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

[Deleted member 7828]

Yes, the PF lenses are ‘better’ for those who can afford to spend several thousand dollars on a lens. The entry level f/11 models are ‘better’ for those who can’t. I wonder which group is larger (no, I don’t).

Well, of course. I'm just saying it would be nice to have options at each price point, that is all.

Hopefully Canon will eventually fill out that segment.

 

[SvO2]

Yes, the PF lenses are ‘better’ for those who can afford to spend several thousand dollars on a lens. The entry level f/11 models are ‘better’ for those who can’t. I wonder which group is larger (no, I don’t).

Sure, for Canon the business the current selection might make more sense. But by that same token you could argue there's no point in Canon manufacturing anything in between the R1 and R100 since the former caters to the pros and a lot more people can afford the latter than any of the prosumer options. Canon's a big company, there's no reason they couldn't offer both cheap and mid range options like they do for the bodies.

I think it's fair to say those of us who spend time on enthusiast forums like this one tend to throw a bit more money into the hobby. One can like Canon overall while not liking some of their choices.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sure, for Canon the business the current selection might make more sense. But by that same token you could argue there's no point in Canon manufacturing anything in between the R1 and R100 since the former caters to the pros and a lot more people can afford the latter than any of the prosumer options. Canon's a big company, there's no reason they couldn't offer both cheap and mid range options like they do for the bodies.

I think it's fair to say those of us who spend time on enthusiast forums like this one tend to throw a bit more money into the hobby. One can like Canon overall while not liking some of their choices.

You could argue that, but it would be silly. First off, the RF 800/11 alone costs 2.5x what the R100 + kit lens costs, meaning it's still a pretty expensive lens compared to entry level APS-C cameras.

They may very well offer those 'mid-tier' lenses in the future. Their resources are finite like any company, they've indicated they plan to launch 6-8 lenses per year and they seem to have kept that pace. That means they need to prioritize, and there are any number of lenses they could make.

The segment of the market interested in supertele lenses is likely pretty small. Consider something like the 24-105mm standard zoom range – Canon offers a 24-105 non-L for $400, a 24-105/4L for $1300, and a 24-105/2.8L for $3000, so three tiers. There's a 24-50 non-L, a 24-70/2.8 and a 28-70/2, also three tiers. 15-30 non-L, 14-35/4L, 15-35/2.8L. In other words, for more common focal lengths Canon already offers three tiers.

 

[OldrockyGN]

You could argue that, but it would be silly. First off, the RF 800/11 alone costs 2.5x what the R100 + kit lens costs, meaning it's still a pretty expensive lens compared to entry level APS-C cameras.

They may very well offer those 'mid-tier' lenses in the future. Their resources are finite like any company, they've indicated they plan to launch 6-8 lenses per year and they seem to have kept that pace. That means they need to prioritize, and there are any number of lenses they could make.

The segment of the market interested in supertele lenses is likely pretty small. Consider something like the 24-105mm standard zoom range – Canon offers a 24-105 non-L for $400, a 24-105/4L for $1300, and a 24-105/2.8L for $3000, so three tiers. There's a 24-50 non-L, a 24-70/2.8 and a 28-70/2, also three tiers. 15-30 non-L, 14-35/4L, 15-35/2.8L. In other words, for more common focal lengths Canon already offers three tiers.

Neuro - all of what you say makes sense/is true. From my perspective I'm concerned that it seems like Canon has "just two customer groups"
and all of the rest of their customers "get what they get when it is easy". I'm a birding photographer - and I find that Canon's focus on the
pros (such as sports pros and gallery pros) and video ... often doesn't help me that much.
I know that what I'm going to say next is "heresy" ... but I'm going to say it anyway. What I, a birding photographer, need are long
lenses with reasonable speed and light enough that I can carry and handhold them. I recently took delivery of the RF 100-500 and
find it noticeably heavier and physically larger than the RF 100-400. The 200-800 is even heavier than the 100-500. I have one on
order and will give it a try ... but if it means I need a tripod and gimbal it's not likely to be my favorite/most used lens.

 

[EricN]

You could argue that, but it would be silly. First off, the RF 800/11 alone costs 2.5x what the R100 + kit lens costs, meaning it's still a pretty expensive lens compared to entry level APS-C cameras.

They may very well offer those 'mid-tier' lenses in the future. Their resources are finite like any company, they've indicated they plan to launch 6-8 lenses per year and they seem to have kept that pace. That means they need to prioritize, and there are any number of lenses they could make.

The segment of the market interested in supertele lenses is likely pretty small. Consider something like the 24-105mm standard zoom range – Canon offers a 24-105 non-L for $400, a 24-105/4L for $1300, and a 24-105/2.8L for $3000, so three tiers. There's a 24-50 non-L, a 24-70/2.8 and a 28-70/2, also three tiers. 15-30 non-L, 14-35/4L, 15-35/2.8L. In other words, for more common focal lengths Canon already offers three tiers.

I can't remember, but the 6-8 a year does not seem slower than what ef lens development prodressed at. I hope if we wait long enough, even Roby can get an Rf 35mm f/1.2

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Neuro - all of what you say makes sense/is true. From my perspective I'm concerned that it seems like Canon has "just two customer groups"
and all of the rest of their customers "get what they get when it is easy". I'm a birding photographer - and I find that Canon's focus on the
pros (such as sports pros and gallery pros) and video ... often doesn't help me that much.
I know that what I'm going to say next is "heresy" ... but I'm going to say it anyway. What I, a birding photographer, need are long
lenses with reasonable speed and light enough that I can carry and handhold them. I recently took delivery of the RF 100-500 and
find it noticeably heavier and physically larger than the RF 100-400. The 200-800 is even heavier than the 100-500. I have one on
order and will give it a try ... but if it means I need a tripod and gimbal it's not likely to be my favorite/most used lens.

This is what I was getting at, more or less. I was very surprised at how handholdable Nikon’s 600 and 800 6.3 PF lenses are, they did a great job with the design there. Their 180-600 also felt great.

Back to Canon, I did sample a demo 200-800 some months ago and noted that it is MUCH bigger than it appears in most reviews! That caught me off guard. But, it is also lighter than I expected…I found it handholdable…that said, it would probably be right at the upper limit of what I would be willing to haul around in a full day. I like to be mobile, so I don’t use tripods.

The 200-800 dwarfs the 100-500 physically, so just be prepared for that…if you found the 100-500 to be large and heavy, the 200-800 is a real behemoth.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I know that what I'm going to say next is "heresy" ... but I'm going to say it anyway. What I, a birding photographer, need are long
lenses with reasonable speed and light enough that I can carry and handhold them. I recently took delivery of the RF 100-500 and
find it noticeably heavier and physically larger than the RF 100-400. The 200-800 is even heavier than the 100-500. I have one on
order and will give it a try ... but if it means I need a tripod and gimbal it's not likely to be my favorite/most used lens.

Heresy is arguing against faith. What you’re doing is arguing against physics. Long focal lengths and reasonably fast apertures mean large, heavy lenses.

The RF 100-400, RF 600/11 and RF 800/11 lighter partly because of less robust construction than L-series lenses but mostly because of slower apertures relative to their focal lengths. Nikon’s 600/6.3 weighs more than the RF 100-500, Nikon’s 800/6.3 weighs more than the RF 200-800 (and it costs $6500).

We had an analogous discussion about long lenses for APS-C, which don’t exist because they would provide no advantage. You can argue with physics, but you’re going to lose. Long lenses (600-800mm) with reasonably fast apertures (wider than f/8) are going to be big and heavy. Canon isn’t making long, fast, light lenses because they are ignoring the market segment that desires them, they aren’t making them because they can’t be made.

You probably don’t want to hear this, but you’re going to have to live with either a narrower aperture or a shorter lens. Higher pixel density can help, but IIRC you’re using an R7 so you’ve topped out there. If you want long and light, look at the RF 600/11 or 800/11 (the latter is similar in weight to the RF 100-500).

Worth noting that better NR can help. I find that DxO PL gives me 0.5-1 stop better noise performance at high ISO. It’s a cheap way to ‘add speed’ to your slower lenses…and it weighs nothing.

 

[neuroanatomist]

This is what I was getting at, more or less. I was very surprised at how handholdable Nikon’s 600 and 800 6.3 PF lenses are, they did a great job with the design there.

They did, whereas Canon’s 800/5.6 is the EF 400/2.8 with a 2x TC and an adapter (though Canon straight up admitted those lenses were released without a new design in response to customer demand).

Even so, an 800/5.6 has a 20% larger front element than an 800/6.3, and the Canon lens is 30% heavier.

 

[OldrockyGN]

Heresy is arguing against faith. What you’re doing is arguing against physics. Long focal lengths and reasonably fast apertures mean large, heavy lenses.

The RF 100-400, RF 600/11 and RF 800/11 lighter partly because of less robust construction than L-series lenses but mostly because of slower apertures relative to their focal lengths. Nikon’s 600/6.3 weighs more than the RF 100-500, Nikon’s 800/6.3 weighs more than the RF 200-800 (and it costs $6500).

We had an analogous discussion about long lenses for APS-C, which don’t exist because they would provide no advantage. You can argue with physics, but you’re going to lose. Long lenses (600-800mm) with reasonably fast apertures (wider than f/8) are going to be big and heavy. Canon isn’t making long, fast, light lenses because they are ignoring the market segment that desires them, they aren’t making them because they can’t be made.

You probably don’t want to hear this, but you’re going to have to live with either a narrower aperture or a shorter lens. Higher pixel density can help, but IIRC you’re using an R7 so you’ve topped out there. If you want long and light, look at the RF 600/11 or 800/11 (the latter is similar in weight to the RF 100-500).

neuro - yes, I know that ... perhaps what we need is a 'revolution' in sensor development that will allow us
birders to get successful images with less light falling on the sensor. ??? I'm talking about slower lenses
that are still useful for birding (often 'low light' situations). Yes, I know about the physics and
the Poisson thing ... but -maybe- there will be a new sensor tech that deals better with the signal to noise?
I hate to say this - but maybe what we need is new software in our cameras that "makes better sense out of
the noise". If you will an in camera denoise that is as good as or even better than the post processing stuff
we already have?

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you will an in camera denoise that is as good as or even better than the post processing stuff
we already have?

I added a bit to my prior reply, if you’re not using DxO PL on RAW images. you should be. I get over a stop better NR than an in-camera jpg.

 

[OldrockyGN]

Here's a related thought/experience. I was at a seaside location and looking across 5 miles or so of water to
where there were some houses with large windows. One of the houses was reflecting the sun right at me and
it was this "huge bright light obscuring all of the detail" ... with the naked eye.
However, when viewed with my R7 that bright light went away - entirely! What the camera was doing was
so dramatic I kept taking the camera to my eye and removing it to verify I had it pointed at the correct
location. It was, if you will, 'killing the shine'.
So if the software in our cameras can make that much change for too much light ... perhaps they can do
the same for too little - and make an otherwise 'not enough light to get a successful image' enough better
that the lens can be made slower and still be useful.
Yes, they are already doing this ... perhaps it can be made even better?

 

[SvO2]

You could argue that, but it would be silly. First off, the RF 800/11 alone costs 2.5x what the R100 + kit lens costs, meaning it's still a pretty expensive lens compared to entry level APS-C cameras.

I don’t see it as any sillier than offering a $1000 f/11 lens and a $18000 F/5.6 lens as the only available options. In both cases, the lens costs about 3x more than the comparable tier camera.

As an enthusiast relatively locked into the Canon ecosystem, I find the current status quo disappointing and hope it changes. If I was a canon shareholder, I might feel differently.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don’t see it as any sillier than offering a $1000 f/11 lens and a $18000 F/5.6 lens as the only available options. In both cases, the lens costs about 3x more than the comparable tier camera.

So you don’t see any difference between the market for camera bodies and the market for 800mm lenses? Or between the market for a $400 product that can take pictures and a $1000 product that can’t unless you buy something else? Mmmmkay.

Incidentally, you’re ignoring the RF 200-800/6.3-9 that at 800mm is 2/3-stop faster than the 800/11, and 1-stop slower than Nikon’s 800/6.3 PF and costs $1900 meaning it’s nearly on the line between the two primes for both aperture and cost. But if you want a prime or a different ‘in between’ option, that’s fine.

FWIW, I think the RF 800/5.6 is crazy overpriced for a 400/2.8 with a built-in 2x TC.

As an enthusiast relatively locked into the Canon ecosystem, I find the current status quo disappointing and hope it changes.

I can certainly understand that.

 

[SvO2]

So you don’t see any difference between the market for camera bodies and the market for 800mm lenses? Or between the market for a $400 product that can take pictures and a $1000 product that can’t unless you buy something else? Mmmmkay.

To be honest, no, not really. Anyone who buys an interchangeable lens camera and uses it for more than a couple months eventually does buy a new lens, and they do quickly realize that good lenses will often cost more than the body. And just like there's a market for different tiers of body within those extreme price points ($300 vs $6000), there is a market for lenses between $1000 and $18000.

Incidentally, you’re ignoring the RF 200-800/6.3-9 that at 800mm is 2/3-stop faster than the 800/11, and 1-stop slower than Nikon’s 800/6.3 PF and costs $1900 meaning it’s nearly on the line between the two primes for both aperture and cost. But if you want a prime or a different ‘in between’ option, that’s fine.

I'm not ignoring the lens. I just don't find the lens particularly interesting. I don't really care about prime vs zoom (and all else equal would prefer a zoom). The 200-800 would be more compelling to me if it managed to match (or at least get closer to) the aperture range the other brands' ~200-600 lenses do within those focal lengths before slowing down.

Also worth noting that 800 6.3 gains that full stop over the 200-800 while adding only ~400g to the weight.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Anyone who buys an interchangeable lens camera and uses it for more than a couple months eventually does buy a new lens,

Last year there were 9.6 million lenses and 7.7 million ILCs shipped (CIPA data). That’s a 1.25:1 ratio of lenses to bodies, and given that most body sales are entry-level kits with 1-2 lenses, the data refute your statement. Instead, it appears there are a larger number of camera buyers who purchase the body with 1-2 kit lenses then never buy another lens, and a smaller number of camera buyers who buy many lenses.

Obviously, those in the latter group will have different budgets. Canon has ample market data to drive their prioritization of lenses. Also, as I’ve pointed out before, the motivations of the company that dominates the market and companies that don’t are different. Companies that are a distant #2 and/or #3 are often better served by making products the #1 company isn’t making.

I'm not ignoring the lens. I just don't find the lens particularly interesting.

I see. So first, Canon doesn’t offer anything in between the 800/11 and the 800/5.6. But now you acknowledge they do, in fact, offer an ‘in between’ option in terms of both cost and speed…you just don’t find it interesting. I repeat…mmmmmmkay.

 

[frankchn]

As an enthusiast relatively locked into the Canon ecosystem, I find the current status quo disappointing and hope it changes.

I don’t think you have to be locked into the Canon ecosystem if you don’t want to be. I shoot multiple systems (Canon included) and I am very happy doing so.

If the 800/6.3 is really what you want, you can get a used “like new” Z8 for $3400 and a used copy of that lens for $5200 for an all-in cost of $8600 on MPB today.

 

[EricN]

I don’t think you have to be locked into the Canon ecosystem if you don’t want to be. I shoot multiple systems (Canon included) and I am very happy doing so.

If the 800/6.3 is really what you want, you can get a used “like new” Z8 for $3400 and a used copy of that lens for $5200 for an all-in cost of $8600 on MPB today.

This would be the best solution for me if I wanted that lens over waiting for Canon to (possibly never) make an equivalent design. Admittitly, there is the complaint about rotation direction which is why I said "for me."

 

[frankchn]

This would be the best solution for me if I wanted that lens over waiting for Canon to (possibly never) make an equivalent design. Admittitly, there is the complaint about rotation direction which is why I said "for me."

Yeah I am considering the Sigma 14mm f/1.4 for L-mount recently for this reason. No idea if and when Canon will release an equivalent, and I already have an L-mount camera, so perhaps I should just get that.

 

[neuroanatomist]

This would be the best solution for me if I wanted that lens over waiting for Canon to (possibly never) make an equivalent design. Admittitly, there is the complaint about rotation direction which is why I said "for me."

Same here. I have no need, since I have a very nice 840mm f/5.6 birding lens (600/4 II + 1.4xIII) that a can handhold.

 

[EricN]

Yeah I am considering the Sigma 14mm f/1.4 for L-mount recently for this reason. No idea if and when Canon will release an equivalent, and I already have an L-mount camera, so perhaps I should just get that.

I had thought Canon would have released something to complete soon, but lately, I am not hopeful it will be this year and because of the decision to go with 35mm f/1.4, I suspect Canon will offer 14mm f/1.8. Who can guess for certain, though?