Canon registers a new RF mount lens

[InchMetric]

I think they are more like muffins on mirrorless. At least the two Nikon ‘pancake’ lenses look more like little fat muffins.

“Cupcake lenses”?

 

[Deleted member 381342]

“Cupcake lenses”?

Muffins taste better.

 

[SteveC]

I think they are more like muffins on mirrorless. At least the two Nikon ‘pancake’ lenses look more like little fat muffins.

The 50mm f/1.8 certainly is no pancake but some people called it such.

 

[Talys]

RF200-400/4L +TC with built in control ring, mfd of 3 feet that's 25% lighter than EF

 

[GrunRad]

I hope it's a RF 50mm f1.4 or cheaper RF 17-40mm f4L equivalent

I'd (almost) wager that this announced lens is the rumoured RF 18-45 f4-5.6 IS STM. I seem to remember that there has been an interview with Canon top brass where they recognized a need for "more affordable RF lenses aimed at amateur photographers".

 

[Nemorino]

I don't expect an affordable or tele lens. They would have been announced with the 16mm, 100-400mm and the R3.
Probably a fast L lens. The guess of CR guy could be possible because a wide angle prime is still missing in the R lineup of L lenses.

 

[entoman]

Judging by the fact that the 2 most recently announced lenses (16mm and 100-400mm) are both “budget” lenses, I think it’s pretty much guaranteed that the next in line will be an expensive L model. Almost certainly a wide-aperture prime.

A top contender would be the rumoured 500mm F4.

 

[MythPlayer]

RF200-400/4L +TC with built in control ring, mfd of 3 feet that's 25% lighter than EF

EF 200-400mm TC still production，maybe 70-135mm F2 or 135mm F1.4?

 

[john1970]

Assuming Canon will announce the lens around the time of the R3 the RF 500 mm f4 DO lens makes a lot of sense. One of the big advantages of the R3 is the ~1 lb weight savings compared to the 1Dx Mk3. Coupled to a 500 mm f4 DO would make for an exceptionally lightweight kit. The R3 is a sports camera so it would make some sense that they would announce a lens used in sports photography.

 

[YuengLinger]

I'm hoping for a 200mm f/1.8L. Maybe next year. Available 2023.

 

[David - Sydney]

A RF40mm pancake would be welcome as the adapted EF version doubles the size/weight/cost.

Whatever is released, it will immediately go on the "supply issue" list

 

[InchMetric]

The 50mm f/1.8 certainly is no pancake but some people called it such.

If you compare with a true pancake on an EF RF adapter it might well qualify.

 

[InchMetric]

I'm hoping for a 200mm f/1.8L. Maybe next year. Available 2023.

Make it a 1.4.

 

[navastronia]

I'm hoping for a 200mm f/1.8L. Maybe next year. Available 2023.

I really wonder if Canon will ever make another one when we have such competent 70-200 lenses around. In 2021, 200mm just feels like an odd focal length to me for a prime (I say that as someone who owns one).

EDIT: Wikipedia tells me Canon released the EF 180/3.5L Macro USM in 1996 and discontinued it in 2021. Could we see an RF 180/3.5L before (or, indeed, instead of) an RF 200mm/2.8L?

 

[SteveC]

If you compare with a true pancake on an EF RF adapter it might well qualify.

It probably would, but that's a pancake on an adapter.

I believe someone was asking for a native pancake.

 

[InchMetric]

It probably would, but that's a pancake on an adapter.

I believe someone was asking for a native pancake.

My observation is that a pancake spaced a mirror flip away from the image plane is one thing, but a pancake with a much smaller (20mm) distance from front rim to film plane is less realistic.

 

[canonmike]

I'm hoping for a 200mm f/1.8L. Maybe next year. Available 2023.

Wouldn't that make a dream combo on the R3 for indoor sporting events and more??

 

[degos]

There are some lenses Canon doesn't update because they don't have the sales to justify it, but the 135 is definitely a lens they haven't updated because it would be hard to improve enough to justify it. It has me cautiously optimistic about the rumored RF 135, even if I expect the budget not to stretch that far

Sigma improved upon it and pushed theirs to f/1.8

And in terms of raw resolution the 135mm TS-E easily beats it.

It's a lovely lens, but like the 400mm 5.6, 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 it was long overdue for an overhaul. Consider that the 600mm went through four versions in that time!

 

[blackcoffee17]

Sigma improved upon it and pushed theirs to f/1.8

And in terms of raw resolution the 135mm TS-E easily beats it.

It's a lovely lens, but like the 400mm 5.6, 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 it was long overdue for an overhaul. Consider that the 600mm went through four versions in that time!

I would rather see a compact and ultra sharp 135mm F2 but the time of compact L primes seem to be long gone. Now everything weights 1kg.

 

[privatebydesign]

I would continue to use my EF 11-24. The drop-in filter adapter is very useful and a far better solution than the dinner plate filters (which I don’t have) needed for a lens without a real rear filter option. If an RF 10-24 was available without a drop-in filters and I didn’t already have the EF 11-24, I’d buy the latter anyway.

Same goes for my TS-E 17. I do have the salad plate filters for that, and the DI filter is sooooo much better.

I'm in exactly the same thought process with the same two lenses, and the EF 15mm fisheye. I see using select EF lenses on RF bodies as an advantage.

I saw a video of a skateboard photographer with an R3 using his beat up EF 15mm on it via adapter, a very nice combination of speed and field of view.