This is the Canon RF lens roadmap

  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
They literally show the black corners in an uncorrected photo from the 14mm. I can find more examples, but you just want to argue so I'm going to block you instead. Have a nice day!
Why would anyone care what the uncorrected photo looks like? I really don't understand. Could you show us a corrected 14-35 photo thats worse than a photo by any other lens, especially one for the same price or less? Just show us side by side and everyone will have no choice but to admit you have a point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
Also note that the 16 is 25.6mm equiv. on an R7. That makes a pretty cool combo on the cheap.
What's cheaper than getting an R7 is just using my R5 and cropping :-D In my backpack I always have a 50/1.8 on the R5 and a 16/2.8 floating around. I can crop to 35mm frame and still get 10MP which actually is publishable, though I'm not working professionally any more. Actually I can crop anything up to as small as 50mm frame and still have 4.6MP. In fact I can then crop the 50mm up to 150mm and have 5MP.

In the later 90s I always had a Contax G2 with 28 45 90 in the backpack.
 
Upvote 0
What's cheaper than getting an R7 is just using my R5 and cropping :-D In my backpack I always have a 50/1.8 on the R5 and a 16/2.8 floating around. I can crop to 35mm frame and still get 10MP which actually is publishable, though I'm not working professionally any more. Actually I can crop anything up to as small as 50mm frame and still have 4.6MP. In fact I can then crop the 50mm up to 150mm and have 5MP.

In the later 90s I always had a Contax G2 with 28 45 90 in the backpack.
Yes, I have the same luxury of having the 16 and an R5 (as well as an EF 24 f/2.8 IS), but I was speaking for those on a tighter budget. The R7 offers most of the features of the R5, albeit cropped, at a much more budget friendly price and the cropped area of the 16 makes a creditable near 24mm equivalent. BTW, even having an R5 (and an M6 II), I may well pick up an R7 for the added portability with the 800mm f/11 relative to the same lens on an R5 with a 1.4 TC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Why would anyone care what the uncorrected photo looks like? I really don't understand. Could you show us a corrected 14-35 photo thats worse than a photo by any other lens, especially one for the same price or less? Just show us side by side and everyone will have no choice but to admit you have a point.
Totally off-topic, but I actually like to look at the uncorrected versions. Sometimes they are more interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
may well pick up an R7 for the added portability with the 800mm f/11 relative to the same lens on an R5 with a 1.4 TC
I can understand having a back-up body, or a lighter-weight/cheaper-to-lose body, so I'm not against the general idea.
But if I had an R5 and 800/11 and wanted a longer shot, I'd just be cropping. 45MP is a LOT of MP. You can crop 80% away and still have 4k resolution. Cropping is hampered far more by the len's ultimate resolving power than the sensor.
 
Upvote 0
Totally off-topic, but I actually like to look at the uncorrected versions. Sometimes they are more interesting.

I haven't done anything serious with this yet, but Tamron EF-S lenses do not trigger the automatic crop mode on my RP and R5. Although they don't distort like the 16mm, the tunnel vision effect might be useful someday.
 
Upvote 0
I can understand having a back-up body, or a lighter-weight/cheaper-to-lose body, so I'm not against the general idea.
But if I had an R5 and 800/11 and wanted a longer shot, I'd just be cropping. 45MP is a LOT of MP. You can crop 80% away and still have 4k resolution. Cropping is hampered far more by the len's ultimate resolving power than the sensor.
If you do the math, the "pixels on the bird" with the R5 and the 1.4 extender is very close to the same as the R7 without the extender. That makes for a smaller, lighter package with very similar IQ at the pixel level (smaller pixels, but a stop brighter). And yes, cropping works well with the R5, but shooting hummingbirds, I find the TC to often be necessary. The attached example is at about 70 ft distance. Any less pixels would be detrimental to the result.
 

Attachments

  • 2W4A6320_DxO-Edit.jpg
    2W4A6320_DxO-Edit.jpg
    333.7 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Dont the managers of the site think it’s overdue to redo the RF lens roadmap? After four years Canon have been really slow in getting lenses out particularly f1.4L lenses and now they have RF-S wide angles for APS-C are badly needed. Actually in the main RF mount wide angle primes are few with the RF 16mm f2.8, RF 24mm f1.8 and the RF 35mm f1.8 and zero L lenses.
Sony are leagues ahead in this area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
After four years Canon have been really slow in getting lenses out particularly f1.4L lenses and now they have RF-S wide angles for APS-C are badly needed.
Agreed. I hate Canon's policy of blocking third-party AF lens makers, but in theory at least, if they had not slipped their lens schedule it wouldn't be so bad.

That said I feel like I've never had it so good WRT wide-angles. I freaking love the 14-35/4 and 16/2.8, after shooting since the 90s the EF/2.8 and 17-35's and 16-35's that were far bigger yet not as sharp. It's only two lenses, granted, but I personally am not moaning the lack of a fisheye, and while I don't do astro, I think the super-fast third-party wide-angles are mostly MF anyway and work fine.
 
Upvote 0
When will we see some EF-M lenses get ported to the RF-S like the 11-22mm, 22mm and 32mm???
Should be a quick one for Canon, just use the existing optical design, add plastic housing and lens mount instead, increase f-stop and price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
When will we see some EF-M lenses get ported to the RF-S like the 11-22mm, 22mm and 32mm???
Should be a quick one for Canon, just use the existing optical design, add plastic housing and lens mount instead, increase f-stop and price.
If they use the existing design, then they will use the same f-stop as increasing the f-stop will mean changing the design. The EF-M 18-150 has already been ported to the RF-S version with the same design and f-stops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
The roadmap is now almost exactly two years old and has been very precise so far. If I'm correct there are a only a few lenses missing:

RF TS-R 14mm F/4L
RF TS-R 24mm F/3.5L

RF 10-24mm F4 L
RF 35mm F1.2L
RF 500mm F/4L IS USM


These are all very exclusive lenses, I doubt Canon will release them all within one year. Since Canon stated to release about 6-8 lenses annually, I wonder what is coming next. What about...

...RF 300mm F2.8
...RF 200mm F1.8?

...RF 180mm macro

The missing F2 trinity lenses? A rumored 14-28 F2 and 70-135mm F2?

I'd wish for at least a one supertelezoom option such as a RF 250-750mm.

But especially:
What about all the (possible) F1.4 primes? And RF-s lenses? Are they bringing more EF-m lenses over? Or are there possible new design e.g. for RF-s tele lenses.

Is there a way to update the roadmap and maybe list the already released lenses separately? That´d be a great help! Thx in advance!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
The roadmap is now almost exactly two years old and has been very precise so far. If I'm correct there are a only a few lenses missing:

RF TS-R 14mm F/4L
RF TS-R 24mm F/3.5L

RF 10-24mm F4 L
RF 35mm F1.2L
RF 500mm F/4L IS USM


These are all very exclusive lenses, I doubt Canon will release them all within one year. Since Canon stated to release about 6-8 lenses annually, I wonder what is coming next. What about...

...RF 300mm F2.8
...RF 200mm F1.8?

...RF 180mm macro

The missing F2 trinity lenses? A rumored 14-28 F2 and 70-135mm F2?

But especially:
What about all the (possible) F1.4 primes? And RF-s lenses? Are they bringing more EF-m lenses over? Or are there possible new design e.g. for RF-s tele lenses.

I'd wish for at least a one supertelezoom option such as a 250-750mm

Is there a way to update the roadmap and maybe list the already released lenses separately? That´d be a great help! Thx in advance!
What f-numbers for the 250-750?
 
Upvote 0