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

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
484
444
118
Williamsport, PA
I don’t get it. The EF 24-70/2.8 and RF 28-70/2 have extending barrels. Are they not ‘pro-level’ lenses?
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,598
564
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..
 

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: Architect1776

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
220
140
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 :(
 

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
569
181
I get the impulse of Canon to blow our minds with lenses like this but I want to blow up my wallet with a $500 28mm f2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maves

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
484
444
118
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.
 

melgross

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 2, 2016
437
239
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.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,635
2,142
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:


But others may prefer a ~20% heavier body + lens combination and the extra stop of light. Choice is good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

ArtisanCraft

EOS R
Jan 28, 2019
13
16
www.instagram.com
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.
 

Aregal

I'm New Here
Oct 3, 2018
15
4
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.
 

PGSanta

EOS 80D
Sep 5, 2018
146
112
San Diego, CA
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: pj1974

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
673
452
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.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
684
707
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: Architect1776

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,274
1,898
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.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.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,635
2,142
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.
 

CanonFanBoy

O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,553
2,362
Irving, Texas
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.