The RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z won’t be the last RF PowerZoom lens
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
The 70-200 makes sense considering that canon will want a differentiating factor for that internally-zoomed option. But I wonder if an ultra wide doesn’t make sense before a super zoom option?
Upvote
0
I think Canon is also addressing "small and light", esp. when you think about the RF-S 10-18 or the RF 16 and 28 f/2.8.
And sorry, Sony is no alternative for me. They messed it up with me in the 1980ies and 90ies.
In Germany, I'd say: "Sony? So nie!" (transl.: Sony? Never like that!)
Upvote
0
This is clearly a great lens especially for video. There is now a gap between the rf 24-105 f4L and the new RF 200-800mm lens. I realize there is the RF 70-200 f2.8 lens, but this is rather expensive. It seems to me an RF 24-200 F4L lens would fill this gap and be a very desirable lens.
Upvote
0
I hope that ‘Video does not kill the radio stars’ and Canon fills the gaps in the RF line up first. The EF180mm f/3.5L Macro dates from 1996. A RF 180 or 200mm macro lens is overdue.
Neither Sony, nor Nikon have such a lens for mirrorless, so it would distinguish Canon even more from the ‘competition’
.
P.S. I know that hope is deferred disappointment.
Neither Sony, nor Nikon have such a lens for mirrorless, so it would distinguish Canon even more from the ‘competition’
.P.S. I know that hope is deferred disappointment.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I wonder if a 100-300 mm f4 would make sense. If they used DO they could manage to keep it small.
Upvote
0
What I (barely) did with the EF180Macro I do today with the RF100-400 (close up even better than the RF100-500): Dragonflies, butterflies, reps & amphs, ...I hope that ‘Video does not kill the radio stars’ and Canon fills the gaps in the RF line up first. The EF180mm f/3.5L Macro dates from 1996. A RF 180 or 200mm macro lens is overdue.
Neither Sony, nor Nikon have such a lens for mirrorless, so it would distinguish Canon even more from the ‘competition’
P.S. I know that hope is deferred disappointment.
Between the 100-400 and the 100Macro there is not much gap left - and if any some for open aperture: Use the RF135!
I still own the EF180, practically I never use this lens.
Upvote
0
I expect another internal zooming 2.8 Z roughly equally seized to the 24-105 with about 70-200 range.
Upvote
0
As much as a long macro is overdue, it is a small niche... I am guessing that Canon expects to sell a lot more RF-S10-18, RF24-105/2.8 and RF200-800 than they would if a long macro was announced.I hope that ‘Video does not kill the radio stars’ and Canon fills the gaps in the RF line up first. The EF180mm f/3.5L Macro dates from 1996. A RF 180 or 200mm macro lens is overdue.
Neither Sony, nor Nikon have such a lens for mirrorless, so it would distinguish Canon even more from the ‘competition’
P.S. I know that hope is deferred disappointment.
Same volume issue for a wide/fast prime whether 35/1.2, 20/1.4, 14/1.4 etc
That said, Canon now has a number of RF choices covering at least the 28-70mm and more focal ranges plus primes as well (except 50/1.4). Even more with residual EF lenses. Another internal zoom RF70-200mm/2.8 Z to come
A crowded segment for a 3rd party to get a look in.
Upvote
0
Another option would be for Canon to announce a 70-200 mm f2.8 Power Zoom lens with the 200-500 mm f4 lens. 2024 is going to be an interesting year.
Upvote
0
I feel there's still a lot of space for third parties; or for Canon to fill.
- Big price and brightness gap between the two 85
- Big price and brightness gap between the two 50
- No bright 35 (and when it comes, because it's coming, there will be the price and brightness gap with the current 35 STM)
- No prime of any brightness between 24 (which is not that wide, and there are 3 zoom starting from that focal) and 16 (which is overly too wide); I've got the RF but it's too wide, I gladly would have purchased an 18mm, or at least a 20mm
- Any existing prime below the 50 f1.2 is not brighter then f1.8 (not my cup of tea, but I know astro guys would love an ultra bright prime around 20mm)
- Still think (for my needs; not doing absolutes) that something like the Tamron 35-150, again just for me, would do much better then the new 24-105
Last but not least, they presented the RF-S 10-18 and everybody is happy, but it's dark has hell, and just few days prior Sigma presented a lens wth same focals but constant f2.8 so if full frame gaps are there, the aps gap is quite embarrassing, third party have great stuff, and even if I don't keep informed, I hear that Fuji has plenty of great and ultra bright stuff for their cameras.
So while they have the best bodies in town, period, with glass I feel Canon still lags a lot behind in terms of options.
Some stuff you may fix adapting EF (the bright primes), something not really (the gap between 24 and 16 can be closed just with the EF 20 f2.8 that I heard is not that exciting, or with the super heavy - and front heavy when adapted - Sigma 20 f1.4); but still, I always do the same example, my Sigma 85 f1.4 for EF, including the adapter, is 50% longer and 100% heavier then the revised E-mount version, so adapting EF is not always the optimal choice.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You make some valid points but the internet outrage over non 3rd party lenses is less obvious now.
The price gap between 85/1.2 and 85/2 doesn't always mean that a mid price will be very different optically.
The missing 50/1.4 is a clear issue in price/optics
The EF35/1.4 adapted is an excellent option but I know a RF version has many supporters willing to preorder
Fast/wide lenses are missing as I mentioned for astro and non-astro segments. I use the Sigma 20/1.4 and it is a beast and still has coma in the center. At least my astro tracker can handle the weight with 2 ball heads.
Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 is (I think) the only fast crop sensor lens that Canon ever made. With modern high ISO performance, the question for users buying cheaper bodies needing expensive wide angle lenses is questionable in my mind. R7 buyers are a smaller segment.
There are 3rd party lenses that would compete against existing RF lenses successfully but what is the advantage for Canon? Licensing fees offsetting revenue/profit which may make 3rd parties less price competitive.
Internal production constraints vs niches that Canon doesn't want to play in makes more sense to me for 3rd parties approvals.
If 3rd parties really wanted to compete with Canon RF, then they would be currently releasing models with EF mounts even if manual focus.
Upvote
0
I wonder if the "shell" will be basically the same as the 24-105, since the 24-105 is almost exactly the same dimensions as the EF 70-200 2.8.
Would be cool to have an almost matching dynamic duo!
Upvote
0
In keeping with the original line of the thread, a few weeks ago there was post about several patents for lenses of the 200-800 variety. As pointed out earlier, one of them was for a 200-800 5.6-8 which was very highly corrected, certainly of L quality. However, it was an external extension zoom design which would take it out of power zoom consideration, unless the motor driving it was at least 3 liter V6. However, in the same group of patents was a 200-400/4 design with internal zoom and focus which perhaps could accommodate an external power zoom. Just in time for remote use at the Olympics, maybe.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
