There will be “a lot” of new RF mount lenses from Canon between now and March 2024

[David - Sydney]

You obviously did a reasoned analysis and determined that the smaller size and weight of the RF 100-500 was more important to you than an extra 100 mm or 1/3 stop at the long end, like the Sigma 150-600 or Sony 200-600. But you knew and accepted that tradeoff.

You think too much of me
I never consider the Sigma (and definitely not the Sony) simply because the size of them wouldn't be "domestically acceptable" especially when travelling.
My main incentive was that the RF70-200/2.8 didn't accept TCs which I did use with the EF70-200/2.8 albeit with decreasing performance/optics when I did. I wanted a longer focal length for a big trip when the R5 was announced but the final lens price was way higher than I budgeted for so I cancelled my pre-order. The RF TCs were also more expensive than I expected.
A 20% discount sale changed my mind when I realised that the EF100-400 + TC wasn't as good a value proposition and not much different in price overall. Despite the hit to the wallet, I have zero regrets now.

 

[Walrus]

The thing that surprises me in all this Canon native "gaps" discussion and "no 3rd party RF lenses" debate is why the 3rd parties seem to have stopped offering EF versions of their newest lenses

DSLR and Mirrorless lenses are often very different optical schemes; you can adapt the former to the latter, but not the other way around, there's no easy way (except using adapters with inner lenses, that would lower optical quality and likely change the crop factor) to have a DSLR version of a new mirrorless lens, at least (for what I know; I'm no expert engineer/optician, and really don't care) on wide angles and std lenses.

DSLR bodies and lenses are dead tech, from a commercial perspective, so I see no reason why the third party gang would waste resources to manufacture two different type of lenses, or even try to somewhat adapt them; the new tech is mirrorless are there's no going back to mirrors, there's very little reason to keep doing DSLR stuff, considering that, being so much old tech, the market is flooded with used quality stuff for any pocket and any request.

 

[Walrus]

For me, the issue with the adapter is that as well as it works, it means still using EF lenses, so still using lenses which are the same size and weight as before, except now there is an adapter as well. One of the attractions of mirrorless to me is reducing size and weight, so not using lenses designed for mirrorless would significantly reduce the value I get from spending the money on the move to mirrorless. The next lenses I add to my Sony kit will almost certainly be in the very small and light category, eg from the Samyang "tiny series", the Sigma i series or perhaps the Sony 55mm f/1.8. Even if I go with one of the UWA zooms I mentioned, I would still class it in the small and light category, since they are small and light for what they are.

My main attraction to ML, being photographing exclusively people, was the improved AF systems and the face/eye focus (consider that I was coming from 8 years of a 6D, so a very rudimentary AF system); slightly reducing size (just partially; I actually enjoy "big guns") and weight would certainly be interesting, but actually I'm still relatively young and I still can handle big guns pretty well, so I see it as something I would enjoy in the future, but now I don't really care. Either I work in my studio, or I'll reach a (event) location with my car, I don't walk/travel for extensive periods with bags of gear on me, so size/weight is a no issue as now.

I can tell you that just the new AF really improved my photography, because 90% of time I don't have to deal with it, I choose subject and then the camera is taking care on its own, and I can much better concentrate on composition and in capturing the moment; I'm much more "into" the event, or much more in connection with my subject(s) in a portrait/headshot situation, I have more "processing power" of my brain assigned to direction of my subjects, with much less distraction on dealing with the tech side.
Also being used to shoot wide aperture primes in natural light, or mix light scenarios, the hit rate on close shots due to narrow DoF had drastically improved, and I now extensively use Servo, that I was rarely using before in DSLR days; just that pays for the move to ML for me.

Every euro spent on bodies and cameras has to return back to me, so now finding good deals on EF stuff is doing it good for me; I also happily shaved off lot of stuff that I was barely using, and I rationalized my entire gear, so in some way I had actually reduced the overall weight of it all.
Next move will be getting rid of adapters, but that means third party, and most likely USED third party, so the sooner third parties will hit the market, the sooner they will end up in the used market after some years; that's why I'm in a rush for them, as even if today all third parties will present and deliver RF stuff, I most likely will have to wait 3/5 years for the stuff to reach the used market at a price I'm comfortable paying. So that's why every day passing without third parties is a bad day for me.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

but when you add TCs to each then you get a wide range of price points and focal length within the existing RF telephotos.

That patented zoomable teleconverter would change everything.
A lot of the attraction to Nikon is for their built-in teleconverters.
It should also work for the entire range of the 100-500L .

 

[EOS 4 Life]

using the adapter can't be a permanent solution

Why not?
Unless you mean from Canon's point of view.
It does seem like Canon is in no rush to replace their newer EF lenses.
Those will be replaced with RF lenses eventually.

 

[Walrus]

Why not?

Because all my lenses, especially the two Sigma primes, are already front (and)heavy on their own; adding 2,4cm of adapter make them even more unbalanced.

The Sigma 85 1.4 DN is 94mm long and 630g heavy, while my lens, in EF mount and including the adapter, is 140mm and 1350g, basically 50% longer and 100% heavier. And length and weight aside, adapters are pain in the axx.

So using the adapters for the rest of my career is not a permanent solution; either I can get third parties in RF mount in the future, or I jump ship. I'm not gonna adapt forever. It's not about whining, is about opportunity and doing what best fits my need; atm EF adapting is ok, but I know it won't be ok forevah and evah.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Because all my lenses, especially the two Sigma primes, are already front (and)heavy on their own; adding 2,4cm of adapter make them even more unbalanced.

Oh, for you. Ok.

Personally, the functionality added by the drop-in filter adapter for my EF 11-24/4 (talk about a front-heavy lens!) and TS-E 17 make the adapter a better solution than I expect from Canon’s RF mount versions of those lenses.

 

[JohnC]

Oh, for you. Ok.

Personally, the functionality added by the drop-in filter adapter for my EF 11-24/4 (talk about a front-heavy lens!) and TS-E 17 make the adapter a better solution than I expect from Canon’s RF mount versions of those lenses.

Ditto! I wouldn't even own the 11-24 if it hadn't been for the drop in adapter. While I've always coveted the lens, the impossibility of using filters (without the cumbersome unwieldy attachment to the front) rendered it useless to me personally.

Since the adapter exist, all of those EF lenses with the bulbous convex front elements are in play for the first time (for me).

 

[Del Paso]

There are still a few RF lenses I miss in the current RF lens line.
What the heck, I'll just wait since, like most posters here, I don't need them to earn a living.
And while I patiently (???) wait, I'll just keep using my excellent EF lenses.
I guess most of us are hobbyists, so, why all the anger and frustration? Just swap systems...

 

[Czardoom]

There are still a few RF lenses I miss in the current RF lens line.
What the heck, I'll just wait since, like most posters here, I don't need them to earn a living.
And while I patiently (???) wait, I'll just keep using my excellent EF lenses.
I guess most of us are hobbyists, so, why all the anger and frustration? Just swap systems...

The reality, it seems to me, is that their are a certain percentage of forum dwellers whose entire agenda is to bash Canon, show how stupid Canon is, and therefore, by default, show how smart they are. While one might assume they want to see these new lenses they complain about, nothing would make them more miserable than Canon actually filling out their RF lens lineup. You see the same thing on other forums and FB user groups. People who would rather show how smart they are, how they are "the voice of the people's discontent." Nothing makes these people more miserable than having their discontent removed, and that their opinion that the Big, Bad company (organization, sports team ownership, etc.) is incompetent, or even evil, is incorrect.

 

[EricN]

The reality, it seems to me, is that their are a certain percentage of forum dwellers whose entire agenda is to bash Canon, show how stupid Canon is, and therefore, by default, show how smart they are. While one might assume they want to see these new lenses they complain about, nothing would make them more miserable than Canon actually filling out their RF lens lineup. You see the same thing on other forums and FB user groups. People who would rather show how smart they are, how they are "the voice of the people's discontent." Nothing makes these people more miserable than having their discontent removed, and that their opinion that the Big, Bad company (organization, sports team ownership, etc.) is incompetent, or even evil, is incorrect.

It's a strange attitude for me, but I totally agree with your interpretation.
Personally, I'm happy enough with what's available now. Would I like to see RF f/1.4 lenses and third party auto focus lenses? Yes, I'm sure if they appear, they will be nice options to choose from! Who knows, maybe one of these eight to ten will be F/1.4 or a fast aps-c zoom, just for you!

 

[Old Sarge]

Because all my lenses, especially the two Sigma primes, are already front (and)heavy on their own; adding 2,4cm of adapter make them even more unbalanced.

The Sigma 85 1.4 DN is 94mm long and 630g heavy, while my lens, in EF mount and including the adapter, is 140mm and 1350g, basically 50% longer and 100% heavier. And length and weight aside, adapters are pain in the axx.

So using the adapters for the rest of my career is not a permanent solution; either I can get third parties in RF mount in the future, or I jump ship. I'm not gonna adapt forever. It's not about whining, is about opportunity and doing what best fits my need; atm EF adapting is ok, but I know it won't be ok forevah and evah.

I am not fond of adapters, though I admit this particular use is only minimally annoying to me (I tend to grumpiness in my old age) and it seems to work rather well. But when you "jump ship" aren't you risking worse ergonomics? For example, as I recall the rings (focus/zoom) on Nikon cameras worked the opposite way to the Canon, which I was used to. That would drive me crazy in itself (which might really be a putt in my case, rather than a drive).

I agree in doing what best fits our needs and in my case it is keeping ergonomics and features I have grow used to....but that is only in my case.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The reality, it seems to me, is that their are a certain percentage of forum dwellers whose entire agenda is to bash Canon, show how stupid Canon is, and therefore, by default, show how smart they are. While one might assume they want to see these new lenses they complain about, nothing would make them more miserable than Canon actually filling out their RF lens lineup. You see the same thing on other forums and FB user groups. People who would rather show how smart they are, how they are "the voice of the people's discontent." Nothing makes these people more miserable than having their discontent removed, and that their opinion that the Big, Bad company (organization, sports team ownership, etc.) is incompetent, or even evil, is incorrect.

There have certainly been some. I recall a cadre of posters here a decade ago who complained almost daily about Canon’s poor DR (usually omitting that while Canon had more noise at low ISO than SoNikon, they had less noise at high ISO). When Canon didn’t give up making cameras and instead developed sensors with more low ISO DR, those folks started complaining that the shadows in Canon’s files couldn’t be lifted 5+ stops.

 

[Walrus]

But when you "jump ship" aren't you risking worse ergonomics?
[..]
I agree in doing what best fits our needs and in my case it is keeping ergonomics and features I have grow used to

Maybe that's exactly why I'm not jumping ship (yet)? My gear buys me food, I don't jump ship on a whim, it's something I would carefully weigh before actually doing it.

 

[David - Sydney]

DSLR and Mirrorless lenses are often very different optical schemes; you can adapt the former to the latter, but not the other way around, there's no easy way (except using adapters with inner lenses, that would lower optical quality and likely change the crop factor) to have a DSLR version of a new mirrorless lens, at least (for what I know; I'm no expert engineer/optician, and really don't care) on wide angles and std lenses.

DSLR bodies and lenses are dead tech, from a commercial perspective, so I see no reason why the third party gang would waste resources to manufacture two different type of lenses, or even try to somewhat adapt them; the new tech is mirrorless are there's no going back to mirrors, there's very little reason to keep doing DSLR stuff, considering that, being so much old tech, the market is flooded with used quality stuff for any pocket and any request.

My understanding of the difference between EF and R mount is the reduced flange distance allowing rear elements to be closer to the sensor due to no mirror box. If the designs by the 3rd parties are taking advantage of that then they need to be R mount mechanically (and currently be manual focus only) as they couldn't use the adapter. If the design doesn't bring the rear element closer than the EF mount distance then a EF version (with EF auto focus protocols) could be produced.

All companies are trying to maximise revenue/profit so having multiple mounts for the same optical design is actually a good strategy. The glass elements and AF drive motors are the expensive part of the lens so changing the housing/AF processors makes sense... and was common in the past.

 

[David - Sydney]

That patented zoomable teleconverter would change everything.
A lot of the attraction to Nikon is for their built-in teleconverters.

I am not sure about changing everything. We are yet to see it either as a standalone TC or within a lens. The additional cost would be substantial,
The EF200-400/4 1.4TC is ~USD11k. Using the patented design would be substantially above that.
If we assume a EF400/2.8 plus multiple TC inbuilt then it would potentially replace the RF600/4 (@560mm/4) and RF800/5.6 and hopefully slightly better optics than using separate TCs (as the RF800/1200 have)
What price would Canon put on such a lens?
A bargain if the optics are good and if a well heeled user would think to buy all 3 lenses but the number of users with all 3 would be a niche within a niche

It should also work for the entire range of the 100-500L .

I'm not sure that would be the case as the RF100-500 has rear elements that are too close to the sensor for the 100-300 range with a TC. Adding the multi-TC would add more distance from the sensor and I believe would require a re-design.
People already complain about the price of the RF100-500mm @USD2900. The RF1.4TC + RF2xTC add up to USD1100... what would be your guess for the price of a combined RF100-500 +embedded multi-TC?

 

[Bdbtoys]

That patented zoomable teleconverter would change everything.
A lot of the attraction to Nikon is for their built-in teleconverters.
It should also work for the entire range of the 100-500L .

I'm hoping that 1x-1.5x-2x non-lens specific TC sees the light of day (or something like it).

Also, I'm still holding out for the TS's.

 

[jd7]

My main attraction to ML, being photographing exclusively people, was the improved AF systems and the face/eye focus (consider that I was coming from 8 years of a 6D, so a very rudimentary AF system); slightly reducing size (just partially; I actually enjoy "big guns") and weight would certainly be interesting, but actually I'm still relatively young and I still can handle big guns pretty well, so I see it as something I would enjoy in the future, but now I don't really care. Either I work in my studio, or I'll reach a (event) location with my car, I don't walk/travel for extensive periods with bags of gear on me, so size/weight is a no issue as now.

I can tell you that just the new AF really improved my photography, because 90% of time I don't have to deal with it, I choose subject and then the camera is taking care on its own, and I can much better concentrate on composition and in capturing the moment; I'm much more "into" the event, or much more in connection with my subject(s) in a portrait/headshot situation, I have more "processing power" of my brain assigned to direction of my subjects, with much less distraction on dealing with the tech side.
Also being used to shoot wide aperture primes in natural light, or mix light scenarios, the hit rate on close shots due to narrow DoF had drastically improved, and I now extensively use Servo, that I was rarely using before in DSLR days; just that pays for the move to ML for me.

Every euro spent on bodies and cameras has to return back to me, so now finding good deals on EF stuff is doing it good for me; I also happily shaved off lot of stuff that I was barely using, and I rationalized my entire gear, so in some way I had actually reduced the overall weight of it all.
Next move will be getting rid of adapters, but that means third party, and most likely USED third party, so the sooner third parties will hit the market, the sooner they will end up in the used market after some years; that's why I'm in a rush for them, as even if today all third parties will present and deliver RF stuff, I most likely will have to wait 3/5 years for the stuff to reach the used market at a price I'm comfortable paying. So that's why every day passing without third parties is a bad day for me.

I certainly understand about mirrorless AF! And I can understand, too, if you are not carrying bags of gear very far that the weight of the gear really isn't an issue.

For me, the attractions of mirrorless are the AF and smaller/lighter gear. The disadvantages are having to use an EVF (I'd prefer an OVF any day, although I know there are many who disagree) and battery life. Throw in the fact it seems unlikely we will see much if any further development of DSLRs in future, in the end the attractions of mirrorless won out for me.

 

[steen-ag]

You are 100% right

 

[EricN]

For me the only draw back is the battery consumption.