Canon will announce more lenses at one time than ever before in the 2nd half of 2021 [CR2]

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,827
1,121
$6,999
$13,999
$10,499
$15,999
Your predictions (unfortunately) seem reasonable according to the existing EF L super teles.

Since I already have some big white EF lenses I feel 40497$ (even more since I live in EU) richer :ROFLMAO:
Joking of course but the EF lenses are too good to be replaced for that amount of money.

Now a 600 5.6 DO would interest me but this is not going to happen (at least not soon).
 

Bundu

EOS M6 Mark II
Nov 24, 2014
91
40
South Africa
My dream lens? RF200-500 f4 L with inbuilt 1.4 tele converter. Yes, it will be big and fairly heavy!! But for my use case it will replace my 400 F2.8 and 600 F4.0 If only everybody's dream lens could come true......
 

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,387
2,528
The cheap lenses come with the cheap bodies. The R5/6 line deserve the class of glass they can produce the finest images using. The R and RP have been given the door so I bet we will see less expensive lenses with new lower priced cameras in the future. For now, it's all about top shelf. Just because a person cannot afford something, it doesn't mean the Mfg must fill the economic gap that suits their budget. Can't afford a GTO? Get the Pinto.
 

ctk

Refurb EOS R Kit
Mar 25, 2020
63
62
A 40 prime in RF would bring me to the system (to a R6). I know...weird. I just love that focal length.
You are not alone at all. The CV 40 1.2 is my favorite lens, though I couldn't deal with MF and Sony. Samyang 45/1.8 is good too and I'd settle for that. But a nice compact fast 40 would be amazing. I was so crushed when Sigma announced the 40 ART. Was hoping it would just be a longer 35 1.4..... nope. Anywa we'll see
 

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
286
271
Please no more drinking straw supertele zooms.
300 f/2.8 IS
500 f/4 IS
200-600 f/4.5-6.3 IS
800 f/8 DO IS
150 f/2.8 macro IS
135 f/2 IS
20-35 f/2
55 f/1.4
12-24 f/4
16-35 f/4 IS
16 f/1.8
100 f/1.8 IS
Not sure what you mean by "drinking Straws", but I would really like to see a high quality 200-500 / 200-600. On the wide end, I would think they could maintain f4 @ 200mm since they do that with the the EF 200-400 and the new mount should help a bit. If they could even do 200-500 f4 - f5.6 (maybe f6.3) with similar quality tot he EF 200-400 I would be very happy. I hope this zoom with the EF III weight loss program to get the lens under 7lbs. I wonder if we are going to see any EF 400 f4 IS DO equivalent RF lenses?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bundu

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,387
2,528
You are not alone at all. The CV 40 1.2 is my favorite lens, though I couldn't deal with MF and Sony. Samyang 45/1.8 is good too and I'd settle for that. But a nice compact fast 40 would be amazing. I was so crushed when Sigma announced the 40 ART. Was hoping it would just be a longer 35 1.4..... nope. Anywa we'll see
The Siggy produces amazing images but with a 24-70 size and weight. Pass.

I'd be curious to hear how an adapted EF 40 is on the R6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
236
170
How Canon can improve on the f/2.8 300mm IS USM II is beyond me. For fast action hand held sports, it is possibly the best in the world
Correct. But sold mine already and will be first in line to pre-order the RF-version. Its such a standout lens for my type of shooting. And I just do not want the fuss and missing performance when using a converter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldWing

ctk

Refurb EOS R Kit
Mar 25, 2020
63
62
The Siggy produces amazing images but with a 24-70 size and weight. Pass.

I'd be curious to hear how an adapted EF 40 is on the R6.
I'm sure the EF 40 works great on RF bodies.... I have one but have never bothered to put it on. It's sharp, but too slow and has nasty busy bokeh
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,432
303
Having owned the superb EF11-24 f4 since it came out I believe the market for wider than 14 and faster than f4 is microscopically small and will simply not happen.
I'm curious how Canon will address Sony's 12-24 f/2.8. I don't think the market will be large, but I remember rumors of the 11-24 f/4 becoming a 10-24 f/4 for RF, which would be more practical. Canon could also do a wide fast prime for astro.
 

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,387
2,528
I'm sure the EF 40 works great on RF bodies.... I have one but have never bothered to put it on. It's sharp, but too slow and has nasty busy bokeh
I found it to have fantastic colors and is simply the best bang for your buck (I only shoot it stopped down) f/8 and be there
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7
Aug 11, 2020
7
4
Having owned the superb EF11-24 f4 since it came out I believe the market for wider than 14 and faster than f4 is microscopically small and will simply not happen.
I understand that, but always the companies make niche products. A lot of astrophotographers would be absolutely in love with a lens with this specifications and L image quality.
I also think that Canon need to compete with the Sony 12-24mm f/2.8, and complete the 2.8 trilogy in the right way (now there is only RF 15-35 2.8).
But of course, this are my thoughts, I could be completely wrong.
 
Last edited:

Famateur

EOS R
Oct 9, 2012
839
209
F


For me it was the other way around. My 24-70 f4L IS does very well on the R5. I find the 16-35f4 L IS to be terrible on the R5, especially in the corners at the wide end. The field curvature at the 35mm end of that lens has always been a frustration. The 14 L II is even worse on the R5 and I already sold it. For now I'm using the Sigma 14-24 with the 24-70 on the R5. I have already sold the 14mm, but I doubt I will ever use the 16-35 again since the Sigma blows it off the map.

Interesting. Maybe your 16-35 and my 24-70 F4 need adjustment?
 
<-- start Taboola -->