3 new Canon RF lenses this month?

Just a rumor...

https://www.canonnews.​com …e-coming-later-this-month

Only 1 week after I picked up a 400 2.8 is V2....

Perfectly Frank wrote in post #19218109
Just a rumor...

https://www.canonnews.​com …e-coming-later-this-month

It would be nice if the rumoured RF 100mm L goes higher than 1:1 magnification.

Archibald wrote in post #19218194
It would be nice if the rumoured RF 100mm L goes higher than 1:1 magnification.

I read somewhere that there was a patent of 1.14:1 but who knows. That isn't much more.

jcothron wrote in post #19218196
I read somewhere that there was a patent of 1.14:1 but who knows. That isn't much more.

That isn't much but would help. Of course we can get to 1.2x or more with tubes, but AF becomes balky. It would be wonderful if the new lens could focus and AF at higher than 1:1.

I do resort to MF but I don't think it is possible to achieve critical focus by just viewing through the viewfinder (hand-holding assumed).

Archibald wrote in post #19218199
That isn't much but would help. Of course we can get to 1.2x or more with tubes, but AF becomes balky. It would be wonderful if the new lens could focus and AF at higher than 1:1.

I do resort to MF but I don't think it is possible to achieve critical focus by just viewing through the viewfinder (hand-holding assumed).

I agree, handholding at those ranges pretty much means you need the lens to hold focus. A tripod works but that isn't always practical for many shots or situations. Maybe they will come out with an RF version of the MP-E, and I suppose you could always use crop mode to get closer (in the viewfinder anyway). I agree though it would be nice.

Archibald wrote in post #19218194
.
It would be nice if the rumoured RF 100mm L goes higher than 1:1 magnification.
.

.
I agree - it would be great if the new RF 100mm goes noticeably higher than 1:1

I bought my first ever true macro lens two months ago - the Sigma 105mm macro.

Never having had a macro lens before, I thought that 1:1 magnification would be pretty extreme, and give me all the super-close-up-detail I could ever want. . I was quite wrong.

The first thing I tried shooting with it, I couldn't fill the frame the way I thought I would be able to with 1:1. . I guess I totally overestimated just how close 1:1 would get me in real life scenarios. . I mean, of course I knew the math involved; that 1:1 meant that I would be able to fill a 35mm frame with an object 35mm across, but I just thought that would give me a much more close-up look than it really does.

So, I found out that 1:1 isn't nearly enough to give me the look I was hoping for, and now realize that even though I bought a "real" macro lens, I will still have to fuddle around with extension tubes and/or tele-extenders ..... which I am not really happy about.


.

jcothron wrote in post #19218201
I agree, handholding at those ranges pretty much means you need the lens to hold focus. A tripod works but that isn't always practical for many shots or situations. Maybe they will come out with an RF version of the MP-E, and I suppose you could always use crop mode to get closer (in the viewfinder anyway). I agree though it would be nice.

Wow, an RF version of the MP-E, with AF!! That would be fantastic.

Or maybe just a fantasy?...

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19218203
.
I agree - it would be great if the new RF 100mm goes noticeably higher than 1:1

I bought my first ever true macro lens two months ago - the Sigma 105mm macro.

Never having had a macro lens before, I thought that 1:1 magnification would be pretty extreme, and give me all the super-close-up-detail I could ever want. . I was quite wrong.

The first thing I tried shooting with it, I couldn't fill the frame the way I thought I would be able to with 1:1. . I guess I totally overestimated just how close 1:1 would get me in real life scenarios. . I mean, I knew the math involved; that 1:1 meant that I would be able to fill the frame with an object 35mm across, but I just thought that would give me a much more close-up look than it really does.

So, I found out that 1:1 isn't nearly enough to give me the look I was hoping for, and now realize that even though I bought a "real" macro lens, I will still have to fuddle around with extension tubes and/or tele-extenders ..... which I am not really happy about.

.

Macro gets more interesting beyond 1x. But the technical difficulties increase too. That's why some of like it!

You can do quite a bit with a modest-sized extension tube and a body like the 90D - great macro body.

I assumed/hoped that given that the 500mm MkII is now the oldest design, that it would be the first RF big white.

That it is not, leads me to be concerned that Canon is not designing a new lens, but instead is literally just going to retrofit an RF mount on what is the current EF Gen III lenses. These will be a bit like the version III 70-200mm vs the version II.

Time will tell.

Canon Rumors says a RF 14-35 is coming up. Very tempting, except I just bought the EF 16-35 f4. Great lens, although I do find myself at 16 mm and wishing I could go just a little bit wider at times.

https://www.canonrumor​s.com …0-400mm-f-5-6-7-1-is-usm/

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19218212
I assumed/hoped that given that the 500mm MkII is now the oldest design, that it would be the first RF big white.

That it is not, leads me to be concerned that Canon is not designing a new lens, but instead is literally just going to retrofit an RF mount on what is the current EF Gen III lenses. These will be a bit like the version III 70-200mm vs the version II.

Time will tell.

My exact thoughts

So not sure why guys would be rushing out to buy a RF version of an existing lens they have with the converter in the bag. Its frustrating to see whats going on at Canon. Where is something like a 150-600 in a canon version ? My current lens can all be adapted. my 500 F/4 version 1 does great. My only concern is if something breaks...then Im forced to consider

Hard to beat current canon L glass. This was with the 500 F4 version 1. Still gets really decent results

umphotography wrote in post #19261319
Where is something like a 150-600 in a canon version ?

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=192​61319&i=i143181252
forum: Photography Industry News

The new RF 100-500 is somewhat Canon Version of supertelephoto zoom. They keep it @500mm @7.1 for a couple reasons to my understanding: compact/weight, 77mm front filter for current users whose already got all kind of filters because this lens serves as birding/landscape/trav​el telephoto.
Guys buying the RF versions because the AF acquisition is slightly edging the EF with an adapter. I’ve tried 600/4 III with adapter, the RF 100-500 and the EF 100-400 II, 600/4 all at the same lighting condition, same subject at Conowingo Dam. Eventho the new RF big whites are “added adapter” some people called but they are slightly edging the EF with external adapter.
That being said, the EF lenses with adapter still get the jobs done, the RF just a little better.

I'd be happy if I could get the lenses I want without long waiting periods...