Well, well, well… could this be Canon’s lens roadmap for 2021? [CR2]

[Methodical]

How is that possible? I preordered from B&H in early July and haven’t received mine yet.

I don’t think you are being honest; the first batch is all that has shipped. Thousands of us that pre ordered haven’t even heard an update yet!

There are folks who started receiving R5s the past couple weeks (FM and POTN). I got one on September 30th. I got real lucky though. I got on a smaller company wait list and less than 2 weeks later, I got a call that they had an R5. I would assume that is at least the 2nd batch.

 

[dolina]

I keep wondering where people are seeing all this weight reduction. In a couple of lenses, yes.... otherwise, no way.

I look at the spec sheet of each succeeding generation of lenses. If the lens is like 1kg or so they dont really bother cutting weight. Anything heavier than 2kg and there is an incentive to make it lighter.

Like, if I knew the 500/4L IS version 1 would have the same weight as as the 600/4L IS version 2 I would have delayed purchase by 14 months.

Only tangible reason an owner of a current gen lens to upgrade ot the newest version would be performance improvements or in this case weight reduction improvement using better material science.

If you havent had a hand in the supply chain or materials R&D then I get the skepticism.

 

[dolina]

I wonder what the weight/cost ratio would be? $2k/kg?

I don't know the cost ratio but the total unit price would be more than $13,000

 

[Del Paso]

Lens war has just been declared.
Hard times ahead for Nikon, Sony and co.!

 

[Ozarker]

I look at the spec sheet of each succeeding generation of lenses. If the lens is like 1kg or so they dont really bother cutting weight. Anything heavier than 2kg and there is an incentive to make it lighter.

Like, if I knew the 500/4L IS version 1 would have the same weight as as the 600/4L IS version 2 I would have delayed purchase by 14 months.

Only tangible reason an owner of a current gen lens to upgrade ot the newest version would be performance improvements or in this case weight reduction improvement using better material science.

If you havent had a hand in the supply chain or materials R&D then I get the skepticism.

But you are referring (at this moment) to super-tele in the EF line, and not the non-existent RF line. As far as RF super-tele, you have absolutely no idea yet what they will weigh.

Then I kindly turn you towards a look at the other RF lenses that are already here. What is lighter than an EF 85mm f/1.2L, EF 50mm f/1.2L, EF 28-70mm f/2.8L? Any of the RF's? No. Sure, the RF 70-200 is lighter than the EF version. Isn't that just about it? The Canon EF 24-70 is 95gr lighter than the RF version. So where is this advantage of RF over EF? I don't see it when it comes to weight, which for some reason, people keep trying to claim.

I think the #1 selling point for moving from EF to RF is the weight reduction.

You claim there is a weight advantage to RF. I don't see it.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I use my EF100mm macro a lot too (macro and portrait). Besides the adapter (which I can weld on), I don't see the advantage of a RF version. If it was f2 or 2x macro then it would have a benefit over the EF version.

The 100L is a great lens but newer ones from Sony, Sigma and even Laowa are visibly sharper. The IS could also made better, as the AF. Of course, the RF version will likely be significantly more expensive as usual.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I don't expect all these lenses to be released in 2021. I think we will see some released but many will be just development announcements.

 

[vxcalais]

Yikes...not even 1 EOS-M mount lens.......I really did stuff up coming over form Sony last year.

 

[lglass12189]

The 100L is a great lens but newer ones from Sony, Sigma and even Laowa are visibly sharper. The IS could also made better, as the AF. Of course, the RF version will likely be significantly more expensive as usual.

Sony has a 100 Macro for the E mount?

 

[blackcoffee17]

Sony has a 100 Macro for the E mount?

90mm. Pretty much the same.

 

[leadin2]

The RF70-200mm was my first lens to update. The size and weight advantage is too good to ignore - even when comparing without an adapter on the EF version.

Agree! RF50mm f/1.2 was my first choice but I decided to wait for f/1.4. The 70-200mm range is always a lens I rent when in need but never owned. Now the RF version is my walk-about lens on R6. lol
The weight/size is somehow more manageable for me now.

 

[scyrene]

The 100L is a great lens but newer ones from Sony, Sigma and even Laowa are visibly sharper. The IS could also made better, as the AF. Of course, the RF version will likely be significantly more expensive as usual.

I was going to say, presumably the IS will be better due to the faster lens-body communication. If the RF85L can have 8 stops, I don't see why the 100mm can't have at least 7 at infinity focus.

 

[koenkooi]

I was going to say, presumably the IS will be better due to the faster lens-body communication. If the RF85L can have 8 stops, I don't see why the 100mm can't have at least 7 at infinity focus.

The IBIS stops seem to correlate with the size of the image circle (even with the steep vignetting RF lenses tend to have), so a redesign with smaller baffles would be a relatively easy way to accomplish that.
Also, the RF mount has more available space inside with the electronic connections being less obtrusive. So it keeps the same diameter as EF, but uses it more efficiently.

 

[SteB1]

Have you tried the R5 with the EF100-400 and 2x extender , or even 1.4x and 2x stacked ?

I'm still with the Canon 7D mkII and 5Ds, so I only use the 100-400mm II with the 1.4x extender as there's no AF with the 2x. I'm only looking to RF system in the future.

 

[Richard CN]

Yikes...not even 1 EOS-M mount lens.......I really did stuff up coming over form Sony last year.

If this is the same source / proof as Craig got last year, then M lenses wouldn't show up on the list.

 

[RunAndGun]

I suggested a couple months ago that I'd like to see this lens and that it was possible, and was told by a prominent member of this site that "no it's absolutely not possible". Now I can't remember who it was.

135/f1.4has my eye, as well.

I’m not sure why someone would say it’s not possible. 135 T1.5 already exists in the cine world. Tokina introduced probably the most affordable one, so far, at ~$8,500. Just guessing, but Canon could probably do a stills version for ~$3K-$4K ballpark*.

*spitballing based on cine versions of still lenses being roughly 2x-4x the cost of the still lens.

 

[SteveC]

If this is the same source / proof as Craig got last year, then M lenses wouldn't show up on the list.

Perhaps the letters RF should have been in the title of the post.

 

[YuengLinger]

If you're doing focus-stacking on a tilt-shift then you've probably missed the point of tilting the focal plane...

Good point! But aren't there some scenarios?

 

[koenkooi]

Good point! But aren't there some scenarios?

View attachment 193291

Yes, like macro. I did some focus stacking with the TS-E 90mm, it is very useful for when the tilted plane isn't deep enough for what you want. And at macro distances you need a lot of tilt to move the plane where you want.

 

[FitzwaterPhoto]

I was really hoping for a pancake lens - somewhere in the 24-50mm range. I would gladly sacrifice some optical quality and stops to make my R5 super portable for hobby stuff(bike-packing etc). I still carry my 6D with the 40mm f/2.8 when space is an issue.