What lenses do you feel are "missing" from RF still?

[Aphoto]

I am missing a RF 50 1.4, but it seems Canon's strategy is to sell first the cheap 1.8 and expensive 1.2, and then bring out the mid-range 1.4. In that case, those who bought the 1.8 would upgrade by buying the 1.4, and some who bought the 1.2 would sell them if they needed money and buy the cheaper 1.4. Thus Canon will have more sales. Until now I have not seen a RF 1.4 in any range and it is clear that this is their selling strategy.

I would also like Canon to make some cheaper and smaller L-lenses. For example, a RF 28-70 f4 L would be great. It does not need to be 24-70 because would be bigger, heavier and more expensive. 28-70 is a reasonable range. The same way that did the 28-70 f2 or the old 28-70 f2.8 L.

In my opinion, it is time for Canon to design a cheaper and smaller 28-70 f4 L, for those who don't want to spend a lot of money but still want the L-quality.

 

[Del Paso]

I am missing a RF 50 1.4, but it seems Canon's strategy is to sell first the cheap 1.8 and expensive 1.2, and then bring out the mid-range 1.4. In that case, those who bought the 1.8 would upgrade by buying the 1.4, and some who bought the 1.2 would sell them if they needed money and buy the cheaper 1.4. Thus Canon will have more sales. Until now I have not seen a RF 1.4 in any range and it is clear that this is their selling strategy.

I would also like Canon to make some cheaper and smaller L-lenses. For example, a RF 28-70 f4 L would be great. It does not need to be 24-70 because would be bigger, heavier and more expensive. 28-70 is a reasonable range. The same way that did the 28-70 f2 or the old 28-70 f2.8 L.

In my opinion, it is time for Canon to design a cheaper and smaller 28-70 f4 L, for those who don't want to spend a lot of money but still want the L-quality.

Why only 28-70? The EF 24-70 f4 was -is- an excellent, compact, lightweight and inexpensive lens. No real need to sacrifice the wide end.

 

[Aphoto]

Why only 28-70? The EF 24-70 f4 was -is- an excellent, compact, lightweight and inexpensive lens. No real need to sacrifice the wide end.

I have the 24-70 f4 and use it on my RP with adaptor. It is an excellent lens, but not so compact, it is bulky and heavy. 28-70 would be smaller, lighter and cheaper.
28 mm on full frame is wide enough.
The ideal length for landscape is considered to be 28 mm, because it looks more natural and has little distortion.

 

[Del Paso]

I have the 24-70 f4 and use it on my RP with adaptor. It is an excellent lens, but not so compact, it is bulky and heavy. 28-70 would be smaller, lighter and cheaper.
28 mm on full frame is wide enough.
The ideal length for landscape is considered to be 28 mm, because it looks more natural and has little distortion.

No!!!! My ideal focal length for landscapes is 35 & 24mm.
(But of course, I accept your point of view!)

 

[HeavyPiper]

I have the 24-70 f4 and use it on my RP with adaptor. It is an excellent lens, but not so compact, it is bulky and heavy. 28-70 would be smaller, lighter and cheaper.

I would prefer the 24-70mm f4. The 24mm end for me is so much more useful IMO. Don't think there would be much weight difference at the end of the day.

 

[jaygould]

18-55mm f4L
24-50mm f2.8L (small and lightweight)
40mm f2.8 pancake

 

[Aphoto]

No!!!! My ideal focal length for landscapes is 35 & 24mm.
(But of course, I accept your point of view!)

It is the general point of view, not just mine.
Google "which the ideal focal length for landscapes" and you will see... the answer is 28mm.
Another reason is the polarized filter. At wider focal lengths they do not work as well.
The B+W company, which is one of the best in this field, on its website recommends to not use cpl filters on focal lengths wider than 28 mm.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I just downsized from my R5 to a tiny little R50. I had previously used a ef-s 15-85 on my SL2 where it worked well and while large, was usable. I hope that a native RF 15-85 comes out. Meanwhile, I have ordered a 15-85 and plan to adapt it to my R50. That will cover most of the focal lengths I use, but a even wider zoom would be nice.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It is the general point of view, not just mine.
Google "which the ideal focal length for landscapes" and you will see... the answer is 28mm.
Another reason is the polarized filter. At wider focal lengths they do not work as well.
The B+W company, which is one of the best in this field, on its website recommends to not use cpl filters on focal lengths wider than 28 mm.

Google 'what is the best color' and you will see...the answer is blue. If that's not your favorite color, you should rethink your life choices.

The 'ideal focal length for landscapes' is that which allows you to compose the shot in the way you want, which is entirely dependent on the scene. Long telephoto for compression of distant mountains, ultrawide for close flowers in the foreground. Great landscapes can be shot with any focal length, what comprises ideal depends on the landscape in front of the camera.

 

[deebatman316]

What about an RF 300mm F/2.8L IS USM lens to replace the current EF mount version. Well I guess its been partially replaced by the new RF 100-300mm lens. My friend's dad has the original non-IS EF 300mm F/2.8L USM lens from 1987. That was Canon's first lens to feature a USM AF motor. It was also the fastest focusing lens at the time. Compared to the old AFD (Arc- Form Drive/ Autofocus Drive) AF Motors. That would later be replaced by DC Motors. It was also an early iteration of focus by wire. That we would see in later EF lenses and new RF lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What about an RF 300mm F/2.8L IS USM lens to replace the current EF mount version. Well I guess its been partially replaced by the new RF 100-300mm lens.

I suspect the RF 100-300/2.8 means it will be a long time until we see an RF 300/2.8.

 

[Del Paso]

It is the general point of view, not just mine.
Google "which the ideal focal length for landscapes" and you will see... the answer is 28mm.
Another reason is the polarized filter. At wider focal lengths they do not work as well.
The B+W company, which is one of the best in this field, on its website recommends to not use cpl filters on focal lengths wider than 28 mm.

Do you really choose your landscape lenses on the basis of what Google recommends???
Frankly, I couldn't care less. If 99% Googlers preferred 28mm, and I 24, I'd just keep on using 24mm.
And, no matter what B&W is allegedly say, I use my CPL 0n my 16-35mm zoom at 16mm setting. By the way, could you please tell me the source, because I couln't find any such statement by B&W.
Oh, I forgot! My other favourite landscape lens is the 100-400...
Beware of "general points of view", do what YOU feel like doing!

 

[deebatman316]

I suspect the RF 100-300/2.8 means it will be a long time until we see an RF 300/2.8.

Well its better than no replacement. It also gives you a constant bright aperture super telephoto that other lenses such as the 100-400mm. Which has a variable aperture and is not helpful in lowlight indoor sports. Which is what my friend's dad shoots. He won't be limited to the fixed focal length anymore though. The sort of replacement came just in time as he was looking into replacing the lens.

 

[Kit.]

Google "which the ideal focal length for landscapes" and you will see...

Have you actually read the article Google found for you?

 

[Aphoto]

Google 'what is the best color' and you will see...the answer is blue. If that's not your favorite color, you should rethink your life choices.

The 'ideal focal length for landscapes' is that which allows you to compose the shot in the way you want, which is entirely dependent on the scene. Long telephoto for compression of distant mountains, ultrawide for close flowers in the foreground. Great landscapes can be shot with any focal length, what comprises ideal depends on the landscape in front of the camera.

Do you really choose your landscape lenses on the basis of what Google recommends???
Frankly, I couldn't care less. If 99% Googlers preferred 28mm, and I 24, I'd just keep on using 24mm.
And, no matter what B&W is allegedly say, I use my CPL 0n my 16-35mm zoom at 16mm setting. By the way, could you please tell me the source, because I couln't find any such statement by B&W.
Oh, I forgot! My other favourite landscape lens is the 100-400...
Beware of "general points of view", do what YOU feel like doing!

The Google source was just to show that it wasn't only my opinion. And in this case I agree with the opinion of those others. I am not influenced by whatever I read if it does not convince me, or does not match my experiences.

Of course, we can photograph landscapes with any lens, but we are discussing which is the most suitable, if we had to choose only one focal length.

Below 28mm is not suitable to use cpl filters because ....

From the German company that makes B+W filters. Read at TIP:

“The maximum polarization effect is achieved in landscape photography when shooting at an angle of 90° to the sun. For an even effect in the picture, and because of uneven skylight polarization, your focal length should not be less than 28 mm in 35 mm format.”
https://schneiderkreuznach.com/en/photo-optics/b-w-filters/filtertypes/polarizer

And this is something I have experienced myself. Last week I took two lenses with me, the RF50 1.8 and the RF16. 2.8. Both share 43mm filter. I took photos with both using the same cpl filter, and later when I viewed them on my PC, the ones captured with the 50mm looked perfect, while the ones with the 16mm had dark and uneven parts from the polarizing effect.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The Google source was just to show that it wasn't only my opinion. And in this case I agree with the opinion of those others. I am not influenced by whatever I read if it does not convince me, or does not match my experiences.

Of course, we can photograph landscapes with any lens, but we are discussing which is the most suitable, if we had to choose only one focal length.

Below 28mm is not suitable to use cpl filters because ....

From the German company that makes B+W filters. Read at TIP:

“The maximum polarization effect is achieved in landscape photography when shooting at an angle of 90° to the sun. For an even effect in the picture, and because of uneven skylight polarization, your focal length should not be less than 28 mm in 35 mm format.”
https://schneiderkreuznach.com/en/photo-optics/b-w-filters/filtertypes/polarizer

And this is something I have experienced myself. Last week I took two lenses with me, the RF50 1.8 and the RF16. 2.8. Both share 43mm filter. I took photos with both using the same cpl filter, and later when I viewed them on my PC, the ones captured with the 50mm looked perfect, while the ones with the 16mm had dark and uneven parts from the polarizing effect.

Personally, I don’t find it impossible to shoot a landscape without a CPL. Nor, when I use a CPL, do I find it impossible to shoot at wider than 28mm. YMMV.

 

[Del Paso]

Personally, I don’t find it impossible to shoot a landscape without a CPL. Nor, when I use a CPL, do I find it impossible to shoot at wider than 28mm. YMMV.

+1

 

[Del Paso]

The Google source was just to show that it wasn't only my opinion. And in this case I agree with the opinion of those others. I am not influenced by whatever I read if it does not convince me, or does not match my experiences.

Of course, we can photograph landscapes with any lens, but we are discussing which is the most suitable, if we had to choose only one focal length.

Below 28mm is not suitable to use cpl filters because ....

From the German company that makes B+W filters. Read at TIP:

“The maximum polarization effect is achieved in landscape photography when shooting at an angle of 90° to the sun. For an even effect in the picture, and because of uneven skylight polarization, your focal length should not be less than 28 mm in 35 mm format.”
https://schneiderkreuznach.com/en/photo-optics/b-w-filters/filtertypes/polarizer

And this is something I have experienced myself. Last week I took two lenses with me, the RF50 1.8 and the RF16. 2.8. Both share 43mm filter. I took photos with both using the same cpl filter, and later when I viewed them on my PC, the ones captured with the 50mm looked perfect, while the ones with the 16mm had dark and uneven parts from the polarizing effect.

I understand what you mean.
On the other hand, the optimal use of a CPL will never influence my choice of a focal length. This depends exclusively on the scenery, light, colors and my mood. I checked my last landscapes pictures yesterday, and found out that my most used lens (in the Swiss Alps) was:
1: Summilux 1,4/35mm (55%)
2: EF 24mm TSE (20%)
3: EF100-400mm (18%)
4: Elmarit2,8/28mm, EF16-35mm, Macro Elmarit 2,8/60mm (7%)
5: CPL used for less than 0, 2% on 16-35 (only against water reflections, since I hate exagerated "dramatic"contrast)
If I had to choose only one single lens (apart from zooms), I wouldn't hesitate: 35mm for landscapes.

 

[koenkooi]

Personally, I don’t find it impossible to shoot a landscape without a CPL. Nor, when I use a CPL, do I find it impossible to shoot at wider than 28mm. YMMV.

I shot mostly with CPLs when doing macro and I transferred that habit over to regular shooting. After using the EF-M 11-22mm I found out why people warn about UWA and CPLs:


The above can, of course, be avoided by paying attention to both the angle of the CPL and the sun. But I was too busy with not getting even more cars in that shot

 

[Kit.]

Of course, we can photograph landscapes with any lens, but we are discussing which is the most suitable, if we had to choose only one focal length.

Below 28mm is not suitable to use cpl filters because ....

From the German company that makes B+W filters. Read at TIP:

“The maximum polarization effect is achieved in landscape photography when shooting at an angle of 90° to the sun. For an even effect in the picture, and because of uneven skylight polarization, your focal length should not be less than 28 mm in 35 mm format.”

If you use CPL just for sky tone change, you could as well use sky replacement in postprocessing.

Personally, I don't use CPL for sky at all. It looks unnatural.

And consider that you can crop 24mm to 28mm, but not the other way around.