# What lenses do you feel are "missing" from RF still?



## nunataks (Oct 4, 2022)

Other than the ones that we know are coming "eventually" IE the 135mm f/1.8 and the 35mm f/1.2, what lenses are you hopeful that Canon will release due to the other big brands having their own version or just your own hopes?

Canon 24-70mm f/4 - light weight kit lens like the Nikon version that extends

Canon 100mm f/2 - the EF version is one of my favorites, and it's small and sharp

Canon 28-75mm f/2.8 - unless they allow Tamron to make an RF version, I'd love to see Canon make this lens

RF-S 16-55mm f/2.8 - The Sony version is small and light and it would pair perfectly with the R7 and R10

Canon 20-40mm f/2.8 - I'd prefer the Tamron yet again buttttt if they're not gonna give it to us, I'd love a small Canon version

RF 40mm f/2.8 or f/2 pancake - Nikon made a really small 40 at f/2, I'd love a f/2.8 pancake for the RP


----------



## HeavyPiper (Oct 4, 2022)

nunataks said:


> Canon 24-70mm f/4


Like the EF version please


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2022)

Personally, I'd like to see a 300/2.8 (ideally with a built-in 1.4x TC). I'd also love to see a 70-135/2 zoom. Other than the 35/135 fast L primes, I think what is missing from the lineup are an uUWA zoom (10-24/4), some TS-E lenses, and a long (e.g. 200mm) macro lens, and an RF-S UWA zoom (e.g. 11-24/slow-variable). There are already several non-L primes. 

Regarding some of your list...

I can see a 24-70/4 like the EF.

I think with the 85/2 we won't see a 100/2 (the 85 seemed much more popular as EF, Canon ould know of course). 

Why would they make a 28-75/2.8 when there is already a 24-70/2.8? That makes no sense. 

I doubt we'll see 'high-end' RF-S lenses like a 16-55/2.8. They never updated the EF-S 17-55/2.8 (I had one, it was excellent). I think they see RF-S lenses as necessary for body kits, but would rather those buyers upgrade to a FF body (and it's not that big a step from an R10 to an RP, relatively speaking).

I can see a pancake for the RF mount, like the EF 40/2.8. I'd like one, makes a great body cap on an integrated grip camera.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 4, 2022)

I'd like to see the 180mm Macro but I suspect its far down the list.


----------



## nunataks (Oct 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why would they make a 28-75/2.8 when there is already a 24-70/2.8? That makes no sense.


Size. The 24-70 is huge. The 28-75 would be a smaller design as shown by Tamron.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 4, 2022)

I have the 'old' versions of these already, so an RF version would need to wow me with new features to earn the likely 2-3x price increase. The 180L and MP-E65mm are already very sharp, Canon can't improve much on that.

A long-ish, like 200mm, 1:1 or better, stabilized macro lens. I wouldn't mind if it's f/4 or f/5.6. 
A high magnification macro lens, preferably stabilized, with built-in lights. A cross between the EF-M 28mm and the MP-E65mm.
A 210 degree circular fisheye lens, with AF. With support in DPP/DxO/LR to do more than just make it rectilinear.
If the R100 rumour about an EOS-M sized, EVF-less body is true:

An equivalent RF version of the EF-M 32mm f/1.4
An equivalent RF version of the EF-M 22mm f/2, it needs to be smaller than the RF16mm
An equivalent RF version of the EF-M 11-22mm zoom


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2022)

nunataks said:


> Size. The 24-70 is huge. The 28-75 would be a smaller design as shown by Tamron.


Makes sense, but I still really doubt it will happen.


----------



## Jose Rubio Rodrigu (Oct 5, 2022)

Sin duda un RF S 16 55 F2.8 Liviano será el objetivo más vendido colo fue el ef 17 55. Para APSC


----------



## victorshikhman (Oct 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I doubt we'll see 'high-end' RF-S lenses like a 16-55/2.8. They never updated the EF-S 17-55/2.8 (I had one, it was excellent). I think they see RF-S lenses as necessary for body kits


Yes, this is a real problem. Imagine if they release an RF-S 16-55/2.8 IS. Just that one lens would make the FR-S system a viable option for general prosumer use. You'll have vloggers and content creators buying the lower to mid-tier FR-S bodies just to pair with that lens, and they'll be good for the next decade, stuck in RF-S world of cheaper lenses that won't make Canon's quarterly numbers, but also just good enough that users won't be forced to upgrade. IMO this is kind of what happened with late stage EF APS-C. The bodies got so good, the lens range was basically complete, and the lenses were adequate, or even pretty good for semi-pro use (I used my 80D with a 10-18 on real estate photography gigs and never felt deprived), that we felt it would be too much of a financial hit to start all over and go FF. 

It wasn't supposed to be like this. EF-S was supposed to be a stepping stone to FF, not a plateau that's just comfortable enough to keep us from moving on. Depriving RF-S of those critical middle range, good enough lenses can keep the system doing what Canon needs: low end bodies with two kit lens kits, just to milk that entry level "I'm going to Paris for a week" demographic, and high end bodies designed for specialized work, like birders, where they'll buy $7k lenses to pair with it.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 6, 2022)

I bitterly need an RF 100 macro !
I'm sure you know what I mean...


----------



## Johnw (Oct 7, 2022)

Mostly wide end, wide L primes and UWA zoom.

I would also love to see the f/2 trinity finished at some point.


----------



## danfaz (Oct 9, 2022)

Johnw said:


> I would also love to see the f/2 trinity finished at some point.


That would be neat, but I'm not sure that trinity even started. The rumored 70-135 f2 seems to have dropped off the radar, and there's been no mention of a wide f2 zoom. 
But I guess time will tell.


----------



## canonmike (Oct 9, 2022)

Alas, the long ago mentioned RF10-24 F4L lens appears to be nothing more than a pipe dream. I'd even settle for an RF 11 or 12-24 F4L, if it could just come in at under that sell off a kidney or your Harley to pay for its price tag.


----------



## codym90 (Oct 9, 2022)

Probably the 100mm for sure. My RF 85 2.0 is fine currently but eventually would love the 100. Great for ring shots.
-Cody M
Wedding photographer in Va


----------



## Viggo (Oct 9, 2022)

135 f1.8 L, 35 f1.2 L, 200 f1.8 L, 300 f2.8 L. TS 17 L. 

Zeiss making a 100 f2.0 MP


----------



## Bdbtoys (Oct 10, 2022)

The TS lenses...


----------



## ashmadux (Oct 10, 2022)

Well I'm going to go for 'my' choice of elephant in the room... The lens that Canon refuses to update or/make.

*The 50 1.4.* it's almost concrete that they were working on a is version of this many years back, when they introduced the is versions of the EF 28, 35, etc. 

Canon isn't stupid. They know that if they make a good version of this then most would simply laugh at their heavy expensive 50 1.2... so they just wont make it. 

The thing that I really find cynical is that with all of the regurgitated articles and rumors and other points of conversation about Canon gear, no one ever mentions this lens. Maybe most folks have adapted their sigmas from over the years especially as there used to be so many complaints about it. I just find it highly suspicious that no one can see this gaping hole in the lens lineup. I just don't see it mentioned anywhere and it is very very weird AKA suspicious as hell. 

Finally...Isn't it great having your only choices be between a RF version of the nifty 50 and a $2300.00 lens?

(Looks at the sigma on my m62, smiles, then frowns).


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 10, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> Well I'm going to go for 'my' choice of elephant in the room... The lens that Canon refuses to update or/make.
> 
> *The 50 1.4.* it's almost concrete that they were working on a is version of this many years back, when they introduced the is versions of the EF 28, 35, etc.
> 
> ...


Have a look at the posting history of @ahsanford 's avatar and posting history, it is pretty much a meme at this place


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 10, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> Well I'm going to go for 'my' choice of elephant in the room... The lens that Canon refuses to update or/make.
> 
> *The 50 1.4.* it's almost concrete that they were working on a is version of this many years back, when they introduced the is versions of the EF 28, 35, etc.
> 
> ...


Nikon is even more extreme, with their f 0,95 and the f 1,8/50. Yet, mechanically and optically speaking, the Z 1,8/50 beats the RF 1,8/50 hands down...
Anyway, I'm not convinced the lack of an RF 1,4/50 is due to Canon not wanting to "piratize" the f 1,2's sales. I believe they just have other priotities at the moment. They certainly could sell both the f 1,2 and the f1,4. Also, I'm not certain many "laugh"at the RF 1,2/50, it's one of the very best existent lenses available, I guess many are rather drooling (me included).
But you're right, presently we can only choose between small and plasticky and heavy, expensive and bulky.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> Canon isn't stupid. They know that if they make a good version of this then most would simply laugh at their heavy expensive 50 1.2... so they just wont make it.


It seems unlikely to me that Canon would avoid launching a ‘good’ prime to ‘protect’ sales of an L prime of the same focal length. The 85/1.8 was a good lens. There were multiple versions of 85L primes, too.

The RF 85/2 Macro is a good 85mm prime. Are people laughing at the heavy, expensive 85/1.2L lenses? Why would Canon make the 85/2? By your logic, they wouldn’t. Except…they did. What does that say about your logic?

In film DSLR days, a 50mm prime was the kit lens. Today, a 50/1.8 prime is a popular lens (often a top-seller on Amazon, for example). The reason for both is low cost. 

Is 50mm really that popular a focal length intrinsically? Or only because it’s cheap? Sure, it’s a ‘normal’ focal length because it approximates the field of view of human vision. 

Personally, I want my photos to show the world in a way I don’t see with my eyes.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 11, 2022)

In the tephoto end: RF versions of the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6. Or maybe something like the 500 f/5.6 (nikon) or the 200-600 (sony). The only one we got is the 100-500 (f/7.1 is too slow for rainforest understory) then they jump to $13k lenses, and no Sigma or Tamron for the rescue....


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 11, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> In the tephoto end: RF versions of the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6. Or maybe something like the 500 f/5.6 (nikon) or the 200-600 (sony). The only one we got is the 100-500 (f/7.1 is too slow for rainforest understory) then they jump to $13k lenses, and no Sigma or Tamron for the rescue....


The physical aperture on the 100-500 is only 1mm smaller (70.4mm vs 71.4mm, ignoring rounding in focal length and f stops) than the aperture of the 400 f/5.6, does that really make that much of a difference?


----------



## Johnw (Oct 11, 2022)

Viggo said:


> 200 f1.8 L



A 200 f/1.8 seems like an odd choice, given that it would likely be more expensive than the 300 f/2.8. I would much rather see a refresh of the excellent 200 f/2, which should be cheaper than the 300 f/2.8.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 11, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The physical aperture on the 100-500 is only 1mm smaller (70.4mm vs 71.4mm, ignoring rounding in focal length and f stops) than the aperture of the 400 f/5.6, does that really make that much of a difference?


You are quite correct. No, it doesn't make any real difference. You get as many photons per duck from a 500/7.1 as you do from a 400/5.6 and the same signal to noise. Another way of looking at it is that you have to enlarge a crop from a 400mm 1.25x1.25 times to view at the same size as from a 500mm and so you lose any apparent advantage of shooting at f/5.6 and lower iso than f/7.1 at higher iso.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 12, 2022)

Johnw said:


> A 200 f/1.8 seems like an odd choice, given that it would likely be more expensive than the 300 f/2.8. I would much rather see a refresh of the excellent 200 f/2, which should be cheaper than the 300 f/2.8.


It’s not odd, it’s;


----------



## LovePhotography (Oct 18, 2022)

RF 8-15mm. 
I use my EF 8-15 more than I thought I would.


----------



## fussy III (Oct 21, 2022)

Let me mention first: I ain't no troll. I write this to push Canon forward (not downward). Good memories. Peace!

Seems like I just abandoned Canon as a result of their lens policy and despite an extensive EF-lens-collection. Not in protest, but I simply developed my lens line up for Sony instead of investing in a mirrorless Canon-body or RF-glass. Still holding on to my 5DSR, but not using it. With Sony still unhappy with the handling of A7x-bodies and absolutely mourning the loss of active imagestabilization on-tripod. 

These are the lightweight lenses that as explorative nature photographer make me depend on the Sony E sytem and that I would have wished for in Canon :

- 28-60mm/4.0-5.6 (a lightweight 24-60mm would be better, the Sony is really sharp except in extreme corners)

- lightweight and sharp 16-28mm (like Sony 16-35/4.0 PZ or Tamron 17-28/2.8), I do not trust the optical quality of Canon's RF 15-30mm.

- 200-600mm, sharp at 600mm, f 6.3 or 5.6 at the long end, 2kg

- 105mm tilt/shift macro (I am using the Sigma EX DG line for Nikon with tilt-shiftadapter, works great, relatively lightweight)

- lightweight 85mm/5.6 macro like Loawa, best made from plastic to further cut down on weight 

- a 28-200mm as lightweight and stellar as the Tamron at infinity when stopped down (a 24-200mm would be better)

- a stellar RF 24-105/4.0 (the current model isn't good enough).


Not so lightweight:

- a 100mm/1.4

- a 38mm/1.2

- a 28/1.2

- a 20mm/1.4


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 22, 2022)

The EF-to-RF adapter works well, so mostly in hope for better image quality - a replacement for the EF 11-24mm f/4L. I mostly hope an RF version would have better IQ.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 22, 2022)

Give me the update to the 200-400 f/4 L with built in TC please. That is #1 on my list. I'd love a 200-500 f/4 with built in TC that is lighter. 

After that, what I want is a light travel/hiking kit:
24-70 f/4 L
70-300 f/4-5.6 L (may use the 70-200 f/4, but would prefer reach over constant aperture if the 70-300 never arrives)

For portraits, the already mentioned 70-135 f/2 or some variation of that. 

I have yet to buy an RF lens, I would pre-order any of the above.

As for missing:
Primes:
24 f/1.4
35 f/1.2
135 f/1.8 (or 2)
200 f/2
300 f/2.8
500 f/4

They have done a great job with zooms except the two I want


----------



## SHAMwow (Oct 22, 2022)

Probably the 35mm 1.2/1.4. Whatever it's going to be. As much as I love my 50, I just love the atmosphere I can capture with my 35. And then I guess some longer/unique primes. I wish they'd focus on one unique/halo lens a year. I personally don't want the 28-70 f2, but I love that is in the RF system and that people find it so useful. I want to see more lenses like that.


----------



## AJ (Oct 22, 2022)

We've been teased by a 14-21/1.4 patent. It'd be cool if it came true.


----------



## foobar (Nov 8, 2022)

They need pretty much everything for the RF-S system right now, but that system has just been released, and I'm sure we'll see a lot more lenses in the near to mid future.

When it comes to full-frame, they actually created quite the portfolio so far. Most common lenses are covered by now, even in different price brackets:



> *"Holy" Trinity*
> RF 15-35mm f/2.8
> RF 24-70mm f/2.8
> RF 70-200mm f/2.8





> *"Unholy"*(?)* Trinity*
> RF 14-35mm f/4.0
> RF 24-105mm f/4.0
> RF 70-200mm f/4.0





> *"Budget" Trinity*
> RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3
> RF 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1
> RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8.0





> *"Holy" primes*
> RF 50mm f/1.2
> RF 85mm f/1.2 (+ DS)
> RF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
> ...



This is the first category of lenses that still has a lot missing. Most importantly: *Where is the 35mm?* My guess is that this is the most eagerly awaited RF lens right now. But the rest of the wide angle lenses are also still missing, as well as additional telephoto options. I can only assume that these are among the highest priorities for Canon right now.

I personally wouldn't mind slightly ligher/cheaper 35mm and 85mm f/1.4 options one day (the f/1.2 Ls are great, but not for me), but I doubt that something like that is high on Canon's list of priorities right now.



> *Mid-level primes*
> RF 24mm f/1.8
> RF 35mm f/1.8
> RF 85mm f/2.0



I would love to see a *50mm f/1.4* being added to this range of lenses. With fast autofocus (unlike the f/1.8 version) and the same build quality and similar price tag as the other lenses in this range. Doesn't really need a stabilizer if that would make the lens too expensive.

Will they do it? What do I know, but they had no less than four different EF 50mm lenses within the first couple of years of that system being released.

A non-L macro (1:1 magnification, no SA control) would also fit nicely with these lenses and is something that the RF lineup is definitely missing right now. The 100mm L is great, but too expensive for most people.



> *Small/Budget primes*
> RF 16mm f/2.8
> RF 50mm f/1.8



They'll probably add another lens here and there over the coming years when they see fit, but I don't feel like this is something they're focusing on. I wouldn't be surprised if they'll re-use the lens platform for some RF-S primes. It's a great form factor for a travel kit.



> *Miscellaneous*
> RF 5.2mm f/2.8 Dual
> RF 24-240mm f/4.0-6.3
> RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1
> ...



Still a lot of specialty lenses they need to add: Tilt-shifts, a fisheye, a high-magnification macro lens, possibly more ultra-wide and tele-zoom options.
But I can imagine these trickling out relatively slowly over time, given that most of these won't be very mainstream.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 8, 2022)

foobar said:


> They need pretty much everything for the RF-S system right now, but that system has just been released, and I'm sure we'll see a lot more lenses in the near to mid future.
> 
> When it comes to full-frame, they actually created quite the portfolio so far. Most common lenses are covered by now, even in different price brackets:
> 
> ...


If anyone else sees nothing but white space and blank frames on this, try highlighting it with the mouse (click and drag top to bottom or bottom to top).


----------



## LovePhotography (Nov 16, 2022)

Based on my surprisingly good results the RF 24-240, I'd have to say that a world-class (the best humanly possible given the 10x range) weather-sealed, coated-lens f/2.8 - 5.6 "L" glass RF 24-240 would be an absolutely enormous success. The problem for Canon is, it would probably cannibalize several other lenses, so they are not too incentivized to do it. But, the ability to shoot the best possible images all day without changing lenses would be a game changer, fo' sho'. Please do it, Canon, so I don't have to get flack from my iPhone/Samsung friends and family for "lagging behind", changing lenses all the time!!!


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 16, 2022)

RF 28mm f/1.4L USM


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 16, 2022)

SteveC said:


> If anyone else sees nothing but white space and blank frames on this, try highlighting it with the mouse (click and drag top to bottom or bottom to top).


well, that's not right.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2022)

LovePhotography said:


> …I'd have to say that a world-class (the best humanly possible given the 10x range) weather-sealed, coated-lens f/2.8 - 5.6 "L" glass RF 24-240 would be an absolutely enormous success.


That depends on how you define success for such a lens. If you define it as making you personally happy, then no doubt you are correct. The EF 28-300L was released in 2004, as the successor to the EF 35-350L released in 1993. Canon knows how successful those lenses were in terms of ROI, they did not update the lens for EF after 2004 and it wasn't one prioritized for RF...they made a consumer version, instead. The lens was marketed to and seemed popular with professional photojournalists. The problem is that that field has contracted significantly in recent years. I highly doubt we'll see an RF version of an L-series superzoom, but hope springs eternal.

Personally, I had the 28-300L for a while. I bought it used (as I typically do with lenses I'm not sure I really want). It was a good lens, optical quality through the 11x range similar to the EF 24-105/4L, i.e. very good but not stellar. Probably about the best one could expect from a superzoom lens, though. But personally, I found the combination of the EF 24-70/2.8L and EF 70-300L delivered better optical quality at the cost of some lens changes. I eventually sold the 28-300L (for $100 more than I paid). If Canon does release an RF version, I highly doubt I'd buy it.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 16, 2022)

At the risk of repeating myself:



Maximilian said:


> EOS RP II (FF, same or smaller size)
> 
> I know, you were asking for lenses. But I would need a cam before I‘ll get a lens
> Actual offering doesn‘t fit my idea of price or spec list.
> Apart from that I would find all lenses I‘d like to buy in the existing offering.


Edit: maybe the R6 II fits my needs vs. purse. But then again I would find all lenses I‘d like to buy in the existing offering.


----------



## LovePhotography (Nov 16, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That depends on how you define success for such a lens. If you define it as making you personally happy, then no doubt you are correct. The EF 28-300L was released in 2004, as the successor to the EF 35-350L released in 1993. Canon knows how successful those lenses were in terms of ROI, they did not update the lens for EF after 2004 and it wasn't one prioritized for RF...they made a consumer version, instead. The lens was marketed to and seemed popular with professional photojournalists. The problem is that that field has contracted significantly in recent years. I highly doubt we'll see an RF version of an L-series superzoom, but hope springs eternal.
> 
> Personally, I had the 28-300L for a while. I bought it used (as I typically do with lenses I'm not sure I really want). It was a good lens, optical quality through the 11x range similar to the EF 24-105/4L, i.e. very good but not stellar. Probably about the best one could expect from a superzoom lens, though. But personally, I found the combination of the EF 24-70/2.8L and EF 70-300L delivered better optical quality at the cost of some lens changes. I eventually sold the 28-300L (for $100 more than I paid). If Canon does release an RF version, I highly doubt I'd buy it.


I had a 35-350 also. Sold it, because it was a big, heavy push-pull and everybody always crapped on it. But I later regretted it.
It is a lot harder to change lenses now that the lens diameter (RF 85 f1.2 and/or 28-70 f2!!!) is so much larger and they are so heavy. Also, at $2500-$3300, dropping one would be semi-catastrophic. It is not fun constantly changing good lenses with a bag over your shoulder, the camera in one hand and two lenses and lens caps in the other hand. Eventually, the odds of dropping one will catch up to you.

But, I like the zoom extend much better than the push-pull zoom, and, from a "fit-in-your-bag" standpoint it beats the internal zoom.
I dunno, a lot of people have a lot of money now, and $3000 for a fabulous "walk around lens" that is damn good is not out of the question for amateurs, IMO. What's the point of 45 megapixels of near perfection with anything less than the best lens in front of the sensor? I'd buy one. Without hesitation. Hell, people spend a lot more on other hobbies nowadays that seem to have little or no redeeming value, or actually destroy the environment.


----------



## eoskai (Dec 1, 2022)

I neeeeeed, an RF:

16mm 1.4 or 1.8
24mm 1.4
35 1.4

At minimum… RF needs to catch up to Sony GM in this regard.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Dec 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I'd like to see a 300/2.8 (ideally with a built-in 1.4x TC)....


I do find it very surprising that neither Canon nor Nikon nor Sony offer a 300 2.8 in their current mirrorless lineup, nor do any of them have one on their roadmap (as far as I know). Considering what a common pro lens this was for SLR, it seems like a glaring omission. Adding a built-in 1.4x extender seems to me like it would give it wide appeal.


----------



## TexPhoto (Dec 4, 2022)

I would really like to see a fisheye as good or better than the amazing 8-15mm f4.


----------



## Froschphoto (Dec 5, 2022)

300 f2.8, 200-400 f4, Sony has the 200-600 f5.6-6.3, something like that would be nice. I know there is the 100-500. It I’m keeping my ef 100-400, 7.1 is getting a little too slow.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2022)

Froschphoto said:


> I know there is the 100-500. It I’m keeping my ef 100-400, 7.1 is getting a little too slow.


It’s actually not significantly ‘slower’ in a relevant way. Yes, the f/number is larger, but the focal length is correspondingly longer so the physical aperture is the same ~71mm. That means at the same shutter speed the number of photons reaching the sensor is the same, and same number of photons means same noise. OTOH, if you crop your 400mm shot to a 500mm FoV, you’ll have less total light and thus a noisier image.

Leaving technical details aside, the bottom line is that the RF 100-500 will deliver images as good or better than the EF 100-400 II. But for most, particularly those who already own the EF 100-400, likely not better _enough_ to justify the cost.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, the f/number is larger, but the focal length is correspondingly longer so the physical aperture is the same ~71mm. That means at the same shutter speed the number of photons reaching the sensor is the same, and same number of photons means same noise.


Only if you would need to crop to the same angle of view otherwise.

The absolute aperture is the same, but the angle the lens collects the light from is smaller, thus less photons pass through the aperture opening _and then end up on the sensor_.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 5, 2022)

Kit. said:


> Only if you would need to crop to the same angle of view otherwise.
> 
> The absolute aperture is the same, but the angle the lens collects the light from is smaller, thus less photons pass through the aperture opening _and then end up on the sensor_.


In the context of what @neuroanatomist responded to: the RF100-500 has the same maximum physical aperture as the EF100-400II, so where the focal lengths overlap, from 100mm to 400mm, the same amount of photons will hit the sensor, regardless of the lens. The angle difference you're talking about only comes into play when using the 'bonus' 400-500mm range.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 5, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> In the context of what @neuroanatomist responded to: the RF100-500 has the same maximum physical aperture as the EF100-400II, so where the focal lengths overlap, from 100mm to 400mm, the same amount of photons will hit the sensor, regardless of the lens. The angle difference you're talking about only comes into play when using the 'bonus' 400-500mm range.


Agreed that between 100-400mm the two are basically identical.

But I believe kit was referring to the 400-500mm range on the newer lens, and if so, he was right: less light will hit the sensor on account of the narrower field of view. That's what f/7.1 means (as compared to f/5.6). Maybe I misunderstood Neuroanatomist but it looked like he was claiming otherwise.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2022)

SteveC said:


> Agreed that between 100-400mm the two are basically identical.
> 
> But I believe kit was referring to the 400-500mm range on the newer lens, and if so, he was right: less light will hit the sensor on account of the narrower field of view. That's what f/7.1 means (as compared to f/5.6). Maybe I misunderstood Neuroanatomist but it looked like he was claiming otherwise.


The point is that 500mm f/7.1 is functionally the same as 400/5.6 cropped to a 500mm FoV.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 5, 2022)

Kit. said:


> Only if you would need to crop to the same angle of view otherwise.
> 
> The absolute aperture is the same, but the angle the lens collects the light from is smaller, thus less photons pass through the aperture opening _and then end up on the sensor_.


If you are photographing a duck with a 400/5.6 and a 500/7.1, then the same number of photons hit the image of the duck in both cases.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 5, 2022)

SteveC said:


> Agreed that between 100-400mm the two are basically identical.
> 
> But I believe kit was referring to the 400-500mm range on the newer lens, and if so, he was right: less light will hit the sensor on account of the narrower field of view. That's what f/7.1 means (as compared to f/5.6). Maybe I misunderstood Neuroanatomist but it looked like he was claiming otherwise.


The RF 100-500mm is stopped down to f/6.3 at 400mm and so the effective diameter drops from ~71mm to ~63mm. Accordingly, the EF 100-400mm lets in more light at 400mm than does the RF 100-500mm at 400mm.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> If you are photographing a duck with a 400/5.6 and a 500/7.1, then the same number of photons hit the image of the duck in both cases.


That assumes that the duck still fits in the frame at 500.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 5, 2022)

Kit. said:


> That assumes that the duck still fits in the frame at 500.


I wrote photographing a duck, not part of a duck. But, that's not the point: the point is the photon flux per unit area of object in the image depends on the area of the front element (etrance pupil) and not the f-number of the lene.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I wrote photographing a duck, not part of a duck. But, that's not the point: the point is the photon flux per unit area of object in the image depends on the area of the front element (etrance pupil) and not the f-number of the lene.


And my point is that it (photon flux per unit area of the object plane reaching the sensor plane) also depends on the distance to the object. "Zooming with feet", when possible, gives better results.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2022)

Kit. said:


> And my point is that it (photon flux per unit area of the object plane reaching the sensor plane) also depends on the distance to the object. "Zooming with feet", when possible, gives better results.


I think we’d all agree that getting closer is better. But ‘when possible’ often isn’t when shooting many subjects for which telephoto lenses are commonly used, e.g., birds/wildlife. 

I zoom with my feet with TS-E lenses. Buildings rarely fly away.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 6, 2022)

Kit. said:


> And my point is that it (photon flux per unit area of the object plane reaching the sensor plane) also depends on the distance to the object. "Zooming with feet", when possible, gives better results.


Zooming with your feet when moving forwards with a prime lens might give better results than zooming in. But, having to move backwards with a prime lens to fit in a duck rather than zoom out and be closer is the opposite. The “zooming with your feet is better“ comment we see so often verges on the silly as it often can’t be done.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The “zooming with your feet is better“ comment we see so often verges on the silly as it often can’t be done.


Even when it can easily be done, sometimes it shouldn’t.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The point is that 500mm f/7.1 is functionally the same as 400/5.6 cropped to a 500mm FoV.


I stand corrected on that detail.

As far as your other comment about buildings, I eagerly await the "Buildings in flight" thread should you prove to be wrong.


----------



## Froschphoto (Dec 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’s actually not significantly ‘slower’ in a relevant way. Yes, the f/number is larger, but the focal length is correspondingly longer so the physical aperture is the same ~71mm. That means at the same shutter speed the number of photons reaching the sensor is the same, and same number of photons means same noise. OTOH, if you crop your 400mm shot to a 500mm FoV, you’ll have less total light and thus a noisier image.
> 
> Leaving technical details aside, the bottom line is that the RF 100-500 will deliver images as good or better than the EF 100-400 II. But for most, particularly those who already own the EF 100-400, likely not better _enough_ to justify the cost.


It’s a depth of field issue with sports, editors (and myself) want those backgrounds to drop as much as possible. I own a 100-400, had a 100-500 to use for a week from Canon, it was fine. There are few sports that I shoot that the range is ideal, but I do struggle with backgrounds being too in focus.


----------



## Froschphoto (Dec 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The RF 100-500mm is stopped down to f/6.3 at 400mm and so the effective diameter drops from ~71mm to ~63mm. Accordingly, the EF 100-400mm lets in more light at 400mm than does the RF 100-500mm at 400mm.


Correct, looking through the little hole in the plexiglass at NHL, more light passing through and less background in focus is the goal. I also use a 400 2.8 and almost always shot at 2.8


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2022)

Froschphoto said:


> It’s a depth of field issue with sports, editors (and myself) want those backgrounds to drop as much as possible. I own a 100-400, had a 100-500 to use for a week from Canon, it was fine. There are few sports that I shoot that the range is ideal, but I do struggle with backgrounds being too in focus.


Interesting. If your framing at 500mm is not too tight, 500mm f/7.1 gives a shallower DoF than 400mm f/5.6 for a subject at the same distance. Having said that, from 363-471mm the RF 100-500 is at f/6.3, in that overlapping range of 363-400mm you lose 1/3-stop of subject isolation. At the other end, the 100-500 stays f/4.5 a little longer. Anywhere in the zoom range, I suspect you'd be hard-pressed to see a 1/3-stop difference have any meaningful impact on a final image, especially if you were not comparing controlled images side-by-side.

The technical reasons ('slower', 'deeper depth of field') for choosing the EF 100-400 over the RF 100-500 are really not meaningful unless you're measuring image noise in a lab or using a DoF calculator and arguing over a few cm difference in DoF at a distance of dozens of meters. Honestly, those differences are only going to be evident under rigorously controlled testing, and if you're talking about images that will be downsampled and viewed by people on media ranging from smartphones to magazines to 5K displays, those differences are truly meaningless. With respect, your 'reasons' are hogwash. If you don't want to swap your EF 100-400 for an RF 100-500, that's certainly your call. The same facts that make the RF 100-500 not meaningfully worse than the EF 100-400 make it not meaningfully better, so 'why bother' is more than sufficient reason not to swap.


----------



## Longtermer (Dec 6, 2022)

Back on the general theme of the thread - I'd still love to see an RF pancake lens!


----------



## EricN (Dec 7, 2022)

I want a 12mm macro


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 7, 2022)

I just discovered this thread and haven't read all posts, so excuse me if I name lenses that have been mentioned before:

Missing wide-angle range:
- RF 10-24mm F4 
- RF 12mm F2...basically a killer astro prime
- F2 zoom such as RF 14-28mm 


Primes: 
-F1.4´s especially 35mm, 50mm, 85mm

Tele-lenses:
- RF 200mm F2 
- 250-750mm zoom with a variable aperture for the birder among us 


Macro lenses of courses, but I saw people mentioning them and don't know my way around in the macro world.


----------



## thorhe (Dec 8, 2022)

A compact RF 70-300mm.


----------



## Skux (Dec 19, 2022)

Any pancake lens please! It's a shame that the compact RP is not supported with compact lenses apart from the 50 and 16 (and maybe the 35). If they make a 40mm f2 or 2.8 I'll be first in line.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Friday at 8:27 PM)

RF 24mm f1.2 L with little coma.


----------

