There are jints of a version II of a current RF lens coming in 2024 [CR2]

[Marphoto]

Yes, it will be the Canon 50mm 1.4 I & II, a single lens.

 

[jeffa4444]

Maybe it’s a better idea to provide the missing RF L primes before MKII versions of existing lenses. Canon has the smallest range of lenses in the mirrorless market of the top three manufacturers which is bad after five years.

 

[kafala]

Now that most FF cameras from Canon have IBIS I wonder if the mkii version lenses will have IS. Skipping IS within the lenses would make them a lot lighter (I once read about 125-200g depending on the lens) and Sony also manages 7-8 stops shake correction with IBIS alone.

Sony's 7-8 stops of ibis is crap. I had the A7iv and shooting handheld video the footage looked like I had parkinsons. I switched to the R6ii and it was a night and day difference.

 

[danfaz]

And the 50mm & 85mm 1.2 deliver amazing quality... they do not "suck" in AF speed, I can take photos of my active 9yo with them and they deliver.

Totally agree. They are not sports lenses, so should not be expected to perform as such. However, they are both quick enough for everything else in my experience.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The RF 24-104 L IS is the obvious choice. It's the bread and butter "do all" lens for many. I'm guessing if a mkII is on the cards it's a way for Canon to make this lens cheaper and in larger quantities. It's one of their biggest sellers in the Ef and Rf format. Build em cheap and stack them high.
The other lens that I love and hate at the same timeis the RF 70-200/2.8. It's an awesome design and Canon really did something revolutionary with it. However....the lack of TC use is limiting and for me...I'm keeping my EF 70-200 L IS II.

 

[HeavyPiper]

I'm very happy with my existing RF lens, they are a step up from my older EF lens.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Agreed. A lot of people will be seriously pissed if the RF50mm F1.2 gets a mkii before a RF35mm L sees the light of day

I do own the 35mm F1.8 and 85mm F2 myself. Honestly, yes, the motor is noisy and slow to focus in dark places, but both lenses deliver excellent IQ and are great to handle given their size and weight. Given their price point, they are a steal (especially since I got my copy of the 85mm f2 for 375 $ plus tax from Canon refurb). I can easily live with the "noisy STM motor" although I'd love a USM motor as well.

I recently attended a wedding in Germany. The photographer shot on two R6s with those two lenses and the 16mm F2.8 for a group pic. The pics turned fantastic!!!

Which further reinforces my point on another thread that a 35-85mm f2 L IS would be a wedding photographer's dream. Especially if it could do half life size macro.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Which further reinforces my point on another thread that a 35-85mm f2 L IS would be a wedding photographer's dream. Especially if it could do half life size macro.

It certainly would be, but with the 28-70mm F2 on the market I seriously doubt it will come to life. In addition, Canon will rather sell you two lenses (28-70mm and the always rumored 70-140mm F2) instead of one.

 

[bbasiaga]

My guess is there is something in the supply chain forcing this. Like the EF 70-200 vII to vIII was driven solely by the coatings they were using on the vII becoming no longer available. Some chip or part of something may be driving this change. Just seems too soon for anything else. UNLESS, they have 'fixed' the RF100L focus issues and it required a significant change.

Just guesses of course.

-Brian

 

[neuroanatomist]

My guess is there is something in the supply chain forcing this. Like the EF 70-200 vII to vIII was driven solely by the coatings they were using on the vII becoming no longer available. Some chip or part of something may be driving this change. Just seems too soon for anything else. UNLESS, they have 'fixed' the RF100L focus issues and it required a significant change.

Just guesses of course.

Seems reasonable. My understanding was that the coating change on the 70-200/2.8 III did help with the flare (which was rather noticeable in some circumstances on the MkII when I had it).

Canon indicated that the 100mm Macro focus shift was a design tradeoff for achieving 1.4x magnification. Probably possible to correct it, but at what cost? The long-running, reasonably good discounts on the RF 100L (at least in the US) suggest it was overpriced at launch.

 

[clearwaterphotog]

I will say my 24-105L isn't crunchy sharp like the 14-35L can be, but I wouldn't say its performance is weak. The average for the RF L lineup is just that good. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to a sharper Mk2, as long as they don't trade off with vignetting or CA. Most of the L lineup seems great for CA correction so I'm not too worried, but who knows - everyone and their brother wants crunchy sharp photos seemingly at the expense of anything else.

I don't see them releasing a 70-200/2.8 that is just as small but works with TCs - I believe they would have added TC compatibility to the design if they could have. Still, if they figured it out, I'd actually be somewhat interested in purchasing it, as I usually need more reach than 200mm if I'm using a telephoto, but 280mm (with 1.4x) would be just enough with a deep crop that it would probably suffice, and I would have the traditional focal range for when I'm working in short-mid telephoto ranges. I'd probably be better served with the 100-400, but I can't deny the allure and sexy bokeh of a 70-200/2.8.

 

[blackcoffee17]

They need to give us a 35mm 1.4 lens before make a version II of anything. Their 1.2 primes while great suck in terms of auto focus speed and flare control compared to Sony GM primes. They also need to get rid of the 1.8 and f2 primes with the crap stm motor and make give them a usm motor with weather sealing and come with a lens hood. The current ones are cheap garbage for little kids to play with. Also, I would like some 1.4 primes as well since the 1.2 are heavy.

Knowing Canon, we will wait 15 years until the consumer RF lenses will be updated. Some might even outlive the RF mount. But I agree that Canon had better AF motors in some 30 year old consumer lenses (like the EF 85mm 1.8).

 

[neuroanatomist]

They need to give us a 35mm 1.4 lens before make a version II of anything. Their 1.2 primes while great suck in terms of auto focus speed and flare control compared to Sony GM primes. They also need to get rid of the 1.8 and f2 primes with the crap stm motor and make give them a usm motor with weather sealing and come with a lens hood. The current ones are cheap garbage for little kids to play with. Also, I would like some 1.4 primes as well since the 1.2 are heavy.

Maybe, if enough of us stomp our feet petulantly, Canon will release those lenses and charge pennies for them.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[BBarn]

In general, it seems rather soon to be updating lenses. The haste might be due to poor sales. If that's the case, I'd guess the RF100. It just seems off, given the focus shift and nearly useless SA control. Correcting the focus shift, dumping the SA control, and a reduction in size and weight could make it much more attractive.

 

[Walrus]

Which further reinforces my point on another thread that a 35-85mm f2 L IS would be a wedding photographer's dream. Especially if it could do half life size macro.

Too short; make it 35-105 f2 and Canon will have my money

(Not true, I'm lying! I'd wait for a Sigma alternative which will be same or better quality while 30% to 50% cheaper )

Half life size on a bright L lens was never seen by Canon, unfortuntely; I think the EF 24-70 F4 L had a decent macro ratio, but maybe not half life and certainly it's not bright, and I kinda feel it's the only L lens (proper macro L lenses excluded of course!) with a decent macro capability.

 

[chasingrealness]

A smaller and lighter 28-70 f/2 would be pretty sweet.

 

[illadvisedhammer]

i haven't seen Canon updating non-L lenses, anyone has any examples?

To be a completist, I’d include the 15-85 replacing the 17-85

 

[EricN]

Maybe, if enough of us stomp our feet petulantly, Canon will release those lenses and charge pennies for them.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I want Canon to troll us and offer 18-35mm f/1.4 for $10,000

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe it’s a better idea to provide the missing RF L primes before MKII versions of existing lenses. Canon has the smallest range of lenses in the mirrorless market of the top three manufacturers which is bad after five years.

A quick look shows 40 Nikon Z and 37 Canon RF. So yes, Canon has the fewest but not by many. And that's being generous to Nikon, since that counts the 28mm and 40mm 'special edition' lenses separately, and really how different are the 28/2.8 lenses from the 26/2.8?

I also notice that Nikon has a 50/1.2 and a 50/1.8, but no 50/1.4. I wonder if there are posts on NR analogous to those on CR claiming Nikon is d00med without a 50/1.4 (or maybe claiming the lack of it is why they've lost so much market share)?

 

[RCH111]

They need to give us a 35mm 1.4 lens before make a version II of anything. Their 1.2 primes while great suck in terms of auto focus speed and flare control compared to Sony GM primes. They also need to get rid of the 1.8 and f2 primes with the crap stm motor and make give them a usm motor with weather sealing and come with a lens hood. The current ones are cheap garbage for little kids to play with. Also, I would like some 1.4 primes as well since the 1.2 are heavy.

Agreed. They're very noisy when shooting video, too. Sony is miles ahead with their G-Master II lenses.