Amazing list of lenses. I really miss a 200-600 type of lens. The 500 F4 would be probably close to $12000, i would rather buy a 500mm version II for half the price and excellent condition / refurbished.
Upvote
0
Well, well, well… could this be Canon’s lens roadmap for 2021? [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Andrew Weed of THCHD sued canon and placed an injunction on further shipments. All R5s shiped thereafter are actually bootleg models built by blackmagic x fujifilm x sigma.
Received mine friday of last week.
Upvote
0
Having seen demonstrations of how well the 'head tracking' AF works on the C70 I understand why Canon isn't in a hurry to introduce RF mount Cinema lenses. After all, Cinema lenses are traditionally manual focus and manual iris.
However -- and I've said this before -- while the image quality of top RF lenses, like the 28-70mm f/2, rival that of the Cinema EF line there are other performance issues that do not measure up. 'Breathing' on rack focus is one of the most prominent.
I'm not an optical engineer but it seems like it wouldn't be that difficult to make RF versions of their current Cinema EF lenses. I suppose Canon doesn't see the point since we can mount the current EF lenses with an adapter.
Is it possible that means Canon has plans for mind blowing new Cinema RF lenses?
However -- and I've said this before -- while the image quality of top RF lenses, like the 28-70mm f/2, rival that of the Cinema EF line there are other performance issues that do not measure up. 'Breathing' on rack focus is one of the most prominent.
I'm not an optical engineer but it seems like it wouldn't be that difficult to make RF versions of their current Cinema EF lenses. I suppose Canon doesn't see the point since we can mount the current EF lenses with an adapter.
Is it possible that means Canon has plans for mind blowing new Cinema RF lenses?
Upvote
0
Entirely different lenses. The 100-500 is $3000 lens, the 100-400 likely will be under $1000.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 7828
Guest
I dunno, I may be the only one with a "meh" reaction to all this - I mean, I don't see anything really inspiring or that I don't already have in the EF format. The rumored 10-24 - obviously going to cost an arm and a leg, I'll just keep the EF version. The new 50 1.8, no IS...and if the RF version of the 100 Macro ends up also being a 2.8, there must be a compelling sell over the already excellent EF version.
Personally, I'd like to see Canon do a 105 1.4 like Nikon...now that would stand out.
Personally, I'd like to see Canon do a 105 1.4 like Nikon...now that would stand out.
Upvote
0
After getting a slow start and having Sony threaten their position in the market Canon is firing all the cannons and broadsiding the competition. If all of this comes out in 2021 along with a pro series R1 body the people who jumped ship are going to cry. Nikon and Sony will be under substantial pressures also.
Really only one lens I've been waiting for to complete my RF kit and that's the 100mm macro. Just for kicks I'm eyeballing the 85 1.2. With this announcement both of these could be in my bag by the end of next year.
Really only one lens I've been waiting for to complete my RF kit and that's the 100mm macro. Just for kicks I'm eyeballing the 85 1.2. With this announcement both of these could be in my bag by the end of next year.
Upvote
0
you can’t use grads either but that hasn’t stopped the EF-R adapter with filter being very popular.
Upvote
0
There are strong indications they will, and there are strong indicators they won’t. I wouldn’t be surprised either way.
As for the difficulty involved in putting it in a DSLR, seriously? Canon register more patents each year than almost anybody, if they wanted to do it they could but for the EF system they chose lens stabilization as their preferred method of stabilization. The big benefit for lens based stabilization for DSLR’s is the fact that you get a stabilized view through the viewfinder, you wouldn’t if it was sensor based stabilization.
Upvote
0
It is one thing to have a patent, quite another to put it into production. Given that Canon was phasing out of DSLRs anyway, it probably didn't make economic sense to put IBIS in such a low volume camera.
I simply cannot imagine a $7K R1 not having IBIS - Canon would absolutely get skewered for not including it.
Upvote
0
A huge and impressive list of potential future lenses is released and still a good 50% of comments here are complaints
Fwiw I'd *love* to see what that 1200mm is about. Same front element diameter as a 600 f/4? Expensive but a relative bargain compared to the last 1200.
Much better choice than making 1200mm F5.6. This way it will be portable and relatively affordable, unlike the 5.6 which costs as much as a house. The 1200mm focal length is very niche, even for wildlife photography
Upvote
0
Ordered my R5 from B&H on Sept 15th, got it delivered this week. Just shot with it last night!
Upvote
0
Why? Because of the F7.1? I think that's an opportunity actually. The 100-400 F7.1 could be a very small lens, great for travel, hiking, etc. Well under 1kg.
If you want better, you can get the 100-500, which is around F5.6 at 400mm. Today's cameras are much better at high ISO, so losing 2/3 of a stop is not such a big deal when can shave off 600-700g weight from one lens.
Upvote
0
IS on the 135mm would be very nice, but I guess I could live without it. I'd prefer with IS though.
Upvote
0
Could this be why 50% of marriages end in divorce?A huge and impressive list of potential future lenses is released and still a good 50% of comments here are complaints
Fwiw I'd *love* to see what that 1200mm is about. Same front element diameter as a 600 f/4? Expensive but a relative bargain compared to the last 1200.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
