Close Menu

    There will be more VCM hybrid prime lenses, but not anytime soon

    By Updated:83 Comments Canon Lens Rumors 2 Mins Read

    Canon completed their long-awaited hybrid trinity of L prime lenses with the RF 24mm f/1.4L VCM, RF 35mm f/1.4L VCM and RF 50mm f/1.4L VCM, and all of them appear to have been very well received.

    We also know that there will be more hybrid VCM prime lenses in the future, but not in the near future. The next pair we’re told will be a “wider than 24mm” lens as well as an 85mm f/1.4L VCM. There was no mention of adding image stabilization to the 85mm f/1.4 like we saw is the EF days.

    For the moment, there has been no mention of VCM L zoom lenses on the horizon or VCM non-L lenses, but we think it’s pretty obvious that Canon will continue to release lenses with VCM as well as continuing to evolve STM and USM.

    The same source repeated that we’re going to see some f/2.8 constant aperture zoom lenses for APS-C cameras, but that the timeframe for their release will likely depend on when Canon releases Mark II versions of their current crop camera bodies.

    We think that those f/2.8 RF-S lenses will have the same design philosophy as the recent RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM.

    When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

    Go to discussion...

    83 comments

    1. See full
      The same source repeated that we're going to see some f/2.8 constant aperture zoom lenses for APS-C cameras, but that the timeframe for their release will likely depend on when Canon releases Mark II versions of their current crop camera bodies.


      We think that those f/2.8 RF-S lenses will have the same design philosophy as the recent RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM.
      article..
      So where does that leave Sigma? And will the R3-2 become a tiny fully professional APS-C body? (I don't believe that either.) The constant for the current APS-C RF bodies is that they are relatively small, something I very much like.
    2. I think an 85mm f1.4 VCM is an obvious choice. So is a 21mm f1.4 and maybe a 16mm f1.4. If they fitted rear slot filter adapters (like from the EF to R drop in adapter) it would be an amazing lens for landscape photographers.
    3. I think an 85mm f1.4 VCM is an obvious choice. So is a 21mm f1.4 and maybe a 16mm f1.4. If they fitted rear slot filter adapters (like from the EF to R drop in adapter) it would be an amazing lens for landscape photographers.
      They could also opt for an integrated filter turret, like Minolta and Leica were once using on fisheyes and ultrawides...
    6. There will be more VCM hybrid prime lenses, but not anytime soon
      The VCM line is a clever product strategy from Canon, IMO.
      Much cheaper than the pro cine primes, but also not as good as those. Market separation.
      Focussed on video, IMO.
      But flexible and small (and maybe cheap enough - depends on the POV) for pure stills photographers as well.
      So one line that is for both.
      Now I just need to find a money-printing machine ;)
    7. To be honest: I'm not impressed by the VCM line yet and would like to have more dedicated lenses for normal non-video photographers. What Canon in principal said is: VCM are very good lenses for video shooters which can also be used by normal photographers, as they sacrifice the ultimate quality by limiting size and weight (rig friendly). Video shooters don't need the ultimate quality (VCM lenses have no BR optics any more) but normal photographers do! Look at the RF 35/1.4 VCM which is only looking better on the paper than the super EF 35/1.4 II with BR optics. These VCM lenses seems to need a lot of 'pixel adjustment' in the RAW converter (vignette, distortion, chroma) to make them look good and that's not good for the quality. The RAW image of the RF24/1.4 VCM has black corners, so only a part of the sensor is used and pixels are shifted around. That degrades the quality!
      The VCM lenses might be selling well at the moment as there are only very few high-quality RF lenses available, but that will chance if there will be more lenses for photographers become available. At the moment these lenses might be a money machine for Canon, but they are not looking very attractive to me. Just my 2 cents.
    8. To be honest: I'm not impressed by the VCM line yet and would like to have more dedicated lenses for normal non-video photographers. What Canon in principal said is: VCM are very good lenses for video shooters which can also be used by normal photographers, as they sacrifice the ultimate quality by limiting size and weight (rig friendly). Video shooters don't need the ultimate quality (VCM lenses have no BR optics any more) but normal photographers do! Look at the RF 35/1.4 VCM which is only looking better on the paper than the super EF 35/1.4 II with BR optics. These VCM lenses seems to need a lot of 'pixel adjustment' in the RAW converter (vignette, distortion, chroma) to make them look good and that's not good for the quality. The RAW image of the RF24/1.4 VCM has black corners, so only a part of the sensor is used and pixels are shifted around. That degrades the quality!
      The VCM lenses might be selling well at the moment as there are only very few high-quality RF lenses available, but that will chance if there will be more lenses for photographers become available. At the moment these lenses might be a money machine for Canon, but they are not looking very attractive to me. Just my 2 cents.

      Canon has said that they think the maintenance or growth in market share requires them to target hybrid/video shooters. That is the area the younger demographic has headed. Everyone is targeting a younger demographic.

      Legacy Canon photographers are not going to drive that, so that sort of stuff isn't what they want to release right now.

      In the future? Sure... but right now it's about volume.

      In Canon's latest financials they have said they want to increase lens sales by 20% in Q4. The don't think that a $2500 35mm f/1.2 brick is going to help with that goal at this point in time.
    9. To be honest: I'm not impressed by the VCM line yet and would like to have more dedicated lenses for normal non-video photographers. What Canon in principal said is: VCM are very good lenses for video shooters which can also be used by normal photographers, as they sacrifice the ultimate quality by limiting size and weight (rig friendly). Video shooters don't need the ultimate quality (VCM lenses have no BR optics any more) but normal photographers do! Look at the RF 35/1.4 VCM which is only looking better on the paper than the super EF 35/1.4 II with BR optics. These VCM lenses seems to need a lot of 'pixel adjustment' in the RAW converter (vignette, distortion, chroma) to make them look good and that's not good for the quality. The RAW image of the RF24/1.4 VCM has black corners, so only a part of the sensor is used and pixels are shifted around. That degrades the quality!
      The VCM lenses might be selling well at the moment as there are only very few high-quality RF lenses available, but that will chance if there will be more lenses for photographers become available. At the moment these lenses might be a money machine for Canon, but they are not looking very attractive to me. Just my 2 cents.
      where have you found raw images from the RF24/1.4 VCM? can you post a link?
    10. The RAW image of the RF24/1.4 VCM has black corners, so only a part of the sensor is used and pixels are shifted around. That degrades the quality!
      Preempting @SwissFrank and asking...how do you know it degrades the quality? The image of a wide angle rectilinear lens must be stretched. What makes you believe that optically correcting the image (stretching with silica) is inherently better than digitally correcting the image (stretching with silicon)?

      I've personally compared corners the EF 11-24/4 at 14mm (where there is no geometric distortion as it transitions from barrel to pincushion) to the corners of the RF 14-35/4 at 14mm (where the black corners in the RAW image are filled by digital distortion correction), and found them to be no different. Can you show an empirical comparison where you reach the opposite conclusion, i.e. that there is a degradation of quality with digital vs optical correction?

      Lots of people claim that digital correction is worse than optical correction. Yet not one of them seems able to produce any actual evidence to support that claim. Reminds me of an SNL skit commercial from several decades ago pitching Preparation H for Women, the box was pink and tagline was, "It's just better, trust us."
    11. The VCM line is a clever product strategy from Canon, IMO.
      Much cheaper than the pro cine primes, but also not as good as those. Market separation.
      Focussed on video, IMO.
      But flexible and small (and maybe cheap enough - depends on the POV) for pure stills photographers as well.
      So one line that is for both.
      Now I just need to find a money-printing machine ;)
      I can help!
      I know the email address of a Nigerian prince who wants to bring his money out of the country in order to invest billions in Switzerland.
      He guarantees a substantial percentage ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) to any person offering him help !
      Don't waste a second!
      (I'll share his address for a little gift (an RF 70-200 f/2,8 Z mounted on an R5 II)
    12. Preempting @SwissFrank and asking...how do you know it degrades the quality? The image of a wide angle rectilinear lens must be stretched. What makes you believe that optically correcting the image (stretching with silica) is inherently better than digitally correcting the image (stretching with silicon)?

      I've personally compared corners the EF 11-24/4 at 14mm (where there is no geometric distortion as it transitions from barrel to pincushion) to the corners of the RF 14-35/4 at 14mm (where the black corners in the RAW image are filled by digital distortion correction), and found them to be no different. Can you show an empirical comparison where you reach the opposite conclusion, i.e. that there is a degradation of quality with digital vs optical correction?

      Lots of people claim that digital correction is worse than optical correction. Yet not one of them seems able to produce any actual evidence to support that claim. Reminds me of an SNL skit commercial from several decades ago pitching Preparation H for Women, the box was pink and tagline was, "It's just better, trust us."
      Is there no optical engineer around?
      What would a true specialist say about optical vs. digital lens correction?
    14. where have you found raw images from the RF24/1.4 VCM? can you post a link?
      Hi!
      I misinterpreted the image in this review as a RAW image from the RF24/1.4 VCM, but it seems to be from the RF 10-20/4: https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-rf-24mm-f-1-4l-vcm-review
      Nevertheless, the author confirms that "the RAW files show some serious signs of vignetting where the imaging circle isn't large enough to cover the corners of the sensor". No wonder as the recent VCM lenses are all limited to a 67mm front filter.
    15. Looking at the specs of the VCM lineup, a RF 20mm F1.4 would now be an immediate preorder for me for astro and nightscapes or cities at night time in general. Of course, 16mm F1.4 would be even nicer but the price would scare me. Comparing prices of Sony/ Sigma 14mm F1.4:1.8 and their 20mm offerings, I’d imagine Canon will go with a similar pricing scheme. So I’ll probably use a 20mm and in case it has to be wider I’ll do a pano

      I’ll probably rent either the 24mm or 50mm for a weekend to see how they work for me.
    16. Canon has said that they think the maintenance or growth in market share requires them to target hybrid/video shooters. That is the area the younger demographic has headed. Everyone is targeting a younger demographic.

      Legacy Canon photographers are not going to drive that, so that sort of stuff isn't what they want to release right now.

      In the future? Sure... but right now it's about volume.

      In Canon's latest financials they have said they want to increase lens sales by 20% in Q4. The don't think that a $2500 35mm f/1.2 brick is going to help with that goal at this point in time.
      Yipp, I understand that. The Canon announcements are clearly targeting younger and more video-oriented clients and Canon usually knows where the demand/money is. Well, there are probably still enough classical photographers who have a need of high-quality lenses. The latest announcement here is going into that direction: There will be more VCM lenses, but not anytime soon. So there will be some other lenses (high quality primes?) next.
    17. Is there no optical engineer around?
      What would a true specialist say about optical vs. digital lens correction?
      Since when is a digital correction based on a sensor with a lower resolution than the lens better than a correction by the lens? You also have to keep in mind that you lose resolution as only a part of the sensor is used. The dark corners are 'stretched' away by the distortion correction.
    18. Since when is a digital correction based on a sensor with a lower resolution than the lens better than a correction by the lens? You also have to keep in mind that you lose resolution as only a part of the sensor is used. The dark corners are 'stretched' away by the distortion correction.
      This is also my perception, but I'd wish for a real optical expert to tell us what the facts are. A "perception" is no fact.
      The opinions expressed by most forum members rely on hearsay or subjectivity. This, of course, includes me. I do need a proof I'm either right or wrong.
      Presently, given the choice between a digitally and an optically corrected lens, I'd go for the optically corrected one.
    19. Looking at the specs of the VCM lineup, a RF 20mm F1.4 would now be an immediate preorder for me for astro and nightscapes or cities at night time in general. Of course, 16mm F1.4 would be even nicer but the price would scare me. Comparing prices of Sony/ Sigma 14mm F1.4:1.8 and their 20mm offerings, I’d imagine Canon will go with a similar pricing scheme. So I’ll probably use a 20mm and in case it has to be wider I’ll do a pano

      I’ll probably rent either the 24mm or 50mm for a weekend to see how they work for me.
      A 24/1.4 is gathering more light than an 20/1.4 for astro photography as the absolute opening is larger and that's what counts for astro. Well, the difference isn't big in such a case and other factors like 'coma', vignette and chroma would be more important. But as an 'astro' shooter I will - most likely - stay away from this VCM lenses as they seems not to offer the best quality which Canon lenses can offer without the VCM limitations.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment