Are new dream lenses coming for the RF mount? [CR1]

[Mmm Toast]

Dream lens would be an RF 24-50 f/1.4

 

[john1970]

I’ve said it before (many times) and I’ll say it again..

RF 500mm f5.6 DO!!!!!!!!!

(Like Nikons 500mm f5.6 pf)

Rumor has it they are working on a 500 mm DO in either f4.5 or f5 maximum aperture.

 

[JaydenEricBeaudoin]

Just give me that f2 trinity already. I don't even care what the numbers are. If they're as good as the 28-70 at what they do, then whatever the compromise I'll take it.

Though really, i expect around 16-28 and 70-135 (but I hope for 150)

 

[ToddC]

A dream lens for me would be a 24-400L lens that is F5.6 at 400 and as sharp as my current 100-400L MkII lens. Low distortion at the 24 end as well. Not asking for too much am I? lol. Such a lens would be permanently attached to my Canon R6.

 

[koenkooi]

Canon stated that the focus shift exhibited by the lens was a design trade-off with increasing the magnification to 1.4x. It’s definitely a real issue, not an Internet phenomenon.

Focus shift gets worse the closer your subject is to the MFD. It’s also aperture-dependent, and if you’re wide open or reasonably stopped down, it does not affect the image. I would guess that at typical flying bee working distances, you would not expect to have a problem with focus shift. It can be an issue in other used cases.

And it’s wholly fixable in firmware as well, which Canon is choosing not to do.
Having said that, it still hasn’t affected me yet, but that says more about my spray-and-pray technique than the focus issue

 

[Adrianf]

How about a lightweight (possibly DO) 600mm F5.6 L?

 

[Tamerlane]

The 14mm TS autofocus - long announced, but no sign of it yet.

 

[Jasonmc89]

Rumor has it they are working on a 500 mm DO in either f4.5 or f5 maximum aperture.

Oo interesting.. I’d prefer 5.6 to keep the costs down though.

 

[jhpeterson]

That 70-300 isn't far off my idea of a dream lens.

Although, I'd much prefer it be a constant aperture. In this 2.8 would be perfectly acceptable to me. And I would ask that a 1.4 extender be built in.

Am I going to far? Okay, scale that back a little to... say 280!

A 70-280/2.8 with in internal 1.4x, making it a 100-400/4, would be (almost) perfect.

 

[AJ]

My dream lens is a Sigma with an RF mount.
But that seems to be as much as a pipe dream as a Canon 10-600 f/1.2 IS

 

[SpaceGhost]

I have a few dream lenses but my main would be RF 24-135 f2.8 L. The RF 24-105 f4 is pretty close! I'll even take my dream range at f4. This would be my always attached goto lens.

My next would be RF 16-50 f2.8 L.
One of my favorite lens was the EF 70-300 DO f4-5.6. Some complained online that it was a soft lens but it sharpened up well in ACR. I'd l'd love to see it comeback at a constant f4 especially if they could keep it close to the form factor. Of course my dream version would have a bit more range on the shorter side. Maybe a RF 50-300 f4 DO but even starting at 70mm, I'd buy it right away with a constant f4. Too bad mine was stolen.

 

[WoodyWindy]

The idea of an RF 70-300 L f/2-4 isn't as farfetched as you might think. I would just consider that it may take more effort to "suppress" the sub f/4 apertures at the wider end, than to just include them in the formal specification as a "bonus", as long as the image quality is adequate.

 

[sailingstupid]

I just want some basic small affordable primes I can pick up for day shooting. 24mm, 28mm, 40mm f/2.8. Not flashy, just fun.

Or, a 58mm f/1.4.

Yes, this 100%. I want compact lightweight primes with USM and IS like the EF 24,28 and 35 IS USM. Same build quality as well not the rotating protruding tubus that we get in the current non L RF primes.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I’ve said it before (many times) and I’ll say it again..

RF 500mm f5.6 DO!!!!!!!!!

(Like Nikons 500mm f5.6 pf)

500 5.6 is only 1/2 stop brighter than the 100-500. I don't believe Canon would make that lens.

 

[blackcoffee17]

That 70-300 isn't far off my idea of a dream lens.

Although, I'd much prefer it be a constant aperture. In this 2.8 would be perfectly acceptable to me. And I would ask that a 1.4 extender be built in.

Am I going to far? Okay, scale that back a little to... say 280!

A 70-280/2.8 with in internal 1.4x, making it a 100-400/4, would be (almost) perfect.

A lens like that would be massive and very expensive. Just look at the size of 400 F4 or 300 2.8.

 

[john1970]

500 5.6 is only 1/2 stop brighter than the 100-500. I don't believe Canon would make that lens.

I agree and that is why I think Canon would make the rumored 500 mm DO f4.5 lens. Would be great if they combined it with a built in 1.4x TC.

 

[mxwphoto]

How about zoom tilt/shift with autofocus?
12-24 f6.3 Shift lens please! Small aperture to keep things relatively light and shifting to keep lines parallel all in a great zoom package. Tilt would be an added bonus but not mandatory. Either front screw on filters or a drop in filter near the mount like the big whites.

For standard range Canon has fleshed things out pretty well, perhaps 35 or 50mm f0.9 with autofocus halo lens and the 35mm 1.2 people keep asking for.

For tele 300-800 f4.5-8 with a decent mfd at say 3ft at 300mm to around 8ft at 800mm. Please no 20ft mfd like the 800 f11.

 

[Dragon]

I would prefer to go long and I don't need the tilt shift and I like something to hold so skip the pancake part. Just a simple 2mm-2000mm f/2 will do nicely.

 

[mdmphoto]

...would that RF 1mm-1000mm f/1L IS USM Macro Tilt-Shift Pancake also be a fish-eye lens, - that could additionally offer the potential for a rectilinear correction?!!!

 

[neuroanatomist]

...would that RF 1mm-1000mm f/1L IS USM Macro Tilt-Shift Pancake also be a fish-eye lens, - that could additionally offer the potential for a rectilinear correction?!!!

No. RF stands for rectilinear function, so there can’t be an RF fisheye lens.


Unless they change it so RF stands for Really Fishy.