Here are the Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM and Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

David - Sydney · Jul 11, 2022

neuroanatomist said:
The 300/2.8, for sure. I wonder if we’ll see a true pancake like the EF 40/2.8? I generally stick to L lenses, but a pocketable ‘normal’ would be very useful.

A replacement for the EF40/2.8 seems like a no-brainer and hits the street photography genre.
As well as the mythical promise of mirrorless being smaller than DLSR from a lens perspective.
Adapting the EF40/2.8 roughly doubles the weight, length and cost (if you don't already have the R mount adapter) so it would seem to be a perfect candidate for a RF version.

David - Sydney · Jul 11, 2022

Tom W said:
The 15-30 sounds like it will make a nice compact, inexpensive ultra-wide zoom, albeit a little slow on the aperture. But often, ultra-wides are shot stopped down anyway, so that makes it a pretty good alternative to its more expensive "L" brethren.

I think the 24/1.8 will be a big hit, both on full frame and on the new APS-C bodies like the R7 and R10. Should be fairly inexpensive, and if the 35/1.8 is any indication, pretty good quality as well.

I am surprised that there isn't ultra wide angle lens for the new RFs bodies. Crop bodies don't have an option today except for adapting the EFs 10-22mm if good quality option for R7 or EFs10-18mm for cheap and cheerful for the R10/100 etc. The EFs10-22mm was my second lens to pair with EF24-105mm/4 with my original 7D and got me into land/seascape photography

Also not sure why there isn't a replacement for the EFs 24mm/2.8 as paired with the smaller bodies would be a pocketable daily option.

David - Sydney · Jul 11, 2022

Tom W said:
Probably, just my opinion, because there are already very good options for the 300 and 500 mm lengths with the EF lenses and adapters. My 500 f/4 II works just as well on my R5 as it did on the 5D IV, in terms of optical performance, and that is very good. People transitioning from the EF to the RF mount have no issue adapting the Canon big lenses to their RF bodies.

I think that when they do replace the 300/2.8 and 500/4, it will be akin to how they replaced the 400 and 600 II with the Mk III versions - lighter, better weight distribution, and updated optical performance. But it's hard to improve on something that is already top notch.

The EF 300/500mm are great lenses but maybe Canon will also add a flipable 1.4x TC to tempt EF owners to upgrade to RF.
It has seemed to be a strange decision not to release a RF equivalent cf RF 400/600mm versions

David - Sydney · Jul 11, 2022

neuroanatomist said:
Consider the example of the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, which was replaced by the 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6.

Was the EFs10-22mm replaced? B&H still have it for sale as well as the EFs10-18mm. 2 vastly different price points hitting to the R7/7Dii users vs cheaper crop bodies

David - Sydney · Jul 11, 2022

Juangrande said:
I don’t understand why there’s no padding in the canvas lens pouches they provide. They are pretty useless for that reason.

Agreed that they are useless - at least for me.
They don't seem to fit properly with the base being far too big and maybe would protect against scratches but most camera bags already have some level of light padding for this.
I also wouldn't use them for storage as if there is some moisture on the lens somewhere then it wouldn't dry out properly and promote fungus growth.

Jethro · Jul 11, 2022

A Canon 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS coming only a couple of days after the Laowa 12-24mm f/5.6. Suddenly there are multiple and relatively affordable wide zooms to choose from! As always, the reviews will be important, as well as the final price of the Canon. But IS, electronic coupling and a bit more zoom flexibility seem likely to give the Canon an advantage. One of these will likely be my next lens purchase.

neuroanatomist · Jul 11, 2022

nwardrip said:
I really love the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art for astro (and other unique UWA shots), but understand this is significantly more than the Rokinon/Laowa options.

I’ll consider that alongside the Laowa. Not sure the 1/3-stop and 1mm add much (and AF doesn’t, for astro), but worth considering if the IQ is meaningfully better.

David - Sydney · Jul 11, 2022

neuroanatomist said:
The legendary 400/5.6 was an L-series lens. The RF 100-500 gives the same FL in it's range, and while f/6.3 at 400mm, is optically better, smaller when retracted, and much more flexible. It is the update to the legendary 300/4, 400/5.6 and 100-400L lenses. People generally prefer zoom lenses, I really doubt we'll ever see updates to the middle-range telephoto primes like the 200/2.8, 300/4 and 400/5.6.

The RF100-500mm is just a perfect 2nd lens for me. My recent Iceland trip 2 lens daily combo was an adapted EF16-35mm/4 plus RF100-500mm covering almost every situation from waterfalls/landscapes/city to icebergs/seals/puffins.
I used my EF8-15mm/4 just for an ice cave and the RF24-105mm once for a private aerial flight but otherwise could have left them at home. No long exposure photography options as the airline lost my luggage (including filters/tripod) for 11 days! but very happy to use my new Mini 3 Pro for alternative angles.

neuroanatomist · Jul 11, 2022

David - Sydney said:
Was the EFs10-22mm replaced? B&H still have it for sale as well as the EFs10-18mm. 2 vastly different price points hitting to the R7/7Dii users vs cheaper crop bodies

Incorrect assumption on my part, I see the 10-22mm is in stock at Canon USA, too.

It is listed here:

Canon Rumors - Your best source for Canon rumors, leaks and gossip

Below is a list of Canon EF lenses that have been discontinued recently. I will be updating this list as Canon continues to move manufacturing capabilities to m

www.canonrumors.com

…but I take that with a grain of salt.

Thanks for pointing that out!

David - Sydney · Jul 11, 2022

scyrene said:
The one major downside to the 100-500 is its price. Those older EF prime telephoto Ls were pretty good value for what they offered; there definitely seems to be a gap in the middle of the range now (but I don't disagree with your assessment that Canon probably don't feel a need to replace them directly).

I am not sure that Canon sees that there is a gap. Their RF L lenses are generally offering features not available on EF lenses prompting either to use adapted EF lenses or seductively teasing the RF version at a premium

David - Sydney · Jul 11, 2022

bergstrom said:
wow, 30mm @f6.3? Affordable? Absolutely. Useless? Completely.

Potential buyers will only be interested in focal length, size and price.
Given the mirrorless advantages of smaller aperture focusing, lens correction software and general improvements in ISO performance with newer sensors then I don't see an issue for them.

David - Sydney · Jul 11, 2022

nwardrip said:
For me, the pouches that Canon provides are actually perfect. I have all of my lenses in Canon pouches and stored in a safe. If I were to use padded cases, I wouldn't be able to keep all of them locked up. Due to space limitations, I can't get a larger safe (or another safe). In fact, I have purchased many of the Canon pouches second-hand on eBay or KEH for all of the Canon and 3rd party lenses I own that don't have pouches. I like that the padded bottom provides some protection for the front of the lens while resting on the shelf and provides a natural buffer zone when everything is all lined up on a shelf.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to insure them rather than a new safe to lock them up?
The only reason I can think of for locking up would be humidity control in a dry box to reduce possibility of fungus.

scyrene · Jul 11, 2022

David - Sydney said:
I am not sure that Canon sees that there is a gap. Their RF L lenses are generally offering features not available on EF lenses prompting either to use adapted EF lenses or seductively teasing the RF version at a premium

Oh they probably don't see a gap, I agree. But as a consumer, I find the lack of L RF lenses below £1000 (and indeed only two are currently listed below £1500) a pity - the EF range had some L bargains, but it seems that's a thing of the past.

David - Sydney · Jul 11, 2022

Exploreshootshare said:
Honestly, we are damn lucky to have so many native UWA options! Plus, they all brought something new and unique to the table In addition, there are intriguing third party options, of course with some payoff. At some point, there are probably more to come! (Tamron/ Sigma)

Crop RF bodies don't have a native ultra wide solution besides adapting EFs Canon/3rd party lenses today.

David - Sydney · Jul 11, 2022

scyrene said:
Oh they probably don't see a gap, I agree. But as a consumer, I find the lack of L RF lenses below £1000 (and indeed only two are currently listed below £1500) a pity - the EF range had some L bargains, but it seems that's a thing of the past.

All about priorities for Canon I guess. The EF range was developed over decades so it may happen in the future.

dcm · Jul 11, 2022

I've had some occassions where the RF 24-240 isn't wide enough on the R6. The RF 15-30 looks like a perfect companion for this purpose.

Skux · Jul 12, 2022

This seems like a good idea, I don't need a pro wide angle, I just need a wide angle.

The price will be the deciding factor, even the non-L RF lenses have been significantly more expensive than EF budget options. If it's more expensive than a used 16-35mm f2.8 I'll pass.

danfaz · Jul 12, 2022

David - Sydney said:
Crop RF bodies don't have a native ultra wide solution besides adapting EFs Canon/3rd party lenses today.

Well, they did just come out.

t.linn · Jul 12, 2022

bbasiaga said:
I'll see what the price looks like on the 24, and how close the wife is watching.

My wife is always like, "Get it. You deserve it." (I don't.) She knows that if a new Vitamix shows up on the kitchen counter a few weeks later, I'm not going to be able to say anything. She's a clever one.

t.linn · Jul 12, 2022

David - Sydney said:
The RF100-500mm is just a perfect 2nd lens for me. My recent Iceland trip 2 lens daily combo was an adapted EF16-35mm/4 plus RF100-500mm covering almost every situation from waterfalls/landscapes/city to icebergs/seals/puffins.

It's interesting how different people see comps. It's hard for me to imagine going without the 35-100mm focal range but I know there are more than a few landscapers who don't own a standard zoom.

Here are the Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM and Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

EOS 5D Mark IV

EOS 5D Mark IV

EOS 5D Mark IV

EOS 5D Mark IV

EOS 5D Mark IV

EOS R

I post too Much on Here!!

EOS 5D Mark IV

I post too Much on Here!!

EOS 5D Mark IV

EOS 5D Mark IV

EOS 5D Mark IV

EOS R6

EOS 5D Mark IV

EOS 5D Mark IV

It's not the gear. But it helps.

EOS RP

RFIVE

EOS R5

EOS R5

Similar threads