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

Ph0t0

EOS M50
Mar 27, 2015
40
20
I'm gonna put down more than three. I don't know how realistic these are, but I would like to have them anyway :p

-Wide angle lens that is light and has vignetting well under control
RF 15-35mm f4 IS

-A versatile medium zoom for landscapes that is a bit wider than at the lower and not too heavy
RF 20-70mm f4 L IS

-A HQ zoom that has a bit more reach and is bright enough to be used for shooting landscapes and occasional wildlife (larger mammals in the mountains or similar) and is not too heavy to be carried around as a second lens
RF 70-300mm f4 L IS (what do you guys thing about such a lens?)

-Relatively light and reasonably bright HQ telephoto lens
500mm f5,6 L DO IS

-Really bright wide angle lens that doesn't vignette too bad
14mm f1,4 L (16 or 18mm f1,2 could work as well :p)

-Macro lens over 150mm
RF 200mm f4 IS L MACRO

- Wide angle, wide aperture tilt-shift with AF (when not tilted)
RF 18 or 20 or 24mm f2,8 AF Tilt-Shift

-Maybe another really really bright lens with less vignetting in the range from 24 to 40mm
RF 40mm f1,0 L (is f1,0 possible for RF at this focal length?)

-A lighter version of 200-400?
RF 200-400mm f4 DO L IS
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil
I like the fact that Canon is trying some different and unique lenses to start on RF. I will likely continue using my EF lenses since they are all pretty great but would be interested in trying some different ones. A 12-24 f/4 (or similar) would be more interesting for me than just replacing the 16-35. Would love to see a prime in the 14 to 20 f/1.4 range for astro. Would also love to see something similar to Nikon's 500PF as that seems to be a pretty fabulous little lens that I could take on "white knuckle" airlines that have weight restrictions.
 

cayenne

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,369
353
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.
OH goodness...I didn't know it was THAT bad on vignetting....

C
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
450
200
135/1.0

It sounds insane, but hear me out.

If you shoot wide-open you get mechanical vignetting wide open. as with practically any lens. What should be circular highlights turn into American footballs in the corners.

But if you stop down to f/1.4, then highlights become circular from center to corner.

Then if you drop in a DS filter, into a slot in the middle of the lens (similar to how you put a filter in the big white lenses) those circles turn into soft glows, and light transmission and "total sum amount of bokeh" is equivalent to f/2.

Front element is the same size as 400/2.8, 600/4, 800/5.6, or even the 100/0.7 x-ray lens you can see on Youtube modified for photo work.

So, big and expensive but not uniquely so.

And the photos would be utterly unique. Seeing the photo, you'd know it was this lens. It was Canon.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
450
200
A series of small, NON-macro, NON-IS, lenses so those of us who want to always have an R body with us can put together a 1, 2, or 3 lens outfit.

It doesn't have to be pancake lenses. It's OK if they stick out about as far as the grip handle. Just don't stick out more than that and if image quality has to suffer just a little, so be it.

135/2.8, 85/2, 50/1.8, 35/2, 28/2, 24/2.8, 20/2.8

I'd buy half the set instantly.

(I used to have a Contax G2 with 28 45 and 90 in my backpack constantly. Then I moved to Leica M6 with 35/1.4 and 75/1.4. I could get what I wanted, more or less, with the little Fuji, but I'm too old to be running multiple camera systems like this.)
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
887
917
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?)
I'm dreaming exactly the same dream...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ColinJR

zim

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Oct 18, 2011
1,988
176
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.
Agreed, that's what I'd do if i had an R# i think pancakes will be too long a time coming
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,719
1,589
Agreed, that's what I'd do if i had an R# i think pancakes will be too long a time coming
I know basically nothing about lens design, but who knows what sorts of pancakes are even going to be possible with a shorter distance in front of the sensor? Will focal lengths have to be longer? Shorter?

I know there is a 22mm EF-M pancake, and an EF-S 28mm pancake. so I'm going to WAG it as needing to be about 30-35mm, but, oddly enough they already have a non-pancake 35mm.
 
Sep 18, 2019
6
2
I know...

That said, they released a new 1DX and left Canon pro shooters with poor/outdated 50mm lenses and an old 135mm w/o IS. This is no so great if you've just bought the latest 1DX III as you're obviously involved in that system for many years to come.
I am replacing 1DX Mk II bodies with Mk III bodies as quick as I can (3 left) and a 50mm lens isn't even in my bag for what I shoot. This is a pro sports body, the best of the best with a mirror. I use them for fast action sports and there is only twice each year that a lens as small as a 70-200mm f/2.8L is mounted. Every weekend, my team and I select 300mm, 400mm or 600mm lenses and all are either f/2.8 or f/4 in the case of the 600s.

If we need to shoot a celebrity appearance, meet and greet, etc, I give out R5 bodies with RF glass. Sweet stuff and my clients love the results. This is when we use the 28-70mm f/2. We don't yet own a really wide zoom, but that would be next for us. 15-35mm?

As for needed glass for us, 300mm and 400mm in f/2.8 and 500 and 600 in f/4. The max diameter of the hood of a 400mm f/2.8L or 600mm f/4L is about as large as I can live with from a storage logistics standpoint. I still have to get the glass to the event!

Thoughts?
 

yoms

EOS 90D
Jul 4, 2012
115
79
I am replacing 1DX Mk II bodies with Mk III bodies as quick as I can (3 left) and a 50mm lens isn't even in my bag for what I shoot. This is a pro sports body, the best of the best with a mirror. I use them for fast action sports and there is only twice each year that a lens as small as a 70-200mm f/2.8L is mounted. Every weekend, my team and I select 300mm, 400mm or 600mm lenses and all are either f/2.8 or f/4 in the case of the 600s.

If we need to shoot a celebrity appearance, meet and greet, etc, I give out R5 bodies with RF glass. Sweet stuff and my clients love the results. This is when we use the 28-70mm f/2. We don't yet own a really wide zoom, but that would be next for us. 15-35mm?

As for needed glass for us, 300mm and 400mm in f/2.8 and 500 and 600 in f/4. The max diameter of the hood of a 400mm f/2.8L or 600mm f/4L is about as large as I can live with from a storage logistics standpoint. I still have to get the glass to the event!

Thoughts?
Sure, that's your use case. But, the 1D X is also used by reporter, journalists, (low light) events, etc. for different use cases. For them, a 50mm could be very useful. I mean it feels weird to me to release a new 1D X and at the same time not expecting any new lenses when some need replacement.
All zooms are fairly recent and top notch. Many primes have been updated the last few years but the 50mm and the 135mm. Imagine someone being in the market for a 1D X Mk III who also needs a 50mm, tough situation imho.
 
Sep 18, 2019
6
2
Sure, that's your use case. But, the 1D X is also used by reporter, journalists, (low light) events, etc. for different use cases. For them, a 50mm could be very useful. I mean it feels weird to me to release a new 1D X and at the same time not expecting any new lenses when some need replacement.
All zooms are fairly recent and top notch. Many primes have been updated the last few years but the 50mm and the 135mm. Imagine someone being in the market for a 1D X Mk III who also needs a 50mm, tough situation imho.
Agree 100%. Big/fast lenses fit with what I do, and I agree there are many other uses for the 1DX Mk III. But isn't that the direction the R Series of mirrorless bodies are headed? I am sure that Canon is a little strapped for engineering manpower when it comes to product development. I am kind of seeing a push toward the mirrorless side for new products and this seems to indicate to me that their product development staff is working on RF glass until a glaring shortfall would cause Canon to develop a replacement EF lens. I only have one EF 50mm f/1.4L, but it is good enough for me. Are the EF 50mm lens offerings so bad for photojournalism? I wasn't aware.
 
Sep 18, 2019
6
2
One thing I did forget that I want to mention.

12mm and 25mm Canon RF Extension Tubes. I like to shoot macro with extension tubes that don't take a lot of room in the RF bag. I have a cheap knock-off set but really want the Canon quality...

Thoughts?
 

Ziz

Zissou
Feb 13, 2020
4
8
zissou.com
One of the key advantages of mirrorless that has been preached in recent years was the ability to reduce the size of the bodies and lenses. When every ounce and every cm counts for travel and street photogs, it seems all the non-tele lenses - you know, the ones you use all the time unless your main thing is wildlife or sports - only seem to be getting bigger.
Where is the small, fast (USM) L glass??
How about a nifty fifty smaller (in length) than the classic ef1.4