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

adrian_bacon

EOS M50
Aug 12, 2020
26
23
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.
It's actually 22mm in EF-m and 24mm in EF-s. I have both. The 24mm EF-s and 40mm EF are externally indistinguishable from each other except for the lettering on the (very short) barrel. Just like the 40, the 24 EF-s punches way above it's weight class in terms of IQ. It's quite excellent for the money and focuses down to 6 inches. The 22mm EF-m is also very good optically, and not expensive. I doubt that Canon would have much problem making a pancake 40 RF at f/2.8. From what I've gathered about the 35mm IS STM in RF (which I also have) is most of the size is actually the image stab. They could easily add one more slider switch to switch the one control ring between manual focus or control ring on a 40 RF pancake. Both of the pancakes have minimal lens elements, and I doubt the back flange distance is really that much of an issue, otherwise, how would they make any long lens with even EF flange distance that could focus to infinity? If it were, then a 22mm EF-m pancake would be a real problem, and it's almost exactly the same length as the other two pancake primes. Heck, I'd even be OK with a prime that was 1/4 inch longer than the current pancake primes if they needed to do that. I just love the 40mm field of view on full frame and want a reasonably small and light prime with at least f/2.8
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

LSXPhotog

EOS RP
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
444
344
www.diossiphotography.com
After my 3rd race using the R5, I can tell you right now that the lens that I really NEED the most, is a new 135L and it MUST be compatible with the teleconverters. The 135L has long been my top low light motorsports lens and I have always valued its size, weight, and functionality with the teleconverters. Sadly, there's really no way around it - the 135L is not a very good performer on the R5 and R6. Not being able to use this lens at the top frame rates these cameras deliver, as well as no supporting the best performance from the viewfinder is really unfortunate. I have also discovered that face and eye detection don't appear to work as well either on this lens.

For me, this is a practical want and more along the lines of an actual need. It's the only EF lens I own that really suffers on this camera and when I travel for work, I favor taking this lens and the 100-400 over using that room for my 70-200. I guess if this doesn't end up coming to fruition, I will just pick up an RF 70-200 and sell off my EF 70-200.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

usern4cr

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
444
411
Kentucky, USA
After my 3rd race using the R5, I can tell you right now that the lens that I really NEED the most, is a new 135L and it MUST be compatible with the teleconverters. The 135L has long been my top low light motorsports lens and I have always valued its size, weight, and functionality with the teleconverters. Sadly, there's really no way around it - the 135L is not a very good performer on the R5 and R6. Not being able to use this lens at the top frame rates these cameras deliver, as well as no supporting the best performance from the viewfinder is really unfortunate. I have also discovered that face and eye detection don't appear to work as well either on this lens.

For me, this is a practical want and more along the lines of an actual need. It's the only EF lens I own that really suffers on this camera and when I travel for work, I favor taking this lens and the 100-400 over using that room for my 70-200. I guess if this doesn't end up coming to fruition, I will just pick up an RF 70-200 and sell off my EF 70-200.
I don't know the f# of your 135L lens, but I hope Canon comes out with a RF 135mm f2 (or f1.8)L IS lens in the near future. I'd love to have a fast 135mm lens, but I also want it to be reasonable to hold and carry around which is why I'd prefer the 67mm aperture of the f2 most, while I'd accept the 75mm aperture of the f1.8. While I could afford the cost, anything faster than that would be too big and heavy for me to want to carry around, as I am not using it for professional work.
 

adrian_bacon

EOS M50
Aug 12, 2020
26
23
After my 3rd race using the R5, I can tell you right now that the lens that I really NEED the most, is a new 135L and it MUST be compatible with the teleconverters. The 135L has long been my top low light motorsports lens and I have always valued its size, weight, and functionality with the teleconverters. Sadly, there's really no way around it - the 135L is not a very good performer on the R5 and R6. Not being able to use this lens at the top frame rates these cameras deliver, as well as no supporting the best performance from the viewfinder is really unfortunate. I have also discovered that face and eye detection don't appear to work as well either on this lens.

For me, this is a practical want and more along the lines of an actual need. It's the only EF lens I own that really suffers on this camera and when I travel for work, I favor taking this lens and the 100-400 over using that room for my 70-200. I guess if this doesn't end up coming to fruition, I will just pick up an RF 70-200 and sell off my EF 70-200.
I recently picked up the RF 70-200... man... that thing is a magic lens. Unless you absolutely have to have a faster aperture, I’d get that over waiting for an RF 135. the RF version packs relatively small and light, and while you won’t get quite as much reach as a 135 with teleconverters, it’s f/2.8 all the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSXPhotog

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,719
1,589
It's actually 22mm in EF-m and 24mm in EF-s.
Ah, 24 not 28.

Yeah, had I not been mistaken about that, my thinking would have led me directly to what you said; sensor to flange distance makes little difference, because the difference between 22 and 24 is not nearly so much as between 22 and 28.

I could still imagine them coming out with a 35mm pancake, but 40 is in my current humble opinion more likely. But unless it totally kicks the ass of the EF-40, I probably won't get it, and I suspect enough people who already own EF-40s think like that that Canon has it fairly low on their priority list (which is a shame, because it would be a very compact package).

And by the way, given the mistake I made it's probably not that surprising that I own the EF-M 22mm and the EF-40mm, but not the EF-S 28-I-mean-24mm. In fact I've even posted pictures here taken with the 40 on an R5, since on release day the 40 was the widest thing I had in a full frame lens (I fixed that the very next day).
 
  • Like
Reactions: adrian_bacon

adrian_bacon

EOS M50
Aug 12, 2020
26
23
Ah, 24 not 28.

Yeah, had I not been mistaken about that, my thinking would have led me directly to what you said; sensor to flange distance makes little difference, because the difference between 22 and 24 is not nearly so much as between 22 and 28.

I could still imagine them coming out with a 35mm pancake, but 40 is in my current humble opinion more likely. But unless it totally kicks the ass of the EF-40, I probably won't get it, and I suspect enough people who already own EF-40s think like that that Canon has it fairly low on their priority list (which is a shame, because it would be a very compact package).

And by the way, given the mistake I made it's probably not that surprising that I own the EF-M 22mm and the EF-40mm, but not the EF-S 28-I-mean-24mm. In fact I've even posted pictures here taken with the 40 on an R5, since on release day the 40 was the widest thing I had in a full frame lens (I fixed that the very next day).
yeah, 40 in full frame and 24 in AP-C are my two most shot lenses for general walk around stuff. 24 in canons crop is almost exactly the same field of view as 40 in full frame, which incidentally works out great if shooting video on an RP. Shoot 1080 full frame with the 40, but in the instances where you need the extra detail, put the 24 on and shoot 4K in the crop mode. Both are 2.8, so no real need to change the lighting, or camera to subject distance, and you can do quite a lot with just two small lenses, if shooting YouTube content. It’s super simple and just works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

fabao

R5 or R6?
Apr 26, 2019
23
48
I would love to see a SMAL and FAST fish eye lens just like the Olympus ED 8mm F1.8 Fisheye. Perfect in low light events. The current Canon offering is F4 and I really don't care about zoom fish eyes (don't really have a need for a 360 image).
 

LSXPhotog

EOS RP
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
444
344
www.diossiphotography.com
I recently picked up the RF 70-200... man... that thing is a magic lens. Unless you absolutely have to have a faster aperture, I’d get that over waiting for an RF 135. the RF version packs relatively small and light, and while you won’t get quite as much reach as a 135 with teleconverters, it’s f/2.8 all the way.
After thinking about it, you're absolutely right. I have a wedding this weekend and I will be selling my 70-200 and 135L for the RF 70-200.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,690
917
8-15mm fish eye, 10-24mm (IS?) wide, 24-105mm IS, 100-500mm IS, all in f2.8, and cost less than 1000$ each.. you did say WISH list
Please add the classics: small and light at the same time as cheap and f/2.8 :ROFLMAO: