Is a ‘Holy Trinity’ of f/2.8 STM Zoom Lenses on the Horizon?

[Canon Rumors]

In late 2024, Canon surprised us with the announcement of the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM, a fast zoom in a very small package. Earlier this year, Canon followed that up by launching the RF 16-28mm f/2.8 IS STM. Both lenses have been well received by the Canon community and for good reasons. This is […]

See full article...

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Can STM Handle it?
Going back to the “type” quote, perhaps we’ll see something like an RF 70-180mm f/2.8 IS STM? I’m just throwing out an idea for us to think about.
Can Canon’s new STM focus motor handle doing a telephoto zoom? By the sounds of it, it likely could. The latest STM motors are snappy, silent and accurate.

If it can't, a single nano USM certainly will, like the RF 100-400mm.

The STM in the RF 45mm f/1.2 is unimpressive, I tried the lens last week. It's smooth but very slow.
So far, the only lenses where STM truly seems to be enough are those that don't have that much movement to perform (10-20mm f/4, 16-28mm f/2.8, 28-70mm f/2.8).

 

[Canon Rumors]

If it can't, a single nano USM certainly will, like the RF 100-400mm.

The STM in the RF 45mm f/1.2 is unimpressive, I tried the lens last week. It's smooth but very slow.
So far, the only lenses where STM truly seems to be enough are those that don't have that much movement to perform (10-20mm f/4, 16-28mm f/2.8, 28-70mm f/2.8).

I have had no issues with autofocus speed or accuracy. That said the 2.8 STM lenses are a completly different lens design philosophy. The way the focus cluster is designed is really all that matters.

I have had no issues with the 45 as far as autofocus speed and accuracy.

 

[Del Paso]

On the one hand, an inexpensive 70-200, like the 100-400, will certainly appeal to lots of customers.
On the other hand, the RF 70-200 f/4 isn't overly expensive, while optically superb and compact...

 

[johnchio]

Honestly I'm hoping Canon would release something like their EF 200 f2.8 (which is very old). If they do it on RF it could become an appeal to the people who use the 70-200 for sports. Maybe even something slightly longer to use on crop sensor bodies (240mm f2.8 or f4? which will become a 384mm on a crop body). And they could put in the same USM as the 100-400 which I use and feel no real problems with. All for around $1000-1500? Also would like to see them start to use VCM in more types of lenses.

 

[Canon Rumors]

On the one hand, an inexpensive 70-200, like the 100-400, will certainly appeal to lots of customers.
On the other hand, the RF 70-200 f/4 isn't overly expensive, while optically superb and compact...

Continuity seems to be a focus with Canon. We have the VCM (especially) and the f/2.8 Z lens. The two f/2.8 STM lenses feel very similar in form and function.

 

[padam]

Honestly I'm hoping Canon would release something like their EF 200 f2.8 (which is very old). If they do it on RF it could become an appeal to the people who use the 70-200 for sports. Maybe even something slightly longer to use on crop sensor bodies (240mm f2.8 or f4? which will become a 384mm on a crop body). And they could put in the same USM as the 100-400 which I use and feel no real problems with. All for around $1000-1500? Also would like to see them start to use VCM in more types of lenses.

No manufacturer is going to bother with a niche lens like that.
With the release of the RF 70-200/2,8L Z, an OG RF 70-200/2.8L has become more affordable, especially used.

 

[Bob Howland]

Repeating myself yet again, I want Sigma to introduce the 50-140 f/2.8 OS (?) DC C to complete their trinity. I already own the 10-18 and 18-50 and they are excellent, especially on the R50V.

 

[David_B]

One day there'll be a RF 24-70/f4 that's at least as optically good as the EF24-70/f4 for a similar price. ah dreams.

Meanwhile, there'll be a 70-200 for every ocassion.

 

[Snapster]

Not really interested in a 70-200 2.8 without the latest nano usm tech. The STM could be very disappointing for a lens that is supposed to be able to shoot action. Or why would you even need a budget 2.8 otherwise? You can already shoot portraits with the 85mm f/2 and tele landscapes with the 100-400 f/ whatever.

What would add something new to the table is an RF 100-300 f/4L. The 70-200 f/4L is so small it could easily be a bit bigger with more reach and be 100mm more amazing for many things.

 

[john1970]

If it can't, a single nano USM certainly will, like the RF 100-400mm.

The STM in the RF 45mm f/1.2 is unimpressive, I tried the lens last week. It's smooth but very slow.
So far, the only lenses where STM truly seems to be enough are those that don't have that much movement to perform (10-20mm f/4, 16-28mm f/2.8, 28-70mm f/2.8).

That observation is very reasonable. The only lens that I own that has a STM is the 10-20 f4 L lens and in that lens it works very well.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Not really interested in a 70-200 2.8 without the latest nano usm tech. The STM could be very disappointing for a lens that is supposed to be able to shoot action. Or why would you even need a budget 2.8 otherwise? You can already shoot portraits with the 85mm f/2 and tele landscapes with the 100-400 f/ whatever.

What would add something new to the table is an RF 100-300 f/4L. The 70-200 f/4L is so small it could easily be a bit bigger with more reach and be 100mm more amazing for many things.

70-200s are one the most versatile lenses in lineups. They are used for so many things. Events, portrait, wildlife, landscape, general use.... You could shoot some sports with a non-USM motor. Our kids aren't moving at the speed of light like professional athletes.

Most sports Dads aren't going to be dropping $3000 on a lens to shoot Timbits Hockey. It also becomes far more accessible for people that are shooting with R10s and R50s and that sort of thing.

Canon already makes your preference, so you're good!

 

[m4ndr4ke]

a lens that is supposed to be able to shoot action. Or why would you even need a budget 2.8 otherwise?

Was that a joke?
Sports are probably what one would shoot less with a budget 2.8.

I have had no issues with the 45 as far as autofocus speed and accuracy.

Its autofocus speed didn't impress me. It's very smooth for a gear type STM, it's the smoothest I ever used (again for a gear type STM), but I found it to be just slightly faster than the 85mm f/2 - I had both side by side.
This is not to trash the lens, I'm actually considering it, but I was hoping for it to be a little snappier.

The only lens that I own that has a STM is the 10-20 f4 L lens and in that lens it works very well.

Yes it does, I'd say the STM implementation in that lens makes it almost as fast as a nano USM, it's great.

 

[Tom R5R7]

If it can't, a single nano USM certainly will, like the RF 100-400mm.

The STM in the RF 45mm f/1.2 is unimpressive, I tried the lens last week. It's smooth but very slow.
So far, the only lenses where STM truly seems to be enough are those that don't have that much movement to perform (10-20mm f/4, 16-28mm f/2.8, 28-70mm f/2.8).

I think that in the case of the 45 mm, being based on a Gaussian design, the entire lens groups, or most of the elements move to focus. That is a lot more burden then having only a group in the center of the lens doing the focusing task.

 

[MarioGC]

28-70mm? I owned one once. It was the most useless lens I have ever owned. Always too long at the short end and too short at the long end. It doesn't matter if it is f/2.8. I wouldn't buy one even if it were a f/2.
24-70 is ok, 24-105 still better.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[neuroanatomist]

28-70mm? I owned one once. It was the most useless lens I have ever owned. Always too long at the short end and too short at the long end. It doesn't matter if it is f/2.8. I wouldn't buy one even if it were a f/2.
24-70 is ok, 24-105 still better.
Just my 2 cents.

I have the 24-105/2.8L and the 28-70/2L. The former is an excellent general purpose lens, for me the latter essentially substitutes for a set of fast primes (though I do also have the 85/1.2L DS for portraits).

 

[padam]

What would add something new to the table is an RF 100-300 f/4L. The 70-200 f/4L is so small it could easily be a bit bigger with more reach and be 100mm more amazing for many things.

Just use a 70-200/2.8 on APS-C or a Z version + 1.4x extender, equals to 100-280mm f/4L (with better minimum focus distance).
They won't make lenses that already exist as such...

 

[Mistral75]

In late 2024, Canon surprised us with the announcement of the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM, a fast zoom in a very small package. Earlier this year, Canon followed that up by launching the RF 16-28mm f/2.8 IS STM. Both lenses have been well received by the Canon community and for good reasons. This is […]

See full article...

Do you remember your own post from 22 May this year?

Canon RF 70-150mm f/2.8 IS STM Coming To Complete the Trilogy? - Canon Rumors

 

[Bob Howland]

Just use a 70-200/2.8 on APS-C or a Z version + 1.4x extender, equals to 100-280mm f/4L (with better minimum focus distance).
They won't make lenses that already exist as such...

I use a 20-year old EF 70-200 f/2.8 on an R7, both alone and with a 1.4X TC. They work OK although I'd like a faster sensor readout. I also use the lens and (sometimes) TC with an R6-2 especially when I need 40 FPS,

 

[Snapster]

70-200s are one the most versatile lenses in lineups. They are used for so many things. Events, portrait, wildlife, landscape, general use.... You could shoot some sports with a non-USM motor. Our kids aren't moving at the speed of light like professional athletes.

Most sports Dads aren't going to be dropping $3000 on a lens to shoot Timbits Hockey. It also becomes far more accessible for people that are shooting with R10s and R50s and that sort of thing.

Canon already makes your preference, so you're good!

No, but the dads could drop $1500 on an f/4L unless the new STM is significantly cheaper. I guess they now know how much the 16-28 STM sold vs. the 14-35L. Wide angles get away with STM easier though.

My preference would still be a 100-300 f/4L.