There will be “a lot” of new RF mount lenses from Canon between now and March 2024

[Richard CN]

This one would surprise me. I would bet on a slow UWA zoom, e.g. a mount-changed EF-M 11-22mm.

I'd expect that, as well, as a rebadged EF-M 32mm F1.4 as a "higher end" RF-S.

 

[Richard CN]

“you will finally see those wide angle L prime lenses, so you can shut up soon enough”.

Someone tired of my whining

you kept on bringing up your Leica kit to them didn't you?

 

[Exploreshootshare]

A RF version of the EF 10-18mm would be great for aps-c shooters. If this would have a constant aperture and be a little more high-end that’d would be great.

I’m guessing Canon will fill the UWA gap of primes with a 20mm F1.4 and 35mm F1.2 and maybe even one in between.

I don’t think a set of F1.4 primes is coming just yet but I’d love a 35/50/85mm F1.4 NON L trio with USM motor. I have the 35mm & 85mm stm lenses. For my needs they are great and very affordable, but I can see that they are unsuitable for video (which I don’t shoot) and in low light conditions focusing with the stm motor is really difficult and noisy. So sub 800 $ F1.4 lenses would be really welcome.

Other than that, I don’t have any „needs“ at the moment, the „wants“ will take some time anyway because at first I’ll upgrade from the R. After 120.000 shots so far and over four years a new camera is on the Horizont within the next two years. So, I will lean back and enjoy all the announcements without having eminent GAS

 

[Del Paso]

you kept on bringing up your Leica kit to them didn't you?

Leica wides? An optical delicacy!

 

[jaygould]

As explained in a parallel thread, the RF 24-105/4 on an R8 will deliver better overall performance in a lighter package than your 7DII + EF-S 17-55/2.8, and for not much more money.

Both lenses are way too big (in my opinion). Canon needs Sigma to release their 18-50mm f2.8 for APS-C, that one is less than half the size and weight of the 24-105 (and EF-S 17-55).

Alternatively, Canon should make their own lightweight version. But I don't trust Canon to make any quality lenses for their crop sensor cameras, given how the ones already available are worst in class compared to Nikon's, Sony's and Fuji's offerings.

 

[jaygould]

I don’t think a set of F1.4 primes is coming just yet but I’d love a 35/50/85mm F1.4 NON L trio with USM motor. I have the 35mm & 85mm stm lenses. For my needs they are great and very affordable, but I can see that they are unsuitable for video (which I don’t shoot) and in low light conditions focusing with the stm motor is really difficult and noisy. So sub 800 $ F1.4 lenses would be really welcome.

Me too, but why not L? They should make these L similar to Sony's G series. Weather sealing, L coatings, USM motors, no ILIS (to save weight), and f1.4. They should all cost less than $1000.

Or they should come up with a new name for lenses in-between their crap STM stuff and L-series. Maybe "LL" (Luxury Light)?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Both lenses are way too big (in my opinion). Canon needs Sigma to release their 18-50mm f2.8 for APS-C, that one is less than half the size and weight of the 24-105 (and EF-S 17-55).

That would be nice for APS-C users, but I hope they don’t hold their breath.

Alternatively, Canon should make their own lightweight version. But I don't trust Canon to make any quality lenses for their crop sensor cameras, given how the ones already available are worst in class compared to Nikon's, Sony's and Fuji's offerings.

IMO, the EF-M 32/1.4, M22/2 and M11-22 are excellent lenses. I’m sure we’ll see something like the last one in RF-S, but maybe not the first two. I think Canon wants people to buy FF instead of APS-C.

 

[blackcoffee17]

A RF version of the EF 10-18mm would be great for aps-c shooters. If this would have a constant aperture and be a little more high-end that’d would be great.

I think it's too much to expect a constant aperture UWA zoom from Canon. I think we will get something like an 11-22 F4.5-6.3.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think it's too much to expect a constant aperture UWA zoom from Canon. I think we will get something like an 11-22 F4.5-6.3.

If they simply change the mount and barrel of the EF-M lens (as they did for the RF-S 18-150), it will be 11-22mm f/4-5.6. But if they make a new lens, e.g. a 10-18 or 10-22, then I’d agree…and if we’re wrong it’ll be because it’s f/7.1 instead of f/6.3 on the long end.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Me too, but why not L? They should make these L similar to Sony's G series. Weather sealing, L coatings, USM motors, no ILIS (to save weight), and f1.4. They should all cost less than $1000.

Or they should come up with a new name for lenses in-between their crap STM stuff and L-series. Maybe "LL" (Luxury Light)?

Like your ideas Canon should definitely differentiate and rename their lineup. Sigma basically does it and Canon should, too.

Why not „L“ you ask? Because an L lens always comes with plus 1.000$ price tag. Not counting the EF 17-40mm L, but that released ages ago. I would absolutely love a Sub-1000$ L lens and I especially think canon should some kind of weather sealing for all lenses.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I think it's too much to expect a constant aperture UWA zoom from Canon. I think we will get something like an 11-22 F4.5-6.3.

The odds are that you’re right because Canon has converted EF-M lenses to RF Mount before. But I’d really prefer if they redesign the EF 10-18mm (or the 10-22mm) because it is wider. If Canon then would decide to „make it better than it’s EF counterpart“, I could see them making it a constant aperture.

If Canon is serious about APS-C it needs a very good UWA option. You can work around any focal length without dedicated crop lenses, but one needs an intriguing UWA option.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The odds you’re right because Canon has converted EF-M lenses to RF Mount before.

Then he’s wrong, because that is not the aperture range of the EF-M lens.

If canon is serious about APS-C it needs a very good UWA option. You can work around any focal length without dedicated crop lenses, but one needs an intriguing UWA option.

Maybe they will do a 9-18 mm. IIRC, there was a patent for one of those.

 

[Czardoom]

I suspect that's true. The EF 50/1.2L and EF 85/1.2L II had an old optical design (some say 'dreamy look' wide open, others just say 'soft'...personally, I'm in the latter group and usually shot the 85/1.2L II at around f/2). The RF lenses are bigger and heavier but optically excellent wide open. The EF 35/1.4L II is optically excellent, much improved over the MkI especially with the BR element (blue goo) to reduce the CA. It's also relatively recent. Canon will likely do something to justify upgrading and the increased cost for the 35/1.4L, and an f/1.2 aperture meets the need for an otherwise excellent lens.

People complain about the high cost of the new lenses, I'm not sure why they think it's reasonable to expect something for nothing. Canon does charge more for the RF L-series lenses than their EF counterparts, but the RF versions typically offer something better – wider focal range for UWA lenses, lighter/smaller for the 70-200 zooms, better IQ for the 50/85 primes, etc. In the few cases where the RF version offers nothing over the EF lens except native compatibility (24-105/4L, 400/2.8, 600/4), the launch price of the RF lens was identical to the launch price of the EF lens (which actually means the RF versions are cheaper if you take inflation into account).

People complain because they can. And so they can say, "Hey, look at me! I'm fighting for the consumer against big bad Canon!"
If Canon doesn't _____ (fill in blank) I will jump ship!!

Yes, those other brands are so good to their consumers. So much cheaper, if you believe all the usual internet BS. Here's some comparisons, not cherry-picked, just the first 4, very typical focal range zooms, that I looked up.

24-70mm f/2.8 (Pro series lenses: in US dollars)
Sony $2,298
Canon $2,199
Nikon $2,096

70-200mm f/2.8
Canon $2,599
Nikon $2,396
Sony $1,198

100-400mm (or 500mm for Canon)
Canon $2,699
Nikon $2.696
Sony $2,498

Wide angle f/2.8: focal lengths vary
Nikon 14-24mm $2,496
Canon 15-35mm $2,199
Sony 16-35mm $2,198

The 70-200mm is the only one that Canon is considerably higher, in my opinion. The 100-500mm is certainly in the same range as Nikon and Sony, and offers 100mm more reach. Otherwise, prices are quite similar. But, of course, people don't want to hear that!! They would rather keep thinking otherwise so they can bash Canon and think they are right!

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Then he’s wrong, because that is not the aperture range of the EF-M lens.

Ohhh ok, I only read thatcher mentioned the EF-M 11-22mm…

 

[blackcoffee17]

The odds are that you’re right because Canon has converted EF-M lenses to RF Mount before. But I’d really prefer if they redesign the EF 10-18mm (or the 10-22mm) because it is wider. If Canon then would decide to „make it better than it’s EF counterpart“, I could see them making it a constant aperture.

If Canon is serious about APS-C it needs a very good UWA option. You can work around any focal length without dedicated crop lenses, but one needs an intriguing UWA option.

I think you expect too much from Canon. Likely we will get an 11-22 F4.5-6.3 in the ugly RF-S body design. Don't expect any extra effort like constant aperture.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Then he’s wrong, because that is not the aperture range of the EF-M lens.

Was just an example. From the 18-45 example, the RF-S version might just end up being shorter and darker again.

 

[Shane]

Practically I want a faster 35. a light 1.4 sounds great for weddings. Love my 28-70 but dark ceremonies would be nice with a 35 a bit faster. I'm looking forward to the 100-500 if rumors are true. But I would have to sell my house, so maybe sticking to a 400 2.8 EF version 2 for a while as I shoot sport and wildlife for fun. A 200 F2 I would find a way to finance haha. All in all a good time to be a canon photographer I think.

 

[Del Paso]

People complain because they can. And so they can say, "Hey, look at me! I'm fighting for the consumer against big bad Canon!"
If Canon doesn't _____ (fill in blank) I will jump ship!!

Yes, those other brands are so good to their consumers. So much cheaper, if you believe all the usual internet BS. Here's some comparisons, not cherry-picked, just the first 4, very typical focal range zooms, that I looked up.

24-70mm f/2.8 (Pro series lenses: in US dollars)
Sony $2,298
Canon $2,199
Nikon $2,096

70-200mm f/2.8
Canon $2,599
Nikon $2,396
Sony $1,198

100-400mm (or 500mm for Canon)
Canon $2,699
Nikon $2.696
Sony $2,498

Wide angle f/2.8: focal lengths vary
Nikon 14-24mm $2,496
Canon 15-35mm $2,199
Sony 16-35mm $2,198

The 70-200mm is the only one that Canon is considerably higher, in my opinion. The 100-500mm is certainly in the same range as Nikon and Sony, and offers 100mm more reach. Otherwise, prices are quite similar. But, of course, people don't want to hear that!! They would rather keep thinking otherwise so they can bash Canon and think they are right!

If I'm not mistaken, B&H sell the Sony 70-200 f/2,8 for $2798

 

[neuroanatomist]

…donkey. HEE HAW.

You make that sound so well, you must have had lots of practice!

donkey / (ˈdɒŋkɪ) / noun. Also called: ass

 

[AJ]

70-200mm f/2.8
Canon $2,599
Nikon $2,396
Sony $1,198

Handy chart - thanks! Minor correction - the Sony costs $1998