Rumors are slow, let’s talk RF lens wish lists

ColinJR

EOS-R
Nov 27, 2018
73
71
robertsonrep.com
Oh boy... I have so many...
  • Tilt shifts (start with 17, 24, but I would really love to see a 35mm)
  • Are smaller (than the 28–70) ultra fast aperture zooms even possible, like a 24–50mm, 50–85mm @f/2?
  • 1.4 primes
  • 35mm 1.2L
  • 15–35 f/4L IS
  • TOTAL FANTASY LENS: 17–40mm f/4 TS-E ZOOM (I can dream ok?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
291
145
Australia
You have thought about this a lot I see. ;)
I have a lot of time, still waiting for RF lenses to excite me. Only ones I want are the 24-70 f/2.8L IS and maybe 50 f/1.2. I'll keep my EF glass unless these lenses come along. However, I'm not holding my breath for much of this to happen so I may never get the R5.
 

RMac

5Diii 7D M5 C300
Rounding out the L-glass primes:
  • 24mm f1.2L (35 would be okay too, but the IQ of the 24mm f1.4L ii is way behind the 35 so hopefully that will get updated first)
  • 135mm f1.4L (or f1.8L so that mere mortals can hand hold it for more than 30 seconds)
  • 14mm f1.4L with some sort of nice filter option (maybe ability to use the same drop-ins from the EF-RF adapter)
  • 100mm f2.8L Macro with at least 1:1
  • 200mm f1.8L
Zooms:
  • 70-200 f4L (hopefully even more compact than the 2.8)
  • 10-24 f4L (again, bonus if it works with the EF-RF adapter drop-in filters)
  • 14-28 f2L
  • 70-135 f2L
Adapters:
  • EF-RF tilt adapter
 

randy98mtu

CR Pro
Sep 6, 2020
1
1
I'm good on zooms, but I'd love to see L primes at 24, 35 and 135. I really love all of the RF glass. I'm only keeping 2 EF's right now to be dual purpose with my M6m2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bdbtoys
Oct 1, 2020
1
1
There's one that is so high on my wish list that I cannot even think of two others at the moment: a RF-replacement for the 16-35 f/4L. I prefer one that is compact to store and with a 77mm filter thread, to effectively combine to a 77mm-almost-f/4-trinity with the 24-105 f/4L and 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1. All 77mm allows to carry just a small set of circular screw-on filters that fit on all lenses if the added functionality of the bulky filter systems with square and rectangular filters isn't required (and makes the filter part of the kit more affordable if you don't use filters too often).
 
  • Like
Reactions: DickersonPhoto
Sep 30, 2020
1
0
16-35mm f/4
70-300mm f/4
Super-wide (11mm? 12mm?) f/2.8 or f/4

For those who've mentioned a Tilt-Shift adapter, EF/RF lenses don't have a large enough image circle, but I bought a Fotodiox TLT ROKR that adapts my Mamiya Medium Format lenses and works GREAT!
 

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
335
290
USA
Actually it just occurred to me that a 24-70 F4 L IS in the RF mount would probably be pretty nice. I know the EF version is nice and compact and this would be a re-hash, but i'd probably rather have that as a kit lens than the 24-105. Smaller, lighter enough that coupled with the smaller RF body size it would make a great walk around combo.

And a tilt adapter for EF to RF...whoever said that first is a genius!
 
Sep 29, 2020
2
0
When the R1 is announced I'd like to see a 200-400 2.8 with 1.4tc, or something similar. I'm sure it would cost 15k plus, but it would sell like crazy.
 

lawny13

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 6, 2019
84
59
Rather than think exotic I would like canon to present us with a more balanced option (cost/size/performance/weight).


And I would like to see them present us with lenses that plug the most glaring holes in their line up. Take the 50 mm FL for example. After seeing the RF 35 f1.8, I am HOPING that we don't essentially get the same in 50 mm.


I would very much see canon show us that they will provide us with a 3 lineup option. A budget 50 f1.8, a good weather sealed f1.4 50 that competes with the lines of the Z50 or the ZA 55.

I was willing to pay for an R5. But I am not necessarily ready to lug around a 50 f1.2 just because it is the creme of the crop. There are the lenses that you lust after because of their specs and ultimate image quality, but there are also those that are great, and you will actually leave the house with often. I am more than willing to pay $800-$1000 for such a lens over a nifty fifty costing $100. I live in a country were certain months of the year it will literally range for days on end. I value weather sealing, and I am willing to pay for it. The option of a small package while on the go is a nice option to have.

So... here is a +++ to those f1.8s, and f4 primes/zooms. I will own a few high end glass, but I also want those more portable options (but still good quality) to balance things out.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,719
1,589
There's one that is so high on my wish list that I cannot even think of two others at the moment: a RF-replacement for the 16-35 f/4L. I prefer one that is compact to store and with a 77mm filter thread, to effectively combine to a 77mm-almost-f/4-trinity with the 24-105 f/4L and 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1. All 77mm allows to carry just a small set of circular screw-on filters that fit on all lenses if the added functionality of the bulky filter systems with square and rectangular filters isn't required (and makes the filter part of the kit more affordable if you don't use filters too often).
That seems to be the most popular response from what I've seen...well, not quite: I'm seeing a lot of people wanting an f/4.0 "little brother" to the 15-35 f/2.8. If you can deal with that extra mm at the short end, you can join that party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kurt Lust
Just curious.
With vignetting so easily fixed in post...why is it such a deal breaker for you?

Thanks in advance!!

cayenne
I shoot landscapes and enjoy nightscapes with the milky way as well. The 15-35 has close to 5 stops of vignetting in the corners...Petty extreme, but not horrible if shot at ISO 100 in the day (they would correct to noise levels of approximately iso 3200). But at night shooting at 3200 or 6400 to avoid star trails, pushing the corners pushes the noise quite high. (3200+5 stops= iso102,400) I can shoot the 16-35 at f/4, have greater depth of field, and the corners only have about 2.5 stops of vignetting. Comparing the daylight example, if I shoot the same shutter speed, I'd be at ISO 200 (f/4 vs f/2.8) but the corners would only be pushed to equivalent of ISO 1600 with corrections.

I've recently been shooting nightscapes with a tracker at lower isos (100-400) so less pushing of the corners tends to look better to my eye since I can keep them to a more reasonable value. I'm sure I could make nice photos with the RF15-35, but the value proposition wasn't there for me personally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,690
917
I shoot landscapes and enjoy nightscapes with the milky way as well. The 15-35 has close to 5 stops of vignetting in the corners...Petty extreme, but not horrible if shot at ISO 100 in the day (they would correct to noise levels of approximately iso 3200). But at night shooting at 3200 or 6400 to avoid star trails, pushing the corners pushes the noise quite high. (3200+5 stops= iso102,400) I can shoot the 16-35 at f/4, have greater depth of field, and the corners only have about 2.5 stops of vignetting. Comparing the daylight example, if I shoot the same shutter speed, I'd be at ISO 200 (f/4 vs f/2.8) but the corners would only be pushed to equivalent of ISO 1600 with corrections.

I've recently been shooting nightscapes with a tracker at lower isos (100-400) so less pushing of the corners tends to look better to my eye since I can keep them to a more reasonable value. I'm sure I could make nice photos with the RF15-35, but the value proposition wasn't there for me personally.
That's why a Sigma 14mm 1.8 is useful to me! Vignetting 2.28 at f/1.8, 1.76 at f/2.0 and 0.84 at f/2.8 :)
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,690
917
Thanks, I'll have to check that out! Might be a worthy replacement for my rokinon 14/2.8. But ideally I'd love a zoom to keep my kit lighter and more "hikeable" than a bag full of special purpose primes.
 

adrian_bacon

EOS M50
Aug 12, 2020
26
23
By the time any of these lenses turn up you'd be better off just using the ef40 and adapter or wait for the 50 f2/f1.8 yes i know those ain't pancakes but doubt they will make anything smaller than that for a long time if ever. I'm a big fan of the 40 that's what I'd do.
That's what I've been doing. I have the control ring adapter and the 40 pancake. It works, but in all honesty, I'd really prefer to lose the adapter as you lose a lot of the size advantage with the adapter. The 40 and the adapter is about the same length as the RF 35 IS STM, and for that size, I'd rather have the IS of the 35, and it's over a stop faster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zim

riker

5D4
Jan 19, 2015
91
40
riker.hu
Why don't you just make that a
24-35/1.8 instead of 1.4 and then it's not so much impossible.

My impossible dream is 20-120/4
Don't give me a new telephoto lens, just make a 2X teleconverter work with the RF 70-200/2.8!!!
300-600/5.6 or 250-500/5.6? DO?