Canon RF lens specifications

That 28-70 F2 (it’s 70 right, not 79?) is a monster and I want it so badly.

Is it really 28-79, or is that a typo?

typo.. fixed. sorry.

Right, so the RF 35/1.8 IS a touch lighter than the EF 35/2 IS, and RF 24-105/4L IS is a bit lighter than the EF 24-105/4L IS II (although a fraction heavier than the EF 24-105/4L IS) ... and the RF 28-70/2L and RF 50 1.2L are fairly heavy lenses. Unsurprising for their specs given they are all FF lenses (and what we've seen other brands), but again it has me questioning whether FF mirrorless really has much of a weight or size advantage over DSLR ... and assuming it doesn't, what the big deal is about FF mirrorless.

I understand mirrorless may offer some other benefits over DSLR, but DSLR offers some benefits of [edit: over] mirrorless too (depending on what features you value, eg I am yet to see an EVF I like as much as an OVF although I realise others prefer EVF).

I will be interested to hear more about the EOS R and the RF lenses as information becomes available, but at this point personally I'm not feeling a likely buyer for the EOS R (at least any time soon).

Canon Rumors Guy said:

typo.. fixed. sorry.

Click to expand...

The focusing distance for the macro lens should be 17 cm and not 17 MM as well.

The third ring on the lenses I didn't notice before looks to be a great feature.

So two of them are still being spec'ed as not IS? Does this point to IBIS in the EOS R? Seems hard to believe a 28-70 L would not have access to some sort of stabilisation.

The 28-70mm must be in Canon's arsenal for a long time (and previously decided not to launch because of the size). Canon is pulling all stops for this intro.

rsdofny said:

The 28-70mm must be in Canon's arsenal for a long time (and previously decided not to launch because of the size). Canon is pulling all stops for this intro.

Click to expand...

It's definitely a "look what we can do" lens. Nikon is making one, too bad it's MF.

Canon 28-70 F2 Weight: 1430g (3.15lbs).
Sigma 105 1.4 is 1.6kg 3.62lb.
Canon 70-200 2.8 II 1.49 3.29 lb

It was rumored (and confirmed) that Sigma was working on a 24-70 f/2 and decided it wasn't doable.

Calling BS on the weights of the RF 50mm f/1.2 (and maybe the 28-70 f/2)

The EF 50 1.2 only weighs 580g!

jd7 said:

but again it has me questioning whether FF mirrorless really has much of a weight or size advantage over DSLR ... and assuming it doesn't, what the big deal is about FF mirrorless.

Click to expand...

That's where I'm at. That's also why I was hoping Canon would go EF mount. But...I don't know if the R mount is what enabled the 28-70 f/2L.

I understand mirrorless may offer some other benefits over DSLR, but DSLR offers some benefits of FF mirrorless too (depending on what features you value, eg I am yet to see an EVF I like as much as an OVF although I realise others prefer EVF).

Click to expand...

EVF gives you exposure preview and always available (not camera held out 'live view') AI AF options like eye AF. DSLR gives you a superior VF in many ways and faster non-AI AF acquisition / tracking. The best MILC AF systems are now pretty quick and good, but still not as fast and sure as off-mirror PDAF. (The Nikon Z tracking test at DPR was poor by top of the line DSLR standards.)

The other differences are not inherent to mirror/no mirror. They just are because that's what engineers chose. Size/weight savings appear to be a myth for FF mirrorless (not going to nitpick a few ounces or mm's here) but real for APS-C mirrorless.

Whether or not I buy an R will depend entirely on video specs and price. It would not become my primary camera, and I kinda doubt I would buy dedicated R lenses right now (cool though the 28-70 f/2L may be).

noms78 said:

Calling BS on the weights of the RF 50mm f/1.2 (and maybe the 28-70 f/2)

The EF 50 1.2 only weighs 580g!

Click to expand...

The EF 50mm f/1.2L USM also weighs 580g

noms78 said:

Calling BS on the weights of the RF 50mm f/1.2 (and maybe the 28-70 f/2)

The EF 50 1.2 only weighs 580g!

Click to expand...

Isn't that an old lens design with fewer elements?

So the 35mm isn’t a true 1:1 macro right? 17cm MFD seems long

The 35mm IS has MFD of 24cm

Timedog said:

Isn't that an old lens design with fewer elements?

Click to expand...

I'm wondering if this RF 50 f/1.2L will have FLE

28-70 is 3.15 pounds?
The weight saving idea went out the window.
The lens might need to be that big to be f/2, but it kind of misses the mark for the first go round of releases.
A compact f/2.8 might have been more appropriate.

Is it just me or do all the RF lenses except the 28-70 have what appears to be a second switch on the bottom of the lens? An IS switch? So that might mean a 50 F1.2 IS?