Two new RF L mount lenses rumored for 2021 [CR1]

[snappy604]

I'm not convinced by the 250mm f/2.
For the 500mm f/2.8 there is already such monster by Sigma. This should give an idea of the size of such monster:

that's a rocket launcher.. quit trying to trick us.

 

[Berowne]

There is always a bigger one.
Zeiss APO-Sonnar 4/1700 T*

 

[Franklyok]

70 - 135 f2.0 , with 8 stop ibis enabler ( like 28 - 70 f2.0) and no focus breathing ( like rf 70 - 200 is 2.8 ) would be dream lens.

 

[Alam]

There is always a bigger one.
Zeiss APO-Sonnar 4/1700 T*

Man, sigma's is a bazooka
that thing is a nuclear warhead

 

[Jasonmc89]

God damn, I need to win the lottery...

 

[stochasticmotions]

I still wish Canon would come out with a 120-300 f/2.8, or something like that. Hard to swallow that Nikon has such a useful lens and Canon doesn't.

I had the Sigma 120-300 for quite a long time, it was a bit too heavy and slightly slower focusing than the new canon 100-400 but it was amazingly sharp. If canon put out one I would think it would be considerably lighter and have native autofocus and stability so would pretty much be amazing. Was my go to lens for owls at dusk and was still excellent with the canon 2x teleconverter.

 

[stochasticmotions]

A 500 f/2.8 DO would seem to be nearly a perfect lens. Long, bright and possibly still hand holdable. If it took me 10 years to save up for the 500 f/4 I think this would only be viable with a lottery win....fun to dream

 

[Richard CN]

A 500 f/2.8 DO would seem to be nearly a perfect lens. Long, bright and possibly still hand holdable. If it took me 10 years to save up for the 500 f/4 I think this would only be viable with a lottery win....fun to dream

DO doesn't do much for the weight especially of the glass and the glass optics would be still freaking huge.

 

[twoheadedboy]

More ridiculous lenses for RF if true. Stop dicking around and just release a 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8, 500 f/4 and 600 f/5.6 DO

Why is that so crucial for you, when the EF versions are fine for now? They're clearly focusing on things either EF doesn't have, or are mediocre on EF that they can do significantly better on RF (50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2, 24 - 105, etc.). I am happily using my adapted EF glass alongside my RF lenses, it's not a problem in any way.

 

[tron]

600 f/5.6 DO I understand*! (And I would be tempted). All the rest are a waste of resources. They can't be better than their excellent EF counterparts (and they cannot be mounted on cameras like 1DxIII and 5DsR )

* Provided that they will make an EF version too!

 

[blackcoffee17]

And compared to a big 250-500 zoom (think 200-400 f2.8) it can be significantly lighter as a "set" of prime lens(es).

Especially if they include a switchable teleconverter.

 

[blackcoffee17]

We need something for the mortals too. Where is a 200-600 type of lens under $2000?
Sony has a great one, Nikon will have one too soon.

 

[MDM@ canon rumors]

I'm still dreaming of a 50 -200ish zoom..

 

[Eclipsed]

I now see that this essentially *is* a 500 f4. But "chopped to provide the wide view, with the magnification available with a TC. Current 500 f4 is $9k. No reason for this to be more except unless improved like the 400 f2.8 iii was for lightening. $10k with both TCs would be nice.

I'd avoid an internal TC as adding needless weight and length to carry around all the time.

 

[Eclipsed]

We need something for the mortals too. Where is a 200-600 type of lens under $2000?
Sony has a great one, Nikon will have one too soon.

Add the very useful 100-200mm range, and trim the needless 500-600 range, and add a little in price, and they just released it a few weeks ago.

 

[Eclipsed]

I'm still dreaming of a 50 -200ish zoom..

Try the handy RF 70-200 2.8. Take a step back for groups of people.

 

[tron]

Add the very useful 100-200mm range, and trim the needless 500-600 range, and add a little in price, and they just released it a few weeks ago.

Except the 500-600 range is not needless at all...

 

[gruhl28]

The 24-105 STM, 35 STM and 85 STM are what I consider "smaller", which lenses and sizes are you looking for?

Yeah, the 35mm is small, and I was considering this as my next lens, but it seems to have pretty bad vignetting and a lot of coma.

 

[Dantana]

Yeah, the 35mm is small, and I was considering this as my next lens, but it seems to have pretty bad vignetting and a lot of coma.

Interesting. I hadn't heard that. Most of the reviews I have read have been pretty positive. Good to know. The only thing holding me back on the 35 or 85 is that I already have those lenses covered in EF. I'm hoping that we see a smallish 50 soon, but it at least now feels like they are trying to hit the standard, pro, and ridiculous lenses.

 

[davidcl0nel]

The EF 400mm f/2.8 IS 1 has nearly the double weight of the much newer 400mm IS III - so why not? (5370g vs 2840g)
A 500 f/2.8 with the current technics should be lighter than the IS 1... and this was a top lens once....