Canon’s roadmap includes 32 new lenses by 2026 according to Canon’s CEO

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
Sounds like you picked the wrong stores. Start with A or B, and you get one every time.
Perhaps you missed the reference to the .nl domain (Netherlands). If you read posts from contributors in Europe you would see that many of them have a much more difficult time getting new releases that people in the U.S.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
And either a complete embargo on politics, or the opening of a well moderated politics and religion section where self appointed experts sitting in warm comfortable safety can wax lyrical about the pronunciation of a word and how important that is to people who are literally being bombed out of existence, whilst feeling sorry for themselves that gas/petrol went up $1 a gallon.
If you were offended by a political discussion in a thread that was based on a political event, why are you trying to introduce a political discussion into a thread that is about lenses?
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
If I had to guess, I would imagine that many of these lenses will be RF versions of EF lenses that really don't need or can't benefit from mirrorless design changes. The tilt-shift lenses, as others have mentioned, might fall into the category. I think that something like the EF 8-15 Fisheye might also fall into that category. There could also be some non-L lenses, like the 24, 28 and 35 mm primes, that could be adapted to RF without major design changes.

Making RF versions of these lenses, would allow Canon to drop the EF versions.
 
Upvote 0

mxwphoto

R6 and be there
Jun 20, 2013
201
281
If I had to guess, I would imagine that many of these lenses will be RF versions of EF lenses that really don't need or can't benefit from mirrorless design changes. The tilt-shift lenses, as others have mentioned, might fall into the category. I think that something like the EF 8-15 Fisheye might also fall into that category. There could also be some non-L lenses, like the 24, 28 and 35 mm primes, that could be adapted to RF without major design changes.

Making RF versions of these lenses, would allow Canon to drop the EF versions.
And don't forget the price hikes of $5-600 for having that built in ef-rf adapter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Hopefully the efficient construction of new lenses doesn’t mean cutting corners and relying on software correction too much. I love most of RF-L primes and zooms, but there are some questionable “features”. And the non-L’s seems often to be quite bad lenses if it wasn’t for massive software correction.
Don't keep your hopes too high. As Canon stated in the press release for RF 16mm f/2.8 STM: "Long gone are the days of optical corrections or sharpness challenges".
 
  • Sad
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

jd7

CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
1,064
418
Here are some of the most common lenses...

24-70 f/2.8 Sony 886 g, Canon 900 g
24-105 f/4 Sony 663 g, Canon 700 g
70-200 f/4 Sony 840 g, Canon 695 g
24-240 f/3.5-6.3 Sony 780 g, Canon f/4-6.3 751 g
100-400 f/4.5-5.6 Sony 1395 g, Canon 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 1365 g

As you can see, the weights are almost all very close. Prices very close, too. Why the constant forum opinions that Sony is somehow lighter, smaller and cheaper? They are not.

If you are looking for smaller and lighter, some of Nikon's Z standard zooms are indeed smaller and lighter. enough of a difference that I briefly switched from Canon to Nikon last year. But Canon color brought me back. That, plus the new RF 100-400 - a lens that truly is much lighter than any 100-400 lens we have ever seen.
Why are there opinions that Sony is lighter, smaller and cheaper? Well, so far as the Sony system goes, here is my start on an explanation ...

Sigma 85 f/1.4 DN for Sony is 625g and A$1,700, while the Canon RF 85L is 1195g and about A$3,750 (on sale - a lot of places have it at almost A$4,300!).

Samyang 75 f/1.8 for Sony is 230g and A$500. Sony 85mm f/1.8 371g andA$700. Canon RF 85mm f/2 497g and A$950. In my opinion, the Sony has better optics than the Canon (and probably faster AF too). I think the same can probably be said for the Samyang - and even if it is no better optically than the Canon, it is certainly lighter and cheaper.

Sony 55 f/1.8 is 280g and A$850 while Canon really doesn't have anything I'd call comparable. The Sony may not be up to the standard of the RF 50L but in my opinion it is far better than the Canon RF 50 f/1.8.

Samyang 45 f/1.8 for Sony is 162g and A$500. Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 is 160g and and A$300. The Samyang is more expensive in this case, by in my opinion it is better optically and worth the extra money.

Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DN for Sony is 835g but A$1,600 while the Canon RF L is 900g but about A$3,350.

Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 for Sony is 810g and A$1,650 while the Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS is 1070g and A3,900. (OK, all else being equal, I would prefer the Canon in this case, but not at the price difference.)

Sony 50 f/1.2 GM is 778g and A$3,000. Canon RF 50 f/1.2L is 950g and A$3,500. (OK, there is not very much difference in that one.)

Sony 35 f/1.4 GM is 525g and A$2,100 while the Canon RF is ... well, we shall have to wait and see. However, the Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II is 760g and A$2,700, and so far most RF lenses have ended up being heavier and more expensive than their EF counterparts (although to be fair, some have been lighter).

I'm a long time Canon user and I think Canon generally makes good gear, and there are some lenses like the RF 28-70 f/2 which if they suit your use case and budget would make Canon an obvious choice, but at least at the moment the Sony system would be a much better fit for my preferences.
 
Upvote 0

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
721
971
USA
Don't keep your hopes too high. As Canon stated in the press release for RF 16mm f/2.8 STM: "Long gone are the days of optical corrections or sharpness challenges".
This is 'computational photography' that we have all heard is coming. Its here. And its not bad.

I've always found it interesting that some of the people who complain about this are the same people that won't hesitate to heavily edit their image, replacing skies, color, cloning in or out subjects, adding artificial light, etc. As technology advances, the line between photography and digital art will continue to blur.

-Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
Why are there opinions that Sony is lighter, smaller and cheaper? Well, so far as the Sony system goes, here is my start on an explanation ...

Sigma 85 f/1.4 DN for Sony is 625g and A$1,700, while the Canon RF 85L is 1195g and about A$3,750 (on sale - a lot of places have it at almost A$4,300!).

Samyang 75 f/1.8 for Sony is 230g and A$500. Sony 85mm f/1.8 371g andA$700. Canon RF 85mm f/2 497g and A$950. In my opinion, the Sony has better optics than the Canon (and probably faster AF too). I think the same can probably be said for the Samyang - and even if it is no better optically than the Canon, it is certainly lighter and cheaper.

Sony 55 f/1.8 is 280g and A$850 while Canon really doesn't have anything I'd call comparable. The Sony may not be up to the standard of the RF 50L but in my opinion it is far better than the Canon RF 50 f/1.8.

Samyang 45 f/1.8 for Sony is 162g and A$500. Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 is 160g and and A$300. The Samyang is more expensive in this case, by in my opinion it is better optically and worth the extra money.

Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DN for Sony is 835g but A$1,600 while the Canon RF L is 900g but about A$3,350.

Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 for Sony is 810g and A$1,650 while the Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS is 1070g and A3,900. (OK, all else being equal, I would prefer the Canon in this case, but not at the price difference.)

Sony 50 f/1.2 GM is 778g and A$3,000. Canon RF 50 f/1.2L is 950g and A$3,500. (OK, there is not very much difference in that one.)

Sony 35 f/1.4 GM is 525g and A$2,100 while the Canon RF is ... well, we shall have to wait and see. However, the Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II is 760g and A$2,700, and so far most RF lenses have ended up being heavier and more expensive than their EF counterparts (although to be fair, some have been lighter).

I'm a long time Canon user and I think Canon generally makes good gear, and there are some lenses like the RF 28-70 f/2 which if they suit your use case and budget would make Canon an obvious choice, but at least at the moment the Sony system would be a much better fit for my preferences.
Wait, you mean 3rd party lenses are generally cheaper than OEM lenses? Shocking.

I do get your point, there aren't 3rd party lenses for the RF mount. But then why not adapt EF mount lenses? That changes your comparisons significantly.

I also note that you're comparing f/1.4 to f/1.2 lenses, lenses with OIS to lenses without (Sony's IBIS is 5.5 stops, Canon's is 8), macro lenses to non-macro lenses, etc. In other words, most of your comparisons are apples to oranges. For your apples to apples 50/1.2, you acknowledge there's not much difference.

Doesn't change the fact that the Sony system meets your needs better, of course, but it certainly seems that confirmation bias is at play here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Sigma 85 f/1.4 DN for Sony is 625g and A$1,700, while the Canon RF 85L is 1195g and about A$3,750 (on sale - a lot of places have it at almost A$4,300!).

Samyang 75 f/1.8 for Sony is 230g and A$500. Sony 85mm f/1.8 371g andA$700. Canon RF 85mm f/2 497g and A$950.
Comparing lenses with different aperture or focal lengths is like comparing like apples and pears. Although there is "only" a difference of F .2 in the 85mm lenses, it is a totally different world when developing and constructing a lense.

Sony 50 f/1.2 GM is 778g and A$3,000. Canon RF 50 f/1.2L is 950g and A$3,500.
This comparison does make a lot of sense to me. I hope Canon will release a 14mm prime with specs and price which can closely match Sonys offering just like Sony did with Canons offering for the RF 50mm F1.2 L.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Hope Canon look at Nikon and think a 400 f/2.8 with a x1.4tc that is built in that can be added and removed would be a lens that would sell. I would def look to drop money on one of these. The other issue is cost, Canon are adding a serious tax on these models with a built in TC. Don’t care what they say, yes they may have to slightly altered the optics but you can’t look at the 800 f/5.6 or 1200 f/8 and not see what’s been done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Rumours not rumors

R6mkII, 2x90D, 630 (film), Sigma 70-200 f2.8 Sport
CR Pro
May 12, 2020
36
37
Australia mate (-:
$1 a gallon... what's a gallon? </ searches internet > "ancient imperial unit of volume that most countries stopped using in the 1960's"... wow there was a different unit before the litre became world standard for volume... you learn something new every day! :p
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
32 lenses seem far-fetched. I would just like a 150-600 (to match the Sigma), 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4.
I don’t want any of those. I would just like TS-R lenses at 14 and 24mm with movement encoding that take the DI filters for the EF adapter, a 135/2, a 200-500/5.6L with a switchable TC, a 300/2.8, a 200/4 Macro, and a normal FL pancake.

So between your wants and mine, we’re 1/3 of the way there!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
267
287
Perhaps you missed the reference to the .nl domain (Netherlands). If you read posts from contributors in Europe you would see that many of them have a much more difficult time getting new releases that people in the U.S.
Seem like the complaint would not be with Canon then.
 
Upvote 0

jd7

CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
1,064
418
Wait, you mean 3rd party lenses are generally cheaper than OEM lenses? Shocking.

I do get your point, there aren't 3rd party lenses for the RF mount. But then why not adapt EF mount lenses? That changes your comparisons significantly.

I also note that you're comparing f/1.4 to f/1.2 lenses, lenses with OIS to lenses without (Sony's IBIS is 5.5 stops, Canon's is 8), macro lenses to non-macro lenses, etc. In other words, most of your comparisons are apples to oranges. For your apples to apples 50/1.2, you acknowledge there's not much difference.

Doesn't change the fact that the Sony system meets your needs better, of course, but it certainly seems that confirmation bias is at play here.
I get your point about my comparisons being apples to oranges, but I would have said more in the nature of comparing different varieties of apples :) Certainly, if f/1.2 at 85mm is a must, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN is irrelevant. Or if you need (or want) your 85mm to have IS and be able to focus close enough to give 0.5 magnification, the Canon RF 85mm f/2 works for you and the lenses I compared it do not. Still, the point I was trying to make is that (in my view at least) there is a good reason why the Sony system (if not Sony gear alone) has developed a reputation for offering smaller, lighter and cheaper when compared with the Canon system. And adapting EF mount lenses helps with the cost issue, but I cannot see that it helps much with smaller and lighter.

Regarding it being shocking (or not!) that third party lenses are cheaper than OEM lenses, I guess that's fair enough. Obviously, on the whole, one of the primary methods for most third parties to attract customers is to offer "value" over the OEM offering. Not sure it's correct for a third party like Zeiss though!

Where I thought I might be taken to task for my previous post is by people pointing to the RF 16 f/2.8 (although some may see the Samyang RF 18 f/2.8 for Sony as essentially an equivalent - to be honest I probably would, but I understand people who big fans of UWA would probably see 16mm as substantially different to 18mm), RF 100-400, RF 600 f/11 and RF 800 f/11. Again though, I don't think that detracts from saying there is a good why the Sony system (if not Sony gear alone) has developed a reputation for offering, given the number of options for the Sony system and the fact the smaller. lighter, cheaper options for the Sony system cover the 24mm (perhaps wider, eg if you consider a lens such as the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 although I don't know a lot about that lens) to 200mm range, which I hazard a guess is probably the range many photographers would shoot in most often. (No, I don't have hard have evidence for that!)
 
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,575
4,110
The Netherlands
$1 a gallon... what's a gallon? </ searches internet > "ancient imperial unit of volume that most countries stopped using in the 1960's"... wow there was a different unit before the litre became world standard for volume... you learn something new every day! :p
Snide remarks about imperial measures aside, the US gallon and pint are different from the UK gallon and pint :/
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
As someone new to Canon, I’m quickly learning that their “design efficiencies” = adding a built-in mount adapter, maybe a TC, and charging $4-6k more. Great for the suits, great for the SKU count, not so great for us.
Yep, the new super telephotos really are just the regular lens, a fixed tele despite what they say and a huge premium on top. There will be some optical benefits but marginal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0