In 1998 there was a EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.
28-135 is the perfect zoom range, it's all you need 80-90% of the time. I'd love to see newer generations.

Chig said:

What about a 70-200mm f/1.8?
Awesome world's first and hopefully Canon can make it a bit lighter than the very similar spec RF 100-300mm f/2.8 and would be great to have a built in 1.4x extender for 98-280mm f/2.5

Click to expand...

70-200 f2.0 would already be incredible.

If it accept extender (which I think it would not) it would be insane because it would compete against the 100-300 f2.8 which is very very expensive.

What about a 70-200mm f/1.8?
Awesome world's first and hopefully Canon can make it a bit lighter than the very similar spec RF 100-300mm f/2.8 and would be great to have a built in 1.4x extender for 98-280mm f/2.5

Rceres said:

I can understand preferring the RF 85mm f/1.4L VCM if the RF 85mm f/1.2L feels too big, heavy, or awkward. That would make sense.
But I don’t quite follow the jump from “the RF 85mm f/1.2L is too big” to “a 50-150mm f/2 or 100-400mm zoom would be great.” The RF 85mm f/1.2L is about 103 mm wide, 117 mm long, and 1195 g. The Sony 50-150mm f/2 GM and 100-400mm GM are similar in diameter, roughly twice as long, and heavier. Those are not exactly small, discreet, easy-handling lenses either.
To me, the more interesting question is what Canon could do with a redesigned stills-first RF 85mm f/1.2L II. The current lens is optically legendary, but compared with newer RF designs it feels bulky. The RF 135mm f/1.8L shows how good Canon can be when optical performance, autofocus confidence, and handling all come together.
Imagine a new RF 85mm f/1.2L II with a slimmer barrel, a more modern internal focusing design, faster AF, the same or better rendering, and maybe even IS. Canon’s recent lenses suggest there is still room to improve both handling and usability without giving up what made the original special.
I get that zooms are popular, and Canon should absolutely keep building them. But some of us are still waiting (and hoping!)for Canon’s next generation of stills-first halo primes.

Click to expand...

The problem Canon had with the rf 135mm, is that the ef version was / is so strong. Sure the new lens is sharper, gains 1/3 stop in brightness and an image stabiliser. However, it’s larger and heavier. Plus is very expensive, you really have to want one to justify the rf version over the ef version. The EF version puts out really great images that are very similar to the rf version. For a lot of users who already have the ef version, there’s not a particularly strong enough reason to upgrade.

Del Paso said:

No, it's going to be expensive !

Click to expand...

It's always expensive But I bought quite a few f4 lenses instead of having a f2.8 set-up and a separate light weight set-up. F2 zooms would change that equation drastically.

Exploreshootshare said:

If Canon releases two F2 zooms with each under 1kg weight, I´m seriously going to restructure my lens line up. It´s going to be fun

Click to expand...

No, it's going to be expensive !

If Canon releases two F2 zooms with each under 1kg weight, I´m seriously going to restructure my lens line up. It´s going to be fun

Ozarker said:

I'm very interested in the 10-20/4, Neuro. You are the go to guy for knowledge. How do you like the lens? Thanks.

Click to expand...

Agree with @neuroanatomist, it's a very fun lens! You can get some very dramatic images.

Hi Robi!

Thanks for the insight! Sounds logical to me!

Concerning the quality: I'm usually a pixel-peeper, but Canons restrictions on 3rd party lenses makes it VERY difficult to find optimized lenses for niche markets like 'astro'. I have the good 'astro' lenses for the EF mount, and the 'astro' niche is probably too small for Canon to produce a lens for it. So far this X/Y/Z 14/2.8 lens is relatively well suitable for 'astro' (it's not a top-astro lens, but still a good one) and relatively light (backpacking etc.). So far, only Zeiss is producing manual high-quality RF lenses, but with a very limited selection and no 14mm or 24mm lens yet.

Yana_a said:

Can I have M-RAW or M-cRAW?

Click to expand...

There have not been any cameras since CR2 was replaced by CR3 that have M-Raw, S-Raw, or any other kind of reduced resolution "raw".

Malm said:

Sorry, but that isn't a new lens! That is just a known lens with a different label!
I saw it first as a Pergear 14/2.8 lens, afterwards as 7Artisan 14/2.8 (with a different desgin of the lens barrel) and now as Brightin Star 14/2.8. The optical construction - 13 elemenst in 9 groups - and the special glass elements are always the same. I have the Pergear 14/2.8 and the 7Artisan 14/2.8 (for astro photography) and don't see any difference. The optical quality is good (low coma for astro!), but the vignette is a little bit high. There is a more in-depth review of the Pergear 14/2.8 by phillipreeve.
It would be interesting to understand the structure behind these 'different' brands! Is it just one company which is just moving the lenses around from A to B to C or what??

Click to expand...

Typical chinese, right!!!

This is a standard practice in the budget Chinese lens market. A core optical design originates from one or a small group of factories and design houses in China. Various marketing outfits and brands then slap their name on it. They adjust the barrel cosmetics, tweak the focus ring feel, or add minor changes such as aperture de-clicking. After that they push the product through their own sales channels.

Pergear released an early version around 2022-2023, followed by a Mark II. 7Artisans brought out their take later, near 2025, with different barrel styling but matching optics. Brightin Star, operating as Shenzhen Yinyao Technology, now sells it alongside other rebadges like Cheecar.

These companies position themselves as designers or assemblers with factory capabilities. Yet the identical MTF curves, element arrangements, and field performance across the lineup make it clear they share the same underlying product. It is not a single firm simply moving stock. Instead it forms a tight network of manufacturers and marketers that spreads distribution as wide as possible. The system holds costs down and reaches more customers. At the same time it muddies the water for buyers and weakens any real brand distinction. Quality control can differ from batch to batch. Overall it stays in line with the rest of the low-cost manual lens segment.

For Canon RF users chasing astro or landscape work these ultra-wides offer basic value at entry prices around $240. Edge-to-edge sharpness wide open will not rival premium optics, and vignetting remains noticeable. Stopped down they deliver acceptable results for the outlay. If existing copies already perform adequately, another version brings no meaningful optical gain, only fresh cosmetics and marketing.


Budget ultra-wides put accessibility first and perfection a distant second. The whole approach reflects how these Chinese operations routinely operate.