The Follow-up to the RF 24-70 F2.8L IS USM Could See More of the World

[liv_img]

Lots of wideangles lenses these last years.

Canon was always been the leading brand in the telephoto lens range, but in the RF system, it seems to have forgotten about long focal lengths: 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 recycled from older EF lenses, 800mm f/5.6 and 1200mm f/8 recycled from those same 400mm and 600mm lenses, cheap telephotos like 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11... There's no sign of the 500mm f/4, the most widely used lens in wildlife photography. Or 400/4DO or 200-400+1.4x/4. Nor are there any of the 150mm or 180-600mm F5.6 zooms that all other brands like Nikon, Sony, Sigma, etc., offer.

Love the brand I used all my life, but feeling a bit dissapointed about that.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

@liv_img Got to follow the money, I guess…they probably sell more than 20 of these for each big white.

 

[neuroanatomist]

There's no sign of the 500mm f/4, the most widely used lens in wildlife photography.

The 500/4 II was widely used because it was light enough for most people to handhold, while the 600/4 II was not (though personally I have one, and can handhold it just fine). The 600/4 III and RF 600/4 are actually slightly lighter than the 500/4 II. I doubt we’ll ever see an RF 500/4.

 

[liv_img]

The 500/4 II was widely used because it was light enough for most people to handhold, while the 600/4 II was not (though personally I have one, and can handhold it just fine). The 600/4 III and RF 600/4 are actually slightly lighter than the 500/4 II. I doubt we’ll ever see an RF 500/4.

I hope a new RF500 F4 will be smaller, lighter and not so expensive as the RF 600/4. This was the tendency in the EF mount.

 

[Tom Helmut Rathke]

My daily carry is a Q3. But when actually shooting with the R52, I use the RF24-70 f/2.8 the most as my run and gun combo, and sometimes have the 14-35 close by. However, if the RF20-70 f/2.8 has the same sharpness and is not much bigger/heavier, I can imagine trading in the 24-70 and may end up leaving the 14-35 in the bag more often. (Suddenly there's this weird thought of trading in the 14-35 for the 10-20 as well... hmmm...). Also, have the RF70-200 f/2.8 and agree with m4ndr4e, I too love how compact it is.

 

[neuroanatomist]

(Suddenly there's this weird thought of trading in the 14-35 for the 10-20 as well... hmmm...)

I have both, the use cases for me are very different. The 10-20/4 is for when I know I want really, really wide. It’s great for travel, and I bring it along far more often than I did the EF 11-24/4. The 14-35 is great for a walk around lens in urban settings, having the close-to-normal 35mm wide end means it has more general utility for me than the 10-20.

Having said that, if most of your shots with the 14-35 are at or near the wide end (which may be the case if you only use it when you need wider than the 24mm of your standard zoom), then you might find the 10-20/4 to be a lot of fun!

 

[Keithf2.8is]

A 20-70/2.8 would be nice for capturing trail running events without having to bring the RF 15-35/2.8. We're only talking 5mm here, but those 5mm can make or break an image in the forest. In fact, Canon might as well make a 15-70/2.8 and use the resources of manufacturing the 15-35/2.8 for something else. And if a 15-70/2.8 cost $4000-4500 it would still be cheaper than the 15-35 and 24-70 currently available.

 

[sam morga moore]

24 is the classic 'scene setter' but with video stabilisation and cropping.. an actual 24 is not really wide enough. We cant have a 20-70 fast enough. This would be a major ihncentive for me to stay in the canon system as im flirting with sony right now.

 

[AJ]

It'd be nice if they could do a 20-105/4 IS. That would be a very versatile range.

 

[luxdominatus]

I got the 28-70mm 2.0 when I first jumped into Canon mirrorless. It's a fantastic lens for indoor events or just as a "normal" lens to leave on a body and maybe have in the car as an always-with-me camera. But the weight of that monster gets old fast. A 20-70mm or 20-85mm would be a great lens and exotic but not too heavy.
I really, really, really wish Canon would copy Sony and make a 50-150mm f2.0. I've rented one just to evaluate it and it's an incredible lens that covers such a useful range. Excellent for indoor events. Also one that you can just leave on the camera all the time. I've decided to get one and if Canon ever makes their own, maybe I'll switch, but it's just too handy to do without in the meantime.
That lens along with a 15-35mm and a 300mm 2.8 are all anyone needs for events, concerts, sports, weddings, and portraits. It's not much heavier than a 70-200mm 2.8. The f2.0 speed and shallow DOF are worth the cost. Come on, Canon! Do your own version and add some one-upmanship like making yours compatible with teleconverters. I bet they probably won't because then you could have a 50-150mm 2.0 and a 70-280mm 2.8 with the 1.4x converter and that would cannibalize sales of Canon's $10,000 100-300mm. So that's why I'll be buying the Sony for now and bringing an older a7r body out of retirement.

The RF28-70 F2.0L is so damn heavy on my R5 that I can't use it for too long. I can make great use of it in the studio, but the kit RF24-105 F4.0L ends up back ony camera the most.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The RF28-70 F2.0L is so damn heavy on my R5 that I can't use it for too long. I can make great use of it in the studio, but the kit RF24-105 F4.0L ends up back ony camera the most.

For me, it’s a balance thing plus having room for my whole hand on the grip. When using the 28-70/2, or a similarly heavy lens like the 85/1.2L DS, on my R8 (on the rare occasions when I do so), my hand hurts after a short time. But I can shoot comfortably for hours with those lenses on my R1 (the E1 hand strap helps, too).

 

[scyrene]

The 500/4 II was widely used because it was light enough for most people to handhold, while the 600/4 II was not (though personally I have one, and can handhold it just fine). The 600/4 III and RF 600/4 are actually slightly lighter than the 500/4 II. I doubt we’ll ever see an RF 500/4.

The reason it was my go-to long lens for about a decade was even simpler: it was substantially cheaper than the 600 f/4, which I craved but couldn't stretch to. That latter lens was always the gold standard, from what I could tell.

 

[scyrene]

Lots of wideangles lenses these last years.

Canon was always been the leading brand in the telephoto lens range, but in the RF system, it seems to have forgotten about long focal lengths: 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 recycled from older EF lenses, 800mm f/5.6 and 1200mm f/8 recycled from those same 400mm and 600mm lenses, cheap telephotos like 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11... There's no sign of the 500mm f/4, the most widely used lens in wildlife photography. Or 400/4DO or 200-400+1.4x/4. Nor are there any of the 150mm or 180-600mm F5.6 zooms that all other brands like Nikon, Sony, Sigma, etc., offer.

Love the brand I used all my life, but feeling a bit dissapointed about that.

Is your contention they should reproduce the EF lineup? Because already the RF long focal length options are better than the old days. The 500 was a compromise, the 400 DO and 200-400 were a niche within a niche.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

The RF28-70 F2.0L is so damn heavy on my R5 that I can't use it for too long. I can make great use of it in the studio, but the kit RF24-105 F4.0L ends up back ony camera the most.

For me, it’s a balance thing plus having room for my whole hand on the grip. When using the 28-70/2, or a similarly heavy lens like the 85/1.2L DS, on my R8 (on the rare occasions when I do so), my hand hurts after a short time. But I can shoot comfortably for hours with those lenses on my R1 (the E1 hand strap helps, too).

To be honest, I have no issues with the weight of the 28-70mm f/2, but there was a learning curve on how to properly hold the lens, when I bought it, that took a few assignments to get the hang of.
Since then, I have nothing to complain.
Before that, my left index finger was completely crushed, even sore on the day after an assignment.

I do not own battery grips, I usually use the lens on the R6, with my Peak Design Slide Lite, crossbody to the left. I'm mostly a skinny guy.

The most important adjustment I had to make to my left hand was dropping a little on the readiness to operate the zoom ring.
I was used to holding the 24-70 by the zoom ring, with my thumb and index fingers, to be able to turn it at any time, and that was a mistake with the 28-70.
For the 28-70, I do not hold the lens with two fingers on the zoom ring, just my left thumb, and I rarely zoom while looking through the viewfinder. I hold the weight almost entirely with my left hand, well open, and my index finger rests on the control ring, sometimes even touches the lens hood, which should give you an idea on how spread my fingers are. The lens really sits on the palm of my left hand, it's not suspended by the fingers, and I can remove my right hand from the camera at any time, without losing my composition. I'm grabbing the entire lens.

To me, that was the trick. Since then, I'm good using it for hours. On the day after a wedding, it's the legs that are tired, not my upper body.

 

[Malm]

Lots of wideangles lenses these last years.

Canon was always been the leading brand in the telephoto lens range, but in the RF system, it seems to have forgotten about long focal lengths: 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 recycled from older EF lenses, 800mm f/5.6 and 1200mm f/8 recycled from those same 400mm and 600mm lenses, cheap telephotos like 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11... There's no sign of the 500mm f/4, the most widely used lens in wildlife photography. Or 400/4DO or 200-400+1.4x/4. Nor are there any of the 150mm or 180-600mm F5.6 zooms that all other brands like Nikon, Sony, Sigma, etc., offer.

Love the brand I used all my life, but feeling a bit dissapointed about that.

There was recently some rumour into that direction: An affordable zoom lens up to 600mm and affordable (<< 10.000 $) and 'not-too-slow' 400, 600 and 800 mm lenses like those of the competitors. And yes, Canon is a little bit slow with filling all the gaps with RF lenses (as 3rd party are mostly banned).

 

[Malm]

Well, something 'wider' than 24-70/2.8 sounds interesting, but I'm even more interested in the image quality. And the price might also play a role.

 

[HMC11]

Most interesting rumour indeed. Is it too much to hope for a 20-105 F4L? 24-105 F4L is a convenient lens to carry for a one-lens travel/hiking kit, but for visiting cathedrals and museums, it is often not quite wide enough. I find that I have to decide between it and the 14-35 F4 if I only want to have one lens to reduce carrying load. A 20-105 F4L would meet my needs nicely, assuming IQ is equal to or better than the 24-105 F4L.

 

[Del Paso]

A 20-70/2.8 would be nice for capturing trail running events without having to bring the RF 15-35/2.8. We're only talking 5mm here, but those 5mm can make or break an image in the forest. In fact, Canon might as well make a 15-70/2.8 and use the resources of manufacturing the 15-35/2.8 for something else. And if a 15-70/2.8 cost $4000-4500 it would still be cheaper than the 15-35 and 24-70 currently available.

But it would be certainly be hard to develop such a lens in the expected optical quality. Extreme zoom ranges come at a cost, not only in $$$!

 

[Malm]

But it would be certainly be hard to develop such a lens in the expected optical quality. Extreme zoom ranges come at a cost, not only in $$$!

That's what I worry a bit: extended zoom-range on the cost of image quality. But first we need a real lens. And than it's depending on the individual preferences. I'm happy with a fast UWA around 14mm, the 24-70/2,8 and a 70-200 - which can be slow - , but there are so many other preferences ....

 

[Del Paso]

That's what I worry a bit: extended zoom-range on the cost of image quality. But first we need a real lens. And than it's depending on the individual preferences. I'm happy with a fast UWA around 14mm, the 24-70/2,8 and a 70-200 - which can be slow - , but there are so many other preferences ....

Exactly my light equipment choice (14, 24-70, 70-200 f/4).
Presently (waiting for the 20-70...), it's 15-35, 70-200 and 50.