Upcoming 2024 Canon RF lens recap

#81
neuroanatomist said:
If true, my money will remain in my gear fund. No interest in primes in this range, and unless the 70-200/2.8 Z offers something unforeseen over the current RF 70-200/2.8, it’s also of no interest. No interest in RF-S from anyone, my M-series bodies and EF-M lenses remain a great compact system.

Oh well…there’s the R1, and maybe I’ll yield to the temptation of a longer prime (85/1.2 or 135/1.8). Or maybe Canon will pull a lens-rabbit out of the hat.
Click to expand...

Personally, I hate the inconsistent friction and telescoping action of the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L.

The 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z was a great addition as it also fixed the friction and telescoping issue. I have a feeling lots of people who were turned off by the 70-200/2.8 will migrate to the Z version, despite the cost and despite the video specialization. My 24-105/2.8 is a beast and I love it.

Having an R3, I don't think I'll go for the R1, but I'll definitely replace my R7 with the R5 Mark II as soon as it is released.
 
Upvote 0
#82
davisphotog said:
Personally, I hate the inconsistent friction and telescoping action of the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L.
Click to expand...
Definitely a personal preference. I used the EF 70-200/2.8 MkII for over a decade, and the extending zoom of the RF version doesn't bother me in the least (a shorter zoom throw would be better, but that's the gearing Canon designed not necessarily a function of the extension). For me, smaller packed size is important. I can see why they didn't, but I would not have minded if the 100-300/2.8 was an extending design.

davisphotog said:
The 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z was a great addition as it also fixed the friction and telescoping issue. I have a feeling lots of people who were turned off by the 70-200/2.8 will migrate to the Z version, despite the cost and despite the video specialization. My 24-105/2.8 is a beast and I love it.
Click to expand...
Possibly, and it's good that Canon offers both (I presume they'll continue the non-Z version).

davisphotog said:
Having an R3, I don't think I'll go for the R1, but I'll definitely replace my R7 with the R5 Mark II as soon as it is released.
Click to expand...
I'm waiting to see what the R1 offers. I won't go back to using a body without the integrated grip for my primary camera; I am fine with the R8 for travel, but not for everyday use.
 
Upvote 0
#83
The grip is a huge benefit for me. I just can't carry it around all day when I'm walking 10mi/day in a foreign city. I got addicted to vertical grips when I first got to use the 1D back in 2004 and bought a 1D Mark III used in around 2010.

I keep a RF 70-200mm f/4L for travel, which is nice and compact and has a smoother zoom throw due to its lower amount of mass.

I hate the R7 ergonomics so I'm waiting for a higher-res body to replace it since I miss the layout and ergonomics of the R6s I used to own. I sold my R6 bodies because I didn't need more than 2 bodies having scaled back on some of my paid work.
 
Upvote 0
#84
davisphotog said:
The grip is a huge benefit for me. I just can't carry it around all day when I'm walking 10mi/day in a foreign city. I got addicted to vertical grips when I first got to use the 1D back in 2004 and bought a 1D Mark III used in around 2010.
Click to expand...
I used battery grips starting with my first DSLR (a T1i/500D), then the 7D and 5DII. After using the 1D X, I won't go back – the integrated grip is much more comfortable to hold. I travel with the R8 for the smaller size, and because during travel I'm not walking around holding the camera, it's in messenger-type bag or backpack and comes out to take a few shots then goes back in the bag. The reason I like the integrated grip is that with that and the hand strap attached, I can handhold the camera for several hours even with a heavy lens like the 28-70/2. (I was annoyed that Canon dropped the lower hand strap lug from the R3, but it's not a big deal since the RRS plate replicates the strap attachment).

davisphotog said:
I keep a RF 70-200mm f/4L for travel, which is nice and compact and has a smoother zoom throw due to its lower amount of mass.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. I don't travel with a 70-200mm at all. I have found that for most destinations I don't need longer than the 24-105 (I bring the f/4L version for travel, not the f/2.8). My travel kit is mainly built around the wide end (10-20/4 or 14-35/4, TS-E 17 and/or 24, maybe a fast prime like the 24/1.8 for interiors, and the 28/2.8 (because it's so tiny and works great for street if I do want to let the R8 dangle from a wrist strap). If I'm going somewhere that I'll need longer than 105mm, 200mm won't be enough either and I'll bring either the 100-500L or the RF 100-400 (which is light and punches well above it's weight for IQ).
 
Upvote 0
#85
neuroanatomist said:
I used battery grips starting with my first DSLR (a T1i/500D), then the 7D and 5DII. After using the 1D X, I won't go back – the integrated grip is much more comfortable to hold. I travel with the R8 for the smaller size, and because during travel I'm not walking around holding the camera, it's in messenger-type bag or backpack and comes out to take a few shots then goes back in the bag. The reason I like the integrated grip is that with that and the hand strap attached, I can handhold the camera for several hours even with a heavy lens like the 28-70/2. (I was annoyed that Canon dropped the lower hand strap lug from the R3, but it's not a big deal since the RRS plate replicates the strap attachment).


Makes sense. I don't travel with a 70-200mm at all. I have found that for most destinations I don't need longer than the 24-105 (I bring the f/4L version for travel, not the f/2.8). My travel kit is mainly built around the wide end (10-20/4 or 14-35/4, TS-E 17 and/or 24, maybe a fast prime like the 24/1.8 for interiors, and the 28/2.8 (because it's so tiny and works great for street if I do want to let the R8 dangle from a wrist strap). If I'm going somewhere that I'll need longer than 105mm, 200mm won't be enough either and I'll bring either the 100-500L or the RF 100-400 (which is light and punches well above it's weight for IQ).
Click to expand...
I haven't been able to think of what I think is a good reason about leaving the lower lug off the R3. Have you?
 
Upvote 0
#88
Daniel Lindblom said:
Do you think that the RF 70-200 Z will be black? The PZ-E2 is black and would not be surprised if the new lens will be black also.

I wish they stick with 82mm filter.
Click to expand...
I’m picturing it as black for no apparent reason other than matching the 24-105 Z. It could easily be white like every other 70-200/2.8 lens. IIRC, the 80-200/2.8L was black. Canon put fluorite in the 70-200, so they painted it white. But that became at least partly marketing since the 70-300L is white but has no fluorite elements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#89
Del Paso said:
So the 1,4/50 will be an L lens. Good news!
Click to expand...
A possible explanation for the two 50/1.4 rumors:

1) a cost-no-object 50/1.4L, that's big and complicated and follows in the footsteps of the 50/1.2 (and Otus 55/1.4 or whatever that was) but maybe even round highlight shape and thus possibly MORE expensive, with cinema features

2) a cheap-and-cheerful 50/1.4 that uses the double-Gaussian formula like all the EF50mm's and the RF50/1.8 do.

I think there's a little bit of precedent for this: 1) Canon had an EF100-300/5.6L and EF100-300/5.6 at the same time. (Maybe the non-L was 4.5-5.6??). We also have DS and non-DS versions of the 85/1.2 etc.

I still think they should make a small run of 50mm f/0.7's. It's not even that hard a formula and I'm sure they could sell a few hundred even at $10k or whatever. It'd be great advertising too, despite certain members of this forum having literally no idea what a halo product could possibly be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#90
SwissFrank said:
A possible explanation for the two 50/1.4 rumors:

1) a cost-no-object 50/1.4L, that's big and complicated and follows in the footsteps of the 50/1.2 (and Otus 55/1.4 or whatever that was) but maybe even round highlight shape and thus possibly MORE expensive, with cinema features

2) a cheap-and-cheerful 50/1.4 that uses the double-Gaussian formula like all the EF50mm's and the RF50/1.8 do.

I think there's a little bit of precedent for this: 1) Canon had an EF100-300/5.6L and EF100-300/5.6 at the same time. (Maybe the non-L was 4.5-5.6??). We also have DS and non-DS versions of the 85/1.2 etc.

I still think they should make a small run of 50mm f/0.7's. It's not even that hard a formula and I'm sure they could sell a few hundred even at $10k or whatever. It'd be great advertising too, despite certain members of this forum having literally no idea what a halo product could possibly be.
Click to expand...
I believe these gaussian times are over, except for inexpensive lenses. Customers of mid-range priced lenses are no longer ready to accept poor wide-open performance. I rather see this 1,4/50 priced around 1200-1500 $ or Euros, but not in the Otus' extreme weight category.
Time will tell...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#91
Del Paso said:
I believe these gaussian times are over, except for inexpensive lenses. Customers of mid-range priced lenses are no longer ready to accept poor wide-open performance. I rather see this 1,4/50 priced around 1200-1500 $ or Euros, but not in the Otus' extreme weight category.
Time will tell...
Click to expand...
If it's going to be gaussian, could there be much improvement over ef 1.4 or 1.2?
 
Upvote 0
#94
Del Paso said:
I believe these gaussian times are over, except for inexpensive lenses. Customers of mid-range priced lenses are no longer ready to accept poor wide-open performance. I rather see this 1,4/50 priced around 1200-1500 $ or Euros, but not in the Otus' extreme weight category.
Time will tell...
Click to expand...
Thanks for hearing me out. Right and that's exactly my point:

1) an inexpensive and compact double-Gaussian. And the RF50/1.8 performs really fantastically wide-open in my opinion, even at 1/2-1/15sec. (Search the forum for my "SHOOTOUT" tests.) I'm a software engineer, not an optic engineer, but having owned the EF 1.0 1.2 1.4 and MkI 1.8, I find the RF heads and shoulders above them, and not an embarrassment to the line-up. It's not a 135/1.8. Or even the 100-500@100. But it's VERY good. I'd easily pay $950 for a 1.4 that was no better and I imagine I'm not alone.

2) a weight-no-object, cost-no-object, 1.4 designed for ultimate image quality, perhaps even out-resolving the RF50/1.2, adding cine features, and addressing its major flaw to my eye, highlight shape towards the corners, with the attendant massive mechanical vignetting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#95
EricN said:
If it's going to be gaussian, could there be much improvement over ef 1.4 or 1.2?
Click to expand...
I find the RF1.8 a night and day improvement over my MkI (the 1987 pro-housing model) EF1.8. The EF1.4 wasn't even as sharp as that, and the 1.2 was worse than the 1.4 and the 1.0 was far worse than the 1.2.

Anyway if they can massively improve the EF1.8 into today's RF1.8, I imagine they could work similar magic with a lower-cost double-Gaussian RF50/1.4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#98
Elmonducky said:
I wonder if Canon will ever come out with something equivalent to Nikons 600 and 800PF lenses. If I wasnt already invested in Canon equipment I would jump on that Z8 with the 600PF lens!
Click to expand...
Possibly. But consider that most likely, Nikon came out with those lenses because Canon had the high end (600/4, 800/5.6) and low end (600/11, 800/11) covered.
 
Upvote 0
#99
Elmonducky said:
I wonder if Canon will ever come out with something equivalent to Nikons 600 and 800PF lenses. If I wasnt already invested in Canon equipment I would jump on that Z8 with the 600PF lens!
Click to expand...
The Nikon 800 mm PF and 600 mm PF lenses are the sole reason I use both Canon and Nikon products. In the United States the Nikon Z8 is currently selling for $3495. There are also $500 discounts on both the 600 mm PF and 800 mm PF lenses.

This past weekend I used the 800 mm PF lens on the Z9 and it balances very well hand held. Locking focus and tracking is reasonably fast, but not quite as good as the Canon R3 with 100-300 mm f2.8. For a 800 mm system, the Nikon Z8/Z9 + 800 mm PF is very solid kit and one that I will keep for many years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#100
neuroanatomist said:
Possibly. But consider that most likely, Nikon came out with those lenses because Canon had the high end (600/4, 800/5.6) and low end (600/11, 800/11) covered.
Click to expand...
Many months ago there were rumors that Canon was working on a RF mount 400 mm or 500 mm DO lens, but I have not heard anything recently with regards to DO lenses from Canon. For me personally, a 400 mm DO would be a bit short, but a 500 mm DO lens with reasonable aperture (f4-f5.6) would be a desirable lens.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Canon RF 35mm f/1.4L VCM coming tomorrow at Cinema EOS event
Replies
159
Views
10K
Askeladden
A
Canon Rumors
Launch schedule of SIGMA 10-18mm F2.8 DC DN | Contemporary for Canon RF Mount
Replies
33
Views
4K
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
Canon Rumors
SmallRig announces cage kit for the Canon Cinema EOS C400
Replies
3
Views
1K
Distinctly Average
Distinctly Average
Canon Rumors
Canon will bring an RF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM to the lineup in 2024
Replies
54
Views
14K
john1970
J
Canon Rumors
There are a couple of “higher-end” RF-S zoom lenses coming with the EOS R7 Mark II
Replies
84
Views
8K
Philnick
Philnick
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu