Canon Announces New Full Frame Zooms: 20-50 T2.4 & 45-135 T2.4

Canon seem willing to breathe new life into the EF mount if you will pay. Has electronic communication too. No RF mount option for these. It would seem Canon have more motivation to cease manufacturing flip up mirrored bodies is the unspoken truth of RF.
 
These look to be alternatives to the uber expensive PL zooms from the ultra high end pro manufacturers. The RF high end Canon has an 85 and a 50 primes and a 28-70 zoom. Those aren't cheap either but more in line with R3/R5/R6 lineup.

Abe mentioned this in an adjacent thread but, considering Sony has done it already, nothing seems to stand in the way of Canon offering the in-camera corrections (or distortions, for that matter) for their own brand glass. At some point, the difference will become minute to the naked eye.
 
I wonder who they are listening to?

Who would want these lenses?

I guess you can make a feature film with them. But people make features on K35 if they use canon.

I assume they are sharp and competent..
so used on a studio show? 20-50 on a jib over the audience. The other isnt long enough to pick off headshots.

Maybe im missing a supreme simplicity that you can literally do a feature with these two little lenses.

AFAIK rf mount/short/wide flange should deliver fast lenses.. they don seem to be buying that.
 
morgan_moore said:
I wonder who they are listening to?

Who would want these lenses?

I guess you can make a feature film with them. But people make features on K35 if they use canon.

I assume they are sharp and competent..
so used on a studio show? 20-50 on a jib over the audience. The other isnt long enough to pick off headshots.

Maybe im missing a supreme simplicity that you can literally do a feature with these two little lenses.

AFAIK rf mount/short/wide flange should deliver fast lenses.. they don seem to be buying that.
Click to expand...

If they built these as RF/short flange depth lenses, they just cut their market to a fraction vs. PL and EF.

I see these as Canon’s version of the pretty popular Angenieux EZ zooms.
 
Run&Gun said:
If they built these as RF/short flange depth lenses, they just cut their market to a fraction vs. PL and EF.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

And an RF body is a lot cheaper to manufacture than a DSLR body with TTL metering, flip up mirror and prism optics. Without the new sensor tech of Canon FF mirrorless, RF mount would be nowhere. Canon needed RF short flange to avoid the BMD long-snout of the Pocket cinema cams. C300/C500 don't have the high cost manufacturing complexities of DSLR mirrors and TTL optics to contend with. What Canon is really dumping is costly to manufacture DSLR bodies. The exciting new mirrorless bodies can't use the universal EF lens system without adapters that increase the OAL to where it was on DSLR. Canon can't advance the RF to be the EF replacement without ending it. Meanwhile, there are no similar announcements from Sigma, Tamaron, Tokina, whom are more than happy to continue selling EF optics. EF is only dead to the early adopters that bought into R3, R5, R6 bodies; meanwhile there is a global market for EF that will inevitably shrink only as fast as Canon is able to continue advancing the appeal of R series sensor tech to photographers with fierce competition from Sony and Panasonic.
 
I was saying that use of RF should bring extra speed, mass reduction or cost reduction. Im not saying they should do that.

because FF t2.4 is thin enough DOF for any grown up.
 
Does anyone really think these $22K lenses are meant for primary use with mirrorless or DSLR cameras? Wrong market. It's simply not the point.
 
morgan_moore said:
I was saying that use of RF should bring extra speed, mass reduction or cost reduction. Im not saying they should do that.

because FF t2.4 is thin enough DOF for any grown up.
Click to expand...

I don't know why it would. In the photographic lineup, RF hasn't brought an increase in speed but it has brought an increase in cost 20-30%.
 
it brings the designer new options of light traveling in a straight line without hitting the throat of the camera.. which should lead to interesting new designs.

The new lenses are expensive because canon have taken a chance to up thier margins at the exense of the user... rf should be cheaper.. or better.
 
morgan_moore said:
The new lenses are expensive because canon have taken a chance to up thier margins at the exense of the user... rf should be cheaper.. or better.
Click to expand...

It's neither. The reasons favoring the EF and PL options will be the same in the future as now, cost savings. The same lens glass can be used with either mount while covering (up to) the FF sensor. The 20mm flange distance would not let that work for RF without new optics. Moreover, the legacy mount could be retooled to support Arri LPL for FF should that become a thing, since both EF and LPL are 44mm flange distance. So with these two versions, PL and EF Canon cinema supports FF and S35 with the same glass.
 
to clarify... 'the new rf' lenses (launched in the last coupe of years) are the ones not delivering the savings they should be for the consumer.

--

these new lenses I cant see a use for them apart from some tv shows maybe shot on a few c500s, which I would guess need a 100-400 to complete the set
 
DLD said:
Abe mentioned this in an adjacent thread but, considering Sony has done it already, nothing seems to stand in the way of Canon offering the in-camera corrections (or distortions, for that matter) for their own brand glass. At some point, the difference will become minute to the naked eye.
Click to expand...

I think that canon already does in-camera corrections in their mirrorless cameras, not sure. You mean cine cameras?

There are minor drawbacks and degradations from in-camera corrections. It seems to me that 2 markets will persist: people who will pay for and bear the weight of optimized optics; and poor shlubs like me who will take a helping hand from in-camera corrections
 
morgan_moore said:
these new lenses I cant see a use for them apart from some tv shows maybe shot on a few c500s, which I would guess need a 100-400 to complete the set
Click to expand...

Huh? A 20-50 is sort of like a 16-35. Arguably more useful for the same scenarios

Tamron released a 35-150 f/2-2.8 of excellent quality recently that a lot of people are excited about. Similar range to this canon. A portraiture lens.

Or to compare to the standard coverage plan you have brought up before, you bang out your master on the wide/standard and then swing to the standard/telephoto for the rest of your coverage

Manufacturers offer a lot of different zoom types. Not every lens has to be an all-in-one. These lenses weigh 7.5 lbs, so to get the same thing with more range might become unwieldy for handheld?
 
ahalpert said:
I think that canon already does in-camera corrections in their mirrorless cameras, not sure. You mean cine cameras?
Click to expand...

Canon has had some in-camera corrections such as vignetting since 2008 5D MKIII and has been upping the game ever since. But Sony took a larger step with A7IV and own lenses to eliminate focus breathing on pulls. Canon is not there yet but should be with the next generation its medium-to-high end models and its RF series of glass.

And so should be other manufacturers.
 
ahalpert said:
Huh? A 20-50 is sort of like a 16-35. Arguably more useful for the same scenarios

Tamron released a 35-150 f/2-2.8 of excellent quality recently that a lot of people are excited about. Similar range to this canon. A portraiture lens.

Or to compare to the standard coverage plan you have brought up before, you bang out your master on the wide/standard and then swing to the standard/telephoto for the rest of your coverage

Manufacturers offer a lot of different zoom types. Not every lens has to be an all-in-one. These lenses weigh 7.5 lbs, so to get the same thing with more range might become unwieldy for handheld?
Click to expand...


Yep the coverage is good for a corp vid or a feature. But they also cost $21k each and you can get that coverage from the white lens range for 20% of the cash.

So average Joe just have the 16-35 or 16-40 28-70 and the 70-200 thanks... and have autofocus and maybe stabilisation for $6k.

These lenses have, therefore, to be for features or HETV because no one else is gonna waste the money.

Now many features are on things like K35 that are a bit more funky - so features dont want these lenses*

And a saturday night studio show (or the GP) would like the wide on a jib but want a 100-400 to crash in on the faces of the contstants/celeb guests. So they might get them but will still need a 100-400 to top up the range. No one is gonna be super happy that they just spent $50g on lenses and the director is asking for a headshot they cant give. (across the studio)**

Doubtless they are very very decent ff/mf lenses of a restricted range (at the tele end).. but is there a place for that in todays world?



*would I shoot a feature 20-140 two amazing lenses.. yes of course.. you tell the story on time and on budget and a ff t2.4 (sharp no doubt) it would look stellar.

But Im not a hot DP. 'Hot DPs always need to make a statement by using some old cr_ap glass rather than making practical choices.

I gaffed last week for a medical interview (top end) and the lens chosen was Cooke prime. Not a sensible zoom.

**I love it --- to get the headshot they have to go to the skip and retreive the 2/3 cam and 1990s canon lens they just tossed.
 
Last edited:
Mitch Gross said:
Does anyone really think these $22K lenses are meant for primary use with mirrorless or DSLR cameras? Wrong market. It's simply not the point.
Click to expand...

Of course they are not going on an r6.

But where is canon sitting?

Are these lense for alexas (just like canon had a good market for broadcast lenses on sony cameras - not a bad plan) or are they for the C500 as 4k becomes defacto.

It seems that the c500 and C300 are a mess as they should have launched (or be replaced) with rf versions

I dont know if you have used RF lenses but they are painfully excellent in terms of af speed and integration however ill they may make you feel.

Anyone now getting a c500 today would need to 'invest' in ef glass.. that is mad.
 
Well thats a reasonable thing . Be a supplier of lenses.

In yhe deep past hasselblad “closed” thier system and it enabled them to deliver faster wider glass.. that only worked on their cameras.

And it made hasselblad system very attractive to be in vs the rivals phase one


RF would not even lock lock out others.

if rf enables a 24-200 f4 for example that might be a big pull for using canon bodies for your show

canon with the right nouse could be slaughtering the little german company

in s35 days the 17-135 was not a total killer as it didnt propey replace a 2/3 zoom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top