This is the Canon RF lens roadmap

Gazwas

EOS RP
Sep 3, 2018
206
181
I presume you meant the TS-E17. The advantage of AF with tilt lenses is in dynamic situations, I’d love my TS-E50 to have AF for portraits, set the tilt first, then select an AF point then get that point on the eye you want and boom.

For what I use my TS-E’s for 90% of the time AF would offer no additional value, but that is a function of the fact that they didn’t have AF, once they do that will change.
Ooops, yes I meant the 17mm TS-E.

I agree the AF function could be of some help but for the few times of use it would mean giving up the silky smooth MF feel of the current lenses for terrible focus by wire.

Additionally we are talking about a 14mm and a 24mm lens here, both of which don't generally get used for portraits, close up or still life photography. Can't say I've ever wished for AF on the current 17mm or 24mm TS-E's.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: privatebydesign

lexptr

Photograph the nature while it exists...
Aug 8, 2014
80
52
Well, the 100mm L macro will complete my regular lens lineup, which I will switch to in R system. However, I would be happy to see other options, which I would prefer. Like longer true macro or longer and brighter tele-zoom. But those may not occur at all. So I will likely shut up and switch to what they deliver (will they deliver? didn't see R5 or 100-500 in stock yet).

Regarding 1200mm f8L. I see everyone expect a high price, like 20k. But why it should be that much? If I understand right, the double aperture, relatively to 600mm f4L means its front element should be the same diameter. So, it's going to be like stretched 600mm. Of course, some additional barrel material and such, but I wouldn't be surprised if it will be only a bit more expensive than 800mm, which will be a bit more expensive than 600mm. Just look at prices of 600/800mm EF versions. What they can charge for is a low volume of production. I believe the 1200mm going to see much shallower niche of users than any other supertele.
 

NKD

I'm New Here
Nov 26, 2018
11
2
I will be getting the most out of the current 17 & 24mm TS lens!
This still hold up extremely well on the 5dsR / 50mp cameras

The new RF glass must be designed for 100 - 150mp sensors.
This would be a dream to potentially handheld architecture shots with 1 exposure with IBIS.

Hoping a zoom TS with autofocus comes on the market next 35 - 80mm.
This will make me jump to the R system and RF glass
 
Last edited:

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
2,244
317
31
34109
www.facebook.com
Below would be my lens wishlist target weights and physical dimension
  • Canon RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM at 2kg or lighter
  • Canon RF 500mm f/4L IS USM at 2kg or lighter
  • Canon RF 600mm f/4L IS USM at 3kg or lighter
  • Canon RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM at 3kg or lighter
  • Canon RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM at 4.5kg or lighter and 44.8cm or shorter.
That's the major selling point of newer gear... weight reduction and better portability.

If I were still actively photographing wildlife and a 800mm or 1200mm became available at half their weight I'd be induced to upgrade.

Sadly for people who steal photos/videos of Philippine wildlife I will not be making that expenditure on their behalf.

They are welcome to buy the equipment and pay for the trips if they can actually afford it without donations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
915
768
www.flickr.com
RF 14-35mm F4 sounds very tempting. If it has a 77mm filter thread and is filterable (no bulby lens likes sigmas 14-24mm please) I'll preorder this one the minute they announce it :)
I can't imagine that a zoom going to 14mm will only have a 77mm filter thread.... Maybe 82mm but more likely greater. Even with a filter thread this big, you will need 150mm filters to avoid significant vignetting. Those are expensive setups :-(
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
915
768
www.flickr.com
I presume you meant the TS-E17. The advantage of AF with tilt lenses is in dynamic situations, I’d love my TS-E50 to have AF for portraits, set the tilt first, then select an AF point then get that point on the eye you want and boom.

For what I use my TS-E’s for 90% of the time AF would offer no additional value, but that is a function of the fact that they didn’t have AF, once they do that will change.
but what would the use case be for such a wide angle (14 or 24mm) with autofocus... besides "because we can"? The size will be substantially larger with IS as well. The 14mm will be great for landscape/waterfalls/architecture I imagine but would probably always be on a tripod so manual focus isn't an issue. A 5-8 stop IS would be be useful for handheld or high speed.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
915
768
www.flickr.com
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.
"Because we can"? It would be a halo lens made-to-order and prohibitively expensive. You are right about atmospheric haze but that hasn't stopped people playing with RF800mm +TCs. Moon shots would be sharp as :)
Maybe deep astro but contributors with more experience could chime in on that use case
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
731
1,429
I think the 1200mm F/8L lens will be a lens that gets made and doesn't change for a very long time. For Canon it's probably important to have it in their RF lens line-up, but I don't think it will rocket off the shelves when you can throw a 2x on a 600mm and get the same result, alongside having the shorter, brighter option of 600 F/4. But for Canon they only need to make that lens design on the RF mount once in 10-15 years, like the 800mm F/5.6 which didn't get updated nearly as much as the 600mm F/4L IS. I could very well imagine a RF 600mm F/4L IS mark III before a 1200mm F/8L IS II. Basically, I think Canon wants to make their baseline line-up so that people have all these options 15 years from now.

As for autofocus tilt-shift, I think those lenses will be huge for the people who need them, or the people who don't realize yet that they need them. I always felt limited using the tilt-shifts at my job, as manual focus isn't particularly easy in fast pace environments when you're an event/news photographer. These could be sweet for the wedding photogs I know as well that use tilt-shifts almost every wedding, though I think the longer end would be more applicable to them. Landscape/architecture photographers probably won't feel pressed to get them, though high-end architecture photographers probably have the budget to justify it, considering how expensive the manual-focus ones were already.

Someone brought up the age-old "why are they making such big lenses for mirrorless" and I think one thing that has been apparent is that Canon considers the standard of acceptable weight/size to be DSLR size and weight. The RF 50mm F/1.2 is about the size of a EF 50 F/1.2 + RF-EF adapter, the RF 28-70 is about the length of the EF 24-70 F/2.8 + EF-RF adapter, and so forth. I think the way Canon sees all of this as is, if a professional was already willing to fill their bag with the big size of DSLRS and their glass, they can push the limits of lens design to make way more impressive lenses that still fit in the same general weight/size of their DSLR counterparts. They're not wrong, either, I doubt I would have considered the RF 28-70 F/2 if it was on EF, but I don't mind the extra size/weight when the combination of it and the R5 is lighter/smaller than the 1DX2 + EF 24-70. For those who want compact size, they've definitely made lenses for you like the RF 70-200, 35, 50 F/1.8, etc.

The most interesting lenses to me in my uses are the RF 14-35 F/4, 24mm F/1.8, and 400mm F/2.8. I really have come close to getting a 300mm F/2.8L IS II several times this year, but I'd rather get an RF mount option, and I feel like 300mm f/2.8 is too short for my uses, I can easily crop 200mm f/2.8 from the R5 to 300mm and be mostly fine with the results. I think if I get a supertelephoto, it's going to be the RF 400mm f/2.8 at some point, though probably not on release.

The RF 14-35mm F/4 sounds like a perfect replacement for my 16-35mm F/4L IS, but I'll just be hoping it takes 82mm filters so I can use it on my Lee filter system still, we'll see what happens in the lead-up to more specs being announced, I've already come close to getting the RF 15-35 F/2.8L IS a few times.

And then finally the RF 24mm F/1.8 STM sounds like an instant pre-order. That would be the perfect wide lens to throw in my belt-kit, and would make the perfect partner to the RF 28-70 F/2 to ensure I always still have the 24mm option if I need it.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,445
328
I’ll do you guys a favor.

I’ll go ahead and drop $3000 on a 100-500L and the 1.4X.

Guaranteed that twenty seconds after my “return by” date expires Canon will announce a 200-600L f4 - 5.6 for $4000.

Ain’t that always the way?

Unlikely if it's "L". 200-400 with 1.4x is 11,000.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
915
768
www.flickr.com
I find it puzzling at times to see that for a new range of mirrorless cameras that are inherently lighter and in many cases smaller than their DSLR equivalents, the first lenses put on the market are the biggest, heaviest (and most expensive) for a particular focal length or zoom range. A high-quality relatively compact RF 135mm f:2.5 IS Macro under $1,000 would sell like hot cakes. Affordable good quality glass would help cushion the initial investment in new camera bodies.
"biggest, heaviest (and most expensive) for a particular focal length or zoom range."
The RF28-70/2 is bigger/heavier than the 24-70/2.8 but that is too be expected. The RF70-200/2.8 is shorter and lighter (plastic v metal) than the EF version.
Expensive I will grant you but Canon engineering (bar the RF24-105mm/4) is bleeding edge at the moment providing significant advantages over their EF counterparts. Whether significantly better IS stabilisation, focus speed, weight, bokeh, size, focal length etc or a combination. The 50mm/80mm/1.2 primes are definitely bigger. Remember to consider the size/weight of the R mount adapter as well for EF lenses.
One of the advantages of the R mount is moving lens elements closer to the sensor which helps balance on a smaller body.
Lastly, the RF100-500mm is a 5x zoom that is sharp and small and light!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
915
768
www.flickr.com
I’ll do you guys a favor.

I’ll go ahead and drop $3000 on a 100-500L and the 1.4X.

Guaranteed that twenty seconds after my “return by” date expires Canon will announce a 200-600L f4 - 5.6 for $4000.

Ain’t that always the way?
Not sure that you would be disappointed with the size/weight/sharpness of the RF100-500mm though. Higher ISO seems to be the only downsize.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
915
768
www.flickr.com
Im still not happy about the telephoto selection. We ether have cheap and slow like the 100-400 7.1 or expensive like the 100-500. Or super expensive like the 400+ primes.
Still not affordable quality lens to go above 600mm. Not counting the super slow DO primes.
Not sure I follow you.
You want affordable 600+mm lenses but don't like the current small/light/affordable/sharpish RF600/800mm primes.
Assuming that the RF100-400 will not be a "L" lens then it will be cheap and cheerful
The price for the RF100-500mm will drop. I got mine on a 15% off sale. Still expensive but getting closer to a current EF100-400Lii + 1.4 TC + R mount adapter. It is amazing for a 5x zoom.
It seems that you want cheap, fast, long focal length and I can't see that happening anytime soon. Don't forget that you can adapt all the EF lenses from Canon, Sigma and Tamron etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
915
768
www.flickr.com
The 2 lenses that I think are missing or should be there are a RF300/2.8 and an astro lens.
The EF400/600mm were updated leaving the EF300/500m without an update. RF500mm gets love but not the 300mm
An astro lens would be a niche area but Samyang (14mm/2.8, 14mm/2.4) and Sigma 14mm/1.8 have had the space for some time now.
Canon's EF14mm is still selling (not many!) at the same price as the RF50/1.2 and not great for astro.
 

LeBlobe

EOS RP
Nov 9, 2020
36
28
Montreal, Canada
How much would a 400mm/4L without DO be ? or would a 500mm/5.6 L be around nikons price?

the price jump for upgrading my 300mm/4 is alot without losing much speed . I could live without IS too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Canfan

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,191
2,022
Kentucky, USA
I wonder if the RF 135 f1.4L will have a DO front lens? You'd think that they'd put DO in the title if so, but many have said that they're not going to mention it. If it has a DO lens with L build then it'd be light enough to interest me. Otherwise it's probably too big & heavy for me to get.