Well, well, well… could this be Canon’s lens roadmap for 2021? [CR2]

[bbasiaga]

im about to buy the r6 and one of the two 70-200. f2.8 or f4? what would speak for a f4?

Very small, and very light. Same reason to pick this over the 2.8 in the EF series. If you shoot mainly outdoors, and don't do a lot of portraits, its worth the price and weight savings, IMO. If you shoot indoor sports or want to use this as a protrait lens, then you need the 2.8.

-Brian

 

[Bob Howland]

Not a single EF-M lens on the list. Nor any APS-C RF lenses.

 

[bbasiaga]

The 100-400mm looks too similar to the just released 100-500mm! I somehow doubt this one. Everything else would be great if true.

This one is a non-L series. Its probably real. They always had a 75-300 option in a non L format and sold a lot of those.

-Brian

 

[bbasiaga]

Not a single EF-M lens on the list. Nor any APS-C RF lenses.

I think the ef-m stuff, if it exists, might be on another list. I could believe this is specifically for the RF mount.

But the lack of APS-c glass may mean that those sensors aren't coming, or if they do they'll just use the regular RF glass.

-Brian

 

[H. Jones]

The 100-400mm looks too similar to the just released 100-500mm! I somehow doubt this one. Everything else would be great if true.

Take a look at the Sigma 100-400mm F/5-6.3:


Now consider that the Canon version is a F/5.6-7.1 non-L, the rumored Canon version would be even smaller, more in line with a 70-300mm. Those lenses have always been popular, and the people using them really aren't expecting to use it in less than good light already.

The Sigma has a 67mm filter thread, the Canon would easily make it to a 58mm filter thread, which is absolutely tiny and the same as a 18-55mm.

Consider it more of a full-frame version of the EF-S 55-250mm f/5.6 lens, which was equivalent to 400mm in a small, cheap package. I think Canon is developing a lens line up for giving you crop-sensor reach with cheap full frame cameras.

 

[AJ]

They always had a 75-300 option in a non L format and sold a lot of those.

-Brian

Yes they did, and they probably shouldn't have. 75-300 was a lousy lens. A bit of a stain on the otherwise wonderful EF lineup.

 

[RobbieHat]

Where are all of the fast UWA lenses we have been hearing rumors about? Zooms or primes, I am hoping for something at least 14mm or wider and f2.0 or faster. There isn't one good astro lens in this bunch. Love some of the suggestions for lightweight landscape lenses and hoping some of the tele primes are lighter than their EF brethren but still feel like Canon is way behind Nikon, Sony and Sigma in the UWA arena.

Bob

 

[tron]

They could be DO but no longer with the L band instead of the snot green band.

As long as there is no 500mm 5.6 PF eee DO I mean I am not interested

 

[degos]

There isn't one good astro lens in this bunch.

Saddens me to say it but the market for astro-optimised lenses is tiny. Third-party manufacturers are a better bet, they can target a niche market better than the OEM.

Bodies are different, an EOS Ra can be assembled on a spur production line and adds to the overall volume.

 

[DrToast]

Does this signal the end of EF lenses for the DSLR?

Canon has already said they're not developing new EF lenses.

 

[privatebydesign]

To be honest I don't see anything there that makes me think I have to move to RF.

I am a heavy TS-E user and the thought of making them auto focus seems heavy handed and redundant. Auto correction for vignetting as the lens is shifted makes a lot of sense but you can make profiles for that now anyway and you'd end up in the DPP-Tiff workflow, which sucks.

And I can't imagine the prices they are going to want for these things, I'm looking at good condition used EF gear and thinking I need a hell of a lot of stuff more than spending $10,000's moving from EF to RF.

 

[Iain L]

Yes they did, and they probably shouldn't have. 75-300 was a lousy lens. A bit of a stain on the otherwise wonderful EF lineup.

its not a patch on the EF-S 55-250mm, let alone more expensive and bigger products, no. But it’s also an absolute pittance.

 

[Bert63]

You forgot to add a 1.4x TC built into it. Now that would be a killer lens

NO NO NO NO. I want it to be affordable.

 

[privatebydesign]

Canon has already said they're not developing new EF lenses.

That's not what they said, though few expect anything new in the EF line until the RF line is better filled out and consumers have a genuine choice of comparability. They said they were going to concentrate on the RF line.

But as I have said many times, what does the EF system lack?

 

[telemaque]

I’ll definitely rent the 1200 at least once just for awesome moon pictures.

But I’m buying that 35 1.2 and 135 1.4.

If you travel in France, I could organize a Moon shooting with a Takahashi Mewlon 210 telescope... quite exceptional picture quality too !
But without a Canon Body but an Astronomy Webcam ZWO ASI 174 and you extract best pictures of the video...

Please see picture.

 

[dwarven]

That's not what they said, though few expect anything new in the EF line until the RF line is better filled out and consumers have a genuine choice of comparability. They said they were going to concentrate on the RF line.

That's just marketing talk. Electronics companies do it all the time. They want to move on without giving the impression that they're completely leaving legacy users in the dust. EF lens and camera development is pretty much done, possibly with a few straggler products getting released at some point. The market has spoken.

Granted, they'll most likely keep manufacturing already released EF products for many years. Camera equipment doesn't age nearly as quickly as other electronics, of course.

 

[peters]

WOW WOW WOW
10-24? Insane! I have and love thte 11-24 - but 10mm is even more insane Architecture on a new level =)

 

[sobrien]

I don't see the point of the "Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM". Given we already got a "Canon RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 L IS USM" which is faster at the wide end and faster at the tele end for the same focal length. The only thing I can think of is that it's smaller or lighter or significantly cheaper. If it was f/5.6 at 400mm then I could see some advantage to giving up the 100mm of reach.

The 11-24 replacement seems to have gained 1mm at wide end again, just like the 15-35mm and it's EF equivalent. I see that the f/4 version of the 15-35 gains yet another 1mm at the wide end, 14-35mm.

I would have loved to see the long primes come with a built in switchable 1.4x TC built in (like the 200-400 f/4L) that was such a great idea.

The 100-400 will naturally be all of those things: smaller, lighter and significantly cheaper.

 

[bbasiaga]

Yes they did, and they probably shouldn't have. 75-300 was a lousy lens. A bit of a stain on the otherwise wonderful EF lineup.

Harsh! Its a consumer grade lens that doesn't do well next to an L series, but there are probably several times the number of people out there who bought these, vs. those who bought L series, and are very happy with the images. The same will be true of the consumer RF lenses. Just as its true of the consumer DSLRs and M series vs. the higher end bodies.

-Brian

 

[RickD]

Wow, nice lineup. I'll likely grab the 100-400. Non-L will be affordable to me as a hobbyist.

Price guesstimates for the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM??