There are a couple of “higher-end” RF-S zoom lenses coming with the EOS R7 Mark II

#41
mdcmdcmdc said:
I seem to be in the minority, at least among CR forum posters, in that I'm very happy with my R7 as-is. I get great results from it, certainly better than I ever got with my 7D2.
Click to expand...
I really like my R7, it does have some flaws though. But if know them, you can work with them or around them. I get great results from it too.
Also I really prefer the position of the thumbwheel over all other Canon cameras I've ever owned. It just feels more natural to my thumb.

The only two ugrades I'd wish for, would be faster read out speeds and a way bigger buffer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
#42
neuroanatomist said:
Thanks, I'll change the example going forward (not the first time this point has needed to be made, won't be the last). Point stands, the image circle is not limiting for the design of super telephoto lenses (≥300mm, give or take), therefore there is no design advantage to reducing the size of the image circle for a smaller sensor.
Click to expand...

I hear this argument pretty often, most recently people were complaining why Fuji reused the new 500mm medium format lens for their APS-C 500mm release.
 
Upvote 0
#43
SnowMiku said:
Con suerte, el precio de la R7 II será similar al de la R7 original en el momento del lanzamiento, salvo por la inflación. No creo que cometan el error de no tener empuñadura de batería esta vez; en mi opinión, las cámaras sin espejo la necesitan más que las DSLR.

Si la R10 obtiene una Mark II, es de esperar que cambien la batería a la LP-E6N e incluyan sellado contra la intemperie como las DSLR xxD.

La conversión del resto de los objetivos EF-M a RF-S demostraría un compromiso real con el RF-S.
Click to expand...
Yo opino que si quiero una R7 de la gama alta, va costar más de 2000€ en Europa, cosa que se pagarían gustosamente.
 
Upvote 0
#45
I don't think Canon will remake EF-M 22mm f/2 and EF-M 32mm f/1.4 for the RF mount. Here is why.
  1. For Canon is commercially unjustifiable to make cheaper APS-C duplicates of 35mm and 50mm FF lenses. EF-M lenses could be used only on EOS M family cameras and as such could not overlap or interfere with sales of EOS DSLR lenses
  2. Compact FF RF prime lenses are compact enough to be used for both FF and APS-C cameras (such as RF 28mm f/2.8). APS-C zoom lenses on the other hand are noticeably more compact than FF counterparts
My guess is that one of the following will be released:
  1. Canon will opt to remake EF-S 24mm f/2.8 for the RF mount, which is 38mm FF equivalent. This is my least favorite.
  2. RF-S 22mm f/2.8, which is 35mm FF equivalent, but with smaller aperture.
  3. RF 20mm f/2.8 (not RF-S) was suggested by someone in one of the previous forum posts as an option and that would actually be an ideal if it can be made as pancake design and could be used for both FF and APS-C cameras. However, rumor says it is going to be specifically an RF-S prime, so I guess this one does not count.
In any way I am happy that we are finally going to get one prime and hope is going to be a fast one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#46
neuroanatomist said:
Can you explain how a 500mm f/7.1 designed for APS-C would be better than…or different from…one designed for full frame?

Just for fun, compare the specs of long lenses for Olympus/OM (m4/3, smaller sensor than APS-C) with similar focal length/aperture lenses for FF. For example, compare the size/weight of the OM 150-600/5-6.3 for m4/3 with the Sigma/Tamron 150-600/5-6.3 lenses for FF. In fact, the OM lens would work just fine on a FF camera, if OM made them.

You can probably deduce that the above was a rhetorical question, it would not be different at all and therefore have zero impact on preserving APS-S relevancy. That’s why such lenses don’t exist already.
Click to expand...
What they offer now for wildlife with APS-C? 55-210mm: worse than EF-S 55-250 was, 100-400mm: good, but still rather short, 100-500mm: great, but expensive, 600mm f/11: no man's land, 200-800mm: clearly better on full frame, 800mm f/11: very nice for APS-C, but too long for most situations...

RF-S 500mm f/7.1 prime in the style of the 600-800mm f/11 would be the sweet spot....
 
Upvote 0
#47
Gino_FOTO said:
RF-S 500mm f/7.1 prime in the style of the 600-800mm f/11 would be the sweet spot....
Click to expand...
My point is that if they were to release such a lens it would be RF, not RF-S. But I would not recommend holding your breath waiting for such a lens.

And thanks for confirming that you’re one of those people who feels the need to aggrandize their personal desires. The fact that you want a 500/7.1 lens does not mean it is “a must for preserving APS-C relevancy”. That’s asinine.
 
Upvote 0
#48
neuroanatomist said:
My point is that if they were to release such a lens it would be RF, not RF-S. But I would not recommend holding your breath waiting for such a lens.

And thanks for confirming that you’re one of those people who feels the need to aggrandize their personal desires. The fact that you want a 500/7.1 lens does not mean it is “a must for preserving APS-C relevancy”. That’s asinine.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
#49
neuroanatomist said:
My point is that if they were to release such a lens it would be RF, not RF-S. But I would not recommend holding your breath waiting for such a lens.

And thanks for confirming that you’re one of those people who feels the need to aggrandize their personal desires. The fact that you want a 500/7.1 lens does not mean it is “a must for preserving APS-C relevancy”. That’s asinine.
Click to expand...
You have made an incorrect assumption. I do not require this lens as I already possess an 800mm f/11 lens on a full-frame camera. Unfortunately, an equivalent lens for APS-C cameras was not and still is not available. Meanwhile, I own also an RF-S camera body.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#51
phils.pix said:
@Gino_FOTO actually there is, just get the RF 600 f/4L und you have your 800 equivalent, even better 960mm ;). You may also consider the EF 500 f/4L II to exactly nail the 800mm equivalent.
Click to expand...
phils.pix said:
@Gino_FOTO actually there is, just get the RF 600 f/4L und you have your 800 equivalent, even better 960mm ;). You may also consider the EF 500 f/4L II to exactly nail the 800mm equivalent.
Click to expand...
If someone have the money for RF 600 prime, /which I don't have/, why bother with APS-C in the first place.
 
Upvote 0
#52
Because APS-C is not only meant to be the bargain ff equivalent, but also a good 1.6 Teleconverter :cool:.

If I were you, I'd get rid of the 800 f/11, save some money and get a used EF 100-400II + used EF 1.4TC III and you'll have a very nice and flexible combo, especially when speaking about image quality and bang for the buck. More than capable for everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#55
blackcoffee17 said:
I agree with you but the Olympus 150-600 is a bad example because that is just a rebranded full frame Sigma lens. A better example would be the Olympus 300mm F4, designed for micro 43 and that lens is about the same size as any full frame 300mm F4 lens.
Click to expand...
Not exactly a rebranded Sigma, although the optical design and build seem to be the same. So, for the purposes of size, it fits the discussion. But the OM version has the OM Image stabilization system within (not Sigma's), and perhaps a few other tweaks according to some reviewers who have discussed this topic with OM System engineers.

But the point is that the size of the lens is mostly dependent on the the lens opening and the focal length. I compared the Om 150-600 (designed for FF) with the OM 150-400 (designed for MFT). Both have approx. 95mm lens openings, so the only place where the 150-400 is narrower is in the last few inches at the mount end, where the 150-400 is maybe 1/2 inch diameter narrower, perhaps due to the optics being slightly smaller due to the smaller needed image circle. Maybe would save you 100 grams or so.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#57
I’ve been using the R7 as the b-cam to my C70 on documentary shoots. It’s been terrific! Although the sensor isn’t a DGO like the C70 and it is downresing from 7K, it matches very well when both are set to C-Log3.

One surprising thing about the R7 is how good the IBIS works when combined with a RF stabilized lens. It has almost eliminated my gimbal on simple shots—sticks to handheld. For example, last weekend, I elected to do a long oner from a gym out to a hallway and then showing the player removing a game ball from a case with the cheap 18-45mm RF-S kit. It was impressive.

Anyway, is there any word on whether any of these new RF-S “Pro” lenses will have image stabilization?

My old Tokina 11-16 just can’t compete with the little kit for handheld, but my 18-35 Sigma (once the firmware was updated) did work pretty well with the R7 IBIS. And for folks that might be curious, the old Tamron 17-50 that does have IS is awful on the R7 (it jumps around without control). A good stabilized RF-S zoom with a constant f2.8 would be awesome, and I’d buy it immediately, assuming that it’s not $3K like the L glass.
 
Upvote 0
#58
SnowMiku said:
Hopefully the price of the R7 II will be around the same as the original R7 at release except for inflation.
Click to expand...
At the time the R7 was launched, there was no APS-C mirrorless body priced in the $2000+ range. Featurewise, the R7 was comparable to existing $1300-1500 bodies (Sony a6600, Fuji X-S10, etc.).

Now there’s the $2500 Fuji X-H2S. If the R7-2 matches its performance, I would expect it to match the price too.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Canon EOS R6 Mark III prototypes are in the wild
Replies
87
Views
11K
Lifeprod
L
Canon Rumors
Here are a couple of images of the EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II
Replies
187
Views
10K
EOS 4 Life
E
Canon Rumors
Two more lenses coming with the 3 hydrids or soon after
Replies
71
Views
6K
EvilTed
E
Canon Rumors
Is a Canon EOS R7 Mark II coming this year? [CR2]
Replies
271
Views
56K
AlanF
AlanF
Canon Rumors
Canon EOS R1 & Canon EOS R5 Mark II announcement coming July 17
Replies
342
Views
16K
Michael Clark
Michael Clark
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu