# Are new dream lenses coming for the RF mount? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 15, 2022)

> We all have dream lenses that we want Canon to make, most of which never will be. There is now a crazy rumor from Canon Watch about two such lenses that haven’t appeared on our RF mount roadmap.
> The first rumored lens would be an RF-S 33mm f/1L USM, which is basically a 50mm lens for APS-C sensors. While the idea would be pretty desireable, Canon never made “L” EF-S lenses, and we’re not sure if that’s going to change with the RF-S mount.
> The second lens is an RF 70-300mm f/2-4L IS USM. I don’t even know what to say about this rumor. I don’t think there would be a market for such a lens. We think that once you reach the pricepoint that this lens would sell for, variable aperture wouldn’t be well received. Who knows though, Canon can always do new and interesting things.
> We don’t have a lot...



Continue reading...


----------



## Floydian (Jun 15, 2022)

Only waiting for one lens, the RF 24-70mm f4.0L IS USM


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Jun 15, 2022)

I would love an RF 24-120 F2.8 L and RF 120-300 2.8 L


----------



## SnowMiku (Jun 15, 2022)

A lens I would like that would likely never happen is a consumer EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6 IS NanoUSM.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jun 15, 2022)

Roger Cicala’s post on Lensrentals.com is a great read. A dream sometimes is just a dream. 









Why Manufacturers Make a Specific Camera Lens


There is a lot of online discussion about why a manufacturer made this lens when they so obviously needed to make that other lens. Or why this manufacturer’s design is better than that manufacturer’s magical solutions. So, I thought I’d share the second-hand information I have about the process...



www.lensrentals.com


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 15, 2022)

Phenix205 said:


> Roger Cicala’s post on Lensrentals.com is a great read. A dream sometimes is just a dream.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great read, thank you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 15, 2022)

I’m going to submit a rumor about a 24-200mm f/2 Uber DO nano materials lens that is the size and weight of a 24-105/4. I think that’s actually a lens designed by HarryFilm, but still, if this post gets enough likes I bet Canon will leverage Harry’s free public GNU license and produce it. If they don’t, Sony will and I’ll switch.


----------



## Franklyok (Jun 15, 2022)

Just bought Laowa 33 mm f 0.95…

I’ll be happy to upgrade, if canon would make the RF-s 33 mm F1.0 L …

Hopefully competition drives canon to make it..


----------



## Troik (Jun 15, 2022)

Oh, if we're allowed to dream...
I really want to get the new RF 100-400, it's affordable and I could really use that extra reach, I just wish for a little more, so it could be an "always on"...sort of

a 50-500mm F/8 that's a bit bigger for 999.- maybe? Well, we were allowed to dream


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jun 15, 2022)

I’ve said it before (many times) and I’ll say it again..

RF 500mm f5.6 DO!!!!!!!!!

(Like Nikons 500mm f5.6 pf)


----------



## Felix (Jun 15, 2022)

Canon RF 50 1.4 L IS USM 1.200 € / $


----------



## Swurre (Jun 15, 2022)

The *Canon RF 1mm-1000mm f/1L IS USM Macro Tilt-Shift Pancake would be epic *


----------



## unfocused (Jun 15, 2022)

While an f2-4 70-300mm lens is not going to happen, I can very much see an f4 70-300 mm zoom to replace both the 70-300 L zoom and the 300mm f4.


----------



## wyotex43n (Jun 15, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m going to submit a rumor about a 24-200mm f/2 Uber DO nano materials lens that is the size and weight of a 24-105/4. I think that’s actually a lens designed by HarryFilm, but still, if this post gets enough likes I bet Canon will leverage Harry’s free public GNU license and produce it. If they don’t, Sony will and I’ll switch.


I second that, if they would also make a 200-500 F4 D0 with built in 1.4 teleconverter.


----------



## quiquae (Jun 15, 2022)

My (somewhat) realistic dream lenses: RF 16-50mm F4L IS USM, RF 18-70mm F4-6.3 IS USM (not RF-S!), RF-S 15-85mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM, RF 24mm F2 STM pancake (aka "just like a smartphone camera, except a lot better"), RF 135mm F2 IS USM.


----------



## SebastiaoSal (Jun 15, 2022)

Where is the RF 70-135mm F2L??


----------



## neurorx (Jun 15, 2022)

SebastiaoSal said:


> Where is the RF 70-135mm F2L??


That would be awesome. I would probably choose that over the 135 1.4 if that were to ever (please soon!) be released.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jun 15, 2022)

Another realistic lens Canon should make that would sell is an RF-S 15-55mm F3.5-5.6 IS.


----------



## peters (Jun 15, 2022)

I would love to have a 20-70mm f2,8. 
The 24-70 is fine for most situations, but often I find myself wanting a wider focal lense. It would be way more versatile in my opinion


----------



## Bonich (Jun 15, 2022)

No dream lens needed, just a decent 135 prime on the faster side with creamy bokeh.


----------



## HikeBike (Jun 15, 2022)

RF 20-85 f/2.8 L IS USM with adjustable autofocusing speed. Fast-focusing for photos. Smooth-focusing option for video. One can dream.


----------



## Fbimages (Jun 15, 2022)

A 500 f2.8! I'll hapilly hit the gym more to be able to carry it


----------



## fasterquieter (Jun 15, 2022)

Tamron's 35-150 F/2-2.8 for RF would be amazing.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Jun 15, 2022)

I’d like to see a modern version of the 50mm f/0.95 Rangefinder or EF 50mm F/1 L lens.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 15, 2022)

wyotex43n said:


> I second that, if they would also make a 200-500 F4 D0 with built in 1.4 teleconverter.


At the risk of repeating myself, a 200-500 f/2.8-4, that holds f/2.8 to 350mm. A built-in teleconverter would be nice but by no means essential.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 15, 2022)

In honor of those wedding photographers who use 35mm and 85mm primes, how about a 35-85 f/1.8 zoom?


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 15, 2022)

Personally I am waiting for 180mm IS USM Macro(without focus shift) and replacement to EF-S 35mm Macro for RF.


----------



## mccasi (Jun 15, 2022)

astro wide angle lenses: the designs discussed for years esp. the 14-28 F2... heck i'd even take a 14-22 F2 at this point 15-35 F2.8 image is just not exciting


----------



## ERHP (Jun 15, 2022)

Even after purchasing the RF600 f/4L IS I would love to see an RF600 f/4L w/flippy 1.4X TC. Cannibalizes the 800 f/5.6L market but would be perfect for how I like to shoot.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 15, 2022)

2.0 - 4.0 / 70-300 would be great if there would be a video constant f/4 mode if you use the zoom during video ...


----------



## Berowne (Jun 15, 2022)

Troik said:


> Oh, if we're allowed to dream...
> I really want to get the new RF 100-400, it's affordable and I could really use that extra reach, I just wish for a little more, so it could be an "always on"...sort of
> 
> a 50-500mm F/8 that's a bit bigger for 999.- maybe? Well, we were allowed to dream


Minolta once had a 8.0/100-500mm Zoom: Minolta MD 8.0/100-500mm


----------



## Berowne (Jun 15, 2022)

I would like to see a RF-Wideangel-Lens without much vignetting.


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 15, 2022)

35-85mm 1.8 or f2

That would be fine thanks Canon.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 15, 2022)

It's clickbait but I'll indulge.

An f/1 or f/0.95 lens with AF.

A macro telephoto zoom (Nikon made one?), say 80-200mm (preferably f/2.8 but f/4 acceptable) with IS.

And having just obtained the RF 800 f/11 (lacking a body to mount it on yet) I would have loved an extra stop, so 800mm f/8 IS.


----------



## bergstrom (Jun 15, 2022)

Lets make the dream (affordable) FF camera first.


----------



## fox40phil (Jun 15, 2022)

A uw TS-E zoom.
135 1.8, small, lightweight, great performance, but not for 2.000€... 1500€ would be great.
50 1.4
200-600 with TC.
Lightweight tele with 500/600/800mm and NOT f11!!

Sport lenses like 120-300 2.8, 300-800 etc.
400mm 2.8 with TC!!

More lenses with built in TCs!!


----------



## MaxDiesel (Jun 15, 2022)

Wouldn’t mind seeing Canon compete with the Fuji lens lineup in the RF-S line and not expect us to use Full Frame on APS-C.

23mm 1.4
35mm 1.4
56mm 1.4 (or 1.2 like Fuji, but if 1.4 makes it much smaller, I’ll take 1.4)

Love my R5 but those f/1.2 lenses are not really street friendly, which is why I own Fuji but prefer Canon.
Give us good fast primes and I’m all-in on this new RF-S lineup.

Still waiting on that Full Frame 35mm 1.2 or 1.4!


----------



## D Prime (Jun 15, 2022)

Fbimages said:


> A 500 f2.8! I'll hapilly hit the gym more to be able to carry it



This one is mine. I'll add: similar minimum focus to the RF/EF III 400mm f/2.8, and a built-in 1.4X TC. (Switchable, not permanent like the stupid RF 800mm f/5.6.) Also, controls that I can use without moving my hands when shooting.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Jun 15, 2022)

RF 200-600 f/4-6.3L


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 15, 2022)

unfocused said:


> While an f2-4 70-300mm lens is not going to happen, I can very much see an f4 70-300 mm zoom to replace both the 70-300 L zoom and the 300mm f4.


Sigma used to sell 100-300mm f/4, it was a pretty decent lens and quite an attractive option for EF 300mm f/4L.


----------



## Franklyok (Jun 15, 2022)

wockawocka said:


> 35-85mm 1.8 or f2
> 
> That would be fine thanks Canon.


What’s wrong with 28-70 F2. Too much ovelapping, I’d say.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jun 15, 2022)

Thanks for this article as well as the link to the lensrental article--very nice.

In my house, the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS lens was, for years, attached to one of three different Canon crop bodies--I've owned that lens for about 15 years, I think...it was a worthwhile purchase.

For the past few years I haven't used it all that much.

The lens I'm proposing will never be sold, I'm sure (at least by Canon): an EF-M version of the same lens!

In other words, an EF-M 17-55 f2.8 IS lens is on my list.

Those still reading this likely already know that all of Canon's EF-M lens have the same width: 60.9 mm

Does a 61mm restriction on lens width preclude an f2.8 EF-M 'standard' zoom?

Would a 61mm-wide EF-M 2.8 17-55 IS...its (minimum) length would be what? Much longer than the EF-S version?

=====

The lensrental article catalyzed a few questions: 

Is it true that the only existing third-party EF-M *zoom *lens is manufactured by Tamron?

Is there a reason for that? Why are virtually all of the non-Canon EF-M lenses 'prime' lenses?

Do third-party companies seek Canon's 'approval' when they build and sell a Canon-compatible lens?

=====

...some quick 'research': it appears that the two Tamron 18-200 lenses (EF-S and EF-M mounts) have approximately the same dimensions but the EF-M version is a bit heavier?


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 15, 2022)

Many of the lenses I use in EF mount already have an RF equivalent.
Dream lens(es) would be any prime that‘ll be small, fair priced and with excellent IQ for travelling light.

Maybe a FF 24/28 mm pancake to put something wider than the 35/1.8


----------



## robotfist (Jun 15, 2022)

My dream lens is a 28-70 F2... oh wait...

Actually, as a video shooter, I just want all the L series primes to have IS and be 1.4. I really liked that Canon released an EF L 85mm 1.4 IS, and I'd love to see something similar in the RF L lenses for 24, 35, 50 and 85. But I have a feeling they're going to prioritize speed over optical stabilization, which is something most people prefer.


----------



## ethanz (Jun 15, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m going to submit a rumor about a 24-200mm f/2 Uber DO nano materials lens that is the size and weight of a 24-105/4. I think that’s actually a lens designed by HarryFilm, but still, if this post gets enough likes I bet Canon will leverage Harry’s free public GNU license and produce it. If they don’t, Sony will and I’ll switch.


You've named the name that musn't be named! I hear him approaching.


----------



## t.linn (Jun 15, 2022)

FUJIFILM was originally slated to produce a 33mm F1 prime for their X-Series. The project was cancelled and revived more than once before they ultimately decided it would be too big and expensive to be practical. They pivoted to a 50mm F1 and later produced a 33mm F1.4. Both turned out to be good and successful products.


----------



## Franklyok (Jun 15, 2022)

t.linn said:


> FUJIFILM was originally slated to produce a 33mm F1 prime for their X-Series. The project was cancelled and revived more than once before they ultimately decided it would be too big and expensive to be practical. They pivoted to a 50mm F1 and later produced a 33mm F1.4. Both turned out to be good and successful products.


I think AF-ing such narrow dof is a big challange… Laowa 33mm f0.95 is relatively small…

perhaps canon has better AF muscles.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 15, 2022)

From Canon nothing more needed in my case. Just maybe replace all current EF lenses without big redesign and with a similar price point. No they shouldn't replace 135 f2 L with an 1.8 or 1.4 or whatever for 3 times the price! A similar light RF135 with <1000€ would be awesome. If not, then I stay forever with my EF with adapter until something explodes.

But I would like more third-party lenses like the Sigma Art series for RF, just to get additional choice and maybe a "hint hint" to Canon to lower some prices, because there are competitors...


----------



## ColinJR (Jun 15, 2022)

Floydian said:


> Only waiting for one lens, the RF 24-70mm f4.0L IS USM


Why not just use the RF 24-105 f/4 L? I own the RF 24-70 2.8 and didn't see much of a drop in quality each time I've used the RF 24-105, and the extra reach is really nice...


----------



## ColinJR (Jun 15, 2022)

I have long advocated for APS-C "L" glass. I hope they do it. With a few good RF-S L-class primes, and some small APS-C bodies, Canon could compete with Fuji head-on, but with an upgrade path to full frame, which Fuji does not have. I would even be interested in such a camera as a travel/street/second body.


----------



## max (Jun 15, 2022)

Same here... give me the EF 135L in an RF form.


----------



## tron (Jun 15, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I’ve said it before (many times) and I’ll say it again..
> 
> RF 500mm f5.6 DO!!!!!!!!!
> 
> (Like Nikons 500mm f5.6 pf)


RF600mm f/6 DO !!! Saying f/6 instead of f/5.6 to cut cost a little and keep the front element to 100mm...

P.S I do have Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF with D500 and D850 (everything else is Canon). It's a very good lens.


----------



## Pixel (Jun 15, 2022)

As somebody said: RF 120-300 f2.8L all day long.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 15, 2022)

My dream lenses would be: 

UWA: 12mm F1.8 with the size of Sonys 14mm F1.8 
—> realistically we might get a 12/ 14mm F2 

12-24mm F2 zoom lens. 
—> realistically it’ll be 14/16-24mm… 

24-135mm F4 or variable aperture F2.8-4 

Last but not least: 
200-800mm F3.5-6.3 
—> realistically a 250-750mm F5-8 (or F11…)

I hope Canon doesn’t fulfill all my dream lenses because I’d have to find a lot of good reasons to justify all purchases. 

I’d be in the market for one of those lenses, especially 12mm F1.8…


----------



## tron (Jun 15, 2022)

A 17-70 f/4-5.6L IS would be a nice traveling lens...


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 15, 2022)

Easy, easy!
RF 100 L macro without focus shift!


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 15, 2022)

RF 180 L macro & TSE 14mm


----------



## roby17269 (Jun 15, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Some of the in-the-past-rumored lenses would hit the spot for me:
35mm f/1.2L
135mm f/1.4 or 1.8L
Ultrawide TS
TS lenses with AF

and one of my personal favorites from EF... a new (and I mean new, not the same as the EF with an adapter bolted on) 200mm f/2 or 1.8L IS

Then I'd be able to retire all of my remaining EF lenses, apart maybe from the MP-E 65mm which is a very very niche cute little thing


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 15, 2022)

tron said:


> A 17-70 f/4-5.6L IS would be a nice traveling lens...


I use the 24-105mm F4 L ISand the 16mm F2.8. 
Very capable combination for traveling


----------



## navastronia (Jun 15, 2022)

RF 14-28 f/2 L

RF 35-85 f/1.8 L

RF 70-135 f/2 L

RF 120-300 f/4 L

yep, that about covers it! Hahahah


----------



## Wilfried Flitser (Jun 15, 2022)

The studio lens: RF 50-150 f/2,8 L minimum focus 0,5m.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 15, 2022)

Mine would be a RF (or EF) 35-150 f/2.8. I would only need 1 lens for 90% of my pics.


----------



## Uneternal (Jun 15, 2022)

RF 24-105 f1.2 L metalens (22mm length).


----------



## Blue Zurich (Jun 15, 2022)

Oh a dream lens you say? Like the EF 50 1.4 ll we all (Adam S.) waited for endlessly? 

Let's see if they will make one in RF form. tick tock (growing old)


----------



## tron (Jun 15, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I use the 24-105mm F4 L ISand the 16mm F2.8.
> Very capable combination for traveling


I do not disagree but when traveling (walking) for birding I carry a D850 with 500 5.6PF in one hand and another in the other hand. This second camera used to be a 5DIV with 16-35 f/4L IS but it is a bulky combination as a concurrently second handheld camera. So I use 200D (=SL2) with EF-S10-18 and I also got a secondhand EF-S15-85. I would like to not have to also change lenses in that second camera....


----------



## Punio (Jun 15, 2022)

Canon just need to get a move on fleshing out the line with the standard lenses, like a 24MM L and 35MM L etc.


----------



## danfaz (Jun 15, 2022)

ColinJR said:


> Why not just use the RF 24-105 f/4 L? I own the RF 24-70 2.8 and didn't see much of a drop in quality each time I've used the RF 24-105, and the extra reach is really nice...


Yep, the RF 24-105 L is considerably better than the EF version, and as you say, not far off from the RF 24-70 L. Don't really see a need at all for an f/4 24-70. Just my opinion, though.


----------



## danfaz (Jun 15, 2022)

SebastiaoSal said:


> Where is the RF 70-135mm F2L??


This!


----------



## lnz (Jun 15, 2022)

At the risk of repeating myself, a 10-24 F/4 oh wait...


----------



## Nemorino (Jun 15, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> RF 100 L macro without focus shift!


I have used the RF 100 for about a month and still have not found any issues with focus shift. Of cause I don't shoot test charts but flying bees. Maybe that's my mistake.


----------



## jam05 (Jun 15, 2022)

Still waiting for those rumored tilt shift lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 15, 2022)

Nemorino said:


> I have used the RF 100 for about a month and still have not found any issues with focus shift. Of cause I don't shoot test charts but flying bees. Maybe that's my mistake.


Canon stated that the focus shift exhibited by the lens was a design trade-off with increasing the magnification to 1.4x. It’s definitely a real issue, not an Internet phenomenon. 

Focus shift gets worse the closer your subject is to the MFD. It’s also aperture-dependent, and if you’re wide open or reasonably stopped down, it does not affect the image. I would guess that at typical flying bee working distances, you would not expect to have a problem with focus shift. It can be an issue in other used cases.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 15, 2022)

jam05 said:


> Still waiting for those rumored tilt shift lenses.


I guess you meant waiting and saving, since Nikon's TS 19mm costs $4000, if I'm not mistaken...
Canon's 14mm TSE could even be a bit ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) more expensive, i'm afraid !


----------



## MartinVLC (Jun 15, 2022)

peters said:


> I would love to have a 20-70mm f2,8.
> The 24-70 is fine for most situations, but often I find myself wanting a wider focal lense. It would be way more versatile in my opinion


For me the other way around, I would love to have a 35-105 f/2.8 more or less compact non-L non-IS as allways on lense, because the 70/75mm on full frame are often too short for me and 105 f/2.8 should also give better bokeh than 70 f/2.8.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 15, 2022)

A compact fish eye sized like the RF 16mm. Please. 
I’d also buy a compact ~15-35 no matter how crazy the aperture is as long as it’s lightweight for travels.


----------



## danfaz (Jun 15, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon stated that the focus shift exhibited by the lens was a design trade-off with increasing the magnification to 1.4x. It’s definitely a real issue, not an Internet phenomenon.
> 
> Focus shift gets worse the closer your subject is to the MFD. It’s also aperture-dependent, and if you’re wide open or reasonably stopped down, it does not affect the image. I would guess that at typical flying bee working distances, you would not expect to have a problem with focus shift. It can be an issue in other used cases.


Yep, I can totally attest to this.


----------



## tataylino (Jun 16, 2022)

a cheap constant aperture RF-S 17-50mm f4 IS STM lens would be great.


----------



## Nemorino (Jun 16, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon stated that the focus shift exhibited by the lens was a design trade-off with increasing the magnification to 1.4x. It’s definitely a real issue, not an Internet phenomenon.


I have posted some examples in the insect thread:





Butterflies, Moths and Assorted Insects...


Lovely shot, Alan.




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## dsut4392 (Jun 16, 2022)

Felix said:


> Canon RF 50 1.4 L IS USM 1.200 € / $


Count me in if they give priority to small size, low weight and good bokeh over ultimate edge-to-edge sharpness.


----------



## Skux (Jun 16, 2022)

I just want some basic small affordable primes I can pick up for day shooting. 24mm, 28mm, 40mm f/2.8. Not flashy, just fun.

Or, a 58mm f/1.4.


----------



## Mmm Toast (Jun 16, 2022)

Dream lens would be an RF 24-50 f/1.4


----------



## john1970 (Jun 16, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I’ve said it before (many times) and I’ll say it again..
> 
> RF 500mm f5.6 DO!!!!!!!!!
> 
> (Like Nikons 500mm f5.6 pf)


Rumor has it they are working on a 500 mm DO in either f4.5 or f5 maximum aperture.


----------



## JaydenEricBeaudoin (Jun 16, 2022)

Just give me that f2 trinity already. I don't even care what the numbers are. If they're as good as the 28-70 at what they do, then whatever the compromise I'll take it.

Though really, i expect around 16-28 and 70-135 (but I hope for 150)


----------



## ToddC (Jun 16, 2022)

A dream lens for me would be a 24-400L lens that is F5.6 at 400 and as sharp as my current 100-400L MkII lens. Low distortion at the 24 end as well. Not asking for too much am I? lol. Such a lens would be permanently attached to my Canon R6.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 16, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon stated that the focus shift exhibited by the lens was a design trade-off with increasing the magnification to 1.4x. It’s definitely a real issue, not an Internet phenomenon.
> 
> Focus shift gets worse the closer your subject is to the MFD. It’s also aperture-dependent, and if you’re wide open or reasonably stopped down, it does not affect the image. I would guess that at typical flying bee working distances, you would not expect to have a problem with focus shift. It can be an issue in other used cases.


And it’s wholly fixable in firmware as well, which Canon is choosing not to do.
Having said that, it still hasn’t affected me yet, but that says more about my spray-and-pray technique than the focus issue


----------



## Adrianf (Jun 16, 2022)

How about a lightweight (possibly DO) 600mm F5.6 L?


----------



## Tamerlane (Jun 16, 2022)

The 14mm TS autofocus - long announced, but no sign of it yet.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jun 16, 2022)

john1970 said:


> Rumor has it they are working on a 500 mm DO in either f4.5 or f5 maximum aperture.


Oo interesting.. I’d prefer 5.6 to keep the costs down though.


----------



## jhpeterson (Jun 16, 2022)

That 70-300 isn't far off my idea of a dream lens.

Although, I'd much prefer it be a constant aperture. In this 2.8 would be perfectly acceptable to me. And I would ask that a 1.4 extender be built in.

Am I going to far? Okay, scale that back a little to... say 280!  

A 70-280/2.8 with in internal 1.4x, making it a 100-400/4, would be (almost) perfect.


----------



## AJ (Jun 16, 2022)

My dream lens is a Sigma with an RF mount.
But that seems to be as much as a pipe dream as a Canon 10-600 f/1.2 IS


----------



## SpaceGhost (Jun 16, 2022)

I have a few dream lenses but my main would be RF 24-135 f2.8 L. The RF 24-105 f4 is pretty close! I'll even take my dream range at f4. This would be my always attached goto lens.

My next would be RF 16-50 f2.8 L. 
One of my favorite lens was the EF 70-300 DO f4-5.6. Some complained online that it was a soft lens but it sharpened up well in ACR. I'd l'd love to see it comeback at a constant f4 especially if they could keep it close to the form factor. Of course my dream version would have a bit more range on the shorter side. Maybe a RF 50-300 f4 DO but even starting at 70mm, I'd buy it right away with a constant f4. Too bad mine was stolen.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Jun 16, 2022)

The idea of an RF 70-300 L f/2-4 isn't as farfetched as you might think. I would just consider that it may take more effort to "suppress" the sub f/4 apertures at the wider end, than to just include them in the formal specification as a "bonus", as long as the image quality is adequate.


----------



## jj1804 (Jun 16, 2022)

Skux said:


> I just want some basic small affordable primes I can pick up for day shooting. 24mm, 28mm, 40mm f/2.8. Not flashy, just fun.
> 
> Or, a 58mm f/1.4.



Yes, this 100%. I want compact lightweight primes with USM and IS like the EF 24,28 and 35 IS USM. Same build quality as well not the rotating protruding tubus that we get in the current non L RF primes.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 16, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I’ve said it before (many times) and I’ll say it again..
> 
> RF 500mm f5.6 DO!!!!!!!!!
> 
> (Like Nikons 500mm f5.6 pf)



500 5.6 is only 1/2 stop brighter than the 100-500. I don't believe Canon would make that lens.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 16, 2022)

jhpeterson said:


> That 70-300 isn't far off my idea of a dream lens.
> 
> Although, I'd much prefer it be a constant aperture. In this 2.8 would be perfectly acceptable to me. And I would ask that a 1.4 extender be built in.
> 
> ...


 A lens like that would be massive and very expensive. Just look at the size of 400 F4 or 300 2.8.


----------



## john1970 (Jun 16, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> 500 5.6 is only 1/2 stop brighter than the 100-500. I don't believe Canon would make that lens.


I agree and that is why I think Canon would make the rumored 500 mm DO f4.5 lens. Would be great if they combined it with a built in 1.4x TC.


----------



## mxwphoto (Jun 16, 2022)

How about zoom tilt/shift with autofocus?
12-24 f6.3 Shift lens please! Small aperture to keep things relatively light and shifting to keep lines parallel all in a great zoom package. Tilt would be an added bonus but not mandatory. Either front screw on filters or a drop in filter near the mount like the big whites.

For standard range Canon has fleshed things out pretty well, perhaps 35 or 50mm f0.9 with autofocus halo lens and the 35mm 1.2 people keep asking for.

For tele 300-800 f4.5-8 with a decent mfd at say 3ft at 300mm to around 8ft at 800mm. Please no 20ft mfd like the 800 f11.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 16, 2022)

I would prefer to go long and I don't need the tilt shift and I like something to hold so skip the pancake part. Just a simple 2mm-2000mm f/2 will do nicely.


----------



## mdmphoto (Jun 16, 2022)

...would that RF 1mm-1000mm f/1L IS USM Macro Tilt-Shift Pancake also be a fish-eye lens, - that could additionally offer the potential for a rectilinear correction?!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 16, 2022)

mdmphoto said:


> ...would that RF 1mm-1000mm f/1L IS USM Macro Tilt-Shift Pancake also be a fish-eye lens, - that could additionally offer the potential for a rectilinear correction?!!!


No. RF stands for rectilinear function, so there can’t be an RF fisheye lens. 


Unless they change it so RF stands for Really Fishy.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 16, 2022)

john1970 said:


> I agree and that is why I think Canon would make the rumored 500 mm DO f4.5 lens. Would be great if they combined it with a built in 1.4x TC.



That lens would be the perfect wildlife-travel lens.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jun 16, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> 500 5.6 is only 1/2 stop brighter than the 100-500. I don't believe Canon would make that lens.


I think it would sell well. People love the Nikon. When shooting in low light there’s a fair difference between f5.6 and f7.1.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 16, 2022)

Dragon said:


> I would prefer to go long and I don't need the tilt shift and I like something to hold so skip the pancake part. Just a simple 2mm-2000mm f/2 will do nicely.


Barring magic or changes in the rules of physics, the front element would still be about 40 inches in diameter. That's what f/2 means.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Barring magic or changes in the rules of physics, the front element would still be about 40 inches in diameter. That's what f/2 means.


Folding optics. The front element unfolds like an umbrella. FO designation and a blue ring on the barrel.


----------



## Floydian (Jun 17, 2022)

ColinJR said:


> Why not just use the RF 24-105 f/4 L? I own the RF 24-70 2.8 and didn't see much of a drop in quality each time I've used the RF 24-105, and the extra reach is really nice...


I have the 14-35 f4, the 24-105 f4 and the 70-200 f4. The 24-105 sucks for aperture stars while the 14-35 and the 70-200 produce beautiful stars. My old EF 24-70 had beautiful aperture stars and I really miss them. As soon the RF 24-70 f4 comes out I will sell the 24-105....although I have nothing to complain about the sharpness.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 17, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Barring magic or changes in the rules of physics, the front element would still be about 40 inches in diameter. That's what f/2 means.


I said it didn't need to be a pancake and besides, Craig asked for a list of impossible lenses that would never be build so bringing physics into the discussion is decidedly tacky .


----------



## Jethro (Jun 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Folding optics. The front element unfolds like an umbrella. FO designation and a blue ring on the barrel.


If it unfolds like the James Webb telescope then the set up time and auto focus (before you can take an actual shot) might be a little long for most wildlife applications.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 17, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I think it would sell well. People love the Nikon. When shooting in low light there’s a fair difference between f5.6 and f7.1.


Maybe it would sell well. But, I sold my Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF after getting the RF 100-500mm because it’s as near as dammit as sharp and has all the advantages of a close focussing zoom at the cost of 2/3rds of a stop.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 17, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I think it would sell well. People love the Nikon. When shooting in low light there’s a fair difference between f5.6 and f7.1.


Besides, they had EF 400mm lenses at f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6, so multiple models varying by a modest amount of aperture is entirely possible.


----------



## 2 cents (Jun 17, 2022)

Well, at Canon's prices, I'm not really looking forward to any lens to be honest.

Never owned a Nikon, but gee that 500mm f5.6 is a bargain compared to Canon. Oh and Sony's 200-600mm would be even better. Never in my 30+ years of shooting Canon felt so much envy for the other brands. Didn't even notice them.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 17, 2022)

Dragon said:


> I said it didn't need to be a pancake and besides, Craig asked for a list of impossible lenses that would never be build so bringing physics into the discussion is decidedly tacky .


Sorry! It's just me. I prefer to suggest lenses that are useful and possible.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 17, 2022)

2 cents said:


> Well, at Canon's prices, I'm not really looking forward to any lens to be honest.
> 
> Never owned a Nikon, but gee that 500mm f5.6 is a bargain compared to Canon. Oh and Sony's 200-600mm would be even better. Never in my 30+ years of shooting Canon felt so much envy for the other brands. Didn't even notice them.


The Nikon 500 PF is _more_ expensive than the RF 100-500mm, which as I wrote above, I find more useful and just about as sharp. The Sony 200-600mm is good value for money but it weighs 2.4kg, 0.8kg more, which is noticeable, and focusses down to only 2.4m, more than twice that of the RF 100-500mm. The grass may look greener but it isn't.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Jun 17, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The Nikon 500 PF is _more_ expensive than the RF 100-500mm, which as I wrote above, I find more useful and just about as sharp. The Sony 200-600mm is good value for money but it weighs 2.4kg, 0.8kg more, which is noticeable, and focusses down to only 2.4m, more than twice that of the RF 100-500mm. The grass may look greener but it isn't.


Yet in exchange for longer reach, slightly brighter on the long end, heavier, internal zoom and and less MFD you pay here in the UK; £1599 for the Sony compared to £2979 for the Canon so a difference of nearly £1400. For some the extra cost will be worth it and for others absolutely not.


----------



## juststeve (Jun 17, 2022)

A 500/4.5 DO with built-in teleconverter would probably get my money. I have and use most often the 100-500. The more I use it the more I love and respect it. But 4.5 would be useful at times. I also have the 500/4 L IS ii. It is an extremely sharp and crisp lens and only a wee bit over 7 pounds.

I was recently working a nest situation where I had to stay well back so put the 2x iii on the 500/4. Contrast was down slightly but sharpness was still extremely high, all that the R5 could handle. No fringing. I could make a print any size I wanted from those files. 

So, here I have an amazingly good lens in my 500/4 ii. What would get me to replace it for a mere 8-10 grand? A 500/4.5 DO which is 2 to 2.5 pounds lighter and 4-6 inches shorter. Might not part with that 500/4. But throw in a 1.4 converter and have a lens 2 pounds lighter and 3-5 inches shorter, then Canon might very well take my money.

Also, putting an RF mount on the 32/1.4 would be a wonderful idea. My dogs got me and the M6 ii one for Christmas. What a great lens. And allowing Siggy to make the 16 and 56 1.4 lenses for RF would probably get me buying an R10.


----------



## shawnc (Jun 17, 2022)

With an R7 on the way (someday) I'd like to see an RF-S 15-50 F2.8 L IS. Just a little wider than the EF version with a bit of weather sealing, and some proof of commitment to the RF-S format from Canon by making an RF-S L lens. A few fast RF-S primes would be nice too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2022)

shawnc said:


> With an R7 on the way (someday) I'd like to see an RF-S 15-50 F2.8 L IS. Just a little wider than the EF version with a bit of weather sealing, and some proof of commitment to the RF-S format from Canon by making an RF-S L lens. A few fast RF-S primes would be nice too.


14 years of EF-S with no L lens. Don’t hold your breath. APS-C is aimed at the consumer market. L-lenses aren’t.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 17, 2022)

Well, I still think my best combo would be the RF 28-70 f/2 and the RF 70-135 f/2 dream.

Yes, the f/1.2 stuff would be wonderful too. Glad I had them a little while.


----------



## ItRainsSmiles (Jun 17, 2022)

RF-S 200-600 F4-5.6L IS or similar would be a dream for the R7... 
That combined with a price tag around 3k, dual USM motors and the minimum focus distance of 1m at 600mm  - For Wildlife/Sport *and *Macro.

.. we can dream 
And of course a RF-S super wide angle astro lens with low aperature.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2022)

ItRainsSmiles said:


> RF-S 200-600 F4-5.6L IS or similar would be a dream for the R7...
> That combined with a price tag around 3k,


Such a lens would be no smaller or lighter than the same lens for RF, so I would not expect an RF-S version.


----------



## ItRainsSmiles (Jun 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Such a lens would be no smaller or lighter than the same lens for RF, so I would not expect an RF-S version.


But wouldn't that be fair? Lower aperature for same weight as the RF 100-500L - I'ld totally pay that .
Could be even a bit heavier, that's still fine (if it delivers in quality).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2022)

ItRainsSmiles said:


> But wouldn't that be fair? Lower aperature for same weight as the RF 100-500L - I'ld totally pay that .
> Could be even a bit heavier, that's still fine.


Ummm, no. A 200-600 f/4-5.6 would be much larger and heavier than the 100-500 f/4.5-7.1.

A 200-600/4-5.6 vs. 100-500/4.5-7.1 is like comparing the EF 300/2.8L to the EF 100-400L. A 600/5.6 long end needs a 107mm front element, the same size as the 300/2.8L. The 100-500/4.5-7.1 has a 70mm from element, like the 100-400/4.5-5.6L.


----------



## ItRainsSmiles (Jun 17, 2022)

Good info input, thanks  Then let's better wish a RF-S 200-600 F4-6.3L IS USM


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 17, 2022)

ItRainsSmiles said:


> Good info input, thanks  Then let's better wish a RF-S 200-600 F4-6.3L IS USM


That's not much better. 600/6.3 about equals 95mm, which is the size of the lens front element and much closer to 107mm than 70mm.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 17, 2022)

ItRainsSmiles said:


> But wouldn't that be fair? Lower aperature for same weight as the RF 100-500L - I'ld totally pay that .
> Could be even a bit heavier, that's still fine (if it delivers in quality).


What neuro is getting at is that an RF-S 200-600 would be the same size as a 200-600 FF of the same aperture so there is absolutely no point in making an EF-S lens.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 17, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Yet in exchange for longer reach, slightly brighter on the long end, heavier, internal zoom and and less MFD you pay here in the UK; £1599 for the Sony compared to £2979 for the Canon so a difference of nearly £1400. For some the extra cost will be worth it and for others absolutely not.


I have never seen a Sony 200-600mm on my almost daily birding excursions in the UK. Only anecdotal experience, but how many have you seen?


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 18, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The Nikon 500 PF is _more_ expensive than the RF 100-500mm, which as I wrote above, I find more useful and just about as sharp. The Sony 200-600mm is good value for money but it weighs 2.4kg, 0.8kg more, which is noticeable, and focusses down to only 2.4m, more than twice that of the RF 100-500mm. The grass may look greener but it isn't.


It's amazing to me how often folks complain that Canon doesn't have anything like that wonderful Nikon 500mm or why can't they just have a 200-600mm like Sony. As you mention, one reason Canon doesn't have (or need) those lenses is because they already have something better! I guess they just love complaining!


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 18, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> It's amazing to me how often folks complain that Canon doesn't have anything like that wonderful Nikon 500mm or why can't they just have a 200-600mm like Sony. As you mention, one reason Canon doesn't have (or need) those lenses is because they already have something better! I guess they just love complaining!


I agree, therefore a repost of a post I wrote a while ago: 

I just don’t get why people still compare the RF 100-500mm to Sonys 200-600mm lense. Those lenses feature completely different designs for different purposes.

RF 100-500mm - 200-600mm
77mm Filter - 96mm filter thread
20 cm - 32 cm
1.45 kg - 2.1 kg
0,5 m - 2,4 m Minimum focus

If you look at the purposes intended, it is even clearer:

RF: possible walk-around lense 
Sony: most „sit and wait“ lense… (birders e.g.)
RF: landscapes, sports, wildlife (77mm thread allows regular filters…) 
Sony: almost exclusively wild-life
The narrower end and the exceptional minimum focus makes the RF 100-500mm a great sport lense for example for soccer, handball (huge in Germany) while the 200-600mm isn’t suitable here.

In addition, the RF 100-500mm is an L lense, the 200-600mm is not a G Master lense, a fact which a lot of users complained on the sonyalpharumors site when the lense was released. Since the 200-600mm features weather sealing and still is not a GMaster lense, it likely says that the image quality is not the best possible. (while it is still good IQ)

The Sony 200-600mm is a great option for wildlife photography. And yes, it is an offering Canon does not have. But Canon has a different, much more versatile and way more handy option. Comparing those lense just doesn’t make sense.

I don´t wanna trash the Sony 200-600mm lense here, because it great lense for what it is. But I’m sick and tired of people bitching and moaning about the fact, that the 200-600mm is* one third of stop faster between 472-500mm* and people literally comparing apples and melons. Furthermore, they only compare a single tiny fact…


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 18, 2022)

Ohhh, and btw: 

Imho, canon does not need a 200-600mm but they should come up with a professional 

RF 200-500mm (maybe with integrated extender) and a constant aperture. 

Secondly, they should release a consumer based 250-750mm or something similar...


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 18, 2022)

Just want a cracking IQ wide angle prime for astro/aurora. I don't know why they can't bring that one to the table. Don't need AF. Don't need stabilization. Just awesome IQ at 20mm and 1.4


----------



## ronaldzimmerman.nl (Jun 18, 2022)

Come on with that RF 24mm F1.8 IS STM Macro with similar quality, weight and price of the RF35. I am about to buy the RF35, but honestly I would prefer 24mm.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 18, 2022)

ronaldzimmerman.nl said:


> Come on with that RF 24mm F1.8 IS STM Macro with similar quality, weight and price of the RF35. I am about to buy the RF35, but honestly I would prefer 24mm.


It would be a big seller for sure. I love my RF 35mm lens, it's absolutely awesome and within the RF system probably the best value for money imho. I wish the 16mm F2.8 was as good as the 35mm F1.8. 

I´d also love a line 16/ 20/ 24/ 35/ 50mm with this design. It would be great for city travel or museum visits.


----------



## gbasilemc (Jun 19, 2022)

i have a sigma EF 14mm 1.8 and would love to have an RF equivalent or better (even if bigger) for astro / night images like northern lights and Milky Way.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jun 19, 2022)

ronaldzimmerman.nl said:


> Come on with that RF 24mm F1.8 IS STM Macro with similar quality, weight and price of the RF35. I am about to buy the RF35, but honestly I would prefer 24mm.


24mm macro would be awesome for mushrooms and frogs (or anything else that kind of size)


----------



## amfoto1 (Jun 19, 2022)

The reason there was never an L-series EF-S lens has to do with how Canon used to define the L-series. Their criteria to qualify for the red stripe were:
1. Lens must use cutting edge technology.
2. Lens must use exotic glass.
3. Lens must be compatible with all EOS cameras.
Obviously EF-S lenses failed to meet the third requirement. Full frame capable lenses, on the other hand, could be fitted to both full frame and APS-C cameras. They can even be used on M-series EOS via an adapter.
However, since the RF mount lenses and R-series cameras were introduced nearly 4 years ago, Canon no longer seems to be applying that third requirement. There are more than a few L-series lenses in the RF mount, which are incompatible with EF/EF-S and EF-M mount EOS cameras. Plus RF-S lenses can be used on the full frame R-series cameras, although cropping will occur.
So maybe there will be RF-S with the red stripe and the L designation.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 19, 2022)

Fbimages said:


> A 500 f2.8! I'll hapilly hit the gym more to be able to carry it



Do you have any idea how much a lens with an 180mm front element would cost? That's larger than the the 150mm front element of the 800/5.6.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 19, 2022)

mb66energy said:


> 2.0 - 4.0 / 70-300 would be great if there would be a video constant f/4 mode if you use the zoom during video ...



Isn't that what putting the camera's Av setting to f/4 does?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 19, 2022)

unfocused said:


> While an f2-4 70-300mm lens is not going to happen, I can very much see an f4 70-300 mm zoom to replace both the 70-300 L zoom and the 300mm f4.



The EF 300mm f/4 has been out of production for years. If they didn't bother to replace it during the late EF era, what makes you think they're interested in doing so in the RF era, when "affordable" lenses are getting apertures slower than f/5.6, not faster?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 19, 2022)

Franklyok said:


> What’s wrong with 28-70 F2.



Besides the fact that there are none for sale anywhere, not a thing.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 19, 2022)

jhpeterson said:


> That 70-300 isn't far off my idea of a dream lens.
> 
> Although, I'd much prefer it be a constant aperture. In this 2.8 would be perfectly acceptable to me. And I would ask that a 1.4 extender be built in.
> 
> ...



It might be (almost) perfect, but it would also be (over) $20K.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 19, 2022)

SpaceGhost said:


> I have a few dream lenses but my main would be RF 24-135 f2.8 L. The RF 24-105 f4 is pretty close! I'll even take my dream range at f4. This would be my always attached goto lens.
> 
> My next would be RF 16-50 f2.8 L.
> One of my favorite lens was the EF 70-300 DO f4-5.6. Some complained online that it was a soft lens but it sharpened up well in ACR. I'd l'd love to see it comeback at a constant f4 especially if they could keep it close to the form factor. Of course my dream version would have a bit more range on the shorter side. Maybe a RF 50-300 f4 DO but even starting at 70mm, I'd buy it right away with a constant f4. Too bad mine was stolen.



To go from f/5.6 to f/4 at 300mm requires a 40% wider diameter front element, from 54mm to 75mm. The lens would need to be a lot bigger, even if it were still 70-300mm.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 19, 2022)

danfaz said:


> Yep, I can totally attest to this.


Sad, sad, sad...
This is the lens I've been waiting for. But still hoping for a firmware correction...


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 19, 2022)

WoodyWindy said:


> The idea of an RF 70-300 L f/2-4 isn't as farfetched as you might think. I would just consider that it may take more effort to "suppress" the sub f/4 apertures at the wider end, than to just include them in the formal specification as a "bonus", as long as the image quality is adequate.



No one needs to "suppress" wider apertures at the wide end of constant aperture zoom lenses. The critical measure for f-number is entrance pupil size, not the physical size of the aperture diaphragm. If all of the additional magnification when zooming takes place between the physical diaphragm and the front of the lens, then the physical iris doesn't need to change size at all to maintain a constant f-number. The additional magnification due to repositioning of the lens elements between the aperture diaphragm and the front of the lens also enlarges the entrance pupil by the same amount. Thus the f-number remains constant.

Even variable aperture lenses do most of the additional magnification when zooming between the iris and the front of the lens. Consider a 70-300mm f/4-5.6. The entrance pupil for 70mm @ f/4 is 17.5mm. The entrance pupil for 300mm @ f/5.6 is 53.6mm. Thus the entrance pupil enlarges by a factor of 3X at the same time the focal length increases by a factor of 4.3X. This means that roughly 70% of the additional magnification when zooming from 70mm to 300mm occurs between the aperture diaphragm and the front of the lens. The remaining 30% occurs behind the diaphragm. The wide open diaphragm remains the same size throughout the zooming action.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 19, 2022)

john1970 said:


> I agree and that is why I think Canon would make the rumored 500 mm DO f4.5 lens. Would be great if they combined it with a built in 1.4x TC.



If the whole point of making a 500mm f/4.5 DO that is barely one stop faster than the RF 100-500L is to reduce weight significantly (which was the entire point of the EF 400/4 DO vs. the EF 400/2.8 series), then including a built-in TC that adds weight and length doesn't seem very likely to me.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 19, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The Nikon 500 PF is _more_ expensive than the RF 100-500mm, which as I wrote above, I find more useful and just about as sharp. The Sony 200-600mm is good value for money but it weighs 2.4kg, 0.8kg more, which is noticeable, and focusses down to only 2.4m, more than twice that of the RF 100-500mm. The grass may look greener but it isn't.



The only green he's worried about is how much Sony is paying him to shill for them here.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 19, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> 14 years of EF-S with no L lens. Don’t hold your breath. APS-C is aimed at the consumer market. L-lenses aren’t.



There's not a whole lot of market left for upper tier gear other than the consumer market. That is, enthusiasts/amateurs/weekend warriors with lots of money to spend who aren't being paid much of anything for their work are the primary target of today's and tomorrow's top level gear, including L lenses. 

The miniscule number of salaried professional shooters left who have top tier gear provided by their full-time employers are no longer driving product development at any of the camera manufacturers. Most working pros today have to buy their own gear and work freelance for pennies on the dollar compared to what they made 15-20 years ago and earlier. They're buying what used to be called "prosumer" gear because it can get the job done at a much lower cost. 

Yeah, there are still a handful of high profile rock stars out there. There are still a handful of "world class" agencies with a much more limited number of full-time staffers compared to the past. But the bread and butter of the professional camera/lens market that provided the bulk of the sales numbers for Canon and others was always print media, including local and state/regional newspapers, national and regional magazines specializing in subjects like sports, outdoors, travel, politics, business, etc. Most of those publications no longer exist. The rare ones that did survive no longer have staff photographers. They pay for stock photo usage from Getty, et al. for $5 each and Getty pays the freelancer half of that.

That doesn't mean Canon will ever give a lens with an "-S" in the name an "L" in the name as well. They won't. 

But make no mistake about it. The high end consumer market is what Canon, Nikon, and Sony are banking on to keep them in business. The true professional market doesn't have the number of buyers to do it any more.


----------



## Franklyok (Jun 19, 2022)

Franklyok said:


> Just bought Laowa 33 mm f 0.95…
> 
> I’ll be happy to upgrade, if canon would make the RF-s 33 mm F1.0 L …
> 
> Hopefully competition drives canon to make it..


If canon makes F1.0 lens, then hopefully it will come with Drop in filter possibility... Today I used Canon Drop-In Variable ND filter with EF lens , and now 
I think should I continue buying EF lens and use it with Drop in filters/adapter ... or ... the really old way... 
Drop-In Variable ND is really excellent ...


----------



## Franklyok (Jun 19, 2022)

"That doesn't mean Canon will ever give a lens with an "-S" in the name an "L" in the name as well. They won't."

If Sony provides "G" ( Canon "L" equalent ) for APS-C sensors, then It'll be mater of time, when Canon starts to provide it too. What about Fuji? I am sure they have "L" equalent lens for APS-C. These are 33% to 50% cheaper, right?


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 19, 2022)

Franklyok said:


> "That doesn't mean Canon will ever give a lens with an "-S" in the name an "L" in the name as well. They won't."
> 
> If Sony provides "G" ( Canon "L" equalent ) for APS-C sensors, then It'll be mater of time, when Canon starts to provide it too. What about Fuji? I am sure they have "L" equalent lens for APS-C. These are 33% to 50% cheaper, right?


Why should Canon produce specific L APS lenses? For a small market?
They have more than enough FF L lenses for APS and FF, unlike Fuji (only APS). And, as been said before, in 15 APS years, there's never been a specific APS L lens, 7 DII birders simply used the EF FF L lenses.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 19, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Do you have any idea how much a lens with an 180mm front element would cost? That's larger than the the 150mm front element of the 800/5.6.


One 500mm f/2.8 lens exists, the infamous Sigma 200-500. It's still listed for £15k at various UK retailers. A prime would presumably be smaller/lighter/cheaper to produce, but Canon would surely charge more.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> There's not a whole lot of market left for upper tier gear other than the consumer market. That is, enthusiasts/amateurs/weekend warriors with lots of money to spend who aren't being paid much of anything for their work are the primary target of today's and tomorrow's top level gear, including L lenses.
> 
> The miniscule number of salaried professional shooters left who have top tier gear provided by their full-time employers are no longer driving product development at any of the camera manufacturers. Most working pros today have to buy their own gear and work freelance for pennies on the dollar compared to what they made 15-20 years ago and earlier. They're buying what used to be called "prosumer" gear because it can get the job done at a much lower cost.
> 
> ...


I don’t mean consumer as in non-professional. I mean consumer as in mass-market. Low cost. The R7 is not aimed at the high end of the market, either.

The fact that the R7 is not a high-end camera (mid-level weathersealing, no grip available) is evidence in support of the belief that we will not see crop L-series lenses.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 19, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> And, as been said before, in 15 APS years, there's never been a specific APS L lens...


True, but fortunately some things do change in time. There never was a F2 zoom, now there is. 
Sony and Fujis offerings are reason enough to release a APS-C L lens. Furthermore, all Companys have to attract new customers or give current customers reasons to upgrade. I'm sure, everybody would like a RF 50mm F1.2, but many people can't pay the price. If an APS-C L prime would cost around 1.000-1.500 max, their will be buyers Canon has not yet addressed. 

The price is imaginary just for casin`point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Do you have any idea how much a lens with an 180mm front element would cost? That's larger than the the 150mm front element of the 800/5.6.


Perhaps you need a calculator. 800/5.6 = 143. You should have used the 600/4 as your example, because 600/4 = 150.

In fact, the measured diameter of the 600/4 II front element is around 144mm, because the lens is probably something like 593mm f/4.12. Similar rounding occurs for all lenses (it saves Canon money) and thus the front element of the 800/5.6 would be even smaller than that of the 600/4 (however, I don’t personally have one of the former to measure).


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 19, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> But make no mistake about it. The high end consumer market is what Canon, Nikon, and Sony are banking on to keep them in business. The true professional market doesn't have the number of buyers to do it any more.


I am not saying you are wrong in your assessment, and I am not saying you are right. I am saying that you are stating a rambling opinion with no data or research to back this up and it really sounds like unsubstantiated hooey.


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 19, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t mean consumer as in non-professional. I mean consumer as in mass-market. Low cost. The R7 is not aimed at the high end of the market, either.
> 
> The fact that the R7 is not a high-end camera (mid-level weathersealing, no grip available) is evidence in support of the belief that we will not see crop L-series lenses.


 
Well that and wouldn't it be nonsense to make a $2400 L lens for a $1400 camera. The price point of the R7 being lower than the 7D II ( released years before covid and run away inflation) speaks volumes to its placement in the product line. It is actually close to the price of the 50D in 2008.


----------



## Beertje (Jun 19, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


My take would be:
RF 24-135 4-5.6 under a grant.


----------



## masterpix (Jun 19, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


That the 1-1000mm F:1 .. to be so cheap that I can afford it.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 19, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Isn't that what putting the camera's Av setting to f/4 does?


And that is something that most people don't seem to realize when they complain about variable aperture lenses. You're setting the aperture on the camera, the camera informs the lens what the aperture should be and the lens is responsible for setting that aperture. The only time that rule doesn't hold is, for example, an f/5-6.3 telephone zoom. If you set the aperture at f/5 on the short end, then zoom to the long end, the aperture will transition to f/6.3. Zooming back to the short end causes the aperture to go back to f/5. What the camera is telling the lens is "wide open". I have three variable aperture lenses: a 28-300 Tamron, 100-400 Canon and a 150-600 Sigma Sport and all behave that way.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 19, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps you need a calculator. 800/5.6 = 143. You should have used the 600/4 as your example, because 600/4 = 150.
> 
> In fact, the measured diameter of the 600/4 II front element is around 144mm, because the lens is probably something like 593mm f/4.12. Similar rounding occurs for all lenses (it saves Canon money) and thus the front element of the 800/5.6 would be even smaller than that of the 600/4 (however, I don’t personally have one of the former to measure).



As I recall, the 200-500 f/2.8 Sigma cost about $25,000 and weighed about 35 pounds. They introduced that lens after the 120-300 f/2.8 and 300-800 f/5.6. If they had made a 200-500 f/4 instead, I think they would have sold a bunch.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> I think he was talking about a 500 f/2.8.


@Michael Clark was replying to a post about a 500/2.8. In that reply, he stated that the 800/5.6 has a 150mm front element. That’s incorrect, and I called him out on it. A 500/2.8 lens is not relevant to my reply.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 19, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> @Michael Clark was replying to a post about a 500/2.8. In that reply, he stated that the 800/5.6 has a 150mm front element. That’s incorrect, and I called him out on it. A 500/2.8 lens is not relevant to my reply


So what if it's incorrect? Neuro, you're just an obnoxious bully!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> So what if it's incorrect? Neuro, you're just an obnoxious bully!


A large fraction of @Michael Clark’s posts are pedantic replies to others’ incorrect information. IMO, turnabout is fair play. Apparently you feel it’s cause to insult me. That’s your prerogative, although it says more about you than about me.


----------



## mxwphoto (Jun 20, 2022)

Aussie shooter said:


> Just want a cracking IQ wide angle prime for astro/aurora. I don't know why they can't bring that one to the table. Don't need AF. Don't need stabilization. Just awesome IQ at 20mm and 1.4


If you don't need AF then just get a samyang or laowa, or zeiss for premium quality. No need to wait for Canon to introduce one as they never will unless if you count cine prime, but for that price you can get anything else you want and then some.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 20, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> If you don't need AF then just get a samyang or laowa, or zeiss for premium quality. No need to wait for Canon to introduce one as they never will unless if you count cine prime, but for that price you can get anything else you want and then some.


Yes, but I would prefer native mount as over time i want to offload all EF mount lenses and get rid of the adapter


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jun 20, 2022)

Not quite a dream lens... but that previous rumored 1.0x-1.5x-2.0x Switchable TC that doesn't sit into the lens would be an instant-buy for me (if it can maintain EQ semi-comparable to the RF TC's).


----------



## mxwphoto (Jun 20, 2022)

Aussie shooter said:


> Yes, but I would prefer native mount as over time i want to offload all EF mount lenses and get rid of the adapter


Don't be so quick to drink the native mount cool-aid, especially if you are dealing with manual focus lenses. There are practical benefits to adapters ala only needing one drop in CPL/ND/astro filter that will mount to any EF lens (including previously unmountable lenses such as the Canon 11-24 and TS-E 17).

In fact unless if a lens specifically requires the mirrorless flange distance to produce superior results or a much smaller package, I personally prefer EF mount counterparts for the filter convenience as most multi mount lenses for mirrorless are just dslr lenses with built in adapters anyway.

Thus far the only benefit obtained by RF L lenses over EF counterparts has been peripheral sharpness, but at the expense of increased cost, weight, size and girth (the 70-200 being the exception, but if Canon made a retractable EF version I imagine it would be similiar in size).

Also, this is a matter of preference, but I feel the RF renderings are so clean now that it becomes a bit too clinical/sterile leading to lots of photographers manually adding back in imperfections in post for that special 'look'.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 20, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> Don't be so quick to drink the native mount cool-aid, especially if you are dealing with manual focus lenses. There are practical benefits to adapters ala only needing one drop in CPL/ND/astro filter that will mount to any EF lens (including previously unmountable lenses such as the Canon 11-24 and TS-E 17).
> 
> In fact unless if a lens specifically requires the mirrorless flange distance to produce superior results or a much smaller package, I personally prefer EF mount counterparts for the filter convenience as most multi mount lenses for mirrorless are just dslr lenses with built in adapters anyway.
> 
> ...


I really like the convenience of the drop in CPL and miss that on the native 100mm. But I really disliked how the IS on ‘older’ EF lenses interacts with IBIS, both native Canon lenses as well as 3rd party.
So I don’t plan on replacing my non-IS lenses, but I am curious what Canon will come up with for RF versions of the MP-E and 180 macro.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 20, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> Don't be so quick to drink the native mount cool-aid, especially if you are dealing with manual focus lenses. There are practical benefits to adapters ala only needing one drop in CPL/ND/astro filter that will mount to any EF lens (including previously unmountable lenses such as the Canon 11-24 and TS-E 17).
> 
> In fact unless if a lens specifically requires the mirrorless flange distance to produce superior results or a much smaller package, I personally prefer EF mount counterparts for the filter convenience as most multi mount lenses for mirrorless are just dslr lenses with built in adapters anyway.
> 
> ...


All valid arguments and certainly well thought out. And I am definitely not obsessive over going native in the immediate future. But I have no doubt canon could bring out a decently priced astro prime in RF mount and if they did it would be preferable to me than a third party offering. Whether they do it is another matter entirely as they have never done it before in EF mount.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps you need a calculator. 800/5.6 = 143. You should have used the 600/4 as your example, because 600/4 = 150.
> 
> In fact, the measured diameter of the 600/4 II front element is around 144mm, because the lens is probably something like 593mm f/4.12. Similar rounding occurs for all lenses (it saves Canon money) and thus the front element of the 800/5.6 would be even smaller than that of the 600/4 (however, I don’t personally have one of the former to measure).



You should have read the comment to which I was replying. 


Bob Howland said:


> So what if it's incorrect? Neuro, you're just an obnoxious bully!



Like most bullies, he's terrified that he's not actually smarter than everyone else as he desires to be.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t mean consumer as in non-professional. I mean consumer as in mass-market. Low cost. The R7 is not aimed at the high end of the market, either.
> 
> The fact that the R7 is not a high-end camera (mid-level weathersealing, no grip available) is evidence in support of the belief that we will not see crop L-series lenses.



We weren't talking about the R7. We were discussing "L" lenses. 

Please try and pay attention.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 20, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> I am not saying you are wrong in your assessment, and I am not saying you are right. I am saying that you are stating a rambling opinion with no data or research to back this up and it really sounds like unsubstantiated hooey.



You can consult U.S. Labor Department statistics that include how many full time photographers are employed in the U.S. as their primary profession. The numbers have been steadily decreasing for over a decade. They've pretty much fallen off the cliff in the past five years, to the point there's no longer a separate category for still image photojournalists distinct from the one that includes TV camera operators. Since the U.S. buys an extremely disproportionate amount of the total number of interchangeable lens cameras sold worldwide (that's also a documented fact, you can look it up), as the U.S. goes, so goes the world in this case.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps you need a calculator. 800/5.6 = 143. You should have used the 600/4 as your example, because 600/4 = 150.
> 
> In fact, the measured diameter of the 600/4 II front element is around 144mm, because the lens is probably something like 593mm f/4.12. Similar rounding occurs for all lenses (it saves Canon money) and thus the front element of the 800/5.6 would be even smaller than that of the 600/4 (however, I don’t personally have one of the former to measure).



Thanks for making my point even stronger. 178.5714285714286mm is proportionally larger compared to 142.8571428571429mm than 180mm is to 150mm. I'm forever in your debt.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 20, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> And that is something that most people don't seem to realize when they complain about variable aperture lenses. You're setting the aperture on the camera, the camera informs the lens what the aperture should be and the lens is responsible for setting that aperture. The only time that rule doesn't hold is, for example, an f/5-6.3 telephone zoom. If you set the aperture at f/5 on the short end, then zoom to the long end, the aperture will transition to f/6.3. Zooming back to the short end causes the aperture to go back to f/5. What the camera is telling the lens is "wide open". I have three variable aperture lenses: a 28-300 Tamron, 100-400 Canon and a 150-600 Sigma Sport and all behave that way.



On the other hand, If you zoom out to the widest focal length first and set the Av to f/6.3, it will stay there no matter what focal length the lens is zoomed to, will it not? Unless Canon has changed their camera's programming since I stopped using variable aperture zooms over a decade ago, even if you're at the longest FL and set the Av to f/6.3 it will stay at f/6.3 at any FL will it not?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 20, 2022)

scyrene said:


> One 500mm f/2.8 lens exists, the infamous Sigma 200-500. It's still listed for £15k at various UK retailers. A prime would presumably be smaller/lighter/cheaper to produce, but Canon would surely charge more.



That's a bargain price for the Sigma Bigma. It's still listed at $25,999 USD for a new one here in the United States.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> You should have read the comment to which I was replying.


I did. You should re-read your reply. Let’s review, she’ll we?


Fbimages said:


> A 500 f2.8! I'll hapilly hit the gym more to be able to carry it





Michael Clark said:


> Do you have any idea how much a lens with an 180mm front element would cost? That's larger than the the 150mm front element of the 800/5.6.


The part you should re-read is the second sentence of your two-sentence reply. Specifically, “_That's larger than the the 150mm front element of the 800/5.6._”

Does the 800/5.6 have a 150mm front element, either theoretically (based on calculating the entrance pupil at the position of the front element) or empirically? That’s a simple yes or no question for you to answer.



Michael Clark said:


> Like most bullies, he's terrified that he's not actually smarter than everyone else as he desires to be.


The complete inability to admit when one is wrong is a sign of pathological insecurity.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> We weren't talking about the R7. We were discussing "L" lenses.
> 
> Please try and pay attention.


You should have read the comment to which I was replying. Now, where have I heard that before? 

Again, let’s review, shall we?


shawnc said:


> *With an R7 on the way* (someday) I'd like to see an RF-S 15-50 F2.8 L IS. Just a little wider than the EF version with a bit of weather sealing, and some proof of commitment to the RF-S format from Canon by making an RF-S L lens. A few fast RF-S primes would be nice too.





neuroanatomist said:


> 14 years of EF-S with no L lens. Don’t hold your breath. APS-C is aimed at the consumer market. L-lenses aren’t.


The discussion started off talking about the R7.

Please try to pay attention.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Thanks for making my point even stronger. 178.5714285714286mm is proportionally larger compared to 142.8571428571429mm than 180mm is to 150mm. I'm forever in your debt.


Appending a ridiculous and mathematically inappropriate number of significant digits to numbers does not change the fact that you stated an 800/5.6 lens has a 150mm front element, which is wrong.

By the way, your ‘point’ was that a 500/2.8 lens would be expensive. Quite the pithy observation, there.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Jun 20, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I agree, therefore a repost of a post I wrote a while ago:
> 
> I just don’t get why people still compare the RF 100-500mm to Sonys 200-600mm lense. Those lenses feature completely different designs for different purposes.
> 
> ...


Sony also have a 100-400mm GM which is probably the true comparison to be made to the RF but with Canon making their lens 100mm longer many people saw the 200-600 made that comparison instead.

For those few who are deciding which system to buy into lenses will be looked at side by side. Nikon have a 200-600 on their lens roadmap, and Sigma have a sport version of their 150-600 available for emount so getting to 600mm without spending thousands on a prime is clearly attractive to many shooters.

The 100-500 is a great lens there’s no doubt about it but Canon would do well have a 200-600 like option available as well maybe a 300-700 option that has excellent IQ and fast AF but perhaps is a bit bigger and heavier while being cheaper than the L.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 20, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> You should have read the comment to which I was replying.
> 
> 
> Like most bullies, he's terrified that he's not actually smarter than everyone else as he desires to be.


Funny how someone who continually feels the need to make comment after comment in response to others posts, finding fault with every one (often totally minor) is calling someone else a bully. Practically nothing on this forum is more annoying than your string of post replies that talk down to everyone and try to make us think that you are somehow the "teacher" and we must be the lowly "pupils" and that we need correcting. If someone makes a factual error, sure, by all means, if you have the correct answer please share it, but that is not what you do. I used to work on an internet forum and if someone did what you do - correcting or disagreeing on a dozen or more posts in a row - we would have nicely asked you to refrain from that sort of bullying tactic. Just my opinion, of course, which I'm fairly certain you won't agree with.


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 20, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Thanks for making my point even stronger. 178.5714285714286mm is proportionally larger compared to 142.8571428571429mm than 180mm is to 150mm. I'm forever in your debt.


Someone bought a calculator.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 20, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Funny how someone who continually feels the need to make comment after comment in response to others posts, finding fault with every one (often totally minor) is calling someone else a bully. Practically nothing on this forum is more annoying than your string of post replies that talk down to everyone and try to make us think that you are somehow the "teacher" and we must be the lowly "pupils" and that we need correcting. If someone makes a factual error, sure, by all means, if you have the correct answer please share it, but that is not what you do. I used to work on an internet forum and if someone did what you do - correcting or disagreeing on a dozen or more posts in a row - we would have nicely asked you to refrain from that sort of bullying tactic. Just my opinion, of course, which I'm fairly certain you won't agree with.


Sayre's law: "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake." By way of corollary, it adds: "That is why academic politics are so bitter." Just change 'academic politics' to 'photo gear discussions'.


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 20, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> You can consult U.S. Labor Department statistics that include how many full time photographers are employed in the U.S. as their primary profession. The numbers have been steadily decreasing for over a decade. They've pretty much fallen off the cliff in the past five years, to the point there's no longer a separate category for still image photojournalists distinct from the one that includes TV camera operators. Since the U.S. buys an extremely disproportionate amount of the total number of interchangeable lens cameras sold worldwide (that's also a documented fact, you can look it up), as the U.S. goes, so goes the world in this case.


That does not demonstrate that you have an understanding of the internal plans of Canon or Nikon, or that you know what they are thinking or planning. 
At best what you stated was your opinion, or a poorly informed guess.


----------



## shawnc (Jun 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> 14 years of EF-S with no L lens. Don’t hold your breath. APS-C is aimed at the consumer market. L-lenses aren’t.


For sure. It would be nice if Canon realized they can put some weather sealing in a lens and a f2.8 aperture without it having to be an "L".


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Appending a ridiculous and mathematically inappropriate number of significant digits to numbers does not change the fact that you stated an 800/5.6 lens has a 150mm front element, which is wrong.
> 
> By the way, your ‘point’ was that a 500/2.8 lens would be expensive. Quite the pithy observation, there.
> 
> View attachment 204291



Oh for heaven's sake. So I rounded to the nearest "common" number by ≈5% and you act like the world is going to end. My apologies for triggering you. 

Whatever would you do if lens manufacturers tried to pass off lenses that were more than 5% shorter in focal length than the focal lengths with which they're marketed? (Oh, wait...)


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You should have read the comment to which I was replying. Now, where have I heard that before?
> 
> Again, let’s review, shall we?
> 
> ...



So six words about the R7 followed by fifty words about lenses? Is that about right? 89% of the comment in question was about LENSES.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 21, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> That does not demonstrate that you have an understanding of the internal plans of Canon or Nikon, or that you know what they are thinking or planning.
> At best what you stated was your opinion, or a poorly informed guess.



Where did you ever get the idea that I said anything about Canon or Nikon's internal plans? They've gone on public record in quarterly report after quarterly report about what target markets they're aiming for in the future. All you have to do is read them. They've been discussed almost ad nauseum in this forum in the past, so surely you're aware of their existence?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Oh for heaven's sake. So I rounded to the nearest "common" number by ≈5% and you act like the world is going to end. My apologies for triggering you.
> 
> Whatever would you do if lens manufacturers tried to pass off lenses that were more than 5% shorter in focal length than the focal lengths with which they're marketed? (Oh, wait...)


People with even a rudimentary knowledge of mathematics would round 143 down to 140, not up to 150. My kids knew better than that in first grade.

As I said before, worms gonna wiggle. Even if the attempts to avoid admitting one’s error grow progressively more pathetic post after post.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> So six words about the R7 followed by fifty words about lenses? Is that about right? 89% of the comment in question was about LENSES.


When discussing segmentation of the ILC market, it makes little sense to discuss only lenses and not cameras. I’m sorry if that’s too difficult a concept for you.

Actually, though, it’s clear you get the concept. For example, you said:


Michael Clark said:


> There's not a whole lot of market left for UPPER TIER GEAR other than the consumer market. That is, enthusiasts/amateurs/weekend warriors with lots of money to spend who aren't being paid much of anything for their work are the primary target of today's and tomorrow's TOP LEVEL GEAR, including L lenses.



So you were discussing ‘gear, including lenses'…not _just_ lenses (and in this context, the primary other relevant category of gear is CAMERAS).

At least, when it suited you. But when you’re trying to wiggle out of being wrong, you’d rather restrict the discussion to make yourself appear correct.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 21, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> *Where did you ever get the idea that I said anything about Canon or Nikon's internal plans? *They've gone on public record in quarterly report after quarterly report about what target markets they're aiming for in the future. All you have to do is read them. They've been discussed almost ad nauseum in this forum in the past, so surely you're aware of their existence?


Your comment:
_*"But make no mistake about it. The high end consumer market is what Canon, Nikon, and Sony are banking on to keep them in business. *The true professional market doesn't have the number of buyers to do it any more*."*_

I read every one of Canon's quarterly reports. They are often good quote material when people claim to have an understanding of why Canon does what it does. I just never read this particular statement from Canon. Apparently you have so maybe you can look it up in one of their reports.
Share holders would be a bit skittish if they thought one sector of Canon's business determines whether they stay in business or not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Your comment:
> _*"But make no mistake about it. The high end consumer market is what Canon, Nikon, and Sony are banking on to keep them in business. *The true professional market doesn't have the number of buyers to do it any more*."*_


That's a pretty ridiculous comment, anyway. Certainly Sony is not banking on the high end consumer camera market to keep them in business. Cameras comprise a small fraction of Canon's business, a meaningful fraction of Nikon's business, and a tiny fraction of Sony's business. Of the 'big three', Nikon would come closest to 'banking on high end consumer cameras' to keep them in business, since their imaging business unit comprises only cameras, and accounts for >30% of their overall corporate revenue. For Sony, still and video cameras together account for 4% of their total revenue. For Canon, it's ~12%. With the exception of Nikon, recent currency fluctuations have resulted in a greater change in corporate valuation than would result from the complete cessation of camera sales.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 22, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Isn't that what putting the camera's Av setting to f/4 does?


I just have tried EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 to check this - *you are right*: If I set it to e.g. f/8 it works well - maybe I misinterpreted the AF noise as aperture noise and my brain (not my eye) has "seen" some brightness changes. While the AF (despite being USM) is really low in movie mode, during zooming it behaves a little bit rougher. This lens is presumably not a parfocal design while the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM is very close to parfocal.


----------



## mikhail (Jun 22, 2022)

I would love to see consumer 28-75/2.8 at a cost below 1k. Something Nikon Z has.
And a mod class 50/1.4. With IBIS coming to new bodies, both lenses may be without OIS to save weight and price.


----------



## danfaz (Jun 22, 2022)

shawnc said:


> For sure. It would be nice if Canon realized they can put some weather sealing in a lens and a f2.8 aperture without it having to be an "L".


The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is pretty close. f/2.8, very good image quality, just missing the weather sealing.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 23, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> People with even a rudimentary knowledge of mathematics would round 143 down to 140, not up to 150. My kids knew better than that in first grade.
> 
> As I said before, worms gonna wiggle. Even if the attempts to avoid admitting one’s error grow progressively more pathetic post after post.



People with a rudimentary knowledge of photography would either round down to 135mm or up to 150mm, because those numbers are both much more commonly used in photography than 140mm is. But keep wiggling yourself while you point fingers at others.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 23, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's a pretty ridiculous comment, anyway. Certainly Sony is not banking on the high end consumer camera market to keep them in business. Cameras comprise a small fraction of Canon's business, a meaningful fraction of Nikon's business, and a tiny fraction of Sony's business. Of the 'big three', Nikon would come closest to 'banking on high end consumer cameras' to keep them in business, since their imaging business unit comprises only cameras, and accounts for >30% of their overall corporate revenue. For Sony, still and video cameras together account for 4% of their total revenue. For Canon, it's ~12%. With the exception of Nikon, recent currency fluctuations have resulted in a greater change in corporate valuation than would result from the complete cessation of camera sales.



Any thinking person who's being honest would recognize that it was referring to their respective consumer camera divisions, not their umbrella corporations.

But go ahead and totally ignore the context of the comment when it suits your argument while also criticizing others for doing the same thing when that serves your argument.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 23, 2022)

mb66energy said:


> I just have tried EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 to check this - *you are right*: If I set it to e.g. f/8 it works well - maybe I misinterpreted the AF noise as aperture noise and my brain (not my eye) has "seen" some brightness changes. While the AF (despite being USM) is really low in movie mode, during zooming it behaves a little bit rougher. This lens is presumably not a parfocal design while the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM is very close to parfocal.



Re: parfocal. Read Roger Cicala's take on that at this blog entry. He pretty much says there are no parfocal photographic zooms. You might find one copy of a particular model that appears to be close at a specific focus distance, but nine other copies of the same lens model will vary wildly in both directions.








In the comments to the blog linked above someone asked him if he was going to test zoom cine lenses and do a similar blog entry about them. In response he says, "Lee, we've done that (I touched on it in the article). They are so parfocal that if I graphed them there wouldn't be any bars. They'd all be within 0.05mm or less, mostly much less."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 23, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> People with a rudimentary knowledge of photography would either round down to 135mm or up to 150mm, because those numbers are both much more commonly used in photography than 140mm is. But keep wiggling yourself while you point fingers at others.


Lol. So your justification is that you don’t know the difference between front element diameter and focal length? Or is it that your knowledge of photography is so vast that it has subsumed your knowledge of basic math? Tell me, if I asked you the sum of 3 + 3, would your answer be rounded up to 6.3 or rounded down to 5.6?

I suggested that your attempts to wiggle out of simply admitting you made a mistake would become progressively more pathetic. In that regard, you’ve exceeded expectations.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 23, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Any thinking person who's being honest would recognize that it was referring to their respective consumer camera divisions, not their umbrella corporations.
> 
> But go ahead and totally ignore the context of the comment when it suits your argument while also criticizing others for doing the same thing when that serves your argument.


So you _were_ talking about more than only LENSES. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Stuart (Jun 23, 2022)

RF 100+mm f4 PANCAKE


----------



## shawnc (Jun 23, 2022)

danfaz said:


> The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is pretty close. f/2.8, very good image quality, just missing the weather sealing.


And the RF mount. Since it's a wish list I'd want weather sealing and RF mount. With the R7 being smaller and lighter, what I'm wanting is a hike/ride/ski lens that is small(ish) and can stand some rain, snow, and dust. Otherwise I can take my R6 with my RF24-70. Nice kit but a fairly substantial chunk of camera, by mirrorless standards anyway.


----------



## DBH (Jun 25, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


You left off the price for the 1mm-1000mm. It is certain the price will be $19.99, and the lens hood will be $64,000. The lens will only be sold as a kit with lens and hood. My sources will be reliable. Hey, can you pour me another glass of wine?


----------



## canonmike (Jun 25, 2022)

Fbimages said:


> A 500 f2.8! I'll hapilly hit the gym more to be able to carry it


And rob a bank to be able to pay for it.


----------



## canonmike (Jun 25, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I use the 24-105mm F4 L ISand the 16mm F2.8.
> Very capable combination for traveling


Concur on the RF24-105 F4L. I have been more than pleased with how capable this lens actually is, far superior to the older EF version and a bargain price for an L lens, I might add. It has been such a pleasure to use, I opted out of the RF70-200, in favor of purchasing the RF100-500. These two lenses cover most of my day to day shooting.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 26, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps you need a calculator. 800/5.6 = 143. You should have used the 600/4 as your example, because 600/4 = 150.
> 
> In fact, the measured diameter of the 600/4 II front element is around 144mm, because the lens is probably something like 593mm f/4.12. Similar rounding occurs for all lenses (it saves Canon money) and thus the front element of the 800/5.6 would be even smaller than that of the 600/4 (however, I don’t personally have one of the former to measure).



Perhaps you need a calculator with more than three significant digits.

800mm divided by 5.6 is 142.857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142... (with an endlessly repeating 142857) millimeters.

But you'll never admit you're wrong.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 26, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Perhaps you need a calculator with more than three significant digits.
> 
> 800mm divided by 5.6 is 142.857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142... (with and endlessly repeating 142857) millimeters.
> 
> But you'll never admit you're wrong.


Rounding numbers is appropriate in mathematics, and does not make use of the equals sign incorrect.

We’ve already established that you don’t know how to properly round numbers or admit your mistakes. Excessive confirmation of your inability to do either of those simple things was unnecessary.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 26, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lol. So your justification is that you don’t know the difference between front element diameter and focal length? Or is it that your knowledge of photography is so vast that it has subsumed your knowledge of basic math? Tell me, if I asked you the sum of 3 + 3, would your answer be rounded up to 6.3 or rounded down to 5.6?
> 
> I suggested that your attempts to wiggle out of simply admitting you made a mistake would become progressively more pathetic. In that regard, you’ve exceeded expectations.



I know the difference between lens diameter and focal length perfectly well. I also know the difference between dimensionless abstract numbers and numbers that represent physical measurements of actual objects. I also know the common focal lengths above 100mm at which lenses for the 135 format have been offered for about* the last 100 years, I'm sure you do as well, even if you're willing to suspend such awareness when you're intent on making a ridiculous argument.

*Note: "about" = approximately, roughly, more or less, give or take, etc.

If you ask me the sum of 3 + 3 do you honestly believe I would say anything other than 6?

On the other hand, If someone were to ask what f/2 plus three stops would be, I'd answer f/5.6, rather than the more mathematically precise f/5.65685424949238... and so would you. 

If someone were to ask "What is three stops darker than f/8?" I'd answer f/22. So would you, even though the actual result of 8 x (√2^3) is 22.627416997969520780827019587355... which rounds to 23, rather than 22.

I will not admit that I made a mistake when I said what I said about a proposed 500mm f/2.8 lens by comparing it to an 800mm f/5.6 lens (which seems to have short-circuited your entire sense of reality) because I didn't make a mistake. I was perfectly aware at the time that 800 divided by 5.6 is not exactly 150, but I chose to round it up to that nice, round number.

You can continue to choose to ignore the obvious if it somehow makes you feel better about yourself by insisting that someone who rounded 142.857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142... mm up to 150mm instead of down to 135mm is completely and utterly wrong.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 26, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> I know the difference between lens diameter and focal length perfectly well. I also know the difference between dimensionless abstract numbers and numbers that represent physical measurements of actual objects.


The 800mm f/5.5 lens *is* an actual object with a front element diameter that can be physically measured. A front element that you _incorrectly_ stated is 150mm in diameter.



Michael Clark said:


> I know the difference between lens diameter and focal length perfectly well... ...insisting that someone who rounded [143mm] up to 150mm instead of down to 135mm is completely and utterly wrong


So it's just math that you don't know well at all. Someone who rounds 178.6 mm up to 180 mm and also rounds 142.9 mm up to 150 mm while suggesting that the other alternative is to round 142.9 down to 135 mm does not understand basic math.

You say you chose to round 800/5.6 up to the ‘nice, round number’ of 150 instead of correctly rounding 143 down to the equally ‘nice, round number’ of 140. Yet you chose _not_ to round 500/2.8 up to the ‘nice, round number’ of 200, but instead rounded it to 180.

Honestly, I'm certain that you do actually understand basic math, meaning your patently asinine argument about choosing to round 143 up to 150 instead of down to 135 is more of your ongoing and pathetic attempt to avoid admitting you simply made a mistake.

You were correct in one regard, when you stated, “I will not admit that I made a mistake…” You’ve shown us that you are unwilling to do so, no matter how much asinine worm-wiggling you need to do in order to avoid that simple act.

Your efforts, while pathetic and making you appear progressively more foolish, are also mildly amusing. So by all means, feel free to keep wiggling.


----------



## SpaceGhost (Jun 29, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> To go from f/5.6 to f/4 at 300mm requires a 40% wider diameter front element, from 54mm to 75mm. The lens would need to be a lot bigger, even if it were still 70-300mm.


You're so wrong. In my dream, I also defy the laws of physics.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 10, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 800mm f/5.5 lens *is* an actual object with a front element diameter that can be physically measured. A front element that you _incorrectly_ stated is 150mm in diameter.



I've never come across any commercially produced lens marketed as an 800mm f/5.5 that could actually be measured. Please enlighten me where I may find such a lens? But I'll go out on a limb and assume you meant the EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS and *incorrectly* referred to it as "The" 800mm f/5.5 lens?

Where did I refer to a specific 800mm f/5.6 lens? I don't think I did. When I refer to a specific lens I say something like EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS or AF-S Nikkor 800mm f/5.6 E FL ED VR. If you were half as perceptive as you give yourself credit for being you'd have noticed by now that I usually bother to type out "5D Mark IV" instead of "5D4" in the vast majority of my posts here, though I do occasionally get lazy and succumb to the temptation. But please, keep living in your fantasy world where your biased interpretation of what others did and did not say is the sole basis of reality.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 10, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> So it's just math that you don't know well at all. Someone who rounds 178.6 mm up to 180 mm and also rounds 142.9 mm up to 150 mm while suggesting that the other alternative is to round 142.9 down to 135 mm does not understand basic math.
> 
> You say you chose to round 800/5.6 up to the ‘nice, round number’ of 150 instead of correctly rounding 143 down to the equally ‘nice, round number’ of 140. Yet you chose _not_ to round 500/2.8 up to the ‘nice, round number’ of 200, but instead rounded it to 180.
> 
> ...



Here's a math question for you: which is closer? Rounding 142.9 up to 150 or rounding it down to 135. Because there are no commonly marketed 140mm lenses in the 135 format, that option is out. There are both 150mm and 180mm lenses that have appeared on the 135 format landscape from time to time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> I've never come across any commercially produced lens marketed as an 800mm f/5.5 that could actually be measured. Please enlighten me where I may find such a lens? But I'll go out on a limb and assume you meant the EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS and *incorrectly* referred to it as "The" 800mm f/5.5 lens?


I made a typographical error. I was wrong, and should have stated 800mm f/5.6.

See, that’s how it’s done. You make an incorrect statement, you admit that you were wrong. It’s not difficult. Well, not for me. It seems beyond your capability.



Michael Clark said:


> Where did I refer to a specific 800mm f/5.6 lens? I don't think I did.


You referred to ‘the 800/5.6’:


Michael Clark said:


> Do you have any idea how much a lens with an 180mm front element would cost? That's larger than the the 150mm front element of the 800/5.6.


Whether or not you were referring to a specific model of 800/5.6 lens by a specific manufacturer is irrelevant, because none of them have a 150mm front element.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Here's a math question for you: which is closer? Rounding 142.9 up to 150 or rounding it down to 135. Because there are no commonly marketed 140mm lenses in the 135 format, that option is out. There are both 150mm and 180mm lenses that have appeared on the 135 format landscape from time to time.


Find me a math textbook where the method for rounding a number involves using commonly marketed 135-format lens focal length values as reference points.

You rounded 178.6mm to the nearest 10’s place number, which is 180mm. Rounding 142.9mm to the nearest 10’s place number is 140mm, not 150mm. That’s how rounding is performed. As I said, my kids could do that correctly in the first grade.

We both know you understand that. We both know you simply made a mistake in stating that an 800/5.6 lens has a 150mm front element. It’s sad that you are mentally and/or emotionally incapable of simply admitting your error. Actually, it’s beyond sad at this point. Beyond pathetic, as well. Words like pitiful and deplorable are more apt, now.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Jul 19, 2022)

I would like to see some high quality lenses for when I'm shooting landscapes while hiking with limited gear. Something light and maybe with a bit more reach so that I wouldn't need to bring the third lens. Maybe a combo of:
20-85mm f4
75-300mm f4

Some bright glass with low vignetting for nightscapes with stars and low ligh photography, portraits etc...
14 or 16mm f1.4
18 or 20mm f1.2
35 or 40mm f1.0
135mm f1.8

Some telephoto lenses like:
400mm f4 small and lightweight (DO?) maybe witha a built in TC?

200-500mm f4 with 1.4TC IS
500mm f5 IS lightweight as possible (DO)
600mm f5.6 IS lightweight as possible (DO)

A bit longer macro lens for RF mount 
200mm f4 macro IS

And two specialised lenses for photographing landscapes and architecture like:
24mm TS with AF 
16mm or 18mm lens with shift


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 19, 2022)

I just couldn't wait any longer, so, I just bought an EF 180 F 3,5 macro and I'm happy!
With a stabilized body it's former drawback, compared with the EF 100 L, just vanished.
The day Canon produce a new RF version, I could easily sell it without losing much money (it cost me $650 in mint condition).
But the RF 14mm TSE...gimme quick!


----------

