Weight and size will be interesting. Before the Sony 28-70 f2 came out there were rumours for it to be a 24-70 f2 but they opted to make it a 28-70 f2 because of weight. But the Sony 28-70 f2 is lighter than the Canon version.
I'm really curious how heavy it will be. The rumours article says there will be significant weight savings.

I don't see it happening. If they can churn out a 24-70 F2.0 IS, it will be 5k at least, and it will weigh more than the original 28-70, unless they use a lot of plastic elements and digital distortion corrections.

For portraits, a shorter shutter speed is necessary anyway to avoid motion blur. I don't see much importance in IBIS for this type of photography.

I now see that the thead is in the Rumors section - Can a admin please move it to the gear-section for EOS R?

Exploreshootshare said:

My trio with the longest focal length would be
RF 14-35mm F4
RF 24-105mm F4 L
RF 100-500mm

I rarely take this combo as it is. I want something with a bigger aperture so I swap a lens or two out.

I currently do not own an extender, but I use to (for about a year the 1.4 and for a shorter period the 2x) giving me a max of 700mm or 1000mm.

Click to expand...

The latest family trip was done with the 24-105L, 50VCM and 100-500L. Great combination, but I’m looking forward to the 20-50L.

masterpix said:

Well, not sure about the exat terminology, but if you ask me, going traveling, covering the focal length from 24mm to 800mm allowing both landscape, portrait and birds is my "holy trio".

Click to expand...

My trio with the longest focal length would be
RF 14-35mm F4
RF 24-105mm F4 L
RF 100-500mm

I rarely take this combo as it is. I want something with a bigger aperture so I swap a lens or two out.

I currently do not own an extender, but I use to (for about a year the 1.4 and for a shorter period the 2x) giving me a max of 700mm or 1000mm.

neuroanatomist said:

It seems that you believe optical correction of geometric distortion is the gold standard. How does that belief hold up with the EF 17-40/4L?

Click to expand...

I admit to being triggered by digital correction. I found the EF17-40 to be unusable when corner-corner sharpness was required on my full frame 5D4, even after distortion correction in DPP (which helped quite a bit). I think that was really an APS-H lens - so probably not the best example. On the otherhand, i have no EVIDENCE that digital correction produces inferior images.
a. digital correction was not really practicable when i was using full frame film and i took great pictures with my EF 28-70 f/2.8 L. I tend to believe, however, that film sharpness is no where near what we are experiencing today with digital.
b. digital correction in DPP on pictures taken with the same lens on my R5 didnt seem to help much
c. neuro would tell you that RF 24-70 F/2.8 is much sharper (probably with and without) digital correction than the EF 28-70 F/2.8 and he is probably right (but the cool filter adapter wont work)
d. i have been happy with my travel pictures taken with RF24-280 F/terrible that is heavily dependent on digital correction, easily as good as my Tamron 28-300 F/not great.
thus even through I am triggered, i just take pictures and live with the results which are great and always have been. it has never been easier to get great results in photography.

seems like the sony fans think that sony is canon's biggest problem. i tend to think competing with 25 years of thier own great photography tools is a much bigger problem for canon.

Mistral75 said:

The same lens (same optical formula, same MTF curves) is also sold under the Cheecar brand, in addition to Pergear, 7Artisans, and now Brightin Star.

Click to expand...

Mistral75 said:

The same lens (same optical formula, same MTF curves) is also sold under the Cheecar brand, in addition to Pergear, 7Artisans, and now Brightin Star.

Click to expand...

I don’t understand the marketing under so many different names. You would think it would lower the appeal.