Are there more announcements from Canon coming ahead of CP+?

17 comments

1. 16-24mm f/2.8 IS STM

   I think there's a typo, it should mean 16-28mm f/2.8 IS STM?
   
   
   I think that when the R7 II and the RC are announced in Q2, early Q3, we will get at least the once rumored 16-60mm f2.8 or something similar. The 60-150mm f2.8 (or different focal lenghts) could come towards Q4 2025.
   
   With the R6 III comming at the end of Q1, early Q2, we possibly could get the 70-150mm f2.8.
   
   When we get the two L-series lenses before CP+, they could be the RF 100-500mm f5-6.3L and a 70-150mm f2?
   
   That would be my wild guessing.

   • Reply

   • 0

2. I think there's a typo, it should mean 16-28mm f/2.8 IS STM?
   
   
   I think that when the R7 II and the RC are announced in Q2, early Q3, we will get at least the once rumored 16-60mm f2.8 or something similar. The 60-150mm f2.8 (or different focal lenghts) could come towards Q4 2025.
   
   With the R6 III comming at the end of Q1, early Q2, we possibly could get the 70-150mm f2.8.
   
   When we get the two L-series lenses before CP+, they could be the RF 100-500mm f5-6.3L and a 70-150mm f2?
   
   That would be my wild guessing.

   
   Thanks for the correction.
   
   Yes, I think whenever higher-end APS-C cameras get announced, we'll get the "pro" lenses we've heard about. Maybe even "Z" type things.
   
   As for the L's before CP+, there are so many possibilities, I only sort of know what's coming some time in 2025, not the when.

   • Reply

   • 0
3. The RF telephoto macro’s are coming (finally 😀). The patent application from august 2024 fits the timeframe.
   
   See: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-patent-application-telephoto-macro-lenses/

   • Reply

   • 0
4. You misspelled \"sight\" in the first paragraph, using \"site\" instead. ☹

   • Reply

   • 0

5. The RF telephoto macro’s are coming (finally 😀). The patent application from august 2024 fits the timeframe.
   
   See: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-patent-application-telephoto-macro-lenses/

   That´d be great. Canon RF 190mm F4 2.x Macro sounds tempting for a lot of people, for me it would be interesting at least. The 300mm macro lens sounds 5 digits $.

   • Reply

   • 0

6. We’ll say off the top that we don’t think that the 16-28mm f/2.8 IS STM really covers APS-C shooters looking for an 24-70mm f/2.8 equivalent like the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM did during the EF days.
   
   We have CP+ coming up and we have been waiting to get confirmation about lens announcements ahead of the show, and here we are. A new lens prior to the confirmation!

   I don´t quite get what it means. Is it
   1. simply a "yes, there will be a lens announcement ahead of CP+" or does it mean:
   2. you know the lens which is the successor of the EF-S 17-55mm
   
   I am a bit confused

   • Reply

   • 0
7. "We don’t think anything on the EOS R side is coming, but there is something coming. More on that very soon."
   
   A fixed lens compact camera would be appropriate. They could use the discontinued M200 body, call it a PowerShot, and put a fixed lens on it.

   • Reply

   • 0

8. I don´t quite get what it means. Is it
   1. simply a "yes, there will be a lens announcement ahead of CP+" or does it mean:
   2. you know the lens which is the successor of the EF-S 17-55mm
   
   I am a bit confused

   
   I was saying that these f/2.8 zooms aren't going to be the solution for fixed lens fast zooms for APS-C. they will get their own line of lenses.
   
   I have received comments about that. APS-C NEEDS their own lenses.

   • Reply

   • 0
9. I have an R7 as my primary camera (wildlife/birds are not something I shoot a lot of), and seriously considered the 28-70 a few months ago.
   
   I ended up getting the Sigma 10-18 & 18-50 f/2.8 instead. Smaller, lighter, more wide end, and the combo didn't cost much more than the Canon. The downside is no IS, but the IBIS is fine for those focal lengths, and the AF only covers about 80% of the sensor.
   
   But I still want something like a 50-140/150 to round out my little trilogy. And IS would be more important on that focal length range.

   • Reply

   • 0

10. I have an R7 as my primary camera (wildlife/birds are not something I shoot a lot of), and seriously considered the 28-70 a few months ago.
    
    I ended up getting the Sigma 10-18 & 18-50 f/2.8 instead. Smaller, lighter, more wide end, and the combo didn't cost much more than the Canon. The downside is no IS, but the IBIS is fine for those focal lengths, and the AF only covers about 80% of the sensor.
    
    But I still want something like a 50-140/150 to round out my little trilogy. And IS would be more important on that focal length range.

    My R7 is my primary camera only when I'm at a motocross track or Watkins Glen International. Like you, I bought the 10-18 and 18-50 and they are working out well, especially for video. I too would like a 50-135 f/2.8.
    
    FWIW, the lens mount conversion of my very lightly used EF-M 16mm & 30mm lenses turned out to be an exchange for new lenses. I suppose I got a really good deal but part of my motivation was to give new life to a couple of excellent lenses that happened to be in the wrong mount. End of saga.

    • Reply

    • 0

11. My R7 is my primary camera only when I'm at a motocross track or Watkins Glen International. Like you, I bought the 10-18 and 18-50 and they are working out well, especially for video. I too would like a 50-135 f/2.8.
    
    FWIW, the lens mount conversion of my very lightly used EF-M 16mm & 30mm lenses turned out to be an exchange for new lenses. I suppose I got a really good deal but part of my motivation was to give new life to a couple of excellent lenses that happened to be in the wrong mount. End of saga.

    Interesting. Were those the Sigma lenses you sent in for mount conversion? Did you get the zooms in exchange?
    
    I have an M5, and imagine EF-M lenses are a dime a dozen right now. Might be a good way to add to my kits.

    • Reply

    • 0

12. Interesting. Were those the Sigma lenses you sent in for mount conversion? Did you get the zooms in exchange?
    
    I have an M5, and imagine EF-M lenses are a dime a dozen right now. Might be a good way to add to my kits.

    I sent in Sigma 16mm and 30mm lenses in EF-M mount and got back new Sigma 16mm and 30mm lenses in Rf mount. Both lenses came within a day or two of the first sale date in stores. It's kind of expensive although less than buying new lenses. I had previously purchased the two zooms.

    • Reply

    • 0
13. "Cameras? We don’t think anything on the EOS R side is coming, but there is something coming. More on that very soon."
    
    I'm impatiently waiting. 🙂

    • Reply

    • 0

14. I have received comments about that. APS-C NEEDS their own lenses.

    Why? Same mount, FF bodies autoswitch to crop.... RF-S may be cheaper due to the small image circle but otherwise only the UWA RF-S need their own ones IMO.

    • Reply

    • 0
15. Some of the EF-m stm lenses didn't live up to my expectations. I got error code failures on my 55-200 and 32f1.4 quite unexpected without Amy impact or abuse. I hope this stm lineup will be more reliable!

    • Reply

    • 0

16. Why? Same mount, FF bodies autoswitch to crop.... RF-S may be cheaper due to the small image circle but otherwise only the UWA RF-S need their own ones IMO.

    This makes sense as long as one is willing to use a more expensive and heavier FF lens on a APS-C body. Another benefit of using a FF lens on a APS-C body is that you use the center portion of the lens which tends to have better resolution and contrast than the edges of the lens. I do not currently own a APS-C camera, but if I did I would use my current stash of FF lenses on it.

    • Reply

    • 0
17. What do you think about a 28-400?
    
    I do like the 24-240 but it’s a bit short on the long end.

    • Reply

    • 0