# Canon’s roadmap includes 32 new lenses by 2026 according to Canon’s CEO



## [email protected] (Mar 7, 2022)

> Canon published its annual business outlook this morning. Statements attributed directly to Canon CEO Fujio Mitarai indicate the firm expects to keep releasing lenses at the same pace (8 per year, according to Canon) for the next four years.
> Mitarai’s comments in the notes of the presentation show a goal of becoming the number one mirrorless camera producer in the world. He stated that the camera market is bottoming out from a sales perspective, although from a unit perspective there may continue to be a decline due to continued attrition at the low end of the market.
> Increase profits are expected from squeezing more efficiencies in production and “design efficiencies,” perhaps like those seen with the re-use of super telephoto lens designs between models.
> New sales generators are expected in the “PowerShot” markets...



Continue reading...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Mar 7, 2022)

Forgive the cynical take, but of those 32 new lenses how many are 70-200 with built in fixed TC to sell you a 140-400 f/5.6? I think the 800 f/5.6 and 1200 f/8 would have went down a lot better if they had their TC able to flip in and out.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 7, 2022)

32 is a big number. That's a lens every 45 days for four years, which seems, well, unlikely. If some of these are DS versions of primes released at the same time, and three different color SKUs for a future set of crop lenses, etc., it's still a lot of lenses.

At the end of this process, RF would have more than half of the peak of the EF mount - which itself blew away all the other first-party mount systems.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Mar 7, 2022)

can we all imagine if they make a "RF 70-200 2.8 mark ii with internal zoom and keeping the same form factor
some how?
that would be amazing!!! hoping the canon engineers have this in they're minds somehow


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 7, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> 32 is a big number. That's a lens every 45 days for four years, which seems, well, unlikely. If some of these are DS versions of primes released at the same time, and three different color SKUs for a future set of crop lenses, etc., it's still a lot of lenses.
> 
> At the end of this process, RF would have more than half of the peak of the EF mount - which itself blew away all the other first-party mount systems.


One "We're sorry, you'll have to wait a year before you can get one" announcement every 45 days for the next 4 years


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 7, 2022)

There are several EF non-L primes that will likely end up as RF versions. If they replicate the TS-E series, that's 5 lenses right there.


----------



## john1970 (Mar 7, 2022)

32 new RF lenses over the next four years is a large amount. Honestly, I can only think of couple of lenses that I would likely purchase.


----------



## Gazwas (Mar 7, 2022)

S


[email protected] said:


> 32 is a big number. That's a lens every 45 days for four years, which seems, well, unlikely. If some of these are DS versions of primes released at the same time, and three different color SKUs for a future set of crop lenses, etc., it's still a lot of lenses.
> 
> At the end of this process, RF would have more than half of the peak of the EF mount - which itself blew away all the other first-party mount systems.


Well 32 sounds completely feasible if you include RF cinema lenses which will probably share the same optical formulas as the current and future RF stills versions but tweaked to have better focus breathing correction.


----------



## kaihp (Mar 7, 2022)

"We need body deliveries, not lens announcements, Mr President"


----------



## robotfist (Mar 7, 2022)

Canon desperately needs a solid prime lens lineup in L glass. Currently they have a massive gap at the wide end. The 50mm f1.2, 85mm f1.2 and 100mm f2.8 IS Macro are the only L primes available. Where is the 14, 24, and 35?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 7, 2022)

100mm, 135mm, 200mm, and 300mm primes are missing in both L and affordable versions. That's a year's worth right there. Given how well the 600mm and 800mm f/11 lenses work for their price points, I suspect we will see more use of DO and likely with as little fanfare as with those lenses. Also, the rumored 150-600mm is likely given how popular the third-party examples were in EF mount, and a nice sharp lightweight replacement for the EF 500 f/4L. Plenty of grunt work to before worrying about more exotic stuff.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> There are several EF non-L primes that will likely end up as RF versions. If they replicate the TS-E series, that's 5 lenses right there.


Seems an absolutely logical step, with an additional TSE 14mm...


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Mar 7, 2022)

32 lenses actually sounds very plausible to me. At the moment, Canon is missing an entire line of 1.4 prime lenses (L or non-L) for example. So, just for the fun of it. I imagine

F1.2 L primes
- 24mm, 35mm

F1.4 primes:
- 20mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm

F1.8 primes
- 20mm, 24mm

Count in one fast UWA prime lense (12mm or14mm???), the 100mm, 135mm (I guess L and Non-L) 200mm, 300mm primes (thx @Dragon) and five TS-E series lenses (thx @neuroanatomist) this already comes to come *20 lenses*.

There should probably be three more UWA lenses:
10-24mm F4, an F2 UWA, an affordable UWA (nope, the RF14-35mm F4 will never be this lense). Makes it 23 lenses... complete the F2 and the F4 trinity (70-135mm F2 comes to mind and a super compact 24-70mm F4) you got 25.

I do hope Canon will come out with more zoom lenses such as a 250-750mm (or at least 200-600mm) and/ or a 300-800mm lense. I'd also suspect Canon to come with a complete new designed RF70-300mm L.

Add a few specialist lenses (fisheye, telezoom or tele-prime lenses with donut-bookeh, some missing pro lenses (200-500mm F4 and/ or 200-500mm F4 with TC 1.4), 2x new Macro lenses and you easily get (close/ over) to 32 lenses in this list.

I know, not all lenses will be made, but I also haven't even mentioned lenses nobody expects and that will surprise us (such as the RF 5.2mm dual fisheye). And no RF-S...


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Mar 7, 2022)

Whoever is running this site now:

I guess we need a new and more current road map


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 7, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Whoever is running this site now:
> 
> I guess we need a new and more current road map


And either a complete embargo on politics, or the opening of a well moderated politics and religion section where self appointed experts sitting in warm comfortable safety can wax lyrical about the pronunciation of a word and how important that is to people who are literally being bombed out of existence, whilst feeling sorry for themselves that gas/petrol went up $1 a gallon.


----------



## docsmith (Mar 7, 2022)

32 new lenses, about 26 right now, so 58 total.

I stopped counting the EF lenses that are listed as "current" when I hit 70. That did include EF-s, EF-m as well as EF, but I think you get the point. 






Canon EF Lens and RF lens review


Canon review website with every Canon EF Lens and all RF lenses, so you can read the all of the reviews, see the specification and check the price, all from one page.



www.eflens.com


----------



## northlarch (Mar 7, 2022)

As someone new to Canon, I’m quickly learning that their “design efficiencies” = adding a built-in mount adapter, maybe a TC, and charging $4-6k more. Great for the suits, great for the SKU count, not so great for us.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 7, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> And either a complete embargo on politics, or the opening of a well moderated politics and religion section where self appointed experts sitting in warm comfortable safety can wax lyrical about the pronunciation of a word and how import that is to people who are being bombed out of existence, whilst feeling sorry for themselves that gas/petrol went up $1 a gallon.


Thanks for your comment, I really appreciate your post!


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 7, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> And either a complete embargo on politics, or the opening of a well moderated politics and religion section where self appointed experts sitting in warm comfortable safety can wax lyrical about the pronunciation of a word and how import that is to people who are being bombed out of existence, whilst feeling sorry for themselves that gas/petrol went up $1 a gallon.


And a ban on insulting posts...


----------



## Fischer (Mar 7, 2022)

Dragon said:


> 100mm, 135mm, 200mm, and 300mm primes are missing in both L and affordable versions. That's a year's worth right there. Given how well the 600mm and 800mm f/11 lenses work for their price points, I suspect we will see more use of DO and likely with as little fanfare as with those lenses. Also, the rumored 150-600mm is likely given how popular the third-party examples were in EF mount, and a nice sharp lightweight replacement for the EF 500 f/4L. Plenty of grunt work to before worrying about more exotic stuff.


The lack of a RF300mm f/2.8 is especially jarring. Can only hope its because they are making a brand new lens - ground up.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Mar 7, 2022)

Fischer said:


> The lack of a RF300mm f/2.8 is especially jarring. Can only hope its because they are making a brand new lens - ground up.


Expect a 120-300 f/2.8 so they can make a £5000 lens into a £10,000 lens like Nikon managed.


----------



## Juangrande (Mar 7, 2022)

robotfist said:


> Canon desperately needs a solid prime lens lineup in L glass. Currently they have a massive gap at the wide end. The 50mm f1.2, 85mm f1.2 and 100mm f2.8 IS Macro are the only L primes available. Where is the 14, 24, and 35?


Don’t forget the rumored RF 135 1.4L


----------



## mxwphoto (Mar 7, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> 32 lenses actually sounds very plausible to me. At the moment, Canon is missing an entire line of 1.4 prime lenses (L or non-L) for example. So, just for the fun of it. I imagine
> 
> F1.2 L primes
> - 24mm, 35mm
> ...


I doubt the 14, 20, 24, 35, 85 f1.4 primes will be non L. The lens elements are just too big for that and difference to the f1.2 counterparts in terms of f-stops too small. If Canon does make a f1.2 and f1.4 set together, the 1.4 will most likely include IS and be sold closer to 1.2 prices as an alternative to attract hybrid video crowd.

That said, I would be really interested in seeing Canon make a fully weather sealed f5.6 or f6.3 12-30mm UWA that can accept front filters. I have the 11-24 and it is great, but it is heavy and expensive, not fully sealed, and usually shot at f/6.3 or beyond.


----------



## Rivermist (Mar 7, 2022)

If I recall correctly the announced-but-yet-to-be-seen TS-R 14mm would have autofocus, which is definitely a breakthrough and would require (if transposed to a 17mm, 24mm, 45mm, 90mm and 135mm TS) a re-design of those lenses as well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 7, 2022)

Rivermist said:


> If I recall correctly the announced-but-yet-to-be-seen TS-R 14mm would have autofocus, which is definitely a breakthrough and would require (if transposed to a 17mm, 24mm, 45mm, 90mm and 135mm TS) a re-design of those lenses as well.


Personally, I have no need for autofocus in a tilt shift lens. However, a great improvement would be if the tilt, shift, and rotation were encoded. That would enable automatic lens corrections in post processing.


----------



## kaihp (Mar 7, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Seems an absolutely logical step, with an additional TSE 14mm...


I doubt we'll ever see new TS-E lenses. 

TS-R, on the other hand, I expect to see a few. 
(this ass-u-me-ing that the E in TS-E means EF mount)


----------



## kaihp (Mar 7, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> And a ban on insulting posts...


Ah, therein lies the rub: you cannot tell if a post is insulting in itself, as the perception is key. The person who is the 'target' of the post might not feel insulted, but bystanders (including mods) might. And vice versa.

Having completely "insult free" forums for discussion would be a futile exercise, and probably a not very interesting forum.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 7, 2022)

kaihp said:


> I doubt we'll ever see new TS-E lenses.
> 
> TS-R, on the other hand, I expect to see a few.
> (this ass-u-me-ing that the E in TS-E means EF mount)


The -E in TS-E and MP-E means ‘electronic’, for the electronic aperture.


----------



## kaihp (Mar 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The -E in TS-E and MP-E means ‘electronic’, for the electronic aperture.


Interesting. Does the E in EF also mean Electronic?


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 7, 2022)

kaihp said:


> I doubt we'll ever see new TS-E lenses.
> 
> TS-R, on the other hand, I expect to see a few.
> (this ass-u-me-ing that the E in TS-E means EF mount)


Of course there won't be no more EF TS lenses. By the way, I thought the "E" stood for electronic diaphragm, but I'm not 100% sure about that.
I meant TS-R, just forgot how they would be named.
Ooops, I just noticed Neuroanatomist was faster...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 7, 2022)

kaihp said:


> Interesting. Does the E in EF also mean Electronic?


EF = electro-focus.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Mar 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I have no need for autofocus in a tilt shift lens. However, a great improvement would be if the tilt, shift, and rotation were encoded. That would enable automatic lens corrections in post processing.


As a user of a 17mm, yes.

But for the longer lenses like 90mm a autofocus could be a good addition to use such a lens (with slightly tilt) as portrait lenses too. Slightly tilted to get both eyes in focus with eye detection...


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 7, 2022)

32 RF lens by 2026. 
It's seems like quite alot considering how many exist already.
I assume they have plans for cheaper lens that the ones they are selling at the moment.
The price of the current RF lens are an barrier to entry. 
They probably need a few combinations of Camera + Lens for < 1000$/Euros
Canon need to keep bringing new generations of photographers into the brand.
It may even be a camera without a viewfinder. I see a good few young photographers either not having a viewfinder or not using it.
They must from an iPhone generation.
I can't see myself giving up my EF lens so soon. They still seem very good and sharp. 
Maybe the RF lens are even better but I'm not sure I perceive the difference.


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> There are several EF non-L primes that will likely end up as RF versions. If they replicate the TS-E series, that's 5 lenses right there.


What would be the advantage of replicating the current TS-E lenses to RF? 
Currently the R mount adapter provides additional features (vari-ND and CPL) avoiding external filters are prohibitively expensive and large without vignetting. Without adding more features to a RF version, they would actually have less features than adapting EF versions.

The RF 10-24mm f/4L USM on the roadmap would be great but again losing the features of the adapter would be questionable especially for people with it already.


----------



## bbasiaga (Mar 7, 2022)

Want - 300mm 2.8, 500mm f/4...can afford neither. 

It would be sweet to see a 24-70 f/4 L IS like they had for EF, but even smaller. I already have the 24-105, but if it was small enough I might switch over. 

Aside from that, I'm really good with my EF stuff on the R6. 

Brian


----------



## Martin K (Mar 7, 2022)

Where does the report say RF, other than in the added headline? An EF-M or two perchance?


----------



## bergstrom (Mar 7, 2022)

and all unaffordable, so why bother. Where the %^$k is sigma, Tokina and Tamron with their RF lenses.


----------



## BBarn (Mar 7, 2022)

So, for 2022 it seems there will be the RF 800 and RF 1200. Plus, a DO SuperTele as well. If a crop body is released, there will likely be a lens or two dedicated to that new body. That leaves three or four lenses for 2022. Assuming one or two cine lenses, that may not leave anything of interest for me this year. Time will tell. At this point, other than a really compact mid-zoom, there may not be much that would interest me anyway. Canon has already covered most of what I want with the existing RF lens line.


----------



## mxwphoto (Mar 8, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> and all unaffordable, so why bother. Where the %^$k is sigma, Tokina and Tamron with their RF lenses.


Problem is with the reverse engineering of autofocus accuracy, not to mention any firmware update can potentially break the autofocus. Making it for the RF mount takes time, effort, and technical legality issues. I am sure if Canon and Nikon wanted to, they could sue for patent infringement and stop all electronically controlled 3rd party lenses from their mounts. It is just PR blowback would be bad that they are not doing it.


----------



## Jethro (Mar 8, 2022)

Martin K said:


> Where does the report say RF, other than in the added headline? An EF-M or two perchance?


The presentation (and notes) are all in the context of EOS R bodies and RF lenses, so I think it's a fair assumption that the projected lenses being referred to are RF mount. That's absolutely not to say that there won't be EF-M lenses released as well. 

There has been discussion in other threads about the likelihood that the M series will continue for a number of years (high), and that there could well be updated M series bodies (and lenses) released to keep the series at least looking fresh. What there (probably) won't be is any significant development of new M series bodies or lenses. There are rumours of RF mount APS-C bodies this year, and announcements on those (including size, cost, mount etc) will tell us a lot about the medium term future of the M series.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Mar 8, 2022)

I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to this conversation. I just read the comments from the corresponding DPR article and it resembled primates throwing feces. 

Not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## lnz (Mar 8, 2022)

CANON RF 10-24 MM F4L USM, R1 ; then i can die peacefully​


----------



## Skux (Mar 8, 2022)

40mm f/2.8 (or even f/2) please and thank you


----------



## Jethro (Mar 8, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> What would be the advantage of replicating the current TS-E lenses to RF?
> Currently the R mount adapter provides additional features (vari-ND and CPL) avoiding external filters are prohibitively expensive and large without vignetting. Without adding more features to a RF version, they would actually have less features than adapting EF versions.
> 
> The RF 10-24mm f/4L USM on the roadmap would be great but again losing the features of the adapter would be questionable especially for people with it already.


That's true, but long-term, if people are ever forced to replace their TS-E lenses (for whatever reason), or are buying them for the first time bought into the EOS R system, wouldn't it make sense to have those lenses on native RF mount? The lenses themselves might not be significantly modified (I mean, they're apparently optically excellent anyway), but it seems to make sense, even if it hasn't been anywhere near the top of the list so far.


----------



## Chig (Mar 8, 2022)

Interesting about the SPAD sensor , "Expectations are that this will find a home in security and other specialty use rather than in a prosumer application". Is this what the CEO said or is there some other source ?

Why wouldn't it wind up in photography cameras ? I would have thought being able to see colour in the dark would be very popular.


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 8, 2022)

Jethro said:


> That's true, but long-term, if people are ever forced to replace their TS-E lenses (for whatever reason), or are buying them for the first time bought into the EOS R system, wouldn't it make sense to have those lenses on native RF mount? The lenses themselves might not be significantly modified (I mean, they're apparently optically excellent anyway), but it seems to make sense, even if it hasn't been anywhere near the top of the list so far.


Yes and no. If the RF versions are identical but actually remove the option of rear filters in the adapter then they aren't better. Canon could weld an adapter on it and call it a RF lens of course!


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 8, 2022)

robotfist said:


> Canon desperately needs a solid prime lens lineup in L glass. Currently they have a massive gap at the wide end. The 50mm f1.2, 85mm f1.2 and 100mm f2.8 IS Macro are the only L primes available. Where is the 14, 24, and 35?


That RF 100mm L is not a good lens with its focus shift "feature" and its better to get EF 100mm L or Venus Laowa 100mm Macro.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 8, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> and all unaffordable, so why bother. Where the %^$k is sigma, Tokina and Tamron with their RF lenses.


Sigma, Tokina and Tamron and all third parties are laying low after legal threats from Canon, who obviously don't like the idea of buyers having a choice and having to compete for lens sales with other manufacturers. The benevolent masters at Canon have profoundly decreed you can either have extremely expensive L series lenses, or low end budget lenses that are still quite overpriced over their EF counterparts, and that's it, (but now they''re promising more goodies...)


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 8, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Sigma, Tokina and Tamron and all third parties are laying low after legal threats from Canon, who obviously don't like the idea of buyers having a choice and having to compete for lens sales with other manufacturers. The benevolent masters at Canon have profoundly decreed you can either have extremely expensive L series lenses, or low end budget lenses that are still quite overpriced over their EF counterparts, and that's it, (but now they''re promising more goodies...)


I think you mean Nikon as it was Nikon who had won lawsuit against Sigma and due to patent conflicts Sigma didnt release their 70mm Art Macro for F mount. Also with L and E mounts all these manufacturers have to do is pay for license fee and not spend money and time in reverse engineering protocols which is significantly cheaper.









Nikon Sues Sigma for $150 Million Over Vibration Reduction Technology


Things aren't going very well for Sigma these days -- just days after the world balked at the $9,700 price tag it's attaching to the upcoming SD1 DSLR,




petapixel.com













Nikon Wins 1.5 Billion Yen in Lawsuit Against Sigma Over VR Patent Infringment


Seems like every week there is some new lawsuit being levied or being won with regards to the photo industry. This week, we have the results of a lawsuit that we first told you about just over a year ago in which Nikon was suing Sigma over its VR technology.




www.slrlounge.com


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 8, 2022)

Interesting promise, 32 lenses in 4 years, or a lens every 45 days... Based on what we've seen, the long marketing hype lead-up periods, then the weeks to months of delays in stock availability, I kind of doubt Canon can deliver that if they operate the way they have been.

If we're objective about this, and go from past experience, we have an idea of what to expect.

There will probably be a whole range of f/1.4 lenses in various focal lengths, they'll probably be L series lenses, which may be around 10% better then their predecessors in IQ, and cost 40-60% more.

Similarly, there will likely be a range of budget lenses to take the place of the old entry level EF and EF-S lenses, they will defnitely be built down to a price. We'll see a whole new range of stupid compromises, so depending on the focal length, some of the lenses will be great value for money, while others will be of limited use. 

Working in their favour, Canon now has additional cost cutting options. 

They can use incomplete optical lens designs, and take advantage of the additional layer of abstraction that mirrorless cameras place between the user and the subject to hide optical flaws. The fanboys will claim it's to reduce costs, even though Canon will sell these lenses for more than their EF equivalents, even though they're likely cheaper to build than the EF lenses which have better optical correction, which increases the profits for Canon, and offers no financial advantage to the buyer. We'll most likely see more extensive of of cheaper PMo (plastic molded) lens elements too in entry and mid-range lenses like we've started seeing already.

The second cost cutting measure is using the R3, R5 and R6 sensor high ISO performance as an excuse to try to pass off darker (higher aperture) lenses to the market, so they're will likely be a range of entry level and mid-range lenses with apertures around f/8 and higher, for higher prices than their wider aperture (faster) EF equivalents.

The cheaper lenses will have features omitted, such as separate focus and control rings, and a single lens switch to select the two, as we've seen on a few RF lenses already.

Overall, there will be a slight, incremental improvement in most of the new lenses, with a few exceptional but overpriced, L-series standout lenses, and a few over-compromised entry and mid-level lenses. Perhaps, in a quest to try to add features in some L-lenses, the designers who brought us the multifunction bar control on the EOS R, the Spherical Aberration (SA) control on the RF 100mm macro, and the dead-slow AF on the 85mm f/2 macro might come up with a few more 'innovative' ideas that nobody asked for or wants, and we'll get a few oddballs and some lost opportunities. All of these new lenses will be guaranteed to be anywhere from unjustifiably more expensive to absurdly overpriced, depending on how Canon feels on the day they release them.

Let's keep our fingers crossed that we get some great new lens designs that don't cost the world, aren't just slightly improved rehashes of older lenses at a higher cost, and are popular and useful focal lengths and apertures! And keep in mind, Canon is there to make a profit first and foremost, so as they say, caveat emptor...


----------



## sanj (Mar 8, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to this conversation. I just read the comments from the corresponding DPR article and it resembled primates throwing feces.
> 
> Not that there's anything wrong with that.


Link please. My popcorn is ready.


----------



## dilbert (Mar 8, 2022)

Only 32 new lenses? After the 8 new variations of 70-200 and another half dozen 70-300 zooms, plus 5 different 50mm primes, will there be anything interesting launched?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Mar 8, 2022)

Chig said:


> Interesting about the SPAD sensor , "Expectations are that this will find a home in security and other specialty use rather than in a prosumer application". Is this what the CEO said or is there some other source ?
> 
> Why wouldn't it wind up in photography cameras ? I would have thought being able to see colour in the dark would be very popular.


The megapxels are quite low at this point in time


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Mar 8, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Also with L and E mounts all these manufacturers have to do is pay for license fee and not spend money and time in reverse engineering protocols which is significantly cheaper.


Sigma is part of the L-mount alliance.
I do not think they are paying a license fee.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 8, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Sigma is part of the L-mount alliance.
> I do not think they are paying a license fee.


True but pretty sure they have paid entry fees for L mount Allaince along with license for E mounts both of which are far cheaper for Sigma so why would they even spend resources for closed door system where there is a risk of either litigation or cat and mouse game of firmware upgrades.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 8, 2022)

dilbert said:


> Only 32 new lenses? After the 8 new variations of 70-200 and another half dozen 70-300 zooms, plus 5 different 50mm primes, will there be anything interesting launched?


Still havent seen mirrorless replacement for 180mm/200mm Macro, 150mm Macro, from Sigma and Tamron hasnt even released 60mm Macro, 90mm Macro and 180mm Macro for mirrorless while they have discontinued their SLR versions. So for Canon as well I would much rather see a 100mm L 1.4x Macro without focus shift and SA control along with mirrorless equivalents of EF 50mm, EF 180mm, MP-E 65mm macros.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 8, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Still havent seen mirrorless replacement for 180mm/200mm Macro, 150mm Macro, from Sigma and Tamron hasnt even released 60mm Macro, 90mm Macro and 180mm Macro for mirrorless while they have discontinued their SLR versions. So for Canon as well I would much rather see a 100mm L 1.4x Macro without focus shift and SA control along with mirrorless equivalents of EF 50mm, EF 180mm, MP-E 65mm macros.


I would love to see a 200 F4 1:1 macro that has an IS system like the RF100-500, but I don't expect to upgrade my EF180mm to that. I like the EF-RF filter adapter a lot, it makes using a polarizer very easy and more importantly, I don't think I want to spend €2000+ on that lens.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 8, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Still havent seen mirrorless replacement for 180mm/200mm Macro, 150mm Macro, from Sigma and Tamron hasnt even released 60mm Macro, 90mm Macro and 180mm Macro for mirrorless while they have discontinued their SLR versions. So for Canon as well I would much rather see a 100mm L 1.4x Macro without focus shift and SA control along with mirrorless equivalents of EF 50mm, EF 180mm, MP-E 65mm macros.


Right!
50mm & 180mm macros, please!


----------



## bf (Mar 8, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Continue reading...


_Canon CEO Fujio Matarai _I 
didn't know Canon CEO is a Fuji?!


----------



## jd7 (Mar 8, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Sigma, Tokina and Tamron and all third parties are laying low after legal threats from Canon, who obviously don't like the idea of buyers having a choice and having to compete for lens sales with other manufacturers. The benevolent masters at Canon have profoundly decreed you can either have extremely expensive L series lenses, or low end budget lenses that are still quite overpriced over their EF counterparts, and that's it, (but now they''re promising more goodies...)


I have read a number of claims on the internet that Canon has made legal threats against third party manufacturers regarding RF mount lenses, but I have never known if it was true or just an internet conspiracy theory. What is your evidence that Canon has made threats? I would really like to know.


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Mar 8, 2022)

35 more lenses… Will that be enough?


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 8, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I would love to see a 200 F4 1:1 macro that has an IS system like the RF100-500, but I don't expect to upgrade my EF180mm to that. I like the EF-RF filter adapter a lot, it makes using a polarizer very easy and more importantly, I don't think I want to spend €2000+ on that lens.


I used to borrow both 180mm Macros(Sigma 2.8 and Canon 3.5) from my friends for butterflying so I would be more than happy to purchase 180/200mm Macro for RF. 200mm f4 with Is would be perfect light weight replacement to old Ef 180mm Macro.


----------



## 2 cents (Mar 8, 2022)

Think of all the dollars.

Prices are just stupid.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 8, 2022)

For me personally looking for the 24-70mm f4L IS USM to close out the f4L trinty. And the RF 85mm f1.4L IS USM.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 8, 2022)

sanj said:


> Link please. My popcorn is ready.











Canon plans to release 32 RF-mount lenses over the next four years


In its 2022 Corporate Strategy Conference presentation materials, Canon confirmed it plans to 'expand [its] lens lineup at the same pace' as it has in the past year, which would mean the company would release eight new lenses every year through 2025.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## redcobra (Mar 8, 2022)

Big_Ant_TV_Media said:


> can we all imagine if they make a "RF 70-200 2.8 mark ii with internal zoom and keeping the same form factor
> some how?
> that would be amazing!!! hoping the canon engineers have this in they're minds somehow


Why. The RF version is as sharp or sharper, weighs less, and is shorter in the bag.


----------



## InchMetric (Mar 8, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> 32 is a big number. That's a lens every 45 days for four years, which seems, well, unlikely. If some of these are DS versions of primes released at the same time, and three different color SKUs for a future set of crop lenses, etc., it's still a lot of lenses.
> 
> At the end of this process, RF would have more than half of the peak of the EF mount - which itself blew away all the other first-party mount systems.


Five years. These are marketing people. If they meant the beginning of 2026 they’d have said “2025”.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 8, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> Five years. These are marketing people. If they meant the beginning of 2026 they’d have said “2025”.


The materials released actually said by end of 2025. I wrote "by 2026" to indicate it would be the year previous. Not that I expect that in reality, but it does set their goals down in writing. 

However...
This is the same CEO that indicated four years ago that his top priority for the imaging division was to accelerate the pace of product launches. Body launches have about kept apace, unless you count EF-S and M mount, in which case they actually slowed significantly. Lens launches did go up by about 2 per year due to the RF switchover. 

The big question, of course, remains manufacturing capacity. This could get further strained as more people move to R mount from EF mount, increasing demand. There was a honeymoon period where I could buy whatever RF lenses I wanted because it was mostly early adopters piling in. If more than half of Canon shooters are using EF bodies, we can expect, eventually, a more-than-doubling of lens demand. Even without parts supply issues, it would be a tall order.


----------



## InchMetric (Mar 8, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> The materials released actually said by end of 2025. I wrote "by 2026" to indicate it would be the year previous. Not that I expect that in reality, but it does set their goals down in writing.


Thanks. I stand corrected. I wish that information didn’t get changed by reporters.


----------



## InchMetric (Mar 8, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> One "We're sorry, you'll have to wait a year before you can get one" announcement every 45 days for the next 4 years


Everyone who orders on the first day gets theirs in the first batch. Always. The whiners sit in their hands awaiting an “in stock” notice that doesn’t come for a year.


----------



## AJ (Mar 8, 2022)

32 more lenses doesn't seem a whole lot to me. The chip shortage must be really bad. I guess I better place my order if I want any thing. That would only leave 31 lenses for the rest of you.
Oh, wait.... You're talking about 32 new lens models, not 32 new lenses.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Mar 8, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> The 28-70/2.0 was a good example of this.


A complete F2 trinity would be quite a statement. I'm still tempted by the 28-70mm F2 but whenever I think about a possible 70-135mm F2 or 14-28mm F2 I wanna keep waiting for either one of them. 



> I'd suggest at the three most important prime focal lengths, 35/50/85, we might need two PRO lenses: 50/1.2 and 50/1.4, 85/1.2 and 85/1.4, etc.


I´d add a fourth very important prime focal length in form of at least one UWA fast prime. Sony has an excellent 14mm and a great 20mm, Canon has neither. 20mm F1.4 L and 20mm F2.8 (with a strong focus on compact size) could/ should both be developed. For the 14mm focal I believe one L option should be enough because there already is a 16mm F2.8. 



> Anyway that's a lot of lenses that I think are needed.


I agree, it is fun thinking about them


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 8, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> Everyone who orders on the first day gets theirs in the first batch. Always. The whiners sit in their hands awaiting an “in stock” notice that doesn’t come for a year.


Not with the EOS R3. Those who ordered (from B&H, at least) in the first ~3 hours did receive their cameras from the first allotment, but those who ordered later in the morning had to wait.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 8, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> A complete F2 trinity would be quite a statement. I'm still tempted by the 28-70mm F2 but whenever I think about a possible 70-135mm F2 or 14-28mm F2 I wanna keep waiting for either one of them.


I'd jump on a 70-135/2. Pass on the UWA f/2, personally.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 8, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> Everyone who orders on the first day gets theirs in the first batch. Always. The whiners sit in their hands awaiting an “in stock” notice that doesn’t come for a year.


Not here on .nl, I ordered both the R5 and RF100 macro a few minutes after the stores put them online, at multiple stores. One store called to say they would receive a batch of 10 R5s and no new batches for a few months and I was 30th on their list.
I did manage to get both the R5 and RF100 by keeping an eye on Canon Direct at canon.nl, things pop up as 'in stock' from time to time and as opposed to canon.com, they are actually in stock.

I did get the RF100-500 from a regular store, but I had preordered it at 3 different places, only one had one for me in the first batch.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not with the EOS R3. Those who ordered (from B&H, at least) in the first ~3 hours did receive their cameras from the first allotment, but those who ordered later in the morning had to wait.


I think priority for both R3 and Nikon Z9 was sports photographers as I have noticed lot more of mirrorless cameras while watching MotoGP race on last sunday, even many F1 photographers have been using R3 and expecting similar scenes from upcoming F1 race weekend in 2 weeks time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 8, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> I think priority for both R3 and Nikon Z9 was sports photographers as I have noticed lot more of mirrorless cameras while watching MotoGP race on last sunday, even many F1 photographers have been using R3 and expecting similar scenes from upcoming F1 race weekend in 2 weeks time.


Funny, I don't recall B&H asking me what sort of photography I planned to do with the R3. They just took my money and sent me the camera.


----------



## sryan (Mar 8, 2022)

So, 32 lenses announced in four years, but with the chip shortage this their 10 year plan. OK,makes sense.


----------



## Bonich (Mar 8, 2022)

Gazwas said:


> S
> 
> Well 32 sounds completely feasible if you include RF cinema lenses which will probably share the same optical formulas as the current and future RF stills versions but tweaked to have better focus breathing correction.


What exactly is "the same optical formula but tweaked correction"


----------



## Bonich (Mar 8, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> Don’t forget the rumored RF 135 1.4L


I would love to take the 135 in 1.8, just a state of the art 135 on RF mount.


----------



## Bonich (Mar 8, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Yes and no. If the RF versions are identical but actually remove the option of rear filters in the adapter then they aren't better. Canon could weld an adapter on it and call it a RF lens of course!


I really do not feel any need to replace my TS-Es. They are more than OK adapted.
I do miss the RF 135.
And yes, a big white with switchable extender built in ( The Nikon line up covers the needs (400 ext, 500 PF, 800)


----------



## MartinVLC (Mar 8, 2022)

robotfist said:


> Canon desperately needs a solid prime lens lineup in L glass. Currently they have a massive gap at the wide end. The 50mm f1.2, 85mm f1.2 and 100mm f2.8 IS Macro are the only L primes available. Where is the 14, 24, and 35?


Allthough it´s true that the L-Primes are mainly on the long end, what´s really missing are affordable standard zooms with a brighter aperture. 

There are already 9 L-Primes out there and 8 L-zooms. But in total there are only 9 NON-L lenses (6 primes + only 3 (!) zooms). And the non-L zooms are extremely slow (e.g. f/4-7.1). 

For Sony you can chose between 4 different 24(28)-70(75)mm f/2.8 for between 600-1200 $/€ and you have the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 for 1800 €.

For the RF-Mount there are only 2 fast standard zooms and the less expenseve one still costs 2500 €. 

So, I´m happy for you if you get the wide L-primes, but they should really also bring a fast standard zoom for less than 1200 $/€. Well, just my opinion.


----------



## kaihp (Mar 8, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> I think priority for both R3 and Nikon Z9 was sports photographers as I have noticed lot more of mirrorless cameras while watching MotoGP race on last sunday, even many F1 photographers have been using R3 and expecting similar scenes from upcoming F1 race weekend in 2 weeks time.


According to the shop where I pre-ordered my (yet to be delivered) R3, Canon does not prioritize customers - contrary to Nikon. 

Whether Nikon actually prioritize pros/sports photographers over others, I don't know. It was just what the shop told me (and I have no reason not to believe them).


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 8, 2022)

I think its a safe bet Canon will adapt / refresh the 200mm f/2,L 300mm f/2.8L, 500mm f/4L (on the map), as well as the TS-Es (the 24mm is on the map). That's 8.

The roadmap has 10-24mm f/4L & 18-45mm f/4-5.6, I think that fills in the wide end zooms. My bet is Canon will release 3-4 wide L primes, say 10mm, 14mm, 20mm, and 24mm. That's 6.

I had my doubts regarding non-L primes, but the 16mm f/2.8 STM changed my mind. Canon can take the 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8 IS, 28mm f/2.8 IS, and 35mm f/2 IS, and 50mm f/1.4, refresh for RF, and out the door. That's 5 more. I wouldn't be surprised if the 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/2 followed suit, for 2 more.

Then, I doubt Canon would drop the fisheye zoom and MP-E 65mm macro. That's 2 more, for a total of 23.

As for the remaining 9, no bet. If a crop RF camera comes out, Canon might repack a couple of EF-S lenses, say EF-s 10-18mm + 18-55mm + 55-250mm, just so owners would have cheap lenses for the wider-than-white-supertele lenses.


----------



## ShowMeTheEagles (Mar 8, 2022)

kaihp said:


> According to the shop where I pre-ordered my (yet to be delivered) R3, Canon does not prioritize customers - contrary to Nikon.
> 
> Whether Nikon actually prioritize pros/sports photographers over others, I don't know. It was just what the shop told me (and I have no reason not to believe them).



That is correct except for Canon “ambassadors, which are relatively few. NPS members get priority over non-members but that priority system doesn’t exist for CPS members who have to get in line with everyone else.


----------



## Gazwas (Mar 8, 2022)

Bonich said:


> What exactly is "the same optical formula but tweaked correction"


Very similar optics to their stills counterpart but changes made for longer focus travel and breathing correction.


----------



## 1kind (Mar 8, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Continue reading...


It's Mitarai...not Matarai


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Mar 8, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> The roadmap has 10-24mm f/4L & 18-45mm f/4-5.6, I think that fills in the wide end zooms. My bet is Canon will release 3-4 wide L primes, say 10mm, 14mm, 20mm, and 24mm. That's 6.


A 10mm prime sounds extremely wide and a bit unrealistic imho, but it sure could be a fun lense. 
I'd guess (and hope) for an affordable 14mm F2 or similiar. I could imagine Canon going for a 12mm fast prime since the F2.8/ F4 UWA zooms got wider compared to their spiritual EF predecessor so maybe the EF 14mm F2.8 L will get a wider spiritual successor as well. 

Sonys 14mm F1.8 G Master sounds awfully intriguing (nope, haven't tested it personally) and I'm hoping a for a similiar offering on Canons behalf. Fast, wide L prime with a price point to counter Sonys offering (atm, 1.600 € for the Sony in Germany)


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Mar 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd jump on a 70-135/2. Pass on the UWA f/2, personally.


I'd love a 70-135mm F2 and would probably preorder it asap! 

About the 14-28mm F2:
I have two trips planed/ lined-up to do some astro in 2022. In 2023, there actually is a new-moon week during northern lights season in Iceland WHILE I'm on my school vacation in Germany. So I'm hoping for a killer astro wide prime to arrive in time because I've already planned this trip in my head  So, if there is fast wide prime, I'd also go with a UWA F2 zoom, at least for this trip. I'm also renting out and testing other Astro lenses in case there won't be a new Canon offering.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 8, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> A 10mm prime sounds extremely wide and a bit unrealistic imho, but it sure could be a fun lens.


There are two rectilinear 10mm primes for FF I'm aware of - Samyang XP 10mm f/3.5 (available in EF) and Voigtlander Heliar 10mm f/5.6 for Sony E. There's also Laowa 9mm f/5.6 for full frame mirrorless cameras.

IIRC, the patent for the TS-E 17mm was as a 10mm prime.

And, yes - its crazy wide.


----------



## fox40phil (Mar 8, 2022)

My wishlist:
14mm TS please!
200-600mm 5.6/6.3
300-800 5.6
10-24 4.0
135 1.8
200 2.0 or 1.8 ;P
300 2.8
500 4.0 & 5.6! 

Canon needs to go more lightwight like Sony.


----------



## GMAX (Mar 8, 2022)

fox40phil said:


> My wishlist:
> 14mm TS please!
> 200-600mm 5.6/6.3
> 300-800 5.6
> ...


Serious question: Why does Canon needs to go the same way too?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Mar 8, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> 50/0.7


Stanly Kubrick is that you?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Mar 8, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> Everyone who orders on the first day gets theirs in the first batch. Always. The whiners sit in their hands awaiting an “in stock” notice that doesn’t come for a year.


Not if they order from places that oversell their allocations like B & H and Adorama.
People still blame Canon.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Mar 8, 2022)

fox40phil said:


> Canon needs to go more lightwight like Sony.


Sony has a smaller mount and a shorter flange distance


----------



## Docofthewild (Mar 8, 2022)

I wonder if they will end up with 3 different lines of RF lenses. With EF, they have the base/stm, the USM with the gold ring and the L’s. When they start releasing those usm equivalents (50 1.4, non-l 100mm macro, etc), do they squeeze them into one of the current RF lines or do we get a new lens design?


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 8, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> And either a complete embargo on politics, or the opening of a well moderated politics and religion section where self appointed experts sitting in warm comfortable safety can wax lyrical about the pronunciation of a word and how important that is to people who are literally being bombed out of existence, whilst feeling sorry for themselves that gas/petrol went up $1 a gallon.



If we are lucky, it will only be $1 per gallon. I think it already passed that and from what is happening today it is going to keep going up.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 9, 2022)

kaihp said:


> According to the shop where I pre-ordered my (yet to be delivered) R3, Canon does not prioritize customers - contrary to Nikon.
> 
> Whether Nikon actually prioritize pros/sports photographers over others, I don't know. It was just what the shop told me (and I have no reason not to believe them).


Nikon did prioritize their NPS members over non-NPS members for pre-orders and majority of pros are NPS members means sports photographers would have received it in early Jan itself. I dont know what policy was for Canon but I have seen pros getting R3 quite easily and in some cases multiple bodies.


----------



## Czardoom (Mar 9, 2022)

fox40phil said:


> My wishlist:
> 14mm TS please!
> 200-600mm 5.6/6.3
> 300-800 5.6
> ...


Here are some of the most common lenses...

24-70 f/2.8 Sony 886 g, Canon 900 g
24-105 f/4 Sony 663 g, Canon 700 g
70-200 f/4 Sony 840 g, Canon 695 g
24-240 f/3.5-6.3 Sony 780 g, Canon f/4-6.3 751 g
100-400 f/4.5-5.6 Sony 1395 g, Canon 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 1365 g

As you can see, the weights are almost all very close. Prices very close, too. Why the constant forum opinions that Sony is somehow lighter, smaller and cheaper? They are not.

If you are looking for smaller and lighter, some of Nikon's Z standard zooms are indeed smaller and lighter. enough of a difference that I briefly switched from Canon to Nikon last year. But Canon color brought me back. That, plus the new RF 100-400 - a lens that truly is much lighter than any 100-400 lens we have ever seen.


----------



## InchMetric (Mar 9, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Not here on .nl, I ordered both the R5 and RF100 macro a few minutes after the stores put them online, at multiple stores. One store called to say they would receive a batch of 10 R5s and no new batches for a few months and I was 30th on their list.
> I did manage to get both the R5 and RF100 by keeping an eye on Canon Direct at canon.nl, things pop up as 'in stock' from time to time and as opposed to canon.com, they are actually in stock.
> 
> I did get the RF100-500 from a regular store, but I had preordered it at 3 different places, only one had one for me in the first batch.


Sounds like you picked the wrong stores. Start with A or B, and you get one every time.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 9, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> Sounds like you picked the wrong stores. Start with A or B, and you get one every time.


Perhaps you missed the reference to the .nl domain (Netherlands). If you read posts from contributors in Europe you would see that many of them have a much more difficult time getting new releases that people in the U.S.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 9, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> And either a complete embargo on politics, or the opening of a well moderated politics and religion section where self appointed experts sitting in warm comfortable safety can wax lyrical about the pronunciation of a word and how important that is to people who are literally being bombed out of existence, whilst feeling sorry for themselves that gas/petrol went up $1 a gallon.


If you were offended by a political discussion in a thread that was based on a political event, why are you trying to introduce a political discussion into a thread that is about lenses?


----------



## unfocused (Mar 9, 2022)

If I had to guess, I would imagine that many of these lenses will be RF versions of EF lenses that really don't need or can't benefit from mirrorless design changes. The tilt-shift lenses, as others have mentioned, might fall into the category. I think that something like the EF 8-15 Fisheye might also fall into that category. There could also be some non-L lenses, like the 24, 28 and 35 mm primes, that could be adapted to RF without major design changes. 

Making RF versions of these lenses, would allow Canon to drop the EF versions.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 9, 2022)

unfocused said:


> If you were offended by a political discussion in a thread that was based on a political event, why are you trying to introduce a political discussion into a thread that is about lenses?


****** off


----------



## mxwphoto (Mar 9, 2022)

unfocused said:


> If I had to guess, I would imagine that many of these lenses will be RF versions of EF lenses that really don't need or can't benefit from mirrorless design changes. The tilt-shift lenses, as others have mentioned, might fall into the category. I think that something like the EF 8-15 Fisheye might also fall into that category. There could also be some non-L lenses, like the 24, 28 and 35 mm primes, that could be adapted to RF without major design changes.
> 
> Making RF versions of these lenses, would allow Canon to drop the EF versions.


And don't forget the price hikes of $5-600 for having that built in ef-rf adapter.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 9, 2022)

Hopefully the efficient construction of new lenses doesn’t mean cutting corners and relying on software correction too much. I love most of RF-L primes and zooms, but there are some questionable “features”. And the non-L’s seems often to be quite bad lenses if it wasn’t for massive software correction.


----------



## pzyber (Mar 9, 2022)

Viggo said:


> Hopefully the efficient construction of new lenses doesn’t mean cutting corners and relying on software correction too much. I love most of RF-L primes and zooms, but there are some questionable “features”. And the non-L’s seems often to be quite bad lenses if it wasn’t for massive software correction.


Don't keep your hopes too high. As Canon stated in the press release for RF 16mm f/2.8 STM: "Long gone are the days of optical corrections or sharpness challenges".


----------



## jd7 (Mar 9, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Here are some of the most common lenses...
> 
> 24-70 f/2.8 Sony 886 g, Canon 900 g
> 24-105 f/4 Sony 663 g, Canon 700 g
> ...


Why are there opinions that Sony is lighter, smaller and cheaper? Well, so far as the Sony _system _goes, here is my start on an explanation ...

Sigma 85 f/1.4 DN for Sony is 625g and A$1,700, while the Canon RF 85L is 1195g and about A$3,750 (on sale - a lot of places have it at almost A$4,300!).

Samyang 75 f/1.8 for Sony is 230g and A$500. Sony 85mm f/1.8 371g andA$700. Canon RF 85mm f/2 497g and A$950. In my opinion, the Sony has better optics than the Canon (and probably faster AF too). I think the same can probably be said for the Samyang - and even if it is no better optically than the Canon, it is certainly lighter and cheaper.

Sony 55 f/1.8 is 280g and A$850 while Canon really doesn't have anything I'd call comparable. The Sony may not be up to the standard of the RF 50L but in my opinion it is far better than the Canon RF 50 f/1.8.

Samyang 45 f/1.8 for Sony is 162g and A$500. Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 is 160g and and A$300. The Samyang is more expensive in this case, by in my opinion it is better optically and worth the extra money.

Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DN for Sony is 835g but A$1,600 while the Canon RF L is 900g but about A$3,350.

Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 for Sony is 810g and A$1,650 while the Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS is 1070g and A3,900. (OK, all else being equal, I would prefer the Canon in this case, but not at the price difference.)

Sony 50 f/1.2 GM is 778g and A$3,000. Canon RF 50 f/1.2L is 950g and A$3,500. (OK, there is not very much difference in that one.)

Sony 35 f/1.4 GM is 525g and A$2,100 while the Canon RF is ... well, we shall have to wait and see. However, the Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II is 760g and A$2,700, and so far most RF lenses have ended up being heavier and more expensive than their EF counterparts (although to be fair, some have been lighter).

I'm a long time Canon user and I think Canon generally makes good gear, and there are some lenses like the RF 28-70 f/2 which if they suit your use case and budget would make Canon an obvious choice, but at least at the moment the Sony system would be a much better fit for my preferences.


----------



## bbasiaga (Mar 9, 2022)

pzyber said:


> Don't keep your hopes too high. As Canon stated in the press release for RF 16mm f/2.8 STM: "Long gone are the days of optical corrections or sharpness challenges".


This is 'computational photography' that we have all heard is coming. Its here. And its not bad. 

I've always found it interesting that some of the people who complain about this are the same people that won't hesitate to heavily edit their image, replacing skies, color, cloning in or out subjects, adding artificial light, etc. As technology advances, the line between photography and digital art will continue to blur. 

-Brian


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 9, 2022)

jd7 said:


> Why are there opinions that Sony is lighter, smaller and cheaper? Well, so far as the Sony _system _goes, here is my start on an explanation ...
> 
> Sigma 85 f/1.4 DN for Sony is 625g and A$1,700, while the Canon RF 85L is 1195g and about A$3,750 (on sale - a lot of places have it at almost A$4,300!).
> 
> ...


Wait, you mean 3rd party lenses are generally cheaper than OEM lenses? Shocking.

I do get your point, there aren't 3rd party lenses for the RF mount. But then why not adapt EF mount lenses? That changes your comparisons significantly.

I also note that you're comparing f/1.4 to f/1.2 lenses, lenses with OIS to lenses without (Sony's IBIS is 5.5 stops, Canon's is 8), macro lenses to non-macro lenses, etc. In other words, most of your comparisons are apples to oranges. For your apples to apples 50/1.2, you acknowledge there's not much difference.

Doesn't change the fact that the Sony system meets your needs better, of course, but it certainly seems that confirmation bias is at play here.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Mar 9, 2022)

jd7 said:


> Sigma 85 f/1.4 DN for Sony is 625g and A$1,700, while the Canon RF 85L is 1195g and about A$3,750 (on sale - a lot of places have it at almost A$4,300!).
> 
> Samyang 75 f/1.8 for Sony is 230g and A$500. Sony 85mm f/1.8 371g andA$700. Canon RF 85mm f/2 497g and A$950.


Comparing lenses with different aperture or focal lengths is like comparing like apples and pears. Although there is "only" a difference of F .2 in the 85mm lenses, it is a totally different world when developing and constructing a lense.



> Sony 50 f/1.2 GM is 778g and A$3,000. Canon RF 50 f/1.2L is 950g and A$3,500.


This comparison does make a lot of sense to me. I hope Canon will release a 14mm prime with specs and price which can closely match Sonys offering just like Sony did with Canons offering for the RF 50mm F1.2 L.


----------



## Adam Shutter Bug (Mar 9, 2022)

Hope Canon look at Nikon and think a 400 f/2.8 with a x1.4tc that is built in that can be added and removed would be a lens that would sell. I would def look to drop money on one of these. The other issue is cost, Canon are adding a serious tax on these models with a built in TC. Don’t care what they say, yes they may have to slightly altered the optics but you can’t look at the 800 f/5.6 or 1200 f/8 and not see what’s been done.


----------



## Rumours not rumors (Mar 9, 2022)

$1 a gallon... what's a gallon? </ searches internet > "ancient imperial unit of volume that most countries stopped using in the 1960's"... wow there was a different unit before the litre became world standard for volume... you learn something new every day!


----------



## Canon1966 (Mar 9, 2022)

32 lenses seem far-fetched. I would just like a 150-600 (to match the Sigma), 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2022)

Canon1966 said:


> 32 lenses seem far-fetched. I would just like a 150-600 (to match the Sigma), 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4.


I don’t want any of those. I would just like TS-R lenses at 14 and 24mm with movement encoding that take the DI filters for the EF adapter, a 135/2, a 200-500/5.6L with a switchable TC, a 300/2.8, a 200/4 Macro, and a normal FL pancake.

So between your wants and mine, we’re 1/3 of the way there!


----------



## InchMetric (Mar 10, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Perhaps you missed the reference to the .nl domain (Netherlands). If you read posts from contributors in Europe you would see that many of them have a much more difficult time getting new releases that people in the U.S.


Seem like the complaint would not be with Canon then.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 10, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wait, you mean 3rd party lenses are generally cheaper than OEM lenses? Shocking.
> 
> I do get your point, there aren't 3rd party lenses for the RF mount. But then why not adapt EF mount lenses? That changes your comparisons significantly.
> 
> ...


I get your point about my comparisons being apples to oranges, but I would have said more in the nature of comparing different varieties of apples  Certainly, if f/1.2 at 85mm is a must, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN is irrelevant. Or if you need (or want) your 85mm to have IS and be able to focus close enough to give 0.5 magnification, the Canon RF 85mm f/2 works for you and the lenses I compared it do not. Still, the point I was trying to make is that (in my view at least) there is a good reason why the Sony system (if not Sony gear alone) has developed a reputation for offering smaller, lighter and cheaper when compared with the Canon system. And adapting EF mount lenses helps with the cost issue, but I cannot see that it helps much with smaller and lighter.

Regarding it being shocking (or not!) that third party lenses are cheaper than OEM lenses, I guess that's fair enough. Obviously, on the whole, one of the primary methods for most third parties to attract customers is to offer "value" over the OEM offering. Not sure it's correct for a third party like Zeiss though!

Where I thought I might be taken to task for my previous post is by people pointing to the RF 16 f/2.8 (although some may see the Samyang RF 18 f/2.8 for Sony as essentially an equivalent - to be honest I probably would, but I understand people who big fans of UWA would probably see 16mm as substantially different to 18mm), RF 100-400, RF 600 f/11 and RF 800 f/11. Again though, I don't think that detracts from saying there is a good why the Sony system (if not Sony gear alone) has developed a reputation for offering, given the number of options for the Sony system and the fact the smaller. lighter, cheaper options for the Sony system cover the 24mm (perhaps wider, eg if you consider a lens such as the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 although I don't know a lot about that lens) to 200mm range, which I hazard a guess is probably the range many photographers would shoot in most often. (No, I don't have hard have evidence for that!)


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 10, 2022)

Rumours not rumors said:


> $1 a gallon... what's a gallon? </ searches internet > "ancient imperial unit of volume that most countries stopped using in the 1960's"... wow there was a different unit before the litre became world standard for volume... you learn something new every day!


Snide remarks about imperial measures aside, the US gallon and pint are different from the UK gallon and pint :/


----------



## Adam Shutter Bug (Mar 10, 2022)

70-200 f/2.8L internal zoom
400mm f/2.8L w/ optional in built 2x tele. ( this is the one really want )
Currently we have a fixed 800 f/5.6 that is silly money and looks weird as it is just a built in fixed 2x


----------



## Adam Shutter Bug (Mar 10, 2022)

northlarch said:


> As someone new to Canon, I’m quickly learning that their “design efficiencies” = adding a built-in mount adapter, maybe a TC, and charging $4-6k more. Great for the suits, great for the SKU count, not so great for us.


Yep, the new super telephotos really are just the regular lens, a fixed tele despite what they say and a huge premium on top. There will be some optical benefits but marginal.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 10, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> Seem like the complaint would not be with Canon then.


Why not? What many of our European contributors complain about is that Canon allocates a ridiculously small supply for the market.


----------



## TAF (Mar 10, 2022)

AJ said:


> 32 more lenses doesn't seem a whole lot to me. The chip shortage must be really bad. I guess I better place my order if I want any thing. That would only leave 31 lenses for the rest of you.
> Oh, wait.... You're talking about 32 new lens models, not 32 new lenses.



No, you were correct the first time.

So if they deliver 33 lenses they beat expectations, and the stock goes up.


----------



## neurorx (Mar 10, 2022)

If I were to outline a priority wishlist....135mm F1.4-2L, 35mm 1.4L would be it (and an affordable 200-600 f5.6-6.3 which is not likely to happen).


----------



## jordanisaak (Mar 10, 2022)

The existing RF lineup can be roughly broken up into 5 tiers:

Tier 1 - Statement lenses, super telephotos.
28-70 f/2L, 400mm f/2.8L, 600mm f/4L, 800mm f/5.6L, 1200mm f/8L

Tier 2a - Upper tier L workhorse lenses
50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L, 15-35mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L, 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L, 5.2mm f/2.8L

Tier 2b - Lower tier L workhorse lenses
14-35mm f/4L, 24-105mm f/4L, 70-200mm f/4L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro

Tier 3 - Enthusiast
35mm f/1.8, 85mm f/2, 600mm f/11, 800mm f/11, 24-105mm f/4-7.1, 24-240mm f/4-6.3, 100-400mm f/5.6-8

Tier 4 - Entry Level
16mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8

Looking for gaps at each tier gives us some obvious lenses to conjecture, including some already rumoured:

Tier 1:
Wide angle f/2L zoom, Mild telephoto f/2L zoom, 200mm f/2(1.8?)L, 300mm f/2.8L, 500mm f/4L

Tier 2a:
Fisheye L prime, right ultra wide angle L prime, 24mm f/1.4(1.2?)L, 35mm f/1.2L, 100/105mm f/1.4L, 135mm f/1.8(1.4?)L, tilt-shift prime lineup, 10-24mm f/4L, 200-400mm f/4L, 180mm f/2.8L macro, ultrawide fisheye L zoom

Tier 2b:
200mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/4L, 70-300mm f/4-5.6L

Tier 3:
20/24/28/40/50mm primes with IS, light macro capabilities, and apertures in the f/1.8-2.8 range. 18-45mm f/4-5.6. Compact enthusiast macro lens (100mm f/4 IS?)

Tier 4:
24/28/35/40mm f/2.8 pancake-ish primes without IS. Ultra cheap standard zoom kit lens, ultra wide, and telephoto zoom

Add in cinema lenses, some more "experimental" lenses like the 600/800 enthusiast telephotos or 5.2 dual fisheye, and few lenses that aren't in line with what Canon has done in the past (20/28/40mm L primes?), and 32 lenses is quite doable.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Mar 10, 2022)

jordanisaak said:


> The existing RF lineup can be roughly broken up into 5 tiers:
> 
> Tier 1 - Statement lenses, super telephotos.
> 28-70 f/2L, 400mm f/2.8L, 600mm f/4L, 800mm f/5.6L, 1200mm f/8L
> ...


Thank you for the proper sorting out.
Tiers 2b and 3 are where I see the largest holes but does Canon?


----------



## BBarn (Mar 11, 2022)

It never struck me to establish my own tiers of Canon lenses. I just see a variety of products with various capabilities, tradeoffs, and prices.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Mar 11, 2022)

BBarn said:


> It never struck me to establish my own tiers of Canon lenses. I just see a variety of products with various capabilities, tradeoffs, and prices.


Tier crafting is what we do when camera craft gear prices are going through the roof.

Stay crafty my friends.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 11, 2022)

jordanisaak said:


> The existing RF lineup can be roughly broken up into 5 tiers:
> 
> Tier 1 - Statement lenses, super telephotos.
> 28-70 f/2L, 400mm f/2.8L, 600mm f/4L, 800mm f/5.6L, 1200mm f/8L
> ...


Thanks, nice work formulating a tier system of RF lenses and their uses/markets, this is great! Would be nice if Canon did that!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 11, 2022)

dilbert said:


> Only 32 new lenses? After the 8 new variations of 70-200 and another half dozen 70-300 zooms, plus 5 different 50mm primes, will there be anything interesting launched?


Perhaps we'll see something like this with each popular zoom focal length:

RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM
RF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM
RF 70-200mm f/6.3-9.0 IS STM (this one doesn't exist... yet)
That will give three versions of every possible zoom.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 11, 2022)

jordanisaak said:


> The existing RF lineup can be roughly broken up into 5 tiers:
> 
> Tier 1 - Statement lenses, super telephotos.
> 28-70 f/2L, 400mm f/2.8L, 600mm f/4L, 800mm f/5.6L, 1200mm f/8L
> ...


A good list. 
I think Canon is missing a 200-600mm . The Sony one is a great lens. Such a lens would sell very well with an R3 or R5


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 12, 2022)

northlarch said:


> As someone new to Canon, I’m quickly learning that their “design efficiencies” = adding a built-in mount adapter, maybe a TC, and charging $4-6k more. Great for the suits, great for the SKU count, not so great for us.


It has been noted in this forums before that, as far as optical design goes, there's little benefit in shorter flange distance. The super teles work with extenders that sticks into the lens because the last element is not flush to the flange.

From here, its plain old capitalism. Making a whole new design is expensive, and Canon has recently invested it in several of the super teles, e.g. the EF 600mm f/4 mkIII was released in 2018. So the same optical formula is used for the RF mount, with a longer barrel.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> So the same optical formula is used for the RF mount, with a longer barrel.


I think @northlarch’s point was in reference to the new 800/5.6 and 1200/8, which are the recent 400/2.8 III and 600/4 III with a built-in 2x TC and bolted-on RF adapter.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think @northlarch’s point was in reference to the new 800/5.6 and 1200/8, which are the recent 400/2.8 III and 600/4 III with a built-in 2x TC and bolted-on RF adapter.


IIRC, I've read somewhere the back element (just before the 2x TC) was modified.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> IIRC, I've read somewhere the back element (just before the 2x TC) was modified.


No doubt. Just as the switchable 1.4x in the 200-400/4 is slightly modified from the standalone version. I suppose that changing 1-2 elements slightly technically makes it a ‘new design’ but clearly it’s not, really. It’s not a coincidence that the 1200/8 has elements and groups that are the sum of those in the 600/4 III and 2x TC, or that the MFD is identical.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> No doubt. Just as the switchable 1.4x in the 200-400/4 is slightly modified from the standalone version. I suppose that changing 1-2 elements slightly technically makes it a ‘new design’ but clearly it’s not, really. It’s not a coincidence that the 1200/8 has elements and groups that are the sum of those in the 600/4 III and 2x TC, or that the MFD is identical.


I'll break my answer to two

1. If the point is the word game behind it (shove a 2x TC, and call it "new" design), I think that's salesmanship, and leave it at that.

2. If its cheaper to adjust an element and shove a 2x TC behind an existing lens, rather than design a whole new lens, that's capitalism for you.

Nobody has to buy or like it. I fully understand why some would prefer a 600mm f/4 + 2x TC over the 1200mm f/8.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Mar 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think @northlarch’s point was in reference to the new 800/5.6 and 1200/8, which are the recent 400/2.8 III and 600/4 III with a built-in 2x TC and bolted-on RF adapter.


It is more correct to say that Canon combined the lens element of the 400 and 600 with the lens elements of a 2x TC. 
Canon is pretty open about that.
The greater complaint is the $4K USD price increase over the discontinued EF 800 f/5.6.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 14, 2022)

Rumours not rumors said:


> $1 a gallon... what's a gallon? </ searches internet > "ancient imperial unit of volume that most countries stopped using in the 1960's"... wow there was a different unit before the litre became world standard for volume... you learn something new every day!


 And at that...the US doesn't use the old Imperial gallon, we use a different gallon that's less than four liters.

A lot of people in the UK who compare gas prices with Americans don't realize that when they 'helpfully' 'convert' their prices to USD/gallon and end up overstating their prices. (Many of them also don't realize the pound isn't worth two dollars any more and hasn't been for decades.)


----------



## Canfan (Mar 14, 2022)

Just waiting on the RF200-600mm F 5.6. Short wish list..


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Mar 15, 2022)

I just wish they had a roadmap for a roadmap instead of us having to guess what is coming.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I just wish they had a roadmap for a roadmap instead of us having to guess what is coming.


If you knew your most-desired lens was coming, you’d wait to buy it. If you don’t know, maybe you buy an available lens then when your most-desired lens comes along you buy that, too. Canon wins. Thus, no roadmap.


----------



## dolina (Apr 10, 2022)

The 80-100% of the 1st 3 years of RF lens SKUs are the highest volume EF lens SKUs.

No big surprise that these staples came out within the 1st 6 months of the RF system

Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS USM
Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM
Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
For a lead on what to expect within the next 4 years only look at the now discontinued and currently selling EF lenses.

Year 2026 may mark the end of production or even sales of any EF system body, lens or other legacy accessories. By this year the R5 Mark II would be released with the 80-100% of all Mark 1 RF lenses out.

Exciting times if you are building a mirrorless system for your household or organization.

These are EF lenses from oldest design to newest. Excluding business or production reasons I'd FIFO the rollout of

EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens​
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens​
EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Lens​
MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo Lens​
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Lens​
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens​
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens​
EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens​
EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Lens​
EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Lens​
TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II Tilt-Shift Lens​
TS-E 17mm f/4L Tilt-Shift Lens​
EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens​
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Lens​
EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Lens​
EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM Lens​
EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens​
EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x Lens​
EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens​
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens​
EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens​
EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM Lens​
EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM Lens​


----------



## Johnw (Apr 14, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> They can use incomplete optical lens designs, and take advantage of the additional layer of abstraction that mirrorless cameras place between the user and the subject to hide optical flaws. The fanboys will claim it's to reduce costs, even though Canon will sell these lenses for more than their EF equivalents, even though they're likely cheaper to build than *the EF lenses which have better optical correction*, which increases the profits for Canon, and offers no financial advantage to the buyer. We'll most likely see more extensive of of cheaper PMo (plastic molded) lens elements too in entry and mid-range lenses like we've started seeing already.



I have to disagree with the bolded as a general statement. It has not been the case as a general rule that the RF lenses have been inferior optically to their EF predecessors. Just the opposite in fact with most of them. Most of the RF lenses are as good or better optically than lenses Canon has released in the past. Yes there are some lenses at some FLs where they have done what you are saying, but it is the exception not the rule, especially on the L lenses.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Apr 14, 2022)

Johnw said:


> I have to disagree with the bolded as a general statement. It has not been the case as a general rule that the RF lenses have been inferior optically to their EF predecessors. Just the opposite in fact with most of them. Most of the RF lenses are as good or better optically than lenses Canon has released in the past. Yes there are some lenses at some FLs where they have done what you are saying, but it is the exception not the rule, especially on the L lenses.


I looks like you misread what I stated. I didn't say the RF lenses were less sharp than the EF lenses, I said that (generally) the RF lenses have worse optical correction because Canon is cheaping out, grossly underdesigning their lenses and doing it in software, because they can hide it on a camera with an EVF, but not on a camera with an OVF.

How many EF lenses can't cover the full frame sensor?

What about RF lenses? These three come to mind:

The Canon RF 14-35mm f/4 L which is a premium lens lens does not cover a full frame sensor at any focal length below 17mm.
The Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 does not cover the complete full frame sensor, the corners suffer from mechanical vignetting, they're completely black.
The Canon RF 24-240mm at the wide end doesn't really cover the whole frame either. At f/4 from 24-27mm with correction turned off, the corners are totally black. It's really a 28-240mm f/4.5-6.3, vignetting correction is required to shoot at 24mm, at any aperture, unless you plan to crop all your photos.
These would be great lenses on a crop sensor camera !ol! 

The problem with extreme software correction?

From https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-24-240mm-F4-6.3-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

"Distortion correction is destructive at the pixel level as image details must be stretched using computational algorithms to determine what the newly-created details should be"

If you shoot in RAW and post process your images, you're applying software post processing over software post processing, which causes images to fall apart very quickly, degrading image quality.

If you shoot JPEG straight out of camera, then it's not an issue, as what comes out of camera is the final image, maybe with some cropping to taste to improve composition.

You're welcome!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 14, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I said that (generally) the RF lenses have worse optical correction
> 
> What about RF lenses? These three come to mind
> 
> You're welcome!


You’re saying that something found in 3 of 28 lenses is a generally applicable to RF lenses.

Thanks for nothing.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Apr 14, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You’re saying that something found in 3 of 28 lenses is a generally applicable statement.
> 
> Thanks for nothing.


The point we can make is that the RF lens range has hit a new low when it comes to optical lens distortion, where a lens does not cover the complete full frame sensor, that was never seen in the worst of the EF lenses. The only way to do that with older lenses on the RF camera bodies is to slap on an old crop sensor EF-S lens on an EF to RF adapter, but the RF camera bodies go into crop mode when that happens. A very bad precedent for a new roadmap. 

Excluding Canon's exorbitantly priced top end wildlife primes worth tens of thousands of dollars, 3 of of 21 RF lenses equates to over 14% of the RF lens range, It's also 2 out of 9 non-L RF lenses, or 22% of the non-premium RF series of lenses. It is therefore accurate to say that is case both generally and precisely the case that the RF series of lenses (collectively as a lens platform) have reached a new low in the worst optical lens distortion. When people try to excuse Canon (why?) by saying that other companies use software correction, as far as I understand from many reputable reviews, no other company underbuilds lenses to this extent, puts out lenses with this degree of optical distortion that require this level of software correction fix.

I understand that forums tend to serve as a medium for many people who seek validation on their purchases, where they look for others to dispel any doubts they may have about the choice that they made, and affirm that they made the right choice. This creates a weird confirmation bias rather than an objective perspective, and a total disbelief that their favourite company could do wrong, either intentionally or accidentally, act dishonestly or incompetently. The RF platform serves my needs at present, and it has obvious limitations, because there is no such thing as a perfect camera ecosystem, and no one would deny that point. It's a case buyers picking their poison, and accepting one set of compromises over others.

The promise of 32 new lenses is "vapourware", we will believe it when we see it, it is after all, just rumour, We do have evidence of some never seen before crap lens design compromises. We do have evidence of price gouging. We don't have any mid-range lenses in the RF platform. We can just pretend there's nothing to see here but we'd just be fooling ourselves. Will things change or will we see more of this? Only time will tell... If buyers just want to replace their top-tier EF L-series zoom lenses with RF series equivalents and a few novel extras, then none of this matters, as they can fork out the big dollars and swap over right now. Everyone else, not so much.

Perhaps I didn't express my point clearly, my mistake.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 14, 2022)

Photography has always been about technology and from its earliest days there have always been people who feel that each new technology is somehow "cheating." That Canon is using new technology to create new options in lenses should come as no surprise. Indeed, when they introduced the R system they made a point of saying that the newly designed mount was intended to take advantage of technologies that could not be accommodated by the EF mount system. 

Canon may be the first, but they won't be the last. The digital revolution changed how we came to view film and cameras, but lenses remained largely analog. Today we are seeing the beginning of how lenses will change in the future through digital technologies. Whining about the inevitable change may make someone an extremist, but it doesn't make anyone logical.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 14, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> The problem with extreme software correction?
> 
> From https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-24-240mm-F4-6.3-IS-USM-Lens.aspx
> "Distortion correction is destructive at the pixel level as image details must be stretched using computational algorithms to determine what the newly-created details should be"
> ...


To be clear, your last statement is incorrect. If you shoot in RAW and post process your images, you're applying software post processing to the RAW image, not on top of camera firmware processing. The firmware disables the ability to turn off corrections for JPG images, and Canon's DPP applies corrections even with the settings for distortion at zero. But using non-Canon RAW processing is the reason we know what the camera is doing – the uncorrected RAW images show the extreme distortion and the mechanical vignetting. Simple logic indicates that if Canon was forcing the corrections into RAW images via camera firmware, we would not see those artifacts in the RAW images. 



LogicExtremist said:


> The point we can make is that the RF lens range has hit a new low when it comes to optical lens distortion, where a lens does not cover the complete full frame sensor, that was never seen in the worst of the EF lenses.


EF 24mm f/1.4L II on an EOS Ra (lower left corner of an image from a DPR thread):


Appears to be mechanical vignetting, although it seems to be specific to the Ra (does not occur for the user on the R6), maybe the Hα-passing filter stack is thicker and that clips the very oblique rays at the corners.

The EF 16-35/2.8 III and the EF 11-24/4 both have >4 stops of optical vignetting in the corners. It's not mechanical vignetting, but a loss of 94% of the light is a rather severe optical problem. Correcting it by adding 4 stops of ISO noise is also destructive at the pixel level. 



LogicExtremist said:


> Excluding Canon's exorbitantly priced top end wildlife primes worth tens of thousands of dollars, 3 of of 21 RF lenses equates to over 14% of the RF lens range, It's also 2 out of 9 non-L RF lenses, or 22% of the non-premium RF series of lenses. It is therefore accurate to say that is case both generally and precisely the case that the RF series of lenses (collectively as a lens platform) have reached a new low in the worst optical lens distortion.


If it applies to 14-22% of the lineup, it's not _generally_ the case for the platform. It is specifically the case, in a minority of lenses. 

I agree, it's a new low for Canon. There were similar examples early on with Sony and Olympus, time has passed and people have moved on. I suspect the main reason people have moved on is that it really isn't that big a deal. As I found when testing the RF 14-35/4, the optical performance of the heavily corrected corners on the 14-35 at 14mm is equivalent to the lightly corrected corners of the EF 11-24/4 at 14mm (the latter having better optical corrections and the additional benefit of not being at an extreme end of its zoom range). 

The bottom line is that this is much ado about nothing. Digital correction is easy, automatic and results in image quality similar to optical correction (at least in the one lens that I've tested).


----------



## Johnw (Apr 14, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I said that (generally) the RF lenses have worse optical correction



Yes and I disagreed with that assessment. That is not correct as a general conclusion.

I have used the 35, both 50s, both 85s, the 24-105L, the 28-70, the 600, and the 100-400, all of those were generally well corrected optically.

I've also used the 16 and the 24-240 and agree those have some compromises. As I said and as I think your own post helped to show, the RF lenses that have such compromises are the exception.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Apr 15, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> To be clear, your last statement is incorrect. If you shoot in RAW and post process your images, you're applying software post processing to the RAW image, not on top of camera firmware processing. The firmware disables the ability to turn off corrections for JPG images, and Canon's DPP applies corrections even with the settings for distortion at zero. But using non-Canon RAW processing is the reason we know what the camera is doing – the uncorrected RAW images show the extreme distortion and the mechanical vignetting. Simple logic indicates that if Canon was forcing the corrections into RAW images via camera firmware, we would not see those artifacts in the RAW images.


You are indeed correct, my mistake, had alot on my mind during the day, I've amended it. 
Yes, JPEG corrections hppen in camera, RAW corrections happen in software with lens correction profiles on the computer, thanks for the correction.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Apr 15, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Yes and I disagreed with that assessment. That is not correct as a general conclusion.
> 
> I have used the 35, both 50s, both 85s, the 24-105L, the 28-70, the 600, and the 100-400, all of those were generally well corrected optically.
> 
> I've also used the 16 and the 24-240 and agree those have some compromises. As I said and as I think your own post helped to show, the RF lenses that have such compromises are the exception.


Agreed, those lenses listed are good lenses optically and the two you mention have compromises. We're getting down to semantics, but as a whole, the RF family may have pushed the upper end upwards, but the lower end downwards too. Maybe a more accurate way of expressing the situation than saying generally, since it's an objectively specific situation.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Apr 15, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Photography has always been about technology and from its earliest days there have always been people who feel that each new technology is somehow "cheating." That Canon is using new technology to create new options in lenses should come as no surprise. Indeed, when they introduced the R system they made a point of saying that the newly designed mount was intended to take advantage of technologies that could not be accommodated by the EF mount system.
> 
> Canon may be the first, but they won't be the last. The digital revolution changed how we came to view film and cameras, but lenses remained largely analog. Today we are seeing the beginning of how lenses will change in the future through digital technologies. Whining about the inevitable change may make someone an extremist, but it doesn't make anyone logical.


I'm not complaining about technological advances, bring on the innovation! I'm pointing out the illogical contradiction in tech-focused forums which tend to be all about tech specs and performance turning around and pretending certain distasteful things aren't happening. As a whole, the RF family of lenses may have pushed the upper end upwards, but they also lower end downwards too. Similarly, I know when I'm getting value for money, and when I'm being ripped off. 

Canon may be focussing more on their premium high, priced items, because the profit margins are even larger on those than the budget products, which they have to sell more of in a shrinking market. The reality is that the majority of mid-range enthusiast buyers are in a cloud of uncertainty about where Canon is going and what they will offer. Canon's entry level buyers, who are the bulk of their market, will get a Rebel or M-series body with a kit lens and not care less, neither would the cashed up old men retirees who will just buy the complete setup of top-tier bodies and staple lenses which are available. 

We can either examine our situation to try and ascertain what's happening and where we stand as Canon buyers, or we can just keep whistling past that dark alley and imagine that everything has to be fine, because a foreign corporation that exists to make a profit really cares for us lol! There are more holes in the Canon camera and lens roadmap than a politician's election speech, and I've got all the essential RF lenses that I _need _for my work, but I'm holding off buying any more RF lenses that I might _want_, because I want to see what our choices will be. Some people just buy whatever Canon releases, because they love new gear, and if that's what floats people's boats, then power to them!


----------



## unfocused (Apr 15, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> ...pretending certain distasteful things aren't happening...


Distasteful to you. Not everyone shares that view. You've cited three lenses you don't like. Two are affordable consumer lenses in focal lengths not previously available. One is an L lens that offers a wider range than the EF model. I own two of the three and don't find anything distasteful about them... 



LogicExtremist said:


> ...I know when I'm getting value for money, and when I'm being ripped off...


If you feel you are getting "ripped off" then don't buy it. If enough people agree with you, prices will fall. So far it looks like you are in the minority.



LogicExtremist said:


> ...Canon may be focussing more on their premium high, priced items, because the profit margins are even larger on those than the budget products, which they have to sell more of in a shrinking market. The reality is that the majority of mid-range enthusiast buyers are in a cloud of uncertainty about where Canon is going and what they will offer. Canon's entry level buyers, who are the bulk of their market, will get a Rebel or M-series body with a kit lens and not care less, neither would the cashed up old men retirees who will just buy the complete setup of top-tier bodies and staple lenses which are available.


Stripping out the bitterness, you are correct. Canon is focusing on enthusiasts and targeting their products to what that market can afford. And, since a large part of the enthusiast market is comprised of people with disposable income that are fairly well insulated from transitory market changes (cashed-up old men retirees) they are following the money, just like their competition. The entry-level market is shrinking, but it is likely to stabilize and Canon seems to be positioning itself to remain competitive/dominant in that market (Rumors of more low-cost R bodies and lenses). I'm not sure who the "mid-range enthusiast buyers" are, but it seems like Canon has been offering a number of bodies and lenses that fit that category (including two of the lenses you dislike). The R and RF lines are new, so of course there is some uncertainty what the future holds. The only difference between the situation today and the situation when the EF line was dominant is the EF line had more history behind it, so the lens introductions were more predictable.



LogicExtremist said:


> ...We can either examine our situation to try and ascertain what's happening and where we stand as Canon buyers, or we can just keep whistling past that dark alley and imagine that everything has to be fine, because a foreign corporation that exists to make a profit really cares for us lol!...


You are the one bothered by whether or not Canon "cares" for us. It's a transactional relationship. They make products. People decide if they want to buy them. If enough people want the products, they make a profit and stay in business. If people don't want the products, they don't stay in business. It's illogical for you to take it personally.



LogicExtremist said:


> ...I've got all the essential RF lenses that I _need _for my work, but I'm holding off buying any more RF lenses that I might _want_, because I want to see what our choices will be...


That's the most logical statement you've made.



LogicExtremist said:


> ...Some people just buy whatever Canon releases, because they love new gear, and if that's what floats people's boats, then power to them!


Why so bitter? No one just buys "whatever Canon releases." Everyone makes their own choices based on wants, needs and what they can afford. It's not "what floats people's boats" it's how people choose to spend their own hard-earned money (many after a lifetime of working and denying themselves purchases while they raised families, etc.). 

Adding a smiley face doesn't conceal your bitterness towards us "cashed-up retirees" who spent most of our lives working hard, raising families, paying for our kids' education, scrimping and saving for retirement and often delaying that retirement for years. We have the opportunity to treat ourselves to things we never could before and want to enjoy ourselves for a few years before we are too old and feeble to do anything. If that offends you...well tough.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Apr 16, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Adding a smiley face doesn't conceal your bitterness towards us "cashed-up retirees" who spent most of our lives working hard, raising families, paying for our kids' education, scrimping and saving for retirement and often delaying that retirement for years. We have the opportunity to treat ourselves to things we never could before and want to enjoy ourselves for a few years before we are too old and feeble to do anything. If that offends you...well tough.


Thanks for explaining what annoyed you in my post, now I understand how you've misunderstood me and can offer some clarification.

Firstly, there's no bitterness, Canon's antics are a mild inconvenience to me at worst, and people's emotional reactions to Canon's shenanigans are kind of amusing from a human behaviour perspective, hence the smileys! 

The whole point of mentioning retired old men was not to spite them, they're the majority of participants on most photography forums, possibly except for exclusively Sony camera forums which have disproportionate numbers of younger male gear-heads who are into 'technology for technology's sake' and usually work in the information technology field lol! It's about understanding demographics, pure and simple.

I've already pointed out in other threads to readers here, that we on this forum aren't representative of the greater Canon camera gear market, and only represent a narrow niche group. This was to help gain perspective why Canon does what it does, and how the bulk of photography gear sales come from entry level Rebel and M-series ASPC gear to everyday people and beginners.

It's irrational for anyone to spite retirees who have worked hard and have chosen to spend their money enjoying themselves however they please. That kind of resentment usually comes from a much younger generational 'okay boomer' crowd which is directed against the baby-boomer generation. That kind of nonsense doesn't interest me.

Here's a breakdown of photography by age groups in the US - source is https://www.statista.com/statistics/227424/number-of-photographers-usa/
A total of, 42,093 respondents, 18-64 years of age were surveyed.




The older 50-65 years age group only accounts for 15% of people practicing photography in some form or other. The retirement age in the US is around 65-67, and this data doesn't include the over 65 retirees.

The photography gear used by these age groups would differ, based on their subcultures and disposable incomes. It would be safe to assume that the biggest group, the 18-29 year olds, are mainly smartphone photographers, and conversely, the majority of people with flagship camera bodies and top tier wildlife super telephoto lenses are likely in the older age groups.

When we look at the world of photography, we have to remember that the market has contracted drastically, and potentially may continue to do so. Alongside this is a progressive generational shift towards smartphones as a means of accessible photography and videography for social media, which is centred more around creative expression rather than professional quality of production. This is point-and-shoot culture reaching a whole new level.

With the progression of age, and succession of generations, the culture shifts, and so does the market for certain products. The photography companies are navigating a shrinking market in a shifting and uncertain landscape, while trying to stay competitive. Canon is no longer in the boom phase of the camera industry's heyday, so their product range, marketing strategies and target market will change accordingly in response to the change. Being a completely different situation from the past, we can expect things to stay the same, or operate with the same certainty.


I totally agree, our relationship as buyers to a corporation whose gear we invest in is purely transactional, but anyone would be forgiven for thinking otherwise when they see the emotional investment and identification with a brand that occurs on some forums where people get into tribal brand wars.

Put simply, Canon's concern is to maximise profits and gain market share.

What buyers want is choice, and value for money. When it comes to gear ecosystems, some clarity on the range of products that will be available in anew system.

Canon's pursuit of their goals can be at the expense of the buyers needs, if they believe they can get away with it, and it won't hurt future sales, so their actions aren't necessarily always benevolent to buyers, nor do they need to be. Cutting edge products such as the 28-70mm f/2 lens allow the company to showcase the best they can offer technologically, which is great PR for the company, and draw buyers of top tier-gear. Many companies offer specific products that are very attractive to new buyers of a system, to lure them in, these are products that may have excellent performance for non-premium items, and they may be offered at little to no profit to provide unbeatable value for money as a drawcard to entice people in, who will then buy other gear which subsidises the prices of the latter. This is the gear that 'punches above its price range', and is a real win for the buyer short term, and for the manufacturer in the long term.

This all raises the question, where is Canon going with all this?

Will the EF-S grade and non-premium full-frame lens markets ultimately be consolidated into a single, large, vaguely defined group of 'RF budget lenses', with a super cheap yet-to-come RF camera body as the potential replacement to the Rebel series if Canon chooses to or has to go that way in an uncertain market? That's assuming the M-series stays, considering it is a mirrorless platform and the Rebel series are the older DSLRs.

Companies have to respond to the shifts in the market. With the lens range on offer, it does lend itself to Canon possibly pushing into a premium territory, while offering a basic collection of entry level lenses and bodies to bring people into the ecosystem. That may explain the conspicuous absence of mid-range lenses, which appeal to a certain demographic, that isn't the young smartphone photographers, nor the retirees who can buy premium lenses. It may also explain why third party lens manufacturers are either ignoring Canon's RF platform, or being prevented from releasing RF lenses to reduce competition, depending on who you ask.

Dustin Abbott mentions the glaring gap in RF lens line up in the video below:






It's still early days on the RF platform, but with a limited range of lenses available, many overpriced, and a clear absence of third party offerings, the factors that satisfy buyers, namely choice, and value for money, are far from optimal right now. There's no reliable indicator as to which way things will change, which doesn't instill buyer confidence. These are my criticisms of Canon, but if people wish to believe (because it can't be objectively true) that their favourite company can do no wrong, then so be it, nothing much can change that. 

Personally, I'm only a just a little annoyed that I can't get a decent mid-range 85mm right now. I'm interested in working with that focal length after seeing the type of images it can produce at apertures of 1.2-1.4, and noticing I'm on this focal length on my L-series RF zoom often. The RF 85mm f/2 macro looks very sharp and can focus closer than any other 85mm, but this lens with excellent sharpness and contrast produces a mediocre and overly contrasty (non smooth and a bit busy) bokeh, plus Canon put a crappy STM system into it which messes the AF system. I could buy the Canon or Sigma Art EF 85 1.4s used, but it would be nice to have the convenience an RF lens rather than invest more in a superseded lens mount. First world problem really, I don't need it, just want it to learn on and perhaps incorporate it into my work.

Hope that's much clearer!


​


----------



## Johnw (Apr 16, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I'm only a just a little annoyed that I can't get a decent mid-range 85mm right now. I'm interested in working with that focal length after seeing the type of images it can produce at apertures of 1.2-1.4, and noticing I'm on this focal length on my L-series RF zoom often. The RF 85mm f/2 macro looks very sharp and can focus closer than any other 85mm, but this lens with excellent sharpness and contrast produces a mediocre and overly contrasty (non smooth and a bit busy) bokeh, plus Canon put a crappy STM system into it which messes the AF system. I could buy the Canon or Sigma Art EF 85 1.4s used, but it would be nice to have the convenience an RF lens rather than invest more in a superseded lens mount. First world problem really, I don't need it, just want it to learn on and perhaps incorporate it into my work.



What about the Samyang/Rokinon RF 85 1.4?

The AF seems decent in the reviews, it’s not overpriced, and it’s 1.4. It doesn’t have IS but you can still get decent results with IBIS at 85. The only real downside I can see to it is lack of the control ring like the native lenses have. The IQ seems close to the Canon f/2 and it also includes a hood and weather sealing which the cheaper Canon doesn't have.


----------



## AutoMatters (Apr 21, 2022)

I really, really want something in an L-Series lens that has a versatile, broad zoom range for use in photojournalism (wide angle to reasonably long telephoto). I recently switched to Canon mirrorless (EOS R3), after being a Nikon shooter for 50 years. My favorite all-time Nikon lens for that purpose was their 28-300. I used it so much that I wore out two of them and was on my third when I switched. Canon's answer is their 24-240mm consumer-grade lens. Even though I would prefer that it were longer on the telephoto end, I like that at 24mm it is wider than the 28-300mm. However, I would much prefer an L-Series lens, and certainly one that has a manual focus switch, unlike the 24-240mm lens' FOCUS/CONTROL switch. I also have no interest in purchasing the outdated and overpriced Canon EF 28-300mm, along with an EF to RF adaptor.


----------



## dolina (Sep 13, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> Forgive the cynical take, but of those 32 new lenses how many are 70-200 with built in fixed TC to sell you a 140-400 f/5.6? I think the 800 f/5.6 and 1200 f/8 would have went down a lot better if they had their TC able to flip in and out.


When I saw the 2022 Nikon Nikkor Z 400mm F2.8 TC VR S I wish Canon added a 1.4x or 2.0 TC for their

2021

- RF 400mm F2.8L IS USM
- RF 600mm F4L IS USM

It would improve their economies of scale to have a built in 1.4x & 2.0x extender.

So instead of having 4 RF L SKUs they'll only have 2.


----------



## dolina (Sep 13, 2022)

AutoMatters said:


> I really, really want something in an L-Series lens that has a versatile, broad zoom range for use in photojournalism (wide angle to reasonably long telephoto). I recently switched to Canon mirrorless (EOS R3), after being a Nikon shooter for 50 years. My favorite all-time Nikon lens for that purpose was their 28-300. I used it so much that I wore out two of them and was on my third when I switched. Canon's answer is their 24-240mm consumer-grade lens. Even though I would prefer that it were longer on the telephoto end, I like that at 24mm it is wider than the 28-300mm. However, I would much prefer an L-Series lens, and certainly one that has a manual focus switch, unlike the 24-240mm lens' FOCUS/CONTROL switch. I also have no interest in purchasing the outdated and overpriced Canon EF 28-300mm, along with an EF to RF adaptor.



I have some news for you Jan.

Today BHPhoto has sold its last Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM & declared it as discontinued.

Prior to this they have declared these other 28-300mm as "No Longer Available"

- Nikon
- Sigma
- Tamron

Sony's 12yo E mount that has the largest mirrorlless lens lineup does not have that lens. The closest being the 24-240mm just like Canon.

Before 2030 I am certain that Canon will create a RF L lens equivalent of it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2022)

dolina said:


> I have some news for you Jan.
> 
> Today BHPhoto has sold its last Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM & declared it as discontinued.
> 
> ...


Ok.



dolina said:


> Before 2030 I am certain that Canon will create a RF L lens equivalent of it.


This conclusion is not logical based on the information you present above.


----------



## dolina (Sep 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ok.
> 
> 
> This conclusion is not logical based on the information you present above.


I forgot to provide citation






Canon’s roadmap includes 32 new lenses by 2026 according to Canon’s CEO


Canon published its annual business outlook this morning. Statements attributed directly to Canon CEO Fujio Mitarai indicate the firm expects to keep releasing lenses at the same pace (8 per year, according to Canon) for the next four years. Mitarai’s comments in the notes of the presentation...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2022)

dolina said:


> I forgot to provide citation
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is no evidence in there to support your conclusion that an RF replacement for the EF 28-300L will be among those lenses. You seem to believe that Canon will replicate the entire EF lens catalog in the RF mount, but there is no basis to believe that...and ample evidence that Canon is coming out with new lenses in RF mount (e.g. 28-70/2, 5.2mm dual fisheye) that we're not ever in the Ef lineup.


----------



## dolina (Sep 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> There is no evidence in there to support your conclusion that an RF replacement for the EF 28-300L will be among those lenses. You seem to believe that Canon will replicate the entire EF lens catalog in the RF mount, but there is no basis to believe that...and ample evidence that Canon is coming out with new lenses in RF mount (e.g. 28-70/2, 5.2mm dual fisheye) that we're not ever in the Ef lineup.



2/3rds of the 30 RF lenses released thus far are direct or improved upon replacements of the last EF lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2022)

dolina said:


> Over 90% of the 30+ RF lenses released thus far are direct or improved upon replacements of the last EF L lenses.


I suppose it depends on what you consider direct/improved, but I believe that <75% of the 30 RF lenses released thus far are direct replacements or improved versions of EF lenses. (I presume you are not talking about just EF L lenses, because there are only 17 RF L lenses.)

The 5.2mm dual fisheye, the 28-70/2, the 600/11 and 800/11 I'd call 'new'. The 15-30 is the first ever non-L FF UWA zoom, the 100-400 non-L may be a substitute for the 70-300 non-L but it's a significant non-overlap. The 16/2.8 is also 'new' (I would not consider it an 'improved' version of the elderly 20/2.8). That's 7 lenses out of the 30. It's not 30+, by the way, it's 30 and that includes the two extenders and the two RF-S lenses...and if you're going to include the RF-S lenses in the denominator then the RF-S 18-45 is neither a direct replacement of nor an improvement on the EF-S/M APS-C kit lenses, it is the opposite of an improvement given that it combines the most limiting focal lengths of the 15-45/18-55 ranges). So, that's 8 out of 30 lenses that are not direct replacements or improvements of EF (and EF-S/EF-M) lenses, meaning <75%.

If that ratio holds, there are quite a few legacy EF lenses that will not see an RF version. Personally, I expect the 28-300L to be one of those that isn't replaced. Time will tell.


----------



## dolina (Sep 14, 2022)

Something to consider as to why Canon was very slow in releasing 30 lenses over 5 years at an average rate of 6 lens SKUs annually.

~80% of these lenses have such a high volume that production capacity cannot keep up especially with supply contraints caused by COVID & the Ukranian-Russian war.

Canon CEO commited to a 8 lens SKU annual release for the next 4 years because the lens coming out in the future will not be that highly demand even when Canon photo forum members tend to make it seem that the missing focal length they desire appears to have millions of users waiting for them


----------

