These are a few of the RF lenses coming in 2021 [CR2]

[slclick]

We Need those two ASAP

1 - 35L F1.3 !!!
2 - 135 or 110mm F1.4

Ok can you imagine the TREMENDOUS front element on a 135 1.4? As much as I love that FL, no way. Start your dreams a bit smaller and more realistic mang.

 

[slclick]

I'm holding out for the RF f/22 trinity

 

[i_SH]

It’s good that Canon will have RF 70-200 / 4L IS USM and RF 85/2 Macro IS STM lenses. It’s bad that there is no RF 21-70 / 4L USM in the plan (possible without IS) ...
I may have to take Sony A7 (last option) + Tamron FE 17-28 / 2.8 FE 28-200 / 2.8-5.6 lenses.

 

[SecureGSM]

The Sigma attempt at the full frame 18-35 wound up being their 24-35 Art lens - which is much more of an amazing lens than most people give credit for. That lens is so sharp, the zoom is sharper than even Sigma's own 24mm Art and 35mm Art primes. I owned the primes and sold them when I got the 24-35. This wasn't my intent. I'd picked the zoom up used because it was a stupidly cheap price. Was going to play with it and then flip it.

People tend to complain about the shortness of the zoom range, but there isn't the normal sacrifice in IQ (or in aperture) with this zoom, so it really does replace the primes.

The bad news: they couldn't make it go down to 18 and get the same image quality in full frame, so I'm not expecting them to invent that for RF.

With a much shorter flange distance of the RF mount, Sigma May have a better luck.
there is a rumour of Canon RF 14-24/2.0.Which is quite an amazing lens to have. Let see what Sigma will be up to with RF glass.

 

[SecureGSM]

There are many of us who would be very happy with non L lenses at f4/5.6 range as long as the lenses are tack sharp. They just do not need the heavy duty indestructible construction. And if STM motors save substantially that also. Just do NOT sacrifice image quality. Even us poor people deserve sharp lenses and good photos. Hey, a 600mm f8 non L lens for $999.00 would be great.

+++ Hey, a 600mm f8 non L lens for $999.00 would be great.

yup, it s coming: RF 600 f/11. sorry f/8 is too reach

 

[mb66energy]

I'm holding out for the RF f/22 trinity

... and the EOS R100 with an 8 MPix sensor with great high ISO and enough resolution for f/22 ... f/45.

While such lenses arent't of much interest for me - if it enables a low cost 8MPIX high ISO beast with good video ... would be great!

 

[mb66energy]

It’s good that Canon will have RF 70-200 / 4L IS USM and RF 85/2 Macro IS STM lenses. It’s bad that there is no RF 21-70 / 4L USM in the plan (possible without IS) ...
I may have to take Sony A7 (last option) + Tamron FE 17-28 / 2.8 FE 28-200 / 2.8-5.6 lenses.

RF 21-70 / 4L USM would be excellent - just a minor change: I would prefer RF 20-70 / 4L IS nanoUSM because I do not like odd numbers ...
This would be THE lens to complement my 70-200 f/4 IS mark i lens.

Two lenses to go from 20 ... 2000 mm at constant f/4 and two at least similar bodies fit in a small backpack or a medium backpack including food, water and clothing for extended day trips.

EDIT: No, 2000mm @f4 would not fit in a backpack with its 500mm front lens diameter - it was 200mm

 

[i_SH]

RF 21-70 / 4L USM would be excellent - just a minor change: I would prefer RF 20-70 / 4L IS nanoUSM because I do not like odd numbers ...
This would be THE lens to complement my 70-200 f/4 IS mark i lens.

Two lenses to go from 20 ... 2000 mm at constant f/4 and two at least similar bodies fit in a small backpack or a medium backpack including food, water and clothing for extended day trips.

EDIT: No, 2000mm @f4 would not fit in a backpack with its 500mm front lens diameter - it was 200mm

Even more, I would like a Apple camera with a 1 "matrix, a 20-160 mm lens with aperture of 1.8 - 2.8, fast stacking of files by dynamic range, focal length (+ bokeh) and other digital twists that can be edited in the editor with several sliders!
Then people quickly forgot about Canon, Nikon and other manufacturers!
But the biggest of all the insignificant chances is that only Sony can make such a camera.

 

[davidespinosa]

How come the 24, 35, and 85 are macro, but the 50 isn't ?
(serious question -- I'm ignorant, please fill me in, thanks)

 

[mb66energy]

How come the 24, 35, and 85 are macro, but the 50 isn't ?
(serious question -- I'm ignorant, please fill me in, thanks)

What about f/1.4 50mm IS Macro? 50mm might be a sweet spot for more or less simple compact high brightness macro.
Combine that with f/2 100mm IS RealMacro (1:1) ... and
a f/2.8 200mm IS RealMacro.

 

[padam]

How come the 24, 35, and 85 are macro, but the 50 isn't ?
(serious question -- I'm ignorant, please fill me in, thanks)

We haven't seen the lens, if all elements move together, which is common in cheaper lenses, a 50mm has to travel more than a 35mm to focus closer, so maybe they didn't want to make it bigger, while the 85mm they've accepted that it is going to be bigger.

 

[David]

35mm is the most used focal length: A 35mm L lens is paramount. This is not an opinion, this is a FACT!
Since I buy a system according to its best 35mm lens I will buy a R camera after the L 35mm is released only.

 

[Deleted member 68328]

The EF 35mm f/1.4 II is not that old (compared to an EF 50mm f/1.2 or EF 85mm f/1.2 II)
The most popular photojournalist wide-angle zoom lens is available and with IS
Same with the 70-200mm f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4 lenses or nifty fifty, etc.

Just employ some common sense, and you'll understand that for a two-year old system, they have come out with quite a handful of good lenses(some of which Sony hasn't managed to nail in 7 years, like a cheaper 35 and 85 semi-macro with IS)
and they will continue to come out with more lenses eventually, whether you are banging the table or not.

I don't know what common sense there is in talking about EF 35mm f/1.4 II when I specifically mentioned the RF line only.

 

[Deleted member 68328]

For UWA zoom, the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 is already out, what's wrong with that one?

Nothing, it's really nice. I was referring to the rumoured zoom starting at 10 or 11mm. I thought it was implied in my message.

 

[Deleted member 68328]

I can't believe this place is still full of people that think
- the RF 35 f1.8 IS isn't good enough for them
- the RF 15-35 f2.8 IS isn't an UWA zoom
- they really can't make do with the RF 70-200 f2.8 L IS, or either of the the RF 85 f1.2's, or the RF28-70 f2 for their telephoto portraits

Go figure.

I can't believe this place is still full of people that think
- They know better what others should need/use because they [think they] have supreme knowledge over the others
- There's not a market for a RF 35mm f/1.2 or f/1.4 (go figure why Canon recently released a EF 35mm f1.4 II)
- That think that people are stupid enough not to know that the RF 15-35 f2.8 IS is an UWA zoom when actually they were referring to the rumoured *really* ultra wide lens, i.e. the one starting at 10 or 11mm
- That 85mm can replace 135mm or that not everyone wants to carry a RF 70-200 f2.8 L IS
- They know better what others should need/use because they [think they] have supreme knowledge over the others (bis)

Go figure.

 

[Starting out EOS R]

Isn't STM always aimed at video now?

Coincidence that I watched something the other day about the difference between USM and STM. Focusing on the STM being smoother & quieter so better for video whereas USM is a little faster but a little noisier & not quite as smooth so better for stills.

I cant say if this is true but it does make sense.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Canon RF 18-45mm IS STM
I don’t know if this is for full-frame, or perhaps a kit lens for an APS-C RF camera.

It's seems extremely unlikely that an APS-C kit lens would have such a small zoom range.

The pattern which seems to be emerging is one of low-cost RF lenses for full frame - which will please a lot of people I am sure. It's like a return to the 1990s when entry-level SLRs used the same film as professional cameras, so there was a big market for affordable 'full frame' EOS lenses (though we didn't use the term back then!).

 

[ozturert]

These will be E lenses then, E = Eleven, f11.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Oh god no, non L 100-400 means only one thing, 100-400 f/5.6-8. More slow lens incoming.

 

[slclick]

Oh god no, non L 100-400 means only one thing, 100-400 f/5.6-8. More slow lens incoming.

5.6 is the new 2.8 /s