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

[Del Paso]

What

They'll just have to work with Harry and make a 8-1200mm f/0.95 out of secret exotic sub quantum particular which weigh 2.176434(24)×10−8 kg all for under $159.95! Canon will never do it, but Tamrigma will for your Nikony for you AZ9v5! Now that's what I call a WIN!!!

​

Far too expensive...

 

[Del Paso]

I'd love to buy more lenses from Canon, I just don't want $2000 f/1.2 monsters, or lackluster $300 f/1.8 bait lenses. I want a line of f/1.4 primes for ~$1000 a piece, native to the RF system, and I want a unicorn lens that probably hasn't existed until recently (the ~20-50) because it's difficult to control aberrations - for this unicorn I'd be willing to pay more, but because it would solve multiple use cases, and likely be cheaper than buying 2 independent lenses that provide this range.

Sorry to be just the next guy wanting something that Canon doesn't have. It seems the standard response here is "don't like it? then leave". I get it though; too many unsatisfied shooters are prowling forums these days and Canon fanboys are sick of being reminded that their peers expect more, suggesting that maybe they should be unsatisfied as well. If you're cool with the decades-old trinity of 16-35/24-70/70-200, and halo primes that you've never been able to get milked for before, great, have at it. I don't. I want to see more optical innovation that Canon is clearly capable of (like the 28-70 and 14-35), and I also want to see sensible premium primes as previously noted, and I'm definitely not the only one in that boat.

Sorry, but I don't get it at all.
You speak of expensive "monsters", this I still can understand (a little bit).
You regret there is hardly any innovation, here I can't follow, many new Canon lenses are really innovative.
And then you quote the huge, heavy and extremely expensive f2 28-70 ????? Great lens, by the way. What exactly do you want? Lightweight, compact, innovative, and cheap optical perfection? And believe you'll find it at Tamsigsonnik?
Good luck!

 

[jaygould]

Long time reader. First post.

Tamron is supposed to announce a 17-50 f/4 full frame lens for Sony today. It would be nice if Canon (or Tamron, Sigma) would do the same for the R system. As a full frame, constant aperture, I guess it would need to be an L lens (based on Canon history), but likely it would be lighter, smaller and maybe less expensive than the RF 24-105 f/4.

Anyone interested? Yes, there's the very old EF 17-40, the various EF 16-35, the RF 14-35 and the RF15-35, but I think this would fill a void and, again, if Canon does not produce it, Tamron at least probably will. It would pair nicely with the RF 70-200 f/4 and the RF 16 f/2.8.

I think I'd rather have the Tamron 20-40mm f2.8. I don't really care about wider than 20mm (and if I needed it, I could use the 16mm f2.8). This lens is a stop faster and also (from what it looks like) about half the size and weight.

Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 (or if Canon would make a similar one)
Canon 70-200mm f4

Would be a perfect landscape photography setup for me.

 

[EricN]

WHAT TO WE WANT?
TO COMPLAIN!!!
WHEN DO WE WANT IT?
NOW!!!
(REPEAT ad nauseam)

 

[John Wilde]

Oodles of Optics?

 

[Walrus]

Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 (or if Canon would make a similar one)

Well, the 15-35 is pretty close to it; and if you need something to bridge from 35 to 70, putting in the bag the 50 f1.8 takes basically no space and no money.

 

[Ph0t0]

Welcome!

Agree it would definitely be an L lens. Does not sound like something Canon would allow a 3rd party to produce for RF (assuming they could prevent that), given the overlap with the current lineup.

I admit I'd probably be tempted. I have the range well covered with the EF 11-24/4L, RF 14-35/4L, RF 24-105/4L and RF 28-70/2. But a 17-50/4 could be an excellent travel lens (a 17-70/4L would be even better, maybe that will be the RF upgrade to the EF 24-70/4L).

Now you're talking!
A 17-70mm (give or take few mm) f4 L would be my dream lens for sport and landscape photography in the mountains. Sometimes (especially when climbing) I have to go very light, and there are limited opportunities to change lenses. Going from 17 to 70mm without having to change the lense would be awesome.
And for certain types of photography that I do this would be far more valuable for me than going from 24 to 105mm.

Also coupling that lens with the RF 70-200mm f4 would make a nice light combo for landscapes.

 

[JohnC]

Now you're talking!
A 17-70mm (give or take few mm) f4 L would be my dream lens for sport and landscape photography in the mountains. Sometimes (especially when climbing) I have to go very light, and there are limited opportunities to change lenses. Going from 17 to 70mm without having to change the lense would be awesome.
And for certain types of photography that I do this would be far more valuable for me than going from 24 to 105mm.

Also coupling that lens with the RF 70-200mm f4 would make a nice light combo for landscapes.

If the image quality was there, I would be all over a 17-70 F4.

 

[EricN]

I'm happy enough using the 16mm. The 16mm has quite a close minimum focus distance which combined with f2.8 can produce some nice results. I suspect a zoom not focus as close as 5.1".

 

[Czardoom]

...

To be honest, with how carefully Canon seems to be milking its userbase, I can't imagine them making a lens that takes the place of 2 lenses....

You mean, like the RF 24-240mm? Or even the RF-S 18-150?

If you really think Canon is milking its user base, then if you have any backbone at ll, you would switch. Or you could actually look at their lens lineup and perhaps realize that they probably have more inexpensive lenses than other brands. Or maybe you just mean, they don't make the lens I want that would replace two lenses, so they are unfair and milking me.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Sorry to be just the next guy wanting something that Canon doesn't have. It seems the standard response here is "don't like it? then leave".

I think most of us want lenses that Canon does not make.
I do not think that would change if Canon made a million different lenses.
I don't see much "don't like it leave", but in fairness, I ignore a lot of people.
What I do see is if there is a camera and lens combination that you like on another system then why not just buy it?
There are cameras on other systems that I would buy if Canon made them so I do understand being jealous.
I just don't see the point in people making themselves angry all of the time.
I have followed some who have switched and all they do is complain about Sony or Nikon.
They still take time out to complain about Canon even though they have switched.

 

[Del Paso]

If the image quality was there, I would be all over a 17-70 F4.

I'm afraid image quality would suffer. Till now, only a few zooms have been able to compete with high quality primes. And these were never "extreme" zoom, but rather ones with a limited focal range. High distortion, vignetting, lower resolution and soft corners are often the price to pay for a wider range.
Yet, optical progress could solve some issues, like in the case of the RF 100-300, a lens said to be as good as the best equivalent primes. But here too, there's a (high!) price to pay.

 

[JohnC]

I'm afraid image quality would suffer. Till now, only a few zooms have been able to compete with high quality primes. And these were never "extreme" zoom, but rather ones with a limited focal range. High distortion, vignetting, lower resolution and soft corners are often the price to pay for a wider range.
Yet, optical progress could solve some issues, like in the case of the RF 100-300, a lens said to be as good as the best equivalent primes. But here too, there's a (high!) price to pay.

Agreed, that's why I said if. I think they have far more success in the telephoto range than the ultra-wide range. They have the x-35mm range nailed down real well, but going to 70 is another matter. We will see.

 

[jd7]

Well, the 15-35 is pretty close to it; and if you need something to bridge from 35 to 70, putting in the bag the 50 f1.8 takes basically no space and no money.

Tamron 20-40mm is much smaller and lighter than the 15-35, not to mention cheaper. (And yes, the Tamron has no IS.) Leaving aside the mount difference, I'm interested in the 20-40mm (or perhaps the Tamron 17-28mm and Sigma 16-28mm) but have no interest in the 15-35. I switched to Sony before the Tamron 20-40mm was announced, but Canon's approach to RF lenses is what pushed me to make the switch. Most of the RF lenses are well made and have great image quality of course, so I don't mean to suggest they're not "good" lenses. But lenses made but others are better for my needs and wants. I guess I'm in a minority though, given Canon's results.

 

[Walrus]

Tamron 20-40mm is much smaller and lighter than the 15-35, not to mention cheaper. (And yes, the Tamron has no IS.) Leaving aside the mount difference, I'm interested in the 20-40mm (or perhaps the Tamron 17-28mm and Sigma 16-28mm) but have no interest in the 15-35. I switched to Sony before the Tamron 20-40mm was announced, but Canon's approach to RF lenses is what pushed me to make the switch. Moist of the RF lenses are well made and have great image quality of course, so I don't mean to suggest they're not "good" lenses. But lenses made but others are better for my needs and wants. I guess I'm in a minority though, given Canon's results.

Well, if you already went to Sony then is much better and easier, as you have access to third party lenses; if EF lenses were not fully supported as they are on R cameras, and weren't working so well (even better then what they did on DSLR), I would certainly have jumped ship already when moving to MILC.
For now EF stuff covers me fine enough (and you can now find very good deals on used stuff, or new lenses that dropped price considerably like the 40 Art), but let's see what happens in the future, using the adapter can't be a permanent solution.

 

[jd7]

Well, if you already went to Sony then is much better and easier, as you have access to third party lenses; if EF lenses were not fully supported as they are on R cameras, and weren't working so well (even better then what they did on DSLR), I would certainly have jumped ship already when moving to MILC.
For now EF stuff covers me fine enough (and you can now find very good deals on used stuff, or new lenses that dropped price considerably like the 40 Art), but let's see what happens in the future, using the adapter can't be a permanent solution.

For me, the issue with the adapter is that as well as it works, it means still using EF lenses, so still using lenses which are the same size and weight as before, except now there is an adapter as well. One of the attractions of mirrorless to me is reducing size and weight, so not using lenses designed for mirrorless would significantly reduce the value I get from spending the money on the move to mirrorless. The next lenses I add to my Sony kit will almost certainly be in the very small and light category, eg from the Samyang "tiny series", the Sigma i series or perhaps the Sony 55mm f/1.8. Even if I go with one of the UWA zooms I mentioned, I would still class it in the small and light category, since they are small and light for what they are.

 

[David - Sydney]

I think back to when I got the 70-300L, where the positions of the focus and zoom rings were reversed compared to all my other lenses. That was a PITA, and unless I had the tripod ring installed (an optional, separate purchase) that forced my fingertips to be under the zoom ring, I'd often grab the focus ring by mistake. It's better now, because for my RF lenses at least, all the black ones have the zoom ring closer to the mount and all the white ones have the zoom ring further from the mount.

As for running dual systems, for myself I imagine that going back and forth on ring and mount rotation directions from Canon to Nikon would drive me slowly insane.

Imagine having 2 cars in a household with indicator stalk/windscreen washer on the correct side on one and the other car on the other side. PITA!

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

I wonder if that is the case if we include TCs in the equation. I am not saying that more RF telephoto lenses is not going to happen (Canon says that they will surprise us!)
but when you add TCs to each then you get a wide range of price points and focal length within the existing RF telephotos.
I'd prefer to give Canon a little more breathing room... let's say until March to see if they fill a number of "gaps". It has only been 5 years for the R mount.
If users can't wait then plenty of other options I guess but I'm with you that changing my entire system would be just throwing money away.

 

[David - Sydney]

EF lenses in the United States are not very difficult to find. They are litterally everywhere or in most rental houses for rent or purchase. They may be "discontinued" on Canon's website, but will be available for decades. Many Cine cameras are EF mount. Don't see this changing in the near future or for quite awhile. A long while

Yes, the US is well served by LensRentals to which there is little alternative outside of the US. I would love to try lenses first or to rent esoteric ones for workshops or play

The US market is also big enough for lots of second hand lenses although it probably suffers like Australia in that sellers are spammed and ripped off by fake buyers and money transfers. I will only buy/sell now in person and in cash unless the buyer takes the risk on transferring the money first and is in my account before I send it. I talk to them first, show it being used and photos packing it and tracked shipping. Never had a complaint yet. A local Canon 5 year warranty is also helpful for the second hand market.

EF lenses will be available in some form for a long time but new EF lenses will be hard to find... and I believe discontinuation is in the near future for at least some markets.

 

[David - Sydney]

The thing that surprises me in all this Canon native "gaps" discussion and "no 3rd party RF lenses" debate is why the 3rd parties seem to have stopped offering EF versions of their newest lenses or in some cases just offering a MF lens in R mount (besides the Mieke/Viltrox/Samyang etc.
We all know that EF lenses work perfectly adapted and better in terms of AF spread etc so it seems to be a deliberate strategy of Sigma/Tamron etc to wait for RF approval.