Canon’s roadmap includes 32 new lenses by 2026 according to Canon’s CEO

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,096
6,503
I just wish they had a roadmap for a roadmap instead of us having to guess what is coming.
If you knew your most-desired lens was coming, you’d wait to buy it. If you don’t know, maybe you buy an available lens then when your most-desired lens comes along you buy that, too. Canon wins. Thus, no roadmap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
2,322
370
32
34109
www.facebook.com
The 80-100% of the 1st 3 years of RF lens SKUs are the highest volume EF lens SKUs.

No big surprise that these staples came out within the 1st 6 months of the RF system
For a lead on what to expect within the next 4 years only look at the now discontinued and currently selling EF lenses.

Year 2026 may mark the end of production or even sales of any EF system body, lens or other legacy accessories. By this year the R5 Mark II would be released with the 80-100% of all Mark 1 RF lenses out.

Exciting times if you are building a mirrorless system for your household or organization.

These are EF lenses from oldest design to newest. Excluding business or production reasons I'd FIFO the rollout of
 
Last edited:

Johnw

EOS RP
Oct 10, 2020
27
9
They can use incomplete optical lens designs, and take advantage of the additional layer of abstraction that mirrorless cameras place between the user and the subject to hide optical flaws. The fanboys will claim it's to reduce costs, even though Canon will sell these lenses for more than their EF equivalents, even though they're likely cheaper to build than the EF lenses which have better optical correction, which increases the profits for Canon, and offers no financial advantage to the buyer. We'll most likely see more extensive of of cheaper PMo (plastic molded) lens elements too in entry and mid-range lenses like we've started seeing already.

I have to disagree with the bolded as a general statement. It has not been the case as a general rule that the RF lenses have been inferior optically to their EF predecessors. Just the opposite in fact with most of them. Most of the RF lenses are as good or better optically than lenses Canon has released in the past. Yes there are some lenses at some FLs where they have done what you are saying, but it is the exception not the rule, especially on the L lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
315
222
I have to disagree with the bolded as a general statement. It has not been the case as a general rule that the RF lenses have been inferior optically to their EF predecessors. Just the opposite in fact with most of them. Most of the RF lenses are as good or better optically than lenses Canon has released in the past. Yes there are some lenses at some FLs where they have done what you are saying, but it is the exception not the rule, especially on the L lenses.
I looks like you misread what I stated. I didn't say the RF lenses were less sharp than the EF lenses, I said that (generally) the RF lenses have worse optical correction because Canon is cheaping out, grossly underdesigning their lenses and doing it in software, because they can hide it on a camera with an EVF, but not on a camera with an OVF.

How many EF lenses can't cover the full frame sensor?

What about RF lenses? These three come to mind:
  • The Canon RF 14-35mm f/4 L which is a premium lens lens does not cover a full frame sensor at any focal length below 17mm.
  • The Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 does not cover the complete full frame sensor, the corners suffer from mechanical vignetting, they're completely black.
  • The Canon RF 24-240mm at the wide end doesn't really cover the whole frame either. At f/4 from 24-27mm with correction turned off, the corners are totally black. It's really a 28-240mm f/4.5-6.3, vignetting correction is required to shoot at 24mm, at any aperture, unless you plan to crop all your photos.
These would be great lenses on a crop sensor camera !ol! ;)

The problem with extreme software correction?

From https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-24-240mm-F4-6.3-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

"Distortion correction is destructive at the pixel level as image details must be stretched using computational algorithms to determine what the newly-created details should be"

If you shoot in RAW and post process your images, you're applying software post processing over software post processing, which causes images to fall apart very quickly, degrading image quality.

If you shoot JPEG straight out of camera, then it's not an issue, as what comes out of camera is the final image, maybe with some cropping to taste to improve composition.

You're welcome! :)
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,096
6,503
I said that (generally) the RF lenses have worse optical correction

What about RF lenses? These three come to mind

You're welcome! :)
You’re saying that something found in 3 of 28 lenses is a generally applicable to RF lenses.

Thanks for nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
315
222
You’re saying that something found in 3 of 28 lenses is a generally applicable statement.

Thanks for nothing.
The point we can make is that the RF lens range has hit a new low when it comes to optical lens distortion, where a lens does not cover the complete full frame sensor, that was never seen in the worst of the EF lenses. The only way to do that with older lenses on the RF camera bodies is to slap on an old crop sensor EF-S lens on an EF to RF adapter, but the RF camera bodies go into crop mode when that happens. A very bad precedent for a new roadmap.

Excluding Canon's exorbitantly priced top end wildlife primes worth tens of thousands of dollars, 3 of of 21 RF lenses equates to over 14% of the RF lens range, It's also 2 out of 9 non-L RF lenses, or 22% of the non-premium RF series of lenses. It is therefore accurate to say that is case both generally and precisely the case that the RF series of lenses (collectively as a lens platform) have reached a new low in the worst optical lens distortion. When people try to excuse Canon (why?) by saying that other companies use software correction, as far as I understand from many reputable reviews, no other company underbuilds lenses to this extent, puts out lenses with this degree of optical distortion that require this level of software correction fix.

I understand that forums tend to serve as a medium for many people who seek validation on their purchases, where they look for others to dispel any doubts they may have about the choice that they made, and affirm that they made the right choice. This creates a weird confirmation bias rather than an objective perspective, and a total disbelief that their favourite company could do wrong, either intentionally or accidentally, act dishonestly or incompetently. The RF platform serves my needs at present, and it has obvious limitations, because there is no such thing as a perfect camera ecosystem, and no one would deny that point. It's a case buyers picking their poison, and accepting one set of compromises over others.

The promise of 32 new lenses is "vapourware", we will believe it when we see it, it is after all, just rumour, We do have evidence of some never seen before crap lens design compromises. We do have evidence of price gouging. We don't have any mid-range lenses in the RF platform. We can just pretend there's nothing to see here but we'd just be fooling ourselves. Will things change or will we see more of this? Only time will tell... If buyers just want to replace their top-tier EF L-series zoom lenses with RF series equivalents and a few novel extras, then none of this matters, as they can fork out the big dollars and swap over right now. Everyone else, not so much.

Perhaps I didn't express my point clearly, my mistake. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,788
4,754
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Photography has always been about technology and from its earliest days there have always been people who feel that each new technology is somehow "cheating." That Canon is using new technology to create new options in lenses should come as no surprise. Indeed, when they introduced the R system they made a point of saying that the newly designed mount was intended to take advantage of technologies that could not be accommodated by the EF mount system.

Canon may be the first, but they won't be the last. The digital revolution changed how we came to view film and cameras, but lenses remained largely analog. Today we are seeing the beginning of how lenses will change in the future through digital technologies. Whining about the inevitable change may make someone an extremist, but it doesn't make anyone logical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,096
6,503
The problem with extreme software correction?

From https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-24-240mm-F4-6.3-IS-USM-Lens.aspx
"Distortion correction is destructive at the pixel level as image details must be stretched using computational algorithms to determine what the newly-created details should be"

If you shoot in RAW and post process your images, you're applying software post processing over camera firmware post processing, which causes images to fall apart very quickly, degrading image quality.
To be clear, your last statement is incorrect. If you shoot in RAW and post process your images, you're applying software post processing to the RAW image, not on top of camera firmware processing. The firmware disables the ability to turn off corrections for JPG images, and Canon's DPP applies corrections even with the settings for distortion at zero. But using non-Canon RAW processing is the reason we know what the camera is doing – the uncorrected RAW images show the extreme distortion and the mechanical vignetting. Simple logic indicates that if Canon was forcing the corrections into RAW images via camera firmware, we would not see those artifacts in the RAW images.

The point we can make is that the RF lens range has hit a new low when it comes to optical lens distortion, where a lens does not cover the complete full frame sensor, that was never seen in the worst of the EF lenses.
EF 24mm f/1.4L II on an EOS Ra (lower left corner of an image from a DPR thread):
Screen Shot 2022-04-14 at 10.12.08 AM.png
Appears to be mechanical vignetting, although it seems to be specific to the Ra (does not occur for the user on the R6), maybe the Hα-passing filter stack is thicker and that clips the very oblique rays at the corners.

The EF 16-35/2.8 III and the EF 11-24/4 both have >4 stops of optical vignetting in the corners. It's not mechanical vignetting, but a loss of 94% of the light is a rather severe optical problem. Correcting it by adding 4 stops of ISO noise is also destructive at the pixel level.

Excluding Canon's exorbitantly priced top end wildlife primes worth tens of thousands of dollars, 3 of of 21 RF lenses equates to over 14% of the RF lens range, It's also 2 out of 9 non-L RF lenses, or 22% of the non-premium RF series of lenses. It is therefore accurate to say that is case both generally and precisely the case that the RF series of lenses (collectively as a lens platform) have reached a new low in the worst optical lens distortion.
If it applies to 14-22% of the lineup, it's not generally the case for the platform. It is specifically the case, in a minority of lenses.

I agree, it's a new low for Canon. There were similar examples early on with Sony and Olympus, time has passed and people have moved on. I suspect the main reason people have moved on is that it really isn't that big a deal. As I found when testing the RF 14-35/4, the optical performance of the heavily corrected corners on the 14-35 at 14mm is equivalent to the lightly corrected corners of the EF 11-24/4 at 14mm (the latter having better optical corrections and the additional benefit of not being at an extreme end of its zoom range).

The bottom line is that this is much ado about nothing. Digital correction is easy, automatic and results in image quality similar to optical correction (at least in the one lens that I've tested).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Johnw

EOS RP
Oct 10, 2020
27
9
I said that (generally) the RF lenses have worse optical correction

Yes and I disagreed with that assessment. That is not correct as a general conclusion.

I have used the 35, both 50s, both 85s, the 24-105L, the 28-70, the 600, and the 100-400, all of those were generally well corrected optically.

I've also used the 16 and the 24-240 and agree those have some compromises. As I said and as I think your own post helped to show, the RF lenses that have such compromises are the exception.
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
315
222
To be clear, your last statement is incorrect. If you shoot in RAW and post process your images, you're applying software post processing to the RAW image, not on top of camera firmware processing. The firmware disables the ability to turn off corrections for JPG images, and Canon's DPP applies corrections even with the settings for distortion at zero. But using non-Canon RAW processing is the reason we know what the camera is doing – the uncorrected RAW images show the extreme distortion and the mechanical vignetting. Simple logic indicates that if Canon was forcing the corrections into RAW images via camera firmware, we would not see those artifacts in the RAW images.
You are indeed correct, my mistake, had alot on my mind during the day, I've amended it.
Yes, JPEG corrections hppen in camera, RAW corrections happen in software with lens correction profiles on the computer, thanks for the correction. :)
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
315
222
Yes and I disagreed with that assessment. That is not correct as a general conclusion.

I have used the 35, both 50s, both 85s, the 24-105L, the 28-70, the 600, and the 100-400, all of those were generally well corrected optically.

I've also used the 16 and the 24-240 and agree those have some compromises. As I said and as I think your own post helped to show, the RF lenses that have such compromises are the exception.
Agreed, those lenses listed are good lenses optically and the two you mention have compromises. We're getting down to semantics, but as a whole, the RF family may have pushed the upper end upwards, but the lower end downwards too. Maybe a more accurate way of expressing the situation than saying generally, since it's an objectively specific situation.
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
315
222
Photography has always been about technology and from its earliest days there have always been people who feel that each new technology is somehow "cheating." That Canon is using new technology to create new options in lenses should come as no surprise. Indeed, when they introduced the R system they made a point of saying that the newly designed mount was intended to take advantage of technologies that could not be accommodated by the EF mount system.

Canon may be the first, but they won't be the last. The digital revolution changed how we came to view film and cameras, but lenses remained largely analog. Today we are seeing the beginning of how lenses will change in the future through digital technologies. Whining about the inevitable change may make someone an extremist, but it doesn't make anyone logical.
I'm not complaining about technological advances, bring on the innovation! I'm pointing out the illogical contradiction in tech-focused forums which tend to be all about tech specs and performance turning around and pretending certain distasteful things aren't happening. As a whole, the RF family of lenses may have pushed the upper end upwards, but they also lower end downwards too. Similarly, I know when I'm getting value for money, and when I'm being ripped off.

Canon may be focussing more on their premium high, priced items, because the profit margins are even larger on those than the budget products, which they have to sell more of in a shrinking market. The reality is that the majority of mid-range enthusiast buyers are in a cloud of uncertainty about where Canon is going and what they will offer. Canon's entry level buyers, who are the bulk of their market, will get a Rebel or M-series body with a kit lens and not care less, neither would the cashed up old men retirees who will just buy the complete setup of top-tier bodies and staple lenses which are available.

We can either examine our situation to try and ascertain what's happening and where we stand as Canon buyers, or we can just keep whistling past that dark alley and imagine that everything has to be fine, because a foreign corporation that exists to make a profit really cares for us lol! There are more holes in the Canon camera and lens roadmap than a politician's election speech, and I've got all the essential RF lenses that I need for my work, but I'm holding off buying any more RF lenses that I might want, because I want to see what our choices will be. Some people just buy whatever Canon releases, because they love new gear, and if that's what floats people's boats, then power to them! :)
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,788
4,754
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
...pretending certain distasteful things aren't happening...
Distasteful to you. Not everyone shares that view. You've cited three lenses you don't like. Two are affordable consumer lenses in focal lengths not previously available. One is an L lens that offers a wider range than the EF model. I own two of the three and don't find anything distasteful about them...

...I know when I'm getting value for money, and when I'm being ripped off...
If you feel you are getting "ripped off" then don't buy it. If enough people agree with you, prices will fall. So far it looks like you are in the minority.

...Canon may be focussing more on their premium high, priced items, because the profit margins are even larger on those than the budget products, which they have to sell more of in a shrinking market. The reality is that the majority of mid-range enthusiast buyers are in a cloud of uncertainty about where Canon is going and what they will offer. Canon's entry level buyers, who are the bulk of their market, will get a Rebel or M-series body with a kit lens and not care less, neither would the cashed up old men retirees who will just buy the complete setup of top-tier bodies and staple lenses which are available.
Stripping out the bitterness, you are correct. Canon is focusing on enthusiasts and targeting their products to what that market can afford. And, since a large part of the enthusiast market is comprised of people with disposable income that are fairly well insulated from transitory market changes (cashed-up old men retirees) they are following the money, just like their competition. The entry-level market is shrinking, but it is likely to stabilize and Canon seems to be positioning itself to remain competitive/dominant in that market (Rumors of more low-cost R bodies and lenses). I'm not sure who the "mid-range enthusiast buyers" are, but it seems like Canon has been offering a number of bodies and lenses that fit that category (including two of the lenses you dislike). The R and RF lines are new, so of course there is some uncertainty what the future holds. The only difference between the situation today and the situation when the EF line was dominant is the EF line had more history behind it, so the lens introductions were more predictable.

...We can either examine our situation to try and ascertain what's happening and where we stand as Canon buyers, or we can just keep whistling past that dark alley and imagine that everything has to be fine, because a foreign corporation that exists to make a profit really cares for us lol!...
You are the one bothered by whether or not Canon "cares" for us. It's a transactional relationship. They make products. People decide if they want to buy them. If enough people want the products, they make a profit and stay in business. If people don't want the products, they don't stay in business. It's illogical for you to take it personally.

...I've got all the essential RF lenses that I need for my work, but I'm holding off buying any more RF lenses that I might want, because I want to see what our choices will be...
That's the most logical statement you've made.

...Some people just buy whatever Canon releases, because they love new gear, and if that's what floats people's boats, then power to them! :)
Why so bitter? No one just buys "whatever Canon releases." Everyone makes their own choices based on wants, needs and what they can afford. It's not "what floats people's boats" it's how people choose to spend their own hard-earned money (many after a lifetime of working and denying themselves purchases while they raised families, etc.).

Adding a smiley face doesn't conceal your bitterness towards us "cashed-up retirees" who spent most of our lives working hard, raising families, paying for our kids' education, scrimping and saving for retirement and often delaying that retirement for years. We have the opportunity to treat ourselves to things we never could before and want to enjoy ourselves for a few years before we are too old and feeble to do anything. If that offends you...well tough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
315
222
Adding a smiley face doesn't conceal your bitterness towards us "cashed-up retirees" who spent most of our lives working hard, raising families, paying for our kids' education, scrimping and saving for retirement and often delaying that retirement for years. We have the opportunity to treat ourselves to things we never could before and want to enjoy ourselves for a few years before we are too old and feeble to do anything. If that offends you...well tough.
Thanks for explaining what annoyed you in my post, now I understand how you've misunderstood me and can offer some clarification.

Firstly, there's no bitterness, Canon's antics are a mild inconvenience to me at worst, and people's emotional reactions to Canon's shenanigans are kind of amusing from a human behaviour perspective, hence the smileys! :)

The whole point of mentioning retired old men was not to spite them, they're the majority of participants on most photography forums, possibly except for exclusively Sony camera forums which have disproportionate numbers of younger male gear-heads who are into 'technology for technology's sake' and usually work in the information technology field lol! It's about understanding demographics, pure and simple.

I've already pointed out in other threads to readers here, that we on this forum aren't representative of the greater Canon camera gear market, and only represent a narrow niche group. This was to help gain perspective why Canon does what it does, and how the bulk of photography gear sales come from entry level Rebel and M-series ASPC gear to everyday people and beginners.

It's irrational for anyone to spite retirees who have worked hard and have chosen to spend their money enjoying themselves however they please. That kind of resentment usually comes from a much younger generational 'okay boomer' crowd which is directed against the baby-boomer generation. That kind of nonsense doesn't interest me.

Here's a breakdown of photography by age groups in the US - source is https://www.statista.com/statistics/227424/number-of-photographers-usa/
A total of, 42,093 respondents, 18-64 years of age were surveyed.

stats.png

The older 50-65 years age group only accounts for 15% of people practicing photography in some form or other. The retirement age in the US is around 65-67, and this data doesn't include the over 65 retirees.

The photography gear used by these age groups would differ, based on their subcultures and disposable incomes. It would be safe to assume that the biggest group, the 18-29 year olds, are mainly smartphone photographers, and conversely, the majority of people with flagship camera bodies and top tier wildlife super telephoto lenses are likely in the older age groups.

When we look at the world of photography, we have to remember that the market has contracted drastically, and potentially may continue to do so. Alongside this is a progressive generational shift towards smartphones as a means of accessible photography and videography for social media, which is centred more around creative expression rather than professional quality of production. This is point-and-shoot culture reaching a whole new level.

With the progression of age, and succession of generations, the culture shifts, and so does the market for certain products. The photography companies are navigating a shrinking market in a shifting and uncertain landscape, while trying to stay competitive. Canon is no longer in the boom phase of the camera industry's heyday, so their product range, marketing strategies and target market will change accordingly in response to the change. Being a completely different situation from the past, we can expect things to stay the same, or operate with the same certainty.


I totally agree, our relationship as buyers to a corporation whose gear we invest in is purely transactional, but anyone would be forgiven for thinking otherwise when they see the emotional investment and identification with a brand that occurs on some forums where people get into tribal brand wars.

Put simply, Canon's concern is to maximise profits and gain market share.

What buyers want is choice, and value for money. When it comes to gear ecosystems, some clarity on the range of products that will be available in anew system.

Canon's pursuit of their goals can be at the expense of the buyers needs, if they believe they can get away with it, and it won't hurt future sales, so their actions aren't necessarily always benevolent to buyers, nor do they need to be. Cutting edge products such as the 28-70mm f/2 lens allow the company to showcase the best they can offer technologically, which is great PR for the company, and draw buyers of top tier-gear. Many companies offer specific products that are very attractive to new buyers of a system, to lure them in, these are products that may have excellent performance for non-premium items, and they may be offered at little to no profit to provide unbeatable value for money as a drawcard to entice people in, who will then buy other gear which subsidises the prices of the latter. This is the gear that 'punches above its price range', and is a real win for the buyer short term, and for the manufacturer in the long term.

This all raises the question, where is Canon going with all this?

Will the EF-S grade and non-premium full-frame lens markets ultimately be consolidated into a single, large, vaguely defined group of 'RF budget lenses', with a super cheap yet-to-come RF camera body as the potential replacement to the Rebel series if Canon chooses to or has to go that way in an uncertain market? That's assuming the M-series stays, considering it is a mirrorless platform and the Rebel series are the older DSLRs.

Companies have to respond to the shifts in the market. With the lens range on offer, it does lend itself to Canon possibly pushing into a premium territory, while offering a basic collection of entry level lenses and bodies to bring people into the ecosystem. That may explain the conspicuous absence of mid-range lenses, which appeal to a certain demographic, that isn't the young smartphone photographers, nor the retirees who can buy premium lenses. It may also explain why third party lens manufacturers are either ignoring Canon's RF platform, or being prevented from releasing RF lenses to reduce competition, depending on who you ask.

Dustin Abbott mentions the glaring gap in RF lens line up in the video below:


It's still early days on the RF platform, but with a limited range of lenses available, many overpriced, and a clear absence of third party offerings, the factors that satisfy buyers, namely choice, and value for money, are far from optimal right now. There's no reliable indicator as to which way things will change, which doesn't instill buyer confidence. These are my criticisms of Canon, but if people wish to believe (because it can't be objectively true) that their favourite company can do no wrong, then so be it, nothing much can change that. ;)

Personally, I'm only a just a little annoyed that I can't get a decent mid-range 85mm right now. I'm interested in working with that focal length after seeing the type of images it can produce at apertures of 1.2-1.4, and noticing I'm on this focal length on my L-series RF zoom often. The RF 85mm f/2 macro looks very sharp and can focus closer than any other 85mm, but this lens with excellent sharpness and contrast produces a mediocre and overly contrasty (non smooth and a bit busy) bokeh, plus Canon put a crappy STM system into it which messes the AF system. I could buy the Canon or Sigma Art EF 85 1.4s used, but it would be nice to have the convenience an RF lens rather than invest more in a superseded lens mount. First world problem really, I don't need it, just want it to learn on and perhaps incorporate it into my work.

Hope that's much clearer!


 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Johnw

EOS RP
Oct 10, 2020
27
9
I'm only a just a little annoyed that I can't get a decent mid-range 85mm right now. I'm interested in working with that focal length after seeing the type of images it can produce at apertures of 1.2-1.4, and noticing I'm on this focal length on my L-series RF zoom often. The RF 85mm f/2 macro looks very sharp and can focus closer than any other 85mm, but this lens with excellent sharpness and contrast produces a mediocre and overly contrasty (non smooth and a bit busy) bokeh, plus Canon put a crappy STM system into it which messes the AF system. I could buy the Canon or Sigma Art EF 85 1.4s used, but it would be nice to have the convenience an RF lens rather than invest more in a superseded lens mount. First world problem really, I don't need it, just want it to learn on and perhaps incorporate it into my work.

What about the Samyang/Rokinon RF 85 1.4?

The AF seems decent in the reviews, it’s not overpriced, and it’s 1.4. It doesn’t have IS but you can still get decent results with IBIS at 85. The only real downside I can see to it is lack of the control ring like the native lenses have. The IQ seems close to the Canon f/2 and it also includes a hood and weather sealing which the cheaper Canon doesn't have.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AutoMatters

I'm New Here
Dec 3, 2021
18
3
I really, really want something in an L-Series lens that has a versatile, broad zoom range for use in photojournalism (wide angle to reasonably long telephoto). I recently switched to Canon mirrorless (EOS R3), after being a Nikon shooter for 50 years. My favorite all-time Nikon lens for that purpose was their 28-300. I used it so much that I wore out two of them and was on my third when I switched. Canon's answer is their 24-240mm consumer-grade lens. Even though I would prefer that it were longer on the telephoto end, I like that at 24mm it is wider than the 28-300mm. However, I would much prefer an L-Series lens, and certainly one that has a manual focus switch, unlike the 24-240mm lens' FOCUS/CONTROL switch. I also have no interest in purchasing the outdated and overpriced Canon EF 28-300mm, along with an EF to RF adaptor.