Leaving aside "fantasy" lenses with crazy zoom ranges and ultra-wide apertures, what sort of L glass would you consider "interesting" and reasonable?So can we just write off any hopes of any interesting L glass for the rest of this year? It’d save me some time.
I hope not...I feel like its unnecessary lazy and the 16 is very not usable on the edges for certain applications. Being as slow as it is I feel like its not necessary either.I wonder if the 15-30 would compare well against the (sometimes maligned) EF 17-40 L? I'm sure there will be a lot of digital stretching at the wide end. But that has worked out well with the 24-240 and 16mm 2.8.
Brian
(I should add, only the very cheapest lenses are in my price range! Even some of the consumer zooms are eye watering to me now).Interesting! I have just started with the R system and what I lack is wide angle and wide aperture; I'd figured the 16mm would be the most appropriate next step, but maybe I should hold off. Or get either the 50 1.8 or 35 1.8 and then make a judgment of the wide angle options in a few months.
I wonder that too, but at the same time it took Canon 11 years from the release of the EF-mount to bring out EF 35L f1.4.Where oh where is the 35L f1.2?!
or "more canon junk".Another way of saying "affordable".
He said "interesting L". These do not seem to be L series lenses.Interesting is subjective and these will be interesting to many people, just not you apparently.
I am with you. Yes the RF lens lineup needs to be fleshed out more in multiple ways, but most of the recent lens announcements have been underwhelming... to me.Where oh where is the 35L f1.2?!
Interesting L glass would include, for me, RF tilt-shift lenses with AF, an RF 35 F1.2L, and any small, lightweight L glass like we're seeing from Sony with their newer GM lenses like the v2 24-70 F2.8. I would also welcome an RF 20mm lens with controlled coma that works well for astrophotography. Sony and Nikon both offer something like this.Leaving aside "fantasy" lenses with crazy zoom ranges and ultra-wide apertures, what sort of L glass would you consider "interesting" and reasonable?
I think Canon have produced a great deal of "interesting" RF glass, including some very appealing non-L lenses.
Most people can't afford such things. I'm not sure a system built only on the absolute upper end is the best way to remain maximally profitable. Canon are good at targeting casual consumers, and even if those are bleeding away, it's likely there's still money in catering to them.I am with you. Yes the RF lens lineup needs to be fleshed out more in multiple ways, but most of the recent lens announcements have been underwhelming... to me.
The RF mount started strong with great L primes and zooms and some innovative non-L lenses, but recently we've had a series of less interesting (to me) lenses including cheaper primes and re-adapted / re-teleconverted exotics and crop zooms.
I say bring on more fast primes and TS offerings!
If leaked roadmaps are any guide, you could be in luck fairly soon. "The two rumored autofocus tilt-shift lenses from Canon will be the Canon TS-R 14mm f/4L and Canon TS-R 24mm f/3.5L." - Canon Rumors May 2021.Interesting L glass would include, for me, RF tilt-shift lenses with AF, an RF 35 F1.2L, and any small, lightweight L glass like we're seeing from Sony with their newer GM lenses like the v2 24-70 F2.8. I would also welcome an RF 20mm lens with controlled coma that works well for astrophotography. Sony and Nikon both offer something like this.