Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM II mentioned [CR2]

[EOS 4 Life]

The gimbal balance makes sense for video... I assume you don't mean fixed gimbals ie safari etc.

Internal zoom does not necessarily mean better balance on a gimbal.
All the elements are still moving inside,

 

[David - Sydney]

It is always great to think about 200mm to cover distances when it comes to underwater work ....

Can you give a use-case for 200mm underwater?

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Gone are the days of mint lens investment, where you Canon lenses would actually aquire value as time passed. When i bought my (then new) EF 85mm f1.2 II L for £899 (from an old fashioned local camera shop). Over the next 8 years of ownership, the new price jumped to £1899 and my lens was then worth £1200 on the used market.

During the pandemic you could've made a fortune with used lenses (I know somebody who did...). After three years, I sold my EF 100-400mm mkii for 150 € more than I paid in 2019.

Now, only the RF 24-105mm F4 L still has a sky high price that I could sell it with a profit. I got the lens for 899 €, retail price is now 1.499 € (was even higher) and used copies go for around 1.000 - 1.100 €. I´ve considered selling my copy several times because not happy with the IQ. Imo, the other F4 zooms (14-35mm & 70-200mm) have noticeably better IQ and usually pair them for a trip and just skip the focal length between 36-69mm. I´m still hesitating because I know I'll never get the lens for 899 € again. (I know refurbed Black Friday... but I´m never in the states for thx giving).

 

[robotfist]

I would love to see it in a little bit smaller and without that Crazy Focus Breathing that makes it nearly useless for my Video Use.

This could be easily fixed if Canon would just implement focus breathing compensation like Sony did.

 

[Pete Roberts]

I can't believe Canon would come out with a Mark II version of this lens before they release an L Rf 35mm f/1.2 or 1.4!!!

I will be majorly pissed off, to the point where i'd seriously consider selling all my Canon gear (including my RF 28-70 f2) and change systems!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I can't believe Canon would come out with a Mark II version of this lens before they release an L Rf 35mm f/1.2 or 1.4!!!

I will be majorly pissed off, to the point where i'd seriously consider selling all my Canon gear (including my RF 28-70 f2) and change systems!

Good, that'll really show Canon...force them to learn a hard lesson.

 

[danfaz]

I can't believe Canon would come out with a Mark II version of this lens before they release an L Rf 35mm f/1.2 or 1.4!!!

I will be majorly pissed off, to the point where i'd seriously consider selling all my Canon gear (including my RF 28-70 f2) and change systems!

Really? Because of one lens? You already have an excellent f/2 35mm in your 28-70.
Depending on how much gear you'd have to replace, that might be a rash decision.

 

[Pete Roberts]

Really? Because of one lens? You already have an excellent f/2 35mm in your 28-70.
Depending on how much gear you'd have to replace, that might be a rash decision.

Can someone explain to me why Canon hasn't released a 35mm L lens yet? What is the hold up? it's ridiculous. I don't really need it myself but if they're going to start coming out with Mark II L lenses like the 28-70 f2 (and therefore tanking the resale value of the Mark I) before a 35mm L and 24mm L etc then my faith in Canon and the direction they're going will be gone.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Can someone explain to me why Canon hasn't released a 35mm L lens yet? What is the hold up? it's ridiculous. I don't really need it myself but if they're going to start coming out with Mark II L lenses like the 28-70 f2 (and therefore tanking the resale value of the Mark I) before a 35mm L and 24mm L etc then my faith in Canon and the direction they're going will be gone.

This has been discussed verbatim here SO many times. Have you not seen them or or you ignoring those threads?

There isn't much to be improved over the current EF 35mm f1.4 II L. The current lens is as small, light and sharp as can be achieved. The RF lens is likely to be heavier, larger and way more costly than the current EF version. The design is frustratingly likely to emply the same retro focus design...so given the lack of mirror box and the effectively longer distance from the sensor plain to the rear of the mirrorless camera....this lens is going to be longer than the EF version. Pretty much the same size as the EF version with an adapter.

It's been rumoured that there are f1.4 and f1.2 prototypes about, which indicates that Canon themselves are unsure which direction to go. F1.2 will offer a single tangible benefit, an extra 1/3rd of a stop. But it I'll be even larger and more expensive than the RF f1.4 alternative, which is already larger and heavier than the EF mk II version. I suspect when this lens finally lands, there will be a lot of side-graders who will move from the EF mk II version, drop a ton of cash on the RF version and then wonder why they bothered.

One of the sweet features of the EF 35mm f1.4 L (the original) is that it was small, light and didn't stand out in a crowd. Each newer version is getting bigger, heavier and physically longer. It's a bit like the EF 135mm f2.0 L argumant against the RF 135mm f1.8 IS L. Sure the newer lens is better in every metric except that it's nearly as large and heavy as a RF 70-200mm f2.8 LIS. Where as the EF 135mm f2.0 L is a smaller and lighter alternative.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Really? Because of one lens? You already have an excellent f/2 35mm in your 28-70.
Depending on how much gear you'd have to replace, that might be a rash decision.

And the already near perfect EF 35mm f1.4 II L is still available new.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I can't believe Canon would come out with a Mark II version of this lens before they release an L Rf 35mm f/1.2 or 1.4!!!

I will be majorly pissed off, to the point where i'd seriously consider selling all my Canon gear (including my RF 28-70 f2) and change systems!

Yeah...boo hoo...bye...
Actually, does anyone else currently make a 28-70mm f2.0? I think not! Canon are nearly at the point of a mk II version....then there's the 24-105mm f2.8 LIS.

 

[koenkooi]

Yeah...boo hoo...bye...
Actually, does anyone else currently make a 28-70mm f2.0? I think not! Canon are nearly at the point of a mk II version....then there's the 24-105mm f2.8 LIS.

Sigma did apply for a patent that lists an 28-70 f/2 design: https://asobinet.com/info-patent-sigma-28-70mm-f2-dg/. But right now, only Canon has such a lens that you can actually buy.

 

[roby17269]

This has been discussed verbatim here SO many times. Have you not seen them or or you ignoring those threads?

There isn't much to be improved over the current EF 35mm f1.4 II L. The current lens is as small, light and sharp as can be achieved. The RF lens is likely to be heavier, larger and way more costly than the current EF version. The design is frustratingly likely to emply the same retro focus design...so given the lack of mirror box and the effectively longer distance from the sensor plain to the rear of the mirrorless camera....this lens is going to be longer than the EF version. Pretty much the same size as the EF version with an adapter.

It's been rumoured that there are f1.4 and f1.2 prototypes about, which indicates that Canon themselves are unsure which direction to go. F1.2 will offer a single tangible benefit, an extra 1/3rd of a stop. But it I'll be even larger and more expensive than the RF f1.4 alternative, which is already larger and heavier than the EF mk II version. I suspect when this lens finally lands, there will be a lot of side-graders who will move from the EF mk II version, drop a ton of cash on the RF version and then wonder why they bothered.

One of the sweet features of the EF 35mm f1.4 L (the original) is that it was small, light and didn't stand out in a crowd. Each newer version is getting bigger, heavier and physically longer. It's a bit like the EF 135mm f2.0 L argumant against the RF 135mm f1.8 IS L. Sure the newer lens is better in every metric except that it's nearly as large and heavy as a RF 70-200mm f2.8 LIS. Where as the EF 135mm f2.0 L is a smaller and lighter alternative.

Speak for yourself... I am happy to trade size and weight for better image quality. And I do hope for a 1.2 version. I've been loving the 50 and 85 1.2 and hope the 35 will have similar qualities.

You seem to know a lot about the upcoming (I hope!) RF 35 L, maybe CR should hire you?

We do not know how equal or better the new RF 35mm will be compared to the EF 35 1.4L II. We do know that RF fast L primes have seen IQ or other functional aspects improvements compared to their EF equivalents. Of course the improvements have been more significant when compared to older lenses.

And yes the EF 35 1.4L II is great! But at the same time I am not spending money on a still expensive lens made for an obsolete mount. So if Canon wants my money, they will need to announce a RF 35 1.2L. If not I will keep moaning on these threads

 

[6degrees]

Interested in Canon RF 16-28mm F2.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Speak for yourself... I am happy to trade size and weight for better image quality. And I do hope for a 1.2 version. I've been loving the 50 and 85 1.2 and hope the 35 will have similar qualities.

You seem to know a lot about the upcoming (I hope!) RF 35 L, maybe CR should hire you?

We do not know how equal or better the new RF 35mm will be compared to the EF 35 1.4L II. We do know that RF fast L primes have seen IQ or other functional aspects improvements compared to their EF equivalents. Of course the improvements have been more significant when compared to older lenses.

And yes the EF 35 1.4L II is great! But at the same time I am not spending money on a still expensive lens made for an obsolete mount. So if Canon wants my money, they will need to announce a RF 35 1.2L. If not I will keep moaning on these threads

Have you seen the MFT chart for the EF 35mm f1.4 II L? There is very little improvement to be made. Like the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. The RF versions show very marginal (if any) sharpness improvements over the latter EF versions. Just don’t confuse the really old EF lenses with the much sharper later versions.

 

[Pete Roberts]

This has been discussed verbatim here SO many times. Have you not seen them or or you ignoring those threads?

There isn't much to be improved over the current EF 35mm f1.4 II L. The current lens is as small, light and sharp as can be achieved. The RF lens is likely to be heavier, larger and way more costly than the current EF version. The design is frustratingly likely to emply the same retro focus design...so given the lack of mirror box and the effectively longer distance from the sensor plain to the rear of the mirrorless camera....this lens is going to be longer than the EF version. Pretty much the same size as the EF version with an adapter.

It's been rumoured that there are f1.4 and f1.2 prototypes about, which indicates that Canon themselves are unsure which direction to go. F1.2 will offer a single tangible benefit, an extra 1/3rd of a stop. But it I'll be even larger and more expensive than the RF f1.4 alternative, which is already larger and heavier than the EF mk II version. I suspect when this lens finally lands, there will be a lot of side-graders who will move from the EF mk II version, drop a ton of cash on the RF version and then wonder why they bothered.

One of the sweet features of the EF 35mm f1.4 L (the original) is that it was small, light and didn't stand out in a crowd. Each newer version is getting bigger, heavier and physically longer. It's a bit like the EF 135mm f2.0 L argumant against the RF 135mm f1.8 IS L. Sure the newer lens is better in every metric except that it's nearly as large and heavy as a RF 70-200mm f2.8 LIS. Where as the EF 135mm f2.0 L is a smaller and lighter alternative.

That's your answer? You sound like a Canon fanboy. i'm not going to buy a 9 year old EF lens that needs an adapter everytime i want to use it. EF is now an obsolete system!

 

[roby17269]

Have you seen the MFT chart for the EF 35mm f1.4 II L? There is very little improvement to be made. Like the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. The RF versions show very marginal (if any) sharpness improvements over the latter EF versions. Just don’t confuse the really old EF lenses with the much sharper later versions.

I guess we will see when (if) that RF 35mm will indeed come out

 

[GMCPhotographics]

That's your answer? You sound like a Canon fanboy. i'm not going to buy a 9 year old EF lens that needs an adapter everytime i want to use it. EF is now an obsolete system!

Fan boy? I'm not the one buying all the new and shiney...just because. Moaning about not having a native RF 35mm L.

 

[EricN]

This could be easily fixed if Canon would just implement focus breathing compensation like Sony did.

Forgive me if this is a dumb question because I don't do much with video. I do understand your point with this problem, but can this be accomplished in post on video editing software?

 

[EricN]

I guess we will see when (if) that RF 35mm will indeed come out

I could have sworn the latest rumor for the 35 f1.2 was cr3 the most reliable. I think you'll get it this year.