This is the Canon RF lens roadmap

Sort by date Sort by votes
#261
Darecinema said:
I’d say the chances of that RF14-35 being available for use by summer are zero to none based off what we saw in 2020
Click to expand...
Sadly, I'm worried you're right :/

Darecinema said:
why not adapt the EF L 16-35 which is still a fantastic lens?
Click to expand...
I actually forget to mention the EF 16-35 L as an option. I used to own but sold it in order to find something slightly wider (14 or 15mm). If I decide 16mm is enough for my summer project (Vienna/ alps hometown shots for prints in my dads remodeled apartment), then I´ll go back and get it.

Darecinema said:
I like the Laowa offerings (And they have some great specialty lenses) but I don’t feel in sharpness or CA handling they are necessarily the best choice for wide angle.
Click to expand...
Thx for the input! I'm searching for good reviews on the Laowa Lenses since the 12mm F2.8 and the 15mm F2 both sound tempting, but I figure there have some major downsides with these lenses. Sharpness is usually one aspect I don't like to make any compromises...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#262
Exploreshootshare said:
Sadly, I'm worried you're right :/


I actually forget to mention the EF 16-35 L as an option. I used to own but sold it in order to find something slightly wider (14 or 15mm). If I decide 16mm is enough for my summer project (Vienna/ alps hometown shots for prints in my dads remodeled apartment), then I´ll go back and get it.


Thx for the input! I'm searching for good reviews on the Laowa Lenses since the 12mm F2.8 and the 15mm F2 both sound tempting, but I figure there have some major downsides with these lenses. Sharpness is usually one aspect I don't like to make any compromises...
Click to expand...
I have been happy with the Tamron 15-30 and with a firmware update (I have the original model) it works fine with the R5. Very competitive pricewise and f/2.8 with both AF and VC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#264
Darecinema said:
I’d say the chances of that RF14-35 being available for use by summer are zero to none based off what we saw in 2020, but why not adapt the EF L 16-35 which is still a fantastic lens? I like the Laowa offerings (And they have some great specialty lenses) but I don’t feel in sharpness or CA handling they are necessarily the best choice for wide angle. Sigmas I’ve heard good things about but have no hands on with.
Click to expand...
I was in the same boat, but I went with the Sigma 14-24 ART. I didn't want to wait until summer. I am thrilled with the lens. It's enormous, but after seeing the images from it with the R5 at 100%, I don't care. I have the 16-35 f4L IS, and the Sigma is much better than it at the wide end. That lens is a bargain for the corner to corner sharpness and the almost complete lack of CA even in the extreme corners. The Sigma is weakest at 24mm, but nobody is buying that lens for 24mm. Dustin Abbott's review is very accurate and mirrors my experience with it. Even when or if Canon comes out with a RF14-35 f4 , it's going to have to be the the most amazing wide angle Canon has ever made to get me to part with the Sigma. I can't wait to dump my 16-35 f4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#267
For me, the possibility of an RF 10-24 offers the chance of my own 'Holy Trinity" of lenses: 10-24, 24-105, 100-500, that would provide me with all the coverage I need.

I currently have a couple of R6 bodies with the 100-500 and am waiting for the delivery (long delayed) of the RF24-105. I have been using the bodies with my other lenses and the results are still very encouraging: I use my Sigma 60-600, 50-600 and EF-L 100-400MkII, (1.4MkIII Extender), 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8, and even my 70-300L lenses with the EF adapter, but having the coverage with RF glass would be awesome!View attachment 196034View attachment 196035View attachment 196036View attachment 196037View attachment 196038
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#268
I Think that canon should make a low priced RF 17-40mm F/4L lens with IS USM (and if canon releases the RF 18-45mm F/4-5.6 IS STM, this will probably be a kit lens that comes with the R7 when it's released and/or RP sometime in the future) and I'm sure a lot of people with low budgets would buy it if they made it about £400. That would be a good price for such a lens.
 
Upvote 0
#269
As a wildlife photographer I don't like their roadmap to much. Given the fact the image quality of the new RF mount 1.4x and 2x TC's are better then the EF mount TC's and they do not reduce focus speed I think they are to many equivalent lenses there:
Canon RF Super Telephoto Lenses:
  • Canon RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
  • Canon RF 500mm f/4L IS USM => 400/2.8 * 1.4x TC
  • Canon RF 600mm f/4L IS USM => 400/2.8 * 1.4x TC
  • Canon RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM => 400/2.8 * 2x TC or 600/4 * 1.4x TC
  • Canon RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM => 600/4 * 2x TC
Click to expand...
A 400mm F/2.8 (11500$), a 400mm F/4 (6500$) and a 100-400mm F/5.6 (2500$) should have been good enough for the start, and for all pockets.
Also I always wanted the 1.7x that Nikon have.
 
Upvote 0
#270
eliz82 said:
As a wildlife photographer I don't like their roadmap to much. Given the fact the image quality of the new RF mount 1.4x and 2x TC's are better then the EF mount TC's and they do not reduce focus speed I think they are to many equivalent lenses there:

A 400mm F/2.8 (11500$), a 400mm F/4 (6500$) and a 100-400mm F/5.6 (2500$) should have been good enough for the start, and for all pockets.
Also I always wanted the 1.7x that Nikon have.
Click to expand...

Get the 400mm and both teleconverters (provided they will stack). Now you can make up anything.
 
Upvote 0
#272
Dragon said:
Protruding rear elements. Not a chance of stacking the TCs.
Click to expand...

I suffered that same disappointment when I got (at two separate times) the EF 1.4 and 2.0 TCs...mark IIIs. The mark IIs would stack, and I had heard of people using them that way, but I had missed that they needed to be Mark IIs.

Oh, well, I really don't need to do it very often. In fact only once so far have I missed that capability.
 
Upvote 0
#273
SteveC said:
I suffered that same disappointment when I got (at two separate times) the EF 1.4 and 2.0 TCs...mark IIIs. The mark IIs would stack, and I had heard of people using them that way, but I had missed that they needed to be Mark IIs.

Oh, well, I really don't need to do it very often. In fact only once so far have I missed that capability.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have both the EF mark IIs and mark IIIs. The only one that physically allows stacking is the 2x mark II. It will accept any of the others mark II or III or another 2x mark II behind it. Beyond that you are off to Kenko Land. For the hell of it, I just tried stacking the 2x mark III behind the 2x mark II behind a 135 L f/2 and attached the whole mess to an R5 via EF adapter. It lied about the aperture by two stops (i.e. f/4), and the focal length (270mm) but AF worked fine and the result was decent considering. The downside is that the IBIS was clearly misinformed re the focal length, so it would only attenuate the shake, but not remove it. The attached shot is a 100% crop. The tower is about a mile away and there is quite a bit of thermal activity in the air (hence the wiggly tower), but you can get the Idea. A good 500mm lens will show detail in the arc suppressors hanging down along side the insulators on a good day, but probably not with as much distortion as there is in the air today. Bottom line, I would say the result is on a par with a Tamron or Canon FD 500mm mirror lens. It could be useful with a 20Mp camera, but not gaining much over a single 2x with the R5. PS. Just noticed that the website did about a 50% shrink, so take that into consideration.

2W4A1702.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#275
eliz82 said:
As a wildlife photographer I don't like their roadmap to much. Given the fact the image quality of the new RF mount 1.4x and 2x TC's are better then the EF mount TC's and they do not reduce focus speed I think they are to many equivalent lenses there:

A 400mm F/2.8 (11500$), a 400mm F/4 (6500$) and a 100-400mm F/5.6 (2500$) should have been good enough for the start, and for all pockets.
Also I always wanted the 1.7x that Nikon have.
Click to expand...
You cannot stack the RF extenders. ;)
 
Upvote 0
#277
Upvote 0
#280
ozlopupple said:
I think the auto focus Tilt shift lenses will allow automated focus stacking!
Click to expand...
I don’t see that, tilting makes calculating the plane of focus much more complicated to no effective benefit over a parallel plane of focus. It is immeasurably easier to focus stack a series of images from a normal, not tilted, lens than one where tilt or swing has been applied. Indeed given the nature of the plane of focus from applying tilt there are areas of the image that cannot achieve focus, this is not true of a normal lens.

I can see auto focus stacking becoming a thing, heck we had multiple point depth of field modes years and years ago, but I don’t see how tilt makes that more likely.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ozarker
OMG, all possible lens choices are too good!
Replies
3
Views
591
Buylongterm
B
Canon Rumors
Canon RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS USM, Here We Go Again
Replies
137
Views
17K
SnowMiku
S
Canon Rumors
Canon RF 85mm f/1.4L VCM on the Way
Replies
79
Views
12K
usern4cr
usern4cr
Richard CR
The Story of the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM: The Tale of Different Reviews
Replies
49
Views
1K
Exploreshootshare
Exploreshootshare
Canon Rumors
Canon RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM II May Have Appeared in Latest Patent
Replies
30
Views
7K
P-visie
P-visie
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu