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

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,360
1,231
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 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.
When looking at a $3000 f1.2 lens and then at a $400 F1.8, one can easily see how a mid range F1.4 option priced at around $1600-1800 fits in between. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

davidespinosa

Newbie
CR Pro
Feb 12, 2020
187
137
When looking at a $3000 f1.2 lens and then at a $400 F1.8, one can easily see how a mid range F1.4 option priced at around $1600-1800 fits in between. :)

The RF 50mm f/1.2 is $2300, and the RF 35mm f/1.8 is $500.
But you're right -- there's room between those two prices.

Since the RF series seems to emphasize image quality,
I think the RF 50mm f/1.8 will be more like the EF f/1.4 ($350) than the EF f/1.8 ($125).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Mar 26, 2014
1,443
536
A range of prime lenses for the R with prices under $500 so us "normal people" - enthusiasts, not professionals. No need for exotics, just available lens comparable to the existing EF lenses.

My impression, between fast high-IQ zooms taking sales from above, and smartphones takings sales from below, there aren't enough "normal people" to justify those lenses.
 
Upvote 0
As Tony suggests, a RF 14mm f1.2L would be wonderful for astrophotography, although I fear the cost. To keep it within the "possibly affordable" range, I'd settle for a f1.4L. I might even relent and accept a f2L, but since I already own the RF 15-35 f2.8L, I'm not sure the f2 would be wide enough to make me buy it. An f1.4 would, provided it could be done for around $US 3,000.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,574
4,109
The Netherlands
RF 50 f2 macro for nature and landscape. I don’t have a mirrorless body, but ifI did this would be what I would want. Time to retire the 50 compact macro from my lens arsenal. know this will never happen.

The rumoured RF 50 f/1.8 is supposed to be 1:2 macro, just like the tube full of angry hornets masquerading as lens called 'compact macro'.
 
Upvote 0

TwinExotica

Eos 6D and hopefully R5 Soon!
Mar 31, 2020
5
0
Sweden
A set of well-constructed, weather-proof, affordable, light weight FF RF mount primes with IS from 24mm to 200mm. F stops as follows:

18 mm f/2.8
24 mm f/2
35mm f/1.8 (already available, sort of)
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8
135mm f/2
200mm f/2.8

None of these would be exotic headline grabbing lenses, but with the new RF mount they could provide high IQ at a small size and weight.

Why would they make s 200 mm f/2.8 and the 135 mm when there is the 70-200 rf?
 
Upvote 0
But the 70-200 is already light, at 1070 g. For exampel the 85 mm f/1.2 weights 1195 g, so...
I didn't suggest the 85 f/1.2, but a 85 f/1.8 ... which would likely be around 300g and barely over 2" long ... that IS a big difference, both in aperture and in size over the 70-200. Those are the reasons some of us still prefer primes
 
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 381342

Guest
I didn't suggest the 85 f/1.2, but a 85 f/1.8 ... which would likely be around 300g and barely over 2" long ... that IS a big difference, both in aperture and in size over the 70-200. Those are the reasons some of us still prefer primes

The latest 85mm 1.8 I know of is 466g, still a far cry from 1000g and lets in twice the light. Perfect little things to shove on these mirrorless cameras for sure. A 200mm 2.8 would be fantastic, I rarely use my 70-200 on anything but 200.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I am very attracted by the 70-135L f:2 that is already announced, but the price and weight are going to be punishing. How about a 70-135 f:2.5 or 2.8 IS that one can hand-carry for more than 5 minutes, that is of a more mangeable form factor and that does not require one to mortgage the house to purchase it? I see gaps in the RF offering where we are seeing either good, reasonably-priced and quite OK lenses (35mm 1.8, etc..) or $2,500+ super-extraordinary L glass. The EF range has a number of very interesting L lenses in the $800-$1600 price range that appeal to non-professional photographers, will they ever be catered for (the 24-105L was a good start but I see no follow-up)?

How about "no"? 70-135 f/2 is part of the f/2 trinity. Why would you want a 70-135 f/2.8 when the compact/light RF 70-200 f/2.8 already exists? Have you ever used it? The size/weight is perfect. If you like the idea of range-limited zooms with small maximum apertures, buy a GFX.
 
Upvote 0

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,360
1,231
How about "no"? 70-135 f/2 is part of the f/2 trinity. Why would you want a 70-135 f/2.8 when the compact/light RF 70-200 f/2.8 already exists? Have you ever used it? The size/weight is perfect. If you like the idea of range-limited zooms with small maximum apertures, buy a GFX.
Tamron is going to release Sony E mount 70-180/2.8 which is a much much smaller lens with 67mm filter and weight around 700g if I recall correctly. Price is around US$1200. This is going to be a one very popular E mount lens.
 
Upvote 0
Tamron is going to release Sony E mount 70-180/2.8 which is a much much smaller lens with 67mm filter and weight around 700g if I recall correctly. Price is around US$1200. This is going to be a one very popular E mount lens.

Big difference between 70-135 and 70-180.

An RF 70-180 f/2.8 (non-L) would face stiff competition from the sure-to-come RF 70-200 f/4L.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0