Just to add, though Nikon didn't make a 1200/5.6 with a built-in 1.4x TC, they did come out with a basically equivalent version as a zoom lens, the 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8. They were only 6 years behind Canon for that one.

Canon Rumors said:

Click to expand...

Don’t worry, I’ve started a new RF wishlist

Exploreshootshare said:

omg, how heavy was this lens? According to google AI, it was 16,8 kg. Instead of a tripod one should have probably used a golf cart Useful for a safari, for sure. But for which sport would one use a lens like this?

Click to expand...

Those five FDn lenses were all converted to EF mount (with the TC removed).

neuroanatomist said:

FD 1200mm f/5.6L + 1.4x lenses for the LA Olympics.

Click to expand...

omg, how heavy was this lens? According to google AI, it was 16,8 kg. Instead of a tripod one should have probably used a golf cart Useful for a safari, for sure. But for which sport would one use a lens like this?

Gorges de la Jont France

Shaping up nicely! Under lenses, perhaps a set of buttons to restrict by manufacturer?

neuroanatomist said:

You might feel differently if you owned one or more of these...

Click to expand...

That's higher end, I think he meant the old gold rings, and the best modern silver rings, like the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, and EF 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS USM.
IIRC, only the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM was on the lower side of things, with external focusing.

In my experience, for now, the only lens that is comparable is the RF 45mm. The RF 85mm f/2 could be another one, if it didn't focus externally.

I somewhat agree, these RF STM primes are the only lenses I've consistently been wishing to replace.
I ditched the RF 24 1.8, 35 1.8, the next possibly will be the 50 1.8 (I'm considering keeping it for the size, but it's unlikely), and the two other lenses I always look forward to replace are the RF 28 and RF 16, even though I consider these two to be a little more pleasant to use.

I don't need red rings on all my gear, but I would have paid an 100 or 200 extra bucks for the same lenses with a more refined experience.
Internal (front or rear, whatever, I don't care), quiet and smooth autofocus, dedicated lens hoods threads, and dedicated clicked control rings for consistency.

I don't think that's a lot to ask.

P-visie said:

A 600mm f4 with a built in 1.4 extender would leave only a long RF macrolens on my RF lens wishlist.

Click to expand...

It would leave a TS-R 14mm lens on my wishlist. Plus whatever else Canon may come up with, I did not expect the 20/1.4 or 14/1.4 VCM lenses, but they're excellent.

A 600mm f4 with a built in 1.4 extender would leave only a long RF macrolens on my RF lens wishlist.

Canis Lupus said:

Not two TC, but Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S is something Canon should have made long ago.

NIKKOR Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S | Z mount Lenses | Nikon Consumer

Click to expand...

Yes, and it only took Nikon 9 years to innovate that switchable 1.4x TC, after Canon launched the EF 200-400mm with that feature in 2013. Or if you prefer, you can start counting from 1984 when Canon released a handful of FDn 1200mm f/5.6L + 1.4x lenses for the LA Olympics.

mangobutter said:

Essentially nearly none of the RF lenses in the "normal" focal length range make me proud to own, hold, touch, and operate them. they all seem like cheap lenses on their outsides with optics that are sharp yet make lots of distortion, with many of them with cheap feeling and looking extending barrels (and yes i get the physics/optical compromises/packaging considerations etc)

Click to expand...

You might feel differently if you owned one or more of these...

mangobutter said:

Loved the big front elements of yesteryear too.

Click to expand...

Oh, they're still around.



And even though the front element of my RF 85/1.2L DS is a bit smaller than that of my RF 28-70/2, the RF prime's front element is larger than that of the EF 85/1.2L II that I owned years ago.

Exploreshootshare said:

A 600mm with a built in 1.4 and 2.0 would be a "hold my beer" moment and probably break the internet Is there any lens around with such a design feature? I couldn't find one with my quick google search.

I dream of owning a big white some day. Which one depends on which sport my kid(s?!) will be doing.

Click to expand...

Not two TC, but Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S is something Canon should have made long ago.

Hopeful. I always thought the RF 50 STM and 85 F2 IS were awkward and out of place -- not in line with other manufacturers offerings that are quiet, silent, and modern/non extending. The RF 50 was just lazy and i always hated that it was merely a reshuffled EF 50 STM which itself was just a re-dressed design going back decades. I'm sure the 50 STM will still sell along side any more higher priced sibling, but there should be a quiet internally focusing higher quality lens in the 50 1.8 arena than what is currently being offered. In terms of the 85 macro.. really i could do without the macro feature. the decades old EF 85 1.8 seems way more polished in operation and materials.

Essentially nearly none of the RF lenses in the "normal" focal length range make me proud to own, hold, touch, and operate them. they all seem like cheap lenses on their outsides with optics that are sharp yet make lots of distortion, with many of them with cheap feeling and looking extending barrels (and yes i get the physics/optical compromises/packaging considerations etc)

Give me back the look, feel, and operation of the old EF lenses that look and feel good to the touch, focus internally quickly and quietly. Loved the big front elements of yesteryear too.

Exploreshootshare said:

A 600mm with a built in 1.4 and 2.0

Click to expand...

Highly doubtful. One set of flip-out 1.4x elements, yes. Two sets of them, no.

An RF 600mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4×?

A 600mm with a built in 1.4 and 2.0 would be a "hold my beer" moment and probably break the internet Is there any lens around with such a design feature? I couldn't find one with my quick google search.

I dream of owning a big white some day. Which one depends on which sport my kid(s?!) will be doing.

Click said:

Nicely done, danfaz.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Click!

P-visie said:

You have reached a new low. Cancer kills millions of people each year.

Click to expand...

Personally, I helped develop a breakthrough cancer therapy that has benefited millions of patients so far. I wonder what @mimbu has done to benefit society? Evidently he doesn't realize that by being an insulting buffoon on an Internet forum, he benefits no one...least of all himself.

mimbu said:

Yeah, I thought about changing that, but figured that even you would manage to figure it out. I guess maybe not?

Click to expand...

Obviously, you thought about changing it after I pointed out how asinine and irrelevant your statements were.

Many of us have figured out that you’re asinine and irrelevant.

mimbu said:

Or you just prefer to be a dick?

Click to expand...

Name calling, really? You’ve already clearly demonstrated that you’re puerile. Maybe you need to look the word up. It seems you feel compelled to keep confirming that. The (situationally modified) adage you should take to heart is, better keep silent and be thought a fool than put fingers to keyboard and remove all doubt.

mimbu said:

Meanwhile, Canon will continue to indefinitely block the sale of 3rd party FF AF glass, to the detriment of their customers.

Click to expand...

So detrimental that customers keep buying Canon cameras in numbers that enable them to continue strongly leading the market.

You are free to continue not buying their gear in protest, and you are free to continue complaining about it on the Internet. You are also free to piss into the wind, which has about the same level of effectiveness.

mimbu said:

And I will continue to be amused by the likes of you trying to defend Canon's behavior.

I recommend you stop with the corporate bootlicking before the boot polish gives you cancer.

Click to expand...

Repeating myself, but you perceive statements of fact as 'defending Canon' because you're on the offense against them, as ineffectual as that is. I've agreed that Canon is blocking 3rd parties from making FF AF lenses for RF. They make the cameras, they own the IP, they get to choose. It's business. I understand that, but to you it's personal. Attack and defense. It’s sad for you that reality interferes with your pathetic little world view, the one where your opinion matters at all.

Nicely done, danfaz.

Del Paso said:

Different use for the 85mm f/2 here!
Only for longer walks, mostly in the mountains, where focusing speed doesn't matter at all (for me!), but sharpness and close-ups do!

Click to expand...

I use to have the same use case as well. Great lens for hiking, low light, close ups (e.g. cherry blossoms) and then of course portraits (mainly of my wife). Now, enter my nearly four month old son: although he can't even crawl yet, he already moves so quickly in his chair, the 85mm misses a growing number of shots. The VCM lens does not... therefore, the vcm gets the call every single time now... Thats why I´m considering the 100mm macro (better close-ups, use case for portraits as well) and selling the 85mm F2. A second VCM lens is not in the books right now and if it was, I´d love to get the 20mm, not the 85mm.

Del Paso said:

Sadly, the f/1,4 VCM has an inappropriate short focusing distance

Click to expand...

That´s true, the mfd is not suited for close-ups. But then again, I don't believe Canon designed the lens for it and it really excels at all other things.

I'm good with the RF 45, but I'm sure some would appreciate a higher end 50/55mm f/1.8 lens, similar to Sony's 55mm f/1.8 ZA, with better optics and build quality. Such lens would definitely find its place with those who expected higher and modern optical performance on a lens sitting between the 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4 L VCM.

As for the 85mm f/1.8, I could consider such lens if it dropped the macro b******* and featured internal focusing, like the 45.
I don't quite know how to read patents, but it seems to me like the focusing groups are at the rear, so I guess that's promising.

Xpenelas said:

Nikon is getting lighter and smaller telephotos reducing image circle and correcting vignetting on processing. Just go further and you have more.

Click to expand...

Can you provide an example?
Canon does that on the wide end, but not for telephoto.
If you are referring to Nikon lenses with built-in teleconverters, then those lose a stop of light when the teleconverter is activated.

Exploreshootshare said:

45mm, 50mm and then 55mm sounds like quite the line-up I honestly don't believe Canon will release another 50ish mm lens, but I could imagine a replacement. How many versions of the original nifty-fifty were made? Three if I´m correct. So, thats definitely in the books.

A refresh for the 85mm F2 would be quite welcome if Canon improves the Af motor. I own the 85mm f2 and I loved it very much until I picked up the 50mm F1.4 L VCM. Now, I rarely use the 85mm F2 because in comparison it is reaaaaaaaly slow. The optics are reasonable good-very good, but it doesn't work well with (fast) moving objects. I currently only use it for "macro" (actually fake macro at 0,5 magnification) but I´m probably going to sell it and help fund a true macro lens like the RF 100mm F2.8. I can make use of it as a portrait lens as well.

Click to expand...

Different use for the 85mm f/2 here!
Only for longer walks, mostly in the mountains, where focusing speed doesn't matter at all (for me!), but sharpness and close-ups do!.
Should the f/1,8 be optically even better, not much heavier, and offer 0,5 magnification: Why not!
Yet, I am presently more than satisfied with the f/2, my children are adults now, so, I don't care about AF speed for this particular lens!
But the 55mm, if really light, compact and sharp, and (!!!) close-up able, a sure buy. Sadly, the f/1,4 VCM has an inappropriate short focusing distance, and my Zeiss Classic 50mm f/2 lacks sharpness at longer distances.