Canon to Merge Two Lenses Into an RF 24-70mm f/2L IS?

[Slappy_G]

If this actually happens, any bets as to whether they can manage proper optical correction, or if they cheap out and rely on digital correction and the low-quality corners and edges that entails?

Knowing their recent trend of using digital correction as a crutch even on L-series (L-priced, importantly) glass, I'm not too optimistic.

 

[koenkooi]

[...]
d. Sony has 3rd party lens support (in case the first party drops the ball) - I am glad that there is little worry that Canon's first party lens support would drop the ball.

I am sure others would have things to say about the rest of the claims on your list.

But Sony heavily limits 3rd party lenses, you won't get proper FPS and AF. Something that Canon, strange as it may seem, isn't doing with 3rd party RF-S lenses.

 

[masterpix]

My understanding of a "trinity" was three lenses that share the same aperture and quality built, but differ in focal length in a way that they complement each other. Therefore, the 200-800mm doesn't really qualify as part of a trinity because it has a much higher and variable f-number and no L designation..In case of the f2 zooms, my guess would be:

16-24mm F2 --> yet to be released or even only rumored.
24-70mm F2
70-135/150/180mm F2 --> whatever Canon decides on.

Concering the UWA zoom: Canon could give users the option to sacrifice one stop for starting at a 1mm wider focal length
(14-35mm F4 zoom, 15-35mm f2.8 zoom, 16-24?mm F2 zoom)

Sony is apparently going 16-24mm, 28-70mm and 50-150mm with the f2 trinity. The 50-150mm does sound intriguing to me as a stand alone lens, but not in a trinity package. Considering a trinity, I'm some users would prefer the lens starting at 70mm and extending its reach beyond 150mm.

I also wonder if a 20-70mm F2.8 - if it is ever made - will impact the UWA 2.8 zoom. Would Canon try to make a 10-20mm F2.8 or 12-24mm f2.8? If the standard goes down to 20mm, there's "no need" to go up to 35mm with the UWA zoom because there would a great amount of overlap and fewer mm gained by a UWA zoom. I don't think such a lens would arrive within the next 2-4 years, but it is still an interesting thought.

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".

 

[candyman]

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".

Soon I have a "holy trio" for travelling. It covers 10mm to 560mm. RF10-20mm, 20-50mm (pre-order) and RF100-400 with 1.4x. Pretty light in weight too.

 

[Del Paso]

Soon I have a "holy trio" for travelling. It covers 10mm to 560mm. RF10-20mm, 20-50mm (pre-order) and RF100-400 with 1.4x. Pretty light in weight too.

You beat me, mine is from 15mm to 560mm.
Life is so unfair!

 

[candyman]

You beat me, mine is from 15mm to 560mm.
Life is so unfair!

You can always add the 10-20 Works well in densely built cities and also for landscapes with interesting subjects in the foreground. Takes some of the photos I would normally use the TS-E 24mm for.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If this actually happens, any bets as to whether they can manage proper optical correction, or if they cheap out and rely on digital correction and the low-quality corners and edges that entails?

It’s clear that forced distortion correction is triggering for some people. I’ve asked many such people to provide examples of those ‘low-quality corners and edges’, and yet no one has been able to do so. Will you be the first?

It seems that you believe optical correction of geometric proportion is the gold standard. How does that belief hold up with the EF 17-40/4L? More of a tarnished brass standard, that one.

Personally, I found that the RF 14-35/4 after digital correction was just as sharp in the corners as the EF 11-24/4 at 14mm, where the latter has minimal distortion.

You don’t have to take my word (and test results, which I posted here a few years ago) for it. Look at the wide ends of the MTF charts for the RF 24-105/2.8L, the RF 24-70/2.8L and the RF 24-105/4L. The 24-104/2.8 requires distortion correction to ‘fill the corners’, the other two lenses do not. Yet the 24-105/2.8 is as good in the corrected corners as the 24-70/2.8 (despite a larger zoom range, which is usually optically detrimental) and better than the 24-105/4. How is that ‘low-quality corners’?

Knowing their recent trend of using digital correction as a crutch even on L-series (L-priced, importantly) glass, I'm not too optimistic.

I am pretty sure a 24-70/2 will require digital distortion correction at the wide end. Either way, I’m sure the lens will deliver modern L-series image quality across the frame.

If required digital correction of barrel distortion bothers you that much, don’t buy those lenses. Think of all the money you’ll save by not buying the smaller, lighter, and optically excellent lenses that digital distortion correction makes possible. Lucky you!

 

[scyrene]

It’s clear that forced distortion correction is triggering for some people. I’ve asked many such people to provide examples of those ‘low-quality corners and edges’, and yet no one has been able to do so. Will you be the first?

It seems that you believe optical correction of geometric proportion is the gold standard. How does that belief hold up with the EF 17-40/4L? More of a tarnished brass standard, that one.

It's an interesting case study of how a belief can take hold, regardless of the evidence (or in this case in the absence of evidence). I wonder if these people object to debayering?

 

[AlanF]

It's an interesting case study of how a belief can take hold, regardless of the evidence (or in this case in the absence of evidence). I wonder if these people object to debayering?

They are probably still using film.