Canon will release a trio of RF mount wide angle L prime lenses in the first half of 2023

[Tom W]

The eternally rumoured Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM (or f/1.4) has been rumoured for what seems forever. We’ve seen this before with certain lenses, most notably the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II. They existed and took forever to actually get announced and hit the market. We have been told

See full article...

I could see great value in a 35 f/1.2 lens. I have the original EF 24/1.4L and rarely use it, opting for my ultra wide zoom instead.
Now, if the third lens is something on the order of 20 mm, and is an F/2, that "might" make an exceptional astrophotography lens if it can control coma and such. Would also be a decent indoor architecture type lens if the distortion is very low.

It'll be interesting to see what comes of this rumor.

 

[Snapster]

Genuine question, because I can't remember - was the EF 50mm f/1.4 weather sealed? Are midrange third party primes, typically?

The Samyang/Rokinon RF 85mm 1.4 that vanished from the market is weather sealed. It's also fast, well built and internally focusing. But the weather sealing is why I wouldn't get the Canon RF 85 f2 over it. And lugging around an RF 85mm 1.2L that weighs 1200g is not an option for street and travel photography even if I had thousands to spend on each focal length.

I also adapted a Tamron EF 17-35 f2.8-4 and it's weather sealed, compared to the Canon RF 15-30 f4.5-whatever which is not.

As for the new rumored lenses, I really hope the 35mm L won't be massive. The RF 35 1.8 is sharp enough and very versatile, but again, not weather sealed.

 

[navastronia]

And a 70-135mm F2 (or 70-140mm) to complete the trinity

I could even do without that one, to be honest! You can always crop in on the 28-70, but you can't crop out

 

[sanj]

I await the 25mm.

 

[David - Sydney]

It's not just about price, either. All the fast L lenses are massive. For travel photography, that's a no.

Fast lenses by definition are large (entrance pupil = focal length/minimum aperture).

It isn't clear if your need for "fast" is for bokeh or shutter speed. The latter is easily handled via higher ISO and (if needed) post production noise reduction tools. The R5 is certainly better than the R's sensor. Excellent bokeh is generally not considered to part of the travel photography genre but (at worst case) can be done in post.

By fast lenses, I assume you mean apertures wider than f2.8 and the wider the focal length the smaller it could be... if the lens design is relatively simple. L lenses tend to be have a more complex lens design for better IQ. One thing that Canon has done with most of the RF lenses is to reduce the length of the (collapsed) lens which has been very helpful and reduce the weight vs EF equivalents.

There is a need for a ~40mm RF pancake lens as adapting the EF version doubles the size/weight/cost.

For travel, my 1 lens setup is the RF24-105/4. 2 lens combo is EF16-35mm/4 + RF100-500mm. 3 lens would add the RF24-105mm/4. None of which are particularly small or fast. I don't do street photography though. If I am doing shooting underwater then gear size/weight quickly increases.
Carrying 12kg+ in my carry-on luggage (backpack) is not unusual for me.

 

[Snapster]

Fast lenses by definition are large (entrance pupil = focal length/minimum aperture).

It isn't clear if your need for "fast" is for bokeh or shutter speed. The latter is easily handled via higher ISO and (if needed) post production noise reduction tools. The R5 is certainly better than the R's sensor. Excellent bokeh is generally not considered to part of the travel photography genre but (at worst case) can be done in post.

By fast lenses, I assume you mean apertures wider than f2.8 and the wider the focal length the smaller it could be... if the lens design is relatively simple. L lenses tend to be have a more complex lens design for better IQ. One thing that Canon has done with most of the RF lenses is to reduce the length of the (collapsed) lens which has been very helpful and reduce the weight vs EF equivalents.

There is a need for a ~40mm RF pancake lens as adapting the EF version doubles the size/weight/cost.

For travel, my 1 lens setup is the RF24-105/4. 2 lens combo is EF16-35mm/4 + RF100-500mm. 3 lens would add the RF24-105mm/4. None of which are particularly small or fast. I don't do street photography though. If I am doing shooting underwater then gear size/weight quickly increases.
Carrying 12kg+ in my carry-on luggage (backpack) is not unusual for me.

The speed is for bokeh and night photography.

What I would like is Canon to make 1.4 primes with weather sealing, USM and a good balanced size for R5 with weight around 500-600g. So bringing a few on a trip wouldn't be ridiculously heavy.

The Sony GM 35mm 1.4 weighs 500g, but looking at Canon's latest lenses, theirs will be probably oversized and weigh significantly more because of the 1.2 thats pretty insignificant compared to 1.4 anyway. Certainly not worth the weight and price for someone who doesn't need the absolute best IG in a studio.

If they don't want to make such lenses, they should let others do so by leasing their patents. Canon gets money from that too, and there would be more options and healthy competition for us.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If they don't want to make such lenses, they should let others do so by leasing their patents. Canon gets money from that too, and there would be more options and healthy competition for us.

Canon isn’t stupid. They have ample data on the effects of 3rd party EF lens availability on their lens sales. I have no doubt they chose to block 3rd party AF lenses for RF because they determined they will make a larger profit than licensing their mount to others.

Moreover, since they’re only blocking AF lenses it’s likely that they designed the RF mount communication in a sufficiently proprietary way to obtain IP protection (which is how they’re blocking 3rd party AF lenses). In other words, they decided early on to lock others out of the RF mount to the extent possible.

You believe they should open up the mount because that’s what you want. Canon clearly feels differently, and they get to decide. All you can decide is whether or not to buy Canon gear. The fact that they continue to gain market share suggests they made the right decision for their bottom line. You not liking it, that’s a ‘you problem’.

 

[webphoto]

They wont profit at all when people like me eventually switch to Sony.

I've always been a Canon shooter and decided to give the R5 a go after the R. But my next camera won't be a Canon unless we start seeing mid-tier lenses from Tamron/ Sigma/Rokinon.

It's not just about price, either. All the fast L lenses are massive. For travel photography, that's a no.

That’s exactly what I think, too. It is very frustrating how Canon isn’t allowing third party companies to make lenses with autofocus. The customers are really the losers here. I am seriously considering switching to Sony because of this.

 

[danfaz]

I have has an EF 50 f1.4 rolling around in my bags for over 20 years and it has outlasted half a dozen L series lenses.

I'm not being a jerk, but that's probably because you were just lucky or didn't use it much. That lens is notorious for falling apart with little use.

 

[David - Sydney]

That’s exactly what I think, too. It is very frustrating how Canon isn’t allowing third party companies to make lenses with autofocus. The customers are really the losers here. I am seriously considering switching to Sony because of this.

I am still struggling with this concept. What 3rd party lens do you need that is not available in EF/EF-S/RF canon lenses and 3rd party EF/EF-S lenses? Price points vary from new/second hand for all the currently usable lenses on R mount.

Feel free to switch. Canon may notice but probably not.
Life is not always greener on the other side so if you do switch, give the forum feedback about your pros/cons after a while. The cost of switching would also be interesting.

 

[ashmadux]

Oh darn, I was totally sure it was going to be the 50mm 1.4. I'm sure this is priority for Canada to replace...

Hmph. Guess I'll just get the big old super clunky super expensive L version**



**f that

 

[David - Sydney]

The speed is for bokeh and night photography.
What I would like is Canon to make 1.4 primes with weather sealing, USM and a good balanced size for R5 with weight around 500-600g. So bringing a few on a trip wouldn't be ridiculously heavy.

So fast/small/light/sealed and cheap... right?
I don't own a lens faster than f2.8 lens but I don't have any issues with night photography. I use a tripod and long exposures or fill flash and/or high ISO. If I want the background blurred then I increase the distance between subject and background or take 2 shots in/out of focus and blend. What is your use case?

The Sony 35/1.4 was only released last year ie 9 years after Sony started releasing their own E mount full frame lenses.
There are a number of EF35mm lenses available including the Canon EF35/2, RF35/1.8, Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Yongnuo 35/2, Tamron 35/1.4 or even the Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art.
I am sure that Canon has been pushing for faster releases of new lenses but covid and supply chain issues have impacted everyone. Note that there is no E mount equivalent to the RF16mm/2.8 for instance.

If they don't want to make such lenses, they should let others do so by leasing their patents. Canon gets money from that too, and there would be more options and healthy competition for us.

Canon have a monopoly on their R mount for their RF lenses/protocols. They are getting a return on that investment now as it has been only 4 years since release. I have no idea about how much Canon would charge for access to the RF protocols but it would make sense to be significant amount. I fail to see how getting more competition for Canon will improve their shareholder's value.

Sony had no choice but to open their E mount to 3rd parties from the beginning and adapted EF lenses was their gateway into the full frame MILC market. They gambled (and to an extent won) for their bodies to have a reasonable market share in full frame.
Sony has to live with their decision and compete directly with the 3rd parties and their pricing (and probably margins) reflect that.
What we can't see is how much money Sony invested in their camera business unit and how profitable it is. They clearly have leading technology for their sensors which would give some internal advantage.

At the end of the day, everyone votes with their dollars and if enough people switch to Sony vs switching to Canon then perhaps Canon will change their direction.

 

[Ph0t0]

Or, more likely, quite the opposite. Do you seriously not think that Canon has sales figures for how popular a 50mm 1.4 lens is? Do you seriously not think that Canon does considerable market research? The 50mm 1.4 is pretty obviously a low seller, low priority lens.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Maybe 50mm 1.4 hasn't been selling well in the last years, because it is outdated. But when it came out it was an ok lens for the time and they were selling quite good even later when I got a job in a camera stor.. Of course I don't have the total data from Canon. But I did work in a photo store, and I was in charge for the canon assortment. I can tell you that at the time 50mm 1.4 was one of our top selling lenses and even though it was a lot older than 50mm 1.2 it was outselling that lens about 50:1. And I'm not joking about this. For every 50mm 1.2 lens that I had to order from Canon, I ordered from 40 to 60 1.4 lenses.
It was just priced pretty well and the average customer was able to afford it along with the standard zooms, while having the piece of mind that they didn't go for the cheapest option ( by that I mean 50mm 1.8 - even though we did sell a ton of those as well).

And a few years later when Sigma changed their politics and started to produce lenses with higher quality, they were basically able to rebrand themselves with the launch of 50mm 1.4 Art, which was getting good reviews, had a good price point and was one of their more popular lenses when it came to sales.

You really think that a good 50mm 1.4 with a mid price point would sell a lot less than 50mm 1.2 with its current price (in Europe it is selling for over 2600eur)?

I'm not so sure.
I think Canon has a lot of reasons why they might prioritize production of one lens over the other (r&d cost, marketing value, production capacaties etc), and I think it is sometimes hard to guess exactly what they are.

 

[Snapster]

Canon isn’t stupid. They have ample data on the effects of 3rd party EF lens availability on their lens sales. I have no doubt they chose to block 3rd party AF lenses for RF because they determined they will make a larger profit than licensing their mount to others.

Moreover, since they’re only blocking AF lenses it’s likely that they designed the RF mount communication in a sufficiently proprietary way to obtain IP protection (which is how they’re blocking 3rd party AF lenses). In other words, they decided early on to lock others out of the RF mount to the extent possible.

You believe they should open up the mount because that’s what you want. Canon clearly feels differently, and they get to decide. All you can decide is whether or not to buy Canon gear. The fact that they continue to gain market share suggests they made the right decision for their bottom line. You not liking it, that’s a ‘you problem’.

Why so adamant to defend Canon's lens monopoly though? Shouldn't we all agree that third party manufacturers making RF lenses would most of all benefit us, the consumer? A closed mount with a limited lens selection doesn't benefit anyone. Healthy competition between different lens manufacturers on the other hand would benefit Canon shooters with better lens selection, competitive pricing and quality.

What benefits do you see in a closed mount for Canon shooters, then?

 

[Kit.]

Why so adamant to defend Canon's lens monopoly though?

I don't see any "Canon's lens monopoly" here. You are as well free to buy Sony or Nikon lenses and to attach them to non-Canon bodies.

Now, if you for some reason want to use Canon bodies, you'd better consider what makes them especially attractive to you and how they could keep this attractivity in the long term.

Shouldn't we all agree that third party manufacturers making RF lenses would most of all benefit us, the consumer?

No, we shouldn't.

A closed mount with a limited lens selection doesn't benefit anyone.

Technically, it benefits Canon's camera QA and 3rd party support teams. If Canon licenses the RF protocol to others, then they are under contractual obligation to provide the licensed functionality to the 3rd parties.

It also allows Canon to shift profit margins from bodies to lenses, which benefits kit buyers and EF lens owners.

What benefits do you see in a closed mount for Canon shooters, then?

Financial viability of the platform.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Third lense is already out: the RF 28-70mm F2
Add a UWA 14-28mm F2 and a 70-135mm (or 140mm) and voila: there's your F2 trinity

14-28 f/2 would be quite massive.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

They wont profit at all when people like me eventually switch to Sony.

People like you have already switched.
People like me will not.
Canon may lose some market share but they will not go out of business over it.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Genuine question, because I can't remember - was the EF 50mm f/1.4 weather sealed? Are midrange third party primes, typically?

Sigma Art series is strange.
There is no real indication of which ones are weather sealed or not.
EF L lenses were the same way.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Shouldn't we all agree that third party manufacturers making RF lenses would most of all benefit us, the consumer

Some people never buy third-party lenses.
I do not care much either way.
I mostly use EF lenses and my lens collection is almost complete.
The few Canon RF lenses that I own and intend to own would be bought regardless.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If they don't want to make such lenses, they should let others do so by leasing their patents. Canon gets money from that too, and there would be more options and healthy competition for us

I do not disagree with you there.
It would need to be a business arrangement that benefits all parties.
Canon and Sigma will do what makes business sense for themselves whether or not it makes business sense to us.