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

derpderp

Pixel Peeper
Jan 31, 2020
33
15
Canon is the only remaining mainstream lens manufacturer without a reasonable 50mm lens that belongs to the 21st century, which is quite astonishingly ridiculous when you think about it (even Pentax has got one). All of their 50s bar the €2300 RF 1.2 are either yet another version of the decades old double gauss or barely evolved from it, with all that entails in regards to IQ (ie they're terrible by 2020 standards), and all of them with appalling AF.
Personally I'd like Canon to chase a level of ambition as high as Nikon tried (and not fully successfully so) to reach with the 50mm 1.8 Z, without IS (as IBIS is coming and I'd rather have Canon put it all in IQ), and without the Nikon's issues with onion rings / manufacturing problems, and I'd happily pay between €450 and €700 for it, but I'm rather expecting Canon to target a lower level of ambition with such specs unfortunately.
I would have thought such a reasonable, practical lens likely to end up in lots of hands and as a result quite a bit more likely to produce interesting pictures, a priority, at least more so than lenses designed to enable Canon's marketing department to trumpet the size of Canon's engineering appendage, but what do I know ?
Just buy the RF 50mm F1.2. Stop complaining about the price, its cheap enough.
 

derpderp

Pixel Peeper
Jan 31, 2020
33
15
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.
lol sooner or later those cameras will transition to RF mount, so there's really no point developing lenses for the EF mount any longer.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,752
678
lol sooner or later those cameras will transition to RF mount, so there's really no point developing lenses for the EF mount any longer.
it is rather later than sooner at this stage, as photographers world wide are likely going to be cash strapped for quite sometime... its going to be : get the job done with what is available. with tourism, aviation in doll drums, people loosing jobs - the demand curve is going to nose dive even further... even well earning professionals are being extra careful now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: derpderp

Ph0t0

EOS M50
Mar 27, 2015
33
13
I own the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 for astro. It's great! but it's a DSLR lens, and Sigma makes it for the Nikon F mount, which means they had to design their optics around a very small opening with a big flange distance. That's a big deal for fast, super-wide lenses, which benefit the most from the wide openings and short flange distances of modern mirrorless mounts. Canon could certainly make a 14mm lens one stop faster for their R mount. No doubt it would be huge, but so is the Sigma, and it's always on a tripod, anyway. BTW, the vignetting isn't ever a real-world problem for me... We've been testing the Canon 24-240 RF which has serious vignetting and distortion at 24mm, but the camera and Lightroom both automatically correct for it in post, which means you never see any problem with your images. I am fine with that.
Sorry but I don't really follow the logic here.
You want a really bright 14mm lens for astro, but don't care about vignetting? So one one hand you wan't a f1,2 lens in order to have a bit less noise in the center, on the other hand you don't mind more noise in the periphery because of vignetting correction?
If you look at some of the new wide lenses from Canon you can see that they have really strong vignetting, and maybe this isn't an issue when shooting in good lighting conditions with a optimum aperture, but it sure takes a toll when you are shooting astro and already pushing the sensor to its limits.
 

CDR

Feb 6, 2019
7
13
Honestly - all I would want is a 200-600 F5.6 to 6.3 IS with weather sealing and internal zoom at a price point to compete with Sony - after all, this matched with a R5 will give me pretty much all I need for wildlife shooting in daylight hours
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

HarryFilm

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 6, 2016
540
77
14mm 1.4L for astro because the 1.2L mentioned does not seem so realistic to me.
Sigma 14mm 1.8 - a very good lens - is already huge.

They CAN make a 12 mm f/1.2 and a 65mm f/1.2 with ALL-QUARTZ elements on the RF mount because the flange distance is so short which allows me to both super-wide and more narrow astro-searches. 55 and 60 mm is too short while 70 to 85mm is too long for my astro needs! 65mm with all-quartz elements is PERFECT for the super-astro photographer enthusiast!

if they make ALL the lens elements out of the purest of lab-grown quartzes , we could get the FULL infrared to UV wavelengths for long-exposure astrophotography. With quartz lens elements, we could use actual screw-on front-of-lens filters to create analogue notch-filters so I can get SPECIFIC BANDS of IR, UV or Optical wavelengths to find Hydrogen clouds specifically, or other highly-specific EM-band astronomical events and objects.

THAT would be cool for me!

I asked the parent company's in-house lenscrafters for such lenses and they rebuked my request, so CANON has to do it for RF mount!

..
 

RobbieHat

EOS T7i
Feb 4, 2015
60
45
54
Rocklin, CA/The Sea Ranch, CA
Has anybody made a full frame 14mm that is filterable?
My 11-24 is filterable with a kit. Just not screw on filters. As for 14 mm again there are kits that can filter and they are way smaller than the ones for the 11mm lens. My friend shoots Nikon and has the 11-35 mm Z mount native lens and the filter kit is a compact set versus the huge set I have to lug around for the EF 11-24.
 

mangobutter

EOS 80D
Dec 11, 2014
128
33
www.e46mango.com
I'd love to see the lightest smallest pancake possible between the 28 and 50mm range. Priority should be given to compactness vs. speed, but no slower than 2.8.

On Full Frame, the sweet spot seems to be the 40 2.8 but I think for the mirrorless flange distance, it's either a bit wider or longer.

a 35 2.8 pancake would be pretty fun to compliment the EOS RP's compactness. IS not needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidespinosa

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,250
1,601
120
Canon is the only remaining mainstream lens manufacturer without a reasonable 50mm lens that belongs to the 21st century, which is quite astonishingly ridiculous when you think about it (even Pentax has got one). All of their 50s bar the €2300 RF 1.2 are either yet another version of the decades old double gauss or barely evolved from it, with all that entails in regards to IQ (ie they're terrible by 2020 standards), and all of them with appalling AF.
Personally I'd like Canon to chase a level of ambition as high as Nikon tried (and not fully successfully so) to reach with the 50mm 1.8 Z, without IS (as IBIS is coming and I'd rather have Canon put it all in IQ), and without the Nikon's issues with onion rings / manufacturing problems, and I'd happily pay between €450 and €700 for it, but I'm rather expecting Canon to target a lower level of ambition with such specs unfortunately.
I would have thought such a reasonable, practical lens likely to end up in lots of hands and as a result quite a bit more likely to produce interesting pictures, a priority, at least more so than lenses designed to enable Canon's marketing department to trumpet the size of Canon's engineering appendage, but what do I know ?
Show me a single image shot with a double gauss design with compelling content that is outclassed by one of the new exotic lens recipes without compelling content.

I don't know about you guys but I'm spending more and more of my time being inspired by creators rather than complainers. Everybody and their cousin can shoot at f1.2 and most people don't know the differences in images shot with an R with an RF 50 f1.2 and an iPhone in faked 'portrait' mode. More than ever content is king and lighting has everybit as much impact on the image as the lens.
 

ColinJR

EOS-R
Nov 27, 2018
59
53
robertsonrep.com
OK, I'll take one each of these:

14 mm f/2.8 w/ filter front
17 mm TS really sharp and w/ filter front. And 17 is plenty wide!
24-50 mm TS Zoom f/ whatever
28 mm f/1.4 L Doesn't need to be 1.2! I could never afford it....
50 mm 1.4 L Compact, small and affordable.
It would be so freaking awesome if they announced a zooming tilt-shift along with a high-res RF camera...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aaron D