# What’s a “realistic” lens that you’d like to see Canon make?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 23, 2020)

> I posted the question of what lens you’d like to see Canon make, the only rule is it had to be somewhat realistic. No “RF 10-1000mm f/1L IS 1.4-2.0x USM” sort of suggestions.
> I started with a lens I have wanted for the EF mount, and now I’d like to see it for the RF mount. I love the 28mm focal length and I’d love a nice fast L version for the upcoming EOS R5.
> 
> What&#39;s a "realistic" lens you would like to see Canon make?
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## 3serious (Mar 23, 2020)

I'd second the RF 135 f1.x; the EF 135 f2 is my favorite lens ever.

That said, I'd also really love to see an RF 600mm f5.6L for us mere mortal hobbyists who either a) can't afford a $12k 600mm f4, or b) wouldn't want to carry that insurance liability around. If sigma can make a 600mm f6.3 zoom for a grand, surely Canon can make an RF 600mm f5.6L prime for $3k-4k.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 23, 2020)

A long macro, with IS, e.g. *RF200mm f/4L MACRO IS*. I don't particularly care about the focus motor, silent would be a plus, as would be raw speed. Also, it has to be black, like the EF180mm L macro 
A refresh of the EF400mm f/5.6 with a 1:2 or better reproduction ratio at MFD would also be good, so add an *RF400mm f/5.6L MACRO IS* as well. For things like dragonflies longer is better and 1:1 is not as important as it is with the 50-150mm range of macro lenses.
A 3rd lens would be the *MP-E 65mm f/3.5 IS,* like the old MP-E, but with infinity focus and IS. Stopping at 3x instead of 5x would be a trade-off I can live with.


----------



## tron (Mar 23, 2020)

14mm 1.4L for astro because the 1.2L mentioned does not seem so realistic to me.
Sigma 14mm 1.8 - a very good lens - is already huge.


----------



## Anthny (Mar 23, 2020)

150mm or 200mm to 600mm USM IS L zoom with the best possible aperture for about $3000


----------



## tron (Mar 23, 2020)

600mm 5.6 DO would be awesome. Since the 600 4L IS III is already lighter than II and close to the weight of the would be 600 4 DO there is probably no point for a 600 4 DO (apart from the size).

That's how a 600 5.6 DO would fit. One of the following scenarios would apply:

1. Not going to happen: That would be accomplished by 400DO + 1.4
BUT: for DSLRs poses some additional AF adjustment issues and there is the issue of the weight. A combined 400 DO + 1.4 + hood would be about 2.5Kg. 

2. It is going to happen: I just got Nikon's 500 5.6PF (And had to buy a D500 to put behind it!) So Murphy's law dictates that this scenario could be possible


----------



## jabeling (Mar 23, 2020)

RF 85mm F/1.8


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 23, 2020)

tron said:


> 14mm 1.4L for astro because the 1.2L mentioned does not seem so realistic to me.
> Sigma 14mm 1.8 - a very good lens - is already huge.


How can this be unrealistic if Tony said it is “doable”? With, let me guess, around 10 stops of vignetting in extreme corners and a bucket sized front element to the boot.


----------



## Rivermist (Mar 23, 2020)

I am very attracted by the 70-135L f:2 that is already announced, but the price and weight are going to be punishing. How about a 70-135 f:2.5 or 2.8 IS that one can hand-carry for more than 5 minutes, that is of a more mangeable form factor and that does not require one to mortgage the house to purchase it? I see gaps in the RF offering where we are seeing either good, reasonably-priced and quite OK lenses (35mm 1.8, etc..) or $2,500+ super-extraordinary L glass. The EF range has a number of very interesting L lenses in the $800-$1600 price range that appeal to non-professional photographers, will they ever be catered for (the 24-105L was a good start but I see no follow-up)?


----------



## kocmonabt (Mar 23, 2020)

M 52/2 or even better 2.8
RF 42/2.8 pancake
RF 15-35/4-5.6 non L, plastic, light

less realistic:
M 45-135/4


----------



## janhalasa (Mar 23, 2020)

RF 20-85 3.5-5.6 0.7 macro
Perfect lens for nature photography and probably quite possible to implement.


----------



## Etienne (Mar 23, 2020)

A set of well-constructed, weather-proof, affordable, light weight FF RF mount primes with IS from 24mm to 200mm. F stops as follows:

18 mm f/2.8
24 mm f/2
35mm f/1.8 (already available, sort of)
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8
135mm f/2
200mm f/2.8

None of these would be exotic headline grabbing lenses, but with the new RF mount they could provide high IQ at a small size and weight.


----------



## tcphoto (Mar 23, 2020)

Just about all the EOS R L's should be a stop faster because the sensor being closer to the rear lens element. For the price of the R series lens, I'd expect at least so much.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 23, 2020)

M15-45 f/2.8-4, M45-135 f/2.8 or f/2.8-4, M10-20 f/2.8-4. I use lenses on my M5 that are up to 75mm in diameter and have no problems.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 23, 2020)

200-500 f/2.8-4, where the lens maintains f/2.8 up to 350mm then transitions continuously to f/4 at 500mm.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 23, 2020)

RF 85 f/1.8 USM, small, newest optical formula and coatings,
no IS, no L, just as small as possible but with best compromise in IQ/bokeh versus size versus price.


----------



## slclick (Mar 23, 2020)

RF 28 f/2 pancake


----------



## FramerMCB (Mar 23, 2020)

3serious said:


> I'd second the RF 135 f1.x; the EF 135 f2 is my favorite lens ever.
> 
> That said, I'd also really love to see an RF 600mm f5.6L for us mere mortal hobbyists who either a) can't afford a $12k 600mm f4, or b) wouldn't want to carry that insurance liability around. If sigma can make a 600mm f6.3 zoom for a grand, surely Canon can make an RF 600mm f5.6L prime for $3k-4k.


How about a Canon RF 600mm f5.6 DO IS [Mk 1] for $7,399?
Or are you talking more like the old but super sharp and fast focusing EF 400mm f5.6?


----------



## i_SH (Mar 23, 2020)

17(20)-70/4L IS USM


----------



## IcyBergs (Mar 23, 2020)

RF pancake wide-ish 28 or 35 would be great @ f/2

RF 14-35 f4L (no IS - to keep the price down)

RF 200-400 f/4-5.6L


----------



## ERHP (Mar 23, 2020)

600 (DO or not) w/1.4X. We already know that can be done based on the 200-400. DO would likely be preferred but It would make little difference to me as long as IQ is the same.


----------



## Ruiloba (Mar 23, 2020)

Rf 200-600 F6.3 and a Rf 600 F4 cheaper


----------



## Jim Corbett (Mar 23, 2020)

Why should it be realistic? Nothing beautiful has ever been created without having been dreamed of in the first place... unrealistically(!)

*200mm f/1.8 *


----------



## TonyNorthrup (Mar 23, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> How can this be unrealistic if Tony said it is “doable”? With, let me guess, around 10 stops of vignetting in extreme corners and a bucket sized front element to the boot.



I own the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 for astro. It's great! but it's a DSLR lens, and Sigma makes it for the Nikon F mount, which means they had to design their optics around a very small opening with a big flange distance. That's a big deal for fast, super-wide lenses, which benefit the most from the wide openings and short flange distances of modern mirrorless mounts. Canon could certainly make a 14mm lens one stop faster for their R mount. No doubt it would be huge, but so is the Sigma, and it's always on a tripod, anyway. BTW, the vignetting isn't ever a real-world problem for me... We've been testing the Canon 24-240 RF which has serious vignetting and distortion at 24mm, but the camera and Lightroom both automatically correct for it in post, which means you never see any problem with your images. I am fine with that.


----------



## miketcool (Mar 23, 2020)

10mm f/2.8 or f4.0

I want a non-fisheye wide enough for dives and outrageous landscape shots with enough IQ to let me crop later.


----------



## FramerMCB (Mar 23, 2020)

Well, if Canon could make a EF 200mm f1.8L is no reason they couldn't make an RF 135mm f1.4L and an RF 200mm f1.4L. Hard to say if they would put IS in them or not. However, I wouldn't want to even guess how much an RF 200mm f1.4L would sell for.


----------



## goldenhusky (Mar 23, 2020)

My Wish list in the order of priority

RF 200-600 F/5.6 to f/6.3 IS ~ $2k (if it is the one lens I want this will be it)
RF 600mm f/5.6 IS ~$3k
RF 135mm f/1.8 ~ $1.8k
RF 105mm f/1.4 ~$1.5k


----------



## motofotog (Mar 23, 2020)

500mm f5.6 and 
200-600mm lens.


----------



## goldenhusky (Mar 23, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> I am very attracted by the 70-135L f:2 that is already announced, but the price and weight are going to be punishing.



70-135L f:2 already announced? There are only rumors on that


----------



## unfocused (Mar 23, 2020)

EF 200-500mm f5.6 L -- If Nikon can do it for $1,400, Canon should be able to produce an "L" quality lens for $2,500.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Mar 23, 2020)

I would say a RF 800mm f/4 DO. Basically instead of making a smaller 600mm lens, lets make a longer lens that hasn't been possible till now.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Mar 23, 2020)

500mm f5.6 L for about £2400


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Mar 23, 2020)

unfocused said:


> EF 200-500mm f5.6 L -- If Nikon can do it for $1,400, Canon should be able to produce an "L" quality lens for $2,500.



Nikons Z version is going to be 200-600mm, unknown if that'll be a fixed f/5.6


----------



## gatabo (Mar 23, 2020)

an affordable and lightweight 120-250mm F2.8 

I don't include the already rumored lenses or patents that I find interesting


----------



## barryreid (Mar 23, 2020)

I'd like a TS-R 35mm f/2.8. Now that the TS-E 45 is gone, there's room for it.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Mar 23, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I would say a RF 800mm f/4 DO. Basically instead of making a smaller 600mm lens, lets make a longer lens that hasn't been possible till now.



I hadn't even thought of that....We already have a 600, a 500, etc. Push the limits here and see what they can do.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Mar 23, 2020)

Assuming that the "consumer grade" RF lenses are definitely coming, I'd like to see some movement from Canon on "entry level" RF L-series lenses. Against its predecessors, the 24-105 f/4.0L is freaking spectacular, and it's not an awful price point. A 100-400 f/4.0 or 4.5L and a 10-24 f/4.0L are well within reach, and would make a pretty compelling "Entry Level Trinity" of f/4.0 lenses. The lens I use the most day to day is my 16-35 f/2.8L, and the lens I rent the most is the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II. At f/7.1, I'm a bit reserved about the slow F stop on the top end of the announced 100-500. I would love to see them complete a "trinity" lineup that would drive sales into the R line.


----------



## RobbieHat (Mar 23, 2020)

I am all for the 14-35 f4 that is filterable. I also vote for the fast ultra-wide astro lens (14 mm and at least f 1.8). Beyond that I would tend to the opposite end of the focal length. Relatively fast, relatively sharp 100-500 or 200-600 and a light 600 mm f4 (DO or otherwise). I have the 100-400 and 600 f4 vII and can adapt both of these but would replace them with R mounts if they were lighter, faster, and as sharp.


----------



## Jstnelson (Mar 23, 2020)

I'm really hoping they make a 135mm f1.4. I'll still be happy if they make it an f1.8 and it would be cheaper/lighter but an f1.4 would be amazing.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 23, 2020)

Knowing some of those were rumored / released -

RF 10-24mm f/4L USM, front filterable would be a bonus.
RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM, front filterable would be a bonus.
RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM that accepts 1.4x & 2x TCs.

I'd love a fisheye zoom, RF 8-15mm f/4L USM.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 23, 2020)

RobbieHat said:


> I am all for the 14-35 f4 that is filterable. I also vote for the fast ultra-wide astro lens (14 mm and at least f 1.8). Beyond that I would tend to the opposite end of the focal length. Relatively fast, relatively sharp 100-500 or 200-600 and a light 600 mm f4 (DO or otherwise). I have the 100-400 and 600 f4 vII and can adapt both of these but would replace them with R mounts if they were lighter, faster, and as sharp.


Has anybody made a full frame 14mm that is filterable?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 23, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> RF 10-24mm f/4L USM, front filterable would be a bonus.


Well if they can’t make a 14mm FF lens that is filterable (via reasonable methods) then a 10mm one is fantasy.


----------



## juststeve (Mar 23, 2020)

Perhaps my first choice would be a 200-600/5.6-6.3 fixed length, then a 100--300/4. Quality level good enough for 45-83 MP would be real nice too. Also, I'd like to see an astro lens, but my preference would be a 20 mm lens. F1.2 would be great but if a 1.4 or 1.8 lens could be significantly more compact that would be worth considering also.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 23, 2020)

RF 70-135mm f/2L for $3k USD or less. Then I would just need to be realistic and drool while I save the money.


----------



## jeliel (Mar 23, 2020)

A RF 100-400mm f/4-5,6 IS USM


----------



## NorskHest (Mar 23, 2020)

1000mm 5.6 yes i'm serious


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Mar 23, 2020)

I echo the desire for long macro lenses. An RF refresh of the MPE-65 seems unlikely in the near future; it's such a specialty lens, and must not sell well. It doesn't even have that great of a reputation in the macro/micro community.

A RF version of the TS-E 17mm f/4 L would be great.

Has anyone compiled a list of RF patents? Not all patents become products, but any are possible.

And of course, lots more cheap to mid-range primes.


----------



## ncvarsity3 (Mar 23, 2020)

A RF 200-500 f5.6 or RF 200‐600 5.6 would be amazing. With Canon's current line up, I'm probably just going to get the 2x extender instead of the RF 100-500.


----------



## Brikna (Mar 23, 2020)

RF 24-50mm f/2L IS USM (<1000 g)
RF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM (non L, <500 g)


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Mar 23, 2020)

ncvarsity3 said:


> A RF 200-500 f5.6 or RF 200‐600 5.6 would be amazing. With Canon's current line up, I'm probably just going to get the 2x extender instead of the RF 100-500.



What are you going to put on that 2x extender?


----------



## MayaTlab (Mar 23, 2020)

Canon is the only remaining mainstream lens manufacturer without a reasonable 50mm lens that belongs to the 21st century, which is quite astonishingly ridiculous when you think about it (even Pentax has got one). All of their 50s bar the €2300 RF 1.2 are either yet another version of the decades old double gauss or barely evolved from it, with all that entails in regards to IQ (ie they're terrible by 2020 standards), and all of them with appalling AF. 
Personally I'd like Canon to chase a level of ambition as high as Nikon tried (and not fully successfully so) to reach with the 50mm 1.8 Z, without IS (as IBIS is coming and I'd rather have Canon put it all in IQ), and without the Nikon's issues with onion rings / manufacturing problems, and I'd happily pay between €450 and €700 for it, but I'm rather expecting Canon to target a lower level of ambition with such specs unfortunately.
I would have thought such a reasonable, practical lens likely to end up in lots of hands and as a result quite a bit more likely to produce interesting pictures, a priority, at least more so than lenses designed to enable Canon's marketing department to trumpet the size of Canon's engineering appendage, but what do I know ?


----------



## lglass12189 (Mar 23, 2020)

RF-200-400 f\4 with built in TC


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 23, 2020)

RF 100 f2 Macro !
Or, even better, 135 f2 Macro.


----------



## bbasiaga (Mar 23, 2020)

A long time ago, they had a 28-300mm L lens. I'd like to see a redux of that in the RF mount. Maybe stop it at 200mm and speed up the focal ratio. I think the old one was F4-6.3 or something. For a general walking around type guy like me that would be the one lens to rule them all.


----------



## danimon (Mar 23, 2020)

I think the top priority for "realistic lenses" Are :
-120-300mm f2.8 with built in TC 2.0 (would be a must have lens for sport and safari)
-a sharp, perfect-zero distortion, minimum vignetting, comma and CA, 17mm f2
-50mm f0.95 (come on canon, we all know you can do this)
-400-800mm f5.6-7.1 for bird lovers like me


----------



## jhpeterson (Mar 23, 2020)

What I would most like to see is a 70-280 f:2.8 (at all focal lengths), with a built-in 1.4 (which would also perform well with external converters). I would think this is well within the realm of possible, as there's already both the 200-400 and 100-400 lenses in the EF mount to draw up for for design and construction. 

While this might not be a best-seller, I'm sure Canon could find plenty of buyers in the sports and wildlife ranks. I just returned a few weeks back from a month-long trip to Africa where this could have been taken the place of three lenses I'd brought.


----------



## SkynetTX (Mar 23, 2020)

It's been a while since we've last heard about dslr lenses. What I'd like to see is an EF-S 60mm f/2.8 IS(!) USM Macro for APS-C and an EF 200-500 mm f/5.6 for FullFrame DSLRs.


----------



## magarity (Mar 23, 2020)

I'd like "L" class lenses for the EF-S mount. Sigma has a few Art ones for APS-C, why doesn't Canon?


----------



## HaroldC3 (Mar 23, 2020)

17-40 f4L IS


----------



## illadvisedhammer (Mar 23, 2020)

What do we call the MP-E? Manual focus? Fixed focus variable magnification? I want to see an MP-E variable magnification but with autofocus, to take advantage of the focus bracketing and auto-stacking that's just starting to enter Canon mirrorless. For me 5X isn't needed, but ½X to 3X or 4X, with autofocus, would be great. I'd still use manual focus for most single frames, but would love to add more stacking in camera. To really hijack the thread, doesn't need IS, not super helpful for macro..or is it?


----------



## JustAnotherCanonShooter (Mar 23, 2020)

15-35mm F2.8 L "NONE" IS 

It'll be smaller, lighter, cheaper than the current 15-35mm F2.8L IS lens. I honestly don't need image stabilizer for such a wide angle lens, plus at its current iteration, it's too heavy, too bulky, and too pricy.


----------



## Timedog (Mar 23, 2020)

100mm 2.8L with 2:1 magnification


----------



## Berowne (Mar 23, 2020)

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L IS USM. 

I really like my old EF 200/2.8. It is fast, light and affordable (700€). A new version with IS in the price-range of 1000€ would be very nice. And it would be a great addition to my 85/1.4L IS


----------



## Adrianf (Mar 23, 2020)

A lightweight, mid cost 400mm F4 L IS. I have the 100-400 but I only use it on 400.


----------



## bsbeamer (Mar 23, 2020)

Would love to see an RF lens that includes a teleconverter that can be engaged or disengaged without physically removing a seperate extender/adapter. Believe there was a Canon patent for this awhile back.


----------



## bgoyette (Mar 23, 2020)

Canon needs a "great" 50mm 1.2L lens for the the EF mount. A companion to the 35mm 1.4L II, and a competitor to the Otus and sigma lenses of that approximate length and girth. The RF version I'm sure is fantastic, but it won't work on canon's cinema line, or any of it's professional cameras. The current EF 50 1.2 is fine for internet bokeh queens, but we need something with less field curvature, less longitudinal CA, and better detail wide open.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Mar 23, 2020)

Adrianf said:


> A lightweight, mid cost 400mm F4 L IS. I have the 100-400 but I only use it on 400.



Would it not be a new f/5.6?, given the 400 f/4 DO isn't overly cheep.


----------



## Zeurg (Mar 23, 2020)

RF 100mm f/2 IS Macro 0.5x not too expensive


----------



## efmshark (Mar 23, 2020)

RF 150-600mm f/4-6.3 IS


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Mar 23, 2020)

I just picked up a 50mm f/1.0 (mostly as a collector's item). But with my luck, there's an RF 50mm f/0.87 L on the way.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Mar 23, 2020)

I’d like a set of sharp, compact, light and affordable travel primes. No IS needed now that we have IBIS. 24 through 85 and around f2 would be fine.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Mar 23, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


RF 28-300mm F4L or even f2.8
I tried this lens in the EF version and although heavy, is amazing so in RF format, I would think it would be pretty special and usable as a multi situation lens.


----------



## Brossardois (Mar 23, 2020)

I would like a 50 to 60mm RF prime, flat field high resolution macro lens, f2.0 would be great as a nifty 50, f2.8 acceptable. No IS required (IBIS now included)


----------



## thomic (Mar 23, 2020)

RF 85mm f/1.4 USM
RF 35mm f/1.4 USM
RF 300mm f/4 USM
RF 20mm f/2.8


----------



## snowleo (Mar 23, 2020)

I would like to have two lenses:

1 equivalent to the 200-500 lens of Nikon (no 100-500 with an aperture 7.1 please!)
1 macro with higher magnification (2 x instead of 1 x)

That wouldn't be that bad.


----------



## Dest (Mar 23, 2020)

Some more affordable TS lenses would be nice, or something wide and aspherical.


----------



## Architect1776 (Mar 23, 2020)

Anthny said:


> 150mm or 200mm to 600mm USM IS L zoom with the best possible aperture for about $3000



Totally agree 150-600mm L Aperture matching Sigma otherwise it likely would be too large. But would have to be built to the mechanical quality of the EF 100-400mm L MII. Then add a 24-120mmL.


----------



## Danglin52 (Mar 23, 2020)

Lightweight RF 150-500 f4 w/integrated 1.4x TC. I would even accept f5.6 above 400 assuming the same IQ out to 500mm before you kicked in the 1.4x. I would also go 200-500 f4 w/integrated 1.4x TC (280-700mm). If not, put me down for the 500mm f4 DO.


----------



## kingrobertii (Mar 23, 2020)

A remake of the 50mm f/1.0 would be awesome.


----------



## jurci2 (Mar 23, 2020)

What about a lightweight 500 reflex lens such as the *Minolta AF Reflex 500mm f/8 *








Minolta AF Reflex 500mm f/8 - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## McLeisa (Mar 23, 2020)

I would like

RF 24mm f 1.2


RF 24mm f1.8 macro
RF 28mm f1.8 macro
RF 35mm f1.8 macro (already exists)
RF 50mm f1.8 macro
RF 85mm f1.8 macro


----------



## Antonis (Mar 23, 2020)

28mm 1.2 or 1.4


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 23, 2020)

A 24-200mm F4 would be perfect
I suppose a 10-1000mm F1.0 is a bit unrealistic


----------



## FramerMCB (Mar 23, 2020)

RF 50mm f1.4 STM with superior optical performance compared to either the EF 50mm f1.4 or the "nifty-fifty" f1.8 versions. 

RF 135mm f2.8 IS 1:1 Macro

RF 150-500mm f4.0-f6.3 IS w/MFD of 20' - 22' (~6.1m - ~6.7m)

RF 14mm f1.8

EF 50mm f1.4L IS w/Max MSRP of $999USD

RF 100mm f1.4L IS (an option for portraits, and certain venues)

RF 100mm f1.8 STM IS


----------



## Act444 (Mar 23, 2020)

If MILC cameras ever get fast enough to stop action:

How about a 100-300mm f2.8 lens? That would get close to approximating the FOV of a 70-200 on a crop-sensor camera, and I always appreciated that range. 200mm on FF can be a bit short at times


----------



## Fran Decatta (Mar 23, 2020)

A 16/17-35/40mm f3.5-5.6 none L or F4 L both affordables, but with better IQ than the very old 17-40 L f4


----------



## Policar (Mar 23, 2020)

EF-S 18mm f1.8 USM

Please.


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 23, 2020)

janhalasa said:


> RF 20-85 3.5-5.6 0.7 macro
> Perfect lens for nature photography and probably quite possible to implement.


Would prefer an RF180 f4 macro.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 23, 2020)

An RF version of the Zeiss 100 f2.0 mp, but as a f1,4 version. Not sure they could keep the same magnifying though, but except fringing and MF, I love that lens...


----------



## ColinJR (Mar 23, 2020)

A fast f/2 or 1.8 24–50ish zoom that isn't huge in the way the 28–70 is. Bonus if it has IS.

Also, a line of affordable-ish 1.4 primes. And tilt-shifts!


----------



## Aaron D (Mar 23, 2020)

OK, I'll take one each of these:

14 mm f/2.8 w/ filter front
17 mm TS really sharp and w/ filter front. And 17 is plenty wide!
24-50 mm TS Zoom f/ whatever
28 mm f/1.4 L Doesn't need to be 1.2! I could never afford it....
50 mm 1.4 L Compact, small and affordable.


----------



## Aaron Lozano (Mar 23, 2020)

135 1.8L IS and 180mm or a 200mm 2.8L IS macro


----------



## timmy_650 (Mar 23, 2020)

First I want R mount lenses I can afford. I don't make money with photography, so I can't drop $2000 on A lens and no chance I can spend $6000+ for 3 of them. 

My top lens is a 16-35 f2.8-4, Non L but still weather sealed. Small and light. Something that is great for hiking or travel lens to go with 70-200. Missing the 36-70 Focal range isn't that big of a deal or just bring a 50mm and your good. 16mm f2.8 is good for astro and that is pretty much the only time I care about f2.8. Then most of the time I am at f8. 

I would also be happy with a replacement for 17-40 f4 for the R mount.


----------



## dancan (Mar 23, 2020)

TS-R 4/16 mm
TS-R 2,8/35 mm
TS-R 2,8/50mm


----------



## Martin K (Mar 23, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


35-135 F2.8L


----------



## [email protected] canon rumors (Mar 23, 2020)

50 200 f4 or variabile , something light and short


----------



## igorcoelho (Mar 23, 2020)

I love primes lens 


I already have these news lenses and i love 
24mm f2.8 IS
35mm f2 IS
100mm f2.8 IS MACRO


*now i want to see these updated either in improved quality, the new canon design of the lenses, and the stabilizer 3/4 f / stops

18 mm f/2.8 IS
50mm f/1.4 IS or f/1.8 or f/2.8
85mm f/1.8 IS or f/2.8
135mm f/2 IS
200mm f/2.8 IS*

* PLEASE** CANON  *
I BUY ALL OF THEM


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Mar 23, 2020)

To me, no question asked :
*EF 135mm f/2L IS USM*

You can keep the current optical formula, just go all-in the AF and IS and keep the same size and weight (hence f/2 rather than f/1.8).

That would be awesome through the OVF of a future 5D Mark V (it's coming, riiiiiight?)


----------



## igorcoelho (Mar 23, 2020)

yoms said:


> To me, no question asked :
> *EF 135mm f/2L IS USM*
> 
> You can keep the current optical formula, just go all-in the AF and IS and keep the same size and weight (hence f/2 rather than f/1.8).
> ...



keep the same size and weight...with IS I don't think they can do


----------



## SpaceGhost (Mar 23, 2020)

I haven't switched to RF yet but this year is it.

I wish there was a RF 24-105mm f2.8L IS (and what I want most from RF). I love the f4 for an all around lens but for events, I'd love the faster speeds in a zoom. 

Further, I'd also love an RF 24-135 f4L IS because the expanded range seems reasonable even though the RF 24-105f4IS is already a pretty sweet lens.


----------



## Traveler (Mar 23, 2020)

= RF 15-35 f4 (IS) – small and light 
= RF 70-300 f4.5-5.6 IS – more compact than the EF one 
= Compact RF fisheye. 
= RF 85 1.8 IS
Are they boring?


----------



## tron (Mar 23, 2020)

FramerMCB said:


> How about a Canon RF 600mm f5.6 DO IS [Mk 1] for $7,399?
> Or are you talking more like the old but super sharp and fast focusing EF 400mm f5.6?


You are 1 hour and 1 minute late  






What’s a “realistic” lens that you’d like to see Canon make?


I posted the question of what lens you’d like to see Canon make, the only rule is it had to be somewhat realistic. No “RF 10-1000mm f/1L IS 1.4-2.0x USM” sort of suggestions. I started with a lens I have wanted for the EF mount, and now I’d like to see it for the RF mount. I love the 28mm focal...




www.canonrumors.com





Now can you lower the price a little ? (or more?) please?


----------



## slclick (Mar 23, 2020)

A duo or trio of RF pancakes, don't have to be too fast...2.8 or so. Just small. That might help get me in the door.


----------



## TAF (Mar 23, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> I just picked up a 50mm f/1.0 (mostly as a collector's item). But with my luck, there's an RF 50mm f/0.87 L on the way.



I hope you're right!

Does it need IS?


----------



## TAF (Mar 23, 2020)

Not a lens per se, but a nice bellows device as they made for the FL years ago would be most excellent.

And it should be cheap (but it wouldn't be).


----------



## rwvaughn (Mar 23, 2020)

I'd like a 50-135mm f/2.0 IS lens. Would be perfect for high school sports gyms. wrestling, volleyball, basketball


----------



## Ph0t0 (Mar 24, 2020)

I would like to see some lenses like these:

*RF 15-35mm f4 IS *(a light carry around lens)
*RF 24-70mm f4 IS* (as light as possible)
*RF 70-200mm f4 IS* (as light as possible)

*RF 14mm f1,4* (f1,2 or f1,8 would be fine as well) with as little vignetting as possible

*200mm f4 IS MACRO (*180mm or more and IS)

*500mm f5,6 DO IS* (as sharp and light as possible)
*500mm or 600 f4 DO IS 

RF 18 or 20mm f2,8* *Tilt-Shift* with AF when in neutral position (I don't know how possible this is, especially if it doesn't have heavy vignetting - maybe someone who has more technical knowledge can explain what it would take to create a 20mm 2.8 TS lens)


----------



## WhereDoWeGoFrmHere (Mar 24, 2020)

20 f1.4L
20 f2.8 II (love the focal length, hate everything else about the current 20mm)
50 f1.4L IS
58 f1.4
60 f2.8L IS 1.1 Macro (60-70mm, a wider version of the 100L)
135 f2L IS (135L is wonderful but needs IS)


----------



## ncvarsity3 (Mar 24, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> What are you going to put on that 2x extender?



RF 70-200 2.8. That'll give me a "reasonably" priced long lens that does the job and I'll still have a 70-200. Win-win.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 24, 2020)

ncvarsity3 said:


> RF 70-200 2.8. That'll give me a "reasonably" priced long lens that does the job and I'll still have a 70-200. Win-win.


Sadly, it appears that the 70-200 won't fit. I know. I know. I didn't believe it either.


----------



## canonnews (Mar 24, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I"m not sure how realistic a 14mm F1.2 is .. but I guess it is for Tony


----------



## twoheadedboy (Mar 24, 2020)

Ultrawide f/4 zoom...come on guys, want to replace my 16 - 35 on an adapter
28mm f/1.4 IS or f/1.2...I am just not a fan of fixed 24mm or 35mm, 28mm is perfect for my mind's eye
50mm f/1.4 IS...the f/1.2 is superb but a bit overkill for me at this focal length. 
85mm f/1.4 IS...I love my EF, but adapter...
How about that 70 - 135 f/2...would be even better if it was macro
The ultrawidest, biggest aperture rectilinear lens you can make under $10k. If that's 14mm f/1.4 or 13mm f/4 or 10mm f/5.6 or whatever it is down in there and it's sharp, I'm about it. Even better if it takes screw-on filters in the front.


----------



## Uneternal (Mar 24, 2020)

Oh STFU Tony Northrup you effin Sony hand puppet, you don't even use Canon.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 24, 2020)

TonyNorthrup said:


> I own the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 for astro. It's great! but it's a DSLR lens, and Sigma makes it for the Nikon F mount, which means they had to design their optics around a very small opening with a big flange distance. That's a big deal for fast, super-wide lenses, which benefit the most from the wide openings and short flange distances of modern mirrorless mounts. Canon could certainly make a 14mm lens one stop faster for their R mount. No doubt it would be huge, but so is the Sigma, and it's always on a tripod, anyway. BTW, the vignetting isn't ever a real-world problem for me... We've been testing the Canon 24-240 RF which has serious vignetting and distortion at 24mm, but the camera and Lightroom both automatically correct for it in post, which means you never see any problem with your images. I am fine with that.


Hi Tony,
First off, thank you for running your YouTube channel.
Let me provide some Perspective on 14/1.8 vs 14/1.2 subject.
As we are well aware, an elevated vignetting levels on RF mount are associated with a shorter mount flange distance. A longer lenses are less affected as there is no requirement for light to be bent at extreme angles. As we all aware. Ticked.
with shorter focal lengths, bending light to reach extreme corners and micro lens position is becoming an issue.
Yes, 2-3 stops of vignetting is an unfortunate reality however is manageable.
However, at 14mm and F1.2 vignetting levels may reach some unmanageable levels. 6 stops or even more
Bulbous front 105mm front element is given. at least. It’s a 2kg lens.
Another issue I guarantee to be a problem for Astro in some serious level or commatic aberrations in corners and ugly shaped stars in result.
theoretically, such a lens can exist. commercially it would have to be an expensive, specialty lens.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 24, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Would it not be a new f/5.6?, given the 400 f/4 DO isn't overly cheep.


F7.1 is the new Black. So...


----------



## jd7 (Mar 24, 2020)

62mm (or anything around the 60mm - 65mm mark) f/1.4 USM which doesn't break the bank. IS optional.


----------



## NKD (Mar 24, 2020)

RF 35mmTS
&
RF 45-135mmTS

Since the EF mount is no longer underway..
No need to update the current 17 or 24mmTS


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Mar 24, 2020)

35mm f1.2L please


----------



## davidespinosa (Mar 24, 2020)

*RF pancakes !!!*

And:
RF 16mm f/1.2 or f/1.4
RF 24mm f/1.2 or f/1.4
RF 35mm f/1.2

And:
RF 24mm f/1.8


----------



## derpderp (Mar 24, 2020)

MayaTlab said:


> Canon is the only remaining mainstream lens manufacturer without a reasonable 50mm lens that belongs to the 21st century, which is quite astonishingly ridiculous when you think about it (even Pentax has got one). All of their 50s bar the €2300 RF 1.2 are either yet another version of the decades old double gauss or barely evolved from it, with all that entails in regards to IQ (ie they're terrible by 2020 standards), and all of them with appalling AF.
> Personally I'd like Canon to chase a level of ambition as high as Nikon tried (and not fully successfully so) to reach with the 50mm 1.8 Z, without IS (as IBIS is coming and I'd rather have Canon put it all in IQ), and without the Nikon's issues with onion rings / manufacturing problems, and I'd happily pay between €450 and €700 for it, but I'm rather expecting Canon to target a lower level of ambition with such specs unfortunately.
> I would have thought such a reasonable, practical lens likely to end up in lots of hands and as a result quite a bit more likely to produce interesting pictures, a priority, at least more so than lenses designed to enable Canon's marketing department to trumpet the size of Canon's engineering appendage, but what do I know ?



Just buy the RF 50mm F1.2. Stop complaining about the price, its cheap enough.


----------



## derpderp (Mar 24, 2020)

bgoyette said:


> Canon needs a "great" 50mm 1.2L lens for the the EF mount. A companion to the 35mm 1.4L II, and a competitor to the Otus and sigma lenses of that approximate length and girth. The RF version I'm sure is fantastic, but it won't work on canon's cinema line, or any of it's professional cameras. The current EF 50 1.2 is fine for internet bokeh queens, but we need something with less field curvature, less longitudinal CA, and better detail wide open.



lol sooner or later those cameras will transition to RF mount, so there's really no point developing lenses for the EF mount any longer.


----------



## snoke (Mar 24, 2020)

RF 24-85/f4L IS.


privatebydesign said:


> Has anybody made a full frame 14mm that is filterable?



Canon EF 14/2.8L + EF-RF Drop In Mount Adapter.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 24, 2020)

derpderp said:


> lol sooner or later those cameras will transition to RF mount, so there's really no point developing lenses for the EF mount any longer.


it is rather later than sooner at this stage, as photographers world wide are likely going to be cash strapped for quite sometime... its going to be : get the job done with what is available. with tourism, aviation in doll drums, people loosing jobs - the demand curve is going to nose dive even further... even well earning professionals are being extra careful now.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Mar 24, 2020)

TonyNorthrup said:


> I own the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 for astro. It's great! but it's a DSLR lens, and Sigma makes it for the Nikon F mount, which means they had to design their optics around a very small opening with a big flange distance. That's a big deal for fast, super-wide lenses, which benefit the most from the wide openings and short flange distances of modern mirrorless mounts. Canon could certainly make a 14mm lens one stop faster for their R mount. No doubt it would be huge, but so is the Sigma, and it's always on a tripod, anyway. BTW, the vignetting isn't ever a real-world problem for me... We've been testing the Canon 24-240 RF which has serious vignetting and distortion at 24mm, but the camera and Lightroom both automatically correct for it in post, which means you never see any problem with your images. I am fine with that.



Sorry but I don't really follow the logic here.
You want a really bright 14mm lens for astro, but don't care about vignetting? So one one hand you wan't a f1,2 lens in order to have a bit less noise in the center, on the other hand you don't mind more noise in the periphery because of vignetting correction?
If you look at some of the new wide lenses from Canon you can see that they have really strong vignetting, and maybe this isn't an issue when shooting in good lighting conditions with a optimum aperture, but it sure takes a toll when you are shooting astro and already pushing the sensor to its limits.


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Mar 24, 2020)

200-600 with a max of f5.6


----------



## Ale_F (Mar 24, 2020)

RF 50 1.4 STM
EF 50 1.4 STM

RF pancake about 40-50mm
RF 17-70 F4-5.6 or fixed.


----------



## CDR (Mar 24, 2020)

Honestly - all I would want is a 200-600 F5.6 to 6.3 IS with weather sealing and internal zoom at a price point to compete with Sony - after all, this matched with a R5 will give me pretty much all I need for wildlife shooting in daylight hours


----------



## tron (Mar 24, 2020)

An RF 17-70 L would be perfect for outdoor photography in order to avoid carrying both 15-35 and 24-70.


----------



## HarryFilm (Mar 24, 2020)

tron said:


> 14mm 1.4L for astro because the 1.2L mentioned does not seem so realistic to me.
> Sigma 14mm 1.8 - a very good lens - is already huge.




They CAN make a 12 mm f/1.2 and a 65mm f/1.2 with ALL-QUARTZ elements on the RF mount because the flange distance is so short which allows me to both super-wide and more narrow astro-searches. 55 and 60 mm is too short while 70 to 85mm is too long for my astro needs! 65mm with all-quartz elements is PERFECT for the super-astro photographer enthusiast!

if they make ALL the lens elements out of the purest of lab-grown quartzes , we could get the FULL infrared to UV wavelengths for long-exposure astrophotography. With quartz lens elements, we could use actual screw-on front-of-lens filters to create analogue notch-filters so I can get SPECIFIC BANDS of IR, UV or Optical wavelengths to find Hydrogen clouds specifically, or other highly-specific EM-band astronomical events and objects.

THAT would be cool for me! 

I asked the parent company's in-house lenscrafters for such lenses and they rebuked my request, so CANON has to do it for RF mount!

..


----------



## liv_img (Mar 24, 2020)

Another one for the RF 600 5.6 IS DO
And an RF 17-70 f:4L IS


----------



## RobbieHat (Mar 24, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Has anybody made a full frame 14mm that is filterable?


My 11-24 is filterable with a kit. Just not screw on filters. As for 14 mm again there are kits that can filter and they are way smaller than the ones for the 11mm lens. My friend shoots Nikon and has the 11-35 mm Z mount native lens and the filter kit is a compact set versus the huge set I have to lug around for the EF 11-24.


----------



## hne (Mar 24, 2020)

snoke said:


> RF 24-85/f4L IS.



How about a reasonably priced, compact and light-weight RF 28-80 f/3.5-5.6?


----------



## TominNJ (Mar 24, 2020)

tron said:


> 14mm 1.4L for astro because the 1.2L mentioned does not seem so realistic to me.
> Sigma 14mm 1.8 - a very good lens - is already huge.


Any fast wide lens corrected for coma. I know I’d buy it


----------



## slclick (Mar 24, 2020)

derpderp said:


> Just buy the RF 50mm F1.2. Stop complaining about the price, its cheap enough.


Just buy the RF 50mm F1.2. Stop complaining about the price, its cheap enough. /s

There.fixed it for you.


----------



## Tremotino (Mar 24, 2020)

On my wish list is a RF 24mm TSE 2.8 or even 4.0


----------



## mangobutter (Mar 24, 2020)

I'd love to see the lightest smallest pancake possible between the 28 and 50mm range. Priority should be given to compactness vs. speed, but no slower than 2.8.

On Full Frame, the sweet spot seems to be the 40 2.8 but I think for the mirrorless flange distance, it's either a bit wider or longer. 

a 35 2.8 pancake would be pretty fun to compliment the EOS RP's compactness. IS not needed.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 24, 2020)

MayaTlab said:


> Canon is the only remaining mainstream lens manufacturer without a reasonable 50mm lens that belongs to the 21st century, which is quite astonishingly ridiculous when you think about it (even Pentax has got one). All of their 50s bar the €2300 RF 1.2 are either yet another version of the decades old double gauss or barely evolved from it, with all that entails in regards to IQ (ie they're terrible by 2020 standards), and all of them with appalling AF.
> Personally I'd like Canon to chase a level of ambition as high as Nikon tried (and not fully successfully so) to reach with the 50mm 1.8 Z, without IS (as IBIS is coming and I'd rather have Canon put it all in IQ), and without the Nikon's issues with onion rings / manufacturing problems, and I'd happily pay between €450 and €700 for it, but I'm rather expecting Canon to target a lower level of ambition with such specs unfortunately.
> I would have thought such a reasonable, practical lens likely to end up in lots of hands and as a result quite a bit more likely to produce interesting pictures, a priority, at least more so than lenses designed to enable Canon's marketing department to trumpet the size of Canon's engineering appendage, but what do I know ?


Show me a single image shot with a double gauss design with compelling content that is outclassed by one of the new exotic lens recipes without compelling content. 

I don't know about you guys but I'm spending more and more of my time being inspired by creators rather than complainers. Everybody and their cousin can shoot at f1.2 and most people don't know the differences in images shot with an R with an RF 50 f1.2 and an iPhone in faked 'portrait' mode. More than ever content is king and lighting has everybit as much impact on the image as the lens.


----------



## Km0 (Mar 24, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Does Canon Mount Adapter EF - EOS R* with IS * seem possible ?


----------



## ColinJR (Mar 24, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> OK, I'll take one each of these:
> 
> 14 mm f/2.8 w/ filter front
> 17 mm TS really sharp and w/ filter front. And 17 is plenty wide!
> ...



It would be so freaking awesome if they announced a zooming tilt-shift along with a high-res RF camera...


----------



## Aaron D (Mar 24, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> 28mm f/1.4 IS or f/1.2...I am just not a fan of fixed 24mm or 35mm, 28mm is perfect for my mind's eye



Agreed--and f/2 would be fine, for a compact, affordable walking around lens. Lots of others have asked for a 28, so yeah. I've tried twice in the past to make 35 mm work, for me it just doesn't.



twoheadedboy said:


> 50mm f/1.4 IS...the f/1.2 is superb but a bit overkill for me at this focal length.



Compact and reasonably priced and I'm IN.


----------



## Jstnelson (Mar 24, 2020)

RF Dream list:

14-28mm f2 or a 14mm f1.4 and a 20-24mm f1.2
35mm f1.2
85mm f1.2 - have it
135mm f1.4


----------



## scyrene (Mar 24, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> A long macro, with IS, e.g. *RF200mm f/4L MACRO IS*. I don't particularly care about the focus motor, silent would be a plus, as would be raw speed. Also, it has to be black, like the EF180mm L macro



For me a 200mm* f/2.8L* Macro IS. I love the Sigma 180 but faster/more accurate AF would be a help.

Or even a true macro telephoto zoom, I believe Nikon makes (made?) one, say 80-200mm.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 24, 2020)

snoke said:


> Canon EF 14/2.8L + EF-RF Drop In Mount Adapter.


Duh! Any EF lens works with the drop in adapter, nobody was talking about adapters, the 11-24, heck even the 8-15 are rear end filterable with an adapter...


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 24, 2020)

RobbieHat said:


> My 11-24 is filterable with a kit. Just not screw on filters. As for 14 mm again there are kits that can filter and they are way smaller than the ones for the 11mm lens. My friend shoots Nikon and has the 11-35 mm Z mount native lens and the filter kit is a compact set versus the huge set I have to lug around for the EF 11-24.


We weren't talking kits! I was one of the first people to buy the Fotodiox kit for the TS-E17, so what?

Nikon don't make an 11-35 Z so your friend is doing well!

However if he owns the Nikkor Z 14-30mm f/4 he does in fact have the worlds first and so far only front filterable FF 14mm rectilinear lens. That is a real achievement in lens design, however I would caution you can't actually see the optical characteristics of the lens because all the Z bodies automatically correct for distortion and vignetting automatically and you can't turn it off, even the viewfinder shows the corrected image...


----------



## esglord (Mar 24, 2020)

Plenty of amazing EF and RF options already available or planned. Any of these might force me to part with more money though:

1. RF 35mm f1.4L USM
2. RF 15-35mm f4L IS USM
3. Affordable non-L 40mm f/2 pancake
3. Affordable non-L RF 200mm-400mm+ IS
4. RF 90mm f2.0L TS Macro
5. RF 135mm f1.8L IS USM
6. RF 50mm f1.4L USM


----------



## scyrene (Mar 24, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> Lightweight RF 150-500 f4 w/integrated 1.4x TC. I would even accept f5.6 above 400 assuming the same IQ out to 500mm before you kicked in the 1.4x. I would also go 200-500 f4 w/integrated 1.4x TC (280-700mm). If not, put me down for the 500mm f4 DO.



*Lightweight* 500mm f/4, really??


----------



## c.d.embrey (Mar 24, 2020)

Non-L f/1.8 primes in R mount. 28mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8. Why sell the RP with only one affordable lens available?


----------



## jhpeterson (Mar 25, 2020)

scyrene said:


> *Lightweight* 500mm f/4, really??


It really is, once you work up to it! 
Mine got a lot of use on a weeks-long safari just over a month ago. I keep telling myself the photos I got (and a lot really are great) are worth all the aches.


----------



## JustUs7 (Mar 25, 2020)

My dream exists. I could never justify the expense. The RF 70-200 2.8 

With that, we could take amazing pictures of all our kids indoor school events. Orchestra, play, indoor soccer, piano recitals, graduations, etc. At 2.8, it would even make a very solid portrait lens covering plenty of range. No f/1.2, but plenty fast for our needs. 

Make a 2.00x extender for that one, and couldn’t imagine needing anything else. 

For most anything we do now, we have no complaints about the RF 24-240 in good light and the 35 1.8 we currently have.


----------



## afolickman (Mar 25, 2020)

EF 24-300 F2.8 or F4.0


----------



## Danglin52 (Mar 25, 2020)

scyrene said:


> *Lightweight* 500mm f/4, really??



DO Lens? The 500 f4 II is reasonably light in the big white group, but it did not get the weight reduction treatment received by the 400 III and 600 III. My thought was Canon might have saved the 300I II and 500 II for weight reduction on the RF mount. “Lightweight” might also be a relative term to those (like me) who carry an 8lb 200-400 f4 lL IS w/integrated 1.4 x TC. I am getting older and have been focusing on shedding weight from my kit. My problem is I love the IQ and faster aperture of the big whites.


----------



## Jack Jian (Mar 25, 2020)

Tony's answer about Ra is the funniest answer among all. Smh

I would love to see an RF 35 f1.0 with the micro-contrast of the RF 85 f1.2. (Not something as flat as the Sigma 35 f1.2).

For most of my purpose, the f2 trinity zoom covered everything.


----------



## vrpanorama.ca (Mar 25, 2020)

A RF 12mm F2.8 L will be my dream lens for 360VR and low light condition


----------



## RobbieHat (Mar 25, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> We weren't talking kits! I was one of the first people to buy the Fotodiox kit for the TS-E17, so what?
> 
> Nikon don't make an 11-35 Z so your friend is doing well!
> 
> However if he owns the Nikkor Z 14-30mm f/4 he does in fact have the worlds first and so far only front filterable FF 14mm rectilinear lens. That is a real achievement in lens design, however I would caution you can't actually see the optical characteristics of the lens because all the Z bodies automatically correct for distortion and vignetting automatically and you can't turn it off, even the viewfinder shows the corrected image...



You are correct and my apologies on his lens. It is front filtered and is nice to have 2mm wider than the 16-35 and for landscape the f4 is sufficient and reduces weight and size. Nice lens and I hope Canon does something similar.


----------



## amfoto1 (Mar 25, 2020)

I have some pretty simple requests: 

EF 50mm f/1.4 USM II... An update of a good old lens. Add in IS would be a bonus.

A series of EF-M primes with USM focus drive, real manual focus rings and able to override AF any time. They also need to have focus scales. 10mm or 12mm, 16mm, 21 or 22mm, 35 or 36mm, 50mm and 85mm. These should all be fast but affordable... f/2.8 wide angles, f/2 or f/1.4 for the 21/22mm... At least f/1.4 for the rest, although if they snuck in one or two f/1.2s, that would be cool, so long as they kept them compact and fairly affordable.

It's time the EF-M lens line got some respect! They should offer an M5 Mark II with 32.5MP too, to complement the new EF-M lenses.

Oh, and while we're making requests, it's time for a 7D Mark III, too.


----------



## derpderp (Mar 25, 2020)

amfoto1 said:


> I have some pretty simple requests:
> 
> EF 50mm f/1.4 USM II... An update of a good old lens. Add in IS would be a bonus.
> 
> ...



lmao fast (F1.2/1.4) AND affordable EF-M lenses? Dream on...


----------



## Trey T (Mar 25, 2020)

24-50mm L f/1.8


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 25, 2020)

Trey T said:


> 24-50mm L f/1.8



Such a lens would be similar to the RF 28-70/f2.0 in size.. and price. still interested?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Mar 25, 2020)

After getting the 50mm 1.8S for my z6. I would love to see Canon bring out a range of 1.8 L glass, it is the sweet spot for the smaller mirrorless cameras when I need a walk about camera for non-wildlife. Until then my path is Canon for wildlife and Nikon for weddings/walkabout.

Other than a range of 1.8's, I would love a 200 f/2.8 like the EF one(small and compact take anywhere wildlife lens), and something different in the big white field: instead of a smaller 600 DO lets get a 800 or a DO zoom to make the 200-400 look like yesterdays tech.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 25, 2020)

jhpeterson said:


> It really is, once you work up to it!
> Mine got a lot of use on a weeks-long safari just over a month ago. I keep telling myself the photos I got (and a lot really are great) are worth all the aches.



I use the 500L f/4 II and it's fine, but while everyone's definition of 'light' differs, and bearing in mind the mark III supertelephotos shaved off a lo of weight, I don't think such a lens wil ever be lightweight (that was my point). Also people bring up DO, but while this can help, the main thing is the size of the front element, which is esentially fixed.


----------



## neurorx (Mar 25, 2020)

135 mm 1.4 or 1.8L

200-600 mm 5.6-6.3L


----------



## Floydian (Mar 25, 2020)

RF 14mm TS-E f4.0L
RF 17mm TS-E f4.0L
RF 24mm TS-E f2.8L
RF 50mm TS-E f2.8L
RF 90mm TS-E f2.8L

In an ideal world a RF 14-90mm TS-E F4.0L Zoom


----------



## Einar (Mar 25, 2020)

RF L 4/24-150mm IS Macro or 3.5/24-120mm IS Macro or 4/24-120mm IS Macro in two variants: one without, and one with electric zoom for video

RF 4.5/24-180mm IS Macro with electric zoom for video
RF L 2.8/24-240mm with electric zoom for video

RF 1.8/20mm IS
RF 1.8/24mm IS
RF 1.8/35mm IS Macro 
RF 1.8/50mm IS Macro
RF 1.8/85mm IS Macro
RF 3.5/150mm IS Macro
RF 4.5/300mm IS

RF L 2.0/150mm IS with build in 2x extender

RF 5.6/600mm IS Catadioptrics with (computational corrected?) good contrast & bokeh


----------



## Trey T (Mar 25, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Such a lens would be similar to the RF 28-70/f2.0 in size.. and price. still interested?


Sure. It appears to be about half the size of EF 70-200 L 2.8 IS. Can you refer to a technical document that would size the proposed zoom?


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 25, 2020)

I'd settle for a 14mm f4 TSE, as good as the Nikkor TS 19 mm.
But I'm afraid, it would cost me a kidney....


----------



## JustUs7 (Mar 25, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> My dream exists. I could never justify the expense. The RF 70-200 2.8
> 
> With that, we could take amazing pictures of all our kids indoor school events. Orchestra, play, indoor soccer, piano recitals, graduations, etc. At 2.8, it would even make a very solid portrait lens covering plenty of range. No f/1.2, but plenty fast for our needs.
> 
> ...



Replying to myself, I know. But did the government just make it possible for us to provide stimulus to the local camera shop!?!

Don’t think I could win that discussion on the home front.


----------



## ctk (Mar 25, 2020)

I'm going to suggest 3, in combo with the IBIS in the upcoming bodies:


A modern *24-85/3.5-4.5. *Even today, it renders good, sharp photos at F/5.6 corner to corner, and is nice and light.
*40/2 STM. *40mm is my favorite FL, and could easily be the only FL I use 99% of the time. My favorite lens ever is the CV 40/1.2, which is a joy, even when stopped down... thanks to its amazingly smooth bokeh. I also used the Samyang 45/1.8, which also rendered beautifully with modern sharpness. A similar AF lens from Canon with all the right parameters (40mm FOV, autofocus, smooth bokeh, F/2 with minimal vignetting) would be amazing.
*135/2.8. *I may just get the 135 STF, but it would be nice to have something with modern sharpness in a similarly light package. This could be a really nice travel tele option. I know 85mm is the popular tele prime FL but I find it to be in a no-man's land of being too short and long at the same time.
This would be my kit, along with my R (for my wife), 24-105L and an R6.


----------



## davidespinosa (Mar 26, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Such a lens would be similar to the RF 28-70/f2.0 in size.. and price. still interested?



[ We're talking about a 24-50 f/1.8 ]

I didn't post that, but Yes.
28-70 isn't wide enough.


----------



## Jamie8848 (Mar 26, 2020)

15mm f2.0 fisheye for nightscapes.

The old 15mm f2.8 is a great compact lens and I wish they would upgrade the motor and aperture blades and re-release it but with the advantages or the RF mountain, a f/2.0 should be possible...


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 26, 2020)

There are many lenses that I'd like, but the ones of main interest to me would be to match the R5 and/or a M5(mkII):

_Given that the R5 has IBIS, and I am hoping that a M5mkII might have IBIS, I'm writing / asking for IS in most of the lenses, to have even more (i.e. 'additional') stops of image stabilisation over what the IBIS will provide (as Canon has explained ILIS and IBIS can very effectively work together in their yet-to-hit-the-market system... _

I have the 15-85mm on my 80D, and I just love that focal range in a zoom.
*- RF 24-135mm f/4 IS USM *(I find the 105mm just a bit limiting, going to 150mm would even be better!)

I have the Samyang 12mm on my M5 which I love for astro, and it also doubles as a handy UWA walkaround (very compact).
A bit wider and a tad faster would be ideal... say either (or both):
*- Canon EF-M 10mm f/1.4 STM or USM
- Canon RF 16mm f/1.8 STM or USM *- to keep it from being "HUGE, HEAVY and expensive".

And these lenses, which are focal lengths I really like and use:
*- Canon RF 24mm f/2 STM 
- Canon RF 35mm f/1.4 STM IS
- Canon RF 50mm f/1.6 USM IS
- Canon RF 85mm f/1.8 USM IS
- Canon RF 100mm f/2.8 USM IS 1:1 macro
- Canon RF 200mm f/4 USM IS 1:1 macro*

The new Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 IS USM meets my wildlife / birding lens needs.
(I currently own the 70-300mm L IS USM and use it on my 7D / 80D, so that focal length in RF is now covered)

Regards and Cheers all! Happy Photography

PJ


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 26, 2020)

Trey T said:


> Sure. It appears to be about half the size of EF 70-200 L 2.8 IS. Can you refer to a technical document that would size the proposed zoom?


I can refer you RF 28-70/F2.0 specifications instead. Check the weight, dimensions, front filter size. 
Measuring 139.8 mm x 103.8 mm (5.5 x 4.09 in.) and *weighing 1430 grams (3.15 lbs)
That’s half of a the Canon EF 400/2.8 III weight which is not too bad *


----------



## Erlend Krumsvik (Mar 26, 2020)

A RF 100mm USM macro 1:1 with tilt/shift.


----------



## derpderp (Mar 26, 2020)

pj1974 said:


> *- Canon EF-M 10mm f/1.4 STM or USM
> - Canon RF 35mm f/1.4 STM IS*



Those are all quite reasonable requests, though I doubt you'd see any affordable or light lenses below F1.8.


----------



## derpderp (Mar 26, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> My dream exists. I could never justify the expense. The RF 70-200 2.8
> 
> With that, we could take amazing pictures of all our kids indoor school events. Orchestra, play, indoor soccer, piano recitals, graduations, etc. At 2.8, it would even make a very solid portrait lens covering plenty of range. No f/1.2, but plenty fast for our needs.
> 
> ...



I have the RF 70-200 F2.8. It's a truly excellent lens and reasonably priced for its quality. It's also very light - compared to other similar offerings - and so if you really need it, I am certain you won't regret investing in it


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Mar 26, 2020)

neurorx said:


> 135 mm 1.4 or 1.8L
> 
> 200-600 mm 5.6-6.3L



Make it a 200-600mm f/5.6, It's going to live on a gimbal on a tripod/monopod anyway.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Mar 26, 2020)

derpderp said:


> I have the RF 70-200 F2.8. It's a truly excellent lens and reasonably priced for its quality. It's also very light - compared to other similar offerings - and so if you really need it, I am certain you won't regret investing in it


Some good offers on the RF 70-200mm at the moment, at least 10% off the RRP.


----------



## Buzzer2000 (Mar 26, 2020)

RF 18-85 f 2.2L / IS (for documentary)


----------



## storioni (Mar 26, 2020)

My "realistic" landscape and nature dream would be like:
RF 15-70 F4 L IS
RF 180 F4 L IS macro 1:1


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Mar 26, 2020)

A range of prime lenses for the R with prices under $500 so us "normal people" - enthusiasts, not professionals. No need for exotics, just available lens comparable to the existing EF lenses.


----------



## navastronia (Mar 26, 2020)

Berowne said:


> Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L IS USM.
> 
> I really like my old EF 200/2.8. It is fast, light and affordable (700€). A new version with IS in the price-range of 1000€ would be very nice. And it would be a great addition to my 85/1.4L IS



I've posted about it before, but my EF 200/2.8 mk. II has fantastic image quality. The only thing missing is IS, though with any luck, IBIS in future RF bodies will help to make up for it.


----------



## navastronia (Mar 26, 2020)

Buzzer2000 said:


> RF 18-85 f 2.2L / IS (for documentary)



I would pay handsomely for an RF 18-85/*2.8* L IS!


----------



## Aussie shooter (Mar 26, 2020)

Just an absolute kick ass astro lens. 14 or 16mm. F1.2 or 1.4. Insane optical quality. I have no doubt they can(and will) do it.


----------



## motofotog (Mar 27, 2020)

Wishing for RF 1000mm f7.1 DO?


----------



## dslrdummy (Mar 27, 2020)

There are Fuji patents pending for a 300 f4 and 500 f5.6. A 500 f5.6L IS on the EOS R5 would be very compelling.


----------



## davidespinosa (Mar 27, 2020)

To the people asking for an RF 50mm f/1.4:

It's 50mm f/1.2 or 50mm f/1.8.
Take your pick.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 27, 2020)

My very last suggestion (I promise !): what about an RF 70-135 f2 macro 1/1 zoom?
If I'm not mistaken, there was once a rumor about a "surprising" macro lens.


----------



## barton springs (Mar 27, 2020)

120-300 2.8L IS with the same AF performance as the 300 2.8L IS
for both EF & RF


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 28, 2020)

barton springs said:


> 120-300 2.8L IS with the same AF performance as the 300 2.8L IS
> for both EF & RF


This and under $5000 please


----------



## Shellbo6901 (Mar 28, 2020)

35-135, with it being f3.5 at the 135, but hopefully starting at under f2.0 at least. macro would be nice


----------



## joestopper (Mar 28, 2020)

dslrdummy said:


> There are Fuji patents pending for a 300 f4 and 500 f5.6. A 500 f5.6L IS on the EOS R5 would be very compelling.



An RF 500 f5.6L would be fantastic for R users. But from Canon's point of view this is no good lens: a) It cannibalises sales of 500 f/4 and b) they cannot demand 10 grand for an f/5.6 of this focal length.


----------



## joestopper (Mar 28, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



From all these replies I like this most: 14mm f/1.2
Unfortunately there was never a patent or a rumour of such a lens ...


----------



## Soren Hakanlind (Mar 28, 2020)

I´ve had had about 20-25 different Canon camera bodies and about 50-70 Canon lenses during my long professional career. Started back in the late seventies. I still remember the Canon FD 24/2,0! Small, lightweighted and sharp as hell! A wonderful lens!

I´m longing for new lightweight, quality build lenses. Such as:
24mm/2,0 (I don't need the 1,4, it´s too big and heavy)
50mm/1,4 (I don't need the 1,2, it´s too big and heavy)

But I'm still in love with one of my "new" lenses. It's the fantastic 70-200mm/2,8L IS II USM! I think I've never going to sell it!


----------



## Soren Hakanlind (Mar 28, 2020)

davidespinosa said:


> To the people asking for an RF 50mm f/1.4:
> 
> It's 50mm f/1.2 or 50mm f/1.8.
> Take your pick.



The 50mm/1,2 is too heavy and expensive and the 50mm/1,8 is too poor. 50mm/1,4 is the perfect solution!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Mar 29, 2020)

Soren Hakanlind said:


> The 50mm/1,2 is too heavy and expensive and the 50mm/1,8 is too poor. 50mm/1,4 is the perfect solution!



A 50mm 1.8 does not need to be a nifty fifthty. I have the 50mm 1.8 s on Nikon and it is one of the best lenses I have used. Really solid IQ. Personally I think the 1.4s will come in when the line up is well filled out.


----------



## Wobbler (Mar 29, 2020)

bgoyette said:


> Canon needs a "great" 50mm 1.2L lens for the the EF mount. A companion to the 35mm 1.4L II, and a competitor to the Otus and sigma lenses of that approximate length and girth. The RF version I'm sure is fantastic, but it won't work on canon's cinema line, or any of it's professional cameras. The current EF 50 1.2 is fine for internet bokeh queens, but we need something with less field curvature, less longitudinal CA, and better detail wide open.



I've only been in this hobby for eight years, and the thing I have been waiting for that whole time is the elusive EF 50mm 1.2L that actually focuses and doesn''t have so many secondary problems. Given the clamor over those years for that lens I'm surprised that every second response here doesn't mention it. Maybe everyone lost hope so long ago that they no longer regard it as "possible."


----------



## bestpractices222 (Mar 29, 2020)

Nor sure if anyone mentioned this, but my first choice would be a EF 50-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM. This would be my new goto lens. I expect there would be some barrel and pincushion distortion with it, but Canon DPP 4 could take care of that issue.


----------



## joestopper (Mar 29, 2020)

bestpractices222 said:


> Nor sure if anyone mentioned this, but my first choice would be a EF 50-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM. This would be my new goto lens. I expect there would be some barrel and pincushion distortion with it, but Canon DPP 4 could take care of that issue.



This is far too close to 70-200 f/2.8.
And, BTW, Canon is not making new EF designs any more.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 29, 2020)

joestopper said:


> An RF 500 f5.6L would be fantastic for R users. But from Canon's point of view this is no good lens: a) It cannibalises sales of 500 f/4 and b) they cannot demand 10 grand for an f/5.6 of this focal length.


At this stage there are none 500/4 native RF mount lenses available so there is nothing to cannibalise yet  with new market realities at full force, 500/5.6 may be a better placed lens. Yes it is a full stop slower glass. However with a host of Canon RF F7.1 zooms in the making, 500/5.6 - in my view - would be just fine


----------



## Dragon (Mar 30, 2020)

Jim Corbett said:


> Why should it be realistic? Nothing beautiful has ever been created without having been dreamed of in the first place... unrealistically(!)
> 
> *200mm f/1.8 *


Not unrealistic. There already was one of those in EF mount released in 1988.


----------



## davidespinosa (Mar 30, 2020)

Soren Hakanlind said:


> The 50mm/1,2 is too heavy and expensive and the 50mm/1,8 is too poor. 50mm/1,4 is the perfect solution!


I doubt Canon agrees that the 50mm f/1.8 is too poor.
It's only 2/3 stop slower than f/1.4, and it has IS.


SwissFrank said:


> I don't think so. There's totally room for a 50 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 in the lineup.
> 
> In fact the 1.4 could go one of two ways: compact double-gauss design with pedestrian image quality, or a new-style computer-designed formula like the Otus, RF50/1.2, etc. In fact if they made both types I could picture getting both: the sharp version for specific products or the compact one for daily grab shooting, holidays etc.
> 
> One of my old Leica buddies had a gag that he had finally settled on the ideal M outfit: 50/1.0, 1.4, 2.0, and 2.8. And he was only half-kidding.


I think your Leica buddy was serious -- but that's a full-stop series.
And there is exactly one full stop between f/1.2 and f/1.8.
So IMO there's no room for another lens.
But you can certainly get both -- the f/1.2 is the high-IQ lens, and the f/1.8 is the compact lens.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 30, 2020)

davidespinosa said:


> I doubt Canon agrees that the 50mm f/1.8 is too poor.
> It's only 2/3 stop slower than f/1.4, and it has IS.
> 
> I think your Leica buddy was serious -- but that's a full-stop series.
> ...


When looking at a $3000 f1.2 lens and then at a $400 F1.8, one can easily see how a mid range F1.4 option priced at around $1600-1800 fits in between.


----------



## davidespinosa (Mar 30, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> When looking at a $3000 f1.2 lens and then at a $400 F1.8, one can easily see how a mid range F1.4 option priced at around $1600-1800 fits in between.



The RF 50mm f/1.2 is $2300, and the RF 35mm f/1.8 is $500.
But you're right -- there's room between those two prices.

Since the RF series seems to emphasize image quality,
I think the RF 50mm f/1.8 will be more like the EF f/1.4 ($350) than the EF f/1.8 ($125).


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 30, 2020)

dickgrafixstop said:


> A range of prime lenses for the R with prices under $500 so us "normal people" - enthusiasts, not professionals. No need for exotics, just available lens comparable to the existing EF lenses.



My impression, between fast high-IQ zooms taking sales from above, and smartphones takings sales from below, there aren't enough "normal people" to justify those lenses.


----------



## KirkD (Mar 30, 2020)

As Tony suggests, a RF 14mm f1.2L would be wonderful for astrophotography, although I fear the cost. To keep it within the "possibly affordable" range, I'd settle for a f1.4L. I might even relent and accept a f2L, but since I already own the RF 15-35 f2.8L, I'm not sure the f2 would be wide enough to make me buy it. An f1.4 would, provided it could be done for around $US 3,000.


----------



## jansberg (Mar 30, 2020)

A very compact inexpensive rf 55mm 1.8 is usm


----------



## Cariboucoach (Mar 31, 2020)

With the advances in lenses these days I would like a redo of the EF 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6L IS USM. I don't own one but It seems like it could be a great lens for sports.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Mar 31, 2020)

RF 50 f2 macro for nature and landscape. I don’t have a mirrorless body, but ifI did this would be what I would want. Time to retire the 50 compact macro from my lens arsenal. know this will never happen.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 31, 2020)

SUNDOG04 said:


> RF 50 f2 macro for nature and landscape. I don’t have a mirrorless body, but ifI did this would be what I would want. Time to retire the 50 compact macro from my lens arsenal. know this will never happen.



The rumoured RF 50 f/1.8 is supposed to be 1:2 macro, just like the tube full of angry hornets masquerading as lens called 'compact macro'.


----------



## TwinExotica (Mar 31, 2020)

Etienne said:


> A set of well-constructed, weather-proof, affordable, light weight FF RF mount primes with IS from 24mm to 200mm. F stops as follows:
> 
> 18 mm f/2.8
> 24 mm f/2
> ...



Why would they make s 200 mm f/2.8 and the 135 mm when there is the 70-200 rf?


----------



## TwinExotica (Mar 31, 2020)

I would like to see a 100-450 mm f/3.5 for 4k$


----------



## Etienne (Mar 31, 2020)

TwinExotica said:


> Why would they make s 200 mm f/2.8 and the 135 mm when there is the 70-200 rf?


Small, lightweight primes


----------



## TwinExotica (Apr 1, 2020)

Etienne said:


> Small, lightweight primes


But the 70-200 is already light, at 1070 g. For exampel the 85 mm f/1.2 weights 1195 g, so...


----------



## Jing G (Apr 1, 2020)

I'll buy WHENEVER you have the following 2 lenses:
RF 11-24 F2L USM
RF 200-600 F4-5.6L IS USM


----------



## Etienne (Apr 1, 2020)

TwinExotica said:


> But the 70-200 is already light, at 1070 g. For exampel the 85 mm f/1.2 weights 1195 g, so...


I didn't suggest the 85 f/1.2, but a 85 f/1.8 ... which would likely be around 300g and barely over 2" long ... that IS a big difference, both in aperture and in size over the 70-200. Those are the reasons some of us still prefer primes


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Apr 2, 2020)

jansberg said:


> A very compact inexpensive rf 55mm 1.8 is usm


or even f2.0 if that is a bit smaller.


----------



## Nils Kristensen (Apr 3, 2020)

I would like to see a RF100 mm f/2.8 macro, a RF300mm f/1.8 and and a RF15-35mm f/4


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 3, 2020)

Etienne said:


> I didn't suggest the 85 f/1.2, but a 85 f/1.8 ... which would likely be around 300g and barely over 2" long ... that IS a big difference, both in aperture and in size over the 70-200. Those are the reasons some of us still prefer primes



The latest 85mm 1.8 I know of is 466g, still a far cry from 1000g and lets in twice the light. Perfect little things to shove on these mirrorless cameras for sure. A 200mm 2.8 would be fantastic, I rarely use my 70-200 on anything but 200.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Apr 4, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> I am very attracted by the 70-135L f:2 that is already announced, but the price and weight are going to be punishing. How about a 70-135 f:2.5 or 2.8 IS that one can hand-carry for more than 5 minutes, that is of a more mangeable form factor and that does not require one to mortgage the house to purchase it? I see gaps in the RF offering where we are seeing either good, reasonably-priced and quite OK lenses (35mm 1.8, etc..) or $2,500+ super-extraordinary L glass. The EF range has a number of very interesting L lenses in the $800-$1600 price range that appeal to non-professional photographers, will they ever be catered for (the 24-105L was a good start but I see no follow-up)?



How about "no"? 70-135 f/2 is part of the f/2 trinity. Why would you want a 70-135 f/2.8 when the compact/light RF 70-200 f/2.8 already exists? Have you ever used it? The size/weight is perfect. If you like the idea of range-limited zooms with small maximum apertures, buy a GFX.


----------



## SecureGSM (Apr 4, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> How about "no"? 70-135 f/2 is part of the f/2 trinity. Why would you want a 70-135 f/2.8 when the compact/light RF 70-200 f/2.8 already exists? Have you ever used it? The size/weight is perfect. If you like the idea of range-limited zooms with small maximum apertures, buy a GFX.


Tamron is going to release Sony E mount 70-180/2.8 which is a much much smaller lens with 67mm filter and weight around 700g if I recall correctly. Price is around US$1200. This is going to be a one very popular E mount lens.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Apr 4, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Tamron is going to release Sony E mount 70-180/2.8 which is a much much smaller lens with 67mm filter and weight around 700g if I recall correctly. Price is around US$1200. This is going to be a one very popular E mount lens.



Big difference between 70-135 and 70-180.

An RF 70-180 f/2.8 (non-L) would face stiff competition from the sure-to-come RF 70-200 f/4L.


----------



## SecureGSM (Apr 5, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Big difference between 70-135 and 70-180.
> 
> An RF 70-180 f/2.8 (non-L) would face stiff competition from the sure-to-come RF 70-200 f/4L.


Sorry. I am afraid that I have failed to Defend my point.
The size and weight was the major factor when decided between 70-200/2.8 and 70-200/4.
It was a compromise for many.
with a smaller 70-180/2.8 this is no longer the case for many.
With 70-135/2.8 the size and weight of the lenses can be further reduced down to around 400gr.
A compact and light travel lenses. Excellent for controlled studio light portraiture when shooting stopped down anyway. Or even for candid flash assisted portraiture when shoot stopped down.
Personally, I favour 70-180/2.8 over 70-200/4 any day. an extra stop advantage is indispensable in low light run and gun situation. I can see myself sacrificing the 180-200 end easily for an extra stop of light and a substantial size and weight reduction. Especially that with 45Mp sensor of R5 cropability would be an unlikely issue.
And finally, RF 70-135/2.8 would be a relatively inexpensive lens. Even from Canon.

p.s. https://photorumors.com/2020/04/03/...ny-e-mount-to-be-announced-next-week/#respond


----------



## mighty.mario (Apr 5, 2020)

3serious said:


> I'd second the RF 135 f1.x; the EF 135 f2 is my favorite lens ever.
> 
> That said, I'd also really love to see an RF 600mm f5.6L for us mere mortal hobbyists who either a) can't afford a $12k 600mm f4, or b) wouldn't want to carry that insurance liability around. If sigma can make a 600mm f6.3 zoom for a grand, surely Canon can make an RF 600mm f5.6L prime for $3k-4k.




I will go with the rumoured 135 1.4


----------



## Destin (Apr 6, 2020)

40mm-150mm (ish) L


----------



## Dj 7th (Apr 6, 2020)

Please hear me out first. I may not be very eloquent at explaining this......

I will like to see an RF- 10-24 f/4, I know it is already rumored. However, I will like to see the lens have slots for 52mm drop-in-filters. I do not know anything about engineering of lenses or if it is possible, just my wish so that I would not have to carry around those crazy sized 150-180 filter adapters.

As a matter of fact, I wish all extreme wide angle lens that does not have filter treads have drop-in-filter slots.


----------



## Traveler (Apr 14, 2020)

Lightweight small lenses. 
I don’t mind having a big camera since it’s always at my hip. But I’m getting tired of heavy lenses in my backpack. I use 24-105 f/4 and it’s quite big and heavy but it’s fine since it’s my main lens. But I’d really appreciate small and lightweight:
- fisheye
- wide-angle lens (f/4 or 4-5.6)
- 50/1.8
- 85/1.8
- 70-300 f/5.6 (or similar)
- maybe ~100mm macro.


----------



## Bencanada (Apr 15, 2020)

EF-M 10mm f2.8 with IS for vlogging!

or an RF 16mm F4 IS


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Apr 15, 2020)

Wobbler said:


> I've only been in this hobby for eight years, and the thing I have been waiting for that whole time is the elusive EF 50mm 1.2L that actually focuses and doesn''t have so many secondary problems. Given the clamor over those years for that lens I'm surprised that every second response here doesn't mention it. Maybe everyone lost hope so long ago that they no longer regard it as "possible."


I was waiting for such a lens for a long time for EF mount. I gave up and bought an EOS R with the RF 50mm 1.2L. That's the lens you have been waiting for.. it just happens to be on a different mount


----------



## derpderp (Apr 16, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Sorry. I am afraid that I have failed to Defend my point.
> The size and weight was the major factor when decided between 70-200/2.8 and 70-200/4.
> It was a compromise for many.
> with a smaller 70-180/2.8 this is no longer the case for many.
> ...



Interesting point. But i'd just get the 135mm F1.4/F1.2 prime if I were you. I'm sure it's in the RF pipeline. Then again, I've been travelling (before this dastardly virus took over the world) with my RF 15-35, 28-70 and 70-200, without breaking a sweat. So i guess my weight tolerance is much higher than yours.


----------



## SecureGSM (Apr 16, 2020)

derpderp said:


> Interesting point. But i'd just get the *135mm F1.4/F1.2* prime if I were you. I'm sure it's in the RF pipeline. Then again, I've been travelling (before this dastardly virus took over the world) with my RF 15-35, 28-70 and 70-200, without breaking a sweat. So i guess my weight tolerance is much higher than yours.



*135mm F1.2* prime would come with at least 110mm front element size. 2.2Kg - at least.

I suggest you have a feel of the Sigma 105/1.4 Art prime with 105mm front filter (1.8kg approx ???)
I owned one at some stage (shortly). it is a fine portrait lens, however holding the monstrosity for couple of hours is uncomfortable.
On an another note, 105/1.4 Art is a seriously intimidating lens. not so good for keeping your subjects relaxed and comfy.

++++ I've been travelling (before this dastardly virus took over the world) with my RF 15-35, 28-70 and 70-200

yeah, you could... by then you you can travel with much lighter lenses instead and still achieve an excellent result 

15-35/4 + 24-70/2.8 + 70-180/2.8


----------



## Memdroid (Apr 26, 2020)

Wow, almost no mention of a 300mm?
Here is hoping that Canon releases a Rf 300mm f2.8 IS that gets a similar treatment like the RF70-200mm. Smaller, lighter, and maybe added features like a built in 1.4x TC


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 26, 2020)

Memdroid said:


> Wow, almost no mention of a 300mm?
> Here is hoping that Canon releases a Rf 300mm f2.8 IS that gets a similar treatment like the RF70-200mm. Smaller, lighter, and maybe added features like a built in 1.4x TC



A 100-300 f/2.8 zoom with a build in TC would be an amazing sports lens. I don't think you'll see RF70-200 treatment here, but we can see on the EF 400 and 600 that they can drop a good bit of weight.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 26, 2020)

I have simple needs. My updated Canon RF Lens Map:


----------



## Eclipsed (Apr 30, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Sorry. I am afraid that I have failed to Defend my point.
> The size and weight was the major factor when decided between 70-200/2.8 and 70-200/4.
> It was a compromise for many.
> with a smaller 70-180/2.8 this is no longer the case for many.
> ...


I note that the Canon RF70-20 is shorter than your Tamron 70-180.


----------



## Eclipsed (Apr 30, 2020)

RF300 f2.8 with detachable rear housing for EF use and full lightening treatment like 400 f2.8 IS III. Maybe DO.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 1, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> I note that the Canon RF70-20 is shorter than your Tamron 70-180.


Point in case though is that a 70-180 lens will be smaller and lighter than 70-200 one. I hope it clarifies.


----------



## Eclipsed (May 1, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Point in case though is that a 70-180 lens will be smaller and lighter than 70-200 one. I hope it clarifies.


My typo aside I’m trying to square your point with the reality that the RF is shorter by a hair than the Tamron.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 1, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> My typo aside I’m trying to square your point with the reality that the RF is shorter by a hair than the Tamron.


Righto. With both lenses in question being an extending design, I guess, Canon implementation is more efficient length of the lens wise. 
however, going by 20mm shorter, the girth of the lens can be reduced by around 10%


----------



## TAF (May 3, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> In fact the 1.4 could go one of two ways: compact double-gauss design with pedestrian image quality, or a new-style computer-designed formula like the Otus, RF50/1.2,



Or how about a Tessar configuration, to compete with the Zeiss?


----------



## Del Paso (May 3, 2020)

I'd like Canon to bring an EF 24mm f1,4 which is sharp wide open!


----------



## Ozarker (May 4, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> I'd like Canon to bring an EF 24mm f1,4 which is sharp wide open!


I'll second that as long as it is f/1.2


----------



## Del Paso (May 4, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'll second that as long as it is f/1.2


OK, I'll give in...you win !


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 8, 2020)

An affordable, compact RF 50mm F/1.4 non-L USM would be great, since they don't ever will come up with a modern upgrade for the severely aged EF 50mm F/1.4. Not everyone needs the huge, expensive F/1.2 lens, but an F/1.8 nifty fifty may already be too limited for some users.


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 11, 2020)

Ph0t0 said:


> I would like to see some lenses like these:
> 
> *RF 15-35mm f4 IS *(a light carry around lens)
> *RF 24-70mm f4 IS* (as light as possible)
> ...


I'd like any of the lenses you mentioned (good choices).
I'd also like:
*RF 17-70mm f4 L IS *(or f3.5-5.6)
*RF 22-200 f?-5.6 L IS 
RF 65mm f2.8 L IS 1-5x macro
RF 70-135 f2 L IS
RF 105mm f1.8 L IS 1/2 macro*

(Gee, this is so much more fun than griping about overheating!)


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 11, 2020)

I'm dreaming of an EF or RF 16-28 mm TSE zoom, why not ?
This is the lens, I'd buy without any hesitation, even if outrageously expensive.


----------



## Ale_F (Jul 11, 2020)

It lacks a simple consumer lens like 70-300 non-L IS STM
50mm 1.8

or for me 70-200 F4L IS


----------



## jurci2 (Jul 11, 2020)

and what about:
- a RF 11-24 (or 28)mm to replace the EF version?
- a RF 400/2.8
- the rumoured RF 70-150 F2.0
- a RF 200mm/F2.0 (or 1.8/1.4?)


----------



## Ale_F (Jul 11, 2020)

I hope for a future telephoto a double version EF-RF since the rear distance is not a problem


----------



## Danglin52 (Jul 11, 2020)

You will see a common theme here:
RF 200-400 f4 L IS with 1.4x / 2x switchable TC, they have a patent for the TC and I would be happy with the old 200-400 with the III version weight loss program. This was a perfect wildlife lens, just needed a 2lb weight loss program.
RF 200-500 f5.6 L IS (fine with DO)
RF 500 f5.6 DO IS (build / IQ like the 400 DO II)
RF 600 f5.6 DO IS
RF f4 big white replacements.

All high quality wildlife lenses.


----------



## Durf (Jul 11, 2020)

16-70mm f/4L IS USM


----------



## slclick (Jul 11, 2020)

EF 40 f/1.2


----------



## brad-man (Jul 11, 2020)

RF 24 f/2.0 IS


----------



## Jamie8848 (Jul 12, 2020)

I'd love an RF15mm f2 fisheye, still a smallish size though.


----------



## hobbodanno (Jul 12, 2020)

RF 24-70 f/4L IS
RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
RF 50 f/1.8
RF 16 f/1.4L or so.

I do mostly landscape photography, along with some architecture thrown in. I'd like to get into a bit of astro as well. That would be my ideal kit, along with an extender. 

Other nice lenses to have:

RF 200-500 f/4-5.6L
RF 14-35 f/4L


----------



## rosw (Jul 12, 2020)

what are the odds of a RF Pancake 20-24MM ?

has any pancake lens ever come with IS ?


----------



## Danglin52 (Jul 12, 2020)

hobbodanno said:


> RF 24-70 f/4L IS
> RF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
> RF 50 f/1.8
> RF 16 f/1.4L or so.
> ...


I would signup for the 200-500 f4-5.6 L as long as it was less then 6lbs. I would even go for a 200-600 f4-f6.3. A RF 24-70, RF 70-200, RF 200-600, 1.4x TC, 2x TC in the bag and you can take on almost anything.


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 12, 2020)

For those that want a relatively lightweight single somewhat-extrawide-through-normal zoom to pair with their 70-whatever or 100-whatever zoom or primes, I'd like to suggest these choices:
*RF 17-70 f4 L IS* (or f3.5-5.6 as in their patent if they can't do a f4 good enough)
*RF 20(or 22)-100 f4 L IS *(or similar f# range like above)

I'd prefer these in a "L" for better build/weather/image quality, but I know many would prefer a non-L to keep the cost & weight down.

It's nice to have single lightweight choice to balance with the multiple heavier premium choices.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 12, 2020)

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again..

500mm f5.6 L DO, for about £2750.


----------



## Pape (Jul 13, 2020)

RF 200mm f4 macro ,focus stacking special lens


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 13, 2020)

Pape said:


> RF 200mm f4 macro ,focus stacking special lens



I've been using the EF180mm extensively the past week and what I'd to see is a gadget to get me nice, soft light. Could be a simple as a softbox you velcro around the lens hood and attach to an on-camera flash.

A clip-on version of the ring light builtin to the EF-S35 and EF-M28 would be a nice start. And it shouldn't cost north of $1000 like the other macro lights Canon produces.


----------



## arbitrage (Jul 14, 2020)

This 600 f/4 DO IS L but in RF mount... (also a RF 500 f/5.6 DO would be great...Nikon 500PF clone).


----------



## Act444 (Jul 14, 2020)

F8 and F5.6 versions of the 600 and 800mm lenses just announced...


----------



## mangobutter (Jul 30, 2020)

I'd like to see an RF 28-50 F/2.8 IS (possibly pancake style) zoom. This would be the ultimate street photographers lens. 2.8 is a tad "slow" but again it's for street so it doesn't have to be bright. Plus being bright would really up the size and weight which is a detriment to street--so don't say 24mm.. 28 would really keep the size, weight, and price down. Plus 28, 35mm, and 50mm are typical street photography lenghts. Come on Canon make this lens!


----------



## CDD28 (Jul 31, 2020)

A 400 2.8 with the built-in converter like the 200-400 (I think they patented this shortly after the 400 v3 was released) and a 300-600 f/4 zoom.


----------



## john1970 (Jul 31, 2020)

For me a few lenses I would like to see would be: RF 24 mm f.1.8, RF 35 mm f1.2L, RF 135 f1.8L, and lastly a RF 500 mm f4.


----------



## StandardLumen (Aug 1, 2020)

RF 16-70mm f/4L
RF 40mm pancake
RF 600mm IS f/5.6L or f/6.7L


----------



## Traveler (Aug 21, 2020)

Canon, please, give me a compact RF 15-35 f/4 with 77mm filter thread.


----------



## tron (Aug 25, 2020)

i_SH said:


> 17(20)-70/4L IS USM


That would be a fantastic travel lens!


----------



## tron (Aug 25, 2020)

A Nikon F mount (for E lenses) to Canon RF converter


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 25, 2020)

RF 500mm L f~5.6 DO. Or RF 550mm L f~6.2. (Light Weight)


----------



## tron (Aug 25, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> RF 500mm L f~5.6 DO. Or RF 550mm L f~6.2. (Light Weight)


The front elements of these two will have the same size (500/5.6 vs 550/6.3). Both will need a 95mm filter size


----------



## AlanF (Aug 25, 2020)

tron said:


> The front elements of these two will have the same size (500/5.6. 550/6.3). Both will need a 95mm filter size


Quite so. I would prefer the 550/6.3 as we would get up to 10% extra resolution. As I have written elsewhere, the loss of a 1/3rd stop can be compensated for by upping the iso if the light is poor and down resolving to the f/5.6 size. I'd buy either of them at a drop of a hat if Canon could keep the price down to that of the Nikon 500/5.6 PF.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 25, 2020)

tron said:


> A Nikon F mount (for E lenses) to Canon RF converter


You wouldn't be thinking of putting a Nikon 500/5.6 PF on a 5DSR or R5? Surely not.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 25, 2020)

tron said:


> The front elements of these two will have the same size (500/5.6. 550/6.3). Both will need a 95mm filter size


Yeah. Looking for the sweet spot of the most magnification in a sharp, lightweight prime that just hits the diffraction limit on an R5 with a 1.4X TC. Somewhere in this area.


----------



## usern4cr (Aug 25, 2020)

i_SH said:


> 17(20)-70/4L IS USM


I'd also like to 2nd this one! A single extra wide lens that reaches 70mm to avoid needing 24-70 when traveling light. Canon did a 17-70 patent but at a slower variable aperture. I think the 17-70mm f4 L IS USM would be a MAJOR seller for Canon!

In fact, I think a 17-70 would be in such demand that Canon could justify 2 versions of it which would both sell very well:
17-70mm f4 L IS USM $2000+ (highest quality possible, dual nano USM, and the one I'd buy)
17-70mm ~f5.6 $1000 (affordable with possibly higher max magnification and "good enough" quality)


----------



## tron (Aug 25, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I'd also like to 2nd this one! A single extra wide lens that reaches 70mm to avoid needing 24-70 when traveling light. Canon did a 17-70 patent but at a slower variable aperture. I think the 17-70mm f4 L IS USM would be a MAJOR seller for Canon!
> 
> In fact, I think a 17-70 would be in such demand that Canon could justify 2 versions of it which would both sell very well:
> 17-70mm f4 L IS USM $2000+ (the highest quality possible, and the one I'd buy)
> 17-70mm ~f5.6 $1000 (affordable with possibly higher max magnification and "good enough" quality)


It could also be 17-70 3.5-5.6 L serving decently enough as an astrophoto lens (at 17mm f/3.5) for these cases where we really want to take only one travel lens (in addition to our birding lens of course !  )


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 25, 2020)

tron said:


> It could also be 17-70 3.5-5.6 L serving decently enough as an astrophoto lens (at 17mm f/3.5) for these cases where we really want to take only one travel lens (in addition to our birding lens of course !  )


So far, all the lens companies have had difficulty make an L quality lens that is sharp over that entire zoom range. Probably possible in a non L f~3.5-5.6 lens.


----------



## usern4cr (Aug 25, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> So far, all the lens companies have had difficulty make an L quality lens that is sharp over that entire zoom range. Probably possible in a non L f~3.5-5.6 lens.


I'd agree with that statement in general, but with this additional comment: Canon making a lens of full L quality would mean their best seals, materials, and best optical design they could do, which IMHO would be the best *anyone* could ever hope for, and thus I'd consider it a "real" L lens if the MSRP was $2K or more as I'm sure it would be "superb enough" for that difficult range. I'd be happy with either the fixed f4 or variable f3.5(or whatever)-5.6 as long as it's their best L version & quality possible.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 25, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I'd agree with that statement in general, but with this additional comment: Canon making a lens of full L quality would mean their best seals, materials, and best optical design they could do, which IMHO would be the best *anyone* could ever hope for, and thus I'd consider it a "real" L lens if the MSRP was $2K or more as I'm sure it would be "superb enough" for that difficult range. I'd be happy with either the fixed f4 or variable f3.5(or whatever)-5.6 as long as it's their best L version & quality possible.


Interesting trade as a travel lens 1. One heavy beast with slightly compromised optics vs 2. Two light lenses with better optics over more limited zoom ranges: say 17-28 & 28-70mm.


----------



## usern4cr (Aug 25, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Interesting trade as a travel lens 1. One heavy beast with slightly compromised optics vs 2. Two light lenses with better optics over more limited zoom ranges: say 17-28 & 28-70mm.


Well, at f4 or so think a 17-70 L IS would be around 700g, which I wouldn't call a "heavy beast" - well "somewhat heavy" might be fair.  It would be interesting to see if that was true.

And at the moment there aren't two comparable lightweight zooms spanning 17 to 70 mm, and even if there were I've already got two RF f2.8 L zooms for that (although someone new might better enjoy a 15-35 f4 to go along with their 24-105 f4). But the whole point of the 17-70 is to just have 1 high quality but lighter weight lens doing it, which would be *huge* to me.


----------



## john1970 (Aug 25, 2020)

For my needs I only see 2-3 RF mounts needed:

1) a fast (f1.2)) wide angle prime lens between 24-35 mm; a 35 mm f1.2 L would be ideal
2) a RF 500 mm f4 L lens that would play nicely with the recently announced TCs
3) lastly, a 100 mm 1:1 macro L lens


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 27, 2020)

You know, the more time I think about it, I think Canon would be wise to release a small-ish 24mm F/2. I've been debating picking up the RF 28-70 F/2, which is an excellent lens, but some of my most common uses for the EF 24-70 are at 24mm. It would be nice to be able to have a small, fast 24mm RF lens in a small pocket of my belt kit to use when I'm in need of 24mm. I know there's an EF F/2.8 version, but F/2 would be nice to continue the RF 28-70 on a wider scale.

That said, I could see myself ending up with a zoom like a RF 16-24mm F/2 and not complaining at all either.


----------



## VivaLasVegas (Sep 2, 2020)

For me would be, an internally zooming RF 70-200 F2.8, with a built in extender(2x) and a reducer(.7x). It should also weigh less than 1400g, since the current RF 70-200 F2.8 is a little over 1050g. As a benchmark, without the 2x & .7x, it must match or better the theoretical MTF of Z 70-200 f2.8. This should sell like hot cakes, if the price is less than $2400. Canon should make it happen since some users prefer internally zooming 70-200 F2.8. They can also craft the 2x and .7x specifically for the 70-200 F2.8. It's a win-win situation for Canon and its users. Think about it, the portability of the original RF 70-200 F2.8 and the versatility of RF 70-200 F2.8 built-in 2x & .7x.


----------



## usern4cr (Sep 2, 2020)

VivaLasVegas said:


> For me would be, an internally zooming RF 70-200 F2.8, with a built in extender(2x) and a reducer(.7x). It should also weigh less than 1400g, since the current RF 70-200 F2.8 is a little over 1050g. As a benchmark, without the 2x & .7x, it must match or better the theoretical MTF of Z 70-200 f2.8. This should sell like hot cakes, if the price is less than $2400. Canon should make it happen since some users prefer internally zooming 70-200 F2.8. They can also craft the 2x and .7x specifically for the 70-200 F2.8. It's a win-win situation for Canon and its users. Think about it, the portability of the original RF 70-200 F2.8 and the versatility of RF 70-200 F2.8 built-in 2x & .7x.


I think it would be pretty hard to physically build that kind of lens in FF without making it really big & heavy and with considerably less IQ than the existing RF 70-200 has. - That's just my guess, and of course I could be wrong. And I'd be surprised if they did make magic happen that they'd sell it for less than the current RF 70-200.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 2, 2020)

I would like to see built in 1.4x extenders in all the big primes. But perhaps that is just added cost, though there certainly seems to be some value too it. Perhaps just on the RF 600 f/4 since there seems little desire to make 800mm lenses.


----------



## usern4cr (Sep 2, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I would like to see built in 1.4x extenders in all the big primes. But perhaps that is just added cost, though there certainly seems to be some value too it. Perhaps just on the RF 600 f/4 since there seems little desire to make 800mm lenses.


Well, I'd hope they don't add extenders in *all* their big primes, as they're big & heavy enough without them. If I want to add an extender I'd rather just add one on so you have the option. But I'm the kind of person that doesn't usually want to add one anyway, since I could use a quality upsampling code and enjoy a wider view for framing and extra beyond-the-edge cropping in post.


----------



## mbiedermann (Sep 3, 2020)

I'd love to see an RF 100mm F1.8 L Macro IS USM. My EF 100mm F2.8 L Macro was my preferred lens. Period. Now that I've switched to the R6, I'm hoping the RF model could be even better, possibly with a wider opening.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Sep 3, 2020)

I think this one was rumored once before... RF 14-28mm F2 L USM (the potential F2 trinity to the 28-70, and the rumored 70-135).


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 3, 2020)

mbiedermann said:


> I'd love to see an RF 100mm F1.8 L Macro IS USM. My EF 100mm F2.8 L Macro was my preferred lens. Period. Now that I've switched to the R6, I'm hoping the RF model could be even better, possibly with a wider opening.



I think the release of the RF85/2 lens killed the chance of an 100/1.8 macro happening. I think proper 1:1 macro lenses will remain f/2.8 or slower.


----------



## Swerky (Sep 3, 2020)

I’m all for compact and optically decent lenses. For the R I’d like to see a rebirth of their old ef 20mm f2.8. Perhaps they can even do an 18mm f2.8 or 3.5 with IS 

I was hoping they’d make a better general zoom lens for Eos m but seems that won’t be the case anymore. Something like a 17-70 f2.8-4. Or 15-50 f4. Should still be compact enough for the system.


----------



## johnhenry (Jan 27, 2021)

3serious said:


> I'd second the RF 135 f1.x; the EF 135 f2 is my favorite lens ever.
> 
> That said, I'd also really love to see an RF 600mm f5.6L for us mere mortal hobbyists who either a) can't afford a $12k 600mm f4, or b) wouldn't want to carry that insurance liability around. If sigma can make a 600mm f6.3 zoom for a grand, surely Canon can make an RF 600mm f5.6L prime for $3k-4k.


Use a 300mm f/2.8 with a 2x III


----------



## SnowMiku (Feb 10, 2021)

I would like to see a consumer EF 100-400mm f5.6 IS Nano USM, but I know this is very unlikely to happen.


----------



## Dockland (Mar 24, 2021)

RF 200mm f/1.8 IS USM
RF 300mm f/2.8 IS USM


----------



## bobhowdy (Mar 28, 2021)

3serious said:


> I'd second the RF 135 f1.x; the EF 135 f2 is my favorite lens ever.
> 
> That said, I'd also really love to see an RF 600mm f5.6L for us mere mortal hobbyists who either a) can't afford a $12k 600mm f4, or b) wouldn't want to carry that insurance liability around. If sigma can make a 600mm f6.3 zoom for a grand, surely Canon can make an RF 600mm f5.6L prime for $3k-4k.


I agree with 3serious on the RF 600 f/5.6 L. 
Of course with everyone else building a 600mm zoom my wonder is why Canon decided on 100mm-500mm for their RF large zoom?


----------



## AlanF (Mar 28, 2021)

bobhowdy said:


> I agree with 3serious on the RF 600 f/5.6 L.
> Of course with everyone else building a 600mm zoom my wonder is why Canon decided on 100mm-500mm for their RF large zoom?


It's small and light, which is a huge plus when you go out hiking with the camera or hand hold for a period of time. The Sony 200-600mm, fine lens that it is, is heavy. Many can manage it, as some do hand holding a 600mm f/4. But, the 100-500mm, and the 100-400mm II, are a lightweight pleasure to use.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 29, 2021)

bobhowdy said:


> I agree with 3serious on the RF 600 f/5.6 L.
> Of course with everyone else building a 600mm zoom my wonder is why Canon decided on 100mm-500mm for their RF large zoom?


The 100-500 is Canon's "budget" L zoom.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 30, 2021)

What about a 100-400 f 4,5-5,6 L, but with built-in 1,5 extender?


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 30, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The 100-500 is Canon's "budget" L zoom.


Do you have the RF 100-500? Just curious.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 30, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Do you have the RF 100-500? Just curious.


Nope. Would if I could. Why?


----------



## ildyria (Mar 30, 2021)

I don't care about a 135mm f/1.4,
I would rather prefer a...

*RF 70-150 f/2.0 L USM*.


----------



## usern4cr (Mar 30, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Nope. Would if I could. Why?


I was wondering because the way you talked about the RF 100-500 in that post made me wonder if you were politely dissing it. I wasn't sure, so I asked.
If that was the case, I was going to reply how it is my favorite lens so far, and reasons for that.
But based on your reply, I obviously mistook your intention. I would also agree that it is "worth it if one could".
So, as Rosanna Rosanna Dana once said, ... "Never Mind!"


----------



## BPhoto06 (Apr 1, 2021)

Canon RF 17-40mm f4L and RF 17-35mm F2.8L both with or without IS. I won't complain.


----------



## Dockland (Apr 2, 2021)

AlanF said:


> It's small and light, which is a huge plus when you go out hiking with the camera or hand hold for a period of time. The Sony 200-600mm, fine lens that it is, is heavy. Many can manage it, as some do hand holding a 600mm f/4. But, the 100-500mm, and the 100-400mm II, are a lightweight pleasure to use.



Been outdoors with my 100-500 for two days, carrying it on camera, around my shoulder. I hardly notice I have it on. It's phenomenal. But is there a 600mm/prime or zoom that's lighter than this?


----------



## AlanF (Apr 2, 2021)

Dockland said:


> Been outdoors with my 100-500 for two days, carrying it on camera, around my shoulder. I hardly notice I have it on. It's phenomenal. But is there a 600mm/prime or zoom that's lighter than this?


There is a very light RF600mm f/11 but it's not nearly in the same league optically.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Apr 2, 2021)

Dockland said:


> Been outdoors with my 100-500 for two days, carrying it on camera, around my shoulder. I hardly notice I have it on. It's phenomenal. But is there a 600mm/prime or zoom that's lighter than this?



The Nikon 500mm f/5.6 is slightly lighter. I suspect Canon could produce a 500mm f/5.6 DO that is 100-200g lighter than the 100-500 L, but that might not be as compelling as the PF if you saw a 100-500 L and 500 L both about $3000 next to each other. A 600mm f/6.3 on the other hand would also be light but give something not existing, might even be lighter than the 100-500.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 5, 2021)

An EF 70-200 f/4 IS


----------

