What is Your Most Wanted Canon RF Lens/Camera That Isn't Available?

[LSXPhotog]

Thank you for your question, LSXPhotog.
Right now I feel pretty much satisfied with what I have.
Looking at your top 4, I can say that I would second your #1 and #2 at once. Yes!
While I am not interested at all in your #3 and #4.

I would have loved to see an R8 spec list in an R50 body.
Better let it be a FF compact body, almost EOS M6 II sized with a powerful auxiliary hot shoe electronic viewfinder.

That'll be it for me. I leave #4 empty.

I would love to see Canon push the boundaries of what’s possible with a compact mirrorless body. A super small R50-sized camera with a full-frame sensor would be so cool. That sounds really neat. Ironically, I used to complain about my M6II’s detachable viewfinder…and now I find myself missing the ability to just pack that camera EVERYWHERE because you could take it off! I was educated through experience, if you will. LOL

 

[LSXPhotog]

I think a 70-150 f/2 L sounds very interesting! Perfect mate for the 28-70 f/2.
However, then there'd be another dilemma in my head: 70-200 f/2.8 or 70-150 f/2. Ugh!

I think that would be a pretty neat combo - especially for wedding photographers. I’m not shooting weddings anymore, but the 28-70 does seem to thrive in that environment. Now add a 70-150 f/2 (especially if it had great magnification for ring and detail shots!) That would be pretty slick.

 

[LSXPhotog]

1. A light standard zoom for hiking and climbing trips which is a bit wider at the wide end. 20-105mm f4 or maybe 18-70mm f4

2. A relatively light f4 telephoto option that goes to 400mm. 200-400mm f4 or 400mm f4. Maybe with a built in 1.4 converter?

3. A high resolution body.
80-100MP with maybe 8-10fps, fast and precise AF and IBIS.

4. Fast astro lens like 14mm 1.4 or 16mm 1.4

Your #1 would be something of a dream lens for me as well. I find myself bouncing between ultra-wide and telephoto often when I’m on a hike with our dog - something we do routinely. I would really like to see a full-frame “standard zoom” go wider on the Canon RF mount than 24mm.

I definitely think there has to be one or more of your #2 lenses being developed. My friends with the 200-400 are all champing at the bit for and RF version.

Who KNOWS what’s going on with a high resolution Canon body. All these rumors over the years and still we have nothing to show for it. I’ve personally been very pleased with 45mp and love the detail it provides, but more resolution might be tempting - especially for product photography.

What’s a bummer is that Sigma MAKES that lens…it’s a shame we don’t have access to it yet. Perhaps Canon has something in store for us that will HOPEFULLY be tailored for Astro shooters and not lens correction-dependent.

 

[LSXPhotog]

A weather sealed RF 35mm f/1.4L USM with really nice bokeh. Possibly even f/1.2 and/or DS

A fast-focusing, internally-focusing, light-weight RF 50mm f/1.4 with a proper focusing ring, manual focus, for times where the f/1,8 aperture isn't wide enough but you can't bring a monster 50mm f/1.2L lens

A one-of-a-kind tele portrait lens, similar to what the EF 200mm f/1.8L USM was when launched. Or at least some sort of replacement for the EF 200mm f/2L IS. Or is that the hole that RF 135mm f/1.8L IS is supposed to fill?

A sub-$500 competitor to the Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art lens for crop bodies. Best lens I ever tried on my old 70D. Pretty much equivalent to how a 28-60/2.8 would behave on a full-frame sensor.

I would love to see ALL of these! The 35mm lens is such a staple and it’s odd to me that it has taken this long for Canon to fill that void with an L-series 35mm. The EF 35mm f/1.4 isn’t too too old, but we’ve seen some strategic releases with RF lenses that don’t have an old or obsolete EF alternative. So I wonder what the hold up is here. Are they trying to push more users to the awesome 28-70 f/2? Who knows? I think there was a rumor for a 24mm/28mm/35mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 release a little while back. So maybe they plan to release a trio of lenses for some deliberate reason?

Your #2…sign me up for that. I really want to see a tightly packaged 50mm f/1.4 and it should have some features that make it stand out a bit like this.

As much as I love “halo lenses” like this, I’m sure more people would complain about Canon catering to the higher-end segment if they released something like this before the 50mm f/1.4 or the 35mm people have been screaming out for all over the internet. Haha But their surprise release of the 24-105 f/2.8L put blinders on me to anything else. Now that I’ve been using it for a month, I am eager for the next one-of-a-kind lens they come up with and a portrait lens would be very cool. What about a 105mm f/1.0-1.2L? It would be a behemoth, but would render like nothing else.

I’ve been vocally fed up with Canon ignoring fast, professional-level lenses for APS-C. I think the EF-S 17-55 f/2. They only appear to want to release slow, affordable zooms without weather sealing. I’m sure those sell very well, but with cameras like the C70 and the new hybrid series of lenses launched with the 24-105 f/2.8L, it’s ripe for the pickin’! Let’s see it, Canon!

 

[LSXPhotog]

Thank you everyone for your comments and creating some nice discussion. It’s fun to just talk about cameras with people and speculate even if it’s just for fun - I enjoyed reading these.

 

[Maximilian]

... just pack that camera EVERYWHERE because you could take it off! I was educated through experience, if you will. LOL

At least you were able to learn
But thank you for showing me, that more want a super compact FF.

 

[candyman]

That was a pretty nice lens!

It still is

 

[neuroanatomist]

But thank you for showing me, that more want a super compact FF.

The R8 does a good job with that, IMO. For me, the lenses are a big consideration. With the M system, they were all small and light. The R8 with a grip extension (Canon makes one, the RRS plate provides the same) does well with most lenses, but for me a smaller body would likely be uncomfortable to use except with lenses like the 16, 28 and 50/1.8 primes or something like the 24-50 zoom.

 

[Maximilian]

The R8 does a good job with that, IMO. For me, the lenses are a big consideration. With the M system, they were all small and light. The R8 with a grip extension (Canon makes one, the RRS plate provides the same) does well with most lenses, but for me a smaller body would likely be uncomfortable to use except with lenses like the 16, 28 and 50/1.8 primes or something like the 24-50 zoom.

I have the R6m2 and I considered adding the R8 as a small travel body.
Compared to the R6m2 the R8 gives me almost no size advantage.
So the money stayed in my pocket.

Your consideration about small lenses is considered in my initial post, as I referred to LSXPhotog's #1 and #2 as my top priority, too.
The small body was my #3.
So I don't know what your post might add to my opinion.

 

[clearwaterphotog]

1. 18-50/2.8L -- I often find myself wishing I had something wider than 24mm on my standard zoom (24-105/4). Sony's 20-70/4 is quite attractive, and I'd probably be fine with f/4, but it'd be pretty awesome to get an extra stop for low light. I would bring this lens on backcountry trips where it would be mounted 90% of the time, and I might have something like a 70-200/4 for the moments where it's worthwhile to stop, find a place to change lenses safely/cleanly, and get the long shot. I could avoid bringing a dedicated UWA like my 14-35/4 if I had this lens. With the croppability of 45mp, I could probably live with 50mm on the long end considering the wide end, and fast aperture. f/2 would be nuts but the lens would probably be gigantic and have a price to match, so f/2.8 seems like the most reasonable compromise.

2. 14-21/1.4L -- Astrophotography and wide landscapes ahoy! I would've said a 14/1.4 would be fine, but after seeing the rumor about a 14-21/1.4 getting tested in the wild, that would be spectacular. 14mm is too wide sometimes, but ~20mm is a fantastic focal length, and this would give the ability to dial in the framing without having to crop.

3. 28/1.8L Macro -- A nice walkaround/travel lens for stuff relatively close to you. Good for around the house, pictures of kids and pets, flowers. I would love to pretty much glue this lens onto an R8(II?) to make a Q3 competitor.

4. R8II -- This time with a joystick and IBIS! Not a joke. Yes an R6II is exactly that, but it's much larger.

 

[AlanF]

The lens I want that is unavailable is the RF 200-800mm.

 

[Del Paso]

A mirrorless the size of the 5 DIV with a top LCD, eye-AF, around 30 MP, tilting EVF 5,76 million dots, dioptre correction + - 3 .
I forgot: an external mode-wheel like R 6 II. I dislike internal/hidden controls (same with cars)

 

[DrD]

My next RF lens purchase will either be the RF 85 f1.2 or the RF 135 f1.8 (tbh leaning towards the former), however, if Canon were to make an RF 105 f1.4 (like the Sigma version that you can still buy for the EF mount), then I would most likely opt for that focal length. A couple of times I have added the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 DG HSM lens to my shopping cart, but always think to myself..I really want to invest in RF and not legacy glass. Who knows, if the third party lens system kicks off in RF mounts, perhaps Sigma may oblige, or maybe Canon have it on their lens timeline wish list.

 

[fussy III]

RF-S 14-40mm/5.6 L USM

 

[AlanF]

The lens I want that is unavailable is the RF 200-800mm.

I can't believe it. Two days later, I have the lens and tested it!! Surprise email yesterday afternoon that it was in stock and I needed to reauthorise payment. I wasn't expecting it until the Spring.

 

[danfaz]

I can't believe it. Two days later, I have the lens and tested it!! Surprise email yesterday afternoon that it was in stock and I needed to reauthorise payment. I wasn't expecting it until the Spring.

Congratulations!
You can take that off the list

 

[fussy III]

RF-S 14-40mm/5.6 L

... and an RF 22-50/5.6 L for Fullframe

 

[grilled_rooster]

3.) A minimal compromise professional APS-C camera body - an R7X - a true spiritual successor to the 7D Mark II with a stacked APS-C sensor priced to compete directly with the Fujifilm X-H2S.

+1 I would love to use a APS-C Cam with the ergonomics and an AF reliability of an R6/R5. I had the R7. But sold it because i missed to many critical shots. It that cam costs around 2.000$/€: take my money!

Also:
i hope Canon ist working on an RF 300 2.8 L and/or an RF 400 DO 4.0. The RF 100-300 is a nice lense. But i'm not paying 5-digit prices for one lense. And i like the packing sice and weight of the old EF 300/2.8 II or the EF 400/4 DO. Yeah i could buy one of these. But i'm not willing to spend more money on EF lenses. I have a lot for EF. And i'm adding RF lenses now were i feel it's needed.

An RF 50/1.4 L would be nice if the price is right. Sold my RF 50/1.8 because AF was to slow. I'm keeping my Sigma 50/1.4 Art until the Canon RF arrives.

 

[LSXPhotog]

+1 I would love to use a APS-C Cam with the ergonomics and an AF reliability of an R6/R5. I had the R7. But sold it because i missed to many critical shots. It that cam costs around 2.000$/€: take my money!

Also:
i hope Canon ist working on an RF 300 2.8 L and/or an RF 400 DO 4.0. The RF 100-300 is a nice lense. But i'm not paying 5-digit prices for one lense. And i like the packing sice and weight of the old EF 300/2.8 II or the EF 400/4 DO. Yeah i could buy one of these. But i'm not willing to spend more money on EF lenses. I have a lot for EF. And i'm adding RF lenses now were i feel it's needed.

An RF 50/1.4 L would be nice if the price is right. Sold my RF 50/1.8 because AF was to slow. I'm keeping my Sigma 50/1.4 Art until the Canon RF arrives.

Agreed. I passed on the 100-300 due to its size, weight, price, and lack of support for rear filters. If I bought one, I would have to figure out how I wanted to pack it with my current roller and backpack combo. Paying the price is certainly justifiable because I feel the zoom adds value and is represented in the price fairly. The lack of rear filters? Man…that was the nail in the coffin for me BIG TIME. I primarily shoot motorsports - especially with that lens. I often use a polarizer and various levels of ND to dial my shutter and aperture values to where I want them. I have no interest in buying a stack of new, majorly expensive 112mm filters - it’s just not practical especially after paying a premium just to buy the lens and possibly a new bag to transport it! Haha So I patiently await an RF 300mm f/2.8L…my EF works just fine so I’m in no rush at all.

 

[JKT]

2) A long 1:1 macro lens. I never owned the 180/3.5L, but that lens is very long in the tooth and the AF is very slow. A modern version with current coatings, etc., would be something I'd likely buy.

3) An updated MP-E 65mm. Honestly, I'm not sure there's a need here or what Canon would actually update besides the mount. Perhaps encoding the 'bellows' so the magnification is in the EXIF, but unlike the TS lenses it would be more a vanity thing. Maybe a 1-10x? The existing MP-E lens gets to 10x with the 2x TC.

Oh yes - new 180 and preferably with IS too. Maybe not so much for macro, but makes it more versatile. Should take TC:s as well.

I disagree on the MP-E. It definitely needs improvement. The CA should be eliminated and it really should be sharp down to f/2.8 at the 5x end. Now it is sharpest at f/3.5 or f/4 and that is not really enough for max sharpness - especially if you need to add TC. For that f/2 would be better. I could live with the range split to two lenses, if that helps. Let's say 1x-3x f/2.8 and 3x-6x f/2.