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

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
145
186
These lenses don't really seem to be aiming at traditional size saving mirrorless markets but rather at people who might value a mirrorless system over a DSLR in areas like event shooters who want real-time previews and being able to shoot video though the viewfinder.

Mirrorless fullframe lenses cost moreand are heavier. Aren't mirrorrless systems supposed to be less bulky, faster, less costly? The APC system is better suited for mirrorless IMO. Less bulky at least ..... I like the philosophy of Fuji in that regard.
This is really strange. Who determines what is traditional size saving mirrorless and what size mirrorless is supposed to be?

It’s simply a camera without a mirror. Sony FF mirrorless has been out for years with their big bulky lenses.

With that type of thinking, why couldn’t I say all MILC are too big, bulky, expensive and not following the traditional point and shoot designs that mirrorless was intended?

Pretty silly statement in my opinion. I suppose Mirrorless Medium Format is running rogue to the rules of mirrorless as well?

Not trying to be mean, but maybe everyone is complicating this way too much. Maybe it’s just a f/2 zoom lens in the size you would expect such a lens to be relative to ALL other lens designs ever made. This lens is for a Full Frame mirrorless camera that has a bigger sensor than what you’re comparing to in regards to APSc and M4/3.

Your opinion on what mirrorless is supposed to cost and look like, and how big lenses are supposed to be is completely irrelevant to reality.

I think they should make a FF point and shoot with a 24-200 f2 lens and retain same price and size of traditional PNS because those are my arbitrary standards regardless of physics haha. Although, “everyone” would be a “pro photographer” at that point.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
145
186
Mirrorless fullframe lenses cost moreand are heavier. Aren't mirrorrless systems supposed to be less bulky, faster, less costly? The APC system is better suited for mirrorless IMO. Less bulky at least ..... I like the philosophy of Fuji in that regard.
I’m curious what you think of Fuji Mirrorless Medium Format system. Seems pretty bulky and expensive compared to Canons Full Frame mirrorless system.

Do you like Fuji’s philosophy of producing larger and more expensive mirrorless camera systems than Canon?
 
Upvote 0
Dec 31, 2018
586
367
Phone camera sensor are 1 micron sized pixel sensors atm.
There isnt telling how long it takes scale them full frame ,may happen with one big leap next year . Or slowly slithering 20 year to get there.
Canon just wants be prepared to that with big heavy lenses .
You want buy ones what are usefull on future too and they want design lense they can sell least 20 year. to get good profit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
145
186
Phone camera sensor are 1 micron sized pixel sensors atm.
There isnt telling how long it takes scale them full frame ,may happen with one big leap next year . Or slowly slithering 20 year to get there.
Canon just wants be prepared to that with big heavy lenses .
You want buy ones what are usefull on future too and they want design lense they can sell least 20 year. to get good profit.
For sure, as it sits now, my RP and RF 35 is tiny compared to the equivalent FF DSLR combination. So Canon IS taking advantage of the possibilities of smaller camera and lens footprints with Mirrorless FF, they still have to work within the confines of physicals and current technology. In my opinion they're doing it better than Sony by not sacrificing ergonomics and investing in a long-term lens mount.

It sounds more like people have preconceived ideas of what "Mirrorless" should look like based on their individual needs. Which is why we have a variety of sensors and system to choose from. Since I believe APSc & m4/3 are too small for my needs, I'm not going to want or expect those cameras to have the characteristics of a FF system or hope they'll be fulfill the needs they were never designed to fulfill.
 
Upvote 0

canonmike

EOS R6
CR Pro
Jan 5, 2013
494
419
Or it could be the geniuses in marketing and engineering got together and said, "Once the camera is too big to keep in a pocket, who cares? Make the lenses as big as they need to be for ultimate IQ! The sky is the limit!"
Even Canon naysayers have positive commentary on the RF series of lenses, albeit with a reasonable caveat of where's the pro RF body to maximize their potential. Ok, Canon, we're waiting in the wings, peaking around every corner and waiting with eager anticipation at every Canon media release. We're holding our photographic breaths. Bring it on, Canon. We want it. We're ready for it. Just do it.
 
Upvote 0

canonmike

EOS R6
CR Pro
Jan 5, 2013
494
419
But I’ll second you on this is going nowhere. I’m not even sure what your points are or what you’re arguing anymore. You think a 23% increase of weight isn’t relatively close considering the overall picture of a f2 zoom on a mirrorless body vs a f2.8 zoom on equivalent DSLR. Cool. Thanks. I disagree.

This is a game changer for me and thousands of other pro photographers who make a full time living using this gear.

I’m excited and can’t wait for IBIS and two card slots and to start using this for paid jobs and ditch all my EF lenses (assuming the RF 70-200 2.8 is released) and DSLRS.

This lens will allow us to sell half our bodies and lenses, carry around half the gear, lens swapping, and focus more on the job and the benefit of less money tied up into gear.
Guys. While listening to your game of verbal volleyball, each trying to hammer home his relative point(s), I'm not sure who is winning here. As I read your commentaries, I have to ask myself, what is most important to me in acquiring a new lens? In my case, as a sports and nature photographer for over 50 yrs, now contemplating the purchase of any new AF lens, my primary concern is fast, consistent and reliable auto focus. If a potential new lens gets past that hurdle, I can then overlook the size, weight and price constraints of same. In all these years, I have never refused to buy a lens because it was too heavy or somewhat heavier/larger, than a less capable lens. Because of these large and heavy lenses, my job has been made much easier. Thank you Canon. That being said, I will defend your right to vigorously debate an issue that doesn't have a lot of significance to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Hi all, I'm interested in this lens but will be upgrading from an APS-C camera using a 10-22mm with f4-5.6 max aperture. I can see the utility of having f2 in low light settings for different conditions. Wondering if anyone had experience shooting f2 on full-frame:

  1. For those who shoot landscapes on F2, how often do you find yourself shooting wide open? (such that F2.8 felt insufficient)
  2. And speculation or first-hand experience on if the image quality at F2?

Any thoughts would tremendously helpful to choosing between this lens and 15-35 RF F2.8. Thanks!
 
Upvote 0
Mar 2, 2012
3,187
542
Hi all, I'm interested in this lens but will be upgrading from an APS-C camera using a 10-22mm with f4-5.6 max aperture. I can see the utility of having f2 in low light settings for different conditions. Wondering if anyone had experience shooting f2 on full-frame:

  1. For those who shoot landscapes on F2, how often do you find yourself shooting wide open? (such that F2.8 felt insufficient)
  2. And speculation or first-hand experience on if the image quality at F2?
Any thoughts would tremendously helpful to choosing between this lens and 15-35 RF F2.8. Thanks!

I’ve shot full frame at f/2 (and wider) plenty, typically not landscapes though; I usually shoot around f/5.6 or f/6.3.

My speculation is that the image quality will be just fine.
 
Upvote 0

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
CR Pro
Sep 9, 2014
481
147
56
I want to see something like this. I shoot a lot of floor gymnastics and 70 is too long when the gymnasts come up close to you. You can crop on the long end so you don't need 200mm
Try the new Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4.0 VC OSD for FF (35mm equivalent FOV ~ 56-240mm). Or, for (APS-C) crop sensors the Sigma Art 50-100mm f/1.8 (35mm equivalent FOV ~ 80-160mm). Both are very good performers. Caveats: the Sigma has no weather sealing the Tamron does have weather sealing and VC (vibration control: same as Canon's "IS" and Sigma's "OS").
 
Upvote 0

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Commercial, & Motorsports
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
787
980
Tampa, FL
www.diossiphotography.com
This could be a very interesting lens for astro, so that would be a really cool prospect. I already know this lens isn't for my taste and needs, but renting one for an astro trip if it's low on coma and vignette would be awesome. The potential for the most incredible portrait zoom ever created is where I'm anxious...having two bodies with a 28-70 f/2 and a 70-135f/2 zoom would be simply game-changing for wedding photographers....I know that if that ends up being the combo, I will be buying both of them.
 
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,360
1,231
This could be a very interesting lens for astro, so that would be a really cool prospect. I already know this lens isn't for my taste and needs, but renting one for an astro trip if it's low on coma and vignette would be awesome. The potential for the most incredible portrait zoom ever created is where I'm anxious...having two bodies with a 28-70 f/2 and a 70-135f/2 zoom would be simply game-changing for wedding photographers....I know that if that ends up being the combo, I will be buying both of them.

Don’t you think that 135mm at the longer end will be a bit limiting? Especially for a relatively distant shots where you do not have option for being at a closer proximities to your subject? I am asking as from an event photography perspective, 135mm is definitely a limiting factor. Around 15% of my shots are in135-200mm range.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Commercial, & Motorsports
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
787
980
Tampa, FL
www.diossiphotography.com
Don’t you think that 135mm at the longer end will be a bit limiting at the longer end? Especially for a relatively distant shots where you do not have option for being at a closer proximities to your subject? I am asking as from an event photography perspective, 135mm is definitely a limiting factor. Around 15% of my shots are in135-200mm range.
I'm not sure I know what you're asking, but I shoot 100% of my portraits from 35, 50, 85, 135mm. I've never felt the need to shoot a portrait from a distance longer than this personally and it's not commonly considered "portrait" distances.
 
Upvote 0

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,360
1,231
I'm not sure I know what you're asking, but I shoot 100% of my portraits from 35, 50, 85, 135mm. I've never felt the need to shoot a portrait from a distance longer than this personally and it's not commonly considered "portrait" distances.
My apologies, i should have explained the use case better than i did. I was more so thinking along an events as in PJ, candid, run and gun stuff, concerts, theatrical, larger venues where you see a need to reach across and zoom in on your subject from a far without being a distraction... from a portraiture perspective, 28-135mm range is certainly a perfect fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
This could be a very interesting lens for astro, so that would be a really cool prospect. I already know this lens isn't for my taste and needs, but renting one for an astro trip if it's low on coma and vignette would be awesome. The potential for the most incredible portrait zoom ever created is where I'm anxious...having two bodies with a 28-70 f/2 and a 70-135f/2 zoom would be simply game-changing for wedding photographers....I know that if that ends up being the combo, I will be buying both of them.
Hoping for a 70-135 f/2L zoom myself. BTW: Loved your write up about the EF 24-105 f/4L II (I?) several months ago. Very nice photos of cars were with it. Your write up encouraged me a great deal to get the RF 24-105 f/4L when I ordered my R. You proved the EF version doesn't deserve all the bad written about it. Just goes to show that MTF charts, while they might be of some value, are not always the determiner of what is good or bad. Actual use and results in the hands of a master mean more. Your work is beautiful and makes me aspire to get better.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Commercial, & Motorsports
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
787
980
Tampa, FL
www.diossiphotography.com
Hoping for a 70-135 f/2L zoom myself. BTW: Loved your write up about the EF 24-105 f/4L II (I?) several months ago. Very nice photos of cars were with it. Your write up encouraged me a great deal to get the RF 24-105 f/4L when I ordered my R. You proved the EF version doesn't deserve all the bad written about it. Just goes to show that MTF charts, while they might be of some value, are not always the determiner of what is good or bad. Actual use and results in the hands of a master mean more. Your work is beautiful and makes me aspire to get better.
Wow, well thank you very very much. I am really glad I helped you make your decision on that lens because it's truly underrated. I have been putting the new RF version hard to work and I'm beyond thrilled with its performance as well...it's sharper, better controlled for distortion, and has even better control of aberrations than any of it's previous siblings.

Took this photo Friday night.
FB_IMG_1564238424726.jpg
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0