What’s a “realistic” lens that you’d like to see Canon make?

[navastronia]

RF 18-85 f 2.2L / IS (for documentary)

I would pay handsomely for an RF 18-85/2.8 L IS!

 

[Aussie shooter]

Just an absolute kick ass astro lens. 14 or 16mm. F1.2 or 1.4. Insane optical quality. I have no doubt they can(and will) do it.

 

[motofotog]

Wishing for RF 1000mm f7.1 DO?

 

[dslrdummy]

There are Fuji patents pending for a 300 f4 and 500 f5.6. A 500 f5.6L IS on the EOS R5 would be very compelling.

 

[davidespinosa]

To the people asking for an RF 50mm f/1.4:

It's 50mm f/1.2 or 50mm f/1.8.
Take your pick.

 

[Del Paso]

My very last suggestion (I promise !): what about an RF 70-135 f2 macro 1/1 zoom?
If I'm not mistaken, there was once a rumor about a "surprising" macro lens.

 

[barton springs]

120-300 2.8L IS with the same AF performance as the 300 2.8L IS
for both EF & RF

 

[SecureGSM]

120-300 2.8L IS with the same AF performance as the 300 2.8L IS
for both EF & RF

This and under $5000 please

 

[Shellbo6901]

35-135, with it being f3.5 at the 135, but hopefully starting at under f2.0 at least. macro would be nice

 

[joestopper]

There are Fuji patents pending for a 300 f4 and 500 f5.6. A 500 f5.6L IS on the EOS R5 would be very compelling.

An RF 500 f5.6L would be fantastic for R users. But from Canon's point of view this is no good lens: a) It cannibalises sales of 500 f/4 and b) they cannot demand 10 grand for an f/5.6 of this focal length.

 

[joestopper]

Continue reading...

From all these replies I like this most: 14mm f/1.2
Unfortunately there was never a patent or a rumour of such a lens ...

 

[Soren Hakanlind]

I´ve had had about 20-25 different Canon camera bodies and about 50-70 Canon lenses during my long professional career. Started back in the late seventies. I still remember the Canon FD 24/2,0! Small, lightweighted and sharp as hell! A wonderful lens!

I´m longing for new lightweight, quality build lenses. Such as:
24mm/2,0 (I don't need the 1,4, it´s too big and heavy)
50mm/1,4 (I don't need the 1,2, it´s too big and heavy)

But I'm still in love with one of my "new" lenses. It's the fantastic 70-200mm/2,8L IS II USM! I think I've never going to sell it!

 

[Soren Hakanlind]

To the people asking for an RF 50mm f/1.4:

It's 50mm f/1.2 or 50mm f/1.8.
Take your pick.

The 50mm/1,2 is too heavy and expensive and the 50mm/1,8 is too poor. 50mm/1,4 is the perfect solution!

 

[Deleted member 381342]

The 50mm/1,2 is too heavy and expensive and the 50mm/1,8 is too poor. 50mm/1,4 is the perfect solution!

A 50mm 1.8 does not need to be a nifty fifthty. I have the 50mm 1.8 s on Nikon and it is one of the best lenses I have used. Really solid IQ. Personally I think the 1.4s will come in when the line up is well filled out.

 

[Wobbler]

Canon needs a "great" 50mm 1.2L lens for the the EF mount. A companion to the 35mm 1.4L II, and a competitor to the Otus and sigma lenses of that approximate length and girth. The RF version I'm sure is fantastic, but it won't work on canon's cinema line, or any of it's professional cameras. The current EF 50 1.2 is fine for internet bokeh queens, but we need something with less field curvature, less longitudinal CA, and better detail wide open.

I've only been in this hobby for eight years, and the thing I have been waiting for that whole time is the elusive EF 50mm 1.2L that actually focuses and doesn''t have so many secondary problems. Given the clamor over those years for that lens I'm surprised that every second response here doesn't mention it. Maybe everyone lost hope so long ago that they no longer regard it as "possible."

 

[bestpractices222]

Nor sure if anyone mentioned this, but my first choice would be a EF 50-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM. This would be my new goto lens. I expect there would be some barrel and pincushion distortion with it, but Canon DPP 4 could take care of that issue.

 

[joestopper]

Nor sure if anyone mentioned this, but my first choice would be a EF 50-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM. This would be my new goto lens. I expect there would be some barrel and pincushion distortion with it, but Canon DPP 4 could take care of that issue.

This is far too close to 70-200 f/2.8.
And, BTW, Canon is not making new EF designs any more.

 

[SecureGSM]

An RF 500 f5.6L would be fantastic for R users. But from Canon's point of view this is no good lens: a) It cannibalises sales of 500 f/4 and b) they cannot demand 10 grand for an f/5.6 of this focal length.

At this stage there are none 500/4 native RF mount lenses available so there is nothing to cannibalise yet with new market realities at full force, 500/5.6 may be a better placed lens. Yes it is a full stop slower glass. However with a host of Canon RF F7.1 zooms in the making, 500/5.6 - in my view - would be just fine

 

[Dragon]

Why should it be realistic? Nothing beautiful has ever been created without having been dreamed of in the first place... unrealistically(!)

200mm f/1.8

Not unrealistic. There already was one of those in EF mount released in 1988.

 

[davidespinosa]

The 50mm/1,2 is too heavy and expensive and the 50mm/1,8 is too poor. 50mm/1,4 is the perfect solution!

I doubt Canon agrees that the 50mm f/1.8 is too poor.
It's only 2/3 stop slower than f/1.4, and it has IS.

I don't think so. There's totally room for a 50 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 in the lineup.

In fact the 1.4 could go one of two ways: compact double-gauss design with pedestrian image quality, or a new-style computer-designed formula like the Otus, RF50/1.2, etc. In fact if they made both types I could picture getting both: the sharp version for specific products or the compact one for daily grab shooting, holidays etc.

One of my old Leica buddies had a gag that he had finally settled on the ideal M outfit: 50/1.0, 1.4, 2.0, and 2.8. And he was only half-kidding.

I think your Leica buddy was serious -- but that's a full-stop series.
And there is exactly one full stop between f/1.2 and f/1.8.
So IMO there's no room for another lens.
But you can certainly get both -- the f/1.2 is the high-IQ lens, and the f/1.8 is the compact lens.