Are new dream lenses coming for the RF mount? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Barring magic or changes in the rules of physics, the front element would still be about 40 inches in diameter. That's what f/2 means.
Upvote
0
Folding optics. The front element unfolds like an umbrella. FO designation and a blue ring on the barrel.
Upvote
0
I have the 14-35 f4, the 24-105 f4 and the 70-200 f4. The 24-105 sucks for aperture stars while the 14-35 and the 70-200 produce beautiful stars. My old EF 24-70 had beautiful aperture stars and I really miss them. As soon the RF 24-70 f4 comes out I will sell the 24-105....although I have nothing to complain about the sharpness.
Upvote
0
I said it didn't need to be a pancake and besides, Craig asked for a list of impossible lenses that would never be build so bringing physics into the discussion is decidedly tacky .
Upvote
0
If it unfolds like the James Webb telescope then the set up time and auto focus (before you can take an actual shot) might be a little long for most wildlife applications.
Upvote
0
Maybe it would sell well. But, I sold my Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF after getting the RF 100-500mm because it’s as near as dammit as sharp and has all the advantages of a close focussing zoom at the cost of 2/3rds of a stop.
Upvote
0
Besides, they had EF 400mm lenses at f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6, so multiple models varying by a modest amount of aperture is entirely possible.
Upvote
0
Well, at Canon's prices, I'm not really looking forward to any lens to be honest.
Never owned a Nikon, but gee that 500mm f5.6 is a bargain compared to Canon. Oh and Sony's 200-600mm would be even better. Never in my 30+ years of shooting Canon felt so much envy for the other brands. Didn't even notice them.
Never owned a Nikon, but gee that 500mm f5.6 is a bargain compared to Canon. Oh and Sony's 200-600mm would be even better. Never in my 30+ years of shooting Canon felt so much envy for the other brands. Didn't even notice them.
Upvote
0
Sorry! It's just me. I prefer to suggest lenses that are useful and possible.
Upvote
0
The Nikon 500 PF is more expensive than the RF 100-500mm, which as I wrote above, I find more useful and just about as sharp. The Sony 200-600mm is good value for money but it weighs 2.4kg, 0.8kg more, which is noticeable, and focusses down to only 2.4m, more than twice that of the RF 100-500mm. The grass may look greener but it isn't.
Upvote
0
Yet in exchange for longer reach, slightly brighter on the long end, heavier, internal zoom and and less MFD you pay here in the UK; £1599 for the Sony compared to £2979 for the Canon so a difference of nearly £1400. For some the extra cost will be worth it and for others absolutely not.
Upvote
0
A 500/4.5 DO with built-in teleconverter would probably get my money. I have and use most often the 100-500. The more I use it the more I love and respect it. But 4.5 would be useful at times. I also have the 500/4 L IS ii. It is an extremely sharp and crisp lens and only a wee bit over 7 pounds.
I was recently working a nest situation where I had to stay well back so put the 2x iii on the 500/4. Contrast was down slightly but sharpness was still extremely high, all that the R5 could handle. No fringing. I could make a print any size I wanted from those files.
So, here I have an amazingly good lens in my 500/4 ii. What would get me to replace it for a mere 8-10 grand? A 500/4.5 DO which is 2 to 2.5 pounds lighter and 4-6 inches shorter. Might not part with that 500/4. But throw in a 1.4 converter and have a lens 2 pounds lighter and 3-5 inches shorter, then Canon might very well take my money.
Also, putting an RF mount on the 32/1.4 would be a wonderful idea. My dogs got me and the M6 ii one for Christmas. What a great lens. And allowing Siggy to make the 16 and 56 1.4 lenses for RF would probably get me buying an R10.
I was recently working a nest situation where I had to stay well back so put the 2x iii on the 500/4. Contrast was down slightly but sharpness was still extremely high, all that the R5 could handle. No fringing. I could make a print any size I wanted from those files.
So, here I have an amazingly good lens in my 500/4 ii. What would get me to replace it for a mere 8-10 grand? A 500/4.5 DO which is 2 to 2.5 pounds lighter and 4-6 inches shorter. Might not part with that 500/4. But throw in a 1.4 converter and have a lens 2 pounds lighter and 3-5 inches shorter, then Canon might very well take my money.
Also, putting an RF mount on the 32/1.4 would be a wonderful idea. My dogs got me and the M6 ii one for Christmas. What a great lens. And allowing Siggy to make the 16 and 56 1.4 lenses for RF would probably get me buying an R10.
Upvote
0
With an R7 on the way (someday) I'd like to see an RF-S 15-50 F2.8 L IS. Just a little wider than the EF version with a bit of weather sealing, and some proof of commitment to the RF-S format from Canon by making an RF-S L lens. A few fast RF-S primes would be nice too.
Upvote
0
14 years of EF-S with no L lens. Don’t hold your breath. APS-C is aimed at the consumer market. L-lenses aren’t.
Upvote
0
Well, I still think my best combo would be the RF 28-70 f/2 and the RF 70-135 f/2 dream.
Yes, the f/1.2 stuff would be wonderful too. Glad I had them a little while.
Yes, the f/1.2 stuff would be wonderful too. Glad I had them a little while.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
RF-S 200-600 F4-5.6L IS or similar would be a dream for the R7... 
That combined with a price tag around 3k, dual USM motors and the minimum focus distance of 1m at 600mm - For Wildlife/Sport and Macro.
.. we can dream
And of course a RF-S super wide angle astro lens with low aperature.
That combined with a price tag around 3k, dual USM motors and the minimum focus distance of 1m at 600mm
- For Wildlife/Sport and Macro... we can dream
And of course a RF-S super wide angle astro lens with low aperature.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Such a lens would be no smaller or lighter than the same lens for RF, so I would not expect an RF-S version.RF-S 200-600 F4-5.6L IS or similar would be a dream for the R7...
That combined with a price tag around 3k,
Upvote
0
But wouldn't that be fair? Lower aperature for same weight as the RF 100-500L - I'ld totally pay that
.Could be even a bit heavier, that's still fine (if it delivers in quality).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
