# Consumer RF mount zoom lenses coming in the first half of 2020 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 30, 2019)

> We have been told that Canon will address a big need in the still-evolving lineup of RF mount lenses in the first half of 2020.
> While there are a few more RF mount lenses coming in 2020, there will also be a “bunch” of non-L zoom lenses coming in the first half of 2020.
> The source claims we will see some unique designs for consumer-grade lenses, including fixed aperture designs alongside variable aperture zooms.
> There will also be at least one non-L prime announced, which will most likely be a pancake. A non-L 50mm lens is also in the works and could come later in 2020.
> I apologize that the information is vague at the moment, but we hope to confirm this information in the near future.



Continue reading...


----------



## brad-man (Dec 30, 2019)

That doesn't sound like it includes an RF 70-200mm f/4L IS given the same treatment as the f/2.8L. Bummer.


----------



## Joules (Dec 30, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> The source claims we will see some unique designs for consumer-grade lenses, including fixed aperture designs alongside variable aperture zooms.





brad-man said:


> That doesn't sound like it includes an RF 70-200mm f/4L IS given the same treatment as the f/2.8L. Bummer.


I don’t know, to me it sound exactly like that. An extending 70-200mm 4.0 Is would be pretty unique, right?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Dec 30, 2019)

Meh. I was hoping for a 400+ getting in soon.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 30, 2019)

brad-man said:


> That doesn't sound like it includes an RF 70-200mm f/4L IS given the same treatment as the f/2.8L. Bummer.



An 70-200 f/4*L* wouldn't fit into the '*non*-L zooms' category the rumour is about  But I sure would appreciate Canon making one!


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 30, 2019)

Joules said:


> I don’t know, to me it sound exactly like that. An extending 70-200mm 4.0 Is would be pretty unique, right?


Unique, but hardly consumer.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 30, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> An 70-200 f/4*L* wouldn't fit into the '*non*-L zooms' category the rumour is about  But I sure would appreciate Canon making one!


Maybe it is time for a non-L 70-200 f/4 because the RF 70-200 f/2.8 is so compact that a pro will not buy a more compact / lightweight f/4 alternative anymore.
I tried the f/4 70-200 IS version with adapter on my new RP and it is a looong lens compared to the retracted 2.8 70-200 RF version!


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 30, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> Maybe it is time for a non-L 70-200 f/4 because the RF 70-200 f/2.8 is so compact that a pro will not buy a more compact / lightweight f/4 alternative anymore.
> I tried the f/4 70-200 IS version with adapter on my new RP and it is a looong lens compared to the retracted 2.8 70-200 RF version!



I strongly suspect a non-L would be a f/3.5-5.6, not a constant aperture.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 30, 2019)

For the "non-L prime" mentioned, an 85mm F1.8 IS would be amazing. The EF version works excellently on an R-mount camera with eye-detect AF. It would be great to see a native version with image stabilization.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 30, 2019)

And suddenly, everybody seems to like extending zooms...


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 30, 2019)

A 70-300 f4 zoom(similar to Sigma lens) and an ultrawide zoom similar to Ef-s 10-18mm IS would be really useful.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 30, 2019)

Think small!

think F6.3 telescoping zooms.....


----------



## David (Dec 30, 2019)

I want small L standard primes, eg. a RF 40mm f2.0L.


----------



## overniven (Dec 30, 2019)

Is the 35mm RF lens as good as the 22mm EF-M? Because I really want more primes like that for my RF mount.


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 30, 2019)

I welcome a pancake that puts size as the top priority. A show off “look what we can do” body cap. 

I’d expect a pair of kit zooms akin to the Nikon Z50 lenses. Variable aperture and compact. Wide zoom starting at a focal length less than 24 to differentiate. Tele zoom ending above 200. Maybe 18-55 and 55-300. That break at 55 might be low except it’s useful on a future small sensor body. 

My wish is for a line of color and contour matched dedicated control ring “conversion adapters” for the big whites that are installed and left in place. Some offering teleconverter capabilities.


----------



## Architect1776 (Dec 30, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



It would be great to see non-L zoom lenses like a 70-200mm f4 or other non-zoom variable aperture non-L zoom lenses. Good to excellent optics but in less robust and expensive constructed barrels. Keep the price point down that way but maintain a high level of optical quality as they did with the FD series lenses as a whole. This will be great for most consumers who do not cover pro football games in the rain but just want good sharp photos edge to edge. Affordable good quality will win.


----------



## Architect1776 (Dec 30, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> A 70-300 f4 zoom(similar to Sigma lens) and an ultrawide zoom similar to Ef-s 10-18mm IS would be really useful.



If Canon could settle on a majority of non-L consumer lenses stay a fixed f4 throughout the range that would be very nice. 300mm would be about max for this concept.


----------



## addola (Dec 30, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> A 70-300 f4 zoom(similar to Sigma lens) and an ultrawide zoom similar to Ef-s 10-18mm IS would be really useful.


The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is a constant aperture, non-L zoom. It would be nice if they have a constant aperture ultra-wide zoom, but I would really want a fast wide-angle pancake prime.


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 30, 2019)

Don’t forget that the 24-240 that lists for $899 but cost $500 as an upgrade to the RF kit is context for conzoomer lenses. Updating my prediction above, a $999 pair of wide zoom and tele zoom must extend this range. Maybe to 18-400? 18-100 and 100-400? With the incredible RF 70-200 changing everything (by handling like a do-everything 28-300) and eventually discounting to $1999 maybe the 100-400 should be slotted as a $999 consumer lens, not high end? 

A 20-100 and 100-400 would have a mathematical branding sense to them. 5x and 4x gives intuitive 20x that differentiates from the 10x 24-240. The 20-100 can retail for $499 but never sell that way and instead sell $1249 RP kits (Or $749 small sensor?). $1999 if you include the 100-400. Merry Christmas 2020!

Mind you that with all the miraculous corrections turned off and with high performance high ISO sensors these are crappy corner-cutting lenses. But that doesn’t matter because as a system they create great images for their owners. The way I think about L lenses is that they do great work even with all the corrections turned off. Which is fine if you have $2300 for a fast 50.

I understand from a private conversation between a close relative and a Canon executive on the medical imaging side is that their camera market is 15% of what it once was. My take is that the only things they can sell any more are “not a phone”.

I chuckle at the reviewers that point out the uncorrected weaknesses of modern consumer lenses. Imagine if they could deconstruct an iPhone and bemoan the images generated by the lens. But lenses don’t create images. Cameras do. (Actually, photographers do).


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 30, 2019)

Lots of comments wishing for constant aperture but less than the L series. I think that’s off track for this segment. This isn’t about helping enthusiasts get more affordable awesome lenses. It’s about selling a big zoom range to non-photographers who aspire to look cool with a clunky camera and use their camera like a point and shoot on the green icon auto setting and never look at the menus.

Cost and zoom range are all that matter. Durability and image quality are good enough even at their worst. A few may even turn out to be useful little gems for enthusiasts like us.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Dec 30, 2019)

overniven said:


> Is the 35mm RF lens as good as the 22mm EF-M? Because I really want more primes like that for my RF mount.


Much better, in my experience (except for the weight, of course): excellent IS, wonderful bokeh, half-macro...

[I use the RF 35mm on my R and the EF-M 22mm on my M6]


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 30, 2019)

I think the patent applications already speak for themselves. There's several variations of a 17-70 f3.5-5.8 lenses, and a few other designs that start at 17 as well. Starting at 17 would allow an RF APS-C mount if they wanted to, and extending to 70 helps with full frame rebel like cameras. 70-300 RF has all but been confirmed at this point too, so that would make a nice 2 lens kit to have as an option/upgrade vs the 24-240. Having the 2 lens kit is also what all the big box stores like to sell.


----------



## Architect1776 (Dec 30, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> Lots of comments wishing for constant aperture but less than the L series. I think that’s off track for this segment. This isn’t about helping enthusiasts get more affordable awesome lenses. It’s about selling a big zoom range to non-photographers who aspire to look cool with a clunky camera and use their camera like a point and shoot on the green icon auto setting and never look at the menus.
> 
> Cost and zoom range are all that matter. Durability and image quality are good enough even at their worst. A few may even turn out to be useful little gems for enthusiasts like us.



The green square icon users have moved on to cell phones. Looking cool is not there for a vast majority of picture takers vs convenience. Thus enthusiasts and pros are left. There are a lot of enthusiasts who would love sharp decent quality lenses at a price point less than the GDP of Russia. A fixed aperture for the zoom range would be a huge bonus for us mere mortals and decent optics again at a working person with a family or other obligations reachable price. Think the Canon FD 80-200, decent price or the FD 100-200. Technology and production methods has moved way beyond these lenses yet they were decently priced and very sharp. (I own both as well as the 80-200mm L version I got used recently to see what it was like, good but not dominating).


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 30, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> The green square icon users have moved on to cell phones. Looking cool is not there for a vast majority of picture takers vs convenience. Thus enthusiasts and pros are left. There are a lot of enthusiasts who would love sharp decent quality lenses at a price point less than the GDP of Russia. A fixed aperture for the zoom range would be a huge bonus for us mere mortals and decent optics again at a working person with a family or other obligations reachable price. Think the Canon FD 80-200, decent price or the FD 100-200. Technology and production methods has moved way beyond these lenses yet they were decently priced and very sharp. (I own both as well as the 80-200mm L version I got used recently to see what it was like, good but not dominating).


I suspect the new consumer grade lenses will be best in class in terms of sharpness compared with most any competitors consumer variable aperture lenses. The 18-55 is fairly sharp for aps-c, the 55-250 is extremely sharp for it's price. (It's not nicknamed the nifty-250 for nothing!) I suspect they will try to do the same with the RF consumer lenses, and the lure of having a either a fixed aperture, a faster lens, or both will be the reason why enthusiasts will want to upgrade later.

And don't discount those consumers who want more than their cell phones! There will still be a subset of users who want something better than a cell phone who will buy these cameras. They are not all enthusiasts about equipment, they are just enthusiastic about taking pictures. Some of them will even buy them simply because they will look more serious about taking pictures while traveling than a person with a cell phone. That market is still there, it's just much much smaller. Even if only 5-10% of the basic consumers who may have moved on to cell phones keep buying, that number is still very large - it was nearly a 100 million less than 10 years ago.


----------



## MadScotsman (Dec 30, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> With the incredible RF 70-200 changing everything (cut) and eventually discounting to $1999...



Very curious what you are basing your prediction of a price drop on?


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 30, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> I welcome a pancake that puts size as the top priority. A show off “look what we can do” body cap.



AFAIK, a pancake's focal length needs to be roughly the flange distance, in this case 18mm. An ultra wide pancake would be welcome.


----------



## Architect1776 (Dec 30, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> I suspect the new consumer grade lenses will be best in class in terms of sharpness compared with most any competitors consumer variable aperture lenses. The 18-55 is fairly sharp for aps-c, the 55-250 is extremely sharp for it's price. (It's not nicknamed the nifty-250 for nothing!) I suspect they will try to do the same with the RF consumer lenses, and the lure of having a either a fixed aperture, a faster lens, or both will be the reason why enthusiasts will want to upgrade later.
> 
> And don't discount those consumers who want more than their cell phones! There will still be a subset of users who want something better than a cell phone who will buy these cameras. They are not all enthusiasts about equipment, they are just enthusiastic about taking pictures. Some of them will even buy them simply because they will look more serious about taking pictures while traveling than a person with a cell phone. That market is still there, it's just much much smaller. Even if only 5-10% of the basic consumers who may have moved on to cell phones keep buying, that number is still very large - it was nearly a 100 million less than 10 years ago.



People will move to cameras if they believe that cell phones are not meeting their expectations. My adult daughters are a good example. They thought cell phones were the greatest until they saw what I could do with a simple DSLR. They then got bridge cameras thinking that would be the answer and now both are sold on DSLRs. But it was them just wanting better and realizing the cell phone did not cut it for better. They now do some incredible work.


----------



## gzroxas (Dec 30, 2019)

If they can bring an 85 1.8, a wide angle prime (<24) or even a 15-35 f4 IS or equivalent I’d be in Heeeeeaven!
I hope we can get a Roadmap soon!


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 30, 2019)

MadScotsman said:


> Very curious what you are basing your prediction of a price drop on?



A dose of past history with a liberal application of total ignorance.


----------



## Drcampbellicu (Dec 30, 2019)

New lenses
Yawn!!

new mirrorless bodies please!!
They’re overdue



Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


----------



## SkynetTX (Dec 30, 2019)

What I would like to see is a small and cheap Canon version of the three Tamron lenses (10-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm) specially for aps-c cameras with constant aperture, internal focusing and better image quality and stabilisation system than before.


----------



## MadsLarsen (Dec 30, 2019)

My biggest wish is to see Canon roll out F4 versions of their RF zoom line up. A 15-35 F4, a 70-200 F4 and a 24-70 F4 (i know there's a 24-105 F4, but still).

I truly love my EOS R with the 15-35 F2.8 but i think that a line of F4 zooms would push more people towards going for maybe the EOS RP instead of a for example 6D Mark II.


----------



## Act444 (Dec 30, 2019)

overniven said:


> Is the 35mm RF lens as good as the 22mm EF-M? Because I really want more primes like that for my RF mount.



Yes, at least as good. I'd say better (at wide aperture).


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Dec 30, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> I strongly suspect a non-L would be a f/3.5-5.6, not a constant aperture.



The very first EF 70-210 released when the EOS line was but a wee autofocus camera line (and I was but a wee camera user) was a 70-210 f/4.0 constant aperture. It's not out of the question.


----------



## melgross (Dec 30, 2019)

Did we really ever doubt this? Canon’s roadmap showed that we should expect this next year, along with the high Rez body for the current lenses. We may see unique lenses as this “report” says, and that’s good. More of the same won’t sell more lenses and bodies.


----------



## Tom W (Dec 30, 2019)

Since it's speculation time, how about a 200-600 f/5.6 IS zoom! Upper-end consumer grade construction, compatible with a teleconverter (which they also need to make) to make it a 280-840 f/8 combo. That extra 1/3 stop over the Siggy and Tammy versions would be welcome, though at the cost of a bit larger diameter.


----------



## Tom W (Dec 30, 2019)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> The very first EF 70-210 released when the EOS line was but a wee autofocus camera line (and I was but a wee camera user) was a 70-210 f/4.0 constant aperture. It's not out of the question.



I had a 70-210 f/3.5.4.5 USM zoom several years back, which I used on both my Elan and then my 10D.


----------



## jtf (Dec 30, 2019)

TBH, I'm feeling a bit stuck in the middle on the RF lenses. I bought the R with the kit RF 24-105L almost a year ago, seemed like the obvious lens to start with. I added the RF 35 as a small light walk around and splurged on the RF 70-200, well my wife did, for Christmas ( thanks honey).

However I still have 8 EF mount lenses, 4 Sigma Art - 20, 50, 85, 135; and 4 L - 16-35 f4, 70-200f4, 100macro, and the 100-400 II. I have the 5DIV and 6D to use them on as well as the R with the adapter obviously. 

The middle ground is I can't justify buying RF mount lenses that are less expensive but probably not as good as my EF lenses, since I already own the EF lenses and I really don't want to pay the premium prices Canon is asking for the "pro" RF glass. The 70-200 was an exception.


----------



## slclick (Dec 30, 2019)

So no 7Dll ?

bwahahahahahahaha


----------



## slclick (Dec 30, 2019)

Drcampbellicu said:


> New lenses
> Yawn!!
> 
> new mirrorless bodies please!!
> They’re overdue



And anyone with experience is thinking (yes, I'm saying it) "Bodies come and go, good lenses are timeless"


----------



## Woody (Dec 31, 2019)

I will like to see lightweight and cheap RF 24-70 f/4 and 50 f/1.8 lenses. A lightweight RF 16mm zoom/prime lens will be the icing on the cake.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 31, 2019)

overniven said:


> Is the 35mm RF lens as good as the 22mm EF-M? Because I really want more primes like that for my RF mount.



I think the RF 35mm is much much better compared to the EF-M 22. In EF-M land the first satisfying lens was the 1.4 32mm and I would say the RF 35mm is close in general IQ.
Add the 1:2 closeup/macro capability of the RF 35 and its image stabilization it is a great lens. I have used it only for some hours in the last two weeks - it is a fun lens during use and for its good ... very good overall IQ


----------



## mpb001 (Dec 31, 2019)

I can see the need for consumer grade RF lenses, but It would be great if Canon added some f4 “L” series lenses to the mix. They have the 24-105 RF. How about something like a 12-24 f4 L? Plus the standard 70-200 f4 L or a 70-300 f4?


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 31, 2019)

mpb001 said:


> How about something like a 12-24 f4 L?



Canon has an 11-24mm f/4L for EF, I doubt an RF equivalent wouldn't be at least as wide.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 31, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> AFAIK, a pancake's focal length needs to be roughly the flange distance, in this case 18mm. An ultra wide pancake would be welcome.


That doesn't really align with the fact you can get pancake lenses in, at least, 18mm 21mm and 35mm for the Leica M mount that has a 28mm flange distance.


----------



## Jethro (Dec 31, 2019)

I'm still hanging out for an RF macro - and this doesn't give me any joy in that regard ...


----------



## Jethro (Dec 31, 2019)

A pancake would (though) be great.


----------



## scottburgess (Dec 31, 2019)

"Fixed aperture" brings to mind the old consumer lightweight telephoto mirror lenses, which always had questionable quality. But I've often thought it a design worth revisiting with modern manufacturing technologies. I wonder if they cracked that nut?


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 31, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon has an 11-24mm f/4L for EF, I doubt an RF equivalent wouldn't be at least as wide.



That lens is the widest non distorting lens made, a technical tour de force, no- compromises pro lens priced at $3000. It’s another one of the reasons I was motivated to switch from Nikon.

An RF lower cost wide zoom would likely be more like the Nikon Z 14-30mm f4 at $1200. Probably using camera tricks to make it perform.

I wonder why the ultra wide primes arent more popular. A 14mm f4 might pair well with a 24-105 Or 35.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 31, 2019)

Give me an equivalent in terms of optical quality and weight of the Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 FE and I can finally retire my A7RII


----------



## uri.raz (Dec 31, 2019)

Optics Patent said:


> I wonder why the ultra wide primes arent more popular. A 14mm f4 might pair well with a 24-105 Or 35.



The Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L mkII is priced at $2,100. The Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L is priced at $2,700. Considering the $600 difference would get me precious little more, what I get on the wide side, and how I use wide lenses (tripod, static view), I opted for the later.


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 31, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> The Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L mkII is priced at $2,100. The Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L is priced at $2,700. Considering the $600 difference would get me precious little more, what I get on the wide side, and how I use wide lenses (tripod, static view), I opted for the later.


Amen. The 11-24 is a no-brainer. I suspect they aren't making money on it, but proceeded with it as a way to attract people to the brand (which is exactly what it helped do for me - Since switching from Nikon last month it's part of the trio that offers what Nikon doesn't: Ultrawide 11-24, compact RF 70-200, and ultralight 400mm 2.8).

But remember that you can't mount a RF lens on a conventional camera, and all RF cameras have all the magic corrections. That means you can make a 14mm that gives undistorted results for far less than before. If Nikon can sell the outstanding Z14-30 f4 for $1096, a sharp 14mm prime should be doable for $999. I'm just thrilled to have gotten the 11-24 used for a good price.


----------



## slclick (Dec 31, 2019)

scottburgess said:


> "Fixed aperture" brings to mind the old consumer lightweight telephoto mirror lenses, which always had questionable quality. But I've often thought it a design worth revisiting with modern manufacturing technologies. I wonder if they cracked that nut?



It's a common term used for hundreds of lenses, both prime and zoom. Both professional and consumer. I'm not following your logic here. Why you are linking it your mind with those mirrored lenses is beyond me.


----------



## Shellbo6901 (Dec 31, 2019)

I just want to know if i should give in and buy the RF35 or not. Right now I use the EF50 1.4 more than my kit lens because of the weight. I do need a wide RF lens to use for real estate photography but otherwise I don't need anything too "special". Just having 2-4 lenses that work quite well and are autofocus for $400-800 would suffice. Anything else I can just get better at photography and save that $1000-2000 for more important things.


----------



## Dantana (Dec 31, 2019)

slclick said:


> It's a common term used for hundreds of lenses, both prime and zoom. Both professional and consumer. I'm not following your logic here. Why you are linking it your mind with those mirrored lenses is beyond me.


I think it's the difference between "fixed maximum aperture" like a 70-200 f4, where you can always open up to f4, and a "fixed aperture" lens that never changes aperture, like those old mirrored lenses.

I can't imagine that's what the OP is about. It has to be fixed maximum aperture.


----------



## Aaron D (Dec 31, 2019)

OK, a little off-topic but the lenses I'm hoping for and would buy in a minute are these:

An RF 17mm TSE without the bulbous front. If Canon can get rid of the lens-flare and allow screw-in filters and hood, I'm in.

An RF 28mm. Non-L, f/2 or so. Doesn't have to be an L. Just like the RF 35 would be perfect, no macro or special tricks necessary. If this were an L and an f/1.4 I could be persuaded to buck-up for the added cost.

An RF 50mm f/2 to 1.4 . Again, just like the RF 35 would be perfect. Or an L, even.

An RF 24 TSE. This is not so urgent because the EF is plenty good, though smaller would be nice. My EF is getting a bit tired.


----------



## cycomachead (Dec 31, 2019)

I can't wait until I buy some RF L glass -- it all looks amazing, but right now I'm really hoping for some moderate zooms. The R for me, is a second camera to my 5D3, but I do love the weight/capability ratio. Even though I have the EF 24-70 f/4L, I'd probably go for an RF version, though as a second / walk-around type camera I'd like something a little less pricey. The EF adapter works well, but does mess with the balance and handling. 

Actually, a 17-55 (full frame range lens) would be perfect me, as I love to be at the wide end, though I'm not aware of anyone making such a lens. I would happily trade some focal length for a wider lens.


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 31, 2019)

cycomachead said:


> Actually, a 17-55 (full frame range lens) would be perfect me, as I love to be at the wide end, though I'm not aware of anyone making such a lens. I would happily trade some focal length for a wider lens.



I predict wide zooms like you suggest will become more popular. In the mirrorless era, sensors and lenses are so good that we enjoy essentially a surplus of image quality. Imagine your camera is aware of the lighting, and settings to know what kind of IQ you'll get. Now imagine you can have "digital zoom" to extend the range of your 17-55mm to maybe 17-105mm when in daylight, flash, etc. Imagine how your zoom ring position might encode added digital zoom. This is one of my patent pending invention. Now imagine this with prime lenses, so your RF 50 1.2 might be a 50-150 in ideal conditions, yielding sellable and publishable images at the virtual telephoto end, that you were able to compose and focus critically in the viewfinder unlike mere post cropping. Much more pending, including auto-focusing with vintage manual lenses.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 31, 2019)

For a thread about consumer ( NOT L glass ) lenses, this thread sure talks a lot about expensive L glass.

If Canon is going to hit the consumer market with lower cost R bodies, they are going to need a few F5.6 or 6.3 lenses, things like a 24-70 F6.3 or a 70-300 F6.3 ( both variable aperture) lens, or a 50F1.8

if you want small and light, you should be prepared to embrace some slow lenses


----------



## scottburgess (Dec 31, 2019)

slclick said:


> It's a common term used for hundreds of lenses, both prime and zoom. Both professional and consumer. I'm not following your logic here. Why you are linking it your mind with those mirrored lenses is beyond me.



Fixed aperture is not the same as fixed maximum aperture. As to whether Dantana is right about the OP being a typo, only the OP'er can say. But the discussion is about consumer lenses and a mirror lens fits both the OP and the thread, which is a hell of a lot better than most of the posts here.


----------



## slclick (Jan 1, 2020)

scottburgess said:


> Fixed aperture is not the same as fixed maximum aperture. As to whether Dantana is right about the OP being a typo, only the OP'er can say. But the discussion is about consumer lenses and a mirror lens fits both the OP and the thread, which is a hell of a lot better than most of the posts here.


I'm working with the wording as written. Theorize about something Canon would obviously never do all you want.


----------



## uri.raz (Jan 1, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> But remember that you can't mount a RF lens on a conventional camera, and all RF cameras have all the magic corrections. That means you can make a 14mm that gives undistorted results for far less than before. If Nikon can sell the outstanding Z14-30 f4 for $1096, a sharp 14mm prime should be doable for $999. I'm just thrilled to have gotten the 11-24 used for a good price.



Magic corrections?

AFAIK, the only difference between EF & RF lenses, in this regard, is RF cameras can display corrected images in EVF, which EF cameras can't do with OVF. Otherwise, EF cameras apply in-camera lens correction as well, so JPEGs come out corrected as well.

If you're processing raw images, it boils down to Canon's lens design choices. OK, I would admit its magical that the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L mkIII's corners having only 5 stops of vignetting, proving one never needs to lift an image 6 stops, but that's a different story.


----------



## rafalnobis (Jan 1, 2020)

I had RF85 1.2 but because of weight I switched it for RF50 1.2.
Now I have RF50 1.2 and RF15-35 2.8. I'm waiting for RF16 1.4 and RF24 1.2 and I'll sell my RF15-35.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 3, 2020)

addola said:


> The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is a constant aperture, non-L zoom. It would be nice if they have a constant aperture ultra-wide zoom, but I would really want a fast wide-angle pancake prime.


Quality-wise my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 was one of my very few disappointments with Canon lenses: a dust-pump with mediocre optical quality, e.g. huge color fringing. If Canon would come up with an f/2.8 version for the crop M mount, they really would need to improve its design.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 3, 2020)

And I'm still hoping for a macro, optically as good as the exceptional Apo Macro Elmarit R 2,8/100, incredibly sharp, no CAs at all, contrasty, realistic color rendition etc...
Put differently: as good as a lens introduced in 1987 !


----------



## SirMcSquish (Jan 3, 2020)

1:1 macro at least 100mm and RF 50mm 1.4 USM would be on my wish list. I'd settle for a nifty fifty RF version though.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 13, 2020)

MadsLarsen said:


> My biggest wish is to see Canon roll out F4 versions of their RF zoom line up. A 15-35 F4, a 70-200 F4 and a 24-70 F4 (i know there's a 24-105 F4, but still).
> 
> I truly love my EOS R with the 15-35 F2.8 but i think that a line of F4 zooms would push more people towards going for maybe the EOS RP instead of a for example 6D Mark II.



Canon probably makes more profit selling a 6D Mark II than they do selling an RP...


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 13, 2020)

slclick said:


> It's a common term used for hundreds of lenses, both prime and zoom. Both professional and consumer. I'm not following your logic here. Why you are linking it your mind with those mirrored lenses is beyond me.



"Constant aperture" is the far more common term for what you are meaning when you say "fixed aperture", which generally does mean "fixed aperture" that only offer a single aperture setting.


----------

