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

[Kit.]

Doesn't exist at this stage, they still haven't replaced the 7D Mark II yet You can say the R5 replaced it, but that's a bit too expensive for a lot of crop users.

And 10-24 wouldn't be?

11-24 costs more and weights the same as 17-40 plus 6DII. I wouldn't expect 10-24 to be much different.

 

[Viggo]

TS- 14 is very cool. I see no 100 f1.4 or 70-135 f2, but the others looks pretty sweet.

anyone looking for a soul to buy? Slightly worn, but yeah..

 

[Ozarker]

TS- 14 is very cool. I see no 100 f1.4 or 70-135 f2, but the others looks pretty sweet.

anyone looking for a soul to buy? Slightly worn, but yeah..

I am disappointed the RF 70-135mm f/2L isn't on that list. Maybe that means this year? I ain't got no money anyway.

 

[Josjan]

Why a Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM if there is already a Canon RF 100-500mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM

 

[Danglin52]

But... There is a 500 4.0 and 600 5.6 on this list of expected lenses? Only a 400 4.0 is missing, and given the huge number of lenses on this list, not all options can be expected to be served right away.

Are you disappointed that DO isn't mentioned explicitly? I believe if it can contribute to a reduction in size or weight, they will simply incorporate it into future lenses without including DO in the name. See the 800 and 600 mm f/11 for an indication of this. Sure, the DO is mentioned heavily in the marketing material, but it is not something special enough to explicitly put it into the title. Just speculation of course.

The other option is that they can deal with the size and optical requirements better without incorporating DO and therefore just don't put it in. But I personally find the first theory more likely.

Unless I missed an update to the original post , a 600 f5.6 was not mentioned. These are the standard L big whites with the addition of a 1000mm f8, basically the EF lenses updated to RF.

 

[Deleted member 68328]

Not a chance. Nikon did an amazing job making their recent 14-24 f2.8 lens the first (that I know of) front filterable in a standard threaded form 14mm.

Mind you if Canon have a brain they would make the 10-24 with a drop in filter like the EF 11-24 with an adapter, that shows innovation and keeps lots of people happy.

Drop-in filter, you can't use CPOL with that or add a CPOL on top of a ND filter.

 

[Antono Refa]

A few thoughts:

1. The super telephoto primes are probably an indication an R1 is on the way.

2. I'm surprised there are no 14mm & 20mm f/2.8 (or faster) primes on the list, as wide primes is where the shorter flange distance is supposed to help the RF mount.

The RF flange distance is 20mm, so shouldn't a small quality RF 20mm f/2.8 be about as easy to make as the EF 40mm f/2.8?

3. The 135mm f/1.4 surprises me. Its going to be big & expensive, not give Canon any bragging rights, and my impression is it wouldn't be easier to make on RF than on EF.

I would expect the 85mm f/1.2 to be followed by an improved 135mm f/2, say with IS and faster focus. Or, to follow the first point, an RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM.

4. Somehow, I'm still wondering why 50mm f/1.4 IS USM isn't on the list. The f/1.2 is expensive, and I expect STM to be slow.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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

It is a roadmap of RF lenses so that is to be expected.
The only thing that points to ignoring the M mount is that those TS lenses were rumored for EF-M.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The diabolical irony of it. Canon builds a lens for a camera that doesn't exist...

C70 is just around the corner.
Though I think they would make a cinema lens for it.

 

[xps]

Why a Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM if there is already a Canon RF 100-500mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM

IMO, the pricing will be less than half of the 3000€ you have to pay for the -500mm L

 

[xps]

Unless I missed an update to the original post , a 600 f5.6 was not mentioned. These are the standard L big whites with the addition of a 1000mm f8, basically the EF lenses updated to RF.

The 600mm 5.6 would crop the sales of the 600m f4. Just one step less for probably some thousands off will be accepted by many of us.

 

[xps]

But honestly, I am really hoping to see an 200-600mm in the same quality as the Sony. Not an f8 or slower. An f6.5 or faster.
This is really missing. 100mm is much, if you have to crop a lot.
My "walking combo" for longer birding-hikes is the A7RIV &200-600mm. This is frustrating, as I have an R5 at home. But compare with the 100-400II&1.4x extender it is not as good as the Sony.

Canon would make a lot of birders happy, if they could "jump over their shadow (Germanism). I know Canon is greedy for money (maybe to get in the costs of R&D) - just think of the incredibly high prices.

 

[YuengLinger]

A 100-400mm with f/7.1 at the long end can't be right.

What, no IS on the RF 135mm???

24mm at 1.8 rather than 1.4, but 35mm goes to 1.2?

Might be a reliable source in general, but some of these specifics seem off

EDIT: Several members have, correctly, already pointed out that I did not notice some of the lenses on the list are NOT L series lenses. It DOES make sense to have cheaper, lighter standard versions. YES! I am 100% in favor of "Festivus for the rest of us!" But I still would like IS on the 135!

 

[Bob Howland]

It is a roadmap of RF lenses so that is to be expected.
The only thing that points to ignoring the M mount is that those TS lenses were rumored for EF-M.

It says a roadmap of Canon lenses, not of RF lenses.

 

[hyt]

A EF-M 18-200mm, EF-M 70-300mm, EF-M 100-400mm and EF-M 50mm would be nice to have. EF-M 70-300mm would be good for all day birding trips.

Definitely needs a fast telephoto, but I would argue the system also needs a fast standard zoom to replace the slow (albeit very light and compact) 15-45mm

 

[Andy Westwood]

All this coming new RF glass is fantastic I’m particularly interested in the RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM and RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro, but everyone will have their own preferences

However, if you don’t mind adapting EF lenses there are some fantastic deals on used EF L glass to be found online many that should work flawlessly on R bodies.

I’m particularly interested in the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II and the EF 16-35mm f2.8 L II good clean ones can be found online and represent excellent value for money. Paired with the latest R bodies that benefit from IBIS, EF glass suddenly become viable choices.

 

[tron]

Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L USM, I'm thinking this could be intended for a crop sensor R camera?

Not a crop sensor. It would be the equivalent of EF11-24 f/4L and it would be huge and expensive!

 

[koenkooi]

A 100-400mm with f/7.1 at the long end can't be right.[..]

Note the lack of an 'L' in the name, this seems to be the 'replacement' for the EF 70-300 F4.0-5.6 IS II USM.

[..]24mm at 1.8 rather than 1.4, but 35mm goes to 1.2?[..]

Again, note the lack of an 'L' in the name, this seems to be the 'replacement' for the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

 

[scyrene]

A 100-400mm with f/7.1 at the long end can't be right.

What, no IS on the RF 135mm???

Might be a reliable source in general, but some of these specifics seem off

As has been pointed out numerous times above and elsewhere, the 100-400 is likely a cheap, consumer lens, so the narrower aperture should not be surprising.

The RF 85L lacks ILIS but is still rated at 8 stops with IBIS; I don't think we can assume the old rules about which lenses get/need ILIS apply any more.

 

[scyrene]

A huge and impressive list of potential future lenses is released and still a good 50% of comments here are complaints

Fwiw I'd *love* to see what that 1200mm is about. Same front element diameter as a 600 f/4? Expensive but a relative bargain compared to the last 1200.