Here’s confirmation of the RF 100-400, RF 24 Macro and RF 18-45. Sadly, they’re quite delayed

[Loswr]

The RF 100–500 is a replacement for the EF 100-400. The RF 100-400 is likely a replacement for EF 70-300 with a 67mm filter, costs and weighs less than half as much as the EF 100-400, and won’t be white.

Exactly. More like a successor to the 70-300 IS non-L.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Why is the 100-400mm a f/5.6 to 7.1... they need to swing for the fences on bigger aperture telephoto lenses. I was hoping for 3.5 to 5.6.

Because size and weight matters most when competing with SP for customers.
F7.1 is hardly an issue for sensors nowadays and it certainly won't be an issue for the next two generations of sensors. Plus, Canon again manages to gain extra reach on this lense since it is the successor of the 70-300mm lense.

 

[dlee13]

I can’t help but feel sad the RF 16mm f/2.8 isn’t on that list

 

[FrenchFry]

Who needs a 24 mm macro?

It can be fun for wide-angle close ups that show the subject's environment.

It may not be your thing, but it can be a lot of fun to try to capture photos that don't just show a small animal, but its habitat as well. I wouldn't try this with a mega predator, but it's fun with reptiles and amphibians.

Here are a few examples of wide-angle semi close ups:

35mm:

28mm:

16mm:

Same subject at 150mm, has a very different look even if is roughly the same size in the frame:


And if herping isn't your thing, it can provide a different look for plants/flowers/insects.
24mm:

35mm

Same subject, but shot with a standard macro lens look instead of wide angle:

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I can’t help but feel sad the RF 16mm f/2.8 isn’t on that list

That’s what I thought, too. Now, that I know it’s coming, I reeeeeeally want it.

 

[InchMetric]

R6 with 100-400 might make a good replacement for my 70D with 75-300.

Wonder if the 1.4 extender will offer full range with this lens.

I'd bet heavily against lenses designed for compactness for consumers will take the extenders. Like the 24-240.

I can’t help but feel sad the RF 16mm f/2.8 isn’t on that list

That looks like a consumer list. No L lenses that I noticed.

 

[t.linn]

I guess this must be the consumer/prosumer- roadmap. Still waiting on my Astro lens in RF mount

The RF 20 F1.8?

 

[t.linn]

Canon has managed to cherry pick every single RF lens I was interested in purchasing and move them to the front of the line.

 

[stevelee]

LOL!, nothing to do with herpes!

For the uninitiated, herping is to look for amphibians and reptiles. Herpetology is the study of amphibians and reptiles.

So you don’t get warts and such from toads?

 

[dlee13]

That’s what I thought, too. Now, that I know it’s coming, I reeeeeeally want it.

Tell me about it, I’ve been so eager to find out more about it and I feel like I’ll just preorder it the second it’s available!

I'd bet heavily against lenses designed for compactness for consumers will take the extenders. Like the 24-240.

That looks like a consumer list. No L lenses that I noticed.

The RF 16mm is actually rumored to be a non L lens, along with that 70-400mm so that’s why I was disappointed it wasn’t on there lol.

 

[Besisika]

Who needs a 24 mm macro?

Actually, that is the only RF lens I would be interested in, aside from the 135 F2, provided that it is not APSC like the pancake. 24mm semi-macro at 1.8 will do quite a bit for me. A 20mm would even be better. I shoot video in very tight spaces and in dim light, quite often, when visiting my family in Africa.

 

[Kiton]

WTH ??
A 7.1 on the 100-400?
NO!!!!!

That has to be 5.6 or better.
Why on earth would anyone buy the 100-400 at 7.1 you might as well go with the 100-500.

A 100-400 5.6 or, like Nikon, a 200-500 5.6.
But a 100-400 7.1 is redundant.

Sigma are you listening?? There seems to be a big hole coming in the Canon lineup.........A 200-500 5.6 please Kazuto Yamaki!!

 

[Go Wild]

With the 14-35 and 15-35 already in existence, I'm really questioning whether that 18-45 is going to be a full-frame lens... I guess it could be a price-point wide angle, designed to pair with the 24-105 STM for an inexpensive lightweight kit? But still...

In my opinion this 18-45 is going to be a cheaper lens with F3.5-5.6 or so...It will fit as a kit lens for the next EOS RP maybe....

 

[David - Sydney]

R6 with 100-400 might make a good replacement for my 70D with 75-300.

Wonder if the 1.4 extender will offer full range with this lens.

Canon have not been directly replacing EF lenses with RF versions without a significant advantage in some way. That said, the RF100-400mm should be comparable (reach, light, size) to the EF75-300 but hopefully a better build, sharpness and IS.
I would be surprised if RF TCs can be used given Canon's 70-200/2.8 and f4, RF100-500mm etc not allowing them (or within limited focal length)

 

[SteveC]

WTH ??
A 7.1 on the 100-400?
NO!!!!!

That has to be 5.6 or better.
Why on earth would anyone buy the 100-400 at 7.1 you might as well go with the 100-500.

A 100-400 5.6 or, like Nikon, a 200-500 5.6.
But a 100-400 7.1 is redundant.

Sigma are you listening?? There seems to be a big hole coming in the Canon lineup.........A 200-500 5.6 please Kazuto Yamaki!!

You missed the part where this is a non-L consumer-grade lens. It was never the lens you're looking for.

 

[Click]

Here are a few examples of wide-angle semi close ups:

Very nice pictures. Excellent quality.

 

[Kiton]

You missed the part where this is a non-L consumer-grade lens. It was never the lens you're looking for.

You would be 100% correct, I did miss that, my outrage took over too quickly. But I still dream of a Nikon matching 200-500 5.6.

 

[dominic_siu]

WTH ??
A 7.1 on the 100-400?
NO!!!!!

That has to be 5.6 or better.
Why on earth would anyone buy the 100-400 at 7.1 you might as well go with the 100-500.

A 100-400 5.6 or, like Nikon, a 200-500 5.6.
But a 100-400 7.1 is redundant.

Sigma are you listening?? There seems to be a big hole coming in the Canon lineup.........A 200-500 5.6 please Kazuto Yamaki!!

This is a non-L lens, it won’t be faster than the 100-500 L

 

[Countess Schlick]

I'm not super sure what this image is showing. Are the red arrows showing production delays? (E.g. The production of the RF 100-400mm was supposed to start at the beginning of last year but has now begun about a month ago?)

Anyway, looking at the image, the green bars seem to start a couple of months before announcements happen. The 24-240's bar starts a month or two before its announcement, same with the 24-105, and the 600 and 800 started production about 5 months before their announcement.

Going off of that, it seems like the 18-45 and 100-400 could be announced any time now. They may be waiting to announce the 18-45 with a crop-sensor mirrorless camera, so maybe just the announcement of the 100-400 soon, which would fit with the recent rumour about the 70-400 and 16mm lenses. Really wish we knew where the 16 mm lens was.

 

[Skux]

WTH ??
A 7.1 on the 100-400?
NO!!!!!

That has to be 5.6 or better.
Why on earth would anyone buy the 100-400 at 7.1 you might as well go with the 100-500.

A 100-400 5.6 or, like Nikon, a 200-500 5.6.
But a 100-400 7.1 is redundant.

Sigma are you listening?? There seems to be a big hole coming in the Canon lineup.........A 200-500 5.6 please Kazuto Yamaki!!

For the same reason I own the EF 70-300 Nano USM instead of the 100-400 L.

I like birds, just not enough to spend NZD $3000+ on a lens to take photos of them (or $5500 for the RF 100-500).

I really hope Canon gets the price right on these apparently 'affordable' non-L options.