RF ultrawide primes (reasonable fantasy list)

mangobutter

EOS 80D
Dec 11, 2014
102
17
www.e46mango.com
I'd love to see (reasonably speaking to keep the price down) an ultra wide to wide prime line. With the RF flange distance and Canon's quest to make new, exciting, and interesting glass, I think the following isn't all that far fetched. Yes faster would be nicer but that would drive the cost and size up considerably. So this is a fantasy lineup which I think is quite possible. We know Canon's done a 20 in EF mount. a 24. and a 28. The latter two with IS. So this seems doable with the new mount with reduced flange distance.

Imagine:

RF 18mm F2.4 IS USM
RF 24mm 2.4 IS USM
RF 28mm 2.4 IS USM

Lets see in the future how well my prediction/fantasy holds out? Out of the above I'd be most interested in the 18.
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
545
193
I don't think IS is necessary with most primes, when we already know that sensor-based IS going to be in the upcoming RF-mount cameras, there is obviously the 35/1.8 that already has it and a 50/1.8 will have it, too (good for cheaper cameras that might not come with sensor-based IS any time soon).
But by the time they will finish with the plethora of zoom lenses that they are coming out with and focus more on primes again, they will probably have a body with IS in body.

I believe that the shortest prime with image stabilization in Sony's mirrorless world is the 85mm Zeiss Batis lens (and there are two later 85mm variants, neither with IS), and neither Nikon or Panasonic seem to care with stabilised prime lenses with their new systems.

From what we've seen so far, the majority of the lenses will have a red ring with a fast aperture and a high pricetag (just like what the competition does)
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,056
297
I'd love to see (reasonably speaking to keep the price down) an ultra wide to wide prime line. With the RF flange distance and Canon's quest to make new, exciting, and interesting glass, I think the following isn't all that far fetched. Yes faster would be nicer but that would drive the cost and size up considerably. So this is a fantasy lineup which I think is quite possible. We know Canon's done a 20 in EF mount. a 24. and a 28. The latter two with IS. So this seems doable with the new mount with reduced flange distance.

Imagine:

RF 18mm F2.4 IS USM
RF 24mm 2.4 IS USM
RF 28mm 2.4 IS USM

Lets see in the future how well my prediction/fantasy holds out? Out of the above I'd be most interested in the 18.
The EF 24f2.8IS and 28f2.8IS haven't exactly sold like hot cakes, especially since the 16-35f4IS came out. And I haven't used my 28mmf2.8IS much at all since I got the 16-35f4 when it came out.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,592
295
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
I don't think IS is necessary with most primes, when we already know that sensor-based IS going to be in the upcoming RF-mount cameras, there is obviously the 35/1.8 that already has it and a 50/1.8 will have it, too (good for cheaper cameras that might not come with sensor-based IS any time soon).
But by the time they will finish with the plethora of zoom lenses that they are coming out with and focus more on primes again, they will probably have a body with IS in body.

I believe that the shortest prime with image stabilization in Sony's mirrorless world is the 85mm Zeiss Batis lens (and there are two later 85mm variants, neither with IS), and neither Nikon or Panasonic seem to care with stabilised prime lenses with their new systems.

From what we've seen so far, the majority of the lenses will have a red ring with a fast aperture and a high pricetag (just like what the competition does)
Yes I agree, using the focal length = shutter speed rule, a 14mm can be handheld down to 1/15th second, which is huge difference in EV range compared to say an 85mm which would need 1/80th sec shutter speed. it's obvious that the tele would benefit from an IS unit, however it's unlikely that the ultra wide would need the same 4 stop reduction in shutter speed. I also read somewhere that IS systems become less effective as the shutter speed gets closer the the single digits....ie 1 sec.
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
545
193
Yes I agree, using the focal length = shutter speed rule, a 14mm can be handheld down to 1/15th second, which is huge difference in EV range compared to say an 85mm which would need 1/80th sec shutter speed. it's obvious that the tele would benefit from an IS unit, however it's unlikely that the ultra wide would need the same 4 stop reduction in shutter speed. I also read somewhere that IS systems become less effective as the shutter speed gets closer the the single digits....ie 1 sec.
It depends on many factors, I've used the 11-24mm adapted on an A7II and it gave about two to three stops of extra stabilization, but not consistently (I could probably do a bit better now, but keeping it leveled on all axis is really not easy, even on a more basic tripod).
But I guess the newer systems are (or in Canon's case, will be) even more effective than this.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,592
295
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
It depends on many factors, I've used the 11-24mm adapted on an A7II and it gave about two to three stops of extra stabilization, but not consistently (I could probably do a bit better now, but keeping it leveled on all axis is really not easy, even on a more basic tripod).
But I guess the newer systems are (or in Canon's case, will be) even more effective than this.
My point with ultra wide lenses and Image stabilisers...is that when the shutter speed gets to lower than 1/5th second....a sturdy tripod is a far better option and opens the door to far longer shutter speeds.
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
545
193
My point with ultra wide lenses and Image stabilisers...is that when the shutter speed gets to lower than 1/5th second....a sturdy tripod is a far better option and opens the door to far longer shutter speeds.
Of course, but if you are in a place, where a tripod is not welcomed, it is very useful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GMCPhotographics

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
545
193
That doesn't happen much in my genres (portrait, events, weddings, wildlife) but hey...your needs might well be different to mine.
Well, for me, the problem with tripods (especially the ones that are not enormous, so they can actually be carried) is that it is actually a big restriction in terms of where the camera can be placed, for me, besides the stability it should offer more range of camera placement, and not less.

The 11-24mm is so extreme, that it can't really be pre-visualised, so when I roughly set it up handheld, I might just try and take a shot instead of faffing around with a tripod(which I can't raise high enough above my head anyway or place it very close to certain things), for me it is a much bigger inconvenience, than bearing the weight of a big camera and lens like these(which is still way lighter and more compact than adding in a tripod). So while I can totally see why sensor stabilisation is not included at this stage for Canon (to raise the price for the ones that come with it), I do think that it will be a big convenience booster.
Of course, for a Tilt-Shift lens, or to remove moving objects from the frame, etc., it is an absolute must, I just think it needs more innovation to be more versatile and less of a hassle to carry (but maybe it is impossible, that's why there are only tiny improvements)

I saw a promotion video of an architectural photographer using this 11-24mm, he raised it high enough so that he could take quite interesting shots of buildings facing dead-on, but that tripod that he used was absolutely massive.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,592
295
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
Well, for me, the problem with tripods (especially the ones that are not enormous, so they can actually be carried) is that it is actually a big restriction in terms of where the camera can be placed, for me, besides the stability it should offer more range of camera placement, and not less.

The 11-24mm is so extreme, that it can't really be pre-visualised, so when I roughly set it up handheld, I might just try and take a shot instead of faffing around with a tripod(which I can't raise high enough above my head anyway or place it very close to certain things), for me it is a much bigger inconvenience, than bearing the weight of a big camera and lens like these(which is still way lighter and more compact than adding in a tripod). So while I can totally see why sensor stabilisation is not included at this stage for Canon (to raise the price for the ones that come with it), I do think that it will be a big convenience booster.
Of course, for a Tilt-Shift lens, or to remove moving objects from the frame, etc., it is an absolute must, I just think it needs more innovation to be more versatile and less of a hassle to carry (but maybe it is impossible, that's why there are only tiny improvements)

I saw a promotion video of an architectural photographer using this 11-24mm, he raised it high enough so that he could take quite interesting shots of buildings facing dead-on, but that tripod that he used was absolutely massive.
I hear you, for me a tripod slows me down and helps me find an accurate and precise composition. I can't imagine not using a tripod for landscapes. I use a large Satchler Flowtech 75...it's large and extends very high....but it's super easy to operate and very stable. All of the leg adjustments are made at the top of the legs. One click per leg and the whole thing can be placed and locked.
I find that my TS-e 17 really needs the stability to operate fully. But it's easy to get the legs of the tripod in a shot with the shift function (wider than the 11-24L). With my fish eye lens, the 8-15L there is very little point in using a tripod...it's SO wide and it's hard to keep the legs out of the shot. But when using longer lenses for landscapes, a tripod is essential in my opinon. Wildlife...again for me a tripod is essential...hand holding a 400mm f2.8 LIS is not a viable option. It's a lens where tripod craft is as important as the lens craft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: padam

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,379
1,726
But it's easy to get the legs of the tripod in a shot with the shift function (wider than the 11-24L). With my fish eye lens, the 8-15L there is very little point in using a tripod...it's SO wide and it's hard to keep the legs out of the shot.
Minor point, but at max shift the TS-E 17 gives a FoV that is pretty much identical to 11mm. Still, with either you definitely need to pay attention to your tripod legs and sometimes even your own feet!