When looking at a $3000 f1.2 lens and then at a $400 F1.8, one can easily see how a mid range F1.4 option priced at around $1600-1800 fits in between.
Upvote
0
What’s a “realistic” lens that you’d like to see Canon make?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
When looking at a $3000 f1.2 lens and then at a $400 F1.8, one can easily see how a mid range F1.4 option priced at around $1600-1800 fits in between.
The RF 50mm f/1.2 is $2300, and the RF 35mm f/1.8 is $500.
But you're right -- there's room between those two prices.
Since the RF series seems to emphasize image quality,
I think the RF 50mm f/1.8 will be more like the EF f/1.4 ($350) than the EF f/1.8 ($125).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
My impression, between fast high-IQ zooms taking sales from above, and smartphones takings sales from below, there aren't enough "normal people" to justify those lenses.
Upvote
0
As Tony suggests, a RF 14mm f1.2L would be wonderful for astrophotography, although I fear the cost. To keep it within the "possibly affordable" range, I'd settle for a f1.4L. I might even relent and accept a f2L, but since I already own the RF 15-35 f2.8L, I'm not sure the f2 would be wide enough to make me buy it. An f1.4 would, provided it could be done for around $US 3,000.
Upvote
0
With the advances in lenses these days I would like a redo of the EF 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6L IS USM. I don't own one but It seems like it could be a great lens for sports.
Upvote
0
The rumoured RF 50 f/1.8 is supposed to be 1:2 macro, just like the tube full of angry hornets masquerading as lens called 'compact macro'.
Upvote
0
But the 70-200 is already light, at 1070 g. For exampel the 85 mm f/1.2 weights 1195 g, so...
Upvote
0
I didn't suggest the 85 f/1.2, but a 85 f/1.8 ... which would likely be around 300g and barely over 2" long ... that IS a big difference, both in aperture and in size over the 70-200. Those are the reasons some of us still prefer primes
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 381342
Guest
The latest 85mm 1.8 I know of is 466g, still a far cry from 1000g and lets in twice the light. Perfect little things to shove on these mirrorless cameras for sure. A 200mm 2.8 would be fantastic, I rarely use my 70-200 on anything but 200.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
