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

It would be enormous!! I have an EF 600/4L III so believe me I know what a pain it is to carry around a lens of that size, and a zoom would almost certainly weigh even more - to say nothing of the cost. In contrast, a 600/5.6L is something we've been asking for for years, and now it's going to be a zoom that makes it even more useful. Even there I would add a note of caution - the RF 100-300/2.8L weighs 2,650 g, and a 300-600/5.6 would be the same optical diameter, just physically longer so it will be at least that and maybe 3 kg.
The Sigma 300-600mm f4 is ever so slightly smaller than the Canon RF 600mm f4. And while heavier, it is almost exactly the same wight as my EF Canon 600mm f4 IS II. (still the best 600mm for use with TCs btw). Sigma even remember to cut Arca Swiss rails into the tripod foot. I wish Canon would just Allow Sigma to sell them.

Screenshot 2026-02-04 at 10.40.14 AM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2026-02-04 at 10.40.14 AM.png
    Screenshot 2026-02-04 at 10.40.14 AM.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 4
  • Screenshot 2026-02-04 at 10.40.14 AM.png
    Screenshot 2026-02-04 at 10.40.14 AM.png
    117.5 KB · Views: 4
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Riker and David from Sydney,

I have never felt the need for FF and shot for years with APS-C Canon and many fisheye lenses which all can be sharper in corners even with a smaller 6" / 140mm dome than most rectilinear lenses. Any middle curvature can be "de-fished" or flattened in software easily.

From 2016 - 2025 I tired of hauling housings, strobes and shot exclusively with compact cameras. Mainly the Canon G7X II plus various iPhones but always wanted to get back to APS-C.

I currently own two Canon R100 (the most despised made Canon in recent years) but produce great files with a decent lens. It's super cheap for traveling and shooting underwater. I justified a 2nd one purchased on the Canon refurbished site. with the "kit" RF-S 18-45mm IS STM lens and RF-S 55-210 IS STM for a ridiculous $429.00 USD. Not being a long lens shooter I sold the EF)S 55-210mm IS STM and spare 18-45mm netting a spare body about $180.00 (!!!!)

I also own a Canon R50 and the AF CMOS II, tracking and other features would have made it my first choice to house but Ikelite didn't tackle the 21 pin hot shoe connector :( I use it as my main surface camera with the fabulous RF)S 18-150mm IS STM lens.

The lowly Canon R100 has a Canon "standard" 5 pin TTL hot shoe as does the R10 / R7. My Ikelite Canon R100 housing has a TTL fiber optic cord transmitter which I used for an article and their new small Ecko Fiber strobes:


I did own a Nauticam NA-R50 for the Canon R50 for about 5 months but sold it... I didn't like being locked into just using "wet" expensive lenses you bayonet on outside the fixed housing's port.

The Ikelite DLM housing for the Canon R100 allows me to use multiple lenses. I'm strictly a wide to medium fish shooter these days, no more macro after 55 years diving this year......

The housing's interchangeable 6" dome port accommodates the underrated Canon RF-S 10-18mm IS STM and RF-S 18-45mm IS STM lenses. It will also allow the discontinued Tokina APS-C 10-17mm Fisheye with Canon EF-RF adapter. I have access to those from friends and may take it to Palau end of next month as a back up.

I could also use the discontinued EF 8-15mm L F4 with EF-RF adapter and a slightly longer dome port. But installing that large a lens requires inserting camera body from the back then lens, zoom gear and all through the front before sealing the port.

You have to do that EVERY TIME for changing batteries or memory cards. For me that's a deal breaker no matter how much sharper either the Canon EF 8-15mm F4L or new R F7-14mmL might be. I won't be justifying that cost, especially on an APS-C sensor.

My advice to Riker or others if you really require FF is just get a 6DII / III and new 7-14mm is your budget allows depending on your end photo use is.

On APS-C sensor Canon cameras I usually bought rectilinear lenses as I'd use them above water. Only the less expensive Tokina 10-17mm was used for a few years but I also tired of the curvature look. Many love it and some don't....

The Canon RF-S 10-18mm IS STM is actually damn near perfect behind the 6" dome on my Ikelite DLM housing for edge too edge sharpness. Partly because of APS-C sensor depth of field over FF and 10mm on APS-C is around 16mm which is about the widest one can get sharp corners behind any dome. Unless you're one of those who try and shoot f11-13-22 all the time which are flash shooters mostly. I can shoot even f-8 in bright conditions using ambient light tropical shooting and even at higher ISOs the files look fine.

Sorry for the long write up, just sharing insights from decades of looking for a good combination of performance to cost :)

David Haas

View attachment 227817View attachment 227818View attachment 227819View attachment 227820View attachment 227821
Great text (its almost an ode to the R100 :love:) and even better pics :)
 
Upvote 0
I thought the received wisdom was that polarising filters shouldn't be used with ultra wide angle lenses, something to do with making the sky weird? Am I misremembering?
Somebody beens reading on the f-stoppers site recently :)
you might get some weird vignetting with the CPL attached like in this pic. I wasn't paying attention when I changed my position and didn't adjust the CPL filter. I kept the pic as a reminder.
SYLT2088.jpg

I did manage to get a pic without/ or a lot less vignetting:
SYLT2085.jpg

Both images were shot on the R5 with the R14-35mm F4 L and following settings:
14mm
f18
ISO 125
shutter: 1/80 (first image) and 1/125 (second image)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Where is the long glass? They need to release something. 300-600, 150-600, 500 prime, etc.
Need to? Why? Just because you (and I) want them to do so, doesn’t mean they need to do so. I’m pretty sure that Canon knows best what lenses they need to release.

Personally, I want a 600/4 with a built-in 1.4x TC. But I don’t fool myself into believing that Canon must make me happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Not sure about $600 more for the RF mount, heck, I was hesitant when I thought it was only going to be $300, underwater 2.8-3.5 does buy me much, and the pictures I’ve seen with the F4 are incredible. B&H only had 3 left, now they have 2. All aboard the EF train, she’s about to leave the station.
 
Upvote 0