These are a few of the RF lenses coming in 2021 [CR2]

[Hector1970]

I can't wait to get my F11 Trinity 600mm 800mm 100-400mm.
If they could make a 11-105mm F11 I'd have a full house.

 

[IsaacImage]

We Need those two ASAP

1 - 35L F1.3 !!!
2 - 135 or 110mm F1.4

 

[Architect1776]

Continue reading...

There are many of us who would be very happy with non L lenses at f4/5.6 range as long as the lenses are tack sharp. They just do not need the heavy duty indestructible construction. And if STM motors save substantially that also. Just do NOT sacrifice image quality. Even us poor people deserve sharp lenses and good photos. Hey, a 600mm f8 non L lens for $999.00 would be great.

 

[JustAnotherCanonShooter]

I wish there'll be a none IS version of the RF 15-35 F2.8 IS coming. As a landscape photog, the IS on this lens is just not necessary. But with the IS, it adds weight and price, heck, it's even bigger and heavier than the EF 16-35mm F2.8.

 

[flip314]

At the beginning, I was really enthusiastic about the RF line, but now not so much.

I still can't believe that by 2021 Canon is not providing us with:
- a 35mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 whatever
- an UWA zoom
- a telepho portrait lens, be it the rumoured 70-135 or a 135mm prime

WTF!!!

For UWA zoom, the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 is already out, what's wrong with that one?

 

[AEWest]

I wish there'll be a none IS version of the RF 15-35 F2.8 IS coming. As a landscape photog, the IS on this lens is just not necessary. But with the IS, it adds weight and price, heck, it's even bigger and heavier than the EF 16-35mm F2.8.

Agree. Especially at the wide end, IS in a lens won't be needed if the future RF bodies all have IBIS. I would rather save weight and money on non IS versions.

 

[Tangent]

As a user of the EF f4 L series zooms, and since Canon has primarily focused on the RF f2 or 2.8 L series zooms, I now wish Canon would address the RF f4 series zooms more adequately. They have an RF 24-105f4 L and and upcoming RF 70-200’f4 L. Not any in the f4 ultrawide yet. Its sort of unlikely that I would upgrade to an expensive R body until the f4 L line is complete.
As I see it now, if I do add another Canon body it would probably be the R6 with an adapter to use my 17-40 L and 70-200’f4 L. Both are non IS lenses. I would then still use my 5DIV also.

For UWA zoom, the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 is already out, what's wrong with that one?

Great: but It's 2300 USD. A compact 14 -24 F 4 - 6.3 (or I'd be fine with a 14 F3.5 prime) that has decent mid-range build quality and is good optically for 400 USD would match well with the 24-105 4-7.1 for a budget compact travel kit. Photographyblog: the 24-105 4-7.1 looks to be a pretty decent lens for the price.

Maybe the budget, compact UWA angle is the RF 18-45mm IS STM from the OP. I'd very much like it to be wider. Still, with good optics, it might be OK. Would it be too much to ask that it also use 67mm filter, same as the compact 24-105? Canon should avoid the balkanization of filter sizes seen in the M line.

 

[Sibir Lupus]

There were rumors about RF-crop ... So, there should be lenses

That rumor has been stagnant for a long time now. The Canon RP is about as small as an RF based camera is going to get due to the size of the mount. There is no physical way they will ever be able to make an RF based "M200" or "M50" equivalent camera. So because of that, the M series of cameras still have a place in Canon's lineup. The rumored M5 Mark II is supposed to be even more capable then the M6 Mark II, and possibly seen as the replacement for the 7D Mark II. Though whether the M series of cameras will ever be able to adapt RF lenses via an optical adapter of some sort is still up in the air.

 

[padam]

Agree. Especially at the wide end, IS in a lens won't be needed if the future RF bodies all have IBIS. I would rather save weight and money on non IS versions.

Absolutely. If you shoot interiors where tripods are not permitted, or any kind of video, it is totally useless to have a few extra stops of IS over just the IBIS.

Saving money in most circumstances means going for EF over RF, there are three separate 16-35/2.8 versions without IS.

 

[Skux]

At their current rate that 100-400 is going to be an f/22 lol

 

[Ozarker]

No RF 70-135mm f/2L on the 2020 or the 2021 list. Sold my RF 50mm f/1.2L too soon. Factoring in the wait, I might not have needed to sell it at all. Woe is me.

 

[privatebydesign]

At the beginning, I was really enthusiastic about the RF line, but now not so much.

I still can't believe that by 2021 Canon is not providing us with:
- a 35mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 whatever
- an UWA zoom
- a telepho portrait lens, be it the rumoured 70-135 or a 135mm prime

WTF!!!

I can't believe this place is still full of people that think
- the RF 35 f1.8 IS isn't good enough for them
- the RF 15-35 f2.8 IS isn't an UWA zoom
- they really can't make do with the RF 70-200 f2.8 L IS, or either of the the RF 85 f1.2's, or the RF28-70 f2 for their telephoto portraits

Go figure.

 

[WhereDoWeGoFrmHere]

Hope you are being sarcastic, cause I totally don't agree with you.

f2.8 trinity,
50 1.2, 85 1.2, and 28-70 f2, and 35 f1.8

So that is 3 fast zooms and 3 fast primes. (remember this article is about 2021). They posted the likely lens line up for this year with a 50 f1.8 and 85 f2 among them. (https://www.canonrumors.com/this-is-likely-canons-lens-roadmap-for-2020/). So what other fast prime would one want? Perhaps a 135 or 24? Canon is going quite a good job pushing out fast glass. It is time for them to also present some more budget friendly lenses for the R6, just like it needs high end lenses.

For example people will definitely want some f4 zooms available.

Zero sarcasm. Canon has released 2 RF L primes. How many EF L primes are there? No way Canon ignores prime users going forward.

 

[ChrisPow]

Lets hope brighter than f/8.
Maybe the aperture number is new cripple hammer?

Canon is doomed!

 

[Woody]

Looks like Canon is reaching out to weight conscious folks like me in their RF lens roadmap: 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM, 50mm f/1.8 IS STM and now 18-45mm IS STM. Willing to bet the 18-45mm is gonna have a small aperture, say, f/4-7.1.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Lets hope brighter than f/8.
Maybe the aperture number is new cripple hammer?

Shoosh, you'll upset the fan boys who are already praising the glacial new primes. But it looks like this is son of cripple hammer, cripple spanner.

 

[Richard CR]

Looks like Canon is reaching out to weight conscious folks like me in their RF lens roadmap: 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM, 50mm f/1.8 IS STM and now 18-45mm IS STM. Willing to bet the 18-45mm is gonna have a small aperture, say, f/4-7.1.

Me too.. I'll be looking forward to the 18-45mm .. 18mm UWA for most people is plenty.

 

[Richard CR]

Canon should avoid the balkanization of filter sizes seen in the M line.

Canon's use of a single diameter for the lenses on the M lineup make this a nothing burger problem.

 

[Richard CR]

I really need sigma to release a nice Full Frame 18-35 f1.8 lens because i can't afford another few thousand for the RF 15-35 atm

an 18-35mm 1.8 full frame would most likely cost a few thousand. even from Sigma.

 

[SteveC]

Canon's use of a single diameter for the lenses on the M lineup make this a nothing burger problem.

Not really--the lens diameter is one thing, but there are nevertheless multiple different thread diameters in the M lineup. Granted fewer than in EF, but it's enough to be annoying.