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

[john1970]

Tbh why don't CanNikSonPan etc adopt smartphone manufacturers launch/announcement strategy, launch products in 2 press con per year.

Darn good question. Honestly, I would be fine if manufacturer's made camera body announcements once a year and twice a year for lenses. Now it looks like the R5 Mk2 will be announced in July. The original R5 was announced on July 9, 2020. Maybe Canon is going to wait exactly four years for the Mk2 announcement? Waited this long and will wait longer; not that I have a choice and my R3 will work fine until then.

 

[DhlcadR6]

If Canon adopts the 2 press con per annual. They can launch their products much more timely and control expectations. Even if Sony jumps and releases overspec products to beat Canon, there's no need to rush as Canon could counter them with the on-time schedule.

The 4-year cycle wishlist will be like this, excluding the Cinema line and PowerShot models.
1st year (2024:
Q1/Q2 - R1 R5ii Q3/Q4 - lenses
2nd year (2025
Q1/Q2 - R7ii R9(?) & lenses Q3/Q4 - R6ii R10ii
3rd year (2026
Q1/Q2 - R3ii Q3/Q4 - R8ii & lenses
4th year (2027
Q1/Q2 - R100ii High-res FF camera(R2? R4? R5iiSR?) & lenses Q3/Q4 - R50ii R6iv
* * LOOP >>

I would say keep R6-series refresh every 2 years to keep the prosumer to small production teams happy. R7-series every 3 years for similar reasons, Canon should stop making other RF-S lenses and switch the production to 3rd parties, adding 10% Canon tax is ok for SigTam. Everything else is in 4 year.

Some might argue electronics develop too fast for the 4 year plan to work......I would suggest using significant firmware updates to extend the product life cycle.

 

[OldrockyGN]

Yesterday I was talking with another Canon shooter about lenses and it's a curious topic for me, personally. There aren't very many lenses I want/need for work that haven't been released. A few surprises last year were the addition of the RF 24-105 and the announcement of the 10-20mm...both were lenses I didn't know would ever exist, but I felt compelled to add them to my bag. (I still haven't received my 10-20.) As far as cameras, the obvious low-hanging fruit here would be the R1 and R5 Mark II, so let's just pretend those already exist and are available. What else would you like to see that hasn't been announced?

For funzies, there are a lot of lenses/cameras I would love to see Canon produce. I thought it would be an interesting and engaging topic to hear from other Canon Rumors users to see if there is any consensus.

Let's limit it to your personal TOP 4 so we don't get posts out of hand with like 8 favorites. For you, it could be your top 3 camera bodies or your top 1 lens. Or maybe you only want to see 4 different camera bodies - it could be any combination of the top 4 you want.

1.) More Pancakes!
- I have a personal love and obsession for all things pancake lens. The RF 28mm has really impressed me and I pack it for every work trip I take now. It's that fun little lens I can bring into a museum or walk around and take street photography with. I would love to see more of these from Canon. A new RF 40mm f/2 perhaps? That might be exactly what the doctor ordered for me since the EF 40mm was how this love story began and it would be great to see that design improved upon.

2.) A 50mm f/1.4 that's compact, weather sealed, and under $1400.
- For as much fondness that I have for my beloved RF 50mm f/1.2L, I would love to see a compact, lighter option. I basically never leave home without a 50mm in my bag and the RF 1.2 is, at times, is a little bulky and expensive so I never even considered brining it with me to shoot anything personally. It's strictly a work tool right now and I would like to see something placed in between the $160 50mm f/1.8 and the $2100 50mm f/1.2L!

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.
- This one is tough for me. I have the R7 and nicknamed it "Jekyll and Hyde" because of the split personality the camera exhibited for me. It would surprise me with some of the shots it could get and at times shock me with how poorly it would fail. To this day, I still despise the ergonomic choices Canon made and have only grown to accept it by shooting the camera in Fv mode to make up for the weird back wheel and missing dial on the camera body. I sold my R7 and it wasn't until I was updating my portfolio with images from 2022-23 that I was shocked to discover that every time I used the R7, I captured one of my favorite images of the event with the camera. I managed to find a mint copy for under $1100 shipped and decided to just suck it up and pick another - the camera isn't perfect, but it's a really solid camera. I just would love to see a bigger body that could accept a grip and has all 3 dials restored. Oh, and a stacked sensor too, while we're at it!

4.) A retro Canon mirrorless camera
- Rumors and market trends tend to suggest it would likely be based on the immensely popular and well-selling Canon AE-1. I have to think this would sell very well for Canon and I know that I would be the first in line if they did end up producing this - it's still my favorite film camera even over the F-1, A-1 and Nikons I have. But, I also think it would be VERY cool to see it based on the Canon Canonet QL17 as a full-frame with a built-in 40mm lens. I really enjoy the Fujifilm gear I use for personal photography, but man oh MAN would I sell it all in a heartbeat if Canon released some fun, retro cameras!

----------------------------------

I look forward to reading what others have to say! Please keep it civil and don't undermine what others have to say. This is just for fun in a world that doesn't exist but maybe could.

(**THIS IS NOT A PLACE TO RIDICULE OTHER MEMBERS FOR WHAT THEY PERSONALLY WANT. IF YOU INTEND TO COME INTO THIS THREAD TO TELL PEOPLE THEY'RE WRONG OR THEY'RE UNREALISTIC, JUST RESIST THAT URGE. HOW ABOUT YOU SHARE WHAT YOU WANT RATHER THAN TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT IS STUPID?**)

As someone whose primary interest is Birds - and as an owner of an R7 - I'd like to see long lenses that are Designed for APS-C cameras.

 

[neuroanatomist]

As someone whose primary interest is Birds - and as an owner of an R7 - I'd like to see long lenses that are Designed for APS-C cameras.

You probably won’t. With longer telephoto designs, the image circle is not limiting. In other words, there’s no size/weight advantage to making a 400mm lens for APS-C vs. FF, so why not just make it FF?

Lenses can be made cheaper, of course, e.g., the RF 100-400.

 

[koenkooi]

You probably won’t. With longer telephoto designs, the image circle is not limiting. In other words, there’s no size/weight advantage to making a 400mm lens for APS-C vs. FF, so why not just make it FF?

Lenses can be made cheaper, of course, e.g., the RF 100-400.

And even if it wasn't about image circles, the weight of a super telephoto lens is almost completely dictated by the front element, so unless you can make that lighter (DO, plastics, plastic DO, etc), the only knob you can turn is the aperture. Which is why I think the closest we'll get to an 'APS-C' long lens are the RF100-400STM and f/11 primes.

 

[OldrockyGN]

You probably won’t. With longer telephoto designs, the image circle is not limiting. In other words, there’s no size/weight advantage to making a 400mm lens for APS-C vs. FF, so why not just make it FF?

Lenses can be made cheaper, of course, e.g., the RF 100-400.

I already own an RF 100-400 ... and an RF-S 18-150 (not used for birding). What I'd like to see is a new zoom in the
range of say 300-600 (or 800?) that is also an RF-S.
Finding a bird in the viewfinder (even at anything above 200) is often very difficult. So we rely upon starting wider,
finding the bird, and then zooming to the size you want/need. Bird photogs are always searching for a lens that is
"longer than whatever they have/is already available". However, the ability to hand hold is also important because
birds move so much and so fast. Finally, it is rare for a bird to sit on one perch for very long. Hope springs eternal.
I also find it "interesting" how so few lens companies other than Canon are in the RF market. I know about the
process ... but I still find it interesting. There are a ton of RF mount cameras out there.
Thanks for your response.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What I'd like to see is a new zoom in the range of say 300-600 (or 800?) that is also an RF-S.

The RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 was announced late last year. That sounds like the lens you’re looking for. If Canon were to make a lens with the same focal length and aperture range but make it specifically for APS-C cameras, it would be the same size, weight (and for the same optical quality, cost) as the current RF lens, and the RF-S lens would cover the full image circle of a FF sensor anyway. In other words, there is zero point in Canon making an APS-C version of such a lens.

Fuji doesn't make FF sensors, but look at the size/weight of their 'APS-C' 150-600mm, which is the same size as the Canon RF 200-800 (retracted; the Canon lens extends more with zooming), and falls between the RF 100-500 and RF 200-800 in terms of weight.

 

[OldrockyGN]

The RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 was announced late last year. That sounds like the lens you’re looking for. If Canon were to make a lens with the same focal length and aperture range but make it specifically for APS-C cameras, it would be the same size, weight (and for the same optical quality, cost) as the current RF lens, and the RF-S lens would cover the full image circle of a FF sensor anyway. In other words, there is zero point in Canon making an APS-C version of such a lens.

Fuji doesn't make FF sensors, but look at the size/weight of their 'APS-C' 150-600mm, which is the same size as the Canon RF 200-800 (retracted; the Canon lens extends more with zooming), and falls between the RF 100-500 and RF 200-800 in terms of weight.

Neuro,
I have to admit that I'm "confused". I'm not challenging what you are saying - I'm saying I don't understand. Canon makes RF-S lenses. The longest of
these is the 18-150 but there are others that are shorter. So why not make an RF-S lens that is longer than the 18-150?

I'm well aware of the RF 200-800 - but it will almost double my camera+lens weight. Hand held/carry in one hand is very important because, when
birding, you don't get the same number of opportunities ... it's a "walk-around" (slowly) while finding birds and photographing them kind of
activity. And for relatively long periods of time (at least 1/2 hour and often 2 or 3 hours). So the weight of the camera+lens package is key.
The other thing about the RF 200-800 is the length - even retracted it won't fit in my goto camera backpack (Ruggard) so I'd have to also go to
a larger backpack or give up the ability to change out to my RF-S 18-150 for the inevitable "scene setting" shot(s). Plus, the overall weight of my
backpack ... with the RF-S 18-150, the R7 plus 100-400, and the 1.4 extender ... makes the whole deal approaching the limit of what I want to
carry thru an airport (we go on "birding tours"). I often don't take the backpack with me for those bird walks - just due to the weight. At
those times I have the camera+lens and a Peak Design wrist strap.

Based upon your response - I guess I don't really need -longer- RF-S lenses from Canon. What I need is smaller/lighter RF lenses with a longer
focal length ... and I'm much more likely to buy a zoom than a prime because of the need to let the AF do its job and then zoom to the
correct framing.
- OldrockyGN

 

[DhlcadR6]

And even if it wasn't about image circles, the weight of a super telephoto lens is almost completely dictated by the front element, so unless you can make that lighter (DO, plastics, plastic DO, etc), the only knob you can turn is the aperture. Which is why I think the closest we'll get to an 'APS-C' long lens are the RF100-400STM and f/11 primes.

RF100-400 is nano USM.

If aiming for the best IQ isn't your priority, adapt the EF 100-300 f5.6L. It's reasonably fast with a versatile focal length for APS-C

 

[DhlcadR6]

There's RF-S 55-210 in case anyone forgot....

 

[neuroanatomist]

So why not make an RF-S lens that is longer than the 18-150?

They did, the RF-S 55-210mm. The point is that beyond 200-300mm (depending on the zoom range for a zoom lens), the lens will be able to cover a full frame sensor simply because of the lens design.

(Technically, for longer telephoto lens designs the limiting factor is the entrance pupil size, which is effectively the front element. For shorter lenses the image circle diameter is limiting, which is why APS-C lenses can be smaller/lighter/cheaper.)

What would then be the benefit of calling it an RF-S lens? Call it RF and both FF and APS-C owners will buy it, call it RF-S and FF owners won’t buy it. Canon has no desire to needlessly lose sales.

I'm well aware of the RF 200-800 - but it will almost double my camera+lens weight.

Indeed. There’s no free lunch. If you want a long telephoto lens, physics says it will not be small. You can get the same narrower framing by using a smaller sensor, which is why many people looking for lighter kits to shoot birds switch to m4/3, but there’s an IQ penalty for a smaller sensor.

Based upon your response - I guess I don't really need -longer- RF-S lenses from Canon. What I need is smaller/lighter RF lenses with a longer focal length…

There are already the RF 100-400, 600/11 and 800/11. @koenkooi mentioned above that in these focal ranges the only variable available is aperture. I’d add that optical quality is another, within reason. Either way, a lens that’s 600 or 800mm is going to be physically long (unless you’d consider a mirror lens viable), and even longer if it’s a zoom. A narrower aperture could make it slimmer and lighter, and some IQ sacrifices could further reduce the weight.

As an example, Canon could make a 200-800mm f/8-14 that is lighter than the current one, or a 150-600mm f/7.1-12 that is about the same weight as the RF 100-400 (but physically longer). I doubt they will, because such lenses would interest few (perhaps not even you).

You can argue with physics, but you’ll lose. Every time.

 

[Jethro]

the R7 plus 100-400, and the 1.4 extender

Do you not find that the RF 100-400 + extender is acceptable? I know there are always penalties in using extenders (optically and in f stops), but on an R7, that set up would take you out to, what, nearly 900mm equivalent? And in a pretty compact profile.

 

[Surab]

1. ~18-50mm F2.8 such as Tamron's 20-40mm for E mount.
2. 40mm F2.8 pancake (if possible sealed, wished the 28mm was)
3. <=18mm F1.8 lens
4. compact F1.4 primes

PS: an R9 that's even more compact than the R8, though the R8 looks to be a great compromise of size and ergonomics.

 

[Mekos]

2 lenses: for me, the reported 26,6mm f/1.4 (not a 24mm, nor 28mm) it's a great idea!!! (not round up to 28mm, nor make a lie calling it 24mm)
And something like the great Laowa 10mm f/2.8 Zero-D Full Frame... at the same price (ok, no more than 8% more).
Camera: the most closed to Fujifilm X-H2, but without video features to get a realistic fair price for photographers (not videographers), midway between pro and advanced amateurs!
Thanks.... Canon , at this home since 1978 (Canon F-1)!

 

[koenkooi]

[…]
Camera: the most closed to Fujifilm X-H2, but without video features to get a realistic fair price for photographers (not videographers), midway between pro and advanced amateurs!
Thanks.... Canon , at this home since 1978 (Canon F-1)!

How are you going to compose your shot without a video feed to the LCD or EVF?

 

[neuroanatomist]

How are you going to compose your shot without a video feed to the LCD or EVF?

Don't bother him with the trifling details of reality. His opinion is that omitting video features will make the camera cheaper. That's why the Nikon Df was cheaper than the equivalent D610. Except, it wasn't. But some people won't let facts stand in the way of their opinions.

 

[Mekos]

How are you going to compose your shot without a video feed to the LCD or EVF?

I guess you really understood what I meant with no videofeatures: not supposed to be a camera to take videos

 

[Mekos]

I guess you really understood what I meant with no videofeatures: not supposed to be a camera to take videos

Or, still better explained: where video is no significant in high-end features to add menu stressing (and price, when those top features really make a difference in $ ) to all those who are only interested in photography.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Or, still better explained: where video is no significant in high-end features to add menu stressing (and price, when those top features really make a difference in $ ) to all those who are only interested in photography.

Nice. How much more would you be willing to pay for such a photography-only camera? Because it would not be cheaper.

 

[koenkooi]

Nice. How much more would you be willing to pay for such a photography-only camera? Because it would not be cheaper.

At this point it would cost additional engineering and QA time to remove video features. All digic X variants have the hardware support and so far all firmwares have the software support as well.