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

[divinshire]

I think some updates would be very welcome on many fronts. The 100-500 simply needs a teleconverter that enables the full focal length. The lens itself is outstanding.
I don't understand the negativity around the 24-105F4L though? I have this lens and i find it fantastic at all focal lengths. It is also a brilliant lens for handholdable long exposures due to the awesome stability control. Overall sharpness is more than good enough. it is also one of the more convenient and versatile focal ranges for travelling, hiking ,etc. so I personally cannot comprehend why this is rated so poorly on this thread? I think a lot of the time these comments comes down to use error, not product quality!

All this said, looking forward to some new lenses, so hurry up Canon!

 

[HeavyPiper]

I don't understand the negativity around the 24-105F4L though? I have this lens and i find it fantastic at all focal lengths

I agree.

 

[Maximilian]

Agree on the 100-500L. The only zooming from 300-500 significantly limits the flexibility of the lens

That would be acceptable as I would need the TC only for the reach and magnification and therefore use it at the long end only.

... field mounting the extender is a pain or untenable in some conditions.

For me, it's the separate transport and mounting/dismounting every time I want to move on to another place.
Dust could be a problem, too. Though @AlanF said, he had none. And he uses that combo quite often.
I cannot transport the combo as I could the EF100-400+TC+Body. Meh!
[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I have absolutely no complaints here. Totally pleased with the performance of the 100-500 together with my R6m2.
Maybe you should send your lens in for service,

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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).

The 2x TC usually needs droping 1/3rd - 2/3rd pf a stop to shapren back up, depending on the inherant lens sharpness to start with. The 1.4x TC seems to have minimal impact on image quality. I tend to find that the 1.4x TC works well and then I crop from that.
Another consideration for you R5 folk, the 1.6x crop is still a very useful and viable option when you have 45mp to play with. A 70-200 /f2.8 with a 1.4x TC will have minimal IQ hit and push you out into the effective 450mm (f5.6) range. All with just the one lens. The RF100-500mm lens is nice range and certainly very versatile, unless you need to 2.8 for creative reasons. I'm guessing a RF 70-200/2.8 and RF 100-500/7.1 is a nice combo that covers a lot of range and isn't too heavy or take up much bag space.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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

I doubt it, Canon have indicated that they would only replace them with zooms in the style of the 100-300mm f2.8 / 200-500mm f4.
The RF 400/2.8 and 600/f4 are pretty much at their peak of technical developement. Shaprness wise, AF, IS and lightness...there's no more tech in the R&D cupboard to make worthwhile improvements. Any newly developed lens will only push up the asking price. Is there any point in re-disgining something with no real world benfits but with a new higher sticker price.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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

Canon certainly have the need because it will instantly devalue your existing RF glass' S/H resale value. Canon make money on new gear, not S/H ones.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

The 28-70/f2 is short of the 70mm focal length at infinity too...and it breathes down even further at quite distance focus points.
The EF 100mm macro L IS breathes so much, you can actually get creative with it and perform zoom bursts with it:

 

[Walrus]

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.

I have the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 as a backup/travel lens, and at comparable apertures is pretty close in quality to my 24-70 f2.8 L II (but I have an exceptionally good and lucky copy, I went through probably a dozen copies in the last 20 years before finding the holy grail); those middle ranged/middle brightness Canon zooms were already good bangs for your bucks back in the days, and now you can buy them on the used market under 100€, and they blow out of the water any modern kit zoom.
20-35, 24-85, 28-105, 70-210 (I had all of them), and I heard amazing stories on the 28-70 but actually never tested one, all 3.5-4.5 and all USM (except the 28-70), quality is amazing for how much they cost, and the AF is way faster and precise of any modern RF STM lens.

(And I just bought a rare Mark II version for 70€ from Bulgaria, I'm waiting for the shipping; optically should be exactly as the early brother, but features 7 blades instead of 5, so a supposedly slightly rounder bokeh when stopped down. I already bought a Mk II recently, but optically was vastly inferior to my Mk I, so I sold it back on eBay the day after testing)

 

[neuroanatomist]

I doubt it, Canon have indicated that they would only replace them with zooms in the style of the 100-300mm f2.8 / 200-500mm f4.

When did Canon state that? Or are you inferring from the 100-300 and rumored 200-500?

Is there any point in re-disgining something with no real world benfits but with a new higher sticker price.

For Canon? Sure!

They could design them with a flip-in 1.4x. Add control rings. The Lens Fn button near the mount is nice, too.

 

[EricN]

I doubt it, Canon have indicated that they would only replace them with zooms in the style of the 100-300mm f2.8 / 200-500mm f4.
The RF 400/2.8 and 600/f4 are pretty much at their peak of technical developement. Shaprness wise, AF, IS and lightness...there's no more tech in the R&D cupboard to make worthwhile improvements. Any newly developed lens will only push up the asking price. Is there any point in re-disgining something with no real world benfits but with a new higher sticker price.

I don't remember them stating they wouldn't produce anymore primes at those focal lengths and apertures. When was that announcement made?
I do remember there was something about how they rushed to get those first couple RF big whites into production for the people that felt they needed the lenses without adapters. It seemed at least implied they would do a proper RF design later with the control ring, although it has been a while and I can't remember if the stated that specifically. There was a patent about reflecting the light similar to a spotting scope and they could change somethings to cut manufacturing costs. Lastly, I thought sometimes we don't see a new patent until very soon before a new lens is announced so, couldn't there be some new tech we don't know about?
It's just a guess after considering all the other guesses seem to have something that could be seen as a reason not to update.

 

[JohnC]

I don't understand the negativity around the 24-105F4L though? I have this lens and i find it fantastic at all focal lengths. It is also a brilliant lens for handholdable long exposures due to the awesome stability control. Overall sharpness is more than good enough. it is also one of the more convenient and versatile focal ranges for travelling, hiking ,etc. so I personally cannot comprehend why this is rated so poorly on this thread? I think a lot of the time these comments comes down to use error, not product quality!

You may be correct. I've never used it so I can't say for sure. In most of the tests I see the lens performs very well (better than the older EF24-105), but I also read different reports from users. Not that it is terrible by any means, I've never read that...just that it lacks a fair bit in comparison to the 24-70, etc. I'm happy to see that some don't see it that way.

 

[stillviking]

Canon RF 24-70 2.8 II would be perfect and the most bought lens for Canon.

 

[EricN]

You may be correct. I've never used it so I can't say for sure. In most of the tests I see the lens performs very well (better than the older EF24-105), but I also read different reports from users. Not that it is terrible by any means, I've never read that...just that it lacks a fair bit in comparison to the 24-70, etc. I'm happy to see that some don't see it that way.

I bought it along with my R5 because the 28-70 and the adapters were out of stock. As luck would have it, the Canon webstore got both in a couple days. I tested the 24-105 just to be sure it worked, but I don't think I took more than 5 photos with it.

 

[SwissFrank]

great but filling ‘gaps’ should be the focus

As someone who always had 15-16 EF's I share your desire, but in fact the most popular lenses are SO popular that they probably make up for it.

For instance I am selling my RF100Mac and RF14-35 on eBay as we speak, and I'm getting 5x the interest for the 14-35 than the 100.

Sales of interchangeable-lens cameras are down I think 90% from their top year (I think 2010) and even the number of people who'd replace a 24-105/4 is plausibly bigger than the number of people who'd buy a 35/1.2.

 

[GAOP]

I'd replace my 70-200 f2.8 for Mark II if it was an internal zoom. Wouldn't care if the optics were the same. The external zoom has been a PITA.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Hmm… great but filling ‘gaps’ should be the focus. The number of upgraders would be lower than sales for a different lens imho

True but Canon needs to upgrade their lenses to handle the 100 MP R5 S camera that I just imagined.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

i haven't seen Canon updating non-L lenses, anyone has any examples?

Nifty 50

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I have changed TCs on the RF 100-500mm many 100s or maybe even 1000s of times and not got dust onto sensors. I wouldn't do it in a dust storm or high wind.

It does help that the higher end cameras have shutters that automatically close

 

[SwissFrank]

My vote is for a new 24-105.

The EFMkI was small and unsharp, while the EFMkII was bigger and sharper.

The RFMkI is EFMkI size, and EFMkII sharpness.

It'd make sense to introduce an RFMkII that's EFMkII size, AS LONG AS it is significantly sharper.

And as the RFMkI is definitely the least sharp RF L lens, it's an obvious candidate.

What I've never seen anyone comment on, though, is that the RFMkI image stabilization isn't very good. My tests at 50mm show that the RFMkI IS on an R5 isn't reliable slower than 1/30, while the 50/1.8 is counterintuitively sharper between 1/30 and 1/2 than it is in any shot faster than 1/30. (Yes, 1/2 gets me better results, out of 10 trials, than 1/60, 1/250, whatever!)

And yet the 24-105/4IS is such a mind-blowingly good basic spec that I didn't need another lens for a couple years. I had the 50/1.2 but literally never shot with it.

So, I desire a sharper 24-105/4 with better autofocus more than just about any other lens, even though I'd kill for a 35/1.0 or 50/0.7 or 135/1.0DS or whatever.

-----

We used to think f/2.8 was necessary in SLR days but only for the following reasons, that don't really apply any more:

1) made the viewfinder twice as bright as f/4

2) let you cut ISO in half or double shutter time, which was desirable when even 400 was quite grainy and there was no IS

3) pictures already basically sucked: grain, subject motion, camera motion, and less sharp lenses, so to seperate that blurry subject from the background you had to make the background even more blurry. In contrast today the subject is razor sharp so even f/4 gives enough blur to make the subject pop.

4) enlargements are much larger: now we look at every photo 45cm/18" across, when we used to only pick rare photographs to print more than 10x15cm/4x6". So the blur of a background at f/4 is probably more noticeable today than it used to be.

5) we can also super-crop, like more than 80% of the area away and have a perfectly usable shot (3000x2000pixels after an 87% crop!), and that magnifies the bokeh 8x or what have you

6) and while f/2.8 bokeh is nice, what really makes bokeh is the width of the "entrance pupil," which is focal length divided by f-stop. So a 24-70/2.8 has 25mm entrance pupil, and the 105/4 has 26mm. So, the 24-105/4 can be as boke-ful as a 24-70/2.8.

 

[Snapster]

I find it difficult to get excited. Unless it's the RF 35mm 1.8 STM II. Which is also 1.4, USM and weather sealed.

I thought I'd get used to the STM motors that whir and saw like lawn mowers on acid, but I didn't.