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

[carloscalvocr@gmai]

In the tephoto end: RF versions of the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6. Or maybe something like the 500 f/5.6 (nikon) or the 200-600 (sony). The only one we got is the 100-500 (f/7.1 is too slow for rainforest understory) then they jump to $13k lenses, and no Sigma or Tamron for the rescue....

 

[koenkooi]

In the tephoto end: RF versions of the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6. Or maybe something like the 500 f/5.6 (nikon) or the 200-600 (sony). The only one we got is the 100-500 (f/7.1 is too slow for rainforest understory) then they jump to $13k lenses, and no Sigma or Tamron for the rescue....

The physical aperture on the 100-500 is only 1mm smaller (70.4mm vs 71.4mm, ignoring rounding in focal length and f stops) than the aperture of the 400 f/5.6, does that really make that much of a difference?

 

[Johnw]

200 f1.8 L

A 200 f/1.8 seems like an odd choice, given that it would likely be more expensive than the 300 f/2.8. I would much rather see a refresh of the excellent 200 f/2, which should be cheaper than the 300 f/2.8.

 

[AlanF]

The physical aperture on the 100-500 is only 1mm smaller (70.4mm vs 71.4mm, ignoring rounding in focal length and f stops) than the aperture of the 400 f/5.6, does that really make that much of a difference?

You are quite correct. No, it doesn't make any real difference. You get as many photons per duck from a 500/7.1 as you do from a 400/5.6 and the same signal to noise. Another way of looking at it is that you have to enlarge a crop from a 400mm 1.25x1.25 times to view at the same size as from a 500mm and so you lose any apparent advantage of shooting at f/5.6 and lower iso than f/7.1 at higher iso.

 

[Viggo]

A 200 f/1.8 seems like an odd choice, given that it would likely be more expensive than the 300 f/2.8. I would much rather see a refresh of the excellent 200 f/2, which should be cheaper than the 300 f/2.8.

It’s not odd, it’s;

 

[LovePhotography]

RF 8-15mm.
I use my EF 8-15 more than I thought I would.

 

[fussy III]

Let me mention first: I ain't no troll. I write this to push Canon forward (not downward). Good memories. Peace!

Seems like I just abandoned Canon as a result of their lens policy and despite an extensive EF-lens-collection. Not in protest, but I simply developed my lens line up for Sony instead of investing in a mirrorless Canon-body or RF-glass. Still holding on to my 5DSR, but not using it. With Sony still unhappy with the handling of A7x-bodies and absolutely mourning the loss of active imagestabilization on-tripod.

These are the lightweight lenses that as explorative nature photographer make me depend on the Sony E sytem and that I would have wished for in Canon :

- 28-60mm/4.0-5.6 (a lightweight 24-60mm would be better, the Sony is really sharp except in extreme corners)

- lightweight and sharp 16-28mm (like Sony 16-35/4.0 PZ or Tamron 17-28/2.8), I do not trust the optical quality of Canon's RF 15-30mm.

- 200-600mm, sharp at 600mm, f 6.3 or 5.6 at the long end, 2kg

- 105mm tilt/shift macro (I am using the Sigma EX DG line for Nikon with tilt-shiftadapter, works great, relatively lightweight)

- lightweight 85mm/5.6 macro like Loawa, best made from plastic to further cut down on weight

- a 28-200mm as lightweight and stellar as the Tamron at infinity when stopped down (a 24-200mm would be better)

- a stellar RF 24-105/4.0 (the current model isn't good enough).


Not so lightweight:

- a 100mm/1.4

- a 38mm/1.2

- a 28/1.2

- a 20mm/1.4

 

[Antono Refa]

The EF-to-RF adapter works well, so mostly in hope for better image quality - a replacement for the EF 11-24mm f/4L. I mostly hope an RF version would have better IQ.

 

[docsmith]

Give me the update to the 200-400 f/4 L with built in TC please. That is #1 on my list. I'd love a 200-500 f/4 with built in TC that is lighter.

After that, what I want is a light travel/hiking kit:
24-70 f/4 L
70-300 f/4-5.6 L (may use the 70-200 f/4, but would prefer reach over constant aperture if the 70-300 never arrives)

For portraits, the already mentioned 70-135 f/2 or some variation of that.

I have yet to buy an RF lens, I would pre-order any of the above.

As for missing:
Primes:
24 f/1.4
35 f/1.2
135 f/1.8 (or 2)
200 f/2
300 f/2.8
500 f/4

They have done a great job with zooms except the two I want

 

[SHAMwow]

Probably the 35mm 1.2/1.4. Whatever it's going to be. As much as I love my 50, I just love the atmosphere I can capture with my 35. And then I guess some longer/unique primes. I wish they'd focus on one unique/halo lens a year. I personally don't want the 28-70 f2, but I love that is in the RF system and that people find it so useful. I want to see more lenses like that.

 

[AJ]

We've been teased by a 14-21/1.4 patent. It'd be cool if it came true.

 

[foobar]

They need pretty much everything for the RF-S system right now, but that system has just been released, and I'm sure we'll see a lot more lenses in the near to mid future.

When it comes to full-frame, they actually created quite the portfolio so far. Most common lenses are covered by now, even in different price brackets:

"Holy" Trinity
RF 15-35mm f/2.8
RF 24-70mm f/2.8
RF 70-200mm f/2.8

"Unholy"(?) Trinity
RF 14-35mm f/4.0
RF 24-105mm f/4.0
RF 70-200mm f/4.0

"Budget" Trinity
RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3
RF 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1
RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8.0

"Holy" primes
RF 50mm f/1.2
RF 85mm f/1.2 (+ DS)
RF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
RF 135mm f/1.8
RF 400mm f/2.8
RF 600mm f/4.0
RF 800mm f/5.6
RF 1200mm f/8.0

This is the first category of lenses that still has a lot missing. Most importantly: Where is the 35mm? My guess is that this is the most eagerly awaited RF lens right now. But the rest of the wide angle lenses are also still missing, as well as additional telephoto options. I can only assume that these are among the highest priorities for Canon right now.

I personally wouldn't mind slightly ligher/cheaper 35mm and 85mm f/1.4 options one day (the f/1.2 Ls are great, but not for me), but I doubt that something like that is high on Canon's list of priorities right now.

Mid-level primes
RF 24mm f/1.8
RF 35mm f/1.8
RF 85mm f/2.0

I would love to see a 50mm f/1.4 being added to this range of lenses. With fast autofocus (unlike the f/1.8 version) and the same build quality and similar price tag as the other lenses in this range. Doesn't really need a stabilizer if that would make the lens too expensive.

Will they do it? What do I know, but they had no less than four different EF 50mm lenses within the first couple of years of that system being released.

A non-L macro (1:1 magnification, no SA control) would also fit nicely with these lenses and is something that the RF lineup is definitely missing right now. The 100mm L is great, but too expensive for most people.

Small/Budget primes
RF 16mm f/2.8
RF 50mm f/1.8

They'll probably add another lens here and there over the coming years when they see fit, but I don't feel like this is something they're focusing on. I wouldn't be surprised if they'll re-use the lens platform for some RF-S primes. It's a great form factor for a travel kit.

Miscellaneous
RF 5.2mm f/2.8 Dual
RF 24-240mm f/4.0-6.3
RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1
RF 600mm f/11.0
RF 800mm f/11.0

Still a lot of specialty lenses they need to add: Tilt-shifts, a fisheye, a high-magnification macro lens, possibly more ultra-wide and tele-zoom options.
But I can imagine these trickling out relatively slowly over time, given that most of these won't be very mainstream.

 

[SteveC]

They need pretty much everything for the RF-S system right now, but that system has just been released, and I'm sure we'll see a lot more lenses in the near to mid future.

When it comes to full-frame, they actually created quite the portfolio so far. Most common lenses are covered by now, even in different price brackets:









This is the first category of lenses that still has a lot missing. Most importantly: Where is the 35mm? My guess is that this is the most eagerly awaited RF lens right now. But the rest of the wide angle lenses are also still missing, as well as additional telephoto options. I can only assume that these are among the highest priorities for Canon right now.

I personally wouldn't mind slightly ligher/cheaper 35mm and 85mm f/1.4 options one day (the f/1.2 Ls are great, but not for me), but I doubt that something like that is high on Canon's list of priorities right now.



I would love to see a 50mm f/1.4 being added to this range of lenses. With fast autofocus (unlike the f/1.8 version) and the same build quality and similar price tag as the other lenses in this range. Doesn't really need a stabilizer if that would make the lens too expensive.

Will they do it? What do I know, but they had no less than four different EF 50mm lenses within the first couple of years of that system being released.

A non-L macro (1:1 magnification, no SA control) would also fit nicely with these lenses and is something that the RF lineup is definitely missing right now. The 100mm L is great, but too expensive for most people.



They'll probably add another lens here and there over the coming years when they see fit, but I don't feel like this is something they're focusing on. I wouldn't be surprised if they'll re-use the lens platform for some RF-S primes. It's a great form factor for a travel kit.



Still a lot of specialty lenses they need to add: Tilt-shifts, a fisheye, a high-magnification macro lens, possibly more ultra-wide and tele-zoom options.
But I can imagine these trickling out relatively slowly over time, given that most of these won't be very mainstream.

If anyone else sees nothing but white space and blank frames on this, try highlighting it with the mouse (click and drag top to bottom or bottom to top).

 

[LovePhotography]

Based on my surprisingly good results the RF 24-240, I'd have to say that a world-class (the best humanly possible given the 10x range) weather-sealed, coated-lens f/2.8 - 5.6 "L" glass RF 24-240 would be an absolutely enormous success. The problem for Canon is, it would probably cannibalize several other lenses, so they are not too incentivized to do it. But, the ability to shoot the best possible images all day without changing lenses would be a game changer, fo' sho'. Please do it, Canon, so I don't have to get flack from my iPhone/Samsung friends and family for "lagging behind", changing lenses all the time!!!

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

RF 28mm f/1.4L USM

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

If anyone else sees nothing but white space and blank frames on this, try highlighting it with the mouse (click and drag top to bottom or bottom to top).

well, that's not right.

 

[neuroanatomist]

…I'd have to say that a world-class (the best humanly possible given the 10x range) weather-sealed, coated-lens f/2.8 - 5.6 "L" glass RF 24-240 would be an absolutely enormous success.

That depends on how you define success for such a lens. If you define it as making you personally happy, then no doubt you are correct. The EF 28-300L was released in 2004, as the successor to the EF 35-350L released in 1993. Canon knows how successful those lenses were in terms of ROI, they did not update the lens for EF after 2004 and it wasn't one prioritized for RF...they made a consumer version, instead. The lens was marketed to and seemed popular with professional photojournalists. The problem is that that field has contracted significantly in recent years. I highly doubt we'll see an RF version of an L-series superzoom, but hope springs eternal.

Personally, I had the 28-300L for a while. I bought it used (as I typically do with lenses I'm not sure I really want). It was a good lens, optical quality through the 11x range similar to the EF 24-105/4L, i.e. very good but not stellar. Probably about the best one could expect from a superzoom lens, though. But personally, I found the combination of the EF 24-70/2.8L and EF 70-300L delivered better optical quality at the cost of some lens changes. I eventually sold the 28-300L (for $100 more than I paid). If Canon does release an RF version, I highly doubt I'd buy it.

 

[Maximilian]

At the risk of repeating myself:

EOS RP II (FF, same or smaller size)

I know, you were asking for lenses. But I would need a cam before I‘ll get a lens
Actual offering doesn‘t fit my idea of price or spec list.
Apart from that I would find all lenses I‘d like to buy in the existing offering.

Edit: maybe the R6 II fits my needs vs. purse. But then again I would find all lenses I‘d like to buy in the existing offering.

 

[LovePhotography]

That depends on how you define success for such a lens. If you define it as making you personally happy, then no doubt you are correct. The EF 28-300L was released in 2004, as the successor to the EF 35-350L released in 1993. Canon knows how successful those lenses were in terms of ROI, they did not update the lens for EF after 2004 and it wasn't one prioritized for RF...they made a consumer version, instead. The lens was marketed to and seemed popular with professional photojournalists. The problem is that that field has contracted significantly in recent years. I highly doubt we'll see an RF version of an L-series superzoom, but hope springs eternal.

Personally, I had the 28-300L for a while. I bought it used (as I typically do with lenses I'm not sure I really want). It was a good lens, optical quality through the 11x range similar to the EF 24-105/4L, i.e. very good but not stellar. Probably about the best one could expect from a superzoom lens, though. But personally, I found the combination of the EF 24-70/2.8L and EF 70-300L delivered better optical quality at the cost of some lens changes. I eventually sold the 28-300L (for $100 more than I paid). If Canon does release an RF version, I highly doubt I'd buy it.

I had a 35-350 also. Sold it, because it was a big, heavy push-pull and everybody always crapped on it. But I later regretted it.
It is a lot harder to change lenses now that the lens diameter (RF 85 f1.2 and/or 28-70 f2!!!) is so much larger and they are so heavy. Also, at $2500-$3300, dropping one would be semi-catastrophic. It is not fun constantly changing good lenses with a bag over your shoulder, the camera in one hand and two lenses and lens caps in the other hand. Eventually, the odds of dropping one will catch up to you.

But, I like the zoom extend much better than the push-pull zoom, and, from a "fit-in-your-bag" standpoint it beats the internal zoom.
I dunno, a lot of people have a lot of money now, and $3000 for a fabulous "walk around lens" that is damn good is not out of the question for amateurs, IMO. What's the point of 45 megapixels of near perfection with anything less than the best lens in front of the sensor? I'd buy one. Without hesitation. Hell, people spend a lot more on other hobbies nowadays that seem to have little or no redeeming value, or actually destroy the environment.

 

[eoskai]

I neeeeeed, an RF:

16mm 1.4 or 1.8
24mm 1.4
35 1.4

At minimum… RF needs to catch up to Sony GM in this regard.