Two new RF L mount lenses rumored for 2021 [CR1]

Franklyok

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 24, 2018
87
31
70 - 135 f2.0 , with 8 stop ibis enabler ( like 28 - 70 f2.0) and no focus breathing ( like rf 70 - 200 is 2.8 ) would be dream lens.
 
I still wish Canon would come out with a 120-300 f/2.8, or something like that. Hard to swallow that Nikon has such a useful lens and Canon doesn't.
I had the Sigma 120-300 for quite a long time, it was a bit too heavy and slightly slower focusing than the new canon 100-400 but it was amazingly sharp. If canon put out one I would think it would be considerably lighter and have native autofocus and stability so would pretty much be amazing. Was my go to lens for owls at dusk and was still excellent with the canon 2x teleconverter.
 

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
176
229
Kenosha, WI
More ridiculous lenses for RF if true. Stop dicking around and just release a 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8, 500 f/4 and 600 f/5.6 DO
Why is that so crucial for you, when the EF versions are fine for now? They're clearly focusing on things either EF doesn't have, or are mediocre on EF that they can do significantly better on RF (50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2, 24 - 105, etc.). I am happily using my adapted EF glass alongside my RF lenses, it's not a problem in any way.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,657
881
600 f/5.6 DO I understand*! (And I would be tempted). All the rest are a waste of resources. They can't be better than their excellent EF counterparts (and they cannot be mounted on cameras like 1DxIII and 5DsR :D :cool: )

* Provided that they will make an EF version too!
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
461
496
We need something for the mortals too. Where is a 200-600 type of lens under $2000?
Sony has a great one, Nikon will have one too soon.
 

Eclipsed

EOS R5, "Hefty Fifty" and more.
Apr 30, 2020
143
143
I now see that this essentially *is* a 500 f4. But "chopped to provide the wide view, with the magnification available with a TC. Current 500 f4 is $9k. No reason for this to be more except unless improved like the 400 f2.8 iii was for lightening. $10k with both TCs would be nice.

I'd avoid an internal TC as adding needless weight and length to carry around all the time.
 

Eclipsed

EOS R5, "Hefty Fifty" and more.
Apr 30, 2020
143
143
We need something for the mortals too. Where is a 200-600 type of lens under $2000?
Sony has a great one, Nikon will have one too soon.
Add the very useful 100-200mm range, and trim the needless 500-600 range, and add a little in price, and they just released it a few weeks ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
98
21
The 24-105 STM, 35 STM and 85 STM are what I consider "smaller", which lenses and sizes are you looking for?
Yeah, the 35mm is small, and I was considering this as my next lens, but it seems to have pretty bad vignetting and a lot of coma.
 

Dantana

EOS RP
Jan 29, 2013
303
154
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
Yeah, the 35mm is small, and I was considering this as my next lens, but it seems to have pretty bad vignetting and a lot of coma.
Interesting. I hadn't heard that. Most of the reviews I have read have been pretty positive. Good to know. The only thing holding me back on the 35 or 85 is that I already have those lenses covered in EF. I'm hoping that we see a smallish 50 soon, but it at least now feels like they are trying to hit the standard, pro, and ridiculous lenses.
 
Last edited:

davidcl0nel

Canon 5D3, 17 TSE, 35 IS, 100 L, 70-200 2.8 IS II
Jan 11, 2014
139
11
Berlin
www.flickr.com
The EF 400mm f/2.8 IS 1 has nearly the double weight of the much newer 400mm IS III - so why not? (5370g vs 2840g)
A 500 f/2.8 with the current technics should be lighter than the IS 1... and this was a top lens once....