The Canon RF lens range - a problem for Canon?

[Andrew Reid]

Some thoughts on RF lenses

https://www.eoshd.com/news/leading-for-now-but-have-canon-got-it-wrong-with-rf-lenses/

Everyone loved EF, I am not sure the RF range is going down as well?

[ND64]

The thing is back in DSLR days, f/1.4 purpose was not giving a balanced option in performance/size/price. They made f/1.4 because it was the fastest AF lens they could make for the mount, AND 200% zoomed in sharpness wasn't such a big a deal as is today. 

[seanzzxx]

I can say I personally switched away from Canon (despite LOVING their cameras) when my R6 got lost because of the RF mount. When I bought it I figured more options would quickly become available, but there's just no reasonably priced upgrade path, unlike with L mount. You either buy crappy plastic 1.8 primes or 2500$ ultra amazing lenses.

[BTM_Pix]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Everyone loved EF, I am not sure the RF range is going down as well?

I wonder what you are more likely to find in most homes, an Ikea Billy bookcase or a Canon EF24-105mm f4?

Its a close call, I reckon.

They shifted so many of them in bundles with the 5DMK2 amongst other cameras because it was absolute bargain as an additional price standalone let alone versus buying a 24-70mm f2.8.

Do they do the same with the RF version ?

Because that would be the way forward to chuck those in with the camera as a bundle with the lens being at 50% of what it would cost extra which is exactly what Panasonic are doing with the S1 with their 24-105mm

As it stands, its the fat part of £1300 for the RF24-105mm which is just not appealing at all.

The Z and L mount both have the same problem to some extent but the third party range is what gives the other two the advantage not to mention E mount which just keeps motoring along with options everywhere.

Of course, there is the massive back catalogue of EF to adapt onto RF but, unlike Nikon with the F mount adapter, this is nothing unique as all the other mounts can do that too.

If I bought an RF camera, I definitely think that it wouldn't see a native RF lens for a very long time and thats probably been enough to keep me away so far as I can do that with everything else but also have affordable native glass too.

As it stands, the most flexible mount is Z mount (primarily due to the unique ability to have F mount with full AF) closely followed by the E mount.

E and L mount currently have the best options in affordable fast native lenses and Nikon are catching up.

The key to that, of course, is the 3rd party support most notably from Sigma.

[gt3rs]

I think they got quite right, people that can afford expensive glass will go buy them at premium and sell their EF ones that allow people with less budget to get great lenses. The sport example is a good one just look how affordable a EF 200-400 1.4x has become..

Would you buy a mid range RF 85 1.4 or a cheaper used EF 85 1.2? Would you buy a mid range RF 24-70 F4 when you can get a cheaper used EF 24-70 II 2.8?

Most of the people criticizing RF lenses they don't own them, is funny to observe. 

I sold my EF 24-70 II 2.8, EF 50 1.2, RF 35 1.8 (btw very good lens for the price) and EF 24 1.4 for a RF 28-70 2.0, one of the best decision ever, but this also allowed people to get really good EF lens cheaper.

If the EF lens support would not be as good as it is on the R cameras, I would agree but they mostly work better than on DSLR.... so plenty of good options and some gets cheaper and cheaper, it is a good thing for people with limited budget.

[Ty Harper]

Funny enough, it's Canon's decision to offer the EF-RF adapters - specifically the ND filter and .071x ones - that has given the EF lens a massive leg up. Currently I have the RF 35mm f/1.8 and I see myself buying the RF 24-70 f/2.8 next - but aside from that I am a happy camper with my EF-L lenses on my R5C and R5. I've also sold my 1DC and 5D MKIII so it's not like I'm ever going back to the EF mount - it's just that Canon has given us a nice lane for RF-EF users, and I love it!

[MrSMW]

My recent purchase decisions have very much been lens driven and the R3 has been on my radar for a while as the near perfect body for me as I prefer a built in grip to a detachable one, but at the same time do not care for the weight.

So Z9 vs R3 = a win for the R3.

But then it falls apart for pretty much the reasons Andrew stated.

My favourite lenses are the Tamron; 20-40, 28-75 G2 and 35-150, only available or can be adapted to Sony & Nikon, ie, I could stick all of those on a Z9 but none on a Canon.

Also, the Sigma Contemporary line; 20, 35, 65, 90, 105 and 28-70. Sony or L Mount only. I like these for video work as they have both an aperture ring (well the primes do) and a manual focus switch which is part of the overall combo why I shoot L Mount for video.

The only lens I actually like in Canon RF mount is the 28-70...but it is monstrous...and if I was to choose the R3 as my next stills camera, although I could live with this combo, it's not a 'one and done' combo because I could live without going wider than 28mm, but need longer than 70 and there isn't that much scope to crop with the R3.

But having said that, it's still a near 2.5kg combo when the Sony A7RV + Tamron 28-75 is only about 1.5kg and can be cropped hard.

Lenses have been my issue for well over a decade, partly because I have avoided Sony and to be fair, with good reason as until recently, I have found Sony cameras to be a bit meh. The A7RVa was the first that actually ticked the box and the A7RV even more so and I am struggling to see a better option for me for stills than that A7RV + Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2 combo as it ticks...well every single box.

Canon though, they have never been able to entice me into spending any money with them. Owned probably 50+ cameras but never a Canon.

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I wonder what you are more likely to find in most homes, an Ikea Billy bookcase or a Canon EF24-105mm f4?

They downgraded the Billy bookcase version to an F7.1!

3 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

The key to that, of course, is the 3rd party support most notably from Sigma.

I remember a rumour a while ago about Canon trying to buy Sigma, but being rejected. Maybe the sour grapes stem from that? Or perhaps Canon make all their money in lenses, and don't mind selling fewer cameras, if it means selling more Canon RF lenses vs Sigma RF lenses. Someone, somewhere, with a calculator, has done a sum.

Unfortunately for Canon, calculators are often the death of a product line.

[Andrew Reid]

5 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

The thing is back in DSLR days, f/1.4 purpose was not giving a balanced option in performance/size/price. They made f/1.4 because it was the fastest AF lens they could make for the mount, AND 200% zoomed in sharpness wasn't such a big a deal as is today. 

F1.2 was the maximum, or F1.0 if you count the EF 50mm F1.0

F1.4 was the norm, a balanced option much smaller than F1.2

Look at the size of an EF 50 1.4 vs the F1.2, much smaller, or smaller still the Canon FD or Olympus OM 50mm F1.4

It's tiny

F1.8 or F2 was for sharpness, F1.4 for portraits, softer skin, more ethereal look.

Now in the mirrorless day, there's not many RF lenses at F1.4.

They're either enormous F1.2, or cheap shit.

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, gt3rs said:

I sold my EF 24-70 II 2.8, EF 50 1.2, RF 35 1.8 (btw very good lens for the price) and EF 24 1.4 for a RF 28-70 2.0, one of the best decision ever, but this also allowed people to get really good EF lens cheaper.

The RF 28-70 2.0 looks interesting, in a kind of outlier way, but it isn't really designed to replace your primes otherwise Canon would sell less primes, and we can't have that.

It is much larger and heavier for example vs 50mm f1.2 EF and is not F1.2, so looks rather different.

The 35mm F1.8 is a cheap asshat lens, can't really compare it.

3 hours ago, gt3rs said:

If the EF lens support would not be as good as it is on the R cameras, I would agree but they mostly work better than on DSLR.... so plenty of good options and some gets cheaper and cheaper, it is a good thing for people with limited budget.

So RF is good for EF sales.

I see!

[ND64]

3 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

F1.8 or F2 was for sharpness, F1.4 for portraits, softer skin, more ethereal look.

They can make a compact f/1.4 lens today, especially in wider than normal focal length that short flange of the new mount can help, but it will be soft wide open, at least by recently established standard. They marketed mirrorless lens as optically superior to DSLR lenses, now they can't distance from that. I have no problem with a relatively soft f/1.4 lens if price is reasonable, but the YouTube backlash will be enormous. 

[Andrew Reid]

Leica M F1.4 lenses are small, and not soft.

So they can and should be making much smaller, sharper, fast F1.4 primes!

[Django]

Leica M glass is fantastic optically and build quality wise but manual and f1.4 summilux are incredibly expensive. Those lenses are in their own realm just like Cooke and other pricey cine glass. I don't really see how those formulas compare to the AF prosumer glass from CaNikon, Sony & Panny.

This report from 2022 lens sales is quite interesting: 

https://shuttermuse.com/the-best-selling-lenses-of-2022/

Interesting to see the EF 50 f1.8 in the overall top 10 and not a single fast RF prime lens in Canon's top 10. 

Whereas Sony has 2 GM prime lenses in its top 10 including the great 35mm f1.4 GM. That lens has excellent optical performance, size and build quality as well as great AF motors and neat hybrid features like a declick switch for smooth aperture control for video use. Meanwhile Canon doesn't even have a RF 35mm L series lens which is crazy although I've heard reports they've been hitting roadblocks developing a RF 35mm f1.2.

Obviously Sony has a great head start when it comes to mirrorless lenses and it reflects on its sales of premium glass. 

As a Sony user, I've invested mainly in Sony Zeiss lenses. I just love the Zeiss look and quality. But I keep reading rave reports about latest GM series.

As a Canon user, I'm still using mainly adapted EF lenses. I have the RF 35mm STM which is ok for its price point as are the other STM primes but inferior to equivalent sub $1K primes from the competition. I have no intention in upgrading to RF primes any time soon. That said I have done a few shoots this summer with the RF 24-70mm & 16-35mm f2.8 zoom lenses and was very pleased with those. They are on my purchase list if I keep going with Canon. Great optical performance and lens IS which Sony for example doesn't provide in their equivalents. 

[majoraxis]

The distance of the exit pupil from the sensor plane can affect image quality. When the exit pupil is closer to the sensor/focal plane, the angles of incidence at the extreme edges of the field become higher, possibly leading to pixel vignetting, depending on the sensitivity of the digital sensor to the angle of incidence.

You could fix this with vignetting compensation, you could also fix barrel distortion with a small lighter lens design. If you had enough resolution and dynamic range you could put the exit pupil even closer to the sensor plane and then compensate for it when making the smallest, lightest, shortest, lens possible.  Seems like Sony prefers this formula.

If all other things are equal, then having an exit pupil further from the sensor so that light rays are more telecentric,  is theoretically better. So adapting an EF lens to an RF mount as compared to a similarly spec'd RF lens without image compensation may provide a slightly worse image.  Making a smaller lighter version of a lens on an RF mount should look worse without image compensation as compared to an adapted EF version with the same F Stop and focal length or zoom range. 

[kye]

9 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

Funny enough, it's Canon's decision to offer the EF-RF adapters - specifically the ND filter and .071x ones - that has given the EF lens a massive leg up. Currently I have the RF 35mm f/1.8 and I see myself buying the RF 24-70 f/2.8 next - but aside from that I am a happy camper with my EF-L lenses on my R5C and R5. I've also sold my 1DC and 5D MKIII so it's not like I'm ever going back to the EF mount - it's just that Canon has given us a nice lane for RF-EF users, and I love it!

That setup caught my eye too - it's basically a way to add "internal" NDs 🙂 

[kye]

6 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

They downgraded the Billy bookcase version to an F7.1!

You'd have to watch that around young kids - now the corners will be razor sharp.

[ntblowz]

Well look at recent Sony releases their price is straight up RF level of pricing, thank God there is 3rd party but 3rd party have some gimped feature vs Sony lens (like active IS not as good vs Sony branded lens) or no super high speed mode.

 

Though right now Canon should really release a bunch of rf-s lens, currently there is more body than lens which is embarrassing.

And of course open up 3rd party for those who want native for compactness and other option.

[Ty Harper]

44 minutes ago, kye said:

That setup caught my eye too - it's basically a way to add "internal" NDs 🙂 

Totally! The ND adapter never leaves my R5C and the extra stop you get from the .071x adapter really comes in handy (you usually need to put the R5C in 35mm crop mode to use it tho). Also thanks to those adapters, lenses like the OG EF 24-105mm f/4 IS and the 17-55mm EF-S IS have become more popular than ever. Especially with the C70. Personally I just discovered the OG EF 70-200 f4 IS - god it is so f*ckin' light with great IQ. So I ended up selling my OG EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Point is, thanks to these adapters - alot of R5C and C70 users in the groups I'm in are rediscovering the EF-L line in a big way. 

[gt3rs]

7 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

Totally! The ND adapter never leaves my R5C and the extra stop you get from the .071x adapter really comes in handy (you usually need to put the R5C in 35mm crop mode to use it tho). Also thanks to those adapters, lenses like the OG EF 24-105mm f/4 IS and the 17-55mm EF-S IS have become more popular than ever. Especially with the C70. Personally I just discovered the OG EF 70-200 f4 IS - god it is so f*ckin' light with great IQ. So I ended up selling my OG EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Point is, thanks to these adapters - alot of R5C and C70 users in the groups I'm in are rediscovering the EF-L line in a big way. 

The EF 70-200 F4 IS is really a gem... on the opposite the OG EF 24-105 imo is one of the worst lens I had, the EF 24-70 2.8 II is much better. 

I don't think Canon have a lens problem as there are so many EF lens out there.... I think the strategy to offer first the two extreme makes sense. I'm sure more 1.4 options will come.

There was another thread complaining about no improvements of RF over EF counterpart and I don't want to repeat myself but people should try both before talking nonsense.


Btw Sony 50 1.2 is a also quite big and heavy 70g lighter and similar size as the RF, the Nikon one is 100g heavier than the  RF and much bigger: https://camerasize.com/compact/#903.787,634.975,907.934,ha,t ...

[Ty Harper]

5 hours ago, gt3rs said:

on the opposite the OG EF 24-105 imo is one of the worst lens I had, the EF 24-70 2.8 II is much better. 

Feel the same way - but for some reason lots of R5C and C70 shooters swear by it as their go-to workhorse lens.