My personal understanding of "halo" is narrower than @SwissFrank's - I wouldn't include a lens like the MP-E, because it offers something valuable and unique for specialists, albeit within a minor niche, and there's no easy way of achieving the same results with other gear (plus it's not that expensive). I would include the RF 1200 though - because its practical benefit is so small, and the alternatives are more appealing/cheaper for many potential customers, but it means they can claim the system offers native glass to that extreme focal length. I wouldn't be surprised to see maybe one more, perhaps a f/0.95 prime or a reborn 200mm f/1.8, but that's about it.@SwissFrank no fighting needed LOL
My interpretation of the article was that companies make one or two crazy lenses (as loss-leaders) just to show off their capabilities.
So I was thinking maybe the 28-70 is the only wild lens we'll see, but then again, maybe they'll surprise us! =)
"I don't personally care about the things they improved, so they didn't improve anything"LOL nah. Canon CrippleHammer™ will make sure that this never happens. The R6 II is a mediocre upgrade (from a R6) at best. D- effort from Canon. edit: I don't need 40fps and don't care for video. Take those 2 aspects out, and it's a really poor upgrade from my perspective. ymmv.
It's definitely special. I'd lump it with the MP-E - a unique product that offers a way to do something that can't easily/practically be done another way, that is of great interest to a small number of potential users. I'd treat that differently to the essentially pure bragging rights "we have the widest aperture 50mm", where the difference is much more subtle, and the cost differentiator from its nearest equivalents much greater. But I'm probably splitting hairs over semantics at this pointSo the RF 5.2mm Dual Fisheye lens is mundane?
Yep. I’d call a ‘halo lens’ something that brings people into the system because nobody else offers it. You’d call it a more mainstream lens that ‘goes to 11’ with the fastest aperture or longest FL.But I'm probably splitting hairs over semantics at this point
The existence of the MP-E, as well as having 50, 100 and 180mm macro lenses and macro flashes was a strong consideration for picking Canon and the 20D when I moved from P&S to SLR.Yep. I’d call a ‘halo lens’ something that brings people into the system because nobody else offers it. You’d call it a more mainstream lens that ‘goes to 11’ with the fastest aperture or longest FL.
Was going to try and have a serious discussion and point out why I think you're wrong.LOL nah. Canon CrippleHammer™ will make sure that this never happens. The R6 II is a mediocre upgrade (from a R6) at best. D- effort from Canon. edit: I don't need 40fps and don't care for video. Take those 2 aspects out, and it's a really poor upgrade from my perspective. ymmv.
I think it is 16 mmWhy not? The existing RF 24/1.8 has a backfocus distance of 11.0 mm.
Both statements are true.But you said that the R5 has older hardware and yet the R10/R3/R6ii/R5 and R3 all use Digic X.
While I very much agree with that, Canon is also missing some RF staple lenses.OK, a drum I've beat often on this forum: Canon should be pushing out more "halo" lenses than they are.
I think the 1.4x magnification and SA control make the RF 100 f/2.8 IS Macro a halo lens as well.Thanks Dan. I might have read that a couple years ago and do love that guy's blogging and the site in general.
I didn't quite get the idea it said there would be NO halo lenses though.
Canon is not pricing their extreme lenses as loss leaders.My interpretation of the article was that companies make one or two crazy lenses (as loss-leaders)
I would not choose the Z 9 over an R5.Nothing will come of the R1. Nikon's Z9 saw to that.
Well, Canon has an 800 mm lens that only goes to 11, so there's that.Yep. I’d call a ‘halo lens’ something that brings people into the system because nobody else offers it. You’d call it a more mainstream lens that ‘goes to 11’ with the fastest aperture or longest FL.
No, you're looking at the wrong 24/1.8 patent. Here is the optical diagram for the 24/1.8 in the patent you linked:I think it is 16 mm
Canon Patent Application: Canon RF Primes
One thing that is notably missing is the filling out of the primes for the RF mount. Not just the dizzyingly fast halo primes, but the ones for normal people. This patent application discusses aberration correction when its close focus and has the embodiments of a lot of lenses that I know...www.canonnews.com
Well, audio improvement is an opportunity being overlooked imo if targeting video market, after putting all the R&D and speed improvements, oversampling, racing to crazy insane 8k, it seems obvious. But not something clunky like the huge honking XLR preamp box for the Sony FX-3 and FX-30. The tech is there, smartphone recordings for audio are pretty decent, even without a lavalier.I think Canon could easily make something like this to fit their cameras. They just don't seem to want to.
So I restate: the existing RF 24/1.8 has an 11 mm backfocus, so there's no reason the optics of the EF-M 11-22 with an 11 mm backfocus couldn't be packaged in a barrel with an RF mount for APS-C R bodies.