This is the Canon RF lens roadmap

[unfocused]

Since this thread seems to have some new life in it, I thought I'd just throw something out there for reaction.

I'm wondering when, or if, the three wide primes on the list (24, 28 and 35) and the remaining big white (500mm) will ever see the light of day. There are low cost 24mm and 35mm f1.8 lenses. I guess Canon will eventually release L versions of the 24mm and 35mm, but I'm not so sure about the 28mm length. And, since the consumer versions are f1.8 lenses, will Canon go for a really high-end f1.2 version for the 24mm. Overall, I suspect these wide primes are low priority lenses for Canon that are not big sellers.

I'm pretty pessimistic about the 500 mm f4 big white. I understand that this used to be one of the most popular focal lengths among the big whites, but that was before Canon released the 100-500mm zoom. Something tells me they may not see a market for the 500mm big white any more. I know, myself, that while I once lusted after the 500mm, if I could ever afford a big white today, I'd probably wait until I could afford the 600mm.

Would Canon surprise everyone by offering a 200-500 f4 (or similar) zoom with integrated extender to replace both the 500mm and 200-400mm big whites? That would not surprise me.

Curious what others think.

 

[Dragon]

Since this thread seems to have some new life in it, I thought I'd just throw something out there for reaction.

I'm wondering when, or if, the three wide primes on the list (24, 28 and 35) and the remaining big white (500mm) will ever see the light of day. There are low cost 24mm and 35mm f1.8 lenses. I guess Canon will eventually release L versions of the 24mm and 35mm, but I'm not so sure about the 28mm length. And, since the consumer versions are f1.8 lenses, will Canon go for a really high-end f1.2 version for the 24mm. Overall, I suspect these wide primes are low priority lenses for Canon that are not big sellers.

I'm pretty pessimistic about the 500 mm f4 big white. I understand that this used to be one of the most popular focal lengths among the big whites, but that was before Canon released the 100-500mm zoom. Something tells me they may not see a market for the 500mm big white any more. I know, myself, that while I once lusted after the 500mm, if I could ever afford a big white today, I'd probably wait until I could afford the 600mm.

Would Canon surprise everyone by offering a 200-500 f4 (or similar) zoom with integrated extender to replace both the 500mm and 200-400mm big whites? That would not surprise me.

Curious what others think.

Since the 300mm f/2.8 just clearly got replaced by a zoom, then it is logical that the same could happen to the 500mm. The 600, 800, and 1200 were patch jobs to hold out until new designs could be finalized, so hard to tell what will happen with the really long big whites in the future. Canon has thrown out a number of interesting patents including catadioptric and multi-bounce mirror designs that look a lot like spotting scopes. The former has all the known issues, but the spotting scope design has no optical drawbacks that I know of and it could be shorter and lighter than conventional refractors. Canon seems to be releasing a new RF lense about 6 or 8 months after killing an EF lens of similar physical size. That makes sense if they refitting existing assembly lines rather than building new ones, which also makes sense in a flat market. One area where a fast prime is needed is in the ultra wide arena to satisfy the astro crowd. A 14mm or 16mm f/1.2 or 1.4 with very low distortion and coma would be popular.

 

[neuroanatomist]

One area where a fast prime is needed is in the ultra wide arena to satisfy the astro crowd. A 14mm or 16mm f/1.2 or 1.4 with very low distortion and coma would be popular.

That would certainly be novel, I don’t believe Canon has ever made a significant effort to produce a lens with low coma. As for low distortion, Canon has gone the opposite direction with mirrorless lenses.

 

[Dragon]

That would certainly be novel, I don’t believe Canon has ever made a significant effort to produce a lens with low coma. As for low distortion, Canon has gone the opposite direction with mirrorless lenses.

Only on the less expensive lenses. AFAIK, the 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 are very well corrected. The little 16mm f/2.8 needs lots of electronic help, but it sells for about the current price of a half dozen Big Macs and after correction it is actually very decent.. I agree that optimizing for low coma would be a new twist, but wide field astro has become quite popular so such a lens should see a healthy market and the astro crowd is not poverty stricken (Takahashis are expensive). Actually, a monochrome sensor in an R5 would also be a nice touch for that market (Bayers suck for astro stacking).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Only on the less expensive lenses. AFAIK, the 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 are very well corrected.

So the RF 14-35/4L at a list price of $1500 is a ‘less expensive lens’? (Ok, it actually is one of my less expensive lenses but I don’t think that represents a common circumstance.)

Regarding the 50L and 85L, distortion is much less of a problem outside of wide angle lenses. The 50/1.8 is the cheapest RF lens available, and it has essentially no distortion.

 

[Dragon]

So the RF 14-35/4L at a list price of $1500 is a ‘less expensive lens’? (Ok, it actually is one of my less expensive lenses but I don’t think that represents a common circumstance.)

Regarding the 50L and 85L, distortion is much less of a problem outside of wide angle lenses. The 50/1.8 is the cheapest RF lens available, and it has essentially no distortion.

Well, you have the 15-35 f/2.8 as the "more expensive lens" and it is well corrected over the full range and the 14-35 is pretty low distortion once you come a few mm off the wide end. I love that lens and am more than happy to put up with electronic correction to get that much range in a relatively small and light lens. BTW, it was on sale over the holidays for around $1200 as I remember and that was a real bargain.

 

[kaihp]

Would Canon surprise everyone by offering a 200-500 f4 (or similar) zoom with integrated extender to replace both the 500mm and 200-400mm big whites? That would not surprise me.

There was a patent exactly on a 200-500mm f/4 with built-in 1.4x extender not so long ago. I'd wager that the price tag would be in the order of $20K, considering the pricing of the other big whites in RF mount.

 

[neuroanatomist]

There was a patent exactly on a 200-500mm f/4 with built-in 1.4x extender not so long ago. I'd wager that the price tag would be in the order of $20K, considering the pricing of the other big whites in RF mount.

There was a patent on a 100-300/2.8 + 1.4x that published a couple of months ago. Most patents don’t become products.

 

[kaihp]

There was a patent on a 100-300/2.8 + 1.4x that published a couple of months ago. Most patents don’t become products.

I'm talking about this: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rmula-for-an-rf-200-500mm-f-4l-is-1-4x.41999/

Which you commented on yourself https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-rf-200-500mm-f-4l-is-1-4x.41999/#post-949757

And yes, far from all lens patents becomes products. That has long been established - in particular by yourself.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I have the RF 100-400mm and the RF 100-500mm and I’m often totally surprised at how good the shots can be from the RF 100-400mm given its size, weight and most importantly cost. Canon gave the RF Mount users a steal of a lens that fits into a small rucksack for hikes without noticing it unlike the RF 100-500 and the EF 100-400mm MKII both of which are optically superior but four to five times the cost.

I recently bought a used copy for 560 € of the RF 100-400mm (including the hood) after Entoman/ neuro and I guess AlanF all gave such great reviews about this lens. I gotta admit: given the price and weight it is an absolute killer lens!!! It really gets the job done when light is available, it is great for hiking and long strolls through parks and such.

I haven't decided yet if I'm going to keep it because I do own the RF 100-500mm (which is my favorite lens) and the RF 70-200mm F4 but having three lenses with almost complete overlap in the same zoom range just doesn't seem plausible to me In the end, I'll probably have to choose between the RF 70-200mm F4 and the RF 100-400mm

 

[neuroanatomist]

I haven't decided yet if I'm going to keep it because I do own the RF 100-500mm (which is my favorite lens) and the RF 70-200mm F4 but having three lenses with almost complete overlap in the same zoom range just doesn't seem plausible to me In the end, I'll probably have to choose between the RF 70-200mm F4 and the RF 100-400mm

Or just add the RF 70-200/2.8 to complete the collection. (Well, almost complete...there's now the 100-300/2.8 as well.)

 

[Exploreshootshare]

A 14mm or 16mm f/1.2 or 1.4 with very low distortion and coma would be popular.

omg, just think about that price tag...
Sony and Sigma have a 14mm F1.8 which seems to be the max aperture (for autofocus lenses) and they are pretty pricey already. Add Canon pricing, RF mark-up, R&D costs, mark-up to cover fewer sales etc. and you'll easily be looking at a 4.000 - 5000 $ lens.
It would be dream lens, of course. But I'd love to see Canon just match the 14mm offering by Sigma or have 20mm F1.4. A lot of astro guys also use pano-shot modes and use a 24mm or 35mm lens. That could cover the astro crowd as well.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Or just add the RF 70-200/2.8 to complete the collection. (Well, almost complete...there's now the 100-300/2.8 as well.)

What are you doing to me? I do have decision nausea already!

 

[LensSodomist]

Still waiting for the Canon RF 35L f1.2...until then, the RF 35mm f1.8 is servicing me very well...

 

[EricN]

omg, just think about that price tag...
Sony and Sigma have a 14mm F1.8 which seems to be the max aperture (for autofocus lenses) and they are pretty pricey already. Add Canon pricing, RF mark-up, R&D costs, mark-up to cover fewer sales etc. and you'll easily be looking at a 4.000 - 5000 $ lens.
It would be dream lens, of course. But I'd love to see Canon just match the 14mm offering by Sigma or have 20mm F1.4. A lot of astro guys also use pano-shot modes and use a 24mm or 35mm lens. That could cover the astro crowd as well.

I'd probably buy it even at 5k

 

[john1970]

Since this thread seems to have some new life in it, I thought I'd just throw something out there for reaction.

I'm wondering when, or if, the three wide primes on the list (24, 28 and 35) and the remaining big white (500mm) will ever see the light of day. There are low cost 24mm and 35mm f1.8 lenses. I guess Canon will eventually release L versions of the 24mm and 35mm, but I'm not so sure about the 28mm length. And, since the consumer versions are f1.8 lenses, will Canon go for a really high-end f1.2 version for the 24mm. Overall, I suspect these wide primes are low priority lenses for Canon that are not big sellers.

I'm pretty pessimistic about the 500 mm f4 big white. I understand that this used to be one of the most popular focal lengths among the big whites, but that was before Canon released the 100-500mm zoom. Something tells me they may not see a market for the 500mm big white any more. I know, myself, that while I once lusted after the 500mm, if I could ever afford a big white today, I'd probably wait until I could afford the 600mm.

Would Canon surprise everyone by offering a 200-500 f4 (or similar) zoom with integrated extender to replace both the 500mm and 200-400mm big whites? That would not surprise me.

Curious what others think.

I think a 200-500 mm f4 zoom is possible.

A recent quote taken from the Canon RF100-300 mm f2.8 Developer Interview:

"As a brand new flagship for the large aperture telephoto L zoom lenses, we gave the RF100- 300mm F2.8 L IS USM styling appropriate for a lens that will lead the series from now on."

The above quote suggests that the Canon RF 100-300 mm f2.8 is the flagship for a series of large aperture telephoto L zoom lenses. Of course, they could also be referring to the current f2.8 trinity of zoom lens and simply stating that the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 leads the f2.8 series of zoom lenses.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Sony and Sigma have a 14mm F1.8

LEAKED specs of the world’s fastest 14mm f/1.4 lens made by Sigma! – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com

 

[Exploreshootshare]

LEAKED specs of the world’s fastest 14mm f/1.4 lens made by Sigma! – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com

I read about this lens the other day. On a German website the anonymous source stated. "This lens will be expensive, even for Sigma pricing."
So I don´t dare to wonder what Canon pricing would do to such a lens

 

[EOS 4 Life]

There was a patent exactly on a 200-500mm f/4 with built-in 1.4x extender not so long ago.

There is also a patent for a 100-300 f/2.8 with a built-in 1.4x extender.
We see how that tuned out.

 

[Malm]

That would certainly be novel, I don’t believe Canon has ever made a significant effort to produce a lens with low coma. As for low distortion, Canon has gone the opposite direction with mirrorless lenses.

Canon has shown with the 'old' EF L 35/1.4 II lens that they can produce excellent low coma and low chromatic aberration lenses! That is the best fast 35mm lens for astro which I know (and use it a lot for astro-panos). A fast 14mm lens has pros (wide-field like MW with one image) and cons (poor light gathering) for astro and the fast Sigma A 14/1.8 is already 1.2 kg! Doing lot's of astro-landscapes I would be mostly interested in a fast, low coma, low vignette 24mm lens (and probably in a 35mm lens if I wouldn't already have the very good EF 35/1.4 II) and a fast 14mm would rather be my second wish. Probably together with an 'astro-friendly' 20mm lens as there is a wide gap between 14mm and 24mm. Well, Canon has it's own plans and we will see ...