Are these the 7 RF lenses Canon will be announcing in 2020? [CR1]

[Kit.]

Personally I won't be interested in the 10-24 with my 16-35. Not doubling up.

Personally, I'm not interested in a "wide-angle" lens longer than 24 mm. 10-14, on the other hand, would be a nice addition to TS-E 17.

 

[slclick]

Seems a little boring, given that Canon promised new and inventive lenses along with the R system.

The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.

Why no 17-55mm f/2.8? Why no telephoto lenses faster than f/7.1? Why no L primes smaller than their EF counterparts?

Did we really need a junky 24-105?

Your 'We' and Canon's 'We' are two very different things.

ONCE AGAIN,
there are a few more of us out there than those who frequent the forum and spent thousands on gear. (pssst, it's called the majority)

 

[Fran Decatta]

That 50 and 85 1.8 looks good! but the 70-135... this will be a huge (and desirable) chunk of glass.

Also... I wonder the angle of view of that 10mm, I dont need it, but love to see Canon making unique lenses. Those one are jewels.

 

[PureClassA]

Along with the f/1.2L primes.

I'm gonna have some seriously difficult buying choices in the next year... I'm trying to hold out to see if/what we get from Canon as a true video centric RF body, but as it stands now, the R6 ain't lookin too shabby depending on how the final specs pan out.

 

[PureClassA]

That 50 and 85 1.8 looks good! but the 70-135... this will be a huge (and desirable) chunk of glass.

Also... I wonder the angle of view of that 10mm, I dont need it, but love to see Canon making unique lenses. Those one are jewels.

That will be another $3000 machine or more like the 28-70 f2. If you can swing it though, it would be worth every penny

 

[wockawocka]

Those STM lenses can f**k right off

 

[MadScotsman]

Missing:
- 24 f/1.2
- 14-28 f/2

I dunno.

I read “ultra-wide prime L” and got rather happy about it.

But, none of these seem to be an ultra-wide prime by my reconning.

Guess some will make the case for the 35, but to me it would be a 24 or less, preferably.

I was thinking that an ultra-wide prime might drive the sale of a few Ra’s.

And all that.

 

[mppix]

Well, I do not want a 7.1 pancake but I'll take a 28mm 2.something.Personally I won't be interested in the 10-24 with my 16-35. Not doubling up.

You are kidding right?
Difference of 10mm vs 16mm is massive. Clearly, 10 is a rather specialized focal length.

 

[martin_p_a]

I’d be interested in the 10-24 f/4L for landscapes. Right now the only RF lens i have is the 24-105 f/4L. I’d also like to see an ultra-wide and fast prime to try my hand at astrophotography (not deep-space obviously).

And then the 85 and 50 would be interesting too if the IQ is there to cover some more situations.

currently have the RP, but the R5 is so tempting, I might sell a few non-vital organs this year...

 

[Ozarker]

The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.

The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 is a whole stop. That's great. It might be fringe, but I want one. RF 28-70mm f/2L, RF 70-135mm f/2L, RF 85mm f/1.2L and I will be a very happy guy for a very long time.

 

[mppix]

R5 and now this. I can see a lot of the 5D crowd getting interested in RF... at least the ones i know

 

[per.farny]

No word on the previously rumored 70-400L? :/

 

[dwarven]

That 70-135 sounds tasty.

 

[tron]

Come on Canon give me a big small DO

Big in mm
Small in size weight and money!

Ok OK I will wake up!

 

[StoicalEtcher]

That 70-135 sounds tasty.

Agreed !!
CRAIG - please chase down this particular lens rumour until you get confirmation. Do not rest until then!
Cheers
Stoical

 

[fox40phil]

To sad no real birder lens.... like a 200-500 5.f or 600 6.3f or also 5.6f <3....

really strange setup!

 

[AdmiralFwiffo]

This hits a chunk of of my wish-list; the 10-24 f/4, and f/1.8 primes are something I'm looking for. I hope the 50 1.8 takes more after the EF 1.4 than it does the plastic fantastic. Mid-range, moderate weight primes are what I'd like to see. But missing a real macro lens still . I guess I'll just continue to fantasize about a 180mm RF macro (but even my fantasies can't summon an RF MPE-65).

(I actually like the EF 50 f/1.8; it's really cool that a fairly fast prime is so light and so cheap, even if the IQ is fairly bad. But I'd like to upgrade. But I also understand that Canon might not want three different primes at the same length right off the bat.)

 

[Del Paso]

“Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 MACRO IS STM”

This NEEDS to happen! Especially if it is equivalent or better optically than the already good 35mm version.

An 85mm version may potentially be of interest to me as well.

“ Canon RF 70-135mm f/2L USM ”

I wonder how large this would be if it were to materialize. Still, it would be nice to see Canon continue to offer ultra fast lens options in addition to the f7.1s popping up as of late.

I've been waiting so long for a Canon 50-60 macro...that, in despair, I bought the Zeiss (very very good), and the EOS R in order to use my 60 and 100 Leica R macros (absolutely superb) .
But if Canon brings the 50 macro, I'm gonna buy it for its AF, and as a standard lens.
Hope it's gonna get true!

 

[Skux]

Finally some f1.8 glass. I hope it's at the same quality and price level of the RF 35.

 

[Kit.]

The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 at 135mm isn't massive, and so that lens seems a little fringe.

19 mm difference in bokeh ball sizes is quite massive, I'd say.