What will Canon's next EF lens be?

J A C S wrote:

You could have written the same thing when the first Sonys were released, right? Was the A9 due to a "breakthrough in their tech"?

Not really. When Sony's first MILCs came out, everyone's live view AF sucked. EOS R is up against the A7III, which both use techs the companies have had for about the same time. A7III is a long way from the NEX-6 (first OSPDAF Sony body).... EOS R is probably right on the level of the 70D in live view as far as AF-C goes. So Canon has not kept up the pace of OSPDAF development.

sportyaccordy wrote:

J A C S wrote:

You could have written the same thing when the first Sonys were released, right? Was the A9 due to a "breakthrough in their tech"?

Not really. When Sony's first MILCs came out, everyone's live view AF sucked. EOS R is up against the A7III, which both use techs the companies have had for about the same time. A7III is a long way from the NEX-6 (first OSPDAF Sony body).... EOS R is probably right on the level of the 70D in live view as far as AF-C goes. So Canon has not kept up the pace of OSPDAF development.

There is a lot of “pace” to maintain in today’s camera industry and I’m sure it’s daunting for manufacturers. While specs and tech are nice, the final output is what matters most. While none of the current mirrorless bodies satisfy my needs, I found this mirrorless comparison pertaining to STILLS interesting... and surprising based on all the mirrorless brand hoopla.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Rpg6Xb-Ek

John Sheehy wrote:

Dave wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

davev8 wrote:

an_also wrote:

So is this a bad time to buy a expensive “big white” lens like the 400 f4 DO ii? If they kill off the EF mount soon will this lens still hold its value?

yes as it will work seamlessly on the R ...it will be decades befor canon replace all the big white L glass with R mount ...and i bet the R mount stuff won't be cheaper

The real question to me is how Canon will handle the introduction of new telephoto lenses in the future (I'm sure they're not going to put much effort into shorter lenses that can be designed better for R). Telephoto lenses do not benefit from the R mount at all, optically. So Canon could do one of three things:

• Make only EF versions of these lenses, relying on adapters for R cameras (possibly with a secure, weather-proof semi-permanent one designed to be left full time on the lens).
• Make both, with the small difference in shell design at the body end.
• Go R-only and infuriate the remaining DSLR diehards. The excuse might be the new control ring, or some other feature allowed with the new R protocol, or people not liking adapters.

What about going R-only and offering an adapter to fit R lenses to EF and EF-S bodies?

Is that a trick question?

That would require awkward optics even if it were physically possible, and without optics, it would be like using an extension tube and losing far focus, unless the lenses could be designed to compensate, but I doubt that Canon would heavily complicate R lens focus for EF cameras. R lenses won't be taking EF bodies into account, IMO.

I agree that some "coulds" are more remote than others.  Simply exhausting a possibility.

dgumshu wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

J A C S wrote:

You could have written the same thing when the first Sonys were released, right? Was the A9 due to a "breakthrough in their tech"?

Not really. When Sony's first MILCs came out, everyone's live view AF sucked. EOS R is up against the A7III, which both use techs the companies have had for about the same time. A7III is a long way from the NEX-6 (first OSPDAF Sony body).... EOS R is probably right on the level of the 70D in live view as far as AF-C goes. So Canon has not kept up the pace of OSPDAF development.

There is a lot of “pace” to maintain in today’s camera industry and I’m sure it’s daunting for manufacturers. While specs and tech are nice, the final output is what matters most. While none of the current mirrorless bodies satisfy my needs, I found this mirrorless comparison pertaining to STILLS interesting... and surprising based on all the mirrorless brand hoopla.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Rpg6Xb-Ek

So the conclusion is, if you shoot stills (and no action) the EOS R is the MILC for you. My question is, who is buying MILCs just to shoot stills? You might as well get a 6D2 for half the price.

sportyaccordy wrote:

dgumshu wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

J A C S wrote:

You could have written the same thing when the first Sonys were released, right? Was the A9 due to a "breakthrough in their tech"?

Not really. When Sony's first MILCs came out, everyone's live view AF sucked. EOS R is up against the A7III, which both use techs the companies have had for about the same time. A7III is a long way from the NEX-6 (first OSPDAF Sony body).... EOS R is probably right on the level of the 70D in live view as far as AF-C goes. So Canon has not kept up the pace of OSPDAF development.

There is a lot of “pace” to maintain in today’s camera industry and I’m sure it’s daunting for manufacturers. While specs and tech are nice, the final output is what matters most. While none of the current mirrorless bodies satisfy my needs, I found this mirrorless comparison pertaining to STILLS interesting... and surprising based on all the mirrorless brand hoopla.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Rpg6Xb-Ek

So the conclusion is, if you shoot stills (and no action) the EOS R is the MILC for you. My question is, who is buying MILCs just to shoot stills?

Me. The advantages are greater than I expected. In low light, the EVF is like a night vision scope with perfect color.    The R is not bad for occasional action.

You might as well get a 6D2

That's what I was thinking, until I read about the focus system. I like to take candid shots without flash. That -6 EV focus really is all it's cracked up to be.

for half the price.

Good lenses are so expensive that the difference in price is more like 10-20%, depending on how many kinds of photography you want to do.

Ed Rizk wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

So the conclusion is, if you shoot stills (and no action) the EOS R is the MILC for you. My question is, who is buying MILCs just to shoot stills?

Me. The advantages are greater than I expected. In low light, the EVF is like a night vision scope with perfect color. The R is not bad for occasional action.

Wouldn't the same apply to a 6D2 with the screen?

You might as well get a 6D2

That's what I was thinking, until I read about the focus system. I like to take candid shots without flash. That -6 EV focus really is all it's cracked up to be.

I guess this is a key difference with the 6D2. But I'd wager that -6EV is with F/1.2 glass.

for half the price.

Good lenses are so expensive that the difference in price is more like 10-20%, depending on how many kinds of photography you want to do.

If you're coming from EF you already have lenses, so the lens cost is moot. And there are plenty of decent priced EF lenses (24/28/35 IS USMs, 24-105 STM/USM L, old 85 1.8, plenty of telephotos, all the Sigma ART glass etc). So all that really matters is the cost of bodies, where the EOS R is eh. I guess compared to a 5D4 it's a bargain but I'm not convinced that it's 2x as good as the 6D2.

sportyaccordy wrote:

dgumshu wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

J A C S wrote:

You could have written the same thing when the first Sonys were released, right? Was the A9 due to a "breakthrough in their tech"?

Not really. When Sony's first MILCs came out, everyone's live view AF sucked. EOS R is up against the A7III, which both use techs the companies have had for about the same time. A7III is a long way from the NEX-6 (first OSPDAF Sony body).... EOS R is probably right on the level of the 70D in live view as far as AF-C goes. So Canon has not kept up the pace of OSPDAF development.

There is a lot of “pace” to maintain in today’s camera industry and I’m sure it’s daunting for manufacturers. While specs and tech are nice, the final output is what matters most. While none of the current mirrorless bodies satisfy my needs, I found this mirrorless comparison pertaining to STILLS interesting... and surprising based on all the mirrorless brand hoopla.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Rpg6Xb-Ek

So the conclusion is, if you shoot stills (and no action) the EOS R is the MILC for you.

My question is, who is buying MILCs just to shoot stills?

All the people that don't care to shoot Video or action... and there are many.  I bought a mirrorless just for stills.  I don't care for shooting video.

You might as well get a 6D2 for half the price.

Perhaps, but some enjoy the mirrorless features.

sportyaccordy wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

So the conclusion is, if you shoot stills (and no action) the EOS R is the MILC for you. My question is, who is buying MILCs just to shoot stills?

Me. The advantages are greater than I expected. In low light, the EVF is like a night vision scope with perfect color. The R is not bad for occasional action.

Wouldn't the same apply to a 6D2 with the screen?

No.   The screen is much lower resolution.   You have to hold the camera away from your body to use the screen, making it less stable (more motion blur) and more difficult to shoot with one hand while drinking with the other.

You might as well get a 6D2

That's what I was thinking, until I read about the focus system. I like to take candid shots without flash. That -6 EV focus really is all it's cracked up to be.

I guess this is a key difference with the 6D2. But I'd wager that -6EV is with F/1.2 glass.

F1.8 is pretty close, and it does amazingly well even with F4 lenses.   If I can see it with the naked eye, I can focus on it.

for half the price.

Good lenses are so expensive that the difference in price is more like 10-20%, depending on how many kinds of photography you want to do.

If you're coming from EF you already have lenses, so the lens cost is moot.

But I want more lenses.

I have to replace my 10-22, for property tours, since I gave my 60D system to my granddaughter.   The 17 TSE is a pain to shoot hand held.

I wanted to upgrade my EF 35mm F2 to the new IS version.  For a little more I got F1.8 and .5-1 macro, which is perfect for food.

I like my 24-70 F4 because of the .7-1 macro function, but at outdoor events with people, I always want more reach, so I wanted a 24-105 also.

I'm having fun with all of my "regular" lenses that have good close focus, so I'm thinking about a more advanced dedicated macro lens.

So I would have been looking at three to four new lenses in either case.

And there are plenty of decent priced EF lenses (24/28/35 IS USMs, 24-105 STM/USM L, old 85 1.8, plenty of telephotos, all the Sigma ART glass etc).

And I can use any of them, and will.

So all that really matters is the cost of bodies, where the EOS R is eh. I guess compared to a 5D4 it's a bargain but I'm not convinced that it's 2x as good as the 6D2.

Maybe not, but it's definitely 10-20% better.

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Isn't the -6 ev af only with a f/1.2 lens?

Theoretically. Of course, focus depends on EV and contrast.

A more practical description would be that the damned thing can find focus in very dark situations. It hits focus on an F4 lens in darker conditions that the 6D could on an F2 lens.

It also uses the maximum aperture of the lens to focus, while other cameras use F2.8 to focus.

Without a light meter, I can't actually check, but I think they are being conservative with that spec. If I can see it with the naked eye, I can focus on it. The focus is far more accurate than with the 6D.

It also focuses with F 11 lens combinations. I don't have any extenders with which to try that, but that is what I have read.

The only focusing disadvantage is that all focus points are horizontal. A very slight angle enables it to focus on a high contrast horizontal line in good light. As light and contrast fade, a steeper angle is required, sometimes close to 45 degrees.

It's an insane focusing system. Had I not been impressed with it, I would have returned the camera.

BirdShooter7 wrote:

I just remembered reading that -6EV af was *with f/1.2 lenses in the press release when the R was announced.

That’s the spec from Canon.   I’d like for someone with a light meter to test it.   It can’t be that hard.   Even if you don’t have an F 1.2 lens, you can just add an EV for every stop of aperture.

With the 6D at -3 and the R at -6, an F4 lens should only be one stop better on the R than an F2 lens on the 6D.    It seems a lot better than that, especially in terms of accuracy.

BirdShooter7 wrote:

I'm sure Canon is understanding the performance, marketing types do that all the time

Understating?