What lenses do you feel are "missing" from RF still?

[dolina]

I did a cursory look over what EF L lenses that do not have a direct RF L lens equivalent from year 1993-today. These were all in stock in 2018 when RF mount was announced.

Zoom	Prime	Tilt Shift
EF 8-15mm f/4 L USM fisheye	EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM	TS-E 17mm f4/L
EF 11-24mm f/4L USM	EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM	TS-E 24mm f3.5L II
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM	EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM	TS-E 50mm f2.8L Macro
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM	EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS USM	TS-E 90mm f2.8L Macro
EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM	EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM	TS-E 135mm f/4L Macro
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM	EF 200mm f/2L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM	EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM	EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM
EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x	EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
	EF 400mm f/5.6L USM	DO
	EF 500mm F/4L IS II USM	EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM

 

[Ph0t0]

I did a cursory look over what EF L lenses that do not have a direct RF L lens equivalent from year 1993-today. These were all in stock in 2018 when RF mount was announced.

Zoom	Prime	Tilt Shift
EF 8-15mm f/4 L USM fisheye	EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM	TS-E 17mm f4/L
EF 11-24mm f/4L USM	EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM	TS-E 24mm f3.5L II
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM	EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM	TS-E 50mm f2.8L Macro
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM	EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS USM	TS-E 90mm f2.8L Macro
EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM	EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM	TS-E 135mm f/4L Macro
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM	EF 200mm f/2L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM	EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM	EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM	EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x	EF 400mm f/5.6L USM	DO
	EF 500mm F/4L IS II USM	EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM

I think you can take the 24-105mm off the list.

 

[Loswr]

I think you can take the 24-105mm off the list.

Maybe he means the MkI version of the lens. Or not, because he also lists the 24-70/2.8 (not MkII) that surely was not in stock anywhere in 2018. He includes EF zoom lenses that have both IS and non-IS versions where the IS version has a direct RF replacement (and the non-IS never will).

 

[Loswr]

Clerical error to encourage your signature biting reply.

Lol, biting? Sheesh, I didn't even point out that there is no 'direct' RF replacement for the EF 100-400L II (meaning if you did not include that because the 100-500 is the practical replacement, you should have left off the 17-40/4L because the 14-35/4L is the practical replacement). Nor did I point out that you call your list EF L lenses yet include TS-E lenses on it, which are not EF (Electronic Focus) lenses. Not to mention (which is a silly turn of phrase, because of course the context is that of mentioning it), you included the 400/4 DO which is not technically an L lens, either.

 

[Loswr]

If CR had a block instead of an ignore I could imagine lotsa people would use it. lol

Indeed. For example, I suspect many would block people who post sexist statements such as you have. Statements like that are best described by analogy to the inability of Sony’s autofocus to track white birds (i.e., stupid AF).

 

[Loswr]

I'm talking about my pet peeves with crazy people. That's why I wish there was a block.

This is why I wish there was a block:

If I could redo the last 2 decades I'd have wanted to start bird photography in my 60s rather than in my 20s.
There arent attractive looking women bird watchers/photogs. They're all 2x my then age & fugly.

Since there's not, please stop being a sexist asshat.

 

[Chaitanya]

RF 180mm Macro(without focus shift feature)
RF-S 60mm and 35mm Macros
And something similar to Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 for budget birders/wildlife shooters.

 

[tron]

RF 600mm f/6 or f/6.3 DO

 

[jeffa4444]

These are the lenses that Canon could and should make.

RF 24mm f1.4L
RF 35mm f1.4L IS USM
RF 50mm f1.4L IS USM
RF 85mm f1.4L IS USM

These would be “core“ cinematography lenses with T stops between T1.5 - T1.7

The existing RF 135mm f1.8 would sit easily with these but a faster 100mm than the f2.8L macro at around f2 would be better. Round it out with a 14mm and 18mm and all the bases are covered.

 

[nunataks]

I really don't understand why they haven't released something small and simple like a 28-75 f/2.8 or a 24-70 f/4 to go with these smaller cameras they've released. The problem with the R8 or the older RP is the lenses you mount on them are either primes or massive zooms. The 24-105 isn't huge, but its still off balance on the rp.

 

[Loswr]

I really don't understand why they haven't released something small and simple like a 28-75 f/2.8 or a 24-70 f/4 to go with these smaller cameras they've released. The problem with the R8 or the older RP is the lenses you mount on them are either primes or massive zooms. The 24-105 isn't huge, but its still off balance on the rp.

Did you miss the RF 24-50 that was announced alongside and is kitted with the R8? The R8 is a 'consumer' FF camera, I would not expect Canon to pair a constant aperture zoom with it.

 

[Doormat]

Did you miss the RF 24-50 that was announced alongside and is kitted with the R8? The R8 is a 'consumer' FF camera, I would not expect Canon to pair a constant aperture zoom with it.

I’m trying to work out what kind of clown buys a R8 then slaps a 24-50 6.3 zoom on it.

You couldn’t even make it up.
Why, why would anyone even consider such a shite option.

 

[Loswr]

I’m trying to work out what kind of clown buys a R8 then slaps a 24-50 6.3 zoom on it.

You couldn’t even make it up.
Why, why would anyone even consider such a shite option.

It's small, like the R8. It's light, like the R8. It's relatively inexpensive, like the R8. It covers wide to normal focal lengths, which covers a lot of photographic needs. The max aperture is only less than a stop slower than the kit zooms sold with tens of millions of APS-C DSLRs, and the FF sensor means the IQ will be better than those in lower light.

I'm trying to work out what kind of clown doesn't get that.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. I don't plan to buy it. But it's a very reasonable lens for the R8, IMO.

 

[Doormat]

I agree with nunataks
I recently bought a used RP just to sample FF mirrorless. I’ve only added the RF 16 & 50. Tbh none of the others appeal. The L’s are just stupidly expensive whilst the not so cheap consumer lens dont appeal at all. The rf35 that both extends and rotates no ta, the 100-400 F8!!! No ta, the 600 & 800 f11 no ta.
I think I’ll stick with the 2 I own and adapt my EF glass if needs be.

 

[Doormat]

It's small, like the R8. It's light, like the R8. It's relatively inexpensive, like the R8. It covers wide to normal focal lengths, which covers a lot of photographic needs. The max aperture is only less than a stop slower than the kit zooms sold with tens of millions of APS-C DSLRs, and the FF sensor means the IQ will be better than those in lower light.

I'm trying to work out what kind of clown doesn't get that.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. I don't plan to buy it. But it's a very reasonable lens for the R8, IMO.

Actually I disagree, it’s a cop out by canon. They really do wield that cripple hammer don't they?

 

[Loswr]

Actually I disagree, it’s a cop out by canon. They really do wield that cripple hammer don't they?

Lol. You're welcome to your opinion. Personally, I think choice is a good thing. It's a $200 (kit cost) standard zoom lens for FF. Nothing crippled about it, you're getting what you pay for. If you can't afford 'stupidly expensive' high-quality zooms, you're not alone. Canon is offering a FF camera with a standard zoom for $1700.

The 24-105/4L that I'll use often on the R8 will overbalance the body...

...and it cost nearly as much as the R8.

The 24-50 is the right size for the R8, and a good match...


As I said, you don't like...don't buy. But if there wasn't a market for this lens, Canon would not have made it.

 

[koenkooi]

I’m trying to work out what kind of clown buys a R8 then slaps a 24-50 6.3 zoom on it.

You couldn’t even make it up.
Why, why would anyone even consider such a shite option.

Hi! Apparently I’m a clown I’m going to leave you in suspense as to what kind.

 

[davidespinosa]

I agree -- there must be customers for it, or Canon wouldn't have made it.
And f/4.5-6.3 is only 1/3 stop slower than f/4-5.6.

But I think people on this forum draw the line at f/4 !

 

[Doormat]

I agree -- there must be customers for it, or Canon wouldn't have made it.
And f/4.5-6.3 is only 1/3 stop slower than f/4-5.6.

But I think people on this forum draw the line at f/4 !

Certainly with 24-50 range.

 

[koenkooi]

I agree -- there must be customers for it, or Canon wouldn't have made it.
And f/4.5-6.3 is only 1/3 stop slower than f/4-5.6.

But I think people on this forum draw the line at f/4 !

I'd prefer an RF24-70 F/4L IS USM, but that doesn't exist.