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

[mppix]

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

Dark?
This would make an amazing portrait lens if the bokeh is good.
If it is as fast as some other RF lenses, this would also make an amazing lens for indoor sports, especially at a non-pro level in arenas with less-than-stellar lighting.

 

[Chaitanya]

50mm Macro is quite short also will it come with Internal focus?

 

[Ale_F]

Missing:
70-300 4-5.6 STM (not interesting for me)
17-35 4.5-5.6 STM or something similar

 

[AdmiralFwiffo]

50mm Macro is quite short also will it come with Internal focus?

Camera manufacturers will slap "macro" on anything these days. It's not going to be 1:1, and, as you point out, 50mm isn't useful for macro anyway. They should call it "close focus" or something. The fact that it is close-focus is a really useful feature, and I might get the lens. But not for macro.

 

[Ozarker]

Dark?
This would make an amazing portrait lens if the bokeh is good.
If it is as fast as some other RF lenses, this would also make an amazing lens for indoor sports, especially at a non-pro level in arenas with less-than-stellar lighting.

You are right! Awesome portrait lens. The EF 135mm f/2L was my favorite. f/2 in a zoom? Priceless to me. The bokeh difference between f/2 and f/2.8 is very noticeable even at 70mm. This will be a must have for me.

 

[sanj]

Canon is gradually making it difficult to justify DSLR. Ok, wait. Let me add "To me".
(Btw I just placed a pre-order for 1dx3 at B&H yesterday. )

 

[flip314]

Why? EF 24-105 with Speedbooster = 18-80 f/2.8 with IS. You're telling me Canon can't do a 17-55 because....?

17-55 2.8 is a crop sensor lens, speedboosters require crop sensor cameras because physics

If you're expecting 17-55 2.8 for full frame, that's a mile away from your examples.

 

[rontele7]

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.

Usability.

28-70mm is such a bizarre focal length. Are people really eager to shoot at 70mm f/2, enough to justify MASSIVE weight, cost and size penalties? For what? Sigma nailed it with an 18-35 and 50-100 f/1.8 lenses. Extremely useful focal lengths for a wide variety of applications.

The 17-55 f/2.8 is supremely useful in a massive range of situations. Same goes for an 18-80mm f/2.8. Those are show stopping focal lengths. Given the improvements in ISO, f/2 isn't really all that it used to be.

Given that the 18-80 f/2.8 already exists w/speed boosters, what's mind boggling is that Canon didn't just take that internally and produce a knockout lens.

Instead we are getting slow f/7.1 zooms and enormous expensive f/2's. Both have limited usability. That doesn't look like innovation to me.

 

[6degrees]

Canon RF 14-21mm f/1.4L USM

Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM

 

[FramerMCB]

Supposedly combining 5-stop IBIS and optical stabilization results in a wild 7 or 8 stops of stabilization. I'd think that on its own gives a pretty good incentive to add IS to lenses

Competing with the stabilization industry leader - Olympus... It's a WIN!

 

[Ozarker]

28-70mm is such a bizarre focal length. Are people really eager to shoot at 70mm f/2, enough to justify MASSIVE weight, cost and size penalties? For what?

Yes. For this. 70mm @f/2

 

[Rixy]

anxious for 35mm

 

[Dantana]

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.

Yeah, as fun as it might be to have a 10 once in a while, I have a feeling this is going to be pricey and larger than the f4 wide zoom I'd be looking for. I wouldn't use the widest end enough and it would be more than I'd want to spend (and probably bulbous). A very cool lens for some though and maybe something I'd rent for special use case.

I'd love a 15 or 16-35 or 40 at f4, but I can wait on it. My adapted lenses work just fine for now.

 

[Chaitanya]

Camera manufacturers will slap "macro" on anything these days. It's not going to be 1:1, and, as you point out, 50mm isn't useful for macro anyway. They should call it "close focus" or something. The fact that it is close-focus is a really useful feature, and I might get the lens. But not for macro.

Its possible this is similar to current RF 35mm f1.8 Macro. 50mm macro is useful for quite few scenarios(product and flowers photography) while its not that useful for insects, butterflies and snakes or for things where even 100mm Macro is too short. I am just curious if it is indeed a 1:1 macro with IF which I might be useful for anything other than closeups of snakes and lizards.

 

[reef58]

Usability.

28-70mm is such a bizarre focal length. Are people really eager to shoot at 70mm f/2, enough to justify MASSIVE weight, cost and size penalties? For what? Sigma nailed it with an 18-35 and 50-100 f/1.8 lenses. Extremely useful focal lengths for a wide variety of applications.

The 17-55 f/2.8 is supremely useful in a massive range of situations. Same goes for an 18-80mm f/2.8. Those are show stopping focal lengths. Given the improvements in ISO, f/2 isn't really all that it used to be.

Given that the 18-80 f/2.8 already exists w/speed boosters, what's mind boggling is that Canon didn't just take that internally and produce a knockout lens.

Instead we are getting slow f/7.1 zooms and enormous expensive f/2's. Both have limited usability. That doesn't look like innovation to me.

I am sure Canon knows nothing about which lenses are useful, popular and good sellers.

 

[Richard CR]

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?

35mm 1.2
70-135mm F2.0
10-24mm F4.0

are boring to you?

were you waiting for the 10-1000 F1.0 lens by any chance?

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Competing with the stabilization industry leader - Olympus... It's a WIN!

I highly doubt Canon competes with Olympus. They're in different leagues. The latter doesn't even have a full frame camera so it can't be a leader in the FF stabilisation.

Nikon and Sony are the Canon's competitors.

 

[Richard CR]

28-70mm is such a bizarre focal length.

it is? that was the standard F2.8 lens zoom focal for nikon and canon for a few decades

 

[Bangrossi]

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

After having EF 200mm f2 in my arsenal, I rarely using my 70-200mm and finally decided to sell it. Going from f2.8 to f/2 doesn't sound a lot, but it let me shoot at ISO1600 rather ISO3200 inside the church. The image quality and rendering also improved. Geting extra 1 stop is like upgrading from aps-c to FF.

But everyone have diffrent need, maybe 1 stop does't matter to you, but for other people 1 extra stop is huge. Other might prefer 70-200 f4 for it's size and don't care losing extra 1 stop from f2.8 zoom.

Luckyly, canon provide many possible lens option for us to choose based on our case scnario.

 

[BadHorse]

I'm curious why the 50 would be labelled macro. Does perhaps the shorter flange distance in the RF mount allow shorter MFD so it's easier to give RF lenses that label?