It appears that these lenses are not for you. Rather, they are far budget buyers and newbies who are just getting started with interchangeable lens cameras. One of the things that makes Canon should a dominant company in photography is that it produces products for all market segments. Canon has a pretty close to complete offering on the high end (it's hard to imagine what zoom is missing, and the 1.2 primes are a good start for the high-end prime market), but they have very few RF offerings for the budget and mid-tier user. These lenses are for them.Those slower aperture zoom lenses being released that go from ultra wide angle to normal are kinda uninspiring. 18mm at 3.5 is fine when the lens is compact but 45mm f6.3 is just useless to me. I'd rather have a prime 18 or 20mm f2.8 and another normal prime f2.8 like the 40mm pancake.
I was going to post about how similar it would be to the RF 100-500 so what’s the point – but noticed that it’ll have both an STM motor and no L-designation – so it makes sense that it’s not 5.6.
I was actually leaning the other way, sort of. I currently have an EF 16-35 f/4L and I’m wondering if they’re going to release something wider than 15mm, like an RF 11-24 (to replace the EF version) and whether that’s worth waiting for.I wonder when they will announce RF 15-35 f/4 IS. Not everyone needs 2.8 for such a wide-angle lens.
Both the EF 100-400 ii and the RF 100-500 are faster L lenses - I think there is definitely a place for a non-L RF 100-400, especially as the f7.1 will allow it to be much smaller than the comparable zooms. At the right price I think there would be a big demand for it. Canon's strategy with RF lenses seems to be fill gaps in the overall range where possible, based on their assumption that people already owning EF lenses will generally adapt them to RF.Unless the RF 100-400mm comes in at a low price and a super compact size, I don't see much point of it alongside the RF 100-500mm. The latter is more expensive than the EF 100-400 II, when that lens was introduced... But not a great deal more. Plus the RF 100-500 appears to be about the same size and weight as the EF 100-400 II.... but with 20% more reach.
I'm hoping it's closer in build quality to the RF 35 1.8. I'd be happy to pay a similar price if it was.I wonder if the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM will replace the Nifty Fifty that you can buy for around 125 $.
I don't really expect it to be as cheap as it's EF counterpart, but if Canon is able to keep the EF 50mm on the market, why not it's RF sister?
Quite possible, given the capabilities of RF mount. Canon certainly likes to surprise its users.I was actually leaning the other way, sort of. I currently have an EF 16-35 f/4L and I’m wondering if they’re going to release something wider than 15mm, like an RF 11-24 (to replace the EF version) and whether that’s worth waiting for.
I am hoping that this would come out soon. There was some patents for this lens and its equivalent some time back, but no news since. Will also be interested in a 100mm f2.8 macro, but doesn't look like it has entered the collective consciousness yet.I wonder when they will announce RF 15-35 f/4 IS. Not everyone needs 2.8 for such a wide-angle lens.