Rumored RF lens roadmap update

[Gino_FOTO]

The RF-S, super telephoto zoom seems curious. I’m no optical designer, but I’ve always heard that, beyond about 200 mm or so, there is not much of a size or weight savings from the 1.6 CF image circle.

Being a crop user, I like the RF-S 11-18 rumor.

The 200-500 f/4L also sounds interesting, depending on its price. probably won’t be $3K because that’s where the current 100-500 is, but $10K is a nonstarter for me.

Sure there certainly are some physical limitations, e.g. Fuji 200mm is 10 years younger, but managed to be only 255g lighter than Canon' 200mm.

 

[FabFR]

Also looking forward to the ts14. It'll cost an arm and a leg though.

You can add a kidney !

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

I am mostly happy with the RF100-400 on my R6 and R10, which is comparatively light already and very versatile for what I use it for.
Honestly though, I cannot say what specs a long APS-C tele would have to have that would make it attractive to me.

I love my RF 100-400! I only wish the positions of the zoom and focus rings were swapped, which would make it easier to hand-hold steady while following a moving subject.

Canon has the reasonably priced 600 and 800 f/11 STMs, so I also don’t see what an RF-S super tele would be. Unless they do like a crop 600 f/4 for less $$ than the full frame version. Or maybe a 1200mm f/11 STM (!)

 

[kafala]

Still needing those fast 1.4 primes that combine IQ, good build, portability and USM.

The current STM's are just lacking. And the L's are cumbersome for travel and hideously expensive to get in multiple focal lengths. Or mostly just missing entirely.

I agree 100%. I like my Rf 85mm 1.2 and RF 50mm 1.2 but they are too heavy for casual shooting. I do not like the cheap stm lenses with their slow auto focus. We need some 1.4 options like Sony that are light.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The RF-S, super telephoto zoom seems curious. I’m no optical designer, but I’ve always heard that, beyond about 200 mm or so, there is not much of a size or weight savings from the 1.6 CF image circle.

True, and there’s already an RF-S 55-210mm. The ‘source’ is probably someone who wishes for such a lens but doesn’t understand physics.

The 200-500 f/4L also sounds interesting, depending on its price. probably won’t be $3K because that’s where the current 100-500 is, but $10K is a nonstarter for me.

I’m sure it will be well over $10K. The 100-300/2.8 is $9.5K, the 200-500/4 will be larger with bigger elements.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Glad to see an update to the roadmap. Unfortunately, the listed lenses are very vague and several focal lengths aren't very precise. I believe Canon has pretty "shut" the rumor mill. Imho, I always thought the unofficial CR road map was one way of Canon letting us know what to expect without being held accountable for it. The road map was way too accurate, so I don't think it was simply based on rumors and guesses. Now that Nikon doesn't have an official road map, Canon will probably operate more quietly than ever...

Second thought, Canon has not been very active this year. There should be a lot more lenses coming in Q4...

 

[AlanF]

True, and there’s already an RF-S 55-210mm. The ‘source’ is probably someone who wishes for such a lens but doesn’t understand physics.

Absolutely. By Canon's designation, a supertelephoto is 400mm or greater and the image circles of long lenses are so large they will easily accommodate FF as APS-C.

The RF-S, super telephoto zoom seems curious. I’m no optical designer, but I’ve always heard that, beyond about 200 mm or so, there is not much of a size or weight savings from the 1.6 CF image circle.

Agreed. There is a very nice EF-S 55-250mm, but no EF-S lens that is longer.

 

[DogpackChris]

If the 11-22 and 32mm actually arrive, I hope we’ll get an EVF-less RF body to go with it.
But that will have to be really well executed to tempt me away from my R8 with the 16,28 and 50mm primes for traveling.

I agree. I still take my M6mkII with the 11-22, 32, Sigma 56 and EF-S 55-250 when traveling along with the R8 with the 16 and 24-105 f4-7.1. I need to get that 28 though. I know there is some redundancy but just in case...

 

[koenkooi]

I agree. I still take my M6mkII with the 11-22, 32, Sigma 56 and EF-S 55-250 when traveling along with the R8 with the 16 and 24-105 f4-7.1. I need to get that 28 though. I know there is some redundancy but just in case...

My copy of the 28mm has very impressive image quality, even without realizing it's not actual glass!

The Sigma 56mm is another lens I wish we had in RF-S mount.

 

[stillviking]

"The 200-500 f/4L also sounds interesting, depending on its price. probably won’t be $3K because that’s where the current 100-500 is, but $10K is a nonstarter for me."

I just want to add Sony has a 200-600 f5-6-f6.3 G OSS for $1900.

30 years ago Canon had a fantastic 400 5.6 L for $1500.

..

Canon is sleeping nowadays.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I just want to add Sony has a 200-600 f5-6-f6.3 G OSS for $1900.

30 years ago Canon had a fantastic 400 5.6 L for $1500.

Canon has a 100-400/5.6-8 that has sold for $500, an 800/11 that I could buy today for $800, and the 600/11 in between.

Canon is sleeping nowadays.

Sure, that’s why they continue to dominate the market.

Was that your alarm clock ringing, or are you still dreaming? If you bother to wake up, maybe you’ll realize that Canon’s corporate goals do not include making the lenses that you personally want.

 

[kmrahe]

Agreed. There is a very nice EF-S 55-250mm, but no EF-S lens that is longer.

And that lens isn't much smaller or lighter than the EF 75-300mm (it being better optically notwithstanding).

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Agreed. There is a very nice EF-S 55-250mm, but no EF-S lens that is longer.

I wish they had made an RF-S based on the EF-S 55-250, rather than the EM 55-210. That is a very nice lens.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

30 years ago Canon had a fantastic 400 5.6 L for $1500.

Sorry, I don’t see where that relates to the current discussion. That’s a fixed focal length lens without IS.

What cost $1500 in 1993 would be $3137 today (source: dollartimes.com).

 

[neuroanatomist]

I wish they had made an RF-S based on the EF-S 55-250, rather than the EM 55-210. That is a very nice lens.

The RF-S 55-210 is a new design. It’s actually closer to the EF-S 55-250 than to the EF-M 55-200 in terms of optical design.

 

[Fotofinder]

Still hoping for a 200-ish mm 1:1 macro lens in time for next spring.

Still hoping for a 200-ish mm 1:1 macro lens in time for next spring.

 

[EricN]

Still hoping for a 200-ish mm 1:1 macro lens in time for next spring.

With teleconverter compatibility might be asking too much?

 

[Traveler]

I don't mind the wide RF-S lens to be f/4-5.6, but why is it 11-22mm and not 10mm as the EF-S lens... that's a bummer

 

[koenkooi]

With teleconverter compatibility might be asking too much?

That would be very useful!

 

[AlanF]

I don't mind the wide RF-S lens to be f/4-5.6, but why is it 11-22mm and not 10mm as the EF-S lens... that's a bummer

Because it will be derived from the EF-M 11-22mm, which is a nice lens, and not EF-S as that was designed for a longer distance from flange to sensor.