What is Your Most Wanted Canon RF Lens/Camera That Isn't Available?

[Mekos]

At this point it would cost additional engineering and QA time to remove video features. All digic X variants have the hardware support and so far all firmwares have the software support as well.

Ok, let it be with those video features (maybe a firmware to get rid of it later , or a button to hide all that mess we, photographers only, don't want to use); anyway, a camera similar to X-H2 in all main aspects related to photography, at the same price.

 

[Del Paso]

Ok, let it be with those video features (maybe a firmware to get rid of it later , or a button to hide all that mess we, photographers only, don't want to use); anyway, a camera similar to X-H2 in all main aspects related to photography, at the same price.

Like a Fuji X-H?
Sounds like a nightmare to me!

 

[EricN]

Like a Fuji X-H?
Sounds like a nightmare to me!

Maybe it can be like the "Hellraiser" character with pins sticking out just to make sure the ergonomics are worse than Sony

 

[Mekos]

Like a Fuji X-H?
Sounds like a nightmare to me!

I own 12 Canon bodies (since 1978) and 1 Fujifilm with grip, the X-H1. I don't believe you have tried this latter to make such a comment!

 

[Del Paso]

I own 12 Canon bodies (since 1978) and 1 Fujifilm with grip, the X-H1. I don't believe you have tried this latter to make such a comment!

Sorry, but I did. A friend of mine owned a camera store in France. And I still "hate" Fuji cameras, though far less than sonies, except the GF-X, which I love!

 

[bereninga]

I'd like to see a compact 500mm f/5.6 L prime lens.

 

[Askeladden]

I'd like to see a compact 500mm f/5.6 L prime lens.

..priced competitively against the Sigma.

 

[pahooj]

I would like to see an RF 300mm F2.8 L lightweight similar to the one Sony has. With the additon of a 2X extender this become a very versatile lens. i'm surprised that Canon has not developed this as the EF version was very popular.

 

[OldrockyGN]

A longer version of the 100-400 ... let's say 200-600 with AF and IS and -light- and physically short. Yes, I
know about the 200-800 and it is physically almost twice as long and 3 pounds heavier. Or perhaps a
mirror lens that works with both full frame and APS-C cameras that is at least in the 600mm focal
length - with longer being better (say 1000mm?). I'm a birding photography who is a "walking
around all day" kind of approach - and I'm approaching 80 - so a light, compact, long focal
length lens is my most wanted lens. Please note I did not mention price, just size and weight.

 

[photophil]

A longer version of the 100-400 ... let's say 200-600 with AF and IS and -light- and physically short. Yes, I
know about the 200-800 and it is physically almost twice as long and 3 pounds heavier. Or perhaps a
mirror lens that works with both full frame and APS-C cameras that is at least in the 600mm focal
length - with longer being better (say 1000mm?). I'm a birding photography who is a "walking
around all day" kind of approach - and I'm approaching 80 - so a light, compact, long focal
length lens is my most wanted lens. Please note I did not mention price, just size and weight.

Mirror lenses are generally not well-suited for birding by their very nature, since they have low contrast in the middle, which is where you would put a bird in the frame in most cases.

The RF100-400 is light and relatively short and has an equivalent field of view of 160-640 on an APS-C sensor.
The R10 and R7 are very capable. I used the former for some time before I got the 800/11 combo that I now use on an R6.
My only gripes with the R10 were the small buffer and rolling shutter artifacts in electronic shutter mode.

 

[OldrockyGN]

Mirror lenses are generally not well-suited for birding by their very nature, since they have low contrast in the middle, which is where you would put a bird in the frame in most cases.

The RF100-400 is light and relatively short and has an equivalent field of view of 160-640 on an APS-C sensor.
The R10 and R7 are very capable. I used the former for some time before I got the 800/11 combo that I now use on an R6.
My only gripes with the R10 were the small buffer and rolling shutter artifacts in electronic shutter mode.

OK, how about a truly long lens designed for APS-C? I'm thinking of something like the RF 200-800. ???? (I have an R7 -and- an R5-II.)

 

[neuroanatomist]

OK, how about a truly long lens designed for APS-C? I'm thinking of something like the RF 200-800.

You already have it, it's the RF 200-800. Or if you prefer, the RF 100-400. Any lens in those ranges that is 'designed for APS-C' would be the exact same lens as one designed for FF, because the image circle diameter is not limiting (the front element diameter is).

 

[OldrockyGN]

You already have it, it's the RF 200-800. Or if you prefer, the RF 100-400. Any lens in those ranges that is 'designed for APS-C' would be the exact same lens as one designed for FF, because the image circle diameter is not limiting (the front element diameter is).

I don't understand your answer "... would be the exact same lens ... " ??? I have an 18-150 that is an APS-C lens - truly small (both length and diameter) and light. I know that I can use the RF 200-800 on my R7 and it will work just fine - but I would expect it to be possible to design a long lens for APS-C. Why not?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't understand your answer "... would be the exact same lens ... " ??? I have an 18-150 that is an APS-C lens - truly small (both length and diameter) and light. I know that I can use the RF 200-800 on my R7 and it will work just fine - but I would expect it to be possible to design a long lens for APS-C. Why not?

Because with longer lenses, the image circle is large enough to cover a FF sensor anyway. There would be no point in making a long telezoom just for APS-C since it would work on FF and labeling it for APS-C would just reduce the market size.

An 18-150 is not a 200-800. The design parameters for wide zoom, standard zoom, superzoom and telezoom lenses are different.

Canon has made APS-C lenses for decades. Why aren’t there any longer than 250mm?

Look at the Oly/OM 150-600mm lens, which is made for their m4/3 cameras (2x crop factor, smaller than APS-C). That lens is the same size as similar lenses for FF cameras, and in fact it would work fine on a FF camera if OM made them.

 

[OldrockyGN]

Because with longer lenses, the image circle is large enough to cover a FF sensor anyway. There would be no point in making a long telezoom just for APS-C since it would work on FF and labeling it for APS-C would just reduce the market size.

An 18-150 is not a 200-800. The design parameters for wide zoom, standard zoom, superzoom and telezoom lenses are different.

Canon has made APS-C lenses for decades. Why aren’t there any longer than 250mm?

Look at the Oly/OM 150-600mm lens, which is made for their m4/3 cameras (2x crop factor, smaller than APS-C). That lens is the same size as similar lenses for FF cameras, and in fact it would work fine on a FF camera if OM made them.

Thanks - I don't know much about lens design. This helps - and now I can 'just stop wishing for longer lenses designed for the R7'.

 

[SvO2]

The lenses I wish I had access to are Nikon’s PF lenses (especially the 800 6.3). The big whites are just too heavy and expensive, and the f/11 lenses go too far in the other direction IMO.

 

[OldrockyGN]

SVQ2 - I have never seen any adapters for using Nikon lenses on Canon cameras. So it would seem that your desire for the 800 6.3 is
unlikely to ever happen. Or are you asking Canon to make a similar lens? I don't know about you but I am always in "long lens envy"
mode ... because I'm a birding photographer (and not video) so every time I think I've got the ultimate set up I see someone
shooting a longer and faster lens ... that, for me, isn't going to cut it because I'm a walk-and-carry and hand-held shooter. My R7
with the RF 100-400 is a truly great combo ... as long as the bird is near enough. ;-) Perhaps the 200-800 I have on order will be
able to shoot hand held ... but I'm not holding my breath on that idea ... but it will be at least October before it ships!

 

[SvO2]

SVQ2 - I have never seen any adapters for using Nikon lenses on Canon cameras. So it would seem that your desire for the 800 6.3 is
unlikely to ever happen. Or are you asking Canon to make a similar lens? I don't know about you but I am always in "long lens envy"
mode ... because I'm a birding photographer (and not video) so every time I think I've got the ultimate set up I see someone
shooting a longer and faster lens ... that, for me, isn't going to cut it because I'm a walk-and-carry and hand-held shooter. My R7
with the RF 100-400 is a truly great combo ... as long as the bird is near enough. ;-) Perhaps the 200-800 I have on order will be
able to shoot hand held ... but I'm not holding my breath on that idea ... but it will be at least October before it ships!

Yeah I agree an adapter won't happen. It's physically impossible for the Z lenses - in principle the dslr lenses should be adaptable, but no one seems to make an AF adapter (though the lenses I particularly envy are Z lenses regardless). But yes, what I would like is for Canon to make a similar lens (likely labeled as a DO lens).

I have toyed with the idea of buying a Z8 and an 800 6.3 to complement my Canon gear. The combo would still ultimately cost (and weigh) less than an RF 800 5.6 by itself. But for now I'm holding off.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I agree, Nikon has the better MILC telephoto lens selection at this point in time - those 600mm and 800mm PF 6.3s are the perfect middle ground missing in the Canon lineup at the moment - between the expensive/heavy f5.6 and the entry-level f11 models. The 200-800 is a good start, but that said, it is very much a compromise lens and it would be nice to have a f5.6 or f6.3 option at ~500-600mm. With Canon currently the choice is either the elite and heavy f4 models, or super-slow f9 or f11 options at the low end (whether through a TC or their newer "budget" super teles), with nothing in between...

I was actually contemplating a Z6 III with the 180-600 6.3 lens and the 800 6.3 PF ... but I'll hold off for now as that is $$$. Maybe I'll start with one of Canon's "slow" options at a lower cost, then decide after some experience if I want to take it further...

 

[neuroanatomist]

I agree, Nikon has the better MILC telephoto lens selection at this point in time - those 600mm and 800mm PF 6.3s are the perfect middle ground missing in the Canon lineup at the moment - between the expensive/heavy f5.6 and the entry-level f11 models.

Yes, the PF lenses are ‘better’ for those who can afford to spend several thousand dollars on a lens. The entry level f/11 models are ‘better’ for those who can’t. I wonder which group is larger (no, I don’t).

I was actually contemplating a Z6 III with the 180-600 6.3 lens and the 800 6.3 PF ... but I'll hold off for now as that is $$$. Maybe I'll start with one of Canon's "slow" options at a lower cost,

I see. So tell us again, which option —the low cost or the $$$— is better for you?