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

[roby17269]

Can you give us a clue how Canon can make you happy?

Sure! by saving me money I can spend on Hasselblad stuff

 

[Quack]

... Compared to especially Nikon, Canon is currently not first choice for wildlife and sports photographers, even if the R5 II is an amazing camera to do exactly that.

Blanket statements are always a bit precarious. I have spent the last few months seriously looking at Nikon's offerings - and they do have some excellent choices. But in my experience - and my preferences, Canon would be my choice. During the 5 years or so I have been shooting wildlife (mostly birds) I find that primes are far too restrictive. Those lightweight Nikon PF lenses are sure tempting, but I will choose a zoom over a prime every time. I do prefer a lightweight lens, though, so the best wildlife lens in my opinion is the Canon RF 100-500. For many birds I shoot, maximum reach is another preference, in which case, the RF 200-800 is something no one else offers, and it is also relatively affordable, which is my other preference. So, based on that, my vote for the best two wildlife lenses available at a reasonable cost are both Canon.

 

[DSB]

Funnily enough, Canon have just done exactly this....go look at the new RF 7-14mm fisheye!

Well, duh - that's what I was referring to in my first comment.

I wish Canon would include drop-in filters into many more other lenses. For example, I'm convinced they could've done it for the 24-105 f2.8 as well as the internal zooming 70-200 f2.8. Both lenses aimed at video, which means they'll often have their front ends mounted into matte boxes - further complicating the control of the screw on filters.

Not to mention how cool it would be to have it on the 100-500 and not having to reach and fiddle with the circular polarizers all the way up front and then searching for that little finger port, flicking it open, smudging the filter in the process...

The drop in filters can be controlled without removing your left hand from the lens.

 

[jeff89]

I got to see the $25,000 Sigma green lens mounted on a stand at Photokina in Cologne (Koln), Germany back in 2012. I don’t recall the focal length specs, but maybe f/2.8, my initial thought when seeing it firsthand was, it was totally worthless to me.

 

[neuroanatomist]

For example, I'm convinced they could've done it for the 24-105 f2.8 as well as the internal zooming 70-200 f2.8.

24-105/2.8 Z, where?


70-200/2.8 Z, there’s room for it…as long as you don’t need to insert a TC in the back end. Which one do you think most people would want?

 

[DSB]

24-105/2.8 Z, where?


70-200/2.8 Z, there’s room for it…as long as you don’t need to insert a TC in the back end. Which one do you think most people would want?

There'd be zero issues having it between the last two elements on the 70-200, without sacrificing compatibility with extenders. The gap is more than enough for a drop in filter.

Obviously, I'm pretty sure it could be done for the 24-105 with a slightly different internal layout. You're asking "where" as if the current layout is the only way. If these lenses were done with drop in filters in mind from the get go, it could've been done, even preserving the extender compatibility.

I mean, look how little space the drop in filter actually takes in a lens. That's the new fisheye zoom and the last slimmest piece of flat glass is the drop in filter.

 

[neuroanatomist]

There'd be zero issues having it between the last two elements on the 70-200, without sacrificing compatibility with extenders. The gap is more than enough for a drop in filter.

Are there lens designs from Canon or anyone else where a drop-in filter is not the last piece of glass in the path? If not, might there be a reason for that?

Obviously, I'm pretty sure it could be done for the 24-105 with a slightly different internal layout. You're asking "where" as if the current layout is the only way.

Like many wide and non-telephoto zoom lenses, the design depends on having the rear element(s) as close to the sensor as possible. Sure, it probably could have been designed for a drop-in filter, but there would have been design, size and cost consequences.

If these lenses were done with drop in filters in mind from the get go, it could've been done, even preserving the extender compatibility.

Canon has only ever put a drop-in slot on lenses that don’t have front filter threads.

I mean, look how little space the drop in filter actually takes in a lens. That's the new fisheye zoom and the last slimmest piece of flat glass is the drop in filter.

It’s not just the thickness of the filter. It’s the ‘opportunity cost’ of not putting lens elements from there back to the end of the mount – that empty space behind the filter in the cutaway, where lens elements are in most other modern designs for wide and standard lenses.

The new fisheye is a design based heavily on the EF predecessor, the space was available. Someone mentioned the new lens is the length of the old one plus an adapter. Better optics in terms of special elements and coatings, but an old design.

When Canon launched the RF mount, they touted the benefits of being able to get rear elements much closer to the sensor than EF allowed, and those benefits make many of the RF lenses possible, whereas they would have been prohibitive or not possible on EF.

You are suggesting that Canon can and should just eschew those advantages they touted and put a drop-in filter back there instead, for lenses that work perfectly well with front filters. Well, fortunately for those of us who like and benefit from the design advantages of putting lens elements within 2 cm of the sensor, Canon’s designers know better than to put a filter slot there instead.

 

[DSB]

Well, fortunately for those of us who like and benefit from the design advantages of putting lens elements within 2 cm of the sensor, Canon’s designers know better than to put a filter slot there instead.

Oh gosh, that tone you take every time someone has a different opinion than you is so insufferable.

Over and over again you act like the only view that counts is your own and god forbid someone offers an alternative opinion. You'll do all sorts of verbal acrobatics just to make sure you have the last say.

Sure, it probably could have been designed for a drop-in filter, but there would have been design, size and cost consequences.

If you know this, then why even go countering my initial claim that it could've been done?