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

BeenThere

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2012
1,224
654
Eastern Shore
I'd agree with that statement in general, but with this additional comment: Canon making a lens of full L quality would mean their best seals, materials, and best optical design they could do, which IMHO would be the best *anyone* could ever hope for, and thus I'd consider it a "real" L lens if the MSRP was $2K or more as I'm sure it would be "superb enough" for that difficult range. I'd be happy with either the fixed f4 or variable f3.5(or whatever)-5.6 as long as it's their best L version & quality possible.
Interesting trade as a travel lens 1. One heavy beast with slightly compromised optics vs 2. Two light lenses with better optics over more limited zoom ranges: say 17-28 & 28-70mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
728
791
Kentucky, USA
Interesting trade as a travel lens 1. One heavy beast with slightly compromised optics vs 2. Two light lenses with better optics over more limited zoom ranges: say 17-28 & 28-70mm.
Well, at f4 or so think a 17-70 L IS would be around 700g, which I wouldn't call a "heavy beast" - well "somewhat heavy" might be fair. ;) It would be interesting to see if that was true.

And at the moment there aren't two comparable lightweight zooms spanning 17 to 70 mm, and even if there were I've already got two RF f2.8 L zooms for that (although someone new might better enjoy a 15-35 f4 to go along with their 24-105 f4). But the whole point of the 17-70 is to just have 1 high quality but lighter weight lens doing it, which would be *huge* to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

john1970

EOS M6 Mark II
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
97
101
Northeastern US
For my needs I only see 2-3 RF mounts needed:

1) a fast (f1.2)) wide angle prime lens between 24-35 mm; a 35 mm f1.2 L would be ideal
2) a RF 500 mm f4 L lens that would play nicely with the recently announced TCs
3) lastly, a 100 mm 1:1 macro L lens
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
491
732
You know, the more time I think about it, I think Canon would be wise to release a small-ish 24mm F/2. I've been debating picking up the RF 28-70 F/2, which is an excellent lens, but some of my most common uses for the EF 24-70 are at 24mm. It would be nice to be able to have a small, fast 24mm RF lens in a small pocket of my belt kit to use when I'm in need of 24mm. I know there's an EF F/2.8 version, but F/2 would be nice to continue the RF 28-70 on a wider scale.

That said, I could see myself ending up with a zoom like a RF 16-24mm F/2 and not complaining at all either.
 

VivaLasVegas

I'm New Here
Aug 16, 2020
10
8
For me would be, an internally zooming RF 70-200 F2.8, with a built in extender(2x) and a reducer(.7x). It should also weigh less than 1400g, since the current RF 70-200 F2.8 is a little over 1050g. As a benchmark, without the 2x & .7x, it must match or better the theoretical MTF of Z 70-200 f2.8. This should sell like hot cakes, if the price is less than $2400. Canon should make it happen since some users prefer internally zooming 70-200 F2.8. They can also craft the 2x and .7x specifically for the 70-200 F2.8. It's a win-win situation for Canon and its users. Think about it, the portability of the original RF 70-200 F2.8 and the versatility of RF 70-200 F2.8 built-in 2x & .7x.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
728
791
Kentucky, USA
For me would be, an internally zooming RF 70-200 F2.8, with a built in extender(2x) and a reducer(.7x). It should also weigh less than 1400g, since the current RF 70-200 F2.8 is a little over 1050g. As a benchmark, without the 2x & .7x, it must match or better the theoretical MTF of Z 70-200 f2.8. This should sell like hot cakes, if the price is less than $2400. Canon should make it happen since some users prefer internally zooming 70-200 F2.8. They can also craft the 2x and .7x specifically for the 70-200 F2.8. It's a win-win situation for Canon and its users. Think about it, the portability of the original RF 70-200 F2.8 and the versatility of RF 70-200 F2.8 built-in 2x & .7x.
I think it would be pretty hard to physically build that kind of lens in FF without making it really big & heavy and with considerably less IQ than the existing RF 70-200 has. - That's just my guess, and of course I could be wrong. And I'd be surprised if they did make magic happen that they'd sell it for less than the current RF 70-200.
 

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
680
662
I would like to see built in 1.4x extenders in all the big primes. But perhaps that is just added cost, though there certainly seems to be some value too it. Perhaps just on the RF 600 f/4 since there seems little desire to make 800mm lenses.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
728
791
Kentucky, USA
I would like to see built in 1.4x extenders in all the big primes. But perhaps that is just added cost, though there certainly seems to be some value too it. Perhaps just on the RF 600 f/4 since there seems little desire to make 800mm lenses.
Well, I'd hope they don't add extenders in *all* their big primes, as they're big & heavy enough without them. If I want to add an extender I'd rather just add one on so you have the option. But I'm the kind of person that doesn't usually want to add one anyway, since I could use a quality upsampling code and enjoy a wider view for framing and extra beyond-the-edge cropping in post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

mbiedermann

I'm New Here
CR Pro
Jul 1, 2013
9
3
I'd love to see an RF 100mm F1.8 L Macro IS USM. My EF 100mm F2.8 L Macro was my preferred lens. Period. Now that I've switched to the R6, I'm hoping the RF model could be even better, possibly with a wider opening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
241
166
I think this one was rumored once before... RF 14-28mm F2 L USM (the potential F2 trinity to the 28-70, and the rumored 70-135).
 

koenkooi

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,487
1,289
I'd love to see an RF 100mm F1.8 L Macro IS USM. My EF 100mm F2.8 L Macro was my preferred lens. Period. Now that I've switched to the R6, I'm hoping the RF model could be even better, possibly with a wider opening.
I think the release of the RF85/2 lens killed the chance of an 100/1.8 macro happening. I think proper 1:1 macro lenses will remain f/2.8 or slower.
 

Swerky

G1X Mark III
Sep 3, 2020
18
15
I’m all for compact and optically decent lenses. For the R I’d like to see a rebirth of their old ef 20mm f2.8. Perhaps they can even do an 18mm f2.8 or 3.5 with IS

I was hoping they’d make a better general zoom lens for Eos m but seems that won’t be the case anymore. Something like a 17-70 f2.8-4. Or 15-50 f4. Should still be compact enough for the system.