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

[Traveler]

= RF 15-35 f4 (IS) – small and light
= RF 70-300 f4.5-5.6 IS – more compact than the EF one
= Compact RF fisheye.
= RF 85 1.8 IS
Are they boring?

 

[tron]

How about a Canon RF 600mm f5.6 DO IS [Mk 1] for $7,399?
Or are you talking more like the old but super sharp and fast focusing EF 400mm f5.6?

You are 1 hour and 1 minute late

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

I posted the question of what lens you’d like to see Canon make, the only rule is it had to be somewhat realistic. No “RF 10-1000mm f/1L IS 1.4-2.0x USM” sort of suggestions. I started with a lens I have wanted for the EF mount, and now I’d like to see it for the RF mount. I love the 28mm focal...

www.canonrumors.com

Now can you lower the price a little ? (or more?) please?

 

[slclick]

A duo or trio of RF pancakes, don't have to be too fast...2.8 or so. Just small. That might help get me in the door.

 

[TAF]

I just picked up a 50mm f/1.0 (mostly as a collector's item). But with my luck, there's an RF 50mm f/0.87 L on the way.

I hope you're right!

Does it need IS?

 

[TAF]

Not a lens per se, but a nice bellows device as they made for the FL years ago would be most excellent.

And it should be cheap (but it wouldn't be).

 

[rwvaughn]

I'd like a 50-135mm f/2.0 IS lens. Would be perfect for high school sports gyms. wrestling, volleyball, basketball

 

[Ph0t0]

I would like to see some lenses like these:

RF 15-35mm f4 IS (a light carry around lens)
RF 24-70mm f4 IS (as light as possible)
RF 70-200mm f4 IS (as light as possible)

RF 14mm f1,4 (f1,2 or f1,8 would be fine as well) with as little vignetting as possible

200mm f4 IS MACRO (180mm or more and IS)

500mm f5,6 DO IS (as sharp and light as possible)
500mm or 600 f4 DO IS

RF 18 or 20mm f2,8 Tilt-Shift with AF when in neutral position (I don't know how possible this is, especially if it doesn't have heavy vignetting - maybe someone who has more technical knowledge can explain what it would take to create a 20mm 2.8 TS lens)

 

[WhereDoWeGoFrmHere]

20 f1.4L
20 f2.8 II (love the focal length, hate everything else about the current 20mm)
50 f1.4L IS
58 f1.4
60 f2.8L IS 1.1 Macro (60-70mm, a wider version of the 100L)
135 f2L IS (135L is wonderful but needs IS)

 

[ncvarsity3]

What are you going to put on that 2x extender?

RF 70-200 2.8. That'll give me a "reasonably" priced long lens that does the job and I'll still have a 70-200. Win-win.

 

[unfocused]

RF 70-200 2.8. That'll give me a "reasonably" priced long lens that does the job and I'll still have a 70-200. Win-win.

Sadly, it appears that the 70-200 won't fit. I know. I know. I didn't believe it either.

 

[Richard CR]

Continue reading...

I"m not sure how realistic a 14mm F1.2 is .. but I guess it is for Tony

 

[twoheadedboy]

Ultrawide f/4 zoom...come on guys, want to replace my 16 - 35 on an adapter
28mm f/1.4 IS or f/1.2...I am just not a fan of fixed 24mm or 35mm, 28mm is perfect for my mind's eye
50mm f/1.4 IS...the f/1.2 is superb but a bit overkill for me at this focal length.
85mm f/1.4 IS...I love my EF, but adapter...
How about that 70 - 135 f/2...would be even better if it was macro
The ultrawidest, biggest aperture rectilinear lens you can make under $10k. If that's 14mm f/1.4 or 13mm f/4 or 10mm f/5.6 or whatever it is down in there and it's sharp, I'm about it. Even better if it takes screw-on filters in the front.

 

[Uneternal]

Oh STFU Tool you effin Sony hand puppet, you don't even use Canon.

 

[SecureGSM]

I own the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 for astro. It's great! but it's a DSLR lens, and Sigma makes it for the Nikon F mount, which means they had to design their optics around a very small opening with a big flange distance. That's a big deal for fast, super-wide lenses, which benefit the most from the wide openings and short flange distances of modern mirrorless mounts. Canon could certainly make a 14mm lens one stop faster for their R mount. No doubt it would be huge, but so is the Sigma, and it's always on a tripod, anyway. BTW, the vignetting isn't ever a real-world problem for me... We've been testing the Canon 24-240 RF which has serious vignetting and distortion at 24mm, but the camera and Lightroom both automatically correct for it in post, which means you never see any problem with your images. I am fine with that.

Hi Tony,
First off, thank you for running your YouTube channel.
Let me provide some Perspective on 14/1.8 vs 14/1.2 subject.
As we are well aware, an elevated vignetting levels on RF mount are associated with a shorter mount flange distance. A longer lenses are less affected as there is no requirement for light to be bent at extreme angles. As we all aware. Ticked.
with shorter focal lengths, bending light to reach extreme corners and micro lens position is becoming an issue.
Yes, 2-3 stops of vignetting is an unfortunate reality however is manageable.
However, at 14mm and F1.2 vignetting levels may reach some unmanageable levels. 6 stops or even more
Bulbous front 105mm front element is given. at least. It’s a 2kg lens.
Another issue I guarantee to be a problem for Astro in some serious level or commatic aberrations in corners and ugly shaped stars in result.
theoretically, such a lens can exist. commercially it would have to be an expensive, specialty lens.

 

[SecureGSM]

Would it not be a new f/5.6?, given the 400 f/4 DO isn't overly cheep.

F7.1 is the new Black. So...

 

[jd7]

62mm (or anything around the 60mm - 65mm mark) f/1.4 USM which doesn't break the bank. IS optional.

 

[NKD]

RF 35mmTS
&
RF 45-135mmTS

Since the EF mount is no longer underway..
No need to update the current 17 or 24mmTS

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

35mm f1.2L please

 

[davidespinosa]

RF pancakes !!!

And:
RF 16mm f/1.2 or f/1.4
RF 24mm f/1.2 or f/1.4
RF 35mm f/1.2

And:
RF 24mm f/1.8

 

[derpderp]

Canon is the only remaining mainstream lens manufacturer without a reasonable 50mm lens that belongs to the 21st century, which is quite astonishingly ridiculous when you think about it (even Pentax has got one). All of their 50s bar the €2300 RF 1.2 are either yet another version of the decades old double gauss or barely evolved from it, with all that entails in regards to IQ (ie they're terrible by 2020 standards), and all of them with appalling AF.
Personally I'd like Canon to chase a level of ambition as high as Nikon tried (and not fully successfully so) to reach with the 50mm 1.8 Z, without IS (as IBIS is coming and I'd rather have Canon put it all in IQ), and without the Nikon's issues with onion rings / manufacturing problems, and I'd happily pay between €450 and €700 for it, but I'm rather expecting Canon to target a lower level of ambition with such specs unfortunately.
I would have thought such a reasonable, practical lens likely to end up in lots of hands and as a result quite a bit more likely to produce interesting pictures, a priority, at least more so than lenses designed to enable Canon's marketing department to trumpet the size of Canon's engineering appendage, but what do I know ?

Just buy the RF 50mm F1.2. Stop complaining about the price, its cheap enough.