A Canon RF 7-14mm f/2.8-3.5 Fisheye Zoom is Coming Soon

[blackcoffee17]

Canon will release just about any random lens before coming up with a single RF tilt-shift lens.

It's been EIGHT years since the launch of the first R camera and there are still zero Canon tilt-shift lenses.

We now have

• Canon RF 10–20mm f/4L IS STM
• Canon RF 14–35mm f/4L IS USM
• Canon RF 15–35mm f/2.8L IS USM
• Canon RF 15–30mm f/4.5–6.3 IS STM
• Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM

Is there really a dire need and huge demand for 2 more ultra-wide angle lenese?

I would argue that a 14mm 1.4 is much more urgent and important than a tilt-shift. There is no bright ultra-wide lens for RF yet under 20mm. All the EF tilt-shift lenses work just fine and i don't really see what an RF version would offer extra.

 

[jeff89]

I would argue that a 14mm 1.4 is much more urgent and important than a tilt-shift. There is no bright ultra-wide lens for RF yet under 20mm. All the EF tilt-shift lenses work just fine and i don't really see what an RF version would offer extra.

There was talk of autofocus, I have the 17mm and 24mm, but haven't tried them on the RF mount. Plan on taking the 24mm to photograph some churches in Europe.

 

[neuroanatomist]

There was talk of autofocus, I have the 17mm and 24mm, but haven't tried them on the RF mount. Plan on taking the 24mm to photograph some churches in Europe.

I’d consider bringing the 17 in addition (or instead of) the 24. I have often found that churches in Europe don’t have much open space around them, and they’re not small buildings. For this TS-E 17 shot of the Cathédrale Saint-Gatien in Tours, France I was at the far side of the plaza across the street from the cathedral, the TS-E 24 would have been too narrow.



If you have a 1.4x TC, you can put that behind the TS-E 17 for a 24mm lens that’s easier on the packing.

 

[David - Sydney]

I’m sure Canon knows how many TS-E lenses they sold, compared to the various ultrawide EF lenses.

True but there wasn't a 20/1.4 and the EF14/2.8ii still wasn't really suited to astro so not quite apples-to-apples.
Still the volume will be low compared to most others in their catalogue.
It has been a decade or more since the EF versions were out... maybe there is a change in the market now.

Besides a long macro, TS-R, additional telephoto options and updates to existing RF lenses... what else is missing - except the mythical 35/1.2

 

[David - Sydney]

I just purchased the EF 8-15 F4L for scuba, but would have been nice to know they would be releasing this now.
View attachment 227734

f2.8 will help with astro but I am not sure that it will help much for underwater vs f4.
The price difference is likely to be large and I haven't used my EF8-15/4 that much especially as I have the RF14-35/4 now.

 

[David - Sydney]

Same. The 14mm is much needed but Canon needs more telephoto options.

What is missing? With the 1.4x/2x options, all the focal lengths are covered.
A RF300/4 would be nice for a cheaper option.
I don't think a RF500 or 200-400 1.4x will be directly replaced.

 

[David - Sydney]

I would argue that a 14mm 1.4 is much more urgent and important than a tilt-shift. There is no bright ultra-wide lens for RF yet under 20mm. All the EF tilt-shift lenses work just fine and i don't really see what an RF version would offer extra.

A TS-E 14mm would be interesting but it seems that Canon will be releasing too many ultra wide lenses soon

 

[eero]

A flood of wide-angles! Next, can we please expect a similar flood of telezoons and long (cheaper!) primes?

 

[Del Paso]

There was talk of autofocus, I have the 17mm and 24mm, but haven't tried them on the RF mount. Plan on taking the 24mm to photograph some churches in Europe.

I can only confirm Neuroanatomist's answer, the 24mm isn't the ideal lens for our churches and cathedrals, the 17mm TSE is far more appropriate. (The RF 14mm TSE would/will? even be better! )

 

[blackcoffee17]

What is missing? With the 1.4x/2x options, all the focal lengths are covered.
A RF300/4 would be nice for a cheaper option.
I don't think a RF500 or 200-400 1.4x will be directly replaced.

Yes, focal lengths might be covered but if you don't have 10K to spend, you only have the flimsy and dark 200-800 and the 100-500. Mid range 3-4K options are missing. Nikon looks very attractive at the moment for me, after seeing lenses like the 800 6.3 prime selling for £4K online.

 

[noname]

And the 16-28mm F2.8 STM

And the 15-35mm f/2.8 IS USM Z to be expected ín 2027.

 

[Del Paso]

True but there wasn't a 20/1.4 and the EF14/2.8ii still wasn't really suited to astro so not quite apples-to-apples.
Still the volume will be low compared to most others in their catalogue.
It has been a decade or more since the EF versions were out... maybe there is a change in the market now.

Besides a long macro, TS-R, additional telephoto options and updates to existing RF lenses... what else is missing - except the mythical 35/1.2

What is still missing in addition to what you just mentioned?
Maybe a 70-150 f/2, a 28mm f/1,4, a 100mm f/1,4, a 20-50 f/? , a 50mm macro... Many interesting options still open!

 

[lindt1]

Are there any new rumors regarding a long macro (180?) or the 300-600 f/5.6 coming in the frist half of 2026? Can we expect one of those lenses in the march announcement?

 

[candyman]

Are there any new rumors regarding a long macro (180?) or the 300-600 f/5.6 coming in the frist half of 2026? Can we expect one of those lenses in the march announcement?

The 300-600 f/5.6 is looking more and more like a unicorn. Canon isn't in a hurry. You have the 200-600 f/5.6 (100-300 f/2.8 with 2ext), the 100-500, the 200-800, the 100-400, the 600 f/11, the 800 f/11, the 400 f/2.8, the 600 f/2.8, and a whole bunch of EF lenses with adapters.
My assumption is that if the 300-600 f/5.6 is well below 10K, then the quality at 600 f/5.6 will be the same or worse than the 100-300 at 600 f/5.6. For Canon there is already a 600 f/5.6 and that is the 100-300 f/2.8 with 2ext.