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

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,497
865
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: scyrene

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,346
1,978
Irving, Texas
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.
I have to agree. 24-70 is more versatile, in my opinion. However, I'd still love to have an RF 28-70mm f/2L just because. Weight and size are irrelevant to me. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: prodorshak

Aregal

I'm New Here
Oct 3, 2018
14
4
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?
It is weird, right...but Canon has been perfecting the flappy mirror for multiple decades-not saying that mirrors boxes don't fail. That being said, no one can contest that less moving parts usually results in less points of failure. I guess my doubt stems from the Sonys and Nikons that whos IBIS systems have experience growing pains. My friends who have A7-line cameras have not experienced any problems so I guess that's a good sign. My only question/request is if one could turn OFF IBIS or if when Canon implements it, one has the option to turn it off, much like IS enabled lenses...yes, Kit way more moving parts. :)

I also was reluctant to try DPAF until I used it on a C300ii with an 85/1.2L at f/1.2. I haven't totally written off IBIS, I'm just reluctant to adopt.
 

Aregal

I'm New Here
Oct 3, 2018
14
4
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.
I just got my 100-400Lii last week and it's been a joy to use on the 5Div and EOS R. I've only owned constant aperture lenses until the 100-400Lii, which was my biggest turn-off with it until I used it. It might even replace my 70-200/2.8L IS.


Answer: Extending Barrel L-series lenses; not a concern.
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
441
408
118
Williamsport, PA
I just got my 100-400Lii last week and it's been a joy to use on the 5Div and EOS R. I've only owned constant aperture lenses until the 100-400Lii, which was my biggest turn-off with it until I used it. It might even replace my 70-200/2.8L IS.


Answer: Extending Barrel L-series lenses; not a concern.
I found it's ability to focus to about 3' at 400mm makes it an excellent near macro lens in the field for small flowers and insects.
A very versatile lens with twice the reach as the 70-200.
 

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,145
1,635
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Which definition is that?
I'm sure you already know this, but...given that there is nothing better to talk about and the great lens length debate seems to have abated for the time being – "L" lenses are "Luxury" according to Canon's EF Lens promotional book. If there are any standards for what is required of an "L" lens, only Canon knows those standards. And, they aren't particularly consistent in their designation. Perhaps "L" for Luxury sounds better than "E" for expensive?
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,083
404
I'm sure you already know this, but...given that there is nothing better to talk about and the great lens length debate seems to have abated for the time being – "L" lenses are "Luxury" according to Canon's EF Lens promotional book. If there are any standards for what is required of an "L" lens, only Canon knows those standards. And, they aren't particularly consistent in their designation. Perhaps "L" for Luxury sounds better than "E" for expensive?
Yes I had luxury in mind when writing my post and even something about professionals typically choosing utility over luxury, but I thought better of it ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
441
408
118
Williamsport, PA
I'm sure you already know this, but...given that there is nothing better to talk about and the great lens length debate seems to have abated for the time being – "L" lenses are "Luxury" according to Canon's EF Lens promotional book. If there are any standards for what is required of an "L" lens, only Canon knows those standards. And, they aren't particularly consistent in their designation. Perhaps "L" for Luxury sounds better than "E" for expensive?
Ken Rockwell says the L stands for "Expensive as L"
 

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
546
147
I had a (sealed) Milvus 100 which collected dust in not very dusty conditions. That and reports like that from degos convinced me not to get another lens that extends.
I have had several lenses that extend and many that don't and I have had no issues WRT dust. I live in a very dusty desert and even shoot at a beach and have no problems.
 

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
209
134
I have had several lenses that extend and many that don't and I have had no issues WRT dust. I live in a very dusty desert and even shoot at a beach and have no problems.
You are very fortunate.

Every extending lens has to permit air to enter and exit, it couldn't operate otherwise ( unless it had some enormous ratchet gearing to push against internal pressure ). Unlike a fixed-length internal-zooming lens which can be fully sealed with gaskets.

And once air is flowing, so is the dust.

When using my 100-400 II I try to remember to wipe-down the extended barrel before retracting it, but usually in the heat of the moment I don't have time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D + 100-400mm mkii
Feb 7, 2019
164
132
UK
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.
My 100-400 ii has some dust! No loss of IQ though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,741
891
Southeastern USA
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.
Do you have any data to support your fear of a feature that could improve image quality for many photographers?

I think there were photographers who had the same fear auto focus. And digital cameras!

Just wait a generation to see how well IBIS does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chrysoberyl

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
230
190
It is weird, right...but Canon has been perfecting the flappy mirror for multiple decades-not saying that mirrors boxes don't fail. That being said, no one can contest that less moving parts usually results in less points of failure. I guess my doubt stems from the Sonys and Nikons that whos IBIS systems have experience growing pains. My friends who have A7-line cameras have not experienced any problems so I guess that's a good sign. My only question/request is if one could turn OFF IBIS or if when Canon implements it, one has the option to turn it off, much like IS enabled lenses...yes, Kit way more moving parts. :)

I also was reluctant to try DPAF until I used it on a C300ii with an 85/1.2L at f/1.2. I haven't totally written off IBIS, I'm just reluctant to adopt.

I also worry about the moving parts and possible failures / misalignment. But don't hear many IBIS failures in other systems so maybe not such a big issue. Also a body is replaced faster than a lens which can have the same IS failure.

Would be nice to have finally global shutters everywhere and get rid of that mechanical shutter.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,633
2,139
You are very fortunate.

Every extending lens has to permit air to enter and exit, it couldn't operate otherwise ( unless it had some enormous ratchet gearing to push against internal pressure ). Unlike a fixed-length internal-zooming lens which can be fully sealed with gaskets.

And once air is flowing, so is the dust.

When using my 100-400 II I try to remember to wipe-down the extended barrel before retracting it, but usually in the heat of the moment I don't have time.
Some people see rain, and run around like Chicken Little screaming that the sky is falling.

Some people obsess over a tiny dust speck in their lens. Almost as if it’s the apocalypse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aregal and Pape