What’s a “realistic” lens that you’d like to see Canon make?

Apr 17, 2017
269
309
Placitas, NM
www.flickr.com
I am very attracted by the 70-135L f:2 that is already announced, but the price and weight are going to be punishing. How about a 70-135 f:2.5 or 2.8 IS that one can hand-carry for more than 5 minutes, that is of a more mangeable form factor and that does not require one to mortgage the house to purchase it? I see gaps in the RF offering where we are seeing either good, reasonably-priced and quite OK lenses (35mm 1.8, etc..) or $2,500+ super-extraordinary L glass. The EF range has a number of very interesting L lenses in the $800-$1600 price range that appeal to non-professional photographers, will they ever be catered for (the 24-105L was a good start but I see no follow-up)?
How about "no"? 70-135 f/2 is part of the f/2 trinity. Why would you want a 70-135 f/2.8 when the compact/light RF 70-200 f/2.8 already exists? Have you ever used it? The size/weight is perfect. If you like the idea of range-limited zooms with small maximum apertures, buy a GFX.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,288
1,129
How about "no"? 70-135 f/2 is part of the f/2 trinity. Why would you want a 70-135 f/2.8 when the compact/light RF 70-200 f/2.8 already exists? Have you ever used it? The size/weight is perfect. If you like the idea of range-limited zooms with small maximum apertures, buy a GFX.
Tamron is going to release Sony E mount 70-180/2.8 which is a much much smaller lens with 67mm filter and weight around 700g if I recall correctly. Price is around US$1200. This is going to be a one very popular E mount lens.
 
Apr 17, 2017
269
309
Placitas, NM
www.flickr.com
Tamron is going to release Sony E mount 70-180/2.8 which is a much much smaller lens with 67mm filter and weight around 700g if I recall correctly. Price is around US$1200. This is going to be a one very popular E mount lens.
Big difference between 70-135 and 70-180.

An RF 70-180 f/2.8 (non-L) would face stiff competition from the sure-to-come RF 70-200 f/4L.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,288
1,129
Big difference between 70-135 and 70-180.

An RF 70-180 f/2.8 (non-L) would face stiff competition from the sure-to-come RF 70-200 f/4L.
Sorry. I am afraid that I have failed to Defend my point.
The size and weight was the major factor when decided between 70-200/2.8 and 70-200/4.
It was a compromise for many.
with a smaller 70-180/2.8 this is no longer the case for many.
With 70-135/2.8 the size and weight of the lenses can be further reduced down to around 400gr.
A compact and light travel lenses. Excellent for controlled studio light portraiture when shooting stopped down anyway. Or even for candid flash assisted portraiture when shoot stopped down.
Personally, I favour 70-180/2.8 over 70-200/4 any day. an extra stop advantage is indispensable in low light run and gun situation. I can see myself sacrificing the 180-200 end easily for an extra stop of light and a substantial size and weight reduction. Especially that with 45Mp sensor of R5 cropability would be an unlikely issue.
And finally, RF 70-135/2.8 would be a relatively inexpensive lens. Even from Canon.

p.s. https://photorumors.com/2020/04/03/...ny-e-mount-to-be-announced-next-week/#respond

 
Last edited:
Sep 13, 2019
1
0
I'd second the RF 135 f1.x; the EF 135 f2 is my favorite lens ever.

That said, I'd also really love to see an RF 600mm f5.6L for us mere mortal hobbyists who either a) can't afford a $12k 600mm f4, or b) wouldn't want to carry that insurance liability around. If sigma can make a 600mm f6.3 zoom for a grand, surely Canon can make an RF 600mm f5.6L prime for $3k-4k.

I will go with the rumoured 135 1.4
 

Dj 7th

EOS R
Apr 22, 2019
25
42
Please hear me out first. I may not be very eloquent at explaining this......

I will like to see an RF- 10-24 f/4, I know it is already rumored. However, I will like to see the lens have slots for 52mm drop-in-filters. I do not know anything about engineering of lenses or if it is possible, just my wish so that I would not have to carry around those crazy sized 150-180 filter adapters.

As a matter of fact, I wish all extreme wide angle lens that does not have filter treads have drop-in-filter slots.
 

Traveler

EOS R
Oct 6, 2019
30
54
Lightweight small lenses.
I don’t mind having a big camera since it’s always at my hip. But I’m getting tired of heavy lenses in my backpack. I use 24-105 f/4 and it’s quite big and heavy but it’s fine since it’s my main lens. But I’d really appreciate small and lightweight:
- fisheye
- wide-angle lens (f/4 or 4-5.6)
- 50/1.8
- 85/1.8
- 70-300 f/5.6 (or similar)
- maybe ~100mm macro.
 
Feb 15, 2020
267
198
I've only been in this hobby for eight years, and the thing I have been waiting for that whole time is the elusive EF 50mm 1.2L that actually focuses and doesn''t have so many secondary problems. Given the clamor over those years for that lens I'm surprised that every second response here doesn't mention it. Maybe everyone lost hope so long ago that they no longer regard it as "possible."
I was waiting for such a lens for a long time for EF mount. I gave up and bought an EOS R with the RF 50mm 1.2L. That's the lens you have been waiting for.. it just happens to be on a different mount :p
 

derpderp

Pixel Peeper
Jan 31, 2020
149
178
Sorry. I am afraid that I have failed to Defend my point.
The size and weight was the major factor when decided between 70-200/2.8 and 70-200/4.
It was a compromise for many.
with a smaller 70-180/2.8 this is no longer the case for many.
With 70-135/2.8 the size and weight of the lenses can be further reduced down to around 400gr.
A compact and light travel lenses. Excellent for controlled studio light portraiture when shooting stopped down anyway. Or even for candid flash assisted portraiture when shoot stopped down.
Personally, I favour 70-180/2.8 over 70-200/4 any day. an extra stop advantage is indispensable in low light run and gun situation. I can see myself sacrificing the 180-200 end easily for an extra stop of light and a substantial size and weight reduction. Especially that with 45Mp sensor of R5 cropability would be an unlikely issue.
And finally, RF 70-135/2.8 would be a relatively inexpensive lens. Even from Canon.

p.s. https://photorumors.com/2020/04/03/...ny-e-mount-to-be-announced-next-week/#respond
Interesting point. But i'd just get the 135mm F1.4/F1.2 prime if I were you. I'm sure it's in the RF pipeline. Then again, I've been travelling (before this dastardly virus took over the world) with my RF 15-35, 28-70 and 70-200, without breaking a sweat. So i guess my weight tolerance is much higher than yours.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,288
1,129
Interesting point. But i'd just get the 135mm F1.4/F1.2 prime if I were you. I'm sure it's in the RF pipeline. Then again, I've been travelling (before this dastardly virus took over the world) with my RF 15-35, 28-70 and 70-200, without breaking a sweat. So i guess my weight tolerance is much higher than yours.
135mm F1.2 prime would come with at least 110mm front element size. 2.2Kg - at least.

I suggest you have a feel of the Sigma 105/1.4 Art prime with 105mm front filter (1.8kg approx ???)
I owned one at some stage (shortly). it is a fine portrait lens, however holding the monstrosity for couple of hours is uncomfortable.
On an another note, 105/1.4 Art is a seriously intimidating lens. not so good for keeping your subjects relaxed and comfy.

++++ I've been travelling (before this dastardly virus took over the world) with my RF 15-35, 28-70 and 70-200

yeah, you could... by then you you can travel with much lighter lenses instead and still achieve an excellent result ;)

15-35/4 + 24-70/2.8 + 70-180/2.8
 
  • Haha
Reactions: derpderp

Memdroid

EOS 90D
Nov 12, 2013
153
73
Wow, almost no mention of a 300mm?
Here is hoping that Canon releases a Rf 300mm f2.8 IS that gets a similar treatment like the RF70-200mm. Smaller, lighter, and maybe added features like a built in 1.4x TC
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eclipsed

Codebunny

EOS R0 Mark III
Sep 5, 2018
482
428
Wow, almost no mention of a 300mm?
Here is hoping that Canon releases a Rf 300mm f2.8 IS that gets a similar treatment like the RF70-200mm. Smaller, lighter, and maybe added features like a built in 1.4x TC
A 100-300 f/2.8 zoom with a build in TC would be an amazing sports lens. I don't think you'll see RF70-200 treatment here, but we can see on the EF 400 and 600 that they can drop a good bit of weight.
 

Eclipsed

EOS R5, "Hefty Fifty" and more.
Apr 30, 2020
101
88
Sorry. I am afraid that I have failed to Defend my point.
The size and weight was the major factor when decided between 70-200/2.8 and 70-200/4.
It was a compromise for many.
with a smaller 70-180/2.8 this is no longer the case for many.
With 70-135/2.8 the size and weight of the lenses can be further reduced down to around 400gr.
A compact and light travel lenses. Excellent for controlled studio light portraiture when shooting stopped down anyway. Or even for candid flash assisted portraiture when shoot stopped down.
Personally, I favour 70-180/2.8 over 70-200/4 any day. an extra stop advantage is indispensable in low light run and gun situation. I can see myself sacrificing the 180-200 end easily for an extra stop of light and a substantial size and weight reduction. Especially that with 45Mp sensor of R5 cropability would be an unlikely issue.
And finally, RF 70-135/2.8 would be a relatively inexpensive lens. Even from Canon.

p.s. https://photorumors.com/2020/04/03/...ny-e-mount-to-be-announced-next-week/#respond

I note that the Canon RF70-20 is shorter than your Tamron 70-180.
 

Eclipsed

EOS R5, "Hefty Fifty" and more.
Apr 30, 2020
101
88
RF300 f2.8 with detachable rear housing for EF use and full lightening treatment like 400 f2.8 IS III. Maybe DO.
 

Eclipsed

EOS R5, "Hefty Fifty" and more.
Apr 30, 2020
101
88
Point in case though is that a 70-180 lens will be smaller and lighter than 70-200 one. I hope it clarifies.
My typo aside I’m trying to square your point with the reality that the RF is shorter by a hair than the Tamron.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,288
1,129
My typo aside I’m trying to square your point with the reality that the RF is shorter by a hair than the Tamron.
Righto. With both lenses in question being an extending design, I guess, Canon implementation is more efficient length of the lens wise.
however, going by 20mm shorter, the girth of the lens can be reduced by around 10%