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

[nunataks]

Other than the ones that we know are coming "eventually" IE the 135mm f/1.8 and the 35mm f/1.2, what lenses are you hopeful that Canon will release due to the other big brands having their own version or just your own hopes?

Canon 24-70mm f/4 - light weight kit lens like the Nikon version that extends

Canon 100mm f/2 - the EF version is one of my favorites, and it's small and sharp

Canon 28-75mm f/2.8 - unless they allow Tamron to make an RF version, I'd love to see Canon make this lens

RF-S 16-55mm f/2.8 - The Sony version is small and light and it would pair perfectly with the R7 and R10

Canon 20-40mm f/2.8 - I'd prefer the Tamron yet again buttttt if they're not gonna give it to us, I'd love a small Canon version

RF 40mm f/2.8 or f/2 pancake - Nikon made a really small 40 at f/2, I'd love a f/2.8 pancake for the RP

 

[HeavyPiper]

Canon 24-70mm f/4

Like the EF version please

 

[neuroanatomist]

Personally, I'd like to see a 300/2.8 (ideally with a built-in 1.4x TC). I'd also love to see a 70-135/2 zoom. Other than the 35/135 fast L primes, I think what is missing from the lineup are an uUWA zoom (10-24/4), some TS-E lenses, and a long (e.g. 200mm) macro lens, and an RF-S UWA zoom (e.g. 11-24/slow-variable). There are already several non-L primes.

Regarding some of your list...

I can see a 24-70/4 like the EF.

I think with the 85/2 we won't see a 100/2 (the 85 seemed much more popular as EF, Canon ould know of course).

Why would they make a 28-75/2.8 when there is already a 24-70/2.8? That makes no sense.

I doubt we'll see 'high-end' RF-S lenses like a 16-55/2.8. They never updated the EF-S 17-55/2.8 (I had one, it was excellent). I think they see RF-S lenses as necessary for body kits, but would rather those buyers upgrade to a FF body (and it's not that big a step from an R10 to an RP, relatively speaking).

I can see a pancake for the RF mount, like the EF 40/2.8. I'd like one, makes a great body cap on an integrated grip camera.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd like to see the 180mm Macro but I suspect its far down the list.

 

[nunataks]

Why would they make a 28-75/2.8 when there is already a 24-70/2.8? That makes no sense.

Size. The 24-70 is huge. The 28-75 would be a smaller design as shown by Tamron.

 

[koenkooi]

I have the 'old' versions of these already, so an RF version would need to wow me with new features to earn the likely 2-3x price increase. The 180L and MP-E65mm are already very sharp, Canon can't improve much on that.

• A long-ish, like 200mm, 1:1 or better, stabilized macro lens. I wouldn't mind if it's f/4 or f/5.6.
• A high magnification macro lens, preferably stabilized, with built-in lights. A cross between the EF-M 28mm and the MP-E65mm.
• A 210 degree circular fisheye lens, with AF. With support in DPP/DxO/LR to do more than just make it rectilinear.

If the R100 rumour about an EOS-M sized, EVF-less body is true:

• An equivalent RF version of the EF-M 32mm f/1.4
• An equivalent RF version of the EF-M 22mm f/2, it needs to be smaller than the RF16mm
• An equivalent RF version of the EF-M 11-22mm zoom

 

[neuroanatomist]

Size. The 24-70 is huge. The 28-75 would be a smaller design as shown by Tamron.

Makes sense, but I still really doubt it will happen.

 

[Jose Rubio Rodrigu]

Sin duda un RF S 16 55 F2.8 Liviano será el objetivo más vendido colo fue el ef 17 55. Para APSC

 

[victorshikhman]

I doubt we'll see 'high-end' RF-S lenses like a 16-55/2.8. They never updated the EF-S 17-55/2.8 (I had one, it was excellent). I think they see RF-S lenses as necessary for body kits

Yes, this is a real problem. Imagine if they release an RF-S 16-55/2.8 IS. Just that one lens would make the FR-S system a viable option for general prosumer use. You'll have vloggers and content creators buying the lower to mid-tier FR-S bodies just to pair with that lens, and they'll be good for the next decade, stuck in RF-S world of cheaper lenses that won't make Canon's quarterly numbers, but also just good enough that users won't be forced to upgrade. IMO this is kind of what happened with late stage EF APS-C. The bodies got so good, the lens range was basically complete, and the lenses were adequate, or even pretty good for semi-pro use (I used my 80D with a 10-18 on real estate photography gigs and never felt deprived), that we felt it would be too much of a financial hit to start all over and go FF.

It wasn't supposed to be like this. EF-S was supposed to be a stepping stone to FF, not a plateau that's just comfortable enough to keep us from moving on. Depriving RF-S of those critical middle range, good enough lenses can keep the system doing what Canon needs: low end bodies with two kit lens kits, just to milk that entry level "I'm going to Paris for a week" demographic, and high end bodies designed for specialized work, like birders, where they'll buy $7k lenses to pair with it.

 

[Del Paso]

I bitterly need an RF 100 macro !
I'm sure you know what I mean...

 

[Johnw]

Mostly wide end, wide L primes and UWA zoom.

I would also love to see the f/2 trinity finished at some point.

 

[danfaz]

I would also love to see the f/2 trinity finished at some point.

That would be neat, but I'm not sure that trinity even started. The rumored 70-135 f2 seems to have dropped off the radar, and there's been no mention of a wide f2 zoom.
But I guess time will tell.

 

[canonmike]

Alas, the long ago mentioned RF10-24 F4L lens appears to be nothing more than a pipe dream. I'd even settle for an RF 11 or 12-24 F4L, if it could just come in at under that sell off a kidney or your Harley to pay for its price tag.

 

[codym90]

Probably the 100mm for sure. My RF 85 2.0 is fine currently but eventually would love the 100. Great for ring shots.
-Cody M
Wedding photographer in Va

 

[Viggo]

135 f1.8 L, 35 f1.2 L, 200 f1.8 L, 300 f2.8 L. TS 17 L.

Zeiss making a 100 f2.0 MP

 

[Bdbtoys]

The TS lenses...

 

[ashmadux]

Well I'm going to go for 'my' choice of elephant in the room... The lens that Canon refuses to update or/make.

The 50 1.4. it's almost concrete that they were working on a is version of this many years back, when they introduced the is versions of the EF 28, 35, etc.

Canon isn't stupid. They know that if they make a good version of this then most would simply laugh at their heavy expensive 50 1.2... so they just wont make it.

The thing that I really find cynical is that with all of the regurgitated articles and rumors and other points of conversation about Canon gear, no one ever mentions this lens. Maybe most folks have adapted their sigmas from over the years especially as there used to be so many complaints about it. I just find it highly suspicious that no one can see this gaping hole in the lens lineup. I just don't see it mentioned anywhere and it is very very weird AKA suspicious as hell.

Finally...Isn't it great having your only choices be between a RF version of the nifty 50 and a $2300.00 lens?

(Looks at the sigma on my m62, smiles, then frowns).

 

[koenkooi]

Well I'm going to go for 'my' choice of elephant in the room... The lens that Canon refuses to update or/make.

The 50 1.4. it's almost concrete that they were working on a is version of this many years back, when they introduced the is versions of the EF 28, 35, etc.

Canon isn't stupid. They know that if they make a good version of this then most would simply laugh at their heavy expensive 50 1.2... so they just wont make it.

The thing that I really find cynical is that with all of the regurgitated articles and rumors and other points of conversation about Canon gear, no one ever mentions this lens[..]

Have a look at the posting history of @ahsanford 's avatar and posting history, it is pretty much a meme at this place

 

[Del Paso]

Well I'm going to go for 'my' choice of elephant in the room... The lens that Canon refuses to update or/make.

The 50 1.4. it's almost concrete that they were working on a is version of this many years back, when they introduced the is versions of the EF 28, 35, etc.

Canon isn't stupid. They know that if they make a good version of this then most would simply laugh at their heavy expensive 50 1.2... so they just wont make it.

The thing that I really find cynical is that with all of the regurgitated articles and rumors and other points of conversation about Canon gear, no one ever mentions this lens. Maybe most folks have adapted their sigmas from over the years especially as there used to be so many complaints about it. I just find it highly suspicious that no one can see this gaping hole in the lens lineup. I just don't see it mentioned anywhere and it is very very weird AKA suspicious as hell.

Finally...Isn't it great having your only choices be between a RF version of the nifty 50 and a $2300.00 lens?

(Looks at the sigma on my m62, smiles, then frowns).

Nikon is even more extreme, with their f 0,95 and the f 1,8/50. Yet, mechanically and optically speaking, the Z 1,8/50 beats the RF 1,8/50 hands down...
Anyway, I'm not convinced the lack of an RF 1,4/50 is due to Canon not wanting to "piratize" the f 1,2's sales. I believe they just have other priotities at the moment. They certainly could sell both the f 1,2 and the f1,4. Also, I'm not certain many "laugh"at the RF 1,2/50, it's one of the very best existent lenses available, I guess many are rather drooling (me included).
But you're right, presently we can only choose between small and plasticky and heavy, expensive and bulky.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon isn't stupid. They know that if they make a good version of this then most would simply laugh at their heavy expensive 50 1.2... so they just wont make it.

It seems unlikely to me that Canon would avoid launching a ‘good’ prime to ‘protect’ sales of an L prime of the same focal length. The 85/1.8 was a good lens. There were multiple versions of 85L primes, too.

The RF 85/2 Macro is a good 85mm prime. Are people laughing at the heavy, expensive 85/1.2L lenses? Why would Canon make the 85/2? By your logic, they wouldn’t. Except…they did. What does that say about your logic?

In film DSLR days, a 50mm prime was the kit lens. Today, a 50/1.8 prime is a popular lens (often a top-seller on Amazon, for example). The reason for both is low cost.

Is 50mm really that popular a focal length intrinsically? Or only because it’s cheap? Sure, it’s a ‘normal’ focal length because it approximates the field of view of human vision.

Personally, I want my photos to show the world in a way I don’t see with my eyes.