The State of RF – 5 Years of Lenses

[nunataks]

I think the issue isn't how many Canon is releasing but instead they're not really lenses that people want. A lot of them are just filler while we still have no f/1.4 lenses or third party alternatives (unlike literally every other brand now with Nikon having Tamron/Sigma), and you have to choose uber large and expensive or super cheap and flimsy with no middle.

 

[Skux]

I think the issue isn't how many Canon is releasing but instead they're not really lenses that people want. A lot of them are just filler while we still have no f/1.4 lenses or third party alternatives (unlike literally every other brand now with Nikon having Tamron/Sigma), and you have to choose uber large and expensive or super cheap and flimsy with no middle.

The 24-105 f/2.8 is the dream lens for many photographers and videographers, the 28mm f/2.8 is a fantastic pancake for almost everyone who likes pancakes, and people have asking for the RF-S 10-18mm for months (if not years).

All this amazing glass and people are really here begging for f/1.4 primes as if half a stop of light will make them a better photographer.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think the issue isn't how many Canon is releasing but instead they're not really lenses that people want. A lot of them are just filler while we still have no f/1.4 lenses or third party alternatives (unlike literally every other brand now with Nikon having Tamron/Sigma), and you have to choose uber large and expensive or super cheap and flimsy with no middle.

LOL. No. Just lenses you don't want. News flash: Canon doesn't care about you personally, and they know the camera market a heck of a lot better than you do.

 

[Snapster]

Lenses that I need and would buy in a heartbeat, that already exist:

Viltrox 16mm f/1.8 (fantastic lens, fantastic value, even takes 77mm filters, RF has nothing like this)
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN (RF 35mm f/1.8 has a sucky STM and no weather sealing, not happy with it)
Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN (RF 85mm f/2 with the same STM motor and no weather sealing, not interested. 85mm f/1.2L - expensive brick = not interested. Also, just knowing the Sigma exists makes me not want to ever buy the 85L for triple the price, double the weight and a questionable increase in image quality.)

For 70-200 I'll stick with my RF because of best possible AF. It's the only lens I really want from Canon's current lineup. Perhaps the RF 200-800 after some reviews.

I would also get a Sigma 16-28mm or Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 over RF 14-35mm f/4L because I don't need 35mm from an ultrawide lens and speed does matter. Don't want the 15-35 f/2.8L either because all my filters are 77mm and an ultrawide f/2.8 zoom doesn't have to be over 77mm.

I'd like to stick with Canon but it's getting increasingly annoying not getting those lenses.

 

[Mountain Dave]

I considered buying several Sigma Art lenses for EF mount. They performed really well (sometimes better than Canon) on black and white wall charts. However, every time I dug deep into pro reviews, I found that, in the real world, AF performance was pretty poor. This may not matter on wide angles where DOF hides lack of focus precision but, for my work, it is critical. Generally, they are also very heavy and not always cheaper. IMO, the biggest benefit from going to the R mount was greatly improved AF performance.

 

[Del Paso]

I considered buying several Sigma Art lenses for EF mount. They performed really well (sometimes better than Canon) on black and white wall charts. However, every time I dug deep into pro reviews, I found that, in the real world, AF performance was pretty poor. This may not matter on wide angles where DOF hides lack of focus precision but, for my work, it is critical. Generally, they are also very heavy and not always cheaper. IMO, the biggest benefit from going to the R mount was greatly improved AF performance.

And a 100% certainty that manual focus lenses will be perfectly focused. This was my main gripe with DSLRs. Focusing luminous teles was often a matter of chance, since I dislike wearing reading glasses to use the rear LCD .

 

[MaxDiesel]

In this state, optically fine RF 50mm f/1.4 (non \"L\") IS nano USM under 1000€ will be on point.

I expect Sigma to fill in the RF 1.4 lens gaps while Canon concentrates on it specially lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I expect Sigma to fill in the RF 1.4 lens gaps while Canon concentrates on it specially lenses.

Don't hold your breath. Canon stated, "We'll consider requests from 3rd party vendors to make RF lenses on a case-by-case basis." That's like when a child asks to have 20 friends over for a sleepover the next night, and a parent replies, "We'll see."

 

[scyrene]

I think the issue isn't how many Canon is releasing but instead they're not really lenses that people want. A lot of them are just filler while we still have no f/1.4 lenses or third party alternatives (unlike literally every other brand now with Nikon having Tamron/Sigma), and you have to choose uber large and expensive or super cheap and flimsy with no middle.

"People" is doing a lot of work here.

 

[Del Paso]

I think the issue isn't how many Canon is releasing but instead they're not really lenses that people want. A lot of them are just filler while we still have no f/1.4 lenses or third party alternatives (unlike literally every other brand now with Nikon having Tamron/Sigma), and you have to choose uber large and expensive or super cheap and flimsy with no middle.

I would be interested in your definition of the "people".
Because, according to your post, it seems quite restrictive...I feel excluded.

 

[Del Paso]

Lenses that I need and would buy in a heartbeat, that already exist:

Viltrox 16mm f/1.8 (fantastic lens, fantastic value, even takes 77mm filters, RF has nothing like this)
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN (RF 35mm f/1.8 has a sucky STM and no weather sealing, not happy with it)
Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN (RF 85mm f/2 with the same STM motor and no weather sealing, not interested. 85mm f/1.2L - expensive brick = not interested. Also, just knowing the Sigma exists makes me not want to ever buy the 85L for triple the price, double the weight and a questionable increase in image quality.)

For 70-200 I'll stick with my RF because of best possible AF. It's the only lens I really want from Canon's current lineup. Perhaps the RF 200-800 after some reviews.

I would also get a Sigma 16-28mm or Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 over RF 14-35mm f/4L because I don't need 35mm from an ultrawide lens and speed does matter. Don't want the 15-35 f/2.8L either because all my filters are 77mm and an ultrawide f/2.8 zoom doesn't have to be over 77mm.

I'd like to stick with Canon but it's getting increasingly annoying not getting those lenses.

Here we go again...

 

[David - Sydney]

Needed lens:
- RF Fisheye
- 50mm 1.4 (ofc)
- 400 f4.5 like Nikkor.

Do we need a RF fisheye? The EF8-15/4 is great but is a pretty niche lens. RF version would be nice but wouldn't sell a lot compared to a 50/1.4 for instance.
Given that all EF lenses are to be discontinued at some point, you would assume a replacement but maybe Canon will let 3rd parties fill the gap if they don't want to.
I would put the fisheye in the same category as a long macro and a >2x macro (MP-E 65mm replacement). Nice to have but low volume.

 

[David - Sydney]

Mobile 01 made the point that Canon has the biggest full-frame focal range for mirrorless autofocus going from 10 mm to 1200 mm.
They still need a fisheye but that is rumored to be coming.

Was there a rumour of a RF fisheye? It isn't on the rumoured roadmap

 

[chik0240]

I think they are doing good by mostly getting new RF lens to what DSLR EF mount cannot do, say the 28-70 F2.0, or the crazy super tele zooms which can have apertures too narrow for DSLR to AF. Since the late 90s at most, the lens image quality becomes so good that what I actually desired for L lens, is the constant aperture zooms to not worry about aperture setting when I zoom in and out for recomposing, sure every gen is improving in IQ, but say in 2023, give me a first gen 24-70 F2.8L (provided the dreadful tendancy of decentering after bump isn't there) I will still be perfectly happy for the IQ despite the now obsolete corner sharpness, which beside pixel peeping do not matter much.

 

[stillviking]

Do we need a RF fisheye? The EF8-15/4 is great but is a pretty niche lens. RF version would be nice but wouldn't sell a lot compared to a 50/1.4 for instance.
Given that all EF lenses are to be discontinued at some point, you would assume a replacement but maybe Canon will let 3rd parties fill the gap if they don't want to.
I would put the fisheye in the same category as a long macro and a >2x macro (MP-E 65mm replacement). Nice to have but low volume.

Well, I need one for next summer among all other underwater photographers.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Well, the discussion was about all RF lenses being new optical formulas. I brought up the fact that that is not true for the prime exotics. Doesn't matter how recent they are, they still existed as EF lenses before the "new" RF ones

It depends on what you mean by "new".
Those EF lenses were relatively new.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Do we need a RF fisheye? The EF8-15/4 is great but is a pretty niche lens.

I tend to say yes, but it would need to have some advantage over adapting the EF version.

 

[stillviking]

I tend to say yes, but it would need to have some advantage over adapting the EF version.

Sure, for underwater for example the old EF + new RF-EF adapter doesn't fit the waterhousing.

 

[roby17269]

It depends on what you mean by "new".
Those EF lenses were relatively new.

I am sorry I fail to see where the confusion lays...
The discussion was about RF lenses having new optical designs compared to EF lenses.
The RF big white exotic 400mm and 600mm primes are copies of the existing EF big white mkIII exotic primes. Therefore the RF ones are not new designs.
They may be called "recent" designs, but they are not new.

 

[Walrus]

I considered buying several Sigma Art lenses for EF mount. They performed really well (sometimes better than Canon) on black and white wall charts. However, every time I dug deep into pro reviews, I found that, in the real world, AF performance was pretty poor. This may not matter on wide angles where DOF hides lack of focus precision but, for my work, it is critical. Generally, they are also very heavy and not always cheaper. IMO, the biggest benefit from going to the R mount was greatly improved AF performance.

My experience with AF on DSLR (6D, so certainly not the best AF module in Canon reflex lineup) was spot on with all my Sigma Art; and when you move to mirrorless, the eventual slight front/back focus, if any, becomes a non issue, if you know the difference of how AF is done on a DSLR vs ML, as on the latter you focus directly on the image sensor.
That's why ML cameras don't have the AF microadjust function, that was implemented in all relevant DSLR bodies.