Canon EOS R Series Cameras

OP
Bevvo
Messages
110
Name
Craig
Edit My Images
Yes
.... I don't see how a lower spec would fit into the range either. Unless perhaps a crop-sensor? But that would just be a larger bodied M5 - I think that Canon Rumors may be wrong on this one....
I'm also struggling to think how a lower end EOS R might be specified. Assuming the next EOS R model is indeed FF, the only other lower end FF sensor that has dual pixel focus is the 26 MP sensor in the 6D Mk2, it hardly seems to be worth the effort to re-engineer this sensor for the sake of market differentiation. It would be hard to reduce the burst rate still further, maybe things like the slide bar might disappear, no 4K, lower resolution viewfinder, smaller buffer. The more taken out, the more important the price point is likely to be and those buying into the new model on a budget won't be looking at the 50mm F1.2 or F2 zoom lenses in the short term! Canon surely wouldn't produce and EOS R with an APSC sensor to sit above the M5, would they?
Is it possible that the long-awaited 7D Mk2 replacement (or the 90D which is taking its time) will be mirrorless? It would seem to be the only logical explanation for there being a ‘lower spec’ model in the pipeline, if such a thing is actually in the planning. I take what Canon Rumours say with a pinch of salt though as they seem to have as little of an idea as the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
Messages
23,829
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
The only way Canon could reduce the spec of the R is to use the 6d mk1 sensor (Canon have been known to resurrect old sensors before) lose the 4K video and maybe the slide bar, again, simply removing controls is something Canon have done before, maybe there are other controls they could lose. Look at the M5 /M50 relationship for a clue.

Actually scratch the loss of 4k video, there’s no good reason to do that. Maybe the processor from an older camera will help get the price down too?

That said, to not take sales from the R, they’d really need to carefully design and price it.

As others have said, there’s far more space for better cameras above the R than there is for lesser ones below it.
 
Messages
7,193
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
The only way Canon could reduce the spec of the R is to use the 6d mk1 sensor (Canon have been known to resurrect old sensors before) lose the 4K video and maybe the slide bar, again, simply removing controls is something Canon have done before, maybe there are other controls they could lose. Look at the M5 /M50 relationship for a clue.

Actually scratch the loss of 4k video, there’s no good reason to do that. Maybe the processor from an older camera will help get the price down too?

That said, to not take sales from the R, they’d really need to carefully design and price it.

As others have said, there’s far more space for better cameras above the R than there is for lesser ones below it.
.... I agree. I also think that if Canon were to ever introduce a lower spec R the best marketing time to do so would be later after higher spec R versions have been released. By doing so they would avoid a lot of existing Canon user criticisms if they released a lower spec version next and at the same time offer a cheaper entry level to the RF mount EOS mirrorless system.

For whatever my thoughts are worth, I think that Canon will develop all their EOS camera bodies to mix and fit with each other as in a dovetail joint. Thereby the individual camera bodies will not be directly competing with each other and we the consumer are offered even more choices to suit our needs.

I'm not suggesting that I know better than Canon but am only speculating about what makes more commercial sense to me.
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,193
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Last edited:
Messages
7,193
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Personally if Canon made a mirrorless 7DII WITH the 80D sensor (or updated) and flippy touch screen for around £1700 I would buy one in an instant.
.... But the only difference between your ideal spec and a mirrorless EOS M5 is the body size and the flippy touch screen having more variable positions. The M5 has a tilty flippy touchy screen. And the M5 would be well within your £1700 budget even with an EF Adapter included.

If my memory serves me well, the M5 sensor is virtually an improved 7D-2 sensor, or it might even be a 80D variant. The image quality between the M5 and 7D-2 is indistinguishable (I can't speak for the M50 as I have never owned one).

 
Last edited:
Messages
4,884
Edit My Images
No
No because I get twin card slots, the new R mount, much better tracking, far more af points and (for me) a much better sized body with the option of a grip. Happily pay the extra for those although I would still keep my M5 for travel.
 
Messages
23,829
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
.... But the only difference between your ideal spec and a mirrorless EOS M5 is the body size and the flippy touch screen having more variable positions. The M5 has a tilty flippy touchy screen. And the M5 would be well within your £1700 budget even with an EF Adapter included.

If my memory serves me well, the M5 sensor is virtually an improved 7D-2 sensor, or it might even be a 80D variant. The image quality between the M5 and 7D-2 is indistinguishable (I can't speak for the M50 as I have never owned one).

The M5 is the 80d sensor. Better than the 7dII, and what drew me to it initially, though from a 7dII there’s a lot the M is no good for (similarly the R).

I think the only real ‘upgrade’ from a 7dII is a 1dx or II. The 80d sensor is newer and better, but nothing else about the body is.
 
Messages
14,951
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Isn't the 7DII all about speed? afaik it's the only reason to buy it over an 80D
 
Messages
7,193
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Isn't the 7DII all about speed? afaik it's the only reason to buy it over an 80D
.... Yes the 7D-2 can shoot at 10fps rather than the 80D 7fps and so offers more potential when shooting wildlife or sports action.

I don't know which is faster to autofocus. The 80D has a Vari-angle touchscreen whereas the 7D-2 doesn't. There are doubtless other differences which I am not aware of without researching a direct comparison.

Whether "it's the only reason to buy it over a 80D" or not is down to what the individual photographer has preferences for and perhaps also his/her budget.
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,951
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
There's more reasons perhaps, I only came across the 7DII when researching the 80D, pondered on one of those for a bit and rapid fire doesn't interest me. In the few comparisons I did read/see the difference seemed to be all about speed - when it comes to performance, I didn't mean physically
 
Messages
2,016
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
Just about thawed out from a couple of hours in freezing temperatures, wind and for a period driving snow at Croft Circuit. Most definitely not the best conditions to do any sort of evaluation of AI Servo capabilities :LOL:

Anyway, so far I'm pleased with how the EOS R performed. However, I wasn't able to see how it dealt with a car coming straight down the barrel of the lens at speed as I don't currently have a long enough lens, but suspect it might struggle a little.

BTRDA Rallycross by Simon Harrison, on Flickr

This is one of only a handful I took in between the blustery snow showers. More testing on such things will now have to wait until next year.

Cheers,

Simon.
 
Messages
7,193
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Just about thawed out from a couple of hours in freezing temperatures, wind and for a period driving snow at Croft Circuit. Most definitely not the best conditions to do any sort of evaluation of AI Servo capabilities :LOL:

Anyway, so far I'm pleased with how the EOS R performed. However, I wasn't able to see how it dealt with a car coming straight down the barrel of the lens at speed as I don't currently have a long enough lens, but suspect it might struggle a little.

This is one of only a handful I took in between the blustery snow showers. More testing on such things will now have to wait until next year.
.... That's really good! Great panning skills.

Proving that for some action shots the R isn't so bad afterall! In due course I'll have to see what action I can capture in AI SERVO on larger bird or animal moving subjects.
 
Messages
23,829
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
.... Yes the 7D-2 can shoot at 10fps rather than the 80D 7fps and so offers more potential when shooting wildlife or sports action.

I don't know which is faster to autofocus. The 80D has a Vari-angle touchscreen whereas the 7D-2 doesn't. There are doubtless other differences which I am not aware of without researching a direct comparison.

Whether "it's the only reason to buy it over a 80D" or not is down to what the individual photographer has preferences for and perhaps also his/her budget.
The big difference is that the 7dII has what used to be 1d series AF (before they added it to the later 5d’s), not just the number of AF points, but the customisation available.
The 7dII is much like a 1 series but without the grip (weather sealing, build quality, card slots etc), the 80d has improved AF over previous xxd cameras, but is still basically an enthusiast level body*. On the spec sheets, you’d only notice the card slot / FPS / built in flash / articulating screen, but side by side, they’re very different cameras.

*its probably all the camera that 99% of people would ever need.
 
Messages
2,016
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
.... That's really good! Great panning skills.

Proving that for some action shots the R isn't so bad afterall! In due course I'll have to see what action I can capture in AI SERVO on larger bird or animal moving subjects.
Thanks Robin. Just to prove that it can do BiF......

Great Grey Owl in Flight by Simon Harrison, on Flickr

......although don't expect a high hit rate!

Simon.
 
Messages
7,193
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Thanks Robin. Just to prove that it can do BiF......

......although don't expect a high hit rate!
.... Now THAT is ace!! I have no excuses now! Except that because I have the 1DX-2 I can shoot a 14fps burst and have more choices of final image hits (assuming I get it right), but the bottom line is that one only needs one great shot.

It's great to learn what's possible - Thanks Simon! I now won't give up so easily on the R for BiF (although that's not why I bought it).
 
Messages
7,193
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
The big difference is that the 7dII has what used to be 1d series AF (before they added it to the later 5d’s), not just the number of AF points, but the customisation available.
The 7dII is much like a 1 series but without the grip (weather sealing, build quality, card slots etc), the 80d has improved AF over previous xxd cameras, but is still basically an enthusiast level body*. On the spec sheets, you’d only notice the card slot / FPS / built in flash / articulating screen, but side by side, they’re very different cameras.

*its probably all the camera that 99% of people would ever need.
.... After borrowing my daughter's 100D occasionally, my first D-SLR was a 70D (previous generation of the 80D) which I used for a year and then swopped for a 7D-2 mostly because of frame rate but also customisation.

The naked truth is that we could all manage very well indeed with an 80D (as looking back through my Flickr pages at 70D pictures might prove) but but but :D Perhaps I like to think I am one of the 1% :LOL:

I think that higher quality tools can enable and encourage us to strive harder.

My daughter Sky still has her 100D and makes excellent use of it taking product shots for her business without feeling the need to accept my hand-me-downs (she is also more sensible than I am) : https://skysiouki.com
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,016
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
.... Now THAT is ace!! I have no excuses now! Except that because I have the 1DX-2 I can shoot a 14fps burst and have more choices of final image hits (assuming I get it right), but the bottom line is that one only needs one great shot.

It's great to learn what's possible - Thanks Simon! I now won't give up so easily on the R for BiF (although that's not why I bought it).
Thanks Robin :).

Just looking at the photos I took of the Great Grey Owl in flight, the R’s AI Servo seems to do best with some distance between it and the subject. Initial lock seems good, although not perfect. It then seemed to lose its way the closer in the bird came. I didn’t get many keepers, but I’m also no seasoned BiF shooter so I’m sure someone like you with better technique and more experience could do better. I’m pretty sure that your 1DX mk II will have it for breakfast every time, particularly for faster flying birds than the Great Grey Owl.

Simon.
 
Messages
8,344
Edit My Images
No
I’m not an EOS R owner as yet (still on the fence), but I am very interested. A major attraction is the EOS R’s comparability with EF and EF-S lenses. I’ve seen comments elsewhere about people successfully using Canon EF lenses, but very little about compatibility with 3rd Party lenses such as Sigma & Tamron. Similarly, has anyone had any experience of using their EF-S lenses yet? Thank you.
I saw someone test out a sigma 150-600 lens and seems to focus fine on static objects
 
Messages
7,193
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Just looking at the photos I took of the Great Grey Owl in flight, the R’s AI Servo seems to do best with some distance between it and the subject. Initial lock seems good, although not perfect. It then seemed to lose its way the closer in the bird came. I didn’t get many keepers, but I’m also no seasoned BiF shooter so I’m sure someone like you with better technique and more experience could do better. I’m pretty sure that your 1DX mk II will have it for breakfast every time, particularly for faster flying birds than the Great Grey Owl.
.... Yes, I guess that the focus tracking behaves a bit like a geometric progression as the subject gets closer but it's only when you examine your Great Grey Owl shot at full size on Flickr that you see a slight softness in the face. But that is pixel peeping and the image is wholly acceptable in my opinion, especially when you also consider it's at ISO 6400 and the lens is wide open at F/4. What overrides a slight focus imperfection for me is your capture of the Owl's typical low flight in the habitat - I enjoy the picture and don't see any softness unless I very closely examine it.

I wouldn't necessarily have done any better if I had been alongside you shooting but I think my 1DX-2 might have significantly helped me < And should be expected to! (it costs about twice as much!). Where the 1DX-2 would score is of course by the choice of potentially offering more images due to 14fps. This is a sort of similar shot for (an unfair?) comparison which has only been minor cropped on the righthand side :

GREAT GREY OWL FLYING THROUGH THE WOODS! by Robin Procter, on Flickr

And this one, also 1DX-2, is most certainly of an extremely fast bird! So fast that I only managed to get part of the bird in the shot :

FAST AS A BULLET! by Robin Procter, on Flickr

Ideally I would eventually want an EOS R body with which I could match such as the above images but, as I have posted many times, my EOS R is a replacement for my mirrorless EOS M5 and primarily for quick draw shots with a macro lens for subjects like minibeasts. But that doesn't stop me wanting a mirrorless FF capable of more. Until then, assuming Canon produce one, I will enjoy what I have got.

Quite a few serious photographers are hanging on to see what RF mount body version Canon will release next.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,382
Edit My Images
No
Just about thawed out from a couple of hours in freezing temperatures, wind and for a period driving snow at Croft Circuit. Most definitely not the best conditions to do any sort of evaluation of AI Servo capabilities :LOL:

Anyway, so far I'm pleased with how the EOS R performed. However, I wasn't able to see how it dealt with a car coming straight down the barrel of the lens at speed as I don't currently have a long enough lens, but suspect it might struggle a little.

BTRDA Rallycross by Simon Harrison, on Flickr

This is one of only a handful I took in between the blustery snow showers. More testing on such things will now have to wait until next year.

Cheers,

Simon.
Glad you made the effort Simon, so much for EF lenses not focusing on the EOS-R, lol.

I nearly went to that meeting but wimped out. :coldfeet:
 
Messages
2,016
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
Glad you made the effort Simon, so much for EF lenses not focusing on the EOS-R, lol.

I nearly went to that meeting but wimped out. :coldfeet:
Cheers Toni :)

I only lasted a couple of hours. The weather yesterday morning was awful.

Simon.
 
Messages
6,028
Edit My Images
Yes
I saw someone test out a sigma 150-600 lens and seems to focus fine on static objects
I would expect every camera to focus on a static subject! :thinking: Unless you mean because it is a Sigma via the adapter and is to show compatibility. But then static subjects would be one thing, continuous AF is another.

For that type of lens static subjects may be a fraction of the things one would use that lens for. If someone were to tell me that a certain lens works works via the adapter, be it a Canon lens, but especially a 3rd party lens, then I would expect to work as well in continuous focus as on the camera it was designed for, within the limits of the cameras AF system, otherwise it is not fully compatible.
 
Messages
8,344
Edit My Images
No
I would expect every camera to focus on a static subject! :thinking: Unless you mean because it is a Sigma via the adapter and is to show compatibility. But then static subjects would be one thing, continuous AF is another.

For that type of lens static subjects may be a fraction of the things one would use that lens for. If someone were to tell me that a certain lens works works via the adapter, be it a Canon lens, but especially a 3rd party lens, then I would expect to work as well in continuous focus as on the camera it was designed for, within the limits of the cameras AF system, otherwise it is not fully compatible.
No just saying that I saw it work with static subjects. No idea how it's like continues focus.
 
Messages
23,829
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
Not this nonsense again... :sleep:
If someone were to tell me that a certain lens works works via the adapter, be it a Canon lens, but especially a 3rd party lens, then I would expect to work as well in continuous focus as on the camera it was designed for, within the limits of the cameras AF system, otherwise it is not fully compatible.
A lens on the adaptor is ‘fully compatible if it performs in line with a native lens.

Otherwise we could all say that the EF500L we bought for our 1dx isn’t compatible with a 100d(as it clearly doesn’t perform as well on that camera) :confused:

the italic bit makes sense, but is surrounded by tosh.
 
Messages
1,729
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
I don't think it does Phil owing to the larger amps the 1dx drives the motors faster so I guess it depends what one calls fully compatible ,only 1d series can do this.
Rob.
 
Messages
6,028
Edit My Images
Yes
Not this nonsense again... :sleep:


A lens on the adaptor is ‘fully compatible if it performs in line with a native lens.

Otherwise we could all say that the EF500L we bought for our 1dx isn’t compatible with a 100d(as it clearly doesn’t perform as well on that camera) :confused:

the italic bit makes sense, but is surrounded by tosh.
Thanks for you input, positive and courteous as always. :rolleyes:

Not sure what you mean by the 'italic bit', because all quotes are put in italics.

So, if at some point in the future Canon take advantage of the extra connections designed into the new mount with their newer lenses, to make improvements to the way the camera focuses, by taking into account maybe more measurements, and maybe faster data transfer between camera and lens, and then bring out a RF mount version of the EF500L you mentioned that works better, will that EF lens no longer be fully compatible? :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Messages
23,191
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
Is it possible that the long-awaited 7D Mk2 replacement (or the 90D which is taking its time) will be mirrorless? It would seem to be the only logical explanation for there being a ‘lower spec’ model in the pipeline, if such a thing is actually in the planning. I take what Canon Rumours say with a pinch of salt though as they seem to have as little of an idea as the rest of us.
Something along these lines perhaps for a lower level EOS-R, ie APS-C?

We're in for a period of transition and inevitably some overlap and confusion while mirrorless and DSLRs coexist for some years to come. But if we accept that an all-mirrorless path is the eventual route, then something has got to drop down to fill the gulf in price between the current EOS-M series cameras (top model EOS-M at £600 body-only) and the EOS-R (£2300). The only way I can see that happening is with mirrorless APS-C format EOS-R cameras. The R mount is already fully compatible with both EF-S and EF lenses (EOS-M is also compatible with both, but not with EOS-R).

That would leave EOS-M as a standalone range of affordable general purpose cameras that make the most of the size/weight advantages of mirrorless, while clearing the road for EOS-R models for enthusiasts and professionals wanting to exploit the various benefits of APS-C and full-frame formats.
 
Messages
7,193
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
We're in for a period of transition and inevitably some overlap and confusion while mirrorless and DSLRs coexist for some years to come. But if we accept that an all-mirrorless path is the eventual route, then something has got to drop down to fill the gulf in price between the current EOS-M series cameras (top model EOS-M at £600 body-only) and the EOS-R (£2300). The only way I can see that happening is with mirrorless APS-C format EOS-R cameras. The R mount is already fully compatible with both EF-S and EF lenses (EOS-M is also compatible with both, but not with EOS-R).

That would leave EOS-M as a standalone range of affordable general purpose cameras that make the most of the size/weight advantages of mirrorless, while clearing the road for EOS-R models for enthusiasts and professionals wanting to exploit the various benefits of APS-C and full-frame formats.
.... The number of years that (Canon) mirrorless and D-SLR bodies will coexist will probably be determined by what happens in the timeline of lenses. In other words I think that the range of RF lenses will have to have become almost as extensive as the EF range before a transition may be judged as complete. One can only speculate but it might be as long as 10 years.

However, by continuing to develop new versions of EF lenses, Canon are not exactly flagging any intention to hurry such a transition < I refer to the very recently released EF 400mm and 600mm version III prime lenses. On the other hand, are Canon playing it safe by hedging their bets?

A camera body is fundamentally only a control module mounted on a lens. Lenses rule.
 
Messages
2,325
Edit My Images
No
.... The number of years that (Canon) mirrorless and D-SLR bodies will coexist will probably be determined by what happens in the timeline of lenses. In other words I think that the range of RF lenses will have to have become almost as extensive as the EF range before a transition may be judged as complete. One can only speculate but it might be as long as 10 years.
You could be right but the ultimate driver of their DSLR range will be profit, if they determine they'd make more money dropping mirrorless then they'd do so or on the other hand if they had completely replaced their EF range with R lenses but still saw viable demand and profit margins for EF bodies, well they'd keep making them.

However, by continuing to develop new versions of EF lenses, Canon are not exactly flagging any intention to hurry such a transition < I refer to the very recently released EF 400mm and 600mm version III prime lenses. On the other hand, are Canon playing it safe by hedging their bets?
I think it's a simpler explanation, they don't have the right class of mirrorless body ready for those lenses yet and probably want a larger install base to increase sales of those new and extremely expensive telephotos.
 
Messages
23,191
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
.... The number of years that (Canon) mirrorless and D-SLR bodies will coexist will probably be determined by what happens in the timeline of lenses. In other words I think that the range of RF lenses will have to have become almost as extensive as the EF range before a transition may be judged as complete. One can only speculate but it might be as long as 10 years.

However, by continuing to develop new versions of EF lenses, Canon are not exactly flagging any intention to hurry such a transition < I refer to the very recently released EF 400mm and 600mm version III prime lenses. On the other hand, are Canon playing it safe by hedging their bets?

A camera body is fundamentally only a control module mounted on a lens. Lenses rule.
Not sure I agree that it's all about lenses. They still need a really good body to focus fast and accurately, and an excellent sensor to record the finest details.

A lot of fuss has been made about the new EOS-R lens mount, not least by Canon, but frankly it's mostly hot air and theoretical advantages that apply to only a few pretty exotic lens designs that few people will actually use to maximum benefit. If Canon's wide R-mount (though larger than others, it's actually exactly the same size as EF) and short flange-back distance (that is effectively the same as other FF mirrorless cameras) is such a major advantage, then Sony's much more restrictive mount puts them in real trouble.

But of course, it doesn't. The R-mount benefits only really apply to very fast lenses, and short focal lengths - like the new 28-70/2 and 50/1.2 just introduced, and others like the 24/1.2 rumoured to be in the wings. All very big and heavy and expensive. As many have already pointed out, they'd rather have a 24-70/2.8 with IS, or a 50/1.4 IS, and what's wrong with the current 24/1.4? F/1.2 to 1.4 is only half a stop. In-camera IBIS image stabilisation would seem to offer more all-round upsides to real-world shooters at affordable cost, than a bunch of bulky and costly dream lenses.

And at longer focal lengths, starting not much above 50mm, the optical advantages of the R-mount simply evaporate. Canon will surely want to push us into buying all native R-mount lenses for our new R-mount cameras, but with few exceptions they will offer no advantages whatsoever over an EF lens plus adapter, and that's what we're going to have to use for some time yet anyway. Also, it's very likely that a lot of forthcoming R-mount lenses will simply be EF with a built-in adapter, plus some superficial extra 'marketing' features to make us want to buy them.
 
Messages
7,193
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Not sure I agree that it's all about lenses. They still need a really good body to focus fast and accurately, and an excellent sensor to record the finest details.
.... Certainly a really good body, or rather a range of bodies, are needed - It's absolutely essential. I am only saying that the future as you suggested in your previous post #72 would, most likely in my opinion, be lenses led. If you look at the type of R products Canon have just launched, it is their fast three RF lenses which are leading the way forward and a higher end body more matched to them (apart from to the RF kit lens) has not been released yet.

It's all speculation on our part anyway and only time will tell what evolves and what Canon decide to release next.
 
Last edited:
Messages
23,191
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
.... Certainly a really good body, or rather a range of bodies, are needed - It's absolutely essential. I am only saying that the future as you suggested in your previous post #72 would, most likely in my opinion, be lenses led. If you look at the type of R products Canon have just launched, it is their fast three RF lenses which are leading the way forward and a higher end body more matched to them (apart from to the RF kit lens) has not been released yet.

It's all speculation on our part anyway and only time will tell what evolves and what Canon decide to release next.
The point is that I think EF and ER* lenses will coexist happily for a very long time. I don't see an urgent need to replace everything, and the demand for EF lenses could go on for a very long time, even after Canon has stopped making DSLRs. So in that sense, assuming Canon responds to supply and demand, the production of both EF and ER lenses and the speed of transition is out of their hands.

I expect they'll want to produce a decent range of the popular bread & butter ER lenses like the 24-105 fairly quickly, plus a sprinkling of exotics to spice things up, but then phase and manage production fairly gradually.

*correction: RF not ER - thanks Rob ;)
 
Last edited:
Messages
25,361
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
The R-mount benefits only really apply to very fast lenses, and short focal lengths - like the new 28-70/2 and 50/1.2 just introduced, and others like the 24/1.2 rumoured to be in the wings. All very big and heavy and expensive. As many have already pointed out, they'd rather have a 24-70/2.8 with IS, or a 50/1.4 IS, and what's wrong with the current 24/1.4? F/1.2 to 1.4 is only half a stop. In-camera IBIS image stabilisation would seem to offer more all-round upsides to real-world shooters at affordable cost, than a bunch of bulky and costly dream lenses.

And at longer focal lengths, starting not much above 50mm, the optical advantages of the R-mount simply evaporate. Canon will surely want to push us into buying all native R-mount lenses for our new R-mount cameras, but with few exceptions they will offer no advantages whatsoever over an EF lens plus adapter, and that's what we're going to have to use for some time yet anyway. Also, it's very likely that a lot of forthcoming R-mount lenses will simply be EF with a built-in adapter, plus some superficial extra 'marketing' features to make us want to buy them.
Sigma introduced the FF 24-35mm f2 some time ago and before that they did the APS-C 18-35mm f1.8 and apparently they're good lenses so I do wonder what the problem is with all of the out of date small restrictive mounts and what great advantage the R offers.

Time will tell.

And of course there are 50mm f0.95 lenses, at least one of them, for the smaller Sony FF system, MF though. To read the latest blurb you'd think these lenses didn't and couldn't exist.

I'm not saying there's no advantage there at all to the R but maybe it's less of an advantage than Canon would have us believe.

Again, time will tell.
 
Last edited:
Messages
23,191
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
Sigma introduced the FF 24-35mm f2 some time ago and before that they did the APS-C 18-35mm f1.8 and apparently they're good lenses so I do wonder what the problem is with all of the out of date small restrictive mounts and what great advantage the R offers.

Time will tell.

And of course there are 50mm f0.95 lenses, at least one of them, for the smaller Sony FF system, MF though. To read the latest blurb you'd think these lenses didn't and couldn't exist.

I'm not saying there's no advantage there at all to the R but maybe it's less of an advantage than Canon would have us believe.

Again, time will tell.
Very good summary :) The R-mount doesn't really make new things possible - as history shows - it just makes them easier.

My point would be though, given the choice of say an excellent 50/1.4 and an equally excellent 50/1.2 that's double the weight and four times the price, I'd take the 1.4 every time. The difference between 1.4 and 1.2 is only half a stop, not much whichever way you look at it, but the 50% more glass area and optical gymnastics needed to achieve it change things dramatically, and not in a good way.
 
Last edited:
Top