RF Lenses...What's Missing??

A bit of a fun question, but what would we like to see from the RF lens lineup. David's question/comment over in the R3 thread got me thinking and I realized, looking at the existing RF lens line up that there are now either direct or equivalent RF lenses for all my moderate to heavily used EF lenses. In other words, I could now transition to my same kit, with each RF lens having some sort of advantage over the EF:

• EF 16-35 f/4 to RF 14-35 f/4
• EF 24-70 f/2.8 II to RF 24-70 f/2.8 IS
• EF 70-200 f/2.8 to RF 70-200 f/2.8 (smaller/lighter/lens coatings)
• EF 100-400 II to RF 100-500
• Sigma 50A f/1.4 to RF 50 f/1.4 (lens is raved about)
• EF 85 f/1.4 IS to RF 85 f/1.4 (lose IS, but IQ/bokeh of RF is slightly better)
• EF 100 f/2.8 macro to RF 100 f/2.8 with distortion control
• EF 500 f/4 II to RF 400 f/2.8 or RF 600 f/4...either are lighter or as light as the EF 500 II

I am not planning on jumping to RF for awhile.

But, what would tempt me has been rumored. "L" lenses like:

• RF 70-135 f/2
• RF 100-300 f/2.8
• RF 200-500 f/4
• RF 200-600 f/5.6

Then, I would also like to see several stellar primes, primarily UWA (16 or 20 mm), 24 mm, and 500 mm.

This is more for fun at this point, as I am happy with my kit. But, looking at the RF lineup and thinking about RF lenses, I could easily see having ~2 zooms and then mostly primes. A general purpose zoom (24-70) and telephoto (100-400 equivalent) will always be in my bag. But, I could see doing everything else with primes. However, give me a 70-135 f/2 and a lightweight 200-500 f/4 (potential replacement of the 200-400 f/4 1.4tc) and yeah, suddenly my future kit is primarily 3-4 zooms.

So, what RF lenses are currently missing from their lineup that would tempt you?

Edit: RF 50 and 85 are f/1.2 not 1.4 ....

600mm f/4 DO with built in 1.4 TC :cool:

There are three EF lenses that there is no RF version
24mm L II, 35mm L II and the 180mm L Macro.

Yeah, I hadn't been following the RF lens releases. I saw the 2 new lenses, and a quick search brought me to this Canon page, highlighting mostly very slow glass: https://www.canon.ca/en/Features/EOS-R-System/RF-Lenses . Highlighting a slow variable aperture zoo, two f/11 super-teles, and one f/2 macro lens is hardly how I'd want to position and promote a new lens mount. Hearing that they lens lineup is far more complete than Canon is letting on is encouraging, but changes the question to what the heck is Canon's web marketing team thinking?

Besides all the ones mentioned.

Canon's own version of a 100/105mm f/1.4, although Sigmas version is absolutely stunning! I have used it several times for shoots, it is on my short list of lenses to get. But Nikon has one, Zeiss has a MAGNIFICENT one abiet MF only, and Sigma has a killer one. So Canon I'm sure would do well with one.

135mm f/1.8, Sony has one and Sigma have one and they are great. I have used Sigma's version. It's fantastic, really a great lens. Have not used Canon's, but I'm sure it is a fine lens too. But either way, they need a fast 135mm. And no doubt they have one in their timeline.

200mm f/2.0 or a f/1.8, this is a must have. An absolute monster of a lens and one of my dream lenses to own. I have again used this lens, just incredible. I don't use very long focal lengths as much as say 85mm to 105mm for portraits. That tends to be my most used focal lengths, but when the shot works for a 200mm focal length. It's hard to beat a f/2 aperture. But oddly enough it makes a very cool and overkill walk around lens at the park. LOL. But the park where I am at has two home steads from the early 1900's. So there is lots of farm animals and there is two observatory towers and a board walk over part of the lake, but it's more like wetland/swamp. So lots and lots of use for a 200mm focal length.

Obviously their big white selection is thin, and I think we all know it is a matter of time before they add more to the stable.

An 11-24mm would be really nice.

An 14mm f/1.8 like Sigma has would be killer, I have tried it at the camera store. But was really impressed with it the little I had it.

And last but not least, and maybe just maybe they will make it. My most coveted lens ever, a 50mm f/1.0. I love a good 50 and a modern 50mm f/1.0 would be a lens I would buy at almost any price. The higher the price the longer it would take to convince the wifey why I need a 12k 50 prime! But their 50mm f/1.2 is truly world class for the aperture. So it's not like there is not a good alternative and I loved the EF 50mm f/1.2 to begin with. But a f/1.0, come on. You know you want one.;)

Some are obviously in the works, but some I wonder if Canon is listening. Have to wonder..... You listening Canon about a 50mm f/1.0?!

And yes, you have been wanting a 600mm f/4 DO for a long time Joel.:D

But I can't blame ya, I may be snapping up the 400mm f/4 DO myself, still thinking it over. I'm sure a 600mm DO would be a KILLER lens.

A 600mm f/5.6 or 6.3 like my old Minolta 600mm would be killer as well. I like to believe that my posts were heard by Sigma when they made their 150-600mm f/6.3.:rolleyes: But who knows. Probably not. LOL.

Or an RF 600mm f/5.6 DO IS, now that would be the ultimate compact and lightweight birding lens. I'd be all over that.

What i would really like to see is wide and fast lens. Wide i mean 14mm minimum and speed 1.0 or faster. I don't care if it has weight, that's what tripods are for. Just would really like to have lens to be utilized at night for the northern lights live shooting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

Yeah, I hadn't been following the RF lens releases. I saw the 2 new lenses, and a quick search brought me to this Canon page, highlighting mostly very slow glass: https://www.canon.ca/en/Features/EOS-R-System/RF-Lenses . Highlighting a slow variable aperture zoo, two f/11 super-teles, and one f/2 macro lens is hardly how I'd want to position and promote a new lens mount. Hearing that they lens lineup is far more complete than Canon is letting on is encouraging, but changes the question to what the heck is Canon's web marketing team thinking?

---

Yeah...I am not sure what they were trying to do there. It wasn't any single complete category. It wasn't all recent releases, it was telephoto skewed, but there was still the 85 in there, it wasn't all "consumer" lenses....not sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

And yes, you have been wanting a 600mm f/4 DO for a long time Joel.:D

---

I would also go for an 800mm f/5.6 DO with built in teleconverter!!!!

800mm would be my choice for a big heavy birding lens.

If I recall correctly you also wanted a 800mm f/4 DO. You can throw a 1.4x and get 1120mm. This is very near my ultimate lens, the 1200mm f/5.6.

And of course, ultimate big daddy birding lens is the 1200mm f/5.6. Wonder how light they could make it if it was DO. Since even standard optics have comes so far in making them light weight. I can imagine a DO version would be DRAMATICALLY lighter and shorter than the original one. I mean realistically, if they could make it popular enough maybe they could make it in limited production. I think the size and weight is what scares off a lot of potential users. And or course the massive weight of the thing.

If they can make an optical formula that reduces the size of the fluorite needed like they did the Mark III super telephoto lenses. They could dramatically reduce costs. Because if I recall that was part of the issue with making it. Was it took two years to grow the fluorite in it or something like that.

But if they can make the fluorite no bigger than their current production fluorite. Then it could potentially make it more viable the production means.

But what do I know, I'm not a lens designer. I'm just a goof ball that likes taking pictures of tweety little birds. Such a strange addiction. Lol.:p

Hell, maybe I need to start researching lens designing and design my own 1200mm f/5.6, to include IS and AF.

If nothing else to be able to make a CAD 3D model and look at it.:D

We ask for these lenses over and over, but Canon choose to release a 100- 400mm non L.
I don't think were the profitable group that Canon designs for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

We ask for these lenses over and over, but Canon choose to release a 100- 400mm non L.
I don't think were the profitable group that Canon designs for.

---

Ha. So true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, hard to argue with that. Lol.

But I think that is why some of these smaller lens brands have popped up too. Because they make lenses that maybe do not meet Canon's objectives, or maybe what they simply want to make on personal level as a corporation.

But even though some lesser known brands out there might not produce the highest quality glass because of a multitude of reasons. They are making glass for the enthusiasts. Lenses that are cool and unique that don't fit the bill for Canon to make but they can make. And some I suspect are probably into photography to some level as well and see there are still a lot of people who want say a budget 50mm f/0.95. And the fact they still make them someone has to be buying them. Or the 35mm f/0.95. Which is actually a fairly viable lens really.

But yeah, maybe I just need to make my own company. Make some incredible prototypes and attract some investors. Haha.

Then I can make a high quality exotic lenses that break the normal lens options you see today.:D

Laowa has some interesting one's now. This 35mm f0.95 manual lens for rf is tempting for nighttime videos...not that much for the stills =)

MTF charts.

Ultimately, nothing much surprising here. The 100-400 is actually not bad, ~5% transmittance off the RF 100-500 or EF 100-400 II. But, so was the EF 70-300 II. I would say the RF 16 f/2.8 is "good for what it is." Which is disappointing as I am seeing several references to people saying "it will end up in everyone's bag." It would end up in mine as a lightweight alternative to the EF 16-35 f/4 for my UWA shots, but those are usually landscapes and I do not see that MTF translating well. That said, it is sharp in the center, and has a minimum focusing distance of ~5 inches. So, could still be a creative lens. Likely aimed at vloggers, which the world should be thankful does not include me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

MTF charts.

Ultimately, nothing much surprising here. The 100-400 is actually not bad, ~5% transmittance off the RF 100-500 or EF 100-400 II. But, so was the EF 70-300 II. I would say the RF 16 f/2.8 is "good for what it is." Which is disappointing as I am seeing several references to people saying "it will end up in everyone's bag." It would end up in mine as a lightweight alternative to the EF 16-35 f/4 for my UWA shots, but those are usually landscapes and I do not see that MTF translating well. That said, it is sharp in the center, and has a minimum focusing distance of ~5 inches. So, could still be a creative lens. Likely aimed at vloggers, which the world should be thankful does not include me.

---

There's the old saying that there is no free lunch. 100-400 image quality does not appear will be competitive with similar L lenses and is a stop slow, but it is $649. 400mm at a useable f-stop in good light offers opportunities for people whose budgetary constraints doesn't allow them to spring for the "L".

I think the target market is crop camera users though. I don't think many people will put this on a full frame camera.

I have the 100-400 II and it is a spectacular lens, but highlights the importance of being reasonably close. Get close enough and have very good images or stay far away and have images not worth showing anyone.

Dave