# Rumors are slow, let’s talk RF lens wish lists



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 29, 2020)

> With the Canon EOS R5 and Canon EOS R6 already shipping in batches, and the Canon Cinema EOS C70 starting to ship in November, the rumor mill has slowed down for the moment. This tells me not to expect too many new and exciting products to hit in 2020.
> I do want to talk about RF lenses though, and I wonder what your expectations are to fill out the RF lens lineup, there are obviously still a lot of holes in it. Keep in mind the RF mount has only existed for 755 days (at the time of this post) and the last 6 months we’ve been buried in a global pandemic that has altered product plans.
> Rumours aside, these are the 3 lenses I want to see next from Canon.
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## JTPhotography (Sep 29, 2020)

Small landscape primes. No IS needed. Filter threads a must.

15 f2
18 f2.8


----------



## terrellcwoods (Sep 29, 2020)

A 200mm-600mm f/5.6 would be pretty awesome and an RF 135 f/2. That's my wish list


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 29, 2020)

non L tilt shifts. I want those for EF too, but since RF is the future I'll take them here. 

-Brian


----------



## 3serious (Sep 29, 2020)

600mm 5.6L, $4k
135mm 1.8L (1.4 if I'm dreaming)


----------



## quantzphoto (Sep 29, 2020)

Similar to JT but something like a 20mm F/1.8


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 29, 2020)

I honestly really want an RF 85mm F/1.4L IS. The EF version is soooo nice and I love that lens, but I'm not getting anymore EF glass and it's hard to justify the additional price and weight of the RF 85 F/1.2. The 85mm F/2 looks nice, but F/2 is too slow and I don't expect wonders from the STM focusing. If Canon announced an RF 85 F/1.4L IS for $1800 I would pre-order it right off the bat.

Outside of that, I'm eagerly awaiting a RF 300mm F/2.8L of some sort, as well as a RF 100mm F/2.8 1x macro. Those are really the only three lenses I feel like I'm missing from my gear at the moment.


----------



## vangelismm (Sep 29, 2020)

Any f/4 zoom and any 1.8 prime.


----------



## Refraction (Sep 29, 2020)

28-70 f2 that is half the weight of the current model.


----------



## HikeBike (Sep 29, 2020)

24mm f/1.8 IS STM


----------



## APP (Sep 29, 2020)

I definitely want a 15-35 f/4. I want it as sharp as the f/2.8 version at equal apertures, equal or better coma control, and better vignetting. Smaller, lighter, and cheaper as well, of course. Basically the RF version of my 16-35 f/4. I'd be on the preorder list for that lens. 

I wanted the 2.8 but decided the vignetting was disqualifying for my use cases. It does look awesome otherwise.

In the meantime I can wait and use adapters.


----------



## Surab (Sep 29, 2020)

1. Canon RF 10(12)-24mm f/4L IS USM
2. Canon RF 40mm f/2.8 (pancake)
3. Canon RF 28mm f/2.8 (pancake)


----------



## Always Obsolete (Sep 29, 2020)

For me, RF versions of the 40mm f/2.8 pancake and 17-40 f/4L, esp. if they are more portable.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 29, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> non L tilt shifts. I want those for EF too, but since RF is the future I'll take them here.
> 
> -Brian


At least a tilt adaptor for EF lenses on RF mounts would be great. Might be possible WITH AF. And maybe shift for EF lens on APS-C sized sensor section ... but would be very special and limited!


----------



## woodman411 (Sep 29, 2020)

RF 35 f/1.2


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 29, 2020)

JTPhotography said:


> Small landscape primes. No IS needed. Filter threads a must.
> 
> 15 f2
> 18 f2.8


I tried my FD new 1:4 17mm and I must admit: A very interesting focal length and very compact size. In my case I used it to try it out for VLOG style video and in that case I would like to have IS - maybe there is place for a f/2.8 18mm WITH IS which is compact enough to fulfill both - landscape and video?!


----------



## curtisnull (Sep 29, 2020)

The lack of a 300/2.8 is what is holding me back from the R system right now.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 29, 2020)

Maybe very special:
f/2.0 100mm Macro (1:1) with internal focusing (at least "front lens always behind filter in static tube"), IS and Nano USM (for both, photo and video).
Because this would be a "90% of all photos"-lens size wouldn't matter too much (for me) and with engineering quality plastics it should be possible within a 800 grams range today.


----------



## janhalasa (Sep 29, 2020)

I would want a 1:1 macro lens, something around 90mm f2.8 or f4, so it's smaller and lighter than the EF 100mm macro.


----------



## gsm (Sep 29, 2020)

15-35mm f/4L IS USM zoom or 15mm f/2 IS prime
70-200mm f/4L IS USM


----------



## JaimeAndresPhoto1 (Sep 29, 2020)

RF 24 f1.4
RF 135 F1.8
and the NiftyFifty! RF 50f1.8

But honestly, that's just for wall decor, because I've been using the RF 28-70 F2 nearly 90% for all my photo and video shoots. That lens does not leave my camera, it's awesome for just about every situation. If there was ONE lens I could have and no other... the 28-80F2 would be it.


----------



## DJL329 (Sep 29, 2020)

RF 50mm f/1.4 USM -- The 50mm f/1.2 looks great but it's even bigger than the 50mm ART, and I'd rather not spend $2,200.
RF 600mm f/4 DO IS


----------



## Colorado (Sep 29, 2020)

135mm L -- my favorite focal length. I don't think I need (or could lift or afford) the rumored f1.4 version. 
15 (ish) f/2 IS prime -- this or something similar for super wide landscape (many variations noted above)
superwhites for RF -- 300 f2.8, or 400 f.4. good with the extenders of course.


----------



## Stanly (Sep 29, 2020)

Something wide to pair 28-70 with, like 12-28 f/2 is needed. Especially for those Super35 cinema cameras. Wide fast primes would also be welcome, because there's nothing besides 15-35 at the moment.


----------



## JTPhotography (Sep 29, 2020)

quantzphoto said:


> Similar to JT but something like a 20mm F/1.8



Yes, anything in that range is useful.


----------



## marathonman (Sep 29, 2020)

1/ RF300mm F2.0 
2/ Nifty 40mm
3/ A 50mm anamorphic


----------



## NJFanta (Sep 29, 2020)

Realistically - 

24mm 1.2/1.4 
15mm 2.8 fisheye
17-40 or 18-45mm f4, f2.8, f2, f1.4

Fun to have

I would enjoy an all around pancake, like previously mentioned
Tilt-shift adapter to match up with L series RF lenses
300mm f2 L tele

Nice to have - 

17-50 f2
70-150 f2
20-400 5.6 all in one


----------



## navastronia (Sep 29, 2020)

35/1.2 -- indispensable
14-28/2 -- joy-inducing


----------



## SteveC (Sep 29, 2020)

I actually can't think of anything I'd jump on if it came out!

But then I tend to be a generalist. I can cover any focal length between 15 and 400, albeit without super-duper-wide apertures (and have some EF primes if I really need that, in certain cases). I was able to do Yellowstone last Saturday (absent wildlife; I must have been in the wrong places) entirely with the 24-105 and rarely felt constrained shooting geologic features.

Interesting suggestions; I'd say a good number of them could be classified as "slightly smaller, leaner version of the super awesome lens that's already there" (e.g., an F/4 zoom where an F/2..8 already exists). I'd say those are probably about second tier on Canon's to-do list right now.


----------



## Sludz (Sep 29, 2020)

10-24 f4is / 12-24 f2.8 is
50 1.4L 1:2 is 
200-600 5.6

I really want a wider stabilized lens than the 15-35 in anticipation of the c70


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 29, 2020)

gsm said:


> 15-35mm f/4L IS USM zoom or 15mm f/2 IS prime
> 70-200mm f/4L IS USM


Skip the 15 f/2. I want Canon to compete the f/4 trinity although I already own it in EF and can use it with a R5 or R6.
A 200-600 f/4-5.6 with a built-in 1.4x converter. It would probably cost $12,000+. Until then, my 150-600 Sigma S will suffice.
A 100 f/2.8 macro.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 29, 2020)

terrellcwoods said:


> A 200mm-600mm f/5.6 would be pretty awesome and an RF 135 f/2. That's my wish list


Lots of likes to this. But both the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 and the Sony 200-600mm f/6.3 are considered to be on the heavy side, and 200-600mm f/5.6 will be heavier still. Not a turn off for some but it will be for many. Canon knew what it is doing by making a lightweight 100-700mm as did Nikon with its 500mm f/5.6. There are just so many who want a lightweight lens they can easily carry and hold.


----------



## Eowhiskass (Sep 29, 2020)

Small primes:
135/2.8
24/2.8


----------



## mccasi (Sep 29, 2020)

Either of the Astro wides!
14-21 f1.4 or 14-28 f2.0
Milky Way photography kings with versatile uses such as landscape, architecture and vlogging.


----------



## gsm (Sep 29, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Skip the 15 f/2. I want Canon to compete the f/4 trinity although I already own it in EF and can use it with a R5 or R6.
> A 200-600 f/4-5.6 with a built-in 1.4x converter. It would probably cost $12,000+. Until then, my 150-600 Sigma S will suffice.
> A 100 f/2.8 macro.



Interesting. I've never shot with anything wider than 24, but I do shoot landscapes when hiking, so I'm wondering which would be more useful: 2 extra stops of light for shooting at night or the flexibility of zooming in up to 35mm. Do you find the 20-35mm range useful in your 16-35mm? Anyone else want to weigh in based on their experience?


----------



## Twinix (Sep 29, 2020)

22/20-80/100mm f4 with motorized zoom for C70, R6, R5, C50 etc.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 29, 2020)

35mm f1.4 L

85mm f.4 L


----------



## DrToast (Sep 29, 2020)

Landscape lens.
14-50 f/5.6 or f/8


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 29, 2020)

RF 100mm L IS
We lack a macro with AF as good as the EF 100 L macro.


----------



## Jemlnlx (Sep 29, 2020)

15-35mm f/4 seems like a good and realistic "want". The EF version performed very well at a fraction of the cost of 2.8 version.

Priced at around $1200-$1400 MSRP, it would do well.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 29, 2020)

RF L 200mm f/2.8 IS (I have never used a 70-200 at anything but 200)
RF L 400mm f/4 DO IS
RF L 500mm f/5.0 or f/5.6 DO IS
RF L 600mm f/5.6 DO IS
RF L 800mm f/8 DO IS

And for kicks, the R6 to get the R5 body instead of it being hampered with 6 series weather sealing.


----------



## 6speed (Sep 29, 2020)

RF 16-35 f/4 L, just like everyone else
RF 28-300 L because the RF 24-240 Canon already released is larger and not any sharper than my Tamron EF 28-300, the utility of which is undeniable


----------



## EOSR FAN (Sep 29, 2020)

A light 35mm pancake
And a 20mm f1.2
Rf 200-400mm f/4l is usm extender 1.4x to drool over but never be able to afford


----------



## zim (Sep 29, 2020)

Anything prime below 100mm that's f/1.4 so I know 1.4 isn't dead to RF


----------



## Hyperion (Sep 29, 2020)

28 f1.4 is my dream lens at the moment. But as long as Canon makes RF glass big, I will be satisfied with 28 f1.8/2 with similar to RF 35 f1.8 size or smaller.

For longer option I want 100 f2 since 85 becomes a little boring, but I only want a slight change.


----------



## Sorosuub (Sep 29, 2020)

Adding my vote for an RF 35mm f1.2!


----------



## CanonGrunt (Sep 29, 2020)

14mm 1.4 L
20mm 1.4 L
24mm 1.2 L
35mm 1.2 L
100mm 1.2 L
135mm 1.4 L

That should be possible I hope.


----------



## B.Harris (Sep 29, 2020)

RF 24mm & 35mm F/1.4 or 1.2 I don't care.

An RF 135mm f/2 would be sweet as well!


----------



## Jstnelson (Sep 29, 2020)

14-24 f2
35 f1.2
135 f1.4
200 f1.8 or something like a 140-200 f2


----------



## B.Harris (Sep 29, 2020)

Refraction said:


> 28-70 f2 that is half the weight of the current model.


I rented it for a wedding and have had a bad back since


----------



## esglord (Sep 29, 2020)

50mm f/1.4L
35mm f/1.4L
85mm f/1.4L IS
budget 14mm
budget 200-500mm zoom


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 29, 2020)

TSE wides for architecture, very L in construction but compact and sharp as hell. Speed is a LOW priority. 

I’d love to pull the trigger for a 50mm 1.2, but an L grade, compact 1.8 or 1.4 would be impossible to resist.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Sep 29, 2020)

600 2.8 

I can dream, right?


----------



## Dj 7th (Sep 29, 2020)

RF 35mm f/1.2
RF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
RF 135mm f/1.8 or 1.4


----------



## CanonGrunt (Sep 29, 2020)

Oooh, a new MP-E RF Macro lens.


----------



## ryebread (Sep 29, 2020)

I'm ok for now.
15-35 rf 2.8
35 rf 1.8
50 rf 1.2
85 rf 1.2
70-200 rf 2.8

However, what I REALLY want is the ability to rock 35 1.4 and 85 1.2 on two bodies, without adaptors.
so my kit would be
15-35 rf 2.8 UWA

35 rf 1.4 or 1.2 which would be too big, so 1.4 is fine.
85 rf 1.2
^these two would be my typical pro pairing for weddings and such.

50 rf 1.8
^I don't need a 50 1.2, and I really want the 35/85 pro pairing.
so when the 35 1.4 RF comes out. I would sell my RF50 and RF35f1.8 and get a RF50F1.8 for my "one lens" day for casual/street/family.

70-200 rf 2.8
for sport/reach

So we need a 35 1.4 RF or 1.2, which is obvious. They really need to fill out the pro lineup of 24/35/50/85/135, so 24/35/135 please!

And then we need to address the masses.
The masses want their 1.8's
we need 24/50/85
so I would say they should give us all of those. They will probably do 24 first.
without the 1.8's, sony is really winning the size/weight/affordability contest.
their 85 1.8 FE is amazing, it's small, it's light, and it's $450! the nikkor 85 1.8 S is great too. But it's a bit larger and more pricey than the sony.

Cheers!


----------



## rbielefeld (Sep 29, 2020)

600 f/4 DO


----------



## rbielefeld (Sep 29, 2020)

terrellcwoods said:


> A 200mm-600mm f/5.6 would be pretty awesome and an RF 135 f/2. That's my wish list


I agree about the 200-600. That is the lens I would love to put on my R5.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 29, 2020)

CanonGrunt said:


> 14mm 1.4 L
> 20mm 1.4 L
> 24mm 1.2 L
> 35mm 1.2 L
> ...


What's the obsession with F/1.2?? I'd much rather have a smaller, lighter f/1.4 lens than a heavier and larger f/1.2.


----------



## rbielefeld (Sep 29, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Lots of likes to this. But both the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 and the Sony 200-600mm f/6.3 are considered to be on the heavy side, and 200-600mm f/5.6 will be heavier still. Not a turn off for some but it will be for many. Canon knew what it is doing by making a lightweight 100-700mm as did Nikon with its 500mm f/5.6. There are just so many who want a lightweight lens they can easily carry and hold.


Hey, I want the Canon 100-700 you mention. Where can I get that bad boy? The current RF 100-500 is just a bit slow on the long end at 7.1 and put a 1.4x TC on it and you are at a whopping f/10. That is pretty limiting unless the light is really good. I would love to see a RF 200-600 5.6.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Sep 29, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> non L tilt shifts. I want those for EF too, but since RF is the future I'll take them here.
> 
> -Brian


That is such an incredibly specialized lens I don't see that ever happening.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 29, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> TSE wides for architecture, very L in construction but compact and sharp as hell. Speed is a LOW priority.
> 
> I’d love to pull the trigger for a 50mm 1.2, but an L grade, compact 1.8 or 1.4 would be impossible to resist.


I'm pretty sure that wide TS-E and compact are mutually exclusive. Then again, would a 24 f/5.6 TS-E be acceptable? How about a 17 f/8?


----------



## Andy Westwood (Sep 29, 2020)

My wishlist is ...

1, 24mm pancake if that is possible
2, RF 15-35mm f/4L and IS would be nice but keep it compact
3, RF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS (but NOT 7.1)


----------



## Daner (Sep 29, 2020)

42mm f/1.4L IS USM
70-135mm f/2L IS USM
200mm f/2L IS USM


----------



## navastronia (Sep 29, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> What's the obsession with F/1.2?? I'd much rather have a smaller, lighter f/1.4 lens than a heavier and larger f/1.2.



There's a real appetite for "best of the best" glass.


----------



## McLeisa (Sep 29, 2020)

20mm f/1.4L USM
24mm f/1.2L USM
35mm f/1.2L IS USM
135mm f/1.8L IS USM
24mm f/1.8 STM Macro (1:2)
50mm f/1.8 STM Macro (1:2)


----------



## navastronia (Sep 29, 2020)

Andy Westwood said:


> My wishlist is ...
> 
> 1, 24mm pancake if that is possible



I keep reading people say that 24mm pancakes aren't possible.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Sep 29, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> What's the obsession with F/1.2?? I'd much rather have a smaller, lighter f/1.4 lens than a heavier and larger f/1.2.



Cinema mostly for those of us that love taking stills as well, but would love to pair these with the 50 & 85 on the c70 & not buy cinema primes that are $8,000 a piece. But I’d take f/1.4 on any of them as well.

At the moment I use EF primes with a c500 on a lot of productions, and absolutely love them, but having a faster 14, 20, 100, and 135 that are all L glass would be spectacular.

Also, I’d love a 28 1.2 or 1.4 as well.


----------



## JackHa2006 (Sep 29, 2020)

RF 35mm 1.8 L non IS
RF 50mm 1.8 L non IS
RF 100mm 2.8 L macro


----------



## mccasi (Sep 29, 2020)

B.Harris said:


> I rented it for a wedding and have had a bad back since


Why would you carry it on your back? Just use the damn thing


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Sep 29, 2020)

gsm said:


> 15-35mm f/4L IS USM zoom or 15mm f/2 IS prime
> 70-200mm f/4L IS USM


These two zooms would be my preference for landscape work. The 2.8 versions are awesome, but not needing that speed or the cost of a faster lens, in addition to preferring lighter versions.


----------



## seasonascent (Sep 29, 2020)

Dream lens = 35-85mm f2 that would be my one and done lens!


----------



## rom (Sep 29, 2020)

Small primes in the 28-40mm range and F1.8 L IS USM. Not the STM types.
Or maybe a compact 28-40mm F2.8 L IS USM zoom.


----------



## Quackator (Sep 29, 2020)

RF 2.0/70-135 USM.
No IS, and matching the wide open performance of the Sigma 1.8/135mm ART lens,
especially regarding chromatic aberrations. With IS this would be impossible, I think.


----------



## mccasi (Sep 29, 2020)

seasonascent said:


> Dream lens = 35-85mm f2 that would be my one and done lens!


28 is a lot more practical than 35 and 85 is a tiny crop away from 70.. 
I have cropped my 28-70 to a 600mm f/18 and it’s still fine


----------



## AlanF (Sep 29, 2020)

rbielefeld said:


> Hey, I want the Canon 100-700 you mention. Where can I get that bad boy? The current RF 100-500 is just a bit slow on the long end at 7.1 and put a 1.4x TC on it and you are at a whopping f/10. That is pretty limiting unless the light is really good. I would love to see a RF 200-600 5.6.


Typo: 420-700mm.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 29, 2020)

seasonascent said:


> Dream lens = 35-85mm f2 that would be my one and done lens!


Vivitar made a 35-85 f/2.8 lens for the Canon FD mount in the late 1970's. That lens largely weaned me off primes until I started photographing bands in poorly lit clubs. Then f/2.8 at ISO 800 just wasn't good enough.


----------



## seasonascent (Sep 29, 2020)

mccasi said:


> 28 is a lot more practical than 35 and 85 is a tiny crop away from 70..
> I have cropped my 28-70 to a 600mm f/18 and it’s still fine


Its probably a bit subjective. I'm in the wedding game and shoot wildly different subject. I also offer large print products so cropping isn't really a solution. I'm the biggest fan of 35mm/85mm combo, so to have just one lens to achieve this with everything in-between would be great.


----------



## lellololes (Sep 29, 2020)

A non-exotic ultra wide f4 zoom - 16-35/4 would be my #1.

The 100-500 looks like it will probably replace my 70-200/4 (which I adore but it's underutilized) and 150-600. But I might be convinced that a 500mm 5.6DO is a better choice. The 800/11 is curious and I'll rent it some day but I don't see myself buying it.

I'd love something like a 16-18mm 2 or 2.8 for dabbling in astrophotography. I could probably live without the 16-35/4 for some time if I had it. It doesn't need to be an L lens, either.


----------



## seasonascent (Sep 29, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Vivitar made a 35-85 f/2.8 lens for the Canon FD mount in the late 1970's. That lens largely weaned me off primes until I started photographing bands in poorly lit clubs. Then f/2.8 at ISO 800 just wasn't good enough.


I was not aware! That'd be a cool lens to source, if not for anything else the novelty of it.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Sep 29, 2020)

mccasi said:


> Either of the Astro wides!
> 14-21 f1.4 or 14-28 f2.0
> Milky Way photography kings with versatile uses such as landscape, architecture and vlogging.


Yes, there is huge potential for these.


----------



## MadScotsman (Sep 29, 2020)

I’d like to see Canon leverage the RF platform take a bite out of a couple lenses that you pretty much have to go elsewhere for.

Give me a solid 14mm Prime in the$600-$800 range for Astro.

And I’d LOVE to see a Canon RF version of the Laowa 24mm Probe macro lens. Don’t care if it costs a bit. I know they’ll have one eventually, but... rather have Canon native RF and the quality that comes with it.


----------



## usern4cr (Sep 29, 2020)

I'd like any of the following with
(best IQ with a curved field in focus and not dwell on flat field test charts)
(preferably with a large maximum magnification):

RF 105mm f1.8(or f1.4) L USM
RF 135mm f2(or f1.8) L USM

... and also any of the following with a moderate f# to enable a smaller size & weight:
RF 17-70mm L IS USM
RF 24(or 22)-200 L IS USM
A 1:1 macro long-telephoto L IS USM prime (preferably 200mm or longer)


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 29, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> I'm pretty sure that wide TS-E and compact are mutually exclusive. Then again, would a 24 f/5.6 TS-E be acceptable? How about a 17 f/8?



I don't mean 'tiny'. I mean 'compact' : "occupying a small volume by reason of efficient use of space." And they don't HAVE to be slow--when I say 'fast is a low priority', I don't mean slow is important! 

What I should have said instead of 'compact' is 'uncomplicated'. Meaning a good sharp 17 mm to be used on a tripod would be great, without the bulbous front even better. It doesn't have to be a 14mm f/1.4 or a 14--35mm zoom, or have IS, or make phone calls. These are meat and potato lenses I earn a living by.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 29, 2020)

200-600 F5.6 which is internal zoom and sealed. And with fast AF, nano USM, not STM


----------



## Mountains-and-More (Sep 29, 2020)

Wishlist:

1. 14-21 / 1.8 L IS USM
2. 12-24 / 2.8 L IS USM
3. 100-300 / 2.8 L DO IS USM 2x Ext. (or a 1.4x Ext. and a second external extender  ) - with ArcaSwiss compatible tripod ring please


----------



## CanonGrunt (Sep 29, 2020)

yoms said:


> Can we actually have a new *EF* 135mm f/2.0 *IS* for ****** sake?!?!



I second this.


----------



## 1D4 (Sep 29, 2020)

Nikon showed these types of lenses can sell like hotcakes:
300mm f/4 DO IS
500mm f/5.6 DO IS


----------



## Stuart (Sep 29, 2020)

I'd like a 200mm f8 2:1 macro with min focus of 2cm


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Sep 29, 2020)

+1 to a 180 or 200mm 1:1 macro. Also mid-range primes (better than nifty-fifty, crappier than L, in the spirit of the EF 50 1.4).

Oh, and Sigma RF lenses.


----------



## fiendstudios (Sep 29, 2020)

14-21/f1.4. Only thing I find missing for me.


----------



## pixel8foto (Sep 29, 2020)

Had an R5 for three days now. With the adaptor it's given each and every EF lens I have an instant upgrade.
I'd deffo be interested in a 24-35 f/1.4 if it were possible, but I'm blown away with the benefits of mirrorless face and eye focussing, as it is.


----------



## samh004 (Sep 29, 2020)

As previously mentioned, a 1:1 macro lens is what I’m after. However, seeing as current RF lenses have all tended to need big improvements... I would expect this new macro to be at least f/2 and perhaps even go above 1x magnification, just to drive home the superiority of the line.


----------



## photogreedy (Sep 29, 2020)

24 f/2.8 pancake


----------



## goldenhusky (Sep 29, 2020)

Here is my wish list on that order

200-600mm f/4.5 - f/6.3
85mm f/1.4L IS
135mm f/1.8L
200mm f/2.8L
50mm f/1.4
100mm f/2.8L Macro


----------



## john1970 (Sep 30, 2020)

A 500 mm f4 DO and 35 f1.2


----------



## lyleschmitz (Sep 30, 2020)

a 20-50ish f/2 or f/2.8 IS would kick ass (the faster the better, but I don't want it to be too massive). Something for the wide-normal range, since that's the vast majority of what I use in video. A 24-70 isn't quite wide enough on the wide end and i rarely go past 50mm, while a 16-35 is great on the wide end, but doesn't get me to 50mm

I might be the only person who wants this but I want it bad


----------



## Fotofriend (Sep 30, 2020)

As compact and light as possible please, there are enough bulky lenses:

RF 28 f2 or at least 2.8 IS USM (small and light like the EF-version!)
RF 85 1.8 USM (small!! Like EF-version)
RF 50 f1.8 IS USM/STM
RF 15-35 f4 IS USM


----------



## Kjsheldo (Sep 30, 2020)

Gotta have a high-quality, quiet focusing set of small (300-400 grams) f1.8 - f2 primes. Their f1.8s are plastic-y, cheap, and loud focusing. 

I want something like Zeiss Batis lineup, the new Panasonic f1.8 lineup (looks sweet), with the build quality of Sigma's mirrorless 45mm f2.8. Even Sony's lower priced f1.8 lineup is still pretty high-quality. Canon always seems to make them pretty crappy. 

Either that or make more 1.4 primes the size of Sony's 24mm f1.4. I'm not a fan, at all, of these 1kg primes when something 450 grams can get you 95% of the IQ.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Sep 30, 2020)

I want to see an RF 40mm pancake prime, just like the EF 40, but in RF mount, and preferably f/2 instead of f/2.8. That would pair wonderfully with a small and light RF body, like the RP, or any future small and light RF body.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 30, 2020)

adrian_bacon said:


> I want to see an RF 40mm pancake prime, just like the EF 40, but in RF mount, and preferably f/2 instead of f/2.8. That would pair wonderfully with a small and light RF body, like the RP, or any future small and light RF body.



That would be a killer street photography lens.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 30, 2020)

This dude says rumors are slow but already told us Canon's entire line up for the next 4 years 9 months ago.


----------



## Traveler (Sep 30, 2020)

1. 15-35 f/4 (light and small)
2. Compact 70-200 (f/5.6)
3. Tiny fish eye (f/7.1 or f/9 is okay)


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 30, 2020)

I see 3 camps of requests here:
- Duplication of existing EF lenses. I don't agree as you can weld on an adapter and they work better on the R5/R6 than they do currently. It would be lovely to have the whole lens catalogue in RF but lets be somewhat realistic. The main native lenses are already available (f2.8 trinity, 24-105/4 and 4-7.1, 50 and 85/1.2)
Yes, new versions would have upgrades but most of these are
=> the only exceptions is for 300/2.8 and 500/2.8 that go on a diet and will be released with the R1 body

- RF lenses that are unique or different from existing EF that make the most of the RF mount. We have a bunch of RF lenses that are wide aperture specialty lenses already and specialty lenses 600/800 f11 and extenders that make the most of AF down to f22! It would be great to have more but sales volumes would be relatively small.
One missing area is wide angle lens and I agree with Mccasi, Steve Balcombe and Mountains-and-more that astro wides 
eg 14-21 f1.4 or 14-28 f2.0 would make the most of the RF mount.

- Low cost/size lenses to enable a compact/ lower barrier to entry for the RF system. Although you can adapt the EF40mm pancake, it doubles the cost of the lens so a range of low cost primes eg 50/1.8 seems to be sensible. Low cost zooms would be my next guess as the 24-240/4-6.3 is only option. 

I cover focal lengths from 8mm to 500mm so I am set for the moment


----------



## tron (Sep 30, 2020)

600mm 5.6 DO super light and short  

I would also say super cheap but the above is fantasy enough by itself


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 30, 2020)

pixel8foto said:


> Had an R5 for three days now. With the adaptor it's given each and every EF lens I have an instant upgrade.
> I'd deffo be interested in a 24-35 f/1.4 if it were possible, but I'm blown away with the benefits of mirrorless face and eye focussing, as it is.


I've had my R5 for 3 months now and I completely agree. eye-AF (people/animals) is amazing... just too simple now. The RF70-200m is so small and the 100-500mm has really impressed me. It has worked perfectly for portrait, macro, astro, animals and landscape stills. The only genre that I haven't used it for yet is for indoor sports but I am sure it will be great. Getting to grips with video will be fun in the future.
I am happy to weld my adapter to the rest of my lenses


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 30, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> 600 2.8
> 
> I can dream, right?


..and a hand-truck to move it around.


----------



## dominic_siu (Sep 30, 2020)

14-28 F/2


----------



## ncvarsity3 (Sep 30, 2020)

I want telephoto zoom lenses where the teleconverters work through the entire range of the zoom, or teleconverters that work with the current lenses.


----------



## awair (Sep 30, 2020)

RF to EF 1.0-1.4x switchable converter
RF to EF 1.4-2.0x switchable converter

(ie take that ‘bit’ off the 200-400 and give it an RF mount)


----------



## Perio (Sep 30, 2020)

200mm f1.8


----------



## Kiton (Sep 30, 2020)

vangelismm said:


> Any f/4 zoom and any 1.8 prime.



I dont care if I never own another 1.4 lens again, bring on the 1.8 (f 2.0) primes please!


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Sep 30, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> RF 35 f/1.2


+1!


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Sep 30, 2020)

50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/1.8L IS, 150 f/2.8 1:1 APO macro, 300 f/2.8L IS, 500 f/4L IS, 600 f/5.6 DO IS, 200-600 f/5-6.3 IS, 12-24 f/4L, 16-35 f/4L IS, 100-300 f/4L IS, 16/18/20 f/1.4 (any of the them).

300 f/2.8 1.9kg, 500 f/4 2.4kg, 600 f/5.6 DO, 1.8kg


----------



## ianday (Sep 30, 2020)

20mm toneh 2 IS USM, to win back the heart of Camera Conspiracies and hobo vloggers everywhere.


----------



## beastofexmoor (Sep 30, 2020)

I will go pretty against the grain and say that I'd like to see a nice handful of compact native lenses under $500. The R and the RP are fantastic value FF cameras at this point, but there's exactly one lens that sells for under $500 new and it's a very mediocre kit zoom. Give some of those budget minded photographers a reason to get locked in on the R system. 

I'd also really like 400mm F/5.6 in the same style as the two F/11 zooms. They should be able to make it a similar size and price as the 800mm. Variable aperture would be needed though.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 30, 2020)

Since this is a wish list ...

85 f/1.4 which is similar in size and weight (and price!) to the Sigma 85 f/1.4 DG DN. A relatively portable 85 f/1.4 would suit me more than something like the RF 85 f/1.2. Alternatively, I'd be interested in an f/1.4 which is a bit wider than 85mm, say something around 70mm. I often feel like I'd like a fast prime somewhere between 50 and 85. (I recently saw a revew of Fuji's new 50 f/1.0 lens (about 75mm f/1.5 in full frame terms) and the reviewer was saying he really liked the bit of extra width compared to an 85mm equivalent, so it seems I'm not the only one ... although perhaps there are only the two of us?!)

35 f/1.4 which is no larger or heavier, and ideally smaller and lighter, than the Sigma 35 Art for EF mount. I'm guessing that should be possible given the size/weight of the Sigma 85 f/1.4 DG DN. (I assume going to f/1.2 would mean it would have to be bigger and heavier though, so personally I am willing to sacrifice the half stop or so of aperture.)

50 f/1.4 (or 55mm or 58mm) which is relatively small and light (ie closer to the size/weight of the EF 50 f/1.4 than the RF 50 f/1.2L) and moderately priced. I don't expect such a lens to be optically as good as the RF 50 f/1.2L, but I'd like it to be a step up from something like the 50 f/1.8 STM (eg in terms of bokeh). If it was f/1.8 rather than f/1.4 I'd still be interested, if size/weight/price are right - and from the rumours it seems that is probably the sort of lens we may well get.

A relatively small and light f/4 UWA zoom. It's not a lens I expect I would use a lot, so small, light and relatively inexpensive are more imporant to me than aperture on this lens. Zoom range could be 15 or 16 to 35, 17-40 or, say, 20-50. I think I would find 20-50 more useful than 15-35, but I expect many other people will say they would prefer the extra width.

A non-L zoom which goes to 400mm, eg 100-400, which is relatively small and light (although ideally not smaller than f/5.6 aperture at the long end). I am happy to accept that a lens like the RF 100-500 is excellent, but I'm not going to spend the money on it because I would use that focal length range only occasionally.


----------



## Skux (Sep 30, 2020)

A cute and affordable 28mm f2.8 pancake would be on my camera almost every day.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Sep 30, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/1.8L IS, 150 f/2.8 1:1 APO macro, 300 f/2.8L IS, 500 f/4L IS, 600 f/5.6 DO IS, 200-600 f/5-6.3 IS, 12-24 f/4L, 16-35 f/4L IS, 100-300 f/4L IS, 16/18/20 f/1.4 (any of the them).
> 
> 300 f/2.8 1.9kg, 500 f/4 2.4kg, 600 f/5.6 DO, 1.8kg



You have thought about this a lot I see.


----------



## SilverBox (Sep 30, 2020)

I would love an IS 35-135 f/2 the size of the 70-200 f/4


----------



## gfuresz (Sep 30, 2020)

#1) RF 100–600 zoom f/2(@100-300)—f4(@600) DO IS with built-in 1.4x (and at around or below $6k)
#2) RF 15-30 f/1.4 
#3) RF 135 f/1.4 IS Macro


----------



## Tom W (Sep 30, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



200-500 f/4 L


----------



## SteveC (Sep 30, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> ..and a hand-truck to move it around.



Go for 1.0. Which comes mounted on its own ATV.


----------



## LeeBabySimms (Sep 30, 2020)

While my 15-year-old 135L sings on my R6, I'd love to see a new version with less green fringe and better glare protection. Dear Canon, PLEASE don't make it a brick. Keep it ƒ2.0 and lightweight!


----------



## RobbieHat (Sep 30, 2020)

I’m not picky. 

11-24 f2 or faster
UWA 14mm or wider fast prime f1.8 or faster with good coma handling
F4 zooms for weight reduction
500 or 600 f4 that is a lot lighter than EF 600 mm f 4 vII
100 mm f2 macro. 

introduce those and I will buy them all and never come indoors again!

Bob


----------



## adrian_bacon (Sep 30, 2020)

navastronia said:


> That would be a killer street photography lens.



Exactly. The 40 on a little Rebel film body is pretty awesome, on the 6D is pretty awesome. In APS-C land, the 24mm pancake gives almost exactly the same field of view as the 40 on full frame. The 24 on a little rebel SL1, SL2, or SL3 is pretty awesome. Come to think of it, the 22mm EF-M pancake on something like the M5 or M50, or M6MII is also pretty good, though a bit wider field of view.


----------



## SimonH (Sep 30, 2020)

1200/11 APO lens would be nice. Simple, light weight, affordable. (but I am dreaming)


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 30, 2020)

RF 200mm f4 IS nano USM 1.5x Macro, RF-E 80mm 2x to 10x Macro along with RF mount mirrorless X0D replacement.


----------



## dsut4392 (Sep 30, 2020)

jd7 said:


> 50 f/1.4 (or 55mm or 58mm) which is relatively small and light (ie closer to the size/weight of the EF 50 f/1.4 than the RF 50 f/1.2L) and moderately priced. I don't expect such a lens to be optically as good as the RF 50 f/1.2L, but I'd like it to be a step up from something like the 50 f/1.8 STM (eg in terms of bokeh). If it was f/1.8 rather than f/1.4 I'd still be interested, if size/weight/price are right - and from the rumours it seems that is probably the sort of lens we are likely to get.
> nally.



This is exactly what I want - make a replica of my old Sigma 50/1.4 EX in RF mount with modern AF and take my money! Price isn't much of a factor for me, I just want nice bokeh in a compact and lighter weight package.


----------



## dolina (Sep 30, 2020)

300mm f/2.0L would be nice.

Very very small market but nice.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 30, 2020)

Seems like I have a humble wish list: 15mm f/2.8 fisheye, the rumored 10-24mm f/4L USM, 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM that accepts TCs. Fast cheap primes, e.g. 50mm f/1.4 USM, would be nice.


----------



## zim (Sep 30, 2020)

adrian_bacon said:


> Exactly. The 40 on a little Rebel film body is pretty awesome, on the 6D is pretty awesome. In APS-C land, the 24mm pancake gives almost exactly the same field of view as the 40 on full frame. The 24 on a little rebel SL1, SL2, or SL3 is pretty awesome. Come to think of it, the 22mm EF-M pancake on something like the M5 or M50, or M6MII is also pretty good, though a bit wider field of view.


By the time any of these lenses turn up you'd be better off just using the ef40 and adapter or wait for the 50 f2/f1.8 yes i know those ain't pancakes but doubt they will make anything smaller than that for a long time if ever. I'm a big fan of the 40 that's what I'd do.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 30, 2020)

Previously my most used lenses were:

MP-E65mm (macro)
EF100mm L (macro)
EF180mm L (macro)
EF85 f/1.8 (my kids)
EF-M32 f/1.4 (my kids)
Since a few weeks I have the RF100-500, which is great for dragonflies and the RF85 f/2 has been preordered at launch.

So what I'd like to see in RF is:

A long-ish stabilized 1:1 macro, e.g 200mm
A loooong stabilized 1:1 macro, e.g 400mm
A stabilized macro that can do up to 3:1 and focus to infinity, somewhere between 60 and 100mm. Preferably with a slot for the same rear filters as the EF-RF filter adapter, the flashes tend to be waaaaay in front of the lens causing flare and other internal reflections.
50mm f/1.8 that works with the R5 IBIS to remove the rolling motion when I try to film my kids.
And not RF, but related:

A first party twin light flash that's a lot cheaper than the MT26-EX at €1300.


----------



## shailesh_raut (Sep 30, 2020)

terrellcwoods said:


> A 200mm-600mm f/5.6 would be pretty awesome and an RF 135 f/2. That's my wish list


yes, thats really important. RF 100-500 does really good with autofocus but you simply miss the quality/background blur when you have to crop images for sharing with social communities. Also 100-500 should have been made with F 4.5 to 6.3 atleast.


----------



## Hyperion (Sep 30, 2020)

24(28)-85 f2.8 IS would be cool too


----------



## mariosk1gr (Sep 30, 2020)

50mm 1.8 stm macro to complete the series (35mm/85mm). 24 also same specs.
100mm macro that is a super must for RF right now.
24/35L f:/1.2... can it be?
17-55L Rf for S35 sensor (C70). A lens that ppl are screaming for years...
70-135L f:/2.


----------



## tron (Sep 30, 2020)

The 17-70 f/4 mentioned as a rumor a long time ago. Assuming it is an L.
That would be a perfect excursion lens when only one lens is desired.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Sep 30, 2020)

-180mm macro 
-500mm f5.6 DO
-Something wide angle macro like the Laowa 15mm!


----------



## dilbert (Sep 30, 2020)

The #1 lens in the buy/rent ad on this page: a 70-300L.


----------



## Occams_Cat (Sep 30, 2020)

*RF 500mm DO f5.6 IS. *

(And it's about a decade too late for the EF mount, but we need new RF versions of the 300mm F4 IS & 400mm f5.6 (with IS))

The gap between the $2-3K and the $10-12K telephoto offerings needs filling. The f11 800 & 600's are fun and the f4 and f5.6 will bankrupt most. Middle ground?


----------



## Erlend Krumsvik (Sep 30, 2020)

Short list:

Canon RF 11-35mm f/2L USM
Canon RF 70-135mm f/2L USM
Canon RF 180-400mm f/4L IS USM (1,4 converter)
Canon RF 100mm f/2,8L IS MACRO USM
Canon RF 24mm Tilt/Shift


----------



## sulla (Sep 30, 2020)

all my desired lenses already exist or are already in the pipeline:

trinity of f/4 zooms
at least 1.4 fast primes in all varieties. Until then, the EF ones can always be adapted...

The only lens I am missing terribly in the EF lineup is a good 50, and the RF 50 1.2 fills that need just about exactly.

But if you ask for dreams:

a bunch of 1.0 - or faster - primes: The classic focal lengths will do: 14, 24, 35, 50, 85


----------



## sulla (Sep 30, 2020)

@CR guy: what about collecting the suggestions here and doing a little poll?


----------



## M Jane (Sep 30, 2020)

A 500mm f5.6 DO lens of similar weight to Nikon’s 500mm f5.6 PF lens and a 200-600mm f6.3 zoom.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 30, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Previously my most used lenses were:
> 
> MP-E65mm (macro)
> EF100mm L (macro)
> ...


For 3:1 Macro if there is a limitation for AF beyond 1x even that would be a reasonable compromise for lens that would be easy to carry in field.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 30, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> That is such an incredibly specialized lens I don't see that ever happening.


I know dude...but its a wish list!


----------



## Viggo (Sep 30, 2020)

400 f5.6. 
100 f1.4.
A Canon version of the Zeiss 100 f2 mp. 
200 f1.8
135 f1.8


----------



## Wickedkayaker (Sep 30, 2020)

Canon RF 20mm TSE


----------



## Respinder (Sep 30, 2020)

My only wish:
A modern version of the Canon “dream” lens
50mm f0.95


----------



## max (Sep 30, 2020)

135L f/2 or f/1.8


----------



## filmmakerken (Sep 30, 2020)

I'm still waiting for the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS that was rumored.
I'd also like to see RF Cinema Primes and, since Canon Cinema cameras and video modes on DSLRs are still mostly Super 35 sensors, a RF to RF speed booster


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Sep 30, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I know dude...but its a wish list!


Just buy the Samyang 24mm tilt shift. That is basically a non-L quality tilt shift.


----------



## ozturert (Sep 30, 2020)

15-35mm f2.8 IS is a great lens but it has huge vignetting. I understand that to keep the size small enough it was necessary but that high vignetting is extreme. Just look at Imaging Resource and Opticallimits reviews and you'll see.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Sep 30, 2020)

sulla said:


> all my desired lenses already exist or are already in the pipeline:
> 
> trinity of f/4 zooms
> at least 1.4 fast primes in all varieties. Until then, the EF ones can always be adapted...
> ...


 The f4 trinity is my desire as well. Always wanted to replace my 50 Compact macro, but I never cared for any of Canon’s 50s nor the 24-70 f4. Nikon has the exact lenses that I like except the 70-200 f4. Their 50 1.8 is outstanding.


----------



## Rivermist (Sep 30, 2020)

Nice to expect the 15-35 1:4 IS, but I would wait and see the roadmap for wide zooms fleshed out before committing, I have the EF 16-35 1:4 so I can wait. The fundamental question is whether the RF mount can deliver a 10-24, 12-24 or 12-28 that is significantly more compact while maintaining or improving quality compared to the rather bulky EF 11-24 (that I love). For the rest still waiting for my 100-500 on backorder, patents, announcements and rumors are great, but I would really like to actually put it on a camera


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 30, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> non L tilt shifts. I want those for EF too, but since RF is the future I'll take them here.
> 
> -Brian


Why and how much cheaper would you expect them to be?


----------



## ericjon23 (Sep 30, 2020)

10-24 f2
70-135 f2


----------



## KirkD (Sep 30, 2020)

A 15mm f1.4 or f2 prime for night landscape photography (both night sky and night landscape in the same photo).


----------



## BroderLund (Sep 30, 2020)

Something to compete against Sigma 18-35 1.8. On RF but made for crops sensor like the C70. Idealy with IS, but that is wishful thinking.


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Go for 1.0. Which comes mounted on its own ATV.




If it’s a Honda I’m in for two.


----------



## dvmnxk (Sep 30, 2020)

Primes:
---------------
35mm f/1.0 IS USM L (statement lens)
35mm f/1.4 IS USM
50mm f/1.0 IS USM L (statement lens)
50mm f/1.6 USM (pancake)
50mm f/1.4 IS USM
85mm f/1.0 IS USM L (statement lens)

Zooms:
-------------
10-50 f/2 IS USM L (statement lens)
50-100mm f/2 IS USM L (statement lens)
24-200mm f/4 IS USM L


----------



## SteB1 (Sep 30, 2020)

Okay, I still use DSKRs, 7D mkII, 5Ds, and some other crop bodies, but here is what I think Canon needs from a nature and macro photographer's perspective. As well as the usual long fast telephotos, I think Canon need something in the class of Sony's 200-600mm f6.3 and the Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF. These are both lenses which have changed how nature photographers can shoot. There are no Canon equivalents, and really Canon should learn from how well these lenses have been received. Canon also needs a long macro lens in the 180-200mm range, because the EF 180mm f3.5 was already a very outdated lens, which really needed to be updated with IS and faster AF. Probably an RF replacement for the unique MP-E 65mm would be useful. I'd recommend starting at less than 1:1, say 1/2 or 1/3 life size, to make it more versatile.

This is in addition to the lenses we are likely to get i.e. normal macro lenses and long fast telephoto zooms. I think one thing Canon needs to consider, which would be especially useful for macro photographers is greater than life-size, say 2:1 like the Laowa lenses. This could negate the need for an MP-E type lens. This massively increases the versatility of such lenses. Having to remove macro lenses in the field to add extension tubes is far from ideal because this massively increases the risk of getting debris like pollen grains on the sensor.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 30, 2020)

APP said:


> I definitely want a 15-35 f/4. I want it as sharp as the f/2.8 version at equal apertures, equal or better coma control, and better vignetting. Smaller, lighter, and cheaper as well, of course. Basically the RF version of my 16-35 f/4. I'd be on the preorder list for that lens.
> 
> I wanted the 2.8 but decided the vignetting was disqualifying for my use cases. It does look awesome otherwise.
> 
> In the meantime I can wait and use adapters.



Just curious.
With vignetting so easily fixed in post...why is it such a deal breaker for you?

Thanks in advance!!

cayenne


----------



## cayenne (Sep 30, 2020)

yoms said:


> Can we actually have a new *EF* 135mm f/2.0 *IS* for ****** sake?!?!



Just my best guess, but I seriously doubt there will be any new EF lens development and release. 

I think Canon firmly believes the RF lens line is the future and that's where their development dollars will be spent.

Sure, they will support and continue to produce the current EF lenses for a good while to come, but I don't see them going forward with new designs or releases on the EF mount which seems to be at this point a dead end and RF being the road forward with Canon.

Just my thoughts....and and $0.50 still won't buy you a cup of coffee.


cayenne


----------



## RickD (Sep 30, 2020)

Would love to see an affordable UWA from Canon, doesn't have to be an L.


----------



## SilverBox (Sep 30, 2020)

More high quality compact primes!


----------



## David_E (Sep 30, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


100mm macro, 1:1. 180mm macro 1:1, this time with IS.


----------



## David_E (Sep 30, 2020)

CanonGrunt said:


> _I second this._


Which do you second—the desire for the lens, or the infantile use of unnecessary crude language in a public forum?


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Sep 30, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Just my best guess, but I seriously doubt there will be any new EF lens development and release.
> 
> I think Canon firmly believes the RF lens line is the future and that's where their development dollars will be spent.
> 
> ...



I know...

That said, they released a new 1DX and left Canon pro shooters with poor/outdated 50mm lenses and an old 135mm w/o IS. This is no so great if you've just bought the latest 1DX III as you're obviously involved in that system for many years to come.


----------



## neurorx (Sep 30, 2020)

terrellcwoods said:


> A 200mm-600mm f/5.6 would be pretty awesome and an RF 135 f/2. That's my wish list


I second this!


----------



## Ronny Wertelaers (Sep 30, 2020)

I have my R5 received with the 85 F1.2 RF and 50 F1.2 RF. Waiting for the 35 F1.? to complete my setup. The 35 is a really important lens for wedding photographers, so i am a little surprised that canon is waiting so long to bring this out.


----------



## HarryFilm (Sep 30, 2020)

I personally want the Canon version of the Sigma Sports Zooms like this one:









Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens for Canon EF


Buy Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens for Canon EF featuring EF-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format, Aperture Range: f/5 to f/22, Two FLD Elements, Three SLD Elements, Super Multi-Layer Coating, Hyper Sonic Motor AF System, OS Image Stabilization, Fixed, Rotating Tripod Collar, Rounded...




www.bhphotovideo.com





but as L-series glass with more reach!

I need MINIMUM 135mm to 650mm at f/4 to f/5.6 Sports Zoom Lens at $4500 USD or less.

....BUT....

if it can be done for $6500 USD or less, a Canon L-series

Sports Zoom Lens at 100 mm to 800 mm at f/2.8 to f/5.6 .... WOULD BE WICKEDLY AWESOME !!!!!

--

I always need that sort of reach in Soccer (football), hockey, basketball, skiing and F1 racing and now in my NEWEST sports photo activity of Unlimited Class Powerboat Racing:






















We're building a few of these monster unlimited class boats (i.e. the parent Aerospace company -- Owner is a powerboat racer and an F1 team partner) by Lake Okanagan in Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada but we are WAAAAAAAY upping the shaft horsepower up to 30,000 Horsepower (2 x 15k HP) using twin turbines mated to full immersion water jet (impeller) propulsion. Hydrodynamics limit us to a maximum possible of about 350 MPH (580 kmh) on a TWIN-CAT hull on flat water but it will DEFINITELY be a sight to see! Ergo, my need for that fancy 100 mm to 800mm sports lens for less than $6500 USD.


V


----------



## Bonich (Sep 30, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> I honestly really want an RF 85mm F/1.4L IS. The EF version is soooo nice and I love that lens, but I'm not getting anymore EF glass and it's hard to justify the additional price and weight of the RF 85 F/1.2. The 85mm F/2 looks nice, but F/2 is too slow and I don't expect wonders from the STM focusing. If Canon announced an RF 85 F/1.4L IS for $1800 I would pre-order it right off the bat.
> 
> Outside of that, I'm eagerly awaiting a RF 300mm F/2.8L of some sort, as well as a RF 100mm F/2.8 1x macro. Those are really the only three lenses I feel like I'm missing from my gear at the moment.


Use the EF version, it just works great @ EOS R.


----------



## tron (Sep 30, 2020)

M Jane said:


> A 500mm f5.6 DO lens of similar weight to Nikon’s 500mm f5.6 PF lens and a 200-600mm f6.3 zoom.


Yes and Yes!


----------



## Christoph Müller (Sep 30, 2020)

I want an EF 100mm F2.8 1:1 Macro equivalent for RF mount


----------



## tron (Sep 30, 2020)

Bonich said:


> Use the EF version, it just works great @ EOS R.


Coincidentally I have tested this combination (85 1.4 with R) and I concur!


----------



## pbspence (Sep 30, 2020)

20mm f/1.8


----------



## tron (Sep 30, 2020)

tron said:


> M Jane said:
> 
> 
> > A 500mm f5.6 DO lens of similar weight to Nikon’s 500mm f5.6 PF lens and a 200-600mm f6.3 zoom.
> ...


That one! And/or a 600 f/5.6 DO lens (OK I basically repeat myself here!) or a 600 f/6.3 DO lens (a proper high quality DO lens like the 400 4 II not the 600mm or 800mm tubes  )


----------



## RajatMishra (Sep 30, 2020)

70-135 f2
35 1.2


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 1, 2020)

I'd like a 150-200mm macro F/4 or 5.6 would be fine since I always stop down macro shots. Advanced IS that was useful to 1:1 or greater as well.


----------



## 58Special (Oct 1, 2020)

Would like to see something like the 400mm DO L type lens in 500mm.


----------



## ColinJR (Oct 1, 2020)

Oh boy... I have so many...

Tilt shifts (start with 17, 24, but I would really love to see a 35mm)
Are smaller (than the 28–70) ultra fast aperture zooms even possible, like a 24–50mm, 50–85mm @f/2?
1.4 primes
35mm 1.2L
15–35 f/4L IS
TOTAL FANTASY LENS: 17–40mm f/4 TS-E ZOOM (I can dream ok?)


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Oct 1, 2020)

CanonGrunt said:


> You have thought about this a lot I see.



I have a lot of time, still waiting for RF lenses to excite me. Only ones I want are the 24-70 f/2.8L IS and maybe 50 f/1.2. I'll keep my EF glass unless these lenses come along. However, I'm not holding my breath for much of this to happen so I may never get the R5.


----------



## CampanellaFoto (Oct 1, 2020)

400mm f2,8 
200-400mm f4,0 with built in converter


----------



## RMac (Oct 1, 2020)

Rounding out the L-glass primes:

24mm f1.2L (35 would be okay too, but the IQ of the 24mm f1.4L ii is way behind the 35 so hopefully that will get updated first)
135mm f1.4L (or f1.8L so that mere mortals can hand hold it for more than 30 seconds)
14mm f1.4L with some sort of nice filter option (maybe ability to use the same drop-ins from the EF-RF adapter)
100mm f2.8L Macro with at least 1:1
200mm f1.8L
Zooms:

70-200 f4L (hopefully even more compact than the 2.8)
10-24 f4L (again, bonus if it works with the EF-RF adapter drop-in filters)
14-28 f2L
70-135 f2L
Adapters:

EF-RF tilt adapter


----------



## randy98mtu (Oct 1, 2020)

I'm good on zooms, but I'd love to see L primes at 24, 35 and 135. I really love all of the RF glass. I'm only keeping 2 EF's right now to be dual purpose with my M6m2.


----------



## Kurt Lust (Oct 1, 2020)

There's one that is so high on my wish list that I cannot even think of two others at the moment: a RF-replacement for the 16-35 f/4L. I prefer one that is compact to store and with a 77mm filter thread, to effectively combine to a 77mm-almost-f/4-trinity with the 24-105 f/4L and 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1. All 77mm allows to carry just a small set of circular screw-on filters that fit on all lenses if the added functionality of the bulky filter systems with square and rectangular filters isn't required (and makes the filter part of the kit more affordable if you don't use filters too often).


----------



## DickersonPhoto (Oct 1, 2020)

16-35mm f/4
70-300mm f/4
Super-wide (11mm? 12mm?) f/2.8 or f/4

For those who've mentioned a Tilt-Shift adapter, EF/RF lenses don't have a large enough image circle, but I bought a Fotodiox TLT ROKR that adapts my Mamiya Medium Format lenses and works GREAT!


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 1, 2020)

Actually it just occurred to me that a 24-70 F4 L IS in the RF mount would probably be pretty nice. I know the EF version is nice and compact and this would be a re-hash, but i'd probably rather have that as a kit lens than the 24-105. Smaller, lighter enough that coupled with the smaller RF body size it would make a great walk around combo. 

And a tilt adapter for EF to RF...whoever said that first is a genius!


----------



## Josh Hawkins (Oct 1, 2020)

When the R1 is announced I'd like to see a 200-400 2.8 with 1.4tc, or something similar. I'm sure it would cost 15k plus, but it would sell like crazy.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 1, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Just buy the Samyang 24mm tilt shift. That is basically a non-L quality tilt shift.


I have it. Maybe some day they will come out with a 50 and 90mm too. 

Brian


----------



## lawny13 (Oct 1, 2020)

Rather than think exotic I would like canon to present us with a more balanced option (cost/size/performance/weight). 


And I would like to see them present us with lenses that plug the most glaring holes in their line up. Take the 50 mm FL for example. After seeing the RF 35 f1.8, I am HOPING that we don't essentially get the same in 50 mm. 


I would very much see canon show us that they will provide us with a 3 lineup option. A budget 50 f1.8, a good weather sealed f1.4 50 that competes with the lines of the Z50 or the ZA 55.

I was willing to pay for an R5. But I am not necessarily ready to lug around a 50 f1.2 just because it is the creme of the crop. There are the lenses that you lust after because of their specs and ultimate image quality, but there are also those that are great, and you will actually leave the house with often. I am more than willing to pay $800-$1000 for such a lens over a nifty fifty costing $100. I live in a country were certain months of the year it will literally range for days on end. I value weather sealing, and I am willing to pay for it. The option of a small package while on the go is a nice option to have. 

So... here is a +++ to those f1.8s, and f4 primes/zooms. I will own a few high end glass, but I also want those more portable options (but still good quality) to balance things out.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 1, 2020)

Kurt Lust said:


> There's one that is so high on my wish list that I cannot even think of two others at the moment: a RF-replacement for the 16-35 f/4L. I prefer one that is compact to store and with a 77mm filter thread, to effectively combine to a 77mm-almost-f/4-trinity with the 24-105 f/4L and 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1. All 77mm allows to carry just a small set of circular screw-on filters that fit on all lenses if the added functionality of the bulky filter systems with square and rectangular filters isn't required (and makes the filter part of the kit more affordable if you don't use filters too often).



That seems to be the most popular response from what I've seen...well, not quite: I'm seeing a lot of people wanting an f/4.0 "little brother" to the 15-35 f/2.8. If you can deal with that extra mm at the short end, you can join that party.


----------



## APP (Oct 2, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Just curious.
> With vignetting so easily fixed in post...why is it such a deal breaker for you?
> 
> Thanks in advance!!
> ...



I shoot landscapes and enjoy nightscapes with the milky way as well. The 15-35 has close to 5 stops of vignetting in the corners...Petty extreme, but not horrible if shot at ISO 100 in the day (they would correct to noise levels of approximately iso 3200). But at night shooting at 3200 or 6400 to avoid star trails, pushing the corners pushes the noise quite high. (3200+5 stops= iso102,400) I can shoot the 16-35 at f/4, have greater depth of field, and the corners only have about 2.5 stops of vignetting. Comparing the daylight example, if I shoot the same shutter speed, I'd be at ISO 200 (f/4 vs f/2.8) but the corners would only be pushed to equivalent of ISO 1600 with corrections. 

I've recently been shooting nightscapes with a tracker at lower isos (100-400) so less pushing of the corners tends to look better to my eye since I can keep them to a more reasonable value. I'm sure I could make nice photos with the RF15-35, but the value proposition wasn't there for me personally.


----------



## tron (Oct 2, 2020)

APP said:


> I shoot landscapes and enjoy nightscapes with the milky way as well. The 15-35 has close to 5 stops of vignetting in the corners...Petty extreme, but not horrible if shot at ISO 100 in the day (they would correct to noise levels of approximately iso 3200). But at night shooting at 3200 or 6400 to avoid star trails, pushing the corners pushes the noise quite high. (3200+5 stops= iso102,400) I can shoot the 16-35 at f/4, have greater depth of field, and the corners only have about 2.5 stops of vignetting. Comparing the daylight example, if I shoot the same shutter speed, I'd be at ISO 200 (f/4 vs f/2.8) but the corners would only be pushed to equivalent of ISO 1600 with corrections.
> 
> I've recently been shooting nightscapes with a tracker at lower isos (100-400) so less pushing of the corners tends to look better to my eye since I can keep them to a more reasonable value. I'm sure I could make nice photos with the RF15-35, but the value proposition wasn't there for me personally.


That's why a Sigma 14mm 1.8 is useful to me! Vignetting 2.28 at f/1.8, 1.76 at f/2.0 and 0.84 at f/2.8


----------



## APP (Oct 2, 2020)

tron said:


> That's why a Sigma 14mm 1.8 is useful to me! Vignetting 2.28 at f/1.8, 1.76 at f/2.0 and 0.84 at f/2.8




Thanks, I'll have to check that out! Might be a worthy replacement for my rokinon 14/2.8. But ideally I'd love a zoom to keep my kit lighter and more "hikeable" than a bag full of special purpose primes.


----------



## tron (Oct 2, 2020)

APP said:


> Thanks, I'll have to check that out! Might be a worthy replacement for my rokinon 14/2.8. But ideally I'd love a zoom to keep my kit lighter and more "hikeable" than a bag full of special purpose primes.








Sigma A 14 mm f/1.8 DG HSM review - Introduction - LensTip.com


Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.




www.lenstip.com


----------



## adrian_bacon (Oct 2, 2020)

zim said:


> By the time any of these lenses turn up you'd be better off just using the ef40 and adapter or wait for the 50 f2/f1.8 yes i know those ain't pancakes but doubt they will make anything smaller than that for a long time if ever. I'm a big fan of the 40 that's what I'd do.



That's what I've been doing. I have the control ring adapter and the 40 pancake. It works, but in all honesty, I'd really prefer to lose the adapter as you lose a lot of the size advantage with the adapter. The 40 and the adapter is about the same length as the RF 35 IS STM, and for that size, I'd rather have the IS of the 35, and it's over a stop faster.


----------



## rwvaughn (Oct 2, 2020)

I'd love a 50-135mm f/2.8 IS (f/2 would be a dream)


----------



## riker (Oct 2, 2020)

Why don't you just make that a
24-35/1.8 instead of 1.4 and then it's not so much impossible.

My impossible dream is 20-120/4
Don't give me a new telephoto lens, just make a *2X teleconverter work with the RF 70-200/2.8!!!*
300-600/5.6 or 250-500/5.6? DO?


----------



## Ph0t0 (Oct 2, 2020)

I'm gonna put down more than three. I don't know how realistic these are, but I would like to have them anyway 

-Wide angle lens that is light and has vignetting well under control
*RF 15-35mm f4 IS *

-A versatile medium zoom for landscapes that is a bit wider than at the lower and not too heavy
*RF 20-70mm f4 L IS*

-A HQ zoom that has a bit more reach and is bright enough to be used for shooting landscapes and occasional wildlife (larger mammals in the mountains or similar) and is not too heavy to be carried around as a second lens
*RF 70-300mm f4 L IS *(what do you guys thing about such a lens?)

-Relatively light and reasonably bright HQ telephoto lens
*500mm f5,6 L DO IS*

-Really bright wide angle lens that doesn't vignette too bad
*14mm f1,4 L* (16 or 18mm f1,2 could work as well )

-Macro lens over 150mm
*RF 200mm f4 IS L MACRO*

- Wide angle, wide aperture tilt-shift with AF (when not tilted)
*RF 18 or 20 or 24mm f2,8 AF Tilt-Shift*

-Maybe another really really bright lens with less vignetting in the range from 24 to 40mm
*RF 40mm f1,0* L (is f1,0 possible for RF at this focal length?)

-A lighter version of 200-400?
*RF 200-400mm f4 DO L IS*


----------



## stochasticmotions (Oct 2, 2020)

rbielefeld said:


> 600 f/4 DO


or a 500 f/4 DO would also do the trick....I would likely replace my current 500 with this assuming it would be as good as the current 400DO.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Oct 2, 2020)

I like the fact that Canon is trying some different and unique lenses to start on RF. I will likely continue using my EF lenses since they are all pretty great but would be interested in trying some different ones. A 12-24 f/4 (or similar) would be more interesting for me than just replacing the 16-35. Would love to see a prime in the 14 to 20 f/1.4 range for astro. Would also love to see something similar to Nikon's 500PF as that seems to be a pretty fabulous little lens that I could take on "white knuckle" airlines that have weight restrictions.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 2, 2020)

APP said:


> I shoot landscapes and enjoy nightscapes with the milky way as well. The 15-35 has close to 5 stops of vignetting in the corners...Petty extreme, but not horrible if shot at ISO 100 in the day (they would correct to noise levels of approximately iso 3200). But at night shooting at 3200 or 6400 to avoid star trails, pushing the corners pushes the noise quite high. (3200+5 stops= iso102,400) I can shoot the 16-35 at f/4, have greater depth of field, and the corners only have about 2.5 stops of vignetting. Comparing the daylight example, if I shoot the same shutter speed, I'd be at ISO 200 (f/4 vs f/2.8) but the corners would only be pushed to equivalent of ISO 1600 with corrections.
> 
> I've recently been shooting nightscapes with a tracker at lower isos (100-400) so less pushing of the corners tends to look better to my eye since I can keep them to a more reasonable value. I'm sure I could make nice photos with the RF15-35, but the value proposition wasn't there for me personally.



OH goodness...I didn't know it was THAT bad on vignetting....

C


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 2, 2020)

ColinJR said:


> Oh boy... I have so many...
> 
> Tilt shifts (start with 17, 24, but I would really love to see a 35mm)
> Are smaller (than the 28–70) ultra fast aperture zooms even possible, like a 24–50mm, 50–85mm @f/2?
> ...


I'm dreaming exactly the same dream...


----------



## zim (Oct 2, 2020)

adrian_bacon said:


> That's what I've been doing. I have the control ring adapter and the 40 pancake. It works, but in all honesty, I'd really prefer to lose the adapter as you lose a lot of the size advantage with the adapter. The 40 and the adapter is about the same length as the RF 35 IS STM, and for that size, I'd rather have the IS of the 35, and it's over a stop faster.


Agreed, that's what I'd do if i had an R# i think pancakes will be too long a time coming


----------



## SteveC (Oct 2, 2020)

zim said:


> Agreed, that's what I'd do if i had an R# i think pancakes will be too long a time coming



I know basically nothing about lens design, but who knows what sorts of pancakes are even going to be possible with a shorter distance in front of the sensor? Will focal lengths have to be longer? Shorter?

I know there is a 22mm EF-M pancake, and an EF-S 28mm pancake. so I'm going to WAG it as needing to be about 30-35mm, but, oddly enough they already have a non-pancake 35mm.


----------



## fox40phil (Oct 2, 2020)

terrellcwoods said:


> A 200mm-600mm f/5.6 would be pretty awesome and an RF 135 f/2. That's my wish list



THIS! Maybe as a DO lens?!

maybe also a
400-800 f8.0?!

135 f1.8 IS

150/180 f2.8 IS Macro

how about a TS-Adapter for Ef-RF lenses?!


----------



## LocationImaging (Oct 2, 2020)

yoms said:


> I know...
> 
> That said, they released a new 1DX and left Canon pro shooters with poor/outdated 50mm lenses and an old 135mm w/o IS. This is no so great if you've just bought the latest 1DX III as you're obviously involved in that system for many years to come.


I am replacing 1DX Mk II bodies with Mk III bodies as quick as I can (3 left) and a 50mm lens isn't even in my bag for what I shoot. This is a pro sports body, the best of the best with a mirror. I use them for fast action sports and there is only twice each year that a lens as small as a 70-200mm f/2.8L is mounted. Every weekend, my team and I select 300mm, 400mm or 600mm lenses and all are either f/2.8 or f/4 in the case of the 600s.

If we need to shoot a celebrity appearance, meet and greet, etc, I give out R5 bodies with RF glass. Sweet stuff and my clients love the results. This is when we use the 28-70mm f/2. We don't yet own a really wide zoom, but that would be next for us. 15-35mm?

As for needed glass for us, 300mm and 400mm in f/2.8 and 500 and 600 in f/4. The max diameter of the hood of a 400mm f/2.8L or 600mm f/4L is about as large as I can live with from a storage logistics standpoint. I still have to get the glass to the event!

Thoughts?


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Oct 2, 2020)

LocationImaging said:


> I am replacing 1DX Mk II bodies with Mk III bodies as quick as I can (3 left) and a 50mm lens isn't even in my bag for what I shoot. This is a pro sports body, the best of the best with a mirror. I use them for fast action sports and there is only twice each year that a lens as small as a 70-200mm f/2.8L is mounted. Every weekend, my team and I select 300mm, 400mm or 600mm lenses and all are either f/2.8 or f/4 in the case of the 600s.
> 
> If we need to shoot a celebrity appearance, meet and greet, etc, I give out R5 bodies with RF glass. Sweet stuff and my clients love the results. This is when we use the 28-70mm f/2. We don't yet own a really wide zoom, but that would be next for us. 15-35mm?
> 
> ...


Sure, that's your use case. But, the 1D X is also used by reporter, journalists, (low light) events, etc. for different use cases. For them, a 50mm could be very useful. I mean it feels weird to me to release a new 1D X and at the same time not expecting any new lenses when some need replacement.
All zooms are fairly recent and top notch. Many primes have been updated the last few years but the 50mm and the 135mm. Imagine someone being in the market for a 1D X Mk III who also needs a 50mm, tough situation imho.


----------



## fox40phil (Oct 2, 2020)

May I also ask for a 120-300 f2.8 with 1,4/2.0TC please... and only for <5-8k€... not like Nikon’s 120-300... more like Sigmas.


----------



## LocationImaging (Oct 2, 2020)

yoms said:


> Sure, that's your use case. But, the 1D X is also used by reporter, journalists, (low light) events, etc. for different use cases. For them, a 50mm could be very useful. I mean it feels weird to me to release a new 1D X and at the same time not expecting any new lenses when some need replacement.
> All zooms are fairly recent and top notch. Many primes have been updated the last few years but the 50mm and the 135mm. Imagine someone being in the market for a 1D X Mk III who also needs a 50mm, tough situation imho.


Agree 100%. Big/fast lenses fit with what I do, and I agree there are many other uses for the 1DX Mk III. But isn't that the direction the R Series of mirrorless bodies are headed? I am sure that Canon is a little strapped for engineering manpower when it comes to product development. I am kind of seeing a push toward the mirrorless side for new products and this seems to indicate to me that their product development staff is working on RF glass until a glaring shortfall would cause Canon to develop a replacement EF lens. I only have one EF 50mm f/1.4L, but it is good enough for me. Are the EF 50mm lens offerings so bad for photojournalism? I wasn't aware.


----------



## LocationImaging (Oct 2, 2020)

One thing I did forget that I want to mention.

12mm and 25mm Canon RF Extension Tubes. I like to shoot macro with extension tubes that don't take a lot of room in the RF bag. I have a cheap knock-off set but really want the Canon quality...

Thoughts?


----------



## wsmith96 (Oct 2, 2020)

I'd take a 28-135 f/2.8-4. Sometimes 105 isn't long enough.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 2, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> May I also ask for a 120-300 f2.8 with 1,4/2.0TC please... and only for <5-8k€... not like Nikon’s 120-300... more like Sigmas.



The Nikon one is prime level, I think Canon's would be a $10,000 lens that is also prime level.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 2, 2020)

A RF 200mm f/2.8 macro would kill my need for a shorter macro and a 70-200. Assuming it can focus fast enough.


----------



## Ziz (Oct 5, 2020)

One of the key advantages of mirrorless that has been preached in recent years was the ability to reduce the size of the bodies and lenses. When every ounce and every cm counts for travel and street photogs, it seems all the non-tele lenses - you know, the ones you use all the time unless your main thing is wildlife or sports - only seem to be getting bigger. 
Where is the small, fast (USM) L glass??
How about a nifty fifty smaller (in length) than the classic ef1.4


----------



## PeterH (Oct 5, 2020)

I would really like to see a RF 1:1 “L” glass macro lens!


----------



## adrian_bacon (Oct 6, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I know basically nothing about lens design, but who knows what sorts of pancakes are even going to be possible with a shorter distance in front of the sensor? Will focal lengths have to be longer? Shorter?
> 
> I know there is a 22mm EF-M pancake, and an EF-S 28mm pancake. so I'm going to WAG it as needing to be about 30-35mm, but, oddly enough they already have a non-pancake 35mm.



It's actually 22mm in EF-m and 24mm in EF-s. I have both. The 24mm EF-s and 40mm EF are externally indistinguishable from each other except for the lettering on the (very short) barrel. Just like the 40, the 24 EF-s punches way above it's weight class in terms of IQ. It's quite excellent for the money and focuses down to 6 inches. The 22mm EF-m is also very good optically, and not expensive. I doubt that Canon would have much problem making a pancake 40 RF at f/2.8. From what I've gathered about the 35mm IS STM in RF (which I also have) is most of the size is actually the image stab. They could easily add one more slider switch to switch the one control ring between manual focus or control ring on a 40 RF pancake. Both of the pancakes have minimal lens elements, and I doubt the back flange distance is really that much of an issue, otherwise, how would they make any long lens with even EF flange distance that could focus to infinity? If it were, then a 22mm EF-m pancake would be a real problem, and it's almost exactly the same length as the other two pancake primes. Heck, I'd even be OK with a prime that was 1/4 inch longer than the current pancake primes if they needed to do that. I just love the 40mm field of view on full frame and want a reasonably small and light prime with at least f/2.8


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 6, 2020)

After my 3rd race using the R5, I can tell you right now that the lens that I really _NEED _the most, is a new 135L and it *MUST* be compatible with the teleconverters. The 135L has long been my top low light motorsports lens and I have always valued its size, weight, and functionality with the teleconverters. Sadly, there's really no way around it - the 135L is not a very good performer on the R5 and R6. Not being able to use this lens at the top frame rates these cameras deliver, as well as no supporting the best performance from the viewfinder is really unfortunate. I have also discovered that face and eye detection don't appear to work as well either on this lens.

For me, this is a practical want and more along the lines of an actual need. It's the only EF lens I own that really suffers on this camera and when I travel for work, I favor taking this lens and the 100-400 over using that room for my 70-200. I guess if this doesn't end up coming to fruition, I will just pick up an RF 70-200 and sell off my EF 70-200.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 6, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> After my 3rd race using the R5, I can tell you right now that the lens that I really _NEED _the most, is a new 135L and it *MUST* be compatible with the teleconverters. The 135L has long been my top low light motorsports lens and I have always valued its size, weight, and functionality with the teleconverters. Sadly, there's really no way around it - the 135L is not a very good performer on the R5 and R6. Not being able to use this lens at the top frame rates these cameras deliver, as well as no supporting the best performance from the viewfinder is really unfortunate. I have also discovered that face and eye detection don't appear to work as well either on this lens.
> 
> For me, this is a practical want and more along the lines of an actual need. It's the only EF lens I own that really suffers on this camera and when I travel for work, I favor taking this lens and the 100-400 over using that room for my 70-200. I guess if this doesn't end up coming to fruition, I will just pick up an RF 70-200 and sell off my EF 70-200.


I don't know the f# of your 135L lens, but I hope Canon comes out with a RF 135mm f2 (or f1.8)L IS lens in the near future. I'd love to have a fast 135mm lens, but I also want it to be reasonable to hold and carry around which is why I'd prefer the 67mm aperture of the f2 most, while I'd accept the 75mm aperture of the f1.8. While I could afford the cost, anything faster than that would be too big and heavy for me to want to carry around, as I am not using it for professional work.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Oct 6, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> After my 3rd race using the R5, I can tell you right now that the lens that I really _NEED _the most, is a new 135L and it *MUST* be compatible with the teleconverters. The 135L has long been my top low light motorsports lens and I have always valued its size, weight, and functionality with the teleconverters. Sadly, there's really no way around it - the 135L is not a very good performer on the R5 and R6. Not being able to use this lens at the top frame rates these cameras deliver, as well as no supporting the best performance from the viewfinder is really unfortunate. I have also discovered that face and eye detection don't appear to work as well either on this lens.
> 
> For me, this is a practical want and more along the lines of an actual need. It's the only EF lens I own that really suffers on this camera and when I travel for work, I favor taking this lens and the 100-400 over using that room for my 70-200. I guess if this doesn't end up coming to fruition, I will just pick up an RF 70-200 and sell off my EF 70-200.



I recently picked up the RF 70-200... man... that thing is a magic lens. Unless you absolutely have to have a faster aperture, I’d get that over waiting for an RF 135. the RF version packs relatively small and light, and while you won’t get quite as much reach as a 135 with teleconverters, it’s f/2.8 all the way.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 6, 2020)

adrian_bacon said:


> It's actually 22mm in EF-m and 24mm in EF-s.



Ah, 24 not 28.

Yeah, had I not been mistaken about that, my thinking would have led me directly to what you said; sensor to flange distance makes little difference, because the difference between 22 and 24 is not nearly so much as between 22 and 28.

I could still imagine them coming out with a 35mm pancake, but 40 is in my current humble opinion more likely. But unless it totally kicks the ass of the EF-40, I probably won't get it, and I suspect enough people who already own EF-40s think like that that Canon has it fairly low on their priority list (which is a shame, because it would be a very compact package).

And by the way, given the mistake I made it's probably not that surprising that I own the EF-M 22mm and the EF-40mm, but not the EF-S 28-I-mean-24mm. In fact I've even posted pictures here taken with the 40 on an R5, since on release day the 40 was the widest thing I had in a full frame lens (I fixed that the very next day).


----------



## Buzzer2000 (Oct 7, 2020)

I am thirsty for a cine zoom lens for documentary such as 21-105 f. 2.9


----------



## adrian_bacon (Oct 7, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Ah, 24 not 28.
> 
> Yeah, had I not been mistaken about that, my thinking would have led me directly to what you said; sensor to flange distance makes little difference, because the difference between 22 and 24 is not nearly so much as between 22 and 28.
> 
> ...



yeah, 40 in full frame and 24 in AP-C are my two most shot lenses for general walk around stuff. 24 in canons crop is almost exactly the same field of view as 40 in full frame, which incidentally works out great if shooting video on an RP. Shoot 1080 full frame with the 40, but in the instances where you need the extra detail, put the 24 on and shoot 4K in the crop mode. Both are 2.8, so no real need to change the lighting, or camera to subject distance, and you can do quite a lot with just two small lenses, if shooting YouTube content. It’s super simple and just works.


----------



## fabao (Oct 8, 2020)

I would love to see a SMAL and FAST fish eye lens just like the Olympus ED 8mm F1.8 Fisheye. Perfect in low light events. The current Canon offering is F4 and I really don't care about zoom fish eyes (don't really have a need for a 360 image).


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 8, 2020)

adrian_bacon said:


> I recently picked up the RF 70-200... man... that thing is a magic lens. Unless you absolutely have to have a faster aperture, I’d get that over waiting for an RF 135. the RF version packs relatively small and light, and while you won’t get quite as much reach as a 135 with teleconverters, it’s f/2.8 all the way.



After thinking about it, you're absolutely right. I have a wedding this weekend and I will be selling my 70-200 and 135L for the RF 70-200.


----------



## masterpix (Oct 11, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


8-15mm fish eye, 10-24mm (IS?) wide, 24-105mm IS, 100-500mm IS, all in f2.8, and cost less than 1000$ each.. you did say WISH list


----------



## tron (Oct 11, 2020)

masterpix said:


> 8-15mm fish eye, 10-24mm (IS?) wide, 24-105mm IS, 100-500mm IS, all in f2.8, and cost less than 1000$ each.. you did say WISH list


Please add the classics: small and light at the same time as cheap and f/2.8


----------



## masterpix (Oct 12, 2020)

tron said:


> Please add the classics: small and light at the same time as cheap and f/2.8


I forgot that... thanks!


----------



## abbebus (Oct 25, 2020)

I want a L-series pancake-lens. Imagine a 28 mm f/2.5 L USM in about the same size as the EF 40. 

This would be the perfect walk around lens for street photography and travel, when you want to keep a low profile. Weather sealed and with high quality optics and fast AF. Of course f/2.0 would be a dream, but I don't think that's possible in a lens of this size. Maybe even f/2.5 isn't.


----------



## Rpmsol (Oct 30, 2020)

I’d really life an RF tilt-shift adaptor that accepts any EF lens. That would be awesome, and should be possible because of the reduced flange distance of the RF mount.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 30, 2020)

Rpmsol said:


> I’d really life an RF tilt-shift adaptor that accepts any EF lens. That would be awesome, and should be possible because of the reduced flange distance of the RF mount.


How would that possibly work? EF lenses, in general, are built to give a fixed image circle which is just big enough to cover the area of the FF sensor. By shifting the lens sideways by large amounts you just shift the image circle by large amounts away from the center of the sensor so one side of the sensor is not illuminated at all.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 30, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> How would that possibly work? EF lenses, in general, are built to give a fixed image circle which is just big enough to cover the area of the FF sensor. By shifting the lens sideways by large amounts you just shift the image circle by large amounts away from the center of the sensor so one side of the sensor is not illuminated at all.



I actually had the same thought that Rpmsol had, and of course had the same thing pointed out to me.

BUT...maybe there's no reason an EF->EF-M adapter couldn't be built like this--it would turn an a full frame EF lens into a tilt-shift APS-C lens.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 7, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I actually had the same thought that Rpmsol had, and of course had the same thing pointed out to me.
> 
> BUT...maybe there's no reason an EF->EF-M adapter couldn't be built like this--it would turn an a full frame EF lens into a tilt-shift APS-C lens.


The only way I could think of to make this useful for a normal EF lens is to focus on the "tilt" part of this. If you tilt the lens downward so that you can focus closer on the (lower) ground and focus further on the (upper) mountains & sky then you would turn the FF size image circle into an ellipse, while also shifting the image ellipse off-center (down) a lot. (If I get the effective directions reversed then please let me know as I haven't used a TS lens and am assuming it works this way) So you'd also have to "shift" the lens up to re-center the image ellipse onto the sensor. I could see this to be *very* useful for those who want to add this functionality to the normal EF lens line.

What do you think?


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 7, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I actually had the same thought that Rpmsol had, and of course had the same thing pointed out to me.
> 
> BUT...maybe there's no reason an EF->EF-M adapter couldn't be built like this--it would turn an a full frame EF lens into a tilt-shift APS-C lens.


Fotodiox of Shift / tilt adapters fame do have the normal EF - EF-M adapter. I wonder if one day they might make the shift / tilt version. I'm not sure how useful tilt would really be on an APS-C size sensor though, but the shift / rise / fall would be interesting ! I think it would be a little limited in movement though.


----------



## Rpmsol (Nov 7, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> The only way I could think of to make this useful for a normal EF lens is to focus on the "tilt" part of this. If you tilt the lens downward so that you can focus closer on the (lower) ground and focus further on the (upper) mountains & sky then you would turn the FF size image circle into an ellipse, while also shifting the image ellipse off-center (down) a lot. (If I get the effective directions reversed then please let me know as I haven't used a TS lens and am assuming it works this way) So you'd also have to "shift" the lens up to re-center the image ellipse onto the sensor. I could see this to be *very* useful for those who want to add this functionality to the normal EF lens line.
> 
> What do you think?



Most of my tilt shift interest is close focusing, which generates a larger image circle. At infinity focus, the tilt would be interesting, but significant shift would be a problem.

I used to have an old film SLR with no electrical contacts to the lens, and took great images with the lens disconnected from the camera. my right hand held the camera and my left hand was the tilt/shift/focus mechanism. The light leakage generated a dreamy low contrast look. I really enjoyed using the technique with flowers at very close focus distances.


----------



## dlee13 (Dec 13, 2020)

For me I’d love some UWA primes like a 14mm or 16mm f/2.8. Samyang has managed to make their small so I’m sure Canon could do the same. On the zoom side, a 15-35 f/4 would definitely be welcomed too.

I’d really like them to release a 35mm, 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 primes that are both smaller and cheaper compared to their f/1.2 counterparts. Canon could make the f/2 and f/1.8 versions the more budget orientated ones, the f/1.4 ones the more mid range enthusiast lenses and the f/1.2 lenses the more pro oriented lens.


----------



## Erlend Krumsvik (Dec 14, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Astro lens around 11mm f/2 (f/1,4)
11-24mm f/2,8
135mm f/1,4
200-500 f/4 with conv.
Tilt/Shift L
150mm Macro


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 15, 2020)

14mm 1.4 pls


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Jan 15, 2021)

18-35mm f2
100-400mm budget lens for people with no money (ME)


----------



## Ronny Wertelaers (Jan 15, 2021)

woodman411 said:


> RF 35 f/1.2


I am in for that too, or a quality 35mm F1.4 L like Sony did now.


----------



## Fischer (Jan 15, 2021)

300mm f/2.8 - I simply cannot believe its not in their planned lineup. Also maybe a great 400mm L f/5.6. The old was was quite good, but it started showing its age.


----------

