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

[neuroanatomist]

I can't see this happening if they want to compete against the 50-150 f2.0 from Sony which is way less expensive.

150/2 = 75
200/2.8 = 71.4

200/2 = 100

There's a big difference in the amount of glass needed to achieve 200/2 compared to 150/2 (the latter being similar to 200/2.8). Physics.

Also, what makes you think Canon's goal is to compete against any particular Sony product?

 

[Eloniel]

150/2 = 75
200/2.8 = 71.4

200/2 = 100

There's a big difference in the amount of glass needed to achieve 200/2 compared to 150/2 (the latter being similar to 200/2.8). Physics.

Also, what makes you think Canon's goal is to compete against any particular Sony product?

That's another reason for it to not happen and the lens to stop at 150-180.

Canon will want it's own f2.0 trinity, at this point it's even a question of reputation against Sony that is building it's own.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon will want it's own f2.0 trinity, at this point it's even a question of reputation against Sony that is building it's own.

Yes, I see. Canon must hurry up and match Sony’s f/2 lenses. Their reputation is on the line. I mean, it took Sony what…6 years to come out with a 28-70/2 after Canon launched theirs. But Canon must catch up, or else. Mmmmmmkay.

 

[scyrene]

Also, what makes you think Canon's goal is to compete against any particular Sony product?

This is what I always wonder. "Compete" means one thing to forum dwellers and I think something rather different to the companies involved.

 

[ctk]

People really think camera gear development is like a tennis match. Even the most GAS afflicted spec sheet chaser is not switching back and forth between systems on every new update. Those folks just deep fry their credit cards and buy everything that comes out.

I went from Nikon to Sony to Canon and now am back with Sony. As much as I admire and envy some of the strides Canon RF has made since I bailed, I really have no appetite or reason to switch again. I feel like Canon, Sony and to a lesser degree Nikon and Panasonic FF MILC systems have more than enough for the vast majority of enthusiasts.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A 70-200 f2.0 compatible with teleconverter would be a threat to the 100-300 F2.8 so I assume the it will not be compatible with teleconverter.

So Canon shouldn’t make a 70-200mm f/2 because with a 1.4x TC that’s a 98-280mm f/2.8 and that’s ’a threat’ to the 100-300mm f/2.8.

Shhhhh. Don’t tell Canon that a 400mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC is a 560mm f/4. If they ever figure that out, they’ll understand the threat that poses to a 600mm f/4, and they’ll never make such a lens.

Or maybe that ‘threat’ is why, while Canon made 7 versions of a 400/2.8, they’ve only made 5 versions of a 600/4.

This is what I always wonder. "Compete" means one thing to forum dwellers and I think something rather different to the companies involved.

Forum dwellers thinking they understand the camera market better than manufacturers is a never-ending source of amusement.

 

[Eloniel]

So Canon shouldn’t make a 70-200mm f/2 because with a 1.4x TC that’s a 98-280mm f/2.8 and that’s ’a threat’ to the 100-300mm f/2.8.

Shhhhh. Don’t tell Canon that a 400mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC is a 560mm f/4. If they ever figure that out, they’ll understand the threat that poses to a 600mm f/4, and they’ll never make such a lens.

Or maybe that ‘threat’ is why, while Canon made 7 versions of a 400/2.8, they’ve only made 5 versions of a 600/4.


Forum dwellers thinking they understand the camera market better than manufacturers is a never-ending source of amusement.

It's a threat if the 70-180/200 is at 4000€ vs the 100-300 at 10000€.
They can't really make a 70-180/200 at 10000 because the Sony alternative is really really less expensive.

So they don't have a lot of margin to design this f2.0 telezoom, of course optically, weight and size but also to have a cohesive lense in the lineup that can compete against Sony.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's a threat if the 70-180/200 is at 4000€ vs the 100-300 at 10000€.
They can't really make a 70-180/200 at 10000 because the Sony alternative is really really less expensive.

So they don't have a lot of margin to design this f2.0 telezoom, of course optically, weight and size but also to have a cohesive lense in the lineup that can compete against Sony.

Once again...why do you think Canon has to 'compete against Sony' in this segment, lens-for-lens? Did you spend 6 years saying that Sony had to maintain their reputation and compete against Canon's RF 28-70/2? I doubt it. Where are the sub-$1000 600mm and 800mm lenses from Sony? Why don't they have to 'compete with Canon' in that segment?

Canon has led the ILC market for 23 years and counting. I'm certain they know more about what lenses to design and sell than you, me, or anyone else on this or any other Internet forum. But feel free to keep on making sweeping statements about what Canon has to do to 'be competitive'. Lol.

 

[MISTAKENIDENTITY]

Sounds cool. I hope I don't die before it is released!

 

[snapshot]

That's another reason for it to not happen and the lens to stop at 150-180.

Canon will want it's own f2.0 trinity, at this point it's even a question of reputation against Sony that is building it's own.

i keep wishing i had a compelling reason to buy a 200 F/2. the problem i see with constant aperture zooms is how big the front element is, and how such are large front element should deliver an even wider aperture for the wide angle end of the zoom range. if you buy a 70-200 F/2 and shoot a bunch at 100 you might have been better off with a 100 F/1.4.

my notion of canon's reputation is: I buy tools from them, the tools work as expected for a long time and if i have trouble canon will try to help. i know lots of canon shooters and this is the reputation they have. a reputation goes way beyond the catalog of products being offered. the products being offered change, but canon's reputation for quality has been consistent since i purchased by first EF-L lens in 1998.

 

[JustGunner]

Weight and size will be interesting. Before the Sony 28-70 f2 came out there were rumours for it to be a 24-70 f2 but they opted to make it a 28-70 f2 because of weight. But the Sony 28-70 f2 is lighter than the Canon version.
I'm really curious how heavy it will be. The rumours article says there will be significant weight savings.

Whenever there's weight saving, there's going to be some sort of compromise in design. The Sony lens is significantly lighter because it relies quite a bit on digital distortion correction, and while the Canon 28-70 F2 came out some 7yrs ago, it was less of a thing. That is why you literally have a lot more glasses in the Canon lens @F2.0 than the Sony counterpart.

Then there is the IS, even Sony doesn't dare to add the feature to their F2.0 lens, which shows you that it will almost be impossible to achieve a good balance between price + weight + performance of a 24-70 F2.0 IS lens.

 

[ctk]

Whenever there's weight saving, there's going to be some sort of compromise in design. The Sony lens is significantly lighter because it relies quite a bit on digital distortion correction, and while the Canon 28-70 F2 came out some 7yrs ago, it was less of a thing. That is why you literally have a lot more glasses in the Canon lens @F2.0 than the Sony counterpart.

Then there is the IS, even Sony doesn't dare to add the feature to their F2.0 lens, which shows you that it will almost be impossible to achieve a good balance between price + weight + performance of a 24-70 F2.0 IS lens.

I would be shocked and amazed if this thing had IS. I dont see too many R8/RP/R50 buyers grabbing this thing.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

So Canon shouldn’t make a 70-200mm f/2 because with a 1.4x TC that’s a 98-280mm f/2.8 and that’s ’a threat’ to the 100-300mm f/2.8.

Shhhhh. Don’t tell Canon that a 400mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC is a 560mm f/4. If they ever figure that out, they’ll understand the threat that poses to a 600mm f/4, and they’ll never make such a lens.

Or maybe that ‘threat’ is why, while Canon made 7 versions of a 400/2.8, they’ve only made 5 versions of a 600/4.


Forum dwellers thinking they understand the camera market better than manufacturers is a never-ending source of amusement.

I totally agree. You can make a 400mm f2.8 similar to a 600mm f4 with tele converters. The difference is that the 400 has a shorter min focus distance and is a smaller and lighter lens than the big 600. Both options will out resolve our current full frame snesors. Both can make an excellent approximate 800mm f5.6 with teleconverters. What the 400 can't do is make a great 1200mm that the 600mm can do with a 2x tc. The Big 600 can't make a short 400mm or do f2.8. So yes there's a lot of overlap, but ultimatly, one is wider the other is longer. I would never buy both a 600 and a 400, but would weight up the benfits of each and choose the best for for me.

Likewise your lovely RF 100-300mm is great with telecoverters, something like a theoretical 70-200mm f2 might be able to step into the RF 100-300's native range with converters, but it certainly won't be able to produce a sharp 200-600mm lens with teleconverters. If a 600mm is the goal, there are better ways to do this. Having a 100-300 f2.8 and a 600 f4 is a perfect set up for many.

 

[Ozarker]

It's a seriously fun lens!

Thread 'RF 10-20mm f/4L IS STM'

Nov 5, 2023

Received the lens two days ago. Hectic weekend with two kids, and my wife working until nearly dark. And this new lens has learning curves for capture and for processing.

You'll see three versions of the same shot of the tub, a tub which is not round but oval. (This one's distortion really surprised me.) The file names are descriptive, but, just for clarity, "LRC no correction" shows how the image looked when opened in Lightroom Classic. "LRC w correction" shows a modified RF 14-35mm f/4 lens-correction applied to the 10-22mm. The modification was to move the distortion slider on the...

• YuengLinger
• Replies: 46
• Forum: Canon RF Lenses

• 

Thank you, Neuro.

 

[Ozarker]

So Canon shouldn’t make a 70-200mm f/2 because with a 1.4x TC that’s a 98-280mm f/2.8 and that’s ’a threat’ to the 100-300mm f/2.8.

Shhhhh. Don’t tell Canon that a 400mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC is a 560mm f/4. If they ever figure that out, they’ll understand the threat that poses to a 600mm f/4, and they’ll never make such a lens.

Or maybe that ‘threat’ is why, while Canon made 7 versions of a 400/2.8, they’ve only made 5 versions of a 600/4.


Forum dwellers thinking they understand the camera market better than manufacturers is a never-ending source of amusement.

Wait for the AI revolution to make everyone even more "expert". People will be drawn in deeper.

 

[scyrene]

Wait for the AI revolution to make everyone even more "expert". People will be drawn in deeper.

The human capacity for insight is exceeded only by its aptitude for stupidity. Today I saw someone AI/robots could solve the issue of spiralling costs repairing a historic building.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Today I saw someone AI/robots could solve the issue of spiralling costs repairing a historic building.

Easy. Once everyone has smart glasses, AI can just make the historic building look restored with augmented reality. No need for bricks or workers.

 

[Del Paso]

Easy. Once everyone has smart glasses, AI can just make the historic building look restored with augmented reality. No need for bricks or workers.

And AI can also solve the reflecting pool issue without duck killing chemicals.
We're living in a wonderful new world!

 

[Michael Clark]

...either Canon are unable to innovate and get on top of Sony again, or they have lost touch with their target market).

Or perhaps someone else has lost touch with what the majority of Canon's market wants?

If they get the geometry right, I'll be getting on the waiting list the day the announcement is out.

How will you know whether they "got the geometry right" on the day of an announcement weeks or even months before any independent reviewers could test a copy of the lens?

 

[Michael Clark]

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 distortion 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 24-105/2.8 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’?


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!

For some it's not so much distortion correction as it is Peripheral Illumination Correction which makes the corners so *noisy* compared to the center and mid-frame areas of an image, especially if shot in low light at higher ISO to begin with.