Elia Locardi is Back

More Canon Lenses Are on the Way

More Canon Lenses Are on the Way

Canon has been aggressively filling out their RF mirrorless lens lineup, but there are still a fair number of missing options. It looks like the company will be turning their attention to wide angle options next, with four L Series professional primes likely to be released in the next year. 

Canon Rumors is reporting that in addition to other forthcoming lenses, Canon is planning the release of four professional wide angle prime lenses: the RF 12mm f/1.8L USM, RF 24mm f/1.4L USM, RF 28mm f/1.4L USM, and 35mm f/1.2L USM. Both the 24mm and 35mm lenses are no surprise, as these are standard prime focal lengths and are represented in most professional lens lineups. 28mm is a smidgen more unusual, as the company never manufactured an L option at that focal length for the EF mount. Meanwhile, 12mm would be the most unusual. A combination of such a wide focal length and maximum aperture in a full frame lens would be quite unique and would surely generate some interest, particularly among landscape and astrophotographers. I have been a huge fan of my Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art for years and would be quite curious to see such an aperture in an even wider lens. We'll see what the next 12 months bring!

Alex Cooke's picture

Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.

Log in or register to post comments

12mm f/1.8?? Is that full frame? If this actually happens i'd order that the second it was announced.

Well they did just release a 16mm....

They did, and it's crap when shooting RAW, Jpeg relying on the use of heavy in camera corrections. Had it, sold it. When I want a fisheye, I buy one.

Maybe it's better when you have a lens profile for post rpoduction, but until now there is none for Capture One.

But 16mm isn't a fisheye.

Canon seems to make expensive high end lenses as well as expensive cameras. I could not switch if I wanted. Many love Canon so they will sell. But with the selection of both cameras and lenses Sony have, I think many will stay or start using Sony. Also with Sony colour silence is better, and that is important.

The color science issue becomes irrelevant if you shoot raw. It's an overhyped concept in a world where the major camera companies are all producing great products that take great photos. 10-15 years ago it was a bigger deal.

Not when we are talking about video...

When talking about video you can calibrate your sensor with things like xrite color checker passport video... In general color reproduction in any camera is lottery, because camera don't see colours... Anyway canon has the best colour reproduction out of nikon and Sony for years.. Nikon and Sony don't use low pass filter and that's why they get more green / yellow output. If you have 2 green diodes on one blue and one red and dont blur them with low pass filter to actually reach the red and blue everytime, then you get sony and Nikon color where is just to much green... they play it on sharp details without low pass filter. How many photographers went to Fuji because of color. But Fuji is not using the same Bayer mask as canon, sony and nikon....

Yes if you are doing video on a set with controlled lighting you can use a color checker. Can't do that if you are filming more run and gun work outdoors.

And camera color profiles like Adobe and generic Canon profile gives you more acupuncture results how?
You still color grade but not a user who is saying that Sony or any other camera manufacture has better color science.. For them it should be something like " iPhone has the best colour science when shooting in pro Res" 😂😂😂

"Sony colour silence is better"

said nobody ever

People who really understand color will calibrate sensor for better colour accuracy as it is the only way to get it right. Xrite color checker passport video is the way to go. Also how many people calibrate their monitors and actually has proper monitor when talking about color.. Its not only about the camera and it never was. You can build F1 car for millions, but once you put cheap tyres on it, you won't see any performance...

I'm sure at least one of the countless people that talk about Sony's color problems has a calibrated monitor.

As I said above...using a color checker only works if you are shooting in controlled studios or maybe single take shots outdoors and not run and gun shooting weddings and documentaries etc...

When affordable high quality lenses from third party manufactures are available for the R mount I will probably get a R mount camera. As an amateur I can not justify spending the Canon lens prices so I have avoided switching to the Canon mirrorless along with so many other amateurs.

Is there a reason that you won't use the adapter?

Maybe he wants to use mirrorless lenses on his mirrorless camera, not old and increasingly unsupported and discontinued DSLR lenses.

I've been using my EF lenses on my R for over a year now...not sure how they are working less for me now than they were over a year ago.

Maybe we should wait for Jerry to answer my question. However, I understand that it's fun to toss in snarky remarks.

It wasn’t snarky. Maybe he wants to use new, compact, high quality mirrorless lenses on a mirrorless camera. Modern lenses with faster autofocusing, less aberrations. Lenses optimized to use that fancy new mirrorless mount, that make use of optical formulas that are only possible with a short flange distance. Lenses than aren’t steadily being discontinued by their manufacturers. Lenses that he’ll still be able to get repaired in 5 years because parts are available.

If any remark was snarky, it was the one asking why he “won’t” use an adapter, implying that he’s doing something wrong by not subjugating himself to a certain brand by any means necessary, denying himself the benefits of switching to mirrorless in the first place.

Not everyone can afford L-series glass, some people need quality, affordable options. Canon has decided not to facilitate that. Lucky for the OP that there are other options on the market.

Same here. Using 12x EF L class lenses on R6... Absolutely no problem at all..

My logic behind using adapter is that its not as quick as RF lenses, also from what i saw, most RF lenses are tack sharp edge to edge. That is great and commendable, but ... by buying ecosystem that does not support me in long-run AKA forcing me to stick to now inferior glass or gives me ability to decide what lens is best for me i effectively am locked into Canon ecosystem. I would love to prevent that by having ability to purchase and use what i find is usable for me at price-point i find affordable.

Good luck with whatever camera system you choose. They all take great pictures. My R5 and EF lenses do just what I need them to do. You have different requirements than me.

I shoot commercial work with EF lenses on an R body. Not sure what these guys are on about haha.

Thank You kindly

Adapting EF is only feasible if you own existing lenses. If you are starting fresh, most EF options cost more than Sigma DN and new Tamron lenses which are optically better than a lot of the Canon EF L and Non L lenses. Plus who wants to add extra bulk when other brands have newer, smaller and optically better options along with third party lenses.

"Adapting EF is only feasible if you own existing lenses." Really? You anti-adapters can come up with some dandy statements.

Ok let’s have fun here. So say Canon didn’t have their heads up their own ass and were open to licensing their AF to Sigma. Would you rather pay $1799 AUD for a EF 16-35mm f/4L which needs an adapter, is older and heavier at around 600g or a newer, optically better and lighter Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 for $1359 AUD? Even the Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f/4 G can be bought brand new for $1400 AUD and the 35GM is only $1899 AUD brand new compared to the much heavier EF35LII which goes for $2999 AUD. Adapting EF is NOT feasible for many without existing lenses which is a fact!

Nice exercise, but I go by real world results. My adapted lenses work BETTER now. I don't care about weight. My favorite combination is my gripped R5 and my Canon 70-200 f2.8 LII. I own Sigma and Tamron lenses now. So that part of your argument is moot. I buy what I can afford. If I had the money, I'd have all RF lenses. I don't, so I use what I have and am just thrilled that all is well with my equipment.

Frankly, I don't really care about what's feasible for others. They have a choice; adapt EF or not. Use a Canon or not. Their choice and not my concern.

Step 1: Build decent camera bodies. Check.
Step 2: Release a bunch of expensive professional lenses. Check.
Step 3: Stop 3rd party lens manufacturers from building cheap lenses for your system. Check?
Step 4: Release even MORE expensive professional lenses...

That 12mm f/1.8 is the most interesting to me personally, I’ve been complaining that my 14mm isn’t wide enough. Hopefully other lens makers will follow suit on other mounts.

I heard 14 is the widest you can go without major distortion on FF...I've never tried wider than that on a FF. If the 12mm is for FF I will getting one for sure.

To be honest you can probably go 10mm on RF mount... I am using Laowa 12/2.8 zero D ( EF mount on 5dmk4, now using on R6) lens for years and you should try also if you think that 14mm is the widest lens you can go without distortion.

I am currently still on EF camera and most of my lenses are L lenses, but .. one i love the most and use the most are not.
So if there are no 3rd party lenses in RF ecosystem, i am not switching no matter what. As is for now 5D works great and I can still wait. At some point tho i will have to switch and i just hope this lens situation has resolved.

Lets hope that 35mm 1.2 isnt $2k. Canon gotta do better about this lens/camrea pricing. You dont 3rd party making affordable good lenses for your RF mount but want to make all your popular lenses $2300+.

Also. Stop making niche lenses barely anyone wants. No one needs a 12mm 1.8. No one needs an 85 with some special glass coating that doesnt do anything but cost an extra $100+. How about a 50mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, or an 85mm 1.4 that isnt $2500? And no one wants that monstrosity 85 f2 with its slow focus.