them primarily for that. I don't mind having to use the Rf-EF adaptor If this new Samyang is APS-C, as I think, it won't interest me. I have the EF 11-24 f/4 which may be huge and heavy, but is a great lens. and the VND filter that I have for the adaptor that accepts filters is quite convenient. I have the Rok 14 f/2.8, which is just OK (prefer my RF 15-35 2.8 for astro)...and the Rok 24 1.4, which is quite good, But my Sigma ART 28 and 35 f/1.4 are superb~
    6. I own an R7 because I enjoy putting 32 MP on targets with a 1.6 crop factor.

      Dear 3rd party RF-S/AF manufacturers: TELEPHOTO ZOOMS PLEASE!

      APS-C: Living the Dream!
      I use an R7 with the Canon RF100-400 and a Sigma Sport 150-600. Both are FF lenses but I don't see why converting them to APS-C would provide any advantage. With lenses this long, the size and weight are dictated by the focal length of the lens and diameter of its front element. If I wanted a 100-400 FF FOV, I'd use a 60-250 lens with the R7.
    7. I use an R7 with the Canon RF100-400 and a Sigma Sport 150-600. Both are FF lenses but I don't see why converting them to APS-C would provide any advantage. With lenses this long, the size and weight are dictated by the focal length of the lens and diameter of its front element. If I wanted a 100-400 FF FOV, I'd use a 60-250 lens with the R7.
      Exactly. Despite repeated explanations coupled with the obvious complete lack of 'crop-specific' long telephoto lenses, some people keep asking for them. Once you're beyond ~300mm, there's no advantage to a smaller image circle because the image circle is no longer limiting to the design. Living the dream is fine, but asking for something that's completely unrealistic for technical reasons is pretty foolish. I prefer to live in reality.

      I suppose those people should invest in OM or Fuji crop cameras cameras, then they could fool themselves into believing their long lenses were made for their crop cameras, even though they'd work fine on FF sensors (or larger in the case of the Fuji 500/5.6, that lens for their medium format cameras is the same size/weight as the one for their APS-C cameras).
    8. 12mm f2 for RF-S isn\'t a desperate need, Sigma 10-18 and Canon\'s plastic 10-18 covers that already.

      Kinda wish Canon let the full frame 18/2.8 and 45/1.8 be in RF mount. It\'s not really competing with Canon\'s but it\'s good alternative to RF16 and RF50/1.8.

      I\'m not hoping for the Samyang 35-150 f2-2.8 to have RF version anytime soon, unless Canon amazes me.
    9. ...along with an Irix 15mm f/2.4. I shoot astro and will use them primarily for that.
      What is your experience with the IRIX 15mm for astro/ nightscapes? I´m looking for a viable, affordable option to get for next year.
    11. I had the EF-M manual focus version of this lens when I was still shooting with my M50, and it was as superstar. Based on that experience alone, I'd chose this lens over the corresponding Sigma and Canon zooms. For astrophotography, it was a solid performer. Frankly, I'm happy to see this as an addition to the RF-S lineup.
    12. 12mm f2 for RF-S isn\'t a desperate need, Sigma 10-18 and Canon\'s plastic 10-18 covers that already.

      Kinda wish Canon let the full frame 18/2.8 and 45/1.8 be in RF mount. It\'s not really competing with Canon\'s but it\'s good alternative to RF16 and RF50/1.8.

      I\'m not hoping for the Samyang 35-150 f2-2.8 to have RF version anytime soon, unless Canon amazes me.
      The Samyang 12mm is a well regarded astro lens and the F2 is a huge benefit there, together with the minimal coma.
    14. BTW, something is wrong with this forum because every apostrophe or quote in the comments appears with slashes. Someone forgot to use \"stripshashes\" when developed some plugin.
      I don't have a problem using 'apostrophes' or "quotes".
    15. I don't have a problem using 'apostrophes' or "quotes".

      This has been a problem I have tried for months to get fixed. Welcome to developer fun........... I will continue to whine about it. If you comment on the blog side of things, this issue will then appear on the forum.
    16. 12mm f2 for RF-S isn\'t a desperate need, Sigma 10-18 and Canon\'s plastic 10-18 covers that already.
      Sigmas offering is f2.8 so the Samyang is one stop faster. Canons lens starts at f4.5 so the difference is over 2 stops (2 1/3 stops exactly?!). There is a huge difference if you want to shoot the night sky or cities at night time.
    19. 12mm f2 for RF-S isn\'t a desperate need, Sigma 10-18 and Canon\'s plastic 10-18 covers that already.

      Kinda wish Canon let the full frame 18/2.8 and 45/1.8 be in RF mount. It\'s not really competing with Canon\'s but it\'s good alternative to RF16 and RF50/1.8.

      I\'m not hoping for the Samyang 35-150 f2-2.8 to have RF version anytime soon, unless Canon amazes me.
      12/2 will be much better for astrophotography. I agree that 3rd party FF lenses would be great though.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment