I don't believe they'll make a 135mm VCM because F1.4 will probably not be possible due to size and F2 would be too close to the existing RF 135mm. Is there any chance they might make 100mm F1.4 VCM?
A true 100m fI.4 couldn't use a 67 mm front filter, but they could make it slightly shorter and / or slower. They could also choose to only allow a rear filter. So you can hope, if you want!Interesting lenses, for sure, but nothing there for me. The 70-XXXmm F2.8 could be for me, but only if there are definite benefits compared to the RF 70-200mm F4 L, which is near perfect imo. A 70-180mm F2.8 with a lot less weight is the only thing that comes to my mind.
The RF 24-70mm F2.8 VCM sounds really interesting because it might be the start for mkii versions (even if they aren't called mkii´s) of the first generation L zooms. Hoping for an updated 24-105mm F4 L at some point (if I don´t purchase the RF 28-70mm F2.8).
The VCM primes have one glaring hole as we all know
Sounds right. I am not hoping for a 100mm VCM or keeping my fingers crossed. I just thought it might be interesting to have something longer than 85mm and since 135mm or 200mm doesn't seem probable at all, I thought 100mm might be.
It doesn't necessarily have to be contradicting: "Canon does not need another $10,000-$15,000 big white lens" could easily mean not a 500mm big white. The current versions of RF 400/ 600mm would just get replacements, therefore these are not "another lens"...but honestly, I think were just splitting hairs here...This
"Canon does not need another $10,000-$15,000 big white lens."
and this
"The current versions [ RF 400 F2.8 L & RF 600 F4 L lenses] were designed for the EF mount, so it's time for native RF mount versions."
Interesting seeing the author disagreeing with himself...so I don't have to.
I agree with the latter quote although I'm unlikely to be a buyer (I'd need to sell my Nikon version of the 400mm f/2.8 first), but there are a lot of Canon shooters who are unhappy with the converted EF lenses. Sure, their IQ is excellent, but an RF lens built for mirrorless would probably provide some weight and size benefits not to mention the potential for a built-in TC.
I am interested in the 300-600mm. I prefer to travel with my Canon R5, but it would be nice to pair it with a (relatively compact) lens that is stronger for wildlife/birding than the 100-500mm (a lens I love but often wish for more).
For a supertele lens, the shorter flange distance is basically irrelevant. The 'built for mirrorless' allowed Canon to make lenses like the 600/11 and 800/11, since with autofocus moved to the image sensor it works reliably at apertures like f/11. But a 600/4 won't be smaller or lighter because of the shorter flange distance.
This
"Canon does not need another $10,000-$15,000 big white lens."
and this
"The current versions [ RF 400 F2.8 L & RF 600 F4 L lenses] were designed for the EF mount, so it's time for native RF mount versions."
Interesting seeing the author disagreeing with himself...so I don't have to.
I agree with the latter quote although I'm unlikely to be a buyer (I'd need to sell my Nikon version of the 400mm f/2.8 first), but there are a lot of Canon shooters who are unhappy with the converted EF lenses. Sure, their IQ is excellent, but an RF lens built for mirrorless would probably provide some weight and size benefits not to mention the potential for a built-in TC.
I am interested in the 300-600mm. I prefer to travel with my Canon R5, but it would be nice to pair it with a (relatively compact) lens that is stronger for wildlife/birding than the 100-500mm (a lens I love but often wish for more).
Do you have more specific information? Will it be a L lens? Or more like a pz lens? The focal range and the f-number suggest it will be compact and lightweight. I always wanted Canon to release a 24-70mm F4 L, but 20-50mm F4 sounds more intriguing imo.
Enjoy, have fun and maybe post a couple of those bird pics of yours for those at enduring the grey, rainy weather
