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

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
113
149
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.
First like I said above, the lenses aren’t mounted the same on DSLR vs R or RP and this is all slightly relative. But here’s the absolute, RP and R lens mount is closer to the sensor and deeper into the grip about an inch. Probably less so on the R.

The 28-70 is .66” longer extended unmounted but if it’s sitting about an inch closer to sensor there’s a half inch. The 28-70 can also sit slightly longer or equal to 24-70 mounted and still be shorter because it also has .5” less travel on extension.

Both pictures are deceiving. Move the R body back so the LCD screens are equal and in line with where your hand will be holding it. Yes it will move slightly forward when up to the eye. But the camera spends way more time in my hand vs in my AND up to my eye. I also shoot live view often.

I really think you’re missing the forest for the trees here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Architect1776

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,617
2,097
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.
On the RP, they’re about the same size with lenses retracted. The longer extension of the RF 28-70/2 means that when extended, the RP combo is still longer, not .5” shorter as you claimed.

185381


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.
It’s not shorter. You’re the one making a fuss, replying multiple times with the same incorrect statements, and claiming you know how to measure a camera. You obviously don’t. It’s that simple.

But instead of being mature and just admitting you were wrong, you are falling back on blah blah blah they’re pretty close, blah blah blah it doesn’t really matter anyway. Typical forum behavior, but commonness doesn’t make it any less pathetic. It’s amusing that you keep making yourself appear even more ridiculous. That does seem to be one thing for which you do have some aptitude.
 

dwilz

I'm New Here
Nov 16, 2018
12
25
So... The new 70-200 2.8. What if... What if it was to the RF mount that the 70-200 f/4 IS is to the EF mount. And the real "pro" 70-200 is an F/2 IS. Hence why canon took the "bold' step to make the new RF 70-200 a collapsible/ compact design.
I agree, when I first saw that RF 70-200 f/2.8 I thought, no way is that a pro level lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cochese

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
113
149
On the RP, they’re about the same size with lenses retracted. The longer extension of the RF 28-70/2 means that when extended, the RP combo is still longer, not .5” shorter as you claimed.

View attachment 185381


It’s not shorter. You’re the one making a fuss, replying multiple times with the same incorrect statements, and claiming you know how to measure a camera. You obviously don’t. It’s that simple.

But instead of being mature and just admitting you were wrong, you are falling back on blah blah blah they’re pretty close, blah blah blah it doesn’t really matter anyway. Typical forum behavior, but commonness doesn’t make it any less pathetic. It’s amusing that you keep making yourself appear even more ridiculous. That does seem to be one thing for which you do have some aptitude.
185382
185383
185384
185385


Let’s do some math here. These are the only pics I have as I’m not at my office. I took them right after I got the RP.

24-70 length is 4.72”. When extended its 5.97” which equals to 1.25” of travel.

28-70 length is 5.8”. When extended its 6.63”. Which is .83” of travel.

So 24-70 has about .5” more travel. You can also see that in the second picture you posted of lenses side by side. If it’s mounted nearly an inch or so further out than the 28-70, (making them about equal like your RP comparison picture) that means the 24-70 will extend about .5” further than the 28-70.

I can get some pictures when I’m back at my office but honestly if you can’t do some basic math and see the difference in real world pictures, this isn’t worth the time.
 
Last edited:

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
113
149
Wow I didn’t even have to do the math. The zoom extension length is right below the spec I circled. Funny because I’ve had these screenshots for almost 2 months and already figured this stuff out before I jumped into the R system.

Ready to concede? Lol.

Just so we’re clear. You’re claiming when mounted the 28-70 is LONGER than 24-70 2.8 on 5D AND has a longer extension or Travel than the 24-70 right? And I’ve been saying it’s relatively the same or shorter relative to mounting and grip depth (ie real world usage). Based on my measurements on my RP it’s about .5” shorter and translating that to the R, I’m saying it’s shorter as well.

I said earlier that yeah, it’s probably spec wise .387” shorter or some garbage like that but I honestly don’t care what the EXACT specs are. That’s been my point the entire time that relative to what we’re used to using DSLR w a fast zoom, it’s not worth fussing over. If it’s close to .5” I round it. We’re not building a rocket ship.

But if I’m off a 1/4”, you’re off an entire inch or more haha.

That picture of the RP you posted really helps me out. You can see the eye cup is smaller and moved the body back further to match the 5D in comparison like I pointed out in the R comparison. Now the lens mount can be seen to be much shorter to 5D in comparison.

And you’re flat out wrong on the 28-70 having a further extension. Look at the specs. It’s .87” or whatever to the 1.23” of the 24-70. That’s a .5” difference. Yeah yeah more like .36” which is actually pretty much what I joked the technical spec would be.

The 28-70 unmounted is an inch longer than 24-70 and in your RP comparison picture it shows them nearly the same exact length when mounted and retracted. So that also supports my claim that the mount is about 1” back on the RP.
 
Last edited:

Tom W

EOS RP
Sep 5, 2012
211
145
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.
I might be the odd man out, but what if, instead of 70-xxx, they made something like a 50-140 f/2 lens? It would most assuredly be a great portrait lens, especially if it were sharp and had great bokeh. It would definiately be the king of portraiture or at least royalty in that realm.
 

jonebize

EOS M50
Dec 15, 2018
26
20
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.
Underrated posts. Thanks for keeping things in perspective. The new lenses truly are amazing.

EDIT: So what no one has talked about is: what is the actual concept or purpose of this lens? I think you could argue that the extra stop is not that helpful on the wide end of this range. I feel like maybe I am missing something. Obviously it's a great technological feat, but what is the intended utility?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Photo Hack

Pape

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 31, 2018
429
266
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.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,083
404
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.

185400
 

flip314

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2018
244
347
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.
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
 

fentiger

EOS 80D
Dec 26, 2015
169
57
England
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.
don't think physics will be defeated on this, to be f2 front element has to be at least 100mm.
look at the 24-70 2.8 front element is 82mm (200/2.8=71.4).
i would say the f2 will be around 105-110mm.
no optical formula can defeat that.
 

Rixy

Canon 70D
Mar 27, 2019
20
5
EDIT: So what no one has talked about is: what is the actual concept or purpose of this lens? I think you could argue that the extra stop is not that helpful on the wide end of this range. I feel like maybe I am missing something. Obviously it's a great technological feat, but what is the intended utility?
Astrophotography, landscape, wedding?
2 years using 70D + sigma 18-35mm 1.8, surely this 16-28mm f2 will be my first lens in my jump to R system
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,339
322
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.
it is not on.. go have a play with Sigma 105 / 1.4 Art. 1.6kg. imagine a lens that is twice longer ( at least) and perhaps twice heavier. it's a nuisance ...
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,339
322
I hope Canon releases something new fairly soon because the fights on this forum just keep getting weirder.
I might be the odd man out, but what if, instead of 70-xxx, they made something like a 50-140 f/2 lens? It would most assuredly be a great portrait lens, especially if it were sharp and had great bokeh. It would definiately be the king of portraiture or at least royalty in that realm.
for studio shots wide F2.0 aperture isn't a requirement. for environmental portraiture F2.0 is a bit slow.

70-200 F4 is a great option for studio ;)
 
Last edited: