There are 4 wide-angle L prime lenses coming in the next 12 months [CR2]

[HMC11]

I have to post the table separately as the 10,000 characters limited was breached. Here it is:

Lenses

Launch Yr​

$ at L​

L yr Adj /$​

2021 adj /$​

2022 adj /$​

Current /$

L-Adj /%

C-21adj /%

C-22adj /%

L-adj21 /%

L-adj22 /%

C-C /%

EF 16-35 f2.8L III

2016​

2199​

2342​

2483​

2714​

2199​

RF 15-35 f2.8L

2019​

2299​

2299​

-1.9​

-7.4​

-15.3​

-7.4​

-15.3​

4.5​

EF 16-35 f4L

2014​

1199​

1372​

1372​

1500​

1299​

RF 14-35 f4L

2021​

1699​

1599​

23.8​

16.5​

6.6​

23.8​

13.2​

23.1​

EF 70-200 f2.8L III

2018​

2099​

2136​

2264​

2475​

2099​

RF 70-200 f2.8L

2019​

2699​

2799​

26.4​

23.6​

13.1​

19.2​

9.0​

33.3​

EF 70-200 f4L II

2018​

1299​

1401​

1401​

1532​

1499​

RF 70-200 f4L

2021​

1599​

1699​

14.1​

21.3​

10.9​

14.1​

4.4​

13.3​

EF 24-70 f2.8L II

2012​

2299​

2560​

2713​

2967​

1899​

RF 24-70 f2.8L

2019​

2299​

2399​

-10.2​

-11.6​

-19.1​

-15.3​

-22.5​

26.3​

EF 24-105L

2005​

999​

1285​

1386​

1516​

1299​

RF 24-105L

2018​

1299​

1299​

1.1​

-6.3​

-14.3​

-6.3​

-14.3​

0.0​

EF 100 f2.8L Macro

2009​

1049​

1325​

1325​

1449​

1299​

RF 100 f2.8L Macro

2021​

1399​

1199​

5.6​

-9.5​

-17.2​

5.6​

-3.4​

-7.7​

EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6L II

2014​

2199​

2404​

2517​

2752​

2399​

RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L

2020​

2699​

2899​

12.3​

15.2​

5.3​

7.2​

-1.9​

20.8​

EF 50 f1.8 STM

2015​

130​

142​

149​

163​

125​

RF 50 f1.8 STM

2020​

199​

159​

40.2​

7.0​

-2.2​

33.9​

22.5​

27.2​

EF 85 f1.8 STM

1992​

430​

784​

831​

908​

499​

RF 85 f2 STM

2019​

599​

499​

-23.6​

-39.9​

-45.0​

-27.9​

-34.0​

0.0​

EF 35 f2 II STM

2012​

849​

929​

1002​

1096​

599​

RF 35 f1.8 STM

2018​

499​

499​

-46.3​

-50.2​

-54.5​

-50.2​

-54.5​

-16.7​

 

[SNJ Ops]

Wishful thinking!
And where should Canon get the lower price from, partly plastic lenses, plasticky mount or lower quality optics?
Even if possible, which I strongly doubt, these lenses would get negative reports when compared to their EF "equivalents".

Lower prices than L series doesn’t mean low price full stop. The RF 35mm f1.8 goes for £529 here in the UK and the EF 35mm f1.4 L II goes for £2099
There’s room in between those for a new RF prime at f1.4

 

[entoman]

I'm asking because I think there are more gaps in the lineup when one looks at longer focal ranges that you mentioned or specialist lenses like macro and tilt-shift.

I just kind of doubt that they would sell a lot of 21mm f4 lenses.
And I belive that there are plenty of uses for such a lens as a 21mm f4. I'm just wondering if there really is a demand for such a lens on the market.

Seems kind of expensive to spend money on a lens that is so limited in focal range and has a relatively high f-stop when there are some preety good zooms that cover that range and more.
If I was trying to save money I would probably rather get an RF 15-30mm f4 or RF 24-105mm f4 or adapt a EF 16-35mm or ef 24-70mm lens instead of buying a 21mm f4. Maybe even RF 24mm 1.8 if I needed something smaller and with a lower f-stop number.

I agree. The lens @entoman wishes for us a 21mm f/4 L, and that desire/need is met by the existing 14-35/4L. I’m sure the hope is a prime would be cheaper, but if the demand is weak the cost will need to be higher, and demand would then be even lower. A 21/4L is basically a non-starter. Maybe as a TS lens…but that wouldn’t work for @entoman because it won’t be weather sealed, would cost more than the zoom, and would likely be MF.

Yeah I've got a couple of zooms myself - the RF 24-105mm F4 L is a reasonable enough walkabout lens, and the RF 100-500mm is my go-to lens for safari photography. But most of the time I prefer primes for a variety of reasons - e.g. they are less prone to flare when the sun is in, or just outside the frame, they are generally lighter and more compact, and I just find that the discipline of working with a fixed focal length results in better photos. I prefer to walk about and explore multiple viewpoints, rather than stand in one spot and zoom (I know this is an exaggeration of how people work, but zooms do tend to make me lazy).

I have no idea how popular a 21mm F4 would be, obviously not as popular as a wide zoom, the question really is whether it would sell in enough numbers for Canon to justify making it. They are after all in the business to make money for the employees and shareholders, not to please photographers.

I've already got an EF 24mm tilt-shift which I use quite a lot for landscapes and botanical subjects. A 21mm T/S would be even nicer, and worth paying for, despite the lack of weather-sealing. Tilt-shifts are huge fun to use, but I do wish Canon would make a message appear in the viewfinder saying "don't forget to focus, you IDIOT", as I'm so used to having AF on all my other lenses, that I often forget that my T/S-E is manual focus!

I agree that there are more gaps in the RF range at longer focal lengths. The lenses I mentioned were my own wish-list, undoubtedly others will have their own preferences.

 

[Del Paso]

Lower prices than L series doesn’t mean low price full stop. The RF 35mm f1.8 goes for £529 here in the UK and the EF 35mm f1.4 L II goes for £2099
There’s room in between those for a new RF prime at f1.4

Trouble is, among other things, that customers no longer accept an F 1,4 lens to be soft in the corners as in the eighties.
Expensive and large glass is what costs, along with a high quality mount. There's a reason why the EF 1,4 35mm costs 2100 pounds in the UK (not meaning taxes etc...).
Besides, the RF 1,8/35 is very good, right from F 1,8. I'm afraid there wouldn't be a huge demand for a much more expensive (and quality-compromised) F 1,4. Half a diaphragm certainly matters less for cost-regarding amateurs. And pros will get the F 1,2...
I understand there is a need for more affordable RF lenses, but give Canon a bit more time, they'll come.

 

[dolina]

I have to post the table separately as the 10,000 characters limited was breached. Here it is:

Lenses

Launch Yr​

$ at L​

L yr Adj /$​

2021 adj /$​

2022 adj /$​

Current /$

L-Adj /%

C-21adj /%

C-22adj /%

L-adj21 /%

L-adj22 /%

C-C /%

EF 16-35 f2.8L III

2016​

2199​

2342​

2483​

2714​

2199​

RF 15-35 f2.8L

2019​

2299​

2299​

-1.9​

-7.4​

-15.3​

-7.4​

-15.3​

4.5​

EF 16-35 f4L

2014​

1199​

1372​

1372​

1500​

1299​

RF 14-35 f4L

2021​

1699​

1599​

23.8​

16.5​

6.6​

23.8​

13.2​

23.1​

EF 70-200 f2.8L III

2018​

2099​

2136​

2264​

2475​

2099​

RF 70-200 f2.8L

2019​

2699​

2799​

26.4​

23.6​

13.1​

19.2​

9.0​

33.3​

EF 70-200 f4L II

2018​

1299​

1401​

1401​

1532​

1499​

RF 70-200 f4L

2021​

1599​

1699​

14.1​

21.3​

10.9​

14.1​

4.4​

13.3​

EF 24-70 f2.8L II

2012​

2299​

2560​

2713​

2967​

1899​

RF 24-70 f2.8L

2019​

2299​

2399​

-10.2​

-11.6​

-19.1​

-15.3​

-22.5​

26.3​

EF 24-105L

2005​

999​

1285​

1386​

1516​

1299​

RF 24-105L

2018​

1299​

1299​

1.1​

-6.3​

-14.3​

-6.3​

-14.3​

0.0​

EF 100 f2.8L Macro

2009​

1049​

1325​

1325​

1449​

1299​

RF 100 f2.8L Macro

2021​

1399​

1199​

5.6​

-9.5​

-17.2​

5.6​

-3.4​

-7.7​

EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6L II

2014​

2199​

2404​

2517​

2752​

2399​

RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L

2020​

2699​

2899​

12.3​

15.2​

5.3​

7.2​

-1.9​

20.8​

EF 50 f1.8 STM

2015​

130​

142​

149​

163​

125​

RF 50 f1.8 STM

2020​

199​

159​

40.2​

7.0​

-2.2​

33.9​

22.5​

27.2​

EF 85 f1.8 STM

1992​

430​

784​

831​

908​

499​

RF 85 f2 STM

2019​

599​

499​

-23.6​

-39.9​

-45.0​

-27.9​

-34.0​

0.0​

EF 35 f2 II STM

2012​

849​

929​

1002​

1096​

599​

RF 35 f1.8 STM

2018​

499​

499​

-46.3​

-50.2​

-54.5​

-50.2​

-54.5​

-16.7​

Could you link to the table/spreadsheet of your source? It appears that CR's table is basic.

 

[entoman]

I think people on this forum way overestimate the demand for their dream lenses.

I agree, but part of the reason why we post our wish-lists here, is to try to gauge whether other people have similar feelings (much the same as when we list desirable camera specifications). It's also beneficial to hear the views of those who don't want these things, or who think for various reasons that they are unrealistic. It's all about sharing ideas and opinions.

 

[dolina]

I suspect there is also the issue of economies of scale. None of these proposed lenses would likely be big sellers and would siphon off the relatively few sales of the existing lenses in the same or similar focal lengths.

I think people on this forum way overestimate the demand for their dream lenses.

We're are at the back 4 years of this ~8 year EF to RF lens transition.

So all the lens being released today-onward are

- low volume
- thin margin

 

[HMC11]

Could you link to the table/spreadsheet of your source? It appears that CR's table is basic.

It is from an excel sheet that I created based on data from various sources including wiki, B&H, dp-review, various lens reviewers etc. It sits in my computer and not on cloud - sorry.

 

[dolina]

It is from an excel sheet that I created based on data from various sources including wiki, B&H, dp-review, various lens reviewers etc. It sits in my computer and not on cloud - sorry.

Ah... we appreciate the effort

 

[AJ]

I agree. The lens @entoman wishes for us a 21mm f/4 L, and that desire/need is met by the existing 14-35/4L. I’m sure the hope is a prime would be cheaper, but if the demand is weak the cost will need to be higher, and demand would then be even lower. A 21/4L is basically a non-starter. Maybe as a TS lens…but that wouldn’t work for @entoman because it won’t be weather sealed, would cost more than the zoom, and would likely be MF.

Yeah, I too agree that a 21/4 L wouln't go anywhere. Especially given Sigma's new 20 mm f/1.4 for Sony E mount. That lens has optics that makes me drool and gives me GAS. A 21/4L wouldn't compete with this. One can only hope Sigma releases this lens in EF mount. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That lens has optics that makes me drool and gives me GAS.

Sounds messy and uncomfortable. You might want to have a doctor check on that.

 

[navastronia]

Yeah, I too agree that a 21/4 L wouln't go anywhere. Especially given Sigma's new 20 mm f/1.4 for Sony E mount. That lens has optics that makes me drool and gives me GAS. A 21/4L wouldn't compete with this. One can only hope Sigma releases this lens in EF mount. But I'm not holding my breath.

I'm sure it was designed for a mirrorless system and the flange distance would prohibit an EF release. Right?

 

[SNJ Ops]

Trouble is, among other things, that customers no longer accept an F 1,4 lens to be soft in the corners as in the eighties.
Expensive and large glass is what costs, along with a high quality mount. There's a reason why the EF 1,4 35mm costs 2100 pounds in the UK (not meaning taxes etc...).
Besides, the RF 1,8/35 is very good, right from F 1,8. I'm afraid there wouldn't be a huge demand for a much more expensive (and quality-compromised) F 1,4. Half a diaphragm certainly matters less for cost-regarding amateurs. And pros will get the F 1,2...
I understand there is a need for more affordable RF lenses, but give Canon a bit more time, they'll come.

Specifically on the EF 35mm f1.4 L II costing £2100 that is an absolutely ridiculous price. That would be steep even for an RF 35mm f1.2 L, £1800 would be reasonable if/when it arrives but I reckon it will break the £2000 barrier.

Plus premium f1.4 glass doesn’t need to large and heavy anymore as has been shown by Sony and Sigma.

 

[David - Sydney]

If it’s a CR2 rating, shouldn’t it go in the roadmap? I think it would make sense and maybe CR guy could update it to 2023-2024.

I really like the roadmap list and think it’s very accurate for rumors site, despite canon having some surprises up their sleeves.

The list doesn't have all the available RF lenses so it has always been a bit dodgy from my perspective. If I recall correctly, CR added some in the roamap after a CR3 a tiny bit before announcement for instance.

 

[lucuias]

Give us light weight 35mm F/1.4 please

 

[Johnw]

going to order the 24/1.8 for now

Actually, I have to scratch that. I just noticed that the RF 24 f/1.8 has the same shit optical correction as the RF 16.

In that case, I think I would rather have the Sigma 28mm f/1.4 as my next wide angle prime. It's faster, has basically no distortion, and still great sharpness. Also, since I can use it with the RF TCs that option will allow me to fill out even more slots in my current lens options since I can also use it as a 39mm f/2.0 or a 56mm f/2.8.

Damn, this locked in walled garden Canon system really chafes, I can never seem to select a third party option when I don't like what Canon is giving us.
oh wait....

 

[unfocused]

Actually, I have to scratch that. I just noticed that the RF 24 f/1.8 has the same shit optical correction as the RF 16...

To each his own. I have no problem with the 16mm, with the lens profile off or on. So, I could find the 24mm f1.8 tempting at some point.

 

[Viggo]

Hopefully they will go all inn on these. No computational correction and no 6 stops of vignetting… if they can match the RF 50 with vignetting and the sharpness of the RF 85 on the 24 and 35 at least they have my interest…

 

[Del Paso]

Specifically on the EF 35mm f1.4 L II costing £2100 that is an absolutely ridiculous price. That would be steep even for an RF 35mm f1.2 L, £1800 would be reasonable if/when it arrives but I reckon it will break the £2000 barrier.

Plus premium f1.4 glass doesn’t need to large and heavy anymore as has been shown by Sony and Sigma.

In France the EF 1,4/35 costs about 1518 GBP...still a ridiculous price?
Anyway, you seem to be so dissatified with Canon (3rd. party lenses, pricing, weight of lenses etc...).
So, instead of constantly whining about Canon not meeting your desires and wishes, just jump ship and board the M.S. Sony.

 

[dolina]

In France the EF 1,4/35 costs about 1518 GBP...

HK's grey market is cheaper

https://www.price.com.hk/product.php?p=208653