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

neuroanatomist said:

Even the RF 50/1.2L and RF 50/1.4L VCM? I wouldn’t think so.

Click to expand...

Those two are indeed sharp wide open. I hadn't looked at the upper-level 50mm primes since the DSLR days.

Just checked the lens test results at The-Digital-Picture.com and the RF versions are indeed sharp wide open, unlike their EF predecessors.

I guess the shorter flange distance made a big difference.

They also weigh two (f/1.4) and three times (f/1.2) as much as the Sigma RF-S 56mm f/1.4 and cost close to three (f/1.4) to four (f/1.2) times as much.

For the R7, the Sigma is a bargain at $529 and 10 oz carrying weight - for a lens smaller than the R7's kit lens.

PS The $200 Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM can't hold a candle to any of them. That one does need f/2.8 to be sharp. I guess that's why I didn't look at the other RF 50s, which are out of my price and weight class.

PPS For my R6 Mark II I have a $100 used EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, but I hardly use it because it does need f/2.8 to be sharp and I now have the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM mounted to that body most of the time. For ultra wide I have the RF 16mm f/2.8 and for longer I have the RF 85mm f/2 and the EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM and its 1.4 converter for 280mm f/4 - and if I put that combo on the R7 I've got a 448mm f/4 tele!

Philnick said:

Those two are indeed sharp wide open. I hadn't looked at the upper-level 50mm primes since the DSLR days.

Just checked the lens test results at The-Digital-Picture.com and the RF versions are indeed sharp wide open, unlike their EF predecessors.

I guess the shorter flange distance made a big difference.

Click to expand...

They’re different lens designs than the EF 1.2 and 1.8 versions and the RF 50/1.8. All of those use a double-Gauss design that suffers wide open. The high-end RF versions do not use that design, and it’s that not the short flange distance that improve the sharpness wide open.

You can see similar optical improvements due to a similar design change in the EF 85mm f/1.4L versus f/1.2L.

I have to sing the praises of the new RF 28-70mm f/2.8 K IS STM (yes, the "K" is a joke).

While Canon says it has L quality optics and full weather sealing, they deny it the L designation, probably because at $1,099 it could cannibalize the market for the $2,500 RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM. Pity, because it's also about half the weight and has great image quality.

No $40 Canon lens hood in the box? Give it a $10 JJC clone lens hood.

No red ring on the lens? Decorate a green rubber band with a few red twist ties, put it around the front of the lens and say "Joyous No L !"

And for bopping around in the daytime, the R7 with the 10 oz. Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 gives a little more reach (29-80mm equiv) with a lot less to carry.

This lens by itself will help pull the R7 out of "no lens hell" with assists from the Sigma RF-S 10-18mm f/2.8 zoom and three Sigma RF-S 1.4 primes, giving it parity with Sony, Fujifilm and Leica in the APS-C space. (They've all had these Sigmas for a few years.)

Philnick said:

Sigma has beaten Canon to the punch on the normal zoom. I have been using their RF-S 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN lens since it came out this summer. It's a worthy successor to the original EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, which was my go-to lens from 2007 when I got it for my Rebel XTi to when I got my R7 in 2022, on which it was too big and heavy, particularly with the EF to R adapter.

Click to expand...

Canon has allowed Sigma to make its 10-18 and 18-50mm f/2.8 zooms and Tamron to make its 11-20mm f/2.8 zoom for RF-S, but I note that Tamron didn't bring its 17-70mm f/2.8 to RF-S just yet.

Maybe it is incompatibility between Tamron's VC and Canon's IBIS, or maybe it is because Canon wants to release something in that range first before bringing in third party offerings.

I just looked at the specs for Tamron's 17-70mm f/2.8 APS-C lens on the Sony platform.

At over one and three-quarters the weight and length (and nearly half again the price) of my Sigma RF-S 18-50mm f.2.8, I'm glad I got the Sigma.

The Tamron has optical image stabilization built in. That probably accounts for much of its greater weight and price.

I'm very impressed by the R7's IBIS, which makes my EF 200mm f/2.8L USM + EF 1.4 III teleconverter (which is not a stabilized lens on its own) easily hand-holdable on the R7 (pretty good for an effective focal length of 448mm), so I'll stick with the Sigma with the R7's IBIS. The attached photos were taken handheld with the EF 200+teleconverter this summer. Of course the light was good enough for a shutter speed of 1/1,600 at ISO 400, but the images are certainly sharp enough.

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN normal zoom is also a very sharp lens, as can be seen from the attached pix- including the 1/40 second 3200 ISO 50mm indoor candid. I try to avoid that kind of ISO, since my ancient laptop took nearly an hour to write out a JPEG of that shot at DxO PhotoLab 8's highest noise reduction setting (which nevertheless did a very nice job).