Four new Canon Lenses: RF 24 f/1.4 L, 50 f/1.4 L, 70-200 f/2.8 LZ and the RFS 7.8 f/4

[Kayaker72]

A number of these lenses interest me, but I am not rushing to pre-order.

Canon just announced the:

• RF 24 f/1.4 L VCM
• RF 50 f/1.4 L VCM
• RF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM Z lens (in black and white colors)
• And...to a much lessor level of interest for me: RFs 7.8 f/4 STM Dual Lens

Any of the first three could someday end up in my bag.

I might have pre-ordered the 50 f/1.4 VCM had I not impulse bought the RF 50 f/1.2 L a few months ago. Not long after I wrote "Is the RF 50 f/1.2 better than my Sigma 50A, yeah it is, but I actually do not use the 50A all that much since I got the EF 85 f/1.4. I might get the 50 f/1.2, but it certain isn't a pressing need." Which is still true, but I saw what I thought was a very good refurbished sale and I picked it up. I do love 50 mm. Now looking at the MTF and specs, the VCM is better/nearly as good in a less expensive in a smaller/lighter package. This is not a real regret; the few photos I have taken with the Sigma 50 Art vs the RF 50 f/1.2 and the f/1.2 difference was noticeable. Seems like an exceptional lens. However, had I waited, yeah, today I would have likely gone VCM. So it goes.

The RF 24 f/1.4. The MTFs look very good. Size/weight are appealing. I also love the 24 mm focal length. And this could be a great nightscape lens. I had wanted something a bit wider for nightscapes, so I am in no rush. But this is a lens I will watch and if I chase auroras (for example) during the solar maximum next year, I might get this lens.

The RF 70-200 f/2.8 L USM Z. So, the RF 24-105 f/2.8 L USM Z is incredible. I very much enjoy using that lens. It could become my everyday general purpose zoom, which is my most used lens. Early indications are that the 70-200 Z is following in those same steps. I am tempted. But not tempted enough to pre-order. This could end up in my bag if/when I decide to make an "RF lens transition". As for now, when I want 70-200 f/2.8, I still have/use my EF 70-200 f/2.8 II. I shot my EF quickly against Neuros/John's RF 70-200 f/2.8, which was slightly sharper. The size/weight were nice. But, for what a use the 70-200 for, family events, portraits, etc, the EF version is still more than good enough. In fact, it produces excellent images. My portrait usage has died down as I am in a lull between waves of nieces/nephews getting senior photos. So, it really is mostly family events. But, as I said, if/when I decide to transition to having a full RF kit, the only reason a 70-200 will not be in my bag is if Canon announces a 50-135 (or similar) f/2.

The dual lens. I think it is great what Canon is doing, but I am not doing it. I shoot a little video. I want a record of people's voices and mannerisms. Some events are best for videos. Otherwise, I am very much a stills photographer.

Overall...a good start to the day. Three lenses I could see owning someday, yet my photography account is still whole.

[neuroanatomist]

No pre-orders for me this round, either. The 28-70/2 covers most of the current use cases I have for any of the VCM primes. You raise a good point about aurora chasing, Brant, and if I plan a trip to Iceland I would likely pick up the 24/1.4 VCM before going. I also have the RF 24/1.8 to tide me over. The 70-200/2.8 Z looks nice, and I (very) briefly considered it…in white to avoid confusion with the nearly identical 24-105/2.8 Z. but I like the compact size of my current RF 70-200/2.8, and the reality is, I’ve been using that lens a lot less since getting the 100-300/2.8.

I’m surprised and frankly, a little disappointed that Canon announced four new lenses, and not one of them sufficiently tempted me. I suppose I will get my pre-order fix in later this morning when the new M4 MacBook Pros are announced.

[Busted Knuckles]

Neuro - is the last sentence missing a 'not' as in not using the the 70-200 now that you have the 100-300?

I am thinking that the kit just got reworked. 16-36 f4 w/ the adapter, 24-205 f2.8 and the 100-300 2.8 w/ a set of teleconverters (maybe only the 2x but need to see the IQ differential).

The 100-500 is a fantastic lens when there is some light and if you aren't needing subject separation or can do it on the computer.

Cons: on the 100-300... weight and filter size? I can use the filter kit on 82mm but the 100-300 gets huge!!!