Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 end

Why are RF lenses generally slower?

robstein
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

Going through the RF non-L prime lineup, it seems Canon is dropping what in my head was a mid grade non L's like the 50f1.4 and 85f1.8 (two of my favourite EF non-L primes)... The RF versions are 1/8 & 2.0.... Seems that the L zooms are also generally slower. Then you have the 135 going slightly faster.

I get the ISO is "higher" now days argument but that does not give you the DOF that is lost with the slower lenses. Is it just to put a bit of steam under the L prime sales? Maybe just that EF is a mature line vs RF - but I think both of those primes are older ones. Does no one really care now about that extra speed (don't tell me eye lash pics are out of style ;-) ?

No real answers as all speculation but what do you think?

Aug 23, 2023 at 02:26 PM

lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

They'll release them one day. The RF line has only been around for less than 5 years and if you look at the big picture, I think Canon has done a remarkable job in a short period of time. And keep in mind that all the EF glass that anyone loved can flawlessly be adapted to the RF mount.
With that said however, there is one glaring lens they've ignored, even before the RF line came out which is the 500 prime. So we all have our gripes I suppose.

2018
RF 24–105mm F4 L IS USM
RF 28–70mm F2 L USM
RF 50mm F1.2 L USM
RF 35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM

2019
RF 85mm F1.2 L USM
RF 85mm F1.2 L USM DS
RF 15–35mm F2.8 L IS USM
RF 24–70mm F2.8 L IS USM
RF 24–240mm F4–6.3 IS USM
RF 70–200mm F2.8 L IS USM

2020
RF 24–105mm F4–7.1 IS STM
RF 600mm F11 IS STM
RF 800mm F11 IS STM
RF 85mm F2 MACRO IS STM
RF 50mm F1.8 STM
RF 70–200mm F4 L IS USM
RF 100–500mm F4.5–7.1 L IS USM

2021
RF 100mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM
RF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM
RF 600mm F4 L IS USM
RF 14–35mm F4 L IS USM
RF 16mm F2.8 STM
RF 100–400mm F5.6–8 IS USM
RF 5.2mm F2.8 L Dual Fisheye

2022
RF 1200mm F8 L IS USM
RF 800mm F5.6 L IS USM
RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM
RF-S 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM
RF 24mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM
RF 15–30mm F4.5–6.3 IS STM
RF 135mm F1.8 L IS USM

2023 (So far)
RF 24-50mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM
RF 28mm f/2.8 STM
RF-S 55-210mm f/5.0-7.1 IS STM
RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM

Edited on Aug 23, 2023 at 02:51 PM · View previous versions

Aug 23, 2023 at 02:48 PM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

I think their plan is to milk the high end market as long as they can before they make the 1.4-1.8 L primes. They are making a killing from the high end glass right now and they won't be able to sell as much of it when the slightly slower lenses are released considering they'll be 95% of the performance for a lot less money/weight/bulk.

Aug 23, 2023 at 02:50 PM

nmerc_photos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

As others have said, it's all a money equation.

Release the expensive stuff first. Make anyone who wants to upgrade pay the price.

Then once the market cools off, release the lower end equipment.

Aug 23, 2023 at 03:40 PM

netexpress
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

They are taking their time. There is nothing wrong with that. I'll wait and buy when they are ready.

Aug 23, 2023 at 04:00 PM

armd
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

I'm just grateful that Canon made the seamless EF/RF adapter. All of my EF lenses work perfectly with the RF system and given that many RF lenses aren't all that much better than their EF counterparts, it is difficult to rationalize the switch. The requirements for me include significantly better sharpness, weight/size reduction, more accurate/responsive AF, etc. in order to shell out big coin.

Aug 23, 2023 at 06:22 PM

Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

armd wrote:
I'm just grateful that Canon made the seamless EF/RF adapter. All of my EF lenses work perfectly with the RF system and given that many RF lenses aren't all that much better than their EF counterparts, it is difficult to rationalize the switch. The requirements for me include significantly better sharpness, weight/size reduction, more accurate/responsive AF, etc. in order to shell out big coin.

It depends on what lenses you have. In my case:

EF 24-70 2.8 II -> RF adds IS
EF 16-35 f/4 -> RF 14-35 is much smaller and 2mm wider
EF 100 macro -> RF goes to 1.4x and has IS
EF 100-400 II -> RF 100-500 is 100mm longer and lighter
EF 70-200 2.8 II -> RF is lighter and much smaller

Aug 23, 2023 at 06:33 PM

Zenon Char
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

Probably a strategy and a smart one if so. Camera phones put the boots to DSLR's and ML's. Put out lenses that millions can easily afford and get sales and revenue up. Add new high ISO sensor tech, AF at F8 and smaller, better IS combined IBIS and amazing noise reduction options. Only DOF and sometimes Bokeh suffers. Some diffraction as well but for many it's likely not a big issue. The hard core wildlife photogs really want that speed for dusk and dawn shooting. Other special shooting requirements too.

I have very clean files at ISO 5,000 with my R6II with very little NR intervention. I had an EF 24-70 2.8 II IS for event shooting but these days as a hobbyist I could not justify the RF version. The 24-105 f4 IS is all I need for general shooting.

Aug 23, 2023 at 08:22 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

The high end sells out. Nobody is interested in my recommendations for a Rebel and inexpensive lenses. Besides it's better marketing to bring out the drool stuff and make people desire the system first.

1.8 vs 2 isn't huge on the 85mm imo. You have the super performance fast one and the regular 50mm. People complain about the EF 1.4 so you might not like that performance level and as far as the super performance ones, the Sony is so large, heavy and expensive maybe just get 1.2. 50 1.4 sigma exists now

Mirrorless has af darker apertures and you can have f/8 lenses and not have the presumably best selling bodies unable to af at /8. A lot more 6.3 and 11 out there

Aug 23, 2023 at 08:25 PM

EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

armd wrote:
I'm just grateful that Canon made the seamless EF/RF adapter. All of my EF lenses work perfectly with the RF system and given that many RF lenses aren't all that much better than their EF counterparts, it is difficult to rationalize the switch. The requirements for me include significantly better sharpness, weight/size reduction, more accurate/responsive AF, etc. in order to shell out big coin.

Mike_5D wrote:
It depends on what lenses you have. In my case:

EF 24-70 2.8 II -> RF adds IS
EF 16-35 f/4 -> RF 14-35 is much smaller and 2mm wider
EF 100 macro -> RF goes to 1.4x and has IS
EF 100-400 II -> RF 100-500 is 100mm longer and lighter
EF 70-200 2.8 II -> RF is lighter and much smaller

The 100-400 IS II and the 100-500 are the same in weight (±10g) once you add an A-S to the 100-500 foot. It's a $200 ripoff because the 100-500 collar is so weak that is sometimes falls off or becomes too loose to use.

EBH

Aug 23, 2023 at 09:02 PM

Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

EB-1 wrote:
The 100-400 IS II and the 100-500 are the same in weight (±10g) once you add an A-S to the 100-500 foot. It's a $200 ripoff because the 100-500 collar is so weak that is sometimes falls off or becomes too loose to use.

EBH

I don't use the foot when I'm hand holding, when weight matters most to me. Also, the 100-500 doesn't need an adapter or TC to reach 500mm.

Aug 23, 2023 at 09:05 PM

EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

I have five 100-400s, but use the 100-500 as the extra reach is important. But fiddling with the tripod collar on and off is not what I enjoy doing and I already had one die. S*ny and Nikon have FAR superior detachable feet compatible with 3rd party A-S solutions.

EBH

Aug 23, 2023 at 09:22 PM

stanj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

EB-1 wrote:
I have five 100-400s

Now I have to ask: why? I have three pairs of heated socks because I like going to icy places, but this seems more unusual.

Aug 23, 2023 at 11:41 PM

Uarctos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

Because they're more expensive

Aug 24, 2023 at 04:11 AM

George Welch
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

And you can’t use the RF 1.4 TC across the full 100-500 zoom range

Cheers

George
EB-1 wrote:
The 100-400 IS II and the 100-500 are the same in weight (±10g) once you add an A-S to the 100-500 foot. It's a $200 ripoff because the 100-500 collar is so weak that is sometimes falls off or becomes too loose to use.

EBH

Aug 24, 2023 at 06:14 AM

Zenon Char
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

AmbientMike wrote:
The high end sells out. Nobody is interested in my recommendations for a Rebel and inexpensive lenses. Besides it's better marketing to bring out the drool stuff and make people desire the system first.

1.8 vs 2 isn't huge on the 85mm imo. You have the super performance fast one and the regular 50mm. People complain about the EF 1.4 so you might not like that performance level and as far as the super performance ones, the Sony is so large, heavy and expensive maybe just get 1.2. 50 1.4 sigma exists now

Mirrorless has af darker apertures and you can...Show more →

Not many here are interested in lower end gear. There are a few like me. We don't eat steak every night but we don't eat kraft dinner either. A balance in retirement and travel. As much as I would love an RF 600 f4 unless we win a lottery I'lll never see one. The 100-500 has done everything I need it and it is in an affordable range. I don't know what production amount and sales numbers are for the 100-500 and the 600/800 f11 lenses compared to lenses like the 600 f4 are. I know people were scrambling for the 100-500 but that was during Covid which messed everything up.

Aug 24, 2023 at 08:16 AM

rscheffler
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

armd wrote:
I'm just grateful that Canon made the seamless EF/RF adapter. All of my EF lenses work perfectly with the RF system.

IMO the EF line is Canon's current 'mid-grade' option but it will eventually fill out with more in the RF system (hopefully!).

The slow 'boring' consumer grade 'low-end' of the RF line shouldn't be ignored. While these have more compromises, such as some requiring strong software-based distortion correction, many of these are very sharp, very competent lenses that vastly outperform the pop-bottle 'kit' lenses of decades past.

The emphasis on the RF L lenses IMO is for those who want the best overall performance and experience with the R system and are willing to pay for it. And here I disagree with armd above that there are indeed a number of RF L lenses that are optical and/or functional improvements over the EF options. In my own case, one of the core reasons I wanted to switch to RF from EF was for the 28-70/2, which has no equivalent anywhere. I also wanted the smaller packing size and lighter weight of the 70-200s, which after comparing them against the EF versions, IMO do optically outperform them, too. Another RF lens without EF equivalent is the 100-300/2.8. IMO Canon is doing very interesting things in RF mount, such as the new 'cheap' but very sharp 28/2.8 pancake. Hopefully the creative thinking being applied to the high and low end of the RF line eventually continues and fills in the middle.

Aug 24, 2023 at 09:52 AM

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

I was quite skeptical of the RF 100-400 f8 when I first saw it. One of the reasons I procrastinated in going RF. However, it has proved just fine for daylight wildlife use on my R7. The lens has 1:2.7 max magnification FF or 1:1.7 on a cropped sensor. The 100-400 f8 on the R7 weighs 2.7 lbs, nearly 3/4 lb less than the 100-400 II by itself. Nano USM and quite sharp too. Paired with the RF-S 18-150 I have a much better dayhikiang kit than I could achieve with the M system just a year or so ago.

The 24 and 35 IS lenses are a bit faster in the RF mount offsetting the bit slower 85.

I also have the suite of f4 L zooms for my R5. These are equivalent to their EF counterparts for aperture and stand up to 45 MP optically. I also have the 100-500 and the R5's 45 MP offsets the need for a 1.4x in my use. The 100-500 works great on the R7 which is as much reach as I can handle.

All in all I'm quite happy with the lens selection for the R system. I agree the "kit" lenses are a bit underwhelming but they're not meant to compete optically with the Ls and those are pricier as is everything now. I wish Canon would flesh out their RF-S lineup with some quality glass but adapted EF-S lenses work just fine. The 14-35 L makes a great, close focusing landscape lens on the R7.

Aug 24, 2023 at 10:28 AM

Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

rscheffler wrote:
IMO the EF line is Canon's current 'mid-grade' option but it will eventually fill out with more in the RF system (hopefully!).

The slow 'boring' consumer grade 'low-end' of the RF line shouldn't be ignored. While these have more compromises, such as some requiring strong software-based distortion correction, many of these are very sharp, very competent lenses that vastly outperform the pop-bottle 'kit' lenses of decades past.

The emphasis on the RF L lenses IMO is for those who want the best overall performance and experience with the R system and are willing to pay for it. And here I disagree with...Show more →

Speaking of RF lenses with no EF equivalent, I am quite pleased with the 24-240. It is plenty sharp and quick focusing and makes a great one-lens solution. It also focuses quietly so it's great for video. Yes, I know about the 28-300 but that's a much more expensive, larger, and heavier lens.

Aug 24, 2023 at 11:15 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?

Zenon Char wrote:
Probably a strategy and a smart one if so. Camera phones put the boots to DSLR's and ML's. Put out lenses that millions can easily afford and get sales and revenue up. Add new high ISO sensor tech, AF at F8 and smaller, better IS combined IBIS and amazing noise reduction options. Only DOF and sometimes Bokeh suffers. Some diffraction as well but for many it's likely not a big issue. The hard core wildlife photogs really want that speed for dusk and dawn shooting. Other special shooting requirements too.

I have very clean files at ISO 5,000 with...Show more →

I don't know if I had read your post before posting, even, and considered deleting mine. Remember seeing your posts using the kit lenses. Budget stuff makes more sense to me, too, but then even the expensive 1200/8 was out of stock at B&H!!

Aug 24, 2023 at 11:41 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.