I had the EF 135mm f/2 and my RF 135mm f/1.8 is superior in nearly every way: image quality, AF speed, optical IS, ergonomics, build quality, weather sealing, shorter MFD, 1/3 stop faster (37% more light), better bokeh.
I think the 20-50 is an extremely important lens or, more exactly, an extremely important architecture. It's the first interchangeable lens in a neat package whose focal length is designed to be controlled by the camera body. Previously Canon used a kludgy add-on to do that task. For photographers, this doesn't mean much. For video, this could kill camcorders. Furthermore, it's an L and comparatively cheap.
I'll take them off your hands...Damn, I better sell off my RF 135mm f/1.8 L IS USM and my EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM then, can't understand why they're among my favourite lenses
It'll be interesting to see what happens. I thought camcorders just had kind of a revival. Maybe Canon wants to profit from it instead of killing them of.
For the original F2.8 L trinity you're kind of right. There is an overlap between the UWA zoom and the standard zoom, but not for the telezoom. The 24-105mm wasn't really part of trinity, it was more of a "one-lens" set-up kind of thing instead of two lenses. For the EF mount there was and still is the EF 24-70mm F4 L. A lens which was never "brought over" (is that a correct term/ phrase?) to the RF mount. The f4 trinity also only had an overlap with the UWA and standard zoom.
Oh wow... a 70-180 f/2 would be a world's first on any mount! I wonder what size and weight it would have to be. Seems like a fantastic idea and I think would help solidify the Canon market and not so tempting to try Sony with its 50-150 f/2. And as you say, this would not have overlap since Sony does have a 28-70 f/2 so it overlaps the 50-150 f/2 by 20mm. But the Sony 28-70 f/2 is 36% lighter than Canon's version so that's a fair bit lighter (512 grams or 1.13 pounds). For anybody shooting for hours at a time that is a lot lighter to carry.
Hope = deferred disappointment
. A 180mm f2 lens would need a front element with a 90mm diameter, that is about the size of the front element of the RF 200-800mm. Your wish lens will be big, heavy and very expensive.Depends what you mean. Psychologically, maybe? In the minds of a few fans. But these lenses are so esoteric their sales are probably rounding errors compared to kit models.
Germany sucked yesterday, but I kept watching because I hoped they'd turn it around. Ta-da, they actually did it. So sometimes, hope is not a deferred disappointment whether it is in sports, politics (look what the Hungarian people accomplished) and sometimes even for first-world-camera-wishes.Hope = deferred disappointment
Thx for the math. Honestly, I didn't realistically expect 180mm at the long end. But now you're telling me the diameter would be 90mm "only?" The lens will be smaller than the current RF 28-70mm f2 (100-104mm diameter depending on the source). The filter thread might also be smaller. I actually have hope for this lens now
Yes, Canon needs a diet for this lens. The weight (and a fair bit the bulk, too) has kept me from purchasing it because it just too heavy to carry it around. The weight of Sonys lens is intriguing and think Canon will be up to the task to accomplish building a successor with nearly the same specs concerning weight.
If it's not 180mm they would have to do a 70-160 or 70-170mm f2.0 if they want to have the world first title.Hope = deferred disappointment
The front element of a 70-180/2 zoom would need to be 90 mm in diameter, or so. FYI, even though the 28-70/2 is a fat lens and takes 95mm filters, the actual front element is ‘only’ about 78 mm in diameter. But a 90 mm front element could work with a 95mm filter thread.Thx for the math. Honestly, I didn't realistically expect 180mm at the long end. But now you're telling me the diameter would be 90mm "only?" The lens will be smaller than the current RF 28-70mm f2 (100-104mm diameter depending on the source). The filter thread might also be smaller. I actually have hope for this lens now
My Sigma 10-18 APS-C lens, the filter size is 67mm but the front element is 35.5mm. At the other extreme Pentax used to make a 200 f/2.5 lens with a 77mm filter. Either it wasn't 200mm or it wasn't f/2.5 or both.
Probably both. For example, a recent Canon 600/4 patent was 588mm f/4.12. That’s consistent with my EF 600/4 II, where the front element measures about 143mm in diameter.
