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

[neurorx]

I was hoping to learn about the availability of the 135mm 1.8L.....wasn't it supposed to be announced in Q4?

 

[unfocused]

...if a compact RF 70-300mm L had been available, it would have been one of the first I'd buy. I remain hopeful that Canon will launch such a lens in 2023, although that's probably just wishful thinking!

I owned the 70-300 L and really liked it, but honestly, I hardly ever used it after I got the 100-400 L and it just sat on the shelf for years. I suspect the same would be the case now, since I have the 100-500 L. If I am at all typical that may be one reason why the once popular 70-300 zooms have not been a priority for Canon's RF lineup. With the APS-C R bodies now being released, we may see a non-L 70-300 before we see an L version.

 

[Curahee]

Continue reading...

L lenses are amazing but eye watering expensive. If Canon is going to not allow 3rd party lenses then they need good quality middle lenses. Their FD series of lenses were very well made but not exotic nor high priced. RF lenses with third party prices and built to those standards of optics at very competitive prices. this includes speed of AF as well. Skip the build them like a tank as L lenses are, use plastics where possible and a bit of weather sealing should keep things down. Then definitely make some entry level lenses. Still do NOT lower optical quality and at consumer prices matching the R10 level.

 

[scyrene]

Yes, I'd assume that's correct, so I'm surprised they haven't already launched a RF 70-300mm, which I would have thought was a popular in-demand zoom.

I've already spent WAY too much on lenses and other stuff this year, so I won't be buying anything else myself for a while either, but if a compact RF 70-300mm L had been available, it would have been one of the first I'd buy. I remain hopeful that Canon will launch such a lens in 2023, although that's probably just wishful thinking!

I got the impression the 100-400 was much more popular, but that's just a feeling. I need to use the lenses I've got before buying any more (I say this the day after getting another one ). A tele zoom is tempting but I never used previous ones all that much. The RF 100-500 looks dreamy but is unfeasibly expensive for me, so it would likely be the RF 100-400 (or an adapted secondhand EF of some sort).

 

[jeffa4444]

I am just wondering why they are using slow STM motors in consumer lenses when they have the super-fast, quiet and tiny nano-USM.
They even used that motor in some cheaper lenses (EF 70-300) then decided to go with the worse STM. What is that if not market segmentation?

The RF 100-400mm has a nano motor and it’s super quick to focus, it also has a control ring. Ive a mix of RF L glass and non RF L glass and I’ve been very surprised at the results from the RF 100-400mm given its price point. The RF 24-240mm is much more expensive but not as good optically.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, I'd assume that's correct, so I'm surprised they haven't already launched a RF 70-300mm, which I would have thought was a popular in-demand zoom.

Possibly they decided people wanted longer not wider, and the RF 100-400 is the 'replacement' for the EF 70-300 non-L.

 

[EOS]

Be still my beating heart.

 

[jeffa4444]

One lens that is "missing" from the middle-range, is a replacement for the EF 70-300mm L.

Sure, we have the RF 100-500mm (which I own) but that's quite a lump to carry around and heavy on the arms when held for more than a couple of minutes in the shooting position. Then there is the RF 100-400mm which is basically a fixed F8 lens due to the need to stop down one stop for sharpness, and the fact that at F11 or beyond it becomes quite soft due to diffraction. It also lacks the build quality associated with L glass, and in common with the RF 100-500mm, it doesn't go wide enough at the short end, for a lot of scenarios.

Canon could improve dramatically on the EF 70-300mm L, by making an RF version with a fixed F4 aperture, close-focusing down to 1:3 or even better 1:2, and nano-USM AF motors.

Do you actually own the RF 100-400 or are you quoting others? I have this lens along with the RF 100-500 and my copy at least is sharp wide open no need to stop down and whilst it’s slower it still has a Nano motor and a control ring and it’s about 1/4 of the price of the RF 100-500mm and 1/3rd of the weight and I can get it easily into a back-pack with two other lenses & body without breaking my back.

 

[Rocksthaman]

It’s bad that anything that isn’t STM in the mirrorless world is going to cost you $1800 + on canon.

Crazy cuts off Third parties but then also won’t make anything comparable.

 

[bbasiaga]

Sigh.....

I bet that 24mm will be good for astro at f/2. But probably $2500-3000 on price. A 12mm? Could that get to $3k+? I fear so.

I'm not in a hurry, but I've wanted a 20mm ish really good astro lens for Canon. The new Sigma that just hit looks like the perfect lens for that. Sadly, won't be able to get one. If they make it for Nikon mount, I could see adding a Nikon body and that lens to my kit. Or I suppose Sony. But i really don't want two ecosystems, and I'm not going to spend the money to wholesale switch. Maybe in 2024 the embaro will lift and Sigma will join the fray.

-Brian

 

[[email protected]]

A 12mm f1.8? That seems......odd. I would think milky way/aurora photographers would prefer a 16mm 1.8. who would the 12mm be for? Architecture perhaps?

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.

 

[entoman]

Do you actually own the RF 100-400 or are you quoting others? I have this lens along with the RF 100-500 and my copy at least is sharp wide open no need to stop down and whilst it’s slower it still has a Nano motor and a control ring and it’s about 1/4 of the price of the RF 100-500mm and 1/3rd of the weight and I can get it easily into a back-pack with two other lenses & body without breaking my back.

I'm basing my comments on reviews where images taken with the RF100-400mm have been posted, which show softness at maximum aperture, and more significant softness at F11 and beyond. I'll try to find links and post them later, if I have time. When I saw the review images, it was enough to convince me that my comment about it being effectively a fixed F8 lens was warranted. Prior to seeing the reviews, I'd actually strongly considered getting the RF100-400mm, but have since changed my mind.

I'm very critical of sharpness. However, I recommended the lens (based on what AlanF has said about it) to a friend who is willing to accept that level of sharpness in exchange for the light weight and lowish cost. In a few days time I'll have the opportunity to briefly try his lens out on my R5, and may be able to comment further.

 

[gruhl28]

Canon Rumors Guy, I think you left out the 16mm f/2.8 from the list of existing prime wide angle RF lenses, so there are three, not just two.

 

[entoman]

I got the impression the 100-400 was much more popular, but that's just a feeling. I need to use the lenses I've got before buying any more (I say this the day after getting another one ). A tele zoom is tempting but I never used previous ones all that much. The RF 100-500 looks dreamy but is unfeasibly expensive for me, so it would likely be the RF 100-400 (or an adapted secondhand EF of some sort).

Yes the RF 100-500mm is a great lens, although not such a leap forward from the EF 100-400mm Mkii as I expected. The weight saving e.g. is not even noticeable to me, and the difference in sharpness is welcome but not exactly mind-blowing. I think you'd be happy with the EF 100-400mm Mkii in conjunction with the 1.4x iii, unless you really need something lighter and more compact.

The RF "L" lenses are extremely expensive, and Canon looks to be trying to move even further upmarket regarding prices, specifications and performance, which is why a lot of folk are finding it so concerning that the middle-ground is being left behind, especially in the absence of third party alternatives.

To be clear, I don't blame Canon in any way for this, they are in business to make money, but it's mighty concerning for those on a limited budget and who don't want or need wide maximum apertures, but who do need sharp lenses with high build quality. I think Tony Northrup summed the situation up pretty well.

 

[gruhl28]

I agree...


Although I understand that some Pros are desperately waiting for a better and faster alternative to the 35mm 1.8 STM.

If I were willing to spend way beyond 2000 $/€ for a 35mm - well I´d still prefer the Sigma Art or the Tamron 35mm 1.4 and spend the rest on a good bottle of wine ;-). But wait - no 3rd party on RF mount :-( (don´t bother explainig that I could adapt the EF-lenses).

What´s really missing IMO is a fast affordable standard zoom. On the E-mount you get about 5 different 24/28-70/75mm f/2.8 for less than 1200 $/€. The fastest zoom in this price range on the RF-mount is f 6.3 at the long end. :-(

I think you're forgetting the 24 - 105 f/4 L IS. It's not f/2.8, but it's much faster than f/6.3. It's only slightly over $1200, and you can get a refurb for much less.

 

[Tom W]

Very interesting - I expect that none will be inexpensive, but all will be excellent.

I do wonder, though, if they are working on any mid-range products at all. Although the 85/2 'might' be considered a mid-range product, as could the 35/1.8 and the new 24/1.8. The 15-30, 16/2.8, and 50/1.8 are all inexpensive entry-level lenses, as is (IMHO) the 24-240 superzoom. All pretty good at what they do though.

 

[Avenger 2.0]

I think you're forgetting the 24 - 105 f/4 L IS. It's not f/2.8, but it's much faster than f/6.3. It's only slightly over $1200, and you can get a refurb for much less.

That lens is optically not much better then a good copy EF 24-105mm f4 L you could find for around $300.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

A 12mm f1.8? That seems......odd. I would think milky way/aurora photographers would prefer a 16mm 1.8. who would the 12mm be for? Architecture perhaps?

12mm is used by quite a lot astrophotographers. The Laowa 12mm F2.8 attracts shooters as well as the Sony 12-24mm F2.8

If you like 16mm just shoot and crop or get one of the other UWA options.

 

[Berowne]

That lens is optically not much better then a good copy EF 24-105mm f4 L you could find for around $300.

I sold the EF 3.5-5.6/24-105 IS STM. It is super sharp at 24mm in the center. But the rest was not so nice - so it had to go.

 

[sanj]

Be still my beating heart.

No no. It must beat.