Are these the 7 RF lenses Canon will be announcing in 2020? [CR1]

[padam]

Would the R mount allow for a 10-24mm f/4L USM *with* front filter thread? One can dream.

With that extreme field-of-view, that's a clear no. Maybe a rear filter slot, but that would also compromise the optical design a bit.
It will need a special filter kit, but it does not need to be quite as enormous as it was with the 11-24mm.
One advantage the old 11-24mm has over the RF lens is the EF adapters with built-in filters.

Of course there have been DIY attempts at putting a filter on the Sony 12-24mm lens, but it will only work for 14mm onwards.

 

[mb66energy]

50 and 85 with is and stm motors on a budget would be top selling!!! I imagine 200-400$ each. I hope it comes true! Canon is rocking atm...!!! 35mm is already a macro lens and 50mm is also a macro lens. What else to ask really? Holy $hit...

Sorry to finish your dreams but I think prices will be slightly above the 500-550 $ / EUR for the RF35 because large focal lengths at the same aperture need larger (diameter) and thicker lenses and AF motors / IS have to move more weight. And I am shure they will use advanced lens designs like RF 35 (and not that of the current nifty fifty).

But my RF35 is worth every buck: good wide open, excellent above @f/2.8 and very very flexible due to its image stabilization and MACRO FUNCTION !!!

 

[SecureGSM]

19 mm difference in bokeh ball sizes is quite massive, I'd say.

agree and... that's a full stop of a difference.. double in price and size / weight... at least...

 

[koenkooi]

Hopefully the missing MACRO designation is some typo - that would be the hammer lens for me combined with the RF 35 MACRO - or we have to wait another year for a RF f/2.0 100 IS Macro ?

I hope not, I would really like the RF85 f/1.8 to be internally focussing, not massively extend like the RF35 f/1.8.

 

[mb66energy]

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?

"We" are not representative. Maybe Canon sees its only chance to reinstall FF cameras in "normal" households because this is the only chance to differentiate from smart phones.
In that case, if a 600$ mirrorless full frame body will enter the market, this lens is the only chance to stay within 1000$ / EUR for advanced "normal" users.
While "we" are able to buy a 3 000 $/EUR camera / lens / whatever every year or every two years this is not possible for maybe 80% of the population of industrialized countries.
Or think about a beginning reporter in a non-industrialized country, where a high yearly income is close to 3000 $/EUR!

I am more or less a prime shooter but I used my M50 with the EF-M 18-55 for a week because I had to reduce my luggage and it worked very well photographically. IQ and low light capabilities are on the lower side and I am really spoiled with EF-M 32 but for 90% of photograph taking people it's more than enough!

 

[SecureGSM]

No IS for the Canon RF 70-135mm f/2L USM? Seems strange...

there is no IS in 28-70/f2.0 but there is an IBIS in R5.

 

[mb66energy]

I hope not, I would really like the RF85 f/1.8 to be internally focussing, not massively extend like the RF35 f/1.8.

That's a real disadvantage of the RF35, but it's necessary to keep it that compact. An internally focusing system might add 30mm ore more to the RF35. Maybe I have to wait for an f/2.0 100 IS MACRO lens (1:2) or live with what I have: EF 100 2.0 and EF 100 2.8 M ...

 

[Framehungry]

NGL the 10-24 is gonna sell like hotcakes for vloggers/youtubers

 

[Antono Refa]

So Canon has an expensive RF 50mm f/1.2 on one side, and a cheap RF 50mm f/1.8 on the other side, but no RF 50mm f/1.4 in the middle? Sigh.

 

[mariosk1gr]

Sorry to finish your dreams but I think prices will be slightly above the 500-550 $ / EUR for the RF35 because large focal lengths at the same aperture need larger (diameter) and thicker lenses and AF motors / IS have to move more weight. And I am shure they will use advanced lens designs like RF 35 (and not that of the current nifty fifty).

But my RF35 is worth every buck: good wide open, excellent above @f/2.8 and very very flexible due to its image stabilization and MACRO FUNCTION !!!

Ok 1 grand doesn't sound bad for 2 new RF lenses with these features against the RF L prices.

 

[Deleted member 68328]

So Canon has an expensive RF 50mm f/1.2 on one side, and a cheap RF 50mm f/1.8 on the other side, but no RF 50mm f/1.4 in the middle? Sigh.

And I think it will probably never happen. f1.2 is the new f1.4 on the R mount

 

[Joules]

The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.

Yeah, honestly, who needs an extra stop?

The guys using a 2.8 zoom today should pick up a 4.0 ASAP . Saves them cost and weight. And the current 4.0 users should get Canon to make a couple sweet 5.6 zooms, that's just a barely noticeable stop slower after all - Or, hold up! 7.1 is even less than a stop slower than 5.6, so really that's the sweet spot!

Now, that's what I would call innovation, and the internet would rejoice

 

[Joules]

And I think it will probably never happen. f1.2 is the new f1.4 on the R mount

If you compare based in the prices of a 50mm I would rather say 1.8 is the new 1.4. The EF 50mm 1.4 is not really comparable to the RF 50mm 1.2.

 

[SecureGSM]

70-135 f2? Where do I sell my kidney?

let's understand what corners Canon had to cut in order to arrive there first.. vignetting levels, distortions, bokeh quality. it is rather tempting...

 

[SecureGSM]

I'll say $3k like the 28-70.

actually, I hate to tell ya...it would have been up to 10% more expensive and just a tad under $3,300.00.... sounds right to me...

 

[SecureGSM]

NGL the 10-24 is gonna sell like hotcakes for vloggers/youtubers

at around $3000 a pop.. you are correct. oh, wait.

 

[degos]

it is? that was the standard F2.8 lens zoom focal for nikon and canon for a few decades

Only in recent history, due to manufacturing considerations of pushing to 2.8. The classic standard zoom was the much more useful 28-85.

 

[Fran Decatta]

That will be another $3000 machine or more like the 28-70 f2. If you can swing it though, it would be worth every penny

I know! Already own the 28-70 F2. Months ago, I sold almost all my EF mount primes to purchase that monster.... and I will never regret about that change but I work as a wedding photographer. For the moment, the combination of 17-40 f4 + 28-70 f2 is more than enough for my work. But never knows, the future will tell

 

[Sharlin]

Usability.

28-70mm is such a bizarre focal length. Are people really eager to shoot at 70mm f/2, enough to justify MASSIVE weight, cost and size penalties? For what? Sigma nailed it with an 18-35 and 50-100 f/1.8 lenses. Extremely useful focal lengths for a wide variety of applications.

The 17-55 f/2.8 is supremely useful in a massive range of situations. Same goes for an 18-80mm f/2.8. Those are show stopping focal lengths. Given the improvements in ISO, f/2 isn't really all that it used to be.

Given that the 18-80 f/2.8 already exists w/speed boosters, what's mind boggling is that Canon didn't just take that internally and produce a knockout lens.

What exactly are you smoking? You’re talking about APS-C lenses in the context of FF lenses. Specifically, speedboosters are not magic. They take a FF image circle and shrink it to fit a crop sensor.

 

[Andy Westwood]

Personally, I feel Canon should have kept the new 24-105 to a max focal range of around 70mm at about f5.6 or even f6.3 but keeping IS and the compact size in a lightweight package. Why another 24-105 so early in the RF line-up.

I like the sound of the new f1.8 primes and I’m pleased Canon is looking after us original R users by keeping IS in those lenses even though I can’t wait to see the final confirmed spec on the R5 and particularly the lower mega pixel R6