I have noticed that the RF 24-240 has been out of stock for quite a while. Coupled with the recent revisiting of superzoom patents, it makes me wonder if an evolution for that lens is forthcoming. Especially with more sensitive sensors coming online for their "consumer" level cameras.

And since we're playing with the crystal ball some, I'm also going to go out on a limb and guess that we might get surprised with a 70-180f/2.8 or something along that line to round out the lower cost trinity.

I didn't expect to be interested by the 45 f/1.2, but I admit that I am.

Del Paso said:

I guess I'll have to get rid of my crappy cameras...

Click to expand...

So you are finally going to sell your Leica’s?

Eloniel said:

No, because then Sony will be offering a full trinity of F2.0 zoom lens and if Canon doesn't want to loose high end marketshare they will have to release such a trinity too.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious.

Click to expand...

Doing the same things as the other manufacturers is not a very sound business strategy in the long term.

You want to use the lens for astrophotography, so you probably want it to be optically corrected, rather than rely on digital corrections. That means it will be big, heavy and expensive (optimistic guess between 3500 and 4500 USD/ €) and is not likely to sell in huge numbers. I.e. it would not have a significant impact on Canon’s marketshare, revenue and profit. Even if a few customers leave Canon for greener pastures elsewhere.

The list of lenses that Canon MUST make to avoid imminent doom, according to some users of this forum, is a very long list: tilt shift lenses, the (rumored) Sony f2 trinity, a light 300mm f2.8, Nikon’s “affordable” PF telelenses, “real” RF big white 400, 600, 800 and 1200mm lenses, “real” L-lenses instead of the VCM primes, RF big whites with built in converters, a whole list of Sigma and Tamron lenses, and I’ve probably missed a few.

How Canon should make these lenses and remain in business in a market that was shrinking until a few years ago and since then has not been growing very much, is usually lacking in these “Canon must make my dreamlens or they are doomed” posts.

Edit: Leaving aside why these posters think their knowledge of the camera market is better than that of the company that has been the market leader for a long time. A company still doing well after the collapse of the camera market and managing the transition from the EF and EF-M mount to the RF mount.

Dragon said:

The 600 is due in Friday. The 800 I have is branded Perkin-Elmer, which is the company that made the solid cats for Vivitar. I don't know if they sold them alongside Vivitar or if the one I have is prior to the Vivitar deal. It is a pretty cool lens, but not as sharp as some of the other mirrors I have. Interested to see if the 600 is sharper as it was billed as being in excellent condition. The interesting thing about all the solid cats is how short they are due to most of the optical path being in glass with a higher refractive index than air. Heavy, but short.

Click to expand...

Reputedly much more robust than the conventional, which is supposedly why commissioned by the US forces from Perkin-Elmer.

Del Paso said:

What is a halo lens?
Not a "me too" lens, but something new and different, like for instance a 14mm TSE, a 14-28 TSE, a 24-70 f/2 or the lenses you just named.

Click to expand...

I get it . Lenses like the RF100-500mm, RF100-300mm f2.8, RF200-800mm etc. Plenty halo RF lenses.

SvO2 said:

And yet there are non stop complaints, including on this very forum, about how its dynamic range is awful and it's resultantly terrible in low light.

Not to mention that for the most part we're throwing away a large chunk of the dynamic range when converting to jpeg and viewing on our displays regardless.

Click to expand...

Of course there are complaints, it's no Sony!
Sorry, but as a certainly naive and satisfied owner of 2 R5 II cameras, I didn't notice anything awful or terrible, even in low light conditions.
But if the knowledgeable internet masses say so, I guess I'll have to get rid of my crappy cameras...

I've been enjoying Canon Rumors for years, but I finally joined the forum with this topic. I have an original R6, which is an amazing and capable camera. I've owned numerous Canon bodies of varying tiers prior to this. I'm very fortunate that my day job is that of a COO of a successful analytics company, so I don't need to pursue photography for pay. I do shoot a lot, all the same, and the pictures are used by my community. But in that context at the CAD $3k range of pricing I'm probably representative of a number of purchasers. I know many here are as well. I'm pretty optimistic about what the R6 III will bring, but my concerns about ISO (and related matters, such as dynamic range) is really head room. Like many people point out, there's probably not a lot of shooters using high ISO values exceeding 12k on a regular basis, but that 12k or lower is in the context of 102,400. If 12k is good when the ceiling is 102.4k, then how much worse might it be when the ceiling is 64k? Yeah, yeah, the R5 scaled down is equivalent, and so might the R6 III, but who buys one to scale down (not crop) from 45mp? So for us R6 shooters it feels like a potential downgrade -- at 3k+ for cost. It's a double-whammy too, because the new glass sacrifices light for speed and weight, so not only is Canon reducing the ISO but they're increasing the need for sensitivity for prosumers who aren't buying f/2 28-70 glass in bulk. I'm sure Canon does what it feels is appropriate, but whereas the R6 felt like a love letter to a patient community of well heeled but non-professional flag bearers then the R6 III, in terms of photography, feels more like a middle finger. Moreso if the price goes up. What did I actually want to see that would make me upgrade when the R6 II didn't? (And not knocking that edition, it's great for people who didn't buy an R6 but want that tier.) A better EVF. A better back screen. More programmable buttons. Maybe more resolution, if the ISO / DR is maintained. None of these are big ticket enhancements, but they'd get me to trade in and spend dollars on gear instead of on my wife or kids. Anyhow, I hope Canon monitors the comments from people like me for when they plan the R6 IV. By all means make an R6c, but for R6-pure go back to the original spirit please! Make it a love letter to the non-pros who want the essential character of pro gear--but not the expense of pro SLAs or high resolutions. But maybe it doesn't matter—maybe 2025 ISO 64k offers such improved quality that it's equivalent to 2015 ISO 102.4k. Given the R5, R5 II, and R6 II I doubt it. I'll keep saving for something that's interesting to me, and in the meantime hopefully the R6 III makes someone else's day.

AlanF said:

The Vivitar solid cat is a legendary lens, I’m sure you will enjoy it. I guessed it was Topaz with the combed look to the fear

Click to expand...

The 600 is due in Friday. The 800 I have is branded Perkin-Elmer, which is the company that made the solid cats for Vivitar. I don't know if they sold them alongside Vivitar or if the one I have is prior to the Vivitar deal. It is a pretty cool lens, but not as sharp as some of the other mirrors I have. Interested to see if the 600 is sharper as it was billed as being in excellent condition. The interesting thing about all the solid cats is how short they are due to most of the optical path being in glass with a higher refractive index than air. Heavy, but short.

SvO2 said:

And yet there are non stop complaints, including on this very forum, about how its dynamic range is awful and it's resultantly terrible in low light.

Not to mention that for the most part we're throwing away a large chunk of the dynamic range when converting to jpeg and viewing on our displays regardless.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen much furore about this (some complaints yes).

One would hope people have got used to this, since it has been the case for a while now: the faster the sensor, the worse the dynamic range at low ISO, that's the trade off we incur into with current sensor technology.

The decrease in dynamic range is is small and usually imperceptible apart in very specific scenarios... but more dynamic range gives you more good image data that, if correctly processed, can lead to (marginally) better final conversions.
The increase in speed tends to be much more visible and it has other positive side effects apart from the immediate increase of FPS, such as better AF.

Choose your poison

Del Paso said:

The R5 II having a "terrible" dynamic range ???? Slightly less than the R5.
Strange "photography circles". The internet "experts", I presume...
Quote from TDP's Brian. "The R5 Mark II delivers outstanding image quality, including ultra-high resolution with modest noise levels with excellent dynamic range."

Click to expand...

And yet there are non stop complaints, including on this very forum, about how its dynamic range is awful and it's resultantly terrible in low light.

Not to mention that for the most part we're throwing away a large chunk of the dynamic range when converting to jpeg and viewing on our displays regardless.

Del Paso said:

The R5 II having a "terrible" dynamic range ???? Slightly less than the R5.

Click to expand...

Correct. The R5 mk II is slightly worse than the R5 in terms of DR.

SvO2 said:

And just to illustrate - per CineD, the R5 Mark II (which is panned as having 'terrible' dynamic range in photography circlces) gets similar dynamic range to the EOS C80 in video, which is claimed to have 16 stops.

Camera Details - Canon EOS R5 Mark II | Camera Database | CineD

Camera Details: Canon EOS R5 Mark II

www.cined.com

Click to expand...

The R5 II having a "terrible" dynamic range ???? Slightly less than the R5.
Strange "photography circles". The internet "experts", I presume...
Quote from TDP's Brian. "The R5 Mark II delivers outstanding image quality, including ultra-high resolution with modest noise levels with excellent dynamic range."

David_B said:

No. The claim of 15 or 16 stops of DR with the C50 is for video. They can achieve that with video because Canon uses a non-linear algorithm to map sensor pixel values to image pixel values - unlike photography where the mapping from sensor pixels to image pixels is linear. This means that the video is "lossy" in ways that picture images are not because of compression in the highlights.

Click to expand...

And just to illustrate - per CineD, the R5 Mark II (which is panned as having 'terrible' dynamic range in photography circlces) gets similar dynamic range to the EOS C80 in video, which is claimed to have 16 stops.

GuillaumeB said:

If I look a the teaser picture (dawn, where the blackness of night meets the bright light of day) and the text, we may be into a pleasant surprise regarding dynamic range? The C50 sensor should make that possible in theory?

Click to expand...

No. The claim of 15 or 16 stops of DR with the C50 is for video. They can achieve that with video because Canon uses a non-linear algorithm to map sensor pixel values to image pixel values - unlike photography where the mapping from sensor pixels to image pixels is linear. This means that the video is "lossy" in ways that picture images are not because of compression in the highlights.

David - Sydney said:

Add the Sigma 14/1.4 as well.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Added. I forgot that one.

GuillaumeB said:

If I look a the teaser picture (dawn, where the blackness of night meets the bright light of day) and the text, we may be into a pleasant surprise regarding dynamic range? The C50 sensor should make that possible in theory?

Click to expand...

Unless it stands for the darkest corners a lens ever produced (EV -8) ...

Del Paso said:

"Discover the power, unleash your passion"
Could it mean something really interesting will be announced? Or an RF 50mm f/1,8 III?

Click to expand...

If I look a the teaser picture (dawn, where the blackness of night meets the bright light of day) and the text, we may be into a pleasant surprise regarding dynamic range? The C50 sensor should make that possible in theory?

GMCPhotographics said:

The EF 50mm f1.2 L was a mixed bag in my opinion. I had several copies, my initial copy was always a bit soft compared to all my other L primes (I had them all from the 24mm f1.4 IIL through to the 135mm f2.0). The lens needed to be stopped down to f2.0 before it matched the other lenses in sharpness. However, the contrast, colour rendition and built quality were exceptional. The AF was slower and less accurate than my EF 85mm f1.2 II L. In low light the AF was hopeless. In addition, the lens didn’t have any floating optics. There was a heavy aperture related focus shift on any close target at f2.8.
It was a very frustrating lens to use, but it had a beautiful rendering and could (when it actually focussed properly) it could produce really nice imagery.
My 2nd copy was a tad sharper wide open, but it was never what I would call “sharp”. It was ok, but not amazing. If I stopped down to bump the sharpness, that’s when the focus shift would occur.
The build quality of this lens verses the 50mm f1.4 was like night and day. Built tough and solid. But the 50mm f1.4 was actually a bit sharper wide open, but its contrast and colours sucked and needed a lot of post prod. The files out of the f1.2L were way better.
I don’t know what to expect with this new RF 45mm f1.2 lens. I hope it’s not the same bag of conflicting issues that the EF 50mm f1.2 L lens was.

Click to expand...

Exactly what I thought when the OP said "I hope it is anything like the EF 50/1.2L". Mind you - of the many L EF lenses that I had, I sold all but 3 and the EF 50/1.2L is still in my possession. Having compared it to the FD 55's 1.2, FDn 50/1.2L and even the RF 50/1.2L, there is no alternative that renders the background and transitions as magical as the EF 50/1.2L does (that's why I still have it, absolute sharpness is highly overrated). It was claimed at the time it had a floating element but I'm sure it has not (the whole optical group moves as one), which probably accounts for the subpar closeup performance (where the FDn 50/1.2L, for instance, with its floating (or rather stationary rear element shines). But it is a classic double-gauss design, which also means you only need f1.2 if you need the light, not necessarily the blur. Stop it down to f2 or even f1.4 and it's brilliant with only minor reduction in blur.
It could be that, with the RF 45/1.2 and the double-gauss design as a the basis, Canon added a couple of aspherical elements to touch up those weak points of the EF 50/1.2L (like Voiglander does) and release a truly brilliant modern design with an unmistakable classis look...

P-visie said:

Why? Just because you want such a lens?

Click to expand...

No, because then Sony will be offering a full trinity of F2.0 zoom lens and if Canon doesn't want to loose high end marketshare they will have to release such a trinity too.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious.

Eloniel said:

If Sony release one they will have to do it.

Click to expand...

Why? Just because you want such a lens?

Askeladden said:

Perhaps the 45 will be good for astro.

Click to expand...

Maybe but 45mm is a "strange" focal length for astro IMO.
Too long for milky way/astro landscapes as the number of images to stitch is a lot of rows/panels and probably too short for deep space.
f1.2 is great though
Star aberrations in the corners will be interesting to look at.

m4ndr4ke said:

Canon, or their opponents, have:
14mm f/1.8
Many 20mm f/1.4
Many 24mm f/1.4
35mm f/1.2
50mm f/1.2
85mm f/1.2

So, for every single one of the VCM lenses, I expect Canon to release a higher grade photo-oriented option within, say, 5 years from the first VCM release (50 and 85 are already available, obviously).

Click to expand...

Add the Sigma 14/1.4 as well. Wishful thinking that Canon has a 14mm prime at any aperture at the moment except for the CN-R/Sumire. Strangely enough, B&H still have the EF14/2.8ii still on the shelf!

Exploreshootshare said:

Canon really started to design lighter lenses with the arrival of the RF 100-500mm in 2021 (it had something to do with a new front element and new design approach, it was in one of the articles here on CR) and both lenses were released before that time. My theory actually fits with the rumored roadmap from 2021 which featured the 35mm f1.2, the fact it has obviously been pushed back several times and now the 24-70mm F2.8 IS VCM rumor which kind of gives a small hint what to expect of mkii´s.

Click to expand...

The RF100-500 is great for size/weight but that came after the RF70-200/2.8 in 2020.
The new one dropped almost 40% weight to 1070gm vs 1480gm for the EF70-200/2.8 plus shorter as well
It was an instant buy for me and approved by my wife who reminds me all the time about "can't you get a smaller kit of gear?". I even bought it on special before I had a R body to mount it on!

Finally stopped into my local camera shop to see the new 28-70 f/2.8 STM lens today. They also pulled out a 24-70 f/2.8 L to compare them on the counter. This photo does not do it justice. I must say, these new STM lenses are incredibly small and light. In a different league (in size and weight) than the L version. Easy to hold. Very easy. Much more discreet. I am blown away that this is a Canon product. I hope they release the 70-180 f/2.8 soon to complete the trinity. At that point I almost certainly will be finding a way to get a set. I think that these will compete reasonably well with the cheap Tamron zooms everyone raves about, or at least buys a ton of, no doubt for the zoom range, reasonable optical quality and most important: low price. Canon can probably get away with a small premium because, well they are Canon LOL. But the fact that they stepped up to make these is exciting to me. Does anybody else out there have interest in these new STM zooms?

GMCPhotographics said:

With these specs I don't really see the point of a side grade from a R6ii. I've needed a 2nd camera since I moved my R8 on and I've been waiting on the R6iii. However, considering I can buy a R6ii for so little £££ and R6iii offers very little in the way of upgrades for a Lot more £££. I can currently buy a new R6ii via grey import for £1350. A new R6iii is going to come in around £2K, maybe more.
So instead I've just bought a S/H R5 with only 50 clicks...yes it's practically brand new for only £1650. So yes, the R6iii is going to be a tough sell for Canon until the price drops to realistic prices and is seen a cheaper alternative to a mint R5. Maybe the R7ii will offer more tech for the money?

Click to expand...

I hope that Canon retains selling the R5 new for some time to come.
It is great value vs my pre-order currently at 40% price drop.
While the R5ii has a lot of incremental upgrades for some, and a better all round body, the price difference isn't worth it for my usage.

The R5 may be a better upgrade path for R6/R6ii users rather than the R6iii but we won't know how many choose that path.