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

[AlanF]

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.

And they would pair even better with high MPx sensors on the R5 and R7 which need wide lenses to take advantage of the pixel density.

 

[EverydayPhotographer]

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.

I generally agree, and shoot similarly. But one fast aperture wide angle application jumps immediately to mind - wide field astrophotography. Especially if you're chasing dramatic milky way shots, the faster the better. And in a case like that, it's the somewhat exclusive territory of big, heavy, fast primes like the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or 20mm f/1.4. Something that if I owned, I'd likely bypass most of the time in favor of a lens like the 15-30. I am intrigued to see what the 24mm can do, but even for wide field astro, on the times I've gone out and done it, I've found 24mm to be a bit too narrow of an FOV.

As an "also fits full frame" option, I also like the idea of the 15-30 as an alternative to the RF-S 18-45 as a primary lens on an R7 or R10 in a mixed bag with FF kit like I will be carrying.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

That lens has been discontinued

Tamron still list the G2 version of that lens on their website. Why would they discontinue it without a replacement? It is their only full frame zoom that starts below 24mm.

 

[scyrene]

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.

The one major downside to the 100-500 is its price. Those older EF prime telephoto Ls were pretty good value for what they offered; there definitely seems to be a gap in the middle of the range now (but I don't disagree with your assessment that Canon probably don't feel a need to replace them directly).

 

[bergstrom]

wow, 30mm @f6.3? Affordable? Absolutely. Useless? Completely.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Actually I use my 15-30 f/2.8 at f/8 or even f/11 most of the time to get the best sharpness. Of course that would not work that well at the R5, where you might already notice diffraction at f/6.3.

 

[JustUs7]

wow, 30mm @f6.3? Affordable? Absolutely. Useless? Completely.

You never shoot landscapes narrower than f/6.3? Seems like DOF is of primary importance for a landscape lens like that. Vs low light for a more Astro focused lens for example.

 

[bergstrom]

You never shoot landscapes narrower than f/6.3? Seems like DOF is of primary importance for a landscape lens like that. Vs low light for a more Astro focused lens for example.

Well definitely useless for low light work, niteclubs etc..

 

[neuroanatomist]

wow, 30mm @f6.3? Affordable? Absolutely. Useless? Completely.

Then get the 14-35/4 or 15-35/2.8.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

It always amazes me that no matter what Canon does, people just simply complain...and honestly, I gotta include myself here, too (where's my 12mm F2? )

Canon delivers the...
...RF 15-35mm F2.8.... too heavy, too expensive...
...RF 14-35mm F4...not affordable, software corrected images...
...RF 16mm F2.8...ohhh the corners, I want a cheap zoom, if it was... (too many wished for options here...)

now they're about to release an affordable, light wide-angle zoom with IS, and it's a like...
"ohhh, optical trade-offs, vignetting, F6.3? not for me..."

Honestly, we are damn lucky to have so many native UWA options! Plus, they all brought something new and unique to the table In addition, there are intriguing third party options, of course with some payoff. At some point, there are probably more to come! (Tamron/ Sigma)

Since I myself am still trying to figure out which UWA lens I want to keep permanently, I'd love to read about feedback from those lenses and whom they are suited for. Currently, I do own the 15-35mm and 16mm, but I'm still confused

 

[EverydayPhotographer]

Size-wise, the 15-30 is almost exactly the same size and weight as the 24-105IS STM, and the 24 is pretty close to the RF35 f/1.8 in size, and a tiny bit lighter.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Since I myself am still trying to figure out which UWA lens I want to keep permanently, I'd love to read about feedback from those lenses and whom they are suited for. Currently, I do own the 15-35mm and 16mm, but I'm still confused

A fast UWA zoom is for low-light event shooting – weddings, sports, etc. If you don't need to shoot moving subjects in low light, the 14-35/4 is a better choice, IMO.

For those who can't afford the L-series zooms, they now have a choice between a fast UWA prime and a slow UWA zoom – I'd say the use cases would be the same, for the prime you're trading the flexibility of a zoom for lower cost, for the zoom you're trading a aperture and a little bit of focal length for lower cost.

Personally, I had an EF 16-35/2.8 and something like 0.5% of my shots with it were wider than f/4, so I swapped it for the 16-35/4 which had IS. I then switched to the RF 14-35/4 for the smaller size and wider wide end.

 

[bbasiaga]

I generally agree, and shoot similarly. But one fast aperture wide angle application jumps immediately to mind - wide field astrophotography. Especially if you're chasing dramatic milky way shots, the faster the better. And in a case like that, it's the somewhat exclusive territory of big, heavy, fast primes like the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or 20mm f/1.4. Something that if I owned, I'd likely bypass most of the time in favor of a lens like the 15-30. I am intrigued to see what the 24mm can do, but even for wide field astro, on the times I've gone out and done it, I've found 24mm to be a bit too narrow of an FOV.

As an "also fits full frame" option, I also like the idea of the 15-30 as an alternative to the RF-S 18-45 as a primary lens on an R7 or R10 in a mixed bag with FF kit like I will be carrying.

Astro was my first thought for the 24mm 1.8 as well. I have a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 ED, which for the price is pretty good, but sadly displays some coma on the stars, particularly at the edges. Stopping down helps, but defeats the purpose. 24mm is pretty good still, considering even at 14mm you often have to stitch to get a full Summer Mikly Way.

I'll see what the price looks like on the 24, and how close the wife is watching. If its less than $500 I may pre-order. I just got a sideral tracker for my tripod. The itch is real.

Brian

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Personally, I had an EF 16-35/2.8 and something like 0.5% of my shots with it were wider than f/4...

Thx for the replay, it pretty much summed up what I thought before.

At the moment, I have the RF 15-35mm and takes absolutely brilliant shots, so I took it to Vienna and London. The images are great, but 99,9% were at F8 or so... so no need to carry the extra weight. And carrying it three days through the city it really feels heavy...

But the F4 would seriously limit me when I shoot at night (which I love to do, but haven't been able to lately...)

So, I guess I'd need a a light UWA version (F4 zoom or 16mm or the new one) and a dedicated night sky/ cityscapes at night lens like the laowa 15mm F2 (does anybody have any experience with this lens?)

But I just can't figure out which set I'd like... so, I am confused. Too many choices, first world problems, I know. But I keep thinking about it

 

[neuroanatomist]

So, I guess I'd need a a light UWA version (F4 zoom or 16mm or the new one) and a dedicated night sky/ cityscapes at night lens like the laowa 15mm F2 (does anybody have any experience with this lens?)

But I just can't figure out which set I'd like... so, I am confused. Too many choices, first world problems, I know. But I keep thinking about it

I shoot a lot of blue hour / night architecture and cityscapes, but always on a tripod with long exposures so I don't need a wide aperture for those. I only rarely shoot astro, I do have a Rokinon 14/2.8 that works well for that. If I get more into astro, the Laowa 15/2 looks like an excellent choice!

 

[blackcoffee17]

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

That is such a cheap move from Canon. You get those almost useless canvas pouches with $2000 lenses when a high quality padded zip case costs $10 from a Chinese manufacturer.

 

[nwardrip]

I shoot a lot of blue hour / night architecture and cityscapes, but always on a tripod with long exposures so I don't need a wide aperture for those. I only rarely shoot astro, I do have a Rokinon 14/2.8 that works well for that. If I get more into astro, the Laowa 15/2 looks like an excellent choice!

I really love the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art for astro (and other unique UWA shots), but understand this is significantly more than the Rokinon/Laowa options.

 

[nwardrip]

That is such a cheap move from Canon. You get those almost useless canvas pouches with $2000 lenses when a high quality padded zip case costs $10 from a Chinese manufacturer.

For me, the pouches that Canon provides are actually perfect. I have all of my lenses in Canon pouches and stored in a safe. If I were to use padded cases, I wouldn't be able to keep all of them locked up. Due to space limitations, I can't get a larger safe (or another safe). In fact, I have purchased many of the Canon pouches second-hand on eBay or KEH for all of the Canon and 3rd party lenses I own that don't have pouches. I like that the padded bottom provides some protection for the front of the lens while resting on the shelf and provides a natural buffer zone when everything is all lined up on a shelf.

 

[H. Jones]

I just knew there would be whining about the aperture of a cheap, compact, lightweight 15-30mm

Canon legitimately gives you the option, on the cheap end alone, to get a full frame RF 16mm F/2.8 or a full frame 15-30mm F/4.5-6.5, at a price point that never existed for full frame wide angle lenses in Canon's line-up even when the 17-40 could be picked up for "cheap." That's pretty incredible for the everyday consumer, and it's pretty sad that somehow this is being complained about. Need wide apertures at a wide angle? 16mm f2.8. Need wide angles with a zoom for stopped down landscapes and travel? 15-30mm.

I'm sure the RF 15-30mm will look just fine IQ-wise stopped down to F8. All around a smart decision from Canon, I would have honestly been fine if they made it a constant F/8 wide angle built for landscapes, but I can understand making it more usable in more situations.

It definitely also seems like the RF 15-30mm will be a huge seller to R10 and R7 owners who are possibly looking to jump to full frame. I got my 16-35mm F/4L IS back when I still was rocking a 60D but was about to upgrade to the 5D Mark III. For a while it made a decent general zoom when paired with the 60D, and I could imagine the same thing goes for this lens. 24mm on the wide end is very nice for a crop sensor, then you can also pick up a full frame RF zoom like the 100-400 and already have a wide and tight option when you upgrade cameras.

It would honestly be very tempting to replace my EF 16-35mm F/4 with a lens like this since I use it stopped down mostly, but I do appreciate the weathersealing of my EF 16-35 lens when I need it for weather art and stormchasing.

 

[dlee13]

Although not a day 1 purchase, that 15-30 is definitely sounding like the lens for me.

I like the 16mm f/2.8 but I find that for that focal range, a zoom is often easier.