Here are the Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM and Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

[Tom W]

Indeed, one would expect with a pro sports body (R3) Canon would be rapidly filling out the telephoto lineup. A modern 300 or 500/4.5 would pair nicely with the lightweight R3.

Probably, just my opinion, because there are already very good options for the 300 and 500 mm lengths with the EF lenses and adapters. My 500 f/4 II works just as well on my R5 as it did on the 5D IV, in terms of optical performance, and that is very good. People transitioning from the EF to the RF mount have no issue adapting the Canon big lenses to their RF bodies.

I think that when they do replace the 300/2.8 and 500/4, it will be akin to how they replaced the 400 and 600 II with the Mk III versions - lighter, better weight distribution, and updated optical performance. But it's hard to improve on something that is already top notch.

 

[sobrien]

I think the 24/1.8 will be a big hit, both on full frame and on the new APS-C bodies like the R7 and R10. Should be fairly inexpensive, and if the 35/1.8 is any indication, pretty good quality as well.

Good point about APS-C. This should be a very useful do almost everything lens for those bodies.

 

[AJ]

Given the 67 mm and 52 mm front element sizes, I'm thinking there will be hefty barrel distortion, heavy vignetting, black corners, and hence compulsory corrections.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I prefer smaller lenses over internal focus. But I'm quite surprised that the 15-30 is heavier than Sony's G-master
It's probably because of the short focus distance (I admit I prefer that)

The new Sony 16-35 F4 is a great lens but lacks image stabilizer and it's a power zoom. Because of those 2 things it can be made smaller. But it's also brighter so not sure...Sony seems to be much better lately in designing small lenses, like their 50 1.2.

 

[mbike999]

Probably, just my opinion, because there are already very good options for the 300 and 500 mm lengths with the EF lenses and adapters. My 500 f/4 II works just as well on my R5 as it did on the 5D IV, in terms of optical performance, and that is very good. People transitioning from the EF to the RF mount have no issue adapting the Canon big lenses to their RF bodies.

I think that when they do replace the 300/2.8 and 500/4, it will be akin to how they replaced the 400 and 600 II with the Mk III versions - lighter, better weight distribution, and updated optical performance. But it's hard to improve on something that is already top notch.

300 and 500 are optically excellent but the weight savings demonstrated by modern lens design is substantial. A 500 F/4.5 would be expectedly around or just north of the 2KG mark versus 3.2 kg for the 10 year old 500/4 ii. In addition there have been major advancements in AF speed with new AF motors.

 

[neuroanatomist]

hahah This made me LOL. I'm still not a fan of any macro designation that's not 1.0x magnification.

I think there's still that gaping hole between the budget-focused and super "professional" L-grade lenses. Not everyone needs f/1.2, but f/1.4 and some quality build features, a lens hood and a decent pouch are appreciated. If only third party companies like Sigma could fill in that space for RF-mount w/o an adapter.

In most of the world, only the L-series lenses come with the hood and pouch included (although personally, I find the pouches useless). The 'intermediate' EF lenses like the EF 50/1.4 and EF 85/1.8 did not come with a hood or pouch. The only exceptions that I'm aware of were some niche lenses like the 70-300mm DO lens and the TS-E 45mm and 90mm lenses, which were non-L lenses that came with hood/pouch. So even if Canon fills the 'gaping hole' (which I don't actually believe exists), unless the hole is filled with a cheaper L-series option don't hold your breath waiting for it to come with a hood and pouch.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Probably, just my opinion, because there are already very good options for the 300 and 500 mm lengths with the EF lenses and adapters. My 500 f/4 II works just as well on my R5 as it did on the 5D IV, in terms of optical performance, and that is very good. People transitioning from the EF to the RF mount have no issue adapting the Canon big lenses to their RF bodies.

I think that when they do replace the 300/2.8 and 500/4, it will be akin to how they replaced the 400 and 600 II with the Mk III versions - lighter, better weight distribution, and updated optical performance. But it's hard to improve on something that is already top notch.

That would be fine with me, although I'd hope for a true RF redesign including a dedicated control ring for the new 300/2.8 and 500/4.

My EF 600/4L IS II does fine on the R3, it's heavy but handholdable (for me), and optically as good as the 600/4 III and the RF version, so I feel no urgency to swap it for the RF 600/4.

However, I will soon have a use for a 300/2.8 (high school football field, night games) and I do not want to purchase the EF 300/2.8 at this point. I'll hold out for a native RF version of the lens.

 

[Chaitanya]

I prefer smaller lenses over internal focus. But I'm quite surprised that the 15-30 is heavier than Sony's G-master
It's probably because of the short focus distance (I admit I prefer that)

Internal focus is extremely useful at close distances and lighting subjects is also easier and so is weather resistance compared to lenses with extending barrels.

 

[Maximilian]

Count me in for the 24 (as soon as I buy an R system body )
I hope it will come in for a similar price as the 35 STM.

 

[nunataks]

Oh my god I am so excited for the 24! I'll have the 24, 50, and 85 for my perfect kit now. Please just don't let it be absurdly expensive, maybe like $449? Curious to know what the 15-30 will retail for too.

 

[MartinVLC]

I think it´s a pitty that canon doesn´t seem be willing to put out interesting affordable faster zoom lenses. I already doubted the original rumor about the wide zoom being 3.5-5.6 although I would have loved it. I wish it was a Tamron 17-35 2.8-4.0 type of faster zoom at 500-600 €/$. I guess I can only wait till some day Tamron produces RF-lenses. Or switch to Sony although I really don´t want to. It´s a shame.

I also noticed this in the source and I wonder why it says 3.5-5.6 in the canonrumors articel.

I would love this lense to start at 15mm f/3.5, but I don´t know where they took this information from,

I´m afraid in the end it will be a 4-5.6 or even 4.5-6.3 the way canon designs consumer zoom lenses (very unfortunately) lately.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think it´s a pitty that canon doesn´t seem be willing to put out interesting affordable faster zoom lenses.

That's never really been part of Canon's strategy. Their zooms were previously limited to f/5.6 by PDAF systems, with MILC that limitation is gone and slower lenses are feasible. Canon can save production costs on those lenses by making them f/6.3, f/7.1 or f/8 at the long end, because most buyers of consumer lenses don't pay much attention to aperture, only to focal length and cost.

Consider the example of the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, which was replaced by the 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6.

 

[Juangrande]

In most of the world, only the L-series lenses come with the hood and pouch included (although personally, I find the pouches useless). The 'intermediate' EF lenses like the EF 50/1.4 and EF 85/1.8 did not come with a hood or pouch. The only exceptions that I'm aware of were some niche lenses like the 70-300mm DO lens and the TS-E 45mm and 90mm lenses, which were non-L lenses that came with hood/pouch. So even if Canon fills the 'gaping hole' (which I don't actually believe exists), unless the hole is filled with a cheaper L-series option don't hold your breath waiting for it to come with a hood and pouch.

I don’t understand why there’s no padding in the canvas lens pouches they provide. They are pretty useless for that reason.

 

[scyrene]

As ever my interest will come down to price. I've played with the RF 16mm for a couple of weeks, it's a good little lens but I find the perspective challenging to make best use of; a zoom would be more flexible but do I want to lose a stop and a bit of light for that? I guess the 24mm could be the one, but I'm also reluctant to end up with a bag full of primes.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don’t understand why there’s no padding in the canvas lens pouches they provide. They are pretty useless for that reason.

Exactly. I have Lowepro Lens Cases in multiple sizes that I use to carry lenses strapped to the outside of a Toploader Pro for a nice 2-lens kit (I have all 3 Toploader sizes, so I can fit pretty much any combination of lenses).

Sadly, Lowepro discontinued some of the best (IMO) sizes when they switched from their 1/2/3 N/W sizes to the cm-based sizes. The 1W is the perfect size for 'standard' lenses like a 24-105/4, 24-70/2.8, etc., as well as TS-E 17 or 24 and many other such lenses with hoods reversed. The 1W internal dimensions are 10x12.5, the new 9x13 is too narrow for those lenses to have hoods on them, and the 11x14 works but has a lot of extra space (that case holds my RF 28-70/2 or 70-200/2.8 with the collar on). Similarly, they used to make the 1N case which was designed to hold the 1.4x and 2x TCs stacked and came with a little padded divider to go in between them. There's no current equivalent. Fortunately, I have the ones I need.

I suppose the only purpose for the Canon pouch would be dust protection when you lenses are sitting on a shelf or in a drawer at home. Personally, I keep my lenses in Storm/Pelican cases at home.

 

[mbike999]

hahah This made me LOL. I'm still not a fan of any macro designation that's not 1.0x magnification.

I think there's still that gaping hole between the budget-focused and super "professional" L-grade lenses. Not everyone needs f/1.2, but f/1.4 and some quality build features, a lens hood and a decent pouch are appreciated. If only third party companies like Sigma could fill in that space for RF-mount w/o an adapter.

I think there are some that have a knee-jerk reaction to any expression of opinion or desire for something else as some sort of attack on the brand

I personally agree that a mid-range price bracket of lenses is lacking in Canon, it's either STM lenses with no hood and no weather sealing, or jump to premium L lenses. This is especially apparent on the telephoto side, it's either a $17K 800 /5.6 lens or a $900 F11 non-weather sealed model with no aperture blades.

Updates to the mid-range options like the legendary 400/5.6 for example, or some 1.4 primes on the wider end would be greatly appreciated by many, I think.

 

[neuroanatomist]

This is especially apparent on the telephoto side, it's either a $17K 800 /5.6 lens or a $900 F11 non-weather sealed model with no aperture blades.

Updates to the mid-range options like the legendary 400/5.6 for example...

The legendary 400/5.6 was an L-series lens. The RF 100-500 gives the same FL in it's range, and while f/6.3 at 400mm, is optically better, smaller when retracted, and much more flexible. It is the update to the legendary 300/4, 400/5.6 and 100-400L lenses. People generally prefer zoom lenses, I really doubt we'll ever see updates to the middle-range telephoto primes like the 200/2.8, 300/4 and 400/5.6.

The RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 is a consumer version of that lens, and with the optional hood comes in at $660.

I doubt we'll ever see an 'in between' 800mm lens. An 800/8 would still have a 100mm front element – that's the same size as the 200/2L, and it's 'intermediate' cost would likely fall in line, say $7-8K. Get a 500/4 and put a 1.4x TC on it, you have 700/5.6 in the same price range as 800/8.

 

[Juangrande]

Exactly. I have Lowepro Lens Cases in multiple sizes that I use to carry lenses strapped to the outside of a Toploader Pro for a nice 2-lens kit (I have all 3 Toploader sizes, so I can fit pretty much any combination of lenses).

Sadly, Lowepro discontinued some of the best (IMO) sizes when they switched from their 1/2/3 N/W sizes to the cm-based sizes. The 1W is the perfect size for 'standard' lenses like a 24-105/4, 24-70/2.8, etc., as well as TS-E 17 or 24 and many other such lenses with hoods reversed. The 1W internal dimensions are 10x12.5, the new 9x13 is too narrow for those lenses to have hoods on them, and the 11x14 works but has a lot of extra space (that case holds my RF 28-70/2 or 70-200/2.8 with the collar on). Similarly, they used to make the 1N case which was designed to hold the 1.4x and 2x TCs stacked and came with a little padded divider to go in between them. There's no current equivalent. Fortunately, I have the ones I need.

I suppose the only purpose for the Canon pouch would be dust protection when you lenses are sitting on a shelf or in a drawer at home. Personally, I keep my lenses in Storm/Pelican cases at home.

I don’t know about dust protection but they’re excellent dust collectors.

 

[Czardoom]

That's never really been part of Canon's strategy. Their zooms were previously limited to f/5.6 by PDAF systems, with MILC that limitation is gone and slower lenses are feasible. Canon can save production costs on those lenses by making them f/6.3, f/7.1 or f/8 at the long end, because most buyers of consumer lenses don't pay much attention to aperture, only to focal length and cost.

Consider the example of the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, which was replaced by the 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6.

Perhaps most people who buy consumer lenses don't pay much attention to aperture, or maybe people are shooting the majority of their photos at f/8 or somewhere near there. I may not be typical, but especially for a wide angle lens, it's going to be used for sunsets and an occasional landscape when my 24-105 is not wide enough. Also for vacations, especially in places such as older cities where streets are narrow and your shooting distance is limited. For myself, I can't imagine any situation where I want a fast aperture for a wide angle lens. My default camera setting is Aperture priority and it is set at f/7.1 and I almost never have to change it. Again, that may not be typical - especially for forum dwellers.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don’t know about dust protection but they’re excellent dust collectors.

Mine don't, because they're all still wrapped in their original plastic bags, in the original boxes the lenses came in. They'll stay there until I sell the lens, if I do.