Personally, I'm not interested in a "wide-angle" lens longer than 24 mm. 10-14, on the other hand, would be a nice addition to TS-E 17.Personally I won't be interested in the 10-24 with my 16-35. Not doubling up.
Upvote
0
Personally, I'm not interested in a "wide-angle" lens longer than 24 mm. 10-14, on the other hand, would be a nice addition to TS-E 17.Personally I won't be interested in the 10-24 with my 16-35. Not doubling up.
Your 'We' and Canon's 'We' are two very different things.Seems a little boring, given that Canon promised new and inventive lenses along with the R system.
The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.
Why no 17-55mm f/2.8? Why no telephoto lenses faster than f/7.1? Why no L primes smaller than their EF counterparts?
Did we really need a junky 24-105?
I'm gonna have some seriously difficult buying choices in the next year... I'm trying to hold out to see if/what we get from Canon as a true video centric RF body, but as it stands now, the R6 ain't lookin too shabby depending on how the final specs pan out.Along with the f/1.2L primes.
That will be another $3000 machine or more like the 28-70 f2. If you can swing it though, it would be worth every pennyThat 50 and 85 1.8 looks good! but the 70-135... this will be a huge (and desirable) chunk of glass.
Also... I wonder the angle of view of that 10mm, I dont need it, but love to see Canon making unique lenses. Those one are jewels.
Missing:
- 24 f/1.2
- 14-28 f/2
You are kidding right?Well, I do not want a 7.1 pancake but I'll take a 28mm 2.something.Personally I won't be interested in the 10-24 with my 16-35. Not doubling up.
The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 is a whole stop. That's great. It might be fringe, but I want one. RF 28-70mm f/2L, RF 70-135mm f/2L, RF 85mm f/1.2L and I will be a very happy guy for a very long time.The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.
Agreed !!That 70-135 sounds tasty.
I've been waiting so long for a Canon 50-60 macro...that, in despair, I bought the Zeiss (very very good), and the EOS R in order to use my 60 and 100 Leica R macros (absolutely superb) .“Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 MACRO IS STM”
This NEEDS to happen! Especially if it is equivalent or better optically than the already good 35mm version.
An 85mm version may potentially be of interest to me as well.
“ Canon RF 70-135mm f/2L USM ”
I wonder how large this would be if it were to materialize. Still, it would be nice to see Canon continue to offer ultra fast lens options in addition to the f7.1s popping up as of late.
19 mm difference in bokeh ball sizes is quite massive, I'd say.The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.