An RF Zoom fisheye is coming [CR2]

[eosuser1234]

I still have the old 15mm fisheye 2.8 and it works perfectly...even better on the R series.

yes, but the old 15mm 2.8 cannot do sequences in the high speed rate (Mechanical shutter). Other than that, I prefer it over the 8-15mm which I sold.

 

[eosuser1234]

My wishlist for an RF 180 or 200mm L macrolens, ranked by importance (to me, from high to lower):

• Same (or better) optical quality as the EF 180 mm
• 1:1 magnification
• Fast AF
• Compatible with RF extenders (for increased working distance with dragonflies, butterflies and other insects)
• Sufficient number of aperture blades for a round opening (for good bokeh)
• Image stabilization
• Internal focusing (like the EF 180 mm)
• Focus limiter (from closest focus to +/- 1 meter)
• f 2.8
• Removable tripod collar
• Weight: equivalent to, or lighter than, the EF 180 mm

And please NO Spherical Aberration Control.

I want this too. The EF 180 3.5L is a great lens, but i like the build of RF as they are more modern

 

[scyrene]

But wouldn't you rather need an RF 800mm macro for cobras and other friendly reptiles?

In all seriousness, the RF 100-400 (plus extenders) is close enough to a long macro lens as to be very handy for such things, unless you need wide apertures.

 

[blackcoffee17]

What version of Sigma 180mm lens were they using? I know quite a lot of butterfliers who still use their Sigma 180mm(2.8 and old 3.5) and they are very happy with their lens(with 2.8 common complaint is the weight). Unfortunately all 180mm lenses have been discontinued(though they seem to be fairly common on used market), given Tamron was quite old by the time Sigma updated their 180mm and it was choice between heavy 2.8 with stabilization but no Weather sealing vs Canon's 180mm macro without OS but with weather sealing and light on back.

180mm 3.5.

 

[Del Paso]

In all seriousness, the RF 100-400 (plus extenders) is close enough to a long macro lens as to be very handy for such things, unless you need wide apertures.

I wasn't fully serious answering Chaitanya's post...
Yet, in earnest, I would rather use a 1200mm + 2X TC , and I still wouldn't be reassured. Severe case of herpetophobia.

 

[David - Sydney]

Absolutely - still using my 8-15 for sports regularly.

Ok, I'll bite... which sports?

 

[David - Sydney]

I got my 8-15mm second hand and it is fun for abstracts/architecture/astro landscape but mostly for my underwater shooting. You really need great vis so a travel lens for me as Sydney is generally is 7-8m and best is probably 10-12m. I would take it to Tonga for humpback whales but I am thinking that the RF14-35 would be wide enough to cover most situations and still allow some distance if they aren't close without needing to change lenses.

I can't see that I would need to upgrade from the ef version though.

 

[David - Sydney]

I bought the ef 8-15mm L fisheye as soon as it was available and it's a really fun lens that is suprisingly versatile. However it needs judicious use in a collection of photographs. It's ability to cover fully circular 8mm and full recilinear 15mm fisheye views is unique. It's very small and light...and with a ef-rf drop in filter adapter...I can use ND filters with it.

What's the use case for ND filters with the EF8-15mm? CPL would probably have issues if there is a lot of blue sky in frame. NDs for waterfalls/moving water etc mean getting very close ie wet

 

[David - Sydney]

Yes a long RF macro would be good... but, more importantly, where's my RF 53mm f/1.2L?!?

I'm guessing you mean 35mm but I would question why 1.2 vs 1.4 would be essential given the quality of the EF35/1.4.
Has the blue goo been used in any other lens?

That said, the missing RF50mm/1.4 priced somewhere between the f1.8 and f1.2 would be popular

 

[john1970]

Good to see thet Canon is methodically updated the EF glass to RF glass. While this lens does not appeal to me I am sure it has its uses.

 

[roby17269]

Are you sure that’s what you want? Really? Just an extra 3mm over the existing lens? You must have a very, very specific need for that focal length.

darnit! corrected...
But yeah, there'll never be enuff 1.2L primes

 

[danfaz]

Has the blue goo been used in any other lens?

Yes, the RF 85 1.2

 

[roby17269]

I'm guessing you mean 35mm but I would question why 1.2 vs 1.4 would be essential given the quality of the EF35/1.4.
Has the blue goo been used in any other lens?

That said, the missing RF50mm/1.4 priced somewhere between the f1.8 and f1.2 would be popular

Yes I did mean 35mm indeed.... what with fat fingers
I would much prefer 1.2, same quality as the 50 and 85 RF lenses.
Sony has one, Nikon will get one, Canon has had a rumored one forever... so I need it to be 1.2, just for bragging rights, and I'm not going to apologize about it

I would not mind one iota if they make a 50 1.4, but I do think that there are many more higher priority lenses that they should release first

 

[jeffa4444]

Surely Canon should be addressing the f1.4L lenses (24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm) first before specialist lenses like a 8-15mm zoom etc.
I watched Thomas Heaton test the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8, 24-50mm f4 and the 24-120mm f4
It reminded me Canon used to have the EF 24-70mm f4L lens with the macro facility yet they made two versions of the RF 24-105mm the lens strategy of Canon six years into the RF line up is woeful and made worse by denying 3rd party lenses.

 

[The3o5FlyGuy]

I'm really not that excited about Canon's lenses as much as I used to be. Since they've decided to ban 3'd party native lenses for RF mount cameras, i've started restricting my investments in the system altogether. I hate not having options, especially if there's a lens another company makes that Canon doesn't. Feels like im missing out on the other options and being limited to RF native mount alone feels too restrictive.

 

[scyrene]

Surely Canon should be addressing the f1.4L lenses (24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm) first before specialist lenses like a 8-15mm zoom etc.
I watched Thomas Heaton test the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8, 24-50mm f4 and the 24-120mm f4
It reminded me Canon used to have the EF 24-70mm f4L lens with the macro facility yet they made two versions of the RF 24-105mm the lens strategy of Canon six years into the RF line up is woeful and made worse by denying 3rd party lenses.

While we obviously don't know Canon's strategy, it has been reasonably surmised on here for a while that they aren't targeting the middle range - perhaps their response to a smaller market is to eliminate those lenses that are neither mass appeal nor high end/bragging rights/niche. So don't expect any f/1.4 lenses.

But "woeful" seems a bit much. Most bases are covered, even without taking into account all the EF lenses you can use. How good was the EF range six years in, especially as EF cameras weren't backwards compatible? And once again, we don't know they are "denying" third parties, we just aren't seeing many at the moment.

 

[SwissFrank]

A 180 macro with optical stabilization would be fine!

My tests showed only about a 1-stop improvement between the EF135/2 and RF135/1.8 when hand-held on an R5. This test was just me, of course, and in one shooting situation, but at a wide range of speeds. We only need the size, weight, expense, and complexity of in-lens IS in lenses likely to be used on the very cheapest cameras which would lack IBIS. Here's the tests including the test results presented in hopefully a very easy-to-compare manner to draw your own conclusions on.

135mm SHOOTOUT! Detailed Analysis of the Hand-Holdability and General Sharpness of the RF135/1.8, the RF100-500/4.5-7.1, and the EF135/2

Background I want to understand how long I can hand-hold my lenses. Traditionally we used a rule of thumb: the "reciprocal rule," stating that you should use a shutter speed at least as high as one divided by the focal length. For instance, a 90mm lens would call for a 1/90th second exposure...

www.canonrumors.com

 

[koenkooi]

My tests showed only about a 1-stop improvement between the EF135/2 and RF135/1.8 when hand-held on an R5. This test was just me, of course, and in one shooting situation, but at a wide range of speeds. We only need the size, weight, expense, and complexity of in-lens IS in lenses likely to be used on the very cheapest cameras which would lack IBIS. Here's the tests including the test results presented in hopefully a very easy-to-compare manner to draw your own conclusions on.

135mm SHOOTOUT! Detailed Analysis of the Hand-Holdability and General Sharpness of the RF135/1.8, the RF100-500/4.5-7.1, and the EF135/2

Background I want to understand how long I can hand-hold my lenses. Traditionally we used a rule of thumb: the "reciprocal rule," stating that you should use a shutter speed at least as high as one divided by the focal length. For instance, a 90mm lens would call for a 1/90th second exposure...

www.canonrumors.com

For me, the added stabilization of the EVF is a great help with framing macro shots. And when taking short video clips IS, especially in RF lenses does a very good job. I've noticed that my kids (4 and 6) like a montage of short (3-10 seconds) videos a lot more than looking at still pictures. And that's where I see a huge difference between the EF180L+IBIS and RF100-500L+IBIS (the 500 is 260mm-ish at MFD), the videos with the 100-500 take a lot less effort to look nice.

But a tripod beats IS anytime 1dx3+EF180L:

 

[unfocused]

Ok, I'll bite... which sports?

I have used it for basketball. Sitting just behind the net you can get fun shots when someone makes a three-pointer. As the ball goes through the net you see the shooter in the background as well as the reactions of all the other players. I never got the chance but I always wanted to attach one just above the backboard and get shots of players going in for layups using a pocket wizard.
Also good for shooting a coach talking to players during a time out- hold up high and shoot between the players.
It’s good for color shots. You can’t use it more than once or twice a season but it can add some fun.

 

[Del Paso]

My tests showed only about a 1-stop improvement between the EF135/2 and RF135/1.8 when hand-held on an R5. This test was just me, of course, and in one shooting situation, but at a wide range of speeds. We only need the size, weight, expense, and complexity of in-lens IS in lenses likely to be used on the very cheapest cameras which would lack IBIS. Here's the tests including the test results presented in hopefully a very easy-to-compare manner to draw your own conclusions on.

135mm SHOOTOUT! Detailed Analysis of the Hand-Holdability and General Sharpness of the RF135/1.8, the RF100-500/4.5-7.1, and the EF135/2

Background I want to understand how long I can hand-hold my lenses. Traditionally we used a rule of thumb: the "reciprocal rule," stating that you should use a shutter speed at least as high as one divided by the focal length. For instance, a 90mm lens would call for a 1/90th second exposure...

www.canonrumors.com

I understand what you mean. But the 180 macro is a different beast for 2 reasons:
1: It is pretty heavy, much heavier than the EF 135
2: Even 1 EV shake reduction means a lot in, for instance, a 1/1 hand-held macro situation.
That's why I'd welcome an optically stabilized 180-200mm RF macro.