Three new stacked sensor cameras coming from Canon [CR2]

[roby17269]

I know EF works better then ever on R cameras, I re-discovered a couple of my lenses that I was on the verge of selling because they were not performing on DSLR and yes, of course it's about business, but also opportunity; they couldn't keep EF around forever as a permanent solution, as the adapter in the middle is a pain in the axx, and of course just redoing EF repacked with an integrated adapter (something I read they did with a couple of RF supertelephoto) would have been lousy...also because, let's admit, EF's are good, but not perfect...the two 50 L have horrible sharpness up to f4 at least, the 85 1.2 L has slow AF and lousy corners, and the 85 1.4 L is good but not as good as the 85 Art which is pretty cheaper.
So it was business, yes, but was also the need to adapt new optical schemes to the new flange distance, and to re-do some L lenses that weren't up to the task, in fact both RF 50 L and 85 L are now amazing even wide open, while the EF's were easily beaten by the 50€ nifty fifty at all comparable apertures up to f4/f5.6

Sorry, all you've written... it's just business Canon wants us to buy lenses because they make more money on lenses. They had to make new lenses to remain competitive with other makers, otherwise people would have switched, and to entice people to migrate from EF to RF lenses.

Surely the 28-70 f2 would have been technically possible with EF, but at what size, and at what price, considering that both of them for the RF lens are stellar...maybe with the longer flange distance, a comparable EF would have been an even bigger beast to manufacture, and very few would have bought it, or could have afforded it.

Possibly, but we'll never know because there's 0% chances Canon will make new EF lenses... in any case EF had other differentiators from other systems (e.g. the TS lenses, MP-E, a few others) and was considered complete

 

[Walrus]

They had to make new lenses to remain competitive with other makers, otherwise people would have switched, and to entice people to migrate from EF to RF lenses.

Then, from my point of view, they have failed, at least for now 80% of the new lenses are either uber expensive or uber dark apertures.
They're not competitive at all to my eyes; maybe that's why they are fighting third party lenses, they know that RF lenses are the worst choices for the R bodies.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Then, from my point of view, they have failed, at least for now 80% of the new lenses are either uber expensive or uber dark apertures.
They're not competitive at all to my eyes; maybe that's why they are fighting third party lenses, they know that RF lenses are the worst choices for the R bodies.

They are not competitive at all to your eyes, yet Canon continues to gain mirrorless market share. Someone has vision problems, and I don't think it's Canon.

 

[roby17269]

Then, from my point of view, they have failed, at least for now 80% of the new lenses are either uber expensive or uber dark apertures.
They're not competitive at all to my eyes; maybe that's why they are fighting third party lenses, they know that RF lenses are the worst choices for the R bodies.

I don't know that "fail" is the right word.
I am mightily annoyed that Canon hasn't announced MY 35mm f/1.2L
But I am excited for some of the upcoming (rumored) lenses, regardless of whether I will buy them or not: to me they speak of a lively mount which Canon is investing a lot into.
So while I do find their prioritization choices not ideal, from my perspective, I know that satisfying everyone is pretty much impossible.

Won't stop me from whining about the 35mm (and it better be 1.2! just because) tho

 

[EricN]

I don't know that "fail" is the right word.
I am mightily annoyed that Canon hasn't announced MY 35mm f/1.2L
But I am excited for some of the upcoming (rumored) lenses, regardless of whether I will buy them or not: to me they speak of a lively mount which Canon is investing a lot into.
So while I do find their prioritization choices not ideal, from my perspective, I know that satisfying everyone is pretty much impossible.

Won't stop me from whining about the 35mm (and it better be 1.2! just because) tho

So, would you be really upset if they announced 35mm f/1.0?

 

[Walrus]

Won't stop me from whining about the 35mm (and it better be 1.2! just because) tho

Fair enough anyone of us will whine on its preferred body/lens/flash/service/action from Canon! My personal whine is the missing third party lenses, I cannot wait to equip my R cameras with some beautiful Sigma DN primes, and especially with the Tamron 35-150

 

[neuroanatomist]

Won't stop me from whining about the 35mm (and it better be 1.2! just because) tho

Whine away. At least you aren't predicting d00m for Canon if they don't give you what you want.

 

[David - Sydney]

R6/R/RP were all DSLR sensors

Sensors are sensors whether used in DLSR bodies or mirrorless. Canon still has to make them and manage the multiple part numbers associated with them.

 

[David - Sydney]

If you are not open to used lenses then Canon and third parties have discontinued EF lenses that have no RF replacements whatsoever.
There seems to be no correlation between the lenses they discontinue and the lenses they introduce.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am not open to second hand lenses.
My EF100, EF8-15, Sigma 20/1.4 were all purchased second hand.
Which EF ones have been discontinued with no EF/RF replacement?
I'm sure that Canon will make lenses if there is a demand and they can make them. Both are needed to be able to buy them.

 

[David - Sydney]

Agreed – I'm not planning to buy any new EF lenses. But for lenses which there is no benefit to me with the updated RF version (e.g. 100L Macro, 600/4) or no RF version exists (TS-E lenses, 11-24), I will happily keep using the EF version I already own.

of course, using the drop-in filter adaptor, it is even better to use the TS-E and 11-24mm adapted on mirrorless.
The 100-300/2.8 was strange not to include a drop-in filter but I guess if you can afford the lens then you can afford the large front filter.

 

[David - Sydney]

When Sony got into the game, they needed the help of 3rd parties to build up a lens catalog.

One additional point is that a fair proportion of initial Sony switchers were using Canon lenses adapted on them. Without that adaptor, Sony wouldn't have nearly have the market share that they have. Additional canon lenses would have also been purchased until there was Sony native glass available... and they did come out with competitive options to Canon.

 

[David - Sydney]

Possibly, but we'll never know because there's 0% chances Canon will make new EF lenses... in any case EF had other differentiators from other systems (e.g. the TS lenses, MP-E, a few others) and was considered complete

Although I wish that 3rd parties would release new lenses in EF mount... even if using manual focus (Sigma 14/1.4).
They would know the sales volume of their EF lenses so maybe they don't see it being worthwhile until they can (maybe) release a RF version.

 

[David - Sydney]

Then, from my point of view, they have failed, at least for now 80% of the new lenses are either uber expensive or uber dark apertures.
They're not competitive at all to my eyes; maybe that's why they are fighting third party lenses, they know that RF lenses are the worst choices for the R bodies.

The cheap(er) RF lenses with darker apertures are only possible with mirrorless and the quality of the sensors has moved up.
I don't think that most users would notice the difference and those that do are likely to spend their money on brighter ones.
How can the 600/800 f11 lenses (+TCs) not be competitive? They can bring in newbies to telephoto and then have GAS for brighter ones.
The RF100-500 appears to be darker at 500mm vs the EF100-400 but not discernible vs EF100-400 + 1.4TC. The length/weight and flexibility of 5x zoom is offset by TCs restricting 100-300mm range. The RF100-500 may be more expensive but when you add the TC + EF100-400 + adaptor then the difference is much closer.

You are sounding like a troll now with your statement "they know that RF lenses are the worst choices for the R bodies"

 

[neuroanatomist]

You are sounding like a troll now

That’s not recent.

 

[neuroanatomist]

of course, using the drop-in filter adaptor, it is even better to use the TS-E and 11-24mm adapted on mirrorless.

Definitely. For that reason, an RF 10/11-24/4 or TS lens or will need to offer something special for me to ‘upgrade’. An extra millimeter on the wide end of the zoom won’t do it, nor will AF on the TS lens. A 14mm TS might (but I’d keep the 17). Encoding of movements to EXIF would do it, if DxO also added corrections based on those movements.

The 100-300/2.8 was strange not to include a drop-in filter but I guess if you can afford the lens then you can afford the large front filter.

I thought so at first, but the lens is plenty long enough (75 mm / 3” more than the 300/2.8 as it is). However, for those who use a CPL, the omission of a window in the hood on the 100-300 (as on the more recent little white lenses) is baffling.

 

[David - Sydney]

Definitely. For that reason, an RF 10/11-24/4 or TS lens or will need to offer something special for me to ‘upgrade’. An extra millimeter on the wide end of the zoom won’t do it, nor will AF on the TS lens. A 14mm TS might (but I’d keep the 17). Encoding of movements to EXIF would do it, if DxO also added corrections based on those movements.


I thought so at first, but the lens is plenty long enough (75 mm / 3” more than the 300/2.8 as it is). However, for those who use a CPL, the omission of a window in the hood on the 100-300 (as on the more recent little white lenses) is baffling.

The window on my 100-500mm annoyingly opens too easily. It should definitely be there for the 100-300/2.8 but the design could be much better with a positive latch needed to open it eg the design of the battery compartment on the 600EX flash. More expensive construction though.
Has there been any 3rd party hoods with the window for the 100-30/2.8?

 

[roby17269]

So, would you be really upset if they announced 35mm f/1.0?

Nope! But I'd immediately start whining for a 85mm f/1L

 

[neuroanatomist]

The window on my 100-500mm annoyingly opens too easily. It should definitely be there for the 100-300/2.8 but the design could be much better with a positive latch needed to open it eg the design of the battery compartment on the 600EX flash. More expensive construction though.
Has there been any 3rd party hoods with the window for the 100-30/2.8?

I've heard that from some, mine do not:
View attachment 100-500 hood window.mov

I haven't run across any 3rd party hoods for the 100-300/2.8 yet, with or without a window.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Which EF ones have been discontinued with no EF/RF replacement?

These:

• 28-300L
• 70-300L
• 14/2.8L II
• 15/2.8 fisheye
• 24/1.4L II
• 40/2.8 pancake
• 100/2 (maybe the 85/2 is the replacement, but interestingly the 85/1.8 is not on the discontinued list)
• 200/2L
• 300/2.8L II (maybe the 100-300/2.8 is the replacement)
• 500/4L IS II
• MP-E 65/2.8
• 180/3.5L Macro
• TS-E 135/4L Macro
• Plus a whole bunch of EF-S lenses for which there's no RF-S replacement

The above are all on Canon Japan's list of EF LENS Discontinued Products.

 

[EricN]

Maybe the rf 16 f2.8 is for the ef 14 f2.8L?
Is it possible that the ef 85 f1.8 sells well enough that they aren't going to discontinue it anytime soon?