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

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
144
186
I think some us are getting ahead of ourselves about the what Canon is doing. I feel like we’re expecting f2 zooms in a 2.8 form factor. These new zooms have no comparison yet and are not the standard “trinity”. Haha not to mention this lens hasn’t even been announced and we’re trashing it’s size.

Plus the total package with these f2 zooms is relatively the same weight and size package as a DSLR and 2.8 trinity. Why is this not being praised? Does anyone appreciate the accomplishment here?

If the 2.8 RF trinity were these sizes and weights, these observations or criticisms would have some merit.

What other f2 zooms are lighter and smaller than Canon’s? And who said mirrorless pro lenses were supposed to be significantly smaller and lighter? What other FF mirrorless system has comparable lenses that are the size of 1.8 primes? Have you guys used a Sony lately? Their pro lenses are just as big as DSLR lenses.

I think some of you are confusing a camera body and camera lens. Yes, the bodies without a mirror are and can be made significantly smaller and lighter.

That all said, a lot of this is so premature as the 2.8 trinity hasn’t even been released and it’s been less than a year into Canons FF mirrorless journey. They will make smaller lenses, they will make everything that has demand.

So much complaining over lenses most of you will never buy or need, while those of us in the market are absolutely thrilled to have an f2 zooms in the same weight and size package as our DSLR and current 2.8 zooms.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,632
2,135
Plus the total package with these f2 zooms is relatively the same weight and size package as a DSLR and 2.8 trinity. Why is this not being praised? Does anyone appreciate the accomplishment here?
The R + 24-70/2 is a bit bulkier, and it's 400 g heavier than the 5DIV + 24-70/2.8 II. The lenses alone have a weight difference 625 g, i.e. the RF 24-70/2 weighs 75% more than the EF 24-70/2.8. If that delta holds true for the rest of the trinity (and it won’t, it will be much worse for the 70/200/2 teiezoom which will be larger than the EF 200/2), the f/2 RF zoom set will weigh 2.3 kg more than the EF 2.8 trinity, meaning the package with the body will be 2 kg heavier. That's not 'relatively the same weight', that means carrying around the R and the RF f/2 trinity is like carrying around the 5DIV and EF 2.8 trinity plus a standard brick. I'm not saying adding the weight of a brick (literally) to your kit for an extra stop of light isn't worth it, but claiming that adding the weight of a brick results in a 'relatively the same weight package' is ludicrous.
 

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
144
186
This might put some proper perspective on size and weight.

5D IV + 24-70 f2.8 = 1,725g
R + 28-70 f2.0 = 2,135g and .5” shorter
1Dx II + 24-70 f2.8 = 2,365g

R + RF 70-200 f2.8 IS = ????g
5D IV + 70-200 f2.8 IS = 2,585g
1Dx II + 70-200 f2.8 IS = 4,060g

Doesn’t seem so bad does it? Now also consider they’re able to move more weight of the lens closer to the mount through better lens design (larger elements near mount) PLUS the 1” or so of mirror space that is gone. That is more noticeable with regards to perceived weight.

You’re getting an unheard of f2 zoom that is unmatched in IQ and light gathering in a package that is shorter and better balanced than your current setup at the expense of a measly 400g.

Maybe one of you engineers out there could calculate the center load mass and compare the two. I would be willing to holding both setups for extended periods of time will be equally as fatiguing. The perceived increase of weight may only be 100g, maybe 200-300g?

Shooting super teles, many know it’s not necessarily the weight that is the problem, it’s how far that weight is from your hands or body that is most fatiguing.

Now if you shoot a 1D, I can guarantee their mirrorless version is going to be ever more of a dramatic loss in weight to the 5D equivalent.

Now watch, the 2.8 RF WITH IS will be slightly larger than the 2.8 without IS and everyone will be singing the same song of criticisms because they’ve had unrealistic expectations to begin with instead of seeing the engineering breakthroughs and firsts that Canon is doing vs the competition.
 
Last edited:

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
144
186
The R + 24-70/2 is a bit bulkier, and it's 400 g heavier than the 5DIV + 24-70/2.8 II. The lenses alone have a weight difference 625 g, i.e. the RF 24-70/2 weighs 75% more than the EF 24-70/2.8. If that delta holds true for the rest of the trinity (and it won’t, it will be much worse for the 70/200/2 teiezoom which will be larger than the EF 200/2), the f/2 RF zoom set will weigh 2.3 kg more than the EF 2.8 trinity, meaning the package with the body will be 2 kg heavier. That's not 'relatively the same weight', that means carrying around the R and the RF f/2 trinity is like carrying around the 5DIV and EF 2.8 trinity plus a standard brick. I'm not saying adding the weight of a brick (literally) to your kit for an extra stop of light isn't worth it, but claiming that adding the weight of a brick results in a 'relatively the same weight package' is ludicrous.
See my response above. Go to a camera shop and put them side by side and shoot with them.

That’s also quite a leap to start talking about a 70-200 f2 that will probably never exist to try and exaggerate a point. Especially speculating that someone will be carrying around all 3 lenses with an added and absolutely unknown increase of 5lbs.

How much does this 16-28 f2 lens weight?
How much does this 70-200 f2 weigh? (Most likely a 70-135 f2) which is kind of silly if you legitimately think they’re making a 70-200 f2.

For many people, these lenses will replace multiple primes like myself. An increase of 400g is certainly worth carrying half the amount of lenses.

Again big picture and individual needs, something you’re not considering.

I also mean relatively the same weight and size compared to what most people who will be buying these lenses are used to carrying. That’s why I said DSLR, this is assuming someone who shoots 1D with 70-200 2.8 or 5D with an 85 Art, etc etc.

These lenses will be changing many of the lens requirements for many photographers so your comparison of 2.8 vs 2.0 zoom weight is a comparison that lives in a vacuum. I’m considering many different factors and therefore using the relative word also in broad sense, not only a direct comparison.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,632
2,135
This might put some proper perspective on size and weight.
5D IV + 24-70 f2.8 = 1,725g
R + 28-70 f2.0 = 2,135g and .5” shorter
Perhaps you need a more realistic perspective on the R + 28-70/2 being 0.5" shorter...preferably one based on facts. Hint: the thickness measurements of camera bodies are at maximal dimension, you cannot just add the the body depth and lens length or subtract the 23 mm of shorter RF flange from the lens length to arrive at the lens-mounted dimension (well, apparently you can...but doing so is, for lack of a better word...ludicrous).

185378


See my response above. Your expectations are the only thing ludicrous here and expecting an f2 zoom to be the size and weight of a 2.8 zoom. Go to a camera shop and put them side by side and shoot with them.
Going to a camera store and comparing them is evidently something you haven't done, or else you would not have incorrectly stated the relative sizes.


That’s also quite a leap to start talking about a 70-200 f2 that will probably never exist to try and exaggerate a point.
Oh, I see. So when you stated, "Plus the total package with these f2 zooms is relatively the same weight and size package as a DSLR and 2.8 trinity," to which '2.8 trinity’ were you referring? Some random collection of three lenses you made up in your head? When used in the context of Canon lenses, the '2.8 trinity' clearly refers to 16-35/24-70/70-200. So if you refer to 'these f/2 zooms' and '2.8 trinity' in the same sentence, you are the one proposing an RF 70-200/2, and any discussion about a lens that will probably never exist began with you.

Also, I did not use that lens to exaggerate anything. I suggest you read my post more carefully, I simply used the weight difference between two existing lenses (EF 24-70/2.8 II and RF 28-70/2) and extrapolated that 75% weight increase to other (hypothetical) lenses in an f/2 trilogy. If anything, that's a conservative approach.

Please also re-read your initial statement: you claimed that a set of f/2 zooms would be of 'relatively similar size and weight' to a set of f/2.8 zooms. The 300 g weight difference and 23 mm shorter flange of the EOS R are not going to compensate for the increase in size and weight for even one f/2 vs. f/2.8 lens (as we see with the currently available body+lens combos), much less a trinity of lenses. If you think the RF mount is something magical that can allow lenses to let in an extra stop of light with no cost in terms of size and weight, your grasp of physics is luducrously tenuous.

If the lens is too heavy for you, don’t buy one haha. No need to complain about something you’ll never buy.
I routinely carry my 600/4L IS II, and shoot it handleld. I have no doubt that the 600 II is heavier (and more more expensive) than a ≤200mm RF f/2 zoom. Not that I was complaining (about lenses, that is...I always object when people mangle facts as you are doing).
 

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
144
186
I’m referring to the working dimensions when zoomed out.

And a 23% total increase of weight comparing a 5D with 2.8 vs an R with 28-70 is, in my opinion, relatively close when most of us who would use this lens are already used to walking around with two bodies and two fast zooms already.

For someone going from a 1D to a potential mirrorless equivalent it would probably be no difference in weight or actually lighter. Hopefully we’ll know by the end of the year.

For me personally when I shoot two bodies and 35 + 85 art when I’m looking for faster than 2.8 I am more than willing to drop 1700g from a whole other camera setup and compromise with one camera and f2 zoom.

I’ve never proposed a 70-200 f2. I’d like to see where you got that quote from. And by total package I’m talking about the body and lens attached not all three lenses together.

If you’re hung up on 400g cool. I don’t see a 23% increase in weight for gathering twice as much light in a shorter foot print to be as dramatic of difference as some seem to think.

It’s working for me and Canons team seems to think it will work for enough people to invest a lot of money into development.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,632
2,135
I’m referring to the working dimensions when zoomed out.
R + 28-70 f2.0 = 2,135g and .5” shorter
R + RF 70-200 f2.8 IS = ????g but way shorter
So in one case you’re referring to the ‘working dimensions when zoomed out,’ but in the other you’re not? Nothing like moving the goalposts, ‘eh?

I see you edited your post to add the bit that the 70-200 ‘probably will telescope’, but there’s no probably about it – it’s an extending zoom (unless maybe you believe Canon put a zoom lock switch on a fixed zoom lens?). Based on the patent, the RF 70-200 is longer than the EF version, and the combined body + lens length is the same as the EF version on a DSLR.

I’ve never proposed a 70-200 f2. I’d like to see where you got that quote from.
As I already stated, you mentioned ‘these f2 zooms’ (plural), comparing them to the ‘2.8 trinity for DSLR’ in the same sentence. If you can’t grasp that you’re proposing an RF 70-200/2, you need to have your metacognition tested.

This discussion is going nowhere. You’re making false statements and re-interpreting your own posts, you should just quit while you’re behind.
 

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
144
186
Yes I know how camera bodies are measured.

I’m also under the impression that the telephoto f2 zoom will be the likes that has been mentioned by previous patents and by others here as being a 70-135 or 70-150. I’m going to go ahead and say that is the accepted lens when referring to this new sort of “trinity”.

I find you very condescending to assume that I believe there’s going to be a 70-200 f2 and I don’t know how cameras are measured.
 

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
144
186
So in one case you’re referring to the ‘working dimensions when zoomed out,’ but in the other you’re not? Nothing like moving the goalposts, ‘eh?

I see you edited your post to add the bit that the 70-200 ‘probably will telescope’, but there’s no probably about it – it’s an extending zoom (unless maybe you believe Canon put a zoom lock switch on a fixed zoom lens?). Based on the patent, the RF 70-200 is longer than the EF version, and the combined body + lens length is the same as the EF version on a DSLR.

This discussion is going nowhere. You’re making false statements and re-interpreting your own posts, you should just quit while you’re behind.
You’re right about the 70-200. It wasn’t an intentional moving of goals posts. I’ll correct it for a more logical and linear comparison.

I don’t know of any false statements I’m making or re-interpreting anything I’ve said. Sounds more to me like a lot of straw man arguments based on misinterpreting what I’ve said.
 
Last edited:

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
144
186
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BurningPlatform

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,632
2,135
Yes I know how camera bodies are measured.

I find you very condescending to assume that I believe there’s going to be a 70-200 f2 and I don’t know how cameras are measured.
Sorry, but clearly you don’t know how to measure cameras and lenses...or you do know how but just suck at it.

First, understand that the R + RF 28-70/2 is physically longer than the 5DIV + EF 24-70/2.8 II with the lenses retracted. Then look at the TDP measurements (Bryan does know how to measure things), showing that at full extension the RF 28-70/2 is 0.66” longer than the EF 24-70/2.8 II. Now explain how a longer body + retracted lens combo with a lens that’s longer at ‘working dimensions when zoomed out’ results in a combination that’s 0.5” shorter, according to you.

Let's make it even simpler. First, look at the following two pictures:

185379


185380


Then, look at your previous statement:
5D IV + 24-70 f2.8 = 1,725g
R + 28-70 f2.0 = 2,135g and .5” shorter
So which is it? Do you really not know how to measure cameras? Or do you just suck at it?

As I said, you should have quit while you were behind. Instead, you doubled down...and have succeded in making yourself appear even more foolish. I have found that people can always manage to reveal further depths of incompetance, so you're welcome to keep going...but I really don't advise it.
 

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
144
186
Sorry, but clearly you don’t know how to measure cameras and lenses...or you do know how but just suck at it.

First, understand that the R + RF 28-70/2 is physically longer than the 5DIV + EF 24-70/2.8 II with the lenses retracted. Then look at the TDP measurements (Bryan does know how to measure things), showing that at full extension the RF 28-70/2 is 0.66” longer than the EF 24-70/2.8 II. Now explain how a longer body + retracted lens combo with a lens that’s longer at ‘working dimensions when zoomed out’ results in a combination that’s 0.5” shorter, according to you.

Let's make it even simpler. First, look at the following two pictures:

View attachment 185379

View attachment 185380

Then, look at your previous statement:


So which is it? Do you really not know how to measure cameras? Or do you just suck at it?

As I said, you should have quit while you were behind. Instead, you doubled down...and have succeded in making yourself appear even more foolish. I have found that people can always manage to reveal further depths of incompetance, so you're welcome to keep going...but I really don't advise it.
The second set of pictures assumes they’re mounted in the same location of the body. I don’t own an R and instead bought RP for non work related shoots and to get familiar with my RF lenses until a pro comes out.

On the RP the lens mounts about an inch further into the grip than my Mark IV. The R from what I remember isn’t much further off than RP. Like everything I’ve discussed, I’m concerned about real world specs. That lens sits further into the grip where it matters for weight distribution. I also realize the grips aren’t the same size.

It’s not complicated, there’s no mirror, lens sits much closer to sensor so comparing the total length of R vs DSLR is going to yield different measurements, hence why it’s relatively close or shorter depending on which combinations you’re using, 1D , 5D, R, RP, etc.

I know it extends further than 24-70 but it also sits about an inch further into the grip.

Now you’re going to get out your pocket rule and say.... well actually it’s blah blah cm closer not about an inch and the 28-70 is actually .3875 inches shorter measured that way not .5”.

Which is exactly my point. The differences are so minute it’s not even worth debating or making a huge fuss over haha. I’m not over here buying a lens or camera based on a couple hundred grams difference or a half inch difference.

I pick up a 1D with a 2.8 zoom and wow that’s heavy to hold all day. A 5D with 2.8 zoom, not so bad. R w 2.0 zoom, eh it’s about right in the middle, nothing extreme. Nothing crazy.
 
Last edited:

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
439
405
118
Williamsport, PA
This trinity is probably going to tip the scale at somewhere north of 10lbs... that's pretty dam heavy if you are actually carrying it as a regular part of your kit. Add in the "Pro" body and it might become rather unpleasant rather quickly.
I thought the promise of mirrorless was smaller, faster, higher quality glass?
Think Physics.
Sony lenses are bigger and heavier than the Canon L equivalents.
For a 70-200 f2 perhaps Canon has some optical formulas that might not make the front smaller, But the mirrorless mount does allow for a smaller front diameter as the elements are pushed to the rear for better balance.