This is the Canon RF lens roadmap

fred

EOS M50
Oct 9, 2020
25
20
Maybe RF14-35 F4L IS is the answer to Nikon’s Z14-30 F4S. As usual, it will probably be better though and with IS. And that’s coming from a Nikon user.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
419
276
Australia
Apart from the superteles and 14-35 f/4L IS and 100 f/2.8 macro, disappointing lineup, especially yet another slow telephoto zoom. No doubt the 100-400 won't even accept TC's or will be another farce like the 100-500.
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
733
879
. . . No one is saying this, but I would gladly take a 14-28/2.8, too. I would just so much like to have a good wide-angle zoom that starts around 10-14 and goes all the way to 28 --- without hitting 35.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

danfaz

RSIX
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2015
100
73
www.1fineklick.com
My feeling is that the 24-105 f/4L IS is sharp enough that the minor reduction in volume and weight along with the need for a lower price point would not make sales volumes and profit margins high enough to make it a priority. The other lenses on this list fill gaps. A 24-70 f/4L IS would not.
Agreed, there is really no need for an f/4 24-70 now. The EF version was a bit sharper than the 105, and had the pseudo-macro feature, but doubt they'd do that for RF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Daner and pj1974

pj1974

80D, M5, 7D, & lots of glass and accessories!
Oct 18, 2011
690
212
Adelaide, Australia
Likewise. I am looking at the F/4 trinity: 14-35mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200.
Not interested in the 24-105mm. Don't want the extra distortion at the wide end or the extra weight. A 24-70 would balance nicely on the R5.
If more people like these posts maybe Canon will notice :)

The 14-35mm f/4 L is the most interesting of yet-to-be-announced-and-released lenses from this roadmap for me.
I love UWA for landscape mainly, and so prefer each mm of (ultra) wide angle goodness over an extra stop of speed. 95% of the time at ~14mm/15mm I'm at f/8 - f/16 anyway. I also use UWA for some architecture, and occasionally creative photography (e.g. artistic subjects appearing disproportionately large in the foreground).

I understand that some people prefer the slightly smaller and lighter weight of a 24-70mm f/4 over a 24-105mm f/4, however there's not much in it, and the reviews of the RF 24-105mm f/4 are very positive.
(The 24-70 f/4 are around 600g on average, with the 24-105 f/4 @ ~700g).
Distortion is not that much different (2.4% vs 3.3% on average) - which can be (batch-auto)corrected in post.
The f/2.8 24-70mm lenses often have around 3% distortion anyway.

Each person's style of, and needs within photography is unique. I really miss the 71mm-105mm range when limited to a 70mm for a walk around.

My plan is have the 14-35mm f/4 L, 24-105mm f/4 L, and 100-500m f/4.5-7.1 as my 'trinity'.
I have a bunch of EF (and even some EF-S) glass that also goes well on the R5, e.g. 100mm f/2.8 macro L, EF 50mm, etc.

It's a great time to be a photographer, we have so much choice (just maybe not so much in our bank account to be everything straight away!) :D

Regards

PJ
 

SnowMiku

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 4, 2020
96
64
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

It would be good for astro and night photography because of f/1.8. The Macro can be used for 1:1 of your subject like a flower or bug with a wide field of view and deep depth of field but I'm thinking you would get distortion with 1:1 at 24mm but I could be wrong.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
943
790
www.flickr.com
Apart from the superteles and 14-35 f/4L IS and 100 f/2.8 macro, disappointing lineup, especially yet another slow telephoto zoom. No doubt the 100-400 won't even accept TC's or will be another farce like the 100-500.
Farce?
Wider focal range, similar aperture to EF100-400 + 1.4TC, same length (with R adapter) and lighter? I agree that people would like the full 5x range with the TC but 300-500mm (420-700mm or 600-1000mm) is still not insubstantial. With R bodies able to focus at narrow apertures and great ISO performance with R5/6..... where is the farce?

The other option is to buy the EF100-400mm and EF TCs if it meets all your needs. Great to have multiple options!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Daner and pj1974

bitcars

5D mark II
Apr 24, 2019
35
51
1993 : Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM
2021 : Canon RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM

Maybe loosing 1-stop aperture also means less digits in price.
 

Pixel

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 6, 2011
227
121
I don't understand why the 300 f2.8L is being ignored? The current EF300 f2.8L IS II will be ten years old next year!
 

hobbodanno

I'm New Here
Jul 11, 2020
10
5
That 14-35 f4 will be my next lens. I'm excited for that! That, and a fast, wide prime will be all I need. o_O
 

MartinVLC

I'm New Here
Nov 3, 2020
9
12
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.

I´m missing an affordable wide lens for the RF mount for astro and architecture. Seems like there is only the Samyang so far and all wide options from canon seem to be way to expensive or starting at f/4. Are you happy with your Samyang 14mm 2.8? I heard that it´s not the sharpest, that´s why I´m not sure if it´s the right choice for me. I´m even thinking about getting the Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4.0 instead and use it with the RF-EF adapter.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
943
790
www.flickr.com
I´m missing an affordable wide lens for the RF mount for astro and architecture. Seems like there is only the Samyang so far and all wide options from canon seem to be way to expensive or starting at f/4. Are you happy with your Samyang 14mm 2.8? I heard that it´s not the sharpest, that´s why I´m not sure if it´s the right choice for me. I´m even thinking about getting the Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4.0 instead and use it with the RF-EF adapter.
I believe that the 14/2.4 is better than the 14/2.8 but at double the price. I am content with the images from my f2.8. You can see images using it on my Flickr stream. I'm not sure that I would pay a lot of money for f2.4 vs 2.8 though.
There were early stories about copy consistency but check online if there are recent concerns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MartinVLC

Franklyok

EOS 90D
Oct 24, 2018
143
48
If the 135f/1.4 is like the size of the EF 200mm f/2... I have been waiting for nothing.
Give me a new RF135 f/2.... with IBIS it is all I need.

135/f2 is allready available ... RF 85 / f1.2 ( with DS ? ) + 1.4 extender gets you close to 120 mm with F1.8.

R5 or R6 with IBIS and there you go.

I think, It's going to be 2022+ smthing when 135 is released. By then we will have R1 available allready.
 
Nov 9, 2020
6
4
Do we realize that the last 20mm canon did it 30 years ago? A 50 1.4 maybe weather sealed is really hard to think? Innstead we will find ourselves with three wide-angle zooms. Great.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,866
1,794
135/f2 is allready available ... RF 85 / f1.2 ( with DS ? ) + 1.4 extender gets you close to 120 mm with F1.8[..]

Do the extenders fit into the 85mm? ISTR the rearmost element is quite close to the sensor.