Rumors are slow, let’s talk RF lens wish lists
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
This dude says rumors are slow but already told us Canon's entire line up for the next 4 years 9 months ago.
Upvote
0
I see 3 camps of requests here:
- Duplication of existing EF lenses. I don't agree as you can weld on an adapter and they work better on the R5/R6 than they do currently. It would be lovely to have the whole lens catalogue in RF but lets be somewhat realistic. The main native lenses are already available (f2.8 trinity, 24-105/4 and 4-7.1, 50 and 85/1.2)
Yes, new versions would have upgrades but most of these are
=> the only exceptions is for 300/2.8 and 500/2.8 that go on a diet and will be released with the R1 body
- RF lenses that are unique or different from existing EF that make the most of the RF mount. We have a bunch of RF lenses that are wide aperture specialty lenses already and specialty lenses 600/800 f11 and extenders that make the most of AF down to f22! It would be great to have more but sales volumes would be relatively small.
One missing area is wide angle lens and I agree with Mccasi, Steve Balcombe and Mountains-and-more that astro wides
eg 14-21 f1.4 or 14-28 f2.0 would make the most of the RF mount.
- Low cost/size lenses to enable a compact/ lower barrier to entry for the RF system. Although you can adapt the EF40mm pancake, it doubles the cost of the lens so a range of low cost primes eg 50/1.8 seems to be sensible. Low cost zooms would be my next guess as the 24-240/4-6.3 is only option.
I cover focal lengths from 8mm to 500mm so I am set for the moment
- Duplication of existing EF lenses. I don't agree as you can weld on an adapter and they work better on the R5/R6 than they do currently. It would be lovely to have the whole lens catalogue in RF but lets be somewhat realistic. The main native lenses are already available (f2.8 trinity, 24-105/4 and 4-7.1, 50 and 85/1.2)
Yes, new versions would have upgrades but most of these are
=> the only exceptions is for 300/2.8 and 500/2.8 that go on a diet and will be released with the R1 body
- RF lenses that are unique or different from existing EF that make the most of the RF mount. We have a bunch of RF lenses that are wide aperture specialty lenses already and specialty lenses 600/800 f11 and extenders that make the most of AF down to f22! It would be great to have more but sales volumes would be relatively small.
One missing area is wide angle lens and I agree with Mccasi, Steve Balcombe and Mountains-and-more that astro wides
eg 14-21 f1.4 or 14-28 f2.0 would make the most of the RF mount.
- Low cost/size lenses to enable a compact/ lower barrier to entry for the RF system. Although you can adapt the EF40mm pancake, it doubles the cost of the lens so a range of low cost primes eg 50/1.8 seems to be sensible. Low cost zooms would be my next guess as the 24-240/4-6.3 is only option.
I cover focal lengths from 8mm to 500mm so I am set for the moment
Upvote
0
I've had my R5 for 3 months now and I completely agree. eye-AF (people/animals) is amazing... just too simple now. The RF70-200m is so small and the 100-500mm has really impressed me. It has worked perfectly for portrait, macro, astro, animals and landscape stills. The only genre that I haven't used it for yet is for indoor sports but I am sure it will be great. Getting to grips with video will be fun in the future.
I am happy to weld my adapter to the rest of my lenses
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I want telephoto zoom lenses where the teleconverters work through the entire range of the zoom, or teleconverters that work with the current lenses.
Upvote
0
50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/1.8L IS, 150 f/2.8 1:1 APO macro, 300 f/2.8L IS, 500 f/4L IS, 600 f/5.6 DO IS, 200-600 f/5-6.3 IS, 12-24 f/4L, 16-35 f/4L IS, 100-300 f/4L IS, 16/18/20 f/1.4 (any of the them).
300 f/2.8 1.9kg, 500 f/4 2.4kg, 600 f/5.6 DO, 1.8kg
300 f/2.8 1.9kg, 500 f/4 2.4kg, 600 f/5.6 DO, 1.8kg
Upvote
0
I will go pretty against the grain and say that I'd like to see a nice handful of compact native lenses under $500. The R and the RP are fantastic value FF cameras at this point, but there's exactly one lens that sells for under $500 new and it's a very mediocre kit zoom. Give some of those budget minded photographers a reason to get locked in on the R system.
I'd also really like 400mm F/5.6 in the same style as the two F/11 zooms. They should be able to make it a similar size and price as the 800mm. Variable aperture would be needed though.
I'd also really like 400mm F/5.6 in the same style as the two F/11 zooms. They should be able to make it a similar size and price as the 800mm. Variable aperture would be needed though.
Upvote
0
Since this is a wish list ...
85 f/1.4 which is similar in size and weight (and price!) to the Sigma 85 f/1.4 DG DN. A relatively portable 85 f/1.4 would suit me more than something like the RF 85 f/1.2. Alternatively, I'd be interested in an f/1.4 which is a bit wider than 85mm, say something around 70mm. I often feel like I'd like a fast prime somewhere between 50 and 85. (I recently saw a revew of Fuji's new 50 f/1.0 lens (about 75mm f/1.5 in full frame terms) and the reviewer was saying he really liked the bit of extra width compared to an 85mm equivalent, so it seems I'm not the only one ... although perhaps there are only the two of us?!)
35 f/1.4 which is no larger or heavier, and ideally smaller and lighter, than the Sigma 35 Art for EF mount. I'm guessing that should be possible given the size/weight of the Sigma 85 f/1.4 DG DN. (I assume going to f/1.2 would mean it would have to be bigger and heavier though, so personally I am willing to sacrifice the half stop or so of aperture.)
50 f/1.4 (or 55mm or 58mm) which is relatively small and light (ie closer to the size/weight of the EF 50 f/1.4 than the RF 50 f/1.2L) and moderately priced. I don't expect such a lens to be optically as good as the RF 50 f/1.2L, but I'd like it to be a step up from something like the 50 f/1.8 STM (eg in terms of bokeh). If it was f/1.8 rather than f/1.4 I'd still be interested, if size/weight/price are right - and from the rumours it seems that is probably the sort of lens we may well get.
A relatively small and light f/4 UWA zoom. It's not a lens I expect I would use a lot, so small, light and relatively inexpensive are more imporant to me than aperture on this lens. Zoom range could be 15 or 16 to 35, 17-40 or, say, 20-50. I think I would find 20-50 more useful than 15-35, but I expect many other people will say they would prefer the extra width.
A non-L zoom which goes to 400mm, eg 100-400, which is relatively small and light (although ideally not smaller than f/5.6 aperture at the long end). I am happy to accept that a lens like the RF 100-500 is excellent, but I'm not going to spend the money on it because I would use that focal length range only occasionally.
85 f/1.4 which is similar in size and weight (and price!) to the Sigma 85 f/1.4 DG DN. A relatively portable 85 f/1.4 would suit me more than something like the RF 85 f/1.2. Alternatively, I'd be interested in an f/1.4 which is a bit wider than 85mm, say something around 70mm. I often feel like I'd like a fast prime somewhere between 50 and 85. (I recently saw a revew of Fuji's new 50 f/1.0 lens (about 75mm f/1.5 in full frame terms) and the reviewer was saying he really liked the bit of extra width compared to an 85mm equivalent, so it seems I'm not the only one ... although perhaps there are only the two of us?!)
35 f/1.4 which is no larger or heavier, and ideally smaller and lighter, than the Sigma 35 Art for EF mount. I'm guessing that should be possible given the size/weight of the Sigma 85 f/1.4 DG DN. (I assume going to f/1.2 would mean it would have to be bigger and heavier though, so personally I am willing to sacrifice the half stop or so of aperture.)
50 f/1.4 (or 55mm or 58mm) which is relatively small and light (ie closer to the size/weight of the EF 50 f/1.4 than the RF 50 f/1.2L) and moderately priced. I don't expect such a lens to be optically as good as the RF 50 f/1.2L, but I'd like it to be a step up from something like the 50 f/1.8 STM (eg in terms of bokeh). If it was f/1.8 rather than f/1.4 I'd still be interested, if size/weight/price are right - and from the rumours it seems that is probably the sort of lens we may well get.
A relatively small and light f/4 UWA zoom. It's not a lens I expect I would use a lot, so small, light and relatively inexpensive are more imporant to me than aperture on this lens. Zoom range could be 15 or 16 to 35, 17-40 or, say, 20-50. I think I would find 20-50 more useful than 15-35, but I expect many other people will say they would prefer the extra width.
A non-L zoom which goes to 400mm, eg 100-400, which is relatively small and light (although ideally not smaller than f/5.6 aperture at the long end). I am happy to accept that a lens like the RF 100-500 is excellent, but I'm not going to spend the money on it because I would use that focal length range only occasionally.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
