A new optical formula patent showing off some ultra-wide prime lenses for the RF mount has been uncovered by Canon News.
An ultra-wide prime lens would obviously be a big seller for Canon, and I expect we'll see this missing lens for the RF lineup sometime in the next year or so.
[wpdatatable id=28 table_view=regular]
Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.
Canon didn't bother upgrading the EF 20mm f/2.8. Its covered by the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L, and I'm not sure Canon can make an RF 20mm f/2.8 for a competitive price. I wouldn't bet either way.
An RF 12mm f/2.8 might be shadowed between the rumored RF 10-24mm f/4 and an RF 14mm f/2.8. Seems more likely than an RF 20mm f/2.8, but I wouldn't bet either way either.
- trinity zoom territory
- too close to the 24mm
- Sigma 20mm F1.4 would seriously hurt Canons sales on a 20mm F2.8, especially if the figure out to produce it as a true RF mount lense.
I think one of the 14mm or 12mm will make into production. Imho, I can see Canon opting for the 12mm since the trinity zoom now covers 15mm (F4 might cover 14mm) as well and they could go ahead and widen their UWA prima as well. Also, it's a selling point compared to the Sigma 14mm F1.8, which would be a strong competition at 14mm.
If it was 12mm F2 this lense would be a killer astro lense, F2.8 seems lo leave something to wish for.
Anybody have an idea about pricing on 14mm or 12mm? I don't how much the EF 14mm costs (or sold for when it was introduced), so I can't calculate with the 40% RF Mark-up
At last some wide-angle primes!
A 12 f2.8 sits comfortably wider than the 15-35 f2.8 so that might appear.
Sigma makes a 14mm f/1.8 lens for 3 years, and none of the competitors responded. Not even Zeiss, which has a similar prime for the PL mount, IIRC 14mm T/2. My guess is between the market size, production costs, and limited production resources, its not worth making such a lens, not even for the halo effect.
The 20mm would be roughly a 30 mm on APS-C/Super 35 and make a good alternative to a 24mm lens on FF.
Another great thing: Canon tends to use lots of lens elements but minimizes the number of groups systematically (this is my opinion) which reduces glass air surfaces and increases contrast. 14(12 for 20mm) elements but only 9 groups is great and similar to the EF-M 32 which has 14 elements (!) and only 8 groups - EF-M 32 is a dream lens if you combine the optical properties and features (like f/1.4, compact design and 1:4 max. reproduction ratio).
here is why I want a 20/2.8:
I love the Sigma 20/1.4 for people shots and isolation in very environmental shots, weddings, reportage etc.
However when I am hiking in the mountains for nature and landscape photography I need something light like a 18/2.8 or 20/2.8. Such a lens covers wide angle below the standard Zoom starting at 24mm without adding too much weight to the combo. I would never carry a "trinity" of ANY given max. f-stop in the mountains.
So far in the mountains I am doing all my nature-photography with FF-Sony because they have the lightest lenses: 200-600mm/5.6, 28-60mm/4.0-5.6, Pentax close-up Diopter, Meike extension tubes, Samyang 18mm/2.8
This covers most of my needs and weighs a fraction of what I'd have to carry if I was to plan on using Canon-equipment.
With an excellent 20/2.8 (which btw was long overdue in the EF-System - the old modell was terrible), Canon might win me back when it comes to photography in the mountains. Just wished, Canon made an execellent lightweight FF-Standardzoom, similar to Sony's 28-60mm.
BTW: When I am doing landscape shots in flat terrain or relying on a car as transport, I still prefer the flexibility of my 16-35/4.0mm
In any case, the 15-35/2.8 is not for me - it either does not offer enough isolation for people photography or is too expensive and heavy for the landscape photography I do.
Thanks, Canon, for finally planning on some lightweight RF glass!
Keep it comin'.
If however you have the impression that the review is not nailing it (and that the FD 17mm is really good in the cormers at say f10 on fullframe), let us know, please!
I still own the 17mm/3.5 Tokina for camera-trapping but corners even on APS-C are much worse than even EF-S 18-55 STM at 18mm.
;)
A 20 2.8 is still much wider than 24mm. It would make sense IF the size would be very small with good image quality.
Some parts of the pictures that should be in focus aren't, while other equidistant ones, are.
Primes are far more reliable.
But maybe this is a purely personnel experience?
Additionally: just try to compare the 11-24 or 16-35 set at 24mm with results obtained with the EF 1,4/24 or TSE 24 II ...
Or have a look at the Nikon Z 24mm.
Primes are in my subjective pixel-peeping opinion sharper.
I just hope the new Canon primes will not be comatose wide open.