What’s Next from Canon?

[scyrene]

a 200-500mm f2.8-4 [...] but more affordable

 

[akc]

So frustrating!! November 16 & 26 pass without announcing the 300-600 f4-5.6. This is the upgrade to my 100-500mm. I want this lens. Canon has been ignoring the high end long glass community for awhile now. Canon should give us an idea what's going on!!!!

a canon guy told me, we have to wait until next summer!
but the next vcm will be a 14mm

 

[G650ER]

a canon guy told me, we have to wait until next summer!
but the next vcm will be a 14mm

14mm f/1.8 or 1.4 I hope. Even better would have been 12mm but I'll gladly take the 14.

 

[Ozarker]

14mm f/1.8 or 1.4 I hope. Even better would have been 12mm but I'll gladly take the 14.

I could be wrong, but I think somebody here mentioned that a 14mm wouldn't be f/1.4 because it would have to be bigger than the other VCM primes. If it can be done, I'd be happy.

I wouldn't mind a 105mm.

 

[Dpcj2]

Would love to see an updated professional cinema camera. They should be able out figure out how to include but fully disable IBIS and lock the sensor in place when it is not desired to prevent wobble. Updated sensor. 2 CF express cards. Excellent heat management. Built in ND filters. Full sized HDMI. Internal sound recording with 120p. While we are at it, there seems to be no technical reason they can't make it fully functional for stills with an electronic shutter. That would be my dream camera.

 

[rombe3jr]

I've been wondering about that as well. I do have the RF 16-28mm & 28-70mm f/2.8 that I use with the R8 in a small/light kit (I have an even smaller/lighter R50 based one). I've used the 70-200mm F4 with it and it is fine. Actually, the 70-200mm F/2.8 is compact enough that it can fit in my small kit bag. It is heavier, but compact enough to fit so I often use the 2.8 version.

I do agree with @Exploreshootshare that it would have to be really compact and light, i.e., less than 500g like the 16-28mm and the 28-70mm. The 70-200mm F4 is only 695g, so even then the difference in weight (and probably size) wouldn't be that large, but for that focal length F2.8 vs F4 would make a difference. Also, the RF 70-200mm F2.8 is 1Kg, so the weight difference is considerable and I'd assume an RF 70-180mm F2.8 would be less than 50% the cost of the RF 70-200mm F2.8.

I did look into the RF 14-35mm F4, and perhaps that would have been the better option. The 14mm vs 16mm is a significant advantage and the 35mm vs 28mm is as well. The F2.8 vs F4 tends to be not that great of an advantage for me.

I have heard the 70-200 f/4 is a great lens. It seems like a low price right now for $1,500 USD. With such great ISO / low light performance from newer camera bodies these days, perhaps an f/2.8 isn't really necessary? A 180mm reach and weight under 500g does seem like a tall order but would be a fantastic set of specs. About the only thing I can think of to do it better would be to keep the 67mm filter size. Then you could have the holy trinity with one set of filters. Combined with a R6 II right now and you have a fantastic kit, affordable (as "affordable" as full frame Canons can get at "only" $6,000 USD), but quite capable!