This is the Canon RF lens roadmap

[Dragon]

How is that almost identical resolution to the R7? If you mean identical field of view, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. Will the dynamic range be comperable? Will high ISO noise be comperable? Why not just crop the center of your R5 image if you want a narrower field of view but don't need 45MP?

I mean the same number of pixels on the bird (which is also the same number of pixels per angular degree of view in the lens). If you do the math, the R7 has 84.4 MP equiv FF resolution, and the R5 with the TC has 88.2 equiv FF resolution. That is assuming 33Mp for the full area of the R7 sensor and 45 MP for the full area of the R5 sensor. Actual pictures are closer to 31.5 and 44.7 MP, but there is the question of what area is actually used for imaging. In any case, the number of pixels on the bird are pretty close and with the R7 you wouldn't have the loss of the TC.

 

[danfaz]

One can use color to differentiate in such cases. Here's Fuji for instance. (Actually makes me wonder a bit what I'm doing with Canon.)

View attachment 203899

You're wondering what you are doing buying Canon because of a lens roadmap?

 

[nunataks]

I'm so confused as to why Canon hasn't addressed the lower prime range with the R mount (and the latest rumor shows patents for RF-S versions of what we've been asking for even...)

Something like a 20mm f/1.8, or a 24mm f/1.8 would be such an easy addition and would sway me back to Canon from Fuji.

 

[Czardoom]

I'm so confused as to why Canon hasn't addressed the lower prime range with the R mount (and the latest rumor shows patents for RF-S versions of what we've been asking for even...)

Something like a 20mm f/1.8, or a 24mm f/1.8 would be such an easy addition and would sway me back to Canon from Fuji.

Because Canon can design and manufacture only so many lenses a year and the RF mount has only been around for a few years. So no matter what lenses Canon decided to release first, some folks will be unhappy with what has not yet been released. They have 30+ years of sales data on how all of their EF lenses sold, so, most likely, 20 and 24mm primes were not near the top of the list.

 

[HealthyNoodles]

There is still a "Canon RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM" listed under RF zoom lenses. I thought this was probably the 18-45mm 4.5-6.3 APSC lens that Canon released recently or is it a fullframe lens yet to be announced?

 

[Bonich]

I don’t know. The Thomas Guides that I used to use before Google Maps was a thing which showed me where I was going but also where I had been.

Semantics aside, it’s pretty clear that CR guy started the roadmap page at some point, and lenses that existed before he started it were not ever added retroactively. He’s probably missing out on a small amount of affiliate link revenue from that oversight, but it’s his call to make

You du have the full list of RF lenses
- on the Canon homepage (noremarkhs regarding time scale)
- in Wikipedia (with year of announcement)

 

[dolina]

Off the top of my head...

• RF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM
• RF 200mm f/2.0 L IS USM (or f/1.8)
• RF 40mm f/2.8 IS STM pancake
• RF 35mm f/1.4 L USM
• RF 24mm f/1.4 L USM
• RF 14mm f/2.8 L USM

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Off the top of my head...

• RF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM
• RF 200mm f/2.0 L IS USM (or f/1.8)
• RF 40mm f/2.8 IS STM pancake
• RF 35mm f/1.4 L USM
• RF 24mm f/1.4 L USM
• RF 14mm f/2.8 L USM

I´d love an affordable (not cheap!)

50mm F1.4 or
85mm F1.4

The F1.2 are too expensive and heavy for me, the new nifty fifty does lack some IQ imho.

 

[dolina]

I´d love an affordable (not cheap!)

50mm F1.4 or
85mm F1.4

The F1.2 are too expensive and heavy for me, the new nifty fifty does lack some IQ imho.

Eventually

 

[cdl]

Any idea when the TS-R 24mm f/3.5L might be expected? Thanks.

 

[Johnw]

Something like a 20mm f/1.8, or a 24mm f/1.8 would be such an easy addition and would sway me back to Canon from Fuji.

Hmm, seems that Canon heard you considering they announced a 24mm f/1.8 around one month after you posted this.

 

[nunataks]

Hmm, seems that Canon heard you considering they announced a 24mm f/1.8 around one month after you posted this.

Yeah until they priced it at an absurd $600 and dropped all third party support. Don't know if I'll ever go back to Canon now.

 

[unfocused]

Yeah until they priced it at an absurd $600 and dropped all third party support. Don't know if I'll ever go back to Canon now.

Same price as the EF 24 f2.8 before it was discontinued and about $200 less than the EF at introduction.

 

[Czardoom]

Same price as the EF 24 f2.8 before it was discontinued and about $200 less than the EF at introduction.

Yes, an absurdly reasonable price!

 

[Czardoom]

Yeah until they priced it at an absurd $600 and dropped all third party support. Don't know if I'll ever go back to Canon now.

Usual ignorant comment from someone with an obvious agenda. Don't like Canon? Why are you here then? Have no idea what a reasonable or absurd price is? I guess you don't. Dropped all 3rd party support? Nope, just AF lenses, and absolutely no word one way or the other whether licenses to produce 3rd party lenses will be negotiated with Sigma and Tamron in the next year or two. But, who cares about reality, when you're obvious objective was just to whine and bash Canon.

 

[Johnw]

Yeah until they priced it at an absurd $600 and dropped all third party support. Don't know if I'll ever go back to Canon now.

I’m personally not a fan of the Canon RF 24 f/1.8 for its optical properties but I don’t think you can characterize its price as unreasonable.

So like the others mentioned, it seems that you never really had any openness to using Canon to begin with, and your reasoning for not using Canon having been removed (since the lens is now offered), you seem to be pivoting to another reason you won’t be using Canon that appears to be founded on a somewhat non-logical basis (that the lens is overpriced).

If you don’t want to use Canon that’s your choice, but it would be better to just state that up front and give a rational argument stating why rather than playing silly word games.

 

[nunataks]

Usual ignorant comment from someone with an obvious agenda. Don't like Canon? Why are you here then? Have no idea what a reasonable or absurd price is? I guess you don't. Dropped all 3rd party support? Nope, just AF lenses, and absolutely no word one way or the other whether licenses to produce 3rd party lenses will be negotiated with Sigma and Tamron in the next year or two. But, who cares about reality, when you're obvious objective was just to whine and bash Canon.

Lol, I've shot Canon for years so your comment made me laugh. Their practices are not cool these days, and yes AF third party lenses are important to have especially when Canon isn't providing good options themselves at a reasonable price. The RF 24mm is overpriced for what it is - a lens that REQUIRES correction to work properly. Canon is cheaping out on us and apologists like you can see no wrong with them. Thankfully this is an open forum so I can have whatever opinion I want!

 

[Johnw]

The RF 24mm is overpriced for what it is

Well again I simply have to disagree.

Pros
——-
1. Low weight
2. IS (including combo mode with Canon IBIS)
3. 5.5” MFD
4. Pretty good IQ after digital correction
5. Separate focus and control rings
6. Wide and bright
7. 1:2 Macro capability

Cons
——-
1. Poor optical correction
2. No weather sealing/hood, typical non-L items

Are you wrong to reject the lens for the cons? Absolutely not, I have rejected it myself for the same reason. Clearly the lens will not be for everyone, but to say the pros list is not worth $599US simply makes no sense imo and I think it certainly will be for a lot of people.

 

[Loswr]

The RF 24mm is overpriced for what it is - a lens that REQUIRES correction to work properly.

The RF 14-35/4 L also requires optical correction of the distortion to work properly. When corrected with DxO PhotoLab, I get images at the wide end equivalent to ~13.5mm on my 11-24/4L (which has almost no geometric distortion at 13-14mm), and equivalent corner sharpness. The 14-35/4 is relatively small and light, and takes convenient 77mm front filters (meaning it makes a great travel kit with the 24-105/4L and 100-500L).

 

[SwissFrank]

a lens that REQUIRES correction to work properly

You say that like it's a bad thing. It actually doesn't matter. It blurs by at most .5 pixels, which would only be visible on an R5 if you had 130 lp/mm resolution, which no lens does. And with 24mm you're not even going to have most of the shot focused well enough to worry about 1-pixel-wide details.

Even pixel-peeping I doubt you'd be able to show the loss, not even in a staged, unrealistic scenario.

Really, post an example. Even explain textually even a hypothetical, staged example where they thing you're mocking even could possibly be detected much less matter.