This is the Canon RF lens roadmap

[Daner]

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!)

Regards

PJ

Yes to all of this!

The RF 24-105 is much better than either of the EF versions. So much so that after a summer of schlepping my 5D4 + EF 24-70 f/2.8 around taking primarily landscape shots in France and California I was happy to switch to an EOS R + RF 24-105 f/4. Less weight for one-bag carry-on travel (not that I am doing much of that lately), and much better face and eye tracking for shooting people. For me the 70-105mm range is much more frequently useful than the additional aperture. If I need more light and/or less depth of field I have primes, and now with the RF 85mm f/2 IS half-macro I don't have to hit up my brother-in-law to borrow my old EF 100mm macro quite as often.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

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 :-(

82mm would be ok as well although I'd prefer 77mm because I do still have a few screw-on filters with the 77mm size. Filters are never cheap, but I figured once I have the UWA lense I want, I´ll get a few select 150mm filters.

 

[davidcl0nel]

You don't have a reliable light-meter using the TS-E lenses (i use the 17) when shifted using the mirror/prisma path. The light must be very wrong to make huge errors of 2 or 3 stops. So it wasn't possible to use a autofocus with this light.
Now we are using the "liveview" way with contrast focus of the sensor which will have no problems at all even shifted. So it is a small step to add a little STM or whatever drive.
On wide angle this isn't needed very much of course, but it is a start. And I think they will add the other (like TS-E 135) later, which might be very easy to handle then....
But I am not very convinced about 14mm instead of 17mm. The 17mm is already wide, and because you can shift it reaches quite high even if you stand in front of a high church (or whatever), you got it. I think the image circle is about 12mm equivalent, or maybe even the same like the EF 11-24, but you can select the part you want.
Now with 14mm it is much more (maybe 8 equivalent) and it will be hard to master... If you shift too much (horizon on 1/10) it looks awful if it is correctly shifted, because the upper parts appear much to expanded...

 

[privatebydesign]

You don't have a reliable light-meter using the TS-E lenses (i use the 17) when shifted using the mirror/prisma path.

I set my exposure via the histogram before movements and it is always fine. But I understand your point, now with metering off the actual sensor the impacts of tilt and more importantly shift are accounted for in the auto modes.

 

[Ryan2020]

What a fantastic and exciting lineup. Love the 100 macro, the f4s, and the 1200 f8. Brilliant stuff.

 

[noms78]

I'm still holding out for a 14-28/2, though!

I think that lens would be even bigger, heavier and more expensive than the 28-70 f/2

 

[David - Sydney]

Same here..
how can you be satisfied with an aperture of 7.1 for the 100-500..

It seems that many people were quite happy with the EF100-400mm + 1.4TC which is approximately the same aperture and sharper and faster focusing @ 500mm. Where is your dissatisfaction coming from?

 

[David - Sydney]

Yes it is so expensive.
compared to the 100-400 ii, 100mm more but increased to 7.1 instead of 5.6 for a much higher price .. i don't understand... that’s bad for use at dawn and dusk.

I'm trying to understand where the disconnect is coming from....

The EF100-400mm is f5.6 @ 400mm. If you add the 1.4TC it becomes 560mm @ f7.1. Reports have the RF100-500mm at f5.6 @400mm (depends if 1/3 stop or 1/2 stops are setup in camera) and 500mm @ f7.1 - so 60mm focal length different @ f7.1

"Bad' is basically a choice of ISO assuming constant shutter speed. Less light = higher ISO needed. R5/R6 have great high ISO performance so this is less of a concern. You could also say that the 500/4 is the only solution for your problem (EF400mm/2.8 + 1.4x TC) but that is at a big price differential again

From a price perspective, the EF100-400mm version 1 was USD1699 at release in 1994 and EF100-400mm ii @ USD2199 in 2014. The RF 100-500mm @ USD2699 so USD500 more after 6 years inflation and basically including a 1.4x TC (valued at USD500) in a package giving a 5x zoom. The EF100-400ii and EF1.4x TC are now cheaper than release price so the pricing seems to be more expensive but you would need to include the R mount adapter as well.

Digidirect in Australia have again got a 15% off sale including the RF100-500mm so equivalent to USD2294 to USD100 difference for a package lighter, smaller (with adapter), 5x zoom, sharper and faster to focus @ 500mm.

People seem to want a 200-600mm/5.6 but the Sony is f6.3 @ 600mm. The Nikon is maybe on their roadmap for next year but the aperture isn't known.

 

[David - Sydney]

What i want is something middle range. Like Sony or Nikons upcoming 200-600. High quality, weather sealed lenses but still on the affordable side and not super dark like the Canon cheap primes.

Sony is the only 200-600mm that has been released and is f5.3 @200mm - f6.3 @600mm. We don't know what aperture Nikon's version will be, if the rumoured roadmap is to be believed and the price or quality.
Canon's 600/800mm primes are unique in size/weight/price. The only difference is ISO at constant shutter speed. I don't have them but have you tried them? Rent one and see what is possible. You may be surprised as others have been.

 

[6degrees]

RF 35mm f/1.2L USM

 

[VivaLasVegas]

I have a feeling Canon skipped the RF 300 f2.8 because they’re working on an “attention grabber” lens in RF 120-300 f2.8 with a built-in 1.4x TC. Sigma made it years ago(120-300 f2.8), Nikon did it last year for the f mount. If I remember correctly, Nikon came out with the 200-400 f4 first, then Canon drop the same lens with a built-in 1.4X TC, which made some Nikon shooters jump ship. As a result, Nikon was forced to release an updated 180-200 f4 w/h a built-in 1.4X TC. The RF 120-300 f2.8 w/h a built-in 1.4X TC will be a game changer for Canon, just like what they did to the EF 200-400 f4.

 

[Canfan]

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.

Agree these are really nice focal lengths to have, especially the 250-700mm or even the 800mm. All the lens on the list are fantastic additions to the RF line up.
My concern is that most of the lens that come out have variable aperture to save on weight, like the 800 f11, really light lens.
However when you do any sort of forest photography or in low light situations, despite the improved ISO capability of the R5, sometimes it just isn't enough, particularly if you end up cropping that image. My little M6MKII shines with the 100-400mm MKII with it 32MP sensor for abit extra reach, which leaves me wanting a bit more when I put on the R5 which should give cleaner images.

 

[Canfan]

This is why, if Canon doesn't release a 1-1000mm f/1.0 (that is pocketable), they are *******!

You have a nice kit, my bodies are the R5, M6 MKII-seriously underrated little camera. thought about selling my 100-400mm MKII and getting the 100-500mm for the extra reach , lighter and fast autofocus. Then I realized I won't be able to adapt the 100-400 on my M6 ii (640mm @32MP comes in handy especially for small birds)

 

[Canfan]

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.

A lot of pros started off on lenses like these before they move on to BIG F4 primes. There is a learning curves to these. A nice 5.6 would be a nice middle ground.
If we took a poll in this forum, I sure one the the more popular telephoto lens would be 100-400mm or similar.

 

[Dantana]

200-500 F5.6 will be much better for me! F11 and f7.1 is only good during the day or in countries with an appropriate climate

So, you want it to be a lot bigger and heavier then? And more expensive?

 

[Dantana]

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.

But Canon has never made affordable, fast, super-telephoto lenses. Why would you expect that now?

 

[Canfan]

But as has been explained many times in the past, losing a mirror and pentaprism does’t make the lenses optical formulae different, and the ever increasing demand for lenses to have “higher IQ” (resolution and across the frame sharpness) means those optical formulae are not going to get smalleR but larger.

These will come. Canon was making a statement with their big primes, that we are some of the best at make glass. the 50mm 1.2, the 85mm 1.2 and 28-70mm f2 were bold statements that had many guys who sold their canon gear and jump ship to really question that decision. Remember as well that competition is quite stiff now, not just with other camera manufacturers but smartphones.
I have a friend who wouldn't hesitate to do an impromptu portraits/passport pics with his iPhone if he left his camera at home at the time.
I believe they have an Ace up thier sleeve and will release smaller and more affordable lens in the future so stay tuned.

 

[Canfan]

Agrees, that one is a "mystery". There's a patent for that specs looking like an APS-C lens. However APS-C camera rumor says there wont be any APS-C lenses. Rumor says there will be some fullframe lenses also targeting APS-C use. And that frightends me a bit. I hope it wont be a fullframe lens with optical sacrifices like the cheap/light 24-105, to make it compact like it was an APS-C lens.

I would love to see it as a true APS-C lens, but most importantly enthusiast optical quality. Rather a "real" fullframe than a "tweaked for fullframe use too" lens with optical compromises that needs to be corrected in post.

The R5 has a 1.6x crop mode, but that takes you from 45MP to 17MP

 

[Skux]

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.

More like "cheap and slow" or "expensive and slow".

 

[ozturert]

200-500 F5.6 will be much better for me! F11 and f7.1 is only good during the day or in countries with an appropriate climate

Sure, I want as big aperture as they can give me but it'll be as big as and heavier than Sony version. Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 is heavier than even Sony. I'd take 5-6.3 to shave 300-500 grams and maybe some length as well.