Well, well, well… could this be Canon’s lens roadmap for 2021? [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I am with you here, TS-E lenses were the last Canons with a decent manual focus. AF shift lenses with a miserable focus by wire is the last thing you need when shooting serious architecture (that is with a tripod). I would have loved a TS zoom. That would have been a revolution, for those interior shots where the 17mm is too wide and the 24mm too narrow. Something like a 16-28mm TS would have been something, even with a modest aperture like f5.6. As for the 14mm, I am not convinced it is the most useful focal length for a shift. An improved 17mm would make more sense IMO, since w'ell end with a huge gap between 14mm and 24mm. A 35mm TS would be appreciated as well, as much as I love my PC Distagon, a modern Canon would be a nice replacement.
Upvote
0
There is a lot of great stuff here but at the same time for those who own most of these lenses in the ef Mount and if they still work flawlessly I don’t see the point. The ef lenses work perfect when adapted. Fathoming the financial loss of just getting rid of something that works for something new just doesn’t compute. I think the innovation is great but again for those of us with thousands invested I can’t see many of us just saying ****** this 600mm viii I need the mirrorless version. Sharp glass is fun because it is sharp but I find it boring and clinical. We often get so obsessed with pixel peeping that we don’t actually enjoy a lens flare or some loss of contrast from the sun. There is beauty in the flaws and the not so clinical imagery. I’m glad for all those why buy the toys they want but I love the ef and I think canon sent to many mixed signals with in the past three years and they should have made the switch to mirrorless sooner.
Upvote
0
My non-L is basically permanently attached to my Rebel, where it gets a lot of use. I can't replace that with an RF lens. (In many ways it's my most important lens, but I don't take it on the road, which means I absolutely need more than just that lens.)
But this (and a lot of other items on the list) indicate they're now going full bore at replacing EF glass with RF glass, rather than filling in niches they hadn't done before.
It will probably be quite some time before I start picking up primes. For me, they're extremely specialized lenses, and I probably shouldn't have bought most of the ones I already have. Other than that 100mm (which I use as a macro lens only), my favorite is my 85mm, but it's a very occasional use. I own most of the EF-M primes (I think the 28mm is the sole exception) but have done virtually nothing with them.
Upvote
0
This makes some sense to me: if you've got it in EF already, there's often no compelling reason to switch. And since I own a couple of EF-M cameras, there's often at least some reasons NOT to switch.
BUT, it's clear that people coming in in the future, with no EF legacy, can jump into RF with both feet. Although I may never buy any of these (the 135 is the most intriguing to me), I *am* glad Canon is doing this.
Upvote
0
Yeah, zooms would make a lot more sense, and at the 'easy' focal lengths. I think a 24 to 40 or so would be wonderful, genuinely useful. And 14 in a TS really feels like too much. I agree a 16 would be about perfect, and usually more than needed.
If that 14 is a done deal, I think I'd pass it up for a 'fixed shift' 14mm and crop out what I don't need. Fixed or zoom. I'm almost at that point even with the 17 TSE.
Upvote
0
Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM seens to be very versatile and is hopefully moderate in size and weight!
What I would have liked to see: Some 20mm f/2.8 IS STM MACRO to combine with the current 35 and 85 mm MACRO lenses.
What I would have liked to see: Some 20mm f/2.8 IS STM MACRO to combine with the current 35 and 85 mm MACRO lenses.
Upvote
0
Holy crap, now that's a line up.
I wasn't expecting to be interested in a 16-35 F/4 replacement, since my EF one works great...but 14mm may very well just sell me on it. If the lens has filter threads, I'll probably upgrade my 16-35 F/4 to that.
Then after that, too many options. 100mm macro is a lens I've wanted for a while, so will be interested by the RF one depending on price. RF 35 f/1.2 will be a hard sell because I love the RF F/1.8's size to the point that I haven't touched my EF F/1.4L II in months, but will have to see how it turns out.
The 24mm and 50mm f/1.8 will probably be lenses I pick up just to have, if they're priced decently. A small 24mm F/1.8 would be a nice companion to the 28-70 F/2 to throw in a belt pouch when you really need that 24mm.
RF 135mm F/1.4 sounds very interesting and I'll be excited to see how it turns out, but doubt the price/weight will be worth it for my uses. Same with the tilt-shifts, I'm sure they'll be groundbreaking and amazing, but we have tilt-shifts at my full time job and I never really use them.
As for the supertelephotos.. I'm surprised to see the 800mm back in the line-up alongside a new 1200mm. I thought the 800mm was redundant because of putting extenders on the high-quality 600mms, same with the 1200mm F/8, but maybe they'll have some surprises for us.
Nice that the 1200mm F/8 could take a 2x extender and get you to 2400mm F/16 with autofocus. Maybe they're planning these longer lenses knowing we can extend them even further and still get autofocus?
I wasn't expecting to be interested in a 16-35 F/4 replacement, since my EF one works great...but 14mm may very well just sell me on it. If the lens has filter threads, I'll probably upgrade my 16-35 F/4 to that.
Then after that, too many options. 100mm macro is a lens I've wanted for a while, so will be interested by the RF one depending on price. RF 35 f/1.2 will be a hard sell because I love the RF F/1.8's size to the point that I haven't touched my EF F/1.4L II in months, but will have to see how it turns out.
The 24mm and 50mm f/1.8 will probably be lenses I pick up just to have, if they're priced decently. A small 24mm F/1.8 would be a nice companion to the 28-70 F/2 to throw in a belt pouch when you really need that 24mm.
RF 135mm F/1.4 sounds very interesting and I'll be excited to see how it turns out, but doubt the price/weight will be worth it for my uses. Same with the tilt-shifts, I'm sure they'll be groundbreaking and amazing, but we have tilt-shifts at my full time job and I never really use them.
As for the supertelephotos.. I'm surprised to see the 800mm back in the line-up alongside a new 1200mm. I thought the 800mm was redundant because of putting extenders on the high-quality 600mms, same with the 1200mm F/8, but maybe they'll have some surprises for us.
Nice that the 1200mm F/8 could take a 2x extender and get you to 2400mm F/16 with autofocus. Maybe they're planning these longer lenses knowing we can extend them even further and still get autofocus?
Upvote
0
OK, just for the sake of being distracting, I wish Canon would make one of these: https://leicacamerausa.com/24-90mm-f2-8-4-asph-vario-elmarit-e82-sl.html
Best of all worlds, I think; long enough in reach, bright enough where you need brightness. And Canon's version would be lighter, smaller and less expensive too!
No way it will happen because they've about saturated the normal zoom range with great choices. Just thinking out loud.
Best of all worlds, I think; long enough in reach, bright enough where you need brightness. And Canon's version would be lighter, smaller and less expensive too!
No way it will happen because they've about saturated the normal zoom range with great choices. Just thinking out loud.
Upvote
0
The 100-400mm looks too similar to the just released 100-500mm! I somehow doubt this one. Everything else would be great if true.
Upvote
0
Can’t imagine of a valid reason. The EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM is a sweet sweet lens. Unless one really needs to go more compact. But one would have to lose some cash between selling and buying new. Can’t imagine to what extent the RF 70-200 f4 would be better than the EF lens.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
