What’s a “realistic” lens that you’d like to see Canon make?

[ERHP]

600 (DO or not) w/1.4X. We already know that can be done based on the 200-400. DO would likely be preferred but It would make little difference to me as long as IQ is the same.

 

[Ruiloba]

Rf 200-600 F6.3 and a Rf 600 F4 cheaper

 

[Jim Corbett]

Why should it be realistic? Nothing beautiful has ever been created without having been dreamed of in the first place... unrealistically(!)

200mm f/1.8

 

[TonyNorthrup]

How can this be unrealistic if Tony said it is “doable”? With, let me guess, around 10 stops of vignetting in extreme corners and a bucket sized front element to the boot.

I own the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 for astro. It's great! but it's a DSLR lens, and Sigma makes it for the Nikon F mount, which means they had to design their optics around a very small opening with a big flange distance. That's a big deal for fast, super-wide lenses, which benefit the most from the wide openings and short flange distances of modern mirrorless mounts. Canon could certainly make a 14mm lens one stop faster for their R mount. No doubt it would be huge, but so is the Sigma, and it's always on a tripod, anyway. BTW, the vignetting isn't ever a real-world problem for me... We've been testing the Canon 24-240 RF which has serious vignetting and distortion at 24mm, but the camera and Lightroom both automatically correct for it in post, which means you never see any problem with your images. I am fine with that.

 

[miketcool]

10mm f/2.8 or f4.0

I want a non-fisheye wide enough for dives and outrageous landscape shots with enough IQ to let me crop later.

 

[FramerMCB]

Well, if Canon could make a EF 200mm f1.8L is no reason they couldn't make an RF 135mm f1.4L and an RF 200mm f1.4L. Hard to say if they would put IS in them or not. However, I wouldn't want to even guess how much an RF 200mm f1.4L would sell for.

 

[goldenhusky]

My Wish list in the order of priority

RF 200-600 F/5.6 to f/6.3 IS ~ $2k (if it is the one lens I want this will be it)
RF 600mm f/5.6 IS ~$3k
RF 135mm f/1.8 ~ $1.8k
RF 105mm f/1.4 ~$1.5k

 

[motofotog]

500mm f5.6 and
200-600mm lens.

 

[goldenhusky]

I am very attracted by the 70-135L f:2 that is already announced, but the price and weight are going to be punishing.

70-135L f:2 already announced? There are only rumors on that

 

[unfocused]

EF 200-500mm f5.6 L -- If Nikon can do it for $1,400, Canon should be able to produce an "L" quality lens for $2,500.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

I would say a RF 800mm f/4 DO. Basically instead of making a smaller 600mm lens, lets make a longer lens that hasn't been possible till now.

 

[Jasonmc89]

500mm f5.6 L for about £2400

 

[Deleted member 381342]

EF 200-500mm f5.6 L -- If Nikon can do it for $1,400, Canon should be able to produce an "L" quality lens for $2,500.

Nikons Z version is going to be 200-600mm, unknown if that'll be a fixed f/5.6

 

[gatabo]

an affordable and lightweight 120-250mm F2.8

I don't include the already rumored lenses or patents that I find interesting

 

[barryreid]

I'd like a TS-R 35mm f/2.8. Now that the TS-E 45 is gone, there's room for it.

 

[AccipiterQ]

I would say a RF 800mm f/4 DO. Basically instead of making a smaller 600mm lens, lets make a longer lens that hasn't been possible till now.

I hadn't even thought of that....We already have a 600, a 500, etc. Push the limits here and see what they can do.

 

[EverydayPhotographer]

Assuming that the "consumer grade" RF lenses are definitely coming, I'd like to see some movement from Canon on "entry level" RF L-series lenses. Against its predecessors, the 24-105 f/4.0L is freaking spectacular, and it's not an awful price point. A 100-400 f/4.0 or 4.5L and a 10-24 f/4.0L are well within reach, and would make a pretty compelling "Entry Level Trinity" of f/4.0 lenses. The lens I use the most day to day is my 16-35 f/2.8L, and the lens I rent the most is the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II. At f/7.1, I'm a bit reserved about the slow F stop on the top end of the announced 100-500. I would love to see them complete a "trinity" lineup that would drive sales into the R line.

 

[RobbieHat]

I am all for the 14-35 f4 that is filterable. I also vote for the fast ultra-wide astro lens (14 mm and at least f 1.8). Beyond that I would tend to the opposite end of the focal length. Relatively fast, relatively sharp 100-500 or 200-600 and a light 600 mm f4 (DO or otherwise). I have the 100-400 and 600 f4 vII and can adapt both of these but would replace them with R mounts if they were lighter, faster, and as sharp.

 

[Jstnelson]

I'm really hoping they make a 135mm f1.4. I'll still be happy if they make it an f1.8 and it would be cheaper/lighter but an f1.4 would be amazing.

 

[Antono Refa]

Knowing some of those were rumored / released -

RF 10-24mm f/4L USM, front filterable would be a bonus.
RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM, front filterable would be a bonus.
RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM that accepts 1.4x & 2x TCs.

I'd love a fisheye zoom, RF 8-15mm f/4L USM.