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

[neuroanatomist]

Another reason for APS-C is for working distance for nervous critters.

How does the sensor size affect the working distance of the lens? That's rhetorical, it doesn't. Practically, you can frame the same scene from the a greater distance with a smaller sensor at a given focal length...or you could just use a longer focal length on the larger sensor to achieve the tighter framing from further away. Until you become focal length limited...which I already mentioned as a reason to prefer APS-C.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

I've noticed that when there's a rumor about future Canon lenses, the discussion thread is usually filled with complaints about Canon's existing lens offerings. This one's too short, this one's too long, this aperture's too narrow, this one's too heavy, this one's too expensive, there are no third party AF lenses, Canon doesn't listen to us, why can't they just make this...

Much of this isn't just fun wishing or dreaming about something to make your photography better or more convenient. Instead, it's frequently accompanied by insults to Canon (or to other forum users who say they like the particular lens as-is), attribution of nefarious intent by Canon, and threats to switch brands if there is no satisfaction.

To those who engage in this, I ask you this question: If the existing RF lens offerings are so unsuited to your needs, why did you buy into the R system in the first place?

So what if you have a big investment in EF glass? With the transition to mirrorless, you can get high quality adapters for Sony, Nikon, and Fuji that make your EF lenses work just as well as on a Canon body. I speak from experience here; before my R7, I used a Sony a6400 as my "main" body for nearly two years, and it worked great with all of my adapted EF lenses. Ran circles around my 7D Mark II, that's for sure. And up until then, I had been exclusively a Canon ILC user since 1982.

Camera feature and AF performance advantages are ephemeral. Canon may have an advantage today, but Sony will have a different advantage in six months, and vice-versa (I mention Sony because of the main three--Sony, Nikon, and Fuji--Sony is the only one whose performance and features have consistently challenged Canon). Sony makes a wide range of high quality lenses for both FF and APS-C, and they have always encouraged third parties lens makers, so there is a very broad third party lens "ecosystem" for them.

OTOH, if you want a compact, stylish APS-C body with fast primes for street photography, check out Fuji. They also have broad third party lens support.

These forums are filled with statements like "Canon refuses to do this-or-that so I'm switching to Sony." That's your prerogative, and Sony makes really good gear so you'll probably be happy with it (until you find something that Sony doesn't do but Canon does). But, instead of an impulsive and spiteful switch, try making a reasoned evaluation of each platform's capabilities and limitations *today*, and which one can best satisfy your particular needs (note that I said "best", not "perfectly"). That's how you can be an informed consumer in a free market.

If you bought into the Canon R system because you assumed it would develop a certain way, but it's gone a different way, then I sympathize, but Canon never made any promises. So stop blaming Canon for your buyer's remorse, and stop boring the rest of us with your insults and ultimatums.

 

[EricN]

I've noticed that when there's a rumor about future Canon lenses, the discussion thread is usually filled with complaints about Canon's existing lens offerings. This one's too short, this one's too long, this aperture's too narrow, this one's too heavy, this one's too expensive, there are no third party AF lenses, Canon doesn't listen to us, why can't they just make this...

Much of this isn't just fun wishing or dreaming about something to make your photography better or more convenient. Instead, it's frequently accompanied by insults to Canon (or to other forum users who say they like the particular lens as-is), attribution of nefarious intent by Canon, and threats to switch brands if there is no satisfaction.

To those who engage in this, I ask you this question: If the existing RF lens offerings are so unsuited to your needs, why did you buy into the R system in the first place?

So what if you have a big investment in EF glass? With the transition to mirrorless, you can get high quality adapters for Sony, Nikon, and Fuji that make your EF lenses work just as well as on a Canon body. I speak from experience here; before my R7, I used a Sony a6400 as my "main" body for nearly two years, and it worked great with all of my adapted EF lenses. Ran circles around my 7D Mark II, that's for sure. And up until then, I had been exclusively a Canon ILC user since 1982.

Camera feature and AF performance advantages are ephemeral. Canon may have an advantage today, but Sony will have a different advantage in six months, and vice-versa (I mention Sony because of the main three--Sony, Nikon, and Fuji--Sony is the only one whose performance and features have consistently challenged Canon). Sony makes a wide range of high quality lenses for both FF and APS-C, and they have always encouraged third parties lens makers, so there is a very broad third party lens "ecosystem" for them.

OTOH, if you want a compact, stylish APS-C body with fast primes for street photography, check out Fuji. They also have broad third party lens support.

These forums are filled with statements like "Canon refuses to do this-or-that so I'm switching to Sony." That's your prerogative, and Sony makes really good gear so you'll probably be happy with it (until you find something that Sony doesn't do but Canon does). But, instead of an impulsive and spiteful switch, try making a reasoned evaluation of each platform's capabilities and limitations *today*, and which one can best satisfy your particular needs (note that I said "best", not "perfectly"). That's how you can be an informed consumer in a free market.

If you bought into the Canon R system because you assumed it would develop a certain way, but it's gone a different way, then I sympathize, but Canon never made any promises. So stop blaming Canon for your buyer's remorse, and stop boring the rest of us with your insults and ultimatums.

I agree with everything and want to add:

if you can't afford to switch now and don't want to sell your current rf products, why not wait until you would have bought the next Canon camera and buy the Camera and lens you want from the other company?

 

[neuroanatomist]

if you can't afford to switch now

Switching costs money. Complaining on the internet is free.

 

[clearwaterphotog]

Another reason for APS-C is for working distance for nervous critters.

And another is wanting more DoF for a given f-stop.

 

[EricN]

And another is wanting more DoF for a given f-stop.

I've seen tests that prove this is a myth. At least one member on Canon rumors posted one.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And another is wanting more DoF for a given f-stop.

What does that give you that you can’t get by simply stopping down the lens on FF?

The short answer is nothing.

The mid-length answer is that sensor size has the opposite effect that you may think. DoF is deeper with a smaller sensor solely if you move further from the subject to match framing. If you remain at the sane distance, the DoF is actually shallower on the APS-C sensor, because the circle of confusion is smaller.

The long answer is thoroughly explained here:

Equivalence

www.josephjamesphotography.com

 

[ruralmontanan]

I’ll be honest, I’ve lost some faith in Canon lately to produce the lenses I’m looking for. Nikon has hit the sweet spot for me with the PF wildlife primes and thinking it might be best to stop waiting around and just switch over to enjoy them.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I’ll be honest, I’ve lost some faith in Canon lately to produce the lenses I’m looking for. Nikon has hit the sweet spot for me with the PF wildlife primes and thinking it might be best to stop waiting around and just switch over to enjoy them.

What is stopping you? Personally, if another brand better met my needs, I wouldn’t waste time posting about it…I’d be ordering the new gear and packing my current kit up in a box with the MPB label on it.

Maybe Canon needs a hotline…1-800-DONT-SWITCH.

 

[David - Sydney]

I've noticed that when there's a rumor about future Canon lenses, the discussion thread is usually filled with complaints about Canon's existing lens offerings. This one's too short, this one's too long, this aperture's too narrow, this one's too heavy, this one's too expensive, there are no third party AF lenses, Canon doesn't listen to us, why can't they just make this...

Much of this isn't just fun wishing or dreaming about something to make your photography better or more convenient. Instead, it's frequently accompanied by insults to Canon (or to other forum users who say they like the particular lens as-is), attribution of nefarious intent by Canon, and threats to switch brands if there is no satisfaction.

To those who engage in this, I ask you this question: If the existing RF lens offerings are so unsuited to your needs, why did you buy into the R system in the first place?

So what if you have a big investment in EF glass? With the transition to mirrorless, you can get high quality adapters for Sony, Nikon, and Fuji that make your EF lenses work just as well as on a Canon body. I speak from experience here; before my R7, I used a Sony a6400 as my "main" body for nearly two years, and it worked great with all of my adapted EF lenses. Ran circles around my 7D Mark II, that's for sure. And up until then, I had been exclusively a Canon ILC user since 1982.

Camera feature and AF performance advantages are ephemeral. Canon may have an advantage today, but Sony will have a different advantage in six months, and vice-versa (I mention Sony because of the main three--Sony, Nikon, and Fuji--Sony is the only one whose performance and features have consistently challenged Canon). Sony makes a wide range of high quality lenses for both FF and APS-C, and they have always encouraged third parties lens makers, so there is a very broad third party lens "ecosystem" for them.

OTOH, if you want a compact, stylish APS-C body with fast primes for street photography, check out Fuji. They also have broad third party lens support.

These forums are filled with statements like "Canon refuses to do this-or-that so I'm switching to Sony." That's your prerogative, and Sony makes really good gear so you'll probably be happy with it (until you find something that Sony doesn't do but Canon does). But, instead of an impulsive and spiteful switch, try making a reasoned evaluation of each platform's capabilities and limitations *today*, and which one can best satisfy your particular needs (note that I said "best", not "perfectly"). That's how you can be an informed consumer in a free market.

If you bought into the Canon R system because you assumed it would develop a certain way, but it's gone a different way, then I sympathize, but Canon never made any promises. So stop blaming Canon for your buyer's remorse, and stop boring the rest of us with your insults and ultimatums.

You seem to be quite frustrated with the comments already in the post... you don't have to read them

I bought into the R system 3 years ago precisely for the mirrorless advantages including new RF lenses and the ability to adapt my existing EF lenses (which I still do). There have been a lot of RF lenses released since I got my R5 but the key ones for me at the time was a lighter/smaller RF70-200/2.8 and the RF100-500mm.

In essence, the combined EF/RF and adapted 3rd party EF lenses suit most of my photographic wants. There will always be gaps though. We would like to think that Canon could fill those gaps especially as I anticipate further (complete?) discontinuation of EF lenses. We are only 5 years into a mount replacement so relatively early days but a couple of gaps seem to be obvious which Canon may or may not want to cover:
- RF50/1.4 => massive gap in price and optics between the RF50/1.2 and RF50/1.8. The Sigma EF50/1.4 Art is an option though
- No wide RF-S lenses => no APS-C body can do wide angle without adapting EF-S wide angle zooms. My EF-S 11-22mm was my second lens I bought for landscape with my 7D but until either a repackaged EF-M or EF-S lens is released then this is a gap
- Specialist RF replacements for TS-E, MP-E, long macro, fish-eye haven't arrived yet. Definitely niche products but discontinuing EF mount versions is intriguing if there is no replacement
- Niches that Canon has not tried to enter with EF lenses were covered with 3rd party eg fast/wide primes especially for astro landscape with low coma. This is a little strange as Canon has had multiple modified filter bodies for Ha sensitity available for a very long time but nothing since the discontinued Ra body.

Some people can justify or afford multiple systems (body / lens) for a specific purpose but there are downsides as well. Always best for the user if they can get everything in one system but we know that won't happen.

 

[joseph ferraro]

And working distance for other things as well, such as flowers. My neighbors are happier when I stay outside of their flower beds to get my flower shots.

I am in the opposite camp, I want a shorter working distance with more magnification like my MP-E 65 (which still does everything I need). Im usually at 2x or greater 90% of the time and 1:1 for the slightly bigger wee beasties. I'd love an updated mp-e 65 or similar, maybe canon could do/is working on a lens that functions as a medium tele, but with the capability of going to maybe 3:1 or greater. I can dream, and until then keep using what I have. I tested the laowa 100 2x and while nice, I often go beyond 2x for my subjects in the field.

 

[clearwaterphotog]

What does that give you that you can’t get by simply stopping down the lens on FF?

The short answer is nothing.

The mid-length answer is that sensor size has the opposite effect that you may think. DoF is deeper with a smaller sensor solely if you move further from the subject to match framing. If you remain at the sane distance, the DoF is actually shallower on the APS-C sensor, because the circle of confusion is smaller.

The long answer is thoroughly explained here:

Equivalence

www.josephjamesphotography.com

Before taking any pixel sensitivity into account between FF and APS-C, the extra stop of light gives you a shutter speed advantage on APS-C, but if a FF sensor is 1-1.5 stops more sensitive, then is that extra stop of light totally negated? Sometimes it would be nice to shoot at f/11 instead of f/16, just to get faster shutter in handheld low light situations where you want a lot in focus (or want higher shutter for desired effect).

 

[masterpix]

There has been a lot of discussion about Canon’s RF lineup and certain areas that are in dire need of being addressed. We have been talking to a few people about what Canon has in store for lens announcements over the next 6 months, and we have been told more than once to expect “a

See full article...

Well, as my financial advisor said "so many lenses, so little cash", I wish to see RF28-300L lens that can be my "travel zoom". it is not my best of options (11-24, 24-70, 70-200 and 120-700 will be the best for me) but it will sit well enough with the amount of cash at hand.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Before taking any pixel sensitivity into account between FF and APS-C, the extra stop of light gives you a shutter speed advantage on APS-C, but if a FF sensor is 1-1.5 stops more sensitive, then is that extra stop of light totally negated? Sometimes it would be nice to shoot at f/11 instead of f/16, just to get faster shutter in handheld low light situations where you want a lot in focus (or want higher shutter for desired effect).

Then you increase the ISO on FF for a higher shutter speed, and get the same noise. That’s how equivalence works, but most people don’t really understand the concept fully. Basically, unless you’re focal length limited FF can do everything APS-C can do and more. You can get equivalent deeper DoF with FF, but you can’t get equivalent shallower DoF with APS-C. It just usually weighs and costs more to get that extra capability.

Put another way, FF becomes limited in reach sooner by focal length. A 1200mm lens is big and expensive. But still possible. APS-C becomes limited in shallow DoF sooner by aperture. Good luck finding the f/0.75 lens you need for APS-C to match the DoF of f/1.2 on FF.

Someone will bring up higher pixel density with APS-C, but there’s no free lunch because that comes with a diffraction penalty that costs resolution except at wide apertures.

 

[Photographix]

"We have been told to expect between 8-10 new RF/RF-S lenses between now and March of 2024."

Are we to expect the actual lenses to be on the market by March, or just the announcements?

Of the "8-10 new RF/RF-S lenses", most will probably be unaffordable "L"-series lenses, leaving, if we're lucky, one or possibly even two affordable RF-S lenses. That might be, if we're really, really lucky, the rumoured 11-22mm and a 22mm or 32mm prime. Maybe.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Your thinking is a classic reason why Canon brought out the 600/800 f11 lenses... They are gateway GAS products

They are GAS-inducing in the sense that they entice people to buy Canon cameras that are more capable for sports and wildlife.
What is missing are bridge lenses between the RF 100-400 and RF 100-500L, between the RF 600 f/11 and RF 600 f/4L, and between the RF 800 f/11 and RF 800 f/5.6.
There is a lot of room for cheaper in-between lenses.
The only options are used EF lenses or switching to Nikon.
I am not so sure that there are enough used lenses to go around.
I see the prices of used EF super telephotos increasing.
Nikon also does not seem to be keeping up with demand.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Of the "8-10 new RF/RF-S lenses", most will probably be unaffordable "L"-series lenses, leaving, if we're lucky, one or possibly even two affordable RF-S lenses. That might be, if we're really, really lucky, the rumoured 11-22mm and a 22mm or 32mm prime. Maybe.

L lenses seem to be most of what is missing in the full-frame lineup.
I think we will see some RF-S lenses.
Other than that, what full-frame lenses would you like to see?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

To those who engage in this, I ask you this question: If the existing RF lens offerings are so unsuited to your needs, why did you buy into the R system in the first place?

I would not have put it that way but it baffles me why anyone bought into a new system that was lacking the lenses that they need.
There are a lot of gaps in the RF lens line up but I would not have bought into the system if I was not happy adapting EF lenses.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Some people can justify or afford multiple systems (body / lens) for a specific purpose but there are downsides as well. Always best for the user if they can get everything in one system but we know that won't happen.

I used to use multiple systems but my lens selection and capability of cameras have me all in on Canon now.
I can see someone looking at the Nikon for the Z 8, 180-600, 800 f/6.3 PF, 400 f/2.8 x 1.4, and 600 f/4 x 1.4.
If I wanted any or all of those things and could afford them, then I would just buy them.
I can't fathom selling all of my Canon gear.
I would sell anything I was not going to use anymore but selling everything would seem to be out of spite.
I would only be spiting myself.
By the way, I could pick up a used EF 600 f/4 for about the price of the Nikon 180-600.
I realize that is apples to oranges but it is why I would not even consider buying Nikon let alone switching.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I would not have put it that way but it baffles me why anyone bought into a new system that was lacking the lenses that they need.

Agreed. When I started with the R system, I got the original R and RF 24–105/4 to use for travel. I kept my 1DX as my primary camera with the EF lenses I needed, because there was no R series body that met my needs as a primary camera.

By the time, the R3 came out, all of my frequently used lenses were available in the RF mount (although I have chosen not to upgrade some of them).

There are a lot of gaps in the RF lens line up but I would not have bought into the system if I was not happy adapting EF lenses.

I’m fortunate that there aren’t any real gaps for my needs.

I would categorize people blaming Canon for not making the RF lenses they want/need as another manifestation of the belief that their needs represent those of the majority and that they know the ILC market better than Canon. They think everyone wants what they want, and thus Canon is foolish for not providing it. Lol.

What I find baffling is the belief that the leopard will change its spots. They expect Canon to launch a bunch f/1.4 non-L wide primes, constant aperture non-L zooms, and high-end RF-S lenses (in some cases with weather sealing), when none of those have been a major part of Canon’s lineup, ever. But somehow Canon ‘has to’ make those lenses, or else. Or else what? Exactly.