Report: Canon to launch 4 fast L prime lenses in the first half of 2024

[jam05]

It's about time. I suppose they know that the system needs the fast primes by next July. Many people prefer the fast primes at dusk. Especially when the use flash is off limits. Else one must use an EF lense with an adapter.

 

[fox40phil]

Less wide angle, more 200-ish mm 1:1 macro lenses!

2:1 leets gooo!!

 

[fox40phil]

RF 50mm 1.4 delayed for 2033?

maybe for the next mount in 2040?! ...

 

[Del Paso]

Less wide angle, more 200-ish mm 1:1 macro lenses!

And a 50mm macro, please!

 

[David - Sydney]

It probably won't be cheap and not very useful for landscape at f1.4, unless you're after night sky astro shots. But then 14mm f1.4 would be a better option.

Agreed. 14/1.4 would be great for a quick milky way pano but also useful for foreground shots during blue hour

 

[EricN]

Decisions decisions
Naah, either the 24 or the 28, I wouldn't get both. Too close. I am honestly intrigued by the 14.
So, if Canon does listen to me (why not? ), I'd get the 14 and the 35 1.2...
If Canon doesn't listen to me (why oh why? ), I might get the 14 and the 28.
We will see... actually I'd love to know if there will be a TS 24, since I'd prefer that to a fast non-TS 24.
So many rumors! Canon! You have to deliver all those lenses + the ones I want + the ones I do not crave now but I will want once they appear... now! or I will not buy your lenses anymore and that will spell d00m for ya

(disclaimer: for people with reading comprehension issues, I do not think that Canon will fold if they do not release the lenses I want)

Over a year ago, there was a rummer about a 12mm f/1.2 and I was very excited, but not to long later, more info came that is was for a phone, point and shoot or something. I guess someone will say, "Sigma already had a 14mm F/1.4,"no mater how canon's version turns out finding whatever differences there are as a reason that Canon is D-worded.

Waiting for the TS lenses to be announced seems like a good idea to avoid losing money from buying and selling the 28mm f/1.4

 

[David - Sydney]

I'm hoping for the ultimate RF 35mm f/1.2L with BR Optics for Wide Field Milky Way Panorama Shots!

Would BR help with astro?
35+mm milky way gets into multi-row panos which can be a pain to stitch - not to mention the additional integration time to take the shots.... only takes one bad frame (wind etc) to mess it up so you need to check every frame in-camera before moving to the next one. 20mm panos with R5 (45mp) gives enormous resolution so no need for additional pixels that a 35mm would give.
Seen a couple of milky way panos using 85mm needing 200+ frames. Not sure of the benefits there.

 

[EricN]

It's a matter of personal preferences. I often use the 28mm for landscapes, because I find its perspective more natural than the 24's. I wouldn't buy the 24mm, but the 28mm I find tempting. In other situations, it's the 24mm I prefer (Leica M or TS-E 24 II).
It a purely subjective decision which cannot be rationally explained.

I'm sure someone will eagerly attempt to explain like this
"The weight and cost of Canon using this focal length at this maximum aperture proves that Canon is more greedy than they have any right to be logically this proves that young people who want 4k video for the YouTubes will buy [other manufacturer] because they don't want F/1.4 with IS, they want global shutters and not IS for less money" *continues for three to six pages before finally quitting*

 

[David - Sydney]

If a 14mm F1.4 actually becomes reality, I really hope they try to maximize vignette and coma/astigmatism correction, since the obvious use case is astronomy where edge aberrations really stand out. If it's not priced in the stratosphere (see what I did there) I might have to pick it up for some backcountry dark sky trips. I get by just fine with my 14-35/4 (as the primary focus of those trips is not astro), but gaining an extra 3 stops would be pretty awesome. Obviously IS is not needed in such a lens and would make it unnecessarily larger, so I'd be a bit baffled to see it included.

Using only a single frame would be an issue with edge aberrations.
If you are stitching (eg 50% overlap) then the center quality is the primary focus (see what I did there). Normally stopped down a little to reduce vignetting when tracked in any case.
Using the 16-35/4 would require a tracker unless extreme ISO is used even with bortle 1 skies - even taking multiple images and stacking for noise reduction.

IS (and autofocus!) is not needed in such a lens for astro hence wondering why the Sigma 14/1.4 for E mount couldn't be released for EF mount.

The Sigma 14/1.4 for E mount is USD1600, has a tripod mount, lockable focus, dew heater retainer with physical aperture ring (clicked or not). Downside is the 1.1kg weight.
The Sony 14/1.8 weighs 450gm and loses 2/3rds of a stop to f1.4. It also costs USD1600. Includes rear gel filters, physical aperture ring (declicked and locked option), MFD of 250mm

These can't be direct comparisons but an example of what can be done optically and size/cost/weight.

 

[EricN]

True, but then even less for (ultra) wides
BTW, how can IS be "coordinated" for the 50 / 85 1.2? those lenses do not have ILIS

I think , "coordinated" placed in the wrong part of the sentience. I often do it and have to proof read what I wrote.

 

[EricN]

And a 50mm macro, please!

15mm macro!

 

[EricN]

Using only a single frame would be an issue with edge aberrations.
If you are stitching (eg 50% overlap) then the center quality is the primary focus (see what I did there). Normally stopped down a little to reduce vignetting when tracked in any case.
Using the 16-35/4 would require a tracker unless extreme ISO is used even with bortle 1 skies - even taking multiple images and stacking for noise reduction.

IS (and autofocus!) is not needed in such a lens for astro hence wondering why the Sigma 14/1.4 for E mount couldn't be released for EF mount.

The Sigma 14/1.4 for E mount is USD1600, has a tripod mount, lockable focus, dew heater retainer with physical aperture ring (clicked or not). Downside is the 1.1kg weight.
The Sony 14/1.8 weighs 450gm but would lose 2/3rds of a stop to f1.4. It also costs USD1600. Includes rear gel filters, physical aperture ring (declicked and locked option), MFD of 250mm

These can't be direct comparisons but an example of what can be done optically and size/cost/weight.

I'm hoping Canon's will sell for less than $2500, weigh less than 2kg and a maximum magnification of around 0.25x.

 

[Gino_FOTO]

I don\'t need Ls, nor even necessarily a new lenses, just repackaged RF-S 32mm f/1.4 and RF-S 22mm f/2.
Too much to ask for?

 

[David - Sydney]

15mm macro!

What magnification would you wish for at 15mm? I've heard of close-up/wide-angle but macro at that working distance would be surprising

 

[EricN]

1:1 would be fine with me. For EF, we can get Venus Optics Laowa 15mm f/4 Macro. @Nemorino has posted some wonderful shots with one int the mushroom gallery. Please take a look!
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/mushrooms-and-fungi-of-any-kind.40761/page-23#post-976043

 

[RobbieHat]

If that 14 mm f 1.4 has good control in the corners I would be happy for Astro. I would then add the 15-35 to replace my 16-35 EF lens and add the 24-105 f2.8. Can wait to hear if the rumor is real and how the new lens performs.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Why would the number or amount of software corrections matter?

Because you're losing image quality when doing corrections, or reveal imperfections that were there already.

There's no perfect lens that doesn't have vignetting and distortions, but my whole point is that we expect the distortions to be minimised in a (potentially) expensive prime lens.

Why is there a concern about the prospective 14mm f1.4? - because of the RF 16mm f2.8 which requires extremely heavy corrections. But this one is rumoured to be an L lens so fingers crossed.

Correcting for something with the actual optics is never a freebie, and always impacts other things such as price, weight, size, sharpness, contrast, sharpness, bokeh, focus speed, IS, and irreparable aberrations, would you agree?

No, because you listed a mixture of unrelated problems. You mentioned sharpness twice, but it's one of the things you lose when doing distortion corrections.

Price - yes, good lenses cost more - but personally, when I buy a lens, I buy optics, not software for corrections.

Software mainly corrects distortion and vignetting. Now, I've been shown a couple astro images on this group (single shots, not using stacks or any other modern ways to reduce noise), that were exposed for the CENTER, where the corners seemed to show more noise.

That was me who showed those images to you.

I don't know why you can't use such modern tools, or simply expose more for the corners, but fair enough, such a case definitely exists.

In that old thread I already explained that you just can't "expose for the corners". I would be interested to see images where you used the "exposure for the corners" technique. How do you expose for the corners exactly? Have you even tried to expose for the corners when shooting night sky or even a daylight landscapes?

As to the 'modern tools' - see above, if it's an expensive lens, I expect to use software corrections less.

I've asked around many times and haven't seen the same for distortion, though. If you're talking about distortion can you spell out why this would be something to hope for?

Long story short, any geometric corrections, especially non-linear, mean the loss of resolution.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Agreed. 14/1.4 would be great for a quick milky way pano but also useful for foreground shots during blue hour

Blue hour means enough light for a 30-60 sec exposure and a much narrower aperture.
f1.4 seems to be too shallow DoF for close foreground shots, but if the foreground isn't too close, f1.4 may also provide for foreground at night.

 

[Loswr]

Long story short, any geometric corrections, especially non-linear, mean the loss of resolution.

True. But that also applies to geometric corrections accomplished optically, with lens elements. That’s why the center is sharper than the corners.

I’d argue —and I’ve shown the images to back it up— that algorithmic correction of geometric distortion can be as effective as optical correction. Thus, the RF 14-35/4 at 14mm after the lens profile is applied is just as sharp in the corners as the optically-corrected EF 11-24/4 at 14mm.

 

[scyrene]

True, but then even less for (ultra) wides
BTW, how can IS be "coordinated" for the 50 / 85 1.2? those lenses do not have ILIS

Fwiw I feel like there was a suggestion some lenses have a gyroscope to measure movement and report back to the IBIS unit even if they lack ILIS, but I have no links to back that up.