Latest activity

MayerMP · Jun 12, 2026

I know.

neuroanatomist · Jun 12, 2026

MayerMP said:
Why don't I they build something better than kit lenses for those of us who can't spend thousands?

https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf28-70mm-f2-8-is-stm

MayerMP · Jun 12, 2026

Why don't I they build something better than kit lenses for those of us who can't spend thousands?

neuroanatomist · Jun 12, 2026

Bob Howland said:
I would have preferred a new 24-70 f/2.8 L, 10% smaller and 25% lighter than the old one.

Canon math: 10% smaller + 25% lighter = 40% more expensive.

Bob Howland · Jun 12, 2026

I would have preferred a new 24-70 f/2.8 L, 10% smaller and 25% lighter than the old one.

Oceventphotos · Jun 12, 2026

I'm personally much more interested in a Canon RF 20-70 2.8L IS.

Keep it the same weight as the 24-70 2.8L IS, and make the corners a touch sharper.

neuroanatomist · Jun 12, 2026

blackcoffee17 said:
The current 28-70 is 1430g and doesn't have IS. Making it 24mm would add extra weight. The 24-70 is 900g. If they can make the 24-70 F2 1000g or less it's possible to replace both with one lens but that seems a bit extreme weight saving.

As you pointed out before you edited your post (and as CRguy suggested), Sony managed to make a much, much lighter 28-70/2. So I'd say it is certainly possible, especially since we know that Canon will rely on digital correction of the wide end in their design.

blackcoffee17 · Jun 12, 2026

The current 28-70 is 1430g and doesn't have IS. Making it 24mm would add extra weight. The 24-70 is 900g. If they can make the 24-70 F2 1000g or less it's possible to replace both with one lens but that seems a bit extreme weight saving.

neuroanatomist · Jun 12, 2026

m4ndr4ke said:
While a 24-70mm f/2 would be a great lens, I doubt dropping the f/2.8 24-70mm variant would be a good idea.

I suspect that if Canon launches a 24-70/2 VCM, the 24-70/2.8 would remain in the lineup as a 'current' lens.

m4ndr4ke · Jun 12, 2026

While a 24-70mm f/2 would be a great lens, I doubt dropping the f/2.8 24-70mm variant would be a good idea.

Many users are fine with f/2.8 zooms and are not looking for higher specifications, but would appreciate a lighter yet still pro 24-70mm f/2.8.

Sony did it (695g), Nikon did it (675g), and Canon has a 900 grams lens that is considering replacing with a heavier option?

Make a new f/2 standard zoom lens, but make a f/2.8 zoom as well. Both lenses have their targets.

Tom R5R7 · Jun 12, 2026

AccipiterQ said:
I was hoping for an announcement like this....I still have my EF 24-70 2.8ii, wouldn't mind upgrading.

That EF 24-70 f/2.8 II is a pretty spectacular lens in its own right. Any upgrade would be, in my mind, akin to going from an A- to an A in terms of IQ.

BroderLund · Jun 12, 2026

The question is also, will Canon come with an answer to the Sony 50-150mm F2?

neuroanatomist · Jun 12, 2026

Uneternal said:
I think they would rather benefit from decreasing the weight instead of offering another 1.4 kg boat anchor with more zoom range.

The point of the article, which you seem to have missed, is the possibility that both can be done simultaneously, in a 24-70/2 VCM weighing close to the current 24-70/2.8. Yes, digital correction of the corners would be needed at the wide end, but that's the norm now (the $3K 24-105/2.8 has that 'feature' at the wide end).

BroderLund · Jun 12, 2026

Been hoping for this!

Uneternal · Jun 12, 2026

I think they would rather benefit from decreasing the weight instead of offering another 1.4 kg boat anchor with more zoom range.

jeffa4444 · Jun 12, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Technically, you’re correct – one is a prime and the other is a zoom, and those are different classes of lenses. But optically, the RF 100-300/2.8 is just as good as the excellent 300/2.8 II at 300mm, and infinitely better from 100-299mm.

The price you pay for the added capability of a zoom lens is an extra 5 cm of length and an extra 200 g of weight (and higher cost, of course). Personally, I was initially hoping for an RF 300/2.8 and was not thrilled about the extra 5 cm of the zoom lens. After using it, the additional flexibility of a zoom lens is more than worth it. 35% of my shots with the lens are at 300mm, and 50% of my shots with it are shorter than 250mm.

The zoom is a little bulkier than the prime, but gives up nothing optically. One camera with the 100-300/2.8 is also a lot more convenient than one camera with a 300/2.8 and a second camera with a 70-200/2.8.

Had this self same conversation with a reputable optical engineer at a camera / lens rental company yesterday. His view was the RF 100-300mm f2.8 gives up nothing in image quality to the 300mm f2.8 II at 300mm and has much more versatility in his view it was a "no brainer".

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics