A Canon RF 16-28mm f/2L USM is coming [CR1]

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,360
1,231
We shall see. Canon has been at the cutting edge in lens development for decades now.
have you ever had a chance to hold a lens with 105mm front element? I have got one right in front of me...
nobody in their right mind would consider hanging this contraption off a camera mount.
Canon engineers aren't stupid.
better even: go have a play with Sigma 120 300 F2.8. 70-200 F2.0 zoom would be of the same girth and about 30% shorter.
I was shooting sports and theatrical with that lens for many years..
 
Upvote 0

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
145
186
Sorry to stink up a whole page or two of worthless debate. Could’ve summed it up easily with this.

Can a RF lens which is longer at full extension than an EF be shorter when actually mounted to camera? Yes.

Back Flange Distance on EF is 44mm.
Back Flange Distance on RF is 20mm.

The difference being 24mm which is 1mm short of an inch.

24-70 max length is 152mm and 28-70 max length is 168mm.

Take away 24mm of flange distance from 168mm is 144mm. Effectively the 28-70 when mounted is about 8mm shorter than the 24-70.

Right where the real spec I believed it would be, but from memory and real world comparison it looked about a half inch to me when considering grip design and balance. Not the MONSTER some make it out to be, in my opinion, and an amazing design to get twice the light in a similar size and weight camera and lens combo.

When retraced the 28-70 is 3mm longer than the 24-70. Right where the picture comparing the RP w/28-70 vs 5D w 24-70 appears to show. Pretty much the same length. With the shorter travel extension of the 28-70 at 22mm vs 31mm is a difference of 9mm and compensate for the 3mm difference retraced, leaves us with the 28-70 shorter by 6-7mm. Nearly the same spec above.

I don’t know why there’s this resistance to the idea that the RF mount is making new possibilities in lens design and overall shooting experience, that we’re being fooled by creative marketing or something.

Everything I’ve argued can be referenced here.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Mar 20, 2015
428
372
The 100-400mm MII is as good a lens as is made (Even primes) in durability, and optical quality. It extends and is NOT a collector of dust, well sealed. I have had mine for several years now and no dust with heavy use in desert environments etc.

Conversely my 100-400 II is absolutely chock-full of dust and dirt. It's annoying but that's the penalty for a telescopic design.

I wish they would make the RF 100-400 a fixed-length lens but they won't :(
 
Upvote 0

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
583
571
122
Williamsport, PA
Conversely my 100-400 II is absolutely chock-full of dust and dirt. It's annoying but that's the penalty for a telescopic design.

I wish they would make the RF 100-400 a fixed-length lens but they won't :(

Interesting, mine isn't after years of use in the desert dust and in very wet rainy environments.
 
Upvote 0
Nov 2, 2016
849
648
Wouldn’t a 70-200 f/2 be prohibitively large? Like, honestly, wouldn’t it end up weighing 50% more than the already-heavy f2.8?

If Canon wants a new trinity (lenses with focal lengths that line up to cover a large range), I think the tele zoom is a 70-135 or 70-150 to save on size, weight, and cost.
These kinds of lenses are like speciality tools. You don’t need them often, but when you need then, you REALLY need them.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
Sorry to stink up a whole page or two of worthless debate. Could’ve summed it up easily with this.

Can a RF lens which is longer at full extension than an EF be shorter when actually mounted to camera? Yes.

Back Flange Distance on EF is 44mm.
Back Flange Distance on RF is 20mm.

The difference being 24mm which is 1mm short of an inch.

24-70 max length is 152mm and 28-70 max length is 168mm.

Take away 24mm of flange distance from 168mm is 144mm. Effectively the 28-70 when mounted is about 8mm shorter than the 24-70.

Right where the real spec I believed it would be, but from memory and real world comparison it looked about a half inch to me when considering grip design and balance. Not the MONSTER some make it out to be, in my opinion, and an amazing design to get twice the light in a similar size and weight camera and lens combo.

When retraced the 28-70 is 3mm longer than the 24-70. Right where the picture comparing the RP w/28-70 vs 5D w 24-70 appears to show. Pretty much the same length. With the shorter travel extension of the 28-70 at 22mm vs 31mm is a difference of 9mm and compensate for the 3mm difference retraced, leaves us with the 28-70 shorter by 6-7mm. Nearly the same spec above.

I don’t know why there’s this resistance to the idea that the RF mount is making new possibilities in lens design and overall shooting experience, that we’re being fooled by creative marketing or something.

Everything I’ve argued can be referenced here.

Agree generally and you're correct, similar extended length on R, shorter on RP. An extra stop of light, but one lens starts at 28mm and the other at 24mm. For me, at least, that makes a substantial difference – in most situations, I'd take the 15% wider FoV over the stop of light.

A comparison from Juza Photo:
24-28.jpg


But others may prefer a ~20% heavier body + lens combination and the extra stop of light. Choice is good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Agree generally and you're correct, similar extended length on R, shorter on RP. An extra stop of light, but one lens starts at 28mm and the other at 24mm. For me, at least, that makes a substantial difference – in most situations, I'd take the 15% wider FoV over the stop of light.

...

But others may prefer a ~20% heavier body + lens combination and the extra stop of light. Choice is good.

It's not just a stop of light though - it's a "look". Shallower DoF at all those focal lengths... An F2 zoom is not just about the extra stop of light. It's a lens that can provide portraits with context at 28mm, or isolation at 70mm. It is very versatile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I feel I'm one of the few who DO NOT want IBIS. Am I alone in this? My concern is durability. My 5D Mark IV has gone through the gamut of production hell from the Arctic Circle to the hot sands of the desert to the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. The idea of a moving sensor with the bangs and bumps of production work concerns me. I have no doubt that Canon will produce a solid product but the solid build of the 1Dxii, 5Div, and even EOSR have proven themselves to me sans IBIS.
 
Upvote 0
I feel I'm one of the few who DO NOT want IBIS. Am I alone in this? My concern is durability. My 5D Mark IV has gone through the gamut of production hell from the Arctic Circle to the hot sands of the desert to the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. The idea of a moving sensor with the bangs and bumps of production work concerns me. I have no doubt that Canon will produce a solid product but the solid build of the 1Dxii, 5Div, and even EOSR have proven themselves to me sans IBIS.

There’s literally no evidence available with any brand that suggests IBIS introduces durability issues. The movement within a system is tiny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,575
4,111
The Netherlands
I feel I'm one of the few who DO NOT want IBIS. Am I alone in this? My concern is durability. My 5D Mark IV has gone through the gamut of production hell from the Arctic Circle to the hot sands of the desert to the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. The idea of a moving sensor with the bangs and bumps of production work concerns me. I have no doubt that Canon will produce a solid product but the solid build of the 1Dxii, 5Div, and even EOSR have proven themselves to me sans IBIS.

Your sensor already moves due to the cleaning feature.
 
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
3,302
4,188
L lenses are pro lenses by definition.
The 100-400mm MII is as good a lens as is made (Even primes) in durability, and optical quality. It extends and is NOT a collector of dust, well sealed. I have had mine for several years now and no dust with heavy use in desert environments etc.
There are the you tube arm chair commentators and real users.
I really get tired of those who have never used a lens, especially in tough environments, making any comment except for click bait you tube videos.
PS I also have it out in wet weather and no problems either.
Same experience with mine: absolutely no issues, no matter whether used in the rain, or in a dusty environment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
I feel I'm one of the few who DO NOT want IBIS. Am I alone in this? My concern is durability. My 5D Mark IV has gone through the gamut of production hell from the Arctic Circle to the hot sands of the desert to the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. The idea of a moving sensor with the bangs and bumps of production work concerns me. I have no doubt that Canon will produce a solid product but the solid build of the 1Dxii, 5Div, and even EOSR have proven themselves to me sans IBIS.
My belief is that Canon will only add IBIS to a flagship R body after they have done sufficient stress testing to assure that the body meets the bombproof standards of the 1D series. I will be surprised if the first R body that has IBIS is the "R 1x," but if it is, you should have a high degree of confidence that your fears are unfounded.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
It's not just a stop of light though - it's a "look". Shallower DoF at all those focal lengths... An F2 zoom is not just about the extra stop of light. It's a lens that can provide portraits with context at 28mm, or isolation at 70mm. It is very versatile.
Agree about the versatility, just saying I find a 24-70 more versatile than a 28-70. YMMV. I do think the difference between 70mm f/2.8 and 70mm f/2 is subtle at best in terms of DoF, which is why I have an 85/1.4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
I dont understand this talk about telescope zooms are bad. They try to go to natural size of objective . Still they are tiny when not used.
I would think there is no way how zoom lenses what dont change size could be optically as good. Its always compromice if shrinking something.
When I think of tiny lenses I think of my old Takumars. Tiny isn't the realm of any "L" lenses as far as I know.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 25, 2011
2,510
1,885
I feel I'm one of the few who DO NOT want IBIS. Am I alone in this? My concern is durability. My 5D Mark IV has gone through the gamut of production hell from the Arctic Circle to the hot sands of the desert to the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. The idea of a moving sensor with the bangs and bumps of production work concerns me. I have no doubt that Canon will produce a solid product but the solid build of the 1Dxii, 5Div, and even EOSR have proven themselves to me sans IBIS.
That's weird. Your camera body has a moving mirror assembly and a moving shutter, your lenses have moving focus groups and (likely) moving IS groups, but you are only afraid of the moving sensor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0