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

Why wouldn't it? An RF 70-200mm f/2 would be almost identical in dimensions to the RF 100-300mm f/2.8 and could share many parts. The RF 100-300mm f/2.8 has an entrance pupil of 106mm (what I calculated) and a filter size of 112mm
I think the size of the 100-300 wouldn´t fit one of the main intended use cases of such a lens very well: the ultimate event style portrait lens. I don´t see many photographers carrying one of those around all day, especially not with a second body + lens for wider angles.
But there are a lot who carry the 70-200mm 2.8, and I can imagine many would trade that in for a 70-135mm f2 if it was similar in size and weight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
My hope is that Canon will keep up the good work on their lenses. The 28-70 2.0 is a great example of how it should be done. Some reviews end with con's like heavy and expensive, those lenses are the best.
The biggest issue I have with the 28-70 is the clicky AF noise.
It can't be used for head shot interviews for that reason.
A V2 version with silent motors would be great.
 
Upvote 0
RF 14mm F1.2L with excellent aberration control would have a lot of people jumping up and down
YES PLEASE!

I wonder when the rumored RF15-35 Z will see the light of day. Hopefully 2024 or early 2025.

Also, I feel like the RF 24-70L f/2.8 from 2019 is due for an update to perhaps make it a little more compact with similar or better IQ just like the original RF15-35L. The RF35mm f1.4 is far from perfect so hopefully the RF24mm f/1.4 is a little better optically!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Halo lenses like a 1-100mm f0.1L are now possible now that Canon has mastered the art of digital yoga, stretching an image from apsc coverage+black corners into full frame.

It's cool to do stuff that no one has done before but please stop that bs please? Digital corrections are fine, until you go overboard in *cutting corners* with the optical design.
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.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
With unusual lens focal lengths, I wonder if they would explore some more high grade lens on a "all-around" lens like EFS18-135/RFS18-150 that essentially only get mid-grade optics for kits
Something like 18-135 F4.
I guess, so far getting better optics in such wide range would get a bit too big for the purpose of a do-it-all lens for travel but I wonder if that would still be the case now.
In the FF realm, the 24-240 which serves the same purpose doesn't seem that well received either
 
Upvote 0