Canon to Announce Another “World’s First” at Some Point This Year

[CanonGrunt]

Canon should update the old FD 50-300 f/4.5 L. Add a wider aperture, fancy new lens elements, some autofocus. Make it the price of a kidney on the black market… lol. I’d be interested though.

 

[FH_1]

Screw the 24-70. RF Tilt shift please. Please please.

 

[riker]

Almost like they listened to our comments a few days ago
I would have liked a 28-85/2 more but hey, this is great news anyway.

I'm not an expert but I got the feeling IS is more effective than IBIS and I loved the original idea of IBIS+IS working together and providing the best result. I know officially IBIS provides 6-7-whatever stops but I'm skeptical.

Well, anyway, just make it as light as possible while maintaining IQ on a level which makes sense to use it on a 45MP body.

For second lens I don't want the 50-150/2, rather something more lightweight, like 105-135/2 or 120-150/2 with some macro capabilities. I don't need overlapping lenses, I don't even mind some gap.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

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.

 

[Chig]

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

 

[Eloniel]

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

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.

 

[riker]

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.

 

[scyrene]

28-135 is the perfect zoom range, it's all you need 80-90% of the time.

Speak for yourself

 

[Exploreshootshare]

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

I really don´t like the F1.8 as a max aperture. I always associate it with entry-level primes or zooms. In addition, I am a fan of apertures with full stops such as a f2-2.8 zoom. Worst in this regard is the RF 100-500mm with its 4.5-7.1. I´d really prefer a 4-5.6 or even F4-8

So, either make it 70-200mm F2 or a F1.4 please

Yeah, I am weird sometimes

 

[scyrene]

I really don´t like the F1.8 as a max aperture. I always associate it with entry-level primes or zooms.

What about the 200mm f/1.8L?

 

[Bob Howland]

What about the 200mm f/1.8L?

He did say 70-200 f/1.4 (or f/2) The front element would have to be the same size as a 400 f/2.8. I want a longer sibling to the 20-50 f/4 L IS Z, with the same design philosophy and at the same price, perhaps 35-85 f/2.8 L IS Z or 60-150 f/2.8 L IS Z.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I want a longer sibling to the 20-50 f/4 L IS Z, with the same design philosophy and at the same price, perhaps 35-85 f/2.8 L IS Z or 60-150 f/2.8 L IS Z.

I want world peace. I give that an equal chance. Maybe a bit better.

 

[Bob Howland]

I want world peace. I give that an equal chance. Maybe a bit better.

The only thing I can say with any certainty is what is likely to cause me to pull out my credit card and spend my money. Think of my wishes as a form of marketing input to Canon.

 

[Chig]

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.

It would cost at least as much as the 100-300 f/2.8 but probably 10-15% more

 

[Eloniel]

It would cost at least as much as the 100-300 f/2.8 but probably 10-15% more

I can't see this happening if they want to compete against the 50-150 f2.0 from Sony which is way less expensive.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

What about the 200mm f/1.8L?

Well, the successor had a well-rounded and aperture of F2
No, you're right. The 200mm F1.8L was an absolute beast of a lens and not a typical f1.8 prime.

btw: I even prefer EF 35mm F2 and RF 85mm F2 over their f1.8 siblings

 

[Exploreshootshare]

He did say 70-200 f/1.4 (or f/2)

He meant my weird aversion to half- and third stops aperture in the name of the lens.

A 70-200mm F1.4 or F2 will never happen, but maybe a 70-180mm or something similar. Who knows.

The front element would have to be the same size as a 400 f/2.8. I want a longer sibling to the 20-50 f/4 L IS Z, with the same design philosophy and at the same price, perhaps 35-85 f/2.8 L IS Z or 60-150 f/2.8 L IS Z.

I don´t believe Canon will make another PZ lens with an overlap to the RF 20-50mm, but I could imagine a PZ lens starting at 50mm to couple it with the existing lens. It is basically a question if there is a need for it. Since I don't shoot video at all/ that much, I can't really answer that question nor do I have an opinion about it.

 

[Chig]

I really don´t like the F1.8 as a max aperture. I always associate it with entry-level primes or zooms. In addition, I am a fan of apertures with full stops such as a f2-2.8 zoom. Worst in this regard is the RF 100-500mm with its 4.5-7.1. I´d really prefer a 4-5.6 or even F4-8

So, either make it 70-200mm F2 or a F1.4 please

Yeah, I am weird sometimes

Damn, I better sell off my RF 135mm f/1.8 L IS USM and my EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM then , can't understand why they're among my favourite lenses

 

[Chig]

I can't see this happening if they want to compete against the 50-150 f2.0 from Sony which is way less expensive.

Well Sony's 50-150mm f/2 has an entrance pupil of only 75mm versus a 70-200mm f/2 would have one 100mm across and a 70-200mm f/1.8 would be 111mm across which means much bigger front elements and much more cost but perhaps you know some way to defy physics and economics so that Canon can magically sell it for a lower price?

 

[Eloniel]

Well Sony's 50-150mm f/2 has an entrance pupil of only 75mm versus a 70-200mm f/2 would have one 100mm across and a 70-200mm f/1.8 would be 111mm across which means much bigger front elements and much more cost but perhaps you know some way to defy physics and economics so that Canon can magically sell it for a lower price?

You misunderstood my point, Canon will want to compete against the Sony 50-150mm f2.0 and it's much more likely for the lens to stop at 150-180mm but to avoid competing against the 100-300mm f2.8 I suspect it will NOT accept extender.

They can't sell a 70-180mm f2.0 for the double of the Sony 50-150 to avoid stepping on the toe of the 100-300. They don't have a lot of margin to build a lens cohesive with their own ecosystem while be competitive against Sony.

So the more likely is a 70-150/180mm f2.0 that don't accept extenders for around 4000€