# These are a few of the RF lenses coming in 2021 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 11, 2020)

> Now that we have seen the likely lens roadmap for 2020, It’s time to move onto 2021, and below are a few lenses that I know are scheduled to be announced next year.
> I don’t have all the information about these lenses, but the focal lengths are legitimate. None of these lenses will be L lenses.
> 
> *Canon RF 18-45mm IS STM
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## peters (Jun 11, 2020)

Hm, 24mm macro sounds weird for me. Is this a usefull lense? I never heard of anything like that...


----------



## mrproxy (Jun 11, 2020)

Lets hope brighter than f/8.
Maybe the aperture number is new cripple hammer?


----------



## esglord (Jun 11, 2020)

24mm macro IS. For video on a cropped sensor? 100-400 might be worthwhile


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 11, 2020)

I suspect they won't release APS-C lenses, and the 18-45 will cover the full image circle for full frame, it might be optimized for APS-C (assuming they release an APS-C R body, which is far from certain) and require some hefty in-camera correction to get it to look reasonable on full frame.


----------



## WhereDoWeGoFrmHere (Jun 11, 2020)

R5 & R6 dropping this year, one would hope a number of fast L primes are on the way.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 11, 2020)

Interesting scope of lenses. If the 18 - 45 was a FF lens, it would be cool, if IQ was good.



peters said:


> Hm, 24mm macro sounds weird for me...


I suppose it is a 1:2 macro like the 35. 
It's like Canon thinking: 'The optical formula can do it, so why not offer it to the customer.'


----------



## WhereDoWeGoFrmHere (Jun 11, 2020)

I would love a line of non-L primes of the same quality as the EF 24/28/35 IS lenses. Light, compact, sharp, but w/o the max aperture price tag.


----------



## mpb001 (Jun 11, 2020)

As a user of the EF f4 L series zooms, and since Canon has primarily focused on the RF f2 or 2.8 L series zooms, I now wish Canon would address the RF f4 series zooms more adequately. They have an RF 24-105f4 L and and upcoming RF 70-200’f4 L. Not any in the f4 ultrawide yet. Its sort of unlikely that I would upgrade to an expensive R body until the f4 L line is complete. 
As I see it now, if I do add another Canon body it would probably be the R6 with an adapter to use my 17-40 L and 70-200’f4 L. Both are non IS lenses. I would then still use my 5DIV also.


----------



## Rivermist (Jun 11, 2020)

No reason for the 18-45 to be sub-par or APS-C, we have had a very good EF 17-40 L for many years, so designing a new lens with added flexibility of the RF mount and modern lens design capabilities it should be a breeze for Canon to pull off a full-frame RF 18-45, albeit probably not an L. IS is a fair trade for what may be a non-constant maximum aperture (3.5 - 4.5? 4 - 5.6?).


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 11, 2020)

Because the f-number isn't specified, we presume it's f11 by default?..


----------



## LensFungus (Jun 11, 2020)

I'm waiting for new EF-M lenses.


----------



## MaxDiesel (Jun 11, 2020)

WhereDoWeGoFrmHere said:


> R5 & R6 dropping this year, one would hope a number of fast L primes are on the way.



Hoping for that F2 Trinity. Once they release the 70-135 F2, I’m all-in and will be investing into RF selling most of my EF lenses and bodies.


----------



## Stuart (Jun 11, 2020)

Isn't STM always aimed at video now?


----------



## unfocused (Jun 11, 2020)

As usual, it seems like Canon is about 10 steps ahead of us. Instead of simply duplicating the EF line, I feel like they are creating an entirely new line of lenses and we should not expect that RF lenses will have EF equivalents or that EF lenses will have RF equivalents.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 11, 2020)

So after all the criticism Canon received for not having "PRO body for the PRO lenses" and releasing "only $3000 lenses", in 2 years we will have:

2 top of the industry pro bodies
10 non L RF primes and zooms.

Not too bad.


----------



## Stuart (Jun 11, 2020)

I've seen nothing concrete t suggest APS-c will ever resurface in RF. Its closer to to camera phones and EF-M lenses/bodies somewhat cover this area anyway - meanwhile longer cheaper lenses and TC's are appearing for the FF bodies to get FF shooters nearer their subjects - an APS-C feature. 
For the next few years there will still be loads of APS-C EF camera's around, and then stock levels to run down, followed by a decent second hand market in RF FF bodies. The RP body is now only £1150 with adapter pretty much the same as a EOS 90D. 
Would canon need to chase the £300 EOS 4000D market with RF lenses when its still trying to pull xxD and XXXD users up into the FF market. Mirrorless still has a mechanical shutter and until they lose that it may not be worth pursuing the value end of the market. 
I actually hope i'm wrong and APS-c is possible soon, but they are doing so much elsewhere that's great too so i see them focusing there for now..


----------



## Bukozik (Jun 11, 2020)

There were rumors about RF-crop ... So, there should be lenses


----------



## Rivermist (Jun 11, 2020)

And this makes life hard (unless you have just won the lotto). The 70-200 2.8 IS is awe-inspiring and very tempting (my first "L" lens in EF was the 70-200 2.8 ISL), but the 70-135 L is mouthwatering for portrait (with an IBIS body, extra $$), and for travel I have got used to taking my EF 100-400L for years, so the RF 100-500L is on the list too. Except that as a non-professional, you can't have 'em all


----------



## Mark3794 (Jun 11, 2020)

Stuart said:


> I've seen nothing concrete t suggest APS-c will ever resurface in RF. Its closer to to camera phones and EF-M lenses/bodies somewhat cover this area anyway - meanwhile longer cheaper lenses and TC's are appearing for the FF bodies to get FF shooters nearer their subjects - an APS-C feature.
> For the next few years there will still be loads of APS-C EF camera's around, and then stock levels to run down, followed by a decent second hand market in RF FF bodies. The RP body is now only £1150 with adapter pretty much the same as a EOS 90D.
> Would canon need to chase the £300 EOS 4000D market with RF lenses when its still trying to pull xxD and XXXD users up into the FF market. Mirrorless still has a mechanical shutter and until they lose that it may not be worth pursuing the value end of the market.
> I actually hope i'm wrong and APS-c is possible soon, but they are doing so much elsewhere that's great too so i see them focusing there for now..


The fact that the EOS RP + 24-105 f4-7.1 is currently 999$ at B&H is a solid proof that we won't see aps-c RF cameras. Also, there is the M line for small and compact camera.

Link if you wanna grab this super sweet deal:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1558260-REG/canon_3380c132_eos_rp_mirrorless_digital.html


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 11, 2020)

24mm Macro will be FF equivalent of Laowa 15mm Macro(when used on crop bodies) and that is very useful focal length for enviornmental macro shots.


----------



## Sharlin (Jun 11, 2020)

Stuart said:


> Isn't STM always aimed at video now?



No. Since its conception STM has simply been the standard AF drive for Canon’s low-to-midrange lens lineup. Its suitability for video is an added bonus. In fact, I believe you’ll find that every non-L Canon lens released in recent years has been STM (and a couple of nano-USM), while every L lens is USM.


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Jun 11, 2020)

What if theyre all f/8 because canon decided to stop crippling the cameras and instead decided to cripple their lenses!


----------



## Bahrd (Jun 11, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Because the f-number isn't specified, we presume it's f11 by default?..


Well, if it worked for Miss Alice Portnoy, why wouldn't it work for us?


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Jun 11, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> So after all the criticism Canon received for not having "PRO body for the PRO lenses" and releasing "only $3000 lenses", in 2 years we will have:
> 
> 2 top of the industry pro bodies
> 10 non L RF primes and zooms.
> ...



And people still whining. Make note of that too. LOL


----------



## Andy Westwood (Jun 11, 2020)

Wow they sound like perfect lenses for the R6. The 18-45mm and 24mm prime really float my boat, hopefully they will be reasonably priced RF glass that are small and compact.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 11, 2020)

peters said:


> Hm, 24mm macro sounds weird for me. Is this a usefull lense? I never heard of anything like that...


Laowa 15mm Macro on APS-C body. Its a very popular lens among herping community.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 11, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> No. Since its conception STM has simply been the standard AF drive for Canon’s low-to-midrange lens lineup. Its suitability for video is an added bonus. In fact, I believe you’ll find that every non-L Canon lens released in recent years has been STM (and a couple of nano-USM), while every L lens is USM.



I think the RF 70-200 is also nano-USM (2 motors).


----------



## PhotoRN86 (Jun 11, 2020)

i hope the 24mm will be 1.8 ahhh that would amazing... do think that'd be asking for too much and is it possible to make a 24mm 1.8 compact?


----------



## lawny13 (Jun 11, 2020)

WhereDoWeGoFrmHere said:


> R5 & R6 dropping this year, one would hope a number of fast L primes are on the way.




Hope you are being sarcastic, cause I totally don't agree with you. 

f2.8 trinity, 
50 1.2, 85 1.2, and 28-70 f2, and 35 f1.8

So that is 3 fast zooms and 3 fast primes. (remember this article is about 2021). They posted the likely lens line up for this year with a 50 f1.8 and 85 f2 among them. (https://www.canonrumors.com/this-is-likely-canons-lens-roadmap-for-2020/). So what other fast prime would one want? Perhaps a 135 or 24? Canon is going quite a good job pushing out fast glass. It is time for them to also present some more budget friendly lenses for the R6, just like it needs high end lenses. 

For example people will definitely want some f4 zooms available.


----------



## cayenne (Jun 11, 2020)

peters said:


> Hm, 24mm macro sounds weird for me. Is this a usefull lense? I never heard of anything like that...



I've bought this and just starting to play with it: the Laowa 15mm f/4 1:1 wide angle macro...its a manual focus, but WOW...talk about some unique shots you can get with this....maco, but also with plenty of background in the shot:

Laowa 15mm 1:1 Macro IN action

This might be. really fun lens if they make it a true macro!!

cayenne


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 11, 2020)

I thought the 18-45 was supposed to be an M-mount lens, 18-45 f/2-4. A 15-45 f/2.8 or f/2.8-4 seems like a much better idea.


----------



## sanj (Jun 11, 2020)

Not so thrilling.


----------



## navastronia (Jun 11, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> Hope you are being sarcastic, cause I totally don't agree with you.
> 
> f2.8 trinity,
> 50 1.2, 85 1.2, and 28-70 f2, and 35 f1.8
> ...



35/1.8 isn't as fast as I'd like. I think those of us asking for fast primes want f/1.2 (when we can afford it).

Craig did say in the post that he has no shareable information on L primes for 2021, but we can assume some will be coming.


----------



## Ronny Wertelaers (Jun 11, 2020)

What happened to the for 2020 announced 35mm RF 1.2?


----------



## Th0msky (Jun 11, 2020)

I really need sigma to release a nice Full Frame 18-35 f1.8 lens because i can't afford another few thousand for the RF 15-35 atm


----------



## jvillain (Jun 11, 2020)

peters said:


> Hm, 24mm macro sounds weird for me. Is this a usefull lense? I never heard of anything like that...


Laowa 24mm f/14 2X Macro Probe








Laowa 24mm f/14 2X Macro Probe - LAOWA Camera Lenses


World’s first consumer-grade probe lens which focuses from 2:1 macro to infinity and with a compelling wide angle ‘Bug Eye’ perspective. The wide angle desig...




www.venuslens.net





Your right it is weird. But it is also one of the coolest lenses on the planet as well. Laowa doesn't get any where near enough credit for the madness they have unleashed on the planet. With how popular that lens has become it would not surprise me in the least if some one tried to hone in on the action. Though maybe not in the same format.


----------



## chasingrealness (Jun 11, 2020)

Crazy as it may sound, I think that 18-45 needs to be a 1.8 to be compelling. Canon needs something that can compete with the Sigma zooms and to do it on full frame would be a major coup, I would think.


----------



## Whowe (Jun 11, 2020)

PhotoRN86 said:


> i hope the 24mm will be 1.8 ahhh that would amazing... do think that'd be asking for too much and is it possible to make a 24mm 1.8 compact?


I think it has to be f/7.1 or f/11 to be an R Lens now....


----------



## Whowe (Jun 11, 2020)

Ronny Wertelaers said:


> What happened to the for 2020 announced 35mm RF 1.2?


I guess it was just a *Rumor*....


----------



## SteveC (Jun 11, 2020)

Ronny Wertelaers said:


> What happened to the for 2020 announced 35mm RF 1.2?



Perhaps nothing.

he's talking about 2021; he's not going to list lenses that will have been released before then.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 11, 2020)

Bukozik said:


> There were rumors about RF-crop ... So, there should be lenses


Maybe what you meant to say was: "There were rumors about RF-crop ... So, there should be rumors about lenses.

Rumors are not reality.


----------



## Bukozik (Jun 11, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Maybe what you meant to say was: "There were rumors about RF-crop ... So, there should be rumors about lenses.


Not RF-crop but RF-body. Ist because autor say:
Though I don’t believe we’ll ever see “RF-S” lenses. Sory for my eng)


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 11, 2020)

peters said:


> Hm, 24mm macro sounds weird for me. Is this a useful lense? I never heard of anything like that...



I'm big into Macro and used to use almost exclusively the 100mm L. But then I got the Laowa 15mm f/4 macro, and wow, did that change things up. I use it more often than the Canon. You're working distance is razor thin between the subject and the lens - and that's not going to work for many live insects, but there's nothing better that I've tried to give your subject context about its environment while still getting macro scale. 

I do a lot of plant, insect, tracks, etc., shots for an outdoor magazine, and having the blurred out background contain the hints of the habitat really tells much more of a story.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 11, 2020)

Th0msky said:


> I really need sigma to release a nice Full Frame 18-35 f1.8 lens because i can't afford another few thousand for the RF 15-35 atm



The Sigma attempt at the full frame 18-35 wound up being their 24-35 Art lens - which is much more of an amazing lens than most people give credit for. That lens is so sharp, the zoom is sharper than even Sigma's own 24mm Art and 35mm Art primes. I owned the primes and sold them when I got the 24-35. This wasn't my intent. I'd picked the zoom up used because it was a stupidly cheap price. Was going to play with it and then flip it. 

People tend to complain about the shortness of the zoom range, but there isn't the normal sacrifice in IQ (or in aperture) with this zoom, so it really does replace the primes. 

The bad news: they couldn't make it go down to 18 and get the same image quality in full frame, so I'm not expecting them to invent that for RF.


----------



## PhotoRN86 (Jun 11, 2020)

Whowe said:


> I think it has to be f/7.1 or f/11 to be an R Lens now....



oh you're referencing the telephotos, don't let those get to you too badly


----------



## navastronia (Jun 11, 2020)

Th0msky said:


> I really need sigma to release a nice Full Frame 18-35 f1.8 lens because i can't afford another few thousand for the RF 15-35 atm



If Canon made that lens, it would cost 5K. If Sigma made that lens, it would cost 4K.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jun 11, 2020)

I'm hoping one of those ultrawide super fast primes sees the light of day in 2021

I know there's patents for
Canon RF 18mm f/1.2L USM 
Canon RF 24mm f/1.2L USM 
Canon RF 16mm f/1.4L USM 
Canon RF 18mm f/1.0L USM 

It's the only reason I haven't given in to buying the 15-35 yet.


----------



## dwarven (Jun 11, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Because the f-number isn't specified, we presume it's f11 by default?..



It's an f7.1-f11


----------



## Phil (Jun 11, 2020)

peters said:


> Hm, 24mm macro sounds weird for me. Is this a usefull lense? I never heard of anything like that...


I think macro is just going to be a feature of their 1.8 line of lenses except the 50mm because that will be made to be as cheap as possible.


----------



## Phil (Jun 11, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I suspect they won't release APS-C lenses, and the 18-45 will cover the full image circle for full frame, it might be optimized for APS-C (assuming they release an APS-C R body, which is far from certain) and require some hefty in-camera correction to get it to look reasonable on full frame.


I’m thinking the 18-45 will be an affordable Vlogging lens.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 11, 2020)

Phil said:


> I think macro is just going to be a feature of their 1.8 line of lenses except the 50mm because that will be made to be as cheap as possible.


The 24mm macro is unlikely to be any faster than f/2.8. And I wouldn't want it any faster than that. Keep it small, light and affordable


----------



## flip314 (Jun 11, 2020)

dwarven said:


> It's an f7.1-f11



And, it will be cheap enough to sell in convenience stores.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Jun 11, 2020)

At the beginning, I was really enthusiastic about the RF line, but now not so much.

I still can't believe that by 2021 Canon is not providing us with:
- a 35mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 whatever
- an UWA zoom
- a telepho portrait lens, be it the rumoured 70-135 or a 135mm prime

WTF!!!


----------



## padam (Jun 11, 2020)

yoms said:


> At the beginning, I was really enthusiastic about the RF line, but now not so much.
> 
> I still can't believe that by 2021 Canon is not providing us with:
> - a 35mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 whatever
> ...


The EF 35mm f/1.4 II is not that old (compared to an EF 50mm f/1.2 or EF 85mm f/1.2 II)
The most popular photojournalist wide-angle zoom lens is available and with IS
Same with the 70-200mm f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4 lenses or nifty fifty, etc.

Just employ some common sense, and you'll understand that for a two-year old system, they have come out with quite a handful of good lenses(some of which Sony hasn't managed to nail in 7 years, like a cheaper 35 and 85 semi-macro with IS)
and they will continue to come out with more lenses eventually, whether you are banging the table or not.


----------



## Phil (Jun 11, 2020)

Etienne said:


> The 24mm macro is unlikely to be any faster than f/2.8. And I wouldn't want it any faster than that. Keep it small, light and affordable


To keep consistency with what has been released and what’s rumoured to be released ( 35 1.8 macro, 50 1.8 and 85 f2 macro) I think there will be a full line of midrange F1.8-F2 primes starting at about 20mm and going to 105mm all with macro and IS except the 50mm. These won’t be the smallest lenses but they won’t be large either and what a fantastic versatile range of affordable primes they will be. But hey that’s just my opinion.


----------



## Phil (Jun 11, 2020)

padam said:


> The EF 35mm f/1.4 II is not that old (compared to an EF 50mm f/1.2 or EF 85mm f/1.2 II)
> The most popular photojournalist wide-angle zoom lens is available and with IS
> Same with the 70-200mm f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4 lenses or nifty fifty, etc.
> 
> ...


I completely agree, people seem to forget about EF lenses and how recent certain lenses have been released. Besides that the amount of RF lenses that have been released already in such a short time is very impressive and there’s a heap more being released in the near future to.
People stating that they are no longer excited by or have faith in the RF system because of the lens range just seems odd.


----------



## padam (Jun 11, 2020)

Phil said:


> I completely agree, people seem to forget about EF lenses and how recent certain lenses have been released. Besides that the amount of RF lenses that have been released already in such a short time is very impressive and there’s a heap more being released in the near future to.
> People stating that they are no longer excited by or have faith in the RF system because of the lens range just seems odd.


It's also worth mentioning "there is a lot in the works according to various bits of information I have received over the last few months"

f/2 zooms are probably much harder to engineer and they won't come out with a product that isn't 'final'.
The USM motor in the RF 28-70mm f/2 lens still pushes those huge elements around with ease after 1,5 years of use like it's just came out of the shop. (You'd expect it for the price of course, but still, we have seen some build problems with certain other mirrorless lenses).
It is also has some kind of spring-loaded front end to protect against shocks, which I think no other lens has so far.

There is really a lot more going on with these top of the line L lenses, than just dreaming up the design, patent it and then produce it.


----------



## Whowe (Jun 11, 2020)

Th0msky said:


> I really need sigma to release a nice Full Frame 18-35 f1.8 lens because i can't afford another few thousand for the RF 15-35 atm


I think "RF" should stand for "Reverse Fortune!" Like a reverse ATM machine that just keeps taking money...


----------



## slclick (Jun 11, 2020)

Bukozik said:


> There were rumors about RF-crop ... So, there should be lenses


No


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 11, 2020)

I can't wait to get my F11 Trinity 600mm 800mm 100-400mm.
If they could make a 11-105mm F11 I'd have a full house.


----------



## IsaacImage (Jun 11, 2020)

We Need those two ASAP

1 - 35L F1.3 !!!
2 - 135 or 110mm F1.4


----------



## Architect1776 (Jun 11, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


 
There are many of us who would be very happy with non L lenses at f4/5.6 range as long as the lenses are tack sharp. They just do not need the heavy duty indestructible construction. And if STM motors save substantially that also. Just do NOT sacrifice image quality. Even us poor people deserve sharp lenses and good photos. Hey, a 600mm f8 non L lens for $999.00 would be great.


----------



## JustAnotherCanonShooter (Jun 11, 2020)

I wish there'll be a none IS version of the RF 15-35 F2.8 IS coming. As a landscape photog, the IS on this lens is just not necessary. But with the IS, it adds weight and price, heck, it's even bigger and heavier than the EF 16-35mm F2.8.


----------



## flip314 (Jun 11, 2020)

yoms said:


> At the beginning, I was really enthusiastic about the RF line, but now not so much.
> 
> I still can't believe that by 2021 Canon is not providing us with:
> - a 35mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 whatever
> ...



For UWA zoom, the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 is already out, what's wrong with that one?


----------



## AEWest (Jun 11, 2020)

JustAnotherCanonShooter said:


> I wish there'll be a none IS version of the RF 15-35 F2.8 IS coming. As a landscape photog, the IS on this lens is just not necessary. But with the IS, it adds weight and price, heck, it's even bigger and heavier than the EF 16-35mm F2.8.


Agree. Especially at the wide end, IS in a lens won't be needed if the future RF bodies all have IBIS. I would rather save weight and money on non IS versions.


----------



## Tangent (Jun 11, 2020)

mpb001 said:


> As a user of the EF f4 L series zooms, and since Canon has primarily focused on the RF f2 or 2.8 L series zooms, I now wish Canon would address the RF f4 series zooms more adequately. They have an RF 24-105f4 L and and upcoming RF 70-200’f4 L. Not any in the f4 ultrawide yet. Its sort of unlikely that I would upgrade to an expensive R body until the f4 L line is complete.
> As I see it now, if I do add another Canon body it would probably be the R6 with an adapter to use my 17-40 L and 70-200’f4 L. Both are non IS lenses. I would then still use my 5DIV also.





flip314 said:


> For UWA zoom, the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 is already out, what's wrong with that one?



Great: but It's 2300 USD. A compact 14 -24 F 4 - 6.3 (or I'd be fine with a 14 F3.5 prime) that has decent mid-range build quality and is good optically for 400 USD would match well with the 24-105 4-7.1 for a budget compact travel kit. Photographyblog: the 24-105 4-7.1 looks to be a pretty decent lens for the price.

Maybe the budget, compact UWA angle is the *RF 18-45mm IS STM* from the OP. I'd very much like it to be wider. Still, with good optics, it might be OK. Would it be too much to ask that it also use 67mm filter, same as the compact 24-105? Canon should avoid the balkanization of filter sizes seen in the M line.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Jun 11, 2020)

Bukozik said:


> There were rumors about RF-crop ... So, there should be lenses



That rumor has been stagnant for a long time now. The Canon RP is about as small as an RF based camera is going to get due to the size of the mount. There is no physical way they will ever be able to make an RF based "M200" or "M50" equivalent camera. So because of that, the M series of cameras still have a place in Canon's lineup. The rumored M5 Mark II is supposed to be even more capable then the M6 Mark II, and possibly seen as the replacement for the 7D Mark II. Though whether the M series of cameras will ever be able to adapt RF lenses via an optical adapter of some sort is still up in the air.


----------



## padam (Jun 11, 2020)

AEWest said:


> Agree. Especially at the wide end, IS in a lens won't be needed if the future RF bodies all have IBIS. I would rather save weight and money on non IS versions.


Absolutely. If you shoot interiors where tripods are not permitted, or any kind of video, it is totally useless to have a few extra stops of IS over just the IBIS.

Saving money in most circumstances means going for EF over RF, there are three separate 16-35/2.8 versions without IS.


----------



## Skux (Jun 12, 2020)

At their current rate that 100-400 is going to be an f/22 lol


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 12, 2020)

No RF 70-135mm f/2L on the 2020 or the 2021 list. Sold my RF 50mm f/1.2L too soon.      Factoring in the wait, I might not have needed to sell it at all.  Woe is me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 12, 2020)

yoms said:


> At the beginning, I was really enthusiastic about the RF line, but now not so much.
> 
> I still can't believe that by 2021 Canon is not providing us with:
> - a 35mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 whatever
> ...


I can't believe this place is still full of people that think 
- the RF 35 f1.8 IS isn't good enough for them
- the RF 15-35 f2.8 IS isn't an UWA zoom
- they really can't make do with the RF 70-200 f2.8 L IS, or either of the the RF 85 f1.2's, or the RF28-70 f2 for their telephoto portraits

Go figure.


----------



## WhereDoWeGoFrmHere (Jun 12, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> Hope you are being sarcastic, cause I totally don't agree with you.
> 
> f2.8 trinity,
> 50 1.2, 85 1.2, and 28-70 f2, and 35 f1.8
> ...



Zero sarcasm. Canon has released 2 RF L primes. How many EF L primes are there? No way Canon ignores prime users going forward.


----------



## ChrisPow (Jun 12, 2020)

mrproxy said:


> Lets hope brighter than f/8.
> Maybe the aperture number is new cripple hammer?


Canon is *******!


----------



## Woody (Jun 12, 2020)

Looks like Canon is reaching out to weight conscious folks like me in their RF lens roadmap: 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM, 50mm f/1.8 IS STM and now 18-45mm IS STM. Willing to bet the 18-45mm is gonna have a small aperture, say, f/4-7.1.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 12, 2020)

mrproxy said:


> Lets hope brighter than f/8.
> Maybe the aperture number is new cripple hammer?



Shoosh, you'll upset the fan boys who are already praising the glacial new primes. But it looks like this is son of cripple hammer, cripple spanner.


----------



## canonnews (Jun 12, 2020)

Woody said:


> Looks like Canon is reaching out to weight conscious folks like me in their RF lens roadmap: 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM, 50mm f/1.8 IS STM and now 18-45mm IS STM. Willing to bet the 18-45mm is gonna have a small aperture, say, f/4-7.1.


Me too.. I'll be looking forward to the 18-45mm .. 18mm UWA for most people is plenty.


----------



## canonnews (Jun 12, 2020)

Tangent said:


> Canon should avoid the balkanization of filter sizes seen in the M line.


Canon's use of a single diameter for the lenses on the M lineup make this a nothing burger problem.


----------



## canonnews (Jun 12, 2020)

Th0msky said:


> I really need sigma to release a nice Full Frame 18-35 f1.8 lens because i can't afford another few thousand for the RF 15-35 atm


an 18-35mm 1.8 full frame would most likely cost a few thousand. even from Sigma.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 12, 2020)

canonnews said:


> Canon's use of a single diameter for the lenses on the M lineup make this a nothing burger problem.



Not really--the lens diameter is one thing, but there are nevertheless multiple different thread diameters in the M lineup. Granted fewer than in EF, but it's enough to be annoying.


----------



## slclick (Jun 12, 2020)

IsaacImage said:


> We Need those two ASAP
> 
> 1 - 35L F1.3 !!!
> 2 - 135 or 110mm F1.4


Ok can you imagine the TREMENDOUS front element on a 135 1.4? As much as I love that FL, no way. Start your dreams a bit smaller and more realistic mang.


----------



## slclick (Jun 12, 2020)

I'm holding out for the RF f/22 trinity


----------



## i_SH (Jun 12, 2020)

It’s good that Canon will have RF 70-200 / 4L IS USM and RF 85/2 Macro IS STM lenses. It’s bad that there is no RF 21-70 / 4L USM in the plan (possible without IS) ...
I may have to take Sony A7 (last option) + Tamron FE 17-28 / 2.8 FE 28-200 / 2.8-5.6 lenses.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 12, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> The Sigma attempt at the full frame 18-35 wound up being their 24-35 Art lens - which is much more of an amazing lens than most people give credit for. That lens is so sharp, the zoom is sharper than even Sigma's own 24mm Art and 35mm Art primes. I owned the primes and sold them when I got the 24-35. This wasn't my intent. I'd picked the zoom up used because it was a stupidly cheap price. Was going to play with it and then flip it.
> 
> People tend to complain about the shortness of the zoom range, but there isn't the normal sacrifice in IQ (or in aperture) with this zoom, so it really does replace the primes.
> 
> The bad news: they couldn't make it go down to 18 and get the same image quality in full frame, so I'm not expecting them to invent that for RF.


With a much shorter flange distance of the RF mount, Sigma May have a better luck.
there is a rumour of Canon RF 14-24/2.0.Which is quite an amazing lens to have. Let see what Sigma will be up to with RF glass.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 12, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> There are many of us who would be very happy with non L lenses at f4/5.6 range as long as the lenses are tack sharp. They just do not need the heavy duty indestructible construction. And if STM motors save substantially that also. Just do NOT sacrifice image quality. Even us poor people deserve sharp lenses and good photos. Hey, a 600mm f8 non L lens for $999.00 would be great.


+++ Hey, a 600mm f8 non L lens for $999.00 would be great. 

yup, it s coming: RF 600 f/11. sorry f/8 is too reach


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 12, 2020)

slclick said:


> I'm holding out for the RF f/22 trinity


... and the EOS R100 with an 8 MPix sensor with great high ISO and enough resolution for f/22 ... f/45.

While such lenses arent't of much interest for me - if it enables a low cost 8MPIX high ISO beast with good video ... would be great!


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 12, 2020)

i_SH said:


> It’s good that Canon will have RF 70-200 / 4L IS USM and RF 85/2 Macro IS STM lenses. It’s bad that there is no RF 21-70 / 4L USM in the plan (possible without IS) ...
> I may have to take Sony A7 (last option) + Tamron FE 17-28 / 2.8 FE 28-200 / 2.8-5.6 lenses.


RF 21-70 / 4L USM would be excellent - just a minor change: I would prefer RF 20-70 / 4L IS nanoUSM because I do not like odd numbers ...
This would be THE lens to complement my 70-200 f/4 IS mark i lens.

Two lenses to go from 20 ... *2000 mm* at constant f/4 and two at least similar bodies fit in a small backpack or a medium backpack including food, water and clothing for extended day trips.

EDIT: No, 2000mm @f4 would not fit in a backpack with its 500mm front lens diameter - it was 200mm


----------



## i_SH (Jun 12, 2020)

mb66energy said:


> RF 21-70 / 4L USM would be excellent - just a minor change: I would prefer RF 20-70 / 4L IS nanoUSM because I do not like odd numbers ...
> This would be THE lens to complement my 70-200 f/4 IS mark i lens.
> 
> Two lenses to go from 20 ... *2000 mm* at constant f/4 and two at least similar bodies fit in a small backpack or a medium backpack including food, water and clothing for extended day trips.
> ...



Even more, I would like a Apple camera with a 1 "matrix, a 20-160 mm lens with aperture of 1.8 - 2.8, fast stacking of files by dynamic range, focal length (+ bokeh) and other digital twists that can be edited in the editor with several sliders!
Then people quickly forgot about Canon, Nikon and other manufacturers! 
But the biggest of all the insignificant chances is that only Sony can make such a camera.


----------



## davidespinosa (Jun 12, 2020)

How come the 24, 35, and 85 are macro, but the 50 isn't ?
(serious question -- I'm ignorant, please fill me in, thanks)


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 12, 2020)

davidespinosa said:


> How come the 24, 35, and 85 are macro, but the 50 isn't ?
> (serious question -- I'm ignorant, please fill me in, thanks)


What about f/1.4 50mm IS Macro? 50mm might be a sweet spot for more or less simple compact high brightness macro.
Combine that with f/2 100mm IS RealMacro (1:1) ... and
a f/2.8 200mm IS RealMacro.


----------



## padam (Jun 12, 2020)

davidespinosa said:


> How come the 24, 35, and 85 are macro, but the 50 isn't ?
> (serious question -- I'm ignorant, please fill me in, thanks)


We haven't seen the lens, if all elements move together, which is common in cheaper lenses, a 50mm has to travel more than a 35mm to focus closer, so maybe they didn't want to make it bigger, while the 85mm they've accepted that it is going to be bigger.


----------



## David (Jun 12, 2020)

35mm is the most used focal length: A 35mm L lens is paramount. This is not an opinion, this is a FACT! 
Since I buy a system according to its best 35mm lens I will buy a R camera after the L 35mm is released only.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Jun 12, 2020)

padam said:


> The EF 35mm f/1.4 II is not that old (compared to an EF 50mm f/1.2 or EF 85mm f/1.2 II)
> The most popular photojournalist wide-angle zoom lens is available and with IS
> Same with the 70-200mm f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4 lenses or nifty fifty, etc.
> 
> ...



I don't know what common sense there is in talking about EF 35mm f/1.4 II when I specifically mentioned the RF line only.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Jun 12, 2020)

flip314 said:


> For UWA zoom, the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 is already out, what's wrong with that one?


Nothing, it's really nice. I was referring to the rumoured zoom starting at 10 or 11mm. I thought it was implied in my message.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Jun 12, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I can't believe this place is still full of people that think
> - the RF 35 f1.8 IS isn't good enough for them
> - the RF 15-35 f2.8 IS isn't an UWA zoom
> - they really can't make do with the RF 70-200 f2.8 L IS, or either of the the RF 85 f1.2's, or the RF28-70 f2 for their telephoto portraits
> ...



I can't believe this place is still full of people that think
- They know better what others should need/use because they [think they] have supreme knowledge over the others
- There's not a market for a RF 35mm f/1.2 or f/1.4 (go figure why Canon recently released a EF 35mm f1.4 II)
- That think that people are stupid enough not to know that the RF 15-35 f2.8 IS is an UWA zoom when actually they were referring to the rumoured *really* ultra wide lens, i.e. the one starting at 10 or 11mm
- That 85mm can replace 135mm or that not everyone wants to carry a RF 70-200 f2.8 L IS
- They know better what others should need/use because they [think they] have supreme knowledge over the others (bis)

Go figure.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Jun 12, 2020)

Stuart said:


> Isn't STM always aimed at video now?


Coincidence that I watched something the other day about the difference between USM and STM. Focusing on the STM being smoother & quieter so better for video whereas USM is a little faster but a little noisier & not quite as smooth so better for stills.

I cant say if this is true but it does make sense.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jun 12, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> *Canon RF 18-45mm IS STM*
> I don’t know if this is for full-frame, or perhaps a kit lens for an APS-C RF camera.


It's seems extremely unlikely that an APS-C kit lens would have such a small zoom range.

The pattern which seems to be emerging is one of low-cost RF lenses for full frame - which will please a lot of people I am sure. It's like a return to the 1990s when entry-level SLRs used the same film as professional cameras, so there was a big market for affordable 'full frame' EOS lenses (though we didn't use the term back then!).


----------



## ozturert (Jun 12, 2020)

These will be E lenses then, E = Eleven, f11.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 12, 2020)

Oh god no, non L 100-400 means only one thing, 100-400 f/5.6-8. More slow lens incoming.


----------



## slclick (Jun 12, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Oh god no, non L 100-400 means only one thing, 100-400 f/5.6-8. More slow lens incoming.


5.6 is the new 2.8 /s


----------



## SteB1 (Jun 12, 2020)

peters said:


> Hm, 24mm macro sounds weird for me. Is this a usefull lense? I never heard of anything like that...


It would be super useful for those interested in wide angle macro photography. This is the last frontier of macro photography. 24mm is quite a good focal length for this as it allows plenty of background without the working distance being too short. On lenses like the Laowa 17mm macro, at macro distances the subject is almost touching the front element. AF is especially useful for a wide-angle macro as it can be difficult to see the precise plane of focus in the viewfinder. It will probably only be 1:2, but it would be great if it went 1:1. If it did there would be real interest in it. I can't say this will translate into a huge demand, but photographs from such a lens by skilled macro photographers are likely to be popular.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jun 12, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> +++ Hey, a 600mm f8 non L lens for $999.00 would be great.
> 
> yup, it s coming: RF 600 f/11. sorry f/8 is too reach



As long as the price is set for us poor people wanting a long lens.
Is it not a DO, and those seemed to be expensive.


----------



## chasingrealness (Jun 12, 2020)

Bahrd said:


> Well, if it worked for Miss Alice Portnoy, why wouldn't it work for us?



Wrong. All new lenses will be f/64 in honor of the GOAT.


----------



## padam (Jun 12, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> As long as the price is set for us poor people wanting a long lens.
> Is it not a DO, and those seemed to be expensive.


They have made an EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 _DO_ IS USM lens, it wasn't very good, but it was in 2004, technology have gone a long way since them.

So yes, in a much smaller and simpler lens it may not cost that much to produce and it may perform well.
So far, they haven't really missed the marks for most RF lenses, and these new lenses weren't very good in practice, they wouldn't release them in the first place.


----------



## Dexter75 (Jun 12, 2020)

Still no 135mm. All we have is the lone 24 year old EF version. Ridiculous.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 12, 2020)

padam said:


> They have made an EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 _DO_ IS USM lens, it wasn't very good, but it was in 2004, technology have gone a long way since them.
> 
> So yes, in a much smaller and simpler lens it may not cost that much to produce and it may perform well.
> So far, they haven't really missed the marks for most RF lenses, and these new lenses weren't very good in practice, they wouldn't release them in the first place.



The 400 DO version 2 is amazing. Very sharp but also very expensive.


----------



## padam (Jun 12, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The 400 DO version 2 is amazing. Very sharp but also very expensive.


Yes of course, I just wanted to point out that they can put it in a cheaper lens if they want to.
That being said, if these are sharp lenses, I don't expect the 800mm to be very cheap (maybe around 3000$ for the 800mm and 1500$ for the 600mm? Maybe I'm a bit too optimistic...)

People are not looking at these lenses the right way.
Tthere is no reason to _dismiss _the EOS R system, because they came out with these f/11 DO lenses, when there are other adapted options available.
But if these lenses are what they need in terms or size weight, photo and video features (including the AF), they don't have any alternatives, this system is_ what they need_. That's probably why they've decided to release them in the first place.

The same is true for the 15-35/2.8 IS and 24-70/2.8 IS, others do not have double stabilisation with these kind of lenses and the 70-200/2.8 IS is smaller and lighter, too. If IBIS is important, then combined IS is also important.

So there are a lot of reasons why one might choose the EOS R system over another one, even though there are not as many RF lenses at this moment in time.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 12, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Shoosh, you'll upset the fan boys who are already praising the glacial new primes. But it looks like this is son of cripple hammer, cripple spanner.



Are you twelve years old?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 12, 2020)

The L lenses for 2021 will include an RF24-70mm f4L IS USM and a RF 16-40mm f4L IS USM. These are staples of many landscape photographers & Canon knows it.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 12, 2020)

For any who care to see Tony Northrup's take on these mentioned lenses, you can check out:


----------



## Th0msky (Jun 12, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> The Sigma attempt at the full frame 18-35 wound up being their 24-35 Art lens - which is much more of an amazing lens than most people give credit for. That lens is so sharp, the zoom is sharper than even Sigma's own 24mm Art and 35mm Art primes. I owned the primes and sold them when I got the 24-35. This wasn't my intent. I'd picked the zoom up used because it was a stupidly cheap price. Was going to play with it and then flip it.
> 
> People tend to complain about the shortness of the zoom range, but there isn't the normal sacrifice in IQ (or in aperture) with this zoom, so it really does replace the primes.
> 
> The bad news: they couldn't make it go down to 18 and get the same image quality in full frame, so I'm not expecting them to invent that for RF.



Well if you mention this sharpness of the zoom for its price, then it indeed sounds like a really good catch.
The only thing that bothers me, and you mentioned it already yourself, is the fact that its starting at 24. 
You see, I am most likely going to buy a 24-105 RF zoom lens with the upcoming R6. So i'd initially have the 24 to 35mm range already in my kit, except from the lower aperture... If you can convince me that thats worth it either way, ill take the purchase into consideration! ;-)


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 13, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> The L lenses for 2021 will include an RF24-70mm f4L IS USM and a RF 16-40mm f4L IS USM. These are staples of many landscape photographers & Canon knows it.


How do you know there will be a RF 16-40mm f4L IS USM? How soon do you think it will come out?


----------



## canonnews (Jun 13, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> The L lenses for 2021 will include an RF24-70mm f4L IS USM and a RF 16-40mm f4L IS USM. These are staples of many landscape photographers & Canon knows it.


how do you know that? just a guess? other info? 

I'd love for it to be true though.. high MP Rs and a 16-40mm F4L would be the cats meow for me.


----------



## canonnews (Jun 13, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Not really--the lens diameter is one thing, but there are nevertheless multiple different thread diameters in the M lineup. Granted fewer than in EF, but it's enough to be annoying.


not really true though. because all the lenses are the same diameter, you can easily use 55mm step up rings and 55mm lens caps on all EF-M lenses and for most of them, still use the supplied lens hood. and because they are all the same diameter, 55mm caps look pretty good on all of them.

We did an article up on the EOS-M and tips and tricks.. that is talked about there. you may be interested in reading it.

https://www.canonnews.com/canon-eos-m-tips-and-tricks-while-on-the-road


----------



## SteveC (Jun 13, 2020)

canonnews said:


> not really true though. because all the lenses are the same diameter, you can easily use 55mm step up rings and 55mm lens caps on all EF-M lenses and for most of them, still use the supplied lens hood. and because they are all the same diameter, 55mm caps look pretty good on all of them.
> 
> We did an article up on the EOS-M and tips and tricks.. that is talked about there. you may be interested in reading it.
> 
> https://www.canonnews.com/canon-eos-m-tips-and-tricks-while-on-the-road



It was interesting indeed. I could have saved some money buying one set of filters.


----------



## tron (Jun 13, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I suspect they won't release APS-C lenses, and the 18-45 will cover the full image circle for full frame, it might be optimized for APS-C (assuming they release an APS-C R body, which is far from certain) and require some hefty in-camera correction to get it to look reasonable on full frame.


I was hoping for a FF RF17-70 (it was a past rumor). That would be very versatile. A 18-45 overlaps a lot with a 15/16-35. I guess its advantage would be much lower price.


----------



## fox40phil (Jun 13, 2020)

How about a 2000mm f22?! ...

We need more f11+ lenses!!!!1 who the fk needs heavy wide open lenses...if you have a tripod and buildings to photograph or landscapes  

Still waiting for a really great wildlife lens!


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Jun 13, 2020)

If were talking new lenses, with the opportunities the RF mount offers, I'd love to see what an RF version of the EF 28-300MM F3.5-5.6L IS USM would be like? 
I tried the EF version and its a beast. It's a fantastic lens that covers so many situations but unless you're a weight lifter, I'm not sure I could manage more than a couple of hours handheld lol. Maybe they could even do an f 2.8 RF version, now that would be impressive for wildlife and travel?


----------



## davo (Jun 13, 2020)

peters said:


> Hm, 24mm macro sounds weird for me. Is this a usefull lense? I never heard of anything like that...


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 13, 2020)

Starting out EOS R said:


> If were talking new lenses, with the opportunities the RF mount offers, I'd love to see what an RF version of the EF 28-300MM F3.5-5.6L IS USM would be like?
> I tried the EF version and its a beast. It's a fantastic lens that covers so many situations but unless you're a weight lifter, I'm not sure I could manage more than a couple of hours handheld lol. Maybe they could even do an f 2.8 RF version, now that would be impressive for wildlife and travel?



They've released the 24-240 already as a superzoom, I think it's unlikely they'll revisit the 28-300 L line because to be honest, you can't really do a good enough quality superzoom without it being enormously heavy and enormously expensive.


----------



## Joules (Jun 14, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> Still no 135mm. All we have is the lone 24 year old EF version. Ridiculous.


We don't even know what else will be coming in 2021. And being 24 years old, it took Canon many years after the release of the EF mount to make that lens. Everything in RF is going at pretty brisk paste. Eventually all market niches should be happy. For the meantime, the EF lenses work well on RF and DSLR alike.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 14, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> Still no 135mm. All we have is the lone 24 year old EF version. Ridiculous.



Everyone wants their own lens but i think Canon is doing quite well. Having 20 RF lenses in 2 years is a lot.


----------



## brad-man (Jun 14, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Everyone wants their own lens but i think Canon is doing quite well. Having 20 RF lenses in 2 years is a lot.


I don't know what you mean by that, but Canon is certainly not doing quite well until they release the RF 70-200 f/4L IS...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jun 14, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I don't know what you mean by that, but Canon is certainly not doing quite well until they release the RF 70-200 f/4L IS...



There is a f/2.8 version out that no one else can match. And Nikon just got their 70-200 f/2.8 out with no sign of the f/4. I get wanting a 70-200 f/4, but it is a little off to say that they are doing bad until that lens comes out. We all want our go to lens to be updated or our dream lens.


----------



## brad-man (Jun 14, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> There is a f/2.8 version out that no one else can match. And Nikon just got their 70-200 f/2.8 out with no sign of the f/4. I get wanting a 70-200 f/4, but it is a little off to say that they are doing bad until that lens comes out. We all want our go to lens to be updated or our dream lens.


It was meant to be funny. I guess it missed...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jun 14, 2020)

brad-man said:


> It was meant to be funny. I guess it missed...


Apologies for miss reading your intent. There are a lot of legitimate post regarding their favourite lens as a must have both here and on the Nikon side.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jun 14, 2020)

padam said:


> They have made an EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 _DO_ IS USM lens, it wasn't very good, but it was in 2004, technology have gone a long way since them.
> 
> So yes, in a much smaller and simpler lens it may not cost that much to produce and it may perform well.
> So far, they haven't really missed the marks for most RF lenses, and these new lenses weren't very good in practice, they wouldn't release them in the first place.



I hope so.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Jun 14, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> They've released the 24-240 already as a superzoom, I think it's unlikely they'll revisit the 28-300 L line because to be honest, you can't really do a good enough quality superzoom without it being enormously heavy and enormously expensive.


I looked at the 24-240 and for the price, it's quite impressive. some of the reviews were happy with the results but highlighted that there was a fair bit of lens correction happening via software and without that, the results were not good. 

I don't suppose it matters much how the results are achieved but overall I decided to not buy that lens as it didn't feel that robust. Your right about the weight of the 28-300 L, it's very heavy, I got to the shop to actually buy one and asked to put it on a body to try it in the shop. in about 5 seconds, I realised that unless I did some weight training I just wouldn't be able to use it handheld.

I have the RF 70-200MML and it's light and useable compared to the EF version which is why I wondered if an RF 28-300MM version may be lighter and more usable. You're probably right though as the number of elements / blades would mean it could only be reduced so much and still be pretty weighty.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 14, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I don't know what you mean by that, but Canon is certainly not doing quite well until they release the RF 70-200 f/4L IS...



But that's still not enough. Canon is ******* until they don't have a 24mm 1.2 and 135mm 1.2.


----------



## lawny13 (Jun 14, 2020)

WhereDoWeGoFrmHere said:


> Zero sarcasm. Canon has released 2 RF L primes. How many EF L primes are there? No way Canon ignores prime users going forward.


Never said they would. But they don’t exactly have affordable lenses out. So there needs to be some balance.

Pretty sure I stated that they should release some affordable primes and not just L ones. And it isn’t just about cost, But also size and weight. I personally like having a 50mm for on the go. The 50f1.2 is most definitely not that kinda lens. 

So should canon bring out more L primes? Of course. But should they do just that and no affordable lenses while they are trying to get the mount adopted? Of course not. Most people won’t drop 3k for every lens they buy. Just saying.


----------



## padam (Jun 14, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> Pretty sure I stated that they should release some affordable primes and not just L ones. And it isn’t just about cost, But also size and weight. I personally like having a 50mm for on the go. The 50f1.2 is most definitely not that kinda lens.


After this year, they will have a cheaper 35-50-85, they have the 24-105/4 from the start, they will have the 70-200/4, and you can adapt from EF, which is probably cheaper. They also have more Samyang lenses coming after the 14/2.8 and 85/1.4
Not sure what's your problem exactly, for a two year old system it has many options, rest is available from EF, the adapter is a must have for any complainers who buy it anyway. If they don't invest in the system, they have 0 reasons to complain...
Simply put, the more you wait, the more options you'll get.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 14, 2020)

padam said:


> After this year, they will have a cheaper 35-50-85, they have the 24-105/4 from the start, they will have the 70-200/4, and you can adapt from EF, which is probably cheaper. They also have more Samyang lenses coming after the 14/2.8 and 85/1.4
> Not sure what's your problem exactly, for a two year old system it has many options, rest is available from EF, the adapter is a must have for any complainers who buy it anyway. If they don't invest in the system, they have 0 reasons to complain...
> Simply put, the more you wait, the more options you'll get.



In 2 years Canon will get from 1 to 10 affordable non-l primes and zooms. Plus EF lenses can almost be considered native too, compatibility is perfect.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 14, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> They've released the 24-240 already as a superzoom, I think it's unlikely they'll revisit the 28-300 L line because to be honest, you can't really do a good enough quality superzoom without it being enormously heavy and enormously expensive.



LOL have you paid for and used an RF 28-70, 85 1.2, or 50 1.2? Canon ain’t shy about expensive, big and heavy.


----------



## chellm (Jun 14, 2020)

peters said:


> Hm, 24mm macro sounds weird for me. Is this a usefull lense? I never heard of anything like that...


With my Leica R 21mm f. 4 III I can focus as close as 20 cm (8") and I can get a 1:2 of small objects.. I found it very useful w/out mounting anything between camera and lens..


----------



## TonyPM (Jun 14, 2020)

peters said:


> Hm, 24mm macro sounds weird for me. Is this a usefull lense? I never heard of anything like that...


Well, I have the Efs 24mm f2.8 macro stm.

And the 18-45 is stm does look like an apsc lens.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 15, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> How about a 2000mm f22?! ...
> 
> We need more f11+ lenses!!!!1 who the fk needs heavy wide open lenses...if you have a tripod and buildings to photograph or landscapes
> 
> Still waiting for a really great wildlife lens!


wellll... the 800mm f11 with 2x extender would be 1600mm @ f22 (if the TCs are RF-RF)


----------



## canonnews (Jun 15, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I don't know what you mean by that, but Canon is certainly not doing quite well until they release the RF 70-200 f/4L IS...



If canon stays the blistering pace of around 7 lenses per year, it will take them 9 years to do the entire catalog. When you think of it that way, maybe things will sort themselves out, but Canon has to look at global priorities for lenses, which may be different than what you want.


----------



## navastronia (Jun 15, 2020)

canonnews said:


> If canon stays the blistering pace of around 7 lenses per year, it will take them 9 years to do the entire catalog. When you think of it that way, maybe things will sort themselves out, but Canon has to look at global priorities for lenses, which may be different than what you want.



Just please let them make the niche lenses last instead of the lenses most recently refreshed in EF mount -- I'm looking at you, 35/1.4 L II (est. 2016).


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 15, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> The fact that the EOS RP + 24-105 f4-7.1 is currently 999$ at B&H is a solid proof that we won't see aps-c RF cameras. Also, there is the M line for small and compact camera.
> 
> Link if you wanna grab this super sweet deal:
> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1558260-REG/canon_3380c132_eos_rp_mirrorless_digital.html



I'll take a fully featured APS-C over a heavily crippled FF any day of the year. It proves nothing.


----------



## jedy (Jun 15, 2020)

peters said:


> Hm, 24mm macro sounds weird for me. Is this a usefull lense? I never heard of anything like that...


I once had a Sigma 24mm f1.8 macro and the macro (not true 1:1) was next to useless imo. The field of view close up was too distorted and when trying to take photos of flowers, for example, because I had to stand so close, there would always be unwanted shadows in the shot. Macro should really be left to longer focal lengths.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 15, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> LOL have you paid for and used an RF 28-70, 85 1.2, or 50 1.2? Canon ain’t shy about expensive, big and heavy.



I don't think a good quality 28-300 L lens would be possible under about $10k and I don't think Canon would release something below average. The EF 28-300 lens was launched in 2004 when DSLR sensors were around the 6-8 megapixel range.

So no, you won't see a 'pro' RF lens covering the 28-300 range. *

*Of course I could be wrong. If they WERE to do it, maybe it would be more likely be something like a 28-150 with a flip in/out 2x extender


----------



## lawny13 (Jun 15, 2020)

padam said:


> After this year, they will have a cheaper 35-50-85, they have the 24-105/4 from the start, they will have the 70-200/4, and you can adapt from EF, which is probably cheaper. They also have more Samyang lenses coming after the 14/2.8 and 85/1.4
> Not sure what's your problem exactly, for a two year old system it has many options, rest is available from EF, the adapter is a must have for any complainers who buy it anyway. If they don't invest in the system, they have 0 reasons to complain...
> Simply put, the more you wait, the more options you'll get.



I don’t agree with you there.

If adapted EF glass gave us full functionality then sure I agree with you. Yes yes it is “seemless” and I do adapt lenses to the R, but it isn’t RF functionality since you miss out on the High Speed Display setting. And HSD does considerably better when it comes to shooting action.

As a result i have held off on buying particular EF lenses. For example if I get a 70-200, it would double for portrait work but also some sports. I wasn’t going to spend the money on the EF version if the bodies that come after the R are only able to do HSD with RF lenses.

And I care about the present not some potential future release, canon has after all not officially announced those lenses. So as of now, the only affordable option for native lenses are the 35, 24-240, and 24-105, that’s it. And since I don’t exactly do action shooting with certain FLs, I have the 50 stm (which is meh optically, soft wide open for example), the 100 L, and the EF 16-35. Native I have the 35, and 24-105.

IF... IF the R5 will shoot and have good live view update of the screens with EF glass as well as RF lenses than I agree with you about the options. But till we see that it is an idea based in fantasy and not reality. End of the day though, I will throw your argument right back at you then. Why insist on high end RF prime lenses while you can simply adapt the EF ones?? See? Goes both ways.

As for third party lenses like the samyang... meh. Decent optically, but all kinds of potential problems when it comes to quality, motor noise etc etc, and how long the lens will last. I would rather spend the money on RF lenses at F1.8 apertures, because to me it isn’t only about cost. To me it has a lot to do with portability, and the 50, and 85 F1.2 are simply ginormous. I mean that 50F1.2 is heavier than the 24-105f4. And the latter is not exactly discrete.

If canon were to release a high end but decently sized 50 F1.4 or F1.8, I have no issue paying 1k for it.


----------



## AEWest (Jun 15, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> I'll take a fully featured APS-C over a heavily crippled FF any day of the year. It proves nothing.


Given the collapse in demand for cameras overall, not much point in coming out with yet another line of lenses. Manufacturers need to consolidate lineups, not expand.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 15, 2020)

AEWest said:


> Given the collapse in demand for cameras overall, not much point in coming out with yet another line of lenses. Manufacturers need to consolidate lineups, not expand.



I agree but also sports and especially wildlife shooters need a fast and tough body under or around $2000. A 3500-4000 R5 will not do it.


----------



## AEWest (Jun 15, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I agree but also sports and especially wildlife shooters need a fast and tough body under or around $2000. A 3500-4000 R5 will not do it.


I expect the R6 to be fast and much more affordable than the R5. But at that price point you can't expect 1D level toughness.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jun 15, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I agree but also sports and especially wildlife shooters need a fast and tough body under or around $2000. A 3500-4000 R5 will not do it.


Yep. Loads of wildlife photographers use the 7D2 with the 100-400L II - this has become a go-to combination. If Canon's plan is to move everyone across to mirrorless they will have to do something to address this. And you are absolutely right that a £3500 body which requires 1.6x bigger lenses is not the answer!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 15, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Yep. Loads of wildlife photographers use the 7D2 with the 100-400L II - this has become a go-to combination. If Canon's plan is to move everyone across to mirrorless they will have to do something to address this. And you are absolutely right that a £3500 body which requires 1.6x bigger lenses is not the answer!



The R6 with the new 100-500 might be the closest to that but 20mp resolution is not really enough for cropping.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 15, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Yep. Loads of wildlife photographers use the 7D2 with the 100-400L II - this has become a go-to combination. If Canon's plan is to move everyone across to mirrorless they will have to do something to address this. And you are absolutely right that a £3500 body which requires 1.6x bigger lenses is not the answer!



Uh, no, the 100-400 for fullframe won't be 1.6 times bigger than the 100-400 these wildlife togs are using on their 7D. Because the 100-400 they are using was designed for a full frame camera in the first place. So a corresponding RF model--a truly corresponding one--will be about the same size.

But wait, you say: because of crop factor, it won't look the same! But if you're using an R5 you can crop it down in post so that it does, and still have a 17MP image that's framed EXACTLY like it would have been with your 7D. What the 7D buys you is it does the cropping for you. With the R5 you have a higher chance of still getting the wildlife in the frame if it should move at just the wrong time--so by cropping off center instead of on center, you save a shot you would have lost on the 7D.

So functionally the only difference between the R5 and the 100-400L (with an adapter) [or a hypthetical 100-400 RF] and the 7D with the same lens is you have to crop afterwards, and the camera body combined with the adapter is a bit bigger. Yes, it DOES cost more up front.

If you're willing to bend on build quality, you can stick that 100-400L on an EF-M adapter, bolt it onto a M6 mark II, and get a properly pre-cropped image at 32 MP.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 16, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Uh, no, the 100-400 for fullframe won't be 1.6 times bigger than the 100-400 these wildlife togs are using on their 7D. Because the 100-400 they are using was designed for a full frame camera in the first place. So a corresponding RF model--a truly corresponding one--will be about the same size.
> 
> But wait, you say: because of crop factor, it won't look the same! But if you're using an R5 you can crop it down in post so that it does, and still have a 17MP image that's framed EXACTLY like it would have been with your 7D. What the 7D buys you is it does the cropping for you. With the R5 you have a higher chance of still getting the wildlife in the frame if it should move at just the wrong time--so by cropping off center instead of on center, you save a shot you would have lost on the 7D.
> 
> ...




But R5 is in a different price bracket, not affordable for many. And the M6 is not comparable to a 7D in ergonomics or anything else.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 16, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> But R5 is in a different price bracket, not affordable for many. And the M6 is not comparable to a 7D in ergonomics or anything else.


I wonder if Canon regrets releasing the 7D/7Dii at the price points they had. Great build quality, speed and autofocus capabilities that perhaps took sales away from 1D and 5D bodies. They could have charged a lot more for it and people would have still bought it. A niche that is now replaced by either M6ii or R5 with equivalent speed and better AF but not the build/ergonomics. A 5Dv will combine build/speed and AF (when in live view) but is likely to cost more than R5 if similar to Eor R vs 5Div pricing. 
I wonder if the R1 will be cheaper that the 1Dxiii. It would certainly have to have the same build / ergonomics (integrated grip) as the 1D


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 16, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I don't think a good quality 28-300 L lens would be possible under about $10k and I don't think Canon would release something below average. The EF 28-300 lens was launched in 2004 when DSLR sensors were around the 6-8 megapixel range.
> 
> So no, you won't see a 'pro' RF lens covering the 28-300 range. *
> 
> *Of course I could be wrong. If they WERE to do it, maybe it would be more likely be something like a 28-150 with a flip in/out 2x extender



An RF 24-240 f/4 L could be a possibility.

But I'm not convinced an RF replacement for the EF 28-300 would be that high. Even double the old price would "only" be $5K. I can also see them using DO elements and/or software correction to cut down on the weight/size.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 16, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> But R5 is in a different price bracket, not affordable for many. And the M6 is not comparable to a 7D in ergonomics or anything else.



The first isn't a _functional_ difference, but will take it off the table. The second, though, certainly is!

I wonder if the M5-II--if there ever is one--will cover part of that gap.


----------



## OneSnark (Jun 16, 2020)

AEWest said:


> Given the collapse in demand for cameras overall, not much point in coming out with yet another line of lenses. Manufacturers need to consolidate lineups, not expand.



THIS.

I am definitely a victim of GAS. I have bought a number of dSLR bodies, and a PILE of EF glass.

Sure. . . adaptors can work for one or two special lenses. . . but for the entire lens kit? meh.
For the "M" series - - - I have been spoiled by my F4 EF glass. Just not interested in F7.1 lenses.
For the "RF" series - - - Ok. . if I buy two *decent* lenses and a body . . . that's what. . . $5K? $6K Ballpark?
For the "EF" series - - - Dead line. When was the last time we saw something new? The knowledge that this line is dead kept me from buying a nice EF lens (or two) in the last six months.

Is this new stuff REALLY that much better than the old EF stuff? I tried out the R and RP EVF in a store. . . .really not impressed for PREMIUM PRICED equipment.
I could splurge for a body. . .but body PLUS glass? There are limits to my cash. 

Honestly. . . I think I'm out.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 16, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I wonder if Canon regrets releasing the 7D/7Dii at the price points they had. Great build quality, speed and autofocus capabilities that perhaps took sales away from 1D and 5D bodies. They could have charged a lot more for it and people would have still bought it. A niche that is now replaced by either M6ii or R5 with equivalent speed and better AF but not the build/ergonomics. A 5Dv will combine build/speed and AF (when in live view) but is likely to cost more than R5 if similar to Eor R vs 5Div pricing.
> I wonder if the R1 will be cheaper that the 1Dxiii. It would certainly have to have the same build / ergonomics (integrated grip) as the 1D


Just wondering how you know the build quality of the R5, which has yet to be released? Or for that matter, the build quality of a 5D Mark V?


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 16, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Just wondering how you know the build quality of the R5, which has yet to be released? Or for that matter, the build quality of a 5D Mark V?


Fair question - I don't know for sure but:
Making a 5Dv with a lessor build quality than 5D/ii/iii/iv/S(R) would be a poor marketing move from Canon assuming they release a 5Dv. 
Making the R5 with a lessor build quality than the R but charging ~double the price would also be a poor marketing decision or a poor engineering implementation. Canon has said that this is a 5 series body and that implies workhorse ruggedness based on previous history.
So I believe my comment includes reasonable assumptions.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 16, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> An RF 24-240 f/4 L could be a possibility.
> 
> But I'm not convinced an RF replacement for the EF 28-300 would be that high. Even double the old price would "only" be $5K. I can also see them using DO elements and/or software correction to cut down on the weight/size.



Superzooms tend to have poor resolution. With Canon going to a 42+mpx sensor in the R5, I really just can't seem them going down this route. It was all so much easier in the 8mpx days when the 28-300 was launched.


----------



## padam (Jun 16, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Superzooms tend to have poor resolution. With Canon going to a 42+mpx sensor in the R5, I really just can't seem them going down this route. It was all so much easier in the 8mpx days when the 28-300 was launched.


To be fair, that was also 16 years ago, lens technology has evolved since then and we have a new mount as well.
So something better is certainly a possibility, but the price has to be somewhat reasonable, and there is a fine line with that.

For instance, they have a patent for an RF 24-70mm f/2 lens as well, 20 elements, only one more than the 28-70mm f/2
Which indicates they could have done it, but it would have been unreasonable to sell it at a good enough profit or it wouldn't have been nearly as good.

As far as superzoom lenses go, they have an RF 24-300mm f/4-5.6L IS patent, maybe for those who are willing to pay a lot more (and carry a much heavier lens with more elements) for the better aperture and optical performance.


----------



## chong67 (Jun 26, 2020)

I been waiting for RF 14-24mm. Where is it?


----------



## lawny13 (Jun 26, 2020)

chong67 said:


> I been waiting for RF 14-24mm. Where is it?



In the future... where? No one knows where exactly  

In the mean time there are options you can adopt. 

Sorry for the sarcasm. But no one should buy into a brand new system and expect their preferred lens is around the corder. I have been waiting for a good RF 50, and other f1.8 primes. Others have probably been waiting for f4 zooms. They can't simply release them all at once. Though that would be sweet.


----------

