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

[AlanF]

I just don’t get why people still compare the RF 100-500mm to Sonys 200-600mm lense. Those lenses feature completely different designs for different purposes.

RF 100-500mm - 200-600mm
77mm Filter - 96mm filter thread
20 cm - 32 cm
1.45 kg - 2.1 kg
0,5 m - 2,4 m Minimum focus

If you look at the purposes intended, it is even clearer:

• RF: possible walk-around lense
• Sony: most „sit and wait“ lense… (birders e.g.)

• RF: landscapes, sports, wildlife (77mm thread…)
• Sony: almost exclusively wild-life

The narrower end and the exceptional minimum focus makes the RF 100-500mm a great sport lense for example for soccer, handball (huge in Germany) while the 200-600mm isn’t suitable here.

In addition, the RF 100-500mm is an L lense, the 200-600mm is not a G Master lense, a fact which a lot of users complained on the sonyalpharumors site when the lense was released. Since the 200-600mm features weather sealing and still is not a GMaster lense, it likely says that the image quality is not the best possible. (while it is still good IQ)

The Sony 200-600mm is a great option for wildlife photography. And yes, it is an offering Canon does not have. But Canon has a different, much more versatile and way more handy option. Comparing those lense just doesn’t make sense.


I don´t wanna trash the Sony 200-600mm lense here, because it great lense for what it is. But I’m sick and tired of people saying they can’t justify the cost for 100-500mm because of Sonys offering …

this is a repost from June 2021 comment of mine…

You are spot on here. The RF 100-500mm is a more general purpose lens that you can readily hike with. It's actually long enough for me and others for birding and its close focussing, and wider field of view at 100mm make it more versatile than the heavier 200-600, which has the edge for longer distances.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I would love to see Canon’s own answer to the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8…

Considering that the FF equivalent of 18-35mm f/1.8 is 29-56mm f/2.9, the 24-70/2.8 is Canon's answer, and it was available long before the Sigma lens. Sounds facetious, but from Canon's recent perspective it seems they believe the 'answer' to those wanting high performance APS-C is to switch to FF. Of course, switching to Fuji is another possibility, but their whopping 0.3% market share gain (on top of their already low 5.9% share of the market) suggests not many are going that route.

 

[clearwaterphotog]

I would love to see Canon’s own answer to the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8…

Yes please, but make it an 18-50/2

 

[TonyG]

24-70mm f/2.8 (Pro series lenses: in US dollars)
Sony $2,298
Canon $2,199
Nikon $2,096

70-200mm f/2.8
Canon $2,599
Nikon $2,396
Sony $1,198

100-400mm (or 500mm for Canon)
Canon $2,699
Nikon $2.696
Sony $2,498

Wide angle f/2.8: focal lengths vary
Nikon 14-24mm $2,496
Canon 15-35mm $2,199
Sony 16-35mm $2,198

Your prices are not correct, Here is what you should have listed as USD $ :

Ultra Wide Zoom 2.8
Canon RF $ MIA
Sony FE 12-24 GM $3000
Nikon Z 14-24 S $2500

Wide Zoom 2.8
Canon RF 15-35 $2400
Sony FE 16-35 GM II $2400 (Should be released next week and be around the normal price of the original GM)
Nikon Z $ MIA

Normal Zoom 2.8
Canon RF 24-70 $2400
Sony FE 24-70 GM II $2300
Nikon Z 24-70 S $2400

Tele Zoom 2.8
Canon RF 70-200 $2800
Sony FE 70-200 GM II $2800
Nikon Z 70-200 S $2700

Medium Tele Zoom
Canon RF 100-500 $2900
Sony FE 100-400 GM $2500
Nikon Z 100-400 S $2700

Super Tele Cheaper Zoom
Canon RF $ MIA (I would not place the 100-300 in this catagory)
Sony FE 200-600 G $2000
Nikon Z 180-600 $1700

There is no way in this corporate world we live in that a company will undercut itself because they can make something cheaper.
{Puts on tinfoil hat}
Doesn't matter which brand you go with, they will all be similarly priced. It's all a monopoly.
{Takes off tinfoil hat}
The only difference between the brands is the availability of third party options to the likes of Tamron and Sigma that can give you a cheaper more affordable alternative for someone not in a position to make these large investments (Such as Native 1.2 Primes, I can hear a crowd throwing rocks at me).
You sacrifice some quality or features, but a great analogy is not everyone can afford to drive around in a Ferrari or Lambo.
Sometimes a BMW, Mercedes, Audi fit the bill and for some on a budget, even a KIA will do.

 

[SteveC]

Edit: and lots of people on this forum complain about things as an excuse for why they're not going to buy something they have no real intention of buying anyway. "I would buy a Porsche, but they don't come in purple." Yeah, right.

From what I understand, Porsche will be happy to make a purple car...for a lot more money.

 

[neuroanatomist]

From what I understand, Porsche will be happy to make a purple car...for a lot more money.

Well, what I really meant was something reasonable like a purple Porsche with yellow polka-dots, flames on the side and racing stripes. And it has to cost less than $30,000.

 

[MaxDiesel]

Considering that the FF equivalent of 18-35mm f/1.8 is 29-56mm f/2.9, the 24-70/2.8 is Canon's answer, and it was available long before the Sigma lens. Sounds facetious, but from Canon's recent perspective it seems they believe the 'answer' to those wanting high performance APS-C is to switch to FF. Of course, switching to Fuji is another possibility, but their whopping 0.3% market share gain (on top of their already low 5.9% share of the market) suggests not many are going that route.

I think you got a little confused with your equivalencies vs OP’s requests.
The FF 24-70 f2.8 will reproduce a field of view of 38.4-112mm on APSC.

The OP was asking for an equivalent 18-35mm f1.8 on APSC. There is currently no competition or equivalent to this lens produced by anyone but Sigma and its not an RF mount hence why it would be nice to have a equivalent in RF, I’m thinking it will eventually come with the recent Sigma/Canon license agreements.

The closest would be the RF 15-35mm f2.8 but you lose a little over a stop of light. You also have the 14-35 f4 but again same issue.

 

[SteveC]

Well, what I really meant was something reasonable like a purple Porsche with yellow polka-dots, flames on the side and racing stripes. And it has to cost less than $30,000.

Yeah, I don't think you could get a Porsche for that price...at least not one with an engine in it!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think you got a little confused with your math.
The FF 24-70 f2.8 will reproduce a field of view of 38.4-112mm on APSC.

The OP was asking for an equivalent 18-35mm f1.8 on APSC. There is currently no competition or equivalent to this lens produced by anyone but Sigma and its not an RF mount hence why it would be nice to have a equivalent in RF, I’m thinking it will eventually come with the recent Sigma/Canon license agreements.

No, the math is fine...you're just missing the point, which is that Canon seems to be pushing users who want 'more' from their APS-C bodies to buy FF bodies instead. The math is based on the the comparison of the 18-35/1.8 on APS-C with the 24-70/2.8 on FF.

Similar analogy to those wishing for an RF-S 17-55/2.8, when Canon launched the EF-S version 17 years ago and never updated it, nor did they release a fast standard zoom (or even any constant-aperture zoom) for the popular EF-M system. Similarly, the EF-S 10-22 with a near-constant f/3.5-4.5 was replaced by the EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6. Canon does not seem to be interested in producing high-end APS-C lenses. But as I've pointed out recently to those wanting an RF-S 17-55/2.8 (and pointed out for years for those asking for an updated EF-S lens), a 24-105/4 on FF is wider, longer and effectively faster than a 17-55/2.8 on APS-C.

Even though the above has been true for years, the cost of FF was very much higher in the DSLR days, and even when the RP came out, it was limiting in terms of performance. The R8 is game changing in that regard, because it offers some really high-spec performance (top-notch AF, 40 fps, relatively fast sensor readout, etc.) with a FF sensor, for the same cost as the R7 and in a similar-sized, lighter body.

 

[Del Paso]

You are spot on here. The RF 100-500mm is a more general purpose lens that you can readily hike with. It's actually long enough for me and others for birding and its close focussing, and wider field of view at 100mm make it more versatile than the heavier 200-600, which has the edge for longer distances.

Absolutely correct, at least for me.
When hiking in the Alps, I always take two bodies, one dangling from my neck with a 35mm wide, the other one mounted on a backspack strap via a clip: the EF 100-400. And I very often use it at 100mm. No chance I'd ever buy a lens starting at 200mm (or even 150mm). The RF 100-500 yet, is very very tempting...

 

[chasingrealness]

Nope! The whining will continue until the RF 35 1.2L is announced!
Then it will immediately resume for something else...

That’s the spirit!

 

[chasingrealness]

Yes please, but make it an 18-50/2

I don’t even want to start wanting this because if I never get it how will I find happiness?

 

[blackcoffee17]

I really hope Canon doesn't waste a bunch of time on APS-C garbage cameras but I can see that is what is probably going to happen. APS-C low resolution donkey camera for kids now with more donkey. HEE HAW.

You sound like a 12 year old

 

[Ozarker]

This is interesting.

Canon RF 100-500mm L f/4.5-7.1 = 3200€
Sony FE 200-600mm G f/5.6-6.3 = 2000€ (currently on sale for 1600€)
Sigma FE 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN = 1500€

Comparing Canon to Sony image quality looks quite similar at 500mm f/7.1. And Sony has more reach and is faster. Like the Sigma.

I would love a 200-600mm wildlife lens for RF. I got the RF 600mm f/11 out of curiosity and now I'm more into wildlife and checking out what's happening on the Moon. But it's slow to focus and the AF area is quite small. It's hard to justify the RF 100-500 knowing the Sony exists. And the Sigma if it's good. I presume it is.

True. You could sell all your Canon gear, and switch, just so you'll have a body for that Sony lens. Well worth a $1,200 savings (or more on sale.). I have no idea what you mean about faster. On the shorter end, the Canon is faster. Looks like a wash to me. Somehow, I can't see how a difference of f/(point)8 on the long end is such a glorious thing . Negligible.

 

[Ozarker]

What is ‘slightly different’ between the RF-S and EF-M 18-150, from an optical standpoint?

One has an s. The other has an m?

 

[David - Sydney]

Yes, and the RF 1200/8 is the same treatment for the EF 600/4 III. But at least the 800/5.6 is a 'new' lenses relative to the EF 800/5.6 it replaces, and of course there was no 1200/8.

There was a EF1200/5.6 though

 

[David - Sydney]

I would love a 200-600mm wildlife lens for RF. I got the RF 600mm f/11 out of curiosity and now I'm more into wildlife and checking out what's happening on the Moon. But it's slow to focus and the AF area is quite small. It's hard to justify the RF 100-500 knowing the Sony exists. And the Sigma if it's good. I presume it is.

Your thinking is a classic reason why Canon brought out the 600/800 f11 lenses... They are gateway GAS products

 

[David - Sydney]

It won't be long until the RF mount patents and IP expire. In the mean time, it's also interesting that Canon will only give "rights" to 3rd party lenses on the basis that the sale of such a lens wouldn't raid their own lens sales.

There is no way to enforce the mechanical R mount from a patent perspective as far a I know
Can you point to the approved patent that Canon for the RF protocols?

IP may expire but that doesn't mean that Canon has open sourced their protocols. If they are using encryption for the protocols then any expiration of IP still won't allow 3rd parties to be able to use it.

Optical patents exist for sure as 3rd parties can disassemble any lens and reverse engineer them. Similarly patents on ideas like the switchable teleconvertor, eye tracking AF point etc.

Canon are the gate keepers of a close loop system, of which Canon are the marketers and profiteers of...and we are the consumers, users and purchasers of. The cameras are most likely the loss leaders, but the lenses are where the fat profit margins are and Canon are defending their margins rigorously.

I doubt that the bodies are loss leaders or even sold at break even pricing. Canon has mentioned in their press releases that there is double digit margins on lenses if I recall correctly

 

[David - Sydney]

As I said, there are reasons people prefer APS-C over FF. But the 'reasonable' ones are really just three – lower system cost, lower system weight, and more pixels on target if you're focal length limited.

Another reason for APS-C is for working distance for nervous critters.

 

[Czardoom]

Another reason for APS-C is for working distance for nervous critters.

And working distance for other things as well, such as flowers. My neighbors are happier when I stay outside of their flower beds to get my flower shots.