Rumored RF lens roadmap update

[Loswr]

the ones that Canon did already for the RF-S were either poor / had problematic QA, or required heavy DLO to be "okay" so changing them up probably was a good idea .. but the EF-M 11-22 and potentially the EF-M 32mm were pretty top notch.

The RF-S 18-150mm is a rehousing of the EF-M 18-150mm optics.

 

[divinshire]

Soft? I find it about equal to the RF 24-70 2.8 in real life.
If you pixel peep at the-digital-picture, it shows as sharper then the RF 24-70 2.8.
There are other imperfections with chromatic aberrations etc, but I think it is plenty sharp and a gem of a walk around lens with its size.
If anything the RF 24-70 2.8 needs some help if you compare it to Sony's GMII.
I have the GMII and find it to be pretty much as sharp as primes.

Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

yeah i don't get peoples gripe with the 24-105F4L?? its plenty sharp and delivers great image quality, not to mention an extremely versatile focal length....never had any issue with my copy of the lens. Love it.

 

[divinshire]

Huh? Rumor and patent were just posted a week or so ago. And patent listed numerous lenses, not just 200-800. And most patents don't become products. So, basically, doubt anyone said it was coming this year, and maybe never. And those who actually take photos know that Canon's 100-500 is probably the equal to any competitors 200-600mm (or 180-600, or whatever to 600) lens.

FYI - i have the 100-500 so i know it's a good lens. Thanks for your input though!

 

[vjlex]

Do you mean RF-S 22/2? I would cordially welcome one (a lens, not a rumor)!

Surprised no one said this earlier. The 22 f/2 is still one of my favorite lens and the only reason I still have an M-body. Introducing an RF-S equivalent might coax me over to one of those compact R bodies (plus I'd be able to use it on my R5 and R7 if I wish).

 

[Blorp]

But what about a capable RF-S camera in the size of an M6 II? I don't want a dual use situation with my big Canon and a Sony.

What I don't like about the M6 II:

• slow startup from standby
• slow unreliable AF
• to many button presses needed to change AF mode
• steering AF field with touchfield too slow and imprecise
• only one AF mode usable at once (R5 can have Point AF on Shutter and Full Auto with eye detection on AF-On simultaneously)

 

[el peso]

It must be a mistake. Where`s RF 50/1.4?

 

[Richard CR]

• slow unreliable AF

really? on what lens?

 

[Richard CR]

The RF-S 18-150mm is a rehousing of the EF-M 18-150mm optics.

was it? I couldn't remember. does makes sense. that lens was certainly a favorite of mine. if they made it 15-150, i would have had to sell a kidney.

 

[EricN]

It must be a mistake. Where`s RF 50/1.4?

It's in your and probably more than a few other people's dreams?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The 200-500 f/4L also sounds interesting, depending on its price. probably won’t be $3K because that’s where the current 100-500 is, but $10K is a nonstarter for me.

The EF 200-400 f/4 L is $11K.
An RF 200-500 f/4 would be most certainly more.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The RF-S, super telephoto zoom seems curious. I’m no optical designer, but I’ve always heard that, beyond about 200 mm or so, there is not much of a size or weight savings from the 1.6 CF image circle.

It would not be any smaller but it would potentially be lighter than the equivalent full-frame zoom.
A prime would be no difference.
There are already the RF-S 55-210 and RF 100-400 so 300 mm would make some sense.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It could help the R7 sales, don't you think?

No.
R7 users seem fine with full-frame lenses.
It could help R10 sales though.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Economically it makes alot of sense for Canon simply to port the EF-M lenses.

They are obviously not doing that and could have ported the entire line in short order.
It does seem like the current designs are based on those designs though.

 

[Blorp]

really? on what lens?

EF-M 22 2.0, EF-S 55-250, EF-M 55-200, Sigma 56 1.4, it's just bad at tracking and often locks onto the background not the subject. But I'm comparing it with a R5 in action conditions, not taking a shot of something not moving with unlimited amount of time.

 

[P-visie]

The EF 200-400 f/4 L is $11K.
An RF 200-500 f/4 would be most certainly more.

The rumor is that the price of the RF 200-500mm f4 will be $ 15.999.

Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM update [CR2]

The Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM has been rumoured for some time now, and it is definitely in the pipeline. This will be the RF replacement for the highly-reg

www.canonrumors.com

 

[sleepyphotog]

Is there really no demand for an RF 35mm L lens? I love my EF 35mm 1.4, and it seems (anecdotally) that a lot of photographers want a 35mm 1.4 (or 1.2) lens. Maybe the demand isn't that great. Am I wrong here?

 

[stillviking]

Canon really need to launch these lens fast:

RF Fisheye L
RF 24 mm 1.4 L
RF 35 mm 1.4 L
RF 50 mm 1.4 L

 

[roby17269]

Is there really no demand for an RF 35mm L lens? I love my EF 35mm 1.4, and it seems (anecdotally) that a lot of photographers want a 35mm 1.4 (or 1.2) lens. Maybe the demand isn't that great. Am I wrong here?

I do demand a 35mm 1.2
Seriously though, fast L primes are not going to be huge sellers in absolute terms, like all expensive lenses, compared to cheaper alternatives.
I have no clue whether the demand is high or not and how's split across 1.2 v 1.4 (if split at all).
I only know that:

• every manufacturer has had a fast 35mm in older systems, or has it or plans to have it in modern systems
• 35mm primes (at various max apertures) have been a staple of photographers for a long time
• I want it - and I want it at 1.2. Canon do that and you have a sure buyer (me)

 

[Del Paso]

yeah i don't get peoples gripe with the 24-105F4L?? its plenty sharp and delivers great image quality, not to mention an extremely versatile focal length....never had any issue with my copy of the lens. Love it.

There must be some sample variations. Mine was visibly inferior to my EF 24-70/f4, throughout the full range. It wasn't bad, but definitely not convincing. The best term to describe it would be "flat"... Contrast and sharpness were mediocre, except at the 24mm setting.
Now, I'm "waiting" for an improved f2,8 version.Will it ever come, who knows?

 

[Traveler]

Because it will be derived from the EF-M 11-22mm, which is a nice lens, and not EF-S as that was designed for a longer distance from flange to sensor.

I get their reason to save money on R&D. It was just a sigh. If they made nice APSC lenses, I wouldn't mind going APSC.