p.1 #2 · Canon Shows off RF 75-135mm f/2L USM and RF 180-600mm f/6.3L IS USM Lens Designs
Canon has been busy pushing the FL by 100 mm in one direction and f by about 1 stop in the opposite of the 100-500 mm design while working the pricing strategy. It’s hard work and may take more years. Expect the price to double, but don’t expect the Arca Swiss foot compatibility. The final product whenever it shows, will be a typical Canon miracle.
p.1 #3 · Canon Shows off RF 75-135mm f/2L USM and RF 180-600mm f/6.3L IS USM Lens Designs
I'm disappointed it has taken Canon this long to finally signal anything about a xx-xxx/2 tele zoom. As I have previously stated many times, it would be a natural event/wedding companion lens to the 28-70/2 and such a pair would cover most of my needs, in fact I could have used such a lens in the very dark venue I just worked in today. It should have been released around 2020 instead of maybe in the near future. It's unfortunate that Canon has waited this long after Sony beat them to it with their 50-150. I'm even fine with it being 135/2 rather than 150 for size and weight reduction benefits. At least for me, for this type of work, there's no problem with deep crops of 135 to get 200mm equivalent framing. But if it were to be TC compatible - a big ask and one that would likely negatively affect compactness - that would be useful, too. And it needs to be available in black finish, at least as an option.
The debate for me would be if it would be worth getting, after having just caved from waiting so long and going with the 70-200Z, which is a fabulous and versatile lens with TC compatibility and such a nice, easy to use with a single finger zoom ring. And is available in black. A xx-xxx/2 will need to be internal zoom and identical zoom ring feel to the Z. I'd be fine if it was another Z lens and a physical clone of the 24-105 and 70-200 Zs.
I don't really care about a 180-600/6.3 but will comment on a potential 200-400/4. I have the EF version and I'm sure an RF release would significantly outclass it optically. But the 'landscape' in this lens range has been changing recently, especially now with Sony undercutting Nikon on pricing with their new 400/4.5 and 600/6.3. But especially their 100-400/4.5 at half the price of the Canon 100-300. Yes, it's 1.3 stops slower but at least in my case, whenever I rent the 100-300, I use nearly exclusively with the 1.4x TC. The 100-300 is a great lens but not ideal for what I tend to shoot with it. It's too short. Even 400/420 is too short about 40-50% of the time. It's a reason I loved the built-in TC of the 200-400 and why it became such a staple lens for my requirements. But I'm kind of a 100-300 convert now because even 140/4 makes a difference compared to 200/4 on the wide end, allowing me to shoot a lot of end zone action from the back of the end zone for which 200 was otherwise too tight. I no longer carry a 70-200 and just use the 28-70 instead for when the action is in my lap. So I'd be a bit reluctant to go back to 200mm on the wide end. An RF 200-400 will need some other 'trick' to make it worthwhile, especially considering the price point of the new Sony 100-400. Built-in TC would be great to have but TBH, if it's going to be a >$7k lens, just make it the long-ago rumored 200-500/4 instead. Or copy the Sony 100-400/4.5 and add a built-in TC for another $1000-1500. With that I could shoot end zone action from the back of the end zone and down the field to at least the 50 yard line. That's my 2¢.
p.1 #4 · Canon Shows off RF 75-135mm f/2L USM and RF 180-600mm f/6.3L IS USM Lens Designs
If this is true then that’s an amazing achievement for canon.
Well done
But, who is going to want to haul a massive heavy lump like that - and I’m guessing it will be massive!
For fear of sounding like a cracked record, sorry
it’s a huge shame canon doesn’t use their wealth of experience to develop similar fast glass but proportionally smaller for their aps-c line
p.1 #5 · Canon Shows off RF 75-135mm f/2L USM and RF 180-600mm f/6.3L IS USM Lens Designs
I shoot both Canon and Sony for reference. I moved to Canon mirrorless (from the DSLR days) for the RF 28-70 f/2 which is a great lens. I thought Canon was jumping out front. Since then Sony came out with their version (smaller/lighter while being just as good) and then the 50-150 f/2 GM. The 50-150 is a fantastic lens, and I was disappointed that even with having a jump moving to f/2 lenses that Canon fell behind. It now looks like they will be coming out with a much narrower focal length than Sony (75-135 for Canon). This is very disappointing. The Sony lens is very good from every perspective and basically feels like using a 70-200 f/2.8 for size/weight. I would guess that Canon's lens will be smaller/lighter, but at the loss of focal length range. I would much prefer the range since the Sony lens is very manageable as it is. I don't know why they went this way. I would probably pick up an equivalent lens to Sony's if Canon made it, but I am disappointed and it will be a pass if this is their try at the short tele f/2 range. Canon needs to kick it in gear. I have been shooting Canon for a very long time, but it seems that Sony just keeps taking their lunch these days.
p.1 #6 · Canon Shows off RF 75-135mm f/2L USM and RF 180-600mm f/6.3L IS USM Lens Designs
Pixelpuffin wrote:
If this is true then that’s an amazing achievement for canon.
Well done
But, who is going to want to haul a massive heavy lump like that - and it will be massive!!
For fear of sounding like a cracked record, it’s a huge shame canon doesn’t use their wealth of experience to develop similar fast glass but proportionally smaller for their aps-c line
50/1.2
28-70/2
70/135/2
Sounds amazing
But that’s a lot of weight (and expense)
It is funny to see your perspective that it will be a lot of weight where my perspective is I would take more weight and a longer range...Canon is probably aiming more at you than me.
p.1 #7 · Canon Shows off RF 75-135mm f/2L USM and RF 180-600mm f/6.3L IS USM Lens Designs
BrianP wrote:
It is funny to see your perspective that it will be a lot of weight where my perspective is I would take more weight and a longer range...Canon is probably aiming more at you than me.
Hmmm
112-216mm
It really needed to be RF-s 50-125Lis 2.8
AKA 80-200/2.8
That would be so nice and travel friendly
Edited to say… better still a RF-S 50-125L is F4 would be more compact.
