There are 4 wide-angle L prime lenses coming in the next 12 months [CR2]

[Drazen]

Stop making me want it more!

Sorry I actually owned the mk1 version of EF100-400 many years ago, but never really enjoyed that lens and I sold it.

Back then the sensor ISO performance wasn't even close to what we have today, so it really limited the use scenarios for me.

Nowdays I'm totally comfortable cranking up the ISO when needed, the lens IS paired with IBIS means way lower shutter speeds are required and as a result, the overal experience is that much better.

I would say that 100-500 has been the most impressive RF lens for me to date. Just for context, of the RF system I own:
RF15-35 f2.8
RF 28-70 f2
RF 24-105
RF70-200 f2.8
RF100-500
RF50 1.2
RF85 1.2
RF100 macro
The rest are the adapted EF lenses.

 

[Drazen]

What was your lens/body combination?

Forgot to mention it, all were shot on R5.

 

[neuroanatomist]

For those on a limited budget, the RF 100-400mm offers very good value, light weight and ease of use. … if you shoot mainly sports, portraits, mammals etc at medium distances and in reasonably good light, you probably won't be disappointed.

I think many setups do well in reasonably good light. Afternoon soccer matches can be effectively shot with an APS-C body and a 55-250mm lens, or the RF 100-400. Realistically, the difference between an R7 with the RF 100-400 and the R3 with the RF 100-500L would be tough to spot in a shot taken in daylight.

It’s in not-so-good light that higher-spec gear brings an advantage. Here's an example from a last week:


EOS R3, RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, 1/1600 s, f/2.8, ISO 10000

This was during the 1st quarter, there was still some light from the sky and even at f/2.8 I needed a ISO 10K for a fast enough shutter speed. I had the 100-500L with me as well, and used that for some closeups of the marching band at halftime, the slower shutter speeds needed let me keep the ISO at ≤16K even with the narrower aperture.

This lens has instantly become my favorite RF lens. The RF 70-200 2.8L now barely gets used, I'm almost regretting buying it. Having such huge tele range in a single and (by my standards at least) compact and light package is a game changer. ... Pair it with the kit RF 24-105 and you have a walkable setup covering an insane range...

Great shots! For daytime outdoor shooting, the 100-500L is stellar. It's also great for travel, for which my usual kit is the RF 14-35/4, 24-105/4 and 100-500, all of which take 77mm filters as a bonus.

For portraits and indoor events, the f/2.8 zoom is much more useful for me, as well as for nighttime sports (at least with typical high school lighting) as above. I'm hoping Canon brings out an RF 300/2.8L soon for the same reason.

 

[entoman]

I think many setups do well in reasonably good light. Afternoon soccer matches can be effectively shot with an APS-C body and a 55-250mm lens, or the RF 100-400. Realistically, the difference between an R7 with the RF 100-400 and the R3 with the RF 100-500L would be tough to spot in a shot taken in daylight.

It’s in not-so-good light that higher-spec gear brings an advantage. Here's an example from a last week:

Higher spec gear is definitely an advantage in low light - I'd be using F2.8 glass all the time for wildlife photography if I could afford it and if I could tolerate the weight. The budget lenses really come into play when it's important to save weight - such as when hiking with 2 or 3 lenses in a rucksack, or when travelling in small aircraft.

The need to use quite high ISO is reduced somewhat due to the excellent stabilisation, and is counteracted by the amazing abilities of modern editing software to reduce noise without affecting sharpness. Topaz DeNoise AI is superb, and I can't wait to try the new Topaz Photo AI which promises to be even better, combining the masking abilities of Lightroom with the noise-reduction and sharpening of DeNoise.

Most of my work involves subjects with high levels of detail - in landscapes I want to see every detail in foliage, tree bark, grass and sand. With insects I want to see every scale on a butterfly's wings, and with birds and animals I want to see the fine detail of fur and feathers, even in images that are heavily cropped. Hence my preference for the highest quality quality L glass.

But for less critical subjects such as sport, where fine detail rendition isn't as important, I see no reason not to recommend the RF 100-400mm.

 

[scyrene]

Most important of all, I can get the 100-400 for ~1/5 the price of the 100-500. For many, that is the clincher. Indeed I can have the 100-400, 800, and 1.4x extender all for less than the price of the L lens. I do covet the latter, but unless I see one very much reduced in price, I don't expect to own one any time soon.

 

[Drazen]

I think many setups do well in reasonably good light. Afternoon soccer matches can be effectively shot with an APS-C body and a 55-250mm lens, or the RF 100-400. Realistically, the difference between an R7 with the RF 100-400 and the R3 with the RF 100-500L would be tough to spot in a shot taken in daylight.

It’s in not-so-good light that higher-spec gear brings an advantage. Here's an example from a last week:

View attachment 205674
EOS R3, RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, 1/1600 s, f/2.8, ISO 10000

This was during the 1st quarter, there was still some light from the sky and even at f/2.8 I needed a ISO 10K for a fast enough shutter speed. I had the 100-500L with me as well, and used that for some closeups of the marching band at halftime, the slower shutter speeds needed let me keep the ISO at ≤16K even with the narrower aperture.


Great shots! For daytime outdoor shooting, the 100-500L is stellar. It's also great for travel, for which my usual kit is the RF 14-35/4, 24-105/4 and 100-500, all of which take 77mm filters as a bonus.

For portraits and indoor events, the f/2.8 zoom is much more useful for me, as well as for nighttime sports (at least with typical high school lighting) as above. I'm hoping Canon brings out an RF 300/2.8L soon for the same reason.

Absolutely agree - evening / indoor event situations will certainly call for a faster zoom, which 100-500 obviously isn't.

I think a lot depends on what a photographer shoots and at what time of day. For me, this is a perfect lens. If I was a wedding photographer, the 70-200 f2.8 would make much more sense.

Funny you mention the 300 f2.8, since the EF version was probably my favorite EF tele lens, even more than the 600 f4 - which I enjoy a lot, but the size and weight of that thing is so limiting. I have no doubt a RF 300 is coming, I'm just hoping they won't simply stack on an adapter and call it quits, like they did with the current RF super teles.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Funny you mention the 300 f2.8, since the EF version was probably my favorite EF tele lens, even more than the 600 f4 - which I enjoy a lot, but the size and weight of that thing is so limiting. I have no doubt a RF 300 is coming, I'm just hoping they won't simply stack on an adapter and call it quits, like they did with the current RF super teles.

I have the EF 600/4 II, and while I regularly use it handheld, it’s far from light. The MkIII shaves some more weight off, but not enough to matter to me without a boost in IQ (which is excellent already, so that’s a tall order). However, the MkIII Versions of the 400 and 600 are relatively recent (2018, IIRC) where is the 300/2.8 II is the prior generation – hopefully that means a significant redesign for the RF version.

 

[Drazen]

Most important of all, I can get the 100-400 for ~1/5 the price of the 100-500. For many, that is the clincher. Indeed I can have the 100-400, 800, and 1.4x extender all for less than the price of the L lens. I do covet the latter, but unless I see one very much reduced in price, I don't expect to own one any time soon.

Good point. The price is steep, there's no denying it... It may not be within reach for hobby photographers, but for professionals that need long range and high mobility in a compact size, it's a no brainer.

 

[cayenne]

My 14mm f/1.8 Sigma is one of my favorites. It's not just for buildings and skies. I use it to show the context around a subject, or to massively emphasize the subject versus a distorted background. These crappy-light pics below are just snaps, but they give you the sense of additional options. The other lens that does this for me is the Laowa 15mm f/4 macro, which is the reason I've been using the Sigma less in the past couple of years, when I don't need the gaping aperture.
View attachment 205508View attachment 205509View attachment 205510View attachment 205511View attachment 205512View attachment 205513

I too really like that Laowa 15mm lens...a LOT of good shooting in a nice package and a VERY nice price!!

It actually surprised me how much I like it....

C

 

[cayenne]

I believe the FD 50 f/0.95 was both exotic and high-priced for its time.

Hell...it STILL kinda is, on the used market these days...haha.

 

[Bob Howland]

Hell...it STILL kinda is, on the used market these days...haha.

If you like museum pieces.

7 - Canon Camera Museum

Here, you can find out about Canon's Film Cameras > Rangefinder > 7.

global.canon

 

[chasingrealness]

I highly doubt that. You don't get a light and affordable APS-C camera and than pair it with what appears to be an expensive, extremely heavy (though we don't know yet) and exotic statement L lens. I'm expecting this lens to hit 3k $ and weigh somewhere between 800g-1.200 g.

I was assuming the 12mm will follow the small and light scheme that canon has been rolling out across the 1.8 lineup. It it’s as you say? Perhaps not.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I was assuming the 12mm will follow the small and light scheme that canon has been rolling out across the 1.8 lineup. It it’s as you say? Perhaps not.

It is non L lenses that are small and light for the most part

 

[SNJ Ops]

I was assuming the 12mm will follow the small and light scheme that canon has been rolling out across the 1.8 lineup. It it’s as you say? Perhaps not.

I would assume the 12mm f1.8 will be larger than the STMs with a bulbous front element. That’s going by the size Sony’s 14mm f1.8 GM which is fairly compact for what it is.

 

[cayenne]

I would assume the 12mm f1.8 will be larger than the STMs with a bulbous front element. That’s going by the size Sony’s 14mm f1.8 GM which is fairly compact for what it is.

I have the old rectilinear 11-24mm Canon EF L lens...that things a hoss, but wow...takes some really cool images!!

C

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Canon just need to put out a lens roadmap. It is really fantastic that I can look at the Nikon one and see for sure a 35 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.8 are in the works and plan accordingly. Canon leaving me guessing with everything from those hobby/fun lenses to the big whites has been quite off putting. You can still surprise us, but having a general idea of what is coming helps us plan.

 

[Bob Howland]

Canon just need to put out a lens roadmap. It is really fantastic that I can look at the Nikon one and see for sure a 35 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.8 are in the works and plan accordingly. Canon leaving me guessing with everything from those hobby/fun lenses to the big whites has been quite off putting. You can still surprise us, but having a general idea of what is coming helps us plan.

A public lens roadmap may be fantastic for the buyers, but how does it help the seller?

 

[Deleted member 381342]

A public lens roadmap may be fantastic for the buyers, but how does it help the seller?

It doesn't seem to negatively affect the seller, if anything it helps them as their customers know if they stick with your their needs will be served.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It doesn't seem to negatively affect the seller, if anything it helps them as their customers know if they stick with your their needs will be served.

What is your evidence that putting out a lens roadmap doesn’t negatively impact the manufacturer? The fact that Nikon does it? The fact that Sony does it? Which ILC manufacturer sells more lenses? Which ILC manufacturer makes more profit on lenses?

Do you suppose it’s possible for strategies that are beneficial to a company with a much smaller share of the market to be detrimental to the company that dominates the market?

 

[reefroamer]

Canon just need to put out a lens roadmap. It is really fantastic that I can look at the Nikon one and see for sure a 35 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.8 are in the works and plan accordingly. Canon leaving me guessing with everything from those hobby/fun lenses to the big whites has been quite off putting. You can still surprise us, but having a general idea of what is coming helps us plan.

The Nikon lens roadmap I saw on CR said it was leaked. Generally not a good idea in business to telegraph your competitors of your true intentions. It may seem like a good idea for buyers, but these roadmaps are subject to all kinds of changes, delays and deletions/additions. So use a roadmap like this at your risk. The future is mostly unpredictable.