# Canon registers a new RF mount lens



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 17, 2021)

> It looks like Canon may have one more lens to announce in 2021. They have registered a new and unreleased lens, with the product code 5554C005AA.
> The latest Canon lenses to be announced the RF 16mm f/2.8 STM has the product code 5051C005 and the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM is the 5050C005.
> 
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 17, 2021)

They need to make a lightweight f1.8 zoom is for s35. It's way overdue. The f1.4 35 is still kinda new and excellent and we got the f1.8. Personally I am not in a rush for that lens over other lenses. I rather a 135mm over that because the current one is ancient.


----------



## Vonner (Sep 17, 2021)

I hope your guess is correct. That's the one I've been waiting for.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 17, 2021)

It’s the 18-55mm f/8-13 kit lens for the low cost APS-C R body that will replace the M series.


----------



## jvillain (Sep 17, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> they need to make a lightweight 1.8 zoom with is for s35. It's way overdue. The 1.4 35 is still kinda new and excellent and we got the 1.8. personally I am not in a rush for that lens over other lenses. I rather a 135 over that because the current one is ancient.


While I love the idea of a competitor for the Sigma zooms (with out the dragon like focus breathing please) it will never happen as Canon's policy is that FF is the one true format handed down by god never to be blasphemed against lest an army of Sonyboy terrorists be unleashed to wage Jihad against the infidels.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 17, 2021)

I could see Canon announcing a new lens around the time that the R3 ships, they did announce the RF 50mm F/1.8 and RF 70-200mm F/4L IS on their own in November last year, so maybe that's a trend around the holidays.

I'll be selling my EF 35mm F/1.4L II around that time, too, so that will be interesting to consider. Part of me feels like we should expect the lens to be about the size of the EF + adapter, but I'd love to see them keep it relatively similar in size without the adapter.


----------



## nwardrip (Sep 17, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Do you have a list of the other released RF lens product codes?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 17, 2021)

Let it be the RF 200-400/500 f/4.0 TC to go with the R3.


----------



## Juangrande (Sep 17, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Been waiting on that one ☝


----------



## john1970 (Sep 17, 2021)

Please be a RF 500 mm f4 DO lens!!


----------



## Bahrd (Sep 17, 2021)

What does the text "*RF50mm 1.2L USM*" (right after the *555...5AA *code) mean?


----------



## calfoto (Sep 17, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> What does the text "*RF50mm 1.2L USM*" (right after the *555...5AA *code) mean?


+1 on that question


----------



## JMV Portraits (Sep 17, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> What does the text "*RF50mm 1.2L USM*" (right after the *555...5AA *code) mean?


 Translation of that line:

Article Brand "Canon", model: 5554C005AA, RF50mm F1.2L USM

It would appear that the model name of the lens being registered is RF50mm F1.2L USM. I don't recall from past rumors based on Russian product registrations had accurate model names, I thought they usually didn't have any at all. If the model name is accurate, it sounds like this may just be new paperwork on an existing lens, but with the number of sources repeating this I would have expected that to have been caught by now if that were a possibility.


----------



## Nemorino (Sep 17, 2021)

The RF 50L 1.2 has in Germany the model number
2959C005.​


----------



## JMV Portraits (Sep 17, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> they need to make a lightweight 1.8 zoom with is for s35. It's way overdue. The 1.4 35 is still kinda new and excellent and we got the 1.8. personally I am not in a rush for that lens over other lenses. I rather a 135 over that because the current one is ancient.


 You're joking, right?

There's only a couple f/1.8 zooms that I know of, and they have an extremely limited range, are far from lightweight, and don't have IS. Even if we broaden it to just "faster than f/2.8", those are still all very heavy, only four that I can think of off the top of my head that have autofocus (one of which is Canon's own 28-70 f/2), and still none of them have IS. Making suck a lens stabilized is probably possible, but would add to the cost and weight that have these lenses already as niche items, and would introduce compromises to an already complicated optical design.


----------



## JMV Portraits (Sep 17, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Please be a RF 500 mm f4 DO lens!!


 While I hope for the sake of my birding friends that we're going to continue to see more diffractive designs, I suspect Canon might be dropping the "DO" designation. It's been seen as a negative by segments of the market who didn't "get" it, especially in regards to the 70-300 DO, so I wonder if that's why Canon didn't mark the two f/11 teles as such. Of course, it could just be that they're reserving it for high-end diffractive lenses.

While the advantage of a short flange distance typically doesn't make much of a difference in the size of teles, Canon has already shown a couple ways they intend to do that, so I expect they could do something for a fast prime explicitly designed to be compact.


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Sep 17, 2021)

A fast RF L-series 35 will definitely be my first RF purchase. Bring it on!


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 17, 2021)

JMV Portraits said:


> You're joking, right?
> 
> There's only a couple f/1.8 zooms that I know of, and they have an extremely limited range, are far from lightweight, and don't have IS. Even if we broaden it to just "faster than f/2.8", those are still all very heavy, only four that I can think of off the top of my head that have autofocus (one of which is Canon's own 28-70 f/2), and still none of them have IS. Making suck a lens stabilized is probably possible, but would add to the cost and weight that have these lenses already as niche items, and would introduce compromises to an already complicated optical design.


18-35mm f1.8 sigma would like to have a word with you. Light and compact. The lens of choice for many videographers. Issues... slow focus, questionable build quality, no IS.


----------



## frankchn (Sep 17, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> 18-35mm f1.8 sigma would like to have a word with you. Light and compact. The lens of choice for many videographers. Issues... slow focus, questionable build quality, no IS.



It isn't exactly light though -- 810g. The EF 24-70/2.8L II is 805g and the RF 24-70/2.8L IS is 900g. The zoom range is also limited: slightly less than 2x wide to tele, while the 24-70s are slightly less than 3x.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 17, 2021)

I can’t wait for the announcement of the RF 35 L that’s so expensive and so hard to get hold of it’s only possible to get once the mk II is released….


----------



## KenLLL (Sep 17, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> It’s the 18-55mm f/8-13 kit lens for the low cost APS-C R body that will replace the M series.


God, I hope not. I just fully invested in the M lineup. Make no sense that Canon would cannibalize its best sellers. What drew me to the M series is the size and weight. I can fit my entire kit into one case rather than decide what I'm gonna leave behind. I hike a lot too, so weight means something to me.


----------



## Emyr Evans (Sep 17, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> 18-35mm f1.8 sigma would like to have a word with you. Light and compact. The lens of choice for many videographers. Issues... slow focus, questionable build quality, no IS.


And APS-C only.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> And APS-C only.


Yes, because he mentioned wanting a lens for Super35 (e.g., the Cinema EOS C70). But I doubt we’ll see a lens like that.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 17, 2021)

KenLLL said:


> God, I hope not. I just fully invested in the M lineup. Make no sense that Canon would cannibalize its best sellers. What drew me to the M series is the size and weight. I can fit my entire kit into one case rather than decide what I'm gonna leave behind. I hike a lot too, so weight means something to me.


Actually it makes a lot of sense. Cannibalizing their best sellers is not the same as taking those best sellers off the market. People who want to buy M equipment can still do so. Granted there is the R&D redundancy, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of M-system R&D going on.


----------



## entoman (Sep 17, 2021)

What I'd really like is an updated 180mm macro with OIS, to replace the discontinued but optically stunning EF version.

But what I *expect* is a 500mm F4 DO optic that will probably cost a small fortune...


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 17, 2021)

KenLLL said:


> God, I hope not. I just fully invested in the M lineup. Make no sense that Canon would cannibalize its best sellers. What drew me to the M series is the size and weight. I can fit my entire kit into one case rather than decide what I'm gonna leave behind. I hike a lot too, so weight means something to me.



I wasn't trying to hijack the thread with my comment. The joke was really about the f/8-13 max aperture, although suggesting that Canon will make an APS-C R body is anathema to a lot of people around here so that was also intentional. But I should really know better. Mentioning APS-C is like Frankenstein's monster: It attracts a lot lightning, takes on a life of its own, and eventually you get a torch-and-pitchfork mob coming after you.

I agree the M is a great system. I have an M5 that I bought a few years ago when I was doing a lot of traveling, and I love it for all of the reasons you say. I also used it for hiking and biking, although lately my son has adopted it for astrophotography.

I'm also a 7D Mark II fan, and high-end APS-C is about the only thing Canon has shown _less_ interest in than the M series lately.

Cheers!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 17, 2021)

JMV Portraits said:


> While I hope for the sake of my birding friends that we're going to continue to see more diffractive designs, I suspect Canon might be dropping the "DO" designation. It's been seen as a negative by segments of the market who didn't "get" it, especially in regards to the 70-300 DO, so I wonder if that's why Canon didn't mark the two f/11 teles as such. Of course, it could just be that they're reserving it for high-end diffractive lenses.
> 
> While the advantage of a short flange distance typically doesn't make much of a difference in the size of teles, Canon has already shown a couple ways they intend to do that, so I expect they could do something for a fast prime explicitly designed to be compact.



I think the original 400mm f/4.0 DO did way more damage than the 70-300. The original 400 had rather awful IQ and it took a lot of convincing for people to try out the second edition which by all accounts is spectacular.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 17, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Please be a RF 500 mm f4 DO lens!!



If they make a 200-500 f/4.0 (DO) and a 120-300 f/2.8 I could see there being no 500 prime and 300 prime as turning them into zoom's adds enough value add to make 'cheep' lenses into expensive lenses that don't cannibalise the 400 prime and 600 prime.


----------



## fastprime (Sep 17, 2021)

I hope it’s the 35mm 1.2. Just not sure how I’m going to tell my wife I took a “small” loan out of my savings.


----------



## slclick (Sep 17, 2021)

Funny thing about the 'ancient' 135L. It doesn't degrade with age fwiw, lol and it actually out performs in terms of AF and and imho rez while adapted on an RF mount over a dslr. It's timeless and very special. I've been shooting with one or another since 1999 and never once could come up with anything negative to say.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 17, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> If they make a 200-500 f/4.0 (DO) and a 120-300 f/2.8 I could see there being no 500 prime and 300 prime as turning them into zoom's adds enough value add to make 'cheep' lenses into expensive lenses that don't cannibalise the 400 prime and 600 prime.


I would still prefer a fixed 500 mm f4 DO lens because it would be both lighter and less expensive than a 500 mm f4 DO zoom. I don't think the EF 500 mm f4 ever cannibalized the the 400 mm f2.8 or the 600 mm f4. Just gave people more options.


----------



## KenLLL (Sep 17, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> I wasn't trying to hijack the thread with my comment. The joke was really about the f/8-13 max aperture, although suggesting that Canon will make an APS-C R body is anathema to a lot of people around here so that was also intentional. But I should really know better. Mentioning APS-C is like Frankenstein's monster: It attracts a lot lightning, takes on a life of its own, and eventually you get a torch-and-pitchfork mob coming after you.
> 
> I agree the M is a great system. I have an M5 that I bought a few years ago when I was doing a lot of traveling, and I love it for all of the reasons you say. I also used it for hiking and biking, although lately my son has adopted it for astrophotography.
> 
> ...


No apology necessary. I would say the M6 II is high-end. 14fps is no joke. I agree aps-c gets too much hate. I personally love it. Ultra shallow depth of field is overrated and doesn't make a good image. Composition, lighting, and subject material are far more important. Sure there's a little more noise introduced but we have amazing software to correct that nowadays.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 17, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> And APS-C only.


i clearly wrote S35 and that lens actually works on full frame cameras. I used plenty of times for a great low light wide zoom. I just edit out the vignetting.


----------



## DrToast (Sep 17, 2021)

entoman said:


> What I'd really like is an updated 180mm macro with OIS, to replace the discontinued but optically stunning EF version.



Yes! I guess that lens was never a big seller since Canon seems to keep their macro lenses 100mm and below. I think a 200mm f/4 macro lens would be great.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 17, 2021)

frankchn said:


> It isn't exactly light though -- 810g. The EF 24-70/2.8L II is 805g and the RF 24-70/2.8L IS is 900g. The zoom range is also limited: slightly less than 2x wide to tele, while the 24-70s are slightly less than 3x.


Those are light. Have you ever tried a 1.2 85mm, 70-200mm 2.8 , or a 28-70mm. What are we going back and forth about. Canon needs to replace the 17-55.


----------



## frankchn (Sep 17, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> Those are light. Have you ever tried a 1.2 85mm, 70-200mm 2.8 , or a 28-70mm. What are we going back and forth about. Canon needs to replace the 17-55.



Sure, those are heavier, but I won't call a lens in the same class as a 24-70/2.8 from Canon either light or compact. To me, light and compact is something like a 18-55 zoom or one of the non-L primes.

In any case, Canon probably won't replace a the EF-S 17-55mm with an RF version until they release an APS-C RF camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> Canon needs to replace the 17-55.


And the 7DII. They needed to replace the 10-22, and they did…with the slower, softer, plastic-mount, cheaper 10-18.

Those are clues to the importance Canon places on the ‘high-end APS-C market’.


----------



## entoman (Sep 18, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> And the 7DII. They needed to replace the 10-22, and they did…with the slower, softer, plastic-mount, cheaper 10-18.
> 
> Those are clues to the importance Canon places on the ‘high-end APS-C market’.


I've become convinced that Canon (rightly or wrongly) believes there is no commercial future in the high end APS-C market.
I'll be very surprised if they ever introduce an APS-C in RF mount.

They clearly want to move people completely away from EF mount, and leave us with a choice between 2 very different systems:

M series, seemingly aimed at novices or people who want a very compact system and who don't want or need exotic or more specialised lenses.
RF series, full frame only, with a range covering novices, enthusiasts and pros, and with 2 distinct sets of lenses - "budget" lightweight glass, and exotic and expensive L glass.


----------



## JMV Portraits (Sep 18, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> 18-35mm f1.8 sigma would like to have a word with you. Light and compact. The lens of choice for many videographers. Issues... slow focus, questionable build quality, no IS.


The Sigma 18-35 1.8 is very much one of the lenses I had in mind that doesn't meet your requirements.

810g isn't exactly light, and makes it one of the heaviest non-cine lenses for the APS-C/super 35 format. Anything heavier than in the same format is going to be things like the sigma 50-100 1.8 and Fuji's super-teles.

So with it is f/1.8, it isn't lightweight and doesn't have IS. While it is technically a zoom, it's only barely so- for photography there's not much you would use that for that you couldn't use a 24mm or 28mm just as easily. For video, the only time you'd need that lens over a prime or a zoom with a more typical speed are when you need a zooming shot, but not much of a zooming shot, AND need an aperture wider than f/2.8 AND aren't shooting at your export resolution, preventing you from zooming in post AND can afford the optical and mechanical compromises compared to other workflows. It's a very narrow use-case indeed, which explains why, despite being widely advocated by internet gear-heads for videography, doesn't sell in the numbers to justify claims that it's "the lens of choice for many videographers".

The compromises involved in very fast zooms mean that they just don't sell in the numbers that first-party manufacturers generally require to justify R&D and marketing costs. Canon was able to justify the 28-70 f/2- probably largely because of the marketing value of having such an absurd lens in the new ecosystem, more so than because it was going to be directly profitable. Angieneux was able to justify a couple- though I think the 24-290 f/2.5 might be discontinued, and the others are more fast for their zoom ratio than fast on objective terms- based on being able to charge a high enough price to justify only selling a handful to rental houses and that being about it.

If you really want a super 35 f/1.8 lens that's technically a zoom, buy one of the Sigmas, because even the other third-party lens manufacturers like Tamron and Rokinon, don't see much value in that space.


----------



## JMV Portraits (Sep 18, 2021)

frankchn said:


> It isn't exactly light though -- 810g. The EF 24-70/2.8L II is 805g and the RF 24-70/2.8L IS is 900g. The zoom range is also limited: slightly less than 2x wide to tele, while the 24-70s are slightly less than 3x.


In fact, the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is among the heaviest non-cine lenses for the format. I know there's the SIgma 50-100 f/1.8 and Fuji makes a couple super-teles that are heavier, but the 18-35 1.8 is definitely hard to construe as "light".


----------



## JMV Portraits (Sep 18, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> Actually it makes a lot of sense. Cannibalizing their best sellers is not the same as taking those best sellers off the market. People who want to buy M equipment can still do so. Granted there is the R&D redundancy, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of M-system R&D going on.



Exactly. Something to keep in mind is that people buying the most basic bodies are generally buying kits and little else- they're generally not buying a lot of lenses and getting deeply-invested in the system. They tend to want one lens to live on the camera, and if they're willing to change lenses don't want to have a bunch of specialized lenses. Even when it comes to focal length, a single superzoom is more appealing to that crowd than a standard zoom and a telezoom. If they go for two lenses, they tend to want two lenses with very discreet use-cases- a standard zoom and a tele zoom, or a standard zoom and a portrait prime are popular combinations with that crowd.

Somebody who bought an m50 three years ago might have bought a second lens to compliment their kit lens, or upgraded their kit lens to a supezoom, but if they feel the need to upgrade from there is very likely to buy a new kit- and so can easily transition to a new ecosystem, whether from canon or another brand. While the M6II largely appealed to a crowd that's likely to continue to work with the system they have, most of the rest of the M series appealed to the segment of the market described earlier. I suspect the M6II's sales numbers, along with the sales numbers of lenses prompted by an m6II purchase, will largely influence Canon's long-term decisions about whether to grow the EF-M line into the upper-end market, or grow the RF line down into the budget market.


----------



## JMV Portraits (Sep 18, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> Those are light. Have you ever tried a 1.2 85mm, 70-200mm 2.8 , or a 28-70mm. What are we going back and forth about. Canon needs to replace the 17-55.


 So you're saying that it's light only if we compare it to some of the heaviest non-super-tele, non-cine lenses of a larger format? That's not saying much.

An RF or EF-M replacement for the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM probably wouldn't resemble the sigma 18-35 f/1.8. It will most likely resemble the 17-55 in both zoom ratio and aperture. The higher weight and higher cost of something any faster would make an already low-selling lens even more niche, and the market segment that buy's Canon APS-C generally values zoom ratio.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 18, 2021)

Doesn’t really matter what it is. You won’t be able to buy it anyway.


----------



## JMV Portraits (Sep 18, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> I think the original 400mm f/4.0 DO did way more damage than the 70-300. The original 400 had rather awful IQ and it took a lot of convincing for people to try out the second edition which by all accounts is spectacular.


I don't think a lot of photographers outside of the wildlife scene really remember hearing much at all about the original 400mm f/4 DO beyond "it's a birding lens". A lot of people heard a lot about the 70-300 DO, with that being a focal length with a lot broader application, and the general buzz was "you pay a lot more for slightly worse image quality". Even if the original 400mm was bad, most people following it closely I expect would have heard about the superiority of the mk II as well.


----------



## JMV Portraits (Sep 18, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> And the 7DII. They needed to replace the 10-22, and they did…with the slower, softer, plastic-mount, cheaper 10-18.
> 
> Those are clues to the importance Canon places on the ‘high-end APS-C market’.


That's one way to read it, but it ucould also just be that Canon didn't see the importance of an ultrawide in that category.

It might be mostly because of the kinds of bodies Canon makes in that space, but most of the people shooting high-end Canon APS-C bodies tend to be in more of a sports or wildlife scene, and buying more teles than ultrawides.

What we see right now is Canon seems to have made a pretty solid APS-C sports and wildlife body, but without any pretense of pro-oriented features, like redundant cards, in the 90D and M6II. We also have full-frame bodies without professionally-oriented features in a similar price bracket in the R and RP, and a professionally-oriented body without the burst rate and resolution at about twice the price in the R6. I'd say, at the very least, we're seeing a shift in definitions. 

For a long time we've had a "prosumer" category split between large sensors but otherwise stripped down (in the 6D line), or APS-C sensors with all the bells and whistles (in the 7D line). The newest bodies the last few years seem to imply separating large sensors or high-speed features from professional assumptions, lowering the barrier to entry for either a sports and wildlife camera, or large sensor camera, or camera to make a living with, so long as you don't need one body to do all three.


----------



## JMV Portraits (Sep 18, 2021)

entoman said:


> I've become convinced that Canon (rightly or wrongly) believes there is no commercial future in the high end APS-C market.
> I'll be very surprised if they ever introduce an APS-C in RF mount.
> 
> They clearly want to move people completely away from EF mount, and leave us with a choice between 2 very different systems:
> ...


 
The M6II is definitely a high-end APS-C body. It, and the very-similar 90D, are both a bit more than what most reasonable consumers would have expected out of a follow-up to the 80D, but without the professionally-oriented features we would have expected from a follow-up to the 7DII. Right now, we have a high end sports and action oriented APS-C body in the M6II, a budget full-frame body in the R or RP at a similar price, and a basic full frame body that doesn't compromise on "I depend on this for my paycheck" features at a lower price than we could previously expect that overlap in the R6.

I would say more that what we can tell from the current lineup is a loss of the "prosumer" category, and an increase in the APS-C sports and wildlife amature, full-frame but u abashed armature, and budget but clearly professionally-oriented categories. At the same time, there isn't a recent APS-C body with those same professionally-oriented features. The R6 adding redundant shooting at such a low price leaves a very narrow range for such a body to fall in in the future, too. 

Whether this continues has yet to be seen. Either a follow-up to the M6II or an APS-C RF body would tell us a lot about Canon's plans for the next several years at least.


----------



## sanj (Sep 18, 2021)

35mm will be great, I personally would be happier with 25mm.


----------



## JMV Portraits (Sep 18, 2021)

slclick said:


> Funny thing about the 'ancient' 135L. It doesn't degrade with age fwiw, lol and it actually out performs in terms of AF and and imho rez while adapted on an RF mount over a dslr. It's timeless and very special. I've been shooting with one or another since 1999 and never once could come up with anything negative to say.



But don't you know that any product launched more than two years ago has crumbled to dust by now?

I us my 135 f/s at pretty much every job- on an adapter- and I love it. While it's been out for a while, I really don't know what else I would want out of such a lens. Maybe IS if it wouldn't compromise anything optically? There are some lenses Canon doesn't update because they don't have the sales to justify it, but the 135 is definitely a lens they haven't updated because it would be hard to improve enough to justify it. It has me cautiously optimistic about the rumored RF 135, even if I expect the budget not to stretch that far


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 18, 2021)

JMV Portraits said:


> While I hope for the sake of my birding friends that we're going to continue to see more diffractive designs, I suspect Canon might be dropping the "DO" designation. It's been seen as a negative by segments of the market who didn't "get" it, especially in regards to the 70-300 DO, so I wonder if that's why Canon didn't mark the two f/11 teles as such. Of course, it could just be that they're reserving it for high-end diffractive lenses.
> 
> While the advantage of a short flange distance typically doesn't make much of a difference in the size of teles, Canon has already shown a couple ways they intend to do that, so I expect they could do something for a fast prime explicitly designed to be compact.


“Diffractive” has always been an unfortunate misnomer as not a single ray of light employed to generate the image in a Canon DO lens is directed by diffraction. Presumably they adopted this mistaken name because the immersion fresnel lenses minimize the otherwise objectionable diffraction artifacts caused by such systems.
Good technology. Bad branding.


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 18, 2021)

Viggo said:


> I can’t wait for the announcement of the RF 35 L that’s so expensive and so hard to get hold of it’s only possible to get once the mk II is released….


Name a Canon product that wasn’t obtainable in the first day it shipped if ordered the first day of ordering.


----------



## i_SH (Sep 18, 2021)

Perhaps RF 18-45 / 4-5.6 will be released? For a complete amateur lens kit.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2021)

i_SH said:


> Perhaps RF 18-45 / 4-5.6 will be released? For a complete amateur lens kit.


That would be clever of Canon. The sub-$1000 FF body, and a 24-105 kit lens that will have those wanting wider buying the 18-45 or 16/2.8, or an 18-45 kit lens that will have those wanting longer buying the 24-105 or 85/2.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Sep 18, 2021)

I just recently picked up the EF 35mm 1.4Lii to use with an adapter on my R5.

I previously used a 35Lii on my 5DIV and it was my sharpest lens but now, on the R5, it is the softest. Compared to the RF50 1.2 and RF85 1.2 it is noticeably less sharp. But vignetting does seem to be a bit better than the RF50 1.2 and in terms of colour and contrast it matches quite seamlessly with the new RF L lenses.

My concern for the new RF35 1.2 is that it will have very heavy vignetting.

All that is to say it would have to be freaking amazing for me to want to sell the EF 35Lii


----------



## Foxdude (Sep 18, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> It’s the 18-55mm f/8-13 kit lens for the low cost APS-C R body that will replace the M series.


This is the rumored f stop range, but I overheard it is actually f 13-22. Bit slower than rumored, like the 100-400 being f8 and not f7.1. Wide open this new kit lens will probably vignette about 5 stops, but they fix it in-camera correction. 
;P


----------



## Foxdude (Sep 18, 2021)

I think the upcoming lens is RF24mm macro, or the RF18-45mm. Both these are confirmed, if I'm correct.


----------



## Skux (Sep 18, 2021)

It's time for an old school 58mm f1.4.


----------



## The_Alpha (Sep 18, 2021)

In my opinion it's time for a RF 28-300


----------



## i_SH (Sep 18, 2021)

The_Alpha said:


> In my opinion it's time for a RF 28-300


The patent and rumors were, as if, for a 24-300 lens.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 18, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Doesn’t really matter what it is. You won’t be able to buy it anyway.


You took the words right out of my mouth, unfocused. I'm still waiting on an EF12-24 replacement, supposedly the projected RF10-24 F4L. If and when it does get announced, it'll probably be priced at $3299.00 and Canon will only make two of them, which will be immediately sold out in the Canon store, then listed as backordered forever.


----------



## fabao (Sep 18, 2021)

We need a 10-24!!! Period!


----------



## BPhoto06 (Sep 18, 2021)

I hope it's a RF 50mm f1.4 or cheaper RF 17-40mm f4L equivalent


----------



## kafala (Sep 18, 2021)

I am hoping for a light 35mm 1.4 like Sony. 1.2 is unnecessary for 35mm. Also hoping it's $2300 like the RF 50mm 1.2. Canon raised the price of their zooms to $2400.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2021)

fabao said:


> We need a 10-24!!! Period!


I would continue to use my EF 11-24. The drop-in filter adapter is very useful and a far better solution than the dinner plate filters (which I don’t have) needed for a lens without a real rear filter option. If an RF 10-24 was available without a drop-in filters and I didn’t already have the EF 11-24, I’d buy the latter anyway.

Same goes for my TS-E 17. I do have the salad plate filters for that, and the DI filter is sooooo much better.


----------



## slclick (Sep 18, 2021)

Pancakes please, even one....not greedy.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 18, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I would continue to use my EF 11-24. The drop-in filter adapter is very useful and a far better solution than the dinner plate filters (which I don’t have) needed for a lens without a real rear filter option. If an RF 10-24 was available without a drop-in filters and I didn’t already have the EF 11-24, I’d buy the latter anyway.
> 
> Same goes for my TS-E 17. I do have the salad plate filters for that, and the DI filter is sooooo much better.


The EF-RF drop in filter adapter certainly keeps the EF12-24 relevant in this RF world, we now live in. That's why you see almost no used bargain pricing for the 12-24.


----------



## JDavis (Sep 18, 2021)

Oh good. As soon as its announced, they will say that demand has far exceeded their expectations and there will be a delay. So maybe you'll get it in 2024!


----------



## JohnC (Sep 18, 2021)

It’s amazing to me how many people seem to get so much satisfaction disparaging brands they don’t prefer as opposed to using the ones they do, or have. 

Why not do something at least remotely constructive?


----------



## Sorosuub (Sep 18, 2021)

Please please let it be an RF35L f1.2. I have the EF 35 f1.4 Mk 2 lens and while it's sharp, isn't nearly as good as my RF lenses.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 18, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, because he mentioned wanting a lens for Super35 (e.g., the Cinema EOS C70). But I doubt we’ll see a lens like that.


That is why Canon made the Focal Reducer Adaptor for the C70. So they don't have to make a bunch of dedicated s35 lenses. On the flip side, the latest R5 update includes support for the existing s35 Compact Servo cine zooms to support the very good APS-c video from the R5. AFAIK, the the focal reducer also works with the R5, but doesn't (yet at least) have the level of support that it does for the C70.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 18, 2021)

JohnC said:


> It’s amazing to me how many people seem to get so much satisfaction disparaging brands they don’t prefer as opposed to using the ones they do, or have.
> 
> Why not do something at least remotely constructive?


Many of them can barely afford a phone (or have a free one issued by the govt) and under different aliases disparage all brands because they can't afford any.


----------



## JohnC (Sep 18, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Many of them can barely afford a phone (or have a free one issued by the govt) and under different aliases disparage all brands because they can't afford any.


Yes I suspect you are correct, and In that case my suggestion would be to spend less time spewing and go get a job!


----------



## entoman (Sep 18, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I would continue to use my EF 11-24. The drop-in filter adapter is very useful and a far better solution than the dinner plate filters (which I don’t have) needed for a lens without a real rear filter option. If an RF 10-24 was available without a drop-in filters and I didn’t already have the EF 11-24, I’d buy the latter anyway.
> 
> Same goes for my TS-E 17. I do have the salad plate filters for that, and the DI filter is sooooo much better.


Yes, in many cases it makes a lot more sense to use adapted EF lenses. Sometimes the RF versions offer superior sharpness, but it's worth asking whether we'd actually notice the difference if photographing anything other than a test chart. Sometimes the RF versions are more compact, but that may be because they extend when zooming or focusing, and it's arguable that "extending" lenses are more prone to suck in moisture or fine dust. Sometimes the RF versions focus closer, but it's worth asking whether that abilty is worth the usually considerably higher asking price.

... and sometimes there simply isn't an RF version of a favourite lens available - it seems pretty unlikely e.g. that an RF 180mm macro will appear in the next couple of years, and there is no RF 24mm tilt-shift yet.

I've got a couple of RF lenses - 24-105mm F4 (to replace a stolen EF version) and 800mm F11 (unavailable in EF), but I won't be "upgrading" my EF 100mm macro, or my EF 100-400mm, as there is no worthwhile (to me) advantage in doing so.


----------



## JohnC (Sep 18, 2021)

I agree on the drop in adapter. I've found I enjoy using some of my glass a lot more since getting one. I use a CPL a lot (shooting water) and it's nice not managing 4 different CPL's (from 58-95mm) in order to do so.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 18, 2021)

Since I`m not interested in any of the "not-yet-released-or-announced-lenses" on CR’s roadmap, I'm hoping for a lense that is such a huge surprise that absolutely nobody could’ve seen it coming. Something like a 35-135mm F2.8-4 or an 50-105mm F2-2.8 zoom or just something with a crazy feature  or a killer astro lense (RF 12mm F2 where are you?)


----------



## Jethro (Sep 19, 2021)

JDavis said:


> Oh good. As soon as its announced, they will say that demand has far exceeded their expectations and there will be a delay. So maybe you'll get it in 2024!


Well, I guess that won't bother you anymore given you have "just dumped my R6, RP and RF glass because I was tired of waiting for quality lenses that didnt cost $2500", and have headed off to the Sony Promised Land.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 19, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Since I`m not interested in any of the "not-yet-released-or-announced-lenses" on CR’s roadmap, I'm hoping for a lense that is such a huge surprise that absolutely nobody could’ve seen it coming. Something like a 35-135mm F2.8-4 or an 50-105mm F2-2.8 zoom or just something with a crazy feature  or a killer astro lense (RF 12mm F2 where are you?)


I don't mind variable aperture lenses, and I also like the idea of them being faster than Canon has been making them recently. One of my all-time favorite lenses is the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 for APS-C. I rarely shoot that wide, in fact I'm an "f/8 and be there" guy, having learned photography in the 1980's with a Canon AV-1. But I like the size and weight of the larger aperture lens. I have long fingers and it handles well on both my 7D Mark II and a6400 (with an adapter, of course).

When that old AV-1 died in 1992, one of the factors that led me to choose the EOS system was the feel and handling of the lenses. And these were the consumer-grade lenses, like the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, not the L lenses (and in those days even the EF 28-70L was variable aperture, f/2.8-4). I remember looking at the window display in a shop one night and there was an EOS body with its "normal" kit zoom lens right next to somebody else's body with its normal kit zoom lens. The lens on the EOS just looked so much more substantial, almost muscular, next to the skinny, fragile-looking lens on the other camera. I don't remember what camera it was or what lens it was, but it made an impression on me.


----------



## SonicStudios (Sep 19, 2021)

My kingdom for an RF 300mm prime


----------



## AJ (Sep 19, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Since I`m not interested in any of the "not-yet-released-or-announced-lenses" on CR’s roadmap, I'm hoping for a lense that is such a huge surprise that absolutely nobody could’ve seen it coming. Something like a 35-135mm F2.8-4 or an 50-105mm F2-2.8 zoom or just something with a crazy feature  or a killer astro lense (RF 12mm F2 where are you?)


Yeah. RF 14-21/1.4 where are you?


----------



## Traveler (Sep 19, 2021)

I’d wish for an extremely compact landscape telephoto, something like 200mm+ ~f/7.1. 
and/or a lightweight fish eye or lightweight (slow) ~10mm FF lens.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 19, 2021)

slclick said:


> Pancakes please, even one....not greedy.



I think they are more like muffins on mirrorless. At least the two Nikon ‘pancake’ lenses look more like little fat muffins.


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 19, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> I think they are more like muffins on mirrorless. At least the two Nikon ‘pancake’ lenses look more like little fat muffins.


“Cupcake lenses”?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 19, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> “Cupcake lenses”?


Muffins taste better.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 19, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> I think they are more like muffins on mirrorless. At least the two Nikon ‘pancake’ lenses look more like little fat muffins.


The 50mm f/1.8 certainly is no pancake but some people called it such.


----------



## Talys (Sep 19, 2021)

RF200-400/4L +TC with built in control ring, mfd of 3 feet that's 25% lighter than EF


----------



## GrunRad (Sep 19, 2021)

BPhoto06 said:


> I hope it's a RF 50mm f1.4 or cheaper RF 17-40mm f4L equivalent


I'd (almost) wager that this announced lens is the rumoured RF 18-45 f4-5.6 IS STM. I seem to remember that there has been an interview with Canon top brass where they recognized a need for "more affordable RF lenses aimed at amateur photographers".


----------



## Nemorino (Sep 19, 2021)

I don't expect an affordable or tele lens. They would have been announced with the 16mm, 100-400mm and the R3.
Probably a fast L lens. The guess of CR guy could be possible because a wide angle prime is still missing in the R lineup of L lenses.


----------



## entoman (Sep 19, 2021)

Judging by the fact that the 2 most recently announced lenses (16mm and 100-400mm) are both “budget” lenses, I think it’s pretty much guaranteed that the next in line will be an expensive L model. Almost certainly a wide-aperture prime.

A top contender would be the rumoured 500mm F4.


----------



## MythPlayer (Sep 19, 2021)

Talys said:


> RF200-400/4L +TC with built in control ring, mfd of 3 feet that's 25% lighter than EF


EF 200-400mm TC still production，maybe 70-135mm F2 or 135mm F1.4?


----------



## john1970 (Sep 19, 2021)

Assuming Canon will announce the lens around the time of the R3 the RF 500 mm f4 DO lens makes a lot of sense. One of the big advantages of the R3 is the ~1 lb weight savings compared to the 1Dx Mk3. Coupled to a 500 mm f4 DO would make for an exceptionally lightweight kit. The R3 is a sports camera so it would make some sense that they would announce a lens used in sports photography.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 19, 2021)

I'm hoping for a 200mm f/1.8L. Maybe next year. Available 2023.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 20, 2021)

A RF40mm pancake would be welcome as the adapted EF version doubles the size/weight/cost.

Whatever is released, it will immediately go on the "supply issue" list


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 20, 2021)

SteveC said:


> The 50mm f/1.8 certainly is no pancake but some people called it such.


If you compare with a true pancake on an EF RF adapter it might well qualify.


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 20, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm hoping for a 200mm f/1.8L. Maybe next year. Available 2023.


Make it a 1.4.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 20, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm hoping for a 200mm f/1.8L. Maybe next year. Available 2023.



I really wonder if Canon will ever make another one when we have such competent 70-200 lenses around. In 2021, 200mm just feels like an odd focal length to me for a prime (I say that as someone who owns one).

EDIT: Wikipedia tells me Canon released the EF 180/3.5L Macro USM in 1996 and discontinued it in 2021. Could we see an RF 180/3.5L before (or, indeed, instead of) an RF 200mm/2.8L?


----------



## SteveC (Sep 20, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> If you compare with a true pancake on an EF RF adapter it might well qualify.


It probably would, but that's a pancake on an adapter.

I believe someone was asking for a _native _pancake.


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 20, 2021)

SteveC said:


> It probably would, but that's a pancake on an adapter.
> 
> I believe someone was asking for a _native _pancake.


My observation is that a pancake spaced a mirror flip away from the image plane is one thing, but a pancake with a much smaller (20mm) distance from front rim to film plane is less realistic.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 20, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm hoping for a 200mm f/1.8L. Maybe next year. Available 2023.


Wouldn't that make a dream combo on the R3 for indoor sporting events and more??


----------



## degos (Sep 20, 2021)

JMV Portraits said:


> There are some lenses Canon doesn't update because they don't have the sales to justify it, but the 135 is definitely a lens they haven't updated because it would be hard to improve enough to justify it. It has me cautiously optimistic about the rumored RF 135, even if I expect the budget not to stretch that far


Sigma improved upon it and pushed theirs to f/1.8

And in terms of raw resolution the 135mm TS-E easily beats it.

It's a lovely lens, but like the 400mm 5.6, 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 it was long overdue for an overhaul. Consider that the 600mm went through four versions in that time!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 20, 2021)

degos said:


> Sigma improved upon it and pushed theirs to f/1.8
> 
> And in terms of raw resolution the 135mm TS-E easily beats it.
> 
> It's a lovely lens, but like the 400mm 5.6, 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 it was long overdue for an overhaul. Consider that the 600mm went through four versions in that time!



I would rather see a compact and ultra sharp 135mm F2 but the time of compact L primes seem to be long gone. Now everything weights 1kg.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I would continue to use my EF 11-24. The drop-in filter adapter is very useful and a far better solution than the dinner plate filters (which I don’t have) needed for a lens without a real rear filter option. If an RF 10-24 was available without a drop-in filters and I didn’t already have the EF 11-24, I’d buy the latter anyway.
> 
> Same goes for my TS-E 17. I do have the salad plate filters for that, and the DI filter is sooooo much better.


I'm in exactly the same thought process with the same two lenses, and the EF 15mm fisheye. I see using select EF lenses on RF bodies as an advantage.

I saw a video of a skateboard photographer with an R3 using his beat up EF 15mm on it via adapter, a very nice combination of speed and field of view.


----------



## sanj (Sep 20, 2021)

There is a sentiment that Canon should first provide the equipment they have already announced. I agree with that sentiment.


----------



## neurorx (Sep 20, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> They need to make a lightweight f1.8 zoom is for s35. It's way overdue. The f1.4 35 is still kinda new and excellent and we got the f1.8. Personally I am not in a rush for that lens over other lenses. I rather a 135mm over that because the current one is ancient.


A 135mm f1.4 would be my hope too.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 20, 2021)

sanj said:


> There is a sentiment that Canon should first provide the equipment they have already announced. I agree with that sentiment.


I understand your concerns and frustration. Unfortunately with the ongoing chip shortages, I would not expect any camera manufacturer to readily meet demand for newly released products. The best advice I have is pre-order as soon as the product is announced and hope for the best. So far that approach has worked for me both locally and via internet orders.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 20, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I understand your concerns and frustration. Unfortunately with the ongoing chip shortages, I would not expect any camera manufacturer to readily meet demand for newly released products. The best advice I have is pre-order as soon as the product is announced and hope for the best. So far that approach has worked for me both locally and via internet orders.


I concur with your statement, John but think what Sanj is referring to here is, "Why come out with new lenses in a market where you are not even able to meet demand for already announced lenses?" Just adds more buyer frustration to the order process that further inhibits your ability to get older RF lenses. If you are unable to meet demand for it, which we understand, just hold off awhile until such time when you CAN meet demand.


----------



## amorse (Sep 20, 2021)

I'm still dreaming of that long ago rumoured 14-21 f/1.4. I think I'm in the minority there, but I like to think I'd put that puppy to good use. RF already has everything I really need to switch from EF to RF, but that would have me re-thinking some transition plans.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2021)

If it helps, think of it as a roadmap. They're announcing lenses far enough in advance of actual availability that you can plan a strategy. Avoids the 'impulse buy' because even if you preorder, you have plenty of time to change your mind...


----------



## SilverBox (Sep 20, 2021)

fastprime said:


> I hope it’s the 35mm 1.2. Just not sure how I’m going to tell my wife I took a “small” loan out of my savings.


My favorite lens of all time


----------



## john1970 (Sep 20, 2021)

canonmike said:


> I concur with your statement, John but think what Sanj is referring to here is, "Why come out with new lenses in a market where you are not even able to meet demand for already announced lenses?" Just adds more buyer frustration to the order process that further inhibits your ability to get older RF lenses. If you are unable to meet demand for it, which we understand, just hold off awhile until such time when you CAN meet demand.


Might be a one to two year delay if they take that approach? Best estimates is that chip shortages into Q1-Q2 2023. Yikes!! There is no great solution to the problem and understand the frustration.


----------



## jvillain (Sep 20, 2021)

It's a $20,000 24mm cine with a vertical rather than horizontal anamorphic squeeze which will be released with a new cine camera with a FF sensor sporting a 1:2 crop for the new theaters where they don't have a front screen and every one just sits in the dark watching the movies being streamed on their cell phone.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 20, 2021)

I changed my mind. Since my girlfriend won’t let me own the 70-200mm and the 100-500mm (something about too much overlap and overkill) I am hoping for a 200-700mm (Not 600mm because Canon should beat out Sony] to “complement“ the 70-200mm and kill off her argument because there’s overlap anymore  come on canon!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I changed my mind. Since my girlfriend won’t let me own the 70-200mm and the 100-500mm (something about too much overlap and overkill)


The 70-200 (especially the f/2.8) is an excellent portrait lens, so perhaps that would sell her on the lens?


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 20, 2021)

canonmike said:


> I concur with your statement, John but think what Sanj is referring to here is, "Why come out with new lenses in a market where you are not even able to meet demand for already announced lenses?" Just adds more buyer frustration to the order process that further inhibits your ability to get older RF lenses. If you are unable to meet demand for it, which we understand, just hold off awhile until such time when you CAN meet demand.


I surely succumb to the 'Amazon prime' expectations - not having to wait more than about 2 days for anything I want. But I don't think businesses can survive just waiting. If they did, people on this forum would be writing Canon off for dead - 'no announcements in x months, i guess the RF system is dead. I'll go buy a Sony.' In the court of internet forums, they can't win. 

Since they have to make money to stay in business, it is in their best interest to sell whatever they can make as they go along. Some money coming in is better than none. Many auto manufacturers are doing this now. No cars on the lot, but you can go in and buy one to your spec and a spot in the production queue for when the facility can start back up. They need your deposit to try and stay in business. I had to get a new cell phone this weekend. People were being told to expect to wait at least 3 months for the new iPhone (pre-orders expected to well out pace manufacturing capacity, even though Apple has some pretty iron clad contracts for production time). Samsung S21s are indefinitely back ordered as well. 

Its not a Canon thing. Its a world thing right now.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 70-200 (especially the f/2.8) is an excellent portrait lens, so perhaps that would sell her on the lens?


I’ll try but she’s pretty firm on the subject. But I really love my 70–200mm F4. So compact, so great


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I’ll try but she’s pretty firm on the subject. But I really love my 70–200mm F4. So compact, so great


It is a nice and compact lens, I saw one in a display case at Best Buy yesterday (although I wasn't shopping for camera gear). Still, if I replace my EF 70-200/2.8 II with an RF version, it will most likely be the f/2.8 lens. Although many of my shots with the EF 24-70/2.8 II were at f/4 or narrower meaning I may stick with the RF 24-105/4L that I have, many of my 70-200 shots were at f/2.8.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> If it helps, think of it as a roadmap. They're announcing lenses far enough in advance of actual availability that you can plan a strategy. Avoids the 'impulse buy' because even if you preorder, you have plenty of time to change your mind...


I was thinking the same thing. Canon has been notoriously opaque when it comes to future lens releases, so this is kind of a roadmap to what will be available down the road. 

However, I can understand the frustration if they have a lens you really want and you can't get it for months on end. Or, particularly if you are planning a trip or need it for a specific event and can't get it or even plan on when you could get the lens. The 100-500 being a good example. I thought the shortage was about over when mine arrived last month (after ordering in May) but it's obvious that the shortages continue. I'm happy now, but there are probably thousands of others out there still waiting and wondering when it will show up. 

I also get the frustration of those who have been waiting for months on end for a lens that's been backordered and they see Canon announcing new lenses. Whether it is true or not, it is just human nature to assume that these new lenses are eating up resources that could be devoted to the lens you are waiting for. And, there is probably some truth to that, as Canon certainly doesn't have infinite manufacturing lines and presumably, they can only devote those lines to a finite number of lenses at a time.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 20, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I changed my mind. Since my girlfriend won’t let me own the 70-200mm and the 100-500mm (something about too much overlap and overkill) I am hoping for a 200-700mm (Not 600mm because Canon should beat out Sony] to “complement“ the 70-200mm and kill off her argument because there’s overlap anymore  come on canon!


Let's see how far you get with that one....we're rootin for you though.


----------



## BBarn (Sep 20, 2021)

I've been able to acquire every RF lens I wanted to buy so far (5 of them). Sometimes I've needed to wait a month or two, but I did get them. I also bought Canon's EF-RF adapter which took a month or two. 

People of the world have modified their practices due to COVID. As a result, expectations must also be modified.


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 20, 2021)

sanj said:


> There is a sentiment that Canon should first provide the equipment they have already announced. I agree with that sentiment.


As others have mentioned, they are sort of damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they don't announce anything new regularly, they will get killed on social media. This has been happening to Nikon as they went for quite a while without announcing any new products sparking rumors that they were "dead" and with lots of folks claiming it is best to jump ship now as this is clearly a sign of Nikon's demise. Announcing a roadmap can also backfire, as they are constantly criticized for not releasing all the lenses they said they would this year. 

What I find rather head-scratching is just how many people are impatient to the point where they need to constantly complain - despite the fact that there are supply issues that are severe. My guess is that almost no one actually needs the camera or lenses they are waiting for. Most people on this forum are already camera and lens owners, so they could just go on using what they have. I understand that forums have mainly become Whining arenas, which, I guess for a person of my generation, is both annoying and mind-boggling. If, as an adult, I whined like a 7 year old child, my parents would have simply told me to grow up. I guess that doesn't happen any more. It is embarrassing to say the least, but I guess many people here have no qualms about embarrassing themselves in front of a world-wide audience.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 20, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I changed my mind. Since my girlfriend won’t let me own the 70-200mm and the 100-500mm (something about too much overlap and overkill) I am hoping for a 200-700mm (Not 600mm because Canon should beat out Sony] to “complement“ the 70-200mm and kill off her argument because there’s overlap anymore  come on canon!


Is your girlfriend providing the money for these lenses? Just asking.

I've owned the EF70-200 f/2.8L or F/4L and 100-400L for two decades but I use them for different things. The 100-400 spent most of its life on an APS-C body but has been replaced there by a 150-600 Sigma Sport. The 70-200 is usually on a FF body.


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 20, 2021)

canonmike said:


> "Why come out with new lenses in a market where you are not even able to meet demand for already announced lenses?" Just adds more buyer frustration to the order process that further inhibits your ability to get older RF lenses. If you are unable to meet demand for it, which we understand, just hold off awhile until such time when you CAN meet demand.


Here's why:
1. They have design capacity even with temporary supply chain problems. Why have the designers sit on their thumbs, or hold back models that can be produced and sold?
2. Being seen as a design leader wins people to the platform.
3. People who really want a new one can just order the first day. That ALWAYS works.
4. People who really _need _one (professionals) can always find one at market price, or rent.
5. A released lens that is out of stock is an eventual sure thing for someone who desires it, but not enough to pay a premium.
6. "Out of stock" suggests desirability, and in demand.
7. Manufacturing capacity isn't necessarily as easy to shift from new releases to the one you want as some might think.
8. Supply chain issues are different from manufacturing line capacity. Selling some new lenses doesn't make that chip for the other lens you really want any slower to arrive.
9. Canon knows lots of reasons why they do what they do, and doesn't benefit from sharing them all with the public.
10. (addition upon editing *Because the new normal of "if you want anything new, you better order the first ten minutes" is superlative marketing and buyer motivation. Absolute marketing gold. Scarcity, cachet, prestige. All diminished if they are perpertually in stock on every new release from the day of release, and all the worriers can "first read the reviews."*


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 20, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I’ll try but she’s pretty firm on the subject. But I really love my 70–200mm F4. So compact, so great


Nothing wrong with "pretty" and "firm" in one's gal. 

Incidentally, if you have joint finances, I suggest you give yourselves each a monthly "allowance" to spend in any way you wish without a joint decision. That can be a nice way to ease tensions over money.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> If it helps, think of it as a roadmap. They're announcing lenses far enough in advance of actual availability that you can plan a strategy. Avoids the 'impulse buy' because even if you preorder, you have plenty of time to change your mind...


Good point. For the next 6-12 months (and hopefully only that long), there are no product releases, only "completed development announcements."

Still, I empathize with people who have placed orders and are waiting. I know how frustrating that can be.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 20, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> Is your girlfriend providing the money for these lenses? Just asking.


No, she is not providing the money. It's all out of my pocket. But you know, there are ways "we could spent the money to enjoy things together" or "get more use out of, e.g. new furniture or something".

I do get that owning a 70-200mm and 100-500mm is absolutely overkill, but the 70-200mm makes awesome portraits and is great for hiking! The latter not so much. But for wildlife you need 500mm. Ahh, it's like Sophies choice for tele-lenses. Ahhh, gotta keep both


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I do get that owning a 70-200mm and 100-500mm is absolutely overkill…


Uh oh. If that’s overkill, what is owning an EF 70-200/2.8, 70-300L, 600/4L II, and RF 100-500?


----------



## JohnC (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Uh oh. If that’s overkill, what is owning an EF 70-200/2.8, 70-300L, 600/4L II, and RF 100-500?


The beginning of a nice collection lol


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2021)

JohnC said:


> The beginning of a nice collection lol


Lol, those are just a small part of the collection.





The RF lenses aren’t pictured, I’ll have to add them at some point. Hmmm, looks like the EF-M 32/1.4 isn’t there either. Definitely time for an update.


----------



## JohnC (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lol, those are just a small part of the collection.
> 
> View attachment 200309
> View attachment 200310
> ...


Nice, I see some efm in there as well! I sold quite a few and wish I hadn’t at this point. I have a nice group of Zeiss, but no true big whites yet although that will come relatively soon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2021)

JohnC said:


> Nice, I see some efm in there as well! I sold quite a few and wish I hadn’t at this point. I have a nice group of Zeiss, but no true big whites yet although that will come relatively soon.


Yes, I have all the EF-M lenses. Most are very good.


----------



## deleteme (Sep 21, 2021)

I am voting for the 14mm TS-AF


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2021)

Normalnorm said:


> I am voting for the 14mm TS-AF


I’m not sure I see the benefit of AF in a TS lens. For me, at least, the ability to use a rear filter is more benefit. But the extra 3mm would also be useful.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 21, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> No, she is not providing the money. It's all out of my pocket. But you know, there are ways "we could spent the money to enjoy things together" or "get more use out of, e.g. new furniture or something".
> 
> I do get that owning a 70-200mm and 100-500mm is absolutely overkill, but the 70-200mm makes awesome portraits and is great for hiking! The latter not so much. But for wildlife you need 500mm. Ahh, it's like Sophies choice for tele-lenses. Ahhh, gotta keep both



My solution: A multi-year strategy.

First, I bought my wife a point and shoot with a superzoom, so she could take pictures of birds to ID them later. 

Then, I bought her a 70D, so she could take better pictures of birds and use my lenses. That got upgraded to an 80D and then a 90D. Somewhere along the line, she appropriated my 100 macro and my 100-400. So I bought a second 100-400 so she wouldn't have to share with me.

Jump ahead to this spring. I had to order two R5s and two 100-500 lenses, plus the 800 f11 for her to use on her walks. 

She doesn't complain (much) about my purchases, but it has gotten a lot more expensive for me. To add insult to injury, she's a better bird photographer than I am and has over a 1,000 followers on social media, while I have about five.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Uh oh. If that’s overkill, what is owning an EF 70-200/2.8, 70-300L, 600/4L II, and RF 100-500?


That’s not overkill, that’s living a dream!


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not sure I see the benefit of AF in a TS lens. For me, at least, the ability to use a rear filter is more benefit. But the extra 3mm would also be useful.


What if the AF included motorized tilt?


----------



## canonmike (Sep 21, 2021)

JohnC said:


> I agree on the drop in adapter. I've found I enjoy using some of my glass a lot more since getting one. I use a CPL a lot (shooting water) and it's nice not managing 4 different CPL's (from 58-95mm) in order to do so.


An interesting comment, JohnC and leads one to wonder if a dedicated RF drop in filter adapter is possible, an option that would add increased flexibility to existing RF lenses, especially at the ultra wide end. Perhaps our fellow CR engineering wizards can chime in here, as to whether the flange distance requirement or other engineering restrictions would negate this possibility. I have a large box full of various screw on filters that I rarely use, ranging from 52-95mm, as well as various adapters to hold the 100mm square filters.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 21, 2021)

unfocused said:


> My solution: A multi-year strategy.
> 
> First, I bought my wife a point and shoot with a superzoom, so she could take pictures of birds to ID them later.
> 
> ...


Well, unfocused, I think it's great, albeit expensive that your wife shares your enthusiasm and passion for photography. Something you have in common. My wife is a great gal but doesn't care anything about photography or camera gear. To her, her iphone is the perfect do all, end all camera. Our daughter used to love and embrace Canon's very small point and shoot cams but has now followed in her mom's foot steps, opting to use her cell phone, driven by its most convenient social media platform capabilities. To each his own, I say. They have both done their part in contributing to the decline of camera gear sales, leaving me to single handedly carry on the cause for real camera gear. I have no problem pursuing that endeavor and my bills from the likes of B&H, Adorama and more validate my passion.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 21, 2021)

unfocused said:


> My solution: A multi-year strategy.
> 
> First, I bought my wife a point and shoot with a superzoom, so she could take pictures of birds to ID them later.
> 
> ...


Sounds like a great, but expansive Plan  I actually tried to lure her in with an RP, but she opted for the Samsung S20 ultra instead 

*sigh…


----------



## Kit. (Sep 21, 2021)

canonmike said:


> I concur with your statement, John but think what Sanj is referring to here is, "Why come out with new lenses in a market where you are not even able to meet demand for already announced lenses?" Just adds more buyer frustration to the order process that further inhibits your ability to get older RF lenses. If you are unable to meet demand for it, which we understand, just hold off awhile until such time when you CAN meet demand.


Are you saying that I shouldn't have been able to use my 14-35 right now just because Canon didn't ship all those 100-500s some other people ordered?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> What if the AF included motorized tilt?


A ‘dual focus’ option would be interesting - selecting a near and a far subject. Only applicable to certain use cases, though.


----------



## entoman (Sep 21, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Since I`m not interested in any of the "not-yet-released-or-announced-lenses" on CR’s roadmap, I'm hoping for a lense that is such a huge surprise that absolutely nobody could’ve seen it coming. Something like a 35-135mm F2.8-4 or an 50-105mm F2-2.8 zoom or just something with a crazy feature  or a killer astro lense (RF 12mm F2 where are you?)


“Huge surprise” + “Crazy feature” = Huge and crazy price!


----------



## JohnC (Sep 21, 2021)

canonmike said:


> An interesting comment, JohnC and leads one to wonder if a dedicated RF drop in filter adapter is possible, an option that would add increased flexibility to existing RF lenses, especially at the ultra wide end. Perhaps our fellow CR engineering wizards can chime in here, as to whether the flange distance requirement or other engineering restrictions would negate this possibility. I have a large box full of various screw on filters that I rarely use, ranging from 52-95mm, as well as various adapters to hold the 100mm square filters.


I have a strong suspicion that it would have to be designed into the lens from the beginning. I believe adding one to the existing RF lenses wouldn't work if I understand your question correctly. 

On another note, I do believe it would be beneficial to design ultra-wides (particularly those with convex front elements) with that capability. I suppose the use case isn't large enough overall to support that unfortunately.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 21, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Are you saying that I shouldn't have been able to use my 14-35 right now just because Canon didn't ship all those 100-500s some other people ordered?


Not at all. Setting your obvious sarcasm aside, Kit, I own both of those lenses, as well but many of us feel the process to acquire them was more than a little frustrating. I, also own the RF100 macro and pre-ordered the companion dedicated tripod collar the same day, as I patiently wait for the latter which has still not shipped almost FOUR months later, while I continue to receive notices from B&H every two weeks that they still have not rec'd inventory for same. Note to some who have remarked that EVERYTHING they have ordered has been received within two months, implying, if you just order it, you'll get it within two months. For some of us, our experience has been and continues to be different than yours. Heaven forbid that anyone that still hasn't rec'd their ordered product(s), might throw a suggestion out there, looking for input and reasonable debate about possible cause and effect, then look for potential solutions to break up these shipping bottlenecks. I don't have any solutions but I do hope that I will always come to this forum, respecting the fact that there are others out there that don't necessarily share my opinion(s), without adding my special brand of wit and sarcasm to the mix. I completely acknowledge that all Mfgs. have unique challenges in this market, as they work to fulfil demand and create new products and also realize they would love to be able to fill all orders timely. In the meantime, I am not a Mfg but a consumer who wants nothing more than to be able to order and receive products timely, like we have been accustomed to and have taken for granted for so many years. Meanwhile, like others, I try and polish my patience skills while I wait for market conditions to return to some semblance of normalcy. I hope you enjoy your lenses.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 21, 2021)

JohnC said:


> I have a strong suspicion that it would have to be designed into the lens from the beginning. I believe adding one to the existing RF lenses wouldn't work if I understand your question correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I so concur. Would love to see the improbable, an RF10-24mm F4 with integrated drop in filter holder, even knowing I would pay dearly for it.


----------



## roby17269 (Sep 21, 2021)

canonmike said:


> I concur with your statement, John but think what Sanj is referring to here is, "Why come out with new lenses in a market where you are not even able to meet demand for already announced lenses?" Just adds more buyer frustration to the order process that further inhibits your ability to get older RF lenses. If you are unable to meet demand for it, which we understand, just hold off awhile until such time when you CAN meet demand.


Imagine if Canon would stop announcing new stuff in order to shore up supply of existing products. Everyone would be complaining about Canon abandoning the RF systems and Canon is about to die etc. etc.
They have a though act to balance, but the RF system is new and still largely incomplete (compared to the EF system) and they need to be seen as they're expanding the RF system with innovative solutions, which is what they are doing.

Moreover, as the previous poster stated, I have ordered the things I wanted at announcement day and so far I have received the goods on the expected date. For the lenses I have ordered after release date, in average I had to wait a month. It was annoying, yes, but nothing too bothersome for an hobbyist like me


----------



## roby17269 (Sep 21, 2021)

entoman said:


> Yes, in many cases it makes a lot more sense to use adapted EF lenses. Sometimes the RF versions offer superior sharpness, but it's worth asking whether we'd actually notice the difference if photographing anything other than a test chart. Sometimes the RF versions are more compact, but that may be because they extend when zooming or focusing, and it's arguable that "extending" lenses are more prone to suck in moisture or fine dust. Sometimes the RF versions focus closer, but it's worth asking whether that abilty is worth the usually considerably higher asking price.
> 
> ... and sometimes there simply isn't an RF version of a favourite lens available - it seems pretty unlikely e.g. that an RF 180mm macro will appear in the next couple of years, and there is no RF 24mm tilt-shift yet.
> 
> I've got a couple of RF lenses - 24-105mm F4 (to replace a stolen EF version) and 800mm F11 (unavailable in EF), but I won't be "upgrading" my EF 100mm macro, or my EF 100-400mm, as there is no worthwhile (to me) advantage in doing so.


Agreed that there's a significant number of EF lenses that still make plenty of sense to use with RF. The TS-E lenses, the MP-E, the exotic wides and the exotic teles. All of these not only do not have RF equivalents yet, but they also work better with the RF cameras thanks to the AF and the MF aids and the adapter with the drop-in filter. Also for people on a budget, EF lenses provide a lot of bang for the buck.
I am still regretting selling my MP-E 65mm time ago. I will be looking for a used one soon since I think that it'd be much more usable with my R5.

Having said so, I have not regretted one bit migrating my EF lenses to the new RF equivalents that are available - the 2 RF 1.2 primes are much better than the EF ones, not only for the sharpness wide open, but also for the improved focus speed and reduced min focussing distance: for me they are all game-changers. And the new RF macro has had a significant bump in magnification ability, which is a material improvement (don't care much for the aberration adjustment).

So I will keep migrating glass. C'mon Canon get on to delivering the 35 1.2! I have sold my EF 35 1.4 already!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2021)

canonmike said:


> I so concur. Would love to see the improbable, an RF10-24mm F4 with integrated drop in filter holder, even knowing I would pay dearly for it.


I trust you realize that you’ve essentially described the EF 11-24/4 with the EF-RF DI adapter, for which you would pay $3300-3400.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I trust you realize that you’ve essentially described the EF 11-24/4 with the EF-RF DI adapter, for which you would pay $3300-3400.


Absolutely and that will invariably be the only solution for this combo, going forward. But one can dream, as I don't currently own either. Still, since the 10-24 is on the CR roadmap and neither EF or RF versions are on my critical want list, I look fwd to seeing the RF specs and capabilities before making that determination, unless I found a bargain on the EF version, something that is probably less likely to happen than winning the lottery.


----------



## stevoc921 (Sep 28, 2021)

Vonner said:


> I hope your guess is correct. That's the one I've been waiting for.


Same here. I'd also take a 24mm 1.2


----------



## deleteme (Sep 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not sure I see the benefit of AF in a TS lens. For me, at least, the ability to use a rear filter is more benefit. But the extra 3mm would also be useful.


AF is not what I am looking for. 14mm with movements is.


----------

