This is the Canon RF lens roadmap

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,398
5,161
Canon stated in their last financial report and their currently are 24 RF lenses (that includes the converters as well as the 100-400/ 16mm/ 5.2mm fisheye) and that there will be 26 by the end of the year. With this statement canon actually pre-announced two more lenses but so far nobody has heard anything…
I don’t see where they say they had 24. They did state in their Q3 materials, “We plan to increase our lens lineup to 26 within this year, including the RF 5.2 mm F2.8 L DUAL FISHEYE lens that we announced this month.”

As @BBarn points out (again), there are 26 RF lenses now.

E143C6E9-F767-48EF-8699-FCA8FFE4D0B3.jpeg

I’m not sure why anyone is confused about this, there are no more lenses coming this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused
Oct 31, 2020
204
247
I don’t see where they say they had 24. They did state in their Q3 materials, “We plan to increase our lens lineup to 26 within this year, including the RF 5.2 mm F2.8 L DUAL FISHEYE lens that we announced this month.”

As @BBarn points out (again), there are 26 RF lenses now.

View attachment 201778

I’m not sure why anyone is confused about this, there are no more lenses coming this year.
Ahhh, I was fooled by an "always-up-to-date-RF lenses" list, which actually was missing two of them. Furthermore, I miscounted on the Canon website :/ sry for the inconvenience...
 

AutoMatters

I'm New Here
Dec 3, 2021
16
2
The elephant in the room, that nobody is talking about, is the lack of a broad range, RF, high quality, fast, super zoom lens for all-around use when you only want to take the camera with one attached lens. Nikon's F-Mount 28-300mm full frame lens is incredibly versatile. Tamron makes one too. However, Canon's EF 28-300mm lens is almost 20 years old and way more expensive than either the Nikon or the Tamron. The Canon RF 24-240mm lens has a great zoom range for all-around use but it has received a lot of bad reviews: poor IQ at either end of the zoom range, no manual focus switch, very slow at long end of the zoom range (therefore poor in low light), lack of weather sealing and lens hood not included. It seems to be a poor lens choice for advanced photographers. Surely Canon can do better than this. How about a fast, L-series RF version?
 
Last edited:

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,948
1,915
The elephant in the room, that nobody is talking about, is the lack of a broad range, RF, high quality, fast, super zoom lens for all-around use when you only want to take the camera with one attached lens. Nikon's F-Mount 28-300mm full frame lens is incredibly versatile. Tamron makes one too. However, Canon's EF 28-300mm lens is almost 30 years old and way more expensive than either the Nikon or the Tamron. The Canon RF 24-240mm lens has a great zoom range for all-around use but it has received a lot of bad reviews: poor IQ at either end of the zoom range, no manual focus switch, very slow at long end of the zoom range (therefore poor on low light), lack of weather sealing, lens hood not included) is a poor lens choice for advanced photographers. Surely Canon can do better than this. How about a fast, L-series RF version?
The 24-240 is also a lens that gets rave reviews from actual people that are actually using it, so I'm inclined to take the "poor IQ" reviews with a lot of salt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AutoMatters and dcm

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,398
5,161
The elephant in the room, that nobody is talking about, is the lack of a broad range, RF, high quality, fast, super zoom lens for all-around use when you only want to take the camera with one attached lens.
Ahhh yes, the elephant.

80055A9B-B443-4F5F-A4AD-DCDFC8E188D4.jpeg

Nikon's F-Mount 28-300mm full frame lens is incredibly versatile. Tamron makes one too. However, Canon's EF 28-300mm lens is almost 30 years old and way more expensive than either the Nikon or the Tamron. The Canon RF 24-240mm lens has a great zoom range for all-around use but it has received a lot of bad reviews: poor IQ at either end of the zoom range, no manual focus switch, very slow at long end of the zoom range (therefore poor on low light), lack of weather sealing, lens hood not included) is a poor lens choice for advanced photographers. Surely Canon can do better than this. How about a fast, L-series RF version?
Superzoom lenses are always an optical compromise. I had the 28-300L, it was decent. The IQ of the RF 24-240 is similar, which is impressive for a non-L lens.

I suspect the market for an RF L superzoom just isn’t large enough to justify one. Canon said about the 28-300 that it was aimed at photojournalists, and that’s a vastly smaller group today than when the lens launched as an update to the venerable 35-350L.
 

AutoMatters

I'm New Here
Dec 3, 2021
16
2
The 24-240 is also a lens that gets rave reviews from actual people that are actually using it, so I'm inclined to take the "poor IQ" reviews with a lot of salt.
Koenkooi,

Thank you for your encouraging reply.

Since posting about this less than a day ago, I've sought out and been reading lots of reviews about Canon's 24-240mm RF lens, since I really need a superzoom walkaround lens, and for use when I have a long telephoto zoom (Canon's 100-500mm, which I own but have not used yet) on another camera body. I agree with you. A lot of people really like this lens, so I've decided to take a chance on it.

If the extreme wide and zoomed-in positions of this lens are not good due to extreme distortion and vignetting, as some people are explaining in great detail in their reviews (including one reviewer on B&H and in the Canon online store), I will simply avoid using those extreme positions of the zoom range.

FYI, very recently I switched from 50 years of shooting Nikons (mostly SLRs and DSLRs, plus a Nikon Z6 — all of which I have sold) to try Canon mirrorless (EOS R3) — after trying and rejecting Sony mirrorless (Alpha 1). I often shoot motorsports (especially professional car racing), but Sony's Alpha 1 was not particularly well-suited to reliably focus-tracking racing cars, and I could not get used to its ergonomics. Canon has car focus tracking.

Also, I often shoot in low light. Most recently I shot in low light using my Nikon D5 DSLR with Nikon's slow 28-300mm lens, for photos that I successfully published in my "AutoMatters & More column, at AutoMatters.net. My Nikon D5 (and, before that, my D4s and D3s) all had good enough lowlight capabilities that the photos were still acceptable for me to publish (online and in newspapers). That is why I am not worried that Canon's 24-240mm is also a slow lens — especially when zoomed way in at the far end of the zoom range, which would necessitate shooting at pretty high ISOs.

I do have one important question for you, though. Many of the reviewers of Canon's 24-240mm RF lens are stressing the importance of using Canon's lens profiles to correct this lens (in-camera and when editing), but they do not say how to do that. I shoot RAW and edit in Lightroom Classic.

Can and will you tell me in which menu are these lens profiles located in Canon cameras, how can I invoke them within Lightroom Classic and exactly how am I supposed to use them?

Thank you, and Happy Holidays!

Jan
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,398
5,161
I do have one important question for you, though. Many of the reviewers of Canon's 24-240mm RF lens are stressing the importance of using Canon's lens profiles to correct this lens (in-camera and when editing), but they do not say how to do that. I shoot RAW and edit in Lightroom Classic.

Can and will you tell me in which menu are these lens profiles located in Canon cameras, how can I invoke them within Lightroom Classic and exactly how am I supposed to use them?
In-camera corrections are selected in one of the shooting menus (which will depend on the camera, on my R3 they’re in Shooting 4). Those apply only to the JPG you see on the camera review (Canon’s DPP will apply your settings to RAWs, but you don’t use DPP).

Lens profiles are in the optical corrections tab in ACR, I suspect there’s a similar tab in LRc (I don’t use LR at all). The profile for the RF 24-240 was added in LRc v8.4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AutoMatters

AutoMatters

I'm New Here
Dec 3, 2021
16
2
In-camera corrections are selected in one of the shooting menus (which will depend on the camera, on my R3 they’re in Shooting 4). Those apply only to the JPG you see on the camera review (Canon’s DPP will apply your settings to RAWs, but you don’t use DPP).

Lens profiles are in the optical corrections tab in ACR, I suspect there’s a similar tab in LRc (I don’t use LR at all). The profile for the RF 24-240 was added in LRc v8.4.
Thank you very much for telling me that.
A drawback with being self-taught about technology (including digital photography and photo editing) is that there are gaps in my knowledge. Thank goodness for help from people like you, and Google searches!
 

AutoMatters

I'm New Here
Dec 3, 2021
16
2
I actually liked the way handled the situation. 100-500mm is a loooot more versatile and more useable in so many situations. It also is lighter and shorter. The 200-600mm is quite long...
Since there are several telephotos and Converters available I'm quite sure Canon sees the need for another zoom lense. If they do, I'd actually hope the go for a "real telezoom wildlife lense". I think on canon news there once was a patent for like 250-700mm or even 800mm. That'd fit quite nice in the portfolio.
28-300mm L series is my hope.
 

AutoMatters

I'm New Here
Dec 3, 2021
16
2
Ahhh yes, the elephant.

View attachment 201796


Superzoom lenses are always an optical compromise. I had the 28-300L, it was decent. The IQ of the RF 24-240 is similar, which is impressive for a non-L lens.

I suspect the market for an RF L superzoom just isn’t large enough to justify one. Canon said about the 28-300 that it was aimed at photojournalists, and that’s a vastly smaller group today than when the lens launched as an update to the venerable 35-350L.
I am a photojournalist. I guess that is why I like the 28-300mm range so much. It lets me be prepared for almost any shooting situation. If there was an RF L-series version with fast auto focusing and good weather sealing, I would use that lens a lot, saving my 100-500mm RF lens for use on my second body at auto races and air shows.
When I cover auto races and air shows, I carry two cameras with a Cotton Carrier. When I shot with Nikon, I'd put a Tamron 150-600 G2 on my Nikon D5, and the Nikon 28-300mm on the D4s. I was ready for anything.
 
Last edited:

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
106
152
Houston
Thank you very much for telling me that.
A drawback with being self-taught about technology (including digital photography and photo editing) is that there are gaps in my knowledge. Thank goodness for help from people like you, and Google searches!
We are all on the same leaning curve, this and other RF lenses are the new generation following on the trail of cell phone cameras and their computational photography. The premise is to intentionally not seek perfection in the optical system, but make it such that with software computational corrections developed at the same time as the lens the outcome is acceptable, good or excellent. The 14-35L is the first L lens with this logic, while the 24-240 (which I own) was the most noticeable first step. I have pretty much given up using RAW with that lens, the corrected JPGs are very good (for a non-L lens), exposure bracketing can help if unsure about lighting, but the RAWs always look less appealing and require hard work to process if not using DPP. If only Canon (or the industry at large) would come up with a 10-bit or 12 bit jpeg or some similar format with better dynamic range than the current jpeg but a processed file....
 

AutoMatters

I'm New Here
Dec 3, 2021
16
2
We are all on the same leaning curve, this and other RF lenses are the new generation following on the trail of cell phone cameras and their computational photography. The premise is to intentionally not seek perfection in the optical system, but make it such that with software computational corrections developed at the same time as the lens the outcome is acceptable, good or excellent. The 14-35L is the first L lens with this logic, while the 24-240 (which I own) was the most noticeable first step. I have pretty much given up using RAW with that lens, the corrected JPGs are very good (for a non-L lens), exposure bracketing can help if unsure about lighting, but the RAWs always look less appealing and require hard work to process if not using DPP. If only Canon (or the industry at large) would come up with a 10-bit or 12 bit jpeg or some similar format with better dynamic range than the current jpeg but a processed file....
For a few months recently I tried going back to shooting the highest quality JPEGs (with a Sony Alpha 1), so that I would not have to continue editing every single raw picture in Lightroom (Classic), but with minimal editing I could make my RAW images look as good or better than the JPEGs, and save poorly exposed photos. Is the extra work of which you speak specifically due to the conversions necessitated by the 24-240mm and other R-series lenses (eg. due to having apply the appropriate Canon lens profile)?
I shoot in low light a lot, and many of these underexposed images, when shot as JPEGs, cannot be saved. That is why I've gone back to shooting RAW.
 

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
106
152
Houston
For a few months recently I tried going back to shooting the highest quality JPEGs (with a Sony Alpha 1), so that I would not have to continue editing every single raw picture in Lightroom (Classic), but with minimal editing I could make my RAW images look as good or better than the JPEGs, and save poorly exposed photos. Is the extra work of which you speak specifically due to the conversions necessitated by the 24-240mm and other R-series lenses (eg. due to having apply the appropriate Canon lens profile)?
I shoot in low light a lot, and many of these underexposed images, when shot as JPEGs, cannot be saved. That is why I've gone back to shooting RAW.
Yes, that is the gist. I have also been an avid RAW shooter, and when I take the "serious" glass (RF 24-105L, RF 70-200L, RF100-500L, even the 35mm f:1.8), I shoot RAW for the same reasons you mention: exposure compensation, white balance, tweaks to the LUT, and that sort of correction takes next to no time, for excellent results. The lenses requiring computational corrections are a different kettle of fish, unless using DPP (and I agree that is not a workflow of choice) a lot of corrections are involved, hence the tendency to use the JPEG which, while not perfect, is properly corrected for all the intentional optical flaws that are part of the lens's design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AutoMatters

AutoMatters

I'm New Here
Dec 3, 2021
16
2
Yes, that is the gist. I have also been an avid RAW shooter, and when I take the "serious" glass (RF 24-105L, RF 70-200L, RF100-500L, even the 35mm f:1.8), I shoot RAW for the same reasons you mention: exposure compensation, white balance, tweaks to the LUT, and that sort of correction takes next to no time, for excellent results. The lenses requiring computational corrections are a different kettle of fish, unless using DPP (and I agree that is not a workflow of choice) a lot of corrections are involved, hence the tendency to use the JPEG which, while not perfect, is properly corrected for all the intentional optical flaws that are part of the lens's design.
I agree that we need a version of JPEGs that collects more image data, but that is unlikely anytime soon.

Is the full range of computational adjustments for Canon's 24-240mm RF lens only available when shooting JPEGs or when processing RAW images through DPP ( which I am unlikely to use, since the workflow that I am very familiar with mostly uses Lightroom Classic? Is it not also available when bringing RAW photos into Lightroom? My other RF lenses are Canon's 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L, 24-70mm F2.8 L and 50mm F1.2 L. Do they not require these computational corrections?M, or can they benefit from them also.

If I keep it (and I think that I will need to, because there is no other RF or RF-compatible lens with this or a similar zoom range, which I need), when I shoot with the Canon 24-240mm RF lens (which may be for most of my general purpose shooting, including general photojournalism), are you recommending that I shoot the highest quality of JPEGs — not RAW, unless I am shooting in low light conditions, which will require the greater range of adjustment enabled by shooting RAW — because the design of that one lens makes it important to take advantage of the computational adjustments that the Canon R3 will make to the images.

Thank you again.
 

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
106
152
Houston
I agree that we need a version of JPEGs that collects more image data, but that is unlikely anytime soon.

Is the full range of computational adjustments for Canon's 24-240mm RF lens only available when shooting JPEGs or when processing RAW images through DPP ( which I am unlikely to use, since the workflow that I am very familiar with mostly uses Lightroom Classic? Is it not also available when bringing RAW photos into Lightroom? My other RF lenses are Canon's 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L, 24-70mm F2.8 L and 50mm F1.2 L. Do they not require these computational corrections?M, or can they benefit from them also.

If I keep it (and I think that I will need to, because there is no other RF or RF-compatible lens with this or a similar zoom range, which I need), when I shoot with the Canon 24-240mm RF lens (which may be for most of my general purpose shooting, including general photojournalism), are you recommending that I shoot the highest quality of JPEGs — not RAW, unless I am shooting in low light conditions, which will require the greater range of adjustment enabled by shooting RAW — because the design of that one lens makes it important to take advantage of the computational adjustments that the Canon R3 will make to the images.

Thank you again.
I am not a 100% expert but to the best of my understanding the in-camera adjustments to create the JPEGs are identical to the corrections in DPP for these lenses. I tend to shoot RAW + highest JPEG resolution anyway, with a 64GB SD card there is plenty of room for both, but unless there is a big snafu I will tend to discard the RAWs for the 24-240 since when using that lens (walk-around + family) the pictures I'm taking are more casual in nature anyway and 95% of the JPEG images are keeper-grade for that purpose. Displaying the histogram in the viewfinder while shooting helps nail exposure much better that in the old days of DSLRs, that reduces somewhat the need for RAW in most cases. I think I saw somewhere else in this thread a contribution mentioning that Adobe had now come out with profiles for at least some of these lenses, remains to be seen if they have corrected as much as Canon's in-camera / DPP profiles which were designed together with the lenses, in other words does Canon publish and license this information or do companies like Adobe have to figure it out for themselves by reverse-engineering the corrections? For the 24-240 most of the corrections, the tough ones anyway, are said to be in the 24-35 mm range, beyond that the corrections are more of the usual kind for regular lens profiles. For the 14-35 I read that the major corrections are in the 14-17mm range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AutoMatters

AutoMatters

I'm New Here
Dec 3, 2021
16
2
I am not a 100% expert but to the best of my understanding the in-camera adjustments to create the JPEGs are identical to the corrections in DPP for these lenses. I tend to shoot RAW + highest JPEG resolution anyway, with a 64GB SD card there is plenty of room for both, but unless there is a big snafu I will tend to discard the RAWs for the 24-240 since when using that lens (walk-around + family) the pictures I'm taking are more casual in nature anyway and 95% of the JPEG images are keeper-grade for that purpose. Displaying the histogram in the viewfinder while shooting helps nail exposure much better that in the old days of DSLRs, that reduces somewhat the need for RAW in most cases. I think I saw somewhere else in this thread a contribution mentioning that Adobe had now come out with profiles for at least some of these lenses, remains to be seen if they have corrected as much as Canon's in-camera / DPP profiles which were designed together with the lenses, in other words does Canon publish and license this information or do companies like Adobe have to figure it out for themselves by reverse-engineering the corrections? For the 24-240 most of the corrections, the tough ones anyway, are said to be in the 24-35 mm range, beyond that the corrections are more of the usual kind for regular lens profiles. For the 14-35 I read that the major corrections are in the 14-17mm range.
It is beginning to look like what I should do is shoot RAW on one card, JPEGs on the other and see if the JPEGs are good enough, all things considered. The problem with that, though, is that the JPEGs will have less dynamic range. Low light shooting using the histograms for reference, in a fast-paced shooting situation, is probably not going to produce the desired exposure results.
 

kaihp

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 19, 2012
1,054
206
The Most Ancient Kingdom of Denmark
If only Canon (or the industry at large) would come up with a 10-bit or 12 bit jpeg or some similar format with better dynamic range than the current jpeg but a processed file....
Isn't that format HEIF? It supports up to 16-bit colour depth.


 

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
106
152
Houston
It is beginning to look like what I should do is shoot RAW on one card, JPEGs on the other and see if the JPEGs are good enough, all things considered. The problem with that, though, is that the JPEGs will have less dynamic range. Low light shooting using the histograms for reference, in a fast-paced shooting situation, is probably not going to produce the desired exposure results.
Yes, precise use of histograms and fast-paced shooting do not mingle well, especially in a fast-changing lighting environment. An alternate can be exposure bracketing +- 1 ½ stops should cover most cases. On the RP if you activate exposure bracketing and have the camera on multiple exposure, it takes the 3 pictures with a single pressing of the shutter release, and does not continue to shoot even if you keep the shutter button depressed. No idea how that works on the R3 (can't afford to let another kidney go :) )
 
  • Like
Reactions: AutoMatters

AutoMatters

I'm New Here
Dec 3, 2021
16
2
Isn't that format HEIF? It supports up to 16-bit colour depth.


True, I wonder if the R3's in-camera adjustments, when applied to the HEIF format images, will be carried over to Lightroom Classic intact? If so, perhaps I should shoot HEIFs. JPEGs with the in-camera adjustments, RAW with the in-camera adjustments NOT carried over to Lightroom Classic and HEIF — unknown as to whether or not the in-camera adjustments are carried over to Lightroom Classic — all this is getting a bit overwhelming.
 

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
106
152
Houston
Isn't that format HEIF? It supports up to 16-bit colour depth.


You are correct, apologies for having forgotten about that, definitely something to pursue if you are one of the lucky ones (it is only available on the EOS 1D X Mk3, R5, R6 and R3, and I'm going to guess it will not be retroactively implemented on older camera bodies like my RPs). Apparently it requires the DIGIC X processor used by these more recent high-end cameras. Adobe's website mentions HEIF, so there is a chance it is supported https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-cc/kb/heic-files-support.html It is interesting that Canon went along with a format standard that is vendor-defined (Apple, 2017), instead of trying to revive industry consortia initiatives e.g. JPEG2000 to address the issue of better bit depth. To Apple's credit, HEIF not only adds 2 bits (and apparently allows for more as a format), it also has a more efficient compression such that the resulting file is approximately the same size as an 8-bit JPG. Setting your camera to use HEIF is somewhere in the HDR menus, I do not have a manual for any of the supported cameras so you will need to sit down and look through the user manual to get the details. Sony seems to have also implemented HEIF, less clear about Nikon. Most computer browsers do not support it (yet).
 
  • Like
Reactions: AutoMatters