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

[Aaron Lozano]

ok, so...

R5 Body at some 4K
Canon RF 15-35MM F2.8L IS USM or Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM
Canon RF 28-70mm F2L USM or Canon RF 24-70MM F2.8L IS USM
Canon RF 70-135mm f/2L USM + 1.4 extender or Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM

2020 and 2021 are going to be expensive

 

[Proscribo]

2020 and 2021 are going to be expensive

Thank god so expensive that I cannot afford it and won't have to buy a thing.

 

[Ozarker]

What percentage of the time is a 70-200mm f/2.8 too dark? 1%? Maybe 3% on a really bad shoot?

For your uses, maybe. Don't forget that others have their own uses.

f/2 vs f/2.8:
In the same light it means twice the shutter speed. Example: 1/100 sec vs 1/50 sec
In the same light it means half the ISO. Example: ISO 600 vs ISO 1200

For people who shoot in low light venues without flash, this is all a big deal. I used to run the f/2.8 zooms (EF 24-70 f/2.8L II, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II) and there were many times I could have really used the extra stop to get better quality. If you are happy with f/2.8 then I am happy for you. I'll take f/2 over that any day of the week, especially in a zoom... not to mention smoother bokeh. I shoot fashion shows for a charity. The lighting is usually not very good. I'll take all the light gathering ability I can get for faster shutter speeds and lower ISO.

 

[mclaren777]

70-135mm f/2 would be great, but I also want a 14-28mm f/2 to go with it.

 

[BillB]

I know that the R5 is hot stuff right now, but where's the dirt-cheap lens collection for the RP? It would make masses finally move to full frame mirrorless. And yes, I speak about RF lenses, not EF + adapter.

The RF 24-105 f4-f7.1 seems likely to be one of the least expensive RF lenses that Canon puts out. Maybe there will be an RF pancake along the lines of the EF40. There might be an inexpensive RF telezoom, and possibly an inexpensive wide angle zoom, but I doubt there will be many other lenses that cost less than the $500 RF 35mm.

 

[slclick]

LOL, I hope you were joking when you wrote 17-55mm...

exactly...because he also wrote original (not to mention crop)

 

[Ozarker]

70-135mm f/2 would be great, but I also want a 14-28mm f/2 to go with it.

We might just get our wish.

 

[slclick]

I'm into the 10-24mm f/4 though. I love playing with wide angles.

I'm good at 14 to 16. Anything else wider is fun but just that. Playful.

 

[Bert63]

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

really strange setup!

No love for us... sniff...

 

[IcyBergs]

No pancake.

I know right....I was hoping to pour some syrup on a fresh flapjack this year

 

[Bert63]

Every single time I read the specs on the 100-500 I die a little inside.

It could have been amazing. Considering the 500mm F4 I want is $10K, I'd have paid a pretty penny for a nice 100-500.

This thing is a doorstop.

 

[Bert63]

I know right....I was hoping to pour some syrup on a fresh flapjack this year

LOL.

 

[Tom W]

Interesting - that 10-24 would appeal to me. Actually, the 70-135 would too, but I wouldn't be wanting to spend that kind of money on a lens that I probably would get very little use from.

As mentioned by someone else, no super telephotos seem to be on the list. Perhaps they'll be coming in 2021, though the teleconverter announcement suggests that something big and long is on its way.

Maybe I should rephrase that...

 

[joestopper]

What percentage of the time is a 70-200mm f/2.8 too dark? 1%? Maybe 3% on a really bad shoot?

In-door sports: Shutter at 1/320 or 1/500 at f/2.8: Where is your ISO?

 

[Kit.]

Literally 0 people on earth can even imagine what "19mm in bokeh ball sizes" even means. That's the most pixel peeping comment I've ever read on the internet.

If you don't understand what it means, you could have asked.

But anyway, why are you trying to compare portrait lenses if you don't understand what it means?

 

[AdmiralFwiffo]

As a terrible photographer, I demand more terrible lenses.

 

[rontele7]

Every single time I read the specs on the 100-500 I die a little inside.

It could have been amazing. Considering the 500mm F4 I want is $10K, I'd have paid a pretty penny for a nice 100-500.

This thing is a doorstop.

Yeah I'm with you there. But I also think that if this 100-500 is small and lightweight, it will be quite valuable. Not many folks want to hike with a 500mm f/4, so perhaps this is the compromise. The 100-400 also fits in there as a middle ground too.

That said, Sony's 200-600 f/6.3 is the only Sony lens I have ever drooled over!

 

[Bert63]

Yeah I'm with you there. But I also think that if this 100-500 is small and lightweight, it will be quite valuable. Not many folks want to hike with a 500mm f/4, so perhaps this is the compromise. The 100-400 also fits in there as a middle ground too.

That said, Sony's 200-600 f/6.3 is the only Sony lens I have ever drooled over!

I was hoping for something I could put a 1.4 on. Up here on Washington's coast shooting my 100-400 II + 1.4III at F8 is a challenge - and I'm always looking for more reach.

 

[EverydayPhotographer]

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?

It just fries my mind that we live in a world where f/2.0 zooms in a multitude of prospective sizes doesn't count as an example of new and inventive. What did you want? Sparklers shooting out of it? In all honesty, why does an array of f/2.0 zooms NOT count as new and inventive, but a copy of an already available (granted crop-sensor) lens DOES?

And to answer your question about the "junky" 24-105, yeah, we did need it. Because like it or not, consumer-level sales are going to drive the development of this product line, not the other way around. If this plus an entry-level body drives adoption of the R series into the mainstream, I'm all for it. I doubt I'll buy one, but I'm more than happy to let the sales of them pay for the engineering and development of products I likely will buy in the future.

 

[TMACIOSZEK]

Of all these, I'm most interested in the 85mm 1.8