Canon Lens Rumors

A Canon RF 16-28mm f/2L USM is coming [CR1]

A couple of days ago we reported that Canon was hard at work on a second f/2 zoom, with a suggestion that we’d see a “holy trinity” of f/2L zoom lenses from Canon.

We’ve been told that the next f/2 zoom from Canon will be an RF 16-28mm f/2L USM, which will fit nicely with the RF 28-70mm f/2L USM. None of the f/2 zoom lenses will get image stabilization, but don’t fret, all future EOS R bodies will have in-body image stabilization.

We have no word on what the telephoto f/2 zoom will be to complete the holy trinity of f/2 zooms.

More to come…

The image for this article is the Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM.

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,649
772
Southeastern USA
"[D]on't fret, all future Rf bodies will have image stabilization."

Because many of the photographers who can afford these lenses, and many who can justify them for business, really see a need for it--and because Canon can't ignore the trend forever. :)

Looking forward to getting one of those IBIS beauties myself!

(And I will remember to take this with a grain of CR1 salt.)
 

Cochese

EOS 80D
Oct 22, 2014
115
54
So... The new 70-200 2.8. What if... What if it was to the RF mount that the 70-200 f/4 IS is to the EF mount. And the real "pro" 70-200 is an F/2 IS. Hence why canon took the "bold' step to make the new RF 70-200 a collapsible/ compact design.
 

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,649
772
Southeastern USA
So... The new 70-200 2.8. What if... What if it was to the RF mount that the 70-200 f/4 IS is to the EF mount. And the real "pro" 70-200 is an F/2 IS. Hence why canon took the "bold' step to make the new RF 70-200 a collapsible/ compact design.
Just avoiding another retractable barrel might be worth the added cost (and weight)...Grit, dust, water drops...Ugh.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,173
1,759
Irving, Texas
So... The new 70-200 2.8. What if... What if it was to the RF mount that the 70-200 f/4 IS is to the EF mount. And the real "pro" 70-200 is an F/2 IS. Hence why canon took the "bold' step to make the new RF 70-200 a collapsible/ compact design.
Collapsible? Not internal focusing, but collapsible? Is my EF 24-70 f/2.8L II collapsible? I don't think so. It just doesn't zoom internally. For me, that isn't a plus.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JoFT

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,153
390
"[D]on't fret, all future Rf bodies will have image stabilization."

Because many of the photographers who can afford these lenses, and many who can justify them for business, really see a need for it--and because Canon can't ignore the trend forever. :)

Looking forward to getting one of those IBIS beauties myself!

(And I will remember to take this with a grain of CR1 salt.)
And a tripod can be an option.
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
247
268
So... The new 70-200 2.8. What if... What if it was to the RF mount that the 70-200 f/4 IS is to the EF mount. And the real "pro" 70-200 is an F/2 IS. Hence why canon took the "bold' step to make the new RF 70-200 a collapsible/ compact design.
Wouldn’t a 70-200 f/2 be prohibitively large? Like, honestly, wouldn’t it end up weighing 50% more than the already-heavy f2.8?

If Canon wants a new trinity (lenses with focal lengths that line up to cover a large range), I think the tele zoom is a 70-135 or 70-150 to save on size, weight, and cost.
 

Hector1970

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 22, 2012
1,095
273
I'd have to do weight training before I'd consider buying this new trinity.
It will be interesting the weight of this lens.
As I've said before I don't see the attraction of a 16-28MM F2 Zoom unless its great for Astro.
It all depends on the type of photography that you do.
I'm sure there will be buyers for it or Canon wouldn't design and sell it.
 

WilliamJ

I'm New Here
Aug 8, 2017
16
12
I for one am really excited at the thought of three f2 zooms that can cover anything. As someone who’s yet to upgrade to full frame because I get great results with 18-35/50-100 1.8 combo, this is the best reason to move over to the rf system and get the best of all worlds without buying a bag full of primes and have to change my two/three lens shooting style.
 

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
139
184
I'd have to do weight training before I'd consider buying this new trinity.
For anyone who shoots a 5D or 1D with Typical L or Art lenses, it’s actually relatively the same foot print and weight with mirrorless system.

I compared my Mark IV with 85 art (huge lens) to an R with 28-70 and the R setup is nearly the same weight and actually shorter. I haven’t compared it to the new 85L 1.2 yet which would be a better comparison.

From what I can see so far, the RF lenses are more balanced and heavier near the mount than EF, which balances out the whole system well with a smaller and lighter body.

If you’ve been using a pro DSLR and Fast zooms and primes, The R and these lenses aren’t going to be any significant difference in weight and will actually be a little shorter and more balanced. (That’s just assuming the unreleased lenses are similar to what’s already been released.)

But I second you on the weight training. I’m getting flabby these days and near the 8 hour mark of the day, my back muscles have had it.
 

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
139
184
I for one am really excited at the thought of three f2 zooms that can cover anything. As someone who’s yet to upgrade to full frame because I get great results with 18-35/50-100 1.8 combo, this is the best reason to move over to the rf system and get the best of all worlds without buying a bag full of primes and have to change my two/three lens shooting style.
We’ve had the bag full of primes, got some fast zooms, and now waiting to do the same with a professional R body and ditch our primes and 2.8 zooms for these f2 zooms.

I used to show up to a wedding with 35, 50, 85, 135, and 200..... ugh spent so much time wallowing over which lenses to use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB and Tom W

jonebize

EOS M50
Dec 15, 2018
26
20
A little disappointing imo. I wish they would have emphasized a somewhat longer focal length range. I wanted a 20-35mm f/2.0. The f/2.0 aperture at 16mm is not nearly as helpful at f/2.0 as it is at 35mm. I think this was a missed opportunity.

I guess their idea is that an event photographer will carry two bodies and a 16-28 and 28-70 simultaneously. My concept was to carry a 20-35 f/2.0 on one body and a 50 or 85mm prime on a second body.
 
Last edited:

PGSanta

EOS 80D
Sep 5, 2018
140
105
San Diego, CA
Hmmm. This seems like a landscapers dream. I bet it gets released with the high res R.

Now, the question is should I hold off buying the 15-35 RF in favor of this one. I think I might.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dominic_siu
Dec 6, 2018
116
158
"[D]on't fret, all future Rf bodies will have image stabilization."

Because many of the photographers who can afford these lenses, and many who can justify them for business, really see a need for it--and because Canon can't ignore the trend forever. :)

Looking forward to getting one of those IBIS beauties myself!

(And I will remember to take this with a grain of CR1 salt.)
I know many photographers who can afford such a lens. Don't worry, sit back and count your penny jar. We'll take care of ordering this sort of thing.

Meanwhile, there's still plenty of other good lenses available at smaller prices for photographers with smaller budgets, or who may prefer financing. Not every new RF lens will be highly expensive either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nitram

Cochese

EOS 80D
Oct 22, 2014
115
54
Wouldn’t a 70-200 f/2 be prohibitively large? Like, honestly, wouldn’t it end up weighing 50% more than the already-heavy f2.8?

If Canon wants a new trinity (lenses with focal lengths that line up to cover a large range), I think the tele zoom is a 70-135 or 70-150 to save on size, weight, and cost.m
That depends on what you consider prohibitively large, I suppose. I've rented/ used the 400mm F/2.8 for a week, never with a tripod/ monopod. And it wasn't a particular issue and a lot of fun to use. I wouldn't want to wander around a forest with it all of the time, but I never got fatigued holding it up. With exception of when I was trying to do multiple handheld shots in the late evening where I had to hold it incredibly still to get anything useable handheld at 1/2 a second. Though, with IBIS coming to the new R body, that probably wouldn't be an issue. In general though, Canon doesn't seem to give much of a shit about size and weight so far this generation. Their R camera is the largest mirrorless (and people seem to love it for that), their new 50 and 85 are massive, as is the 28-70. Likely this 16-28 will also be massive compared to EF models.
On a personal note, I only upgraded to the 5DMIV early last year, but I have zero issues carrying it and my 70-200 f/2.8 II around as a general walkaround lens. Maybe unconventional, but it always gets the job done. :D

Anyway, I'm sure somebody here could do the math and figure out how large the lens would have to be. Holdability would depend on how Canon Balanced the lens out and how much weight they could shave off of it. I mean, it looks as if Canon is working on a new trinity and why make the first two F/2 if they're going to make the third part an f/2.8? Seems like they're taking a lot of design risks with the RF lenses.
 
Last edited:

dominic_siu

EOS R, RF2870, RF1535, RF70200
Aug 31, 2018
26
20
Hmmm. This seems like a landscapers dream. I bet it gets released with the high res R.

Now, the question is should I hold off buying the 15-35 RF in favor of this one. I think I might.
Same as what I thought that I may hold off buying RF1535 because I have RF2870, 1628 would fit nicely to my kit