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

[AlanF]

True, but EF lenses adapt a lot better than other mirrorless systems.
Canon did the same thing for EF-M so it was to be expected.
Adapting FD lenses to EF was much more difficult.

Yes, and they even adopt to Sony. Nikon's don't have a consistent design and so are more difficult to adapt, even to Nikon.

 

[SHAMwow]

I kind of agree with both sides of this coin. I do think the new RF L's are too extreme, even as someone that buys them. And I also agree the STM RF's swing way too far to the cheap/crappy side. I was blown away how bad the RF 50mm 1.8 was on my R5. I put it back in the box immediately. I would assume they'll fill out the middle range much much later in the system's lifespan and I kind of understand that because all those gold ring EF, middle tier lenses I moved away from as well. Because while they were getter than base lenses, they also had enough of an increase in price where it wasn't a smart investment because they lacked the quality and the durability, but you'd invested more money. Only lenses I still use that are old are my L lenses. They simply just work, over long periods of time.

 

[AlanF]

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.

My reply to EOS 4 Life, which was posted before your post came to my computer, applies. Nikon was in a mess because unlike Canon it has a variety of focussing systems for its DSLRs and its adapter is a compromise to accommodate all. I think it is going too far to assume that Canon's EF-ER seamless adapter was purely altruistic. They had such a limited range of RF lenses available when they introduced the R that not many would have taken it up without a good adapter.

 

[another_mikey]

Canon RF 12 or 14mm f1.8 or faster - even if expensive, if full frame and good in the corners for stars, especially since my wait for the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 to come to RF could be futile.

 

[gbasilemc]

i have the Sigma EF 14mm f1.8 that I use for Milky Way and northern lights and was waiting for something RF to replace, potentially lighter but I don't really mind weight. Instead of 12mm f1.8 or 24mm f1.4 I would have preferred a 14mm f1.4 (or lower f value) personally ; will wait to see what that 12mm is worth for.

 

[entoman]

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.

ah, the "S-word"...

Haha, yeah, in the early days S were completely dependent on adapted glass, and all the S fanatics made such a huge point of telling the rest of us that the most wonderful thing about S was that they could accept Canon L glass. But now all of a sudden they tell us it's disgraceful that Canon only has a limited range of native RF glass.

 

[SNJ Ops]

Sigma has a 14 f/1.8 for Canon EF that you can adapt.

The 14mm f1.8 GM and 14mm f1.8 Art have been compared and the consensus is that the GM noticeably beats the Sigma optically while being much smaller, much lighter but their prices are equal. Sigma’s new 20mm and 24mm f1.4 Art DG DNs however compare very very favourably to the Sony equivalents.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

If it’s a CR2 rating, shouldn’t it go in the roadmap? I think it would make sense and maybe CR guy could update it to 2023-2024.

I really like the roadmap list and think it’s very accurate for rumors site, despite canon having some surprises up their sleeves.

 

[wockawocka]

I need more signatures for the RF 50 1.4 'asanford' petition

Even now, I'm surprised the STM RF 50mm passed QC

 

[Ph0t0]

I agree with all of that neuro, but it still frustrates me that there are very few mid-range, mid-price L-quality lenses with modest apertures that would result in smaller, lighter lenses.

It's difficult to gauge how much demand there is for such optics, but I honestly believe they would sell in high enough numbers to make it worthwhile to Canon, and I also believe that the "policy of extremes" is alienating a lot of existing customers, and discouraging new customers.

Out of curiosity: which mid-range, mid-price lenses do you think are missing from the lineup of wide-angle lenses?

 

[SNJ Ops]

I agree with all of that neuro, but it still frustrates me that there are very few mid-range, mid-price L-quality lenses with modest apertures that would result in smaller, lighter lenses.

It's difficult to gauge how much demand there is for such optics, but I honestly believe they would sell in high enough numbers to make it worthwhile to Canon, and I also believe that the "policy of extremes" is alienating a lot of existing customers, and discouraging new customers.

Agree, lots of shooters simply want good quality lenses at reasonable prices. Canon currently have the RF mount all to themselves so they could come out with mid range line of lenses that sits just below the L series, something like;

18mm f1.8 USM
35mm f1.4 USM
50mm f1.4 USM
85mm f1.4 USM

16-28mm f2.8 USM
28-70mm f2.8 USM
75-180mm f2.8 USM
20-40mm f2.8 USM

 

[Del Paso]

Agree, lots of shooters simply want good quality lenses at reasonable prices. Canon currently have the RF mount all to themselves so they could come out with mid range line of lenses that sits just below the L series, something like;

18mm f1.8 USM
35mm f1.4 USM
50mm f1.4 USM
85mm f1.4 USM

16-28mm f2.8 USM
28-70mm f2.8 USM
75-180mm f2.8 USM
20-40mm f2.8 USM

Do you really think they could be non-L lenses, with these apertures and focal ranges?

 

[SNJ Ops]

Do you really think they could be non-L lenses, with these apertures and focal ranges?

Canon don’t have to make them L lenses, even if they did they would be cheaper, smaller and lighter than the current options RF or EF equivalents.

 

[Del Paso]

Canon don’t have to make them L lenses, even if they did they would be cheaper, smaller and lighter than the current options RF or EF equivalents.

Wishful thinking!
And where should Canon get the lower price from, partly plastic lenses, plasticky mount or lower quality optics?
Even if possible, which I strongly doubt, these lenses would get negative reports when compared to their EF "equivalents".

 

[entoman]

Out of curiosity: which mid-range, mid-price lenses do you think are missing from the lineup of wide-angle lenses?

Wide-zoom L glass is already very well covered.

My wish-list includes:

Wide primes - I'd like to see a 21mm F4 L.

Tele-zooms - the most obvious "missing" one, which I would definitely buy, would be a close-focusing 70-300mm F4 L.

Macro - I'd like to see a compact, lightweight 1:2 macro of about 180-200mm, F5.6 L.

 

[unfocused]

Wishful thinking!
And where should Canon get the lower price from, partly plastic lenses, plasticky mount or lower quality optics?
Even if possible, which I strongly doubt, these lenses would get negative reports when compared to their EF "equivalents".

I suspect there is also the issue of economies of scale. None of these proposed lenses would likely be big sellers and would siphon off the relatively few sales of the existing lenses in the same or similar focal lengths.

I think people on this forum way overestimate the demand for their dream lenses.

 

[Ph0t0]

Wide-zoom L glass is already very well covered.

My wish-list includes:

Wide primes - I'd like to see a 21mm F4 L.

Tele-zooms - the most obvious "missing" one, which I would definitely buy, would be a close-focusing 70-300mm F4 L.

Macro - I'd like to see a compact, lightweight 1:2 macro of about 180-200mm, F5.6 L.

I'm asking because I think there are more gaps in the lineup when one looks at longer focal ranges that you mentioned or specialist lenses like macro and tilt-shift.

I just kind of doubt that they would sell a lot of 21mm f4 lenses.
And I belive that there are plenty of uses for such a lens as a 21mm f4. I'm just wondering if there really is a demand for such a lens on the market.

Seems kind of expensive to spend money on a lens that is so limited in focal range and has a relatively high f-stop when there are some preety good zooms that cover that range and more.
If I was trying to save money I would probably rather get an RF 15-30mm f4 or RF 24-105mm f4 or adapt a EF 16-35mm or ef 24-70mm lens instead of buying a 21mm f4. Maybe even RF 24mm 1.8 if I needed something smaller and with a lower f-stop number.

 

[Del Paso]

I suspect there is also the issue of economies of scale. None of these proposed lenses would likely be big sellers and would siphon off the relatively few sales of the existing lenses in the same or similar focal lengths.

I think people on this forum way overestimate the demand for their dream lenses.

That's why they are called "dream" lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I just kind of doubt that they would sell a lot of 21mm f4 lenses.
And I belive that there are plenty of uses for such a lens as a 21mm f4. I'm just wondering if there really is a demand for such a lens on the market.

I agree. The lens @entoman wishes for us a 21mm f/4 L, and that desire/need is met by the existing 14-35/4L. I’m sure the hope is a prime would be cheaper, but if the demand is weak the cost will need to be higher, and demand would then be even lower. A 21/4L is basically a non-starter. Maybe as a TS lens…but that wouldn’t work for @entoman because it won’t be weather sealed, would cost more than the zoom, and would likely be MF.

 

[HMC11]

I have been wondering if the complaints about 'extreme' pricing is valid when inflation is taken into account. I have compared lenses where a clear EF predecessor exists for the RF lens concerned. Below is a table showing prices at Launch ($ at L), Launch price adjusted for inflation at year of EF version launch (L yr Adj), what the EF price would be in 2021 when adjusted for inflation (2021 adj), EF price adjusted for 2022 (2022 adj), current B&H prices (Current). I have also computed the percentage increase from EF price (adj & current etc). So 'L-Adj)' compares inflation-adjusted EF price at launch of RF counterpart etc, 'C-21adj' - current RF price compared to 2021 adjusted price, 'L-adj21' - RF launch price compared to EF adjusted price in 2021, C-C - simple comparison of current EF & RF prices.

The inflation data is from an inflation calculator (https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/in...quivalent,cumulative price increase of 72.05%.), which obviously is as best a reasonable estimate. I have used both the 2021 & 2022 inflation values simply because 2022's inflation is an outlier - as such, using only 2022 seems somewhat distorted.

If I were to use within 5% as a reasonable increase, between 5-10% as just about accepted, and beyond 10% as being 'unreasonable', then the following observations can be made (without validation, of course) using L-Adj and C-C columns
(a) Lenses that are reasonably priced: 15-35 f2.8, 24-105L, 35 f1.8 & 85 f1.8
(b) acceptably (subjective) priced: 100 f2.8 macro
(c) 70-200 f4 hovers around ok pricing, especially if a good discount is offered
(d) 100-500 is not bad if one can still get the launch price
(e) The rest need serious discounts

Overall, the L series lenses are a mix bag when it comes to price increases from EF counterparts. While there are good reasons to scream at the high pricing for some, a good discount (perhaps when a mark II lens is released, or that the lenses are in the market long enough for prices to drop) would bring the pricing to a reasonable level. The current non-L in this list are broadly 'cheap' (with the exception of the RF 50 1.8, but the base price of that is low enough to treat it as reasonably priced).