What’s a “realistic” lens that you’d like to see Canon make?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
A long macro, with IS, e.g. RF200mm f/4L MACRO IS. I don't particularly care about the focus motor, silent would be a plus, as would be raw speed. Also, it has to be black, like the EF180mm L macro
For me a 200mm f/2.8L Macro IS. I love the Sigma 180 but faster/more accurate AF would be a help.
Or even a true macro telephoto zoom, I believe Nikon makes (made?) one, say 80-200mm.
Upvote
0
Duh! Any EF lens works with the drop in adapter, nobody was talking about adapters, the 11-24, heck even the 8-15 are rear end filterable with an adapter...
Upvote
0
We weren't talking kits! I was one of the first people to buy the Fotodiox kit for the TS-E17, so what?
Nikon don't make an 11-35 Z so your friend is doing well!
However if he owns the Nikkor Z 14-30mm f/4 he does in fact have the worlds first and so far only front filterable FF 14mm rectilinear lens. That is a real achievement in lens design, however I would caution you can't actually see the optical characteristics of the lens because all the Z bodies automatically correct for distortion and vignetting automatically and you can't turn it off, even the viewfinder shows the corrected image...
Upvote
0
Plenty of amazing EF and RF options already available or planned. Any of these might force me to part with more money though:
1. RF 35mm f1.4L USM
2. RF 15-35mm f4L IS USM
3. Affordable non-L 40mm f/2 pancake
3. Affordable non-L RF 200mm-400mm+ IS
4. RF 90mm f2.0L TS Macro
5. RF 135mm f1.8L IS USM
6. RF 50mm f1.4L USM
1. RF 35mm f1.4L USM
2. RF 15-35mm f4L IS USM
3. Affordable non-L 40mm f/2 pancake
3. Affordable non-L RF 200mm-400mm+ IS
4. RF 90mm f2.0L TS Macro
5. RF 135mm f1.8L IS USM
6. RF 50mm f1.4L USM
Upvote
0
Non-L f/1.8 primes in R mount. 28mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8. Why sell the RP with only one affordable lens available?
Upvote
0
It really is, once you work up to it!
Mine got a lot of use on a weeks-long safari just over a month ago. I keep telling myself the photos I got (and a lot really are great) are worth all the aches.
Upvote
0
My dream exists. I could never justify the expense. The RF 70-200 2.8
With that, we could take amazing pictures of all our kids indoor school events. Orchestra, play, indoor soccer, piano recitals, graduations, etc. At 2.8, it would even make a very solid portrait lens covering plenty of range. No f/1.2, but plenty fast for our needs.
Make a 2.00x extender for that one, and couldn’t imagine needing anything else.
For most anything we do now, we have no complaints about the RF 24-240 in good light and the 35 1.8 we currently have.
With that, we could take amazing pictures of all our kids indoor school events. Orchestra, play, indoor soccer, piano recitals, graduations, etc. At 2.8, it would even make a very solid portrait lens covering plenty of range. No f/1.2, but plenty fast for our needs.
Make a 2.00x extender for that one, and couldn’t imagine needing anything else.
For most anything we do now, we have no complaints about the RF 24-240 in good light and the 35 1.8 we currently have.
Upvote
0
DO Lens? The 500 f4 II is reasonably light in the big white group, but it did not get the weight reduction treatment received by the 400 III and 600 III. My thought was Canon might have saved the 300I II and 500 II for weight reduction on the RF mount. “Lightweight” might also be a relative term to those (like me) who carry an 8lb 200-400 f4 lL IS w/integrated 1.4 x TC. I am getting older and have been focusing on shedding weight from my kit. My problem is I love the IQ and faster aperture of the big whites.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Tony's answer about Ra is the funniest answer among all. Smh
I would love to see an RF 35 f1.0 with the micro-contrast of the RF 85 f1.2. (Not something as flat as the Sigma 35 f1.2).
For most of my purpose, the f2 trinity zoom covered everything.
I would love to see an RF 35 f1.0 with the micro-contrast of the RF 85 f1.2. (Not something as flat as the Sigma 35 f1.2).
For most of my purpose, the f2 trinity zoom covered everything.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You are correct and my apologies on his lens. It is front filtered and is nice to have 2mm wider than the 16-35 and for landscape the f4 is sufficient and reduces weight and size. Nice lens and I hope Canon does something similar.
Upvote
0
I have some pretty simple requests:
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM II... An update of a good old lens. Add in IS would be a bonus.
A series of EF-M primes with USM focus drive, real manual focus rings and able to override AF any time. They also need to have focus scales. 10mm or 12mm, 16mm, 21 or 22mm, 35 or 36mm, 50mm and 85mm. These should all be fast but affordable... f/2.8 wide angles, f/2 or f/1.4 for the 21/22mm... At least f/1.4 for the rest, although if they snuck in one or two f/1.2s, that would be cool, so long as they kept them compact and fairly affordable.
It's time the EF-M lens line got some respect! They should offer an M5 Mark II with 32.5MP too, to complement the new EF-M lenses.
Oh, and while we're making requests, it's time for a 7D Mark III, too.
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM II... An update of a good old lens. Add in IS would be a bonus.
A series of EF-M primes with USM focus drive, real manual focus rings and able to override AF any time. They also need to have focus scales. 10mm or 12mm, 16mm, 21 or 22mm, 35 or 36mm, 50mm and 85mm. These should all be fast but affordable... f/2.8 wide angles, f/2 or f/1.4 for the 21/22mm... At least f/1.4 for the rest, although if they snuck in one or two f/1.2s, that would be cool, so long as they kept them compact and fairly affordable.
It's time the EF-M lens line got some respect! They should offer an M5 Mark II with 32.5MP too, to complement the new EF-M lenses.
Oh, and while we're making requests, it's time for a 7D Mark III, too.
Upvote
0
Such a lens would be similar to the RF 28-70/f2.0 in size.. and price. still interested?
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 381342
Guest
After getting the 50mm 1.8S for my z6. I would love to see Canon bring out a range of 1.8 L glass, it is the sweet spot for the smaller mirrorless cameras when I need a walk about camera for non-wildlife. Until then my path is Canon for wildlife and Nikon for weddings/walkabout.
Other than a range of 1.8's, I would love a 200 f/2.8 like the EF one(small and compact take anywhere wildlife lens), and something different in the big white field: instead of a smaller 600 DO lets get a 800 or a DO zoom to make the 200-400 look like yesterdays tech.
Other than a range of 1.8's, I would love a 200 f/2.8 like the EF one(small and compact take anywhere wildlife lens), and something different in the big white field: instead of a smaller 600 DO lets get a 800 or a DO zoom to make the 200-400 look like yesterdays tech.
Upvote
0
It really is, once you work up to it!
Mine got a lot of use on a weeks-long safari just over a month ago. I keep telling myself the photos I got (and a lot really are great) are worth all the aches.
I use the 500L f/4 II and it's fine, but while everyone's definition of 'light' differs, and bearing in mind the mark III supertelephotos shaved off a lo of weight, I don't think such a lens wil ever be lightweight (that was my point). Also people bring up DO, but while this can help, the main thing is the size of the front element, which is esentially fixed.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
