svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDEwMjQnIHhtbG5zPSdodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2Zyc+PC9zdmc+ - Are these the 7 RF lenses Canon will be announcing in 2020? [CR1]

    Are these the 7 RF lenses Canon will be announcing in 2020? [CR1]

    By Updated:409 Comments1 Min Read Canon Lens Rumors

    I have been sent a roadmap of coming Canon RF lenses in 2020. I have been unable to confirm this list of lenses, but I hope to hear more soon

    Rumoured & Confirmed Canon RF lenses coming in 2020:

    There is nothing here about the rumoured DO super-telephoto lenses or a pancake for the RF mount. So please take this with a big grain of salt until we can confirm the information above.

    More to come…

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    409 comments

    6. If this list proves to be (mostly) accurate, it's an absolute coup for Canon.

      35 f/1.2?

      70-135 f/2?!

      That would be unreal. Throw in the 50 and 85 1.8 lenses with IS . . . although, on that note, it's a slightly curious decision to give them IS, since IBIS is in the R5 -- perhaps future Rs or RPs will lack IBIS, just like the first iterations?
    7. That 70-135 could be really interesting, especially if it would work with an extender. Have a Tamron 35-150mm F/2.8-4 that is a great "all around" lens without sacrificing much. Pairs really well with 17-35mm F/2.8-4 when the bigger lenses just can't make it in the bag. (Wish the 15-30mm F/2.8 would make it in the backpack more often!)
    9. If this list proves to be (mostly) accurate, it's an absolute coup for Canon.

      35 f/1.2?

      70-135 f/2?!

      That would be unreal. Throw in the 50 and 85 1.8 lenses with IS . . . although, on that note, it's a slightly curious decision to give them IS, since IBIS is in the R5 -- perhaps future Rs or RPs will lack IBIS, just like the first iterations?


      Supposedly combining 5-stop IBIS and optical stabilization results in a wild 7 or 8 stops of stabilization. I'd think that on its own gives a pretty good incentive to add IS to lenses
    11. Supposedly combining 5-stop IBIS and optical stabilization results in a wild 7 or 8 stops of stabilization. I'd think that on its own gives a pretty good incentive to add IS to lenses

      Indeed, but my concern is more that there's nothing on this list that will be cheap enough for some people, including those on this forum, who would like to move into the R ecosystem without spending a lot of money. IS drives up the cost, as I'm sure we all know, and I don't know how valuable it is in a 50mm 1.8 design that should, but is not guaranteed to, come in under $150.
    13. Who cares about that f/7.1 pancake if there is 10-24/4.
      Well, I do not want a 7.1 pancake but I'll take a 28mm 2.something.Personally I won't be interested in the 10-24 with my 16-35. Not doubling up.
    14. 50 and 85 with is and stm motors on a budget would be top selling!!! I imagine 200-400$ each. I hope it comes true! Canon is rocking atm...!!! 35mm is already a macro lens and 50mm is also a macro lens. What else to ask really? Holy $hit...
    15. “Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 MACRO IS STM”

      This NEEDS to happen! Especially if it is equivalent or better optically than the already good 35mm version.

      An 85mm version may potentially be of interest to me as well.

      “ Canon RF 70-135mm f/2L USM ”

      I wonder how large this would be if it were to materialize. Still, it would be nice to see Canon continue to offer ultra fast lens options in addition to the f7.1s popping up as of late.
    18. It wouldn't surprise me if a couple of big whites get announced apart from the normal lineup, with the tokyo olympics around the corner. it would be a nice gesture to have the new big sports camera out with a new big shiny white. especially if it is like a 500/600 mm ultra light and small f4 DO. or maybe even something with a crazier f stop
    19. Seems a little boring, given that Canon promised new and inventive lenses along with the R system.

      The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.

      Why no 17-55mm f/2.8? Why no telephoto lenses faster than f/7.1? Why no L primes smaller than their EF counterparts?

      Did we really need a junky 24-105?

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment