RF lenses I want

[tonblom]

Who would like a RF 14-35mm f4 for the EOS-R line. I would and Canon could use the extra space of the RF lenses and not make it humongus. For my mark IV like the 16-35 best.
Another lense to complement the RF 14-35 could be a 24-300mm as a succesor to the EF 35-300 (long overdue). For me the perfect pair for travels, but I do miss my 100-400mm.

What lenses do you like to see from Canon?

PS I read a lot, but this is probably my first post.

 

[ArtisanCraft]

RF 35mm 1.8L
RF 50mm 1.8L

Light, compact, and excellent wide-open performance for travel. Something like the Nikon Z lenses or Fuji lenses, which perform very well wide open.

The current 35 1.8 is a jack-of-all-trades kind of lens that I honestly only enjoy using at 2.8. At 1.8 there is so much vignette and bokeh at edges is just plain distracting even for non-photographers. Still a great lens at the price point, but Canon, please, please make L versions of 1.8 lenses. Don't just make heavy, large 1.2/1.4 L lenses. Make some 1.8s too. My wallet is ready............... I'd pay the prices Nikon is currently charging for their equivalents easily, even a bit more, just please make them. CANON PLZ

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Both Canon and Nikon have a limited number of lens design teams. The experience and knowledge makes it difficult to just create additional teams. Canon has already said they pulled R&D designers into production design. That means maybe 5 or 6 RF lenses a year, and the big sellers will be zooms. We already know which ones will appear this year, and have a likely list for next year. If you want something not on those lists, it seems that a longer wait is going to be needed.

 

[Antono Refa]

An RF equivalent to the EF 11-24mm f/4L USM.

Budget fast quality primes, e.g. RF 50mm f/1.8 IS, RF 35mm f/1.8 IS.

 

[Del Paso]

Me want 60 mm f:2 macro and 24/70 f:4 macrozoom

 

[Viggo]

100 f1.4 and 200 f1.8.

 

[Loswr]

Budget fast quality primes, e.g. RF 50mm f/1.8 IS, RF 35mm f/1.8 IS.

That already exists!

 

[tonblom]

I could also add a fast RF 14mm or RF 11-24mm to my wish list. I'm not sure a RF 100-400 would be much smaller or lighter in comparison to the EF 100-400.

 

[unfocused]

That already exists!

Instant gratification. Who says Canon doesn't listen to this forum!

 

[MayaTlab]

RF 35mm 1.8L
RF 50mm 1.8L

Light, compact, and excellent wide-open performance for travel. Something like the Nikon Z lenses or Fuji lenses, which perform very well wide open.

The current 35 1.8 is a jack-of-all-trades kind of lens that I honestly only enjoy using at 2.8. At 1.8 there is so much vignette and bokeh at edges is just plain distracting even for non-photographers. Still a great lens at the price point, but Canon, please, please make L versions of 1.8 lenses. Don't just make heavy, large 1.2/1.4 L lenses. Make some 1.8s too. My wallet is ready............... I'd pay the prices Nikon is currently charging for their equivalents easily, even a bit more, just please make them. CANON PLZ

If Canon wants its lineup to be coherent I'm afraid that your wish may never really see the light of the day - or at least not in the next 5 years.
The 35mm RF is firmly entrenched in the cheap and cheerful side of things, and otherwise it seems to be all in for f1.2 L lenses.
The RP desperately needs more lenses like the 35 RF as well.
We'll know when additonnal cheaper lenses are released, but I'm not expecting anything like Nikon's f1.8 lineup any time soon.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Before I switch to RF I would want a 24-70 f2.8 or f4, 100mm macro, 70-200 f4 or f2.8, and a 200-400 or 400 of some sort. Certainly with a 70-200 I would get almost there, but last I checked something like 85% of my photos where taken at 300mm and cropped a lot.

 

[Pape]

RF100-400 with 5 stop image stabilation and nano usm? or 200-600 f6,4 with 1,5m closest focus if its possible
new RF 180mm macro or longer

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

So far, I've been pretty happy using my EF lenses with my R and sharing them with my MK IV. If I decide to go all mirrorless then I might buy EF.

The issue is that the MK IV is just better than my R.

 

[Ozarker]

I'll take anything f/2 or faster.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

RF equivalents of the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 would pair nicely with the RP, as would a compact 28-70 or 24-70 f4 zoom. An FF equivalent of the 15-45 EF-M lens for maximum portability.

I don't yet see the appeal of high-end RF lenses, but that's probably because as of this post, there are no equivalent high-end R bodies to mount them on

 

[BillB]

I don't yet see the appeal of high-end RF lenses, but that's probably because as of this post, there are no equivalent high-end R bodies to mount them on

For many use cases, the current R camera seems quite adequate for the high-end RF lenses.

 

[Ozarker]

For many use cases, the current R camera seems quite adequate for the high-end RF lenses.

To think I always thought better glass helped make photos from a mediocre camera better. Silly me. The R is just fine for those lenses. The RP probably is too. The way I have to look at it is this: I need to build the glass collection regardless. If I need a better camera later, I can do that. I just got my R yesterday and can't understand the bashing it gets (maybe because of video features? I don't do video) or why some think it isn't up to the RF glass. In the mean time, my EF glass is working flawlessly on my R.

 

[Pape]

R would be too good for me ,i wont see difference when pic is tooked either R or RP ,on blind test.
2million dot evf feels just perfect ,i dont want 5million
just makes camera go hotter and i am allercic for hot electric trinket smell.
but i could use longer lenses.

 

[BillB]

To think I always thought better glass helped make photos from a mediocre camera better. Silly me. The R is just fine for those lenses. The RP probably is too. The way I have to look at it is this: I need to build the glass collection regardless. If I need a better camera later, I can do that. I just got my R yesterday and can't understand the bashing it gets (maybe because of video features? I don't do video) or why some think it isn't up to the RF glass. In the mean time, my EF glass is working flawlessly on my R.

The R is a Canon camera and you are surprised it gets bashed ???? And then there are the slr guys who don't even like the idea of a mirrorless camera, etc., etc....... and besides it doesn't have a joystick.

 

[Ozarker]

The R is a Canon camera and you are surprised it gets bashed ???? And then there are the slr guys who don't even like the idea of a mirrorless camera, etc., etc....... and besides it doesn't have a joystick.

LOL! Never said I was surprised. I said I don't understand the bashing. I was born with a joystick and it has caused me nothing but bad decisions and trouble (A redhead from Paducah, KY comes to mind). BTW: Just mounted my 70-200 to the R. Works great, but I think I need the battery grip to comfortably use that one. The camera by itself seems a little small, handling/balance wise, with a long, front heavy lens. I need more purchase for my little finger. Otherwise, I am very pleasantly surprised at the great ergonomics of the R. I can't say, though, that the R is as comfortable as a 5D body. It isn't. Still very good.