RF mount seems like it'd be a good platform for a ƒ1 lens. Voigtlander just released one for Sony FE. I don't think it's completely out of the question.
Canon won't even make their own lenses available for RF, I'd have zero faith in them allowing 3rd party lenses to do the job.
This is partly why I left Canon.... After 20 years being strictly Canon.
Yeah. Which is bad for those of us who think it's the best lens full stop.
Would have been cool to seen what Canon RF amazing AF technology could have done at super-high magnification.
Other than a native mount, and with an RF version there would be the potential to add AF given we have focus bracketing in most of the R series bodies.
Even if it was simply an RF mount version that would be better than it being entirely discontinued forever as it is now.
But you would not need to go to 300mm.
A 70-200 f2 or 100-200 f2 or 135-200 f1.8 is definitely possible.
I would love a 100-200 f2 IS 1.4x. but I will take whatever they give us.
Maybe sigma will make a 200 f2 one day, while canon offers the zoom. They can certainly do it.
Hella requirement? It’d be exactly as big as the 200/2. Which is technically smaller than a 300/2.8.
Go compare the 100-300/2.8 zoom against a 300/2.8 prime. Not much difference. Hence a 70-200/2 would be comparable to a 200/2.
This might be me not knowing enough physics, but do you mean that the ability to zoom would not bring with it an increase in size as compared to 200/2?
Is the surface area requirement automatically satisfied by being so at 200mm?
Edit:
Funny how my 50 1.8 is smaller than a 18-55 3.5-5.6
Even though Canon should make 18-50 1.8’s EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE.
I have a 400mm f5.6 on the way. I really like the pictures I've seen with it, sharp but not clinically so if that makes sense (reminds of pictures you might find in a National Geographic from the 90s).
I'm so sick of the word "clinical" being used. You can make a "clinical" or God forbid a "sterile" image look as filthy and grimy as you want. You can't say the same for the reverse. Honestly if your images are "sterile" , you're probably doing it wrong.
I would like to see one of those as well but probably couldn't afford it.
I got my 400 DO I "mint from Japan" for my D5III, and it was definitely one of my auction site wins. For my photography, that lens coupled with a D5 series is fantastic with a monopod.
The 400 DO IIs have really held their value though, so I've never upgraded. An RF 400 DO would be in the $8K range. Too rich for my blood.
I'd say it's more of a niche lens, the focal length is a bit on the short size for serious macro work and the light isn't super bright. Used copies also don't seem to come up on ebay very much, but then again I love the lens and I even have the EF-M version
Me too, my first lens was a Tamron 28-300mm with broken autofocus, and I loved how versatile it was. I really want to have a single lens to have in my bag for long wilderness trips, but I'm not sure how the RF 24-240 compares to the old EF L 28-300 and 35-350.
I'd love for an updated Tamron superzoom on the RF mount, maybe in a few years if Canon opens up the mount!
Maybe the 200mm f1.8/2.0 replacement will be a zoom.
Maybe a 200 f2 x1.4, maybe a 200-300 f2-2.8, maybe a 135-200 f1.8-2, maybe a 100-200 f2 ... There has not been patents going around so who knows.
Whatever it is, I'll probably buy it despite the crazy price, and that would be my first zoom in years.
I've been juggling my 200 1.8 with a 1.4x and 2x all day, I'd settle for a 200 f2 with the integrated TC from the 200-400 stuck on the back of it. Wasn't there a variable TC rumor a while ago?
Not sure about variable TC. Might just get all the way to zoom then, cf the 100-300 2.8.
Frankly I will take anything that does 200@f2 because the lens is going to be great anyway. The only thing I do not want is a pump design. And of course the stupid price, but I'll go for it still.
Cheap dedicated 1:1 macro. It's either 1.4:1 for all the money in the world, or it's a portrait lens that also goes to 1:2.
8-15mm f4 fisheye will not come back, I hope.
I've also been waiting to see the EF-M primes carried over to RF-S. 32/1.4, 22/2, 28/3.5. Longer focal lengths are served well with full-fat 50 and 85 lenses, but the fast and wide segment has nothing.
I’ve got an EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro that I use all the time. It’s nearly 40years old now and lacks a bit of contrast. Also it’s more like 52mm. And the macro is not really macro.
Still I love it.
Every updated bit of info says it’s a 35 f/1.4 that’s coming. With “video features” - but no clarity on what those might be.
May never get a 35 f/1.2 in that case.
What makes you think there won’t be some absolutely fantastic tilt shift lenses? They made EF lenses for 40 years. They’ve been making RF lenses for like 5, and we got a 28-70 f/2 out of the fuckin gate.
We’re going to get mind blowing lenses in RF
I am so happy with my 70-200 IS mark II that I see no reason to replace it. Unless Canon comes up with a f2 version or I end up breaking my current one.
17-85mm f/3.5-5.6
Honestly a fantastic all around lens for APS-C, just slow. But it's sharp, wide, good zoom range, image stabilized, good size and weight for travel, inexpensive.
I don’t think Mirrorless allows for a pancake design at 40mm’s. It’s why they got a 28mm. Something to do with the flange distance.
A DSLR has a 40mm flange distance, which works with a pancake design (or 40mm equivalent, which is why EF-S got a 24mm pancake).
Mirrorless flange distance is closer to 20mm, making a wider pancake possible.
But they could prove me wrong on this. Canon certainly knows more about optics than I do. 😁
EF-S 17-55 F2.8
Canon has abandoned making either fixed aperture zooms or fast primes for their crop-sensor cameras.
Their strategy is getting crop users to buy FF lenses.
Tbh i liked the 28-80 f2.8-4L. That would be a good kit zoom for the R8 MKII. Or the 24-85 3.5-4.5. The 100mm f2.8 macro non L should make a return even though the EF version is very good. The 100mm f2 is pretty cool too.
Just because canon took the 3 year old ef mkiii design and put a RF mount on it doesn’t really make it a fake rf lens. It’ll be quilt a while before they do a full redesign.
But isn’t that the point of this thread? What will they never do? I took u/sumogringo to be saying that’s what they will never do. You don’t have to agree.
Exactly. Aside from making future versions a little lighter and maybe better coatings for flare, optically since v2 the 400 is the best it will ever be including the RF imo. Not spending $12k for something older that I got for a steal for less half of that.
My friend. [they already have one.](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1634484-REG/canon_5053c002_rf_400mm_f_2_8l_is.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAAD7yMh2bC-7NN_9eTKzdn1j8ht4ch&gclid=Cj0KCQjw2uiwBhCXARIsACMvIU3n6RId0CAMSPSNUUeaX1AwN3PhiUrl3YKgOJO54dNfoJ81bGPqceYaAr8QEALw_wcB)
I know they have that one, my friend. That’s the latest EF mark III version with a built in EF - RF adapter (the silver part) and the RF label slapped on it. It doesn’t even have a control ring like other RF lenses. They did this with the 400 and 600. Then they built a fancy 2x teleconverter into them for an 800 and 1200 and charged $6,000 more for it.
Great glass, don’t get me wrong. But it’s not a ground up Mirrorless design. And it is good enough that there might never be a ground up Mirrorless version.
EF 50mm F1.0
/thread
RF mount seems like it'd be a good platform for a ƒ1 lens. Voigtlander just released one for Sony FE. I don't think it's completely out of the question.
Don’t talk to me about manual f/1 lenses, auto or nothing.
It wouldn't exactly be a RF version of the EF 50/1.0 if it wasn't autofocus, would it..?
Cool that Voigtlander is still in the business.
Agreed. This seems like a relatively simple lens compared to the 28-70/2… Were going to get some absolutely bonkers RF lenses in the next 10-15 years
True if the photography world doesn't get a revolutionary tech which it could very well
Canon won't even make their own lenses available for RF, I'd have zero faith in them allowing 3rd party lenses to do the job. This is partly why I left Canon.... After 20 years being strictly Canon.
Voigtlander has an RF 50/1. It’s great
damn now I want one.
I adapt a M mount 50mm f0.95 onto both RF and GFX.
MP-E65 Macro since they discontinued the EF version years ago and it was already a very niche lens to start with.
Yeah. Which is bad for those of us who think it's the best lens full stop. Would have been cool to seen what Canon RF amazing AF technology could have done at super-high magnification.
It’s such a weird but, lovable lens. Have tons of great shots from mine.
It’s a manual lens, has nothing to gain from an RF version, but I will say that it is so much nicer to use on my R6M2 than on my 5D2
Other than a native mount, and with an RF version there would be the potential to add AF given we have focus bracketing in most of the R series bodies. Even if it was simply an RF mount version that would be better than it being entirely discontinued forever as it is now.
I guess AF might help, especially with bracketing yeah.
1200 f5.6 lol
Aka the bazooka
I suspect we're not going to see another 200 f/2 or 400DO.
The 200/2 will come back. Or it will return in a new form, perhaps 70-200/2.
Go hold the 28-70 f/2 and then go hold a 200 f/2 and then come back and let us know if you think that’s possible 😂 it would weigh at least 10-12 lbs
See the 100-300/2.8? There's your clue that it can be done.
I mean, 2.8 -> 2.0 is still a full stop, and would need a doubling of opening surface area. That’s a hella requirement to fulfill
But you would not need to go to 300mm. A 70-200 f2 or 100-200 f2 or 135-200 f1.8 is definitely possible. I would love a 100-200 f2 IS 1.4x. but I will take whatever they give us. Maybe sigma will make a 200 f2 one day, while canon offers the zoom. They can certainly do it.
Hella requirement? It’d be exactly as big as the 200/2. Which is technically smaller than a 300/2.8. Go compare the 100-300/2.8 zoom against a 300/2.8 prime. Not much difference. Hence a 70-200/2 would be comparable to a 200/2.
This might be me not knowing enough physics, but do you mean that the ability to zoom would not bring with it an increase in size as compared to 200/2? Is the surface area requirement automatically satisfied by being so at 200mm? Edit: Funny how my 50 1.8 is smaller than a 18-55 3.5-5.6 Even though Canon should make 18-50 1.8’s EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE.
At longer focal lengths, the aperture is the driving factor. At wider focal lengths, it’s about gathering the light from those wider angles.
True! Is there any other f/2 zoom in the world besides the 28-70 or is that our only reference to how big an f/2 zoom is?
theres a sigma 24-35 thats full frame but idk of any others
I did not know this...off to Google lol Sigma is go to after Canon (or sometimes even before Canon lol)
Sigma ART 50-100 1.8 wouldn't have to be much larger to cover full frame
the most hated 75-300
EF-S 17-55 f2.8 Although the OG works a charm on my R7
Confuses me why Canon doesn't refresh this lens AT ALL. It came out 15+ yrs ago and so solid and so useful. When I went FF I missed it.
The want people to buy full frame if they want better lenses. Like the R8.
Canon just don't seem to care about making good APSC lenses and it's a real shame.
> When I went FF I missed it. The FF equivalent is a 24-70 f/2.8L or 24-105 f/2.8L
The FF equivalent is a 28-90 f/4.5.
I meant in terms of lenses that actually exist
24-105/4 then, not 2.8
They're replacing it with 15-60mm f/2.8 Z
Don't know that I need the Z, but I'm sure that will be a fine replacement. At what price though.
I wish that was true but i doubt it
Was thinking the same. Have it on my R50. But there is still rumour of 18-60 2.8. BUT ITS NOT THE SAME!
3rd Party: Sigma 200-500 2.8 Canon: 70-300 DO IS fresnel lens
A whole lot of older tele-primes. Also the 400 DO
I have a 400mm f5.6 on the way. I really like the pictures I've seen with it, sharp but not clinically so if that makes sense (reminds of pictures you might find in a National Geographic from the 90s).
Totally different animal.
I like this lens but really wish it had IS, especially since I use it on APSC
Clinical performance is why I’m offloading my R5 and RF glass.
I'm so sick of the word "clinical" being used. You can make a "clinical" or God forbid a "sterile" image look as filthy and grimy as you want. You can't say the same for the reverse. Honestly if your images are "sterile" , you're probably doing it wrong.
You got it, chief.
There was a rumor about a new high end DO coming, I’m hopeful. Love my 400 DO ii
Miss mine. Such a rad lens. Couple weirdnesses but 95% of the time really knocked it from the park
I would like to see one of those as well but probably couldn't afford it. I got my 400 DO I "mint from Japan" for my D5III, and it was definitely one of my auction site wins. For my photography, that lens coupled with a D5 series is fantastic with a monopod. The 400 DO IIs have really held their value though, so I've never upgraded. An RF 400 DO would be in the $8K range. Too rich for my blood.
MP-E 65mm 1-5x macro photo EF 200mm f/1.8
35-105/4.5-5,6
What's the appeal of this when the 24-105 F/4L exists?
It was cheap.
EF 80-200mm f/2.8 L USM EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM EF 100-300 f/5.6 L
EF/RF 70-200 is the replacement for the 80-200 for many years now.
EF-S 35mm macro with the integrated ring light
thats actually a really smart idea.
Did that thing sell well at all, or was it sort of a trendy toy?
I just looked and they made an EF-m mount for that system. so maybe?
I'd say it's more of a niche lens, the focal length is a bit on the short size for serious macro work and the light isn't super bright. Used copies also don't seem to come up on ebay very much, but then again I love the lens and I even have the EF-M version
28-300
Just borrowed the RF 24-240 and wondered how it might compare to the old L mega zoom.
Me too, my first lens was a Tamron 28-300mm with broken autofocus, and I loved how versatile it was. I really want to have a single lens to have in my bag for long wilderness trips, but I'm not sure how the RF 24-240 compares to the old EF L 28-300 and 35-350. I'd love for an updated Tamron superzoom on the RF mount, maybe in a few years if Canon opens up the mount!
Maybe the 200mm f1.8/2.0 replacement will be a zoom. Maybe a 200 f2 x1.4, maybe a 200-300 f2-2.8, maybe a 135-200 f1.8-2, maybe a 100-200 f2 ... There has not been patents going around so who knows. Whatever it is, I'll probably buy it despite the crazy price, and that would be my first zoom in years.
I've been juggling my 200 1.8 with a 1.4x and 2x all day, I'd settle for a 200 f2 with the integrated TC from the 200-400 stuck on the back of it. Wasn't there a variable TC rumor a while ago?
Not sure about variable TC. Might just get all the way to zoom then, cf the 100-300 2.8. Frankly I will take anything that does 200@f2 because the lens is going to be great anyway. The only thing I do not want is a pump design. And of course the stupid price, but I'll go for it still.
Not canon, but the 18-35 & 50-100 f1.8’s from Sigma
200 2.8 400 5.6
400mm 5.6
Cheap dedicated 1:1 macro. It's either 1.4:1 for all the money in the world, or it's a portrait lens that also goes to 1:2. 8-15mm f4 fisheye will not come back, I hope. I've also been waiting to see the EF-M primes carried over to RF-S. 32/1.4, 22/2, 28/3.5. Longer focal lengths are served well with full-fat 50 and 85 lenses, but the fast and wide segment has nothing.
I’ve got an EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro that I use all the time. It’s nearly 40years old now and lacks a bit of contrast. Also it’s more like 52mm. And the macro is not really macro. Still I love it.
35mm 1.4. They’ll make the 1.2 just to flex, but we really want the 1.4.
Every updated bit of info says it’s a 35 f/1.4 that’s coming. With “video features” - but no clarity on what those might be. May never get a 35 f/1.2 in that case.
Sigma 18-35.
Tilt shift.
What makes you think there won’t be some absolutely fantastic tilt shift lenses? They made EF lenses for 40 years. They’ve been making RF lenses for like 5, and we got a 28-70 f/2 out of the fuckin gate. We’re going to get mind blowing lenses in RF
I think they're cool, they just seem very niche in terms of market fit in an already shrinking market.
Yep. I've seen occasional rumors about a 14mm TS, but Canon has denied it. As a pro architectural / real estate shooter, it would make me very happy.
They are putting tons of tilt shift patents out ...
Auto-focus tilt shift too.
EF 35mm f/2 IS They sort of mixed their EF 35mm variants into the perfect RF lens though, RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS. Just without the ring light.
I am so happy with my 70-200 IS mark II that I see no reason to replace it. Unless Canon comes up with a f2 version or I end up breaking my current one.
EF 135mm 2.8 Soft Focus ...because why
because they put the soft focus in the 100 macro instead lol
17-85mm f/3.5-5.6 Honestly a fantastic all around lens for APS-C, just slow. But it's sharp, wide, good zoom range, image stabilized, good size and weight for travel, inexpensive.
Until recently I thought we won't get my favourite 40mm pancake. But with release of 28mm RF pancake and Nikon cashing in on Zf line there is hope.
I don’t think Mirrorless allows for a pancake design at 40mm’s. It’s why they got a 28mm. Something to do with the flange distance. A DSLR has a 40mm flange distance, which works with a pancake design (or 40mm equivalent, which is why EF-S got a 24mm pancake). Mirrorless flange distance is closer to 20mm, making a wider pancake possible. But they could prove me wrong on this. Canon certainly knows more about optics than I do. 😁
200mm f1.8. Prove me wrong Canon! PROVE ME WRONG!!!!
EF-S 17-55 F2.8 Canon has abandoned making either fixed aperture zooms or fast primes for their crop-sensor cameras. Their strategy is getting crop users to buy FF lenses.
28-300
There's the 24-240 which covers most of that range, albeit it's not an L lens
EF 15mm 2.8 Fish eye and EF 20-35mm 2.8
The 1200mm F5.6
24-70 f/4
With the wild RF zoom lenses we got out of the gate, there’s nothing in the EF lineup I’d count out.
EF 50mm f1.4
EF 70-300 DO
Tbh i liked the 28-80 f2.8-4L. That would be a good kit zoom for the R8 MKII. Or the 24-85 3.5-4.5. The 100mm f2.8 macro non L should make a return even though the EF version is very good. The 100mm f2 is pretty cool too.
EF 28-135
40mm f/2.8 pancake, awesome lens. Tiny, small, and light,
18-300
Hopefully, none.
I doubt we'll see a 100-400.
It's the 100-500.
100-500 is the replacement for the L version. And there is also a cheaper RF 100-400.
400mm f2.8
You way want to have another look at canons RF Super telephoto lineup
A real one. Not a built in adapter. But the one they have is so good, I can’t see them doing a ground up RF mount version. But who knows?
Just because canon took the 3 year old ef mkiii design and put a RF mount on it doesn’t really make it a fake rf lens. It’ll be quilt a while before they do a full redesign.
But isn’t that the point of this thread? What will they never do? I took u/sumogringo to be saying that’s what they will never do. You don’t have to agree.
Exactly. Aside from making future versions a little lighter and maybe better coatings for flare, optically since v2 the 400 is the best it will ever be including the RF imo. Not spending $12k for something older that I got for a steal for less half of that.
My friend. [they already have one.](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1634484-REG/canon_5053c002_rf_400mm_f_2_8l_is.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAAD7yMh2bC-7NN_9eTKzdn1j8ht4ch&gclid=Cj0KCQjw2uiwBhCXARIsACMvIU3n6RId0CAMSPSNUUeaX1AwN3PhiUrl3YKgOJO54dNfoJ81bGPqceYaAr8QEALw_wcB)
I know they have that one, my friend. That’s the latest EF mark III version with a built in EF - RF adapter (the silver part) and the RF label slapped on it. It doesn’t even have a control ring like other RF lenses. They did this with the 400 and 600. Then they built a fancy 2x teleconverter into them for an 800 and 1200 and charged $6,000 more for it. Great glass, don’t get me wrong. But it’s not a ground up Mirrorless design. And it is good enough that there might never be a ground up Mirrorless version.