Two more lenses coming with the 3 hydrids or soon after

#41
I have the 28mm and it's sharper at 28mm than most RF lenses...
Check the digital picture images comparaisons.
However I hate that the focus is relatively slow and noisy and that a part of the lens has to move.
But I paid $200 for it and for that price and size it's a banger.
I'll complement it with a 70-200 VCM.
My hands are burning in Yens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#42
neuroanatomist said:
Yes, Canon launched an RF 400/2.8 and a 600/4 that are the MkIII optics (possibly different AF motors) with the EF-RF adapter bolted on, and they launched an RF 800/5.6 and a 1200/8 that are those same lenses, respectively, with a built-in, lens-specific 2x TC in the optical design.

Edit: the RF 800/5.6 is NOT the EF 800/5.6 with an adapter integrated. The EF MkIII versions that are the base lenses for the RF 400/600/800/1200 lenses are the ones from 2018.
Click to expand...
It's curious that Canon didn't retro fit the EF 800mm f5.6 because it was a sharper and far superior lens optically than the EF400mm f2.8 with a dubious custom 2x teleconverter and integrated RF adapter version that was launched. However, it's AF and diaphragm limit the fps to 8 fps on the newer cameras. It's IS is of an old and legacy design too.
It points to issues around the amount of re-engineering requied to convert the IS, aperture and AF systems of the legacy lens, availability (they might not have held a lot of these in stock and didn't want to manufacture more) and the fact that Canon could easily re-engineer the bottom end of their large over supply of EF 400mm f2.8 mk III's and make 3 RF lenses with minimal outlay and high profit margins.
I think Canon wanted a "fast to market, low cost" solution and felt that this approach would be sharp enough. it also means that any future zoom variant only has this cobbled 400mm + TC to match resolution wise. It will never be measured against the EF predecessor.

It's barmy to think that a EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II with a 2x TC will outperform the current RF 800mm f5.6 in nearly every resolution metric. In fact this combo is only eclipsed by the native legacy EF 800mm f5.6 LIS.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#43
Exploreshootshare said:
Make it a three hybrid-lens announcement and add a 20mm F1.4 :) Planning on going to NZ or up north in Europe next and I really need a fast UWA prime. 16mm would be better but I probably don´t want to pay that kind of money if it is f1.4

On the other hand, it would be great if somewhere along the way the RF 200-500mm and the TS lenses get announced so we don´t have to speculate anymore. We´d still have the high-res mp unicorn camera and the 35mm F1.2 lens to keep all rumor sites going :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I'd be fine with a 20mm f2 or even f2.8L personally as I think it would be a nicer weight, but I can see the appeal of a faster lens, and they do already have the pancake 16mm for small and light. If we are dreaming then a 20mm pancake 2.8 non L and a 1.4L version would allow Canon to throw off it's long reputation for not catering to the 20mm prime market.
 
Upvote 0
#44
David - Sydney said:
It does seem to be a missing focal range for some reason but Canon has not shown it some love for a long time :-(
Click to expand...
Right!"
Even in EF times, there was only the 14mm f/2,8 L, the miserable 20mm, the 24mm L, and the non L 28mm. Nothing exceptionally good. Sigmas were sharper, yet very heavy and they often had focusing issues.
Then came Canon's optically very convincing UWA zooms, but not a single new UWA prime.
We can only hope things will change, there SEEMS to be a demand for high quality primes (astro), Sigmas sold quite well.
The 24mm f/1,4 is a good sign that something could change!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#46
My forecast is that we are going to get the first RF-S prime. Many people would like to see EF-M 22mm f/2 adapted to RF mount and it is certainly possible. However, my guess is that is going to be either the RF-S 24mm f/2.8 or the RF 20mm f/2.8, both pancake designs.
 
Upvote 0
#47
GMCPhotographics said:
It's barmy to think that a EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II with a 2x TC will outperform the current RF 800mm f5.6 in nearly every resolution metric. In fact this combo is only eclipsed by the native legacy EF 800mm f5.6 LIS.
Click to expand...
The EF 600/4 II with the EF 1.4xIII gives an 840/5.6 that is sharper than the EF 800/5.6 (in addition to being a slightly longer focal length and a lighter total weight).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#48
The funny thing with the 800mm f/5.6 and 1200mm f/8 (despite having the same lens elements as the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 respectively with another group of elements that’s identical in both lenses at the rear) is that close focus is the same for both lenses as it is for the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4. I don’t know why there’s still any debate about what those lenses are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#49
It's funny when with ML, lenses were supposed to be smaller. Looks like that's the case with some wide-angle ones. But not so much with the longer focal lengths. The 50/1.4 doesn't look very small (comparing to the EF version). Same as the 85 f/2 (I get it, they are different from the EF counterparts). I wish there is a lineup focused on higher quality but still small size. Some of the current ones are pretty small but the AF is noisy and jerky and the optical quality could be better.
 
Upvote 0
#50
Traveler said:
It's funny when with ML, lenses were supposed to be smaller. Looks like that's the case with some wide-angle ones. But not so much with the longer focal lengths. [...]
Click to expand...
It's the flange distance that makes WA need retrofocus on SLRs and not on most MILCs, but no manufacturer has ever pretended that telephoto lenses would get smaller. Those are limited by their front element. It's mostly people who like to use words like "mirrorslapper" and "cripple hammer" that popularized that physics won't apply to MILCs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
#51
Tony5787 said:
The funny thing with the 800mm f/5.6 and 1200mm f/8 (despite having the same lens elements as the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 respectively with another group of elements that’s identical in both lenses at the rear) is that close focus is the same for both lenses as it is for the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4. I don’t know why there’s still any debate about what those lenses are.
Click to expand...
Not sure what’s ‘funny’ about that? A TC doesn’t affect minimum focus distance and multiplies maximum magnification, and that’s exactly what the internal 2x TC does with the 800/5.6 and 1200/8 lenses.
 
Upvote 0
#52
neuroanatomist said:
Not sure what’s ‘funny’ about that? A TC doesn’t affect minimum focus distance and multiplies maximum magnification, and that’s exactly what the internal 2x TC does with the 800/5.6 and 1200/8 lenses.
Click to expand...
I was saying it’s funny that there are people who still try to convince you that those lenses aren’t just existing designs with a built-in 2x. That’s why I ended my message with “I don’t know why there’s still any debate about what those lenses are.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#53
Tony5787 said:
I was saying it’s funny that there are people who still try to convince you that those lenses aren’t just existing designs with a built-in 2x. That’s why I ended my message with “I don’t know why there’s still any debate about what those lenses are.”
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Yes, once you see the designs next to each other, it's quite obvious.
 
Upvote 0
#54
neuroanatomist said:
The RF design for the 800/5.6 is quite different from the EF 800/5.6, since the EF version was designed as an 800/5.6 lens whereas the RF is actually a 400/2.8 with a 2x TC included (I drew a magenta box around it).
Click to expand...
neuroanatomist said:
Gotcha. Yes, once you see the designs next to each other, it's quite obvious.
Click to expand...


Hell, forget adding the box, Canon themselves add the box in their diagrams on the museum site: https://global.canon/en/c-museum/lens.html?s=rf

800:

1729272858865.png

1200:

1729272924951.png
 
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#56
Upvote 0
#58
koenkooi said:
It's the flange distance that makes WA need retrofocus on SLRs and not on most MILCs, but no manufacturer has ever pretended that telephoto lenses would get smaller. Those are limited by their front element. It's mostly people who like to use words like "mirrorslapper" and "cripple hammer" that popularized that physics won't apply to MILCs.
Click to expand...
I get it and I understand the physics. I’m not complaining about 100-400 being longer than 70-300 for DSLRs. But the 50/1.4 definitely could be smaller. I guess they chose to make the whole set the same size
 
Upvote 0
#60
Antonis said:
Ok Canon
So when 28 1.4?
You cannot leave such an important lens out of your range....

Btw the 28mm 2.8 is very poor quality and is not made for serious work
Click to expand...
Did you ever use the RF 28mm? What ever you might mean with "serious work"

I use the 28mm pancake on the RF as successful as the Leica 28 on the M-mount.

There is a 28 Otus which might fit your expectations.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
There will be more VCM hybrid prime lenses, but not anytime soon
Replies
83
Views
5K
P-visie
P-visie
Canon Rumors
The next 2 VCM L prime lenses are scheduled for September
Replies
60
Views
6K
Slasheal
Slasheal
Canon Rumors
The hybrid primes won’t be all we get for fast wide-angle L prime lenses
Replies
81
Views
7K
P-visie
P-visie
Canon Rumors
New Firmware Coming to Canon Cinema EOS Cameras This December
Replies
13
Views
1K
shadowsports
shadowsports
Canon Rumors
Report: The RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM is delayed until 2025
Replies
46
Views
4K
upallnight
U
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu