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

[H. Jones]

You know, the more time I think about it, I think Canon would be wise to release a small-ish 24mm F/2. I've been debating picking up the RF 28-70 F/2, which is an excellent lens, but some of my most common uses for the EF 24-70 are at 24mm. It would be nice to be able to have a small, fast 24mm RF lens in a small pocket of my belt kit to use when I'm in need of 24mm. I know there's an EF F/2.8 version, but F/2 would be nice to continue the RF 28-70 on a wider scale.

That said, I could see myself ending up with a zoom like a RF 16-24mm F/2 and not complaining at all either.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

For me would be, an internally zooming RF 70-200 F2.8, with a built in extender(2x) and a reducer(.7x). It should also weigh less than 1400g, since the current RF 70-200 F2.8 is a little over 1050g. As a benchmark, without the 2x & .7x, it must match or better the theoretical MTF of Z 70-200 f2.8. This should sell like hot cakes, if the price is less than $2400. Canon should make it happen since some users prefer internally zooming 70-200 F2.8. They can also craft the 2x and .7x specifically for the 70-200 F2.8. It's a win-win situation for Canon and its users. Think about it, the portability of the original RF 70-200 F2.8 and the versatility of RF 70-200 F2.8 built-in 2x & .7x.

 

[usern4cr]

For me would be, an internally zooming RF 70-200 F2.8, with a built in extender(2x) and a reducer(.7x). It should also weigh less than 1400g, since the current RF 70-200 F2.8 is a little over 1050g. As a benchmark, without the 2x & .7x, it must match or better the theoretical MTF of Z 70-200 f2.8. This should sell like hot cakes, if the price is less than $2400. Canon should make it happen since some users prefer internally zooming 70-200 F2.8. They can also craft the 2x and .7x specifically for the 70-200 F2.8. It's a win-win situation for Canon and its users. Think about it, the portability of the original RF 70-200 F2.8 and the versatility of RF 70-200 F2.8 built-in 2x & .7x.

I think it would be pretty hard to physically build that kind of lens in FF without making it really big & heavy and with considerably less IQ than the existing RF 70-200 has. - That's just my guess, and of course I could be wrong. And I'd be surprised if they did make magic happen that they'd sell it for less than the current RF 70-200.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

I would like to see built in 1.4x extenders in all the big primes. But perhaps that is just added cost, though there certainly seems to be some value too it. Perhaps just on the RF 600 f/4 since there seems little desire to make 800mm lenses.

 

[usern4cr]

I would like to see built in 1.4x extenders in all the big primes. But perhaps that is just added cost, though there certainly seems to be some value too it. Perhaps just on the RF 600 f/4 since there seems little desire to make 800mm lenses.

Well, I'd hope they don't add extenders in *all* their big primes, as they're big & heavy enough without them. If I want to add an extender I'd rather just add one on so you have the option. But I'm the kind of person that doesn't usually want to add one anyway, since I could use a quality upsampling code and enjoy a wider view for framing and extra beyond-the-edge cropping in post.

 

[mbiedermann]

I'd love to see an RF 100mm F1.8 L Macro IS USM. My EF 100mm F2.8 L Macro was my preferred lens. Period. Now that I've switched to the R6, I'm hoping the RF model could be even better, possibly with a wider opening.

 

[Bdbtoys]

I think this one was rumored once before... RF 14-28mm F2 L USM (the potential F2 trinity to the 28-70, and the rumored 70-135).

 

[koenkooi]

I'd love to see an RF 100mm F1.8 L Macro IS USM. My EF 100mm F2.8 L Macro was my preferred lens. Period. Now that I've switched to the R6, I'm hoping the RF model could be even better, possibly with a wider opening.

I think the release of the RF85/2 lens killed the chance of an 100/1.8 macro happening. I think proper 1:1 macro lenses will remain f/2.8 or slower.

 

[Swerky]

I’m all for compact and optically decent lenses. For the R I’d like to see a rebirth of their old ef 20mm f2.8. Perhaps they can even do an 18mm f2.8 or 3.5 with IS

I was hoping they’d make a better general zoom lens for Eos m but seems that won’t be the case anymore. Something like a 17-70 f2.8-4. Or 15-50 f4. Should still be compact enough for the system.

 

[johnhenry]

I'd second the RF 135 f1.x; the EF 135 f2 is my favorite lens ever.

That said, I'd also really love to see an RF 600mm f5.6L for us mere mortal hobbyists who either a) can't afford a $12k 600mm f4, or b) wouldn't want to carry that insurance liability around. If sigma can make a 600mm f6.3 zoom for a grand, surely Canon can make an RF 600mm f5.6L prime for $3k-4k.

Use a 300mm f/2.8 with a 2x III

 

[SnowMiku]

I would like to see a consumer EF 100-400mm f5.6 IS Nano USM, but I know this is very unlikely to happen.

 

[Dockland]

RF 200mm f/1.8 IS USM
RF 300mm f/2.8 IS USM

 

[bobhowdy]

I'd second the RF 135 f1.x; the EF 135 f2 is my favorite lens ever.

That said, I'd also really love to see an RF 600mm f5.6L for us mere mortal hobbyists who either a) can't afford a $12k 600mm f4, or b) wouldn't want to carry that insurance liability around. If sigma can make a 600mm f6.3 zoom for a grand, surely Canon can make an RF 600mm f5.6L prime for $3k-4k.

I agree with 3serious on the RF 600 f/5.6 L.
Of course with everyone else building a 600mm zoom my wonder is why Canon decided on 100mm-500mm for their RF large zoom?

 

[AlanF]

I agree with 3serious on the RF 600 f/5.6 L.
Of course with everyone else building a 600mm zoom my wonder is why Canon decided on 100mm-500mm for their RF large zoom?

It's small and light, which is a huge plus when you go out hiking with the camera or hand hold for a period of time. The Sony 200-600mm, fine lens that it is, is heavy. Many can manage it, as some do hand holding a 600mm f/4. But, the 100-500mm, and the 100-400mm II, are a lightweight pleasure to use.

 

[Ozarker]

I agree with 3serious on the RF 600 f/5.6 L.
Of course with everyone else building a 600mm zoom my wonder is why Canon decided on 100mm-500mm for their RF large zoom?

The 100-500 is Canon's "budget" L zoom.

 

[Del Paso]

What about a 100-400 f 4,5-5,6 L, but with built-in 1,5 extender?

 

[usern4cr]

The 100-500 is Canon's "budget" L zoom.

Do you have the RF 100-500? Just curious.

 

[Ozarker]

Do you have the RF 100-500? Just curious.

Nope. Would if I could. Why?

 

[ildyria]

I don't care about a 135mm f/1.4,
I would rather prefer a...

RF 70-150 f/2.0 L USM.

 

[usern4cr]

Nope. Would if I could. Why?

I was wondering because the way you talked about the RF 100-500 in that post made me wonder if you were politely dissing it. I wasn't sure, so I asked.
If that was the case, I was going to reply how it is my favorite lens so far, and reasons for that.
But based on your reply, I obviously mistook your intention. I would also agree that it is "worth it if one could".
So, as Rosanna Rosanna Dana once said, ... "Never Mind!"