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

[Canon Rumors]

The Canon EOS R system was originally announced with 4 lenses, the RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, RF 28-70mm f/2L USM, RF 50mm f/1.2L USM and the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro. The second round of announcements came about 6 months later with the pair of 85mm f/1.2L USM lenses, the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L

See full article...

 

[mccasi]

I think it does make sense. Sony\'s mark II version of their pro lenses esp. 70-200 2.8 and 16-35 2.8 and their 50mm 1.2 (mark I) tend to edge out Canon\'s then market leading lenses with size/weight and optical performance.
If Canon wants to claim the crown on those lenses, which are likely a lighthouse for professional photographers who want the best - go for it!

i don\'t think any 24-105 lens (or 24-120 lens for nikon) to write home about. i just wonder if they can pull of a sony in terms of: lighter and better or do we have to choose either lighter/smaller or better optically.

 

[David - Sydney]

Hmm… great but filling ‘gaps’ should be the focus. The number of upgraders would be lower than sales for a different lens imho

 

[Skux]

If anything they need to update the non-L lenses with the MF/control/AF switch that they implemented on the RF 28mm f/2.8 and finally move past the awkward ergonomic situation that necessitated a separate on-body toggle switch on some models (which itself is useless when the lens has its own AF/MF switch, making things even more confusing).

 

[mccasi]

If anything they need to update the non-L lenses with the MF/control/AF switch that they implemented on the RF 28mm f/2.8 and finally move past the awkward ergonomic situation that necessitated a separate on-body toggle switch on some models (which itself is useless when the lens has its own AF/MF switch, making things even more confusing).

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

 

[koenkooi]

If anything they need to update the non-L lenses with the MF/control/AF switch that they implemented on the RF 28mm f/2.8 and finally move past the awkward ergonomic situation that necessitated a separate on-body toggle switch on some models (which itself is useless when the lens has its own AF/MF switch, making things even more confusing).

It's not useless, that MF/AF toggle on the body is much easier to reach for me while shooting than the on-lens button. For the bodies that have such a toggle....

 

[koenkooi]

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

The 18-55 EF-S kit lens.

 

[kafala]

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.

 

[Loswr]

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

There are lots. EF-S 18-55 had many versions, the EF-S 55-250 was updated. For EF, the nifty-fifty EF 50/1.8 had a MkII version then the STM version. More recently (2016), the EF 70-300 non-L got a MkII version. If you go back to the 'before times', the EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 actually had a MkV version.

 

[Maximilian]

For me, this is a little bit early compared to the life cycles of the EF lenses.
But life cycles of cars have been shortened, too.

I am a bit surprised to see the lenses that come into account, esp. looking how they perform.
From those mentioned, I see only two lenses that I would have on my wish list for an update, plus one addition:

RF24-105L II: as mentioned, IQ is underwhelming for an L lens, esp. when you see how the other RF zooms perform.
RF70-200L II: if possible to have the same size and performance + teleconverter operation, as mentioned. Internal zoom is not my highest priority.
RF100-500L II: teleconverter transport fully zoomed in. The use/transport from 300mm on means mounting in the field and getting dust in.

 

[Maximilian]

Hmm… great but filling ‘gaps’ should be the focus. The number of upgraders would be lower than sales for a different lens imho

Sounds right in principle. And my opinion, too.
But if Canon has numbers of - say - that a 70-200/2.8 sells x fold times more than a 35/1.4, than maybe they calculate that just the number of upgrades outsells the number of overall 35/1.4 numbers. Then I as Canon would get the Mk II first.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

The RF 24-105mm F4 L was the first lens I got with the EOS R camera (the 35mm followed a day later) and I have kept it in my bag for over four years. Out of all my L lenses (currently: 14-35mm, 100-500mm; previously owned: 70-200mm F4, 15-35mm F2.8, 50mm F1.2) it is the one which performs the weakest... the 70-200mm was sharper, so is the 14-35mm while comparing the same focal lengths. With the 24-105mm I sometime miss focus where wouldn't´miss using a different lens, even after I sent to Canons repair center where they adjusted some glass parts...

I have been thinking about selling It for quite a while now, but what would the alternatives be? RF 24-70mm F2.8 is even heavier and more expensive... At the moment, I don't permanently want a gap between 35-70mm (or 100mm) or carry around more weight. Furthermore, I got the lens so cheap (799 €) compared to its current pricing... So, yeah, I'd love a mkii with better optical performance and maybe a little more focal length like Nikon or Tamron. Even 35-150mm sounds very intriguing.

So, yeah, my guess is definitely a mkii or a spiritual successor of the RF 24-105mm F4 L.

The RF 70-200mm could also benefit from a very small design change: move the control ring to the end of the lens as Canon did it with the F4 model. I guess that change won't justify a mkii version on its own.

For all other lenses I'd say: Unless there is huge improvement such as loosing a lot of weight or increase in FL or F number, Canon should focus on closing gaps in their RF line-up first.

 

[Walrus]

Hmm… great but filling ‘gaps’ should be the focus. The number of upgraders would be lower than sales for a different lens imho

Agreed.

And RF lenses are so new that I frankly can't think of any of them already getting a Mark II version in the short run, outside a giant big flaw in a specific lens, which to my knowledge doesn't exist.

OTOH, Mk II stuff leads rich amateurs to sell perfectly good (and often unused) stuff to buy the new toy, so it's good for the second hand market, there are more lenses in circle and so the prices drop.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

They need to give us a 35mm 1.4 lens before make a version II of anything.

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

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.

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!!!

 

[Exploreshootshare]

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.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

RF100-500L II: teleconverter transport fully zoomed in. The use/transport from 300mm on means mounting in the field and getting dust in.

Agreed. I hated it so much I sold the converter shortly after I purchased it...

 

[Maximilian]

Agreed. I hated it so much I sold the converter shortly after I purchased it...

For me, that is just the buy/no buy decision... (of the converter).

 

[AlanF]

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

EF 70-300mm and EF 75-300mm.

 

[AlanF]

RF100-500L II: teleconverter transport fully zoomed in. The use/transport from 300mm on means mounting in the field and getting dust in.

I have changed TCs on the RF 100-500mm many 100s or maybe even 1000s of times and not got dust onto sensors. I wouldn't do it in a dust storm or high wind.

 

[roby17269]

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.

No, the 35mm 1.2 needs to come first, no debate
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.