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

neuroanatomist

Canon Rumors Premium
Jul 21, 2010
31,384
13,330
The EF 85 f/1.4 IS is a spectacular lens and it is pretty new.
I highly recommend going with that one.
Agreed. I see no need to ‘upgrade’ to the RF 85/1.2 (either of them). The EF 85/1.4 is sharp, has great bokeh, and focuses fast. Personally, I don’t see the need for the RF’s extra half-stop of aperture, and I speak from the experience of having had it with the EF 85/1.2L II.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
Quite a lot of the negative feedback that Canon gets is nonsensical.
They seem to do a pretty good job add addressing reasonable concerns.
They do not address them fast enough for everyone's patience level though.
I think you'd have to make specific references before saying that quite a lot of the negative feedback is nonsensical. Please give examples.
 
Upvote 0

Blue Zurich

Traditional Grip
Jan 22, 2022
243
364
Swingtown
Seems like a lot of folx forget Canon was pretty nice to all of us to allow adapting of the EF lenses and quite a few of them are superior on R bodies. Not sure what so much gnashing and wailing is all about. Furthermore there is little patience these days. EF took many many many years to reach its full catalog, we're not even at the comparitive 1/2 way mark with RF. People just like whining, thanks Internet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
Upvote 0
Apr 29, 2019
285
267
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.
... and whenever it comes to closeup in nature like dragonflies, butterfies the 100-400 outperformed the 100-500.
The 100-400 is s sharp as ever needed shot "wide open", it is ultra light & compact & agile to be used (please hold a 100-500 5 minute in knees' height at a pond's edge, btw with adapted 1.4x converter to get the same closeup reach with the 100-500)
Those complaining about the 100-400 a) never used this lens and b) don't understand the talents of this lens.

(possibly my best purchase in 2022)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
Apr 29, 2019
285
267
I owned both the 100-400L and the 70-300L. After getting the 600/4L II, I sold the 100-400 but kept the 70-300L as a more portable option when needed. I did not use it very much, though, so I eventually sold it. I don't think I'd buy a replacement in RF mount unless it comes in at the size weight of the 24-105/4 somehow. I do have the 100-500L, which is a stellar lens both optically and when used for that purpose.

"Ajax Peak Stars" (Telluride, CO)
View attachment 205515
EOS R3, RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM @ 151mm, 3.2 s, f/8, ISO 12800
Yes, the 100-500 is superb in landscape & things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Apr 29, 2019
285
267
I had the 70-300 DO for a while. As I have done with several lenses I had some doubts if I really wanted or not, I bought it used. It was very convenient with a size almost identical to the 24-105/4 (although it was f/4.5-5.6). Perhaps with the current state of DO lenses (which Canon seems to no longer be labeling as such, e.g. 600/11 and 800/11), I wonder if they could make a 70-300/4L with a DO group that is quite compact. Seems possible. That, I'd be sorely tempted to buy.

The 70-300 DO wasn't a bad lens, but it did have it's optical quirks as far as bokeh goes. I ended up selling it, for the same price I paid – a free, long-term rental is a great way to evaluate a lens! My track record with that approach has been good. Of the 5 lenses I bought used, I sold 4 of them and ended up net in the black after selling them (others were the 300/4L, 28-300L, and 24-105/4L although that last one I just replaced with a new one bought in a kit with a 5DII). The only one I kept after buying used was the MP-E 65 – a great lens, lots of fun, and I only paid $500 for it.

Here's a shot with the 70-300 DO, in the hopes that Canon brings out an f/4 L version in RF.

"Ribbit"
View attachment 205518
EOS 7D, EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM @ 300mm, 1/500, f/6.3, ISO 640
The EF 70-300 DO was the worst ever purchase in my EF- "career".
At least my copy was never consistent - and nobody is interested in taking it as used.
 
Upvote 0

jam05

R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
931
598
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?
That Sony lens was a response to the popularity of the Sigma 14 f/1.8.
Canon tends to push things a little further.
However Sony only had a handfull of native Sony lenses for about 5 or 6 years. Sony pushed adapters and 3rd party lenses. We havent forgot about the constant chest thumping over all the adapters and how it didnt matter that Sony had no real lenses. Until they went out and recruited Nikon's famed patent holder and lens designer to get their lens program together and design the G Master lenses. We havent forgot Sony mirrorless growing pains.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,484
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
Seems like a lot of folx forget Canon was pretty nice to all of us to allow adapting of the EF lenses and quite a few of them are superior on R bodies. Not sure what so much gnashing and wailing is all about. Furthermore there is little patience these days. EF took many many many years to reach its full catalog, we're not even at the comparitive 1/2 way mark with RF. People just like whining, thanks Internet.
I wouldn't say Canon was nice, any more than I would say they are evil, mean, selfish, anti-competitive, etc. etc. etc. They are just a company in the business of staying in business and earning a return on investment. I'm sure they designed the R system to allow adapters because it made good business sense.

Still, I also don't understand all the whining. I've gone all-in on RF. But, thanks to the adapters, the switchover was much easier to budget and I've still got two EF lenses that I may never replace (8-15 fisheye and 100 L macro).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
Canon Rumors Premium
Aug 16, 2012
12,520
23,173
... and whenever it comes to closeup in nature like dragonflies, butterfies the 100-400 outperformed the 100-500.
The 100-400 is s sharp as ever needed shot "wide open", it is ultra light & compact & agile to be used (please hold a 100-500 5 minute in knees' height at a pond's edge, btw with adapted 1.4x converter to get the same closeup reach with the 100-500)
Those complaining about the 100-400 a) never used this lens and b) don't understand the talents of this lens.

(possibly my best purchase in 2022)
I agree with you and @jeffa4444 100% on all those points. I too find the RF 100-400mm outperforms the 100-500mm for close-up shots of dragonflies. My two copies (yes, one for my wife and one for me when I don't want to take the RF 100-500mm) are sharp wide open. Of course, for long distances the extra 100mm of the RF 100-500mm wins, and it is one of the sharpest tele photo zooms. But, the RF 100-400mm doesn't lag much behind its big EF 100-400 brother for long distances. There are several CR members on CR posting sharp images from it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Apr 29, 2019
285
267
Agree, I like to have a realistic perspective about the limitations of my gear, so I can get the most out of it. If someone says that my cheapest RF lens, the RF 50mm f/1.8 is crap, and has bad bokeh, I don't take it personally. Yes, it has its limitations for a budget lens. I know that stopped down it's incredibly sharp, and is quite good at f/2.0, with excellent sharpness from f/2.8 through to f/5.6, with best edge sharpness from f/4 to f/5.6. I'm mindful not to select busy backgrounds for best out of focus backgrounds/bokeh, and while it's no Canon L lens or Sigma Art lens it does the job. I wouldn't know any of that, and I would have to spend lots of time work all that out for myself after buying the lens first, if people didn't do tests and make objective and factual criticisms of the lens performance. Reading the criticisms, I was happy with the compromises, so I bought it. Reading the same for the RF 16mm f/2.8, I wasn't happy with what I read so I didn't buy it. Highlighting both the strengths and shortcomings of a product, without bias, helps others make informed buying decisions.
How right you are!
Use the equipment in the core of its strengths and talents and do not search and blame the weaknesses!
I use the RF 50mm 1.8 by far more than the RF 50 1.2, very satisfied with this lens.
I use the 16 2.8 with great joy and lots of keepers - thinking about landscape I take the 15-35 first.
The RF 35 is very different in use cases to the EF35 1.4 II, both are great in their fields of strengths.
The RF 100-500 and the RF 100-400 are very disjunct in their strengths. The 100-400 is my best ever lens used when it comes to insects in nature like dragonflies, butterflies, ... . F8? you need f8 anyway for those shots - and the background is cream and butter.

You can find the informations needed when you study several tests & reviews and you "read between the lines".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
Canon Rumors Premium
Aug 16, 2012
12,520
23,173
How right you are!
Use the equipment in the core of its strengths and talents and do not search and blame the weaknesses!
I use the RF 50mm 1.8 by far more than the RF 50 1.2, very satisfied with this lens.
I use the 16 2.8 with great joy and lots of keepers - thinking about landscape I take the 15-35 first.
The RF 35 is very different in use cases to the EF35 1.4 II, both are great in their fields of strengths.
The RF 100-500 and the RF 100-400 are very disjunct in their strengths. The 100-400 is my best ever lens used when it comes to insects in nature like dragonflies, butterflies, ... . F8? you need f8 anyway for those shots - and the background is cream and butter.

You can find the informations needed when you study several tests & reviews and you "read between the lines".
Here's a Common Darter in Flight taken with the RF 100-400mm on the much-maligned R7 with mechanical shutter to avoid rolling shutter. It's a 100% crop (1 px = 1 px of original). I had a whole series of them and posted a couple of similar in the Dragonfly thread. The R7 or R5 + RF 100-400mm is one of the best combos for this genre.3R3A9029-DxO_Common_darter_dragonfly_flying-ls-shm.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12 users
Upvote 0

Johnw

EOS R8
Oct 10, 2020
112
114
I would be interested in an RF 12 f/1.8.

There is a decent chance I may purchase the Sigma 14/1.8 in the next 12 months. An RF version with less weight, hopefully still acceptable optical correction, and even wider would definitely interest me over the Sigma, provided it wasn’t 3x the price (which would be $4800).

The 24 may interest me at a later time as well (going to order the 24/1.8 for now).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

David - Sydney

Canon Rumors Premium
Dec 7, 2014
2,590
2,340
www.flickr.com
Seems like a lot of folx forget Canon was pretty nice to all of us to allow adapting of the EF lenses and quite a few of them are superior on R bodies. Not sure what so much gnashing and wailing is all about. Furthermore there is little patience these days. EF took many many many years to reach its full catalog, we're not even at the comparitive 1/2 way mark with RF. People just like whining, thanks Internet.
I don't think that Canon had a choice but to allow adapting EF lenses. It would have been a major miscalculation if only RF lenses worked on it.
Many EF users would have needed to make a hard decision whether to keep 2 systems or adapt canon lenses to Sony or jump ship completely to Sony/Nikon/Oly/Fuji etc.

As it is, the migration is as gentle as you and your wallet would like to move. Just changing body is a major upgrade (except for battery life and some use cases of OVF/EVF and some lockups and hotshoe weaknesses).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Nemorino

EOS R5
Aug 29, 2020
861
3,500
... and whenever it comes to closeup in nature like dragonflies, butterfies the 100-400 outperformed the 100-500.
The 100-400 is s sharp as ever needed shot "wide open", it is ultra light & compact & agile to be used (please hold a 100-500 5 minute in knees' height at a pond's edge, btw with adapted 1.4x converter to get the same closeup reach with the 100-500)
Those complaining about the 100-400 a) never used this lens and b) don't understand the talents of this lens.

(possibly my best purchase in 2022)
100% agree! (y) I had to move a lot to get this hummingbird moth and swing the lens in every direction. The low weight of the RF 100-400 was a big plus.
rf100-400-jpg.205536

Posted in the Canon rumors butterfly thread:
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 9 users
Upvote 0

Bob Howland

Canon Rumors Premium
Mar 25, 2012
919
592
I don't think that Canon had a choice but to allow adapting EF lenses. It would have been a major miscalculation if only RF lenses worked on it.
Many EF users would have needed to make a hard decision whether to keep 2 systems or adapt canon lenses to Sony or jump ship completely to Sony/Nikon/Oly/Fuji etc.

As it is, the migration is as gentle as you and your wallet would like to move. Just changing body is a major upgrade (except for battery life and some use cases of OVF/EVF and some lockups and hotshoe weaknesses).
When Canon made the transition from FD to EF in 1987, there was no ability to use FD lenses on EF bodies while still having focus to infinity. I imagine that the lessons learned in that transition are very much a part of Canon's corporate culture. In addition, Canon never introduced an FD body with a positive focusing indicator in the viewfinder without the ability to control the lens. I, for one, very much wanted an FD body with that type of indicator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

john1970

EOS R3
Canon Rumors Premium
Dec 27, 2015
1,051
1,282
Northeastern US
Here's a Common Darter in Flight taken with the RF 100-400mm on the much-maligned R7 with mechanical shutter to avoid rolling shutter. It's a 100% crop (1 px = 1 px of original). I had a whole series of them and posted a couple of similar in the Dragonfly thread. The R7 or R5 + RF 100-400mm is one of the best combos for this genre.View attachment 205532
Lovely shot and goes to show that one can obtain phenomenal photos with an affordable kit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
3,226
2,507
However Sony only had a handfull of native Sony lenses for about 5 or 6 years. Sony pushed adapters and 3rd party lenses. We havent forgot about the constant chest thumping over all the adapters and how it didnt matter that Sony had no real lenses. Until they went out and recruited Nikon's famed patent holder and lens designer to get their lens program together and design the G Master lenses. We havent forgot Sony mirrorless growing pains.
Yes, I find it so amazing how now that Sony has the most native mirrorless lenses, it has become such a crime to adapt lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

SHAMwow

EOS R5
Canon Rumors Premium
Sep 7, 2020
190
260
Seems like a lot of folx forget Canon was pretty nice to all of us to allow adapting of the EF lenses and quite a few of them are superior on R bodies. Not sure what so much gnashing and wailing is all about. Furthermore there is little patience these days. EF took many many many years to reach its full catalog, we're not even at the comparitive 1/2 way mark with RF. People just like whining, thanks Internet.
Right! This is often overlooked, but in this era it really was quite amazing how well they supported the adapting of the lenses. I'm sure they weighed the pros and cons and possible backlash if they didn't, but man when you look at how a lot of tech companies support older equipment, this is really quite remarkable. Especially when you hear that Nikon's adapter isn't as smooth.
 
Upvote 0