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

[JaimeAndresPhoto1]

RF 24 f1.4
RF 135 F1.8
and the NiftyFifty! RF 50f1.8

But honestly, that's just for wall decor, because I've been using the RF 28-70 F2 nearly 90% for all my photo and video shoots. That lens does not leave my camera, it's awesome for just about every situation. If there was ONE lens I could have and no other... the 28-80F2 would be it.

 

[DJL329]

RF 50mm f/1.4 USM -- The 50mm f/1.2 looks great but it's even bigger than the 50mm ART, and I'd rather not spend $2,200.
RF 600mm f/4 DO IS

 

[Colorado]

135mm L -- my favorite focal length. I don't think I need (or could lift or afford) the rumored f1.4 version.
15 (ish) f/2 IS prime -- this or something similar for super wide landscape (many variations noted above)
superwhites for RF -- 300 f2.8, or 400 f.4. good with the extenders of course.

 

[Stanly]

Something wide to pair 28-70 with, like 12-28 f/2 is needed. Especially for those Super35 cinema cameras. Wide fast primes would also be welcome, because there's nothing besides 15-35 at the moment.

 

[JTPhotography]

Similar to JT but something like a 20mm F/1.8

Yes, anything in that range is useful.

 

[marathonman]

1/ RF300mm F2.0
2/ Nifty 40mm
3/ A 50mm anamorphic

 

[NJFanta]

Realistically -

24mm 1.2/1.4
15mm 2.8 fisheye
17-40 or 18-45mm f4, f2.8, f2, f1.4

Fun to have

I would enjoy an all around pancake, like previously mentioned
Tilt-shift adapter to match up with L series RF lenses
300mm f2 L tele

Nice to have -

17-50 f2
70-150 f2
20-400 5.6 all in one

 

[navastronia]

35/1.2 -- indispensable
14-28/2 -- joy-inducing

 

[SteveC]

I actually can't think of anything I'd jump on if it came out!

But then I tend to be a generalist. I can cover any focal length between 15 and 400, albeit without super-duper-wide apertures (and have some EF primes if I really need that, in certain cases). I was able to do Yellowstone last Saturday (absent wildlife; I must have been in the wrong places) entirely with the 24-105 and rarely felt constrained shooting geologic features.

Interesting suggestions; I'd say a good number of them could be classified as "slightly smaller, leaner version of the super awesome lens that's already there" (e.g., an F/4 zoom where an F/2..8 already exists). I'd say those are probably about second tier on Canon's to-do list right now.

 

[Sludz]

10-24 f4is / 12-24 f2.8 is
50 1.4L 1:2 is
200-600 5.6

I really want a wider stabilized lens than the 15-35 in anticipation of the c70

 

[Bob Howland]

15-35mm f/4L IS USM zoom or 15mm f/2 IS prime
70-200mm f/4L IS USM

Skip the 15 f/2. I want Canon to compete the f/4 trinity although I already own it in EF and can use it with a R5 or R6.
A 200-600 f/4-5.6 with a built-in 1.4x converter. It would probably cost $12,000+. Until then, my 150-600 Sigma S will suffice.
A 100 f/2.8 macro.

 

[AlanF]

A 200mm-600mm f/5.6 would be pretty awesome and an RF 135 f/2. That's my wish list

Lots of likes to this. But both the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 and the Sony 200-600mm f/6.3 are considered to be on the heavy side, and 200-600mm f/5.6 will be heavier still. Not a turn off for some but it will be for many. Canon knew what it is doing by making a lightweight 100-700mm as did Nikon with its 500mm f/5.6. There are just so many who want a lightweight lens they can easily carry and hold.

 

[Eowhiskass]

Small primes:
135/2.8
24/2.8

 

[mccasi]

Either of the Astro wides!
14-21 f1.4 or 14-28 f2.0
Milky Way photography kings with versatile uses such as landscape, architecture and vlogging.

 

[gsm]

Skip the 15 f/2. I want Canon to compete the f/4 trinity although I already own it in EF and can use it with a R5 or R6.
A 200-600 f/4-5.6 with a built-in 1.4x converter. It would probably cost $12,000+. Until then, my 150-600 Sigma S will suffice.
A 100 f/2.8 macro.

Interesting. I've never shot with anything wider than 24, but I do shoot landscapes when hiking, so I'm wondering which would be more useful: 2 extra stops of light for shooting at night or the flexibility of zooming in up to 35mm. Do you find the 20-35mm range useful in your 16-35mm? Anyone else want to weigh in based on their experience?

 

[Twinix]

22/20-80/100mm f4 with motorized zoom for C70, R6, R5, C50 etc.

 

[privatebydesign]

35mm f1.4 L

85mm f.4 L

 

[DrToast]

Landscape lens.
14-50 f/5.6 or f/8

 

[[email protected]]

RF 100mm L IS
We lack a macro with AF as good as the EF 100 L macro.

 

[Jemlnlx]

15-35mm f/4 seems like a good and realistic "want". The EF version performed very well at a fraction of the cost of 2.8 version.

Priced at around $1200-$1400 MSRP, it would do well.