There are jints of a version II of a current RF lens coming in 2024 [CR2]

[roby17269]

I also notice that Nikon has a 50/1.2 and a 50/1.8, but no 50/1.4. I wonder if there are posts on NR analogous to those on CR claiming Nikon is d00med without a 50/1.4 (or maybe claiming the lack of it is why they've lost so much market share)?

I agree but, to be fair, the Z system is different: their 50/1.8 is definitely higher-end than the RF equivalent, making the 1.2-1.8 gap less of an issue.
Not that the lack of a 50/1.4 is an issue for me: I am really happy with the 50/1.2...

 

[Walrus]

A smaller and lighter 28-70 f/2 would be pretty sweet.

I think that's called RF 24-70 f2.8 L

Seriously, I think if they could do it smaller and lighter at f2, they would have released it that way from the beginning.

 

[dog8food]

Kind of a worthless post. Not worthy of rumor status.

 

[RikC]

I have the 24-105 L f/4 as my main lens. First on the R6, then the R6 II. In terms of image quality it's indeed not the most exiting lens but it's so versatile that have it mounted on my camera most of the time. In my experience the image quality at the wide end of it's range is somewhat lackluster. If I'm planning to shoot wide photos I tend to grab my 35mm f/1.8 lens. If Canon releases a MKII I wouldn't be suprised if they improve wide angle performance.

 

[mxwphoto]

I agree but, to be fair, the Z system is different: their 50/1.8 is definitely higher-end than the RF equivalent, making the 1.2-1.8 gap less of an issue.
Not that the lack of a 50/1.4 is an issue for me: I am really happy with the 50/1.2...

Canon's nifty 50 is the gateway drug to give newbies a taste of the bokeh. Once they see the light balls, they become hooked and eventually buy an entire collection of expensive L primes (not to mention a collection of f2 primes before that).

Nikon's 1.8 version ($626) is more than 3.5x the price of Canon's ($169), so their 1.8 is really priced like a 1.4 and not having a true Canon 1.8 competitor.

Sony sort of has one but it is still 2x price at $350 a pop.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It certainly would be, but with the 28-70mm F2 on the market I seriously doubt it will come to life. In addition, Canon will rather sell you two lenses (28-70mm and the always rumored 70-140mm F2) instead of one.

Yes I agree, in my opinion, the RF 28-70mm f2 is a missed opportunity. It's not quite wide enough to replace a 24-70/2.8 and it's way short on the long end to be a true 70mm. A 35-85/f2 would have been a better option for press, art, wedding and photojournalists. Many use three cams, so a 15-35/35-85/135 combo would work well. Most pros would buy more than one lens any how. So a 35-85mm f2 just slots in nicely with most of the coverage in a single lens. Years ago I used an EF 35-105mm f3.5-4.5. It was super versatile back in the day, I still have it some where in the house.

 

[padam]

I have the 24-105 L f/4 as my main lens. First on the R6, then the R6 II. In terms of image quality it's indeed not the most exiting lens but it's so versatile that have it mounted on my camera most of the time. In my experience the image quality at the wide end of it's range is somewhat lackluster. If I'm planning to shoot wide photos I tend to grab my 35mm f/1.8 lens. If Canon releases a MKII I wouldn't be suprised if they improve wide angle performance.

Maybe try another copy, I found out that there was substantial sample variation with the RF 24-105/4L lens and according to opticallimits, the wide-end is actually where it performs best at.

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS - Review / Test Report

opticallimits.com

For me the most likely candidate would be the RF 50/1.2L because the focusing system is not the newest, and it is known to have flaring issues.

 

[john1970]

Honestly at this stage I do not see a need for a version 2 of any current RF lens. Time will tell.....

 

[David - Sydney]

The RF 24-104 L IS is the obvious choice. It's the bread and butter "do all" lens for many. I'm guessing if a mkII is on the cards it's a way for Canon to make this lens cheaper and in larger quantities. It's one of their biggest sellers in the Ef and Rf format. Build em cheap and stack them high.

I'm not opposed to a mark II of the RF24-105mm. I upgraded from the EF24-105/4 (mark I) so it is a definite improvement. A walk around lens so absolute quality isn't an issue for me - weather proofing is more important. Still not convinced that it would sell more to upgraders vs a new focal length lens. Of course, if a new version was cheaper to make then it would make sense given its volume.

The other lens that I love and hate at the same timeis the RF 70-200/2.8. It's an awesome design and Canon really did something revolutionary with it. However....the lack of TC use is limiting and for me...I'm keeping my EF 70-200 L IS II.

Yeah, that was a pain for me as I had the EF70-200/2.8II + 1.4xTC + 2xTC. RF70-200/2.8's size/weight was a no brainer for me so I had to get the RF100-500mm instead. Initially painful to the hip pocket but standard part of my kit now. My 2 lens kit is EF16-35/4 + RF100-500. 3 lens kit adds the RF24-105mm.

 

[David - Sydney]

"There are jints of a version II of a current RF lens coming in 2024 [CR2]"
Weird as the spelling is correct in the front page but the forum is different

 

[Del Paso]

I'd fully agree on the RF 24-105 f4 as a possible version II candidate. I had it, used and tested it.
But, whenever it came to putting it in my bacpack for an "important" photo trip, I chose to leave it at home and replaced it with a better lens.(Yes, often the EF 24-70 f4!). It's not a bad lens, but not a convincing one either. For me, it just meant the certainty another lens in my collection would provide better results.
So, eventually, I sold it, and I'm now waiting for an f 2,8 version or a mark II f4. But both must be as good as the 28-70 f2...

 

[danfaz]

Yes I agree, in my opinion, the RF 28-70mm f2 is a missed opportunity. It's not quite wide enough to replace a 24-70/2.8 and it's way short on the long end to be a true 70mm.

The RF 28-70 is too short on the long end to be a true 70mm?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yeah, that was a pain for me as I had the EF70-200/2.8II + 1.4xTC + 2xTC. RF70-200/2.8's size/weight was a no brainer for me so I had to get the RF100-500mm instead.

Years ago, I had the EF 70-200/2.8 II and both TCs, and I also had the 100-400 (MkI). I used the 2x TC on the 70-200 II a handful of times, but the IQ hit was significant. The TC was useful for travel when I was taking the 70-200 anyway, but that was (and remains) rare. Else, if I knew I’d need a longer lens I brought the 100-400. I only sold it after getting the 600/4 II for birds.

I added the 70-300L as a more portable telezoom. The RF 70-200 covers that need now, and I don’t miss TC compatibility (but like you, I have the 100-500).

 

[Del Paso]

I'd fully agree on the RF 24-105 f4 as a possible version II candidate. I had it, used and tested it.
But, whenever it came to putting it in my backpack for an "important" photo trip, I chose to leave it at home and replaced it with a better lens.(Yes, often the EF 24-70 f4!). It's not a bad lens, but not a convincing one either. For me, it just meant the certainty another lens in my collection would provide better results.
So, eventually, I sold it, and I'm now waiting for an f 2,8 version or a mark II f4. But both must be as good as the 28-70 f2...

 

[neuroanatomist]

The RF 28-70 is too short on the long end to be a true 70mm?

It has some focus breathing, as do most 24-70/2.8 zooms. Since focal length is specified at infinity, focus breathing means an effectively shorter focal length with close subjects.

As an extreme example, the EF 100mm macro at 1:1 magnification frames like a 68mm lens.

 

[RobbieHat]

For me, this is a little bit early compared to the life cycles of the EF lenses.
But life cycles of cars have been shortened, too.

I am a bit surprised to see the lenses that come into account, esp. looking how they perform.
From those mentioned, I see only two lenses that I would have on my wish list for an update, plus one addition:

RF24-105L II: as mentioned, IQ is underwhelming for an L lens, esp. when you see how the other RF zooms perform.
RF70-200L II: if possible to have the same size and performance + teleconverter operation, as mentioned. Internal zoom is not my highest priority.
RF100-500L II: teleconverter transport fully zoomed in. The use/transport from 300mm on means mounting in the field and getting dust in.

Agree on the 100-500L. The only zooming from 300-500 significantly limits the flexibility of the lens and field mounting the extender is a pain or untenable in some conditions. I have also been underwhelmed by my version of the 100-500 L even though most rave about the sharpness. And the reliability continues to be suspect for lockups.

 

[David - Sydney]

Years ago, I had the EF 70-200/2.8 II and both TCs, and I also had the 100-400 (MkI). I used the 2x TC on the 70-200 II a handful of times, but the IQ hit was significant.

My main issue was the focus speed with the TCs although IQ was also an issue...
How does it compare with the RF100-500 with TCs (in the rare instances where you are not using your EF600/4)?

 

[neuroanatomist]

My main issue was the focus speed with the TCs although IQ was also an issue...
How does it compare with the RF100-500 with TCs (in the rare instances where you are not using your EF600/4)?

My impression (and it’s nothing more than that) is the RF 100-500 with a TC on the R3 focuses slightly faster than the EF 70-200 II with a TC on the 1D X. But obviously, there are lots of differences between the two setups.

 

[JohnC]

I'd fully agree on the RF 24-105 f4 as a possible version II candidate. I had it, used and tested it.
But, whenever it came to putting it in my bacpack for an "important" photo trip, I chose to leave it at home and replaced it with a better lens.(Yes, often the EF 24-70 f4!). It's not a bad lens, but not a convincing one either. For me, it just meant the certainty another lens in my collection would provide better results.
So, eventually, I sold it, and I'm now waiting for an f 2,8 version or a mark II f4. But both must be as good as the 28-70 f2...

I'd love to see an RF 24-70 f4L. I do t have the 24-105 and hesitate to buy it for the reasons you mention. The 14-35,24-70, and 70-200 f4 make a great long hike kit.

 

[EricN]

After thinking about it, my guess is either the RF 400 f/2.8 or RF 600 f/4.