Pancake lense focal length are usually close to the mount depth, so 40mm for the 44mm EF mount and 22mm for the EF-M mount. I don't think we'll get anything smaller than the current RF50 and RF16.
Upvote
0
What about the RF-S 22mm though?
There was a product image a while ago, but there were suspicions it was just a fake. I do not believe Canon would make a pancake lens with two rings like the one in the image, which was probably created from the RF-S 18-45 with its two rings for zoom and focus…
Upvote
0
Hmm, the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM is 40.5mm, while the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is 22.8mm - I can't believe they couldn't get an RF version closer to that? I'm certainly not asking for f/1.8 on a pancake.
Upvote
0
If I wrote an EF 11-24mm f/4L replacement that accepts 95mm front filters, somebody would ask if I want a pony for Christmas as well, so...
An EF 11-24mm f/4L replacement that accepts drop in filters, preferably the same as those accepted by the drop in filter mount adapter.
An EF 11-24mm f/4L replacement that accepts drop in filters, preferably the same as those accepted by the drop in filter mount adapter.
Upvote
0
I just want a pancake for my RP
Until one arrives I’ll not be investing any more in the R line.
I already have the RF 16 & 50 plus 2 canon ef-rf adapters
Unfortunately the RP has now become my glorified point’n’shoot for simple lazy snaps
The non-L RF zooms are way too slow (and expensive) hence I’m adapting my EF lenses if I need too or using my DSLR’s
< shock horror>
Until one arrives I’ll not be investing any more in the R line.
I already have the RF 16 & 50 plus 2 canon ef-rf adapters
Unfortunately the RP has now become my glorified point’n’shoot for simple lazy snaps
The non-L RF zooms are way too slow (and expensive) hence I’m adapting my EF lenses if I need too or using my DSLR’s
< shock horror>
Last edited:
Upvote
0
RF16 sized 24 and 35mm lenses would be nice, they wouldn't need to be f/1,8, but f/2.8 or faster would be appreciated. As much as I love macro, or the half life size "macro", I value compactness more on these type of lenses.
I'm not sure if I'd go without IS, maybe Canon can do a poll on this forum, with mockups
Upvote
0
I think that’s wishful thinking.RF16 sized 24 and 35mm lenses would be nice, they wouldn't need to be f/1,8, but f/2.8 or faster would be appreciated. As much as I love macro, or the half life size "macro", I value compactness more on these type of lenses.
I'm not sure if I'd go without IS, maybe Canon can do a poll on this forum, with mockups
It seems canon’s aim is to force us all up to their flagship range be it R5/6 and L glass
EVERYTHING else is crippled in someway.
As I say I’m spending more and more time using my 6d now than ever. I never realised just how stunningly beautiful the files are, capturing the subtle nuances of colour fidelity….whereas all my mirrorless deliver super sharp high contrast files not akin to my phone!!
Luckily I still have a spare unused 6d should my current one die, but at 44K it’s got lots of life left
Upvote
0
I’ve become so accustomed to shooting almost always wide open, with high shutter speeds/low iso and that gorgeous separation that wide open gives. Even contemplating something like the 24-50 6.3 makes me think what’s the point, I might as well quit now and buy a better smartphone.
I really dislike how canon is forcing these slow RF lenses upon us or expecting us to pay ridiculous sums for bigger aperture or L glass.
I’m just not going to buy into it - simple
Upvote
0
I bit the bullet and bought the 28-70 f2. I'm extremely happy with it, but I understand people who don't want to pay that much or decided it's too heavy. How do you feel about an Ef 24-70 f2.8?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
