Ultrawide L lens coming in the first half of 2023

[Canon Rumors Guy]

One of many missing pieces to the RF lens line-up is an ultra-wide L zoom, and an RF 10-24mm f/4L USM has been rumoured for quite some time. We have been told that an ultra-wide L zoom for the RF mount will come in the first half of 2023, though it may be announced after

See full article...

 

[davidespinosa]

Wow, the EF 11-24mm f/4L costs US $3000 !
Didn't realize it was so much...

Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens

Buy Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens featuring EF-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format, Aperture Range: f/4 to f/22, One Super UD and One UD Element, Four Aspherical Elements, SWC, Air Sphere, and Fluorine Coatings, Ring-Type Ultrasonic Motor AF System, Weather-Sealed Construction, Rounded 9-Blade...

www.bhphotovideo.com

 

[koenkooi]

This rumour coincides with Canon publishing a patent application for ultra wides. If the patents are for the rumoured lens, it looks like it won't be a 10-24mm.

 

[photophil]

Wow, the EF 11-24mm f/4L costs US $3000 !
Didn't realize it was so much...

Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens

Buy Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens featuring EF-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format, Aperture Range: f/4 to f/22, One Super UD and One UD Element, Four Aspherical Elements, SWC, Air Sphere, and Fluorine Coatings, Ring-Type Ultrasonic Motor AF System, Weather-Sealed Construction, Rounded 9-Blade...

www.bhphotovideo.com

Glad I have no skin in the UW game, if the RF lens has similar specs it will probably not be cheaper than this.

 

[neuroanatomist]

One of the great things about using the EF 11-24 on an R body is the drop-in filter adapter. To me, that’s more useful than an extra millimeter on the wide end.

 

[TonyG]

One of the great things about using the EF 11-24 on an R body is the drop-in filter adapter. To me, that’s more useful than an extra millimeter on the wide end.

Unless they do what I have seen on some other lenses where they leave an indent on the rear lens mount for a custom filter.
The RF drop in adapter method is still more useful and practical than cutting pieces of a filter to put behind the lens.
Maybe they will incorporate a drop in right in the lens, kind of the same thing they have with the super teles? You will just lose any compactness by having the lens an inch longer.

 

[TonyG]

I wonder what the Astro lens would be?
I really hope we get a 14mm 1.8. I like my GM but I would sell it in a heartbeat for an RF.

It will be a happy day for the credit card companies if we get a 14, 24, 35 release on the same day lol

 

[koenkooi]

Unless they do what I have seen on some other lenses where they leave an indent on the rear lens mount for a custom filter.
The RF drop in adapter method is still more useful and practical than cutting pieces of a filter to put behind the lens.
Maybe they will incorporate a drop in right in the lens, kind of the same thing they have with the super teles? You will just lose any compactness by having the lens an inch longer.

If they do, I sure hope they'll use the same filters as the drop-in adapter! But I fear they'll recess the lens very far into the body to make as much use of the lack of a mirror as they can.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Unless they do what I have seen on some other lenses where they leave an indent on the rear lens mount for a custom filter.
The RF drop in adapter method is still more useful and practical than cutting pieces of a filter to put behind the lens.
Maybe they will incorporate a drop in right in the lens, kind of the same thing they have with the super teles? You will just lose any compactness by having the lens an inch longer.

The EF 11-24 has a gel filter slot on the mount, and I used to carry a packet of cut ND10 gels. They’re rather a PITA to use, and of course that option doesn’t allow a CPL filter.

A drop-in slot that takes the filters for the EF adapter would be great. I doubt it’ll happen, but one can hope.

It is possible to front-filter the 11-24 (I did not do so with mine), and probably would be with a 10-24 as well. The problem is that requires dinner plate-sized filters. I have the front filter setup for my TS-E 17 (there is no gel slot on that lens), which requires merely salad plate-sized filters, and I vastly prefer the rear drop-in.

 

[peters]

One of the great things about using the EF 11-24 on an R body is the drop-in filter adapter. To me, that’s more useful than an extra millimeter on the wide end.

Jeah, I agree.
Though it would be an even more unique and impressive look. It would be also great, if the RF 10-24 would be a bit smaller and lighter for gimbal work.

I must say that (besides the 24-70) my 11-24 is actualy the lense that was most important so far in my work. Unique architecture, imagephotos, imagefilms, photos in tight spaces, industrialy photography... lots and lots of situation where I got very easily great and impressive results for my corporate clients... I found it to be of incredible value. Also for landscape and travel (though its very heavy)

 

[tbgtomcom]

I've been shooting real estate with the RF 15-35 f/2.8 and it's been awesome... but of course you "always" want that little bit wider shot, especially when some rooms are small. This lens would be perfect for that. I just picked up the Laowa RF 12mm f/2.8 and it's doing a fantastic job... but of course it's fully manual and a prime so you're stuck at just 12mm, which means swapping lenses when needed. This would be a tough price to swallow though, as the EF version is not cheap.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

This rumour coincides with Canon publishing a patent application for ultra wides. If the patents are for the rumoured lens, it looks like it won't be a 10-24mm.

I would much rather it be one of these:
https://www.canonwatch.com/canon-pa...8-is-and-already-released-rf-14-35mm-f-4l-is/
Especially the 12-24 f/2.8 IS even though that is bound to cost a fortune.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Glad I have no skin in the UW game, if the RF lens has similar specs it will probably not be cheaper than this.

I would expect Canon to up the specs and charge more.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Unless they do what I have seen on some other lenses where they leave an indent on the rear lens mount for a custom filter.
The RF drop in adapter method is still more useful and practical than cutting pieces of a filter to put behind the lens.
Maybe they will incorporate a drop in right in the lens, kind of the same thing they have with the super teles? You will just lose any compactness by having the lens an inch longer.

If it is going to be well over $3K then maybe they can go with a drop-in rear filter.

 

[Deepboy]

One of many missing pieces to the RF lens line-up is an ultra-wide L zoom

See full article...

14-35 and 15-35 are both ultra-wide L zooms imho

 

[neuroanatomist]

A drop-in slot that takes the filters for the EF adapter would be great. I doubt it’ll happen, but one can hope.

Looking at the multiple patents, there's no drop-in slot. Keeping my EF 11-24/4L seems like the better option.

 

[Del Paso]

I would expect Canon to up the specs and charge more.

Lots more...

 

[TonyG]

It is possible to front-filter the 11-24 (I did not do so with mine), and probably would be with a 10-24 as well. The problem is that requires dinner plate-sized filters. I have the front filter setup for my TS-E 17 (there is no gel slot on that lens), which requires merely salad plate-sized filters, and I vastly prefer the rear drop-in.

I like the Nisi system but yes they are massive. And a nice wind sail if you are taking landscapes on a windy day (when is it never windy beside a large body of water)

 

[TonyG]

14-35 and 15-35 are both ultra-wide L zooms imho

The difference between the prime and the zoom will be the corner sharpness, chromatic aberration and distortion.
If a 14mm comes out and it's like the EF at 2.8, then it does not solve any astro or evening / dusk landscape issues. If it's a 1.8, then you get a 1 1/3 stop of more light in.
In the astro realm, you just halved your shutter time. You can go from an 8 second shutter to just under a 4 second shutter.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The difference between the prime and the zoom will be the corner sharpness, chromatic aberration and distortion.
If a 14mm comes out and it's like the EF at 2.8, then it does not solve any astro or evening / dusk landscape issues. If it's a 1.8, then you get a 1 1/3 stop of more light in.
In the astro realm, you just halved your shutter time. You can go from an 8 second shutter to just under a 4 second shutter.

I think @Deepboy's point is that CRguy stated that an ultrawide L zoom is missing from the RF lineup, when in fact there are already two UWA L zooms for RF, the 14-35/4 and 15-35/2.8.