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

[dcm]

Are you extremly pleased with the EF 8-15?

I'm not sure how to quantify "extremely pleased". For my purposes? Yes. But I am an amateur/prosumer that shot film and manual focus longer than I've been shooting digital. And this is a specialty lens that gets limited use on my 6D and 1DX2. My initial impressions with it on the R6 are more about the R6. I have more options to consider about the best way to get the image I desire, particularly with AF since I often used MF in the past.

The lens operates just fine. I've never had any complaints with it over the 9 years I've owned it on FF or APS-C bodies. It even spent time on my M series before I picked up the manual focus Samyang 8MM f/2.8 Fisheye for the M. The 6D/EF 8-15 has been on the trail with me, but I like the smaller size of the M/Samyang for the trail. The EF 8-15 seems so small now compared to the EF 11-24.

 

[puffo25]

I'm not sure how to quantify "extremely pleased". For my purposes? Yes. But I am an amateur/prosumer that shot film and manual focus longer than I've been shooting digital. And this is a specialty lens that gets limited use on my 6D and 1DX2. My initial impressions with it on the R6 are more about the R6. I have more options to consider about the best way to get the image I desire, particularly with AF since I often used MF in the past.

The lens operates just fine. I've never had any complaints with it over the 9 years I've owned it on FF or APS-C bodies. It even spent time on my M series before I picked up the manual focus Samyang 8MM f/2.8 Fisheye for the M. The 6D/EF 8-15 has been on the trail with me, but I like the smaller size of the M/Samyang for the trail. The EF 8-15 seems so small now compared to the EF 11-24.

View attachment 196120

Appreciated for sharing your "arsenal".

One last questions but not sure you might be able to answer me as I own a EOS R5 with the EF 8-15, Samyang 12mm fisheye, RF 70-200 f2,8, 1,4 teleconverter, EF 300mm f/4...
I have in my office also the EF 24-70mm L f2,8 first version and I am wondering, based maybe on your experience, if indeed it is worth for me to trade in that lens and get the EF 24-70mm L II f2,8?

TIA.

​

 

[dcm]

Appreciated for sharing your "arsenal".

One last questions but not sure you might be able to answer me as I own a EOS R5 with the EF 8-15, Samyang 12mm fisheye, RF 70-200 f2,8, 1,4 teleconverter, EF 300mm f/4...
I have in my office also the EF 24-70mm L f2,8 first version and I am wondering, based maybe on your experience, if indeed it is worth for me to trade in that lens and get the EF 24-70mm L II f2,8?

TIA.

​

I started with the II version when I upgraded from the 24-105L so I don't have any first hand knowledge of the differences between versions I and II. I'm sure there are prior discussions on the forum from those more knowledgable than I.

 

[slclick]

I started with the II version when I upgraded from the 24-105L so I don't have any first hand knowledge of the differences between versions I and II. I'm sure there are prior discussions on the forum from those more knowledgable than I.

Appreciated for sharing your "arsenal".

One last questions but not sure you might be able to answer me as I own a EOS R5 with the EF 8-15, Samyang 12mm fisheye, RF 70-200 f2,8, 1,4 teleconverter, EF 300mm f/4...
I have in my office also the EF 24-70mm L f2,8 first version and I am wondering, based maybe on your experience, if indeed it is worth for me to trade in that lens and get the EF 24-70mm L II f2,8?

TIA.

The answer is a resounding YES. Check out Bryan's review and comparison at TDP. I have had both and they are light years apart. Unlike the versions of the 24-105 which are slight, the sharpness (both center and corner to corner) , AF speed, and other aberrations are vastly improved in the ll.​

 

[JaydenEricBeaudoin]

Or they could just complete the F2 trinity and kick every competitors ass with a 14-28mm F2 or 12-24mm or something similar in F2.

Of course, "complete the trinity" would also mean a 70-XXXmm F2

If they came out with an ultra wide f/2... I don't even care how much it costs. Take my money and take it now. I'm already looking at mirating over to the 28-70, and hoping to do it before my EF 24-70 2.8 loses too much value.

I don't think we'll see a 70-200 f/2, though. Probably closer to 70-135, unless you want to carry a lens that weighs over 2kg... And it might weigh that much anyways. Plus, the size of that front element is going to be insane. I can't wait.

 

[Antono Refa]

Inexpensive lenses please! This system urgently needs 3-4 lenses under 600 USD.

Between EOS-M and the ability to mount lenses with adaptors, including EF & EF-S, I doubt this is a high priority for Canon.

I wonder whether the ability to mount FD superteles with an adaptor wasn't part of the drive to make the cheap RF superteles.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

If they came out with an ultra wide f/2... I don't even care how much it costs. Take my money and take it now. I'm already looking at mirating over to the 28-70, and hoping to do it before my EF 24-70 2.8 loses too much value.

I don't think we'll see a 70-200 f/2, though. Probably closer to 70-135, unless you want to carry a lens that weighs over 2kg... And it might weigh that much anyways. Plus, the size of that front element is going to be insane. I can't wait.

There won't be an RF 70-200mm F2, but I honestly believe there will be an RF 70-135mm F2 or something similar. An RF F2 trinity would separate Canon from the pack, no matter what the exact mm would be.

I would only be in the market for one of these lense, either an UWA F2 or the 70-XXXmm F2. I'd wish for a 75-150mm F2, but nobody will seriously ask me. The UWA is just interesting for myself if it's weight is reasonable enough to carry it around instead of an RF 14-35mm or similar.

 

[fred]

Let’s hope the RF14-35mm F4L IS will be one of them. Btw, why does Canonrumors not use disqus or something?

 

[jd7]

Though not on the predicted roadmap, I'd love a 24-70 F4L IS. The EF version used to be my go-to lens. Then I got a 16-35 F4L IS and love the improvement in sharpness. I can imagine an RF version of the 24-70 would be small, light and sharp.

Incidentally, it wasn't until I got my R5 that I realized how big a difference in sharpness there is between the 24-70 and 16-35 F4L. One of the very few downsides to the R5 purchase...

If your 24-70 f/4L IS is less sharp than your 16-35, I'd definitely recommend getting your 24-70 serviced by Canon. I got my 24-70 f/4L IS serviced once and it made a huge difference to the sharpness of my images (particularly towards the middle of the zoom range).

 

[jd7]

Third party will be your salvation then.

I know there have been rumours that Sigma and Tamron will start releasing RF lenses, but I really wish Sigma and Tamron would make official statements about whether they do or don't intend to make RF lenses. If they do (and Samyang releases more RF lenses too), I will probably stay with Canon when I get a mirrorless camera. Otherwise, I expect my next camera will be a Sony (some lenses available for the Sony system which really appeal to me!). I'd quite like to get a new speedlight at the moment, but I'm holding off spending anything on my Canon system until I decide which way I will go.

 

[jd7]

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'm surprised about your "nasty busy bokeh" comment. Sure, the EF 40/2.8 certainly doesn't give the best bokeh you've ever seen (it's not in the same league as, for example, my Sigma 35 Art or Sigma 50 Art, of course), but I'm frequently pleasantly surprised at the bokeh that lens produces for its size/weight/price. The EF 50/1.8 (both STM and II versions), and from what I've seen online also the RF 50/1.8 STM, can produce some pretty nasty bokeh in some situations, but I've never found the EF 40/2.8 that bad.

 

[benpisati]

I don't understand why they make multiple versions of some lenses, always the same ones, while lenses like 20mm are dated 1992 !! Sony has a 20 1.8, Sigma has a 20 1.4, Tokina 20 2.0, Nikon 20 1.8

I also note that these lenses are all waterproof, all new nikon z lenses and sony fe lenses are Weather Sealed. Canon has decided that only L lenses need Weather Sealed. I have an R6, yes which I am very satisfied with, but I think the Nikon and Sony lenses are definitely more up to the professional level (I'm not talking about L lenses)

 

[Ozarker]

I don't understand why they make multiple versions of some lenses, always the same ones, while lenses like 20mm are dated 1992 !! Sony has a 20 1.8, Sigma has a 20 1.4, Tokina 20 2.0, Nikon 20 1.8

I also note that these lenses are all waterproof, all new nikon z lenses and sony fe lenses are Weather Sealed. Canon has decided that only L lenses need Weather Sealed. I have an R6, yes which I am very satisfied with, but I think the Nikon and Sony lenses are definitely more up to the professional level (I'm not talking about L lenses)

No lens from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Tokina, Sigma, or Tamron, etc., are "water proof". Neither are the cameras. Don't confuse weather sealing with being "water proof". *Exception: specifically designed underwater cameras.

 

[koenkooi]

No lens from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Tokina, Sigma, or Tamron, etc., are "water proof". Neither are the cameras. Don't confuse weather sealing with being "water proof". *Exception: specifically designed underwater cameras.

As Roger from lensrentals likes to say: The manufacturers trust their weather sealing so much that they refuse to cover weather damage in their warranties.

 

[benpisati]

No lens from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Tokina, Sigma, or Tamron, etc., are "water proof". Neither are the cameras. Don't confuse weather sealing with being "water proof". *Exception: specifically designed underwater cameras.

My mistake during translation, I meant weather sealed series specially for dust.

 

[Dockland]

I really do hope there will come a RF 200mm f/2 L IS USM and a RF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM as well.

 

[Ruined]

Appreciated for sharing your "arsenal".

One last questions but not sure you might be able to answer me as I own a EOS R5 with the EF 8-15, Samyang 12mm fisheye, RF 70-200 f2,8, 1,4 teleconverter, EF 300mm f/4...
I have in my office also the EF 24-70mm L f2,8 first version and I am wondering, based maybe on your experience, if indeed it is worth for me to trade in that lens and get the EF 24-70mm L II f2,8?

TIA.

​

The EF 24-70mm L II is definitely worth the upgrade from the v1

 

[JohanCruyff]

I still own an EOS M6 plus three EF-M / EF-S lenses.
I would like to switch to a set of two full frame bodies (my current R and a R6) but I can't sell my EOS M6 plus EF-M 11-22mm because sometimes I need a wideangle.


I don't need a heavy RF 15-35 F/2.8 L and I don't want to buy an EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L.

Please Canon, give me a

• RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM or
• RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM or
• anything in the range RF 17-30mm F/4 or slower, L or not, USM or STM,

and you'll have a happy customer.

 

[puffo25]

Hi all, for astro and night photography I am looking for a bright lens (ie. F/1,8 or F/2.0) for my Canon R5.
Currently I have a Samyang 12mm f2,8 but it is not very bright, quality at the corner is so-so and I cannot mount filters.
I am looking for a high quality manual or autofocus lens....
Any suggestion? Sigma 14mm art is maybe a good option...? Anything else around 12-15mm lens and bright aperture ?

 

[Fischer]

Hi all, for astro and night photography I am looking for a bright lens (ie. F/1,8 or F/2.0) for my Canon R5.
Currently I have a Samyang 12mm f2,8 but it is not very bright, quality at the corner is so-so and I cannot mount filters.
I am looking for a high quality manual or autofocus lens....
Any suggestion? Sigma 14mm art is maybe a good option...? Anything else around 12-15mm lens and bright aperture ?

Samyang 14mm f/2.4 XP is very hard to beat for astro. Its one of only 2 non-RF lenses I have kept (the other being the 35mm L II which is gone when there's an RF-mount version). One of the EF-RF adapters will allow for a back filter.