This is likely Canon’s lens roadmap for 2020

[Kit.]

But people here are commenting as if it affects exposure ( as in how could you shoot f/11 at night etc ). It doesn't,

Of course it affects exposure. With a full frame, you can afford to use higher ISO and still get the same SNR as on crop.

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

There's an inherent quantum noise in coming light, and that's what limits the high-ISO performance of the modern cameras. It doesn't depend on sensor technology (apart from the transmittance of the color filters).

 

[mangobutter]

I will buy the RF 50 so hard. So so hard. $199? Please, Canon.

The RF 70-200 F4L will be extremely hard to resist. I will guess $1399.

 

[H. Jones]

I will buy the RF 50 so hard. So so hard. $199? Please, Canon.

Definitely agree even as someone who owns the EF 50 1.8 already. I'm at a point in my career where I already have plenty of expensive glass, and most of my full-time work is with camera gear that my employer keeps and buys, so I find myself *so* much more interested in these tiny, cheap lenses. At the price of the 35mm f/1.8, there's no reason not to buy them even if they're just back ups, or for something small to keep in a tiny shoulder bag with the EOS R5. I mean heck, when I'm spending $250 dollars on a single memory card why not buy any lens under 400 bucks if not just to mess with?

Even the 85mm f/2, in the past I would have said I'd just wait for an RF 85 1.4, but heck, if the f/2 is $400 I'll buy it anyway and then still get the 1.2 or 1.4 down the road for paid work. So much more convenient to have these little, cheap lenses on me when I'm just messing around with family or running to the grocery store.

 

[usern4cr]

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."

The main large DO element is at the front of the lens, while the camera is at the back of it. In fact, there's no element at all in the 40% of the lens near the camera, so it will be pretty front heavy. Good thing the big main element is DO since that's the only massive element and so DO will drastically reduce the lens weight. I just wonder what the optical quality of the DO will allow.

 

[usern4cr]

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.

View attachment 190739


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:

View attachment 190740

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.

Your suggestion of a prime lens that "collapses on itself" is intriguing. The back 40% of the 800mm f/11 lens shown in the patent has no optics, so it could collapse up to 40% for stowage if they wanted to do that, and expand to take a picture. That'd be quite a magic trick there, but you'd then have possible dust/moisture seepage with such user pull/pushing.

 

[usern4cr]

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

I agree. I'd also like to wonder if they will come out with the 17-70mm lens that they submitted a patent for? (I forgot what the f/# was for it)

 

[Whowe]

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."

I thought the major element was at the front (i.e. front element) while the right side of the diagram shows the IP - Image Plane in the camera....

 

[Otara]

Maybe this is a response to the popularity of superzoom compacts? Every time they come up the effective resolution and aperture is pointed out, but they still sell. Still betting on video as the main focus though.

 

[dwarven]

The more I think about it the more excited I am for the 800mm. As a DO lens at f/11 it's going to pretty light and hopefully not super long, which will allow you to get pictures you might not have been able to get with the 600mm F4. Carrying a bazooka and a monopod around with you can be very prohibitive. And ultimately, getting the shot is what matters.

 

[questionsabouthigh]

F11? It seems really........wierd. is it perhaps a comment on the performance of the new sensors? I mean. Even if the AF can work at f11 you would basically NEVER have enough light to shoot at f11 at that focal length. At least not for wildlife. Unless the new sensors are a major step above what we are used to.

Perfect lens for shooting an ibis in flight.

 

[highdesertmesa]

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

Same with imagining the R5 in APS-C crop mode – pretty cool

 

[sanj]

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

hahahhaaha. EPIC

 

[Aussie shooter]

I can use f/11 with my R. I can also use it in live view with my 5D MK IV. I think some of the better communications in the RF lenses may help autofocus.

F11 is F11, the focal length does not change that. Obviously, the amount of light needed to get a low ISO exposure at a high shutter speed is critical, and for moving subjects, a fast shutter speed is going to be a issue. Lots of wildlife is not moving, birds in flight might require high ISO.

Also cant forget that while you can shoot at f11 in limited circumstances your camera is not autofocusing at f11. It is autofucusing at whatever the max apature of the lens is. These would be focusing AT f11. Not easy to be fast or accurate. It would work in perfect conditions. Bright light. Front lit subjects. Very still subjects. And most likely on a tripod. UNLESS as I suggested that maybe the sensors are substantially better at high ISO than we have seen before.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Perfect lens for shooting an ibis in flight.

I don't mind a nice shot of a Bin Chicken but tbh it is not something I do on a regular basis

 

[Ozarker]

Whew! No pressure on me. The RF 70-135mm f/2L is still a ways off.

Here come the RF extenders!

Bought the Tamron SP 45mm F/1.8 Di VC USD last night as a bargain walking around lens.

 

[stevelee]

No, an m43 f/5.6 or 8 is exactly physically that. The equivalent FoV and alleged equivalent aperture are irrelevant.

If you're shooting at 5.6, that's what you're shooting at. It's a physical ratio.

Think of it this way: you shoot an 600 f/4 at 5.6 on a Canon FF. You then crop the centre portion to match m43 FoV. Did the aperture change? No.

No, I was addressing use of teleconverters. The lens says one thing, but the actual aperture is a stop or two slower.

 

[tron]

I guess everyone has different needs and standards. Personally, I would understand f/8 but f/11 seems a bit too much to me!
at least for 600mm which can be approximated by adding a 1.4X to a 100-400 lens making it 560mm while staying at f/8.
800 f/11 can be more tolerated I guess. Again, all these apply to myself alone. YMMV

P.S The D500/500PF5.6 combination is so portable with high IQ so that it pushes the extremes (f/4 and f/11 prime lenses) out of the game when walking. Add (when I have a car) a 500mm 4L IS II (with a 2XIII) and a 5DsR and that's it! (again YMMV).

 

[Kjsheldo]

My main problem with Canon lenses is they either have fast (f1.2 or f1.4) lenses that are great, well made, feel solid OR they have slower aperture lenses (f1.8, f2) that are cheap, loud, and plastic-y.

I'd love a set of F2 primes (24, 35, 85) and awesome to see an 85mm F2 IS - that's a great combo. However, if it is made like the 35mm f1.8 IS (which I'm guessing it will be), it will be loud, plastic-y, and cheap. That was the same with their EF lenses.

Why won't Canon make good, solid slower primes like Sigma (with their Sigma 45mm f2.8) Fuji (all their F2 primes are excellent and small)? F2 primes that are 300-450 grams, solidly built, and with quiet autofocus is the best balance of speed, weight, and usability.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Then you have DLO which reduces the effect of diffraction - so F/11 isn't F/11 after running through DLO. Combine that with some very smart NR and you probably have pretty good output.

In general, the reduction of diffraction effect is just sharpening. But noise reduction doesn't go well with sharpening. There's no magic even in the sophisticated AI-based NR.
So the resulting output will probably be just 'acceptable', but not very good.

Colour noise reduction plus downsampling (e.g. 45->11mp) will probably produce decent results without a tricky software processing.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I guess everyone has different needs and standards. Personally, I would understand f/8 but f/11 seems a bit too much to me!
at least for 600mm which can be approximated by adding a 1.4X to a 100-400 lens making it 560mm while staying at f/8.
800 f/11 can be more tolerated I guess. Again, all these apply to myself alone. YMMV

P.S The D500/500PF5.6 combination is so portable with high IQ so that it pushes the extremes (f/4 and f/11 prime lenses) out of the game when walking. Add (when I have a car) a 500mm 4L IS II (with a 2XIII) and a 5DsR and that's it! (again YMMV).

I agree for the most part but the 500 5.6 PF is a different category price-wise. It's a $4000 lens while these two F11 lenses probably will be around $1000.
But i agree that Canon should have kept F8 for the 600mm.