# Canon will announce more lenses at one time than ever before in the 2nd half of 2021 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 3, 2021)

> The first half of 2021 is not going to be an exciting time for Canon shooters. The company continues to work on getting over the supply chain and manufacturing issues, something that is apparently going to be resolved by late March.
> A source with a stellar track record has told me that Canon will announce more lenses at once than ever before. The lenses will have different shipping dates, but Canon is going to make a “massive splash with a new camera and many many lenses”.
> I have posted the known RF lens roadmap a couple of times, and you can check it out here. Keep in mind that the list may not be complete.
> One lens not on the roadmap is a dedicated RF mount macro lens, I have been told numerous times that we’ll see one this year, but I don’t yet know the focal length or speed.
> There will be a lot more information on this topic in the coming weeks, I can’t say why, but things should start to come into focus.



Continue reading...


----------



## BPhoto06 (Mar 3, 2021)

I Think that canon should make a low priced RF 17-40mm F/4L lens with IS USM (maybe with 7 aperture blades like the EF version to keep the cost down) and I'm sure a lot of people with low budgets would buy it if they made it about £400. That would be a good price for such a lens.


----------



## slclick (Mar 3, 2021)

BPhoto06 said:


> I Think that canon should make a low priced RF 17-40mm F/4L lens with IS and I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't mind if the focus motor was STM to reduce the price. A Lot of people with low budgets would buy it. If they made it about £400 that would be a good price for such a lens.


Historically, STM has been reserved for Non L series glass. Could you write the same post and leave out the L designation and still feel the same way?


----------



## amorse (Mar 3, 2021)

That's exciting! Any hints on where that new camera will fit into the lineup? Are we talking flagship, APS-C, high resolution, EOS-M? All have made the rounds in rumours, but I do which one has the golden ticket for 2021!


----------



## Rocksthaman (Mar 3, 2021)

I would love if they would partner with sigma.

I would love to have the 28-70 2.8 in RF, especially since the R5/R6 have ibis.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 3, 2021)

BPhoto06 said:


> I Think that canon should make a low priced RF 17-40mm F/4L lens with IS USM and I'm sure a lot of people with low budgets would buy it if they made it about £400. That would be a good price for such a lens.


Unfortunately, I don’t think there will be any L lens for 400 anything.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 3, 2021)

Been riding my Unicorn around looking for the end of a rainbow since this thread appeared.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 3, 2021)

Well that’s not too difficult a guessing game, R1/X along with RF 300 and 400 f2.8’s, RF 500 and 600 f4’s, RF 800 f5.6, maybe RF 1200 and super fast 200. That makes seven lenses without anything most people want or need. I’d guess an RF 35 L either 1.4 or 1.2 and maybe even a fast RF 24 L.

The former isn’t very appealing to the core market without that first bunch of ‘whites’.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 3, 2021)

Still hoping for some lightweight L primes, especially wide angles.
And I don't see the coming RF 1,4/135 as a replacement for the EF 135, it will be extremely expensive, heavy and bulky. So, the risk is customers getting Sigmas or Zeiss instead.
I certainly do not question the validity of the RF 135 concept, but doubt it will be as successful as the EF f 2 /135 L.
Many new RF lenses have been developed mostly for pros, who, doubtlessly need them. Yet, other less demanding and fortunate customers shouldn't be forgotten. There still is a market between professional and beginner. Till now, I could afford most L lenses, but I'd hate having to resort in the future to non-wheathersealed STM lenses. I can't presently afford the RF 1,2/50, but do not want to buy the RF 1,8/50, for mechanical and optical reasons.


----------



## ctk (Mar 3, 2021)

I just want 2 lenses:


Some kind of fast 40mm (F/2 or better)
A new 135/2.8
A very slow 12-xx would be great too but is completely unrealistic. Anyway we'll see what they come up with


----------



## abnagfab (Mar 3, 2021)

10-24/f4 please


----------



## neurorx (Mar 3, 2021)

I’m hoping for the 135 1.4


----------



## slclick (Mar 3, 2021)

ctk said:


> I just want 2 lenses:
> 
> 
> Some kind of fast 40mm (F/2 or better)
> ...


A 40 prime in RF would bring me to the system (to a R6). I know...weird. I just love that focal length.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 3, 2021)

With my luck the new camera will be 90MP R5R and I'll end up parting with alot of money to get it.
I'm still praying its an R1 which I will be able to ignore.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Mar 3, 2021)

I think the Canon lens and body supply in the UK at least is improving I see a lot more R bodies and RF lenses in stock these last few weeks.

Might we see a 7D replacement on an R mount, if Canon does have a peep at this site occasionally, they will see a big desire for a quality APS-C R7.

It would appear Canon is well and truly behind the R Mount but being relatively new they are still lacking in lens choice compared to the established Sony range so a flurry of new lenses would be welcomed by us all, but many be not by our bank manager


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Mar 3, 2021)

Nikon has a crazy lens map as well.
Canon and Nikon are looking to pass Sony in mirrorless lenses in a short time.


----------



## Wiki Tango (Mar 3, 2021)

I am still hoping for the once rumored
RF 28-280 f/2.8 (no need for IS)
as it would me help to reduce my equipment
from a 5D Mk. IV with the 24-70 f/2.8
and an EOS R with the 70-200 f/2.8
to one R5 with this dream lens for my sports photography.

OK, i guess i would not save much weight ...


----------



## clearlyed (Mar 3, 2021)

FF RF Cine
RF Cinema Glass

I'm guessing the exciting camera will be a full frame cine camera that fits between FF c500 with EF mount and the Super35 C70 which is RF and requires the EF RF adapter. 

Then the Lenses will be a full cine link of RF glass. 

This way they take care of all the current EF glass users and have top of the line C700, C500 and C300 cameras that support that glass. Doing FF RF cine body brings these incredible photo lenses to the cinema world like they did with EF. But they need RF cine glass to pair with these cameras to be used on sets that require full manual glass.


----------



## Dearl4 (Mar 3, 2021)

"There will be a lot more information on this topic in the coming weeks, I can’t say why, but things should start to come into focus."

Heh, I see what you did there.


----------



## Alan B (Mar 3, 2021)

What are your predictive prices on these future beasts?!

Canon R1
Canon RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon RF 500mm f/4L IS USM
Canon RF 600mm f/4L IS USM


----------



## unfocused (Mar 3, 2021)

Not sure why CRGuy says no macro when two are listed on the roadmap.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 3, 2021)

Amusing to see people listing their personal unicorns when we already have the lenses listed on the earlier post.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 3, 2021)

Alan B said:


> What are your predictive prices on these future beasts?!
> 
> Canon R1
> Canon RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
> ...


More than the EF versions.


----------



## puffo25 (Mar 3, 2021)

I have been looking for a fisheye/very wide angle lens for my Canon R5. Currently I have a Samyang manual focus fisheye 12mm and the Canon RF 15-35mm f/2,8.
In order to make very wide angle pictures, if needed I guess the only solution available today is to buy the "old" but still great EF 8-15mm f/4. I do not think that Canon, Laowa or Sigma will make any AF winder than 10mm for the R5 soon.
Do you agree?


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 3, 2021)

puffo25 said:


> I have been looking for a fisheye/very wide angle lens for my Canon R5. Currently I have a Samyang manual focus fisheye 12mm and the Canon RF 15-35mm f/2,8.
> In order to make very wide angle pictures, if needed I guess the only solution available today is to buy the "old" but still great EF 8-15mm f/4. I do not think that Canon, Laowa or Sigma will make any AF winder than 10mm for the R5 soon.
> Do you agree?


What's wrong with adapting the EF11-24/4 or the EF8-15mm. Both great lenses and the adapter can be the ND/CPL rather than using rear gels if that is your genre. Weld the adapter in place and voila you have a RF lens. 
Any new RF lens in that focal range is going to be expensive. Virtually every RF lens has brought something new to the table rather than just replicate an existing EF lens+adapter - bar the RF24-105/4. Most of the reviewers discount the R mount system as not having a reasonable range of lenses but conveniently overlook the existing EF/EF-S lenses


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 3, 2021)

So what announcement in the past has had the most number of lenses in it?
Not sure why Canon would do it all at one time. Great to make a statement but let marketing have some exposure over a period of time IMHO

One lens not on the list is a pancake eg 40mm. An adapted EF adds a lot of cost and doubles the EF size whereas a RF version should be cheap and small


----------



## dcm (Mar 3, 2021)

puffo25 said:


> I have been looking for a fisheye/very wide angle lens for my Canon R5. Currently I have a Samyang manual focus fisheye 12mm and the Canon RF 15-35mm f/2,8.
> In order to make very wide angle pictures, if needed I guess the only solution available today is to buy the "old" but still great EF 8-15mm f/4. I do not think that Canon, Laowa or Sigma will make any AF winder than 10mm for the R5 soon.
> Do you agree?


I imagine the fish-eye is one of their lowest volume lenses so it might not be high on the priority list. I would only see it coming sooner if they could make it a statement lens with something new or extraordinary (faster aperture)?

In the meantime, my existing EF 8-15 and EF 11-24 seem to do quite well on my R6 along with my existing D bodies. Not sure I will have too much incentive to upgrade. If I didn't have one already, I might be waiting to see what Canon offers.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 3, 2021)

Alan B said:


> What are your predictive prices on these future beasts?!
> 
> Canon R1
> Canon RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
> ...


$6,999
$13,999
$10,499
$15,999


----------



## David Norris (Mar 3, 2021)

Dearl4 said:


> "There will be a lot more information on this topic in the coming weeks, I can’t say why, but things should start to come into focus."
> 
> Heh, I see what you did there.


I’m glad someone addressed it


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 3, 2021)

Once I see the R1, I'll see if our agency is buying any glass. 
Unless the resolution of the R1 is equal to or better than the R5 or Sony A1 we will not be upgrading Canon bodies or lenses for the first time since 1987.


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 3, 2021)

How Canon can improve on the f/2.8 300mm IS USM II is beyond me. For fast action hand held sports, it is possibly the best in the world


----------



## melgross (Mar 3, 2021)

BPhoto06 said:


> I Think that canon should make a low priced RF 17-40mm F/4L lens with IS USM and I'm sure a lot of people with low budgets would buy it if they made it about £400. That would be a good price for such a lens.


An L zoom for £400? Somehow, I don’t think so.


----------



## melgross (Mar 3, 2021)

amorse said:


> That's exciting! Any hints on where that new camera will fit into the lineup? Are we talking flagship, APS-C, high resolution, EOS-M? All have made the rounds in rumours, but I do which one has the golden ticket for 2021!


I believe the rumor I like the most. Works every time.


----------



## sean3d (Mar 4, 2021)

I'd like a RF version of the 18-80mm compact-servo cinema zoom! That will be needed if the c200 or c300 moves to RF mount. (and would work well on my C70)


----------



## fabiorossi (Mar 4, 2021)

An 11-24mm f/2.8 and we are ready


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Mar 4, 2021)

Please no more drinking straw supertele zooms. 
300 f/2.8 IS
500 f/4 IS
200-600 f/4.5-6.3 IS
800 f/8 DO IS
150 f/2.8 macro IS
135 f/2 IS
20-35 f/2
55 f/1.4
12-24 f/4
16-35 f/4 IS
16 f/1.8
100 f/1.8 IS


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 4, 2021)

fabiorossi said:


> An 11-24mm f/2.8 and we are ready


Having owned the superb EF11-24 f4 since it came out I believe the market for wider than 14 and faster than f4 is microscopically small and will simply not happen.


----------



## Pixel (Mar 4, 2021)

If the camera is the EOS-1R then the lenses will be chock full of pro L lenses. If its the APS-C then look for a bunch of low quality stuff. My money is on the flagship.


----------



## Pixel (Mar 4, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> How Canon can improve on the f/2.8 300mm IS USM II is beyond me. For fast action hand held sports, it is possibly the best in the world


They could make it a little lighter, which they're bound to doing.


----------



## xanbarksdale (Mar 4, 2021)

Is a 24mm L prime too much to ask for?


----------



## slclick (Mar 4, 2021)

Pixel said:


> If the camera is the EOS-1R then the lenses will be chock full of pro L lenses. If its the APS-C then look for a bunch of low quality stuff. My money is on the flagship.


Low quality stuff eh? Seems I recall most 7D series shooters using the same high quality glass as the FF crowd. Maybe you are surrounded with a different socio-economic group than me.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Mar 4, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Please no more drinking straw supertele zooms.


Aww, and I was hoping for an 1800 mm f/22. One that could double as a hiking pole.


----------



## SnowMiku (Mar 4, 2021)

An R1 or an R7 along with super telephoto lens announcements.


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 4, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Please no more drinking straw supertele zooms.
> 300 f/2.8 IS
> 500 f/4 IS
> 200-600 f/4.5-6.3 IS
> ...


Besides the 55mm in your list, I would expect all of them to be L lenses and quite expensive to very expensive. 
Some are more likely than others but it it hard to imagine that Canon would release a 200-600mm after the recent 100-500mm. The volume of >100mm macro lenses sold would have to be very small compared to ~100mm but Canon would know best.
A 16mm/1.8 could be interesting if is designed for astro/coma but Canon has not released any wide angle astro lenses in the past. Their 14mm/2.8L II hasn't changed price in 14 years and wasn't inspiring for coma.


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 4, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Having owned the superb EF11-24 f4 since it came out I believe the market for wider than 14 and faster than f4 is microscopically small and will simply not happen.


The only use-case I can see would be be wide angle astro-landscapes/aurora. Hard to beat the Samyang 14mm/2.8 or 2.4 or Sigma 14mm/1.8 if you really need the extra 1.5 stops (or stop it down for better sharpness) or maybe the Laowa 15mm/2. Videoing aurora would ideally use the Sigma otherwise very high ISO would be par for the course. Autofocus is not a priority for astro but Canon would need to include it.
The closest that Canon ever made was the 14 year old 14mm/2.8 II which hasn't changed in price and wasn't particularly good for astro. My 8-15mm/4 is the only other choice for something different. Rare to ever see it second hand... I don't think that it sells well.


----------



## Famateur (Mar 4, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Unfortunately, I don’t think there will be any L lens for 400 anything.



Maybe BitCoin? 

That would be a lot of lenses!


----------



## derpderp (Mar 4, 2021)

just gimme my 24mm f1.2L and I'd be a happy man. That or a 70-200 F2L.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Mar 4, 2021)

Mmmm. More cheap EF glass to hit the market soon.


----------



## Famateur (Mar 4, 2021)

Though not on the predicted roadmap, I'd love a 24-70 F4L IS. The EF version used to be my go-to lens. Then I got a 16-35 F4L IS and love the improvement in sharpness. I can imagine an RF version of the 24-70 would be small, light and sharp.

Incidentally, it wasn't until I got my R5 that I realized how big a difference in sharpness there is between the 24-70 and 16-35 F4L. One of the very few downsides to the R5 purchase...


----------



## rbr (Mar 4, 2021)

F


Famateur said:


> Though not on the predicted roadmap, I'd love a 24-70 F4L IS. The EF version used to be my go-to lens. Then I got a 16-35 F4L IS and love the improvement in sharpness. I can imagine an RF version of the 24-70 would be small, light and sharp.
> 
> Incidentally, it wasn't until I got my R5 that I realized how big a difference in sharpness there is between the 24-70 and 16-35 F4L. One of the very few downsides to the R5 purchase...



For me it was the other way around. My 24-70 f4L IS does very well on the R5. I find the 16-35f4 L IS to be terrible on the R5, especially in the corners at the wide end. The field curvature at the 35mm end of that lens has always been a frustration. The 14 L II is even worse on the R5 and I already sold it. For now I'm using the Sigma 14-24 with the 24-70 on the R5. I have already sold the 14mm, but I doubt I will ever use the 16-35 again since the Sigma blows it off the map.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 4, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> How Canon can improve on the f/2.8 300mm IS USM II is beyond me. For fast action hand held sports, it is possibly the best in the world


Well they can make it in native RF mount and shave a few grams off it for a start, the IS will be better and work with the IBIS in the bodies too. I suspect the AF will be faster as well considering it will be able to maximize the RF mount pin protocols to the maximum.


----------



## Swerky (Mar 4, 2021)

"massive splash". This means a high end R camera. Not interested. As for the affordable lenses on the roadmap, this 18-45 f4-5.6 is kinda limited. At 45 only useful in good light and 18 is at the limit of ultra wide angle for today's standard. Better have two primes, an 18mm f3.5, and a 40 or 45mm f2.8, similar to the EF pancake.


----------



## puffo25 (Mar 4, 2021)

dcm said:


> I imagine the fish-eye is one of their lowest volume lenses so it might not be high on the priority list. I would only see it coming sooner if they could make it a statement lens with something new or extraordinary (faster aperture)?
> 
> In the meantime, my existing EF 8-15 and EF 11-24 seem to do quite well on my R6 along with my existing D bodies. Not sure I will have too much incentive to upgrade. If I didn't have one already, I might be waiting to see what Canon offers.


Are you extremly pleased with the EF 8-15?


----------



## Robolon (Mar 4, 2021)

ahh, the photographer's wet dream, a super zoom with an f2.8 aperture, while at the same time the lens is light and costs nothing. Well such a lens would bring me back to canon. offcourse the lens needs to be sharp across the frame in the whole zoom range and have no vignett at all. 
I am hoping for a 300mm f/2.8, this might put sony under some pressure to make a 2.8/300 for their e-mount.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Mar 4, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Some are more likely than others but it it hard to imagine that Canon would release a 200-600mm after the recent 100-500mm.


I don't believe in the 200-600mm lense as a direct counter offer to Sony or Nikons offering. But since there are several 250-700mm or similar patents I can imagine Canon bringing out a lense very much like this. It would have a distinctly different selling point compared to the 100-500mm and it would top Nikon and Sonys offering. They would figuratively kill two birds with one stone, much to every birders liking  

Imho, a 250-750mm three times zoom would be awesome, even if it is not an L lense. (I remember one Canon exec stating in an interview it would be very hard to achieve L quality on such a lense).


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Mar 4, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...A source with a stellar track record has told me that Canon will announce more lenses at once than ever before.



What was the biggest announcement in total number of lenses from Canon so far? Knowing this would give us a quite a detailed picture of what to imagine.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Mar 4, 2021)

Since several people stated their wishes, here is mine: 
RF 14-35mm F4 L with a filterable thread coming this year. 

Is there any news on the 70-135mm F2 rumors? That'd be a killer lense which I'd like in the future (3-5 years from now, when I upgrade my current R )


----------



## Fischer (Mar 4, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Still hoping for some lightweight L primes, especially wide angles.
> And I don't see the coming RF 1,4/135 as a replacement for the EF 135, it will be extremely expensive, heavy and bulky. So, the risk is customers getting Sigmas or Zeiss instead.
> I certainly do not question the validity of the RF 135 concept, but doubt it will be as successful as the EF f 2 /135 L.
> Many new RF lenses have been developed mostly for pros, who, doubtlessly need them. Yet, other less demanding and fortunate customers shouldn't be forgotten. There still is a market between professional and beginner. Till now, I could afford most L lenses, but I'd hate having to resort in the future to non-wheathersealed STM lenses. I can't presently afford the RF 1,2/50, but do not want to buy the RF 1,8/50, for mechanical and optical reasons.


Third party will be your salvation then.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 4, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> What was the biggest announcement in total number of lenses from Canon so far? Knowing this would give us a quite a detailed picture of what to imagine.


Well, Canon Rumors have called the last 6-7 years the "Year of the Lens" - without it happening. So lets see it happen this time...


----------



## Fischer (Mar 4, 2021)

If this happens - which would be great - it would also be the final nail in the EF-mount coffin with Canon say'in "look this is the future, and the future is RF".


----------



## tron (Mar 4, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> $6,999
> $13,999
> $10,499
> $15,999


Your predictions (unfortunately) seem reasonable according to the existing EF L super teles.

Since I already have some big white EF lenses I feel 40497$ (even more since I live in EU) richer  
Joking of course but the EF lenses are too good to be replaced for that amount of money.

Now a 600 5.6 DO would interest me but this is not going to happen (at least not soon).


----------



## Bundu (Mar 4, 2021)

My dream lens? RF200-500 f4 L with inbuilt 1.4 tele converter. Yes, it will be big and fairly heavy!! But for my use case it will replace my 400 F2.8 and 600 F4.0 If only everybody's dream lens could come true......


----------



## mpmark (Mar 4, 2021)

Alan B said:


> What are your predictive prices on these future beasts?!
> 
> Canon R1
> Canon RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
> ...


If you have to ask you can’t afford it


----------



## ozturert (Mar 4, 2021)

Inexpensive lenses please! This system urgently needs 3-4 lenses under 600 USD.


----------



## Alan B (Mar 4, 2021)

mpmark said:


> If you have to ask you can’t afford it


haha you got that right 

Hopefully when all that lot comes out i can get myself a "cheaper" EF600 ?!


----------



## amorse (Mar 4, 2021)

ozturert said:


> Inexpensive lenses please! This system urgently needs 3-4 lenses under 600 USD.


I'd bet they'll come eventually, but there are 4 lenses under $600 USD now - 24-105 (f/4-7.1), 85 f/2, 50 f/1.8, 35 f/1.8. I think the bigger question is _which_ lenses will come in at a bargain price, and whether or not those specific lenses will suit the need.


----------



## slclick (Mar 4, 2021)

The cheap lenses come with the cheap bodies. The R5/6 line deserve the class of glass they can produce the finest images using. The R and RP have been given the door so I bet we will see less expensive lenses with new lower priced cameras in the future. For now, it's all about top shelf. Just because a person cannot afford something, it doesn't mean the Mfg must fill the economic gap that suits their budget. Can't afford a GTO? Get the Pinto.


----------



## ctk (Mar 4, 2021)

bluezurich said:


> A 40 prime in RF would bring me to the system (to a R6). I know...weird. I just love that focal length.


You are not alone at all. The CV 40 1.2 is my favorite lens, though I couldn't deal with MF and Sony. Samyang 45/1.8 is good too and I'd settle for that. But a nice *compact *fast 40 would be amazing. I was so crushed when Sigma announced the 40 ART. Was hoping it would just be a longer 35 1.4..... nope. Anywa we'll see


----------



## Danglin52 (Mar 4, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Please no more drinking straw supertele zooms.
> 300 f/2.8 IS
> 500 f/4 IS
> 200-600 f/4.5-6.3 IS
> ...


Not sure what you mean by "drinking Straws", but I would really like to see a high quality 200-500 / 200-600. On the wide end, I would think they could maintain f4 @ 200mm since they do that with the the EF 200-400 and the new mount should help a bit. If they could even do 200-500 f4 - f5.6 (maybe f6.3) with similar quality tot he EF 200-400 I would be very happy. I hope this zoom with the EF III weight loss program to get the lens under 7lbs. I wonder if we are going to see any EF 400 f4 IS DO equivalent RF lenses?


----------



## slclick (Mar 4, 2021)

ctk said:


> You are not alone at all. The CV 40 1.2 is my favorite lens, though I couldn't deal with MF and Sony. Samyang 45/1.8 is good too and I'd settle for that. But a nice *compact *fast 40 would be amazing. I was so crushed when Sigma announced the 40 ART. Was hoping it would just be a longer 35 1.4..... nope. Anywa we'll see


The Siggy produces amazing images but with a 24-70 size and weight. Pass.

I'd be curious to hear how an adapted EF 40 is on the R6.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 4, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> How Canon can improve on the f/2.8 300mm IS USM II is beyond me. For fast action hand held sports, it is possibly the best in the world


Correct. But sold mine already and will be first in line to pre-order the RF-version. Its such a standout lens for my type of shooting. And I just do not want the fuss and missing performance when using a converter.


----------



## ctk (Mar 4, 2021)

bluezurich said:


> The Siggy produces amazing images but with a 24-70 size and weight. Pass.
> 
> I'd be curious to hear how an adapted EF 40 is on the R6.


I'm sure the EF 40 works great on RF bodies.... I have one but have never bothered to put it on. It's sharp, but too slow and has nasty busy bokeh


----------



## kcfp (Mar 4, 2021)

Bring back internal zoom fast L lenses.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 4, 2021)

mpmark said:


> If you have to ask you can’t afford it


I know someone who lost a sale with that line. The answer was, "Well I needed to know what to put on the check but now I'll go somewhere else."


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 4, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Having owned the superb EF11-24 f4 since it came out I believe the market for wider than 14 and faster than f4 is microscopically small and will simply not happen.


I'm curious how Canon will address Sony's 12-24 f/2.8. I don't think the market will be large, but I remember rumors of the 11-24 f/4 becoming a 10-24 f/4 for RF, which would be more practical. Canon could also do a wide fast prime for astro.


----------



## slclick (Mar 4, 2021)

ctk said:


> I'm sure the EF 40 works great on RF bodies.... I have one but have never bothered to put it on. It's sharp, but too slow and has nasty busy bokeh


I found it to have fantastic colors and is simply the best bang for your buck (I only shoot it stopped down) f/8 and be there


----------



## fabiorossi (Mar 4, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Having owned the superb EF11-24 f4 since it came out I believe the market for wider than 14 and faster than f4 is microscopically small and will simply not happen.


I understand that, but always the companies make niche products. A lot of astrophotographers would be absolutely in love with a lens with this specifications and L image quality.
I also think that Canon need to compete with the Sony 12-24mm f/2.8, and complete the 2.8 trilogy in the right way (now there is only RF 15-35 2.8).
But of course, this are my thoughts, I could be completely wrong.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Mar 4, 2021)

fabiorossi said:


> I also think that Canon need to compete with the Sony 12-24mm f/2.8


Or they could just complete the F2 trinity and kick every competitors ass with a 14-28mm F2 or 12-24mm or something similar in F2. 

Of course, "complete the trinity" would also mean a 70-XXXmm F2


----------



## Famateur (Mar 4, 2021)

rbr said:


> F
> 
> 
> For me it was the other way around. My 24-70 f4L IS does very well on the R5. I find the 16-35f4 L IS to be terrible on the R5, especially in the corners at the wide end. The field curvature at the 35mm end of that lens has always been a frustration. The 14 L II is even worse on the R5 and I already sold it. For now I'm using the Sigma 14-24 with the 24-70 on the R5. I have already sold the 14mm, but I doubt I will ever use the 16-35 again since the Sigma blows it off the map.



Interesting. Maybe your 16-35 and my 24-70 F4 need adjustment?


----------



## fabiorossi (Mar 4, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Or they could just complete the F2 trinity and kick every competitors ass with a 14-28mm F2 or 12-24mm or something similar in F2.
> 
> Of course, "complete the trinity" would also mean a 70-XXXmm F2


It would be a dream


----------



## dcm (Mar 5, 2021)

puffo25 said:


> Are you extremly pleased with the EF 8-15?



I'm not sure how to quantify "extremely pleased". For my purposes? Yes. But I am an amateur/prosumer that shot film and manual focus longer than I've been shooting digital. And this is a specialty lens that gets limited use on my 6D and 1DX2. My initial impressions with it on the R6 are more about the R6. I have more options to consider about the best way to get the image I desire, particularly with AF since I often used MF in the past.

The lens operates just fine. I've never had any complaints with it over the 9 years I've owned it on FF or APS-C bodies. It even spent time on my M series before I picked up the manual focus Samyang 8MM f/2.8 Fisheye for the M. The 6D/EF 8-15 has been on the trail with me, but I like the smaller size of the M/Samyang for the trail. The EF 8-15 seems so small now compared to the EF 11-24.


----------



## puffo25 (Mar 5, 2021)

dcm said:


> I'm not sure how to quantify "extremely pleased". For my purposes? Yes. But I am an amateur/prosumer that shot film and manual focus longer than I've been shooting digital. And this is a specialty lens that gets limited use on my 6D and 1DX2. My initial impressions with it on the R6 are more about the R6. I have more options to consider about the best way to get the image I desire, particularly with AF since I often used MF in the past.
> 
> The lens operates just fine. I've never had any complaints with it over the 9 years I've owned it on FF or APS-C bodies. It even spent time on my M series before I picked up the manual focus Samyang 8MM f/2.8 Fisheye for the M. The 6D/EF 8-15 has been on the trail with me, but I like the smaller size of the M/Samyang for the trail. The EF 8-15 seems so small now compared to the EF 11-24.
> 
> View attachment 196120


Appreciated for sharing your "arsenal".

One last questions but not sure you might be able to answer me as I own a EOS R5 with the EF 8-15, Samyang 12mm fisheye, RF 70-200 f2,8, 1,4 teleconverter, EF 300mm f/4...
I have in my office also the EF 24-70mm L f2,8 first version and I am wondering, based maybe on your experience, if indeed it is worth for me to trade in that lens and get the EF 24-70mm L II f2,8?

TIA.
​


----------



## dcm (Mar 5, 2021)

puffo25 said:


> Appreciated for sharing your "arsenal".
> 
> One last questions but not sure you might be able to answer me as I own a EOS R5 with the EF 8-15, Samyang 12mm fisheye, RF 70-200 f2,8, 1,4 teleconverter, EF 300mm f/4...
> I have in my office also the EF 24-70mm L f2,8 first version and I am wondering, based maybe on your experience, if indeed it is worth for me to trade in that lens and get the EF 24-70mm L II f2,8?
> ...



I started with the II version when I upgraded from the 24-105L so I don't have any first hand knowledge of the differences between versions I and II. I'm sure there are prior discussions on the forum from those more knowledgable than I.


----------



## slclick (Mar 5, 2021)

dcm said:


> I started with the II version when I upgraded from the 24-105L so I don't have any first hand knowledge of the differences between versions I and II. I'm sure there are prior discussions on the forum from those more knowledgable than I.





puffo25 said:


> Appreciated for sharing your "arsenal".
> 
> One last questions but not sure you might be able to answer me as I own a EOS R5 with the EF 8-15, Samyang 12mm fisheye, RF 70-200 f2,8, 1,4 teleconverter, EF 300mm f/4...
> I have in my office also the EF 24-70mm L f2,8 first version and I am wondering, based maybe on your experience, if indeed it is worth for me to trade in that lens and get the EF 24-70mm L II f2,8?
> ...


----------



## JaydenEricBeaudoin (Mar 9, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Or they could just complete the F2 trinity and kick every competitors ass with a 14-28mm F2 or 12-24mm or something similar in F2.
> 
> Of course, "complete the trinity" would also mean a 70-XXXmm F2


If they came out with an ultra wide f/2... I don't even care how much it costs. Take my money and take it now. I'm already looking at mirating over to the 28-70, and hoping to do it before my EF 24-70 2.8 loses too much value.

I don't think we'll see a 70-200 f/2, though. Probably closer to 70-135, unless you want to carry a lens that weighs over 2kg... And it might weigh that much anyways. Plus, the size of that front element is going to be insane. I can't wait.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 9, 2021)

ozturert said:


> Inexpensive lenses please! This system urgently needs 3-4 lenses under 600 USD.


Between EOS-M and the ability to mount lenses with adaptors, including EF & EF-S, I doubt this is a high priority for Canon.

I wonder whether the ability to mount FD superteles with an adaptor wasn't part of the drive to make the cheap RF superteles.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Mar 9, 2021)

JaydenEricBeaudoin said:


> If they came out with an ultra wide f/2... I don't even care how much it costs. Take my money and take it now. I'm already looking at mirating over to the 28-70, and hoping to do it before my EF 24-70 2.8 loses too much value.
> 
> I don't think we'll see a 70-200 f/2, though. Probably closer to 70-135, unless you want to carry a lens that weighs over 2kg... And it might weigh that much anyways. Plus, the size of that front element is going to be insane. I can't wait.


There won't be an RF 70-200mm F2, but I honestly believe there will be an RF 70-135mm F2 or something similar. An RF F2 trinity would separate Canon from the pack, no matter what the exact mm would be.

I would only be in the market for one of these lense, either an UWA F2 or the 70-XXXmm F2. I'd wish for a 75-150mm F2, but nobody will seriously ask me. The UWA is just interesting for myself if it's weight is reasonable enough to carry it around instead of an RF 14-35mm or similar.


----------



## fred (Mar 13, 2021)

Let’s hope the RF14-35mm F4L IS will be one of them. Btw, why does Canonrumors not use disqus or something?


----------



## jd7 (Mar 13, 2021)

Famateur said:


> Though not on the predicted roadmap, I'd love a 24-70 F4L IS. The EF version used to be my go-to lens. Then I got a 16-35 F4L IS and love the improvement in sharpness. I can imagine an RF version of the 24-70 would be small, light and sharp.
> 
> Incidentally, it wasn't until I got my R5 that I realized how big a difference in sharpness there is between the 24-70 and 16-35 F4L. One of the very few downsides to the R5 purchase...


If your 24-70 f/4L IS is less sharp than your 16-35, I'd definitely recommend getting your 24-70 serviced by Canon. I got my 24-70 f/4L IS serviced once and it made a huge difference to the sharpness of my images (particularly towards the middle of the zoom range).


----------



## jd7 (Mar 13, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Third party will be your salvation then.


I know there have been rumours that Sigma and Tamron will start releasing RF lenses, but I really wish Sigma and Tamron would make official statements about whether they do or don't intend to make RF lenses. If they do (and Samyang releases more RF lenses too), I will probably stay with Canon when I get a mirrorless camera. Otherwise, I expect my next camera will be a Sony (some lenses available for the Sony system which really appeal to me!). I'd quite like to get a new speedlight at the moment, but I'm holding off spending anything on my Canon system until I decide which way I will go.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 13, 2021)

ctk said:


> I'm sure the EF 40 works great on RF bodies.... I have one but have never bothered to put it on. It's sharp, but too slow and has nasty busy bokeh


I'm surprised about your "nasty busy bokeh" comment. Sure, the EF 40/2.8 certainly doesn't give the best bokeh you've ever seen (it's not in the same league as, for example, my Sigma 35 Art or Sigma 50 Art, of course), but I'm frequently pleasantly surprised at the bokeh that lens produces for its size/weight/price. The EF 50/1.8 (both STM and II versions), and from what I've seen online also the RF 50/1.8 STM, can produce some pretty nasty bokeh in some situations, but I've never found the EF 40/2.8 that bad.


----------



## benpisati (Mar 18, 2021)

I don't understand why they make multiple versions of some lenses, always the same ones, while lenses like 20mm are dated 1992 !! Sony has a 20 1.8, Sigma has a 20 1.4, Tokina 20 2.0, Nikon 20 1.8

I also note that these lenses are all waterproof, all new nikon z lenses and sony fe lenses are Weather Sealed. Canon has decided that only L lenses need Weather Sealed. I have an R6, yes which I am very satisfied with, but I think the Nikon and Sony lenses are definitely more up to the professional level (I'm not talking about L lenses)


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 20, 2021)

benpisati said:


> I don't understand why they make multiple versions of some lenses, always the same ones, while lenses like 20mm are dated 1992 !! Sony has a 20 1.8, Sigma has a 20 1.4, Tokina 20 2.0, Nikon 20 1.8
> 
> I also note that these lenses are all waterproof, all new nikon z lenses and sony fe lenses are Weather Sealed. Canon has decided that only L lenses need Weather Sealed. I have an R6, yes which I am very satisfied with, but I think the Nikon and Sony lenses are definitely more up to the professional level (I'm not talking about L lenses)


No lens from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Tokina, Sigma, or Tamron, etc., are "water proof". Neither are the cameras. Don't confuse weather sealing with being "water proof". *Exception: specifically designed underwater cameras.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 20, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> No lens from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Tokina, Sigma, or Tamron, etc., are "water proof". Neither are the cameras. Don't confuse weather sealing with being "water proof". *Exception: specifically designed underwater cameras.


As Roger from lensrentals likes to say: The manufacturers trust their weather sealing so much that they refuse to cover weather damage in their warranties.


----------



## benpisati (Mar 20, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> No lens from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Tokina, Sigma, or Tamron, etc., are "water proof". Neither are the cameras. Don't confuse weather sealing with being "water proof". *Exception: specifically designed underwater cameras.


My mistake during translation, I meant weather sealed series specially for dust.


----------



## Dockland (Mar 22, 2021)

I really do hope there will come a RF 200mm f/2 L IS USM and a RF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM as well.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 25, 2021)

puffo25 said:


> Appreciated for sharing your "arsenal".
> 
> One last questions but not sure you might be able to answer me as I own a EOS R5 with the EF 8-15, Samyang 12mm fisheye, RF 70-200 f2,8, 1,4 teleconverter, EF 300mm f/4...
> I have in my office also the EF 24-70mm L f2,8 first version and I am wondering, based maybe on your experience, if indeed it is worth for me to trade in that lens and get the EF 24-70mm L II f2,8?
> ...


The EF 24-70mm L II is definitely worth the upgrade from the v1


----------



## JohanCruyff (May 3, 2021)

I still own an EOS M6 plus three EF-M / EF-S lenses.
I would like to switch to a set of two full frame bodies (my current R and a R6) but I can't sell my EOS M6 plus EF-M 11-22mm because sometimes I need a wideangle.


I don't need a heavy RF 15-35 F/2.8 L and I don't want to buy an EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L.

Please Canon, give me a

RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM _or_
RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM _or_
anything in the range RF 17-30mm F/4 or slower, L or not, USM or STM,
and you'll have a happy customer.


----------



## puffo25 (May 3, 2021)

Hi all, for astro and night photography I am looking for a bright lens (ie. F/1,8 or F/2.0) for my Canon R5.
Currently I have a Samyang 12mm f2,8 but it is not very bright, quality at the corner is so-so and I cannot mount filters.
I am looking for a high quality manual or autofocus lens....
Any suggestion? Sigma 14mm art is maybe a good option...? Anything else around 12-15mm lens and bright aperture ?


----------



## Fischer (May 4, 2021)

puffo25 said:


> Hi all, for astro and night photography I am looking for a bright lens (ie. F/1,8 or F/2.0) for my Canon R5.
> Currently I have a Samyang 12mm f2,8 but it is not very bright, quality at the corner is so-so and I cannot mount filters.
> I am looking for a high quality manual or autofocus lens....
> Any suggestion? Sigma 14mm art is maybe a good option...? Anything else around 12-15mm lens and bright aperture ?


Samyang 14mm f/2.4 XP is very hard to beat for astro. Its one of only 2 non-RF lenses I have kept (the other being the 35mm L II which is gone when there's an RF-mount version). One of the EF-RF adapters will allow for a back filter.


----------



## Rocksthaman (May 5, 2021)

JohanCruyff said:


> I still own an EOS M6 plus three EF-M / EF-S lenses.
> I would like to switch to a set of two full frame bodies (my current R and a R6) but I can't sell my EOS M6 plus EF-M 11-22mm because sometimes I need a wideangle.
> 
> 
> ...


The biggest issue is the IS and focal range. I just really don’t need IS in a lens if Ibis is in the camera. It’s not as good as is but it is very good.

These E Mount lenses are very competitive size wise and with cost on the Tamron end. It would be a dream to have a 28-70 non is like the sigma and Tamron, e Mount. I honestly don’t need the 24-35 in the 24-70 if I am also using the 16-35.


----------

