Lenses I'd Like To See
I know they are possible...
I’m sure a lot of you have lenses you love. I have many myself. I love the performance of many. I love the versatility of others. In very few cases I love the size and the performance of most of my auto-focus lenses. I marvel at a few lenses that I’ll never buy, not because of cost but because of the mammoth size. Case in point, the ubiquitous 24-70 f2.8 “pro lens” of most manufacturers, they are monsters. I’d rather have an f/4 of the same performance. I’ll use a prime if I need a truely wide aperture for effect or low light, or both.
Here’s the rub; Have you seen the size of the new “pro” large aperture lenses such as the Canon RF 50 1.2L and other brands similar offerings? They may as well be a giant pro-zoom, they are huge. I’d like to see high-performance f/2 class lenses that are as small as possible. One of the reasons I still LOVE my Leica M glass is the size to relative performance. Yes, I know features such as auto-focus take up space, add some VR/IS/etc in there any you're starting to push the size. Push in perfection and again you’ve got a huge, beast of a lens. I like small high performing lenses that last forever. Can I have them? Please? Pretty please?
Here’s a secret, we kind of have them, sorta… A manufacturer I happen to use and have used for a long time has provided a lot of what I am asking for a bit under the radar. Canon has given me about 80% of what I have been asking for in their cheap-o line of 1.8 and 2.8 RF glass. I’ll call it the “silver ring” series of lenses. Why call them by that moniker? Because all of them have a silver ring instead of the L series red ring. Every one of them I’ve tried has been very, very good. I have no real complaints with their performance. They are arguably “better” than much bigger lenses that you’d think the bigger lens would somehow blow it’s doors off. They don’t in many cases.
My first experience was the Canon RF 35mm 1.8 Macro. I bought it because it was cheap and because it was one of the only primes in that range that came out, oh yea, it even has IS. Next up was the RF 50mm 1.8. This one was also available early in their new RF line-up and better yet, disposable cheap at $199 brand new. As of this writing they now have…
A 16mm 2.8
A 24mm 1.8 Macro with IS (I am sure is as interesting and useful as the 35 macro IS
A 28mm 2.8 that is miniscule
A 85 f2 macro IS
Not a ton missing from that list and from my anecdotal experience they are all very good. They are all way, way under $1000. So what’s my beef? Well… there are a few things I would like to see. First up is where is the 1.8 28mm? Oh, then there is the less than ideal build/feel part of lenses. Don’t get me wrong, they are not at all far, far different then the L series lenses but I’d really like to see materials that are nicer, a bit more metal (the mounts are metal). The zooms of this silver ring range are completely unacceptable in terms of tiny, variable apertures that seem like Canon is spec’ing the lenses to push you into the huge, expensive, L-series zooms on purpose… I love the idea of a tiny 24-50mm zoom but come on, at least give me an f/4 constant aperture. The current 24-50mm EF is a pitiful 4.5-6.3. Even Nikon did better than that with their AF 24-50 way back in the day. You can make it a little less tiny.
What else in my dream land? I’d gladly pay $1000 for a red-ring L series of this sort with a hair less cost-cutting and a bit more on optical formula for less distortion and moderate aperture. How about a tiny APO RF like what you offer but premium build and a solid f/2 for $1000 along the lines of Leica’s M Summicron 50mm APO? While you’re at it how about something the size of the RP body but with great build quality like the original R or R5 and no crazy movie crap to overheat it.
I am not entirely dissatisfied with Canon’s “cheap” lenses and mostly what I plan on buying or already have.
What would you like to see from your favorite manufacturer? I’m serious, let me know where your head is at in the comments. Does everyone really like the giant glass?
No argument from me. After from years of shooting Canon and Nikon film rangefinders with quite small lenses, I’ve fully embraced Fuji. I’ve had a series of the x100 cameras and their f2 line of lenses are on my x-pro3 nearly always. Even the old, flawed and wonderful 35 f1.4 lens is quite compact.
I keep trying to find something to disagree with you on Bob, but not today. I do have 3 Canon L lenses, two of them f/4 and the 100-500 slower telephoto. I use them mostly for nature and wildlife when the weight is worth carrying. I really like the consistent ergonomics of these RF lenses. But I also have the 16 f2.8, the 28 f/2.8 and the 50 f/1.8 for street or casual vacation shooting. My favorite is that cute little 28 pancake lens. They are so inexpensive I had to try them and I use them. I never understood the need for fast wide angle lenses. Short lenses are not great for shallow depth of field in the first place. Build quality could be better but for the price and what I use them for, no complaints.