This is Canon’s RF lens roadmap going forward

[danfaz]

View attachment 193950View attachment 193951

A reminder of what the Mitakon 135mm F/1.4 looked like. $3,000, I'm sure Canon would have its eye on a similar cost.

I'd be interested to know if the Canon RF 135mm F/1.4 would accept extenders. 189mm f/2 and 270mm f/2.8 would almost allow the lens to serve double duty as a 200mm F/2 and 300mm f/2.8, which would make a high pricetag a little easier to swallow.

Dang! That's a beast.

 

[willwest]

i wonder if the 135L 1.4 will have a lens collar, that thing will be beastly

 

[Random Orbits]

AF in a TS lens is not critical but would be nice as the touch screen focus really helps. I suspect the real reason is to get more hobbyists to write checks.

I'd love it if it could work with AF when tilted and shifted, and if zebras would work with it. It'd make it much easier to tilt (and make it easier to do handheld) especially for portraits. Hold down AF with servo on the the critical spot and tilt until the zebras are in front/behind the subject equally.

 

[RBSfphoto]

I still wish for a 17-70 rumored a long time ago. If it was a f4L (OK even f/3.5-5.6L) it would be the perfect travel companion to a long tele lens (even better if it would have close up capabilities). Sometimes 24-105 is not wide enough and I do not want to carry RF15-35 2.8 since it is too big. So I revert to my trusty 5DIV with the EF16-35 f/4L IS and get a G7X MkII for the intermediate range...

Why not use the EF lens with a converter? Rather than the old mkIV? My EF lenses work just fine on my R5 and R bodies?

 

[tron]

Why not use the EF lens with a converter? Rather than the old mkIV? My EF lenses work just fine on my R5 and R bodies?

Since there is no FF EF17-70 lens I assume you are referring to 16-35.
With the adaptor it gets bigger and there is no advantage compared to 5DIV with 16-35, an excelent combo.
And I have 5DIV too!

 

[tmroper]

Why no 28mm prime (of any speed)? I find it hard to believe that hardly anyone likes that focal length anymore. But I guess maybe it's too close to what cameras do?

 

[navastronia]

Why no 28mm prime (of any speed)? I find it hard to believe that hardly anyone likes that focal length anymore. But I guess maybe it's too close to what cameras do?

Pretty sure we have to buy Leicas to get a 28 these days

 

[leadin2]

Pretty sure we have to buy Leicas to get a 28 these days

Or the Ricoh GR3, love that camera. That is why I’m not looking for a 28mm for my canon system.

 

[Marximusprime]

You could adapt Canon's 28mm 2.8.

 

[home_slice]

Can someone explain to the

• Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro

What would this lens be best used for..

Environmental macro images. Say you’re a wedding Photographer: using a 100mm macro to shoot a ring shot is great but will totally isolate the ring if used as a true macro. If you want a macro image of the ring that also includes more of the room, the dress, shoes.. this would allow for that to happen. you could do the same thing in a landscape image with something like a flower, rock..

Important to note that there will be some distortion in images that wide and this will be increased as you get closer up. Also, you’d want to stop down a bit and I’d still expect there to be bokeh in most cases.

This would be a specialty lens but I could see putting it to regular use as a standard 24mm prime if it focuses quick enough and can stack up against the performance that I’m used to.

 

[highdesertmesa]

It's a little disappointing to me that they aren't planning on releasing a 24 1.4 any time soon...this would be the perfect lens in RF mount!

RF 24 f/1.2 was rumored quite a while back. As others have said, Canon may just skip the 1.4 line for 1.2.

In that long list of Big White's, a 300mm f/2.8 is surprisingly missing. Not that there is any thing wrong with my EF 328 Mk II

Probably will be announced THIS YEAR per earlier rumors. Fingers crossed

The 1200mm f8 is interesting, I wonder what, if anything, it will offer over the 600 f4 and tc? I’d expect it to be a very hard sell given its price which I would estimate to be close to breaking the $20,000 barrier.

That 1200 f8 will be perfect for wedding group shots.

From a helicopter.

Every time Craig posts this thread, I come in, I drool on the 35/1.2L, and I leave.

Same. Literally the only lens I'm living for right now.

 

[Chaitanya]

Can someone explain to the

• Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro

What would this lens be best used for and what types of shot will this lens be effective for? Portraits up close? Landscape? Macro of flowers and bugs? Please help. want to learn about lenses and uses and how this in future could be paired with r5 camera.Thanks

Its similar to Venus Laowa 15mm macro on Aps - c camera. You can google sample images of that lens by Kurt Orion Mystery to get an idea of application of that unique lens.

 

[Etienne]

Too big a gap between their regular primes and their monster brick primes.
What is so wrong about making a simple 50 f/1.4 IS USM? Or 24 f/2, or 85 f/1.4 IS? How about a nice light 200mm f/2.8 IS that can take teleconverters.
The L lenses are great, but pricey and more importantly, they are heavy.
And the only step down is to f/1.8 STM lenses, made larger than necessary by half-implementation of a pseudo macro.

 

[usern4cr]

Too big a gap between their regular primes and their monster brick primes.
What is so wrong about making a simple 50 f/1.4 IS USM? Or 24 f/2, or 85 f/1.4 IS? How about a nice light 200mm f/2.8 IS that can take teleconverters.
The L lenses are great, but pricey and more importantly, they are heavy.
And the only step down is to f/1.8 STM lenses, made larger than necessary by half-implementation of a pseudo macro.

I agree completely! My only concern is with a 200 f2.8 that can take TCs. If they make it that way they will have less optical design options in the lens itself, which is a downside. But I wonder how much of a difference in IQ there would be between a RF L version fully optimized (can't take TCs) vs a RF L version as optimized as possible while being compatible with their TCs?

The same question could apply to other long teles, such as 300 f4L, 400 f5.6L, 600 f8L etc.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Too big a gap between their regular primes and their monster brick primes.
What is so wrong about making a simple 50 f/1.4 IS USM?

I agree, a 50mm F1.4 would be nice for example. But I also think Canon is being quite clever about their primes sales. While in the process of fleshing out an entire lense portfolio throughout the years (I'd think until the end 2024, maybe 2025) they only offer the "pro level" and an "affordable level". So while working on a roadmap they have appealing offers to a lot of people. Until 2024 those who wish F1.4 can use adapted EF 1.4. lenses. During that time Canon can and will evaluate whether it makes sense offering a third line of primes. If customers settle for the two offered, fine, it saves a lot of costs developing the primes. If the demand is still high, they can be sure the developing costs of an extra set of primes will amortize itself. This strategy offers a lot of advantages for Canon, but it demands a lot patience from some customers.

One last thought: Maybe they'll eventually leave the F1.4 for third-party lense manufacturers such as Sigma and their amazing (but heavy) Art primes.

 

[SteveC]

Too big a gap between their regular primes and their monster brick primes.
What is so wrong about making a simple 50 f/1.4 IS USM? Or 24 f/2, or 85 f/1.4 IS? How about a nice light 200mm f/2.8 IS that can take teleconverters.
The L lenses are great, but pricey and more importantly, they are heavy.
And the only step down is to f/1.8 STM lenses, made larger than necessary by half-implementation of a pseudo macro.

I agree too.

But, when faced with a list of tasks, they must be done in some sort of order, and it's logical for them to do the high end first, then the low end second (because it is most distinct from the high end) and the middle last. (Or they could have done the low first, then the high end second--but they wanted to entice the super-serious photographers into the R by showing them what they could do with it, so I think they did it in the right order.)

Don't give up hope.

 

[woodman411]

I agree too.

But, when faced with a list of tasks, they must be done in some sort of order, and it's logical for them to do the high end first, then the low end second (because it is most distinct from the high end) and the middle last. (Or they could have done the low first, then the high end second--but they wanted to entice the super-serious photographers into the R by showing them what they could do with it, so I think they did it in the right order.)

Don't give up hope.

Agreed, they prioritize by ROI, and this roadmap tells us their priorities. The high end doesn't need to sell in volume, they get the bulk of their profits here and a halo effect. The low end gets the volume. The middle tier is sort of the worst of both worlds - less profits and less volume, so it makes sense it is the lower priority.

 

[JoseB]

That 1200 f8 will be perfect for wedding group shots.



Same. Literally the only lens I'm living for right now.

I think it suits better on divorces.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Sony is f6.3 at 600mm. Canon 600mm f11 is 1.7 stops darker but it is much smaller, much lighter, much less expensive.
Canon 100-500mm is about 700 USD more than Sony but it can be found cheaper if you hunt for it (10-15%). It is 10cm (!!!!!) shorter and 800 grams lighter.
Looking at above data, I think Canon 100-500mm is a huge value compared to that Sony lens. It is a real L lens. If Canon can come up with a cheaper 100-500mm lens for less than 1400 USD, than that will be better of course but Sony 200-600mm isn't better today.

What a load of rubbish. There is not a better value or quality telephoto lens on the market than the Sony 200-600. The build quality is excellent, the AF speed is excellent, the IQ is excellent even with the 1.4x TC. The price makes a mockery of the 100-500L and the Sony can also easily be found discounted. 20% more reach at 1/3 stop faster aperture increases the effective speed advantage to 2/3rds stop. This is the lens Canon should have released, but based on the ludicrous 100-500L pricing would cost well over $3K. Sony knocked it out the park with this one just as Nikon did with the even more amazing 500 f/5.6 PF.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Comparing pears and apples...
RF 100-500mm is a five times zoom, Sonys 200-600mm is a three times zoom. The RF is much versatile and compared to the Sony very compact. Both lenses aim at different customers, so a comparison makes absolutely no sense...

I hope/ wish that Canon will release another telephoto lense in the range of Sonys... in order to distinguish from the RF 100-500 I guess it should be about 200-600/ 700 or even 800mm. Since neither of the 70-200 take any converters I'd guess there is a need for a truly dedicated telephoto. A 250-750mm three times zoom would be nice imho.