There will be “a lot” of new RF mount lenses from Canon between now and March 2024

Will canon solve problem of the thousands users like me.
First off, I’m certain that Canon has a far better idea than you or I of the actual demand for such lenses. But, if you’re correct in your estimate that there are thousands of users like you, then probably not.

Say there are ten thousand users like you, if every one of them buys such a lens, then that’s about 0.2% of the lenses Canon sells every year. Not much ROI there to drive the development of lenses that must sell for no more than a few hundred dollars.

FWIW, I suspect the number of APS-C users who want RF versions of the EF-S 17-55 and/or M22/2 is higher than you suggest, but that doesn’t mean it’s high enough for Canon to address it. Alternatively, perhaps Canon feels there’s more profit to be had from users who want such lenses switching to FF instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
I have a BA in photography, took more then 10 years ago, so before going corporate; we were 32 people at the beginning of 3 years of study, we end up in 25/26 I think.
Of those 25 people, just 3 went directly starting working full time in photography, another 4/6 like me end up doing something else but still had a partial income as photographers and were fiscally registered as photographers, all the others end up doing something else and saved photography like a hobby.

Today for what I know (13 years after graduating) just 5 of us, on 25, are earning more then 20% of their income from photography (when I was working corporate that was my balance, 80% as employee and 20% from photo).
I didn't keep in touch with my classmates, but I suspect it's an even lower percentage in painting from talking to that friend. Sculpture must be even more difficult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
These two look to be the same.
Unless I am missing something, the rest have different apertures, number of lens elements, number of groups, magnification, and focal lengths.
The M and RF-S 18-150 are optically identical, as is clear from the specs and block diagrams. Perhaps they’ll directly port other M lenses in a similar manner.
 
Upvote 0
Is this really happening?

A slow company like Canon is releasing lenses. The R50 or R10 sale is seriously hampering for the lack of lens. Actually I own a R10. I am a mid level user. I use my R10 for my talking head video at YouTube and my wife is doing product photography. I used EFS24mm f2.8 previously and now I got a very old Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. It is doing good although it is a bit slow, heavy and make noise during focusing. But having a lens like Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 with IS is awesome for photography.

Actually for my entire work-
  1. I need a lens like Sigma 17-50mm in RF version with IS (having IS is very important for R10 and R50) and
  2. a prime like Sigma 16mm f1.4 or Canon EFM 22m f2.

Will canon solve problem of the thousands users like me.
Around 2006, canon made an EF lens like this that you can adapt to RF. I know it had IS (I read complaints that it can fail), but I'm not certain if it's heavy or noisy for you. The fact that that they never made a mk ii or M version suggests to me that there will not be a rf version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Tell me there are finally going to be some telephoto zooms in the 150-600mm vicinity?? every other brand has this, doesn't even have to be an L series. make it affordable like the Sony one! still a ripper and opens the doors for the average Joe to enjoy some wildlife photography without having to sell the farm. I love Canon products and don't intend on changing brands, but you're way behind in this market segment!
Canon has two RF telephoto zooms in that FL range, with another supposedly coming soon. But of course you probably consider the 100-400 too short/dark, and the 100-500 & 200-500 too expensive. I would be very surprised if they release a fourth competitor (or a fifth if you include the 100-300, which with extenders also covers much of that range). They've clearly decided to segment differently to competitors.
 
Upvote 0
Canon has two RF telephoto zooms in that FL range, with another supposedly coming soon. But of course you probably consider the 100-400 too short/dark, and the 100-500 & 200-500 too expensive. I would be very surprised if they release a fourth competitor (or a fifth if you include the 100-300, which with extenders also covers much of that range). They've clearly decided to segment differently to competitors.
Yes, but none of Canon's lenses in the range 'go to 600'. Perhaps @divinshire is like others who have stated that 500mm f/7.1 is unusable, but 600mm f/6.3 is 'perfect'. Nor does it matter to some that a 400mm f/5.6 lens may deliver higher resolution than a 600mm f/6.3 lens, as was the case when comparing the Canon's EF 100-400L II to some of the 3rd party 150-600mm options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
They are GAS-inducing in the sense that they entice people to buy Canon cameras that are more capable for sports and wildlife.
What is missing are bridge lenses between the RF 100-400 and RF 100-500L, between the RF 600 f/11 and RF 600 f/4L, and between the RF 800 f/11 and RF 800 f/5.6.
There is a lot of room for cheaper in-between lenses.
The only options are used EF lenses or switching to Nikon.
I am not so sure that there are enough used lenses to go around.
I see the prices of used EF super telephotos increasing.
Nikon also does not seem to be keeping up with demand.
But there was always a gap. In EF days you could get to 400mm (excluding third party lenses) relatively affordably but to go beyond that you had to mount extenders or pay several times more. We have more options in that area now than ten years ago. Canon never sought to compete with third party X-600mm f/6.3 zooms, and I don't see enough space in their telephoto lineup now to expect any mid-range lenses now (especially if this new zoom is released soon). I'd love a ~500mm f/5.6 but I just don't see it happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
But there was always a gap. In EF days you could get to 400mm (excluding third party lenses) relatively affordably but to go beyond that you had to mount extenders or pay several times more. We have more options in that area now than ten years ago. Canon never sought to compete with third party X-600mm f/6.3 zooms, and I don't see enough space in their telephoto lineup now to expect any mid-range lenses now (especially if this new zoom is released soon). I'd love a ~500mm f/5.6 but I just don't see it happening.
Having shot with an excellent 500/5.6 very happily, I would not go back to one now I have an excellent 100-500/7.1. The slight loss of 2/3rds stop is eclipsed by the versatility and close focussing of a zoom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
Having shot with an excellent 500/5.6 very happily, I would not go back to one now I have an excellent 100-500/7.1. The slight loss of 2/3rds stop is eclipsed by the versatility and close focussing of a zoom.
Fair points, each to their own; I'm not all that into zooms personally - I got on fine with the 500 f/4 as my main lens for nearly ten years. I suppose the hope would be a prime might cost less; however glowing everyone is about the 100-500, I can't justify spending that much. Maybe one day an affordable secondhand copy will come along.
 
Upvote 0
Tell me there are finally going to be some telephoto zooms in the 150-600mm vicinity?? every other brand has this, doesn't even have to be an L series. make it affordable like the Sony one! still a ripper and opens the doors for the average Joe to enjoy some wildlife photography without having to sell the farm. I love Canon products and don't intend on changing brands, but you're way behind in this market segment!
Funny how a Sony lens costing $1,998 is "affordable" and a Canon lens costing $2,699 is so much more expensive that you have to "sell the farm." $700 is nothing to sneeze at, but I think most folks would consider them to be in roughly the same price bracket. Given a choice, I would choose the Canon every time, mainly for the bigger focal range, the much closer minimum focus distance, and mostly because it is less than 2/3rds of the weight. The distance between 500mm and 600mm is not a lot in the field, in my opinion, and once you start cropping, then even less of a factor considering how sharp the Canon lens is. Buy, of course, gear-heads like numbers and 600 is more than 500, so better, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Funny how a Sony lens costing $1,998 is "affordable" and a Canon lens costing $2,699 is so much more expensive that you have to "sell the farm." $700 is nothing to sneeze at, but I think most folks would consider them to be in roughly the same price bracket. Given a choice, I would choose the Canon every time, mainly for the bigger focal range, the much closer minimum focus distance, and mostly because it is less than 2/3rds of the weight. The distance between 500mm and 600mm is not a lot in the field, in my opinion, and once you start cropping, then even less of a factor considering how sharp the Canon lens is. Buy, of course, gear-heads like numbers and 600 is more than 500, so better, right?
I am a great fan of the RF 100-500mm, often stated here and even in the two posts above yours. In the UK, its price is nearly twice that of the Sony 200-600mm, £3009.99 (= $3790) vs £1599 - a huge difference that exchanges to $1780.
 
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
But there was always a gap. In EF days you could get to 400mm (excluding third party lenses) relatively affordably but to go beyond that you had to mount extenders or pay several times more. We have more options in that area now than ten years ago. Canon never sought to compete with third party X-600mm f/6.3 zooms, and I don't see enough space in their telephoto lineup now to expect any mid-range lenses now (especially if this new zoom is released soon). I'd love a ~500mm f/5.6 but I just don't see it happening.
Canon never competed with Tamron or Sigma with 150-600 zooms but now Sony and Nikon both have 600 mm zoom lenses.
On the other hand, Canon never competed with the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 or 500 f/5.6 PF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
But there was always a gap. In EF days you could get to 400mm (excluding third party lenses) relatively affordably but to go beyond that you had to mount extenders or pay several times more. We have more options in that area now than ten years ago. Canon never sought to compete with third party X-600mm f/6.3 zooms, and I don't see enough space in their telephoto lineup now to expect any mid-range lenses now (especially if this new zoom is released soon). I'd love a ~500mm f/5.6 but I just don't see it happening.
There were rumors of Canon working on a 500 mm f4.5/5 DO lens, but I have not heard any updates on that rumor in over a year. This lens would be similar to the EF 400 mm f4 DO II lens. This lens could be quite light in weight and very useful even with a 1.4x TC.
 
Upvote 0
I'm really liking the 1.4:1 on my RF100L, I haven't needed to swap to the MP-E as often since replacing the EF100L with the RF100L.

I'm not opposed to getting a larger aperture, but I would like the weight to decrease or stay the same compared to the 180L.
I have the Sigma 180 f/2.8 macro and it is a beast. Also have the 150 and it is much more svelte, albeit not tiny.
 
Upvote 0
There were rumors of Canon working on a 500 mm f4.5/5 DO lens, but I have not heard any updates on that rumor in over a year. This lens would be similar to the EF 400 mm f4 DO II lens. This lens could be quite light in weight and very useful even with a 1.4x TC.
Appears based on recent rumors that Canon is going with a 400 mm f4 DO. I really wished they would have gone with a 500 mm version. I am would consider a 400 mm f4 DO, but reluctantly so.
 
Upvote 0