This is likely Canon’s lens roadmap for 2020

[Aaron D]

The 50 I'd buy this minute. The 70-200 f/4 too, if it's an 'extending-style' like the f/2.8.

I wish Canon would do a 14-30 (or so) f/4 like Nikon has now--though the collapsible bit is really unnecessary. As wide as can be while still permitting screw-on filters.

And TS lenses! With tripod feet!!!

 

[Marximusprime]

That's the question of IS and sensor performance.
But my aspect is not so much the amount of light. I barely ever step down the big whites due to subject separation. F11sets this aspect far back.

The 600 might be an option for Birds in flight, with 800 you will never find them within your frame.

Maybe for very small birds, but I routinely shoot with an EFL north of 900 (600mm lens on a crop body, 500 + 1.4x on a crop body, etc.) and I'm usually pretty good at finding the bird.

 

[Joules]

But people here are commenting as if it affects exposure ( as in how could you shoot f/11 at night etc ). It doesn't, the same shutter-aperture-ISO will give the same exposure on all sensors with the exception of differences due to true transmission ratio of the lenses.

And noise equivalence is dependent on sensor technology, it's not inversely linear to sensor size.

What I read (and also wrote) on here is that people are using f/5.6 lenses on MFT bodies and are getting results they are happy with. In terms of noise, you're getting an equivalent image if you shoot f/11 on FF.

Obviously that comparison assumes both systems are using similar generation sensors. But truth is that the improvements in sensor technology are diminishing rapidly. Sensor size however is something that very much affects image quality. Going from FF to MFT you are using a sensor that is a quarter in size and that will significantly impact image quality. Image quality is definitely proportional to the amount of light gathered. And if you use identical exposure settings, that amount is going to be 4 times higher in FF than MFT. That's what the equivalence is about. Equivalent in terms of FoV and absolute amount of light collected.

 

[Bonich]

Hi, out of interest: why wouldn’t you use your existing TSE lenses with the adaptor? This is slow tripod kind of work anyway, the adaptor would be a minor issue for me with these lenses? Just curious. Grtz, F.

Just use TS-E with the adapter, great!
There are 5 versions fresh and performant on the market.

 

[usern4cr]

I have really been looking forward to the RF 70-135 f/2 L lens for portrait use, but it wasn't on this list - DOH! I guess it'll make the decision to get the RF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS a lot easier since the 70-135 won't exist for quite a while, if ever.

 

[Czardoom]

Perhaps someone has already pointed this out - I didn't read all 9 pages of the thread. Some of us go back to the days of film, where you really didn't like going beyond ISO 400 (at least I didn't). With today's sensors, you can easily go up to ISO 6400 - or even 12800. ISO 6400 is 4 stops more than ISO 400. 4 stops more light than f/11 is f/2.8. So, anything you could shoot at f/2.8 and ISO 400, you can shoot at f/11 and ISO 6400. Sounds like enough light for me.

 

[Proscribo]

The extenders are for the 2.8 70-200

The RF 70-200mm/2.8 is not compatible with the RF extenders.

 

[Czardoom]

I think it is likely that Canon is not trying to just duplicate their EF lenses with RF lenses. In some cases, yes, we have the same lens in both formats, but I truly do believe Canon's philosophy (at least for now) is what they stated when they introduced the "R" - that the new mirrorless line will co-exist with their existing DSLRs and EF lenses - not replace them. I know forum dwellers have a hard time accepting that DSLRs and EF lenses will still be made, but I think only time will tell if more people prefer the EVF or want to stick with the OVF.

Thus, if the two lines (EF and RF) of lenses will co-exist, it would be stupid of Canon to just duplicate all the EF lenses. Anyone who has spent many $1,000s on an L telephoto, is likely to just keep that lens and use an adapter if they buy an R series camera. It makes far more sense - if you are making new lenses, to widen the variety, and create lenses for a wider base of consumer. So, if they already have L lenses that are expensive, large and heavy, why not make some RF lenses that are cheaper, lighter and smaller? If that's not what you are looking for, you still the choice of buying what you want in the EF lineup.

 

[dwarven]

Imagine if they make RF APS-C bodies. That 800mm would be 1280mm @ f11 without a teleconverter, while probably being hand-holdable.

 

[sanj]

I have really been looking forward to the RF 70-135 f/2 L lens for portrait use, but it wasn't on this list - DOH! I guess it'll make the decision to get the RF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS a lot easier since the 70-135 won't exist for quite a while, if ever.

I want that lens too.

 

[[email protected]]

F11. Interesting. So DPAF doesn't need similar amount of light as PDAF?

Also, what shooting usually needs that long and has enough light for F11? Outdoor motorsports?

Solar corona imagery, of course. No need for a filter. Pre-stopped-down for your convenience.
-tig

PS: All this snark is not going to prevent me from buying it. The instant it comes out. Would be perfect for some of the wildlife remote setups I do on intervalometer.

 

[xiaohuaa]

Not everyone in this world shoots birds. I shoot girls and they don’t fly (normally), so f11 seems fine to me.

 

[[email protected]]

I found the patents for this tele lenses, they are really simple design so hopefully really cheap and small.

https://asobinet.com/info-patent-canon-800mm-f11-do/

The major element is right flush up against the camera side of the lens. That one is going to feel even lighter than it is.

The downside is that the DO optics in that patent don't appear to make it a whole lot shorter. 15 inches versus the 800 f/4's 18 inches. New "magic drainpipe."

 

[navastronia]

Not everyone in this world shoots birds. I shoot girls and they don’t fly (normally), so f11 seems fine to me.

But at 600 and 800mm . . . how far away are these girls?

 

[Bonich]

Reading this thread: 600mm f11 not usable? Only static objects?
Example: 600mm, F11, ISO100, 1/160sec

 

[xiaohuaa]

But at 600 and 800mm . . . how far away are these girls?

On a stage, for example

 

[MinoltaSRT101]

'I can add to this information that both the RF 600mm f/11 IS STM and RF 800mm f/11 IS STM will be DO lenses as well.' Forgive my ignorance...but what does, 'DO' mean?

"DO (diffractive optics) lens elements enable telephoto lenses to be lighter and more compact while maintaining a high level of performance. Canon succeeded in creating the innovative DO lenses by bonding a precise diffraction grating to the surface of a glass lens."

 

[Nelu]

Not everyone in this world shoots birds. I shoot girls and they don’t fly (normally), so f11 seems fine to me.

You shoot girls with a 800mm lens? Do they know about it?
Maybe they don't, that's why they don't "fly"

 

[H. Jones]

For a visualization, looking at the patent, the 800mm is just around the length of the 400mm f/2.8L IS III, but with a filter thread of 72 or 77mm.




So since most lenses with 72mm front elements are pretty similar to the width of the lens mount itself, here's a quick and super rough photoshop warping to make the 400mm f/2.8L IS III the same length as the lens mount:



With how few elements this lens has in it and the size, I doubt this lens weighs all that much. Obviously things could change from the patent, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if the real lens was shorter than that.

Since it seems like the lens design handbook is thrown out, I also think there shouldn't be ruling out that Canon could design a cheap f/11 lens that could collapse on itself when not in use, like a lot of EF-M lenses do. That said, in comparison to current options, even this length would be a *huge* advantage in size/weight over the 800mm f/5.6.

 

[RicoB]

Where is the RF 16-35 f/4L IS USM?