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

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
75
75
They are still a bit top big in combinatiën with the mirroroess body imo ...
Seeing that two of them now have IS, where the EF versions did not, I would expect them to be slightly larger and heavier - especially if the trend continues of creating a lens that is sharper and performs better than the EF versions.

They also have a few more electronic tricks up their sleeves with the hardware changes to allow stored data, better focusing, and faster data communication. I’m not sure how much all that affects design, but with the addition of the control rings, that should have an impact.

And the 70-200? At least when retracted and for some of the working range, it’s certainly much smaller than the EF version.

So I’m confused on how they’re too big in combination with mirrorless? Have you used any of them yet?

Also not forgetting the 24mm shorter back flange will bring the lenses closer to the back of the camera and a body that’s a few hundred grams lighter, the girth of the lens may be the only real noticeable characteristic. The grip on my RP, as tiny as the camera is, still feels great vs my Mark IV. We’ll see.

If Canon achieves all of that on their 24-70 and is close to Sony’s physical specs on their G master, it’s a win for Canon. As it sits, Sony’s is 100g heavier and .9” longer than Canon’s EF and doesn’t have all those great additions the RF version will have.
 
Last edited:

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,041
375
Some people seem to think non-extending zooms are hermetically sealed. Lol.
Boy that would be fun. Then you’d need worry about desiccant refills in something hard to service, and they’d have to design the front element with rigidity in mind due to burst pressure for air travelers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

Aregal

I'm New Here
Oct 3, 2018
10
4
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.
I have a friend who specifically looks for scratched/dusty lenses; character. haha
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
467
438
I have a friend who specifically looks for scratched/dusty lenses; character. haha
An easy and intelligent way to get an excellent lens for much less money.
I still use my 180 mm Apo Telyt , with its cracked front lens, plus dust inside, without any quality issues. Dust is most of the time a non-existing problem that can result in a cost advantage for the buyer! ;)
 

Aregal

I'm New Here
Oct 3, 2018
10
4
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.
I literally had my 5DIV and 70-200/2.8L IS naked in a full-on thunder storm; no rain cover at all. Canon's weather sealing is stellar.

 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

kraats

EOS 80D
Oct 9, 2011
100
15
Seeing that two of them now have IS, where the EF versions did not, I would expect them to be slightly larger and heavier - especially if the trend continues of creating a lens that is sharper and performs better than the EF versions.

They also have a few more electronic tricks up their sleeves with the hardware changes to allow stored data, better focusing, and faster data communication. I’m not sure how much all that affects design, but with the addition of the control rings, that should have an impact.

And the 70-200? At least when retracted and for some of the working range, it’s certainly much smaller than the EF version.

So I’m confused on how they’re too big in combination with mirrorless? Have you used any of them yet?

Also not forgetting the 24mm shorter back flange will bring the lenses closer to the back of the camera and a body that’s a few hundred grams lighter, the girth of the lens may be the only real noticeable characteristic. The grip on my RP, as tiny as the camera is, still feels great vs my Mark IV. We’ll see.

If Canon achieves all of that on their 24-70 and is close to Sony’s physical specs on their G master, it’s a win for Canon. As it sits, Sony’s is 100g heavier and .9” longer than Canon’s EF and doesn’t have all those great additions the RF version will have.
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.
 

moreorless

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 18, 2011
778
2
I'm guessing the 16-28mm and 28-70mm are really being aimed at people who want more DOF control than standard F/2.8 zooms in that range but are prepared to forego F/1.4 for the convenience of a zoom. In that respect would these people really want an F/2 tele zoom? unlike wide/normal range your already into decent DOF control their with F/2.8.

Maybe a range like say 70-150mm F/2 might allow for something a bit smaller/cheaper I spose and you could argue could be long enough for people who value the extra stop for light gathering shooting indoors.

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.
 

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
75
75
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:

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
75
75
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?
 

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
350
198
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: Photo Hack

Photo Hack

Hi there
Apr 8, 2019
75
75
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.
 

Yasko

EOS 80D
Jun 9, 2017
112
18
Compared to a very well built Tamron 15-30...
+ 1 stop
  • no IS
  • potentially a lot more heavy
triple the costs
o new mount...
 

kraats

EOS 80D
Oct 9, 2011
100
15
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?
I was talking about APC. Medium format is very heavy indeed. Fuji skips Fullframe .....
 

canonmike

EOS 80D
Jan 5, 2013
112
49
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.
 

canonmike

EOS 80D
Jan 5, 2013
112
49
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: Cwall64
Jul 9, 2019
1
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!