Is the ultimate astro lens coming? Another RF 14-21mm f/1.4L USM mention [CR2]

addola

Sold my soul for a flippy screen
Nov 16, 2015
137
119
That reasoning falls down when you consider Canon have made Astro versions of their cameras since 2005 with the 20Da yet never felt they needed to make specific Astro lenses. Don’t forget the vast majority of those Astro cameras are attached to telescopes not EF or RF lenses.

Good points!
 

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
657
545
www.flickr.com
That reasoning falls down when you consider Canon have made Astro versions of their cameras since 2005 with the 20Da yet never felt they needed to make specific Astro lenses. Don’t forget the vast majority of those Astro cameras are attached to telescopes not EF or RF lenses.
Agreed. That said, sensitivity to Ha is not so important for wide angle astro.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
628
1,101
If F/1.4 is supposedly "too wide" of an aperture for astro, just wait until the complainers discover "stopping down the aperture to improve image quality.." I know the fixed apertures of the 600 and 800 F/11 are confusing y'all, but come on.

Jokes aside, having a wider aperture means stopping down is even better quality. F/1.4 might be rough for astro, but I bet the F/2 would kick the butt of the 14mm f2.8 at 2.8.

I think this lens would be incredible and probably make a profit off of high customers, like the 28-70. I think the 11-24mm was great proof that there's plenty of customers that have been spending 6-12K on super telephotos that would easily spend 3-4 grand on "super" non-telephoto lenses. That mentality has gone into the 28-70, and I'm sure this lens would do the same.

I personally think this would be an incredible sports lens. I know one of the main clients of the 15-35 f2.8 is sports, and this lens would definitely be sold in droves for sports photogs who already shell out 12 grand for supertelephotos.

A side note, the new tracking AF on the R5/R6 means you could have facial tracking on a remote camera. F/1.4 could be usable even on remotes if the camera is tracking faces.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RobbieHat

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,491
3,873
Irving, Texas
does it have to be so large now with RF mirrorless??
I though the huge lenses were because of retrofocal design needed because of the flange distance of 44mm in EFs an EF but shouldn't have to be so large in a 20mm flange distance of the RF. Simillar to the Sony E mount.
Don’t let the experts fool you. ;) There’s lots on hopes, dreams, fantasies, and speculation passed off as fact.
 

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
372
223
Australia
I have put a kidney on Ebay in preparation for a down payment for the lens. Seriously this would be a their most expensive lens yet for RF. Just what they need.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,491
3,873
Irving, Texas
If F/1.4 is supposedly "too wide" of an aperture for astro, just wait until the complainers discover "stopping down the aperture to improve image quality.." I know the fixed apertures of the 600 and 800 F/11 are confusing y'all, but come on.

Jokes aside, having a wider aperture means stopping down is even better quality. F/1.4 might be rough for astro, but I bet the F/2 would kick the butt of the 14mm f2.8 at 2.8.

I think this lens would be incredible and probably make a profit off of high customers, like the 28-70. I think the 11-24mm was great proof that there's plenty of customers that have been spending 6-12K on super telephotos that would easily spend 3-4 grand on "super" non-telephoto lenses. That mentality has gone into the 28-70, and I'm sure this lens would do the same.

I personally think this would be an incredible sports lens. I know one of the main clients of the 15-35 f2.8 is sports, and this lens would definitely be sold in droves for sports photogs who already shell out 12 grand for supertelephotos.

A side note, the new tracking AF on the R5/R6 means you could have facial tracking on a remote camera. F/1.4 could be usable even on remotes if the camera is tracking faces.
To be honest, I’m very sure I have never had a lens as sharp as the RF 50/85mm f/1.2L lenses.... at f1.2. RF is a real game changer. Stopping down may not be needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lbeck and H. Jones

mclaren777

EOS RP
Apr 9, 2012
228
138
I want a 14-28mm f/2 like the patents mentioned.

This f/1.4 will surely be larger, heavier, and more expensive. :(
 

Franklyok

EOS 90D
Oct 24, 2018
111
40
Will there be automatic inbody barrel distortion fix... Thats what RF mount is for, right?
 
Sep 9, 2020
4
3
Coma and wide open sharpness are obviously important. But deal lord canon you need to work on the vignetting. Everyone thought the Ef 16-35 2.8 iii was bad brought but they you dropped 4.5EV on the rf 15-35. If it vignettes like that who cares about the number on the name of the lens in the corners it’s an f7.1 lens and useless for Astro.

Just make it huge and perfect for Astro. That’s why the sigma 14 1.8 is great. At f2.2 the vignetting is amazing already!
 

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,580
548
I think it'll come in at just under $3K, probably same price as the 28-70


Well, the current EF 11-24 L f/4 lens by cannon list price is right at about $2999.99.....I can't imagine a faster version of it in the new RF mount would be cheaper than what is arguably it redecessor.

I'd guess at least $4K list price.

cayenne
 

BeenThere

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2012
1,238
663
Eastern Shore
Coma and wide open sharpness are obviously important. But deal lord canon you need to work on the vignetting. Everyone thought the Ef 16-35 2.8 iii was bad brought but they you dropped 4.5EV on the rf 15-35. If it vignettes like that who cares about the number on the name of the lens in the corners it’s an f7.1 lens and useless for Astro.

Just make it huge and perfect for Astro. That’s why the sigma 14 1.8 is great. At f2.2 the vignetting is amazing already!
Exactly. I would rather have a 14mm f~1.4 prime lens that had great sharpness, coma, and vignetting than a zoom that was compromised in one of these factors.
 

AJ

EOS RP
Sep 11, 2010
704
120
If you want 21/1.4 right now, you can simply use a narrower fast lens (e.g. 35/1.4, 50/1.4), shoot in a grid pattern, and stitch. A friend of mine uses this technique a lot for shooting the milky way (guided on an astro tracker). Wouldn't work for aurora, though.
 

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
208
314
Kenosha, WI
Coma and wide open sharpness are obviously important. But deal lord canon you need to work on the vignetting. Everyone thought the Ef 16-35 2.8 iii was bad brought but they you dropped 4.5EV on the rf 15-35. If it vignettes like that who cares about the number on the name of the lens in the corners it’s an f7.1 lens and useless for Astro.

Just make it huge and perfect for Astro. That’s why the sigma 14 1.8 is great. At f2.2 the vignetting is amazing already!

Is it really that important if the camera fixes it before you even look at the file?
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,413
905
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
Well, the current EF 11-24 L f/4 lens by cannon list price is right at about $2999.99.....I can't imagine a faster version of it in the new RF mount would be cheaper than what is arguably it redecessor.

There's a huge world of difference between an 11-24 and a 14-21 - so much so that I would argue that it covers the difference in speeds between the two lenses which is why I think they'll be the same price.

Of course, the more people post here saying "I'm sure this lens will be $4k or more", the more chance that Canon will take notice and think "yes, maybe we can sell it for that much!"

So, to counter that, I think it'll come out at $349 :)
 
<-- start Taboola -->