RF Lens Wishlist

[Kayaker72]

With the R1 and R5 II released/announced, I am musing about upgrading my R5. While the R5 II does appear to fix any quibble I had and better is better, I am getting to the point where the R5 may be good enough for me for a while. With my photography budget having only been touched a bit last year and having been growing for awhile, I am reminded that 2024-2025 is the window where I had thought about pivoting from EF to RF glass. What I had assumed is mostly correct, in that there are now 40+ RF lenses to choose from and that there have been a number of very innovative lenses.

I have picked up three RF lenses: the 16 f/2.8, RF 24-105 f/2.8, and RF 200-800. I have traveled with just this set up and, if I were to add the RF 100-500 as a lighter weight alternative to the 200-800, honestly, this does a lot of what I want.

My issues with pivoting to RF at this point are 1) my EF glass still magically works really well, and 2), I haven't really seen the lenses I have been waiting for. Lenses that really provided enhancements over the EF equivalents I now own.

Thus, my RF lens wish list:

• RF 200-500 f/4 w/ 1.4TC built in. This would become my primary wildlife lens.
• RF 70-300 f/4-5.6 that small and compact, similar to the RF 70-200 f/4, as a great travel telephoto lens (smaller/lighter replacement for the EF 70-300 L, which I love).
• RF 24-70 f/4 (smaller lighter version of the EF 24-70 f/4, smaller and lighter than RF 24-105 f/4, again, ultimate travel lens)
• Nightscape/astro lens, something like a 18 or 20 mm f/1.4 or 2.
• RF 50-150 f/2 or some variation (50-135 or 70-150). Ultimate portrait lens.

When I hatched that plan to transition to RF lenses around 2024-2025, the RF 28-70 f/2 had just been announced and I was thinking that a few more novel RF lenses that I would want would be released. Rather, some absolutely amazing lenses have populated the RF lineup, but many of them are updates to existing EF lenses. For example, I see no reason to update my EF 85 f/1.4 to the RF 85 f/1.2. I've looked at the comparisons, yes, the RF is a little bit better. But nothing that would affect my photography. 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.

A lens that I am considering is the RF 100-300 f/2.8. I had originally dismissed it as I was holding out for the rumored RF 200-500 f/4. But, the most recent rumor (albeit, a bit old at this point) for that lens indicated it would not include a built in TC. And, I have started to wonder if Canon already released the RF 200-500 f/4, they just didn't announce it. Add a 1.4xTC to the 100-300 f/2.8 and you get an incredible 140-420 f/4. Granted, I wanted the ability to get to 700 mm f/5.6 with the flip of a lever, but this would be an amazing lens for wildlife and it's performance with a 2x TC is really pretty good.


So, I am wondering where others are at? Have you/are you pivoting to RF glass? Which lenses? Or are you staying with your EF glass?

[neuroanatomist]

I'm almost all-in on RF. I started with the EOS R and RF 24-105/4L and adapted everything else. But once the R3 came along, I transitioned to RF pretty quickly. I swapped out lenses for which there was a direct replacement, though I held off on the RF 100/2.8 Macro for a while (swapped my EF for that fairly recently). I had not used the EF 85/1.4 in some time, so I sold that without getting an RF 85/1.2.

I'm very happy with the RF 24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8, the two of them pair perfectly for indoor events, and as you suggest the 1.4x gives an excellent 140-420/4 for field sports, etc. The RF 10-20/4 is a great little lens compared to the monster that was the EF 11-24/4.



The only EF lenses I still have are the 600/4 II (and the MkIII TCs), the TS-E 17 and 24, and the MP-E 65. There's only an RF version of the former, and its only real advantage is lower weight (something I can handle with the EF MkII), so I don't see the point.

I don't have much of a wishlist, mostly because I don't have a lot of needs. I'm certainly interested to see that Canon brings out. I was hoping for a 300/2.8 and like the zoom better, I did not expect the 24-105/2.8 and love it. Surprises can be good.

I would not be opposed to a TS-R 14mm (which would probably 'replace' the TS-E 17), and if they release a TS-R 24mm I may buy it just to avoid traveling with the adapter for one lens. I don't expect a replacement for the MP-E 65, but who knows.

[Jonathan Huyer]

Lots of great points here. Regarding the astro lens: I'm not sure of any advantage of an RF lens in this category (stabilization and auto focus are not typically used). Sigma makes a great 14 mm f/1.8 lens with the EF mount, so all you need is the RF adapter.

I have the RF 100-300 and a 1.4 TC for it, and used it extensively on my recent trip to Brazil. My 500 f/4 hardly saw any use. However if a 200-500 f/4 entered the market I would definitely be tempted (especially if it had a built-in TC!).

[DavidEccleston]

Canon is blocking most lens manufacturers from the RF mount, but you're all missing the weird collection of Laowa lenses:
- 24mm f/14 probe
- 10mm f/2.8 Zero-D, or the cheaper RF-S 10mm f/4 Cookie
- 33mm f/0.95 (edit: Apparently this is RF-S too)
- 25mm f/2.8 2.5x-5x macro

https://www.cameracanada.com/product...Laowa&mount=28

If anyone has any comments on these alternative RF lenses, inquiring minds want to know.

[Kayaker72]

I'm very happy with the RF 24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8, the two of them pair perfectly for indoor events, and as you suggest the 1.4x gives an excellent 140-420/4 for field sports, etc. The RF 10-20/4 is a great little lens

That is a really nice family portrait you have there!

I am also a bit taken by the relative size comparisons. The RF 10-20 had caught my eye as small, but I hadn't realized it was just a bit bigger than the 14-35. I had also been thinking the 100-400 might be Canon's replacement for the 70-300L, but was too tall to stand up vertically in my bag. But, looking at that, if it is too tall, it isn't by much.

The 24-105 f/2.8. I don't see much hype, but that is one sweet lens. Incredibly rapid AF, and great IQ. I already liked it a lot, but it is growing on me each time I use it.

Lots of great points here. Regarding the astro lens: I'm not sure of any advantage of an RF lens in this category (stabilization and auto focus are not typically used). Sigma makes a great 14 mm f/1.8 lens with the EF mount, so all you need is the RF adapter.

I've rented the Sigma 14 on two occasions. Great lens. I also would consider the Sigma EF 20 f/1.4 lens as a great astro/nightscape lens. A friend owns one and I've borrowed it a couple of times. I had been hoping the shorter flange distance would allow for some real improvements for a wide angle and fast prime. Still waiting, but if I were to buy today, it would be one of the Sigmas.

Canon is blocking most lens manufacturers from the RF mount, but you're all missing the weird collection of Laowa lenses:
If anyone has any comments on these alternative RF lenses, inquiring minds want to know.

Haha....no, I haven't played with a Laowa lens. But, I will say the block on 3rd party RF lenses has at least partially been lifted. We'll see where it goes. I know many have been clamoring for 3rd Party alternatives. Unless something unique really catches my eye, I'll tend to stick with Canon.

[DavidEccleston]

Haha....no, I haven't played with a Laowa lens. But, I will say the block on 3rd party RF lenses has at least partially been lifted. We'll see where it goes. I know many have been clamoring for 3rd Party alternatives. Unless something unique really catches my eye, I'll tend to stick with Canon.

Didn't know about these... but it seems Canon is only allowing Sigma to make RF-S lenses. Good for crop shooters, as Canon doesn't put much effort into quality crop lenses, and I suppose it frees up Canon to work on more full-frame compatible lenses.

[Busted Knuckles]

Perhaps a specific scenario might help focus the discussion .

I went to a fundraiser on Tuesday night for a local charity.... they had several trips for auction that where on my bucklet list so I thought I would bid on a couple of perhaps get lucky..... well..... 1 trip to Iceland and 1 to Africa later.....

I have 3 years to take the trips, and the wish list is now what lenses should I take - and even what camera body - I have a R5, but for Africa would a rental of a R1 or R3 be more appropriate?

What lenses would you take on either or both?

Thanks for the guidance.

Mike

[Kayaker72]

I received the 28-70 f/2.8 on Wednesday. It could very well become my most used lens in the near future.

I have a pre-order as well, but it hasn't shipped yet.

Congrats on the gear! I look forward to hearing how the lens performs. As David mentioned earlier, it could be a lightweight solution for me, eventually.

I went to a fundraiser on Tuesday night for a local charity.... they had several trips for auction that where on my bucklet list so I thought I would bid on a couple of perhaps get lucky..... well..... 1 trip to Iceland and 1 to Africa later.....

I have 3 years to take the trips, and the wish list is now what lenses should I take - and even what camera body - I have a R5, but for Africa would a rental of a R1 or R3 be more appropriate?

What lenses would you take on either or both?

Thanks for the guidance.

Mike

Cool...congrats! What part of Africa?

As for Iceland, I went in 2019, using my 5DIV, of my keepers, I was 7% EF 16-35 f/4 L IS, 82% EF 24-70 II, and 11% 100-400 II. I went in March. If I were to go in summer, I would also be targeting puffins (not present in March) and would make sure I had longer lenses....but, your 100-500 w/ TC might be all you need. I also had rented a Sigma 14 f/1.4 to photograph auroras....but we were clouded over the entire time so it was never used. In the summer that likely would be a non-factor due to the lack of darkness.

As for Africa, absolutely, yes, I would have a second body with me. Depending on where you are, I often hear that dust is a significant issue. Bring plenty of wipes. But, due to the dust and wanting to respond to a scene quickly, most people I see have 2+ bodies with lenses mounted. Which lenses depends a bit on where you are going and what you are targeting. Birds, always need reach. But large mammals, when I envision Africa, I am thinking large mammals in their environment. Thus, it isn't reach that you always need. But I do often hear about needing light. So, as I envision an Africa trip, I could see something for reach, your 100-500 may cover that, but then 100-300 f/2.8 with or w/o TC? 70-200 f/2.8? 24-70 f/2.8 and I've even heard some people talking about taking the 28-70 f/2.

If I was going today, I'd likely do RF 24-105 f/2.8, RF 100-300 f/2.8, and 500 f/4 II with the RF 16 f/2.8 included if I wanted UWA. I'd have at least 2 bodies and would consider 3. But when I think of that, I am in a jeep on the Serengeti with a whole row to myself.

Again, depends on where you are going (Congo? Serengeti? Botswana? S. Africa?) and what you are targeting.

[DavidEccleston]

You wanted a slimmed down 24-70 f/4. How about the new 28-70mm f/2.8? Would you miss the wide end? Willing to live with the vignette and distortion?

I'm thinking this lens would make my wife happy, being wide aperture, and light. Just waiting for the Canadian retailers to realize they need add a listing. (Vistek has it listed, but with 7-14 day uninsured shipping as their only option... nope).

[neuroanatomist]

How about the new 28-70mm f/2.8? Would you miss the wide end? Willing to live with the vignette and distortion?

i wasn't the one hoping for a 24-70/4, but the new 28-70/2.8 is a pass for me. Never say never, but I won't pre-order it. Small, light, good IQ and f/2.8 are all plusses, but the main use case for the lens for me would have to be travel, and I would definitely miss the few mm on the wide and even more the long end. I use the 24-105/4L as my standard zoom for travel, and for that use case ~25% of my shots with it are wider than 28mm, and ~45% of my shots are longer than 70mm. I don't typically need f/2.8 for travel, if I need faster than f/4, one stop isn't enough so I bring the 24/1.8 along.

Vignette is readily correctable and little cost unless you're already at really high ISO. I don't get why people have an issue with forced correction of distortion – all rectilinear wide lenses have it, and there's no inherent advantage to correcting it with glass instead of silicon. I tested the RF 14-35/4 against the EF 11-24/4, the former after correction was just as sharp in the corners as the latter at 14mm, and the 11-24 doesn't really have distortion to correct at that focal length.

Plus, I already have three standard RF zooms (24-105/4, 24-105/2.8, 28-70/2), so I really don't need a fourth. The only real use case I can see for me would be on the R8 as a second body when I'm shooting with the R3 and 100-300/2.8. So far, though, swapping on the 24-105/2.8 has bee working fine.

More generally regarding the lens, it's got weather sealing (second non-L lens to get it), and Canon says it has L-series optical quality. Things like that are good news for everyone!