Canon plans to develop more lenses that no one has done before

[P-visie]

600 f/4 x 1.4 has been done.

Yes, but the Nikon lens weighs more than 3kg. So a Canon 600 with built in converter weighing less than 3 kg would be ‘unique’.

 

[RobbieHat]

Broken record and previously mentioned but if Canon are watching! 14mm F1.8 or wider and faster with good corners and CA control. We astrophotographers would rejoice! Or open the standard and let Sigma fill the void with updates to their Art line.

 

[snapshot]

Get the Sigma.

I wonder how much I would use the ART 105 f/1.4 vs the EF 85 f/1.4 with IS that I use for most of my single person portrait shots.

 

[Elmonducky]

How bout something that HAS been done before like a 600 or 800PF lens!

 

[tiggy@mac.com]

How bout something that HAS been done before like a 600 or 800PF lens!

You'll recall that we all were salivating over the 600mm f/4 DO prototype that Canon showed in NY many years ago. In retrospect, it looks like they opted to go into a modular direction, using the EF 400 f/2.8 and the 600 f/4 III designs as the bases for the RF supertelephoto range, with teleconverting elements inside where more magnification was needed. It is possible that the DO prototype that we all wanted to buy would not have allowed that manufacturing efficiency. DO + teleconverter elements don't do as well for image quality.

Had Canon *not* opted to make the 800 and 1200 mm lenses teleconverted versions of the 400 and 600, many of us might have the 600 DO now. It appears to be a decision that had many ramifications.

At least those manufacturing efficiencies were passed on to the users with lower pricing. Oh, wait...

 

[AlanF]

Perhaps they have employed @HarryFilm as a consultant?

 

[Del Paso]

I’d like to see a 24-240 1.0

This is not a crazy lens, but rather optical madness!
PS: make it a 24-400, just for me.

 

[Del Paso]

Perhaps they have employed @HarryFilm as a consultant?

HarryFilm is already Canon's secret CEO.

 

[R.Schneider]

I am waiting for:
- APSC professional Camera for Wildlife
- Extender 1.5 and 2 times one Unit switchable
- RF 150-600 4.0
- Arcaswiss compatible lens foot

 

[GAOP]

Psst... Hey Canon. No one's done a 200-500 f4 lens. ;-)

 

[neuroanatomist]

I am waiting for:
- APSC professional Camera for Wildlife

Don’t hold your breath.

- Extender 1.5 and 2 times one Unit switchable

Probably 1.4x / 2x, but this one has seems the most likely from your list.

- RF 150-600 4.0

That would be a beast of a lens. Probably bigger and heavier than the original 600/4 IS, which was not something easily handheld.

- Arcaswiss compatible lens foot

Would be nice, but also something to not hold your breath for. Where possible, I have replaced the existing foot with an RRS foot (600/4 II, 100–300/2.8, and pre-ordered for the 24-105/2.8). Those have the additional advantage of a built-in QD socket.

 

[Bob Howland]

I am waiting for:
- APSC professional Camera for Wildlife
- Extender 1.5 and 2 times one Unit switchable
- RF 150-600 4.0
- Arcaswiss compatible lens foot

OK, I'll bite. What would you want in an "APSC professional Camera for Wildlife" that the R7 doesn't have? To me, the most important things are the very small pixel size, same as the OM-1, and the small size of the body, also same as the OM-1.

 

[sanj]

I had first had that on the article, and then realized with a 100mm front element, that it's simply not ever going to happen.
which is why i changed it to be a 70-135mm

 

[HarryFilm]

Perhaps they have employed @HarryFilm as a consultant?

Naaah! We just buy a lot of Canon, Sony, Fuji, Blackmagic, Panasonic, Leica, Zeiss, Matrox, Harris and Arri cameras, lenses and field-production/post-production gear to the tune of about $35 Million USD over the last 20+ years. We don't need to consult to anyone since we now have fully-inhouse designed and built cameras, lenses, software and supercomputing hardware.

We have 150 mm by 150 mm single wafer CMOS and GaN 128k by 128k and 64k by 64k resolution image sensors that sample at 32 bits per RGB+Depth channel at 1000 fps up to 10,000 fps downsampled to properly antialiased 16 bits per channel for display on our massive 30 metre-sized RGB colour laser displays.

We usually use that gear for Earth GIS/Digital 3D Mapping and deep space imaging applications. We usually image using Stereoscopic (i.e. Dual Lens camera setups!) RGB + Depth channels PLUS Tri-band Infrared, Tri-band UV, soft/hard X-Rays and Gamma Rays.

Soooooo, we dont NEEEEEED no consulting work with Canon et al....

V

 

[scyrene]

Sigma had a 180mm f/2.8 macro and launched a version with OS just before they announced the global vision line.

They are hard to find on the second hand market in .nl, so I assume people are happy with them

I have one, and it's the only third party lens I've kept. Big and heavy, and the AF/IS don't always play well but the image quality is superb.

 

[HarryFilm]

Perhaps they have employed @HarryFilm as a consultant?

AND.... I really should mention that Canon and ALL the other manufacturers should go for all-carbon fibre bodies and high-refractive-index optical-grade sapphire-coated Acrylic polymer lenses to reduce camera and lens weight PLUS put in 64 bits wide RGB + Depth channel recording for modern 3D-XYZ AR/VR imaging applications at a minimum of 64 megapixels and DCI-8K video resolutions at 120 fps!

Apple is about to EAT Canon, Sony and Fuji's lunch with their upcoming Sigma-OEM'ed Full-Frame and Medium Format DSLR and Cinema cameras and lenses that have built-in LIDAR/SONAR/RF 3D scanning technology!

Canon, Sony, Fuji et al will FEEEEEEEL the upcoming DOOOOOOOOOOOOOM if they don't respond to Apple's oncoming onslaught of stills and video imaging gear!

You heard it here first!

V

 

[RayValdez360]

They need to stop pissing video shooters off and make a 17-55 2.8 update already or something to compete with the 18-35 sigma. Canon is selling a butt load of c70s and the native lens choices could be way better. Will that hurt the c400 sales that much?

 

[EXkurogane]

Hyperbole aside, the fact is that any wide angle, rectilinear lens must have the corners ‘stretched’. In film/DSLR days, the only way to do that was optically, and one need only look at the mushy corners of the EF 17-40/4L to know that optical correction of barrel distortion is not the ideal you seem to think.

The reality is that neither optical nor digital correction is inherently better. Digital correction allows lens designs that weren’t previously possible. The RF 14-35/4 uses 77mm filters and after correction at 14mm it’s just as sharp in the extreme corners as the EF 11-24/4 at 14mm, even though the latter has no barrel distortion at that point. That’s a big win for digital correction, in my book. The RF 10-20/4 is also as good as the EF 11-24/4 in the corners, and the former is wider, cheaper, and much smaller and lighter. Another win.

If you want to forego technological advances, best go back to shooting film. Or get a sketchpad and some pencils.

Corner stretching is fine, until when Canon uses it as an opportunity to design lenses that do not cover the entire sensor before corrections. That is what I meant by cutting corners - literally. Doing that on budget lens is one thing but I find that unacceptable in expensive L lenses.

In case you didn't know, for certain applications like star trail stacking in astrophotography, you will want to to turn off digital corrections, or the trails won't align nicely.

 

[HarryFilm]

They need to stop pissing video shooters off and make a 17-55 2.8 update already or something to compete with the 18-35 sigma. Canon is selling a butt load of c70s and the native lens choices could be way better. Will that hurt the c400 sales that much?

Add in a 135 mm to 800 mm Contemporary and Sports versions of a Zoom lens at f/4 and the money will roll in for ANY mainstream manufacturer that sells such lenses!

 

[Exploreshootshare]

My wishlist would be:
RF 12mm F1.4 for astrophotography

RF 24-70mm F2 with 850 gr max
RF 70-135mm (or more) F2 with max 850gr --> weight would be more important than extra range
RF 28-50mm F1.4 Zoom (never gonna happen)

RF 100-400mm leightweight zoom with 1:1 macro capabilities (kind a like the current model)

RF 24-300mm L

RF 200mm F1.8
RF 1200mm F11 (designed like the other two)

RF switchable extender: 1 - 1.5 - 3.0

Looking at this list:
I would have to sell not only my kidney, but probably my wife's kidney and those of my future kids