Three New Lenses

[Kayaker72]

If the rumor is to be believed, and they have images, we are about to see three new lenses tomorrow, the RF-S 10-18 f/4.5-6.3. The rumor is that is built on the EF-M 11-22, which is a great lens. So, this is nice. If I ever buy a crop sensor RF camera, I could see owning this.

Next up, is a RF 200-800 f/6.3-9 IS USM. I have to admit, I saw the f values and thought that it would maybe be something a bit better than the 600/800 f/11 lenses. But, the picture is out. And it is white. It doesn't have a red ring. So something is off, but I can't think of a big white lens that doesn't have a red or green ring. But all of the lenses with white paint are very good. So, this lens now very much has my attention as it would do something that I can't with my current kit.

The third...why, nothing more than a RF 24-105 f/2.8 IS USM Z and while "L" is not in the name, the image does have a red ring. The "Z" is apparently for "power zoom." We'll have to see what that is.

Just last weekend, I was taking photos and thinking to myself that I might be good with my kit for at least another year or two. Now, I might be pre-ordering two lenses tomorrow. There would be a reasonable chance I cancel those pre-orders as I am happy with my kit, but a high quality 200-800 has my attention. Depending on the focal length for the f/ transitions, the apertures are only slightly worse than Nikon's and Sony's comparable zooms (180-600 f/5.6-6.3 and 200-600 f/5.6-6.3) and you get out to 800 mm. So, if you are f/7.1 or even f/8 at 600 mm...ok. Then, the RF 24-105 f/2.8. Size and weight depending, tempting. There are instances where would like more focal range rather than just cropping.

So, we'll see, but it does appear Canon is releasing 3 good lenses tomorrow.

[neuroanatomist]

The crop UWA zoom is an important part of the kit for some. I use M-series bodies for travel, and the M11-22 is my most-used lens on them (followed closely by the M18-150, which was among the first pair of lenses in RF-S).

The RF 200-800 doesn't interest me, personally. I already have the RF 100-500L and RF 100-400 (for travel), and for birding I use the EF 600/4 II + 1.4x and I'll take 840/5.6 with L-level optical performance over 800/9 without. It will be interesting to see the relative performance of the 800/11 vs. the 200-800 at the long end.

The rumor does state that the 24-105/2.8 has the L designation along with the red ring. I'll be preordering. What will determine if I keep the preorder is what this Z is all about. I don't mind a power zoom option if the zoom mechanism is still mechanically coupled to the zoom ring. OTOH, if it's zoom-by-wire like the focusing on all RF (and some EF) lenses, that would have to be extraordinarily well-implemented...beyond what seems feasible.

With the RF 10-20/4, I got an email from B&H at 12:01a (Eastern) with a preorder link. I was already asleep, but that's not a lens that really interests me. I guess I'll be staying up until a little past midnight, tonight.

[neuroanatomist]

RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z ordered at 12:02a. Supposed to ship in December.

[Kayaker72]

RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z ordered at 12:02a. Supposed to ship in December.

I was asleep at 12:02 am. But you should have secured a place at the top of the list.

I am curious, what is it about the RF 24-105 f/2.8 that is really appealing to you?

Big picture for a second, we have learned that Canon will be releasing a series of "Z" zooms. These seem to be a hybrid lens series incorporating features from the cinema line but that are still less expensive and balancing those that also want to use them for stills. As is very typical of Canon, they have picked a large target market and are providing them an extremely good product that the rest of us can choose if we would like. In this instance, I can see this lens ending up in the bag of many event/wedding photographers and other hybrid video/still photographers. Strongly suspect next on the list is a RF 70-200 f/2.8 L "Z" lens, as there is a rumor that an internally zooming 70-200 is coming.


As for me....I pre-ordered both the RF 24-105 f/2.8 and the RF 200-800 but am still on the fence regarding both. I secured my place in line at 6:27 am.

The RF 24-105 f/2.8. Actually, making this a hybrid videographer lens really hit on a hole I have identified, namely when I want to be a hybrid photo/video photographer. With my EF lenses, I can hear a clicking sound during autofocusing while videoing. I tend to take videos at family functions and have been asked to take video at ~4 to 5 different friend's weddings (usually they spend their money on photographers and ask me to capture videos of key events for them). Anyway, I've used a combination of the EF lenses where I hear the clicking and the M6II with EF-m lenses that are silent but tend to suffer in lower light.

The RF 24-105 f/2.8 seems to be a solution. Just not sure if that is such a big "hole" that I want to invest $3k into it. So, we'll see.


The RF 200-800. That gets a bit tougher. It fills a more distinctive niche for me, being portable and getting more reach, as, always more reach. The MTF makes it look better than the 100-500 + 1.4x tc (going off CRs comparison), but just by a little, mostly in the center. But, ever since I was on a glacier tour in Alaska where we had Humpback's breaching around our boat, I have valued having a zoom supertelephoto. At the time, I had the Sigma 150-600S.

Case and point, this whale breached near the boat and I pulled the zoom back in and took this at 279 mm
Small-5957 by kayaker72, on Flickr

On the same trip, I photographed bears, almost exclusively at 600 mm.

What I really want is a 200-500 f/4 with built in 1.4x TC. Which doesn't exist...yet. And a lighter weight altnerative. The rumor is that 200-500 f/4 will not include a built in TC when/if it arrives (we'll have to see if Canon provides a solution, as rumored). But I am also becoming more convinced that this is going to run $15k or more. Which is more than I want to pay considering how happy I am with my EF 500 f/4 II.

So, I want something like the 200-800 to be an alternative. The trick will be deciding if I: 1) stay with the EF 100-400L II plus 1.4 tc (both already in my kit); 2) 200-800; 3) RF 100-500 plus RF 1.4 tc; or 4) wait for the 200-500...plus a tc...if it ever comes. I am tempted by all four options, just have to decide. Ultimately, what I would have wanted is something like a RF 200-800 f/5.6-8 L for $3.5k. Canon picked a higher end prosumer lens with this lens.

All this is part of the reason that just a week or so ago, I was thinking I would be set for another couple of years. My quick guess is that I'll keep the 24-105 and cancel the order on the 200-800, save the money for another day...but we'll see.

[Kayaker72]

BTW...I am seeing a few people lose their minds over f/9. Granted, I would have preferred better, but can we stop for a second:

400 mm f/5.6 the DoF (according to Photopills) at 30 ft is 6.7 inches
500 mm f/4 the DoF at 30 ft is 3"
500 mm f/7.1: 5.3"
500 mm f/4: 2.1"
800 mm f/9 the DoF at 30 ft is 2.5"

So, only the 600 mm f/4 has a shallower DoF? In the images I am seeing, if the background is sufficiently far behind the subject, this lens is providing some nice bokeh.

BTW, my bird feeder is ~30 ft from where I shoot.

I understand light, but f/9 is only 2/3 stop slower than f/7.1....I'll take 300 mm extra focal length range for 2/3 stops of light....and I'll take IQ over either.

[neuroanatomist]

For me, the RF 24-105/2.8 addresses a long-running quandary of wanting more range on the long end vs wanting a wider aperture for my standard zoom. I've had both the EF 24-105/4L and the EF 24-70/2.8L II. The latter was preferable and worth giving up the zoom range because of the better AF performance on a DLSR (higher accuracy AF points with an f/2.8 lens). That advantage is moot on an R-series body. I find that the RF 24-105/4L does very well as a walkaround lens, but indoors I still would like that extra stop of light. But having that lens, I couldn't justify getting the RF 24-70/2.8 and I got the RF 28-70/2 instead. The 24-105/2.8 is basically a compromise between the two lenses I have that are even further apart than the EF versions.

It feels a little obscene having three standard zooms, but I can see use cases for all of them. The 24-105/4 will be used almost exclusively for travel, since it's much smaller and lighter than the other two. Whereas today the lens I leave on my R3 is the 28-70/2, I expect I'll switch to the 24-105/2.8 as my general purpose lens and use the 28-70/2 for poorly lit indoor events. Possibly I'll end up just using the 24-105/2.8 for those as well, and if I end up not really using the 28-70/2 very much, I may not keep it.

The 24-105/2.8 is an interesting lens. I agree that we'll see at least a 70-200/2.8 internal zoom 'Z' lens as well, also compatible with the power zoom accessories (that start at an extra $1K). I do hope they release a firmware update for at least some current bodies (R3, R5) so the aperture ring works for stills. Not a huge deal as the lens will last through many bodies, and I'll likely get the R1 when it comes along.

Out of curiously, have you considered a dedicated video camera? Personally, I don't shoot video on my ILCs and when I do want video I'm usually also shooting stills. I have a Canon HF G60 (no longer readily available) that is basically the consumer version of the XA70 (4K30, same sensor and lens, the former just lacks the handle with the XLR inputs). Has a built-in ND filter wheel, mini-hotshoe that takes a directional microphone, and with the 1" (Sony Exmor, I think) sensor and relatively fast lens (26-380mm equivalent, f/2.8-4.5), it does quite well in low light.

The 200-800 is an interesting lens, not L but white and weather sealed. Quite a departure. Not something that interests me, personally. That's really because I already have the RF 100-500 with TCs, RF 100-400 for travel, and EF 600/4 II that I use mostly with the 1.4xIII so I'm already at 840mm f/5.6, and nothing to do with the lens itself. I also don't typically shoot wildlife while traveling (but if I were to do so, I'd probably just use the 100-300/2.8 with the 2x TC instead of buying the 200-800).

Either way, if you decide to keep your preorders for one or both, I hope you get them from the first batch!

[Busted Knuckles]

24-105 f2.8. Seems roughly the same size as the 100-500.

I think if I sell off all the gear sitting on the shelf I can get close to the 3k needed.

What I am penduluming on is the IQ from the 70 to 105 range. It would appear to be sunstantively better than the f4.

I am thinking with the R5 resolution, my 70-200 (which hasnt been on the R5 since the 100-500 showed up) is on the block.

15-35, 24-105, 100-500, quite a ramge in 3 lenses.

The super super long ehhhh dont have an answer there. I might have to rely on a rental when I am thinking of going super long.

[Kayaker72]

It feels a little obscene having three standard zooms,

...looking at my lens case....

I don't see a problem. Seems very normal to me.

but I can see use cases for all of them.

Phew! There we go.

Out of curiously, have you considered a dedicated video camera?

Actually, no. Interesting thought. I'll take a look. I am wanting to take more video. Looking back, getting movements, voices, mannerisms, video is important to document.

The 200-800 is an interesting lens, not L but white and weather sealed. Quite a departure. Not something that interests me, personally. That's really because I already have the RF 100-500 with TCs, RF 100-400 for travel, and EF 600/4 II that I use mostly with the 1.4xIII so I'm already at 840mm f/5.6, and nothing to do with the lens itself. I also don't typically shoot wildlife while traveling (but if I were to do so, I'd probably just use the 100-300/2.8 with the 2x TC instead of buying the 200-800).

And the 1.4x TC pretty much lives on my 500 f/4 II. Especially if doing birds. So, 700 mm f/5.6. The 200-800 is another 100 mm of focal length and 1.3 stops less bright. It is still tempting me...but if I already had the 100-500L, I'd probably just add a 1.4TC and get 700 f/10 and call that good enough. I could still go that direction. I have a few more things to mull over. Hopefully there are some respectable reviews before early December.

But, a walk around birding lens...Loons from my kayak. I can already imagine using this a good amount.

24-105 f2.8. Seems roughly the same size as the 100-500.

I think if I sell off all the gear sitting on the shelf I can get close to the 3k needed.

What I am penduluming on is the IQ from the 70 to 105 range. It would appear to be sunstantively better than the f4.

I am thinking with the R5 resolution, my 70-200 (which hasnt been on the R5 since the 100-500 showed up) is on the block.

15-35, 24-105, 100-500, quite a ramge in 3 lenses.

The super super long ehhhh dont have an answer there. I might have to rely on a rental when I am thinking of going super long.

That would be a heckuva set of three lenses, especially on the R5. Landscapes, check. Indoor, check. Portraits, you can do a lot of portraits with 50 to 105 mm f/2.8, or could add an 85 prime. Wildlife, check. Super telephoto...500 mm is already very good, add a 1.4 TC and you just need enough light, or rent.

Not bad at all.

[Joel Eade]

I am intrigued by the 200-800 as well ..... don't especially like the external zoom but the images I have seen so far look quite sharp. Not too worried about the f stop because cameras handle high ISO so well now and the noise reduction apps are incredible too.

[Kayaker72]

Just running a quick test and this squirrel was nice enough to model.

My 100-400 II w/2xtc. So, 800 mm f/11. The MTF of the 200-800 at 800 is better than the 100-500 w1.4xtc at 700 mm, I would expect the 200-800 to be even sharper with 2/3 stop light advantage over this setup (see 800 f/11 vs 700 f/10).

Overcast day...hidden under a few leaves, but 1/640, f/11, ISO 12800 adjusted +1.1 EV, shadows +49, Whites +46 with AI Noise reduction in LR.

TDP--4 by kayaker72, on Flickr


AF was slow, but I very much suspect that is 2xtc/EF mount as every review I have seen talked about how AF was as fast as f/2.8 lenses.